Return-Path: Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com [195.171.43.25]) by mtain-mc06.r1000.mx.aol.com (Internet Inbound) with ESMTP id 0148B3800009A; Wed, 5 Sep 2012 17:47:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1T9NQn-00050O-I9 for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Wed, 05 Sep 2012 22:46:41 +0100 Received: from [195.171.43.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1T9NQm-00050F-Vg for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Wed, 05 Sep 2012 22:46:40 +0100 Received: from mail-ob0-f171.google.com ([209.85.214.171]) by relay1.thorcom.net with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from ) id 1T9NQk-0001Jj-Kl for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Wed, 05 Sep 2012 22:46:39 +0100 Received: by obqv19 with SMTP id v19so2426189obq.16 for ; Wed, 05 Sep 2012 14:46:35 -0700 (PDT) X-DKIM-Result: Domain=gmail.com Result=Good and Known Domain DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=TqWQyFVcKc2a+elpY827AFy+yw+YipG9WhhzczVsuo4=; b=NBu22hyj0dUJNwSHG35MOUHcw3854iMXufaxuVG2aJpeAiF5AcBQsvFEvnGldocEeU ejtRRoJA1+Lt01tnictyXWz/OuMAgdF6JLLthvnCzs0mzQSENout5qJvKCbOoVyahos7 iLv75979Vh0+CQbOEP7Ugsmi7rIO8puozE6BVTxmRABe9ZfMts5e14Yn2melhQ6thJdo GgvzftqEv8gd6ku8ULuwLNflZiOStdB7wqcanru3Ao7JzpymFQS6X5fRNZWLsQXd/x1a eFOUvb7yG2zKmzlhAFEEtpHG63AzpU1R4Ipb22d9AmmTvYe8Mt7pjLGs3qva2XySHpge kgCA== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.60.5.229 with SMTP id v5mr18080379oev.70.1346881595878; Wed, 05 Sep 2012 14:46:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.182.226.3 with HTTP; Wed, 5 Sep 2012 14:46:35 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2012 07:46:35 +1000 Message-ID: From: Dimitrios Tsifakis To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/) X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "relay1.thorcom.net", has identified this incoming email as possible spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it (if it isn't spam) or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see the administrator of that system for details. Content preview: I have written up my experience building this Class-E PA for LF here: http://people.physics.anu.edu.au/~dxt103/class-e/ Maybe other beginner LF operators will find this useful. [...] Content analysis details: (-0.7 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -0.7 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/, low trust [209.85.214.171 listed in list.dnswl.org] 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider (dtsifakis[at]gmail.com) -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 0.0 T_DKIM_INVALID DKIM-Signature header exists but is not valid X-Scan-Signature: f62c7cf8eeb8e5a327b71719e9bffff1 Subject: Re: LF: Caps for Class-E amp Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on post.thorcom.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.63 X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes Sender: owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org X-Listname: rsgb_lf_group X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: rs_out_1@blacksheep.org X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No; SAEximRunCond expanded to false x-aol-global-disposition: G X-AOL-SCOLL-AUTHENTICATION: mtain-mc06.r1000.mx.aol.com ; domain : gmail.com DKIM : pass x-aol-sid: 3039ac1d604e5047c8711df1 X-AOL-IP: 195.171.43.25 X-AOL-SPF: domain : blacksheep.org SPF : none I have written up my experience building this Class-E PA for LF here: http://people.physics.anu.edu.au/~dxt103/class-e/ Maybe other beginner LF operators will find this useful. 73, Dimtris VK1SV 2012/8/9 Dimitrios Tsifakis : > Hello LF group, > > I am building a 200 W Class-E transmitter for LF but keep killing the > capacitors in the output circuit (both C1 and C2 according to the > schematic in Sokal's QST article). I have used a mixture WIMA > polypropylene MKP10, MKP4 and FKP1 caps and I haven't damaged any FKP > ones so far. Should I not bother with MKP and use only FKP caps or is > there any other type of capacitor what will do the job? I need a > couple of hundred of nanofarads. The voltage rating of the caps I > destroyed was 400 VDC or 250 VAC. I can see that these caps have a > decreasing AC rating as the frequency goes up, but that's what I had > in the junk box at the time... > > The mode of failure of these MKP10 0.1 400 VDC caps is interesting > too, they seem to go down in capacitance as the damage progresses. > > Any advice is appreciated. > > 73, Dimitris VK1SV/SV1DET >