Return-Path: Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com [195.171.43.25]) by klubnl.pl (8.14.4/8.14.4/Debian-8+deb8u2) with ESMTP id vBNFf7IS013123 for ; Sat, 23 Dec 2017 16:41:08 +0100 Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1eSlqG-0007Si-QR for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Sat, 23 Dec 2017 15:36:04 +0000 Received: from [195.171.43.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1eSlqF-0007SZ-Q1 for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Sat, 23 Dec 2017 15:36:03 +0000 Received: from mout01.posteo.de ([185.67.36.65]) by relay1.thorcom.net with esmtps (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1eSlqD-0001lP-07 for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Sat, 23 Dec 2017 15:36:02 +0000 Received: from submission (posteo.de [89.146.220.130]) by mout01.posteo.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D882E20F18 for ; Sat, 23 Dec 2017 16:35:58 +0100 (CET) X-DKIM-Result: Domain=posteo.de Result=Signature OK DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=posteo.de; s=2017; t=1514043358; bh=QhyBnhERVFIs07+VipW/8YnfWMDnWbDCPlaLv2ulCrs=; h=Date:From:To:Subject:From; b=RHfB54/7C4YEJeOPlC5J2QGyDFFtEdDbVbgcDAoM2pTsVOgcEAFhypYH1popBBGPc rVMSrdc8HQRIj9451dizynTUyNeGJErZw7sX32BmhrKDkQxoiTtAGUpPX3W1BxR6s6 9yD4lR53ZuAnMRIjpT1miFu3fACgIOZ6yaDcymACjWeT0jYTtEoW3klkylErVmbMzZ V0tZhn9lMHtuWPybjJH2M27C50Ic5D4u8P59Mc8skYpRJVCeKkbJ5DhkD3n6M1USVc ntzkyA29tTwFdvfHe8AI3h6bGFf9lpocR26j2GQRhE+vRmfx+ZRDu5DtUR/WD4qA0q pwnGrgPLRqhAA== Received: from customer (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by submission (posteo.de) with ESMTPSA id 3z3qGQ0yScz9rxC for ; Sat, 23 Dec 2017 16:35:57 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <5A3E77DD.4090908@posteo.de> Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2017 16:35:57 +0100 From: DK7FC User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; de; rv:1.9.1.8) Gecko/20100227 Thunderbird/3.0.3 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org References: <4ffc7958-810a-e4d2-7745-258a58338934@n1bug.com> <5A3AE81B.9010205@posteo.de> <5A3B8FB1.1020403@posteo.de> <7ee833a8-04b4-4712-d927-7eccf37eec14@n1bug.com> <5A3D9BC1.1040609@posteo.de> <6fa587ef-d5b0-6a67-b604-ba94144444f7@n1bug.com> In-Reply-To: <6fa587ef-d5b0-6a67-b604-ba94144444f7@n1bug.com> X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "relay1.thorcom.net", has NOT identified this incoming email as spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see the administrator of that system for details. Content preview: Hi Paul, So at least there is an improvement. Does the blue core become warm during operation? How does the drain-voltage look like? 73, Stefan [...] Content analysis details: (0.0 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -0.0 T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay domain 0.0 T_DKIM_INVALID DKIM-Signature header exists but is not valid X-Scan-Signature: 8556389a5ea14fbbf9b9d801ab70c592 Subject: Re: LF: TXing 2200m WSPR Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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 Hi Paul, So at least there is an improvement. Does the blue core become warm during operation? How does the drain-voltage look like? 73, Stefan Am 23.12.2017 14:13, schrieb N1BUG: > Hi Stefan, > >> The C on the gate is not a good idea i think. Better try a 10...22 Ohm >> resitor or a ferrite bead in front of the gate. > > I removed the C on the gate and added a 15 ohm resistor in front of > the gate (in series with RF input to the gate). No change in performance. > >> Is the bias voltage stable? It may be worth to spend 1000 uF parallel to >> the Z diode. And a normal diode in front of the z diode, i.e. into the >> yellow wire... > > I didn't have any 1000 uF but I put 470 uF in parallel to the Z diode, > added a 1N4007 in series at the end of the yellow wire. No change in > performance. > > At this point I became curious about the 1 uF C bypassing the +V lead > of the blue core to ground. It seemed strange to have it bypassed with > 1 uF there, then a series choke, then 2200 uF bypass. I could not find > any published circuits like that. > > As a test (not having any idea what I was doing!) I removed the 1 uF > bypass. The amp went completely crazy. > > So I decided to try some more C in parallel to the 1 uF. All I have > are electrolytic caps, but I tried 10 uF. Stable output increased from > 12W to 16W. > > What about even more C? I removed the 10 uF and put 100 uF in parallel > to the 1 uF. No change from the 10 uF. > > It still does very strange things if I try to adjust bias for more > than 16W. > > I don't know what this experiment tells me... > >> The blue core, maybe it saturates at higher power? Could be worth to try >> 2 more turns and better use abt 0.5 mm wire for higher power. > > I will try that next if I find some suitable wire here. I also thought > about trying a 10 turn bifilar winding instead of the trifilar. Again > I have no idea what I am doing, but the worst that can happen is > another dead FET. :) I have more. > >> But the design is not good for > 30 W or so. Don't expect to much from >> an IRF530 at 13.8 V. > > I would be happy if I could get 25W stable from this amp. I can get > 25W but it is not stable at that level. > > 73, > Paul N1BUG >