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 w03Bm1go031502 for ; Wed, 3 Jan 2018 12:48:04 +0100 Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1eWhRw-0001oG-Ug for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Wed, 03 Jan 2018 11:43:12 +0000 Received: from [195.171.43.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1eWhRw-0001o7-D9 for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Wed, 03 Jan 2018 11:43:12 +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 1eWhRt-0006Mt-M2 for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Wed, 03 Jan 2018 11:43:11 +0000 Received: from submission (posteo.de [89.146.220.130]) by mout01.posteo.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C99DA20E0A for ; Wed, 3 Jan 2018 12:43:06 +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=1514979788; bh=HnTn7ly4/iShw3+I16SV7u2S6Bz+r5QAM3qUS6z5bxs=; h=Date:From:To:Subject:From; b=RiBKeV06XModtjKqsI5+Kouz5CasQeNh0GPcmPWkVuUmJkVehFKHyaAMJnoCYZRd0 bm4f0P5mJz5dTJ0Tn4IPSONwX2PWhhsseJuRgsJP3SMXN+9XvHSrR2SMCg05sDWyFb 0R300haLDYyZhEsXWMtd6PkZDJEoLB7oeID19npx2FE4BLJv8RY8K7Uc8lFqWw/JQg j2SSGsSf6N1wZiWeC3pOZqorXwYRSd+N/ISoUFlE5UF/jMDGr8m5Wf8R2CvqZaDB86 qr+LMP/dx8ruwaK6AG6H4GFBEtsZciVuxvxhlvbIy7CmFH3TrInuHj34u8FjC98I8+ JiuYBeg/rb/CA== Received: from customer (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by submission (posteo.de) with ESMTPSA id 3zBTZd744hz9rxQ for ; Wed, 3 Jan 2018 12:43:05 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <5A4CC1C9.3020005@posteo.de> Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2018 12:43:05 +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: <35660064-cdc5-0156-84c3-54148044b5e4@n1bug.com> In-Reply-To: <35660064-cdc5-0156-84c3-54148044b5e4@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: Am 03.01.2018 00:37, schrieb N1BUG: > I was forced to stop calling CQ on JT9 at 2320 UT when my PA again > became unstable. So it is a thermal problem!? > This is the same dual band PA I am having so much trouble with on LF. > > On MF it will make about twice as much power into the antenna before > it has problems. Usually LF should be easier than MF. If MF is easier, than it could be saturation of cores (at LF) or too low time constants of RC components. But if the cores stays cold and the voltages are constant, this should not happen. [...] 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: 87966b345956c8ef3389b993f6a18f4e Subject: Re: LF: MF: CQ stopped, problems 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 Am 03.01.2018 00:37, schrieb N1BUG: > I was forced to stop calling CQ on JT9 at 2320 UT when my PA again > became unstable. So it is a thermal problem!? > This is the same dual band PA I am having so much trouble with on LF. > > On MF it will make about twice as much power into the antenna before > it has problems. Usually LF should be easier than MF. If MF is easier, than it could be saturation of cores (at LF) or too low time constants of RC components. But if the cores stays cold and the voltages are constant, this should not happen. > On MF it is much more efficient with the FET running almost cold > compared to very warm at half the power level on LF. Then you should use more turns on your 1:9 transformer!! E.g. 3x10 turns instead of 3x5 turns. 73, Stefan