Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*LF\:\s+Re\:\s+CLASS\s+D\s+and\s+E\s*$/>

Return to KLUBNL.PL main page

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*LF\:\s+Re\:\s+CLASS\s+D\s+and\s+E\s*$/: 4 ]

Total 4 documents matching your query.

1. Re: LF: Re: CLASS D and E (score: 1): Author: "hamilton mal" <[email protected]>; Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2007 11:41:11 +0100; This is what I mean. Now over 100% eff any advance on this figure!!! efficiency. or it difference loss is loaded-Q adequate circuit,; /rsgb_lf_group-archives/html/rsgb_lf_group/2007-11/msg00063.html (11,931 bytes)
2. LF: Re: CLASS D and E (score: 1): Author: "Jay Rusgrove" <[email protected]>; Date: Sun, 4 Nov 2007 15:35:24 -0500; I run voltage-mode class D amplifiers (400 watts) on 137 and 505 as well as PDM modulated current-mode class D AM transmitters on 160 and 75 meters (375 watt carrier). Efficiency in all cases is in t; /rsgb_lf_group-archives/html/rsgb_lf_group/2007-11/msg00076.html (9,744 bytes)
3. Re: LF: Re: CLASS D and E (score: 1): Author: "Andy Talbot" <[email protected]>; Date: Sun, 4 Nov 2007 16:57:28 +0000; In my 700 Watt direct-from mains transmitter http://www.scrbg.org/g4jnt/137tx.pdf efficiency came out somewhere between 80 to 90%. As Jim says, its difficult to measure accurately At one point, due t; /rsgb_lf_group-archives/html/rsgb_lf_group/2007-11/msg00388.html (12,545 bytes)
4. LF: Re: CLASS D and E (score: 1): Author: "James Moritz" <[email protected]>; Date: Sun, 04 Nov 2007 13:01:53 +0100; Dear Mal, LF Group, Has hard Certainly you should be getting better than 80% for a reasonable class D or E design at LF or MF. I find about 90% is typical for a "good" design - it is actually quite h; /rsgb_lf_group-archives/html/rsgb_lf_group/2007-11/msg00506.html (10,823 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 4
Page: [1]