Mail Archive Search: <+from:ars.ka5mir@gmail.com>

Results:

References: [ +from:ars.ka5mir@gmail.com: 9 ]

Total 9 documents matching your query.

1. Re: [Amps] Class A for AM (score: 1): Author: KA5MIR <ars.ka5mir@gmail.com>; Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2006 16:41:25 -0600; Hello Ken, One reason for few answers to your question might be that, like a lot of things, it depends. There is not "one true answer". Efficiency is a moving target with linear AM. Speech pattern is; /archives//html/Amps/2006-11/msg00178.html (10,464 bytes)
2. Re: [Amps] Class A for AM (score: 1): Author: KA5MIR <ars.ka5mir@gmail.com>; Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2006 21:14:15 -0600; Gary, You're right, input power doesn't change. You could just plan for the worst case dissipation with carrier. Jeff/KA5MIR _______________________________________________ Amps mailing list Amps@con; /archives//html/Amps/2006-11/msg00184.html (8,431 bytes)
3. Re: [Amps] Class A for AM (score: 1): Author: KA5MIR <ars.ka5mir@gmail.com>; Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2006 22:34:00 -0600; Hello Gary, Isn't that 50% difference only true because we cause it to be tuned that way? We could tune it to be more or less different between carrier and pep but we cause it to be 50% for the sake; /archives//html/Amps/2006-11/msg00187.html (10,438 bytes)
4. Re: [Amps] Class A for AM (score: 1): Author: KA5MIR <ars.ka5mir@gmail.com>; Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2006 01:13:07 -0600; 25% is already pretty conservative. It -would- be interesting to see a real test case. The data may already be out there somewhere. Jeff/KA5MIR _______________________________________________ Amps ma; /archives//html/Amps/2006-11/msg00191.html (9,941 bytes)
5. Re: [Amps] Class A for AM (score: 1): Author: KA5MIR <ars.ka5mir@gmail.com>; Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2006 01:16:47 -0600; I agree. It would seem that you shouldn't have to run so conservative with push-pull to achieve the same or better linearity as a single. We know the even orders cancel. Maybe some other unwanted eff; /archives//html/Amps/2006-11/msg00192.html (7,284 bytes)
6. Re: [Amps] Class A for AM (score: 1): Author: KA5MIR <ars.ka5mir@gmail.com>; Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2006 12:36:06 -0600; Yes, I see what you mean. The plate current peaks will not double in class A as they would in class B. That 2x increase is not there in class A. We were saying 50% efficiency change for class B, but; /archives//html/Amps/2006-11/msg00206.html (10,756 bytes)
7. Re: [Amps] Class A for AM (score: 1): Author: KA5MIR <ars.ka5mir@gmail.com>; Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2006 20:21:48 -0600; Thank you, Tom, for that information. Jeff/KA5MIR _______________________________________________ Amps mailing list Amps@contesting.com http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/amps; /archives//html/Amps/2006-11/msg00209.html (8,437 bytes)
8. Re: [Amps] Class A for AM (score: 1): Author: KA5MIR <ars.ka5mir@gmail.com>; Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2006 20:22:09 -0600; Ok Gary, Thank you for that information. Jeff/KA5MIR _______________________________________________ Amps mailing list Amps@contesting.com http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/amps; /archives//html/Amps/2006-11/msg00210.html (10,042 bytes)
9. Re: [Amps] Class A for AM (score: 1): Author: KA5MIR <ars.ka5mir@gmail.com>; Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2006 10:56:18 -0600; Ken, After much helpful on and off-list discussion, I'm left with the following corrections to my original post. For Class A AM: Average Input Power will remain constant at or above the level needed; /archives//html/Amps/2006-11/msg00212.html (10,989 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 9
Page: [1]