Carl wrote
> That does seem a bit high but what effect would it have in a
> suppressor ?
> I have never been clear on that point since it appears that a minute
> amount of inductance is compensated for by the L that is selected.
>
Indeed, why would this resistor have to be non-inductive?
Some people use resistive inductors to improve their surpressors, so why
not use inductive resistors? From a circuit analysis point of view a
non-inductive (I know, they don't exist) resistor in parallel with an
inductor is the same as an inductive resistor in parallel with a
slightly bigger inductor.
The same goes for the series resistor we put in the high voltage line to
limit the current. I see references to non-inductive resistors for this
application all the time, but this resistor is switched in series with
the plate RFC. Again, from a circuit analysis point of view a
non-inductive resistor in series with an inductor (the plate RFC) is the
same as an inductive resistor in series with a slightly smaller RFC. The
only thing we need to make sure is that the resistor can handle the
energy dumped in it during a major 'event'.
The extreme case of this would be if you wind the RFC using resistance
wire. This would integrate the RFC and limiting resistor in one
component, reducing component count, and would also lower the Q of the
RFC making it easier to produce one without resonances. Does anybody
know a source of suitably insulated resistance wire so I can give this a
try?
Cheers
Gerard, MoAIU
--
FAQ on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/ampfaq.html
Submissions: amps@contesting.com
Administrative requests: amps-REQUEST@contesting.com
Problems: owner-amps@contesting.com
Search: http://www.contesting.com/km9p/search.htm
|