Amps
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [Amps] amp question

To: "amps@contesting.com" <amps@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [Amps] amp question
From: RAY FRIESS <rayfrijr@msn.com>
Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2019 15:17:21 +0000
List-post: <mailto:amps@contesting.com>


OK, I've been a ham for 50 years now, and as such, I've learned a lot of 
things, but I admit theres still a lot I can learn.  This is one of those 
things.

I have a Knight T-60, which as we old timers know, puts out a low power AM 
signal.  I've been thinking of putting it on AM, but would like a bit more 
power.  We are all also familiar with the Palomar amps and their problems, etc. 
 They put out a crappy signal with spurious emissions, etc etc etc.

The thing I'd appreciate you guys educating me about is WHAT is it about say 
the Palomar 600 that causes all the well known problems?  It's basically a 
sweep tube amplifier, and in our ham careers, we have probably used a number of 
sweep tube amps, and some may still be using one, such as the old Swan or 
Dentron amps.

Is it Palomar's design, bias, filtering, or what that makes it have such a bad 
reputation?

What I've been pondering is, instead of building an AM amp, which would itself 
use a lot of the same components in the Palomar, could circuit changes be made 
to it to make it a good amp that puts out a good clean signal if it were driven 
by a low power rig like the T-60?  It is bandswitched for 40 through 10 
already.  It has basically the same components as any homebrew or commercial AM 
amp ...  a pi network, power supply, bandswitching, etc.

I'd really like to be educated by you guys or gals here.   Like I said, I know 
a lot after 50 years, but I'm always interested in learning what I don't know.


_______________________________________________
Amps mailing list
Amps@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/amps

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
  • Re: [Amps] amp question, RAY FRIESS <=