Skippy and Twisty -- birds of a feather
ye...@removecet.com
While responding the the other post I noticed a similarity between
those two. It's not suprising that Twisty ignored the partial list I
posted of current licensees on the so-called 'freeband'. It's just
like the way Skippy ignored three of my posts which contain
irrefutable facts regarding the poor performance of sweep tube amps.
Hey Skippy, do you remember how that thread started? It started with
you begging Voobner to back up his facts when you couldn't back up
your own. I jumped in with a couple of your 'facts': You claimed that
a 6146 was used as a sweep tube, a claim which you eventually conceded
(with multiple lame excuses, however). And you STILL haven't come up
with a currently produced amplifier legal for any service between 24
and 35 MHz. Instead you labored under the false presumption that I
wouldn't attempt to verify the examples you provided. But when that
didn't work you avoided the issue by trying to divert the conversation
into subjects where you thought you would have the upper hand -- but
were summarily disgraced.
"Classic issue dodge techniques when you have little background in the
area... The news group would be better served if Skippy could state
facts as he knows them and provide supporting technical/factual
material. At this time, nothing of substance has been revealed from
Skippy's posts. Just a lot of cannon fodder... "
Twistedhed
those two. It's not >suprising that Twisty ignored the partial list I
>posted of current licensees on the so-called >'freeband'
Your list means nothing. YOU claimed you were going to contact
businesses and post the results here. YOU failed to do what YOU claimed
YOU would do. Anyhting less is just cannon fodder.
Mister T
Skipp
: While responding the the other post I noticed a similarity between
: those two. It's not suprising that Twisty ignored the partial list I
: posted of current licensees on the so-called 'freeband'. It's just
: like the way Skippy ignored three of my posts which contain
: irrefutable facts regarding the poor performance of sweep tube amps.
Your "irrefutable facts" don't hold water... a lot of your technical
advise is dated technology, you read book data type data sheets and
examples for the most part indicate you have actually built very few
amplifiers.... and some of your previous circuit statements would cause
people to melt down tubes using your examples. Now that's what I call
poor preformance of any rf ampilifier.
: Hey Skippy, do you remember how that thread started? It started with
: you begging Voobner to back up his facts when you couldn't back up
: your own. I jumped in with a couple of your 'facts': You claimed that
: a 6146 was used as a sweep tube, a claim which you eventually conceded
Frankie, you running low on ammo..? you love to go back to the thread
where I reposted someone else's text and had no significant reason to
doubt that a TV might have used a 6146 or similar tube in the amplication.
That's all you've got to go with...? come on Frankie...
In at least two posts, you mention a grid tied to the plate path in an rf
amplifier circuit... really bad news frank.
You claim to be a broadcast engineer with lots of knowledge but you have
never heard of tetrode reverse screen current and threw a fit when I once
mentioned it.
You said grounded grid amplifiers need to be neutralized.
You tell people to put equalization networks on retifiers, when in fact it
is very dated technology.
The list goes on...
: (with multiple lame excuses, however). And you STILL haven't come up
: with a currently produced amplifier legal for any service between 24
: and 35 MHz. Instead you labored under the false presumption that I
: wouldn't attempt to verify the examples you provided. But when that
The two Motorola amplifier models I provided are legal for operation
within the 25-50MHz range. The fact that you can not verify their
legality is of little concern to me.
The Ebay sold TPL amplifiers examples I posted are pretty much circuit
equivalents for pre ban models which were spec below the current 35Mhz
benchmark. There should be no reason why they cannot be used at... say
31MHz when no mods would be required for operation in the same radio
service. Since a lot of your verbal diatribe is flawed, why believe
you... I called the FCC for an offical answer, of which I have yet to
receive.
I have an actual FCC Radio Service: IB License license in my hand, against
my better judgement, I posted the actual FCC file number in that thread
just to get you to stop wasting so much bandwitch spazzing about it...
didn't do much good... since you can't find it on line, you quicly claim
it doesn't exist or is not possible. Hard copies are the bottom line
frankie...
: didn't work you avoided the issue by trying to divert the conversation
: into subjects where you thought you would have the upper hand -- but
: were summarily disgraced.
I don't feel disgraced... I believe we clearly showed you have little
actual rf amplifier experience. Especially when applied to the real
world.
: "Classic issue dodge techniques when you have little background in the
: area... The news group would be better served if Skippy could state
: facts as he knows them and provide supporting technical/factual
: material. At this time, nothing of substance has been revealed from
: Skippy's posts. Just a lot of cannon fodder... "
I actually have a lot more background in the area than you could ever hope
to achieve Frankie... The news group is better served when topics are
clearly defined, illustrated and gone through.
Readers hopefully have seen some of my follow up posts to your more
serious errors and will first do their homework to avoid costly mistakes
which also waste a lot of time.
I put a lot of technical material on line at http://sonic.ucdavis.edu I
keep asking you for any projects, texts or articles you've writen or
posted on the net... or the news groups that isn't your typical hate
replies to other peoples posts. Anything at all Frankie..? I even said
"please" more than once..
Once again Frankie... please..? anything at all..?
Just to show you I'm a nice guy... I'm willing to post any electronic
related (and legal) text on the sonic server you migh offer up. I'll even
promise to leave it as is... not change a thing as you send it.
Show us the money frankie...
ye...@removecet.com
<frankieAvoi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
<snip issues addressed below>
>The two Motorola amplifier models I provided are legal for operation
>within the 25-50MHz range. The fact that you can not verify their
>legality is of little concern to me.
The equipment authorizations for those amps have expired, or did you
forget about that little detail?
<snip>
>I have an actual FCC Radio Service: IB License license in my hand, against
>my better judgement, I posted the actual FCC file number in that thread
>just to get you to stop wasting so much bandwitch spazzing about it...
>didn't do much good... since you can't find it on line, you quicly claim
>it doesn't exist or is not possible.
No, I said that the license can't be located by the file number and I
asked for the callsign. Again, what's the callsign, Skippy?
> Hard copies are the bottom line
>frankie...
And like I said before, I don't have a hard copy. As far as I know you
are looking at a sheet of toilet paper.
<snip>
>I actually have a lot more background in the area than you could ever hope
>to achieve Frankie...
Alright, you asked for it. Time for the list:
1. You specifically said that the 6146 was used as a sweep tube, but
when faced with the challenge of finding the make and model you
backtracked and said this:
>No television I've heard of uses the 6146 tube as a sweep tube. There
>were
>some older televisions that used the 6146 tube as a horizontal
>oscillator
>and or horizontal oscillator amplifier.
which demonstrated your ignorance of the subject. You didn't know
where the 'sweep' came from in 'sweep tube': I had to explain that
they were named because they were designed specifically for use as
horizontal deflection amplifiers, i.e, television 'sweep' amplifiers.
2. You didn't know what the term "low-mu" described; namely, the
amplification factor of a triode. Not only that, but you used the term
to describe the triode operation of a sweep tube while saying that it
wasn't operating as a triode.
3. To defend your remark that a triode-connected sweep tube wasn't
operating as a triode, you tossed out the term "reverse screen
current", totally ignoring the fact that reverse screen current occurs
because of secondary emission from the plate, a problem which doesn't
exist in a sweep tube because of the beam deflection plates AND
because the screen is grounded for operation as a TRIODE, which cannot
have ANY screen current, forward OR reverse.
4. You didn't know where the 'beam' in 'beam tube' came from, but
instead thought it was synonymous with 'power tube'. In fact, you
specifically stated that "the 6146 is a beam power tube, which can in
the generic sense serve as a 'sweep' tube", which propted me to
explain that the 'beam' tube is a subcategory of 'power' tubes, and
the 'sweep' tube is an application-specific power tube, be it a beam
tube or otherwise.
5. You didn't understand the meaning of 'grid-current distortion', how
it's created, or even how to read an EpIp graph to determine the
relative smoothness of a grid current transistion.
6. You have shown many times that you didn't even know the difference
between Class AB1 and AB2 operation, the difference being that AB1
draws no grid current while AB2 does. In fact, while reading through
the previous posts, it seems that you were under the impression that
AB1 meant common-cathode while AB2 meant grounded-grid. For example,
while discussing neutralization, you state that it is "not required
in a properly designed AB2 amplifier", which is totally disrepsective
of the fact that an AB2 amplifier can be common-cathode, and therefore
require neutralization.
7. You have the mistaken belief that the 'flyweel effect' of a tank
circuit is a cure-all for non-linearity in a linear amplifier, when in
fact it CANNOT reduce or eliminate grid-current distortion. I needed
to explain that in order to be linear you need at least 180 degrees of
undistorted conduction time, which you cannot achieve with grid
current distortion.
8. You didn't know that 'grounded' in 'grounded-grid' means a signal
ground, and not necessarily a DC ground.
9. You didn't know what ALC circuits are, calling them "linearity
detectors" (your own terminology), and saying that ALC circuits are
"bad news" because of their "time constants". Of course I set the
record straight that ALC circuits are basically RF compressors which
require attack and decay time constants, and are so used in the radios
you claimed had "linearity detectors". You also claimed that ALC
circuits are "dated technology" despite their continued and effective
use in amplifiers and other circuits.
10. You continue to claim that sweep tube amps meet or exceed FCC
specifications, yet you never state those specifications or the
conditions under which the amplifiers passed, you never post any noise
figures, and you never make any comparisons to amps that use RF power
tubes.
11. You clearly do not understand the cause of parasitic oscillations,
stating that it is due to the nature of a tube, and that the 6146 and
4CX250 were 'seriously' prone to VHF parasitics. I needed to explain
to you that they are caused by resonant conditions within the circuit,
not the tube itself. I also explained why sweep tubes are NOT immune
from parasitics because of their poor VHF response as you claimed.
12. You didn't realize that if a receiver can hear the background
noise on a frequency that a pre-amplifier does not improve the
signal-to-noise ratio at all, and will actually ADD to the noise with
it's own circuitry.
13. As stated before, you didn't understand why a grounded-grid
amplifier does not require neutralization, citing the reason as 'grid
screening'. I had to explain that it's not required because the
amplifier is non-inverting (which you also didn't understand), where
the voltages on the input and output are in phase, and therefore cause
no regenerative feedback that would require neutralization (which is
where the term originates -- the 'neutralization' of regenerative
feedback!).
14. You are under the mistaken impression that grid-to-plate
capacitance changes depending on whether the amplifier is
grounded-grid or common-cathode. Of course it doesn't, because it's a
characteristic of the tube, not of the circuit. I explained that you
might be confused because the -input- capacitance is different, and
that's because the two different circuits use different parts of the
tube for input.
15. You stated that "exciter feed through power of the example AB2
grounded grid amplifier is a big time 'freebie' you don't see in AB1
circuits", which only reinforces my theory that you really don't
understand amplifier classes of operation. Grounded-grid amps require
drive power because the input is the cathode, which must conduct if
the tube is to work at all. Input power of a grounded-grid amplifier
is always carried to the plate regardless of class of amplification,
and regardless of grid-current.
16. You claimed that grid-current distortion only occurs in a
grid-driven circuit. Of course that's not true, as grid-current
distortion occurs whenever grid current occurs, regardless of whether
it's grounded-grid or common-cathode.
17. You claimed that putting a resistor in series with the cathode of
a grounded-grid amplifier will improve linearity, when in fact it does
nothing but reduce the output power and dissipate part of the input
power. I also pointed out how cathode resistors are commonly used to
improve the linearity of a common-cathode amplifier, but not for RF
amplifiers because it would unground the cathode. Such practice is an
audio technique that you mistakenly applied to an RF application, and
also to the wrong type of amplifier.
18. You stated that voltage equalization networks are "dated
technology", claiming that almost no amplifiers use them anymore. This
is not only a slap in the face of good engineering practices, but also
flows against basic semiconductor theory: Exceed the PIV and the
rectifier may fail. Regardless, most amplifier manufacturers do not
use series connected rectifiers, opting instead for a single rectifier
of the proper voltage rating (which of course doesn't need a voltage
equalization network because one rectifier is not multiple rectifiers
in series).
19. You were totally unaware that the mic gain is the power control
for an SSB radio, showing a gross misunderstanding of the principles
of SSB modulation.
20. You claimed that the interelectrode capacitances of a sweep tube
are "easily dealt with", yet on the Dentron you failed to recognize an
input capacitor used to compensate for the input capacitance of the
tube, calling it one leg of a pi tank. In fact, you don't know the
difference between a pi-tank and an L-pad, frequently using the term
"pi-L" to denote something as yet unidentified.
21. You mentioned one of the drawbacks of running AB1 was dumping
power into the swamping resistor, which means that you have no idea
that a swamping resistor is used to reduce grid-current distortion. Of
course you can't have grid-current distortion in AB1. And you also
didn't realize that a low-impedance tuned input is far superior to a
swamping resistor (when running AB2) because of the negligible power
loss, and because it performs better at maintaining linearity of the
signal under grid current transistions.
22. You haven't explained why grid-current distortion is "not an
issue" with "most properly designed AB2 grounded grid amplifiers". In
fact, you haven't even explained once what makes a "properly designed"
amp. On the contrary, I have explained many times why AB2 IS a problem
when the amplifier uses sweep tubes.
23. Whenever you don't know something you make up vague and
nonsensical terms like "classic", "linearity detector", "passive gain
operation", "traditional potentials", "beam power application", or the
use of the term "low-mu" to designate a triode-connected sweep tube
that doesn't work like a triode (and you still haven't explained how
it works if not like a triode).
Who's the one lacking in RF theory and experience, Skippy? It ain't
me, that's for DAMN sure!
ye...@removecet.com
clarify a couple points.
1. There are two different types of grid current distortion:
The first type is caused by the abrupt change in the transconductance
of the tube as the grid begins to conduct. Power tubes specifically
designed for linear AB2 operation have very little, if any, change in
transconductance when the grid goes postive. On the other hand, one of
the characteristics of sweep tubes is their significant -increase- in
transconductance upon grid current transition. This is a benefit for
operation as a horizontal deflection amplifier, which is the purpose
for which they were designed. But it is FAR from being smooth enough
for sweep tubes to be considered linear for AB2 operation, AF or RF.
This type of grid-current distortion is a product of the tubes
amplification characteristics, and cannot be prevented, filtered, or
in any other way avoided except to prevent the grid from going
positive.
The other type of grid current distortion results from the abrupt
change of the input impedance of the tube as the grid begins to
conduct, which distorts the signal at the input. This happens with
common-cathode amps because the input is on the grid, and any change
in grid impedance directly affects the signal. But it also happens
when the input is the cathode (grounded-grid) because the grid current
is sourced from cathode current.
This problem can be limited by the use of a signal source with very
low impedance, well below that of the tube's input when the grid is in
full conduction. The result is that any change of the tube's input
impedance becomes insignificant, and distortion of the input signal is
minimized. This works very well when the tube's input is the grid,
since the grid has a relatively high impedance even during conduction.
However, the input impedance of a grounded-grid amp is low from the
get-go; and since the input is actually the load for a power source,
the signal's source impedance must be matched to the input impedance
of the tube for full power transfer. Therefore, reducing the source
impedance is not very practical for a grounded-grid amplifier, and AB2
operation of a grounded-grid amplifier should not be expected to be
linear.
2. The addition of cathode resistors (typically 10 ohms) on parallel
grounded-grid tubes is used to equalize the cathode currents between
the tubes, a practice which Skippy considers "dated". They do NOT
cause degenerative feedback as they do in common-cathode amplifiers,
and therefore do NOT improve the linearity of the tubes. Quite the
contrary: A cathode resistor on a grounded-grid amplifier -increases-
the impedance of the signal source by the value of its resistance, and
therefore -increases- the distortion caused by grid current. Any
grounded-grid amp designed with cathode resistors is not intended for
linear AB2 operation. If it was, then it was not designed properly.
ye...@removecet.com
(Mister T) wrote:
>sparky, this trolling here has sunken you to a new low
I know, I know... comparing ANYONE to Twisty is pretty despicable!
Frank goes whacky
: The equipment authorizations for those amps have expired, or did you
: forget about that little detail?
Maybe for production of new units. It should not require the removal or
replacement or application of exsisting legal equipment.
: No, I said that the license can't be located by the file number and I
: asked for the callsign. Again, what's the callsign, Skippy?
Sorry if you can't look up a valid FCC file number Frankie... that's your
problem. Tell us the callsigns of the mystical broadcast station(s) you
claim to work for..? You share and I'll share...
:> Hard copies are the bottom line frankie...
: And like I said before, I don't have a hard copy. As far as I know you
: are looking at a sheet of toilet paper.
You only seem to verify things on the web Frankie, if IB is not on a web
page somewhere, your still going to cry. Well, it's not on a web page,
but it's clearly printed on the copy of the valid current license I have
here. Go fish frankie...
: <snip>
:>I actually have a lot more background in the area than you could ever hope
:>to achieve Frankie...
: Alright, you asked for it. Time for the list:
: 1. You specifically said that the 6146 was used as a sweep tube, but
: when faced with the challenge of finding the make and model you
: backtracked and said this:
:>No television I've heard of uses the 6146 tube as a sweep tube. There
:>were some older televisions that used the 6146 tube as a horizontal
:>oscillator and or horizontal oscillator amplifier.
Didn't we go through this once with you frankie..?
You seem to have left out a bit and your good at specific sentence cut and
pasting, leaving out the entire text as it suits your rant. Lets go
through this Frankie. I reposted another persons text which included his
statement about the 6146 tube being used as a sweep tube (possibly in the
Heathkit project TVs), had no reason to sweat the claim. The tube would
function in that capacity. Not a big deal or major technical error that I
would sweat.
So you try to be clever and first paste the "no television I've heard of
uses the 6146...." which is a later seperate post followup
clarifciation statement from the much earlier post text in your second
line "There were some older televisions..." sentence. Out of order, out
of context cut and paste that you almost got away with.
The orginal post gets you to dance on the sweep tube labels, not big deal
which was easily clarified. For some reason, you just love to go back to
the same non issue in any combination of text you can constuct... Get on
with something more worth while frankie... your banging your bald head
into the same non issue wall.
: which demonstrated your ignorance of the subject. You didn't know
: where the 'sweep' came from in 'sweep tube': I had to explain that
: they were named because they were designed specifically for use as
: horizontal deflection amplifiers, i.e, television 'sweep' amplifiers.
Actually you were just trying to impress us with your desire to post a
description. Until your dance and sing, no one was getting excited
about it, nor had we asked for one. No one including myself claimed
original sweep tubes were originally made for any other application. A
near drop in replacement 8950 RF Power Tube was not specifially designed
for use in any TV circuit. In the real world most people commonly refer
describe the 8950 as a sweep tube because the label fits well, although
in your anal book world not exactly true.
: 2. You didn't know what the term "low-mu" described; namely, the
: amplification factor of a triode. Not only that, but you used the term
: to describe the triode operation of a sweep tube while saying that it
: wasn't operating as a triode.
I know exactly what low and high mu describe... it has many potential sub
topics when applied to RF amplifiers. Your book text posting wanders so
much, I/we must be careful to nail you down to the specific issue. You
also touted tetrode specs using Transconductance when in fact they also
have mu ratings. Because you left it out, are we supposed to jump up and
down to say you don't know anything about it... hardly.
In specific to my post, certain tubes operate as low mu in grounded grid
amplifiers, some act as higher mu tubes in similar g-grid operation.
These are serious issues when designing grounded grid amplifiers with
respect to dangerous amounts of G1 (grid 1) current and the various
circuit layouts. You ran out of technical steam and didn't indicate you
had more than your one book knowlege of the subject, so I just let it
stop there.
Applied Grounded Grid Pentodes and Tetrodes Amplifiers have complex sub
topics which can be hashed over in seperate threads. I'm not about to
launch you into another of your many off topic diversions. If you stick to
one specific theme per rant, well go as far into detail as you would care
to go. By your many previous examples, you just want to rehash a 6146
sweep tube post label out of context; over and over and over and over...
and over.
: 3. To defend your remark that a triode-connected sweep tube wasn't
: operating as a triode, you tossed out the term "reverse screen
: current", totally ignoring the fact that reverse screen current occurs
: because of secondary emission from the plate, a problem which doesn't
: exist in a sweep tube because of the beam deflection plates AND
: because the screen is grounded for operation as a TRIODE, which cannot
: have ANY screen current, forward OR reverse.
Boy, your really cute with the cut and paste. AT NO TIME DID I EVER SAY
REVERSE SCREEN CURRENT APPLIED TO GROUNDED GRID SWEEP TUBE AMPLIFIERS,
TRIODES OR ANYTHING SIMILAR. Nice try on your part though...
You said it doesn't even exist... I called you on your statement to
review basic tetrode amplifier 101 because it does in some classic
tetrode circuits. Now your trying to big time back pedal here.
Now you've looked it up and defined it above to try and save face. How
novel that you are now an expert in reverse screen current when you
clearly posted in one of your 10/31/02 posts "Now THERES a new one!"
: 4. You didn't know where the 'beam' in 'beam tube' came from, but
: instead thought it was synonymous with 'power tube'. In fact, you
: specifically stated that "the 6146 is a beam power tube, which can in
: the generic sense serve as a 'sweep' tube", which propted me to
: explain that the 'beam' tube is a subcategory of 'power' tubes, and
: the 'sweep' tube is an application-specific power tube, be it a beam
: tube or otherwise.
Not true, but again cute assumption on your part... you threw out your
typical batch of book text on beam tubes... talking about grid spacing
and stopped when the book text ended.
Since you quit at grid spacing, but left out space charge and secondary
emission theory... using your mis-information tatics are to now assume
you don't know anything about those subjects. A more serious directly
related issue with beam power tube missing from your post is any
mention of electrode spacing. Electrode spacing is a serious property of
the beam tubes. Somehow you've totally left that out of your posts... but
again, you probably didn't know about it.
: 5. You didn't understand the meaning of 'grid-current distortion', how
: it's created, or even how to read an EpIp graph to determine the
: relative smoothness of a grid current transistion.
Only your assumption... It's becomes a minor issue in actual tube
selection, if the choice is good enough to serve the desired application.
Opinions on "good enough" do vary, the actual judgement call should made
from measurements made on what come out the coax connector.
: 6. You have shown many times that you didn't even know the difference
: between Class AB1 and AB2 operation, the difference being that AB1
: draws no grid current while AB2 does. In fact, while reading through
Quite wrong of course... you jume back and forth from AB1 and AB2 which
most often have different applied circuits. But you like to avoid my
direct questions. In specific, I'm trying to get you to describe how a
traditional AB2 circuits and AB1 circuit are different in application.
: the previous posts, it seems that you were under the impression that
You could directly ask me... but you don't.
: AB1 meant common-cathode while AB2 meant grounded-grid. For example,
: while discussing neutralization, you state that it is "not required
: in a properly designed AB2 amplifier", which is totally disrepsective
: of the fact that an AB2 amplifier can be common-cathode, and therefore
: require neutralization.
Since you don't appear to have much actual experience building rf
amplifiers, let me give you the word...
We are talking Grounded Grid amplifiers which are for the most part,
always AB2 circuits in design and operation. You hint that AB1 operation
is possible, whereas it might be with reduced drive levels... but I know
of no purpose designed conventional grounded grid amplifier running AB1.
Maybe you could give us an example of any purpose AB1 grounded grid
amplifier you know about...? Any..? Traditional AB1 amplifiers are
for the most part common cathode circuit layouts. The original topic is
Sweep Tube amplifiers in grounded grid operation, that is AB2.
: 7. You have the mistaken belief that the 'flyweel effect' of a tank
: circuit is a cure-all for non-linearity in a linear amplifier, when in
There is no cure all for non linearity. An input tank circuit should be
considered a must have in all grounded grid amplifiers. Your happy grid
linearity babble on is not the same linearity issue I address with the
input tank circuit.
: fact it CANNOT reduce or eliminate grid-current distortion. I needed
: to explain that in order to be linear you need at least 180 degrees of
: undistorted conduction time, which you cannot achieve with grid
: current distortion.
Well mr magic amp... what is the conduction angle of an AB2 amplifier..?
Yep, greater than 180 degrees. The big picture here is the grid current
distortion in the topic amplifier is not large enough to prohibit the
Sweep Tube from consideration as a viable choice. Sweep tubes in AB2
grounded grid amplifiers have conduction angles greater than 180 degrees.
: 8. You didn't know that 'grounded' in 'grounded-grid' means a signal
: ground, and not necessarily a DC ground.
Seems to me, I brought that to your attention frankie... you're
again trying to turn a post around again. In specific, I stated there is
more than one way to ground the required elements providing you understand
basic AC and DC load lines. It was clear to me that you don't have
the proper background knowledge when you coughed and wheezed a batch of
poop about my recomendation to include 10 ohm cathode lead resistors in
my Dentron GLA-1000 update text.
First off, you started out with a "grounding the cathode" rant, when I
corrected your goof, you moved on or avoided your orignal mistake to say
the resistor addition was stupid.
Well, had you pulled your head out and done the proper homework, you've
find the example amplifier linearity improves with the mentioned
modification. But since you know feedback, degeneration and load lines so
well, you can figure that out later.
: 9. You didn't know what ALC circuits are, calling them "linearity
: detectors" (your own terminology),
Come on now frankie... talk about text twist and dance moves... I
referenced an example linearity detector shown in the Galaxy Sweep Tube HF
amplifier text posted on the sonic server. I also mentioned its use in
Collins amplifiers, though I don't believe that was in one of your
threads. ALC circuits can be made using various type of sample circuits.
Some alc circuits are not unlike the common linearity circuits found in
the Galaxy Text. Regardless of the type, most ALC circuit operation is to
little, too late.
: and saying that ALC circuits are
: "bad news" because of their "time constants". Of course I set the
More of the older ALC circuits... some modern tranceivers approach
practial responce time constants worth consideration.
: record straight that ALC circuits are basically RF compressors which
: require attack and decay time constants, and are so used in the radios
Which are slow to react... once the distortion is on the air... its to
late to do anything about it. ALC detector circuits come in all sizes,
shapes and circuit layouts. You are again not specific... The function
of a properly connected ALC circuit would be to act as a limiting
control. RF compression is not such a good label frankie...
Many Amateurs using ALC are clueless about the actual circuit operation.
Before the ALC acts (time constant)... unwanted poop is piped out the
coax connector to the antenna.
Depending on the ALC to throttle your tubes back results in much higher
levels of initial pre alc action poop. You can hear that poop as buckshot
up and down the band...
: you claimed had "linearity detectors". You also claimed that ALC
: circuits are "dated technology" despite their continued and effective
: use in amplifiers and other circuits.
At one time, ALC was thought to work pretty well for the most part.
Relying on it for rf compression is poorly applied technology. If you
were to look at your signal before the ALC acts... much unwanted poop is
generated. Especially in SSB operation with voice compression.
: 10. You continue to claim that sweep tube amps meet or exceed FCC
: specifications, yet you never state those specifications or the
: conditions under which the amplifiers passed, you never post any noise
: figures, and you never make any comparisons to amps that use RF power
: tubes.
Dont have to do it twice. Consult the LA-1000 or GLA-1000 owners manual
for details. They are FCC legal amplifiers which is all that matters. The
FCC said go and the various mfgrs legally built them. The mid 80's ARRL
Handbooks show great examples of sweep tubes in rf amplications. I
mentioned the Handbook references more than once, it's a waste of time to
post redundant information.
: 11. You clearly do not understand the cause of parasitic oscillations,
: stating that it is due to the nature of a tube, and that the 6146 and
: 4CX250 were 'seriously' prone to VHF parasitics. I needed to explain
: to you that they are caused by resonant conditions within the circuit,
: not the tube itself. I also explained why sweep tubes are NOT immune
: from parasitics because of their poor VHF response as you claimed.
Not true... has a lot to do with the actual tube geometry and the
actual circuit. Specific tubes require extra special care in
amplifier circuits based on their internal geometry and VHF gain. Some
tubes with high VHF gain don't have serious parasitic concerns, hence
their placement into hf operation are not as circuit critical. The 8877
is one such animal.
The actual internal constuction of the tube matters very much. You are
clearly wrong...
: 12. You didn't realize that if a receiver can hear the background
: noise on a frequency that a pre-amplifier does not improve the
: signal-to-noise ratio at all, and will actually ADD to the noise with
: it's own circuitry.
Actually, my response was about your broad statement that using a
fet preamplifier is useless. I don't agree... not everyone has a hot
receiver. A switchable low noise fet preamplifier is a very good thing
and relatively cheap in cost. Not everyone has your magical hot as a
firecracker receiver... in fact some of the Icom 706MKIIG radios I've
tried have pretty numb receivers.
: 13. As stated before, you didn't understand why a grounded-grid
You are so bad at making things up out of context Frank.
: amplifier does not require neutralization, citing the reason as 'grid
: screening'. I had to explain that it's not required because the
: amplifier is non-inverting (which you also didn't understand), where
Not the entire case, only part of the master plan frankie... there's a
list of grounded grid benefits.
: the voltages on the input and output are in phase, and therefore cause
: no regenerative feedback that would require neutralization (which is
: where the term originates -- the 'neutralization' of regenerative
: feedback!).
You are a piece of work frankie... the vhf circuit which can sometimes
support VHF ocillations is mainly determined by the Anode-C and the
inductance of the conductors between the Anode and Tune-C. Your in phase
statement is bogus at VHF where the parasitics often occur. Your
post information is faulty.
: 14. You are under the mistaken impression that grid-to-plate
: capacitance changes depending on whether the amplifier is
: grounded-grid or common-cathode. Of course it doesn't, because it's a
: characteristic of the tube, not of the circuit. I explained that you
: might be confused because the -input- capacitance is different, and
: that's because the two different circuits use different parts of the
: tube for input.
It's no mistake Frankie... look it up. Use the exact text I wrote so you
don't twist in some misinformation your so good at doing. If you need some
help, I can reference some text for you.
: 15. You stated that "exciter feed through power of the example AB2
: grounded grid amplifier is a big time 'freebie' you don't see in AB1
: circuits", which only reinforces my theory that you really don't
: understand amplifier classes of operation. Grounded-grid amps require
: drive power because the input is the cathode, which must conduct if
: the tube is to work at all. Input power of a grounded-grid amplifier
: is always carried to the plate regardless of class of amplification,
: and regardless of grid-current.
Once again Frankie... how many grounded grid AB1 amplifiers have you seen
in use..? Don't modify my text as you go along in your rants to suit
your current post needs. The predominant class of grounded grid
amplifiers is AB2... exciter power is required and a portion shows up in
the output as a freebie. Doesn't get any simpler, but you seen to want to
give theory examples of amplifiers no one person is using. Earth to
Frank, real world here... wake up..
One last thing... your last statement is not so true... class AB1
operation of grounded grid amplifiers does not consume input power.
Got to go, back later to finish... love ya frankie, keep trying.
skipp
: 16. You claimed that grid-current distortion only occurs in a
ye...@removecet.com
<nospam4me...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>blah, blah, blah...
Anyone can now read on google exactly what I pointed out a the
beginning -- that you really don't know nearly as much as you think
you do about electronics or radio. Sure, you have played with a few
toys, but over the course of this conversation you have shown a very
poor understanding of the concepts and practices behind what you are
doing. It's clear that you don't have much education in electronic
theory, your experience is limited to hacking and modding amps, and
your attitude is even more arrogant than mine! Your own statements
have proven that you are just a wannabe in this field, and if you
can't see that then you are more ignorant than I imagined. And now
it's all in the archives for anyone to read at anytime. Post all the
excuses you want, dance around your own statements until you drop, or
take a crash course in electronics to limit the damage. I really don't
care because I am finished with you.
piper
out, but I don't see it on the thread or in the news group. It takes a
bit if time to type it all out, so watch for a replacement follow up. Back
after this commercial message...
skipp
: ye...@REMOVEcet.com <ye...@removecet.com> wrote:
: In <aqe9ru$bg8$1...@woodrow.ucdavis.edu>, Skipp
: <frankieAvoi...@yahoo.com> wrote: A lot of poopy diatribe
which is wrong.
ye...@removecet.com
<frankieap...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Will someone please help Skippy learn how to use his newsreader? or at
least how to use google?
Randy
<ye...@REMOVEcet.com> wrote in message news:3dd1b63...@news.cet.com...
Well Frank, why don't you take the bull by the horns? You seem to be an
expert on using the archives.
nospamatthi...@yahoo.com
probably
win the contest for shear bulk poop posting in so many threads. So lets go
through
some of your book theory rants here and deal with them in the real world. I
posted
a quite lengthy reply once before, but somehow it went poof. So I'm willing
to give
it another go. After this follow up, I plan to limit my replies to you as you
must be on
your pooter all day long to type in your mistakes..
: "ye...@REMOVEcet.com" wrote: (a lot of babble)
> In <aqe9ru$bg8$1...@woodrow.ucdavis.edu>, Skipp
> <frankieAvoi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> <snip issues addressed below>
> >The two Motorola amplifier models I provided are legal for operation
> >within the 25-50MHz range. The fact that you can not verify their
> >legality is of little concern to me.
>
> The equipment authorizations for those amps have expired, or did you
> forget about that little detail?
No detail required... authorizations for new hardware construction maybe.
As originally certified for the applied service, type accepted equipment
legally
installed and operated should be just fine... and legal to remain in service.
The
responsibility for legal operation is the duty of the licensee. Until I hear
otherwise from the FCC, I'll continue to call it as I see it.
> <snip>
> >I have an actual FCC Radio Service: IB License license in my hand, against
> >my better judgement, I posted the actual FCC file number in that thread
> >just to get you to stop wasting so much bandwitch spazzing about it...
> >didn't do much good... since you can't find it on line, you quicly claim
> >it doesn't exist or is not possible.
>
> No, I said that the license can't be located by the file number and I
> asked for the callsign. Again, what's the callsign, Skippy?
Well Frankie I was reluctant to give out the file number, I'm certainly not
going to post the call sign on a news group. I'm able to look up files on
the FCC pages, I found yours... Forget trusting the web for the final
word, the paperwork matters. I have the truth in hard copy and I'm fine
with it.
> > Hard copies are the bottom line
> >frankie...
>
> And like I said before, I don't have a hard copy. As far as I know you
> are looking at a sheet of toilet paper.
So you would then look at the FCC web page and pronounce me a liar because
you can't find the magic IB number online; despite the many times I've
mentioned
that the FCC interchanges IB with the IG designation on their web page.
Nothing
will ever make you happy. If I posted a copy of an actual FCC License
somewhere,
you'd claim it was altered. So forget about it Frank.. I have the truth in
hard copy here and nothing will ever make you happy about it. Radio Service
IB is alive and well and currently licensed.
> <snip>
> >I actually have a lot more background in the area than you could ever hope
> >to achieve Frankie...
>
> Alright, you asked for it. Time for the list:
>
At last, Frank goes for it... Let's have some fun now...
>
> 1. You specifically said that the 6146 was used as a sweep tube, but
> when faced with the challenge of finding the make and model you
> backtracked and said this:
>
> >No television I've heard of uses the 6146 tube as a sweep tube. There
> >were some older televisions that used the 6146 tube as a horizontal
> >oscillator and or horizontal oscillator amplifier.
Pretty good cut and paste from two different posts. You failed to mention
the second sentence was from a much earlier post and it's original complete
context. In that thread I re-posted someone else's previous text and had no
reason to doubt his statement that the 6146 was used in a Heathkit Project
TV. Why not, the tube would work just peachy in the application. No one
gets hurt, no real bad information gets out the door. The point it proves to
me is that one should never assume blanket statements from others without
the proper homework first..
You however mentioned in more than one post, that the grid of an rf
amplifier tube can be tied to the plate for triode mode operation. A big,
big, big boo-boo. The result of your posts would cause harm to the tube
and possible harm to the circuit and the operator as the amplifier melts
down big time.
> which demonstrated your ignorance of the subject. You didn't know
> where the 'sweep' came from in 'sweep tube': I had to explain that
> they were named because they were designed specifically for use as
> horizontal deflection amplifiers, i.e, television 'sweep' amplifiers.
>
Sure I do... but you like reading your own news group theory posts so
you can feel good about yourself... I don't choose to write a book chapter
history so you can play with formal name labels. A hard line label
history adds little to technical details.
>
> 2. You didn't know what the term "low-mu" described; namely, the
> amplification factor of a triode. Not only that, but you used the term
> to describe the triode operation of a sweep tube while saying that it
> wasn't operating as a triode.
Again, just because I or others don't choose to jump through your name
all list, doesn't prove anything. You jumped back and forth from cathode
driven to grid driven circuits so much, I had a hard time trying to figure
out what point you were trying to make. When I called you on it, you
danced and sang the "conventional" and "classic" label blues. It's quite
clear to most experienced amplifier people that AB1 and AB2 g-grid
amplifier circuits are for the most part, built along two different circuit
layouts.
You claimed that triode amplification factor was listed in your book
as "u" and that tetrode/pentodes were rated in transconductance Gm.
Some how you failed to mention triodes also have transconductance, so
now we can say that "you didn't know it". Get off the "you didn't know
it" because "you didn't mention it" nit pick... you waste a lot of time.
>
> 3. To defend your remark that a triode-connected sweep tube wasn't
> operating as a triode, you tossed out the term "reverse screen
> current", totally ignoring the fact that reverse screen current occurs
> because of secondary emission from the plate, a problem which doesn't
> exist in a sweep tube because of the beam deflection plates AND
> because the screen is grounded for operation as a TRIODE, which cannot
> have ANY screen current, forward OR reverse.
Pretty good try at turning things around Frankie... but again no cigar. At
no time did I ever associate reverse screen current with triode operation.
You do a pretty good job of making this stuff up as you go along..
By the way, when I mentioned for you to personally relax and "hold your
reverse screen current", you claimed it didn't exist. Didn't you write
something along the lines of "now there's a new one"..?
It appears to us that at that time, you appeared to know nothing about
reverse screen current in tetrodes. In follow up posts, I mentioned that
you might go research reverse screen current. At no time did I ever mention
reverse screen current in triodes or sweep tube circuits Frankie...
cute but no cigar.
> 4. You didn't know where the 'beam' in 'beam tube' came from, but
> instead thought it was synonymous with 'power tube'. In fact, you
> specifically stated that "the 6146 is a beam power tube, which can in
> the generic sense serve as a 'sweep' tube", which propted me to
> explain that the 'beam' tube is a subcategory of 'power' tubes, and
> the 'sweep' tube is an application-specific power tube, be it a beam
> tube or otherwise.
Not quite, but your kind of hard to follow sometimes as your posts tend
to wander off the main topic quite a bit. When talking specific about rf
amplifiers, I do tack on the entire proper label of beam power tube. No
foul should be called.
If you ever update your electronics back ground to include current technology,
you'd understand the Sweep Tube Label can be applied to a family or group of
similar tubes.
The 6KG6 was probably designed for horizontal deflection "sweep" circuits, a
drop in EL-509 direct replacement was never designed for TV circuits, but
has direct rf amplifier applications. I have no problem calling the EL-509
a Sweep Tube as it walks and talks the part very well. In short, they
directly
interchange or are considered the same tube.
Multiple examples of Sweep Type Tubes or the easier named (by most
people) Sweep Tubes never designed or applied to Horizontal "TV" or
deflection circuits exist. Go ahead and stick your head in the sand over a
dated formal label. Most of the rest of the world has no problem using the
Sweep Tube as a generic type label, it fits very well.
>
> 5. You didn't understand the meaning of 'grid-current distortion', how
> it's created, or even how to read an EpIp graph to determine the
> relative smoothness of a grid current transistion.
>
You just love to see your own writing Frankie... Actually, you want to
play up the distortion value to say sweep tubes are unusable in linear
rf amplifiers. I claim they are quite usable and the distortion is enough
to disqualify sweep tubes in the application. The big picture is what
goes out the pipe (antenna connector). Many an FCC legal sweep
to amplifier made it to the market through the years.
> 6. You have shown many times that you didn't even know the difference
> between Class AB1 and AB2 operation, the difference being that AB1
> draws no grid current while AB2 does. In fact, while reading through
> the previous posts, it seems that you were under the impression that
> AB1 meant common-cathode while AB2 meant grounded-grid. For example,
> while discussing neutralization, you state that it is "not required
> in a properly designed AB2 amplifier", which is totally disrepsective
> of the fact that an AB2 amplifier can be common-cathode, and therefore
> require neutralization.
Man you are long winded... Not quite Frankie... I was trying to nail you
down a few times to see if you knew the major differences in AB1 and AB2
circuit layouts and their specific operational considerations. But you
danced and sang more than you provided specific examples.
In the real amplifier world Frankie... AB1 is common cathode circuit layouts
and AB2 is a grounded grid circuit. AB2 is also possible in common cathode
circuits, but we almost never see AB1 operation in grounded grid circuits.
Don't play around with parts of sentences Frankie... I try to be clear and
include the term, well built "AB2 Grounded Grid" circuits should not
require neutralization. The issue is to include grounded grid which you
conveniently left off.
> 7. You have the mistaken belief that the 'flyweel effect' of a tank
> circuit is a cure-all for non-linearity in a linear amplifier, when in
> fact it CANNOT reduce or eliminate grid-current distortion. I needed
> to explain that in order to be linear you need at least 180 degrees of
> undistorted conduction time, which you cannot achieve with grid
> current distortion.
Wow, you are a piece of work frankie... somehow you're going to find a
text where I say "cure-all"..? I don't think so. Actually to detail out
the issue, the input tank circuit flywheel helps reduce "half cycle
loading", with resultant IMD benefit. One must always keep in mind that
the drive is actually applied across the cathode and grid. Inclusion of
a AB2 cathode tuned input tank circuit, Q of 2 is almost a must to achieve
good IMD performance. In your verbose analysis of that KLV brand
amplifier.... you called the tuned input coil a choke or shunt. You can't
even call them when you see them Frankie'boy.
I explained to you that the conduction angle for AB* operation is about
210 degrees standard to be called "AB mode". The amount of distortion
present does not disqualify Sweep Type Tubes and many Sweep Tubes
from linear applications, nor does the distortion prevent the conduction
angle from reaching ~210 degrees. Plain fact, jack...
> 8. You didn't know that 'grounded' in 'grounded-grid' means a signal
> ground, and not necessarily a DC ground.
Sure I do, but you never bothered to mention ac or dc paths until I pointed
it out. There are different types of grounded grid circuit layouts. Some
only play well with specific geometry types of tubes as built. You don't
appear to know the difference between them without looking at a book.
> 9. You didn't know what ALC circuits are, calling them "linearity
> detectors" (your own terminology), and saying that ALC circuits are
> "bad news" because of their "time constants". Of course I set the
Nice try Frankie (or Sparky) , I referred to the Galaxy Sweep Tube linearity
circuit and possibly the Collins Linearity circuit and the fact that some
ALC circuits are built along similar circuit layouts. No big deal really, but
ALC circuits are for the most part, not great poop prevention circuits, nor
should they be relied upon. Due to time constants and delays, the ALC
loop reacts after the poop has left the building.
> record straight that ALC circuits are basically RF compressors which
> require attack and decay time constants, and are so used in the radios
> you claimed had "linearity detectors". You also claimed that ALC
> circuits are "dated technology" despite their continued and effective
> use in amplifiers and other circuits.
It's poor operating practice to assume the ALC loop will react fast
enough. Couple the ALC action delay time with any amount of speech
processing and that much more extra dB's of poop are already out the
door before the circuit reacts. For a measurable amount of time, the
amplifier is overdriven resulting in crap production. ALC is dated
technology, modern radios have power level controls which still can't be
trusted without testing. One recent generation of Japan made HF radios
is know to output very large rf spikes. A review of that topic thread
can be found at the www.contesting.com achives. You are just
plain out of touch with the real world.
>
> 10. You continue to claim that sweep tube amps meet or exceed FCC
> specifications, yet you never state those specifications or the
> conditions under which the amplifiers passed, you never post any noise
> figures, and you never make any comparisons to amps that use RF power
> tubes.
I don't compare them to specific RF power designed tubes, in amplifiers
for the most part. The proof was in the many FCC legal Amateur Amplifiers
produced and sold throughout the years. I ran across some notes the
other day from a four hole sweep tube amplifier I tested some years ago
which in the Amateur application had spurious products better than 32 decibels
below peak power of a two tone test signal. The even order products
were dealt with higher Q tuned circuits, the odd order products were not
a significant problem. T'was a good sweep tube circuit...
> 11. You clearly do not understand the cause of parasitic oscillations,
> stating that it is due to the nature of a tube, and that the 6146 and
> 4CX250 were 'seriously' prone to VHF parasitics. I needed to explain
> to you that they are caused by resonant conditions within the circuit,
> not the tube itself. I also explained why sweep tubes are NOT immune
> from parasitics because of their poor VHF response as you claimed.
You clearly need to get a new book Frankie... Parasitic issues are
both a function of the tube construction and the circuit. There are well
known histories of grounded grid amplifiers which have horrible parasitic
problems based directly on both the applied tube's VHF gain and adjacent
circuit vhf paths. Tubes like the 8877 are actually engineered and
constructed to avoid vhf parasitic problems.
The 6146 and 4cx250 family of tubes require serious parasitic prevention
"circuit practices" (as do many others). Other tubes (8877) in rf circuits
don' have nearly the parasitic baggage concerns of the 6146/4cx250b by
design.
No tube is immune to parasitic... but the sweep tube in grounded grid
circuit will rarely, if ever "go there" in a well designed and built circuit.
> 12. You didn't realize that if a receiver can hear the background
> noise on a frequency that a pre-amplifier does not improve the
> signal-to-noise ratio at all, and will actually ADD to the noise with
> it's own circuitry.
So now you qualify your earlier statements by adding in "background noise".
Let's move past your diversion BS to state the facts. Not everyone has
a hot HF radio receiver, some of the newer generation radios are in fact
pretty
numb (I've measure a few Icom 706MkIIG radios, they are numb as heck
on the lower HF bands compared to other radios). Low noise fet preamps
are easy to make and apply; plus they are also low in parts cost.
I would be willing to say that many of the radios would benefit from the
inclusion of a simple auto tr switched low noise receive preamplifier in
the amplifier. So it couldn't hurt to go for it.. You've got to also hear
them to actually work'em
Companies like Sinclair, Telewave, Angle Linear, ARR sell thousands
of fet preamps. Most all the weak signal group members I know run new
radios, fet preamps and large amplifiers, and they use the whole package.
> 13. As stated before, you didn't understand why a grounded-grid
> amplifier does not require neutralization, citing the reason as 'grid
> screening'. I had to explain that it's not required because the
> amplifier is non-inverting (which you also didn't understand), where
> the voltages on the input and output are in phase, and therefore cause
> no regenerative feedback that would require neutralization (which is
> where the term originates -- the 'neutralization' of regenerative
> feedback!).
Here is where you really fall short Frankie... Go back and do the home
work. HF and MF frequency amplifiers have two resonance's IN THE
ANODE CIRCUIT, the VHF resonance is formed by the Anode-C, the
Anode leads, the dc blocker caps reactance, and the tune-C.
Grounded grid circuits benefit from shielding. You also failed to
mention electrode spacing in any of your posts so we just state that
" you don't understand it".
The non inverting nature of the layout at HF/MF a whole different
animal vs when your talking VHF stability response. You above
statement clearly indicate you have little actual knowledge or experience
in the subject. Hit the books Frankie, you fell flat on your face this
time.
> 14. You are under the mistaken impression that grid-to-plate
> capacitance changes depending on whether the amplifier is
> grounded-grid or common-cathode. Of course it doesn't, because it's a
> characteristic of the tube, not of the circuit. I explained that you
> might be confused because the -input- capacitance is different, and
> that's because the two different circuits use different parts of the
> tube for input.
Not... we are still talking grounded grid AB2 amplifiers. I try like
heck to have you stay on a specific circuit... all you have to do Frankie
is give us a clue as to what part of the book your reading from when
you type it in...
Another trip and fall for you Frankie.. Let me state it again for you.
The Grounded Grid Amplifier have or include the advantages:
The output and input capacitance's of a stage are reduced to approximately
one half the value which would be obtained if the same tubes were
operated as a conventional neutralized amplifiers.
The feedback capacitance within the stage is the plate to cathode
capacitance which is ordinarily very less than the grid to plate
capacitance. Hence neutralization is ordinarily not required in the
the HF region.
The tendency toward parasitic oscillation is greatly reduced since
the shielding effect of the grid(s) are effective over a broad range of
frequencies.
> 15. You stated that "exciter feed through power of the example AB2
> grounded grid amplifier is a big time 'freebie' you don't see in AB1
> circuits", which only reinforces my theory that you really don't
> understand amplifier classes of operation. Grounded-grid amps require
> drive power because the input is the cathode, which must conduct if
> the tube is to work at all. Input power of a grounded-grid amplifier
> is always carried to the plate regardless of class of amplification,
> and regardless of grid-current.
You try and make some type of point from the wrong direction Frank.
Let's be clear about this, not how you like to read into things. Feedthrough
power is a benefit of the grounded grid rf amplifier operating condition.
Actually he label is a bit mis leading (but you knew that of course)... the
drive power appears in the g-grid plate load circuit after being converted
to a varying dc plate potential effectively in series with the main HV
power supply.
HERE'S THE BIG ONE FOR YOU FRANKIE...! CHECK IT OUT.
The converted drive power serves a useful function in linear service
because It Swamps Out The Undesirable Effects of Nonlinear Grid Loading
.... and presents a reasonably constant load to the exciter.
Ta'da..! Frankie...! and how would you like your crow served today...?
> 16. You claimed that grid-current distortion only occurs in a
> grid-driven circuit. Of course that's not true, as grid-current
> distortion occurs whenever grid current occurs, regardless of whether
> it's grounded-grid or common-cathode.
See the above for more crow Frank... perhaps some wine with your bird..?
> 17. You claimed that putting a resistor in series with the cathode of
> a grounded-grid amplifier will improve linearity, when in fact it does
> nothing but reduce the output power and dissipate part of the input
> power. I also pointed out how cathode resistors are commonly used to
> improve the linearity of a common-cathode amplifier, but not for RF
> amplifiers because it would unground the cathode. Such practice is an
> audio technique that you mistakenly applied to an RF application, and
> also to the wrong type of amplifier.
You are wrong crow breath... at least in this post you have properly
written the statement as "resistor in series with the cathode". Now
go back to your basic Electronics 101 book and look up "degeneration".
The 10 ohm cathode resistors I mention in my Dentron GLA-1000
update actually deal with a couple of concerns. First, they provide
degeneration to the circuit which improves linearity... Fact.
Second, they provide a measure of both ac and dc balance to paralleled
g-grid tubes.
Third, they act as very practical and cheap series fuses when a tube shorts,
glitches or fails. No Mr Audio Breath... it's not my idea... I lifted the
knowledge
from a Collins grounded grid amateur amplifier diagram I saw many years ago.
You appear to be clue less on the subject.
>
> 18. You stated that voltage equalization networks are "dated
> technology", claiming that almost no amplifiers use them anymore. This
> is not only a slap in the face of good engineering practices, but also
> flows against basic semiconductor theory: Exceed the PIV and the
> rectifier may fail. Regardless, most amplifier manufacturers do not
> use series connected rectifiers, opting instead for a single rectifier
> of the proper voltage rating (which of course doesn't need a voltage
> equalization network because one rectifier is not multiple rectifiers
> in series).
Old bad habits die hard and you are a good example of dated knowledge
Frankie... In short, the significant past issues with silicon diode mfgr
which brought about your happy equalization circuits are now for the
most part gone in modern power diodes.
At one time it was common to care for good reason, those reasons are
now long gone for the most part. Lose the rectifier eq networks... in
a different thread, I'll explain to you how they can now do more bad
than good vs leaving them out. Don't take my word for it Frank, look
at newer examples... Alpha Power, Ameritron etc...
> 19. You were totally unaware that the mic gain is the power control
> for an SSB radio, showing a gross misunderstanding of the principles
> of SSB modulation.
You really are out there Frankie... the mic gain on a typical Kenwood
TS-430s is not a true power control, whereas the Kenwood TS-940s
has a true power control.
The TS-430s is only a mic gain adjustment, not a power control. This is
a big issue when trying to avoid over driving and amplifier. You missed
the boat Frank.
> 20. You claimed that the interelectrode capacitances of a sweep tube
> are "easily dealt with", yet on the Dentron you failed to recognize an
> input capacitor used to compensate for the input capacitance of the
> tube, calling it one leg of a pi tank. In fact, you don't know the
> difference between a pi-tank and an L-pad, frequently using the term
> "pi-L" to denote something as yet unidentified.
At 28.5 MHz Frank, the tube Cin is often large enough to be the pi
output cap of the input circuit. In some cases, its so large, you have
to try other "non pi" inputs. In the Dentron GLA retrofit, I use a T input
>24MHz to deal with the large Tube Cin.
Pi-L from me would most often be applied to the output tank circuit only.
You called the tuned circuit inductor of the KLV amplifier and choke or
shunt. You simply didn't know what you were looking at.
> 21. You mentioned one of the drawbacks of running AB1 was dumping
> power into the swamping resistor, which means that you have no idea
> that a swamping resistor is used to reduce grid-current distortion. Of
> course you can't have grid-current distortion in AB1. And you also
> didn't realize that a low-impedance tuned input is far superior to a
> swamping resistor (when running AB2) because of the negligible power
> loss, and because it performs better at maintaining linearity of the
> signal under grid current transistions.
Man, you really go all over the place with each post... OK, let's have at.
First, there is a whole science unto itself when talking about grid driven
AB1 resistor - input circuit layouts and choices. You don't have any
knowledge market cornered Frankie.
In an AB1 circuit, the swamping resistor value choice is made using a number
of parameters better reviewed in a separate thread. You love your grid
current distortion safe house don't cha Frankie..? At this late date in the
game, I would feel pretty good writing that grid current distortion is not
really
on the radar map when choosing the swamping resistor value. In short, AB1
operation by definition has no control grid current flow. Simple enough...
When the grid driven circuit (one must note the difference vs g-grid/cathode
driven) operates AB2; the swamping resistor value or "composite" grid
circuit uses conventional design guidelines (way to complicated to detail
here). The fly in you using only a low impedance tuned circuit only is the
question of unconditional stability in high gain operation.
A better idea would be to consider a combination of both using the
conventional
guidelines detailed in ARRL Handbooks. Your probably right, I must not
have known that because otherwise I would have mentioned it somewhere... oh
wait a minute..! I think there's a 4cx250b circuit on the sonic server that
has an actual circuit diagram of the layout I mention above. Sorry if it's
only
been available for 5 plus years Frank.
> 22. You haven't explained why grid-current distortion is "not an
> issue" with "most properly designed AB2 grounded grid amplifiers". In
> fact, you haven't even explained once what makes a "properly designed"
> amp. On the contrary, I have explained many times why AB2 IS a problem
> when the amplifier uses sweep tubes.
See the above under your number 15 babble Frank, it pretty much lays
out the facts. Plus I offered you wine with your crow... ... and I did
state that my Dentron GLA-1000 update text has a few good ideas on
how one might design a good amplifier. Pick a tube Frankie, we'll rock
and roll from your choice and build a big Boobner Special... or we can
build your grid to the plate model and bask in the heat and flash of melting
glass.
> 23. Whenever you don't know something you make up vague and
> nonsensical terms like "classic", "linearity detector", "passive gain
> operation", "traditional potentials", "beam power application", or the
> use of the term "low-mu" to designate a triode-connected sweep tube
> that doesn't work like a triode (and you still haven't explained how
> it works if not like a triode).
Linearity Detector... See the Collins and Galaxy brand amplifier diagrams
on the sonic server. It's all there in simple english...
Passive Gain Operation: Pentode and tetrode grids in grounded grid
amplifiers operation which contribute no active signal gain , but by their
physical location and construction act as an electrostatic shield between
the grid and plate... of course that includes the consequence that the
pesty grid to plate capacitance is reduced.
Traditional Potentials: In a grounded grid sweep tube amplifier... HV on the
anode, a negative low impedance dc bias supply for #1 control grid.
Beam Power Application: Not sure where your going with it... but in my
opinion, Sweep Beam Power tubes can make really nice, modest power
level linear rf amplifiers. The best you can do is to agree to disagree.
Low Mu to designate a triode connected sweep tube... sure: All three
grids tied to both dc and signal ground... A previously seen and
elsewhere applied layout scheme which can lead to dangerous values
of grid and or screen current.
Compared to many triode grounded grid AB2 amplifiers, the sweep
tubes grounded grids screening or shielding action and consequential
reduced grid to plate capacitance give it pretty good VHF stability.
In the VHF (parasitic problem) region, triodes with significant "hot" VHF
gain operate have increased circuit stability concerns when compared to
a grounded grid tetrode or pentode. Amplifiers such as the Kenwood
TL-922 were pulled from the market for just such reasons although they'll
never admit it.
> Who's the one lacking in RF theory and experience, Skippy? It ain't
> me, that's for DAMN sure!
Still got your potty mouth Frank... nothing we can do about it here
except scold you about it. Anyway, enjoy your crow... and I hope the
cabernet was the proper year.
Get some newer books, the ones your using in your posts are dated
as is your actual knowledge of rf amplifiers. Maybe next time...
cheers
skipp
http://sonic.ucdavis.edu
piper for frankie
Text in my response below diatribe #5 frankie question should
actually read:
> I claim they are quite usable and the distortion is not enough
> to disqualify sweep tubes in the application. The big picture is what
> goes out the pipe (antenna connector). Many an FCC legal sweep
> tube amplifier made it to the market through the years.
piper for frankie
>
> In <aqrcge$k1o$1...@woodrow.ucdavis.edu>, piper
> <frankieap...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >Well... I posted a nice reply to all the below poopy frank trys to throw
> >out, but I don't see it on the thread or in the news group. It takes a
> >bit if time to type it all out, so watch for a replacement follow up. Back
> >after this commercial message...
> >skipp
Check your reverse screen current again mr broadcast. I replied to your
long winded rant...
s
ye...@removecet.com
browser sucks, so I am going to number these posts, and only the last
one will be large as it is my reply for your redundant response.
Enjoy.
In <aqhm10$5mh$1...@woodrow.ucdavis.edu>, Frank goes whacky
<nospam4me...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>: ye...@REMOVEcet.com <ye...@removecet.com> wrote:
>
>: The equipment authorizations for those amps have expired, or did you
>: forget about that little detail?
>
>Maybe for production of new units. It should not require the removal or
>replacement or application of exsisting legal equipment.
Take a look at Part 2 Subpart J:
=====
Sec. 2.927 Limitations on grants.
(a) A grant of equipment authorization is valid only when the FCC
Identifier is permanently affixed on the device and remains effective
until revoked or withdrawn, rescinded, surrendered, or a termination
date is otherwise established by the Commission.
Sec. 2.939 Revocation or withdrawal of equipment authorization.
(a) The Commission may revoke any equipment authorization:
.......
(4) Because of conditions coming to the attention of the
Commission which would warrant it in refusing to grant an original
application.
=====
Now in case you have been in a cave the past few years, no amplifiers
between 24 and 35 MHz are being granted authorization because of the
following law:
=====
Sec. 2.815 External radio frequency power amplifiers.
(a) As used in this part, an external radio frequency power
amplifier is any device which, (1) when used in conjunction with a
radio transmitter as a signal source is capable of amplification of
that signal, and (2) is not an integral part of a radio transmitter as
manufactured.
(b) After April 27, 1978, no person shall manufacture, sell or
lease, offer for sale or lease (including advertising for sale or
lease), or import, ship, or distribute for the purpose of selling or
leasing or offering for sale or lease, any external radio frequency
power amplifier or amplifier kit capable of operation on any frequency
or frequencies between 24 and 35 MHz.
=====
Which means that any amplifier that can operate between 24 and 35 MHz
has lost it's certification/type-acceptance.
As for your query to the FCC about modification of your amps, you will
find the answer here:
2.932 Modification of equipment.
2.1043 Changes in certificated equipment.
In case you are too lazy to read them yourself, they clearly state
that you can't change the frequency range (and still use them under
the original equipment authorization) without an additional grant of
authorization, and then only if you hold the original grant. You don't
hold the original grant of equipment authorization for those amps, do
you Skippy?
ye...@removecet.com
>: ye...@REMOVEcet.com <ye...@removecet.com> wrote:
>
>: The equipment authorizations for those amps have expired, or did you
>: forget about that little detail?
>
>Maybe for production of new units. It should not require the removal or
>replacement or application of exsisting legal equipment.
>
>: No, I said that the license can't be located by the file number and I
>: asked for the callsign. Again, what's the callsign, Skippy?
>
>Sorry if you can't look up a valid FCC file number Frankie... that's your
>problem.
By golly I CAN look up the file number! Right here:
So I input the file number you provided, "200001R435366", and it comes
back with:
"No matches found for the specified search criteria"
> Tell us the callsigns of the mystical broadcast station(s) you
>claim to work for..? You share and I'll share...
You already tried but failed miserably.
>:> Hard copies are the bottom line frankie...
Not if they can't be verified.
>: And like I said before, I don't have a hard copy. As far as I know you
>: are looking at a sheet of toilet paper.
>
>You only seem to verify things on the web Frankie, if IB is not on a web
>page somewhere, your still going to cry. Well, it's not on a web page,
>but it's clearly printed on the copy of the valid current license I have
>here. Go fish frankie...
Not only did you provide an invalid file number, but you flat out lied
about the IB service being current:
http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Public_Notices/1997/da972216.html
There is no more IB service, Skippy. It was one of the many services
that was consolidated into the new IG service pool back in 1997. And
you knew that because a notice was sent out to all IB licensees. You
are just full of lies, aren't you Skippy?
ye...@removecet.com
>: 1. You specifically said that the 6146 was used as a sweep tube, but
>: when faced with the challenge of finding the make and model you
>: backtracked and said this:
>
>:>No television I've heard of uses the 6146 tube as a sweep tube. There
>:>were some older televisions that used the 6146 tube as a horizontal
>:>oscillator and or horizontal oscillator amplifier.
>
>Didn't we go through this once with you frankie..?
>You seem to have left out a bit and your good at specific sentence cut and
>pasting, leaving out the entire text as it suits your rant. Lets go
>through this Frankie. I reposted another persons text which included his
>statement about the 6146 tube being used as a sweep tube (possibly in the
>Heathkit project TVs), had no reason to sweat the claim. The tube would
>function in that capacity. Not a big deal or major technical error that I
>would sweat.
>
>So you try to be clever and first paste the "no television I've heard of
>uses the 6146...." which is a later seperate post followup
>clarifciation statement from the much earlier post text in your second
>line "There were some older televisions..." sentence. Out of order, out
>of context cut and paste that you almost got away with.
That was an exact quote from your very first response in this
discussion. Here is the complete post exactly as you wrote it just in
case you have any doubt:
=====
>Path: sn-us!sn-xit-01!sn-xit-04!supernews.com!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!logbridge.uoregon.edu!ihnp4.ucsd.edu!ucdavis!not-for-mail
>From: skipp <notatt...@hotmail.com>
>Newsgroups: rec.radio.cb
>Subject: Re: Maybe We'll Get The Real Facts, not from Boobner fake name...
>Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 22:41:53 -0700
>Organization: University of California, Davis
>Lines: 43
>Message-ID: <3DB0F0A1...@hotmail.com>
>References: <194387a3.02101...@posting.google.com> <aoq66f$5r7$1...@woodrow.ucdavis.edu> <3db0a52...@news.cet.com>
>NNTP-Posting-Host: istf-1-62.ucdavis.edu
>Mime-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>X-Trace: woodrow.ucdavis.edu 1035005938 14922 169.237.16.62 (19 Oct 2002 05:38:58 GMT)
>X-Complaints-To: use...@ucdavis.edu
>NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 19 Oct 2002 05:38:58 +0000 (UTC)
>X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.75 [en] (Win98; U)
>X-Accept-Language: en
>Xref: sn-us rec.radio.cb:320572
>
>I'll gratis you an answer... because your post questions are stupid and
>should be
>corrected.
>
>Services are not allowed to manufacture and/or market amplifiers, your
>question
>is really stupid.
>
>If you were to spend a few minutes at the fcc web page like I suggested,
>search licensed allocations in the IB or IG service that would fit
>within
>the frequency range you list below. Last time I opened a radio industry
>magazine, Cresend Technologies sold type accepted amplifiers. Henry,
>TPL,
>Motorola and a few others also come to mind.
>
>The second question you asked..? It actually tells us how bad you want
>to
>show your ignorance.
>
>No television I've heard of uses the 6146 tube as a sweep tube. There
>were
>some older televisions that used the 6146 tube as a horizontal
>oscillator
>and or horizontal oscillator amplifier. Sweep tube is a label used to
>describe a classic type of tube. Horizontal oscillator / amplifier was
>often the function of sweep and beam power tubes.
>
>Now go whine about how dumb you look to everyone on the news group.
>
>s
=====
If you knew that the tube used for the "horizontal oscillator
amplifer" was the "sweep tube" then you wouldn't have contradicted
yourself in that post. The fact is that you didn't know that there is
no difference, and used your favorite buzzword "classic" to describe
the sweep tube. I especially like your line, "Horizontal oscillator /
amplifier was often the function of sweep and beam power tubes"
because not only is it 100% redundant, it reinforces the fact that you
didn't understand the definition of a 'beam' tube, either!
>The orginal post gets you to dance on the sweep tube labels, not big deal
>which was easily clarified. For some reason, you just love to go back to
>the same non issue in any combination of text you can constuct... Get on
>with something more worth while frankie... your banging your bald head
>into the same non issue wall.
Your technical ignorance is a very important issue, Skippy.
>: which demonstrated your ignorance of the subject. You didn't know
>: where the 'sweep' came from in 'sweep tube': I had to explain that
>: they were named because they were designed specifically for use as
>: horizontal deflection amplifiers, i.e, television 'sweep' amplifiers.
>
>Actually you were just trying to impress us with your desire to post a
>description. Until your dance and sing, no one was getting excited
>about it, nor had we asked for one. No one including myself claimed
>original sweep tubes were originally made for any other application. A
>near drop in replacement 8950 RF Power Tube was not specifially designed
>for use in any TV circuit. In the real world most people commonly refer
>describe the 8950 as a sweep tube because the label fits well, although
>in your anal book world not exactly true.
Call it whatever you want. The fact remains that the term "sweep tube"
is applied to tubes used for television 'sweep' circuits. If you can
find a TV that used the 8950 then I'll call it a sweep tube, too.
ye...@removecet.com
>: 2. You didn't know what the term "low-mu" described; namely, the
>: amplification factor of a triode. Not only that, but you used the term
>: to describe the triode operation of a sweep tube while saying that it
>: wasn't operating as a triode.
>
>I know exactly what low and high mu describe... it has many potential sub
>topics when applied to RF amplifiers. Your book text posting wanders so
>much, I/we must be careful to nail you down to the specific issue. You
>also touted tetrode specs using Transconductance when in fact they also
>have mu ratings. Because you left it out, are we supposed to jump up and
>down to say you don't know anything about it... hardly.
As I said before, the amplification of a tetrode or pentode is
variable depending on the screen potential. When a tetrode or pentode
is rated by it's 'mu' it is under the condition that the tube is
operating as a triode. This should be obvious because the effective mu
of a tetrode/pentode operating as such is magnitudes larger than that
of a triode, yet when tetrodes and pentodes are rated by their mu it
is comparable with the mu of triodes. Check your datasheets if you
don't believe me. You do have datasheets, don't you? If not, try here:
http://www.cpii.com/eimac/index.html
>In specific to my post, certain tubes operate as low mu in grounded grid
>amplifiers, some act as higher mu tubes in similar g-grid operation.
>These are serious issues when designing grounded grid amplifiers with
>respect to dangerous amounts of G1 (grid 1) current and the various
>circuit layouts. You ran out of technical steam and didn't indicate you
>had more than your one book knowlege of the subject, so I just let it
>stop there.
That is totally ridiculous, as the mu of a tube has nothing to do with
how much grid current it is capable of handling!
>Applied Grounded Grid Pentodes and Tetrodes Amplifiers have complex sub
>topics which can be hashed over in seperate threads. I'm not about to
>launch you into another of your many off topic diversions. If you stick to
>one specific theme per rant, well go as far into detail as you would care
>to go. By your many previous examples, you just want to rehash a 6146
>sweep tube post label out of context; over and over and over and over...
>and over.
This is funny, Skippy. First you say that a triode-connected sweep
tube is not operating as a triode in your "classic" grounded-grid
amplifier, yet you don't want to discuss the "complex sub topics" of
grounded-grid tetrodes and pentodes. I'm was not diverting the topic,
I was trying to get YOU to say specifically what the topic IS, and you
still haven't been able to do that because you don't have a clue as to
what you are talking about!
ye...@removecet.com
>: 3. To defend your remark that a triode-connected sweep tube wasn't
>: operating as a triode, you tossed out the term "reverse screen
>: current", totally ignoring the fact that reverse screen current occurs
>: because of secondary emission from the plate, a problem which doesn't
>: exist in a sweep tube because of the beam deflection plates AND
>: because the screen is grounded for operation as a TRIODE, which cannot
>: have ANY screen current, forward OR reverse.
>
>Boy, your really cute with the cut and paste. AT NO TIME DID I EVER SAY
>REVERSE SCREEN CURRENT APPLIED TO GROUNDED GRID SWEEP TUBE AMPLIFIERS,
>TRIODES OR ANYTHING SIMILAR. Nice try on your part though...
Oh, Skippy, how you lie:
=====
>Path: sn-us!sn-xit-01!sn-xit-04!supernews.com!newsfeed.news2me.com!canoe.uoregon.edu!newsfeed.news.ucla.edu!ucdavis!not-for-mail
>From: nospamatthi...@yahoo.com
>Newsgroups: rec.radio.cb
>Subject: Re: Yeti question and answer time
>Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 11:04:55 -0800
>Organization: University of California, Davis
>Lines: 135
>Message-ID: <3DC17ED7...@yahoo.com>
>References: <3DBDCC56...@yahoo.com> <3dbdf67d...@news.cet.com> <3dc12e3b...@news.cet.com>
>NNTP-Posting-Host: sophe.ucdavis.edu
>Mime-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>X-Trace: woodrow.ucdavis.edu 1036091490 15775 169.237.38.203 (31 Oct 2002 19:11:30 GMT)
>X-Complaints-To: use...@ucdavis.edu
>NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 19:11:30 +0000 (UTC)
>X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.4.2-2 i686)
>X-Accept-Language: en
>Xref: sn-us rec.radio.cb:322582
>
> Frankie Boy "ye...@cet.com" wrote: goes off the deep end...
>
>> In <3dbdf67d...@news.cet.com>, ye...@REMOVEcet.com
>> (ye...@REMOVEcet.com) wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>> >Now that I have answered YOUR questions maybe you can start answering
>> >MY questions instead of avoiding them with YOUR questions.
>> Well?
>>
>> It's obvious, even to the keyclowns, that you have run out of
>> arguments; so how about answering some of the questions you have been
>> stalling to answer? Seriously, I really think that you don't know shit
>> about amps, even "classic" grounded-grid amplifiers, and you are just
>> trying to BS your way out of this challenge. With all your vague
>> comments and weak redirections, it doesn't look like you know shit! So
>> come on, Skippy, tell us what a "classic" design entails, or how a
>>
>
>Frank..! chill pill and wake up. I didn't write what your getting so
>excited
>about, but I' here now. So relax and check your reverse screen current.
>
>
>> "properly designed" grounded-grid amplifier works? Maybe you can even
>> explain how a triode-configured pentode DOESN'T work like a triode,
>>
>
>Sure, consider the properly designed, AB2 grounded grid "Cathode Driven
>amplifier. The interposed screen grid acts as an electrostatic shield
>between the grid and plate, with the consequence that the grid to plate
>capacitance is reduced.... combined with Grid Shielding between the
>cathode and the plate which make your much touted neutralization
>unnecessary.
>
>Triode connected tetrodes (grounded grid) show a degree of improvement
>in distortion figures as opposed to grid driven service.
>
>What might be called more passive gain operation of the screen and
>supressor grids in an AB2 amplifier, does not deny their actual operating
>
>shielding function and reduced Cgp in the grounded grid circuit.
<snip>
=====
Not only did you say that reverse screen current is a factor in your
"classic" grounded-grid amp, but that it actually is responsible for
reducing grid-plate capacitance, as well as grid shielding between the
cathode and plate (which you say is the reason grounded-grid amps
don't require neutralization).
First, as I have said many times but you fail to seek the truth for
yourself, neutralization is not required in a grounded-grid amp
because it's a non-inverting amp.
Second, grid shielding means absolutely nothing in a grounded-grid
amplifier -- if it did, then your input signal would never get past
the grid to the plate!
Third, Cgp never changes because it's a characteristic of the tube,
not the circuit. The capacitance AT the grid can change by changing
the circuit, but that's the INPUT capacitance, NOT Cgp! I have said
that many times as well, and just like every other fact, you have
failed to verify it for yourself.
>You said it doesn't even exist... I called you on your statement to
>review basic tetrode amplifier 101 because it does in some classic
>tetrode circuits. Now your trying to big time back pedal here.
>Now you've looked it up and defined it above to try and save face. How
>novel that you are now an expert in reverse screen current when you
>clearly posted in one of your 10/31/02 posts "Now THERES a new one!"
I never said it didn't exist. Here is what I DID say:
>"Reverse screen current"? Now THERE's a new one! Is that how they get
>"bird watts", by using "reverse screen current"? LOL!
What would you expect me to say? Maybe something like, "Oh, gee, that
clears up just about everything! By golly, why didn't I think of using
reverse screen current when the screen and supressor/beam deflection
plates are grounded! Of course, that would make the triode-connected
sweep tube not act like a triode at all! Now all you have to do is to
figure out how to get the secondary emission from the plate to the
screen past the supressor/beam deflection plates..."
Dumbass.
ye...@removecet.com
>: 4. You didn't know where the 'beam' in 'beam tube' came from, but
>: instead thought it was synonymous with 'power tube'. In fact, you
>: specifically stated that "the 6146 is a beam power tube, which can in
>: the generic sense serve as a 'sweep' tube", which propted me to
>: explain that the 'beam' tube is a subcategory of 'power' tubes, and
>: the 'sweep' tube is an application-specific power tube, be it a beam
>: tube or otherwise.
>
>Not true, but again cute assumption on your part... you threw out your
>typical batch of book text on beam tubes... talking about grid spacing
>and stopped when the book text ended.
>Since you quit at grid spacing, but left out space charge and secondary
>emission theory... using your mis-information tatics are to now assume
>you don't know anything about those subjects.
Because space charge occurs in a tetrode and pentode regardless of
whether it's a beam tube or not, which is why pentodes have a
supressor grid! Go review your vacuum tube fundamentals, Skippy!
> A more serious directly
>related issue with beam power tube missing from your post is any
>mention of electrode spacing. Electrode spacing is a serious property of
>the beam tubes. Somehow you've totally left that out of your posts... but
>again, you probably didn't know about it.
Do you mean the spacing between the electrodes, or the spacing of the
wires OF the electrode, or how the wires on the screen of a beam tube
are located directly behind the wires of the grid forming an electron
'beam'? Sorry, Skippy, I already covered all that. But there are
frequent examples where you use the terms 'beam' and 'power'
interchageably, demonstrating that you didn't know what makes a beam
tube different than any other power tube. Especially when you use
phrases like "beam power applications". LOL!
ye...@removecet.com
>: 5. You didn't understand the meaning of 'grid-current distortion', how
>: it's created, or even how to read an EpIp graph to determine the
>: relative smoothness of a grid current transistion.
>
>Only your assumption... It's becomes a minor issue in actual tube
>selection, if the choice is good enough to serve the desired application.
>Opinions on "good enough" do vary, the actual judgement call should made
>from measurements made on what come out the coax connector.
It's such a minor issue that manufacturers spent jillions of dollars
to develop power tubes designed specifically for smooth grid-current
transition in AB2 operation. Sure, Skippy, whatever you say.
ye...@removecet.com
>: 6. You have shown many times that you didn't even know the difference
>: between Class AB1 and AB2 operation, the difference being that AB1
>: draws no grid current while AB2 does. In fact, while reading through
>
>Quite wrong of course... you jume back and forth from AB1 and AB2 which
>most often have different applied circuits. But you like to avoid my
>direct questions. In specific, I'm trying to get you to describe how a
>traditional AB2 circuits and AB1 circuit are different in application.
>
>: the previous posts, it seems that you were under the impression that
>
>You could directly ask me... but you don't.
>
>: AB1 meant common-cathode while AB2 meant grounded-grid. For example,
>: while discussing neutralization, you state that it is "not required
>: in a properly designed AB2 amplifier", which is totally disrepsective
>: of the fact that an AB2 amplifier can be common-cathode, and therefore
>: require neutralization.
>
>Since you don't appear to have much actual experience building rf
>amplifiers, let me give you the word...
>
>We are talking Grounded Grid amplifiers which are for the most part,
>always AB2 circuits in design and operation. You hint that AB1 operation
>is possible, whereas it might be with reduced drive levels... but I know
>of no purpose designed conventional grounded grid amplifier running AB1.
>Maybe you could give us an example of any purpose AB1 grounded grid
>amplifier you know about...? Any..? Traditional AB1 amplifiers are
>for the most part common cathode circuit layouts.
Since you don't have much education in electronics, let ME give YOU
the word: Although most grounded-grid amps may be AB2, that doesn't
necessarily mean AB2 is grounded-grid because there are many AB2
common-cathode amps! And guess what, Skippy? Those common-cathode amps
usually require neutralization! As usual, you don't know what you are
talking about.
> The original topic is
>Sweep Tube amplifiers in grounded grid operation, that is AB2.
The original topic was a couple of questions that you haven't been
able to answer. Beyond that, the topic has been about sweep tubes vs.
RF power tubes, and you have been trying to narrow that topic down to
grounded-grid amps only, ignoring the fact that sweep tubes were used
in many common-cathode applications.
ye...@removecet.com
>: 7. You have the mistaken belief that the 'flyweel effect' of a tank
>: circuit is a cure-all for non-linearity in a linear amplifier, when in
>
>There is no cure all for non linearity. An input tank circuit should be
>considered a must have in all grounded grid amplifiers.
I agree. Why doesn't the GLA-1000 or the Palomar have one?
> Your happy grid
>linearity babble on is not the same linearity issue I address with the
>input tank circuit.
>
>: fact it CANNOT reduce or eliminate grid-current distortion. I needed
>: to explain that in order to be linear you need at least 180 degrees of
>: undistorted conduction time, which you cannot achieve with grid
>: current distortion.
>
>Well mr magic amp... what is the conduction angle of an AB2 amplifier..?
>Yep, greater than 180 degrees.
Not 180 undistorted degrees. In case you haven't noticed, the grid is
usually biased slightly negative with repect to the cathode, making
the grid current transition occur within that 180 degrees. And because
the bias is so slightly negative it also tends to make more noise at
lower power levels than high power peaks.
> The big picture here is the grid current
>distortion in the topic amplifier is not large enough to prohibit the
>Sweep Tube from consideration as a viable choice. Sweep tubes in AB2
>grounded grid amplifiers have conduction angles greater than 180 degrees.
Despite your repitition, all you need to do is to look at the numbers.
The Dentron claims -30 dB IMD and -40 dB on harmonics, which sucks for
a kilowatt amplifier.
ye...@removecet.com
>: 9. You didn't know what ALC circuits are, calling them "linearity
>: detectors" (your own terminology),
>
>Come on now frankie... talk about text twist and dance moves... I
>referenced an example linearity detector shown in the Galaxy Sweep Tube HF
>amplifier text posted on the sonic server.
That's not a "linearity detector", and the article doesn't even call
it that. Your "linearity detector" is an AMPLITUDE COMPARATOR which
controls the bias regulator -- it's an ALC circuit, Skippy!
> I also mentioned its use in
>Collins amplifiers, though I don't believe that was in one of your
>threads. ALC circuits can be made using various type of sample circuits.
>Some alc circuits are not unlike the common linearity circuits found in
>the Galaxy Text. Regardless of the type, most ALC circuit operation is to
>little, too late.
>
>: and saying that ALC circuits are
>: "bad news" because of their "time constants". Of course I set the
>
>More of the older ALC circuits... some modern tranceivers approach
>practial responce time constants worth consideration.
>
>: record straight that ALC circuits are basically RF compressors which
>: require attack and decay time constants, and are so used in the radios
>
>Which are slow to react... once the distortion is on the air... its to
>late to do anything about it. ALC detector circuits come in all sizes,
>shapes and circuit layouts. You are again not specific... The function
>of a properly connected ALC circuit would be to act as a limiting
>control. RF compression is not such a good label frankie...
The acronym 'ALC' stands for Automatic Level Control which, for all
intents and purposes, is a compressor. The ALC is a circuit that
reduces the input or gain when the amplifier becomes overloaded. By
comparison, a limiter is basically a clipper, which necessarily causes
distortion.
As far as their being too "slow", most of them begin to react after
the very first or second RF peak. I suppose a couple peaks are going
to sneak through before the output level is reduced, but that's a
whole lot better than each every RF peak being clipped from a limiter.
>Many Amateurs using ALC are clueless about the actual circuit operation.
Yourself included.
>Before the ALC acts (time constant)... unwanted poop is piped out the
>coax connector to the antenna.
See above.
>Depending on the ALC to throttle your tubes back results in much higher
>levels of initial pre alc action poop. You can hear that poop as buckshot
>up and down the band...
Yes you can if the amp is severly overdriven. Even an ALC has it's
limitations. But an RF limiter creates horrendous amounts of splatter
even at normal signal levels, just as if the amplifier were being
driven into saturation. That's why RF limiters are not used in power
amplifers, but ALC circuits are used instead.
>: you claimed had "linearity detectors". You also claimed that ALC
>: circuits are "dated technology" despite their continued and effective
>: use in amplifiers and other circuits.
>
>At one time, ALC was thought to work pretty well for the most part.
It still does.
>Relying on it for rf compression is poorly applied technology. If you
>were to look at your signal before the ALC acts... much unwanted poop is
>generated. Especially in SSB operation with voice compression.
The 'compression' to which you refer is actually CLIPPING of the audio
peaks to prevent the amplifier from being driven into saturation on
those peaks. It's funny how you got 'clipping' and 'compression'
reversed!
ye...@removecet.com
>: 8. You didn't know that 'grounded' in 'grounded-grid' means a signal
>: ground, and not necessarily a DC ground.
>
>Seems to me, I brought that to your attention frankie...
Yes you did. You stated that a triode-connected grounded-grid sweep
tube doesn't work like a triode. You further demonstrated your
ignorance on the subject of grounding by bringing up the issue of
'reverse screen current'.
> you're
>again trying to turn a post around again. In specific, I stated there is
>more than one way to ground the required elements providing you understand
>basic AC and DC load lines.
I can't seem to find any post where you say that. Care to quote the
specific post? And what do you mean by "basic AC and DC load lines"?
You do know what a 'load line' is, don't you Skippy?
> It was clear to me that you don't have
>the proper background knowledge when you coughed and wheezed a batch of
>poop about my recomendation to include 10 ohm cathode lead resistors in
>my Dentron GLA-1000 update text.
>First off, you started out with a "grounding the cathode" rant, when I
>corrected your goof, you moved on or avoided your orignal mistake to say
>the resistor addition was stupid.
>Well, had you pulled your head out and done the proper homework, you've
>find the example amplifier linearity improves with the mentioned
>modification. But since you know feedback, degeneration and load lines so
>well, you can figure that out later.
I addressed that issue seperately. What does it have to do with the
grounding of a grid? Nothing. You are shifting topics, the exact same
thing you accuse ME of doing.
ye...@removecet.com
>: 10. You continue to claim that sweep tube amps meet or exceed FCC
>: specifications, yet you never state those specifications or the
>: conditions under which the amplifiers passed, you never post any noise
>: figures, and you never make any comparisons to amps that use RF power
>: tubes.
>
>Dont have to do it twice. Consult the LA-1000 or GLA-1000 owners manual
>for details.
It claims 30 dB down on IMD and 40 dB down on harmonics. It doesn't
mention the conditions under which those figures were achieved.
Regardless, those are piss-poor figures for a 1000 watt amp, since the
IMD alone puts out nearly 1 full watt:
=====
Sec. 97.307 Emission standards.
......
(d) The mean power of any spurious emission from a station
transmitter or external RF power amplifier transmitting on a frequency
below 30 MHz must not exceed 50 mW and must be at least 40 dB below
the mean power of the fundamental emission. For a transmitter of mean
power less than 5 W, the attenuation must be at least 30 dB. A
transmitter built before April 15, 1977, or first marketed before
January 1, 1978, is exempt from this requirement.
=====
> They are FCC legal amplifiers which is all that matters.
ONLY because of the exemption, NOT because of the RF performance of
the sweep tubes, which basically sucks.
> The
>FCC said go and the various mfgrs legally built them.
And after they learned from their mistake they changed the rules.
> The mid 80's ARRL
>Handbooks show great examples of sweep tubes in rf amplications. I
>mentioned the Handbook references more than once, it's a waste of time to
>post redundant information.
And again you failed to mention that the vast majority of the
amplifiers in project manuals and ARRL handbooks use RF power tubes,
NOT sweep tubes.
ye...@removecet.com
>: 11. You clearly do not understand the cause of parasitic oscillations,
>: stating that it is due to the nature of a tube, and that the 6146 and
>: 4CX250 were 'seriously' prone to VHF parasitics. I needed to explain
>: to you that they are caused by resonant conditions within the circuit,
>: not the tube itself. I also explained why sweep tubes are NOT immune
>: from parasitics because of their poor VHF response as you claimed.
>
>Not true... has a lot to do with the actual tube geometry and the
>actual circuit. Specific tubes require extra special care in
>amplifier circuits based on their internal geometry and VHF gain. Some
>tubes with high VHF gain don't have serious parasitic concerns, hence
>their placement into hf operation are not as circuit critical. The 8877
>is one such animal.
>
>The actual internal constuction of the tube matters very much. You are
>clearly wrong...
I was pointing out that your melodramatic concern about parasitics in
RF power tubes is unfounded, since the use of a simple parasitic
supressor is usually more than enough to prevent high-frequency
parasitics REGARDLESS of what type of tube is being used. With that in
mind, RF power tubes have no predisposition to parasitics as you
claim. The difference is in the circuit, NOT the tube!
ye...@removecet.com
>: 12. You didn't realize that if a receiver can hear the background
>: noise on a frequency that a pre-amplifier does not improve the
>: signal-to-noise ratio at all, and will actually ADD to the noise with
>: it's own circuitry.
>
>Actually, my response was about your broad statement that using a
>fet preamplifier is useless.
You responded to a post where I critiqued the KLV, saying that it was
probably intended for the CB market, and....
"...with that in mind, the pre-amplifier is effectively useless, doing
nothing other than making the noise floor louder."
To which you replied:
>Companies like ARR, Sinclair, Telewave and Angle Linear all make various
>fet amplifiers... If the noise figure is less than say 1.5 dB, but the
>signal gain is greater
>than say 13 dB, doesn't that sound like a pretty good preamp..? Even
>if it were a lower gain Dual Gate fet..? would you say the advantage is
>overkill..?
And prompted me to simplify my statement so that even you could
understand that:
>If your receiver is already sensitive enough to receive the noise
>floor, a preamp is not going to improve the signal-to-noise ratio. In
>fact, the preamp is going to add to the noise by the stated 1.5 dB,
>but it will increase the noise floor by 13 dB!
So you see, it wasn't such a "broad" statement at all. My statement is
what is commonly referred to as a 'conditional statement', and was
quite specific.
> I don't agree... not everyone has a hot
>receiver. A switchable low noise fet preamplifier is a very good thing
>and relatively cheap in cost. Not everyone has your magical hot as a
>firecracker receiver... in fact some of the Icom 706MKIIG radios I've
>tried have pretty numb receivers.
Most CB radios (and by 'most' I mean just about every CB radio that
has ever been manufactured AND is working properly) have receiver
sensitivities in the range of 3 uV, which is plenty sensitive enough
to hear the background hash that pervades the band almost constantly.
And knowing that the noise on the CB is much greater than many other
bands, a pre-amplifier is, as I said before, practically useless. It
does not improve the signal-to-noise ratio, and actually degrades it
by it's insertion. Preamps are primarily intended for receivers with
weak front ends, such as older radios and homebrew rigs. They really
make the difference with those one-tube regen rigs, older SW radios,
and even crystal radios. But all they do with a CB radio is make the
noise louder.
ye...@removecet.com
>: 13. As stated before, you didn't understand why a grounded-grid
>
>You are so bad at making things up out of context Frank.
>
>: amplifier does not require neutralization, citing the reason as 'grid
>: screening'. I had to explain that it's not required because the
>: amplifier is non-inverting (which you also didn't understand), where
>
>Not the entire case, only part of the master plan frankie... there's a
>list of grounded grid benefits.
Yes there are, but that's not the point. You claimed that
neutralization was not required because the grid was grounded and
screened the cathode from the plate. By that statement you proved that
you have no clue as to the purpose of neutralization, the cause of
regenerative feedback, or the operation of a grounded-grid amplifier.
>: the voltages on the input and output are in phase, and therefore cause
>: no regenerative feedback that would require neutralization (which is
>: where the term originates -- the 'neutralization' of regenerative
>: feedback!).
>
>You are a piece of work frankie... the vhf circuit which can sometimes
>support VHF ocillations is mainly determined by the Anode-C and the
>inductance of the conductors between the Anode and Tune-C. Your in phase
>statement is bogus at VHF where the parasitics often occur. Your
>post information is faulty.
Neutralization is NOT used to prevent parasitics, it's used to prevent
regenerative feedback from turning the amplifier into an oscillator on
the resonant frequency of the amplifier! By golly, you don't even know
how an oscillator works! Talk about bogus...!
ye...@removecet.com
>: 14. You are under the mistaken impression that grid-to-plate
>: capacitance changes depending on whether the amplifier is
>: grounded-grid or common-cathode. Of course it doesn't, because it's a
>: characteristic of the tube, not of the circuit. I explained that you
>: might be confused because the -input- capacitance is different, and
>: that's because the two different circuits use different parts of the
>: tube for input.
>
>It's no mistake Frankie... look it up. Use the exact text I wrote so you
>don't twist in some misinformation your so good at doing. If you need some
>help, I can reference some text for you.
No help required. Here you go (again):
There you go, your exact text. And in your exact text you describe a
number of misconceptions:
1. The screen grid does indeed shield the control grid from the plate,
but it does so ONLY when there is a signal on the grid to be shielded.
You don't have a signal on the grid of a grounded-grid amplifier.
2. The effect of adding a screen grid to a TRIODE reduces the
grid-to-plate capacitance of the tube. The Cgp of a tube DOES NOT
CHANGE because it's connected as a triode in a grounded-grid
amplifier! In fact, it effectively does the opposite....
3. Since your sweep tube is connected as a triode, the screen and
supressor (G2 and G3) are grounded with G1, and all three become the
EFFECTIVE grid. Therefore, the G1-to-plate capacitance is added to the
G2- and G3-to-plate capacitances, making the EFFECTIVE grid-to-plate
capacitance HIGHER than the Cgp of the tube. In fact, the EFFECTIVE
Cgp is more along the lines of the Cgp of a TRIODE (which shouldn't be
so suprising since the tube is connected and operated as a TRIODE)!
4. I don't know how many times I need to repeat this before you
finally get a clue and look it up for yourself, but I'll do it one
more time: a grounded-grid amplifier does not require neutralization
simply because it is a non-inverting amplifier which causes no
regenerative feedback requiring neutralization -- NOT because of
reduced Cgp or 'grid shielding', which are properties of the tube
regardless of whether it's used as a grounded-grid or common-cathode
amplifier.
ye...@removecet.com
>: 15. You stated that "exciter feed through power of the example AB2
>: grounded grid amplifier is a big time 'freebie' you don't see in AB1
>: circuits", which only reinforces my theory that you really don't
>: understand amplifier classes of operation. Grounded-grid amps require
>: drive power because the input is the cathode, which must conduct if
>: the tube is to work at all. Input power of a grounded-grid amplifier
>: is always carried to the plate regardless of class of amplification,
>: and regardless of grid-current.
>
>Once again Frankie... how many grounded grid AB1 amplifiers have you seen
>in use..? Don't modify my text as you go along in your rants to suit
>your current post needs.
I have had enough with your "cut-and-paste" bullshit, Skippy. NONE of
your quotes have EVER been modified, misquoted, pulled out of context,
edited (not even for spelling), or otherwise used for any other
purpose except for the meaning you intended. All my posts are on
google, and I challenge you to find even ONE example that backs up
your claim. Otherwise, quit lying about being misquoted.
> The predominant class of grounded grid
>amplifiers is AB2... exciter power is required and a portion shows up in
>the output as a freebie. Doesn't get any simpler, but you seen to want to
>give theory examples of amplifiers no one person is using. Earth to
>Frank, real world here... wake up..
>
>One last thing... your last statement is not so true... class AB1
>operation of grounded grid amplifiers does not consume input power.
By your statements above -- about how AB2 requires input power but AB1
does not -- it's clear that you think input power is required only
when grid current flows. You are very, very wrong, Skippy. ANY class
of grounded-grid amplifier consumes input power (meaning power from
the signal source). The input is on the cathode, and it is impossible
for the tube to conduct (and therefore amplify) if there is no cathode
current. Part of that cathode current MUST come from the signal source
because it is IMPOSSIBLE to impose an AC signal on the cathode without
AC current! Once again you demonstrate not only your ignorance on the
subject, but your total lack of willingness to verify the facts for
yourself.
>Got to go, back later to finish... love ya frankie,
I know.
> keep trying.
>skipp
Keep trying yourself. You might try to check the validity of your
statements before you demonstrate your ignorance even further by
continuing to defend them.
ye...@removecet.com
wrote:
>Frank, ... or sparky, What ever news group ID your using this week. You
>probably
>win the contest for shear bulk poop posting in so many threads. So lets go
>through
>some of your book theory rants here and deal with them in the real world. I
>posted
>a quite lengthy reply once before, but somehow it went poof. So I'm willing
>to give
>it another go. After this follow up, I plan to limit my replies to you as you
>must be on
>your pooter all day long to type in your mistakes..
I will reply to issues not previously addressed in other replies.
<snip>
>> No, I said that the license can't be located by the file number and I
>> asked for the callsign. Again, what's the callsign, Skippy?
>
>Well Frankie I was reluctant to give out the file number, I'm certainly not
>going to post the call sign on a news group. I'm able to look up files on
>the FCC pages, I found yours...
That would be a neat trick since I'm not licensed, nor have I ever
been licensed.
> Forget trusting the web for the final
>word, the paperwork matters. I have the truth in hard copy and I'm fine
>with it.
Well, since you claim to have found my 'files' that don't exist, I
would have to say that the web is much more trustworthy than you are.
<snip>
> It's quite
>clear to most experienced amplifier people that AB1 and AB2 g-grid
>amplifier circuits are for the most part, built along two different circuit
>layouts.
Not even close, Skippy. Grounded-grid amps can be built for AB1 where
the gain of the tube is high (although it's not common it has been
done), and common-cathode amps are frequently built for AB2 operation.
But that's a nice try at an excuse for your lack of understanding.
>You claimed that triode amplification factor was listed in your book
>as "u" and that tetrode/pentodes were rated in transconductance Gm.
>Some how you failed to mention triodes also have transconductance, so
>now we can say that "you didn't know it". Get off the "you didn't know
>it" because "you didn't mention it" nit pick... you waste a lot of time.
Of course triodes have transconductance. All amplifying tubes have
transconductance because that's how they work: voltage in, current
out. Triodes are usually rated by their mu because a change in the
plate voltage causes a significant change in plate current, something
that doesn't happen with the tetrodes and pentodes because of their
high plate impedances. And because the potential on a screen grid can
affect the amplification factor of a tetrode or pentode, those tubes
are usually rated for their transconductance only, not their
amplification factor. But you knew that, didn't you Skippy?
(yeah, right...)
>> 4. You didn't know where the 'beam' in 'beam tube' came from, but
>> instead thought it was synonymous with 'power tube'. In fact, you
>> specifically stated that "the 6146 is a beam power tube, which can in
>> the generic sense serve as a 'sweep' tube", which propted me to
>> explain that the 'beam' tube is a subcategory of 'power' tubes, and
>> the 'sweep' tube is an application-specific power tube, be it a beam
>> tube or otherwise.
>
>Not quite, but your kind of hard to follow sometimes as your posts tend
>to wander off the main topic quite a bit. When talking specific about rf
>amplifiers, I do tack on the entire proper label of beam power tube. No
>foul should be called.
That's a pretty good excuse, but not good enough: You fail to realize
that not all RF amplifier tubes (or sweep tubes for that matter) are
beam tubes.
>If you ever update your electronics back ground to include current technology,
>
>you'd understand the Sweep Tube Label can be applied to a family or group of
>similar tubes.
If you ever update YOUR electronics background to include current
technology, you might notice that tubes haven't been used in
television sweep circuits for nearly 30 years. Now THAT's "dated
technology"!
>The 6KG6 was probably designed for horizontal deflection "sweep" circuits, a
>drop in EL-509 direct replacement was never designed for TV circuits, but
>has direct rf amplifier applications. I have no problem calling the EL-509
>a Sweep Tube as it walks and talks the part very well. In short, they
>directly
>interchange or are considered the same tube.
Some tubes are designed for RF applications while others were designed
for television sweep circuits. Seems simple enough to me.
>Multiple examples of Sweep Type Tubes or the easier named (by most
>people) Sweep Tubes never designed or applied to Horizontal "TV" or
>deflection circuits exist. Go ahead and stick your head in the sand over a
>dated formal label. Most of the rest of the world has no problem using the
>Sweep Tube as a generic type label, it fits very well.
You are taking a specific application and turning it into a "generic
type label" simply because you won't admit that you didn't know for
what application sweep tubes were specifically designed. Pretty lame
excuse, Skippy. And not nearly as creative as your other excuses.
<snip>
>> 6. You have shown many times that you didn't even know the difference
>> between Class AB1 and AB2 operation, the difference being that AB1
>> draws no grid current while AB2 does. In fact, while reading through
>> the previous posts, it seems that you were under the impression that
>> AB1 meant common-cathode while AB2 meant grounded-grid. For example,
>> while discussing neutralization, you state that it is "not required
>> in a properly designed AB2 amplifier", which is totally disrepsective
>> of the fact that an AB2 amplifier can be common-cathode, and therefore
>> require neutralization.
>
>Man you are long winded... Not quite Frankie... I was trying to nail you
>down a few times to see if you knew the major differences in AB1 and AB2
>circuit layouts and their specific operational considerations. But you
>danced and sang more than you provided specific examples.
HA! THAT'S a laugh! YOU were trying to nail ME down? It was ME that
was trying to get YOU to describe your "classic" amp, the details of
which are STILL vague!
>In the real amplifier world Frankie... AB1 is common cathode circuit layouts
>and AB2 is a grounded grid circuit. AB2 is also possible in common cathode
>circuits, but we almost never see AB1 operation in grounded grid circuits.
Quit backtracking, Skippy. Your comment about neutralization not being
required in an AB2 amp CLEARLY demonstrates that you didn't know that
a common-cathode amps can (and frequently do) operate class AB2.
>Don't play around with parts of sentences Frankie... I try to be clear and
>include the term, well built "AB2 Grounded Grid" circuits should not
>require neutralization. The issue is to include grounded grid which you
>conveniently left off.
I left off nothing. Here's the exact quote:
>
>: I remember my Uncle tried one once and he kept blowing tube
>: after tube until he finally added enough neutralization to keep it
>: from oscillating into smoke. He wasn't the only one, either.
>
>No sweep tube amplifier I have requires neutralization. It's not required
>in a properly designed AB2 amplifier.
>
And in case you want to look it up yourself:
Message-ID: <ap99mq$gls$1...@woodrow.ucdavis.edu>
...Oh, wait, I get it: When you say "properly built AB2 amplifier" you
mean grounded-grid; and since a common-cathode amp can be AB2, that
means a grounded-grid amp is "properly built" and a common-cathode amp
is not! Now don't tell me I'm twisting your words, Skippy, because
that's EXACTLY what you said!
>> 7. You have the mistaken belief that the 'flyweel effect' of a tank
>> circuit is a cure-all for non-linearity in a linear amplifier, when in
>> fact it CANNOT reduce or eliminate grid-current distortion. I needed
>> to explain that in order to be linear you need at least 180 degrees of
>> undistorted conduction time, which you cannot achieve with grid
>> current distortion.
>
>Wow, you are a piece of work frankie... somehow you're going to find a
>text where I say "cure-all"..? I don't think so. Actually to detail out
>the issue, the input tank circuit flywheel helps reduce "half cycle
>loading", with resultant IMD benefit.
Absolutely true.
> One must always keep in mind that
>the drive is actually applied across the cathode and grid.
In a grounded-grid amplifier it's applied across the cathode and
ground.
> Inclusion of
>a AB2 cathode tuned input tank circuit, Q of 2 is almost a must to achieve
>good IMD performance.
How did you arrive at your Q figure of 2? Roll of the dice?
> In your verbose analysis of that KLV brand
>amplifier.... you called the tuned input coil a choke or shunt. You can't
>even call them when you see them Frankie'boy.
In my verbose critique of the KLV I mentioned nothing of the input
circuit. Get your quotes straight next time. But the KLV uses the same
type of input as the Palomar: an L-pad with a shunt capacitor to
compensate for the collective tube input capacitance. Not the best
circuit, but not quite a tank.
>I explained to you that the conduction angle for AB* operation is about
>210 degrees standard to be called "AB mode".
Oh really? When did you say that? I must have missed that post -- care
to quote yourself? And last time I checked Class AB was anything
greater than 180 degrees and less than 360 degrees. But then you
probably have a different opinion than the generally accepted
fundamentals... you usually do.
> The amount of distortion
>present does not disqualify Sweep Type Tubes and many Sweep Tubes
>from linear applications,
...uh huh... and that's why we see so many grounded-grid audio amps
built with sweep tubes... right... sure thing, Skippy.
> nor does the distortion prevent the conduction
>angle from reaching ~210 degrees. Plain fact, jack...
Where did I say that distortion would prevent conduction to 210
degrees? or even beyond 180 degrees? I never said anything of the
sort, Skippy. "Plain fact, jack..."
>> 8. You didn't know that 'grounded' in 'grounded-grid' means a signal
>> ground, and not necessarily a DC ground.
>
>Sure I do, but you never bothered to mention ac or dc paths until I pointed
>it out.
You pointed it out because you were trying desperately to find a way
to defend your argument that a triode-connected sweep tube doesn't
work like a triode, but instead like a "low-mu" something-or-other.
> There are different types of grounded grid circuit layouts. Some
>only play well with specific geometry types of tubes as built. You don't
>appear to know the difference between them without looking at a book.
Perhaps you could explain these 'geometries' and 'circuit layouts',
and why some don't work with the other? Well, maybe I shouldn't ask
that since you still haven't explained why a triode-connected sweep
tube doesn't work like a triode.
<snip>
> ALC is dated
>technology, modern radios have power level controls which still can't be
>trusted without testing. One recent generation of Japan made HF radios
>is know to output very large rf spikes. A review of that topic thread
>can be found at the www.contesting.com achives. You are just
>plain out of touch with the real world.
The spikes referred to in those threads are caused by either a design
flaw or operator error. They describe the spikes occuring on keying,
which means that the amp/final is overdriven to start with. Without
more details, my first guess is that someone tried to tweak their
radio for more power and didn't understand the electronics behind what
they were tweaking. (I can't even count how many times I have heard
the line, "NO, I didn't mess with ANYTHING inside the radio!")
And despite your attempt to prove that ALC circuits are "dated", you
proved yourself wrong by referencing modern radios that use them.
"Plain fact, jack..."
>> 10. You continue to claim that sweep tube amps meet or exceed FCC
>> specifications, yet you never state those specifications or the
>> conditions under which the amplifiers passed, you never post any noise
>> figures, and you never make any comparisons to amps that use RF power
>> tubes.
>
>I don't compare them to specific RF power designed tubes, in amplifiers
>for the most part. The proof was in the many FCC legal Amateur Amplifiers
>produced and sold throughout the years. I ran across some notes the
>other day from a four hole sweep tube amplifier I tested some years ago
>which in the Amateur application had spurious products better than 32 decibels
>
>below peak power of a two tone test signal. The even order products
>were dealt with higher Q tuned circuits, the odd order products were not
>a significant problem. T'was a good sweep tube circuit...
32 dB isn't that great, Skippy. Matter of fact it's pretty bad for an
amp in the kW range. "You are just plain out of touch with the real
world." Even better, those distortion figures are "dated" because the
FCC reduced the maximum spurious emission levels a long time ago. LOL!
<snip>
>The 6146 and 4cx250 family of tubes require serious parasitic prevention
>"circuit practices" (as do many others).
Now that's a total crock! You remember all those ARRL handbooks you
said have all those sweep tube amps? Well look again and you will see
even MORE projects with 6146's and RF tetrodes, and all of them use
nothing more than a run-of-the-mill parasitic supressor. Enough with
your scare tactics, Skippy!
> Other tubes (8877) in rf circuits
>don' have nearly the parasitic baggage concerns of the 6146/4cx250b by
>design.
>
>No tube is immune to parasitic... but the sweep tube in grounded grid
>circuit will rarely, if ever "go there" in a well designed and built circuit.
Does that "well designed" circuit include parasitic supressors on the
plates? Every amp you have referenced so far has them. So are they
there just for looks? Come to think of it, you still haven't come up
with the make/model of radio or amp that you claim was pulled because
of parasitic oscillation problems. Well?
>> 12. You didn't realize that if a receiver can hear the background
>> noise on a frequency that a pre-amplifier does not improve the
>> signal-to-noise ratio at all, and will actually ADD to the noise with
>> it's own circuitry.
>
>So now you qualify your earlier statements by adding in "background noise".
Hey Skippy -- remember this?
>First off you need to realize that the intended purpose is as a CB
>amplifier, as if that wasn't obvious already. With that in mind, the
>pre-amplifier is effectively useless, doing nothing other than making
>the noise floor louder. (Preamps are very useful with radios that have
>weak receive, such as older, antique radios and homebrew receivers;
>for modern radios that can pick up a mosquito farting at forty paces
>they are nothing but overkill.)
Apparently you don't remember it.
>> 13. As stated before, you didn't understand why a grounded-grid
>> amplifier does not require neutralization, citing the reason as 'grid
>> screening'. I had to explain that it's not required because the
>> amplifier is non-inverting (which you also didn't understand), where
>> the voltages on the input and output are in phase, and therefore cause
>> no regenerative feedback that would require neutralization (which is
>> where the term originates -- the 'neutralization' of regenerative
>> feedback!).
>
>Here is where you really fall short Frankie... Go back and do the home
>work. HF and MF frequency amplifiers have two resonance's IN THE
>ANODE CIRCUIT, the VHF resonance is formed by the Anode-C, the
>Anode leads, the dc blocker caps reactance, and the tune-C.
This is where your lack of education shows, Skippy: The inductance of
the plate circuit is in the plate leads only, which makes a tank with
a very high Q. The addition of the inductance from a parasitic
supressor lowers the Q (and the frequency), and provides the majority
of the inductance of any tank formed by the circuit. This additional
inductance is important because the resistor of the parasitic
supressor across the inductor drops the Q of any resonant tank well
below the point where it maintains oscillations. And THAT'S how a
parasitic supressor works. And not only does it work for the anode
circuit, it works for any high-frequency resonant condition of which
the anode is a component. The result: high frequencies don't get
amplified enough for feedback to occur.
But you know what, Skippy? I wasn't talking about parasitics! As I
stated in the other post, neutralization is required to prevent
regenerative feedback at the frequency of operation!
>Grounded grid circuits benefit from shielding. You also failed to
>mention electrode spacing in any of your posts so we just state that
>" you don't understand it".
We can talk about electrode spacing if you want. Is that your newest
excuse-without-an-explanation for your triode-connected sweep tube
that doesn't work like a triode?
>The non inverting nature of the layout at HF/MF a whole different
>animal vs when your talking VHF stability response.
The topic was neutralization, not parasitic supression. You keep
ignoring that fact, and for reasons I can only speculate -- is it
because you don't know the difference? Naw, that couldn't be it...
> You above
>statement clearly indicate you have little actual knowledge or experience
>in the subject. Hit the books Frankie, you fell flat on your face this
>time.
>
>> 14. You are under the mistaken impression that grid-to-plate
>> capacitance changes depending on whether the amplifier is
>> grounded-grid or common-cathode. Of course it doesn't, because it's a
>> characteristic of the tube, not of the circuit. I explained that you
>> might be confused because the -input- capacitance is different, and
>> that's because the two different circuits use different parts of the
>> tube for input.
>
>Not... we are still talking grounded grid AB2 amplifiers. I try like
>heck to have you stay on a specific circuit... all you have to do Frankie
>is give us a clue as to what part of the book your reading from when
>you type it in...
>
>Another trip and fall for you Frankie.. Let me state it again for you.
>
>The Grounded Grid Amplifier have or include the advantages:
>
>The output and input capacitance's of a stage are reduced to approximately
>one half the value which would be obtained if the same tubes were
>operated as a conventional neutralized amplifiers.
Do you mean common-cathode? If that's what you mean then use the right
terminology instead of making up your own.
Regardless, let's compare your statement with reality. How about a
triode for starters:
3CX1500A7
Capacitance Grounded Cathode
Input 38.5 pf
Output 0.1 pf
Feedthrough 10. pf
Capacitance Grounded Grid
Input 38.5 pf
Output 10.2 pf
Feedthrough 0.1 pf
Well, the input capacitance is exactly the same and the output
capacitance is 100 times LARGER in the grounded-grid! Let's try a
tetrode:
4CX250B
Capacitance Grounded Cathode
Input 15.7 pf
Output 4.5 pf
Feedthrough .04 pf
Capacitance Grounded Grid
Input 13.0 pf
Output 4.5 pf
Feedthrough .01 pf
Oh my goodness, the input capacitance of a grounded-grid amp IS
smaller, but falls way short of your claim that it's half the value of
a common-cathode amp. And notice that the output capacitance doesn't
change one bit. Gee, Skippy, looks like the facts don't quite agree
with your opinions!
>The feedback capacitance within the stage is the plate to cathode
>capacitance which is ordinarily very less than the grid to plate
>capacitance. Hence neutralization is ordinarily not required in the
>the HF region.
Incredible! You are STILL ignoring the fact that a grounded-grid is a
non-inverting amp, and you STILL don't understand what causes
regenerative feedback! This is totally mindboggling, because anyone
that has had the patience to follow this thread (very few I'm sure)
has already looked it up for themselves and found out that you are WAY
off base! Yet, for some unknown reason, you are bound and determined
to profess your ignorance. Oh well, who am I to argue with Milton?
>The tendency toward parasitic oscillation is greatly reduced since
>the shielding effect of the grid(s) are effective over a broad range of
>frequencies.
What happened to your claim that parasitics are caused by resonance in
the anode circuit? After all, that's about the only thing you have
gotten right in this post (even though it was only partly right).
>> 15. You stated that "exciter feed through power of the example AB2
>> grounded grid amplifier is a big time 'freebie' you don't see in AB1
>> circuits", which only reinforces my theory that you really don't
>> understand amplifier classes of operation. Grounded-grid amps require
>> drive power because the input is the cathode, which must conduct if
>> the tube is to work at all. Input power of a grounded-grid amplifier
>> is always carried to the plate regardless of class of amplification,
>> and regardless of grid-current.
>
>You try and make some type of point from the wrong direction Frank.
>Let's be clear about this, not how you like to read into things. Feedthrough
>power is a benefit of the grounded grid rf amplifier operating condition.
It's an effect. I wouldn't necessarily call it a benefit.
>Actually he label is a bit mis leading (but you knew that of course)... the
>drive power appears in the g-grid plate load circuit after being converted
>to a varying dc plate potential effectively in series with the main HV
>power supply.
Very good, Skippy.
>HERE'S THE BIG ONE FOR YOU FRANKIE...! CHECK IT OUT.
>
>The converted drive power serves a useful function in linear service
>because It Swamps Out The Undesirable Effects of Nonlinear Grid Loading
>
>.... and presents a reasonably constant load to the exciter.
>
>Ta'da..! Frankie...! and how would you like your crow served today...?
Excellent explanation for input loading on a grounded-grid amp with a
TUNED input. You can indeed swamp the changing impedance at the
cathode with a low-impedance signal source, and I have already stated
that much.
Now try and address the topic: You claimed that "class AB1 operation
of grounded grid amplifiers does not consume input power." You are
wrong, and you can find the truth in any basic electronics textbook...
oh, that's right, you don't like books!
>> 16. You claimed that grid-current distortion only occurs in a
>> grid-driven circuit. Of course that's not true, as grid-current
>> distortion occurs whenever grid current occurs, regardless of whether
>> it's grounded-grid or common-cathode.
>
>See the above for more crow Frank... perhaps some wine with your bird..?
Ignorance and arrogance are not very good partners, Skippy. It's
obvious that you missed some of my posts. But it's unbelievable that,
even after I gave you the message ID's, you haven't bothered to update
your news browser, or even read the missing posts by looking them up
on google. You see, Skippy, I received a few emails on this very
subject, and I followed them up with a reply to my own post which goes
into more detail about grid-current distortion. Perhaps you should
find that post and read it (along with several other posts) before you
verbally gloat over your illusion of victory.
>> 17. You claimed that putting a resistor in series with the cathode of
>> a grounded-grid amplifier will improve linearity, when in fact it does
>> nothing but reduce the output power and dissipate part of the input
>> power. I also pointed out how cathode resistors are commonly used to
>> improve the linearity of a common-cathode amplifier, but not for RF
>> amplifiers because it would unground the cathode. Such practice is an
>> audio technique that you mistakenly applied to an RF application, and
>> also to the wrong type of amplifier.
>
>You are wrong crow breath... at least in this post you have properly
>written the statement as "resistor in series with the cathode". Now
>go back to your basic Electronics 101 book and look up "degeneration".
>
>The 10 ohm cathode resistors I mention in my Dentron GLA-1000
>update actually deal with a couple of concerns. First, they provide
>degeneration to the circuit which improves linearity... Fact.
Not on a grounded-grid amplifier. You need to read that Electronics
101 book yourself.
>Second, they provide a measure of both ac and dc balance to paralleled
>g-grid tubes.
If you mean load equalization, then yes they do. I have already stated
that.
>Third, they act as very practical and cheap series fuses when a tube shorts,
>glitches or fails. No Mr Audio Breath... it's not my idea... I lifted the
>knowledge
>from a Collins grounded grid amateur amplifier diagram I saw many years ago.
Your 'glitch protection' probably isn't going to do you any good.
Let's assume the very unlikely scenario that the plate shorts to the
cathode without shorting to one of the other three grounded grids.
First, your current will surge out of your power supply caps and
probably fuse the offending short or the tubes internal wires before
it pops the resistor. But even before that happens you will have
nearly a one-thousand volt spike on the cathode, which will almost
certainly arc the tank of either the input circuit or the exciter
(which is why I criticize the KLV and other amps for not having a DC
blocking cap on the input). Now since we already know that the tube is
toast, the decreased voltage from the power supply isn't going to hurt
the other tubes at all; but the increased current, even for a short
time, may overload the power supply rectifiers. That would be a good
thing if the rectifiers consistantly blew open. But if you have any
experience with semiconductors you would know that they can also short
when overloaded, and that would be fatal to the power supply
transformer.
You want glitch protection? Put a single current-limiting resistor
between the power supply and the RF choke[s]. Even better, toss the
amp in the trash and get one with proper over-load protection, such as
power supply relay latching, a solid clamping circuit, and even ALC
circuits can afford some measure of protection against faults. (I can
see your face turning red, Skippy! LOL!)
>You appear to be clue less on the subject.
You appear to have no experience with failure analysis, and no
education in amplifier fundamentals.
>> 18. You stated that voltage equalization networks are "dated
>> technology", claiming that almost no amplifiers use them anymore. This
>> is not only a slap in the face of good engineering practices, but also
>> flows against basic semiconductor theory: Exceed the PIV and the
>> rectifier may fail. Regardless, most amplifier manufacturers do not
>> use series connected rectifiers, opting instead for a single rectifier
>> of the proper voltage rating (which of course doesn't need a voltage
>> equalization network because one rectifier is not multiple rectifiers
>> in series).
>
>Old bad habits die hard and you are a good example of dated knowledge
>Frankie... In short, the significant past issues with silicon diode mfgr
>which brought about your happy equalization circuits are now for the
>most part gone in modern power diodes.
As long as rectifiers continue to fail when the PIV is exceeded, the
practice of voltage equalization continues to be current. Or do you
think semiconductor theory is "dated", too?
>At one time it was common to care for good reason, those reasons are
>now long gone for the most part. Lose the rectifier eq networks... in
>a different thread, I'll explain to you how they can now do more bad
>than good vs leaving them out. Don't take my word for it Frank, look
>at newer examples... Alpha Power, Ameritron etc...
Perhaps you are thinking of those rectifier modules that are currently
being manufactured. Would it suprise you to learn that those modules
are nothing more than series rectifiers and voltage equalization
resistors all wrapped up into one package? Probably.
>> 19. You were totally unaware that the mic gain is the power control
>> for an SSB radio, showing a gross misunderstanding of the principles
>> of SSB modulation.
>
>You really are out there Frankie... the mic gain on a typical Kenwood
>TS-430s is not a true power control, whereas the Kenwood TS-940s
>has a true power control.
Am I missing something here? Is SSB power not directly related to the
audio level? Is the audio level not directly controlled by the mic
gain? What's wrong with this picture, Skippy?
>The TS-430s is only a mic gain adjustment, not a power control. This is
>a big issue when trying to avoid over driving and amplifier. You missed
>the boat Frank.
If you don't want to overdrive your amp then turn down the mic gain.
If you want to increase your talk power then utilize the radio's
speech processor. Real simple. Maybe too simple...
>> 20. You claimed that the interelectrode capacitances of a sweep tube
>> are "easily dealt with", yet on the Dentron you failed to recognize an
>> input capacitor used to compensate for the input capacitance of the
>> tube, calling it one leg of a pi tank. In fact, you don't know the
>> difference between a pi-tank and an L-pad, frequently using the term
>> "pi-L" to denote something as yet unidentified.
>
>At 28.5 MHz Frank, the tube Cin is often large enough to be the pi
>output cap of the input circuit.
Now I know for SURE that you don't know what a pi tank is. The tube
input is a capacitive load in SERIES with the input inductor (as you
previously stated above), and is NOT the shunt capacitance required
for a pi tank. What you have, in effect, is a modified L, not a pi. It
may or may not be resonant. But regardless what whatever you think it
is, if it IS resonant then it would require tuning just as often as
the output tank, a fact which contradicts your claim of a
set-it-and-forget-it input tank.
> In some cases, its so large, you have
>to try other "non pi" inputs. In the Dentron GLA retrofit, I use a T input
>>24MHz to deal with the large Tube Cin.
>
>Pi-L from me would most often be applied to the output tank circuit only.
Ok, but what is it? Don't you even know what your own terminology
represents?
>You called the tuned circuit inductor of the KLV amplifier and choke or
>shunt. You simply didn't know what you were looking at.
You don't even know what you are talking about because, as I said
before, I never said anything about the input circuit of the KLV.
>> 21. You mentioned one of the drawbacks of running AB1 was dumping
>> power into the swamping resistor, which means that you have no idea
>> that a swamping resistor is used to reduce grid-current distortion. Of
>> course you can't have grid-current distortion in AB1. And you also
>> didn't realize that a low-impedance tuned input is far superior to a
>> swamping resistor (when running AB2) because of the negligible power
>> loss, and because it performs better at maintaining linearity of the
>> signal under grid current transistions.
>
>Man, you really go all over the place with each post... OK, let's have at.
Oh boy, this should be good!
>First, there is a whole science unto itself when talking about grid driven
>AB1 resistor - input circuit layouts and choices. You don't have any
>knowledge market cornered Frankie.
...blah, blah, blah. Get to the issue already.
>In an AB1 circuit, the swamping resistor value choice is made using a number
>of parameters better reviewed in a separate thread. You love your grid
>current distortion safe house don't cha Frankie..?
....number of parameters....seperate thread....avoid the issue....
Quit stuttering and get on with it.
> At this late date in the
>game, I would feel pretty good writing that grid current distortion is not
>really
>on the radar map when choosing the swamping resistor value. In short, AB1
>operation by definition has no control grid current flow. Simple enough...
Duh! How much arrogance did you have to swallow to admit that? I'll
bet it left a bad taste in your mouth!
>When the grid driven circuit (one must note the difference vs g-grid/cathode
>driven) operates AB2; the swamping resistor value or "composite" grid
>circuit uses conventional design guidelines (way to complicated to detail
>here). The fly in you using only a low impedance tuned circuit only is the
>question of unconditional stability in high gain operation.
....conventional guidelines....too complicated....avoid the issue....
You're stuttering again, Skippy!
>A better idea would be to consider a combination of both using the
>conventional
>guidelines detailed in ARRL Handbooks. Your probably right, I must not
>have known that because otherwise I would have mentioned it somewhere... oh
>wait a minute..! I think there's a 4cx250b circuit on the sonic server that
>has an actual circuit diagram of the layout I mention above.
What layout did you mention above? All you said was vague and
non-specific things like "conventional guidelines" and "composite grid
circuit".
> Sorry if it's
>only
>been available for 5 plus years Frank.
And I'm sure that during all those years it has been a wonderful
example of poor engineering. Why did you even include the tuned
circuit? That has to be one of the most stupid designs I have ever
seen! (I tried to pick a better word than "stupid", but nothing else
fit). First off, this is an AB1 amp, right? Your "swamping" resistors
aren't swamping resistors at all -- they are load resistors for your
exciter -- to dissipate the input power! And since you put them in
parallel with your tuned circuits you shifted the decimal point of the
tank's Q two places to the left. I'm sure you noticed that tuning is
necessary in order to get a good output, but that's because detuning
your input circuit will shunt the signal right to ground! If you leave
that tuning mess completely off the input you will not only get the
same output as when it's tuned, but it will be broadband to boot! If
you REALLY want a tuned input, make it a series LC circuit so you
won't be overloading your exciter if you forget to tune it. Or leave
it broadband and just add a low-pass filter, and then you won't even
need that parasitic choke on the grid.
...judas priest... load resistors in parallel with a tank... And you
are PROUD of that? What a dumbass.... composite grid circuit, too
complicated... where do you come up with this BS, Skippy?
>> 22. You haven't explained why grid-current distortion is "not an
>> issue" with "most properly designed AB2 grounded grid amplifiers". In
>> fact, you haven't even explained once what makes a "properly designed"
>> amp. On the contrary, I have explained many times why AB2 IS a problem
>> when the amplifier uses sweep tubes.
>
>See the above under your number 15 babble Frank, it pretty much lays
>out the facts. Plus I offered you wine with your crow... ... and I did
>state that my Dentron GLA-1000 update text has a few good ideas on
>how one might design a good amplifier. Pick a tube Frankie, we'll rock
>and roll from your choice and build a big Boobner Special... or we can
>build your grid to the plate model and bask in the heat and flash of melting
>glass.
Seems the only argument you have left is knocking me for a mistake
that I freely admit. Bad form, Skippy.
>> 23. Whenever you don't know something you make up vague and
>> nonsensical terms like "classic", "linearity detector", "passive gain
>> operation", "traditional potentials", "beam power application", or the
>> use of the term "low-mu" to designate a triode-connected sweep tube
>> that doesn't work like a triode (and you still haven't explained how
>> it works if not like a triode).
>
>Linearity Detector... See the Collins and Galaxy brand amplifier diagrams
>on the sonic server. It's all there in simple english...
You can call them linearity detectors as many times as you want, but
it won't change the fact that those 'linearity detectors' are nothing
more than amplitude comparators used for ALC circuits.
>Passive Gain Operation: Pentode and tetrode grids in grounded grid
>amplifiers operation which contribute no active signal gain ,
Then why even call it "passive gain"? Why not just call them
"passive"? Because you goofed and you now have to defend your mistakes
with even more ignorance, that's why.
> but by their
>physical location and construction act as an electrostatic shield between
>the grid and plate...
They do the exact same thing in a common-cathode amp.
> of course that includes the consequence that the
>pesty grid to plate capacitance is reduced.
LOL!
>Traditional Potentials: In a grounded grid sweep tube amplifier... HV on the
>
>anode, a negative low impedance dc bias supply for #1 control grid.
Are you forgetting about the Dentron? The grid is grounded and the
cathode is biased positive. Is that 'non-traditional'? What about the
KLV which has the control grid tied to the cathode and the screen is
pulled negative? Is that 'non-traditional'? Can a 'non-traditional'
amp be better than a 'traditional' amp? Who decides what is
'traditional' and what is not? Or what is better or worse? You?
>Beam Power Application: Not sure where your going with it... but in my
>opinion, Sweep Beam Power tubes can make really nice, modest power
>level linear rf amplifiers. The best you can do is to agree to disagree.
It was your terminology. If you can't explain it then you can't
explain it. At least it's better to admit that you can't explain it
than to make up some stupid definition like you did with your other
bogus catch-phrases.
>Low Mu to designate a triode connected sweep tube... sure: All three
>grids tied to both dc and signal ground... A previously seen and
>elsewhere applied layout scheme which can lead to dangerous values
>of grid and or screen current.
Like the Dentron? LOL! And the grids don't need to be tied to DC
ground to be grounded -- just a signal ground will do. Maybe you
should read that Electronics 101 book real soon...
>Compared to many triode grounded grid AB2 amplifiers, the sweep
>tubes grounded grids screening or shielding action and consequential
>reduced grid to plate capacitance give it pretty good VHF stability.
Right effect, wrong reasons.
>In the VHF (parasitic problem) region, triodes with significant "hot" VHF
>gain operate have increased circuit stability concerns when compared to
>a grounded grid tetrode or pentode. Amplifiers such as the Kenwood
>TL-922 were pulled from the market for just such reasons although they'll
>never admit it.
Cute how you slipped in that "they'll never admit it" part.
>> Who's the one lacking in RF theory and experience, Skippy? It ain't
>> me, that's for DAMN sure!
>
>Still got your potty mouth Frank...
Which, even when added to my own conceit, isn't half as bad as your
snotty, arrogant and half-witted attempts at belittlement, "Buck-o"!
> nothing we can do about it here
>except scold you about it. Anyway, enjoy your crow... and I hope the
>cabernet was the proper year.
>
>Get some newer books, the ones your using in your posts are dated
>as is your actual knowledge of rf amplifiers. Maybe next time...
Get some smarts and use logic instead of half-assed assumptions; get
some facts instead of trying to sell your uninformed opinions; and
most of all, get cracking on those books -- you have a lot of catching
up to do for all those classes you skipped because you thought you
were too smart for the lecture.
So now, how far you want to take this little discussion?
skipp
Back so soon.. hope your blood pressure is still under control.
> (a) A grant of equipment authorization is valid only when the FCC
> Identifier is permanently affixed on the device and remains effective
> until revoked or withdrawn, rescinded, surrendered, or a termination
> date is otherwise established by the Commission.
The Motorola amplifiers I have here (and mentioned before) still have
their permanent tags and are still effective as originally sold.
> Now in case you have been in a cave the past few years, no amplifiers
> between 24 and 35 MHz are being granted authorization because of the
> following law:
That would be new authorization... the Motorola units I described
already have authorization.
> (b) After April 27, 1978, no person shall manufacture, sell or
> lease, offer for sale or lease (including advertising for sale or
> lease), or import, ship, or distribute for the purpose of selling or
> leasing or offering for sale or lease, any external radio frequency
> power amplifier or amplifier kit capable of operation on any frequency
> or frequencies between 24 and 35 MHz.
For new manufactured equipment, the motorola amplifiers are still valid,
made before the ban.
> Which means that any amplifier that can operate between 24 and 35 MHz
> has lost it's certification/type-acceptance.
As you try to interpret the rules to preexisting legal equipment. Not
the case in my interpretation of the rules.
> As for your query to the FCC about modification of your amps, you will
> find the answer here:
No modifications are/were required to place the mentioned amplifiers
into Same Radio Service.
Sorry, once again... you lose. Nice try Frankie...
> In case you are too lazy to read them yourself, they clearly state
> that you can't change the frequency range (and still use them under
Don't have too... they function exactly as designed without
modifications.
Maybe a change would do you good Frankie...
skipp
skipp
> >Sorry if you can't look up a valid FCC file number Frankie... that's your
> >problem.
>
> By golly I CAN look up the file number! Right here:
> http://wireless.fcc.gov/uls/
> So I input the file number you provided, "200001R435366", and it comes
> back with:
> "No matches found for the specified search criteria"
Which simply proves the FCC ULS system is not complete. That's about
all your going to get Frankie... The file number I posted is current
and your out of luck. "tough titty said the kitty..."
> >:> Hard copies are the bottom line frankie...
> Not if they can't be verified.
The paperwork in my hot little hand takes care of the FCC every time
they might ask for it.
> Not only did you provide an invalid file number, but you flat out lied
> about the IB service being current:
Don't think so Frankie... so what happens if I scan in an image of the
actual license, blank out the personal information so you can enjoy
your crow dinner. It won't work.. you'll claim the scan was modified
to include the IB service. Nothing makes you happy frankie, your just
a bad actor.
> http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Public_Notices/1997/da972216.html
>
> There is no more IB service, Skippy. It was one of the many services
> that was consolidated into the new IG service pool back in 1997. And
> you knew that because a notice was sent out to all IB licensees. You
> are just full of lies, aren't you Skippy?
Yep, as authorized by the FCC for the current hard copies I have in my
hand. Call us both liars Frankie... enjoy your crow dinner.
skipp
skipp
> >No television I've heard of uses the 6146 tube as a sweep tube. There
> >were some older televisions that used the 6146 tube as a horizontal
> >oscillator
> >and or horizontal oscillator amplifier. Sweep tube is a label used to
> >describe a classic type of tube. Horizontal oscillator / amplifier was
> >often the function of sweep and beam power tubes.
> >
> >Now go whine about how dumb you look to everyone on the news group.
> >s
> =====
> If you knew that the tube used for the "horizontal oscillator
> amplifer" was the "sweep tube" then you wouldn't have contradicted
> yourself in that post. The fact is that you didn't know that there is
Aaaahhh.... I see your pivot point for your little rant... Well
bartender,
let me add one word in to give it proper text. There were some
"reported"
older televisions that used the 6146 tube as a horizontal oscillator.
See folks, get ahead of yourself typing and Frank carries it to his
grave
as the focal point of a rather useless thread.
Sweep tube is still a label... of which can be further detailed.. if
anyone but Frankie G wants to go there.
> no difference, and used your favorite buzzword "classic" to describe
> the sweep tube. I especially like your line, "Horizontal oscillator /
> amplifier was often the function of sweep and beam power tubes"
> because not only is it 100% redundant, it reinforces the fact that you
> didn't understand the definition of a 'beam' tube, either!
Yeah, I referenced that line right out of the RCA Receiving Tube Manual.
Call RCA redundant... and while your there.. have a look at some of the
multi section tubes which are not classic sweep tubes one would find in
a grounded grid rf amplifier. your text reinforces the evidence that
you
have little actual experience building rf amplifiers.
> >The orginal post gets you to dance on the sweep tube labels, not big deal
> >which was easily clarified. For some reason, you just love to go back to
> >the same non issue in any combination of text you can constuct... Get on
> >with something more worth while frankie... your banging your bald head
> >into the same non issue wall.
> Your technical ignorance is a very important issue, Skippy.
More important are your hazardous technical post statements which tell
people to tie grids to plates in RF amplifiers... talk about technical
ignorance and true evidence that you probably have built few, if any
RF amplifiers.
> Call it whatever you want. The fact remains that the term "sweep tube"
> is applied to tubes used for television 'sweep' circuits. If you can
> find a TV that used the 8950 then I'll call it a sweep tube, too.
I do call it what I want... most people in the real RF world know
sweep type tubes exist that are equivalent RF designed equivalents,
never used in TV sweep or similar circuits.
We don't have a problem calling an equivalent tube by the same label,
it fits and it works, the results are the same in the applied circuit.
You are left out in the cold...
skipp
piper for frankie G
[much text snipage]
> As I said before, the amplification of a tetrode or pentode is
> variable depending on the screen potential. When a tetrode or pentode
> is rated by it's 'mu' it is under the condition that the tube is
> operating as a triode. This should be obvious because the effective mu
> of a tetrode/pentode operating as such is magnitudes larger than that
> of a triode, yet when tetrodes and pentodes are rated by their mu it
> is comparable with the mu of triodes. Check your datasheets if you
> don't believe me. You do have datasheets, don't you? If not, try here:
> http://www.cpii.com/eimac/index.html
The topic was the application of Sweep Tubes in grounded grid
amplifiers. The specific issue is the multiple connection schemes
possible which would damage tetrode/pentodes in some triode
connection schemes. You don't appear to have knowledge of the
specific topic. Hi mu tubes don't play in all "low mu" grounded
grid amplifiers circuits.
> >In specific to my post, certain tubes operate as low mu in grounded grid
> >amplifiers, some act as higher mu tubes in similar g-grid operation.
> >These are serious issues when designing grounded grid amplifiers with
> >respect to dangerous amounts of G1 (grid 1) current and the various
> >circuit layouts. You ran out of technical steam and didn't indicate you
> >had more than your one book knowlege of the subject, so I just let it
> >stop there.
>
> That is totally ridiculous, as the mu of a tube has nothing to do with
> how much grid current it is capable of handling!
Your again out of steam... try reading up on the issues of high mu
tetrodes/pentode in grounded grid rf amplifiers...
> >Applied Grounded Grid Pentodes and Tetrodes Amplifiers have complex sub
> >topics which can be hashed over in seperate threads. I'm not about to
> >launch you into another of your many off topic diversions. If you stick to
> >one specific theme per rant, well go as far into detail as you would care
> >to go. By your many previous examples, you just want to rehash a 6146
> >sweep tube post label out of context; over and over and over and over...
> >and over.
>
> This is funny, Skippy. First you say that a triode-connected sweep
> tube is not operating as a triode in your "classic" grounded-grid
> amplifier, yet you don't want to discuss the "complex sub topics" of
> grounded-grid tetrodes and pentodes. I'm was not diverting the topic,
> I was trying to get YOU to say specifically what the topic IS, and you
> still haven't been able to do that because you don't have a clue as to
> what you are talking about!
Not quite... no where above does it say triode connected sweep tube is
not operating as a triode. In specific... there is more than one
well known grounded grid circuit (which, how many and how the grids
are grounded). Some of the mentioned are bad news for people trying
to opearate sweep tubes as low mu triodes... or just plain trying to
operate sweep tubes as triodes.
Damaged tubes sourced to the wrong type of "triode connected" circuit
(using tetrodes and pentodes) is not really that funny to most people.
piper for frankie G
> >REVERSE SCREEN CURRENT APPLIED TO GROUNDED GRID SWEEP TUBE AMPLIFIERS,
> >TRIODES OR ANYTHING SIMILAR. Nice try on your part though...
> Oh, Skippy, how you lie:
Doesn't look like the original comment below is appplied to any circuit
I can see frankie. It still looks like me telling you to relax after
you though some other post was from made by me. So again, check your
reverse screen current frankie...
> >
> >Frank..! chill pill and wake up. I didn't write what your getting so
> >excited
> >about, but I' here now. So relax and check your reverse screen current.
> >
> >
> >> "properly designed" grounded-grid amplifier works? Maybe you can even
> >> explain how a triode-configured pentode DOESN'T work like a triode,
> >>
> >
> >Sure, consider the properly designed, AB2 grounded grid "Cathode Driven
> >amplifier. The interposed screen grid acts as an electrostatic shield
> >between the grid and plate, with the consequence that the grid to plate
> >capacitance is reduced.... combined with Grid Shielding between the
> >cathode and the plate which make your much touted neutralization
> >unnecessary.
> >
> >Triode connected tetrodes (grounded grid) show a degree of improvement
> >in distortion figures as opposed to grid driven service.
> >
> >What might be called more passive gain operation of the screen and
> >supressor grids in an AB2 amplifier, does not deny their actual operating
> >
> >shielding function and reduced Cgp in the grounded grid circuit.
> <snip>
> =====
>
> Not only did you say that reverse screen current is a factor in your
> "classic" grounded-grid amp, but that it actually is responsible for
> reducing grid-plate capacitance, as well as grid shielding between the
> cathode and plate (which you say is the reason grounded-grid amps
> don't require neutralization).
Now "where exactly did I say reverse screen current is a factor..?"
That statement seems to be missing from the original and your cut and
pasted text. Stop making stuff up as you go along Franklin..
If you properly read the text, I was staying true to the actual
subject of the moment... tetrodes and pentodes in g-grid circuits.
One of the major reasons grounded grid circuits using tetrodes and
pentodes don't often require neutralization. The statement still
stands...
> First, as I have said many times but you fail to seek the truth for
> yourself, neutralization is not required in a grounded-grid amp
> because it's a non-inverting amp.
The Non Inverting circuit is not the key, nor is it the dominant
factor of a grounded grid amplifier.
> Second, grid shielding means absolutely nothing in a grounded-grid
> amplifier -- if it did, then your input signal would never get past
> the grid to the plate!
Not true, you are wrong.
> Third, Cgp never changes because it's a characteristic of the tube,
> not the circuit. The capacitance AT the grid can change by changing
> the circuit, but that's the INPUT capacitance, NOT Cgp! I have said
> that many times as well, and just like every other fact, you have
> failed to verify it for yourself.
You keep jumping back to the tube Cgp when the topic was the actual
problem C of the common cathode circuit C, much reduced grounded grid
circuit which is halved. Don't mix them up frankie... go back and
read my text as its writen. If you don't belive me, reference
the many Radio Handbook texts by former Eimac Author Bill Orr
(rip sk).
> >You said it doesn't even exist... I called you on your statement to
> >review basic tetrode amplifier 101 because it does in some classic
> >tetrode circuits. Now your trying to big time back pedal here.
> >Now you've looked it up and defined it above to try and save face. How
> >novel that you are now an expert in reverse screen current when you
> >clearly posted in one of your 10/31/02 posts "Now THERES a new one!"
>
> I never said it didn't exist. Here is what I DID say:
> >"Reverse screen current"? Now THERE's a new one! Is that how they get
> >"bird watts", by using "reverse screen current"? LOL!
Looks like your pretty surprised to the rest of us... adding your
own little bird watts remark after that doesn't help you out much.
You were also the only one talking bird watts.
"Reverse screen current"? "Now THERE'S a new one!"
We call'em as we seem them Frankie boy...
> What would you expect me to say? Maybe something like, "Oh, gee, that
> clears up just about everything! By golly, why didn't I think of using
> reverse screen current when the screen and supressor/beam deflection
> plates are grounded! Of course, that would make the triode-connected
> sweep tube not act like a triode at all! Now all you have to do is to
> figure out how to get the secondary emission from the plate to the
> screen past the supressor/beam deflection plates..."
> Dumbass.
I only expect you to be weak on RF theory and actual hands on (or
construction experience); you have proven that to us already.
You also appear rude and prove to have a potty mouth.
Twistedhed
seen in use..? Don't modify my text as you go along in your rants to
suit your current post needs."
>I have had enough with your "cut-and-paste" >bullshit, Skippy. NONE of
your quotes have >EVER been modified, misquoted, pulled out of >context,
edited (not even for spelling), or >otherwise used for any other purpose
except >for the meaning you intended. All my posts are >on google, and I
challenge you to find even >ONE example that backs up your claim.
>Otherwise, quit lying about being misquoted.
This is rich. Frank, you have done (misquoted, cut and paste,
misdirected, lied, deliberately taken things out of context) this with
every single person who has ever had degrees of success debating you. To
claim otherwise...well.........just needed pointed out.
piper for frankie G
> >Not true, but again cute assumption on your part... you threw out your
> >typical batch of book text on beam tubes... talking about grid spacing
> >and stopped when the book text ended.
> >Since you quit at grid spacing, but left out space charge and secondary
> >emission theory... using your mis-information tatics are to now assume
> >you don't know anything about those subjects.
>
> Because space charge occurs in a tetrode and pentode regardless of
> whether it's a beam tube or not, which is why pentodes have a
> supressor grid! Go review your vacuum tube fundamentals, Skippy!
See the general description of Beam Forming Plates Frankie... thats
what I'm talking about... and what I was talking about in the first
post.
> > A more serious directly
> >related issue with beam power tube missing from your post is any
> >mention of electrode spacing. Electrode spacing is a serious property of
> >the beam tubes. Somehow you've totally left that out of your posts... but
> >again, you probably didn't know about it.
>
> Do you mean the spacing between the electrodes, or the spacing of the
> wires OF the electrode, or how the wires on the screen of a beam tube
> are located directly behind the wires of the grid forming an electron
It's clear as its writen, electrode spacing, not grid element or grid
wire spacing. But you left it out of your posts so using your tatics
we must now assume you know nothing about it.
> 'beam'? Sorry, Skippy, I already covered all that. But there are
> frequent examples where you use the terms 'beam' and 'power'
> interchageably, demonstrating that you didn't know what makes a beam
> tube different than any other power tube. Especially when you use
> phrases like "beam power applications". LOL!
Actually, its more like special beam forming plates (NOT THE GRID
WIRE SPACING OR PLACEMENT) found in beam power tubes, often used
in Sweep tube rf amplifiers. You have not mentioned before so we
must again assume you don't know anything about them.
piper for frankie G
Dumb answer Franklin... Sweep Tubes in grounded grid AB2 RF amps
can work very well. ... and I saved all that money just by knowing
the "feed through power" of a grounded grid circuit swamps out the
grid current distortion issues.
But you didn't...
piper for frankie G
>
> >We are talking Grounded Grid amplifiers which are for the most part,
> >always AB2 circuits in design and operation. You hint that AB1 operation
> >is possible, whereas it might be with reduced drive levels... but I know
> >of no purpose designed conventional grounded grid amplifier running AB1.
> >Maybe you could give us an example of any purpose AB1 grounded grid
> >amplifier you know about...? Any..? Traditional AB1 amplifiers are
> >for the most part common cathode circuit layouts.
>
> Since you don't have much education in electronics, let ME give YOU
> the word: Although most grounded-grid amps may be AB2, that doesn't
> necessarily mean AB2 is grounded-grid because there are many AB2
> common-cathode amps! And guess what, Skippy? Those common-cathode amps
> usually require neutralization! As usual, you don't know what you are
> talking about.
Much to your dismay frankie, I have quite the formal electronics
education thank you. At no time did I ever restrict AB2 operation to
grounded grid... homey ain't playing that word game with you.
Once more for the road... we've been talking sweep tubes in AB2
grounded grid amplifiers. You want to jump lanes to common cathode
circuits, tell us at the time. I've been calling you on that issue
for some time now.
Just as a side bar comment, not all common cathode amps require
neutralization. Its not rocket science to build a stable common
cathode amplifier less the neutralization requirement.
Unless you put on the the turn signal... we are talking grounded
grid AB2 amplifiers using sweep tubes. Now if we can just get
you off your cell phone.
> > The original topic is
> >Sweep Tube amplifiers in grounded grid operation, that is AB2.
>
> The original topic was a couple of questions that you haven't been
> able to answer. Beyond that, the topic has been about sweep tubes vs.
> RF power tubes, and you have been trying to narrow that topic down to
> grounded-grid amps only, ignoring the fact that sweep tubes were used
> in many common-cathode applications.
Doesn't look your your going to be happy with any 25-50Mhz amplifier
example, the fact that I have an unaltered copy of an current IB
Radio Service FCC License so I can't help you there, nor do I care
to.
If you want to put on the common cathode sweep tube amplifier talk,
lets boogie. By the way, did I tell you I have a two tube common
cathode sweep tube amplifiers at 28.55 MHz that has better than
10dB gain and no neutralization...? How about you throwing out
a circuit now..? How about you answering up with any text you've
posted any where on the net that we can review... of course other
than your hate post followup replies. Anything ...? Please..?
I'll be waiting..
piper for frankie G
> >There is no cure all for non linearity. An input tank circuit should be
> >considered a must have in all grounded grid amplifiers.
>
> I agree. Why doesn't the GLA-1000 or the Palomar have one?
My god, we agree on something... The short answer is... depends on
what model Dentron GLA-1000 your talking about. From what I
understand Late versions of the plain and all B versions included
tuned input. The reincarnation of Dentron as Amp Supply had tuned
input in all their sweep tube amplifiers.
Palomar had tuned input, depending on what model and version amp
your talking about. Hi power mode of the 300 (six tube) model I
like to reference has tuned input. Low power mode is direct to the
final Quartet which has no tuned input. One should include a
tuned input when driving with solid state exciters. It would
not be required in common tube final HF Radios.
> >: fact it CANNOT reduce or eliminate grid-current distortion. I needed
> >: to explain that in order to be linear you need at least 180 degrees of
> >: undistorted conduction time, which you cannot achieve with grid
> >: current distortion.
> >
> >Well mr magic amp... what is the conduction angle of an AB2 amplifier..?
> >Yep, greater than 180 degrees.
>
> Not 180 undistorted degrees. In case you haven't noticed, the grid is
> usually biased slightly negative with repect to the cathode, making
> the grid current transition occur within that 180 degrees. And because
> the bias is so slightly negative it also tends to make more noise at
> lower power levels than high power peaks.
The conduction angle is never perfect, but it is still about 210
degrees by generic definition. The grid should be biased negative
with respect to the cathode. The question should be if you've ever
measured the noise..? Is the noise a significant problem ..? I
and other believe it does not disqualify sweep tubes from RF AB2
g-grid amplifier service.
> > The big picture here is the grid current
> >distortion in the topic amplifier is not large enough to prohibit the
> >Sweep Tube from consideration as a viable choice. Sweep tubes in AB2
> >grounded grid amplifiers have conduction angles greater than 180 degrees.
>
> Despite your repitition, all you need to do is to look at the numbers.
> The Dentron claims -30 dB IMD and -40 dB on harmonics, which sucks for
> a kilowatt amplifier.
Probably because -30 dB was the requirement... In my Dentron web page
text, I mention a lot of the short comings of Dentron, which then
became Amp Supply. I don't judge the Dentron GLA-1000 as a good
circuit, in fact I wrote my text to point out some serious improvements
to be made which will make the amplifier a great rebuild project.
Even the Svetlana Conversion has a lot of poop and is actually
incomplete (no standby mode cut-off).
I measured about -32 dB on one example Quartet Sweep Tube Amplifier
some years back. What would make the amplifier "suck" is a speech
processed SSB signal using ALC.
In regular operation, you couldn't tell I had it on the air, other
than the increased signal strength. That's what amplifier operation
should be all about.
piper for frankie G
> >: 8. You didn't know that 'grounded' in 'grounded-grid' means a signal
> >: ground, and not necessarily a DC ground.
> >
> >Seems to me, I brought that to your attention frankie...
>
> Yes you did. You stated that a triode-connected grounded-grid sweep
> tube doesn't work like a triode. You further demonstrated your
> ignorance on the subject of grounding by bringing up the issue of
> 'reverse screen current'.
Now there you go again trying to drag Reverse Screen Current into the
mix; trying to cover your tracks... nope, won't work here.
Let us filter through the confetti and get right back on the topic.
The doesn't work like a triode refers to the benefit of the additional
shielding from the grounded screen and supressor grids. To make the
round trip, I also claim that the type of AB2 grounded grid circuit
is of concern (as there are a few variations of grounded grid) when
using triode connected grounded grid sweep tubes because there is a
problem (previously explained) trying to run them in some applied
triode g-grid circuits. It's all about the tube geometry...
> > you're
> >again trying to turn a post around again. In specific, I stated there is
> >more than one way to ground the required elements providing you understand
> >basic AC and DC load lines.
>
> I can't seem to find any post where you say that. Care to quote the
> specific post? And what do you mean by "basic AC and DC load lines"?
> You do know what a 'load line' is, don't you Skippy?
I do thank you, you don't appear to have a grasp of load lines when
you write poop about my 10 ohm series cathode resistor recommendation
in the dentron text.
The AC & DC part came in a later post... grounding grids in various
combinations was mentioned well over a year ago. I even posted a
rather large article about the good sweep tube amplifier layouts.
Since your so good at news group surfing, go dig it up on the
www.contesting.com web page. Once again, how about sharing any
text or web pages you have with us Frank... we're still waiting.
> > It was clear to me that you don't have
> >the proper background knowledge when you coughed and wheezed a batch of
> >poop about my recomendation to include 10 ohm cathode lead resistors in
> >my Dentron GLA-1000 update text.
> >First off, you started out with a "grounding the cathode" rant, when I
> >corrected your goof, you moved on or avoided your orignal mistake to say
> >the resistor addition was stupid.
> >Well, had you pulled your head out and done the proper homework, you've
> >find the example amplifier linearity improves with the mentioned
> >modification. But since you know feedback, degeneration and load lines so
> >well, you can figure that out later.
>
> I addressed that issue seperately. What does it have to do with the
> grounding of a grid? Nothing. You are shifting topics, the exact same
> thing you accuse ME of doing.
In specific, you applied the resistor recommendation to a fault of
ungrounding the cathode, you also threw in neutralization with your
diatribe of the moment when I only state the resistor improves
linearity, the cause... by providing degeneration. You did not
properly address the issue because you don't understand AB2 grounded
grid circuits very well.
piper for frankie G
>
> In <aqhm10$5mh$1...@woodrow.ucdavis.edu>, Frank goes whacky
> <nospam4me...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >: 9. You didn't know what ALC circuits are, calling them "linearity
> >: detectors" (your own terminology),
> >
> >Come on now frankie... talk about text twist and dance moves... I
> >referenced an example linearity detector shown in the Galaxy Sweep Tube HF
> >amplifier text posted on the sonic server.
>
> That's not a "linearity detector", and the article doesn't even call
> it that. Your "linearity detector" is an AMPLITUDE COMPARATOR which
> controls the bias regulator -- it's an ALC circuit, Skippy!
Lets break it down frankie... Conventional ALC as found in many
Amateur transceivers used with rf amplifiers consist of a hard wired
"feed back loop". The amplifier output quantity is sampled and
fed back to the transmitter ALC circuit. The Transmitter output
in real world action hopefully reacts (but never in time) to reduce
excessive drive. There is always a measurable amount of poop going
out the door before the circuit reacts. In a compressed speech
chat, poop is in generate mode because the ALC cannot keep up.
i.e. time constants.
In another topic we could talk about how to deal with the loop
issue in the real world, but its not worth the trouble when a
properly set up radio with a real power control (not a mic gain)
can easily limit the drive.
The Galaxy circuit is novel in that it adjusts the amplifier bias
for improved linearity. Notice the detector circuit compares the
output with the input. There is no limiting action... just
bias adjustment.
> The acronym 'ALC' stands for Automatic Level Control which, for all
> intents and purposes, is a compressor. The ALC is a circuit that
> reduces the input or gain when the amplifier becomes overloaded. By
> comparison, a limiter is basically a clipper, which necessarily causes
> distortion.
If the input power reduction happens late, poop happens early. With
each new word in some cases... I'll hear you up the band with your
"contest audio." Who's the bad boy now..?
The power control knob of a modern amateur radio should not accused
of causing distortion. In fact it could be a poop gate if people
would learn how to use it with their amplifiers in operation.
> As far as their being too "slow", most of them begin to react after
> the very first or second RF peak. I suppose a couple peaks are going
> to sneak through before the output level is reduced, but that's a
> whole lot better than each every RF peak being clipped from a limiter.
Most modern amateur speech processors are not limiters. A couple
of peaks are going to sneak through each time the ALC loop fails
to keep up. Poop generation in every transmission.
> >Many Amateurs using ALC are clueless about the actual
> > circuit operation.
>
> Yourself included.
Thanks, seems I brought it to your attention, but you knew that
of course.
> >Before the ALC acts (time constant)... unwanted poop is piped out the
> >coax connector to the antenna.
>
> See above.
I can... You "suppose" poop happens, I know "poop happens". Hey..!
Frankie helped me make a funny... :-)
> >Depending on the ALC to throttle your tubes back results in much higher
> >levels of initial pre alc action poop. You can hear that poop as buckshot
> >up and down the band...
>
> Yes you can if the amp is severly overdriven. Even an ALC has it's
> limitations. But an RF limiter creates horrendous amounts of splatter
> even at normal signal levels, just as if the amplifier were being
> driven into saturation. That's why RF limiters are not used in power
> amplifers, but ALC circuits are used instead.
Depending on ALC action most often results in over driven amplifiers,
dat's da fact jack...
RF Limiters are another animal which cover a lot of ground. Without
you going off to never never land again... how about you first read
and understand how the power control knob on a modern amateur radio
actually works...
Controlling or limiting the output power of a modern amateur radio is
not the distortion generation device your trying to describe....
really frankie, read up on it before you comment please.
> >: you claimed had "linearity detectors". You also claimed that ALC
> >: circuits are "dated technology" despite their continued and effective
> >: use in amplifiers and other circuits.
> >
> >At one time, ALC was thought to work pretty well for the most part.
>
> It still does.
For those who know no better and are happy with dated technology.
Modern radios do a better job with ALC, but it's never fast enough.
This is where the power control knob on the radio works better.
> >Relying on it for rf compression is poorly applied technology. If you
> >were to look at your signal before the ALC acts... much unwanted poop is
> >generated. Especially in SSB operation with voice compression.
>
> The 'compression' to which you refer is actually CLIPPING of the audio
> peaks to prevent the amplifier from being driven into saturation on
> those peaks. It's funny how you got 'clipping' and 'compression'
> reversed!
When the amplifier reaches max boogie, the rf envelope is compressed
or in another view "hard limited". This is very bad news... some RF
Amplifiers have specified "X-dB" compression point measurement
values listed. The bottom line, one should avoid depending on
any circuit operation which can over drive an amplifier, even for
brief moments in each transmission. Smart people do not rely on
ALC circuit operation.
But you do...
cheers
skipp
http://sonic.ucdavis.edu
piper for frankie G
> >Dont have to do it twice. Consult the LA-1000 or GLA-1000 owners manual
> >for details.
>
> It claims 30 dB down on IMD and 40 dB down on harmonics. It doesn't
> mention the conditions under which those figures were achieved.
> Regardless, those are piss-poor figures for a 1000 watt amp, since the
> IMD alone puts out nearly 1 full watt:
It claims a lot of unsliced bologna Frank...glad you noticed. The
reason Amp Supply and Dentron went away was from their notorious
and now famous amount of monkey business.
1000 watts maybe on a good day with a tail wind...
Following most of the generic amplifier testing methods, I would imagine
they used a two tone test method.
In the real world, the GLA-1000 and Amp Supply LA-1000 do a nice clean
+10dB with about 40 to 60 watts drive. It makes them useful as compact
desktop amplifiers for many of the typical 70's/80's/90 hf amateur
radios.
> > They are FCC legal amplifiers which is all that matters.
>
> ONLY because of the exemption, NOT because of the RF performance of
> the sweep tubes, which basically sucks.
I was told, one version of the Amp Supply LA-1000 or the Dentron
GLA-1000C actually had type acceptance. I even had the tag picture
saved for the sonic web pages. Alas I'm not able to find it right
now so you'll accuse me of being a liar... so forget about it.
The big deal that the Dentron GLA-1000C and I believe the
Amp Supply LA-1000 models were both post ban amplifiers legally
sold in the US.
>
> > The FCC said go and the various mfgrs legally built them.
> And after they learned from their mistake they changed the rules.
Sweep tube amplifiers were legally made by Ameritron, Dentron
and Amp Supply after the 78 rule change... just not shipped with
plug and play 10 meter operation.
>
> > The mid 80's ARRL
> >Handbooks show great examples of sweep tubes in rf amplications. I
> >mentioned the Handbook references more than once, it's a waste of time to
> >post redundant information.
>
> And again you failed to mention that the vast majority of the
> amplifiers in project manuals and ARRL handbooks use RF power tubes,
> NOT sweep tubes.
"Failed" ...?
Why would I need to mention it..? I've been talking about sweep
tubes, where have you been...?
Variety is the spice of life.... even Handbook projects using RF
power tubes are not specific to one single type of valve.
Life goes on...
piper for frankie G
> >The actual internal constuction of the tube matters very much. You are
> >clearly wrong...
>
> I was pointing out that your melodramatic concern about parasitics in
> RF power tubes is unfounded, since the use of a simple parasitic
> supressor is usually more than enough to prevent high-frequency
> parasitics REGARDLESS of what type of tube is being used. With that in
> mind, RF power tubes have no predisposition to parasitics as you
> claim. The difference is in the circuit, NOT the tube!
Aaaaahhhhhh.......! Now your changing your tune to "high-frequency
parasitics". Doesn't matter really, let's talk.
Well Mr. Amplifier... your on your face again... Much of the problem
with amplifiers parasitics happen in the VHF region, an area you
should never ignore and a simple parasitic suppressor is only a very
small part of the big picture.
Tubes like the 8877 are well designed and for the most part, don't
require parasitic suppressors to operate in a good high gain HF
circuits. Pop in a similar size valve in the same circuit and chances
are it's going to sing like a big dog.
The type of tube matters... don't know how to say it any clearer to
you.
Your "predisposition to parasitics" is not really a good term...
but the tubes such as the 3-1000z and the 3-500z in mfgrs rated
applications have a well known and documented track record
of parasitic problems. Readers can reference text at
http://www.vcnet.com/measures for more detailed information.
For more detailed study of a tube which is not generically subject
to parasitic problems, please research the 8877, in specific...
the grid construction. The mfgrs data sheet might be a good
place to start.
Your simply wrong again Franklin... or frankie...
cheers
skipp
http://sonic.ucdavis.edu
piper for frankie G
> >Actually, my response was about your broad statement that using a
> >fet preamplifier is useless.
>
> You responded to a post where I critiqued the KLV, saying that it was
> probably intended for the CB market, and....
Just can't help but throw this out one time... Where on the mfgrs
web page does it say what the intended market is Frankie... OK,
so I couldn't resist one time. Now lets break it down...
I believe you called the addition of a fet amplifier in the KLV
amplifier useless.
> "...with that in mind, the pre-amplifier is effectively useless, doing
> nothing other than making the noise floor louder."
>
> To which you replied:
>
> >Companies like ARR, Sinclair, Telewave and Angle Linear all make various
> >fet amplifiers... If the noise figure is less than say 1.5 dB, but the
> >signal gain is greater
> >than say 13 dB, doesn't that sound like a pretty good preamp..? Even
> >if it were a lower gain Dual Gate fet..? would you say the advantage is
> >overkill..?
>
> And prompted me to simplify my statement so that even you could
> understand that:
>
> >If your receiver is already sensitive enough to receive the noise
> >floor, a preamp is not going to improve the signal-to-noise ratio. In
> >fact, the preamp is going to add to the noise by the stated 1.5 dB,
> >but it will increase the noise floor by 13 dB!
Depends on where the noise floor happens to be... you have to be
certain
that each or most of the receivers can actually hear the noise floor.
You can't be certain...
> So you see, it wasn't such a "broad" statement at all. My statement is
> what is commonly referred to as a 'conditional statement', and was
> quite specific.
Conditional statements side step the applied real world.
> > I don't agree... not everyone has a hot
> >receiver. A switchable low noise fet preamplifier is a very good thing
> >and relatively cheap in cost. Not everyone has your magical hot as a
> >firecracker receiver... in fact some of the Icom 706MKIIG radios I've
> >tried have pretty numb receivers.
>
> Most CB radios (and by 'most' I mean just about every CB radio that
> has ever been manufactured AND is working properly) have receiver
> sensitivities in the range of 3 uV, which is plenty sensitive enough
> to hear the background hash that pervades the band almost constantly.
> And knowing that the noise on the CB is much greater than many other
> bands, a pre-amplifier is, as I said before, practically useless. It
> does not improve the signal-to-noise ratio, and actually degrades it
> by it's insertion. Preamps are primarily intended for receivers with
> weak front ends, such as older radios and homebrew rigs. They really
> make the difference with those one-tube regen rigs, older SW radios,
> and even crystal radios. But all they do with a CB radio is make the
> noise louder.
I don't agree... neither does most of the rest of the world. That's
why much of the rest of the world uses them in weak signal work.
That includes many two way commercial receivers along with the hobby
crowd. It's also how all those companies make much of their bread
and butter.
chow for now
skipp
http://sonic.ucdavis.edu
ye...@removecet.com
<nospamatthi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Hi Frank,
>Back so soon.. hope your blood pressure is still under control.
>
>> (a) A grant of equipment authorization is valid only when the FCC
>> Identifier is permanently affixed on the device and remains effective
>> until revoked or withdrawn, rescinded, surrendered, or a termination
>> date is otherwise established by the Commission.
>
>The Motorola amplifiers I have here (and mentioned before) still have
>their permanent tags and are still effective as originally sold.
Wrong, and you would see that in the part of the post you snipped.
Here, let me quote it for you:
>Sec. 2.939 Revocation or withdrawal of equipment authorization.
> (a) The Commission may revoke any equipment authorization:
> .......
> (4) Because of conditions coming to the attention of the
>Commission which would warrant it in refusing to grant an original
>application.
There. Notice the part about "conditions...which would warrant [the
FCC] in refusing to grant an original application". In case you don't
have enough brains to figure that out, it means if the equipment
wouldn't get type-accepted/certificated TODAY then the original
type-acceptance/certification has effectively been RESCINDED.
>> Now in case you have been in a cave the past few years, no amplifiers
>> between 24 and 35 MHz are being granted authorization because of the
>> following law:
>
>That would be new authorization... the Motorola units I described
>already have authorization.
And will continue to have authorization unless the rules change, as
they did for amps between 24 and 35 MHz.
>> (b) After April 27, 1978, no person shall manufacture, sell or
>> lease, offer for sale or lease (including advertising for sale or
>> lease), or import, ship, or distribute for the purpose of selling or
>> leasing or offering for sale or lease, any external radio frequency
>> power amplifier or amplifier kit capable of operation on any frequency
>> or frequencies between 24 and 35 MHz.
>
>For new manufactured equipment, the motorola amplifiers are still valid,
>made before the ban.
You don't have a single brain in your head, do you Skippy? The amps
you mention work ABOVE 35 MHz! And even if they DID work between 24
and 35 MHz then they have lost their authorization because of 2.815!
>> Which means that any amplifier that can operate between 24 and 35 MHz
>> has lost it's certification/type-acceptance.
>
>As you try to interpret the rules to preexisting legal equipment. Not
>the case in my interpretation of the rules.
Your 'interpretation' leaves much to be desired, especially when you
ignore part of the rules (as you did when you cut my post).
>> As for your query to the FCC about modification of your amps, you will
>> find the answer here:
>
>No modifications are/were required to place the mentioned amplifiers
>into Same Radio Service.
>
>Sorry, once again... you lose. Nice try Frankie...
Wasn't your question to the FCC about if you could modify your 35 to
54 MHz amps to operate below 35 MHz? What did you finally get for an
answer on that "official query", Skippy?
>> In case you are too lazy to read them yourself, they clearly state
>> that you can't change the frequency range (and still use them under
>
>Don't have too... they function exactly as designed without
>modifications.
Duh! But you were talking about modifying them, or do I need to dig up
that post, too? You actually enjoy talking in circles to avoid the
truth, don't you, Skippy?
ye...@removecet.com
<nospamatthi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>: "ye...@cet.com" wrote: ... to get his blood pressure up.
>
>> >Sorry if you can't look up a valid FCC file number Frankie... that's your
>> >problem.
>>
>> By golly I CAN look up the file number! Right here:
>> http://wireless.fcc.gov/uls/
>> So I input the file number you provided, "200001R435366", and it comes
>> back with:
>> "No matches found for the specified search criteria"
>
>Which simply proves the FCC ULS system is not complete. That's about
>all your going to get Frankie... The file number I posted is current
>and your out of luck. "tough titty said the kitty..."
The file number is invalid. Instead of getting smug about it, why
don't you check to see if you typed it correctly. Maybe there is a
zero that should be an 'O', or you left off a number or something.
>> >:> Hard copies are the bottom line frankie...
>> Not if they can't be verified.
>
>The paperwork in my hot little hand takes care of the FCC every time
>they might ask for it.
You can't use it for proof if you can't produce it for inspection or
verify it in any other way.
>> Not only did you provide an invalid file number, but you flat out lied
>> about the IB service being current:
>
>Don't think so Frankie... so what happens if I scan in an image of the
>actual license, blank out the personal information so you can enjoy
>your crow dinner. It won't work.. you'll claim the scan was modified
>to include the IB service. Nothing makes you happy frankie, your just
>a bad actor.
You assume a lot, Skippy. In case you haven't noticed, I don't make
accusations without reason or proof, and if the license is unedited
then I wouldn't have reason of proof, would I?
>> http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Public_Notices/1997/da972216.html
>>
>> There is no more IB service, Skippy. It was one of the many services
>> that was consolidated into the new IG service pool back in 1997. And
>> you knew that because a notice was sent out to all IB licensees. You
>> are just full of lies, aren't you Skippy?
>
>Yep, as authorized by the FCC for the current hard copies I have in my
>hand. Call us both liars Frankie... enjoy your crow dinner.
Well, if you could provide a valid file number or call sign it might
show that the license was obtained before the consolidation, which
would therefore be for the IB service and is perfectly fine as far as
I'm concerned. But your desperate attempt to avoid providing proof
leads me to believe that you have something more to hide than just the
validity of the license. Hmmm... is there something about that license
that you don't want anybody to see, Skippy? Are you using false
identities to obtain multiple licenses? Or maybe you got the license
under false pretenses? Do you lie on your applications, Skippy?
Because I can't see any other reason for avoiding such a simple
disclosure when all your information is already in your other
licenses. Maybe you just don't have that license at all, or it has
already expired. Which is it, Skippy?
ye...@removecet.com
<nospamatthi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> "ye...@cet.com" wrote:
>> >No television I've heard of uses the 6146 tube as a sweep tube. There
>> >were some older televisions that used the 6146 tube as a horizontal
>> >oscillator
>> >and or horizontal oscillator amplifier. Sweep tube is a label used to
>> >describe a classic type of tube. Horizontal oscillator / amplifier was
>> >often the function of sweep and beam power tubes.
>> >
>> >Now go whine about how dumb you look to everyone on the news group.
>> >s
>> =====
>> If you knew that the tube used for the "horizontal oscillator
>> amplifer" was the "sweep tube" then you wouldn't have contradicted
>> yourself in that post. The fact is that you didn't know that there is
>
>Aaaahhh.... I see your pivot point for your little rant... Well
>bartender,
>
>let me add one word in to give it proper text. There were some
>"reported"
>older televisions that used the 6146 tube as a horizontal oscillator.
Where are those "reports"? Who "reported" them? What televisions were
"reported" to use the 6146 as a horizontal oscillator?
>See folks, get ahead of yourself typing and Frank carries it to his
>grave
>as the focal point of a rather useless thread.
The thread is not useless at all -- it has done well at demonstrating
your technical incompentence.
>Sweep tube is still a label... of which can be further detailed.. if
>anyone but Frankie G wants to go there.
Let me guess... the topic has "a number of parameters better reviewed
in a separate thread", too many "complex sub-topics", deals with
"conventional design guidelines", and is "way to complicated to detail
here", right Skippy?
>> no difference, and used your favorite buzzword "classic" to describe
>> the sweep tube. I especially like your line, "Horizontal oscillator /
>> amplifier was often the function of sweep and beam power tubes"
>> because not only is it 100% redundant, it reinforces the fact that you
>> didn't understand the definition of a 'beam' tube, either!
>
>Yeah, I referenced that line right out of the RCA Receiving Tube Manual.
>Call RCA redundant...
Ok, I will.
> and while your there.. have a look at some of the
>multi section tubes which are not classic sweep tubes one would find in
>a grounded grid rf amplifier. your text reinforces the evidence that
>you
>have little actual experience building rf amplifiers.
Do you mean tetrodes and pentodes used in grounded-grid circuits? They
are not all beam tubes, Skippy.
>> >The orginal post gets you to dance on the sweep tube labels, not big deal
>> >which was easily clarified. For some reason, you just love to go back to
>> >the same non issue in any combination of text you can constuct... Get on
>> >with something more worth while frankie... your banging your bald head
>> >into the same non issue wall.
>
>> Your technical ignorance is a very important issue, Skippy.
>
>More important are your hazardous technical post statements which tell
>people to tie grids to plates in RF amplifiers... talk about technical
>ignorance and true evidence that you probably have built few, if any
>RF amplifiers.
It's far more "hazardous" to maintain and defend your mistakes than to
openly admit it as I did. Keep ragging on that topic, Skippy, it only
shows that you are desperate.
>> Call it whatever you want. The fact remains that the term "sweep tube"
>> is applied to tubes used for television 'sweep' circuits. If you can
>> find a TV that used the 8950 then I'll call it a sweep tube, too.
>
>I do call it what I want... most people in the real RF world know
>sweep type tubes exist that are equivalent RF designed equivalents,
>never used in TV sweep or similar circuits.
>
>We don't have a problem calling an equivalent tube by the same label,
>it fits and it works, the results are the same in the applied circuit.
>You are left out in the cold...
I would expect a degree of improvement by the 8950 in an RF
application, but since they were not designed for TV sweep
amplification I wouldn't expect them to perform there very well. But
like I said, call them what you want -- I would rather use the label
of "RF tube designed from a sweep tube". If you have a problem with
that then it's YOUR problem, not mine.
ye...@removecet.com
<nospamatthi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>"ye...@cet.com" wrote:
>[much text snipage]
>> As I said before, the amplification of a tetrode or pentode is
>> variable depending on the screen potential. When a tetrode or pentode
>> is rated by it's 'mu' it is under the condition that the tube is
>> operating as a triode. This should be obvious because the effective mu
>> of a tetrode/pentode operating as such is magnitudes larger than that
>> of a triode, yet when tetrodes and pentodes are rated by their mu it
>> is comparable with the mu of triodes. Check your datasheets if you
>> don't believe me. You do have datasheets, don't you? If not, try here:
>> http://www.cpii.com/eimac/index.html
>
>The topic was the application of Sweep Tubes in grounded grid
>amplifiers.
You keep ignoring that the topic is the application of sweep tubes in
RF amplifiers, both grounded-grid and common-cathode. It's not my
fault you don't understand the difference, so quit trying to narrow
the issue.
> The specific issue is the multiple connection schemes
>possible which would damage tetrode/pentodes in some triode
>connection schemes. You don't appear to have knowledge of the
>specific topic. Hi mu tubes don't play in all "low mu" grounded
>grid amplifiers circuits.
What does that have to do with the specific topic here, Skippy? Or did
you snip that text for a reason? Let's find out, shall we?
>>: 2. You didn't know what the term "low-mu" described; namely, the
>>: amplification factor of a triode. Not only that, but you used the term
>>: to describe the triode operation of a sweep tube while saying that it
>>: wasn't operating as a triode.
>>
>>I know exactly what low and high mu describe... it has many potential sub
>>topics when applied to RF amplifiers. Your book text posting wanders so
>>much, I/we must be careful to nail you down to the specific issue. You
>>also touted tetrode specs using Transconductance when in fact they also
>>have mu ratings. Because you left it out, are we supposed to jump up and
>>down to say you don't know anything about it... hardly.
OH! My GOODNESS! The issue of this post is about your ignorance of the
difference between 'amplification factor' and 'transconductance'! No
wonder you snipped all that text! Trying to change the topic again,
eh? Same old Skippy.
>> >In specific to my post, certain tubes operate as low mu in grounded grid
>> >amplifiers, some act as higher mu tubes in similar g-grid operation.
>> >These are serious issues when designing grounded grid amplifiers with
>> >respect to dangerous amounts of G1 (grid 1) current and the various
>> >circuit layouts. You ran out of technical steam and didn't indicate you
>> >had more than your one book knowlege of the subject, so I just let it
>> >stop there.
>>
>> That is totally ridiculous, as the mu of a tube has nothing to do with
>> how much grid current it is capable of handling!
>
>Your again out of steam... try reading up on the issues of high mu
>tetrodes/pentode in grounded grid rf amplifiers...
A high-mu tube doesn't need to draw as much grid current as a low-mu
tube, Skippy. And grid current doesn't change the mu of a tube, as I
said before, but you deny and refuse to explain why (because you
can't).
>> >Applied Grounded Grid Pentodes and Tetrodes Amplifiers have complex sub
>> >topics which can be hashed over in seperate threads. I'm not about to
>> >launch you into another of your many off topic diversions. If you stick to
>> >one specific theme per rant, well go as far into detail as you would care
>> >to go. By your many previous examples, you just want to rehash a 6146
>> >sweep tube post label out of context; over and over and over and over...
>> >and over.
>>
>> This is funny, Skippy. First you say that a triode-connected sweep
>> tube is not operating as a triode in your "classic" grounded-grid
>> amplifier, yet you don't want to discuss the "complex sub topics" of
>> grounded-grid tetrodes and pentodes. I'm was not diverting the topic,
>> I was trying to get YOU to say specifically what the topic IS, and you
>> still haven't been able to do that because you don't have a clue as to
>> what you are talking about!
>
>Not quite... no where above does it say triode connected sweep tube is
>not operating as a triode.
You are too much, Skippy:
"Triode operation is not a good label... most rf people like
descriptions like low-mu."
"Triode operation is a bit liberal..."
And when asked directly and specifically...
>: 4. How is the triode configuration of a tetrode/pentode not like a
>: triode?
...you avoided the question completely by ragging on the same old
mistake...
>The "triode mode" grid to plate connection you described is not used in
>many/most rf amplifiers, regardless of the tube type. You clearly showed
>your background example was from the tube audio world and does not play
>well in rf applications. Your theory is weak in rf... the topic of
>choice.
And you have been sidestepping the issue ever since, tossing out bogus
concepts like "passive gain operation", and misusing real concepts
like "reverse screen current".
Like I said, you have no idea what you are talking about.
ye...@removecet.com
<nospamatthi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>"ye...@cet.com" wrote:
>>
>> In <aqhm10$5mh$1...@woodrow.ucdavis.edu>, Frank goes whacky
>> >Boy, your really cute with the cut and paste. AT NO TIME DID I EVER SAY
>> >REVERSE SCREEN CURRENT APPLIED TO GROUNDED GRID SWEEP TUBE AMPLIFIERS,
>> >TRIODES OR ANYTHING SIMILAR. Nice try on your part though...
>
>> Oh, Skippy, how you lie:
>
>Doesn't look like the original comment below is appplied to any circuit
>I can see frankie. It still looks like me telling you to relax after
>you though some other post was from made by me.
You are a moron, Skippy. I was replying to my own post because you
didn't, and I said that before. You would also see that fact in the
headers and in the first lines of the post, which you conveniently
snipped.
And you also snipped the question, "tell us what a "classic" design
entails", to which you responded:
> So again, check your
>reverse screen current frankie...
An answer that means nothing at all becase there is no reverse screen
current in a pentode or beam tetrode (sweep tubes) whether they are
common-cathode, grounded-grid, or even triode-connected!
...and uneditied...
> text. Stop making stuff up as you go along Franklin..
You can try to use your own vagueness as an excuse, but it just don't
wash, Skippy. You didn't bring up reverse screen current just to be
obtuse, and you continued to describe (incorrectly) how the screen
prevents the need for neutralization.
>If you properly read the text,
...oh brother...first it's "properly designed" and now it's "properly
read"... can you be any more vague...?
> I was staying true to the actual
>subject of the moment... tetrodes and pentodes in g-grid circuits.
>One of the major reasons grounded grid circuits using tetrodes and
>pentodes don't often require neutralization. The statement still
>stands...
It fell a long time ago. Let me quote you a bit from one of my
favorite text books (that you despise because they contain facts that
contradict your RF voodoo):
"The top end of the tank circuit is feeding RF energy back to the grid
via the grid-plate capacitance of the tube and is attempting to make
the stage oscillate. When a _neutralizing_capacitor_ Cn, having the
same capacitance as the interelectrode capacitance of the tube, is
connected between the bottom of the tank circuit and the grid of the
tube, the grid is fed two equal and opposite voltages at the same
time, one through the tube and one through the neutralizing capacitor.
The net result is zero effective feedback to the grid from the plate
circuit, and the stage will not oscillate. It is neutralized."
And a few pages later it describes grounded-grid amplifiers:
"...The top of the input and the output tanks are positive at the same
time and are in phase, not 180 degrees out of phase, as with
grounded-cathode amplifers. With this phase relation no regenerative
feedback occurs and no neutralization is required, an advantage in HF,
VHF, and UHF circuits."
I should add that the example circuit in the book is a triode, NOT a
tetrode, pentode, beam tube, or any other tube with a screen. Those
are described later in the book. The screen is NOT responsible for the
lack of the need for neutralization with grounded-grid amplifiers. Any
other book on the subject will say the same thing.
Now how long do you want to keep this up, Skippy?
>> First, as I have said many times but you fail to seek the truth for
>> yourself, neutralization is not required in a grounded-grid amp
>> because it's a non-inverting amp.
>
>The Non Inverting circuit is not the key, nor is it the dominant
>factor of a grounded grid amplifier.
See above, as well as any basic electronics textbook.
>> Second, grid shielding means absolutely nothing in a grounded-grid
>> amplifier -- if it did, then your input signal would never get past
>> the grid to the plate!
>
>Not true, you are wrong.
Well if the screen is providing enough shielding to prevent a feedback
from getting from the plate to the cathode, then it's certainly
preventing the signal from getting from the cathode to the plate! Or
is this a magical kind of grid that is selective as to the direction
of electrostatic coupling? Maybe it's a "bird screen"... hehe...
>> Third, Cgp never changes because it's a characteristic of the tube,
>> not the circuit. The capacitance AT the grid can change by changing
>> the circuit, but that's the INPUT capacitance, NOT Cgp! I have said
>> that many times as well, and just like every other fact, you have
>> failed to verify it for yourself.
>
>You keep jumping back to the tube Cgp when the topic was the actual
>problem C of the common cathode circuit C, much reduced grounded grid
>circuit which is halved.
Not. You haven't read the post with the info from the Eimac
datasheets.
> Don't mix them up frankie... go back and
>read my text as its writen. If you don't belive me, reference
>the many Radio Handbook texts by former Eimac Author Bill Orr
>(rip sk).
Post a link. While I'm reading that, you can start on chapter 1 of
your Electronics 101 book.
>> >You said it doesn't even exist... I called you on your statement to
>> >review basic tetrode amplifier 101 because it does in some classic
>> >tetrode circuits. Now your trying to big time back pedal here.
>> >Now you've looked it up and defined it above to try and save face. How
>> >novel that you are now an expert in reverse screen current when you
>> >clearly posted in one of your 10/31/02 posts "Now THERES a new one!"
>>
>> I never said it didn't exist. Here is what I DID say:
>> >"Reverse screen current"? Now THERE's a new one! Is that how they get
>> >"bird watts", by using "reverse screen current"? LOL!
>
>Looks like your pretty surprised to the rest of us... adding your
>own little bird watts remark after that doesn't help you out much.
>You were also the only one talking bird watts.
>
>"Reverse screen current"? "Now THERE'S a new one!"
>
>We call'em as we seem them Frankie boy...
>
>> What would you expect me to say? Maybe something like, "Oh, gee, that
>> clears up just about everything! By golly, why didn't I think of using
>> reverse screen current when the screen and supressor/beam deflection
>> plates are grounded! Of course, that would make the triode-connected
>> sweep tube not act like a triode at all! Now all you have to do is to
>> figure out how to get the secondary emission from the plate to the
>> screen past the supressor/beam deflection plates..."
>> Dumbass.
>
>I only expect you to be weak on RF theory and actual hands on (or
>construction experience); you have proven that to us already.
I have proven quite the opposite, Skippy. And who is "us"?
>You also appear rude and prove to have a potty mouth.
Speak for yourself, Skippy. You are just a rude, and even though you
don't use explicit profanity, you certainly use a large assortment of
demeaning words and phrases. Physician, heal thyself.
ye...@removecet.com
<nospamatthi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> ye...@cet.com : wrote babble
>
>> >Not true, but again cute assumption on your part... you threw out your
>> >typical batch of book text on beam tubes... talking about grid spacing
>> >and stopped when the book text ended.
>> >Since you quit at grid spacing, but left out space charge and secondary
>> >emission theory... using your mis-information tatics are to now assume
>> >you don't know anything about those subjects.
>>
>> Because space charge occurs in a tetrode and pentode regardless of
>> whether it's a beam tube or not, which is why pentodes have a
>> supressor grid! Go review your vacuum tube fundamentals, Skippy!
>
>See the general description of Beam Forming Plates Frankie... thats
>what I'm talking about... and what I was talking about in the first
>post.
Beam forming plates are usually grounded, and have the same effect as
the supressor of a pentode -- they prevent the space charge from
hitting the screen. Now what's your point?
>> > A more serious directly
>> >related issue with beam power tube missing from your post is any
>> >mention of electrode spacing. Electrode spacing is a serious property of
>> >the beam tubes. Somehow you've totally left that out of your posts... but
>> >again, you probably didn't know about it.
>>
>> Do you mean the spacing between the electrodes, or the spacing of the
>> wires OF the electrode, or how the wires on the screen of a beam tube
>> are located directly behind the wires of the grid forming an electron
>
>It's clear as its writen, electrode spacing, not grid element or grid
>wire spacing. But you left it out of your posts so using your tatics
>we must now assume you know nothing about it.
You didn't answer the question: what do you mean by 'electrode
spacing'? And again, what is the point?
>> 'beam'? Sorry, Skippy, I already covered all that. But there are
>> frequent examples where you use the terms 'beam' and 'power'
>> interchageably, demonstrating that you didn't know what makes a beam
>> tube different than any other power tube. Especially when you use
>> phrases like "beam power applications". LOL!
>
>Actually, its more like special beam forming plates (NOT THE GRID
>WIRE SPACING OR PLACEMENT) found in beam power tubes, often used
>in Sweep tube rf amplifiers. You have not mentioned before so we
>must again assume you don't know anything about them.
Once again, what about the electrode spacing? How is it different than
a 'non-beam' pentode? How does it affect the operation of your
triode-connected sweep tube?
What's your point? Where are you going with all this, Skippy?
ye...@removecet.com
<nospamatthi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Because "swamping" the cathode (not a very good term, BTW --
low-impedance signal source is much better) only relieves PART of the
problem. The other problem, as I have stated many times, is the
linearity through grid current transistion, which is what the post
addressed, NOT cathode "swamping".
If you want to see just how stupid you look arguing around this topic,
check out the following post:
ye...@removecet.com
<nospamatthi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> ye...@cet.com wrote nothing positive:
>>
>> >We are talking Grounded Grid amplifiers which are for the most part,
>> >always AB2 circuits in design and operation. You hint that AB1 operation
>> >is possible, whereas it might be with reduced drive levels... but I know
>> >of no purpose designed conventional grounded grid amplifier running AB1.
>> >Maybe you could give us an example of any purpose AB1 grounded grid
>> >amplifier you know about...? Any..? Traditional AB1 amplifiers are
>> >for the most part common cathode circuit layouts.
>>
>> Since you don't have much education in electronics, let ME give YOU
>> the word: Although most grounded-grid amps may be AB2, that doesn't
>> necessarily mean AB2 is grounded-grid because there are many AB2
>> common-cathode amps! And guess what, Skippy? Those common-cathode amps
>> usually require neutralization! As usual, you don't know what you are
>> talking about.
>
>Much to your dismay frankie, I have quite the formal electronics
>education thank you. At no time did I ever restrict AB2 operation to
>grounded grid... homey ain't playing that word game with you.
That's hogwash, Skippy! Your confusion between amplifier classes and
operation is posted all over these threads!
>Once more for the road... we've been talking sweep tubes in AB2
>grounded grid amplifiers. You want to jump lanes to common cathode
>circuits, tell us at the time. I've been calling you on that issue
>for some time now.
...good grief. Get yourself a decent news browser so you can go back
and read the previous threads. Out of all the browsers I tried, even
MSIE, I liked Agent the best. You should try it sometime. Then maybe
you can read the previous posts and see that the conversation has
never been limited to grounded-grid amps, despite your desperate
attempts to do so.
>Just as a side bar comment, not all common cathode amps require
>neutralization. Its not rocket science to build a stable common
>cathode amplifier less the neutralization requirement.
Duh! I said that a long time ago! It's VERY easy to build one without
neutralization when your Cgp is so low that stray capacitance in the
grid circuit is enough to neutralize the tube. Where have you been,
Skippy?
>Unless you put on the the turn signal... we are talking grounded
>grid AB2 amplifiers using sweep tubes. Now if we can just get
>you off your cell phone.
I had a cell phone for a few months. Didn't like it. Never had one
since.
>> > The original topic is
>> >Sweep Tube amplifiers in grounded grid operation, that is AB2.
>>
>> The original topic was a couple of questions that you haven't been
>> able to answer. Beyond that, the topic has been about sweep tubes vs.
>> RF power tubes, and you have been trying to narrow that topic down to
>> grounded-grid amps only, ignoring the fact that sweep tubes were used
>> in many common-cathode applications.
>
>Doesn't look your your going to be happy with any 25-50Mhz amplifier
>example, the fact that I have an unaltered copy of an current IB
>Radio Service FCC License so I can't help you there, nor do I care
>to.
>
>If you want to put on the common cathode sweep tube amplifier talk,
>lets boogie.
I have been doing it all along, Skippy. You have been out to lunch on
the issue.
> By the way, did I tell you I have a two tube common
>cathode sweep tube amplifiers at 28.55 MHz that has better than
>10dB gain and no neutralization...?
10 dB gain from a two-tube common-cathode amp? That's PATHETIC,
Skippy! You should be getting AT LEAST 14 dB from those tubes, which
means that you have neutralization in that amp but don't know it, and
it's causing your poor gain figures. Hey, why isn't this amp posted on
your sonic server, too? LOL!
> How about you throwing out
>a circuit now..? How about you answering up with any text you've
>posted any where on the net that we can review... of course other
>than your hate post followup replies. Anything ...? Please..?
Naw, I would rather point out all the errors of your amps.
ye...@removecet.com
<nospamatthi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
<snip>
>> >: fact it CANNOT reduce or eliminate grid-current distortion. I needed
>> >: to explain that in order to be linear you need at least 180 degrees of
>> >: undistorted conduction time, which you cannot achieve with grid
>> >: current distortion.
>> >
>> >Well mr magic amp... what is the conduction angle of an AB2 amplifier..?
>> >Yep, greater than 180 degrees.
>>
>> Not 180 undistorted degrees. In case you haven't noticed, the grid is
>> usually biased slightly negative with repect to the cathode, making
>> the grid current transition occur within that 180 degrees. And because
>> the bias is so slightly negative it also tends to make more noise at
>> lower power levels than high power peaks.
>
>The conduction angle is never perfect, but it is still about 210
>degrees by generic definition. The grid should be biased negative
>with respect to the cathode.
I have no problems with 210 degree conduction, although I wouldn't
agree to the specific number unless I actually measured it. As for the
grid biased negative, yeah? So?
> The question should be if you've ever
>measured the noise..? Is the noise a significant problem ..? I
>and other believe it does not disqualify sweep tubes from RF AB2
>g-grid amplifier service.
The numbers provided by the manufacturer are more than enough proof of
the noise caused by these tubes. I have posted them from your own
example of a "classic" amp at least three times. Shall I post them
again?
>> > The big picture here is the grid current
>> >distortion in the topic amplifier is not large enough to prohibit the
>> >Sweep Tube from consideration as a viable choice. Sweep tubes in AB2
>> >grounded grid amplifiers have conduction angles greater than 180 degrees.
>>
>> Despite your repitition, all you need to do is to look at the numbers.
>> The Dentron claims -30 dB IMD and -40 dB on harmonics, which sucks for
>> a kilowatt amplifier.
>
>Probably because -30 dB was the requirement... In my Dentron web page
>text, I mention a lot of the short comings of Dentron, which then
>became Amp Supply. I don't judge the Dentron GLA-1000 as a good
>circuit, in fact I wrote my text to point out some serious improvements
>to be made which will make the amplifier a great rebuild project.
>
>Even the Svetlana Conversion has a lot of poop and is actually
>incomplete (no standby mode cut-off).
>
>I measured about -32 dB on one example Quartet Sweep Tube Amplifier
>some years back. What would make the amplifier "suck" is a speech
>processed SSB signal using ALC.
I wouldn't run a sweep tube that DOESN'T have an ALC circuit, and I
would NEVER run a sweep tube grounded-grid. The proof is in the
pudding -- they simply put out too much grid-current distortion, and
all the noise figures for all the grounded-grid sweep tube amps back
up that fact. "Plain fact, jack..."
>In regular operation, you couldn't tell I had it on the air, other
>than the increased signal strength. That's what amplifier operation
>should be all about.
It should be, but frequently that's not all that comes out of the
coax.
ye...@removecet.com
<nospamatthi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> ye...@cet.com wrote: on and on and on and on... for a long time...
>
>> >: 8. You didn't know that 'grounded' in 'grounded-grid' means a signal
>> >: ground, and not necessarily a DC ground.
>> >
>> >Seems to me, I brought that to your attention frankie...
>>
>> Yes you did. You stated that a triode-connected grounded-grid sweep
>> tube doesn't work like a triode. You further demonstrated your
>> ignorance on the subject of grounding by bringing up the issue of
>> 'reverse screen current'.
>
>Now there you go again trying to drag Reverse Screen Current into the
>mix; trying to cover your tracks... nope, won't work here.
You brought it into the conversation, Skippy. You used it in context
with your explanation of how a triode-connected sweep tube doesn't
work like a triode, but are now recanting because you think I'm stupid
enough to buy your excuse that it had nothing to do with the question.
"nope, won't work here", Skippy.
>Let us filter through the confetti and get right back on the topic.
>
>The doesn't work like a triode refers to the benefit of the additional
>shielding from the grounded screen and supressor grids.
Nice try, but you can't shield the plate from the cathode without
shielding the cathode from the plate, cause the amp wouldn't work! And
your precept for shielding stems from your unwillingness to understand
the basic operation of a grounded-grid amp, the regenerative feedback
effect of interelectrode capacitances, and the neutralization of the
same.
And that STILL doesn't explain what you were allegedly referring to
when you brought up 'reverse screen current' (if not about how a
triode-connected sweep tube doesn't operate like a triode).
> To make the
>round trip, I also claim that the type of AB2 grounded grid circuit
>is of concern (as there are a few variations of grounded grid) when
>using triode connected grounded grid sweep tubes because there is a
>problem (previously explained) trying to run them in some applied
>triode g-grid circuits. It's all about the tube geometry...
Well then explain why this tube geometry affects the operation of a
triode-connected sweep tube. Come to think of it, you have used the
phrase "tube geometry" several times, but just like all your other
meaningless catch-phrases you haven't gone into any further detail or
explanation. Do you think these things explain themselves, Skippy? Or
do you think that I don't know a bluff when I see it?
>> > you're
>> >again trying to turn a post around again. In specific, I stated there is
>> >more than one way to ground the required elements providing you understand
>> >basic AC and DC load lines.
>>
>> I can't seem to find any post where you say that. Care to quote the
>> specific post? And what do you mean by "basic AC and DC load lines"?
>> You do know what a 'load line' is, don't you Skippy?
>
>I do thank you, you don't appear to have a grasp of load lines when
>you write poop about my 10 ohm series cathode resistor recommendation
>in the dentron text.
...blah, blah, blah. I already addressed your cathode resistors a long
time ago but you refuse to look up the post. Now where is that post
where you explain about "basic AC and DC load lines", Skippy?
>The AC & DC part came in a later post... grounding grids in various
>combinations was mentioned well over a year ago. I even posted a
>rather large article about the good sweep tube amplifier layouts.
>Since your so good at news group surfing, go dig it up on the
>www.contesting.com web page. Once again, how about sharing any
>text or web pages you have with us Frank... we're still waiting.
More diversionary BS. What's a load line, Skippy?
>> > It was clear to me that you don't have
>> >the proper background knowledge when you coughed and wheezed a batch of
>> >poop about my recomendation to include 10 ohm cathode lead resistors in
>> >my Dentron GLA-1000 update text.
>> >First off, you started out with a "grounding the cathode" rant, when I
>> >corrected your goof, you moved on or avoided your orignal mistake to say
>> >the resistor addition was stupid.
>> >Well, had you pulled your head out and done the proper homework, you've
>> >find the example amplifier linearity improves with the mentioned
>> >modification. But since you know feedback, degeneration and load lines so
>> >well, you can figure that out later.
>>
>> I addressed that issue seperately. What does it have to do with the
>> grounding of a grid? Nothing. You are shifting topics, the exact same
>> thing you accuse ME of doing.
>
>In specific, you applied the resistor recommendation to a fault of
>ungrounding the cathode, you also threw in neutralization with your
>diatribe of the moment
WTH are you talking about? I said that a cathode resistor on a
common-cathode RF amp is a bad idea because it ungrounds the cathode.
What does that have to do with your claim that a series resistor on
the cathode of a grounded-grid amp improving linearity?
> when I only state the resistor improves
>linearity, the cause... by providing degeneration.
Attenuation is not the same as degeneration (degenerative feedback).
Go read your Electronics 101 book, Skippy.
> You did not
>properly address the issue because you don't understand AB2 grounded
>grid circuits very well.
I understand the issue very well and have previously addressed it.
I'll even give you the post ID (which I have done several times
already and twice today):
And you are STILL avoiding the issue at hand; namely, your confusion
between AC and DC grounding of a grid.
ye...@removecet.com
<nospamatthi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> ye...@cet.com wrote: more poop
>>
>> In <aqhm10$5mh$1...@woodrow.ucdavis.edu>, Frank goes whacky
>> <nospam4me...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >: 9. You didn't know what ALC circuits are, calling them "linearity
>> >: detectors" (your own terminology),
>> >
>> >Come on now frankie... talk about text twist and dance moves... I
>> >referenced an example linearity detector shown in the Galaxy Sweep Tube HF
>> >amplifier text posted on the sonic server.
>>
>> That's not a "linearity detector", and the article doesn't even call
>> it that. Your "linearity detector" is an AMPLITUDE COMPARATOR which
>> controls the bias regulator -- it's an ALC circuit, Skippy!
>
>Lets break it down frankie... Conventional ALC as found in many
>Amateur transceivers used with rf amplifiers consist of a hard wired
>"feed back loop". The amplifier output quantity is sampled and
>fed back to the transmitter ALC circuit.
Exactly! The output QUANTITY, not the LINEARITY!
> The Transmitter output
>in real world action hopefully reacts (but never in time) to reduce
>excessive drive. There is always a measurable amount of poop going
>out the door before the circuit reacts. In a compressed speech
>chat, poop is in generate mode because the ALC cannot keep up.
>i.e. time constants.
Most of your "poop" is generated because your speech processing
includes clipping of the audio signal! As long as you don't drive the
ALC too hard you won't have any "poop" to worry about, regardless of
the time constants. And that's a pretty good argument against trying
to squeeze every last watt out of a rig.
>In another topic we could talk about how to deal with the loop
>issue in the real world, but its not worth the trouble when a
>properly set up radio with a real power control (not a mic gain)
>can easily limit the drive.
>
>The Galaxy circuit is novel in that it adjusts the amplifier bias
>for improved linearity. Notice the detector circuit compares the
>output with the input. There is no limiting action... just
>bias adjustment.
No kidding -- it improves linearity by pulling the amplifiers out of
saturation and back into the linear portion of the EgIp curve.
>> The acronym 'ALC' stands for Automatic Level Control which, for all
>> intents and purposes, is a compressor. The ALC is a circuit that
>> reduces the input or gain when the amplifier becomes overloaded. By
>> comparison, a limiter is basically a clipper, which necessarily causes
>> distortion.
>
>If the input power reduction happens late, poop happens early. With
>each new word in some cases... I'll hear you up the band with your
>"contest audio." Who's the bad boy now..?
The ALC circuit, just like any other compressor, is set to react
whenever the input reaches a specific level. That level may or may not
be in the linear region, but the lower the better. It also has an
attack time that must be set -- again, the lower the better. Provided
the amp is used according to the manufacturers recommendations and not
driven beyond the ability of the ALC circuit to control the amp, there
won't be ANY "poop" to deal with.
>The power control knob of a modern amateur radio should not accused
>of causing distortion.
Who did?
> In fact it could be a poop gate if people
>would learn how to use it with their amplifiers in operation.
..."poop gate"?
>> As far as their being too "slow", most of them begin to react after
>> the very first or second RF peak. I suppose a couple peaks are going
>> to sneak through before the output level is reduced, but that's a
>> whole lot better than each every RF peak being clipped from a limiter.
>
>Most modern amateur speech processors are not limiters.
The hell they aren't! Most of them work by simple diode clipping and
subsequent filtering. Some work via fast AGC circuits which have the
same effect, but with less filtering required because of the soft
clipping of an AGC amp. There are a few speech processors that use
log/anti-log amps or RF processing, but those are quite rare.
> A couple
>of peaks are going to sneak through each time the ALC loop fails
>to keep up. Poop generation in every transmission.
Right effect, wrong reason. Ever read an ARRL handbook, Skippy?
>> >Many Amateurs using ALC are clueless about the actual
>> > circuit operation.
>>
>> Yourself included.
>
>Thanks, seems I brought it to your attention, but you knew that
>of course.
If you had a decent news browser you would see that it was ME that
brought it up while talking about the Swans. But a nice try, Skippy.
>> >Before the ALC acts (time constant)... unwanted poop is piped out the
>> >coax connector to the antenna.
>>
>> See above.
>
>I can... You "suppose" poop happens, I know "poop happens". Hey..!
>Frankie helped me make a funny... :-)
I said that I suppose there is a very small and insignificant amount
of time where a signal will slip past an ALC circuit when it's working
correctly and not overdriven, or couldn't you gather that much from
the context? I also said that speech compression causes distortion of
the audio input to the amp, which it does. Have you thought about
getting one of those glare-screens for your computer monitor?
>> >Depending on the ALC to throttle your tubes back results in much higher
>> >levels of initial pre alc action poop. You can hear that poop as buckshot
>> >up and down the band...
>>
>> Yes you can if the amp is severly overdriven. Even an ALC has it's
>> limitations. But an RF limiter creates horrendous amounts of splatter
>> even at normal signal levels, just as if the amplifier were being
>> driven into saturation. That's why RF limiters are not used in power
>> amplifers, but ALC circuits are used instead.
>
>Depending on ALC action most often results in over driven amplifiers,
>dat's da fact jack...
No doubt that ALC circuits are frequently overdriven. Some people just
gotta have those extra few watts!
>RF Limiters are another animal which cover a lot of ground. Without
>you going off to never never land again... how about you first read
>and understand how the power control knob on a modern amateur radio
>actually works...
By adjusting the bias, attenuating the input, and/or varying the
screen current of the common-cathode final. What's your point? And
what does that have to do with RF limiters?
>Controlling or limiting the output power of a modern amateur radio is
>not the distortion generation device your trying to describe....
>really frankie, read up on it before you comment please.
You are confusing 'limiting' and 'compression', Skippy. A limiter
prevents a signal from exceeding a specific level, usually by
clipping. It distorts the signal. A compressor (of which the ALC
circuit is an example) decreases the gain and/or input according to
the output level. The signal remains relatively unscathed.
>> >: you claimed had "linearity detectors". You also claimed that ALC
>> >: circuits are "dated technology" despite their continued and effective
>> >: use in amplifiers and other circuits.
>> >
>> >At one time, ALC was thought to work pretty well for the most part.
>>
>> It still does.
>
>For those who know no better and are happy with dated technology.
That includes anyone that uses incandescent light bulbs, convection
ovens, and that wonderful invention by Thomas Crapper. All "dated"
technologies by your standards.
>Modern radios do a better job with ALC, but it's never fast enough.
>This is where the power control knob on the radio works better.
Are you trying to tell me that you can turn a power control knob
faster than an ALC circuit can react to power peaks? I hope not!
>> >Relying on it for rf compression is poorly applied technology. If you
>> >were to look at your signal before the ALC acts... much unwanted poop is
>> >generated. Especially in SSB operation with voice compression.
>>
>> The 'compression' to which you refer is actually CLIPPING of the audio
>> peaks to prevent the amplifier from being driven into saturation on
>> those peaks. It's funny how you got 'clipping' and 'compression'
>> reversed!
>
>When the amplifier reaches max boogie, the rf envelope is compressed
>or in another view "hard limited". This is very bad news... some RF
>Amplifiers have specified "X-dB" compression point measurement
>values listed. The bottom line, one should avoid depending on
>any circuit operation which can over drive an amplifier, even for
>brief moments in each transmission. Smart people do not rely on
>ALC circuit operation.
>
>But you do...
I expect it to perform the fuction for which it was designed. I have
also stated many times that you shouldn't overdrive your amp -- and
consequently overdrive the ALC circuit -- because the ALC has it's
limitations. Matter of fact, I made a point of that when talking about
the Swan 500, or are you missing that post too? Funny how you have
been able to read all of these numbered posts but STILL can't find
those other posts -- you aren't ignoring them, are you Skippy?
ye...@removecet.com
<nospamatthi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> "ye...@REMOVEcet.com" wrote:
>
>> >Dont have to do it twice. Consult the LA-1000 or GLA-1000 owners manual
>> >for details.
>>
>> It claims 30 dB down on IMD and 40 dB down on harmonics. It doesn't
>> mention the conditions under which those figures were achieved.
>> Regardless, those are piss-poor figures for a 1000 watt amp, since the
>> IMD alone puts out nearly 1 full watt:
>
>It claims a lot of unsliced bologna Frank...glad you noticed. The
>reason Amp Supply and Dentron went away was from their notorious
>and now famous amount of monkey business.
>
>1000 watts maybe on a good day with a tail wind...
>
>Following most of the generic amplifier testing methods, I would imagine
>they used a two tone test method.
I don't make such assumptions. I have been in the business for a long
time, and in the position many times where I was told to fudge the
figures in order to pass specifications. And even a two-tone test
won't necessarily show the inherent "poop" when an amp hits those
modulation peaks normally encountered with human speech. You know that
as well as I do.
>In the real world, the GLA-1000 and Amp Supply LA-1000 do a nice clean
>+10dB with about 40 to 60 watts drive. It makes them useful as compact
>desktop amplifiers for many of the typical 70's/80's/90 hf amateur
>radios.
I wouldn't call them "clean", that's for sure.
>> > They are FCC legal amplifiers which is all that matters.
>>
>> ONLY because of the exemption, NOT because of the RF performance of
>> the sweep tubes, which basically sucks.
>
>I was told, one version of the Amp Supply LA-1000 or the Dentron
>GLA-1000C actually had type acceptance. I even had the tag picture
>saved for the sonic web pages. Alas I'm not able to find it right
>now so you'll accuse me of being a liar... so forget about it.
Some of them did indeed have authorization. But that authorization has
been rescinded, or can't you comprehend that fact? I even quoted you
the regs, but you snipped part of them and claimed that it's all up to
your interpretation. Unfortunately, Skippy, it is NOT subject to YOUR
interpretation, but it is clearly spelled out in the regs. What part
of "law" don't you understand?
>The big deal that the Dentron GLA-1000C and I believe the
>Amp Supply LA-1000 models were both post ban amplifiers legally
>sold in the US.
I do believe that they were post-ban amps, but I think if they were
legal in the US it was before the amendment placing restrictions on
amps that are easily modifiable for the prohibited freqs.
>>
>> > The FCC said go and the various mfgrs legally built them.
>
>> And after they learned from their mistake they changed the rules.
>
>Sweep tube amplifiers were legally made by Ameritron, Dentron
>and Amp Supply after the 78 rule change... just not shipped with
>plug and play 10 meter operation.
See above.
>>
>> > The mid 80's ARRL
>> >Handbooks show great examples of sweep tubes in rf amplications. I
>> >mentioned the Handbook references more than once, it's a waste of time to
>> >post redundant information.
>>
>> And again you failed to mention that the vast majority of the
>> amplifiers in project manuals and ARRL handbooks use RF power tubes,
>> NOT sweep tubes.
>
>"Failed" ...?
>Why would I need to mention it..? I've been talking about sweep
>tubes, where have you been...?
I have been here talking about sweep tubes AND RF power tubes, and
watching you trying to narrow down the topic to grounded-grid sweep
tube amps only while covertly redirecting topics where you show a
serious lack of technical competence.
>Variety is the spice of life.... even Handbook projects using RF
>power tubes are not specific to one single type of valve.
>
>Life goes on...
Yeah, but the life of sweep tubes is just about over. Why are you
hanging onto this "dated" technology?
ye...@removecet.com
<nospamatthi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> ye...@cet.com wrote with bad breath...
>
>> >The actual internal constuction of the tube matters very much. You are
>> >clearly wrong...
>>
>> I was pointing out that your melodramatic concern about parasitics in
>> RF power tubes is unfounded, since the use of a simple parasitic
>> supressor is usually more than enough to prevent high-frequency
>> parasitics REGARDLESS of what type of tube is being used. With that in
>> mind, RF power tubes have no predisposition to parasitics as you
>> claim. The difference is in the circuit, NOT the tube!
>
>Aaaaahhhhhh.......! Now your changing your tune to "high-frequency
>parasitics". Doesn't matter really, let's talk.
I addressed both high-frequency and low-frequency parasitics
previously. Update your news browser.
>Well Mr. Amplifier... your on your face again... Much of the problem
>with amplifiers parasitics happen in the VHF region, an area you
>should never ignore and a simple parasitic suppressor is only a very
>small part of the big picture.
>
>Tubes like the 8877 are well designed and for the most part, don't
>require parasitic suppressors to operate in a good high gain HF
>circuits. Pop in a similar size valve in the same circuit and chances
>are it's going to sing like a big dog.
That's a load of "poop" and you know it. Any circuit to which the 8877
is connected is going to have resonant frequencies -- that's just a
fact of RF amps you can't avoid. As long as the tube can amplify on
those frequencies, there MUST be some method of dampening the
unintended resonant frequency of the circuit. It's not the tube, it's
the circuit, Skippy!
>The type of tube matters... don't know how to say it any clearer to
>you.
You said it clearly enough, but you are still wrong. The tube is only
a component of any parasitic resonant circuit in the amplifier. Unless
the tube has some magical "resonance detection-and-dampening" device,
you still need some form of supression of those frequencies. No tube
is immune because the tube is just the amplifier, not the whole
resonant circuit. This is first-year electronics, Skippy.
>Your "predisposition to parasitics" is not really a good term...
The concept is yours, and it's not really a good concept.
>but the tubes such as the 3-1000z and the 3-500z in mfgrs rated
>applications have a well known and documented track record
>of parasitic problems. Readers can reference text at
>http://www.vcnet.com/measures for more detailed information.
You should take a look at that site a bit more closely. A lot of the
info is good, but a lot of it is also very bogus, such as the idea
(which you adopted) that neutralization isn't required in a
grounded-grid amp because of 'grid-screening'.
>For more detailed study of a tube which is not generically subject
>to parasitic problems, please research the 8877, in specific...
>the grid construction. The mfgrs data sheet might be a good
>place to start.
I have already done so, and I even posted some information from the
datasheet in this discussion. There is nothing in the datasheet to
indicate that it is immune from parasitics. Because, Skippy,
parasitics are an effect of the CIRCUIT, NOT just the tube.
>Your simply wrong again Franklin... or frankie...
All the data and facts support my comments and contradict your's. It
is YOU that is wrong again, Skippy.
ye...@removecet.com
<nospamatthi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>"ye...@sayethpoopcet.com" wrote:
>
>> >Actually, my response was about your broad statement that using a
>> >fet preamplifier is useless.
>>
>> You responded to a post where I critiqued the KLV, saying that it was
>> probably intended for the CB market, and....
>
>Just can't help but throw this out one time... Where on the mfgrs
>web page does it say what the intended market is Frankie...
On page three of the operating instructions it says, "Use of this amp
with a CB radio is illegal. If anyone complains, try to make them feel
stupid by pointing that out in this manual. If they continue to
complain, just act stupid until they stop. If you get caught by the
FCC, just say that you interpreted the law differently and they will
understand..."
Close enough?
> OK,
>so I couldn't resist one time. Now lets break it down...
>
>I believe you called the addition of a fet amplifier in the KLV
>amplifier useless.
>
>> "...with that in mind, the pre-amplifier is effectively useless, doing
>> nothing other than making the noise floor louder."
>>
>> To which you replied:
>>
>> >Companies like ARR, Sinclair, Telewave and Angle Linear all make various
>> >fet amplifiers... If the noise figure is less than say 1.5 dB, but the
>> >signal gain is greater
>> >than say 13 dB, doesn't that sound like a pretty good preamp..? Even
>> >if it were a lower gain Dual Gate fet..? would you say the advantage is
>> >overkill..?
>>
>> And prompted me to simplify my statement so that even you could
>> understand that:
>>
>> >If your receiver is already sensitive enough to receive the noise
>> >floor, a preamp is not going to improve the signal-to-noise ratio. In
>> >fact, the preamp is going to add to the noise by the stated 1.5 dB,
>> >but it will increase the noise floor by 13 dB!
>
>Depends on where the noise floor happens to be... you have to be
>certain
>that each or most of the receivers can actually hear the noise floor.
>You can't be certain...
Sure you can. Test your receive with the sig-gen. If you can get it
down to 3 uV then you probably don't need a pre-amp for audio
reception.
>> So you see, it wasn't such a "broad" statement at all. My statement is
>> what is commonly referred to as a 'conditional statement', and was
>> quite specific.
>
>Conditional statements side step the applied real world.
YOU are trying to accuse ME of sidestepping? ROTFLMMFAO!!! Try reading
in context, Skippy!
>> > I don't agree... not everyone has a hot
>> >receiver. A switchable low noise fet preamplifier is a very good thing
>> >and relatively cheap in cost. Not everyone has your magical hot as a
>> >firecracker receiver... in fact some of the Icom 706MKIIG radios I've
>> >tried have pretty numb receivers.
>>
>> Most CB radios (and by 'most' I mean just about every CB radio that
>> has ever been manufactured AND is working properly) have receiver
>> sensitivities in the range of 3 uV, which is plenty sensitive enough
>> to hear the background hash that pervades the band almost constantly.
>> And knowing that the noise on the CB is much greater than many other
>> bands, a pre-amplifier is, as I said before, practically useless. It
>> does not improve the signal-to-noise ratio, and actually degrades it
>> by it's insertion. Preamps are primarily intended for receivers with
>> weak front ends, such as older radios and homebrew rigs. They really
>> make the difference with those one-tube regen rigs, older SW radios,
>> and even crystal radios. But all they do with a CB radio is make the
>> noise louder.
>
>I don't agree... neither does most of the rest of the world. That's
>why much of the rest of the world uses them in weak signal work.
>That includes many two way commercial receivers along with the hobby
>crowd. It's also how all those companies make much of their bread
>and butter.
Most of the world accepts certain things on blind faith simply because
the claims are too good to be true. Anyone that has actually put these
through the bench know better -- same deal with sweep tube amps.
piper for frankie G
> >: amplifier does not require neutralization, citing the reason as 'grid
> >: screening'. I had to explain that it's not required because the
> >: amplifier is non-inverting (which you also didn't understand), where
> >
> >Not the entire case, only part of the master plan frankie... there's a
> >list of grounded grid benefits.
>
> Yes there are, but that's not the point. You claimed that
> neutralization was not required because the grid was grounded and
> screened the cathode from the plate. By that statement you proved that
> you have no clue as to the purpose of neutralization, the cause of
> regenerative feedback, or the operation of a grounded-grid amplifier.
The shielding of the grid(s) is part of the picture, but at no time
did I claim it to be the entire picture. Lets get real here frankie...
The non inverting function of the g-grid amplifier is not the key
player in the picture of amplifier stability. Non inverting amplifiers
will easily sing, it's about that anode-C path through the
blocking cap to the Tune-C that really concern the tubes gain in
the VHF region... your wonderful 6146 example can also boogie with
the rest of the tube that have VHF gain.
But you have "yeti" to show us that you understand the VHF issues
of HF amplifiers and how to deal with them.... oh yeah, other than
"a simple parasitic suppressor". You build and amplifier with a tube
like the 3-1000z and "a simple parasitic suppressor doesn't cut the
mustard frankie. And it's a purpose designed RF power tube...
>
> >: the voltages on the input and output are in phase, and therefore cause
> >: no regenerative feedback that would require neutralization (which is
> >: where the term originates -- the 'neutralization' of regenerative
> >: feedback!).
> >
> >You are a piece of work frankie... the vhf circuit which can sometimes
> >support VHF ocillations is mainly determined by the Anode-C and the
> >inductance of the conductors between the Anode and Tune-C. Your in phase
> >statement is bogus at VHF where the parasitics often occur. Your
> >post information is faulty.
>
> Neutralization is NOT used to prevent parasitics, it's used to prevent
> regenerative feedback from turning the amplifier into an oscillator on
> the resonant frequency of the amplifier! By golly, you don't even know
> how an oscillator works! Talk about bogus...!
Neutralization in the HF region goes out the window to ensure stability
in the vhf region. There are two different paths happening...
By golly I must know something... every single grounded grid amplifier
I own or have built (which are many in number) does not have one part
of a neutralization circuit on board.
No one here claims neutralization is used to prevent parasitics. But
most all of us owning or building grounded grid amplifiers (with the
exception of some much debated Ameritron circuits) don't have a lick
of a neutralization circuit installed.
Why wasted the hardware, it's simply not required in most grounded
grid amplifier designs. Of course unless you and ___________ say it
is.
piper for frankie G
>
> >Once again Frankie... how many grounded grid AB1 amplifiers have you seen
> >in use..? Don't modify my text as you go along in your rants to suit
> >your current post needs.
>
> I have had enough with your "cut-and-paste" bullshit, Skippy. NONE of
> your quotes have EVER been modified, misquoted, pulled out of context,
> edited (not even for spelling), or otherwise used for any other
> purpose except for the meaning you intended. All my posts are on
> google, and I challenge you to find even ONE example that backs up
> your claim. Otherwise, quit lying about being misquoted.
Temper temper Frankie... your bald head and your blood pressure are
growing.
So how about answering my questions... how many grounded grid
amplifiers have you seen in operation...? make and model..?
any..?
> > The predominant class of grounded grid
> >amplifiers is AB2... exciter power is required and a portion shows up in
> >the output as a freebie. Doesn't get any simpler, but you seen to want to
> >give theory examples of amplifiers no one person is using. Earth to
> >Frank, real world here... wake up..
> >
> >One last thing... your last statement is not so true... class AB1
> >operation of grounded grid amplifiers does not consume input power.
>
> By your statements above -- about how AB2 requires input power but AB1
> does not -- it's clear that you think input power is required only
> when grid current flows. You are very, very wrong, Skippy. ANY class
Grid current flow implies input drive power consumed... unless you have
that magical grounded grid AB1 amplifier make and model handy...?
> of grounded-grid amplifier consumes input power (meaning power from
> the signal source). The input is on the cathode, and it is impossible
> for the tube to conduct (and therefore amplify) if there is no cathode
> current. Part of that cathode current MUST come from the signal source
> because it is IMPOSSIBLE to impose an AC signal on the cathode without
> AC current! Once again you demonstrate not only your ignorance on the
> subject, but your total lack of willingness to verify the facts for
> yourself.
>
> >Got to go, back later to finish... love ya frankie,
> I know.
>
> > keep trying.
> >skipp
>
> Keep trying yourself. You might try to check the validity of your
> statements before you demonstrate your ignorance even further by
> continuing to defend them.
Still waiting for that AB1 grounded grid amplifier Frank, make and
model when you have a moment.
Keep this handy because it's helpful when talking about grounded
grid amplifiers.
AB2 operation, grid current flows, drive power is consumed. The
feed through drive power swamps out the grid current distortion
issues.
AB1, no grid current flow.
Back latter for number 18 ... gotta' go check my reverse screen
current.
still love ya frankie...
skipp
piper for frankie G
> >: capacitance changes depending on whether the amplifier is
> >: grounded-grid or common-cathode. Of course it doesn't, because it's a
> >: characteristic of the tube, not of the circuit. I explained that you
> >: might be confused because the -input- capacitance is different, and
> >: that's because the two different circuits use different parts of the
> >: tube for input.
> >
> >It's no mistake Frankie... look it up. Use the exact text I wrote so you
> >don't twist in some misinformation your so good at doing. If you need some
> >help, I can reference some text for you.
>
> No help required. Here you go (again):
[snipage on my part in the interest of brevity]
> >
> >Sure, consider the properly designed, AB2 grounded grid "Cathode Driven
> >amplifier. The interposed screen grid acts as an electrostatic shield
> >between the grid and plate, with the consequence that the grid to plate
> >capacitance is reduced.... combined with Grid Shielding between the
> >cathode and the plate which make your much touted neutralization
> >unnecessary.
Nothing wrong with the above statement...
> >
> >Triode connected tetrodes (grounded grid) show a degree of improvement
> >in distortion figures as opposed to grid driven service.
> >
> >What might be called more passive gain operation of the screen and
> >supressor grids in an AB2 amplifier, does not deny their actual operating
> >
> >shielding function and reduced Cgp in the grounded grid circuit.
> <snip>
> =====
>
> There you go, your exact text. And in your exact text you describe a
> number of misconceptions:
Well then, let's "concept them frankie... onward.
>
> 1. The screen grid does indeed shield the control grid from the plate,
> but it does so ONLY when there is a signal on the grid to be shielded.
> You don't have a signal on the grid of a grounded-grid amplifier.
You have reduced Cgp and Ccp... the reduced Cgp is a big
picture benefit of a grounded grid amplifiers. But you knew that
of course..
Simple enough, next
> 2. The effect of adding a screen grid to a TRIODE reduces the
> grid-to-plate capacitance of the tube. The Cgp of a tube DOES NOT
> CHANGE because it's connected as a triode in a grounded-grid
> amplifier! In fact, it effectively does the opposite....
Careful what you write bucky... The Cgp is actually about
half as I describe. I, other people and a heck of a lot of text
books don't agree. You are simply wrong and need to go look up
the details. How about a Radio Handbook as a good reference...
> 3. Since your sweep tube is connected as a triode, the screen and
> supressor (G2 and G3) are grounded with G1, and all three become the
> EFFECTIVE grid. Therefore, the G1-to-plate capacitance is added to the
> G2- and G3-to-plate capacitances, making the EFFECTIVE grid-to-plate
> capacitance HIGHER than the Cgp of the tube. In fact, the EFFECTIVE
> Cgp is more along the lines of the Cgp of a TRIODE (which shouldn't be
> so suprising since the tube is connected and operated as a TRIODE)!
Aaaaaaahhhhh, see... this is where you don't know classic grounded
grid amplifier layouts very well. It is very bad news to ground
the G1, G2 and G3 grids together... and you don't even have a clue
why...
I'll put aside your Cgp statements for the moment until you review
and understand why one should not ground together the G1, G2 (and G3)
grids with many types of tubes, based on their geometry. That includes
rf power tubes like the 4cx250b.
Your plane just crashed frankie...
> 4. I don't know how many times I need to repeat this before you
> finally get a clue and look it up for yourself, but I'll do it one
> more time: a grounded-grid amplifier does not require neutralization
> simply because it is a non-inverting amplifier which causes no
> regenerative feedback requiring neutralization -- NOT because of
> reduced Cgp or 'grid shielding', which are properties of the tube
> regardless of whether it's used as a grounded-grid or common-cathode
> amplifier.
In the ideal dream world... in the real world, feedback paths can
and do occur within the max (Ft) of the tube. When you have VHF (Ft)
rated tubes in service, all bets are off when relying on the non
inverting HF circuit layout. The non inverting by layout operation
of an amplifier makes it only a card player, not the dealer.
When you have tubes with high vhf gain, there can be two dealers
to the card game.
The subject is well covered at http://www.vcnet.com/measures
Don't take my or Frankie's word for it... grab some Radio Handbooks
and review the web page text mentioned above.
You'll grow old waiting for Frank to post any articles of text
he's authored. Even though I said please numerous times.
skipp
ye...@removecet.com
<nospamatthi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> "ye...@cet.com" wrote: please spam me hard...
>
>> >: amplifier does not require neutralization, citing the reason as 'grid
>> >: screening'. I had to explain that it's not required because the
>> >: amplifier is non-inverting (which you also didn't understand), where
>> >
>> >Not the entire case, only part of the master plan frankie... there's a
>> >list of grounded grid benefits.
>>
>> Yes there are, but that's not the point. You claimed that
>> neutralization was not required because the grid was grounded and
>> screened the cathode from the plate. By that statement you proved that
>> you have no clue as to the purpose of neutralization, the cause of
>> regenerative feedback, or the operation of a grounded-grid amplifier.
>
>The shielding of the grid(s) is part of the picture, but at no time
>did I claim it to be the entire picture. Lets get real here frankie...
...backpeddle, backpeddle...
>The non inverting function of the g-grid amplifier
Wow! You finally admit that it's a non-inverting amp! Hey, we're
making progress....
> is not the key
>player in the picture of amplifier stability. Non inverting amplifiers
>will easily sing, it's about that anode-C path through the
>blocking cap to the Tune-C that really concern the tubes gain in
>the VHF region... your wonderful 6146 example can also boogie with
>the rest of the tube that have VHF gain.
You are still confusing neutralization with parasitic supression.
Learn the difference, Skippy. Then we'll talk.
>But you have "yeti" to show us that you understand the VHF issues
>of HF amplifiers and how to deal with them.... oh yeah, other than
>"a simple parasitic suppressor". You build and amplifier with a tube
>like the 3-1000z and "a simple parasitic suppressor doesn't cut the
>mustard frankie. And it's a purpose designed RF power tube...
Even higher power tubes are easy. All a parasitic supressor does is
damp the frequency of the parasitic. Activate your GDO (or set the
tube up for very low gain) and measure the frequency of the parasitic
(or parasitics). Once you have identified where they are coming from
and their frequencies, it's a simple matter to eliminate them with any
of several methods, and the common resistor/inductor supressor is only
one of those methods.
That's how amplifiers are PROPERLY designed, Skippy. Not by picking a
tube because you heard somewhere that it doesn't require parasitic
supression. That's lazy and lame.
And you STILL haven't shown any understanding of the fundamentals
behind neutralization.
>>
>> >: the voltages on the input and output are in phase, and therefore cause
>> >: no regenerative feedback that would require neutralization (which is
>> >: where the term originates -- the 'neutralization' of regenerative
>> >: feedback!).
>> >
>> >You are a piece of work frankie... the vhf circuit which can sometimes
>> >support VHF ocillations is mainly determined by the Anode-C and the
>> >inductance of the conductors between the Anode and Tune-C. Your in phase
>> >statement is bogus at VHF where the parasitics often occur. Your
>> >post information is faulty.
>>
>> Neutralization is NOT used to prevent parasitics, it's used to prevent
>> regenerative feedback from turning the amplifier into an oscillator on
>> the resonant frequency of the amplifier! By golly, you don't even know
>> how an oscillator works! Talk about bogus...!
>
>Neutralization in the HF region goes out the window to ensure stability
>in the vhf region. There are two different paths happening...
No screamin' eagle [poop]! What do you think I have been saying for
the past few days? SHEESH!!!
>By golly I must know something... every single grounded grid amplifier
>I own or have built (which are many in number) does not have one part
>of a neutralization circuit on board.
Care to guess why?
>No one here claims neutralization is used to prevent parasitics. But
>most all of us owning or building grounded grid amplifiers (with the
>exception of some much debated Ameritron circuits) don't have a lick
>of a neutralization circuit installed.
Yeah? Isn't that what I said over a week ago? Duh!
>Why wasted the hardware, it's simply not required in most grounded
>grid amplifier designs. Of course unless you and ___________ say it
>is.
What wasted hardware? Common-cathode amps don't have the impedance
matching requirements of grounded-grid amps, so there's some wasted
hardware for ya, Skippy.
ye...@removecet.com
<nospamatthi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>spam "ye...@cet.com" please:
>>
>> In <aqhm10$5mh$1...@woodrow.ucdavis.edu>, Frank goes whacky
>> <nospam4me...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >: 14. You are under the mistaken impression that grid-to-plate
>> >: capacitance changes depending on whether the amplifier is
>> >: grounded-grid or common-cathode. Of course it doesn't, because it's a
>> >: characteristic of the tube, not of the circuit. I explained that you
>> >: might be confused because the -input- capacitance is different, and
>> >: that's because the two different circuits use different parts of the
>> >: tube for input.
>> >
>> >It's no mistake Frankie... look it up. Use the exact text I wrote so you
>> >don't twist in some misinformation your so good at doing. If you need some
>> >help, I can reference some text for you.
>>
>> No help required. Here you go (again):
>
>[snipage on my part in the interest of brevity]
>> >
>> >Sure, consider the properly designed, AB2 grounded grid "Cathode Driven
>> >amplifier. The interposed screen grid acts as an electrostatic shield
>> >between the grid and plate, with the consequence that the grid to plate
>> >capacitance is reduced.... combined with Grid Shielding between the
>> >cathode and the plate which make your much touted neutralization
>> >unnecessary.
>
>Nothing wrong with the above statement...
Except that it's wrong!
>> >
>> >Triode connected tetrodes (grounded grid) show a degree of improvement
>> >in distortion figures as opposed to grid driven service.
>> >
>> >What might be called more passive gain operation of the screen and
>> >supressor grids in an AB2 amplifier, does not deny their actual operating
>> >
>> >shielding function and reduced Cgp in the grounded grid circuit.
>> <snip>
>> =====
>>
>> There you go, your exact text. And in your exact text you describe a
>> number of misconceptions:
>
>Well then, let's "concept them frankie... onward.
>>
>> 1. The screen grid does indeed shield the control grid from the plate,
>> but it does so ONLY when there is a signal on the grid to be shielded.
>> You don't have a signal on the grid of a grounded-grid amplifier.
>
>You have reduced Cgp and Ccp...
No you haven't, as I have shown you with the info from the Eimac
datasheets in the other post.
> the reduced Cgp is a big
>picture benefit of a grounded grid amplifiers. But you knew that
>of course..
>Simple enough, next
>
>> 2. The effect of adding a screen grid to a TRIODE reduces the
>> grid-to-plate capacitance of the tube. The Cgp of a tube DOES NOT
>> CHANGE because it's connected as a triode in a grounded-grid
>> amplifier! In fact, it effectively does the opposite....
>
>Careful what you write bucky... The Cgp is actually about
>half as I describe. I, other people and a heck of a lot of text
>books don't agree. You are simply wrong and need to go look up
>the details. How about a Radio Handbook as a good reference...
How about a fundamental education, some active intelligence, and a
capacitance bridge? There is a reason why you disagree with the
textbooks -- because you are wrong!
>> 3. Since your sweep tube is connected as a triode, the screen and
>> supressor (G2 and G3) are grounded with G1, and all three become the
>> EFFECTIVE grid. Therefore, the G1-to-plate capacitance is added to the
>> G2- and G3-to-plate capacitances, making the EFFECTIVE grid-to-plate
>> capacitance HIGHER than the Cgp of the tube. In fact, the EFFECTIVE
>> Cgp is more along the lines of the Cgp of a TRIODE (which shouldn't be
>> so suprising since the tube is connected and operated as a TRIODE)!
>
>Aaaaaaahhhhh, see... this is where you don't know classic grounded
>grid amplifier layouts very well.
Your description of your "classic" grounded-grid amplifier changes so
often it's hard to tell what you consider "classic". Regardless...
> It is very bad news to ground
>the G1, G2 and G3 grids together... and you don't even have a clue
>why...
You STILL don't get it, do you? Judas Priest, how many times to I have
to tell you -- if all three are RF bypassed to ground, then all three
are GROUNDED! Every amp you have touted as being similar to your
"classic" grounded-grid amp has all three grids GROUNDED!
>I'll put aside your Cgp statements for the moment until you review
>and understand why one should not ground together the G1, G2 (and G3)
>grids with many types of tubes, based on their geometry. That includes
>rf power tubes like the 4cx250b.
The 4CX250 isn't designed for grounded-grid operation. And don't put
aside your ridiculous ideas that Cgp changes because it's in a
grounded-grid circuit, because not only have I already demonstrated
that it doesn't, and tomorrow I fully intend to give you an actual
measurement of the effective Cgp of a triode-connected 6LF6. You can
verify the measurements for yourself.
>Your plane just crashed frankie...
Get ready with your excuses because it's YOUR plane that's going down
tomorrow, Skippy.
>> 4. I don't know how many times I need to repeat this before you
>> finally get a clue and look it up for yourself, but I'll do it one
>> more time: a grounded-grid amplifier does not require neutralization
>> simply because it is a non-inverting amplifier which causes no
>> regenerative feedback requiring neutralization -- NOT because of
>> reduced Cgp or 'grid shielding', which are properties of the tube
>> regardless of whether it's used as a grounded-grid or common-cathode
>> amplifier.
>
>In the ideal dream world... in the real world, feedback paths can
>and do occur within the max (Ft) of the tube. When you have VHF (Ft)
>rated tubes in service, all bets are off when relying on the non
>inverting HF circuit layout. The non inverting by layout operation
>of an amplifier makes it only a card player, not the dealer.
And ONCE AGAIN you are confusing neutralization with parasitic
supression!
>When you have tubes with high vhf gain, there can be two dealers
>to the card game.
>
>The subject is well covered at http://www.vcnet.com/measures
>
>Don't take my or Frankie's word for it... grab some Radio Handbooks
>and review the web page text mentioned above.
Do it yourself, Skippy. But don't bother with your referenced website
-- use a definitive source for your facts. Matter of fact, even the
ARRL handbooks have been known to have a few errors in them. Try your
local library. Even better, if you have a college or university nearby
(and I know you do), stop by their library and spend a couple hours
verifying your facts. I think once you get started, hours will turn
into days as you realize that half the stuff you have learned from the
internet is bogus.
>You'll grow old waiting for Frank to post any articles of text
>he's authored. Even though I said please numerous times.
Ain't my bag.
ye...@removecet.com
<nospamatthi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>"ye...@REMOVEcet.com" wrote:
>>
>> >Once again Frankie... how many grounded grid AB1 amplifiers have you seen
>> >in use..? Don't modify my text as you go along in your rants to suit
>> >your current post needs.
>>
>> I have had enough with your "cut-and-paste" bullshit, Skippy. NONE of
>> your quotes have EVER been modified, misquoted, pulled out of context,
>> edited (not even for spelling), or otherwise used for any other
>> purpose except for the meaning you intended. All my posts are on
>> google, and I challenge you to find even ONE example that backs up
>> your claim. Otherwise, quit lying about being misquoted.
>
>Temper temper Frankie... your bald head and your blood pressure are
>growing.
Never been bald and never had a blood pressure problem. But your
sarcasm is growing more and more intense as I chisel away your
internet education and get to the truth of these issues.
>So how about answering my questions... how many grounded grid
>amplifiers have you seen in operation...? make and model..?
>any..?
More than I care to count, but I can honestly say less than a hundred.
Worked on lots of industrial amps, and a few amateur amps (sweep tube
amps included, including the Dentron you referenced). As far as make
and models, there were a few I remember. Like the P&H, used four 837's
which were a bitch to find at the time. There was a Gonset, I think it
was a GBS-101 or something like that -- terrible in the harmonics
department, using no tuned circuit on the input. A couple Heathkits, a
couple Johnsons, a couple Collins, etc. Some were better than others.
And BTW, no broadcast transmitter I have ever seen used a
grounded-grid anything, except for a couple low-power antiques that
take up the better part of a room. Matter of fact, I own one of those
antiques, an AN/FRT-39B.
>> > The predominant class of grounded grid
>> >amplifiers is AB2... exciter power is required and a portion shows up in
>> >the output as a freebie. Doesn't get any simpler, but you seen to want to
>> >give theory examples of amplifiers no one person is using. Earth to
>> >Frank, real world here... wake up..
>> >
>> >One last thing... your last statement is not so true... class AB1
>> >operation of grounded grid amplifiers does not consume input power.
>>
>> By your statements above -- about how AB2 requires input power but AB1
>> does not -- it's clear that you think input power is required only
>> when grid current flows. You are very, very wrong, Skippy. ANY class
>
>Grid current flow implies input drive power consumed... unless you have
>that magical grounded grid AB1 amplifier make and model handy...?
YOU made the statement that AB1 operation of grounded-grid amplifers
does not consume input power, and now you want to back out of that by
crying about some "magical" grounded-grid AB1 amp? Lame, Skippy, lame.
But it's not "magical" at all. As I have pointed out earlier, your
grid is normally biased 5 to 10 volts negative to the cathode, giving
you at least some area under which no grid current flows, yet still
consumes power from the input source. And just to point out what used
to be a common practice, grounded-grid amplifiers running Class A have
been used as front-end amplifiers in receivers, and they were used
with the intention of providing a low-impedance input to the receiver.
Works very well! Now if no input drive power is consumed in a Class A
amplifier, then the input impedance would be theoretically infinite --
just as if it were common-cathode. But it's not infinite; it's a low
impedance usually around the impedance of most transmission lines.
Now go find your Electronics 101 book and start reading it already.
>> of grounded-grid amplifier consumes input power (meaning power from
>> the signal source). The input is on the cathode, and it is impossible
>> for the tube to conduct (and therefore amplify) if there is no cathode
>> current. Part of that cathode current MUST come from the signal source
>> because it is IMPOSSIBLE to impose an AC signal on the cathode without
>> AC current! Once again you demonstrate not only your ignorance on the
>> subject, but your total lack of willingness to verify the facts for
>> yourself.
>>
>> >Got to go, back later to finish... love ya frankie,
>> I know.
>>
>> > keep trying.
>> >skipp
>>
>> Keep trying yourself. You might try to check the validity of your
>> statements before you demonstrate your ignorance even further by
>> continuing to defend them.
>
>Still waiting for that AB1 grounded grid amplifier Frank, make and
>model when you have a moment.
>
>Keep this handy because it's helpful when talking about grounded
>grid amplifiers.
>
>AB2 operation, grid current flows, drive power is consumed. The
>feed through drive power swamps out the grid current distortion
>issues.
>
>AB1, no grid current flow.
But cathode current still flows, both DC and AC, and since there is an
AC current flow in series with the signal source then the signal
source is loaded by the tube. Check it out, Skippy. You know I'm
right, you just refuse to check the facts for yourself. Actually, I
think you are just arguing for the sake of arguing, since you aren't
even providing any facts, just lame opinions.
>Back latter for number 18 ... gotta' go check my reverse screen
>current.
>
>still love ya frankie...
Of course you do. I'm the only one that gives it to you straight!
Twistedhed
>Because "swamping" the cathode (not a very >good term, BTW --
How can you substitute a noun for a verb and claim they mean the same?
Twistedhed
<nospamatthi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
"Temper temper Frankie... your bald head and your blood pressure are
growing."
>Never been bald and never had a blood >pressure problem. But your
sarcasm is >growing more and more intense as I.....
Frank, I just need a second to point out some truth. YOU began the
sarcasm with the name calling as always. It's right there for anyone to
see, beginning with the "moron' term. As usual, you can draw first blood
but fall apart under return fire.
Carry on........
piper for frankie G
>
> > (a) The Commission may revoke any equipment authorization:
> > .......
> > (4) Because of conditions coming to the attention of the
> >Commission which would warrant it in refusing to grant an original
> >application.
>
> There. Notice the part about "conditions...which would warrant [the
> FCC] in refusing to grant an original application". In case you don't
> have enough brains to figure that out, it means if the equipment
> wouldn't get type-accepted/certificated TODAY then the original
> type-acceptance/certification has effectively been RESCINDED.
Notice the part "... may revoke...." which does not auto rescined
type accepted equipment already in use. You just interpret the
rules wrong Frankie.
> And will continue to have authorization unless the rules change, as
> they did for amps between 24 and 35 MHz.
I don't interpret the rule change to indicate legal licensed services
using type accepted equipment must now be required to replace that
equipment.
> You don't have a single brain in your head, do you Skippy? The amps
> you mention work ABOVE 35 MHz! And even if they DID work between 24
> and 35 MHz then they have lost their authorization because of 2.815!
Only as you see it... not as I or others in the commercial radio
business call it, Frankie...
>
> >> Which means that any amplifier that can operate between 24 and 35 MHz
> >> has lost it's certification/type-acceptance.
> >
> >As you try to interpret the rules to preexisting legal equipment. Not
> >the case in my interpretation of the rules.
>
> Your 'interpretation' leaves much to be desired, especially when you
> ignore part of the rules (as you did when you cut my post).
>
You babble a lot frankie...
> >> As for your query to the FCC about modification of your amps, you will
> >> find the answer here:
> >
> >No modifications are/were required to place the mentioned amplifiers
> >into Same Radio Service.
> >
> >Sorry, once again... you lose. Nice try Frankie...
>
> Wasn't your question to the FCC about if you could modify your 35 to
> 54 MHz amps to operate below 35 MHz? What did you finally get for an
> answer on that "official query", Skippy?
Actually no, and after closer examination... the 35 MHz TPL amplifier
previously mention appears similar if not exact to a pre ban unit. It
appears that it might just opperate at 31 MHz without any modifications.
The FCC has yet to give me any reply about the issue... so life goes
on as normal.
> >> In case you are too lazy to read them yourself, they clearly state
> >> that you can't change the frequency range (and still use them under
> >
> >Don't have too... they function exactly as designed without
> >modifications.
>
> Duh! But you were talking about modifying them, or do I need to dig up
> that post, too? You actually enjoy talking in circles to avoid the
> truth, don't you, Skippy?
If modification were required... at this time, they appear to plug
and play at 31Mhz where I might use them.
chow for now
skipp
piper for frankie G
> >Which simply proves the FCC ULS system is not complete. That's about
> >all your going to get Frankie... The file number I posted is current
> >and your out of luck. "tough titty said the kitty..."
>
> The file number is invalid. Instead of getting smug about it, why
> don't you check to see if you typed it correctly. Maybe there is a
> zero that should be an 'O', or you left off a number or something.
If I placed a gif of the top part of the license, with the IB label in
plain view... less the personal and information I don't care to have
in public view... would you then enjoy your crow sandwich without
complaint or foul cries..?
> >> >:> Hard copies are the bottom line frankie...
> >> Not if they can't be verified.
> >
> >The paperwork in my hot little hand takes care of the FCC every time
> >they might ask for it.
>
> You can't use it for proof if you can't produce it for inspection or
> verify it in any other way.
If I were inspected by the FCC, there is a copy of the actual IB license
at the transmitter and in my office files. An FCC inspector is not
going to ask me for proof of the IB service.
> >Don't think so Frankie... so what happens if I scan in an image of the
> >actual license, blank out the personal information so you can enjoy
> >your crow dinner. It won't work.. you'll claim the scan was modified
> >to include the IB service. Nothing makes you happy frankie, your just
> >a bad actor.
>
> You assume a lot, Skippy. In case you haven't noticed, I don't make
> accusations without reason or proof, and if the license is unedited
> then I wouldn't have reason of proof, would I?
You didn't answer my question... if I posted the actual image less
the personal and non issue information, would you ask for steak sauce
with your crow meal..?
> Well, if you could provide a valid file number or call sign it might
> show that the license was obtained before the consolidation, which
> would therefore be for the IB service and is perfectly fine as far as
I'll leave the file number on the license scan frankie...
Ahhhh.... so now your giving notice that IB might actually be real
after all.... Funny how that suddenly pop'd up.
> I'm concerned. But your desperate attempt to avoid providing proof
> leads me to believe that you have something more to hide than just the
> validity of the license. Hmmm... is there something about that license
> that you don't want anybody to see, Skippy? Are you using false
Yes, I'd prefer the details of the local two way market be kept
low profile. All about business.. Like the fact that numerous
people have asked me to throw out your personal information in
these thread posts.
I tell them no, it does nothing for the topic and no one wants
their personal information needlessly thrown out for public
display. Makes good sense...
> identities to obtain multiple licenses? Or maybe you got the license
> under false pretenses? Do you lie on your applications, Skippy?
The license is not mine frankie... a customer who probably not
want his information spread out on a news group just to provide
you with a meal of crow.
> Because I can't see any other reason for avoiding such a simple
> disclosure when all your information is already in your other
> licenses. Maybe you just don't have that license at all, or it has
> already expired. Which is it, Skippy?
How about the license belongs to someone else Frankie...
piper for frankie G
> >amplifiers.
>
> You keep ignoring that the topic is the application of sweep tubes in
> RF amplifiers, both grounded-grid and common-cathode. It's not my
> fault you don't understand the difference, so quit trying to narrow
> the issue.
I clearly understand the differences... grounded grid and common
cathode are two different circuit layouts. The large majority
of sweep tubes in AB2 RF amplifier circuits have been grounded
grid. How about you give us an example of a common cathode
sweep tube amplifier and we'll hash it out. Otherwise, I'll
stick to the other probably 90 plus percent of the sweep tube
amps made through the years.
> > The specific issue is the multiple connection schemes
> >possible which would damage tetrode/pentodes in some triode
> >connection schemes. You don't appear to have knowledge of the
> >specific topic. Hi mu tubes don't play in all "low mu" grounded
> >grid amplifiers circuits.
>
> What does that have to do with the specific topic here, Skippy? Or did
> you snip that text for a reason? Let's find out, shall we?
It's simple, you stated in more than one post that one can tie
the grid to the plate of an amplifier... we were talking
sweep tube rf amplifiers. I say that your information was
horible and would probably cause the tube to fail.
>
> >>: 2. You didn't know what the term "low-mu" described; namely, the
> >>: amplification factor of a triode. Not only that, but you used the term
> >>: to describe the triode operation of a sweep tube while saying that it
> >>: wasn't operating as a triode.
> >>
> >>I know exactly what low and high mu describe... it has many potential sub
> >>topics when applied to RF amplifiers. Your book text posting wanders so
> >>much, I/we must be careful to nail you down to the specific issue. You
> >>also touted tetrode specs using Transconductance when in fact they also
> >>have mu ratings. Because you left it out, are we supposed to jump up and
> >>down to say you don't know anything about it... hardly.
>
> OH! My GOODNESS! The issue of this post is about your ignorance of the
> difference between 'amplification factor' and 'transconductance'! No
> wonder you snipped all that text! Trying to change the topic again,
> eh? Same old Skippy.
You love to see your own writing Frankie... and I understand the
details
applied to sweep tube rf amplifiers (the topic, remember..?) I care
little about your transfer of book definitions to the thread. Especially
when you make horible mistakes as described above.
> >Your again out of steam... try reading up on the issues of high mu
> >tetrodes/pentode in grounded grid rf amplifiers...
>
> A high-mu tube doesn't need to draw as much grid current as a low-mu
> tube, Skippy. And grid current doesn't change the mu of a tube, as I
> said before, but you deny and refuse to explain why (because you
> can't).
I don't care about your comparisons of grid current values. The
sweep tubes I talk about are better applied to AB2 rf amplifeirs
using the circuits connection I like to reference. If we use your
yesterday post example of grounding grids 1,2 & 3... big problems
happen with hi mu tubes... Even rf power tubes like the 4cx250b
will have problems. It's all explained in many of the handbooks,
I don't need to repost it here. It's clear that you don't
understand the grid current issues of Hi Mu tubes in grounded
grid AB2 amplifiers.
> >Not quite... no where above does it say triode connected sweep tube is
> >not operating as a triode.
>
> You are too much, Skippy:
>
> "Triode operation is not a good label... most rf people like
> descriptions like low-mu."
There are at least two possible grid connections for tetrode/pentode
in grounded grid circuits. One is a low mu type of circuit, the
other can be called a high mu grounded grid circuit. They are not
the same. Problems happen when you use high mu tubes in low mu
types of grounded grid circuits. You appear to not know the
difference.
> "Triode operation is a bit liberal..."
Yes, it is often over shaddows the details of the various
grounded grid circuits.
> And when asked directly and specifically...
>
> >: 4. How is the triode configuration of a tetrode/pentode not like a
> >: triode?
>
When the grid connections are set up for low mu operation using
hi mu tubes. That would be the direct grounding of the G1, G2
& G3 grids. You mentioned that layout yesterday in one of your
ramblings... it is not the best grounded grid connection scheme
for Hi mu tubes in AB2 circuits.
> ...you avoided the question completely by ragging on the same old
> mistake...
>
> >The "triode mode" grid to plate connection you described is not used in
> >many/most rf amplifiers, regardless of the tube type. You clearly showed
> >your background example was from the tube audio world and does not play
> >well in rf applications. Your theory is weak in rf... the topic of
> >choice.
>
> And you have been sidestepping the issue ever since, tossing out bogus
> concepts like "passive gain operation", and misusing real concepts
> like "reverse screen current".
>
> Like I said, you have no idea what you are talking about.
See the above and enjoy your crow dinner.
ye...@removecet.com
<nospamatthi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >Sec. 2.939 Revocation or withdrawal of equipment authorization.
>>
>> > (a) The Commission may revoke any equipment authorization:
>> > .......
>> > (4) Because of conditions coming to the attention of the
>> >Commission which would warrant it in refusing to grant an original
>> >application.
>>
>> There. Notice the part about "conditions...which would warrant [the
>> FCC] in refusing to grant an original application". In case you don't
>> have enough brains to figure that out, it means if the equipment
>> wouldn't get type-accepted/certificated TODAY then the original
>> type-acceptance/certification has effectively been RESCINDED.
>
>Notice the part "... may revoke...." which does not auto rescined
>type accepted equipment already in use. You just interpret the
>rules wrong Frankie.
Your amps are not listed in the database of currently authorized
equipment, or did you miss that post too? The equipment authorization
of those amps has been revoked. All the facts support this conclusion,
and DON'T support your personal interpretation of the law.
>> And will continue to have authorization unless the rules change, as
>> they did for amps between 24 and 35 MHz.
>
>I don't interpret the rule change to indicate legal licensed services
>using type accepted equipment must now be required to replace that
>equipment.
You should read those regs, Skippy. There is an amortization period
for equipment in use at the time of revocation. If you write to the
FCC with the FCC ID number of your equipment you can get a copy of the
actual order that rescinds the authorization.
>> You don't have a single brain in your head, do you Skippy? The amps
>> you mention work ABOVE 35 MHz! And even if they DID work between 24
>> and 35 MHz then they have lost their authorization because of 2.815!
>
>Only as you see it... not as I or others in the commercial radio
>business call it, Frankie...
The laws are pretty clear, Skippy. Try reading them sometime.
ye...@removecet.com
<nospamatthi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> >Which simply proves the FCC ULS system is not complete. That's about
>> >all your going to get Frankie... The file number I posted is current
>> >and your out of luck. "tough titty said the kitty..."
>>
>> The file number is invalid. Instead of getting smug about it, why
>> don't you check to see if you typed it correctly. Maybe there is a
>> zero that should be an 'O', or you left off a number or something.
>
>If I placed a gif of the top part of the license, with the IB label in
>plain view... less the personal and information I don't care to have
>in public view... would you then enjoy your crow sandwich without
>complaint or foul cries..?
Just email me the callsign. I'll post either that you were telling the
truth or you were lying, nothing about any personal information on the
license.
>> >> >:> Hard copies are the bottom line frankie...
>> >> Not if they can't be verified.
>> >
>> >The paperwork in my hot little hand takes care of the FCC every time
>> >they might ask for it.
>>
>> You can't use it for proof if you can't produce it for inspection or
>> verify it in any other way.
>
>If I were inspected by the FCC, there is a copy of the actual IB license
>at the transmitter and in my office files. An FCC inspector is not
>going to ask me for proof of the IB service.
I should have been more specific: You can't use if for proof in this
discussion if you can't produce it for MY inspection, or provide some
other information that will allow me to verify it's existance beyond
your claim that it's in your "hot little hands". You say "hard copy
matters", but all you provide are unsupported claims. You said you
have it, now prove it.
>> >Don't think so Frankie... so what happens if I scan in an image of the
>> >actual license, blank out the personal information so you can enjoy
>> >your crow dinner. It won't work.. you'll claim the scan was modified
>> >to include the IB service. Nothing makes you happy frankie, your just
>> >a bad actor.
>>
>> You assume a lot, Skippy. In case you haven't noticed, I don't make
>> accusations without reason or proof, and if the license is unedited
>> then I wouldn't have reason of proof, would I?
>
>You didn't answer my question... if I posted the actual image less
>the personal and non issue information, would you ask for steak sauce
>with your crow meal..?
Like I said, email me the callsign.
>> Well, if you could provide a valid file number or call sign it might
>> show that the license was obtained before the consolidation, which
>> would therefore be for the IB service and is perfectly fine as far as
>
>I'll leave the file number on the license scan frankie...
>
>Ahhhh.... so now your giving notice that IB might actually be real
>after all.... Funny how that suddenly pop'd up.
No, I said that the IB was a PREVIOUS service. It no longer exists, or
didn't you read the link I provided?
>> I'm concerned. But your desperate attempt to avoid providing proof
>> leads me to believe that you have something more to hide than just the
>> validity of the license. Hmmm... is there something about that license
>> that you don't want anybody to see, Skippy? Are you using false
>
>Yes, I'd prefer the details of the local two way market be kept
>low profile. All about business.. Like the fact that numerous
>people have asked me to throw out your personal information in
>these thread posts.
>I tell them no, it does nothing for the topic and no one wants
>their personal information needlessly thrown out for public
>display. Makes good sense...
You don't have any personal information on me, Skippy. At least none
that came from those "files" you allegedly found on the FCC site.
Matter of fact, why don't you go ahead and post that info, Skippy?
Here's formal permission for ya:
This is a public notice that Skipp May has permission to post any and
all information about me, Frank Gilliland, that he has obtained from
the FCC.
Now back up your claim that you found my FCC "files".
>> identities to obtain multiple licenses? Or maybe you got the license
>> under false pretenses? Do you lie on your applications, Skippy?
>
>The license is not mine frankie... a customer who probably not
>want his information spread out on a news group just to provide
>you with a meal of crow.
Like I said, just email me the callsign.
>> Because I can't see any other reason for avoiding such a simple
>> disclosure when all your information is already in your other
>> licenses. Maybe you just don't have that license at all, or it has
>> already expired. Which is it, Skippy?
>
>How about the license belongs to someone else Frankie...
...email...callsign...easy...proof...
ye...@removecet.com
<nospamatthi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >The topic was the application of Sweep Tubes in grounded grid
>> >amplifiers.
>>
>> You keep ignoring that the topic is the application of sweep tubes in
>> RF amplifiers, both grounded-grid and common-cathode. It's not my
>> fault you don't understand the difference, so quit trying to narrow
>> the issue.
>
>I clearly understand the differences... grounded grid and common
>cathode are two different circuit layouts. The large majority
>of sweep tubes in AB2 RF amplifier circuits have been grounded
>grid. How about you give us an example of a common cathode
>sweep tube amplifier and we'll hash it out. Otherwise, I'll
>stick to the other probably 90 plus percent of the sweep tube
>amps made through the years.
I already have: the Swan 500. Remember how early that came up in the
discussion? Were you sleeping or something?
>> > The specific issue is the multiple connection schemes
>> >possible which would damage tetrode/pentodes in some triode
>> >connection schemes. You don't appear to have knowledge of the
>> >specific topic. Hi mu tubes don't play in all "low mu" grounded
>> >grid amplifiers circuits.
>>
>> What does that have to do with the specific topic here, Skippy? Or did
>> you snip that text for a reason? Let's find out, shall we?
>
>It's simple, you stated in more than one post that one can tie
>the grid to the plate of an amplifier... we were talking
>sweep tube rf amplifiers. I say that your information was
>horible and would probably cause the tube to fail.
Still trying to avoid the issue. Oh well.
BTW, what I said was that you can tie the SCREEN to the plate, not the
GRID to the plate. And tying the screen to the plate works fine for
audio, it just doesn't work very well for RF, and it certainly isn't
"horrible". If you are going to harp on my admitted mistakes then at
least get the mistake right!
>>
>> >>: 2. You didn't know what the term "low-mu" described; namely, the
>> >>: amplification factor of a triode. Not only that, but you used the term
>> >>: to describe the triode operation of a sweep tube while saying that it
>> >>: wasn't operating as a triode.
>> >>
>> >>I know exactly what low and high mu describe... it has many potential sub
>> >>topics when applied to RF amplifiers. Your book text posting wanders so
>> >>much, I/we must be careful to nail you down to the specific issue. You
>> >>also touted tetrode specs using Transconductance when in fact they also
>> >>have mu ratings. Because you left it out, are we supposed to jump up and
>> >>down to say you don't know anything about it... hardly.
>>
>> OH! My GOODNESS! The issue of this post is about your ignorance of the
>> difference between 'amplification factor' and 'transconductance'! No
>> wonder you snipped all that text! Trying to change the topic again,
>> eh? Same old Skippy.
>
>You love to see your own writing Frankie... and I understand the
>details
>applied to sweep tube rf amplifiers (the topic, remember..?) I care
>little about your transfer of book definitions to the thread. Especially
>when you make horible mistakes as described above.
You care little about book definitions when they contradict your own
preconceived opinions. You have proven that many times.
>> >Your again out of steam... try reading up on the issues of high mu
>> >tetrodes/pentode in grounded grid rf amplifiers...
>>
>> A high-mu tube doesn't need to draw as much grid current as a low-mu
>> tube, Skippy. And grid current doesn't change the mu of a tube, as I
>> said before, but you deny and refuse to explain why (because you
>> can't).
>
>I don't care about your comparisons of grid current values.
Lately it seems that when faced with facts you can't refute you just
"don't care". Not suprising, Skippy. Ever hear of the term, 'passive
agression'?
> The
>sweep tubes I talk about are better applied to AB2 rf amplifeirs
>using the circuits connection I like to reference. If we use your
>yesterday post example of grounding grids 1,2 & 3... big problems
>happen with hi mu tubes...
Are you forgetting that all your examples have all three grids
grounded?
> Even rf power tubes like the 4cx250b
>will have problems.
Probably because the 4CX250 was not intended to be wired as a triode
even in grounded-grid operation, or hadn't you thought of that?
> It's all explained in many of the handbooks,
>I don't need to repost it here. It's clear that you don't
>understand the grid current issues of Hi Mu tubes in grounded
>grid AB2 amplifiers.
I understand it much better than you think. Anytime you want to touch
on the issue of high-mu we can go there, too.
>> >Not quite... no where above does it say triode connected sweep tube is
>> >not operating as a triode.
>>
>> You are too much, Skippy:
>>
>> "Triode operation is not a good label... most rf people like
>> descriptions like low-mu."
>
>There are at least two possible grid connections for tetrode/pentode
>in grounded grid circuits. One is a low mu type of circuit, the
>other can be called a high mu grounded grid circuit. They are not
>the same. Problems happen when you use high mu tubes in low mu
>types of grounded grid circuits. You appear to not know the
>difference.
We were not talking about the differences between low-mu and high-mu.
The issue is your claim that a triode-connected sweep tube is not
acting like a triode, and then say that you never said such a thing.
And I'm proving you wrong yet again, Skippy.
>> "Triode operation is a bit liberal..."
>
>Yes, it is often over shaddows the details of the various
>grounded grid circuits.
TRIODE, Skippy. Concentrate on the word TRIODE!
>> And when asked directly and specifically...
>>
>> >: 4. How is the triode configuration of a tetrode/pentode not like a
>> >: triode?
>>
>When the grid connections are set up for low mu operation using
>hi mu tubes. That would be the direct grounding of the G1, G2
>& G3 grids.
That's one way to wire it as a triode. It doesn't explain why it isn't
operating as a triode as you claimed.
> You mentioned that layout yesterday in one of your
>ramblings... it is not the best grounded grid connection scheme
>for Hi mu tubes in AB2 circuits.
Perhaps you should provide an example of a high-mu "connection" of a
sweep tube (or any other pentode/tetrode/beam tube) in a grounded-grid
amplifier. Or just draw up a quick and dirty schematic. Or just name
the pins and tell where they go.
And it's funny that your current answer isn't even close to your
answer the first time, where...
>> ...you avoided the question completely by ragging on the same old
>> mistake...
>>
>> >The "triode mode" grid to plate connection you described is not used in
>> >many/most rf amplifiers, regardless of the tube type. You clearly showed
>> >your background example was from the tube audio world and does not play
>> >well in rf applications. Your theory is weak in rf... the topic of
>> >choice.
>>
>> And you have been sidestepping the issue ever since, tossing out bogus
>> concepts like "passive gain operation", and misusing real concepts
>> like "reverse screen current".
>>
>> Like I said, you have no idea what you are talking about.
>
>See the above and enjoy your crow dinner.
See the above and address the issue instead of changing the subject.
piper for frankie G
> >> >Boy, your really cute with the cut and paste. AT NO TIME DID I EVER SAY
> >> >REVERSE SCREEN CURRENT APPLIED TO GROUNDED GRID SWEEP TUBE AMPLIFIERS,
> >> >TRIODES OR ANYTHING SIMILAR. Nice try on your part though...
> >
> >> Oh, Skippy, how you lie:
> >
> >Doesn't look like the original comment below is appplied to any circuit
> >I can see frankie. It still looks like me telling you to relax after
> >you though some other post was from made by me.
>
> You are a moron, Skippy. I was replying to my own post because you
> didn't, and I said that before. You would also see that fact in the
> headers and in the first lines of the post, which you conveniently
> snipped.
You like to reply to your own posts frankie... we have seen many
examples of it.
>
> And you also snipped the question, "tell us what a "classic" design
> entails", to which you responded:
I like to reference the Palomar 300 (six tube model) as a classic
design. I've referenced it many times in the past.
> > So again, check your
> >reverse screen current frankie...
>
> An answer that means nothing at all becase there is no reverse screen
> current in a pentode or beam tetrode (sweep tubes) whether they are
> common-cathode, grounded-grid, or even triode-connected!
I never said there was... you didn't even know what reverse
screen current was until I mentioned it .... "Now THERES a new one!"
to use your own words.
Somewhere in all the above, your trying to connect my reverse screen
current jab with the clearly separated reposted text..? Come on
Frankie... your running out of steam again. You can do better
than that.
>
> > text. Stop making stuff up as you go along Franklin..
>
> You can try to use your own vagueness as an excuse, but it just don't
> wash, Skippy. You didn't bring up reverse screen current just to be
> obtuse, and you continued to describe (incorrectly) how the screen
> prevents the need for neutralization.
Actually, I like to consider the reverse screen current jab a tease
to get your blood pressure back down (or up in the real world).
The truth is, I describe how the screen contributes to the
big picture of why the g-grid amplifier does not require
neutralization. It is not the only reason, just as your cure
non inverting diatribe is not the big picture fix all.
> >If you properly read the text,
>
> ...oh brother...first it's "properly designed" and now it's "properly
> read"... can you be any more vague...?
Previous posted examples... the Dentron GLA update text and the
Palomar 300 (six tube) amplifiers are a good place to start.
> > I was staying true to the actual
> >subject of the moment... tetrodes and pentodes in g-grid circuits.
> >One of the major reasons grounded grid circuits using tetrodes and
> >pentodes don't often require neutralization. The statement still
> >stands...
>
> It fell a long time ago. Let me quote you a bit from one of my
> favorite text books (that you despise because they contain facts that
> contradict your RF voodoo):
Lot's of bookie, from frankie...
> "The top end of the tank circuit is feeding RF energy back to the grid
> via the grid-plate capacitance of the tube and is attempting to make
> the stage oscillate. When a _neutralizing_capacitor_ Cn, having the
> same capacitance as the interelectrode capacitance of the tube, is
> connected between the bottom of the tank circuit and the grid of the
> tube, the grid is fed two equal and opposite voltages at the same
> time, one through the tube and one through the neutralizing capacitor.
> The net result is zero effective feedback to the grid from the plate
> circuit, and the stage will not oscillate. It is neutralized."
So, big deal... it's not required in a grounded grid AB2 amplifier.
We are not talking common cathode circuits at this time.
> And a few pages later it describes grounded-grid amplifiers:
>
> "...The top of the input and the output tanks are positive at the same
> time and are in phase, not 180 degrees out of phase, as with
> grounded-cathode amplifers. With this phase relation no regenerative
> feedback occurs and no neutralization is required, an advantage in HF,
> VHF, and UHF circuits."
And what is the date of your magical textbook frankie..? The actual
issue here is that the entire "in phase" statement goes out the window
when you have tubes with VHF gain (Ft) in HF service. The fly in
the soup of the in-phase circuit theory does not the address the
source of the VHF resonance. The VHF path is the anode C through the
blocking cap to the Tune C. Your HF neutralization cap doesn't
address the VHF Path.
Now if you want to argue the term regenerative feed back vs parasitic
path... the call is made by where the oscillation happens. Care
is required to ensure only one "resonant path" is in operation.
Not always a 100% "give-me" in every grounded grid circuit. This
becomes an larger issue when the amplifier is designed for
mulit band operation across a decade.
Hence we have well known grounded grid amplifiers using RF power
tubes which have well documented histories of becoming rather
large oscillators. The SB-220 and the TL-922 are such animals.
> I should add that the example circuit in the book is a triode, NOT a
> tetrode, pentode, beam tube, or any other tube with a screen. Those
> are described later in the book. The screen is NOT responsible for the
> lack of the need for neutralization with grounded-grid amplifiers. Any
> other book on the subject will say the same thing.
Somewhere in that book you've got text that reads the screen
does not contribute to the reduction in feedback C...? I seem
to have more than one that does. By the way, what's the date of
that book..?
> Now how long do you want to keep this up, Skippy?
As long as it takes to get you to understand the operation of
a sweep tube grounded grid amplifiers. So far you don't get it.
> >> First, as I have said many times but you fail to seek the truth for
> >> yourself, neutralization is not required in a grounded-grid amp
> >> because it's a non-inverting amp.
> >
> >The Non Inverting circuit is not the key, nor is it the dominant
> >factor of a grounded grid amplifier.
>
> See above, as well as any basic electronics textbook.
In the real world frankie, If design and construction care is not
taken, grounded grid amplifiers can sing the big song.
> >> Second, grid shielding means absolutely nothing in a grounded-grid
> >> amplifier -- if it did, then your input signal would never get past
> >> the grid to the plate!
> >
> >Not true, you are wrong.
>
> Well if the screen is providing enough shielding to prevent a feedback
> from getting from the plate to the cathode, then it's certainly
> preventing the signal from getting from the cathode to the plate! Or
> is this a magical kind of grid that is selective as to the direction
> of electrostatic coupling? Maybe it's a "bird screen"... hehe...
It doesn't prevent feedback... it reduces C
> >> Third, Cgp never changes because it's a characteristic of the tube,
> >> not the circuit. The capacitance AT the grid can change by changing
> >> the circuit, but that's the INPUT capacitance, NOT Cgp! I have said
> >> that many times as well, and just like every other fact, you have
> >> failed to verify it for yourself.
> >
> >You keep jumping back to the tube Cgp when the topic was the actual
> >problem C of the common cathode circuit C, much reduced grounded grid
> >circuit which is halved.
>
> Not. You haven't read the post with the info from the Eimac
> datasheets.
Actually, I got my information direct from an Eimac Engineer. Actually
his data.
> > Don't mix them up frankie... go back and
> >read my text as its writen. If you don't belive me, reference
> >the many Radio Handbook texts by former Eimac Author Bill Orr
> >(rip sk).
>
> Post a link. While I'm reading that, you can start on chapter 1 of
> your Electronics 101 book.
Would that be a Malvino book frankie..? Find a W6SAI Radio Handbook
in a better library... if you'd actually do it, I'll provide an
edition number and page.
Readers of the news group of course... yeah, you've proven twice
that you like grids tied to plates in rf amplifiers. That you threw
out a grounded grids G1, G2 and G3 circuit without understanding the
grid current issues of that design. That you were clue less about
reverse screen current... that you called the KLV tank circuit coil
a shunt. on and on... you've proven quite a bit.
> >You also appear rude and prove to have a potty mouth.
>
> Speak for yourself, Skippy. You are just a rude, and even though you
> don't use explicit profanity, you certainly use a large assortment of
> demeaning words and phrases. Physician, heal thyself.
I feel fine frankie... I'd feel a lot better if you didn't go
to the toilet for words so often.
piper for frankie G
> >what I'm talking about... and what I was talking about in the first
> >post.
>
> Beam forming plates are usually grounded, and have the same effect as
> the supressor of a pentode -- they prevent the space charge from
> hitting the screen. Now what's your point?
RCA Tube manual... listed for many sweep tube numbers "Beam Power Tube".
I find few if any good beam power tube circuits with the beam forming
plates grounded in AB2 cicuits. Buzzztt...! you lose. insert another
quarter.
> >> Do you mean the spacing between the electrodes, or the spacing of the
> >> wires OF the electrode, or how the wires on the screen of a beam tube
> >> are located directly behind the wires of the grid forming an electron
> >
> >It's clear as its writen, electrode spacing, not grid element or grid
> >wire spacing. But you left it out of your posts so using your tatics
> >we must now assume you know nothing about it.
>
> You didn't answer the question: what do you mean by 'electrode
> spacing'? And again, what is the point?
Kind of a self descriptive term. Beam power tubes have modified
electrode spacing, not just the special grid spacing, placement
description you provided. You didn't mention it... so using your logic,
we must assume you didn't know anything about it.
> Once again, what about the electrode spacing? How is it different than
> a 'non-beam' pentode? How does it affect the operation of your
> triode-connected sweep tube?
You would have to ask the designer of the specific tube. I see
the point made in more than one tube book. There is a difference
which modifies the performance of the the tube.
> What's your point? Where are you going with all this, Skippy?
Cute frankie...
I used the label "Beam Power Tube, you danced and sang about
hard copy definitions... ranting about lack of Beam Power tube
information and sputtering your grid spacing description text
like confetti across your following news group post.
But your book doesn't seen to go much farther down the Beam
Power Tube Path so we missed your inclusion of the other
significant parts of beam Power tube construction which include
electrode spacing and beam forming plates. Using your
known methods of assumption, we must now conclude you didn't
have that knowledge when you wrote the text.
That's a point... or two...
piper for frankie G
> Because "swamping" the cathode (not a very good term, BTW --
> low-impedance signal source is much better) only relieves PART of the
> problem. The other problem, as I have stated many times, is the
> linearity through grid current transistion, which is what the post
> addressed, NOT cathode "swamping".
We don't really care about the term being great, if one can understand
why it's a good idea to add the resistors in series with the cathode
leads.
Partial relief is good, your concern about linearity is noted.
Remember the part where I said the feed through power swamps the
grid current distortion in a grounded grid amplifiers. That
makes the circuit a real player...
piper for frankie G
> >education thank you. At no time did I ever restrict AB2 operation to
> >grounded grid... homey ain't playing that word game with you.
>
> That's hogwash, Skippy! Your confusion between amplifier classes and
> operation is posted all over these threads!
The issue has been... trying to keep you from jumping back and forth
from grounded grid to common cathode circuits. I've called you on
it a number of times. Your a ramblin kinda' guy frankie.
>
> >Once more for the road... we've been talking sweep tubes in AB2
> >grounded grid amplifiers. You want to jump lanes to common cathode
> >circuits, tell us at the time. I've been calling you on that issue
> >for some time now.
>
> ...good grief. Get yourself a decent news browser so you can go back
> and read the previous threads. Out of all the browsers I tried, even
> MSIE, I liked Agent the best. You should try it sometime. Then maybe
> you can read the previous posts and see that the conversation has
> never been limited to grounded-grid amps, despite your desperate
> attempts to do so.
If you want to change lanes... hang up your $#%#%^ cell phone and
turn on your blinker. We don't mind you wanting to exit the main
topic,just give us a clue when you want to crank the steering wheel.
> >Just as a side bar comment, not all common cathode amps require
> >neutralization. Its not rocket science to build a stable common
> >cathode amplifier less the neutralization requirement.
>
> Duh! I said that a long time ago! It's VERY easy to build one without
> neutralization when your Cgp is so low that stray capacitance in the
> grid circuit is enough to neutralize the tube. Where have you been,
> Skippy?
Up to my knees in your new group text poop.
> >Unless you put on the the turn signal... we are talking grounded
> >grid AB2 amplifiers using sweep tubes. Now if we can just get
> >you off your cell phone.
>
> I had a cell phone for a few months. Didn't like it. Never had one
> since.
My god, there's another common thing between us frankie.... I still
love you, now come back home and feed the dogs.
> >If you want to put on the common cathode sweep tube amplifier talk,
> >lets boogie.
>
> I have been doing it all along, Skippy. You have been out to lunch on
> the issue.
Just pointing out your mistakes...
>
> > By the way, did I tell you I have a two tube common
> >cathode sweep tube amplifiers at 28.55 MHz that has better than
> >10dB gain and no neutralization...?
>
> 10 dB gain from a two-tube common-cathode amp? That's PATHETIC,
> Skippy! You should be getting AT LEAST 14 dB from those tubes, which
> means that you have neutralization in that amp but don't know it, and
> it's causing your poor gain figures. Hey, why isn't this amp posted on
> your sonic server, too? LOL!
Notice the exact words "better than 10 dB..." frankie..?
It's actually about +13 dB gain where I operate it, but you probably
would have argued about it. I consider 10 dB the min "cost break point"
for most rf amplifier projects.
The amplifiers has no neutralization and I know it
It's such a small power level amplifier that most people don't
care much to talk about it. I'm not going to post every amplifier
I've collected or built on sonic... that would be way too much time
intensive work. So I do what I can as my free time allows.
How about you sending me anything... I promise not to modify your
text... please..? anything..? free web space..? (picture me holding
out a carrot on a stick)...
> > How about you throwing out
> >a circuit now..? How about you answering up with any text you've
> >posted any where on the net that we can review... of course other
> >than your hate post followup replies. Anything ...? Please..?
>
> Naw, I would rather point out all the errors of your amps.
Thanks Frankie... I appreciate the effort... but I would like to
see anything you've done... I'll behave myself...
piper for frankie G
> >> >: fact it CANNOT reduce or eliminate grid-current distortion. I needed
> >> >: to explain that in order to be linear you need at least 180 degrees of
> >> >: undistorted conduction time, which you cannot achieve with grid
> >> >: current distortion.
> >> >
> >> >Well mr magic amp... what is the conduction angle of an AB2 amplifier..?
> >> >Yep, greater than 180 degrees.
> >>
> >> Not 180 undistorted degrees. In case you haven't noticed, the grid is
> >> usually biased slightly negative with repect to the cathode, making
> >> the grid current transition occur within that 180 degrees. And because
> >> the bias is so slightly negative it also tends to make more noise at
> >> lower power levels than high power peaks.
> >
> >The conduction angle is never perfect, but it is still about 210
> >degrees by generic definition. The grid should be biased negative
> >with respect to the cathode.
>
> I have no problems with 210 degree conduction, although I wouldn't
> agree to the specific number unless I actually measured it. As for the
> grid biased negative, yeah? So?
As shown above, you felt the burning need to talk about conduction
angle restrictions.
I felt it was another unannounced turn off the freeway and
thought it better to tell you were the road was.
> > The question should be if you've ever
> >measured the noise..? Is the noise a significant problem ..? I
> >and other believe it does not disqualify sweep tubes from RF AB2
> >g-grid amplifier service.
>
> The numbers provided by the manufacturer are more than enough proof of
> the noise caused by these tubes. I have posted them from your own
> example of a "classic" amp at least three times. Shall I post them
> again?
Never take the mfgr as gospel. With enough resources, homework
and time, one could make the measurements for themselves.
> >> > The big picture here is the grid current
> >> >distortion in the topic amplifier is not large enough to prohibit the
> >> >Sweep Tube from consideration as a viable choice. Sweep tubes in AB2
> >> >grounded grid amplifiers have conduction angles greater than 180 degrees.
> >>
> >> Despite your repitition, all you need to do is to look at the numbers.
> >> The Dentron claims -30 dB IMD and -40 dB on harmonics, which sucks for
> >> a kilowatt amplifier.
> >
> >Probably because -30 dB was the requirement... In my Dentron web page
> >text, I mention a lot of the short comings of Dentron, which then
> >became Amp Supply. I don't judge the Dentron GLA-1000 as a good
> >circuit, in fact I wrote my text to point out some serious improvements
> >to be made which will make the amplifier a great rebuild project.
> >
> >Even the Svetlana Conversion has a lot of poop and is actually
> >incomplete (no standby mode cut-off).
> >
> >I measured about -32 dB on one example Quartet Sweep Tube Amplifier
> >some years back. What would make the amplifier "suck" is a speech
> >processed SSB signal using ALC.
>
> I wouldn't run a sweep tube that DOESN'T have an ALC circuit, and I
> would NEVER run a sweep tube grounded-grid. The proof is in the
> pudding -- they simply put out too much grid-current distortion, and
> all the noise figures for all the grounded-grid sweep tube amps back
> up that fact. "Plain fact, jack..."
I don't waste my time with an ALC circuit.
Again, review and research my previously made statement. "Feed through
power swamps out grid current distortion in AB2 grounded grid
amplifiers." Now that's no rope yank... frank.
> >In regular operation, you couldn't tell I had it on the air, other
> >than the increased signal strength. That's what amplifier operation
> >should be all about.
>
> It should be, but frequently that's not all that comes out of the
> coax.
It is when I can clearly see and measure the output nozzle contents....
chow
skipp
http://sonic.ucdavis.edu
ye...@removecet.com
>.... don't put
>aside your ridiculous ideas that Cgp changes because it's in a
>grounded-grid circuit, because not only have I already demonstrated
>that it doesn't, and tomorrow I fully intend to give you an actual
>measurement of the effective Cgp of a triode-connected 6LF6. You can
>verify the measurements for yourself.
Here we go:
G1 to P [G2 and G3 open] -- 8 pF
G1 + G2 + G3 to P -- 15 pF
The EFFECTIVE Cgp INCREASES, just like I said it does! Also, notice
that the actual value of Cgp is 5 pF larger than what is specified in
the data sheets. Just to make sure I wasn't reading it incorrectly I
balanced it on the bridge with a fixed cap -- it is indeed an accurate
measurement. I also tested three other tubes (these are all NOS), with
the same results. You and your ridiculous theory have just been proven
wrong BIG TIME, Skippy!
As if that wasn't enough, just for kicks I did this:
K to P with all grids open -- 9 pF
K to P with all grids tied together -- 10 pF
Not only is there NO additional shielding with triode-connection, but
you slightly INCREASED your cathode to plate capacitance!
Skippy, your plane didn't just crash, it plummeted at warp speed and
blew open a crater the size Texas!
piper for frankie G
> >mix; trying to cover your tracks... nope, won't work here.
>
> You brought it into the conversation, Skippy. You used it in context
> with your explanation of how a triode-connected sweep tube doesn't
> work like a triode, but are now recanting because you think I'm stupid
> enough to buy your excuse that it had nothing to do with the question.
> "nope, won't work here", Skippy.
I believe a review of the original post is quite clear to everyone but
you frankie. The reverse screen current jab at you was never used
"in context" with any explanation I made. Maybe next time...
>
> >Let us filter through the confetti and get right back on the topic.
> >
> >The doesn't work like a triode refers to the benefit of the additional
> >shielding from the grounded screen and supressor grids.
>
> Nice try, but you can't shield the plate from the cathode without
> shielding the cathode from the plate, cause the amp wouldn't work! And
> your precept for shielding stems from your unwillingness to understand
> the basic operation of a grounded-grid amp, the regenerative feedback
> effect of interelectrode capacitances, and the neutralization of the
> same.
Oh my god, we're back to square one with you. I guess the Eimac
Engineer who first told me about it was wrong in every Radio Handbook
I've seen it written in.
> And that STILL doesn't explain what you were allegedly referring to
> when you brought up 'reverse screen current' (if not about how a
> triode-connected sweep tube doesn't operate like a triode).
'Twas a jab at your temper tantrum of the moment frankie. That's
all... until you appeared so shocked about seeing the post that
you claimed it was a new one for you. Of course until you picked
up a book and found text on reverse screen current.
Now your running out of steam again... plus the words boring
come to mind Frankie. Stop boring us trying to make something
out of nothing.
> > To make the
> >round trip, I also claim that the type of AB2 grounded grid circuit
> >is of concern (as there are a few variations of grounded grid) when
> >using triode connected grounded grid sweep tubes because there is a
> >problem (previously explained) trying to run them in some applied
> >triode g-grid circuits. It's all about the tube geometry...
>
> Well then explain why this tube geometry affects the operation of a
> triode-connected sweep tube. Come to think of it, you have used the
> phrase "tube geometry" several times, but just like all your other
> meaningless catch-phrases you haven't gone into any further detail or
> explanation. Do you think these things explain themselves, Skippy? Or
> do you think that I don't know a bluff when I see it?
Meaningless as found in Radio Handbooks authored by Eimac Engineers.
If you can grasp the difference, see my description of the three
directly grounded G1, G2 and G3 grids amplifier amplifier and compare
it to the palomar 300 (six tube) circuit. The triode connected sweep
tube will not play well ("plays well with others...") in the directly
grounded AB2 circuit. Dat's what I'm talkin' bout frankie...
And just to add the cherry topping... it's all directly related to
the tube geometry of a particular style of tubes... such as the
4cx250b and various Beam Power Sweep tubes. The AB2 G-Grid layout
which connects the G1 & G2 grids as one is a bad boy for the
4cx250b and many Beam Power "sweep tubes".
> >I do thank you, you don't appear to have a grasp of load lines when
> >you write poop about my 10 ohm series cathode resistor recommendation
> >in the dentron text.
>
> ...blah, blah, blah. I already addressed your cathode resistors a long
> time ago but you refuse to look up the post. Now where is that post
> where you explain about "basic AC and DC load lines", Skippy?
Yeah, I seem to remember you blowing gas about them causing
ungrounded cathodes and a list of horror stories.... when in
fact, they are a very good idea. I don't care to waste time
explaining load lines here... but the resistors function by providing
degeneration to the circuit; said degeneration improves the
linearity of the circuit. Roger Wilco... over and out.
>
> >The AC & DC part came in a later post... grounding grids in various
> >combinations was mentioned well over a year ago. I even posted a
> >rather large article about the good sweep tube amplifier layouts.
> >Since your so good at news group surfing, go dig it up on the
> >www.contesting.com web page. Once again, how about sharing any
> >text or web pages you have with us Frank... we're still waiting.
>
> More diversionary BS. What's a load line, Skippy?
Right here it's a truck full of poop your trying to hid. Did you
bother to look up my sweep tube text at the site mentioned above.
You seen so... good with the internet... how about having at and
getting back to me.
Remember, if your going to turn, put on your blinker... no blinker
no talkie about load lines at this time.
> >In specific, you applied the resistor recommendation to a fault of
> >ungrounding the cathode, you also threw in neutralization with your
> >diatribe of the moment
>
> WTH are you talking about? I said that a cathode resistor on a
> common-cathode RF amp is a bad idea because it ungrounds the cathode.
> What does that have to do with your claim that a series resistor on
> the cathode of a grounded-grid amp improving linearity?
You were the once dancing in the spot light about resistors. My
original dentron text where this all started is still on the
sonic server as you last saw.
> > when I only state the resistor improves
> >linearity, the cause... by providing degeneration.
>
> Attenuation is not the same as degeneration (degenerative feedback).
> Go read your Electronics 101 book, Skippy.
Drop the feedback... just degeneration... all about load lines
frankie... if your going that way, take the text as I post it.
Remember to send us a post card...
> > You did not
> >properly address the issue because you don't understand AB2 grounded
> >grid circuits very well.
>
> I understand the issue very well and have previously addressed it.
> I'll even give you the post ID (which I have done several times
> already and twice today):
I'll give you credit in the shear volume of inert gas present in
your posts.
>
> <3dcb7d8f...@news.cet.com>
>
> And you are STILL avoiding the issue at hand; namely, your confusion
> between AC and DC grounding of a grid.
If you can tear yourself away from your latest tangent of AC and
DC paths, focus on the differences in the circuits which ground
all grids to the same point vs the other grounded grid circuits
which do not. This is the direction the topic should be taken
as it's a very important issue you don't seem to get
very well.
ye...@removecet.com
<nospamatthi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >> In <aqhm10$5mh$1...@woodrow.ucdavis.edu>, Frank goes whacky
>> >> >Boy, your really cute with the cut and paste. AT NO TIME DID I EVER SAY
>> >> >REVERSE SCREEN CURRENT APPLIED TO GROUNDED GRID SWEEP TUBE AMPLIFIERS,
>> >> >TRIODES OR ANYTHING SIMILAR. Nice try on your part though...
>> >
>> >> Oh, Skippy, how you lie:
>> >
>> >Doesn't look like the original comment below is appplied to any circuit
>> >I can see frankie. It still looks like me telling you to relax after
>> >you though some other post was from made by me.
>>
>> You are a moron, Skippy. I was replying to my own post because you
>> didn't, and I said that before. You would also see that fact in the
>> headers and in the first lines of the post, which you conveniently
>> snipped.
>
>You like to reply to your own posts frankie... we have seen many
>examples of it.
You like to ignore posts that have facts you can't refute... we have
seen many examples of it.
>>
>> And you also snipped the question, "tell us what a "classic" design
>> entails", to which you responded:
>
>I like to reference the Palomar 300 (six tube model) as a classic
>design. I've referenced it many times in the past.
G1 bypassed to ground, G2 and G3 connected directly to ground. All
three grids are grounded, Skippy. But YOU said that was BAD! LOL!!!
>> > So again, check your
>> >reverse screen current frankie...
>>
>> An answer that means nothing at all becase there is no reverse screen
>> current in a pentode or beam tetrode (sweep tubes) whether they are
>> common-cathode, grounded-grid, or even triode-connected!
>
>I never said there was...
You didn't mention it in the context of your reply just for kicks,
Skippy. Quit lying, because nobody is dumb enough to believe you.
> you didn't even know what reverse
>screen current was until I mentioned it .... "Now THERES a new one!"
>to use your own words.
The word "one" meaning "lame excuse that you will never be able to
back up with facts". I was right.
"Clearly seperated"? At what point is it seperated, Skippy? Since
anyone -- even YOU -- can read the post for themselves and see that I
didn't edit one single word, the only conclusion is that you are lying
in an attempt to obfuscate the issue.
>>
>> > text. Stop making stuff up as you go along Franklin..
>>
>> You can try to use your own vagueness as an excuse, but it just don't
>> wash, Skippy. You didn't bring up reverse screen current just to be
>> obtuse, and you continued to describe (incorrectly) how the screen
>> prevents the need for neutralization.
>
>Actually, I like to consider the reverse screen current jab a tease
>to get your blood pressure back down (or up in the real world).
>
>The truth is, I describe how the screen contributes to the
>big picture of why the g-grid amplifier does not require
>neutralization. It is not the only reason, just as your cure
>non inverting diatribe is not the big picture fix all.
It's not a reason at all because it doesn't occur in a pentode OR a
beam tube, even when it's connected as a triode! When are you going to
get that through your thick skull, Skippy?
ROTFL! You put both your "magical" put-down AND your "dated" argument
in the same sentence! You must be desperate...LOL!
> The actual
>issue here is that the entire "in phase" statement goes out the window
>when you have tubes with VHF gain (Ft) in HF service. The fly in
>the soup of the in-phase circuit theory does not the address the
>source of the VHF resonance. The VHF path is the anode C through the
>blocking cap to the Tune C. Your HF neutralization cap doesn't
>address the VHF Path.
AGAIN you are confusing neutralization with parasitic supression!
Maybe it's not confusion, maybe it's a deliberate obfuscation...
>Now if you want to argue the term regenerative feed back vs parasitic
>path... the call is made by where the oscillation happens. Care
>is required to ensure only one "resonant path" is in operation.
>Not always a 100% "give-me" in every grounded grid circuit. This
>becomes an larger issue when the amplifier is designed for
>mulit band operation across a decade.
The two concepts are different and distinct, and if you could read you
would know why. Just in case your text-to-speech converter is on the
fritz, let me clue you in: One is caused by regenerative feedback in
the amp as a whole, and occurs on the frequency to which the amplifier
is tuned. The other is caused by unintentional (and frequently
unexpected) resonant conditions in the sub-circuits of the amp (and
NOT just the tube!). Now do you think you can figure out which is
which?
>Hence we have well known grounded grid amplifiers using RF power
>tubes which have well documented histories of becoming rather
>large oscillators. The SB-220 and the TL-922 are such animals.
Were those oscillations parasitic or on the tuned frequency? Are those
grounded-grid amps? What kind of parasitic supression did they use?
Any? Did they take your advice and build an amp without any parasitic
supression? LOL!
>> I should add that the example circuit in the book is a triode, NOT a
>> tetrode, pentode, beam tube, or any other tube with a screen. Those
>> are described later in the book. The screen is NOT responsible for the
>> lack of the need for neutralization with grounded-grid amplifiers. Any
>> other book on the subject will say the same thing.
>
>Somewhere in that book you've got text that reads the screen
>does not contribute to the reduction in feedback C...?
Feedback capacitance in a grounded-grid amplifier is irrelavent
because the cathode and plate are in phase, or haven't you read that
far in your Electronics 101 book yet? Despite that, the screen
INCREASES the cathode to plate capacitance as I have already proven by
experiment!
> I seem
>to have more than one that does.
The only information you seem to have learned seems have come from the
internet -- I would be astounded to see you quote something from a
legitimate and authoritative publication!
> By the way, what's the date of
>that book..?
Are you actually going to claim that the fundamental operation of a
grounded-grid amplifier is "dated"? That's about the lamest argument
you have come up with so far, Skippy! I suppose that you think the
concepts of Ohm's law and Maxwell's equations are "dated" as well?
>> Now how long do you want to keep this up, Skippy?
>
>As long as it takes to get you to understand the operation of
>a sweep tube grounded grid amplifiers. So far you don't get it.
I get it fine -- it is YOUR understanding that is deficient!
>> >> First, as I have said many times but you fail to seek the truth for
>> >> yourself, neutralization is not required in a grounded-grid amp
>> >> because it's a non-inverting amp.
>> >
>> >The Non Inverting circuit is not the key, nor is it the dominant
>> >factor of a grounded grid amplifier.
>>
>> See above, as well as any basic electronics textbook.
>
>In the real world frankie, If design and construction care is not
>taken, grounded grid amplifiers can sing the big song.
That's the first accurate statement you have said in several days.
>> >> Second, grid shielding means absolutely nothing in a grounded-grid
>> >> amplifier -- if it did, then your input signal would never get past
>> >> the grid to the plate!
>> >
>> >Not true, you are wrong.
>>
>> Well if the screen is providing enough shielding to prevent a feedback
>> from getting from the plate to the cathode, then it's certainly
>> preventing the signal from getting from the cathode to the plate! Or
>> is this a magical kind of grid that is selective as to the direction
>> of electrostatic coupling? Maybe it's a "bird screen"... hehe...
>
>It doesn't prevent feedback... it reduces C
It does no such thing. Quit relying on the internet for your
electronics theory. But if you want a very good site to visit about
power amplifiers and their applications, try here:
http://www.ideas2actions.com/svetlana/techbulletins.asp
>> >> Third, Cgp never changes because it's a characteristic of the tube,
>> >> not the circuit. The capacitance AT the grid can change by changing
>> >> the circuit, but that's the INPUT capacitance, NOT Cgp! I have said
>> >> that many times as well, and just like every other fact, you have
>> >> failed to verify it for yourself.
>> >
>> >You keep jumping back to the tube Cgp when the topic was the actual
>> >problem C of the common cathode circuit C, much reduced grounded grid
>> >circuit which is halved.
>>
>> Not. You haven't read the post with the info from the Eimac
>> datasheets.
>
>Actually, I got my information direct from an Eimac Engineer. Actually
>his data.
Then he hasn't read the datasheets or tested it for himself, and you
should have verified his information by testing it for yourself. BTW,
what is the name of this engineer at Eimac that gave you this false
information? I'm thinking he gave you accurate information but you
warped it to fit your pathetic understanding of electronic
fundamentals.
>> > Don't mix them up frankie... go back and
>> >read my text as its writen. If you don't belive me, reference
>> >the many Radio Handbook texts by former Eimac Author Bill Orr
>> >(rip sk).
>>
>> Post a link. While I'm reading that, you can start on chapter 1 of
>> your Electronics 101 book.
>
>Would that be a Malvino book frankie..? Find a W6SAI Radio Handbook
>in a better library... if you'd actually do it, I'll provide an
>edition number and page.
Quit avoiding the issue and post a link, Skippy. Lot's of Bill Orr's
stuff is on the net, point to the direct quote where it backs up your
claim.
And you still don't understand that all three grids are grounded in
your favorite examples.
>That you were clue less about
>reverse screen current...
You haven't given ANY explanation for why it is a factor with ANYTHING
in this discussion!
> that you called the KLV tank circuit coil
>a shunt.
That you can't even look up an old post and get the facts straight?
LOL!
> on and on... you've proven quite a bit.
Yes I have, Skippy! None of it to your benefit, however.
>> >You also appear rude and prove to have a potty mouth.
>>
>> Speak for yourself, Skippy. You are just a rude, and even though you
>> don't use explicit profanity, you certainly use a large assortment of
>> demeaning words and phrases. Physician, heal thyself.
>
>I feel fine frankie... I'd feel a lot better if you didn't go
>to the toilet for words so often.
I guess you are just going to have to feel not so good while I
exercise my 1st Amendment right to freedom of expression. Like the
cliche goes, if you don't like it....
ye...@removecet.com
<nospamatthi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >See the general description of Beam Forming Plates Frankie... thats
>> >what I'm talking about... and what I was talking about in the first
>> >post.
>>
>> Beam forming plates are usually grounded, and have the same effect as
>> the supressor of a pentode -- they prevent the space charge from
>> hitting the screen. Now what's your point?
>
>RCA Tube manual... listed for many sweep tube numbers "Beam Power Tube".
Yeah? So?
>I find few if any good beam power tube circuits with the beam forming
>plates grounded in AB2 cicuits. Buzzztt...! you lose. insert another
>quarter.
First you claim that sweep tubes are beam tubes, and that your
"classic" grounded-grid sweep tube amps are exampled by the Palomar
and Dentron. But now you say that you don't find any good beam tube
circuits where the beam forming plates are grounded as they are in
your favorite examples. ROTFLOL!
>> >> Do you mean the spacing between the electrodes, or the spacing of the
>> >> wires OF the electrode, or how the wires on the screen of a beam tube
>> >> are located directly behind the wires of the grid forming an electron
>> >
>> >It's clear as its writen, electrode spacing, not grid element or grid
>> >wire spacing. But you left it out of your posts so using your tatics
>> >we must now assume you know nothing about it.
>>
>> You didn't answer the question: what do you mean by 'electrode
>> spacing'? And again, what is the point?
>
>Kind of a self descriptive term. Beam power tubes have modified
>electrode spacing, not just the special grid spacing, placement
>description you provided. You didn't mention it... so using your logic,
>we must assume you didn't know anything about it.
No it isn't "self descriptive". You can have spacing BETWEEN the
electrodes, you can have spacing of the WIRES of an electrode, you can
have spacing relative to the ALIGNMENT of the electrodes... Which one
do you mean, Skippy?
>> Once again, what about the electrode spacing? How is it different than
>> a 'non-beam' pentode? How does it affect the operation of your
>> triode-connected sweep tube?
>
>You would have to ask the designer of the specific tube. I see
>the point made in more than one tube book. There is a difference
>which modifies the performance of the the tube.
And what is that difference?
>> What's your point? Where are you going with all this, Skippy?
>
>Cute frankie...
>
>I used the label "Beam Power Tube, you danced and sang about
>hard copy definitions... ranting about lack of Beam Power tube
>information and sputtering your grid spacing description text
>like confetti across your following news group post.
>
>But your book doesn't seen to go much farther down the Beam
>Power Tube Path so we missed your inclusion of the other
>significant parts of beam Power tube construction which include
>electrode spacing and beam forming plates. Using your
>known methods of assumption, we must now conclude you didn't
>have that knowledge when you wrote the text.
>
>That's a point... or two...
Then, as you said, what other significant parts of a beam tube affect
the operation of a triode-connected grounded-grid amp that are
different than a pentode? Come on, Skippy, you made the claim, now
back it up with some facts!
ye...@removecet.com
<nospamatthi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>"ye...@REMOVEcet.com" wrote:
>> Because "swamping" the cathode (not a very good term, BTW --
>> low-impedance signal source is much better) only relieves PART of the
>> problem. The other problem, as I have stated many times, is the
>> linearity through grid current transistion, which is what the post
>> addressed, NOT cathode "swamping".
>
>We don't really care about the term being great, if one can understand
>why it's a good idea to add the resistors in series with the cathode
>leads.
Aw, Skippy, did you really think that I wouldn't notice your chop-job
on my post? You didn't say ANYTHING about swamping RESISTORS, let
alone that you think that's the function of your series cathode
resistors. Here's what you DID say (and snipped):
>>Dumb answer Franklin... Sweep Tubes in grounded grid AB2 RF amps
>>can work very well. ... and I saved all that money just by knowing
>>the "feed through power" of a grounded grid circuit swamps out the
>>grid current distortion issues.
Bad form, Skippy. As for your series cathode resistors, they aren't as
good of an idea as you think, for reasons I have stated many times
already but you continue to ignore.
>Partial relief is good, your concern about linearity is noted.
>Remember the part where I said the feed through power swamps the
>grid current distortion in a grounded grid amplifiers. That
>makes the circuit a real player...
And you are missing the boat here, too. It's not the fact that the
input power is fed through the tube, it's the fact that the power is
fed at a low impedance from a tuned circuit! THAT makes the
difference, Skippy! Your series cathode resistors actually HURT the
performance of the amplifier (in more ways than one!).
ye...@removecet.com
<nospamatthi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >Much to your dismay frankie, I have quite the formal electronics
>> >education thank you. At no time did I ever restrict AB2 operation to
>> >grounded grid... homey ain't playing that word game with you.
>>
>> That's hogwash, Skippy! Your confusion between amplifier classes and
>> operation is posted all over these threads!
>
>The issue has been... trying to keep you from jumping back and forth
>from grounded grid to common cathode circuits. I've called you on
>it a number of times. Your a ramblin kinda' guy frankie.
That's even more hogwash! The reason you thought I was "jumping back
and forth" is because you didn't know the difference between the amps!
Even your website has several examples where you demonstrate that
confusion. So don't blame me for your incompetence!
>>
>> >Once more for the road... we've been talking sweep tubes in AB2
>> >grounded grid amplifiers. You want to jump lanes to common cathode
>> >circuits, tell us at the time. I've been calling you on that issue
>> >for some time now.
>>
>> ...good grief. Get yourself a decent news browser so you can go back
>> and read the previous threads. Out of all the browsers I tried, even
>> MSIE, I liked Agent the best. You should try it sometime. Then maybe
>> you can read the previous posts and see that the conversation has
>> never been limited to grounded-grid amps, despite your desperate
>> attempts to do so.
>
>If you want to change lanes... hang up your $#%#%^ cell phone and
>turn on your blinker. We don't mind you wanting to exit the main
>topic,just give us a clue when you want to crank the steering wheel.
Turn your steering wheel back on the previous posts in this discussion
where I'm talking about both grounded-grid and common-cathode amps and
you are getting confused. Then steer yourself to all the times you
have accused me of going off-topic while you do what you accuse in the
very next post, sometimes even in the SAME post! You seem to be doing
that more often lately, which tells me only that you are desperate for
reasons to argue.
>> >Just as a side bar comment, not all common cathode amps require
>> >neutralization. Its not rocket science to build a stable common
>> >cathode amplifier less the neutralization requirement.
>>
>> Duh! I said that a long time ago! It's VERY easy to build one without
>> neutralization when your Cgp is so low that stray capacitance in the
>> grid circuit is enough to neutralize the tube. Where have you been,
>> Skippy?
>
>Up to my knees in your new group text poop.
I'll take that as a non-response.
>> >Unless you put on the the turn signal... we are talking grounded
>> >grid AB2 amplifiers using sweep tubes. Now if we can just get
>> >you off your cell phone.
>>
>> I had a cell phone for a few months. Didn't like it. Never had one
>> since.
>
>My god, there's another common thing between us frankie.... I still
>love you, now come back home and feed the dogs.
Sure, just as soon as you demonstrate an understanding of the
differences between AB1, AB2, grounded-grid, and common (grounded)
cathode amplifiers. So far you haven't been able to do that.
>> >If you want to put on the common cathode sweep tube amplifier talk,
>> >lets boogie.
>>
>> I have been doing it all along, Skippy. You have been out to lunch on
>> the issue.
>
>Just pointing out your mistakes...
You misread my last line as a question, which it wasn't. It was a
fact.
>> > By the way, did I tell you I have a two tube common
>> >cathode sweep tube amplifiers at 28.55 MHz that has better than
>> >10dB gain and no neutralization...?
>>
>> 10 dB gain from a two-tube common-cathode amp? That's PATHETIC,
>> Skippy! You should be getting AT LEAST 14 dB from those tubes, which
>> means that you have neutralization in that amp but don't know it, and
>> it's causing your poor gain figures. Hey, why isn't this amp posted on
>> your sonic server, too? LOL!
>
>Notice the exact words "better than 10 dB..." frankie..?
I remember back in grade school where kids made up excuses like that.
Kind of like one kid would claim, "My dad is over six feet tall!", and
another kid would respond, "Oh yeah? Well, MY dad is over SEVEN feet
tall!", then the first kid would snap back, "Well MY dad is over EIGHT
feet tall!". Of course the second kid would notify the first kid that
he originally boasted about his dad being over six feet tall. But that
first kid, he really thinks he's smart, and comes back with, "Yeah?
Well, eight feet tall is over six feet tall!" Sounds like you, Skippy.
>It's actually about +13 dB gain where I operate it,
...uh huh...
> but you probably
>would have argued about it.
Probably, since you claimed it has no neutralization.
> I consider 10 dB the min "cost break point"
>for most rf amplifier projects.
Good for you.
>The amplifiers has no neutralization and I know it
>
>It's such a small power level amplifier that most people don't
>care much to talk about it. I'm not going to post every amplifier
>I've collected or built on sonic... that would be way too much time
>intensive work. So I do what I can as my free time allows.
Well, you have broken some amazing new ground by building a
common-cathode sweep tube amp that doesn't require neutralization.
Matter of fact, that revolutionary! I don't see why you would ever NOT
want to brag about such an accomplishment when nobody has been able to
do what you have done since the beginning of sweep tubes....
....LOL!
>How about you sending me anything... I promise not to modify your
>text... please..? anything..? free web space..? (picture me holding
>out a carrot on a stick)...
How about sending me the callsign on this IB license?
>> > How about you throwing out
>> >a circuit now..? How about you answering up with any text you've
>> >posted any where on the net that we can review... of course other
>> >than your hate post followup replies. Anything ...? Please..?
>>
>> Naw, I would rather point out all the errors of your amps.
>
>Thanks Frankie... I appreciate the effort... but I would like to
>see anything you've done... I'll behave myself...
You know I like it when you beg, Skippy!
piper for frankie G
> >Amateur transceivers used with rf amplifiers consist of a hard wired
> >"feed back loop". The amplifier output quantity is sampled and
> >fed back to the transmitter ALC circuit.
>
> Exactly! The output QUANTITY, not the LINEARITY!
Now we're movin' ...
But it is measurably slow to react to speech which very often
results in over driven amplifiers. Over driven is bad...
bad dog amplifier..! over driven..! no dinner tonight.
>
> > The Transmitter output
> >in real world action hopefully reacts (but never in time) to reduce
> >excessive drive. There is always a measurable amount of poop going
> >out the door before the circuit reacts. In a compressed speech
> >chat, poop is in generate mode because the ALC cannot keep up.
> >i.e. time constants.
>
> Most of your "poop" is generated because your speech processing
> includes clipping of the audio signal! As long as you don't drive the
> ALC too hard you won't have any "poop" to worry about, regardless of
> the time constants. And that's a pretty good argument against trying
> to squeeze every last watt out of a rig.
My, nor most other modern amateur HF transceivers speech processors
are clipper circuits.
Without proper power control, one should not rely on the mic gain to
ensure the amp is not over driven. Indication of the amplifier to
radio ALC circuit is too late... the poop'eth hath departed.
I need not squeeze extra wattage from my transceiver...
> >The Galaxy circuit is novel in that it adjusts the amplifier bias
> >for improved linearity. Notice the detector circuit compares the
> >output with the input. There is no limiting action... just
> >bias adjustment.
>
> No kidding -- it improves linearity by pulling the amplifiers out of
> saturation and back into the linear portion of the EgIp curve.
Kind of neat isn't it..? I thought it novel enough to place
the circuit on the sonic server amateur radio page.
> The ALC circuit, just like any other compressor, is set to react
> whenever the input reaches a specific level. That level may or may not
> be in the linear region, but the lower the better. It also has an
> attack time that must be set -- again, the lower the better. Provided
> the amp is used according to the manufacturers recommendations and not
> driven beyond the ability of the ALC circuit to control the amp, there
> won't be ANY "poop" to deal with.
In plain brown wrapper terms... the amplifier to transceiver loop
is never fast enough (there are a few exceptions for another thread).
It should not be relied upon; especially if there is a valid power
control knob available on the radio.
> >The power control knob of a modern amateur radio should not accused
> >of causing distortion.
>
> Who did?
In one post, you alluded to the mic gain as a power control.
> ..."poop gate"?
Control your max drive.. ALC and its poop generation are avoided. If
you were using an amplifier, you might relabel you power control knob
"poop gate". Below the amplifiers max drive value... resultant poop
generation is much reduced.
>
> >> As far as their being too "slow", most of them begin to react after
> >> the very first or second RF peak. I suppose a couple peaks are going
> >> to sneak through before the output level is reduced, but that's a
> >> whole lot better than each every RF peak being clipped from a limiter.
> >
> >Most modern amateur speech processors are not limiters.
>
> The hell they aren't! Most of them work by simple diode clipping and
> subsequent filtering. Some work via fast AGC circuits which have the
> same effect, but with less filtering required because of the soft
> clipping of an AGC amp. There are a few speech processors that use
> log/anti-log amps or RF processing, but those are quite rare.
More potty mouth... oh well. Let's get back to the real world here
frankie. Most modern amateur transceivers used with the topic
amplifiers do not have simple diode clipping.
We can dance and sing about AGC type circuits being limiters or
compressors. When we talk about an RF peak clipped or limited
because of the failure of the ALC to respond fast enough,
contributions made by a speech processor mean ... more poop..!
> > A couple
> >of peaks are going to sneak through each time the ALC loop fails
> >to keep up. Poop generation in every transmission.
>
> Right effect, wrong reason. Ever read an ARRL handbook, Skippy?
I have most of the entire collection in my Library thank you.
Right effect, one of the reasons.
> >> >Many Amateurs using ALC are clueless about the actual
> >> > circuit operation.
> >>
> >> Yourself included.
> >
> >Thanks, seems I brought it to your attention, but you knew that
> >of course.
>
> If you had a decent news browser you would see that it was ME that
> brought it up while talking about the Swans. But a nice try, Skippy.
But you say they work... I say they do not work well enough to be
relied upon... swan or no swan radio.
> >> >Before the ALC acts (time constant)... unwanted poop is piped out the
> >> >coax connector to the antenna.
> >>
> >> See above.
> >
> >I can... You "suppose" poop happens, I know "poop happens". Hey..!
> >Frankie helped me make a funny... :-)
>
> I said that I suppose there is a very small and insignificant amount
> of time where a signal will slip past an ALC circuit when it's working
> correctly and not overdriven, or couldn't you gather that much from
> the context? I also said that speech compression causes distortion of
> the audio input to the amp, which it does. Have you thought about
> getting one of those glare-screens for your computer monitor?
If that ALC loop is a'workin' chances are good that your'a poop'n
About speech compression... sure in the pure at heart world it does
distort or modify the audio... some circuits ok, some not so ok. But
we do not equate a modified higher level of average audio as an
automatic source of rf wave form distortion. When your over driving
an rf amplifier... your putting too much rf into it.
> >Depending on ALC action most often results in over driven amplifiers,
> >dat's da fact jack...
>
> No doubt that ALC circuits are frequently overdriven. Some people just
> gotta have those extra few watts!
Your starting to read like a nice guy here frank... careful now. Any
trip down the HF bands finds bad operators "lids". Sad part is that
they don't realize a much smaller cleaner signal sounds better on the
receiving end.
>
> >RF Limiters are another animal which cover a lot of ground. Without
> >you going off to never never land again... how about you first read
> >and understand how the power control knob on a modern amateur radio
> >actually works...
>
> By adjusting the bias, attenuating the input, and/or varying the
> screen current of the common-cathode final. What's your point? And
> what does that have to do with RF limiters?
It's actually specific to the transmitter circuit... I use a solid state
transceiver for the most part. I don't want to exit into the rf
limiter topic as it's hairier and longer than our jousts might
ever result over this bit of shuffleboard. Leave the RF Limiter
topic for another time.
> >Controlling or limiting the output power of a modern amateur radio is
> >not the distortion generation device your trying to describe....
> >really frankie, read up on it before you comment please.
>
> You are confusing 'limiting' and 'compression', Skippy. A limiter
> prevents a signal from exceeding a specific level, usually by
> clipping. It distorts the signal. A compressor (of which the ALC
> circuit is an example) decreases the gain and/or input according to
> the output level. The signal remains relatively unscathed.
I'm talking about the power control knob on my modern (or semi
modern) Amateur Radio. It limits drive power, doesn't touch or
effect the audio.
The two available speech processors are not power controls, nor
do they interact with the power control function of the radio.
> >> >At one time, ALC was thought to work pretty well for the most part.
> >>
> >> It still does.
> >
> >For those who know no better and are happy with dated technology.
>
> That includes anyone that uses incandescent light bulbs, convection
> ovens, and that wonderful invention by Thomas Crapper. All "dated"
> technologies by your standards.
Some of us use the power control knob on our transceivers. Amateur
HF Radios without true power control knobs require closer attention
to prevent over driving external amplifiers.
Now who left those lights on around here..? ..! :-)
>
> >Modern radios do a better job with ALC, but it's never fast enough.
> >This is where the power control knob on the radio works better.
>
> Are you trying to tell me that you can turn a power control knob
> faster than an ALC circuit can react to power peaks? I hope not!
I'm telling you that I can set the power control on my radio to
keep the radio from over driving the amplifier. I don't bother
with the amplifier ALC wiring as its not needed.
> >When the amplifier reaches max boogie, the rf envelope is compressed
> >or in another view "hard limited". This is very bad news... some RF
> >Amplifiers have specified "X-dB" compression point measurement
> >values listed. The bottom line, one should avoid depending on
> >any circuit operation which can over drive an amplifier, even for
> >brief moments in each transmission. Smart people do not rely on
> >ALC circuit operation.
> >
> >But you do...
>
> I expect it to perform the fuction for which it was designed. I have
> also stated many times that you shouldn't overdrive your amp -- and
> consequently overdrive the ALC circuit -- because the ALC has it's
> limitations. Matter of fact, I made a point of that when talking about
> the Swan 500, or are you missing that post too? Funny how you have
> been able to read all of these numbered posts but STILL can't find
> those other posts -- you aren't ignoring them, are you Skippy?
If your using your ALC with a radio that can over drive the connected
amplifier, you are almost always going to over drive the amp in
"normal transmissions".
Yeah, Radio Amplifier connected ALC has its limitations...
its simply not fast enough. I'm not ignoring that fact.
cheers
skipp
http://sonic.ucdavis.edu
ye...@removecet.com
<nospamatthi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> <snip>
>> >> >: fact it CANNOT reduce or eliminate grid-current distortion. I needed
>> >> >: to explain that in order to be linear you need at least 180 degrees of
>> >> >: undistorted conduction time, which you cannot achieve with grid
>> >> >: current distortion.
>> >> >
>> >> >Well mr magic amp... what is the conduction angle of an AB2 amplifier..?
>> >> >Yep, greater than 180 degrees.
>> >>
>> >> Not 180 undistorted degrees. In case you haven't noticed, the grid is
>> >> usually biased slightly negative with repect to the cathode, making
>> >> the grid current transition occur within that 180 degrees. And because
>> >> the bias is so slightly negative it also tends to make more noise at
>> >> lower power levels than high power peaks.
>> >
>> >The conduction angle is never perfect, but it is still about 210
>> >degrees by generic definition. The grid should be biased negative
>> >with respect to the cathode.
>>
>> I have no problems with 210 degree conduction, although I wouldn't
>> agree to the specific number unless I actually measured it. As for the
>> grid biased negative, yeah? So?
>
>As shown above, you felt the burning need to talk about conduction
>angle restrictions.
>
>I felt it was another unannounced turn off the freeway and
>thought it better to tell you were the road was.
A new excuse, and a creative one, too! Pre-emptive redirection! Bravo,
Skippy! Now that you have effectively stopped the off-topic issue in
its tracks, maybe you can address the real issues. Like your lack of
undertanding about grid current distortion....
>> > The question should be if you've ever
>> >measured the noise..? Is the noise a significant problem ..? I
>> >and other believe it does not disqualify sweep tubes from RF AB2
>> >g-grid amplifier service.
>>
>> The numbers provided by the manufacturer are more than enough proof of
>> the noise caused by these tubes. I have posted them from your own
>> example of a "classic" amp at least three times. Shall I post them
>> again?
>
>Never take the mfgr as gospel. With enough resources, homework
>and time, one could make the measurements for themselves.
I agree, and knowing that the figures from manufacturers are usually
padded to their benefit, the true numbers are most likely worse.
YOU review and research MY previous statements about grid current
distortion.
>> >In regular operation, you couldn't tell I had it on the air, other
>> >than the increased signal strength. That's what amplifier operation
>> >should be all about.
>>
>> It should be, but frequently that's not all that comes out of the
>> coax.
>
>It is when I can clearly see and measure the output nozzle contents....
Most can't.
piper for frankie G
> >they used a two tone test method.
>
> I don't make such assumptions. I have been in the business for a long
> time, and in the position many times where I was told to fudge the
> figures in order to pass specifications. And even a two-tone test
> won't necessarily show the inherent "poop" when an amp hits those
> modulation peaks normally encountered with human speech. You know that
> as well as I do.
Your right and we agree (O'my god...!) Dentron and Amp Supply were
well known specification fudge generators... in addition to all the
non technical fudge happening behind the scenes. The reason they
are now long gone.
> >In the real world, the GLA-1000 and Amp Supply LA-1000 do a nice clean
> >+10dB with about 40 to 60 watts drive. It makes them useful as compact
> >desktop amplifiers for many of the typical 70's/80's/90 hf amateur
> >radios.
>
> I wouldn't call them "clean", that's for sure.
When rebuilt using some of the suggestions in my Dentron Update, I
call them clean enough. Other than my increased signal strength over
the stock radio, you couldn't tell I had it in line.
> >The big deal that the Dentron GLA-1000C and I believe the
> >Amp Supply LA-1000 models were both post ban amplifiers legally
> >sold in the US.
>
> I do believe that they were post-ban amps, but I think if they were
> legal in the US it was before the amendment placing restrictions on
> amps that are easily modifiable for the prohibited freqs.
I would imagine they might actually still pass muster, just
depends on how you present the amplifier to the FCC. People
manipulate the data every day.
> >> > The FCC said go and the various mfgrs legally built them.
> >
> >> And after they learned from their mistake they changed the rules.
> >
> >Sweep tube amplifiers were legally made by Ameritron, Dentron
> >and Amp Supply after the 78 rule change... just not shipped with
> >plug and play 10 meter operation.
>
> See above.
Relative to the initial post ban amplifiers, many of the "rule
change" amplifier circuits are nearly as easy to modify for
legal 10 meter operation.
> >"Failed" ...?
> >Why would I need to mention it..? I've been talking about sweep
> >tubes, where have you been...?
>
> I have been here talking about sweep tubes AND RF power tubes, and
> watching you trying to narrow down the topic to grounded-grid sweep
> tube amps only while covertly redirecting topics where you show a
> serious lack of technical competence.
All you need to do frankie... is to put on your turn signal when
you change lanes. I make no covert (cute, I like that...) moves
to redirect the topic from the original subject... sweep tubes
in grounded grid amplifiers.
If you want to dance a specific tune, play the music and stay
in the same room. Otherwise, please tell us where your going
when you leave.
> >Variety is the spice of life.... even Handbook projects using RF
> >power tubes are not specific to one single type of valve.
> >
> >Life goes on...
>
> Yeah, but the life of sweep tubes is just about over. Why are you
> hanging onto this "dated" technology?
I just like tubes frankie... People thought my vintage Marshall
guitar amplifier was dated a while back. I'm still playing
it although its now worth more than my new car.
My latest cost on RF designed Sweep Tubes that are direct drop
in replacements for the Svetlana EL-509/519 and the actual 6KG6
sweep tube is now under $15 each.
You gotta love it frankie...!
chow for now
skipp
http://sonic.ucdavis.edu
piper for frankie G
ye...@removecet.com
<nospamatthi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >Now there you go again trying to drag Reverse Screen Current into the
>> >mix; trying to cover your tracks... nope, won't work here.
>>
>> You brought it into the conversation, Skippy. You used it in context
>> with your explanation of how a triode-connected sweep tube doesn't
>> work like a triode, but are now recanting because you think I'm stupid
>> enough to buy your excuse that it had nothing to do with the question.
>> "nope, won't work here", Skippy.
>
>I believe a review of the original post is quite clear to everyone but
>you frankie. The reverse screen current jab at you was never used
>"in context" with any explanation I made. Maybe next time...
You haven't associated it with anything since I pointed out that there
is no reverse screen current in a beam tube or pentode, so you are now
going to claim that it was a joke?
***** LAME *****
Lame, Lame, Lame!!!!!
>>
>> >Let us filter through the confetti and get right back on the topic.
>> >
>> >The doesn't work like a triode refers to the benefit of the additional
>> >shielding from the grounded screen and supressor grids.
>>
>> Nice try, but you can't shield the plate from the cathode without
>> shielding the cathode from the plate, cause the amp wouldn't work! And
>> your precept for shielding stems from your unwillingness to understand
>> the basic operation of a grounded-grid amp, the regenerative feedback
>> effect of interelectrode capacitances, and the neutralization of the
>> same.
>
>Oh my god, we're back to square one with you. I guess the Eimac
>Engineer who first told me about it was wrong in every Radio Handbook
>I've seen it written in.
Then quote one of them! Prove me wrong! Don't just sit there like a
hump and TELL me I'm wrong, PROVE IT! Provide some verifiable
references! If it's such a widely known concept then you should even
be able to find many references on the net! Post a link, Skippy! Post
several and SLAM me with that proof!
>> And that STILL doesn't explain what you were allegedly referring to
>> when you brought up 'reverse screen current' (if not about how a
>> triode-connected sweep tube doesn't operate like a triode).
>
>'Twas a jab at your temper tantrum of the moment frankie. That's
>all... until you appeared so shocked about seeing the post that
>you claimed it was a new one for you. Of course until you picked
>up a book and found text on reverse screen current.
That's your own assumption, your own interpretation of what I wrote.
Too bad you couldn't read it as the response for such an outlandish
concept as reverse screen current explaining how a triode-connected
sweep tube doesn't work like a triode! Now THAT's a GAS!!!
>Now your running out of steam again... plus the words boring
>come to mind Frankie. Stop boring us trying to make something
>out of nothing.
It's just as 'boring' as your repetitive (and inaccurate) pokes at
where I said the SCREEN was tied to the plate. Yep, that's getting
pretty boring, too, Skippy.
>> > To make the
>> >round trip, I also claim that the type of AB2 grounded grid circuit
>> >is of concern (as there are a few variations of grounded grid) when
>> >using triode connected grounded grid sweep tubes because there is a
>> >problem (previously explained) trying to run them in some applied
>> >triode g-grid circuits. It's all about the tube geometry...
>>
>> Well then explain why this tube geometry affects the operation of a
>> triode-connected sweep tube. Come to think of it, you have used the
>> phrase "tube geometry" several times, but just like all your other
>> meaningless catch-phrases you haven't gone into any further detail or
>> explanation. Do you think these things explain themselves, Skippy? Or
>> do you think that I don't know a bluff when I see it?
>
>Meaningless as found in Radio Handbooks authored by Eimac Engineers.
Do they use the term, "tube geometry"? If so, in what document?
>If you can grasp the difference, see my description of the three
>directly grounded G1, G2 and G3 grids amplifier amplifier and compare
>it to the palomar 300 (six tube) circuit. The triode connected sweep
>tube will not play well ("plays well with others...") in the directly
>grounded AB2 circuit. Dat's what I'm talkin' bout frankie...
Oh, so you are saying that "tube geometry" is about how the grids are
connected? What about the Dentron? All three grids are directly
connected to ground in that amp, and it was a sucessful amp. So why do
you keep saying that it's such a bad thing to do?
>And just to add the cherry topping... it's all directly related to
>the tube geometry of a particular style of tubes... such as the
>4cx250b and various Beam Power Sweep tubes. The AB2 G-Grid layout
>which connects the G1 & G2 grids as one is a bad boy for the
>4cx250b
No kidding. It was designed for specific functions, and grounded-grid
triode operation isn't one of them. Kinda like sweep tubes were not
designed for RF power applications.
> and many Beam Power "sweep tubes".
You said that just to get my goat, right?
>> >I do thank you, you don't appear to have a grasp of load lines when
>> >you write poop about my 10 ohm series cathode resistor recommendation
>> >in the dentron text.
>>
>> ...blah, blah, blah. I already addressed your cathode resistors a long
>> time ago but you refuse to look up the post. Now where is that post
>> where you explain about "basic AC and DC load lines", Skippy?
>
>Yeah, I seem to remember you blowing gas about them causing
>ungrounded cathodes and a list of horror stories.... when in
>fact, they are a very good idea.
Is this what you read, Skippy:
>2. The addition of cathode resistors (typically 10 ohms) on parallel
>grounded-grid tubes is used to equalize the cathode currents between
>the tubes, a practice which Skippy considers "dated". They do NOT
>cause degenerative feedback as they do in common-cathode amplifiers,
>and therefore do NOT improve the linearity of the tubes. Quite the
>contrary: A cathode resistor on a grounded-grid amplifier -increases-
>the impedance of the signal source by the value of its resistance, and
>therefore -increases- the distortion caused by grid current. Any
>grounded-grid amp designed with cathode resistors is not intended for
>linear AB2 operation. If it was, then it was not designed properly.
If you didn't read that then you need to do as I have suggested many
times: upgrade your news browser, or log onto google and catch up on
the posts you missed. Because without knowing what was written you are
really looking like a fool. I don't mind you looking like a fool, but
I would rather it be by your technical foolishness, not because you
were uninformed. So get informed, Skippy.
> I don't care to waste time
>explaining load lines here...
There's those words again -- "don't care". Synonymous with "don't
know".
> but the resistors function by providing
>degeneration to the circuit; said degeneration improves the
>linearity of the circuit. Roger Wilco... over and out.
Degeneration does improve the linearity of an amplifier, but your
resistors don't provide any degenerative feedback -- they attenuate
the input signal. If you want degeneration in a grounded-grid amp you
need to put the resistor between the grid and ground, where the signal
imposed on the grid will oppose the amplification of the tube; and
just like a cathode resistor on a common-cathode amp, that's not a
good idea for RF applications. Nor do your resistors provide a
'swamping' of the input, because they are in series with the cathode
and INCREASE the impedance at the input of the tube.
Jeez, Skippy, will you ever learn?
>> >The AC & DC part came in a later post... grounding grids in various
>> >combinations was mentioned well over a year ago. I even posted a
>> >rather large article about the good sweep tube amplifier layouts.
>> >Since your so good at news group surfing, go dig it up on the
>> >www.contesting.com web page. Once again, how about sharing any
>> >text or web pages you have with us Frank... we're still waiting.
>>
>> More diversionary BS. What's a load line, Skippy?
>
>Right here it's a truck full of poop your trying to hid. Did you
>bother to look up my sweep tube text at the site mentioned above.
More diversionary BS.
>You seen so... good with the internet... how about having at and
>getting back to me.
More diversionary BS.
>Remember, if your going to turn, put on your blinker... no blinker
>no talkie about load lines at this time.
More diversionary BS.
>> >In specific, you applied the resistor recommendation to a fault of
>> >ungrounding the cathode, you also threw in neutralization with your
>> >diatribe of the moment
>>
>> WTH are you talking about? I said that a cathode resistor on a
>> common-cathode RF amp is a bad idea because it ungrounds the cathode.
>> What does that have to do with your claim that a series resistor on
>> the cathode of a grounded-grid amp improving linearity?
>
>You were the once dancing in the spot light about resistors. My
>original dentron text where this all started is still on the
>sonic server as you last saw.
Just because you used them doesn't mean they perform according to your
erroneous expectations. You don't describe how they allegedly improve
the linearity, you just say they do without any further explanation.
Do you think that people should take your word on blind faith?
>> > when I only state the resistor improves
>> >linearity, the cause... by providing degeneration.
>>
>> Attenuation is not the same as degeneration (degenerative feedback).
>> Go read your Electronics 101 book, Skippy.
>
>Drop the feedback... just degeneration... all about load lines
>frankie... if your going that way, take the text as I post it.
>Remember to send us a post card...
Then explain your concept of load lines and how series cathode
resistors cause degeneration. And you might also explain the
difference between 'degeneration' and 'degenerative feedback' (and
'negative feedback' also, since all those terms are synonymous).
>> > You did not
>> >properly address the issue because you don't understand AB2 grounded
>> >grid circuits very well.
>>
>> I understand the issue very well and have previously addressed it.
>> I'll even give you the post ID (which I have done several times
>> already and twice today):
>
>I'll give you credit in the shear volume of inert gas present in
>your posts.
Just read the post, Skippy. Just think -- another post to which you
can add your non-responsive sarcasm!
>>
>> <3dcb7d8f...@news.cet.com>
>>
>> And you are STILL avoiding the issue at hand; namely, your confusion
>> between AC and DC grounding of a grid.
>
>If you can tear yourself away from your latest tangent of AC and
>DC paths, focus on the differences in the circuits which ground
>all grids to the same point vs the other grounded grid circuits
>which do not. This is the direction the topic should be taken
>as it's a very important issue you don't seem to get
>very well.
Alright then. If a grid -- any grid -- is bypassed to ground, is it
not grounded?
piper for frankie G
> >with amplifiers parasitics happen in the VHF region, an area you
> >should never ignore and a simple parasitic suppressor is only a very
> >small part of the big picture.
> >
> >Tubes like the 8877 are well designed and for the most part, don't
> >require parasitic suppressors to operate in a good high gain HF
> >circuits. Pop in a similar size valve in the same circuit and chances
> >are it's going to sing like a big dog.
>
> That's a load of "poop" and you know it. Any circuit to which the 8877
> is connected is going to have resonant frequencies -- that's just a
> fact of RF amps you can't avoid. As long as the tube can amplify on
> those frequencies, there MUST be some method of dampening the
> unintended resonant frequency of the circuit. It's not the tube, it's
> the circuit, Skippy!
Well frankie, let me take the liberty of pasting in some text which
clearly lays it out. Enjoy another crow dinner...
[cut and paste]
The 8877 is well known as a *stable* tube for amplifiers at 50MHz and
144MHz.
With the input and output both tuned to the same frequency, and
typically 15-18dB of on-frequency gain, it's stable. If you provoke it
by removing both the input and output loads and swinging the input and
output tuning, a well-constructed 8877 VHF amp will still not oscillate.
Why? Because the 8877 has a grid ring that makes a very direct,
low-inductance connection to the actual grid inside (a sheet-metal cone
which very effectively shields the input from the output). If you ground
the grid VHF-style, with finger-stock contacts directly on to the grid
ring and fixed directly to the chassis, then the tube will not oscillate
at VHF. This applies equally to an 8877 in an HF or a VHF amplifier.
For glass tubes without a grid ring, such direct grid grounding is not
possible, which is why we have to use Plan B - parasitic suppressors -
to reduce gain at VHF.
--
[end of cut and paste]
some steak sauce for your crow frankie..?
>
> >The type of tube matters... don't know how to say it any clearer to
> >you.
>
> You said it clearly enough, but you are still wrong. The tube is only
> a component of any parasitic resonant circuit in the amplifier. Unless
> the tube has some magical "resonance detection-and-dampening" device,
> you still need some form of supression of those frequencies. No tube
> is immune because the tube is just the amplifier, not the whole
> resonant circuit. This is first-year electronics, Skippy.
Please review the above text from:
73 from Ian G3SEK 'In Practice' columnist for RadCom (RSGB)
Editor, 'The VHF/UHF DX Book'
> >Your "predisposition to parasitics" is not really a good term...
>
> The concept is yours, and it's not really a good concept.
I didn't make it up Frankie...
> >but the tubes such as the 3-1000z and the 3-500z in mfgrs rated
> >applications have a well known and documented track record
> >of parasitic problems. Readers can reference text at
> >http://www.vcnet.com/measures for more detailed information.
>
> You should take a look at that site a bit more closely. A lot of the
> info is good, but a lot of it is also very bogus, such as the idea
> (which you adopted) that neutralization isn't required in a
> grounded-grid amp because of 'grid-screening'.
Nothing I can find on his web page is faulty... his grid screening
text agrees with my Eimac Engineer Authored "SAI" Handbooks and
my opinions. His weab page goes through almost daily review by
people on the cutting edge of current amplifier technology. He
has many published articles on the subject of tube rf amplifiers.
I feel pretty safe agreeing with him and my books, you keep
your incomplete dated text book opinion for yourself.
> >For more detailed study of a tube which is not generically subject
> >to parasitic problems, please research the 8877, in specific...
> >the grid construction. The mfgrs data sheet might be a good
> >place to start.
>
> I have already done so, and I even posted some information from the
> datasheet in this discussion. There is nothing in the datasheet to
> indicate that it is immune from parasitics. Because, Skippy,
> parasitics are an effect of the CIRCUIT, NOT just the tube.
Your all alone in the cold... please again review the text I
pasted in above.
>
> >Your simply wrong again Franklin... or frankie...
>
> All the data and facts support my comments and contradict your's. It
> is YOU that is wrong again, Skippy.
Da' facts are subject to revision, the revision is posted
above as the current facts.
Enjoy your crow din'wa
cheers
skipp
piper for frankie G
> >> probably intended for the CB market, and....
> >
> >Just can't help but throw this out one time... Where on the mfgrs
> >web page does it say what the intended market is Frankie...
>
> On page three of the operating instructions it says, "Use of this amp
> with a CB radio is illegal. If anyone complains, try to make them feel
> stupid by pointing that out in this manual. If they continue to
> complain, just act stupid until they stop. If you get caught by the
> FCC, just say that you interpreted the law differently and they will
> understand..."
>
> Close enough?
Actually very funny... still doesn't say the amplifier's target
is the US CB market... and they are made in Italy I believe.
So rather tongue in cheek, can we do anything technical with this
thread... or do we just laugh it off?
> > OK,
> >so I couldn't resist one time. Now lets break it down...
> >> >If your receiver is already sensitive enough to receive the noise
> >> >floor, a preamp is not going to improve the signal-to-noise ratio. In
> >> >fact, the preamp is going to add to the noise by the stated 1.5 dB,
> >> >but it will increase the noise floor by 13 dB!
> >
> >Depends on where the noise floor happens to be... you have to be
> >certain
> >that each or most of the receivers can actually hear the noise floor.
> >You can't be certain...
>
> Sure you can. Test your receive with the sig-gen. If you can get it
> down to 3 uV then you probably don't need a pre-amp for audio
> reception.
Well now... throwing in that last part "audio reception" is a pesky
fly in the soup.
How about I sum it up in the real world again... I and thousands of
others have commercial receivers that need to hear very weak signals.
We all (most of us at least) have fet preamps in front of them. Our
receivers easily hear better than 1 uV. We depend on the lower noise
figure of the preamp circuit. Advantage, use the preamp...
> >Conditional statements side step the applied real world.
>
> YOU are trying to accuse ME of sidestepping? ROTFLMMFAO!!! Try reading
> in context, Skippy!
>
> >> > I don't agree... not everyone has a hot
> >> >receiver. A switchable low noise fet preamplifier is a very good thing
> >> >and relatively cheap in cost. Not everyone has your magical hot as a
> >> >firecracker receiver... in fact some of the Icom 706MKIIG radios I've
> >> >tried have pretty numb receivers.
You tried a new 706MKIIG radio frankie... I have one myself and it's
numb a rug on the lower bands. I actually consider it useless on the
160 meter amateur band when compared to other radios I have.
> >I don't agree... neither does most of the rest of the world. That's
> >why much of the rest of the world uses them in weak signal work.
> >That includes many two way commercial receivers along with the hobby
> >crowd. It's also how all those companies make much of their bread
> >and butter.
>
> Most of the world accepts certain things on blind faith simply because
> the claims are too good to be true. Anyone that has actually put these
> through the bench know better -- same deal with sweep tube amps.
Many of the people I reference as the VHF and weak signal crowd
are also highly educated RF Engineers for companies like Agilent, AT&T
and similar "level" companies or agencies. Many of us meet in Dayton
each year where my friend Tom (works for Agilent in their RF Test
Equipment Division) totes in the latest high dollar test equipment to
specifically test low noise preamps people have bought or made.
Many are hand made by some very wacky looking people...
No one takes the results on blind faith.... they see the readout
on a $70,000 plus cost piece of brand new Agilent test equipment.
I had a second cup of good coffee while my preamp was under test.
chow
skipp
http://sonic.ucdavis.edu
piper for frankie G
> >did I claim it to be the entire picture. Lets get real here frankie...
>
> ...backpeddle, backpeddle...
Did you find some text where I claim it was the entire picture..?
I didn't think so...
> >The non inverting function of the g-grid amplifier
>
> Wow! You finally admit that it's a non-inverting amp! Hey, we're
> making progress....
Never said it was anything else... you ok with that..?
> > is not the key
> >player in the picture of amplifier stability. Non inverting amplifiers
> >will easily sing, it's about that anode-C path through the
> >blocking cap to the Tune-C that really concern the tubes gain in
> >the VHF region... your wonderful 6146 example can also boogie with
> >the rest of the tube that have VHF gain.
>
> You are still confusing neutralization with parasitic supression.
> Learn the difference, Skippy. Then we'll talk.
It just matters where the feedback path is happening. If there
are two paths we just tend to label it parasitic. Doesn't have
to be in the VHF region. A vHF supressor won't stop the fun.
Nor will relying on the non inverting layout of the amplifier
circuit.
> >But you have "yeti" to show us that you understand the VHF issues
> >of HF amplifiers and how to deal with them.... oh yeah, other than
> >"a simple parasitic suppressor". You build and amplifier with a tube
> >like the 3-1000z and "a simple parasitic suppressor doesn't cut the
> >mustard frankie. And it's a purpose designed RF power tube...
>
> Even higher power tubes are easy. All a parasitic supressor does is
> damp the frequency of the parasitic. Activate your GDO (or set the
> tube up for very low gain) and measure the frequency of the parasitic
> (or parasitics). Once you have identified where they are coming from
> and their frequencies, it's a simple matter to eliminate them with any
> of several methods, and the common resistor/inductor supressor is only
> one of those methods.
Nothing is really as easy as you appear to describe it. Parasitic
suppression is a science unto itself. Taming all the gremlins
in a high gain circuit using a tube with respectable Ft can
become a chore. You should know that by your supposed experience
in broadcast transmitters. But if you examine some circuits with
tubes like the 8877 in operation, you'll notice they don't
require parasitic suppressors.
> That's how amplifiers are PROPERLY designed, Skippy. Not by picking a
> tube because you heard somewhere that it doesn't require parasitic
> supression. That's lazy and lame.
And done every day in the real world by using an 8877 A lot of
experienced and well qualified rf engineers must be lazy and
lame.
> And you STILL haven't shown any understanding of the fundamentals
> behind neutralization.
Cute, but no cigar Frankie. Come back after you've had your
crow dinner and we'll again review a tube that doesn't require
parasitic suppressors... that would be the 8877
> >Neutralization in the HF region goes out the window to ensure stability
> >in the vhf region. There are two different paths happening...
>
> No screamin' eagle [poop]! What do you think I have been saying for
> the past few days? SHEESH!!!
>
> >By golly I must know something... every single grounded grid amplifier
> >I own or have built (which are many in number) does not have one part
> >of a neutralization circuit on board.
>
> Care to guess why?
No guess, the composite contributions of the circuit layout which
include the reduction of C by the grounded grid. The in phase
relationship is only a player who can be removed from the game
if your not careful.
Don't take my word for it frankie...
If you really want to debate the topic, your generous assumption
that the non inverting function removes the neutralization requirement
for grounded grid amplifiers.... which is also contrary to statements
and information provided by Ameritron Amplifier Designer, Tom (w8ji);
of which you can easily review by searching at www.contesting.com with
your magic carpet web browser.
> >No one here claims neutralization is used to prevent parasitics. But
> >most all of us owning or building grounded grid amplifiers (with the
> >exception of some much debated Ameritron circuits) don't have a lick
> >of a neutralization circuit installed.
>
> Yeah? Isn't that what I said over a week ago? Duh!
You like to beat a dead horse...
> >Why wasted the hardware, it's simply not required in most grounded
> >grid amplifier designs. Of course unless you and ___________ say it
> >is.
>
> What wasted hardware? Common-cathode amps don't have the impedance
> matching requirements of grounded-grid amps, so there's some wasted
> hardware for ya, Skippy.
whoops.... you forgot your turn signal again... get off that cell phone
and note that we are now also talking about common cathode amps.
Don't most of the real world common cathode amplifiers made have some
type of frequency selective circuit..?
Taking your hard line approach to compare simple rude designs.. I
can drive the grid swamped common cathode amplifiers through cap.
I can also drive the g-grid amp cathode through a cap...
Tis not the best method for ether layout. Now add the proper
care and feeding drive circuit... and the grounded grid circuit
still does not need the extra hardware in most cases.
onward...
skipp
http://sonic.ucdavis.edu
piper for frankie G
> >[snipage on my part in the interest of brevity]
> >> >
> >> >Sure, consider the properly designed, AB2 grounded grid "Cathode Driven
> >> >amplifier. The interposed screen grid acts as an electrostatic shield
> >> >between the grid and plate, with the consequence that the grid to plate
> >> >capacitance is reduced.... combined with Grid Shielding between the
> >> >cathode and the plate which make your much touted neutralization
> >> >unnecessary.
> >
>
> Except that it's wrong!
The the Eimac Engineer Author of the Radio Handbook from where I first
read it is also wrong..? I don't think so.
> >> 1. The screen grid does indeed shield the control grid from the plate,
> >> but it does so ONLY when there is a signal on the grid to be shielded.
> >> You don't have a signal on the grid of a grounded-grid amplifier.
> >
> >You have reduced Cgp and Ccp...
>
> No you haven't, as I have shown you with the info from the Eimac
> datasheets in the other post.
If I name the Eimac Engineer Authored Radio Handbook Edition and page
from wence I first read it years ago... would you bother to go look at
a hard copy in the Library..? You have a track record of ignoring
original hard copy material. If you'll do the work... I'll happily
post the reference source.
> >> 2. The effect of adding a screen grid to a TRIODE reduces the
> >> grid-to-plate capacitance of the tube. The Cgp of a tube DOES NOT
> >> CHANGE because it's connected as a triode in a grounded-grid
> >> amplifier! In fact, it effectively does the opposite....
> >
> >Careful what you write bucky... The Cgp is actually about
> >half as I describe. I, other people and a heck of a lot of text
> >books don't agree. You are simply wrong and need to go look up
> >the details. How about a Radio Handbook as a good reference...
>
> How about a fundamental education, some active intelligence, and a
> capacitance bridge? There is a reason why you disagree with the
> textbooks -- because you are wrong!
Funny, my text book on the subject says just what I wrote above.
Radio Handbook 17th edition I believe (the green covered edition).
Authored by William Orr, an Eimac Engineer (rip sk).
> >> 3. Since your sweep tube is connected as a triode, the screen and
> >> supressor (G2 and G3) are grounded with G1, and all three become the
> >> EFFECTIVE grid. Therefore, the G1-to-plate capacitance is added to the
> >> G2- and G3-to-plate capacitances, making the EFFECTIVE grid-to-plate
> >> capacitance HIGHER than the Cgp of the tube. In fact, the EFFECTIVE
> >> Cgp is more along the lines of the Cgp of a TRIODE (which shouldn't be
> >> so suprising since the tube is connected and operated as a TRIODE)!
> >
> >Aaaaaaahhhhh, see... this is where you don't know classic grounded
> >grid amplifier layouts very well.
>
> Your description of your "classic" grounded-grid amplifier changes so
> often it's hard to tell what you consider "classic". Regardless...
Palomar 300 (the six tube version)... reference it and we'll talk it
over.
>
> > It is very bad news to ground
> >the G1, G2 and G3 grids together... and you don't even have a clue
> >why...
>
> You STILL don't get it, do you? Judas Priest, how many times to I have
> to tell you -- if all three are RF bypassed to ground, then all three
> are GROUNDED! Every amp you have touted as being similar to your
> "classic" grounded-grid amp has all three grids GROUNDED!
Now we see "RF bypassed to ground" as part of your text. First off,
it is not what I call a classic grounded grid amplifier so don't
misstate what I write.
"Grounded for AC only", "You still don't get it do you frankie?" you
don't still don't appear to know the G1 grid must not be tied
with the G2 (and G3) when using certain geometry type tubes like
the 4cx250b and what the difference in the grid potentials do
in actual ac signal operation.
>
> >I'll put aside your Cgp statements for the moment until you review
> >and understand why one should not ground together the G1, G2 (and G3)
> >grids with many types of tubes, based on their geometry. That includes
> >rf power tubes like the 4cx250b.
>
> The 4CX250 isn't designed for grounded-grid operation. And don't put
> aside your ridiculous ideas that Cgp changes because it's in a
> grounded-grid circuit, because not only have I already demonstrated
> that it doesn't, and tomorrow I fully intend to give you an actual
> measurement of the effective Cgp of a triode-connected 6LF6. You can
> verify the measurements for yourself.
Yes, the 4cx250b is not made for grounded grid operation, but you fail
to state why. The tube geometry as with sweep tubes does not well
support all grids AC and DC grounded AB2 operation.
Actually, with a bit of proper circuit design, the 4cx250b can operate
grounded grid... circuits are depicted in handbook projects through
the years.
> >Your plane just crashed frankie...
>
> Get ready with your excuses because it's YOUR plane that's going down
> tomorrow, Skippy.
You must live for this stuff Frankie... That's ok, even though I
might not follow up until Monday, I'll might still go up in a 172
this weekend without fear of you shooting me down. Watch for
my moon sign...
>
> >> 4. I don't know how many times I need to repeat this before you
> >> finally get a clue and look it up for yourself, but I'll do it one
> >> more time: a grounded-grid amplifier does not require neutralization
> >> simply because it is a non-inverting amplifier which causes no
> >> regenerative feedback requiring neutralization -- NOT because of
> >> reduced Cgp or 'grid shielding', which are properties of the tube
> >> regardless of whether it's used as a grounded-grid or common-cathode
> >> amplifier.
> >
> >In the ideal dream world... in the real world, feedback paths can
> >and do occur within the max (Ft) of the tube. When you have VHF (Ft)
> >rated tubes in service, all bets are off when relying on the non
> >inverting HF circuit layout. The non inverting by layout operation
> >of an amplifier makes it only a card player, not the dealer.
>
> And ONCE AGAIN you are confusing neutralization with parasitic
> supression!
For this topic, lets call Parasitics a two path resonant amplifier
problem and the regeneration subject part of the lower path or a
single resonant path problem. I and others say the non inverting
circuit operation is not the all encompassing fix for regeneration
problems. Tom, the Designer of Ameritron amps feels he has enough
proof that he adds hardware to many of his grounded grid designs.
Don't take my word for it... go look Mr. happy...
> >When you have tubes with high vhf gain, there can be two dealers
> >to the card game.
> >
> >The subject is well covered at http://www.vcnet.com/measures
> >
> >Don't take my or Frankie's word for it... grab some Radio Handbooks
> >and review the web page text mentioned above.
>
> Do it yourself, Skippy. But don't bother with your referenced website
> -- use a definitive source for your facts. Matter of fact, even the
> ARRL handbooks have been known to have a few errors in them. Try your
> local library. Even better, if you have a college or university nearby
> (and I know you do), stop by their library and spend a couple hours
> verifying your facts. I think once you get started, hours will turn
> into days as you realize that half the stuff you have learned from the
> internet is bogus.
Mr. Measures is a pretty well known published author on the subject,
so was Mr. Orr (an Eimac Engineer). How about you giving us some of
your reference material and the date that it was published..?
> >You'll grow old waiting for Frank to post any articles of text
> >he's authored. Even though I said please numerous times.
>
> Ain't my bag.
So you will continue to post dated information which has flaws
here on the news groups...
chow
skipp
Landshark
"piper for frankie G" <nospamatthi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3DD5851B...@yahoo.com...
Hey Skipp, right or wrong give it
a rest, please. Frank will just keep going
for the hell of it, so just tell him he's right,
move on and don't worry about it.
Landshark
PS, thanks for the info I emailed you
about a few weeks back, it was a
great help.
--
"I believe it was Fredrick the Great:
he who defends everything defends
nothing."
ye...@removecet.com
<nospamatthi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >Lets break it down frankie... Conventional ALC as found in many
>> >Amateur transceivers used with rf amplifiers consist of a hard wired
>> >"feed back loop". The amplifier output quantity is sampled and
>> >fed back to the transmitter ALC circuit.
>>
>> Exactly! The output QUANTITY, not the LINEARITY!
>
>Now we're movin' ...
>
>But it is measurably slow to react to speech
If it were slow to respond to speech then every time the detector is
triggered the whole amp would wobble like a one-legged drunk on a
roller skate.
> which very often
>results in over driven amplifiers. Over driven is bad...
>
>bad dog amplifier..! over driven..! no dinner tonight.
>
>>
>> > The Transmitter output
>> >in real world action hopefully reacts (but never in time) to reduce
>> >excessive drive. There is always a measurable amount of poop going
>> >out the door before the circuit reacts. In a compressed speech
>> >chat, poop is in generate mode because the ALC cannot keep up.
>> >i.e. time constants.
>>
>> Most of your "poop" is generated because your speech processing
>> includes clipping of the audio signal! As long as you don't drive the
>> ALC too hard you won't have any "poop" to worry about, regardless of
>> the time constants. And that's a pretty good argument against trying
>> to squeeze every last watt out of a rig.
>
>My, nor most other modern amateur HF transceivers speech processors
>are clipper circuits.
For SSB speech processing you MUST have some clipping, whether it be
with the hard clipping of diodes or the soft clipping of an AGC
circuit or log amp. But the whole concept of SSB speech processing is
based on the elimination of audio peaks above the normal level of
speech that will overdrive the amp, and the ONLY way to do that is by
clipping.
>Without proper power control, one should not rely on the mic gain to
>ensure the amp is not over driven.
You STILL don't understand the fundamentals of SSB modulation. The RF
level varies at the rate of the audio -- the audio IS the power
control.
> Indication of the amplifier to
>radio ALC circuit is too late... the poop'eth hath departed.
So hath your wit.
>I need not squeeze extra wattage from my transceiver...
>
>> >The Galaxy circuit is novel in that it adjusts the amplifier bias
>> >for improved linearity. Notice the detector circuit compares the
>> >output with the input. There is no limiting action... just
>> >bias adjustment.
>>
>> No kidding -- it improves linearity by pulling the amplifiers out of
>> saturation and back into the linear portion of the EgIp curve.
>
>Kind of neat isn't it..? I thought it novel enough to place
>the circuit on the sonic server amateur radio page.
Nothing novel about it. Just an application of basic principles that's
been done for a very long time.
>> The ALC circuit, just like any other compressor, is set to react
>> whenever the input reaches a specific level. That level may or may not
>> be in the linear region, but the lower the better. It also has an
>> attack time that must be set -- again, the lower the better. Provided
>> the amp is used according to the manufacturers recommendations and not
>> driven beyond the ability of the ALC circuit to control the amp, there
>> won't be ANY "poop" to deal with.
>
>In plain brown wrapper terms... the amplifier to transceiver loop
>is never fast enough (there are a few exceptions for another thread).
The loop is not from amplfier to transceiver, it's from input to
output. No ALC circuit that I know of controls the power of the
exciter.
>It should not be relied upon; especially if there is a valid power
>control knob available on the radio.
It should be used according the the manufacturer's recommendations. If
the manufacturer says not to drive the ALC too hard, don't.
>> >The power control knob of a modern amateur radio should not accused
>> >of causing distortion.
>>
>> Who did?
>
>In one post, you alluded to the mic gain as a power control.
And it is. And I did not accuse it of causing distortion. You have
misquoted me AGAIN.
>> ..."poop gate"?
>
>Control your max drive.. ALC and its poop generation are avoided. If
>you were using an amplifier, you might relabel you power control knob
>"poop gate". Below the amplifiers max drive value... resultant poop
>generation is much reduced.
The mic gain has the same effect. It's even in the manual for your
Swan 350.
>>
>> >> As far as their being too "slow", most of them begin to react after
>> >> the very first or second RF peak. I suppose a couple peaks are going
>> >> to sneak through before the output level is reduced, but that's a
>> >> whole lot better than each every RF peak being clipped from a limiter.
>> >
>> >Most modern amateur speech processors are not limiters.
>>
>> The hell they aren't! Most of them work by simple diode clipping and
>> subsequent filtering. Some work via fast AGC circuits which have the
>> same effect, but with less filtering required because of the soft
>> clipping of an AGC amp. There are a few speech processors that use
>> log/anti-log amps or RF processing, but those are quite rare.
>
>More potty mouth... oh well. Let's get back to the real world here
>frankie.
FYI, there is a lot of profanity in the "real world", and much worse
than "hell". What world to you live in, Skippy? Did mommy and daddy
shelter you from all those bad people that say all those bad words?
> Most modern amateur transceivers used with the topic
>amplifiers do not have simple diode clipping.
Diode clipping and filtering is, and has always been, the most common
method of speech processing for SSB modulation. The proof is in the
schematics.
>We can dance and sing about AGC type circuits being limiters or
>compressors.
An AGC amp can do both -- it depends on the response speed.
> When we talk about an RF peak clipped or limited
>because of the failure of the ALC to respond fast enough,
>contributions made by a speech processor mean ... more poop..!
No ALC circuit I have ever seen had such a slow response, hence my
response saying that "I suppose" it could happen. What I HAVE seen are
ALC circuits that are too weak to hold the RF down (of which the Swan
is a good example), or have a threshold that is too sharp causing the
RF to spike (which I believe was was a Motorola, but I also remember
that the spike never got past the low-pass filter, so no harm done).
>> > A couple
>> >of peaks are going to sneak through each time the ALC loop fails
>> >to keep up. Poop generation in every transmission.
>>
>> Right effect, wrong reason. Ever read an ARRL handbook, Skippy?
>
>I have most of the entire collection in my Library thank you.
Try reading them. Start with grounded-grid amplifiers, work your way
up to neutralization and parasitics, and check out amplifier input
feeds on the way. After that, educate yourself in the fundamentals of
SSB modulation, and also learn how most speech processing is done. If
your ego isn't shattered by then, flip back a couple chapters to
vacuum tube fundamentals and learn how to read an EgIp graph. By then
you should be able to describe load lines instead of having to post
more of your avoidance BS. You should also be able to determine the
linearity during transistion into grid current conduction. And if you
aren't too bored with these facts maybe you can do a quick overview of
resonant and non-resonant filters, paying special attention to pi
tanks and LC filters.
>Right effect, one of the reasons.
Your 'reason' is based on flawed information. Like I said, try READING
those manuals instead of just collecting them so you can show them off
to people to give them the false impression that you actually know
something when you don't.
>> >> >Many Amateurs using ALC are clueless about the actual
>> >> > circuit operation.
>> >>
>> >> Yourself included.
>> >
>> >Thanks, seems I brought it to your attention, but you knew that
>> >of course.
>>
>> If you had a decent news browser you would see that it was ME that
>> brought it up while talking about the Swans. But a nice try, Skippy.
>
>But you say they work... I say they do not work well enough to be
>relied upon... swan or no swan radio.
I said that they work within their limitations. You misquoted me
AGAIN.
>> >> >Before the ALC acts (time constant)... unwanted poop is piped out the
>> >> >coax connector to the antenna.
>> >>
>> >> See above.
>> >
>> >I can... You "suppose" poop happens, I know "poop happens". Hey..!
>> >Frankie helped me make a funny... :-)
>>
>> I said that I suppose there is a very small and insignificant amount
>> of time where a signal will slip past an ALC circuit when it's working
>> correctly and not overdriven, or couldn't you gather that much from
>> the context? I also said that speech compression causes distortion of
>> the audio input to the amp, which it does. Have you thought about
>> getting one of those glare-screens for your computer monitor?
>
>If that ALC loop is a'workin' chances are good that your'a poop'n
You whine about me saying 'hell', yet you make constant references to
feces? You are not only a technically incompetent liar, you are also a
hypocrite. Just like the way you accuse me of trying to change the
subject when you do it yourself, or how you accuse me of editing your
quotes but you snip very relavent material from mine and reply as if
it wasn't there. Matter of fact, check out the very first reply to me
in this entire discussion. You called me dumb, ignorant, and twice
called me stupid. And YOU have the gall to say that -I- am rude or
have a potty mouth? What a pathetic piece of trash you are, Skippy,
and I'm more than happy to point out every single shred of technical
bullshit you spew! You can whine about this paragraph, too, and I hope
you do because it only reinforces everything I just said. So go ahead,
Skippy, whine away!!!
>About speech compression... sure in the pure at heart world it does
>distort or modify the audio... some circuits ok, some not so ok. But
>we do not equate a modified higher level of average audio as an
>automatic source of rf wave form distortion.
I did NOT say it was an automatic source of RF distortion. I said that
speech processing (not compression) for SSB requires clipping, which
IS an automatic source of AUDIO distortion. You misquoted me AGAIN.
>When your over driving
>an rf amplifier... your putting too much rf into it.
At least you got that much right.
>> >Depending on ALC action most often results in over driven amplifiers,
>> >dat's da fact jack...
>>
>> No doubt that ALC circuits are frequently overdriven. Some people just
>> gotta have those extra few watts!
>
>Your starting to read like a nice guy here frank... careful now. Any
>trip down the HF bands finds bad operators "lids". Sad part is that
>they don't realize a much smaller cleaner signal sounds better on the
>receiving end.
>>
>> >RF Limiters are another animal which cover a lot of ground. Without
>> >you going off to never never land again... how about you first read
>> >and understand how the power control knob on a modern amateur radio
>> >actually works...
>>
>> By adjusting the bias, attenuating the input, and/or varying the
>> screen current of the common-cathode final. What's your point? And
>> what does that have to do with RF limiters?
>
>It's actually specific to the transmitter circuit... I use a solid state
>transceiver for the most part. I don't want to exit into the rf
>limiter topic as it's hairier and longer than our jousts might
>ever result over this bit of shuffleboard. Leave the RF Limiter
>topic for another time.
I answered your question and now you want to drop the subject saying
it's too complicated. What a suprise.
>> >Controlling or limiting the output power of a modern amateur radio is
>> >not the distortion generation device your trying to describe....
>> >really frankie, read up on it before you comment please.
>>
>> You are confusing 'limiting' and 'compression', Skippy. A limiter
>> prevents a signal from exceeding a specific level, usually by
>> clipping. It distorts the signal. A compressor (of which the ALC
>> circuit is an example) decreases the gain and/or input according to
>> the output level. The signal remains relatively unscathed.
>
>I'm talking about the power control knob on my modern (or semi
>modern) Amateur Radio. It limits drive power, doesn't touch or
>effect the audio.
What does that have to do with your confusion between 'limiting' and
'compression'? And didn't you say you wanted to drop this topic?
>The two available speech processors are not power controls, nor
>do they interact with the power control function of the radio.
Now where did I say that the speech processors are power controls? I
didn't. You misquoted me AGAIN.
You know what, Skippy? This whole conversation has been nothing but
you misquoting my posts, changing the subject when things get too
complicated, tossing out stupid catch phrases when you have no idea of
what you are talking about, etc, etc, etc. Is this your normal
behavior, or did you go to a special school for the technically
handicapped?
>> >> >At one time, ALC was thought to work pretty well for the most part.
>> >>
>> >> It still does.
>> >
>> >For those who know no better and are happy with dated technology.
>>
>> That includes anyone that uses incandescent light bulbs, convection
>> ovens, and that wonderful invention by Thomas Crapper. All "dated"
>> technologies by your standards.
>
>Some of us use the power control knob on our transceivers. Amateur
>HF Radios without true power control knobs require closer attention
>to prevent over driving external amplifiers.
I'm not going to repeat myself any further just because you won't
learn the fundamentals of SSB modulation.
>Now who left those lights on around here..? ..! :-)
>
>>
>> >Modern radios do a better job with ALC, but it's never fast enough.
>> >This is where the power control knob on the radio works better.
>>
>> Are you trying to tell me that you can turn a power control knob
>> faster than an ALC circuit can react to power peaks? I hope not!
>
>I'm telling you that I can set the power control on my radio to
>keep the radio from over driving the amplifier. I don't bother
>with the amplifier ALC wiring as its not needed.
If you can keep the peaks from clipping without an ALC circuit then
you probably don't need one. But most people do not monitor their
signal on a sampling o-scope, either.
>> >When the amplifier reaches max boogie, the rf envelope is compressed
>> >or in another view "hard limited". This is very bad news... some RF
>> >Amplifiers have specified "X-dB" compression point measurement
>> >values listed. The bottom line, one should avoid depending on
>> >any circuit operation which can over drive an amplifier, even for
>> >brief moments in each transmission. Smart people do not rely on
>> >ALC circuit operation.
>> >
>> >But you do...
>>
>> I expect it to perform the fuction for which it was designed. I have
>> also stated many times that you shouldn't overdrive your amp -- and
>> consequently overdrive the ALC circuit -- because the ALC has it's
>> limitations. Matter of fact, I made a point of that when talking about
>> the Swan 500, or are you missing that post too? Funny how you have
>> been able to read all of these numbered posts but STILL can't find
>> those other posts -- you aren't ignoring them, are you Skippy?
>
>If your using your ALC with a radio that can over drive the connected
>amplifier, you are almost always going to over drive the amp in
>"normal transmissions".
Not necessarily, and that's a very broad statement.
>Yeah, Radio Amplifier connected ALC has its limitations...
>its simply not fast enough. I'm not ignoring that fact.
You are ignoring the operating principles of the circuit.
And you are still ignoring my earlier posts.
ye...@removecet.com
<nospamatthi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >Following most of the generic amplifier testing methods, I would imagine
>> >they used a two tone test method.
>>
>> I don't make such assumptions. I have been in the business for a long
>> time, and in the position many times where I was told to fudge the
>> figures in order to pass specifications. And even a two-tone test
>> won't necessarily show the inherent "poop" when an amp hits those
>> modulation peaks normally encountered with human speech. You know that
>> as well as I do.
>
>Your right and we agree (O'my god...!) Dentron and Amp Supply were
>well known specification fudge generators... in addition to all the
>non technical fudge happening behind the scenes. The reason they
>are now long gone.
>
>> >In the real world, the GLA-1000 and Amp Supply LA-1000 do a nice clean
>> >+10dB with about 40 to 60 watts drive. It makes them useful as compact
>> >desktop amplifiers for many of the typical 70's/80's/90 hf amateur
>> >radios.
>>
>> I wouldn't call them "clean", that's for sure.
>
>When rebuilt using some of the suggestions in my Dentron Update, I
>call them clean enough. Other than my increased signal strength over
>the stock radio, you couldn't tell I had it in line.
Don't tell me what I am capable of doing, Skippy. You keep making your
claims, and until you can back them up with proof, all they will be
are unsupported claims.
>> >The big deal that the Dentron GLA-1000C and I believe the
>> >Amp Supply LA-1000 models were both post ban amplifiers legally
>> >sold in the US.
>>
>> I do believe that they were post-ban amps, but I think if they were
>> legal in the US it was before the amendment placing restrictions on
>> amps that are easily modifiable for the prohibited freqs.
>
>I would imagine they might actually still pass muster, just
>depends on how you present the amplifier to the FCC. People
>manipulate the data every day.
Knowing the FCC, you could probably pass Griffey's Class C 'linear'
through by classifying it as a 'non-broadcast station transmitter'.
That's what Alpha did.
>> >> > The FCC said go and the various mfgrs legally built them.
>> >
>> >> And after they learned from their mistake they changed the rules.
>> >
>> >Sweep tube amplifiers were legally made by Ameritron, Dentron
>> >and Amp Supply after the 78 rule change... just not shipped with
>> >plug and play 10 meter operation.
>>
>> See above.
>
>Relative to the initial post ban amplifiers, many of the "rule
>change" amplifier circuits are nearly as easy to modify for
>legal 10 meter operation.
Yes they are. Very unfortunate.
>> >"Failed" ...?
>> >Why would I need to mention it..? I've been talking about sweep
>> >tubes, where have you been...?
>>
>> I have been here talking about sweep tubes AND RF power tubes, and
>> watching you trying to narrow down the topic to grounded-grid sweep
>> tube amps only while covertly redirecting topics where you show a
>> serious lack of technical competence.
>
>All you need to do frankie... is to put on your turn signal when
>you change lanes. I make no covert (cute, I like that...) moves
>to redirect the topic from the original subject... sweep tubes
>in grounded grid amplifiers.
Your attempt at 'truth by repetition' isn't working, Skippy. Here is
the original subject:
>Hey Skippy, you have a couple questions outstanding yourself: What
>services between 25 and 34MHz are allowed to manufacture and market
>power RF amplifiers? And what make/model of television used the 6146
>as a sweep tube?
After all this time and effort, waddling back and forth on both
issues, and desperate attempts to distance yourself from your own
claims, you STILL can't provide a valid answer to those questions.
>If you want to dance a specific tune, play the music and stay
>in the same room. Otherwise, please tell us where your going
>when you leave.
Check this out: I referenced the Swan 500 early in the conversation.
You knew that the radio used common-cathode amplifiers. Therefore, you
knew I was talking about common-cathode amplifers. Now quit avoiding
the topics with your insessant whining.
>> >Variety is the spice of life.... even Handbook projects using RF
>> >power tubes are not specific to one single type of valve.
>> >
>> >Life goes on...
>>
>> Yeah, but the life of sweep tubes is just about over. Why are you
>> hanging onto this "dated" technology?
>
>I just like tubes frankie... People thought my vintage Marshall
>guitar amplifier was dated a while back. I'm still playing
>it although its now worth more than my new car.
So your amp is useful despite its age. So are light bulbs. So are
voltage equalization networks. So is the fundamental circuit operation
of a grounded-grid amplifier. Enough with the "dated technology"
excuse. Now go use it somewhere else because it's finished around
here.
>My latest cost on RF designed Sweep Tubes that are direct drop
>in replacements for the Svetlana EL-509/519 and the actual 6KG6
>sweep tube is now under $15 each.
>
>You gotta love it frankie...!
Cheap tubes to be used in cheap amps for cheap people. I never said
anything different.
piper for frankie
> >growing.
>
> Never been bald and never had a blood pressure problem. But your
> sarcasm is growing more and more intense as I chisel away your
> internet education and get to the truth of these issues.
Well, you've got a lot of gray showing up... that's from
stress... relax a bit and we'll dance more.
> >So how about answering my questions... how many grounded grid
> >amplifiers have you seen in operation...? make and model..?
> >any..?
>
> More than I care to count, but I can honestly say less than a hundred.
> Worked on lots of industrial amps, and a few amateur amps (sweep tube
> amps included, including the Dentron you referenced). As far as make
> and models, there were a few I remember. Like the P&H, used four 837's
> which were a bitch to find at the time. There was a Gonset, I think it
> was a GBS-101 or something like that -- terrible in the harmonics
> department, using no tuned circuit on the input. A couple Heathkits, a
> couple Johnsons, a couple Collins, etc. Some were better than others.
My goodness and old P&H... those 837's were a pain to find back in
the 70's. Gonset made both good and bad, some of it will never
die unless you shoot it. Your right, some are much better
than others.
> And BTW, no broadcast transmitter I have ever seen used a
> grounded-grid anything, except for a couple low-power antiques that
> take up the better part of a room. Matter of fact, I own one of those
> antiques, an AN/FRT-39B.
Know of one on the air right now honking away on 95.3 from Mt Vaca.
I helped put the station on the air. Has an 8877 tube, the one
you can operate with no parasitic suppression because of the way
the tube was designed.
> >> > The predominant class of grounded grid
> >> >amplifiers is AB2... exciter power is required and a portion shows up in
> >> >the output as a freebie. Doesn't get any simpler, but you seen to want to
> >> >give theory examples of amplifiers no one person is using. Earth to
> >> >Frank, real world here... wake up..
> >> >
> >> >One last thing... your last statement is not so true... class AB1
> >> >operation of grounded grid amplifiers does not consume input power.
> >>
> >> By your statements above -- about how AB2 requires input power but AB1
> >> does not -- it's clear that you think input power is required only
> >> when grid current flows. You are very, very wrong, Skippy. ANY class
> >
> >Grid current flow implies input drive power consumed... unless you have
> >that magical grounded grid AB1 amplifier make and model handy...?
>
> YOU made the statement that AB1 operation of grounded-grid amplifers
> does not consume input power, and now you want to back out of that by
> crying about some "magical" grounded-grid AB1 amp? Lame, Skippy, lame.
Are you again trying to make something from nothing..? Let me be more
specific for your benefit... input power meaning drive power. I
probably should have said drive power from the start, but we were
talking about grid current in AB1 and AB2... where most people would
not flip out over the specific label. So now you know exactly
what I'm talking about. Input drive power with grid current flow
indicates AB2 operation for most people.
> But it's not "magical" at all. As I have pointed out earlier, your
> grid is normally biased 5 to 10 volts negative to the cathode, giving
> you at least some area under which no grid current flows, yet still
> consumes power from the input source. And just to point out what used
> to be a common practice, grounded-grid amplifiers running Class A have
> been used as front-end amplifiers in receivers, and they were used
> with the intention of providing a low-impedance input to the receiver.
> Works very well! Now if no input drive power is consumed in a Class A
> amplifier, then the input impedance would be theoretically infinite --
> just as if it were common-cathode. But it's not infinite; it's a low
> impedance usually around the impedance of most transmission lines.
We're still talking Grounded grid amplifiers here frankie...
If grid current flows, AB2 operation is defined for the tube. If your
trying to nit pick into the very small portion of the overall wave form
where the grid current is near zero.... then your really chasing
wind mills Frankie. Every text book, amplifier person, article and
paper I know defines AB2 operation as the point where grid current
flows and power is consumed at that time. Not one of them picks
the conduction angle into pieces to shout AB1 for that very limited
portion of the wave form...
AB1 circuits deal with developed grid voltages. I just figured
out where your going with all this... Let me be more specific
so you can relax.
One must consider an AB1 circuit to consume a very very small
amount of drive power. So small compared to AB2 operation that
one must always consider the actual AB1 grid dissipation,
often given in milli watts for many RF power tubes. The
majority of the driving signal is used to develop the
required grid voltage. Many and or most text books should
define AB2 operation as the point where grid current flows,
drive power is consumed compared to the fractional wattage
power level of an AB1 circuit. Most AB1 people worry more
about staying within the fractional wattage grid dissipation
rating of the tube. A general statement many people make
is to say AB1 does not consume drive power because of
the fractional wattage drive levels required.
That should get your motor running smooth frankie.
> Now go find your Electronics 101 book and start reading it already.
You should feel better now, I nit picked it for you.
> >Keep this handy because it's helpful when talking about grounded
> >grid amplifiers.
> >
> >AB2 operation, grid current flows, drive power is consumed. The
> >feed through drive power swamps out the grid current distortion
> >issues.
> >
> >AB1, no grid current flow.
>
> But cathode current still flows, both DC and AC, and since there is an
> AC current flow in series with the signal source then the signal
> source is loaded by the tube. Check it out, Skippy. You know I'm
> right, you just refuse to check the facts for yourself. Actually, I
> think you are just arguing for the sake of arguing, since you aren't
> even providing any facts, just lame opinions.
Well... bartender! Now that I know where your going we can again
dance... still my lead. See my text above about the fractional
wattage grid dissipation of AB1 operation. You were just trying
to hide in milli watts and I didn't see you way down there, because
we've been talking about Grounded Grid Amplifiers which Run AB2.
Now that I realize what your using micro and milli watts to scratch
out a point about AB1 operation.... I still care about you. :-
>
> >Back latter for number 18 ... gotta' go check my reverse screen
> >current.
> >
> >still love ya frankie...
>
> Of course you do. I'm the only one that gives it to you straight!
You sure give us a lot of something... I still don't agree
with a lot of it... you ever going to explain those grids tied
to the plate statements to me..?