See Below,

--- In ham_amplifiers@..., R L Measures <r@...> wrote:

On Oct 4, 2006, at 3:30 AM, craxd wrote:

Mike,

The kicker is, this un-named moderator said "You have been given a
wide degree of latitude - wider than many others". For what,

offering

technical advice to any who asked for it? They also said "You hang

out

here without any amateur call and no professional credentials

other

than as an admitted former designer and builder of amplifiers for

CB

service". Yup, I sure did build um, and did learn a heck of a lot
while doing it. What is his credentials,

He is one of our "recognized amplifier experts".
- Tom Rauch, W8JI, Nov. 1994 *QST* magazine

I've not had the chance to read that one. What was it about?

call, or name for that
matter? If you remember, Tom asked me what my credentials was, and
where I went to school too. Don't it sound fishy that he would ask

the

same right after?

And he has not yet taken a class in alternating-current circuit
analysis.

Then went on to say, "It is no appropriate for you
to get your back up when you are asked for credentials after
questioning not one but several of the academic standards of tube
design and operation". What academic standard did I ever question?

You questioned Tom's spin on it.

I
quoted authors like Terman. The only one I ever questioned was

Tom,

and showed what he was saying was pure hogwash by quoting

published

authors!

That's his modus operandi.

Then he has the balls to say, "If you are going to question
those academic works,

Translation: Tom's cockamamie spin on it.

you need to be willing disclose your credentials
(if your PhD in Physics or Electrical Engineering?), allow them to

be

examined and provide a list of your peer (academically) reviewed
research work (CV) in the field for examination.".

Sounds like a Smoke screen to me.

I felt the same way!

One doesn't need a
PhD, a Ms, or Bs if they have a knowledge of the theory. Does this
mean that to be an amateur operator, one needs to have these

degrees?

I actually have a degree through Ky. State Vo-Tech, but wasn't

going

to tell him this. Nor, do you have to publish any papers to be
correct. Matter of fact, they've been several PhD's proven dead

wrong!

Then, he goes on to say things about Rich that was to me plain

liable

and slanderous (I'll bet they would be in court),

Try asking W8JI if he ever paid Lon Cottingham, K5JV, the $600 for
the Signal-One parts Lon sold him?

and I won't show
them here.

Please do so.

Since you okay it : )

Quote;

"The thing that gets Rich Measures in trouble is that his
writings HAVE been peer reviewed and been denounced as snake
oil by academics, responsible engineers from every major tube
builder, RF design engineers from many companies ranging from
amateur manufacturers to MRI/ISM amplifier builders and
several major broadcast transmitter manufacturers. Measures'
material has all the earmarks of a "good con" ... just enough
truth to give it a patina of believability to the untrained
and impressionable".

This all over Tom trying to argue that a control grid could
become positive.

It can and definitely does so in a grounded-grid amplifier during
most of the negative half of the driving cycle.

No, If you remember, I did say that that was the only case.
What he was getting at was it could become positive with the
grid disconnected from ground, and if I remember, there was
another way which we both collared him on.

It may be less negative than the cathode, or one
might say it's more positive than the cathode, but it sure can't

be

positive with respect to ground or 0 Vdc!

Ground Is Not the reference point for grid potential, it's the
cathode. Example: If the cathode is neg. 1500v (to ground) and the
grid is neg. 1490v (to ground), the grid potential is positive 10v.

Correct, I'm not saying that and agree, but it is all still
negative with respect to chassis ground or the 0 Vdc point.
It could never be positive in respect to it, especially if
it's tied directlly to it. Remember him saying a grid could
become positive when being bombarded by electrons, especially
if it were disconnected from ground? That was when we were
discussing grid fusing. I think the moderator figured by me
saying Terman meant less negative was me questioning peer
reviewed authors. Though, I quoted Termans exact words saying
"less negative". The thing is, that is what I quoted from the
handbook I have. What Tom quoted wasn't from that handook I
have found, as there was only one edition of it, I looked. It
was from a similar book that Terman wrote which had three
editions with a similar name. I figure now Terman worded it a
little different so as not to come under the same trouble as me
describing it. I still see it as less negative than the cathode
which in reality it is (compared to ground), but by it being
this way, it creates a positive or more positive potential.
Tom though, said the grid could be positive un-connected from
ground, and if I recall, another way besides being driven that
way.

I bet I had 30 e-mails come
back to catch Tom saying this. He would argue until his last

breath it

was positive. All because of something he read, and because he

doesn't

understand theory enough to know better.

Rauch is right on this one, Wil. However, he is not always right.
His Achilles' Heel is that he sees himself as a RF infallible
"expert". Thus, he is the last person you would want for the job of

See above

censor in a discussion about RF Tx amplifiers.

Editorial -- The only kind of discussion that works well is the wide

open kind, where there is no censor-librorum/moderator/

administrator.


It's the only way to get at the root of a matter and find the truth.

What put the icing on the cake for me was when Tom commented on a

post

I made about determining the rms current a transformer needs to

supply

to a FWB cap input supply. Tom replied I was wrong, and that it

was

garbage (No wonder why some Ameritrons are poorly designed). When

I

sent back a reply, with a link to Hammond Transformer website with

the

same formula, the un-named modeartor wouldn't post it (censored

it).

In other words, he was hanging me out to dry to look like a fool

over

not letting Tom be wrong.

That's why Richard George reasoned that Tom was most likely the
unidentified Administrator/censor.

I reasoned the same myself, but still can't prove it. Someone
claimed they knew it wasn't Tom, but I'd like to see proof. If
one is ashamed to, or to scared to show who they are, they don't
need to be a moderator.

Well, that was it, I started by-passing him
with direct e-mails to the members that I had in my address book.

The

rest was, well history. ; )

With Tom, The cardinal sin is neutralizing his control over others.

He sure has his control in this moderator. A lap dog, he for
sure does act.

end

R L Measures, AG6K, 805.386.3734
r@..., , rlm@..., www.somis.org

Best,

Will

Sometimes, a 3-0 service has a monthly minimum charge that will blow
the hat clean off of one's head.

On Oct 4, 2006, at 5:26 AM, ad4hk2004 wrote:

Being that my Bridgeport mill is 1.5 HP, I use a rotary convertor to
change the 220X1 to 220X3... Not perfect but it works...
I did consider asking Consumers Power Co. to give me a price for 3
phase to the shop... But getting underground power to my house
required my atty petitioning the court for a 'show cause' order -
insiders at the company tell me their field supervisor is still
smarting from the corporate VP giving him a public chewing out over
that one - I suspect the bill would spin my hat...



denny

--- In ham_amplifiers@..., "craxd" <craxd1@...> wrote:

A 3 phase service is mighty fine to have if one can afford to have it
put in. I've not checked on the price in a while, but back in 1985, a
200 amp 220 volt service ran around $2000 from the power company for
the transformers, and the service entrance, meter base, etc was
extra.
I was having one put in at my machine shop building I had at the
time.
I wish I had the health back to do all that again. At the time I had
an electric shop running, and a machine and assembly shop a couple of
miles up the road. I used to design and build custom fab machinery
for
the railroads. Sure is a good business to be in. Anyhow, 3 phase can
sure make life a lot easier if you plan on running reverseable motors,
and anything else that needs some umph behind it. One could do it
with
a pony motor, but I'm not sure how good that would work.

Back in the old days, and some do this now, is run a generator
(really
an alternator without the rectifier stack) in a mobile supplying LV 3
phase to run a HV transformer. That get's you out of running an
inverter. A certain company down in Memphis, Tn used to supply a
mobile kW (1800 PEP out) with the generator that way. I here about a
guy in Florida building these today, and was buying the transformers
from Galaxy Transformer. I recon he's built a few with tubes with
handles. Of course you need enough engine to run it too.

Best,

Will


--- In ham_amplifiers@..., "Peter Voelpel" <df3kv@>
wrote:

To achieve 1,5% ripple from a 6-pulse power supply of 5KV at 3A you

will

need a capacitor of 0,32???F.
Without any cap ripple will be 4%.
You will not here any hum from a transmitter without capacitor in

the

6-pulse capacitor when using sideband transmissions.
From a carrier you here little hum on zerobeat.

The formula to find C for the 3-phase bridge circuit is the same as

for any

other circuit, just calculate C from XC by using 300Hz in the

formula.

How the transformer is connected does not matter, usually the

primary will

be delta for best efficiency and the secondary will be star

connected.

You will have 2 diodes per leg. The voltage across one winding is

dc/sqrt6.

I my 7KV 4A CCS P/S I use UGE1112AY4 diodes by IXCYS, 3 per leg,

just scewed

one into the next.



The transformer secondary is 5KV +/-5%, +/-10% phase to phase, or

2887V

across one winding.
I use 2???F 10KV for smoothing and a crowbar overload circuit
with it.

73
Peter


________________________________

From: ham_amplifiers@... [mailto:

ham_amplifiers@...]

On Behalf Of pentalab

Then, if we talk 3-phase supply and 6-puls rectifying,
lets say around 5 kV DC potential, how much glitch C
is needed to achieve 1.5 percent ripple?

### Dunno. You would only have 5% ripple with NO cap.... and
with a resonant choke set up.....you probably wouldn't need any
C at all ! [3 phase]

### IF no resonant choke setup... and just a straight C input
filter.... I'm guessing around 5-16 uf would be plenty. It
would also highly depend on the load.

### I haven't found any formulae for a C input filter HV
supply........ with 3 phase. I don't have access to 3 phase....
so never pursued it. It would be the ultimate setup. IF you
find anything... let me know... as I'm most interested. Somebody
is going to ask me to engineer one for em... so I had better
research it.

### I did see some info on C input 3 phase HV supplies some
where.... it's in Orr's older books.... but not alot of info.
Seems to me he had the 3 x primary's connected in a "Delta".....
and the 3 x secondary's tied in a.. "star". The rectifier set
up... if I remember, sorta looked like just 2 x diodes per sec
winding... one flipped around If I remember. The RMS voltage
per sec winding vs no load HVDC output is what threw me.
With say a 1 kv sec.... I'm positive... the OCV hv wasn't 1414
Vdc. [I may well be wrong with this.. just going by memory]

Yahoo! Groups Links

R L Measures, AG6K, 805.386.3734
r@..., , rlm@..., www.somis.org

Being that my Bridgeport mill is 1.5 HP, I use a rotary convertor to
change the 220X1 to 220X3... Not perfect but it works...
I did consider asking Consumers Power Co. to give me a price for 3
phase to the shop... But getting underground power to my house
required my atty petitioning the court for a 'show cause' order -
insiders at the company tell me their field supervisor is still
smarting from the corporate VP giving him a public chewing out over
that one - I suspect the bill would spin my hat...



denny

Yeah, that's what I am doing... We quickly metered the remaining
four... They are good, but two had drifted out of the 5% range a small
amount and two were still in range... Each one is dissipating ~20
watts which should not age a 100 watt too terribly... They are mounted
vertically on bent finger stock, so air can flow up the center of the
tube as well as around the surface... I do not see any glaring faults
in the construction... Certainly, if a winding has a nicked/kinked
wire it will spot heat and fail over time.. If the wire has
inhomogeneity inclusions these spots will also heat... Could be a lot
of reasons for a spot failure...

Been watching the 3-phase discussion... Long ago and far away I was
the companys 'expert' on 3 phase 15,000 volt substations and 480V
distribution system, power factor correction, yadda, yadda...
Sometimes I miss those days... O'course, I also miss having hair, and
girls giving me that look, etc... Life was good then...

denny / k8do

On Oct 4, 2006, at 3:30 AM, craxd wrote:

Mike,

The kicker is, this un-named moderator said "You have been given a
wide degree of latitude - wider than many others". For what, offering
technical advice to any who asked for it? They also said "You hang out
here without any amateur call and no professional credentials other
than as an admitted former designer and builder of amplifiers for CB
service". Yup, I sure did build um, and did learn a heck of a lot
while doing it. What is his credentials,

He is one of our "recognized amplifier experts".
- Tom Rauch, W8JI, Nov. 1994 *QST* magazine

call, or name for that
matter? If you remember, Tom asked me what my credentials was, and
where I went to school too. Don't it sound fishy that he would ask the
same right after?

And he has not yet taken a class in alternating-current circuit analysis.

Then went on to say, "It is no appropriate for you
to get your back up when you are asked for credentials after
questioning not one but several of the academic standards of tube
design and operation". What academic standard did I ever question?

You questioned Tom's spin on it.

I
quoted authors like Terman. The only one I ever questioned was Tom,
and showed what he was saying was pure hogwash by quoting published
authors!

That's his modus operandi.

Then he has the balls to say, "If you are going to question
those academic works,

Translation: Tom's cockamamie spin on it.

you need to be willing disclose your credentials
(if your PhD in Physics or Electrical Engineering?), allow them to be
examined and provide a list of your peer (academically) reviewed
research work (CV) in the field for examination.".

Sounds like a Smoke screen to me.

One doesn't need a
PhD, a Ms, or Bs if they have a knowledge of the theory. Does this
mean that to be an amateur operator, one needs to have these degrees?
I actually have a degree through Ky. State Vo-Tech, but wasn't going
to tell him this. Nor, do you have to publish any papers to be
correct. Matter of fact, they've been several PhD's proven dead wrong!
Then, he goes on to say things about Rich that was to me plain liable
and slanderous (I'll bet they would be in court),

Try asking W8JI if he ever paid Lon Cottingham, K5JV, the $600 for the Signal-One parts Lon sold him?

and I won't show
them here.

Please do so.

This all over Tom trying to argue that a control grid could
become positive.

It can and definitely does so in a grounded-grid amplifier during most of the negative half of the driving cycle.

It may be less negative than the cathode, or one
might say it's more positive than the cathode, but it sure can't be
positive with respect to ground or 0 Vdc!

Ground Is Not the reference point for grid potential, it's the cathode. Example: If the cathode is neg. 1500v (to ground) and the grid is neg. 1490v (to ground), the grid potential is positive 10v.

I bet I had 30 e-mails come
back to catch Tom saying this. He would argue until his last breath it
was positive. All because of something he read, and because he doesn't
understand theory enough to know better.

Rauch is right on this one, Wil. However, he is not always right. His Achilles' Heel is that he sees himself as a RF infallible "expert". Thus, he is the last person you would want for the job of censor in a discussion about RF Tx amplifiers.

Editorial -- The only kind of discussion that works well is the wide open kind, where there is no censor-librorum/moderator/administrator.

What put the icing on the cake for me was when Tom commented on a post
I made about determining the rms current a transformer needs to supply
to a FWB cap input supply. Tom replied I was wrong, and that it was
garbage (No wonder why some Ameritrons are poorly designed). When I
sent back a reply, with a link to Hammond Transformer website with the
same formula, the un-named modeartor wouldn't post it (censored it).
In other words, he was hanging me out to dry to look like a fool over
not letting Tom be wrong.

That's why Richard George reasoned that Tom was most likely the unidentified Administrator/censor.

Well, that was it, I started by-passing him
with direct e-mails to the members that I had in my address book. The
rest was, well history. ; )

With Tom, The cardinal sin is neutralizing his control over others.

end

Best,

Will


--- In ham_amplifiers@..., "Mike Sawyer" <w3slk@...>
wrote:

Will, et al,
I challenged the 'administrator' about what calls for being

banned from the list. Included were email lists and having a 'lack' of
a call sign. Neither one, I pointed out were part of the list's own
rules/regs. But that was another day. I'm about ready to "vote with my
feet." My only regret is that it isolates some very good technical
knowledge that hasn't found its way over here (yet).

Mod-U-Lator,
Mike(y)
W3SLK

----- Original Message -----
From: craxd
To: ham_amplifiers@...
Sent: Tuesday, October 03, 2006 8:06 PM
Subject: [ham_amplifiers] Re: Hi-


I know of several that tried and the post never made it. Two did,

but

the rest went bye bye. The unnamed, "no-callsign either" moderator,
who was on me about showing a callsign, has his eye on every post

that

comes into Amps mainly to protect one person for any, well lets say,
embarrasing moments.

When a groups moderator censors others posts who contradict one that
is plainly wrong, allowing the wrong comment to show, and not the
correct one, it's not a place to be. Correct being that the one
posting it actually knows what they are talking about! : ) It's even
worse when the moderator lets the one in question take pot shots at
others, and when they reply, the post gets canned before the others
can see it.

Now, I admit, I was one of the ones that was guilty of e-mailing
everyone in my address book and bypassing the moderator. The

moderator

aimed that one admonishment about harvesting e-mails at two people,
Rich and myself. However, this moderator must think that neither of

us

has an address book on our own without his so-called "harvesting"
going on. I thought I still have the right, by the 1st amendment, to
e-mail anyone I damn well wish. I'm not aware that has EVER been
changed.

Sincerely,

Will

--- In ham_amplifiers@..., R L Measures <r@...> wrote:

On Oct 3, 2006, at 2:40 PM, zerobeat40 wrote:

--- In ham_amplifiers@..., "pentalab" <jim.thomson@>
wrote:

--- In ham_amplifiers@..., "zerobeat40"

<zerobeat40@>

wrote:

--- In ham_amplifiers@..., R L Measures <r@...>

wrote:

As I understand it, announcements of this group's existence

on

the

AMPS group were somewhat censored.

Your understanding is incorrect. There were several

announcements

of

this group, as well as the larger more-established

rfamplifiers

group

on Yahoo that made it to AMPs. Everytime someone posted on

this

group

that "my announcement did not get posted", I looked at AMPS -

and

it

was, in fact, posted.

### DREAM ON. I checked 'amps' on contesting .com 3

times

now.... with a microscope [pulling up their archives]..... it

ONLY

got posted TWICE..... once from Mike... once from Alek

later........Jim VE7RF

Yes, that is the distinct number of people who claimed to have
attempted to post it and claimed that it was not posted.

I heard from others who said they tried to post the info about the
new group and it did not not get past the censor.

Thank you for the corroborration.

Z

Yet another unidentified station.

Yahoo! Groups Links

R L Measures, AG6K, 805.386.3734
r@..., , rlm@, www.somis.org

Yahoo! Groups Links

R L Measures, AG6K, 805.386.3734
r@..., , rlm@..., www.somis.org

Mike,

The kicker is, this un-named moderator said "You have been given a
wide degree of latitude - wider than many others". For what, offering
technical advice to any who asked for it? They also said "You hang out
here without any amateur call and no professional credentials other
than as an admitted former designer and builder of amplifiers for CB
service". Yup, I sure did build um, and did learn a heck of a lot
while doing it. What is his credentials, call, or name for that
matter? If you remember, Tom asked me what my credentials was, and
where I went to school too. Don't it sound fishy that he would ask the
same right after? Then went on to say, "It is no appropriate for you
to get your back up when you are asked for credentials after
questioning not one but several of the academic standards of tube
design and operation". What academic standard did I ever question? I
quoted authors like Terman. The only one I ever questioned was Tom,
and showed what he was saying was pure hogwash by quoting published
authors! Then he has the balls to say, "If you are going to question
those academic works, you need to be willing disclose your credentials
(if your PhD in Physics or Electrical Engineering?), allow them to be
examined and provide a list of your peer (academically) reviewed
research work (CV) in the field for examination.". One doesn't need a
PhD, a Ms, or Bs if they have a knowledge of the theory. Does this
mean that to be an amateur operator, one needs to have these degrees?
I actually have a degree through Ky. State Vo-Tech, but wasn't going
to tell him this. Nor, do you have to publish any papers to be
correct. Matter of fact, they've been several PhD's proven dead wrong!
Then, he goes on to say things about Rich that was to me plain liable
and slanderous (I'll bet they would bee in court), and I wont show
them here. This all over Tom trying to argue that a control grid could
become positive. It may be less negative than the cathode, or one
might say it's more positive than the cathode, but it sure can't be
positive with respect to ground or 0 Vdc! I bet I had 30 e-mails come
back to catch Tom saying this. He would argue until his last breath it
was positive. All because of something he read, and because he doesn't
understand theory enough to know better.

What put the icing on the cake for me was when Tom commented on a post
I made about determining the rms current a transformer needs to supply
to a FWB cap input supply. Tom replied I was wrong, and that it was
garbage (No wonder why some Ameritrons are poorly designed). When I
sent back a reply, with a link to Hammond Transformer website with the
same formula, the un-named modeartor wouldn't post it (censored it).
In other words, he was hanging me out to dry to look like a fool over
not letting Tom be wrong. Well, that was it, I started by-passing him
with direct e-mails to the members that I had in my address book. The
rest was, well history. ; )

Best,

Will


--- In ham_amplifiers@..., "Mike Sawyer" <w3slk@...>
wrote:

Will, et al,
I challenged the 'administrator' about what calls for being

banned from the list. Included were email lists and having a 'lack' of
a call sign. Neither one, I pointed out were part of the list's own
rules/regs. But that was another day. I'm about ready to "vote with my
feet." My only regret is that it isolates some very good technical
knowledge that hasn't found its way over here (yet).

Mod-U-Lator,
Mike(y)
W3SLK

----- Original Message -----
From: craxd
To: ham_amplifiers@...
Sent: Tuesday, October 03, 2006 8:06 PM
Subject: [ham_amplifiers] Re: Hi-


I know of several that tried and the post never made it. Two did,

but

the rest went bye bye. The unnamed, "no-callsign either" moderator,
who was on me about showing a callsign, has his eye on every post

that

comes into Amps mainly to protect one person for any, well lets say,
embarrasing moments.

When a groups moderator censors others posts who contradict one that
is plainly wrong, allowing the wrong comment to show, and not the
correct one, it's not a place to be. Correct being that the one
posting it actually knows what they are talking about! : ) It's even
worse when the moderator lets the one in question take pot shots at
others, and when they reply, the post gets canned before the others
can see it.

Now, I admit, I was one of the ones that was guilty of e-mailing
everyone in my address book and bypassing the moderator. The

moderator

aimed that one admonishment about harvesting e-mails at two people,
Rich and myself. However, this moderator must think that neither of

us

has an address book on our own without his so-called "harvesting"
going on. I thought I still have the right, by the 1st amendment, to
e-mail anyone I damn well wish. I'm not aware that has EVER been
changed.

Sincerely,

Will

--- In ham_amplifiers@..., R L Measures <r@...> wrote:

On Oct 3, 2006, at 2:40 PM, zerobeat40 wrote:

--- In ham_amplifiers@..., "pentalab" <jim.thomson@>
wrote:

--- In ham_amplifiers@..., "zerobeat40"

<zerobeat40@>

wrote:

--- In ham_amplifiers@..., R L Measures <r@...>

wrote:

As I understand it, announcements of this group's existence

on

the

AMPS group were somewhat censored.

Your understanding is incorrect. There were several

announcements

of

this group, as well as the larger more-established

rfamplifiers

group

on Yahoo that made it to AMPs. Everytime someone posted on

this

group

that "my announcement did not get posted", I looked at AMPS -

and

it

was, in fact, posted.

### DREAM ON. I checked 'amps' on contesting .com 3

times

now.... with a microscope [pulling up their archives]..... it

ONLY

got posted TWICE..... once from Mike... once from Alek

later........Jim VE7RF

Yes, that is the distinct number of people who claimed to have
attempted to post it and claimed that it was not posted.

I heard from others who said they tried to post the info about the
new group and it did not not get past the censor.

Thank you for the corroborration.

Z

Yet another unidentified station.

Yahoo! Groups Links

R L Measures, AG6K, 805.386.3734
r@..., , rlm@, www.somis.org

A 3 phase service is mighty fine to have if one can afford to have it
put in. I've not checked on the price in a while, but back in 1985, a
200 amp 220 volt service ran around $2000 from the power company for
the transformers, and the service entrance, meter base, etc was extra.
I was having one put in at my machine shop building I had at the time.
I wish I had the health back to do all that again. At the time I had
an electric shop running, and a machine and assembly shop a couple of
miles up the road. I used to design and build custom fab machinery for
the railroads. Sure is a good business to be in. Anyhow, 3 phase can
sure make life a lot easier if you plan on running reverseable motors,
and anything else that needs some umph behind it. One could do it with
a pony motor, but I'm not sure how good that would work.

Back in the old days, and some do this now, is run a generator (really
an alternator without the rectifier stack) in a mobile supplying LV 3
phase to run a HV transformer. That get's you out of running an
inverter. A certain company down in Memphis, Tn used to supply a
mobile kW (1800 PEP out) with the generator that way. I here about a
guy in Florida building these today, and was buying the transformers
from Galaxy Transformer. I recon he's built a few with tubes with
handles. Of course you need enough engine to run it too.

Best,

Will


--- In ham_amplifiers@..., "Peter Voelpel" <df3kv@...>
wrote:

To achieve 1,5% ripple from a 6-pulse power supply of 5KV at 3A you

will

need a capacitor of 0,32?F.
Without any cap ripple will be 4%.
You will not here any hum from a transmitter without capacitor in

the

6-pulse capacitor when using sideband transmissions.
From a carrier you here little hum on zerobeat.

The formula to find C for the 3-phase bridge circuit is the same as

for any

other circuit, just calculate C from XC by using 300Hz in the

formula.

How the transformer is connected does not matter, usually the

primary will

be delta for best efficiency and the secondary will be star

connected.

You will have 2 diodes per leg. The voltage across one winding is

dc/sqrt6.

I my 7KV 4A CCS P/S I use UGE1112AY4 diodes by IXCYS, 3 per leg,

just scewed

one into the next.



The transformer secondary is 5KV +/-5%, +/-10% phase to phase, or

2887V

across one winding.
I use 2?F 10KV for smoothing and a crowbar overload circuit with it.

73
Peter


________________________________

From: ham_amplifiers@... [mailto:

ham_amplifiers@...]

On Behalf Of pentalab

Then, if we talk 3-phase supply and 6-puls rectifying,
lets say around 5 kV DC potential, how much glitch C
is needed to achieve 1.5 percent ripple?

### Dunno. You would only have 5% ripple with NO cap.... and
with a resonant choke set up.....you probably wouldn't need any
C at all ! [3 phase]

### IF no resonant choke setup... and just a straight C input
filter.... I'm guessing around 5-16 uf would be plenty. It
would also highly depend on the load.

### I haven't found any formulae for a C input filter HV
supply........ with 3 phase. I don't have access to 3 phase....
so never pursued it. It would be the ultimate setup. IF you
find anything... let me know... as I'm most interested. Somebody
is going to ask me to engineer one for em... so I had better
research it.

### I did see some info on C input 3 phase HV supplies some
where.... it's in Orr's older books.... but not alot of info.
Seems to me he had the 3 x primary's connected in a "Delta".....
and the 3 x secondary's tied in a.. "star". The rectifier set
up... if I remember, sorta looked like just 2 x diodes per sec
winding... one flipped around If I remember. The RMS voltage
per sec winding vs no load HVDC output is what threw me.
With say a 1 kv sec.... I'm positive... the OCV hv wasn't 1414
Vdc. [I may well be wrong with this.. just going by memory]

On Oct 3, 2006, at 3:49 PM, n6jp wrote:

I wonder if 'Z' is the c.s. administrator of the old amps group on
contesting.com?

Could well be.

Har, he really shot himself in the foot. He's now
the administrator of a defunct group. He might as well retire, he
won't have anyone to administrate to now but himself!

Hey 'Z' is your name Tom?

chortle. The laugher is that the "Administrator" / censor who jackboots folks out of AMPS for not giving a callsign, does not give a callsign himself.

If Tom joins this discussion group, I would definitely not be disappointed.

....

R L Measures, AG6K, 805.386.3734
r@..., , rlm@..., www.somis.org

On Oct 3, 2006, at 5:13 PM, Mike Sawyer wrote:

Will, et al,
I challenged the 'administrator' about what calls for being banned from the list. Included were email lists and having a 'lack' of a call sign. Neither one, I pointed out were part of the list's own rules/regs. But that was another day. I'm about ready to "vote with my feet." My only regret is that it isolates some very good technical knowledge that hasn't found its way over here (yet).

Some of those with good technical knowledge are Tom's pals. My take on Tom is that he attracts people who share a common element in their childhoods. Apparently, the attraction is so strong that a number of the technically enlightened will not comment about statements such as Ni-Cr alloys have reverse skin effect at HF.

Mod-U-Lator,
Mike(y)
W3SLK

----- Original Message -----
From: craxd
To: ham_amplifiers@...
Sent: Tuesday, October 03, 2006 8:06 PM
Subject: [ham_amplifiers] Re: Hi-

I know of several that tried and the post never made it. Two did, but
the rest went bye bye. The unnamed, "no-callsign either" moderator,

chortle. My guess is that his callsign is W8JI since W8JI knew why I was booted out when no one else did. Also, the posts I wrote that questioned Tom's questionable technical statements were censored like clockwork.

who was on me about showing a callsign, has his eye on every post that
comes into Amps mainly to protect one person for any, well lets say,
embarrasing moments.

Indeed. If it walks like a duck, and it quacks like a duck, ... ...

When a groups moderator censors others posts who contradict one that
is plainly wrong, allowing the wrong comment to show, and not the
correct one, it's not a place to be.

Indeed. However, AMPS was started to protect Tom from what happened on rec.amateur-radio.homebrew in Fall, 1996 - where there was no censor to throttle those who questioned Tom's technical missteps.

Correct being that the one
posting it actually knows what they are talking about! : ) It's even
worse when the moderator lets the one in question take pot shots at
others, and when they reply, the post gets canned before the others
can see it.

The founding fathers of the United States thankfully realized that Censorship is poison.

Now, I admit, I was one of the ones that was guilty of e-mailing
everyone in my address book and bypassing the moderator. The moderator
aimed that one admonishment about harvesting e-mails at two people,
Rich and myself. However, this moderator must think that neither of us
has an address book on our own without his so-called "harvesting"
going on. I thought I still have the right, by the 1st amendment, to
e-mail anyone I damn well wish. I'm not aware that has EVER been
changed.

Moderators/censors/control-freaks dislike being bypassed because it neutralizes their control over others.

Sincerely,

Will

--- In ham_amplifiers@..., R L Measures <r@...> wrote:

On Oct 3, 2006, at 2:40 PM, zerobeat40 wrote:

--- In ham_amplifiers@..., "pentalab" <jim.thomson@>
wrote:

--- In ham_amplifiers@..., "zerobeat40" <zerobeat40@>
wrote:

--- In ham_amplifiers@..., R L Measures <r@...>

wrote:

As I understand it, announcements of this group's existence on

the

AMPS group were somewhat censored.

Your understanding is incorrect. There were several

announcements

of

this group, as well as the larger more-established rfamplifiers

group

on Yahoo that made it to AMPs. Everytime someone posted on this

group

that "my announcement did not get posted", I looked at AMPS -

and

it

was, in fact, posted.

### DREAM ON. I checked 'amps' on contesting .com 3

times

now.... with a microscope [pulling up their archives]..... it

ONLY

got posted TWICE..... once from Mike... once from Alek

later........Jim VE7RF

Yes, that is the distinct number of people who claimed to have
attempted to post it and claimed that it was not posted.

I heard from others who said they tried to post the info about the
new group and it did not not get past the censor.

Thank you for the corroborration.

Z

Yet another unidentified station.

Yahoo! Groups Links

R L Measures, AG6K, 805.386.3734
r@..., , rlm@..., www.somis.org

R L Measures, AG6K, 805.386.3734
r@..., , rlm@..., www.somis.org

开云体育

I know of several that tried and the post never made it. Two did, but
the rest went bye bye. The unnamed, "no-callsign either" moderator,
who was on me about showing a callsign, has his eye on every post that
comes into Amps mainly to protect one person for any, well lets say,
embarrasing moments.

When a groups moderator censors others posts who contradict one that
is plainly wrong, allowing the wrong comment to show, and not the
correct one, it's not a place to be. Correct being that the one
posting it actually knows what they are talking about! : ) It's even
worse when the moderator lets the one in question take pot shots at
others, and when they reply, the post gets canned before the others
can see it.

Now, I admit, I was one of the ones that was guilty of e-mailing
everyone in my address book and bypassing the moderator. The moderator
aimed that one admonishment about harvesting e-mails at two people,
Rich and myself. However, this moderator must think that neither of us
has an address book on our own without his so-called "harvesting"
going on. I thought I still have the right, by the 1st amendment, to
e-mail anyone I damn well wish. I'm not aware that has EVER been
changed.

Sincerely,

Will


--- In ham_amplifiers@..., R L Measures <r@...> wrote:

On Oct 3, 2006, at 2:40 PM, zerobeat40 wrote:

--- In ham_amplifiers@..., "pentalab" <jim.thomson@>
wrote:

--- In ham_amplifiers@..., "zerobeat40" <zerobeat40@>
wrote:

--- In ham_amplifiers@..., R L Measures <r@...>

wrote:

As I understand it, announcements of this group's existence on

the

AMPS group were somewhat censored.

Your understanding is incorrect. There were several

announcements

of

this group, as well as the larger more-established rfamplifiers

group

on Yahoo that made it to AMPs. Everytime someone posted on this

group

that "my announcement did not get posted", I looked at AMPS -

and

it

was, in fact, posted.

### DREAM ON. I checked 'amps' on contesting .com 3

times

now.... with a microscope [pulling up their archives]..... it

ONLY

got posted TWICE..... once from Mike... once from Alek

later........Jim VE7RF

Yes, that is the distinct number of people who claimed to have
attempted to post it and claimed that it was not posted.

I heard from others who said they tried to post the info about the
new group and it did not not get past the censor.

Thank you for the corroborration.

Z

Yet another unidentified station.

Yahoo! Groups Links

R L Measures, AG6K, 805.386.3734
r@..., , rlm@..., www.somis.org

On Oct 3, 2006, at 2:40 PM, zerobeat40 wrote:

--- In ham_amplifiers@..., "pentalab" <jim.thomson@...> wrote:

--- In ham_amplifiers@..., "zerobeat40" <zerobeat40@>
wrote:

--- In ham_amplifiers@..., R L Measures <r@...> wrote:

As I understand it, announcements of this group's existence on

the

AMPS group were somewhat censored.

Your understanding is incorrect. There were several announcements

of

this group, as well as the larger more-established rfamplifiers

group

on Yahoo that made it to AMPs. Everytime someone posted on this

group

that "my announcement did not get posted", I looked at AMPS - and

it

was, in fact, posted.

### DREAM ON. I checked 'amps' on contesting .com 3 times
now.... with a microscope [pulling up their archives]..... it ONLY
got posted TWICE..... once from Mike... once from Alek

later........Jim VE7RF

Yes, that is the distinct number of people who claimed to have
attempted to post it and claimed that it was not posted.

I heard from others who said they tried to post the info about the new group and it did not not get past the censor.

Thank you for the corroborration.

Z

Yet another unidentified station.

Yahoo! Groups Links

R L Measures, AG6K, 805.386.3734
r@..., , rlm@..., www.somis.org

--- In ham_amplifiers@..., R L Measures <r@...> wrote:

High value wire-wound resistors have a well deserved

reputation for opening up - even when operated well within the
mfg's max-V rating.

### depends how they are mounted and or supported. The newer 5%
tol units made by Ohmite, IRC, clarostat, dale etc... have never
given me any problems. You can get high wattage, metal
finned units... from dale etc.... dunno about v rating.

### If really paranoid... GLOBAR makes a complete line of low +
high wattage non inductive HIGH VALUE resistor's.

## I have also seen where two separate strings of bleeders were
used. In the 3 k-ultra case.... use 40 k units. You would still
end up with the same 100 k in total.... but if one resistor
anywhere ever opened.... you are UP to 200 k total..... still
better than a wide open. A better scheme is to use the same
10 x 40 k resistor's.... but wire em series/parallel. Then if
any ONE resistor opened up anywhere.... you only go UP to 120 K
total... slick... and would work good. Damn good idea... dunno
why I didn't think of it b4 !

### Just replace all 5 of em... I doubt you will have any more
problems. It would be very interesting to see what value of
resistance... the 4 x remaining old ones are ??? If they
drifted... the highest value one would be the hottest. They
were/are running blazing hot as is. A 100 w rated wire wound..
diss 60 w is HOT.

Later... Jim VE7RF

On Oct 3, 2006, at 4:07 PM, pentalab wrote:

--- In ham_amplifiers@..., R L Measures <r@...> wrote:

Indeed, and it's all because of greed. . During the recent
heat wave in Southern California, transformers were popping like
popcorn in residential areas because Southern California Edison
originally cut costs by installing transformers that were Way too
small. For example, on our block, a 50kva transformer supplies
power to c. a 200kva max load. During one heat spell, the
transformer got so hot it broke a seam and started to leak coolant
oil. Edison's fix was to replace it with another 50kva unit.

### The BIGGEST pole mount xfmr is 100 KVA. When u see one up
close... they are huge.. and heavy..... and when u see 3 x 100 kva
xfmr's all on the same pole.... then realize the total weight is
imense.

## Anything bigger than 100 Kva.... then they put em on the
grnd... partially sunk into the grnd ..in a kiosk. Most grnd
mount xfmr's don't have oil. SOME do.... some have
recirculating external oil pipes. You see em at shopping malls,
etc.

## My electrical buddies were telling me how big the primary
fuses are on these pole pigs....you do the maths....most would
melt b4 any fuse ever blew.

### For a single phase RF deck that needs say 6900V @ 3A...

a bare minimum of 34 uf will provide barely 3% ripple.

A 100 uf filter will provide 1% ripple... and far better
DYNAMIC Regulation.

RICH SEZ...And nobody on the Rx-end can hear the difference, Jim.

### On ESSB, you sure can..... and if you want good ssb audio on
a yaesu MK-V...check out the 85 page Document W5CUL and myself
wrote. It's on and also
[under mods]

### Once you modify these xcvr's.... they sound like AM broadcast
stations.... I'd say a lot better.

### BTW... ut FT-1000-D is only flat on RX... up to get this...
900 hz... then it rolls off above that !

### On TX we feed the analog BM directly [via a jensen xfmr]
On RX, we tap off the analog ssb product detector... and take it
external. The DSP in the yaesu MK-V is joke. When u toggle
between the analog mode and dsp mode... there is a 20 db RISE in the
TX noise floor... with mic gain on zero. The built in yaesu mic
pre-amp adds another TON of noise.... worst mic pre-amp ever.

### The stock yaesu RX af circuitry... AFTER the analog ssb
product detector leaves a lot to be desired.

## IMO... why listen to bad ssb audio, when it's so easy to
improve it.

Later... Jim VE7RF







Yahoo! Groups Links

R L Measures, AG6K, 805.386.3734
r@..., , rlm@..., www.somis.org

On Oct 3, 2006, at 3:20 PM, pentalab wrote:

--- In ham_amplifiers@..., R L Measures <r@...> wrote:

To see how much ripple was noticeable on the air, a friend put a
4-1000A on the air with a 6kV FWB PS running a 2uF C-filter. I

could

not hear any ripple -- at least on
SSB. AM would likely have been different.

### The ripple with say 2 uf and 6 kv @ 800 ma

Om SSB, it's about a third of that.

should have
been VERY noticeable........ unless of course your xcvr chops off
all the audio below 300 hz.

My receiver has a tunable IF, so i could hear through the zero beat

You can hear 120 hz ripple plane
as day on ESSB.

He did not have noticeable ripple with voice modulastion.

## 6 kv and a 2 uf C input filter would result in real bad
dynamic HV regulation !

### I used 16 uf [with a 2 holer 4-1000] which resulted in 3%
ripple.. I then increased it to 48 uf.. and 1% ripple could be
obtained.

### BTW... my co-hort's tell me that most of these Microwave
oven's all have one 1-uf 5KV oil cap in em. I know one
fellow who paralled about 3 x doz of em... it worked.

Later... Jim VE7RF







Yahoo! Groups Links

R L Measures, AG6K, 805.386.3734
r@..., , rlm@..., www.somis.org

There will be no improvement as long transmitting bandwith is limited or
with poor audio response.
In Germany we are limited to 2,7KHz bandwith anyway, except on 10m.

73
Peter

________________________________

From: ham_amplifiers@... [mailto:ham_amplifiers@...]
On Behalf Of pentalab
## IMO... why listen to bad ssb audio, when it's so easy to
improve it.

--- In ham_amplifiers@..., R L Measures <r@...> wrote:

Indeed, and it's all because of greed. . During the recent

heat wave in Southern California, transformers were popping like
popcorn in residential areas because Southern California Edison
originally cut costs by installing transformers that were Way too
small. For example, on our block, a 50kva transformer supplies
power to c. a 200kva max load. During one heat spell, the
transformer got so hot it broke a seam and started to leak coolant
oil. Edison's fix was to replace it with another 50kva unit.

### The BIGGEST pole mount xfmr is 100 KVA. When u see one up
close... they are huge.. and heavy..... and when u see 3 x 100 kva
xfmr's all on the same pole.... then realize the total weight is
imense.

## Anything bigger than 100 Kva.... then they put em on the
grnd... partially sunk into the grnd ..in a kiosk. Most grnd
mount xfmr's don't have oil. SOME do.... some have
recirculating external oil pipes. You see em at shopping malls,
etc.

## My electrical buddies were telling me how big the primary
fuses are on these pole pigs....you do the maths....most would
melt b4 any fuse ever blew.

### For a single phase RF deck that needs say 6900V @ 3A...

a bare minimum of 34 uf will provide barely 3% ripple.

A 100 uf filter will provide 1% ripple... and far better
DYNAMIC Regulation.

RICH SEZ...And nobody on the Rx-end can hear the difference, Jim.

### On ESSB, you sure can..... and if you want good ssb audio on
a yaesu MK-V...check out the 85 page Document W5CUL and myself
wrote. It's on and also
[under mods]

### Once you modify these xcvr's.... they sound like AM broadcast
stations.... I'd say a lot better.

### BTW... ut FT-1000-D is only flat on RX... up to get this...
900 hz... then it rolls off above that !

### On TX we feed the analog BM directly [via a jensen xfmr]
On RX, we tap off the analog ssb product detector... and take it
external. The DSP in the yaesu MK-V is joke. When u toggle
between the analog mode and dsp mode... there is a 20 db RISE in the
TX noise floor... with mic gain on zero. The built in yaesu mic
pre-amp adds another TON of noise.... worst mic pre-amp ever.

### The stock yaesu RX af circuitry... AFTER the analog ssb
product detector leaves a lot to be desired.

## IMO... why listen to bad ssb audio, when it's so easy to
improve it.

Later... Jim VE7RF

To achieve 1,5% ripple from a 6-pulse power supply of 5KV at 3A you will
need a capacitor of 0,32?F.
Without any cap ripple will be 4%.
You will not here any hum from a transmitter without capacitor in the
6-pulse capacitor when using sideband transmissions.
From a carrier you here little hum on zerobeat.

The formula to find C for the 3-phase bridge circuit is the same as for any
other circuit, just calculate C from XC by using 300Hz in the formula.
How the transformer is connected does not matter, usually the primary will
be delta for best efficiency and the secondary will be star connected.
You will have 2 diodes per leg. The voltage across one winding is dc/sqrt6.

I my 7KV 4A CCS P/S I use UGE1112AY4 diodes by IXCYS, 3 per leg, just scewed
one into the next.



The transformer secondary is 5KV +/-5%, +/-10% phase to phase, or 2887V
across one winding.
I use 2?F 10KV for smoothing and a crowbar overload circuit with it.

73
Peter


________________________________

From: ham_amplifiers@... [mailto:ham_amplifiers@...]
On Behalf Of pentalab

Then, if we talk 3-phase supply and 6-puls rectifying,
lets say around 5 kV DC potential, how much glitch C
is needed to achieve 1.5 percent ripple?

### Dunno. You would only have 5% ripple with NO cap.... and
with a resonant choke set up.....you probably wouldn't need any
C at all ! [3 phase]

### IF no resonant choke setup... and just a straight C input
filter.... I'm guessing around 5-16 uf would be plenty. It
would also highly depend on the load.

### I haven't found any formulae for a C input filter HV
supply........ with 3 phase. I don't have access to 3 phase....
so never pursued it. It would be the ultimate setup. IF you
find anything... let me know... as I'm most interested. Somebody
is going to ask me to engineer one for em... so I had better
research it.

### I did see some info on C input 3 phase HV supplies some
where.... it's in Orr's older books.... but not alot of info.
Seems to me he had the 3 x primary's connected in a "Delta".....
and the 3 x secondary's tied in a.. "star". The rectifier set
up... if I remember, sorta looked like just 2 x diodes per sec
winding... one flipped around If I remember. The RMS voltage
per sec winding vs no load HVDC output is what threw me.
With say a 1 kv sec.... I'm positive... the OCV hv wasn't 1414
Vdc. [I may well be wrong with this.. just going by memory]

I wonder if 'Z' is the c.s. administrator of the old amps group on
contesting.com? Har, he really shot himself in the foot. He's now
the administrator of a defunct group. He might as well retire, he
won't have anyone to administrate to now but himself!

Hey 'Z' is your name Tom?

Jer

### DREAM ON. I checked 'amps' on contesting .com 3

times

now.... with a microscope [pulling up their archives]..... it

ONLY

got posted TWICE..... once from Mike... once from Alek

later........Jim VE7RF

Yes, that is the distinct number of people who claimed to have
attempted to post it and claimed that it was not posted.

Thank you for the corroborration.

Z

--- In ham_amplifiers@..., R L Measures <r@...> wrote:

To see how much ripple was noticeable on the air, a friend put a
4-1000A on the air with a 6kV FWB PS running a 2uF C-filter. I

could

not hear any ripple -- at least on
SSB. AM would likely have been different.

### The ripple with say 2 uf and 6 kv @ 800 ma should have
been VERY noticeable........ unless of course your xcvr chops off
all the audio below 300 hz. You can hear 120 hz ripple plane
as day on ESSB.

## 6 kv and a 2 uf C input filter would result in real bad
dynamic HV regulation !

### I used 16 uf [with a 2 holer 4-1000] which resulted in 3%
ripple.. I then increased it to 48 uf.. and 1% ripple could be
obtained.

### BTW... my co-hort's tell me that most of these Microwave
oven's all have one 1-uf 5KV oil cap in em. I know one
fellow who paralled about 3 x doz of em... it worked.

Later... Jim VE7RF