|[AMRadio] Re: Screen Modulated 813|
ne1s at neandertech.com
Tue Dec 12 14:55:07 EST 2006
Bry Carling writes:
> Lary - I was talking about the kind of set-up with the 6DE7
> that produces a SMALL carrier of say 6 or 8 watts
> and then does 90 watts p.e.p. on the voice peaks.
Right - that is the question I addressed.
> I may be nuts, but my empirical sense tells me that is
> far more impressive sounding in the receiver n the other
> end than the signal from the typical "novice rig" that runs
> 75 watts carrier input with Heising mod. OR even a plate
> modulated class C rig with 22.5 watts carrier input and
> 90 watts p.e.p.
I think by "impressive" you mean the ratio of power in the sidebands to
unmodulated carrier power - if so, I'd agree.
> The power is turned DOWN during the inefficient phase
> of the transmission in other words.
We need to be careful here, because this created a misunderstanding about a
year ago. With efficiency modulation (be it a linear amplifier stage, or
screen suppressor, or control-grid modulated amplifier) PLATE EFFICIENCY (RF
power output/DC plate power input) is lowest when the instantateous output
is lowest. Therefore, the lower the output of the unmodulated carrier, the
lower the PLATE EFFICIENCY. If we think of efficiency in terms of power in
the sidebands/total power consumed (integrated over time), your statement is
> WIth less and less quiescent signal the transmitter appraoches
> the efficiency level of a DSB rig.
Yes - in the limit, as the carrier level is reduced to zero, that's exactly
what your left with: DSB w/o carrier. But the above comments on efficency
still hold - plate efficiency in this case will be zero when no modulation
is present, because there is no RF output, with finite DC plate power
consumed. But, integrated over time, I believe less power will be consumed
to convey the intelligence, so in this sense, "efficiency" is better.
More information about the AMRadio mailing list
This page last updated 17 Oct 2017.