Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#11
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Wed, 28 Feb 2007 13:55:47 -0800, Jim Kelley
wrote: What I meant was, in what way were you able to attribute and apportion this heat to its various sources? What evidence were you able to obtain to show reflected energy re-entering the source output? What component in the system in fact dissipated the reflected energy? How were you able to determine the exact source and amount of energy at any given location within the source? Or did you just presume that you understood the underlying mechanisms? Hi Jim, This knowledge arrived by many avenues. For one, in a heavily heatsinked design, mapping of temperatures generally reveal a very diffuse origin. That, of course, is the purpose of the heatsink. So, in that regard the assignment of where dissipation occurs is done by induction. You can eliminate a lot circuitry as being incapable of supporting this dissipation, as it is both remote from the signal path, and remote physically. The literature of design reveals much of what is discovered in the field. That literature reveals the dissipation occurs in the emitter/collector junction of the finals' transistors. Failures have been confirmed through post-mortem examination by microscope (no, I have not done this). Experience with new designs and frequency of failure (those activities that I have participated in) lead to the same conclusion. In one particular case it was a manufacturing/assembly problem of mounting the transistor to the heatsink. A bur was found in many such mounts that interfered with a complete mating of surfaces. This raised the thermal resistance in the path from that same junction to the mating surface, to the heatsink, to the environment. Knowing each thermal resistance in that path makes it rather simple to forecast the junction temperature at the time of failure (or rather, to say failure which occurred was guaranteed a fatal temperature) when you know the power consumed by the component. All such "resistance" conform to the simple math of Ohm's law (once you substitute the necessary units for heat). When we return to the design guidelines and this junction, almost every manufacturer of power transistors specifies a junction resistance value at rated power. Casting this value through the chain of transformations and to the antenna connector reveals a value very nearly 50 Ohms. There are newer power amplification designs today, and yet the market for Ham gear is dominated by the Class AB design which is exhibits this property nicely. Inductive logic leads us to this junction as the principle target of reflected power (the signal path is symmetric, after all). Experience has supported this logic. Failures are attributable to design flaw (or assembly flaw), or poor application (driving a mismatch), or both. As for tubes, I've already testified to the obvious location for dissipation. It is far easier to see. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Question about 20-meter monoband vertical (kinda long - antenna gurus welcome) | Antenna | |||
Optimising a G5RV | Antenna | |||
Outside Antenna | Shortwave | |||
WHY - The simple Random Wire Antenna is better than the Dipole Antenna for the Shortwave Listener (SWL) | Shortwave | |||
Poor quality low + High TV channels? How much dB in Preamp? | Antenna |