Ronald wrote:

Suppose we feed 20 watts in a p.a. but don't want to use a dummyload
in the p.a. Come on this is done all the time.


Done all the time, but usually with resistive loads.

Could you elucidate exactly why you want to do this? I can't think of
any good reason to use LC. I suspect you might have some terms and
principles a little mixed up.

A dummy load is used to absorb RF power at the end of the transmit
circuitry. The transmitter does everything it's supposed to do, but the
power goes into the dummy load, and is dissipated as heat. Ideally no RF
makes it out of the load.

The ideal impedance for a transmitter is resistive. For that nothing can
beat a resistor.

- 73 de Mike N3LI -

"Dave Platt" wrote to our discintent:
A small LC circuit will not do a good job of either of these things...
won't radiate efficiently and won't have enough resistance to act as a
comfortable dummy load (e.g. Zo near 50+0j).

All amateurs here who i suppose 'believe' to much. Do you go to church
every sunday ?
- sometimes dummyloads are used in input stages of a valve or mosfet p.a.
because valves and mosfet only use the rf voltage NOT the power.
So the driver stage (xmttr) has to be dummyloaded and tapped.
Understand ?
-Then the remark : " a LC circuit won't radiate efficiently " . So what?
Thats exactly what i need here.
- so every LC series circuit you see in schematics, ìf you see them, you call
shortcuts ??
- If you use an antennatuner for a 'nittingneedle' you will get a 1:1, and we don't care the
bad radiation pff, and that antennatuner has a series LC circuit inside !!
So no shortcut at all, dummy.
So whats your point ? I only asked about the practice of the consept.

I see its easier the become doctor in the usa then farmer in Belgium ...

On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 18:00:42 +0100, "Ronald" wrote:

I see its easier the become doctor in the usa then farmer in Belgium ...

Classic trolling.

In article ,
Ronald wrote:

- sometimes dummyloads are used in input stages of a valve or mosfet p.a.
because valves and mosfet only use the rf voltage NOT the power.
So the driver stage (xmttr) has to be dummyloaded and tapped.
Understand ?

Sure. And, if those are truly "dummy loads", they are *not* simply LC
circuits. They have a resistor of some sort incorporated into them,
which is responsible for providing the correct termination impedance
and which serves to dissipate the power from the driver stage.

In other cases, what you call "dummy loads" for driving a MOSFET are
*not* simply "dummy loads". Rather, they are impedance transformers,
to step up the RF voltage to the correct level needed to switch the
MOSFET or tube properly.

In many cases, an LCR input stage to a final amplifier may have both
of these functions... impedance transformation *and* load termination.

-Then the remark : " a LC circuit won't radiate efficiently " . So what?
Thats exactly what i need here.

In standard radio technology, a "dummy load" is a device which
dissipates most of the power fed to it.

An LC circuit isn't one. You *need* something with resistance in it,
if you want to terminate the driving signal properly (i.e. dissipate
its power).

- so every LC series circuit you see in schematics, ìf you see them, you call
shortcuts ??

How in the world did you come to that ridiculous conclusion? Please
don't put words into my mouth.

LC circuits have *many* useful functions in a radio schematic. Two of
the primary ones are impedance transformation (matching), and
filtering (bandpass or notch).

Acting as a dummy load (in the accepted sense of the term) is *not*
one of the good functions of an LC.

- If you use an antennatuner for a 'nittingneedle' you will get a 1:1, and we don't care the
bad radiation pff, and that antennatuner has a series LC circuit inside !!

That antenna tuner has an LCR in it. The "R" is the loss in the
coil... as I pointed out several postings ago, a coil does have a loss
resistance.

In the case you're talking about, "matching" a nitting-needle load
with a typical T-configured antenna tuner may result in an apparent
match. What's happening, is that you're creating a rather high-Q
resonance inside the tuner... and all of the power is being dissipated
in the coil's loss resistance. Very little of the power is actually
going into the load - it's not really "matched".

The coil heats up, and (if you've got a cheaply-made tuner) you melt
the coil form and burn up the tuner.

The problem with depending on this sort of circuit (e.g. using a coil,
and a couple of capacitors) to dissipate power (acting as a very crude
sort of "dummy load") is that it's unpredictable, dangerous, and inefficient.

It's unpredictable because the series resistance of the coil is
typically not specified by the manufacturer. In fact, the better the
coil (heavier wire, open-spaced windings) the lower the series
resistance and the losses, which means that you have to use a higher-Q
tuning (more critical adjustment) to establish the match.

It's dangerous, because the sort of small coils you'd normally find in
the driver-to-final network of an amplifier can't dissipate the amount
of power you're talking about (20 watts). They'll burn up.

It's inefficient, because for the price of one adjustable coil which
can be tuned in this way (with a couple of capacitors), will give the
correct termination impedance (typically 50 ohms), and not melt down
or catch fire or otherwise self-destruct, you can buy *dozens* of very
well made 50-ohm noninductive resistors, which will give a good flat
termination impedance over a *much* wider frequency range than a
high-Q resonant circuit. Such resistors will be cheaper, smaller,
and more reliable than a lossy-LC-circuit kluge, and won't require any
tuning at all to work properly.

So no shortcut at all, dummy.
So whats your point ?

My point is, you're attempting to choose the *wrong* technical
solution for your problem. You'll waste money, and end up with a
device which is bigger, tricker to tune, and less reliable than is
necessary.

I only asked about the practice of the consept.

And, the accepted engineering practice of this concept is "This is a
bad idea, we don't do it that way. We use resistors."

--
Dave Platt AE6EO
Friends of Jade Warrior home page: http://www.radagast.org/jade-warrior
I do _not_ wish to receive unsolicited commercial email, and I will
boycott any company which has the gall to send me such ads!

Dave Platt wrote:
In article ,
Ronald wrote:

So no shortcut at all, dummy.
So whats your point ?

My point is, you're attempting to choose the *wrong* technical
solution for your problem. You'll waste money, and end up with a
device which is bigger, tricker to tune, and less reliable than is
necessary.


Your self control is admirable. I would have lost my temper, at least a
bit. He is just a troll, after all.

tom
K0TAR

tom wrote:
Dave Platt wrote:
In article ,
Ronald wrote:

So no shortcut at all, dummy.
So whats your point ?

My point is, you're attempting to choose the *wrong* technical
solution for your problem. You'll waste money, and end up with a
device which is bigger, tricker to tune, and less reliable than is
necessary.


Your self control is admirable. I would have lost my temper, at least a
bit. He is just a troll, after all.

I dunno. Not to call Richard or yourself incorrect, but it could just be
a language problem coupled with a short fuse.


- 73 de Mike N3LI -

On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 10:08:09 -0500, Michael Coslo
wrote:

I dunno. Not to call Richard or yourself incorrect, but it could just be
a language problem coupled with a short fuse.

Hi Mike,

The best evidence is from his postings. If there is a language
difficulty (we've been assaulted with paisano fruit seller dialect
from Italy when this is obviously Hollywood cliché) then Ronald's
re-characterizations expressed in understood English are not
miscomprehensions of language.

Ronold: "A dummy load is an LC circuit."

anyone else: "A dummy load is NOT an LC circuit."

Such an interchange is more seriously logic limited if
"misunderstood." I think Google translate would cope easily here.
Negating the original phrase does not lead to the sophism of doctors
and farmers - trolling does.

If you want to be gracious, we have a Belgian CBer who is trying to
work 40M. That level of technical ability is NOT masked by
translation.

Reminds me of the dwarf's argument in the movie "In Bruges."

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

It's a bit hard to see, but it looks like the feed (left to right in the
picture) is to the 2nd element with a crossed phase parallel line to the
third.