Frank Gilliland wrote:
Enough of that cheap one-board crap..... this amp is MODULAR!

Cool. How about a high drive portable to go behind an HF rig? Variable
input 25/100w.

On 20 Sep 2006 00:26:10 GMT, Steveo wrote in
:

Frank Gilliland wrote:
Enough of that cheap one-board crap..... this amp is MODULAR!

Cool. How about a high drive portable to go behind an HF rig? Variable
input 25/100w.


The intent is to drive this from a stock CB, but if you want scale it
up then it's an easy design modification to the input module. I can
include that as an option in the design. However, know that if FET's
are used for power transistors then most of your 25/100 watt drive
would be wasted.

Frank Gilliland wrote:
On 20 Sep 2006 00:26:10 GMT, Steveo wrote in
:

Frank Gilliland wrote:
Enough of that cheap one-board crap..... this amp is MODULAR!

Cool. How about a high drive portable to go behind an HF rig? Variable
input 25/100w.

The intent is to drive this from a stock CB, but if you want scale it
up then it's an easy design modification to the input module. I can
include that as an option in the design. However, know that if FET's
are used for power transistors then most of your 25/100 watt drive
would be wasted.

Are FET's the most economical transistors, or are are there other choices
for a 10 meter portable amp? The high drive would make it a bit more legal
too, wouldn't it? (dunno, just curious)

On 20 Sep 2006 01:13:01 GMT, Steveo wrote in
:

Frank Gilliland wrote:
On 20 Sep 2006 00:26:10 GMT, Steveo wrote in
:

Frank Gilliland wrote:
Enough of that cheap one-board crap..... this amp is MODULAR!

Cool. How about a high drive portable to go behind an HF rig? Variable
input 25/100w.

The intent is to drive this from a stock CB, but if you want scale it
up then it's an easy design modification to the input module. I can
include that as an option in the design. However, know that if FET's
are used for power transistors then most of your 25/100 watt drive
would be wasted.

Are FET's the most economical transistors, or are are there other choices
for a 10 meter portable amp? The high drive would make it a bit more legal
too, wouldn't it? (dunno, just curious)


Bipolars are better for higher drive, but the more efficient setup
would be an FET amp with a low-power exciter.

Frank Gilliland wrote:
On 20 Sep 2006 01:13:01 GMT, Steveo wrote in
:

Frank Gilliland wrote:
On 20 Sep 2006 00:26:10 GMT, Steveo wrote in
:

Frank Gilliland wrote:
Enough of that cheap one-board crap..... this amp is MODULAR!

Cool. How about a high drive portable to go behind an HF rig?
Variable input 25/100w.

The intent is to drive this from a stock CB, but if you want scale it
up then it's an easy design modification to the input module. I can
include that as an option in the design. However, know that if FET's
are used for power transistors then most of your 25/100 watt drive
would be wasted.

Are FET's the most economical transistors, or are are there other
choices for a 10 meter portable amp? The high drive would make it a bit
more legal too, wouldn't it? (dunno, just curious)

Bipolars are better for higher drive, but the more efficient setup
would be an FET amp with a low-power exciter.

Gotcha. What about the legal part of the question?

On 20 Sep 2006 01:23:28 GMT, Steveo wrote in
:

Frank Gilliland wrote:
On 20 Sep 2006 01:13:01 GMT, Steveo wrote in
:

Frank Gilliland wrote:
On 20 Sep 2006 00:26:10 GMT, Steveo wrote in
:

Frank Gilliland wrote:
Enough of that cheap one-board crap..... this amp is MODULAR!

Cool. How about a high drive portable to go behind an HF rig?
Variable input 25/100w.

The intent is to drive this from a stock CB, but if you want scale it
up then it's an easy design modification to the input module. I can
include that as an option in the design. However, know that if FET's
are used for power transistors then most of your 25/100 watt drive
would be wasted.

Are FET's the most economical transistors, or are are there other
choices for a 10 meter portable amp? The high drive would make it a bit
more legal too, wouldn't it? (dunno, just curious)

Bipolars are better for higher drive, but the more efficient setup
would be an FET amp with a low-power exciter.

Gotcha. What about the legal part of the question?


What about it?

Frank Gilliland wrote:
On 20 Sep 2006 01:23:28 GMT, Steveo wrote in
:

Frank Gilliland wrote:
On 20 Sep 2006 01:13:01 GMT, Steveo wrote in
:

Frank Gilliland wrote:
On 20 Sep 2006 00:26:10 GMT, Steveo wrote
in :

Frank Gilliland wrote:
Enough of that cheap one-board crap..... this amp is MODULAR!

Cool. How about a high drive portable to go behind an HF rig?
Variable input 25/100w.

The intent is to drive this from a stock CB, but if you want scale
it up then it's an easy design modification to the input module. I
can include that as an option in the design. However, know that if
FET's are used for power transistors then most of your 25/100 watt
drive would be wasted.

Are FET's the most economical transistors, or are are there other
choices for a 10 meter portable amp? The high drive would make it a
bit more legal too, wouldn't it? (dunno, just curious)

Bipolars are better for higher drive, but the more efficient setup
would be an FET amp with a low-power exciter.

Gotcha. What about the legal part of the question?

What about it?

Does the 25 watt -in- requirement make it anymore legal, or no? ( I really
don't know)

Steveo wrote:
Are FET's the most economical transistors, or are are there other choices
for a 10 meter portable amp? The high drive would make it a bit more legal
too, wouldn't it? (dunno, just curious)

FETs like the MRF173 (or similar) have certain advantages. They also
have several disadvantages... one is cost! Franks proposed design
already looks to have a hefty price tag as described.

www.telstar-electronics.com

On 20 Sep 2006 04:28:52 -0700, "Telstar Electronics"
wrote in
.com:

Steveo wrote:
Are FET's the most economical transistors, or are are there other choices
for a 10 meter portable amp? The high drive would make it a bit more legal
too, wouldn't it? (dunno, just curious)

FETs like the MRF173 (or similar) have certain advantages. They also
have several disadvantages... one is cost! Franks proposed design
already looks to have a hefty price tag as described.


That's because I don't make cheap, disposable crap. Never have, never
will. But the use of FET's is at the discretion of the builder. The
amp can be built with either FET's or bipolars. No other modifications
are necessary, just a variation in the initial alignment.

Frank Gilliland wrote:
That's because I don't make cheap, disposable crap. Never have, never
will. But the use of FET's is at the discretion of the builder. The
amp can be built with either FET's or bipolars. No other modifications
are necessary, just a variation in the initial alignment.

Let me get this straight...swapping FETs with bi-polars in the
design... and no modifications are necessary???
Get real... there are impedance matching issues, possibly B+ sources
level differences, as well as well as totally different biasing
circuitry. You are going to bias Frank?... right?

www.telstar-electronics.com