Go Back   WorldwideDX Amateur Radio Forums > Citizens Band Related > CB Band and CB Radios


Amateur Callsign Lookup
Enter Callsign:

NPC for AM Transformer radios is HERE... Tubed, Solid State, etc. ANY high level TX

Like Tree1Likes

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #17  
Old 01-04-2011, 12:24 PM
Senior Member
iTrader: (0)
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: 6000 feet above the Mojave Desert, Tehachapi, Ca
Posts: 481
Toll_Free is on a distinguished road
Default


The distortion introduced by the NPC circuit will be MUCH less than from baselining the audio.

Another issue is this: If you DO manage to drop the carrier to insane levels, the RECEIVING detector is 9 out of 10 times a simple diode.... And THEY can't handle the distortion created when going much over about 150 percent positive mod.... Hence the FCC mandated 125 percent MAX on broadcash equip... During the "loudness wars" of the broadcash days, it was common to run 200+++ percent positive modulation, and they'd use a circuit similiar to the one I posted to limit baselining the audio.

The way the 29 (and most other transformer modulated / plate modulated ) / 25 / 21 / etc hit 75 watts PEP is this: The transformer in them is connected as an AUTOTRANSFORMER... The MODULATED voltage is MUCH more than 13.8 volts! 13 volts is actually the CARRIER voltage... They need to impress ANOTHER 13 volts on TOP of it to get 100 percent modulation... Which will quadruple the output, giving the textbook 4 to 1 carrier to PEP level we look for. It is possible (if I remember correctly, it's been about 6 to 10 years since I tried doing one, and EVERY chassis was INDIVIDUALLY tuned on the output pi network to hit > 45 watts!!!!) to get near 40 - 50 volts PEAK on the output of the transformer.

A LOT of the AVG increase is due to the non-baselining. If you limit the negative excursions of the negative peaks so that they NEVER cause a FLATLINE in the modulated RF envelope, you cause a LARGE increase in output power on an AVG reading meter... And you will also notice a lot of increase in range, all other things being equal... Although our ear responds to peak power, the AVG power is what actually gets the signal through.... Just like in cars, it's 'torque under the curve' that actually gets the job done, not just a 1000 horsepower engine... One that produces torque from 1800 rpm to 6000 at 800 peak horsepower will EAT a 1000 horsepower engine that ONLY produces torque in a couple thousand RPM powerband. If you can increase the AVERAGE power output of your radio (which is ALL NPC does), you've won half the battle..... LIMITING the negative peaks and ensuring you have asymetrical mod (which you'd need a good avg meter or scope to see) so your positive peaks are GREATER than your negative is also beneficial, as it increases the PEAK power on the modulator.

--Toll_Free

Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 01-04-2011, 02:47 PM
Senior Member
iTrader: (0)
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 131
unit248 is on a distinguished road
Default

Hm. Ok. So the audio voltage is summed with the supply voltage at the collector, thanks to the transformer, which boosts the output beyond just what you'd expect from the 13.8v supply voltage alone.

But -- and please forgive me if I'm being dense here -- that still doesn't answer my original question: can you actually push the output of a single 2SC1969 up to 75 watts on a positive peak?

With 100% modulation, the power at positive peaks reaches the four times the carrier power: with a 4 watt carrier, you'd get 16 watts at positive modulation peaks. With 8 watts of carrier, you'd get 32 watts at peaks, and so on. NPC would change this a bit since it would give you greater than 100% modulation.

But 75 watts sounds like you'd be pushing the 2SC1969 past its design limits. I decided to download the datasheet for it, and based on the curves that it shows, it looks like power output starts to level off at around 25 watts.

Now, maybe you can push it higher, but then I have to ask again: if you do that, will it stay linear? My guess is that it wouldn't. If you were to test with a sine wave then, I would expect the positive peaks to be a little attenuated compared to the original audio input.

-Bill

Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 01-04-2011, 05:03 PM
unit_399's Avatar
EL CAPO
iTrader: (0)
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Alejandria, Colombia SA
Posts: 875
unit_399 is on a distinguished road
Default

http://www.amwindow.org/tech/htm/3diodeka.htm

Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 01-04-2011, 05:20 PM
Senior Member
iTrader: (0)
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: 6000 feet above the Mojave Desert, Tehachapi, Ca
Posts: 481
Toll_Free is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by unit_399 View Post
And your point is? Not like I took credit for it........

I'm still waiting for your explanation as to how the carrier is still their when their is no collector voltage....?

Rather than try to steer the thunder...


--Toll_Free

Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 01-04-2011, 05:37 PM
Senior Member
iTrader: (0)
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,199
Shockwave will become famous soon enough
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by unit248 View Post
Hm. Ok. So the audio voltage is summed with the supply voltage at the collector, thanks to the transformer, which boosts the output beyond just what you'd expect from the 13.8v supply voltage alone.

But -- and please forgive me if I'm being dense here -- that still doesn't answer my original question: can you actually push the output of a single 2SC1969 up to 75 watts on a positive peak?

With 100% modulation, the power at positive peaks reaches the four times the carrier power: with a 4 watt carrier, you'd get 16 watts at positive modulation peaks. With 8 watts of carrier, you'd get 32 watts at peaks, and so on. NPC would change this a bit since it would give you greater than 100% modulation.

But 75 watts sounds like you'd be pushing the 2SC1969 past its design limits. I decided to download the datasheet for it, and based on the curves that it shows, it looks like power output starts to level off at around 25 watts.

Now, maybe you can push it higher, but then I have to ask again: if you do that, will it stay linear? My guess is that it wouldn't. If you were to test with a sine wave then, I would expect the positive peaks to be a little attenuated compared to the original audio input.

-Bill
No you can't expect to get 75 watts PEP from a 2SC1969. You might get close to double it's rated power someplace around 40 watts PEP for intermittent use. I wouldn't count on it being very reliable either. This mod Toll Free has shared is more of an audio mod then a power mod. If you're going to do any mod to a radio it should be to improve audio, not increase power.

Even these new bolt on heat sink final replacements that claim 75 watts overlook an important problem for hi level AM use. Radios that use the modulation transformer get their audio directly from the audio chip with no buffer. Ask the 4 watt radio to key 8 watts and you need twice the modulation power from the audio chip because the current has doubled. This happens as a result of the final collector impedance dropping in half.

Then you have to consider that poor little modulation transformer having to support twice the DC current on it's secondary while it's primary overloads the audio chip to the point where it probably flat tops on positive peaks. The extra current on the mod transformer will cause more distortion in your low end due to core saturation.

The point here is if you want the best audio on AM, don't modify your radio to produce 2 to 5 times it's original carrier and still expect to have the headroom required to reach the positive peaks this type of mod can do. This mod should let you run over 100% modulation without noticeable distortion and with a significant decrease in bleedover.

Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 01-04-2011, 05:54 PM
Senior Member
iTrader: (0)
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,199
Shockwave will become famous soon enough
Default

This circuit is amazingly simple. The current path trough R2 / D2 supplies just enough energy to keep the final amp at a minimum carrier level during the negative peak cut off.

Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 01-05-2011, 05:31 AM
Senior Member
iTrader: (0)
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 320
Kamikaze is on a distinguished road
Default

Fun watching new folks trying out positive peak schemes.

O.G. Villiard has written a lot of interesting things on super/ultramodulation.

A quick google search turned this up:

http://www.arrl.org/files/file/Techn...df/5103049.pdf

Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 01-05-2011, 09:24 AM
Senior Member
iTrader: (0)
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: 6000 feet above the Mojave Desert, Tehachapi, Ca
Posts: 481
Toll_Free is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by unit248 View Post
Hm. Ok. So the audio voltage is summed with the supply voltage at the collector, thanks to the transformer, which boosts the output beyond just what you'd expect from the 13.8v supply voltage alone.

But -- and please forgive me if I'm being dense here -- that still doesn't answer my original question: can you actually push the output of a single 2SC1969 up to 75 watts on a positive peak?

With 100% modulation, the power at positive peaks reaches the four times the carrier power: with a 4 watt carrier, you'd get 16 watts at positive modulation peaks. With 8 watts of carrier, you'd get 32 watts at peaks, and so on. NPC would change this a bit since it would give you greater than 100% modulation.

But 75 watts sounds like you'd be pushing the 2SC1969 past its design limits. I decided to download the datasheet for it, and based on the curves that it shows, it looks like power output starts to level off at around 25 watts.

Now, maybe you can push it higher, but then I have to ask again: if you do that, will it stay linear? My guess is that it wouldn't. If you were to test with a sine wave then, I would expect the positive peaks to be a little attenuated compared to the original audio input.

-Bill
Yes, pushing a 1969 to 75 pep is REALLY pushing it. It's not a mod I'd push on to customers, it's a mod that I did (as well as quite a few others) back in the early part of the decade for the keydown scene. They do NOT last forever at that level... HOWEVER, it is a selling point when you can actually watch a 5Kw slug wriggle with JUST a radio The invent of the RFX-75, MOSFET conversions, etc. pretty much pushed these types of mods to the back burner, but some people still question how they where done, or if they where actually EVER done.

The 25 watt level of the 1969 is pretty much pointless for class C high level modulation.... With 'plate mod', you can pretty much figure on 3-4 times the diss level of the transistor as PEP value of output. The 1969 in a 148 or other SSB chassis is run class AB.... In the 29 and associated 'xformer modulated' radios, it's run class C.

Your mathematics is correct for 100 percent modulated radios, that modulate symmetrically. With ANY negative clipping, compression, etc. that throws it out the window.... And you need TWICE the voltage to get 100 percent positive peaks... To get the 'textbook' modulation percentages from the 29, you need 26 volts of complete swing.... Twice the B+ to negative baseline... Or, optimally, to about 1 volt above baseline (which is what the circuit I presented actually does, prevents the carrier from EVER reaching 0, or the applied voltage, actually.... You ONLY prevent the modulator from doing it's job, really.... Hitting 0 volts on negative excursions)

Hope that helps explain it a bit better. NO, we are not getting linear output, BUT, we are 'plate modulating' a final amplifier, which means it HAS to run Class C. Class C is EASY to get 3 times Cdiss or Pdiss, 4 times even... 3 x 6146s, a 30 or so watt tube, will net 400 watts easily of plate modulated AM..

And let's not get started on the "controlled carrier' type radios... Like the DX60 and a few others.... Which is what NPC REALLY is..

--Toll_Free

Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Tags
npc mod
Worldwide Radio Forum



Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
WARNING, Don't Carry a Scanner into Michigan!!! Charger383 Scanning & Shortwave Listening 34 05-05-2011 11:24 AM
FEMA National Update: Monday, December 21, 2009 FEMA FEMA Declarations and National Updates 0 12-22-2009 06:10 PM
FEMA National Update: Tuesday, April 14, 2009 FEMA FEMA Declarations and National Updates 0 04-14-2009 07:10 AM
FEMA National Update: Sunday, April 12, 2009 FEMA FEMA Declarations and National Updates 0 04-13-2009 05:40 PM


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:04 AM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0
Worldwide Radio Forum