|
On Tue, 09 Dec 2003 20:14:59 -0800, Frank Gilliland
wrote: In , wrote: snip I haven't given up on you yet, Tnom: You should. You are looking more and more like a fool. Time for you to fold. |
The DC input power follows the audio input, compressed or not. Is that concept too difficult for you to comprehend? Trying to create a divergence away from the truth? Hardly. I'm trying to make you understand a fundamental concept of radio communications that has eluded your meager education. The truth is not gained by equating DC input to output. The truth is gained by comparing SSB audio compression levels to that of HI- FI audio compression levels. You are truly lost. More accurately you are truly lacking in common sense. A compressed audio signal at its highest compression would approach a single tone or carrier as far as a SSB amp goes. With this much compression no reasonable amount of capacitors can be useful on the 12 volt lead. On the other hand just and intermittent spike here and there will only require a minimal amount of capacitance on the 12 volt lead and can make a difference. If you graphically plotted the capacitance needed for total compression (carrier), to no compression (spikes), then you would have a linear graph that would show that the amount of capacitance needed is directly related to the percent of the duty of the amp. The caps work better if the have time to recover. If they can't recover then the are useless. A SSB signal has more compression than a HI-FI signal., so dx1600 with one farad on SSB would be one of those points in between. total compression and no compression It wouldn't have adequate time to recover in order to be worth the cost. |
In , wrote:
On Tue, 09 Dec 2003 20:14:59 -0800, Frank Gilliland wrote: In , wrote: snip I haven't given up on you yet, Tnom: You should. You are looking more and more like a fool. Time for you to fold. Why should -I- fold? You can't address the facts even when they are presented in a form that -you- can understand! Do you need Dr. Seuss to explain it to you? ============= "...but I admitted I was wrong, Like a man! Something you and QRM have a problem with. You guys are wrong and you both know it and are both too small to admit it." ---- Twistedhed ---- ============= -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =----- |
In , wrote:
On Tue, 09 Dec 2003 19:51:03 -0800, Frank Gilliland wrote: In , wrote: I would tell you to go back to school but I'm afraid that wouldn't help. What you actually need is common sense. You actually believe that a SSB voice amplifier operation can be directly compared to a music audio amplifier operation. The envelope of an SSB signal is nothing more than pure audio. That's what makes it so much more efficient than AM -- no overhead from a continuous carrier, and no redundancy due to an extra sideband. Got a public library nearby? Need a reference? I see you are ignoring compression again. We all no the truth now. Your SSB signal has no compression, therefore you sound like a mouse. No wonder no one pays any attention to what you say. Sure it does. Just like a power supply. A half wave power supply take more filter caps than a full wave. Just like a power supply the more current you draw the more capacitance needed. Compression has everything to do with audio caps. The caps need time to recover to be useful. If the signal is compressed the recovery time is shortened. "COMPRESSION HAS EVERTHING TO DO WITH IT, YOU IMBECILE!!!" Are you compressing the audio into a square wave, Tnom? ============= "...but I admitted I was wrong, Like a man! Something you and QRM have a problem with. You guys are wrong and you both know it and are both too small to admit it." ---- Twistedhed ---- ============= -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =----- |
In , wrote:
The DC input power follows the audio input, compressed or not. Is that concept too difficult for you to comprehend? Trying to create a divergence away from the truth? Hardly. I'm trying to make you understand a fundamental concept of radio communications that has eluded your meager education. The truth is not gained by equating DC input to output. The truth is gained by comparing SSB audio compression levels to that of HI- FI audio compression levels. You are truly lost. More accurately you are truly lacking in common sense. A compressed audio signal at its highest compression would approach a single tone or carrier as far as a SSB amp goes. With this much compression no reasonable amount of capacitors can be useful on the 12 volt lead. Math, Tnom. Where's the math? On the other hand just and intermittent spike here and there will only require a minimal amount of capacitance on the 12 volt lead and can make a difference. If you graphically plotted the capacitance needed for total compression (carrier), to no compression (spikes), then you would have a linear graph that would show that the amount of capacitance needed is directly related to the percent of the duty of the amp. Plot it and post it. The caps work better if the have time to recover. If they can't recover then the are useless. A SSB signal has more compression than a HI-FI signal., so dx1600 with one farad on SSB would be one of those points in between. total compression and no compression It wouldn't have adequate time to recover in order to be worth the cost. Math, Tnom. Where's the math, you worthless pile of troll dung? ============= "...but I admitted I was wrong, Like a man! Something you and QRM have a problem with. You guys are wrong and you both know it and are both too small to admit it." ---- Twistedhed ---- ============= -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =----- |
JJ wrote:
Dr. Death wrote: no...on car audio its in series with the positive feed I don't think a capacitor in series with the DC power lead of a car audio system is going to work very well. wrote in message ... On Mon, 8 Dec 2003 03:23:00 -0600, "Dr. Death" wrote: I noticed that a lot of high end auto audio systems use a capacitor in series with the main power lead to the amplifies so the amp hits harder. This is more audiophool nonsense than anything else. This does indeed help with audio amplifiers (especialy subwoofer amps) a large capacitor (ie. 1 Farad) is placed in *paralel* (as in across) the + and - power leads,just like the battery would be.The cap acts much like a filter cap in a power supply. I put a little over 0.1F (100,000uf) on my 400W sub amp,and it made a big difference.I suspect it might be useful for mobile RF amps aswell. |
Just a note,Think of ESR as how fast a capacitor will charge/discharge.
As Frank pointed out,think of slower caps acting more like rechargeable batteries,that's too slow to filter out audio peaks,let alone RF. At high current levels,wire resistance becomes an important factor,and caps can help with the inherent voltage drop/sag. Frank Gilliland wrote: In 9McBb.1407$8y1.13274@attbi_s52, "MasterCBer" wrote: Well lets see here DOC and Frank Have you tried a Large farad cap on your amp? I use caps on just about everything mobile. They work great to get the low-end from an audio amp. No, I don't run an RF amp, base or mobile. Yes, I have intalled a few; and yes, they do run better with a big cap on the power leads. By 'better' I mean that the audio is cleaner and IMD is reduced. I thought not. No you didn't. So unless you have then don't cut it. Frank you need to learn what ESR is you ****en dum ass. These cap have a very LOW ESR as I said in my first post I or do you not read very well. From Cornell Dubilier: 381LX473M016A452 47000 uFd @ 16 VDC 0.017 ohms @ 120 Hz 0.013 ohms @ 20 kHz Now you can probably find farad-sized electrolytics -advertised- for lower ESR, but they don't tell you the frequency or conditions under which that ESR was measured. There are engineering standards for measuring such things as ESR. Industry has to deal with these standards all the time. But as long as these caps are not marketed for industrial use the manufacturers can declare an ESR that is measured in any way they want, even by measuring the cap in a series resonant circuit with a high impedance source. IOW, it's a lot of hype, just like the ridiculous gain figures that are advertised for some CB antennas. About the lowest -real- ESR you will find among those ultra-high-density caps is about 0.2 ohms, and it will cost you most of a paycheck (two or three paychecks if you have a McJob). The problem here is one that has existed since the first capacitor was invented: There is a tradeoff between charge density (uF per cubic inch) and ESR. Whenever the physical size of a capacitor gets too large, it usually dictates a different type of capacitor. A 1 farad air capacitor would have an extremely low ESR, but it would probably be as big as an aircraft carrier (which would introduce other problems, but those are ignored for the sake of this example). If it was an oil/paper capacitor it might be as big as a house. Even an aluminum electrolytic of 1 farad would still be quite large for a mobile application. So these monster caps are built with a different type of electrolytic process, one that packs more farads into a smaller space, but at the expense of increased dielectric absorption/hysteresis, i.e, a higher ESR. Put more simply, if these big caps were as good as the advertisers claim them to be, they would have replaced aluminum electrolytics a long, long time ago. They haven't. Put even more simply, if it looks too good to be true, it probably is. If you don't believe me, buy one and measure it yourself. You will need a very low impedance source and load, then measure the difference in ripple voltage on a scope. Post the results. And just to make my point about smaller caps in parallel being better than one big cap: 381LX472M016H012 4700 uFd @ 16 VDC 0.113 ohms @ 120 Hz 0.085 ohms @ 20 kHz Put ten of the 4700 uFd caps in parallel and you have 47000 uFd, but with an ESR of 0.0113 ohms @ 120 Hz and 0.0085 @ 20 kHz, which is better than the 47000 uFd capacitor. This value would drop the source impedance (in my example from the previous post) from 0.0163 ohms to 0.0067 ohms, meaning the voltage will only drop 0.53 volts on a peak. So in this example, the caps give back three-quarters of the power that is missing from the peaks when run without the caps. Compare that to any size cap with an ESR of 0.2 ohms. ============= "...but I admitted I was wrong, Like a man! Something you and QRM have a problem with. You guys are wrong and you both know it and are both too small to admit it." ---- Twistedhed ---- ============= -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =----- |
Frank Gilliland wrote:
In , wrote: I would tell you to go back to school but I'm afraid that wouldn't help. What you actually need is common sense. You actually believe that a SSB voice amplifier operation can be directly compared to a music audio amplifier operation. The envelope of an SSB signal is nothing more than pure audio. That's what makes it so much more efficient than AM -- no overhead from a continuous carrier, and no redundancy due to an extra sideband. Got a public library nearby? Need a reference? I see you are ignoring compression again. We all no the truth now. Your SSB signal has no compression, therefore you sound like a mouse. No wonder no one pays any attention to what you say. COMPRESSION HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH IT, YOU IMBECILE!!! No audio = no RF = quiescient power drain! Good God, man, don't you have ANY reference handy? An ARRL handbook maybe? If you have an SSB amp that is 50% efficient and you input a single-tone audio sine wave for an output of 100 watts, what's the power input? 200 watts + quiescient power. For an output of 200 watts the input is 400 watts + quiescient power. Are you getting it? Or do I need to draw you a picture for when you aren't stoned? Evidently, he's one of those guys who believes in running the compression up to the point where a mouse fart in the next room will move the power meter, and average voice peaks disappear into an almost carrier steady power which rarely drops below 75% of peak...... In that case, the amp will be drawing more power that a capacitor can make up for. Dave "Sandbagger" |
Simple test, Put a scope across the DC supply lines next to the Amp, Look at
the audio effect on the voltage ( SSB mode ), Next hook up a Cap as discussed, Now look at the audio ripple, if I need to tell HOW to hook up the scope, then you don't need to brother with this. Simple enough. "Steveo" wrote in message ... William Wallace wrote: he is a cber and they have all those cb myths to follow. You're a CB wanna be troll. |
In article , William Wallace says...
Frank Gilliland wrote in : In , wrote: On Tue, 09 Dec 2003 20:14:59 -0800, Frank Gilliland wrote: In , wrote: snip I haven't given up on you yet, Tnom: You should. You are looking more and more like a fool. Time for you to fold. Why should -I- fold? You can't address the facts even when they are presented in a form that -you- can understand! Do you need Dr. Seuss to explain it to you? Easy Frank, your making this guy look like a real jackass, besides he is a cber and they have all those cb myths to follow. ZOLTAN say If we took the collective stupidity of every low-life imbecile known since the evolution of man, it might be close to the complete lack of brain function you posess . |
Math, Tnom. Where's the math, you worthless pile of troll dung? Common sense. where's your common sense? "you worthless pile of troll dung" |
Evidently, he's one of those guys who believes in running the compression up to the point where a mouse fart in the next room will move the power meter, and average voice peaks disappear into an almost carrier steady power which rarely drops below 75% of peak...... In that case, the amp will be drawing more power that a capacitor can make up for. Dave "Sandbagger" Even though you don't know it, you are agreeing with me. Take a listen to SSB voice on any amateur band or CB if you like. The preferred SSB signal is one which enhances its intelligibility. This is done with some sort of compression which will be a point in between your example and no compression at all. Recovery time is reduced with compression, and simply put the $50 spent on a capacitor can be better spent. |
On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 15:49:20 GMT, "MasterCBer"
wrote: Simple test, Put a scope across the DC supply lines next to the Amp, Look at the audio effect on the voltage ( SSB mode ), Next hook up a Cap as discussed, Now look at the audio ripple, if I need to tell HOW to hook up the scope, then you don't need to brother with this. Simple enough. Wait just a minute. If the radio at the receiving end of this 1 faraded dx1600's signal can't tell the difference then why the heck would any one spend $50? Simple enough? |
I could care less about what the receiver could see, sure I would spend $50
bucks to help keep the audio waveform from ridding along my electrical system, and help the amp out also. I also do not run compression on my radio,and it sounds good. ( Must be the cap ) Ha Ha. Like they say, Don't knock it until you try it, you might look like a fool. wrote in message ... On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 15:49:20 GMT, "MasterCBer" wrote: Simple test, Put a scope across the DC supply lines next to the Amp, Look at the audio effect on the voltage ( SSB mode ), Next hook up a Cap as discussed, Now look at the audio ripple, if I need to tell HOW to hook up the scope, then you don't need to brother with this. Simple enough. Wait just a minute. If the radio at the receiving end of this 1 faraded dx1600's signal can't tell the difference then why the heck would any one spend $50? Simple enough? |
In , wrote:
Math, Tnom. Where's the math, you worthless pile of troll dung? Common sense. where's your common sense? "you worthless pile of troll dung" "Common sense" is not "fact", nor is it objective. You were whining about facts earlier. Where are your facts? Where's the math, Tnom? ============= "...but I admitted I was wrong, Like a man! Something you and QRM have a problem with. You guys are wrong and you both know it and are both too small to admit it." ---- Twistedhed ---- ============= -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =----- |
snip
"you worthless pile of troll dung" "Common sense" is not "fact", nor is it objective. You were whining about facts earlier. Where are your facts? I already stated the facts. I'll quote it again. "you worthless pile of troll dung" |
In , wrote:
snip "you worthless pile of troll dung" "Common sense" is not "fact", nor is it objective. You were whining about facts earlier. Where are your facts? I already stated the facts. I'll quote it again. "you worthless pile of troll dung" And every word is absolutely true as long as you fail to provide facts to back up your bull****. Got math? ============= "...but I admitted I was wrong, Like a man! Something you and QRM have a problem with. You guys are wrong and you both know it and are both too small to admit it." ---- Twistedhed ---- ============= -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =----- |
And every word is absolutely true as long as you fail to provide facts to back up your bull****. Got math? You want math...........Troll + Fiction = Frank |
In , wrote:
And every word is absolutely true as long as you fail to provide facts to back up your bull****. Got math? You want math...........Troll + Fiction = Frank Oh, I get it. You want the last word, as if that will somehow substantiate your claims in the absence of facts. Go for it, Tnom. ============= "...but I admitted I was wrong, Like a man! Something you and QRM have a problem with. You guys are wrong and you both know it and are both too small to admit it." ---- Twistedhed ---- ============= -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =----- |
On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 23:49:54 -0800, Frank Gilliland
wrote: In , wrote: And every word is absolutely true as long as you fail to provide facts to back up your bull****. Got math? You want math...........Troll + Fiction = Frank Oh, I get it. You want the last word, as if that will somehow substantiate your claims in the absence of facts. Go for it, Tnom. No. I just stated the facts. You and your fellow anti-CBer's, don't even suggest that you promote the hobby, have no purpose in this group other than to cause as much disruption as you can. You have proven this time and time again. |
|
In , Dave Hall wrote:
snip ..... and simply put the $50 spent on a capacitor can be better spent. I can use it to buy a deep cycle battery. I'm sure that would do a better job..... You can pick up a small boxfull of old computer caps from the local scrapyard for just a few bucks (at least you can around here), and if you do I think you will find that they work better than both the monster cap and the deep-cycle. It certainly won't hurt your wallet to try. ============= "...but I admitted I was wrong, Like a man! Something you and QRM have a problem with. You guys are wrong and you both know it and are both too small to admit it." ---- Twistedhed ---- ============= -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =----- |
snip
Even though you don't know it, you are agreeing with me. I wan't trying to disagree with you. Take a listen to SSB voice on any amateur band or CB if you like. The preferred SSB signal is one which enhances its intelligibility. This is done with some sort of compression which will be a point in between your example and no compression at all. Sure, I do it all the time, just not to the extreme. But as long as there is some sort of correlation between audio peaks, and current draw, there will be peaks and nulls which can be filled in to some (however small) degree by a filter cap. Well, I have no problem with the theory behind stiffening caps. They do work, but the crux of the issue is to what extent they work in the original example (1 farad, dx1600, SSB) If you were listening to the above example you would not be able to tell if the set up was capped or not. Recovery time is reduced with compression, and simply put the $50 spent on a capacitor can be better spent. I can use it to buy a deep cycle battery. I'm sure that would do a better job..... If I had the extra $50 I would make better use of it on a echo mike. Just kidding. Dave "Sandbagger" |
In , wrote:
snip Even though you don't know it, you are agreeing with me. I wan't trying to disagree with you. Take a listen to SSB voice on any amateur band or CB if you like. The preferred SSB signal is one which enhances its intelligibility. This is done with some sort of compression which will be a point in between your example and no compression at all. Sure, I do it all the time, just not to the extreme. But as long as there is some sort of correlation between audio peaks, and current draw, there will be peaks and nulls which can be filled in to some (however small) degree by a filter cap. Well, I have no problem with the theory behind stiffening caps. They do work, but the crux of the issue is to what extent they work in the original example (1 farad, dx1600, SSB) If you were listening to the above example you would not be able to tell if the set up was capped or not. Do it yourself. Rig up a box-o-caps through a switch. Then have someone do some talking with and without the caps. I think you will notice a difference, even if you are just running barefoot. Recovery time is reduced with compression, and simply put the $50 spent on a capacitor can be better spent. I can use it to buy a deep cycle battery. I'm sure that would do a better job..... If I had the extra $50 I would make better use of it on a echo mike. Just kidding. You can get a MidiVerb for that much. ============= "...but I admitted I was wrong, Like a man! Something you and QRM have a problem with. You guys are wrong and you both know it and are both too small to admit it." ---- Twistedhed ---- ============= -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =----- |
snip Well, I have no problem with the theory behind stiffening caps. They do work, but the crux of the issue is to what extent they work in the original example (1 farad, dx1600, SSB) If you were listening to the above example you would not be able to tell if the set up was capped or not. Do it yourself. Rig up a box-o-caps through a switch. Then have someone do some talking with and without the caps. I think you will notice a difference, even if you are just running barefoot. Frank, you are asking me to participate in something illegal. Maybe you should retract your suggestion. After all, you wouldn't want to spoil your reputation. |
I'll add to that those wonderful "Monster caps" that are those High farad
values of 5, 15, and 50 Farads (Thanks alot Alumapro, and Pheonix Gold) are junk. Even if the measured or stated (ESR) is low. The other problem is ESL, equivlent series inductance. The ESL is kind of like a the responsecurve of a VSWR curver through the frequency rage of a Antenna. The ESL changes with freq. Now that may be low with a DC circuit. But the minute you start fluctuating that current and voltage, the ESL Will start to rear it ugly head. Remember L = Inductace is the Opposition to current flow. If you really want some good imput on this hit up Carsound.com Forums and look up under Richard Clarks Archived topis for Capacitors. "Frank Gilliland" wrote in message ... In , "Dr. Death" wrote: I noticed that a lot of high end auto audio systems use a capacitor in series with the main power lead to the amplifies so the amp hits harder. Could this same principle be applied to ssb, I think it can. place a 1 farad audio cap inline with the power lead to say a Texas star dx1600 and you run the rig on ssb the cap will discharge under peak load giving you a higher average output. Any comments? (and I mean REAL comments) Even though you are a troll, you actually raise a good point here. Now I'm assuming you meant that the capacitor is connected in parallel with the power supply leads, because if it were connected in series you would get no power. In an SSB amp the RF power follows the audio, and will therefore have a current draw that varies at audio frequencies. A capacitor placed across the power leads of the amp, when combined with the inherent resistance of the wires from the battery, creates a simple low-pass filter which will help smooth out those 'audio' peaks. The bigger the amp, the bigger the cap. And keep the leads from the amp to the cap as short as possible. BTW, this type of filter won't do much in AM service since the current drawn by the amp in AM is fairly steady (at least it -should- be, i.e, it's not amplifying a signal loaded with overmodulation and 'swang'). But it -will- filter out noise from the power supply. A word about those 'moster caps' for audio amps: Most of them have a high equivalent series resistance (ESR) which defeats the purpose of using them. They behave more like a rechargeable battery than a capacitor. Locate your local computer junkyard and get some of those big electrolytics from the mainframe power supplies. Typically, just one 100,000 uFd aluminum electrolytic has a lower ESR than a 1.0 farad 'monster' cap. Also remember that you can reduce the ESR by putting capacitors in parallel. Ten 10,000 uFd caps in parallel will have a much better ESR, and therefore much better filtering ability, than one 100,000 uFd capacitor of the same type, even though the total mFd value is the same. ============= "...but I admitted I was wrong, Like a man! Something you and QRM have a problem with. You guys are wrong and you both know it and are both too small to admit it." ---- Twistedhed ---- ============= -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =----- |
I think what you stated below is what we in the Car Audio world Call "The
point of diminishing returns" wrote in message ... On Tue, 09 Dec 2003 16:07:37 -0600, 'Doc wrote: The point being, if the power supply is not capable of supplying the current required on SSB voice peaks, then the power supply is too small to start with. The logical 'cure' for a 'too small' power supply is a larger power supply. Any thing else is a 'kloodge', a crutch to prop up a cripple. A capacitor does supply some additional current to the system if it's large enough, but even with very large capacitors the supplied current is going to be very, very tiny in relation to the total current draw. Something else you should remember is that the power supply is also going to have to charge or re-charge that capacitor when it is drained. That means that there is no increase in total current in the system, in fact, there is a decrease since capacitors are not 100% efficient (they do have loss). This means that the current demand on the power supply has increased and the 'hole' is just getting deeper. Capacitors 'work' in audio systems because they 'rob' current from one part of the audio signal and 'deposit' it in another part of the audio signal. If the purpose is to accentuate the high frequencies, then the 'extra' power is robbed from the lower frequencies (or visa-versa). The total average power of the audio signal is not changed (increased), it's only re- ditributed. Some things with audio system do carry over in to RF power amplification systems, but the use of capacitors in the way you want to use them, isn't one of them... 'Doc Another point is you can't equate SSB voice to music program audio. There is the difference in compression. A direct ratio of the capacitance needed applies to the peak to average ratio of the power output. If your peak to average ratio in amplifier "A" is one half of amplifier "B" then the capacitance needed for amplifier "A" is twice as much as amplifier"B". Music programming by default is suppose to be a true representation of the audio. It requires a large dynamic range. The way this is done is to not use much compression. Music programming has a very large peak to average power ratio. SSB voice is just the opposite. The preferred way to communicate with SSB is to create a high order of intelligibility. This is done with some sort of compression. Compression is desirable with a SSB voice signal. A minimum of 6db of compression over music programming is used. The compression is normally quite a bit higher than 6db. This all means that a SSB voice signal requires (6db) 4 times the capacitance that a HI-FI audio signal requires. It is common practice with audio amps to suggest a minimum of one farad for ever 1000 watts of HI-FI audio, therefore a SSB voice signal would require four farads for 1000 watts or in our case 6 farads for a 1500 watt dx1600. 1 farad cost $50, so we need $300 worth of capacitors in order to see a difference. $300 dollars can better be spent on another battery or two, or better yet a higher capacity alternator. Bottom line on capacitors for SSB............Not worth the money. |
Thats great if we all talked ina single sinusoidal wave form voice. I think
what is trying to be explained here is taking the Crest factor of the Output of the amplifier. Seeing that Audio output is still dynamic, there is a averaging or Crest factor involved. Hey but what do I know, I am a retard Audio head, that has kind plays with RF as a hobby. :) "Frank Gilliland" wrote in message ... In , wrote: I would tell you to go back to school but I'm afraid that wouldn't help. What you actually need is common sense. You actually believe that a SSB voice amplifier operation can be directly compared to a music audio amplifier operation. The envelope of an SSB signal is nothing more than pure audio. That's what makes it so much more efficient than AM -- no overhead from a continuous carrier, and no redundancy due to an extra sideband. Got a public library nearby? Need a reference? I see you are ignoring compression again. We all no the truth now. Your SSB signal has no compression, therefore you sound like a mouse. No wonder no one pays any attention to what you say. COMPRESSION HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH IT, YOU IMBECILE!!! No audio = no RF = quiescient power drain! Good God, man, don't you have ANY reference handy? An ARRL handbook maybe? If you have an SSB amp that is 50% efficient and you input a single-tone audio sine wave for an output of 100 watts, what's the power input? 200 watts + quiescient power. For an output of 200 watts the input is 400 watts + quiescient power. Are you getting it? Or do I need to draw you a picture for when you aren't stoned? ============= "...but I admitted I was wrong, Like a man! Something you and QRM have a problem with. You guys are wrong and you both know it and are both too small to admit it." ---- Twistedhed ---- ============= -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =----- |
In , wrote:
snip Well, I have no problem with the theory behind stiffening caps. They do work, but the crux of the issue is to what extent they work in the original example (1 farad, dx1600, SSB) If you were listening to the above example you would not be able to tell if the set up was capped or not. Do it yourself. Rig up a box-o-caps through a switch. Then have someone do some talking with and without the caps. I think you will notice a difference, even if you are just running barefoot. Frank, you are asking me to participate in something illegal. Since when is illegal to run barefoot (legal power)? Maybe you should retract your suggestion. After all, you wouldn't want to spoil your reputation. I retract nothing, -especially- after listening to the Powell interview on Screensavers. It's clear that he has no interest in anything analog, and is basically leaving the users of the license-free services to fend for themselves. He ducked the hard questions, like why the FCC is kissing the collective ass of industry while ignoring the public interest, then passes the buck by claiming it is the responsibility of -industry- to listen and respond to what the public wants. Talk about dancing around the issue -- it was almost like Twisty himself was answering the questions! Until we get a new FCC Chairman, one that has some balls and isn't on the take, you won't hear any more legalese out of me. But I will -still- be speaking my mind when it comes to RF mythology and half-educated 'techs'. Hell, I might even build an amp or two just to show y'all how it's done! ============= "...but I admitted I was wrong, Like a man! Something you and QRM have a problem with. You guys are wrong and you both know it and are both too small to admit it." ---- Twistedhed ---- ============= -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =----- |
That's not true at all. Frank is filled with lot's of useless information that
nobody needs to know. No. I just stated the facts. You and your fellow anti-CBer's, don't even suggest that you promote the hobby, have no purpose in this group other than to cause as much disruption as you can. You have proven this time and time again. |
In ,
(AstroDome3cx5000) wrote: That's not true at all. Frank is filled with lot's of useless information that nobody needs to know. No. I just stated the facts. You and your fellow anti-CBer's, don't even suggest that you promote the hobby, have no purpose in this group other than to cause as much disruption as you can. You have proven this time and time again. My newsreader must have missed Tnoms post: You claim to state the facts, but you don't even know what the facts are. I am -not- against CB. I'm a CBer myself. I -do- encourage people to use CB =as the service was intended to be used=. And even though I don't respect the flagrant violations of law that are done by CBers and Hammies alike, nor do I agree with the in-your-face theory of changing laws, I -do- encourage people to learn a bit about what they are doing from an electronics perspective. Part of that consists of CB myth-busting and exposing voodoo techs. It also consists of discussing RF amplifier topologies -- just as long as it gives people a better understanding of how radio really works. And just to clue you in, Tnom, radio works based on principles of physics that have been applied sucessfully for over a century, the effects of which are measurable, predictable, and for all practical purposes, FACT. It does -not- work by ignoring those facts in favor of unqualified assumptions such as "won't make a difference" and overly simplistic principles such as "it's part of a bigger picture" (did you hear that, Skippy?). Now, where are your facts, Tnom? Where's the math? ============= "...but I admitted I was wrong, Like a man! Something you and QRM have a problem with. You guys are wrong and you both know it and are both too small to admit it." ---- Twistedhed ---- ============= -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =----- |
On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 20:55:06 -0800, Frank Gilliland
wrote: In , (AstroDome3cx5000) wrote: That's not true at all. Frank is filled with lot's of useless information that nobody needs to know. No. I just stated the facts. You and your fellow anti-CBer's, don't even suggest that you promote the hobby, have no purpose in this group other than to cause as much disruption as you can. You have proven this time and time again. My newsreader must have missed Tnoms post: You claim to state the facts, but you don't even know what the facts are. I am -not- against CB. I'm a CBer myself. I -do- encourage people to use CB =as the service was intended to be used=. And even though I don't respect the flagrant violations of law that are done by CBers and Hammies alike, nor do I agree with the in-your-face theory of changing laws, I -do- encourage people to learn a bit about what they are doing from an electronics perspective. Part of that consists of CB myth-busting and exposing voodoo techs. It also consists of discussing RF amplifier topologies -- just as long as it gives people a better understanding of how radio really works. And just to clue you in, Tnom, radio works based on principles of physics that have been applied sucessfully for over a century, the effects of which are measurable, predictable, and for all practical purposes, FACT. It does -not- work by ignoring those facts in favor of unqualified assumptions such as "won't make a difference" and overly simplistic principles such as "it's part of a bigger picture" (did you hear that, Skippy?). Now, where are your facts, Tnom? Where's the math? I wouldn't give you anything other than it is blatantly obvious that you are no friend to this news group, regardless of your opinion of yourself. |
Here are the facts, Frankie,,the ones you conveniently left out. In
adition to your self-stated,, horn-blowing non-achievements and posts, you also are rude and ignorant, your posts laden with unprovoked insults to any and all who ever disagreed with you on any subject. You attempted to intimidate me by posting and reposting a name you thought was mine that you since then have backed off,,,,LOL,wht happened to that "I guarantee Twisty is Dave McCampbell"?,,,LOL. Fool. You can paint your self-image with any brush you wish,it matters none,,,this group sees you for what I have made you.,,a mad, stark raving lunatic with no life and a penchant for foul language and induced strife on the ng. A regular loser...LOL! |
|
In , wrote:
On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 09:13:20 -0500 (EST), (Twistedhed) wrote: Here are the facts, Frankie,,the ones you conveniently left out. In adition to your self-stated,, horn-blowing non-achievements and posts, you also are rude and ignorant, your posts laden with unprovoked insults to any and all who ever disagreed with you on any subject. You attempted to intimidate me by posting and reposting a name you thought was mine that you since then have backed off,,,,LOL,wht happened to that "I guarantee Twisty is Dave McCampbell"?,,,LOL. Fool. You can paint your self-image with any brush you wish,it matters none,,,this group sees you for what I have made you.,,a mad, stark raving lunatic with no life and a penchant for foul language and induced strife on the ng. A regular loser...LOL! There's no reason to go so easy on this guy. He deserves what he gets. Which is much more than the above post. You are no better at providing facts to back up your statements than Twistedave. "One thing I am not surprised at........You will ignore the facts, like you normally do to flame the group or express your pseudo theory." -- Tnom Where are -your- facts, Tnom? ============= "...but I admitted I was wrong, Like a man! Something you and QRM have a problem with. You guys are wrong and you both know it and are both too small to admit it." ---- Twistedhed ---- ============= -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =----- |
|
..
"One thing I am not surprised at........You will ignore the facts, like you normally do to flame the group or express your pseudo theory." -- Tnom Where are -your- facts, Tnom? How can I ignore the facts when they keep on reminding me that you're just a sour old man that has nothing better to do than disrupt this news group. Your attempt to disguise your posts as meaningful, but in truth they are nothing more than a vehicle to convey your disruptive agenda. |
|
In , wrote:
. "One thing I am not surprised at........You will ignore the facts, like you normally do to flame the group or express your pseudo theory." -- Tnom Where are -your- facts, Tnom? How can I ignore the facts when they keep on reminding me that you're just a sour old man that has nothing better to do than disrupt this news group. Your attempt to disguise your posts as meaningful, but in truth they are nothing more than a vehicle to convey your disruptive agenda. I don't disrupt this newsgroup any more than anyone else. But I do enjoy disrupting the proliferation of unsubstantiated technical mumbo-jumbo spread by CB soothsayers such as yourself. Now where are your facts, Tnom? You don't have any. That's obvious, even to the most casual observer. The only reason you keep nagging me is because -you- have grown bitter about being proven wrong time and time again. But that's not my fault, Tnom. It is -you- that is driven by a need to feel important, and it is -you- that chose to seek recognition in this newsgroup by trying to sell yourself as someone who is technically competent. Don't blame me for your failures, Tnom. ============= "...but I admitted I was wrong, Like a man! Something you and QRM have a problem with. You guys are wrong and you both know it and are both too small to admit it." ---- Twistedhed ---- ============= -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =----- |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:02 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com