Snipped because your response is just to ridiculous to
even bother reading. In a nutshell your dribble implies that:

A one farad cap used on a large amp (dx1600) used on
SSB will make a difference.. It can't make any noticeable
difference at all.

A one farad cap by definition can only supply one amp
for one second at a one volt potential. It can not make any real
difference on a setup that requires 150 amps on voice peaks.

The current draw on voice peaks last long enough to deplete
the benefits a one farad cap instantaneously. If the cap is depleted
instantaneously then a standard SSB voice keyup would instantaneously
absorb all of the caps ability to hold a voltage and make a noticeable
difference in a voice communication.

The problem is not in the theory but in the relative usefulness of
one farad for a 1500 watt amp. One farad is not big enough.

In , wrote:


Snipped because your response is just to ridiculous to
even bother reading. In a nutshell your dribble implies that:

A one farad cap used on a large amp (dx1600) used on
SSB will make a difference.. It can't make any noticeable
difference at all.

A one farad cap by definition can only supply one amp
for one second at a one volt potential. It can not make any real
difference on a setup that requires 150 amps on voice peaks.

The current draw on voice peaks last long enough to deplete
the benefits a one farad cap instantaneously. If the cap is depleted
instantaneously then a standard SSB voice keyup would instantaneously
absorb all of the caps ability to hold a voltage and make a noticeable
difference in a voice communication.

Alright, we'll start with what you -do- understand. 1 farad = a charge
equivalent to 1 amp across 1 volt for 1 second. That means it can supply 2 amps
across 1 volt for 1/2 second, right? Or 4 amps across 1/4 volt for 1 second.
With me so far?

Now, is the cap going to be supplying the full 12.6 volts? No. It only has to
make up the voltage that was dropped by the inadequate impedance of the power
supply, which in this case is 1.3 volts.

Does the cap need to supply the full 79.4 amps? No. Again, it only needs to make
up the current that the power supply can't provide on a peak. The DC input
impedance of the amp is 0.16 ohms, so with a voltage drop of 1.3 volts the
current required by the caps is going to be 8.2 amps.

Does the cap need to continuously supply 8.2 amps @ 1.3 volts? No. Remember,
that is the -peak- draw by the amp, and occurs only for a fraction of the cycle.
What happens during the rest of the cycle? The capacitor charges back up! So how
long is the cycle? For audio amps the slowest cycle is 20 Hz, or 0.05 seconds.
And since we are only working the amp one half-cycle at a time, that reduces it
even further to 0.025 seconds. Under half of a 20 Hz audio cycle, the time the
amp is under peak load is typically going to be less than 1%. But even if the
amp spends an unbelievable 10% of the time under peak load, that's 10% of 0.025
seconds, or 0.0025 seconds.

Now we know that our cap needs to supply 1.3 volts @ 8.2 amps for 0.0025
seconds.

1.3 * 8.2 * 0.0025 = 0.0267 farads

IOW, not only does the cap make a difference, but a 1 farad cap is roughly 40
times bigger than required!

As I stated before, the difference lies in the ESR, only part of which is the
actual number of farads. A capacitor's internal resistance and dielectric
properties can make even a huge capacitor useless for certain applications.

The problem is not in the theory but in the relative usefulness of
one farad for a 1500 watt amp. One farad is not big enough.

Go back to school, 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! =-----

The problem is not in the theory but in the relative usefulness of
one farad for a 1500 watt amp. One farad is not big enough.

Go back to school, Tnom.

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.

In , wrote:


The problem is not in the theory but in the relative usefulness of
one farad for a 1500 watt amp. One farad is not big enough.

Go back to school, Tnom.

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?







=============

"...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 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.

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! =-----

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!!!"

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"

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


I haven't given up on you yet, Tnom:

You have an audio signal of a given frequency, say 400 Hz. Simple enough? Ok.
Now, compress the **** out of it. Is it still 400 Hz? YES! Now if it is -still-
400 Hz then it -still- crosses zero twice per cycle, right? YES! And unless you
have compressed it into a perfect square wave, it still spends some time where
the signal is less than full power, right? RIGHT! Now pick any point on the
audio wave. That point represents an equivalent amount of RF power, right?
RIGHT! Now one of the characteristics of SSB is that the RF power fluctuates
WITH THE AUDIO WAVE from zero to peak, right? RIGHT! So does that mean if, at
that point, the RF power output is xxx watts, for an amp that is 50% efficient,
the input power will be 2 * xxx watts? YES! Can you pick any point on the audio
curve and the same thing will be true? YES! Therefore, we can conclude that the
DC current drain on the power supply is proportional to the audio. And you know
what, Tnom? IT IS!!! Does it matter if the audio is compressed? NO!!!

Do you get it yet? Or are you going to pout and whine about me trying to distort
the truth?






=============

"...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! =-----