| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
|
|
#1
December 10th 03, 04:13 AM
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
|
#3
December 10th 03, 04:32 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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. |
|
#4
December 10th 03, 04:51 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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! =----- |
|
#5
December 10th 03, 11:04 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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!!!" |
|
#6
December 10th 03, 12:25 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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. You are responding to your own words, you idiot. "COMPRESSION HAS EVERTHING TO DO WITH IT, YOU IMBECILE!!!" Where's the math, Tnom? For cryin' out loud, I'm so bad at math lately that you could probably swing anything past me and I would agree. But you don't even try. Why don't you even try, Tnom? (yes, that's a trick question). ============= "...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! =----- |
|
#7
December 10th 03, 12:36 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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! =----- |
|
#8
December 10th 03, 03:25 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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" |
|
#9
December 10th 03, 09:44 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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. |
Hybrid Mode
