In , wrote:



The power demands of an SSB amp are roughly equivalent to an audio amp simply
because of the way SSB works (low input signal, low output power; high input
signal, high output power). The current draw follows the audio almost perfectly.
Caps -do- help for SSB.

Not even close. SSB prefers compression and HI-FI abhors it.

The difference between the two is a least 6db, therefore SSB takes
4 times the capacitance to make the same difference that a HI-FI
could show by using these caps.

The DC input power follows the audio input, compressed or not. Is that concept
too difficult for you to comprehend?

The example (dx1600) requires at least 6 farads to make a difference.

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! =-----

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! =-----

On Tue, 09 Dec 2003 19:12:21 -0800, Frank Gilliland
wrote:

In , wrote:



The power demands of an SSB amp are roughly equivalent to an audio amp simply
because of the way SSB works (low input signal, low output power; high input
signal, high output power). The current draw follows the audio almost perfectly.
Caps -do- help for SSB.

Not even close. SSB prefers compression and HI-FI abhors it.

The difference between the two is a least 6db, therefore SSB takes
4 times the capacitance to make the same difference that a HI-FI
could show by using these caps.

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?

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.

The example (dx1600) requires at least 6 farads to make a difference.

Where's the math, Tnom?

m, 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! =-----

In , wrote:

On Tue, 09 Dec 2003 19:12:21 -0800, Frank Gilliland
wrote:

In , wrote:



The power demands of an SSB amp are roughly equivalent to an audio amp simply
because of the way SSB works (low input signal, low output power; high input
signal, high output power). The current draw follows the audio almost perfectly.
Caps -do- help for SSB.

Not even close. SSB prefers compression and HI-FI abhors it.

The difference between the two is a least 6db, therefore SSB takes
4 times the capacitance to make the same difference that a HI-FI
could show by using these caps.

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.






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

"...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! =-----

I do agree with you Frank, that Audio power draw is very close to SSB power
draw from the Power supply, Battery, or alternator in a car system.
I do not run RF compression even if it does in the amp, and if it does
compress, the cap still help in filling out the audio ripple on the supply
line.
..
O well enough on this.


"Frank Gilliland" wrote in message
...
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! =-----

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!!!"