|
|||||||
| Home | Forums | Rules | Articles | Store | Gallery | Blogs | Register | Donations | FAQ | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read | Search |
| Tubes / Valves All about our sweet vacuum tubes :) Threads about Musical Instrument Amps of all kinds should be in the Instruments & Amps forum |
|
Please consider donating to help us continue to serve you.
Ads on/off / Custom Title / More PMs / More album space / Advanced printing & mass image saving |
|
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#1 |
|
diyAudio Member
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Istanbul/TURKEY
|
Hi,
According to RCA Receiving Tube Manual RC13, RCA Radiatron Manual RC10 and some books written in 50s and 60s, power output of a class A amplifier is calculated as: Poutput = (Imax - Imin) * (Emax - Emin) / 8 This is the power of fundamental frequency component of output signal (since this equation is derived from the fundamental frequency current * the fundamental frequency voltage). However, some DIYers (as they specify in their websites) calculates power output as (Imax - Imin) * (Emax - Emin). This seems to be equal to all power generated by tube. Is power output of commercial products calculated as the power output generated by tube ? or only the power of fundamental frequency of output signal ? If it is calculated as the power generated by tube, is it right to do it in this way in the view of electronics and/or hi-fi industry ? What is the safe range of power ratings for tube designs ? Is %10 less than rated power of tube enough for a safe design ? It is said transient peaks of music requires 10db-20db. This corresponds to have minimum 16W of power for 12db. Since this is seldom achieved with class A1 single ended designs, what is wrong with the assumptions above ? Is this related with dumping factor ? Thanks so much... PS: diyaudio forums are the best forums I have ever seen in the computer and electronics industry. Thanks to all people sharing their knowledge with others... MB |
|
|
|
#2 | ||
|
diyAudio Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: U.K.
|
Quote:
That is how most people here would understand it. remember however that Emax approaches 2* supply voltage with an inductive load, so Poutput approximates to 1/4 anode dissapation. Quote:
If I remember right, the regulations specifiy the maximum power input only. Is this the confusion? The Hi-Fi industry often stretches the truth. 10% Would be safe for NOS or good quality current production. Be aware however that manufacturers ratings for the same valve differ. Perhaps 20% is better. Your last question requires a lot of time to consider and debate. It is my belief that the use of high efficiency speakers, combined with the very gradual overload characteristics of A1 single ended make the results acceptable. There are few on this foum who enjoy SET (but I am one ).
|
||
|
|
|
#3 |
|
diyAudio Member
|
For triodes, efficiency (Po/Po+Pd) ranges from 10 to 30%. Pentodes range 15 to 40%. Both class A figures for a wide range of tubes and conditions (e.g. triode class A2). Although 40% pentode might be pushing the class B barrier at maybe 15% 2nd H...
Of course, the reason for loadlines is, among other things, to determine these quantities with accuracy before building the circuit. The full-length-of-load-line-divided-by-eight equation is the proper one. If you can figure out the derivation, you'll understand completely. (Although somehow I doubt you pray to the Goddess of Calculus <-- That's my professor's religion Full length divided by 4 would equal the squarewave output. There is no way you can "quadruple up time" and get *any* more power out of the tube. (Sometimes more power is possible in overdrive conditions, but these move the loadline, negating the conditions.) Speaking of my prof., he'd also say that that wrong equation looks like it was drawn up by a creative writing major ![]() BTW, if the loadline is reasonably symmetrical (if it isn't, that's a measure of even harmonics), you can take the figure of just one half, that is, (Imax-Io)*(Vo-Vmin)/4. Of course, best would be to average the two difference figures, which when put together yields the first (divde-by-8) equation. Tim |
|
|
|
#4 | ||||
|
diyAudio Member
|
Quote:
After a while, things stayed okay. Until about 10 years ago when some slimey ******* marketing employee came up with "PMPO". May he burn in hell... (And no there is not an actual definition to PMPO. It is utter BS. Go with your gut feeling based on size and weight etc. as to what a device so rated is capable of handling.) Quote:
Quote:
) so IME, I wouldn't worry about it. Others here are older and have had tubes die on them and can add some info..Quote:
), b). the peaks are lost in even distortion, which is more pleasing than odd, etc... That's what I would guess.Tim |
||||
|
|
|
#5 | |
|
diyAudio Member
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Now back in Sweden
|
Quote:
What kind of speakers do you own? Regards Hans BTW I use an OTL amp with my Lowther, average power seem to be ~10 - 50mW for my normal listening levels. |
|
|
|
|
#6 |
|
diyAudio Member
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Istanbul/TURKEY
|
tubetvr, you are right. I assumed the speakers have sensitivity around 85dB.
Sch3mat1c, I think I understood the derivation of (Emax-Emin)*(Imax-Imin)/8 equation. However, derivation starts with definition as rms power of the fundamental component in the output signal. Maybe I should look some other book or try to derive the equation myself in another way. Thanks... MB |
|
|
|
#7 | |
|
diyAudio Member
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Now back in Sweden
|
Quote:
Another solution is to build a class AB push-pull amp with KT88 or something similar, I have a schematic somewhere of a parallell push-pull amp using 4 KT88's pushing out >100W, however this is not the way I would go. OTL is another way to go but high power OTLs' using multiple parallell connected tubes often tend to be a bit unreliable even if doesn't have to be that way. Regards hans |
|
|
|
|
#8 | |
|
diyAudio Member
|
Quote:
Now, this definition tells us that harmonics are already taken into consideration, fundamental only need not apply. We've (well... we are supposed to ) already taken the RMS of the signal.The basic equation above doesn't take the actual RMS into account, but that won't account for much error. Voltages, currents, resistances and characteristics may be off by 10 or 20% anyways. Tim |
|
|
![]() |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| Power transformers versus amplifier output power..what is your option? | destroyer X | Solid State | 38 | 9th May 2009 05:23 PM |
| Quad II power amps......power output transformers!!! | bwes87 | Tubes / Valves | 3 | 10th September 2008 02:20 AM |
| Power output vs speaker power handling | Bob0513 | Chip Amps | 4 | 5th November 2006 10:41 AM |
| Output power VS Peak output power | Nordic | Chip Amps | 5 | 25th September 2005 05:08 AM |
| power output higher than power supply...How? | loonatron | Analogue Source | 9 | 24th March 2005 07:04 PM |
| New To Site? | Need Help? |