I concur.
The amplifier modulates the PSU current to become the signal current.
This is wrong.
Even ClassA amplifier, except for a very few exceptions, do not have constant current on the supply rails.
The ClassA amplifier modulates the PSU current to become the signal.
One applies a voltage to the load. The load demands a current and that current comes from the PSU.
When the signal voltage changes the load demands a changed current. That current still comes for the PSU.
The CURRENT out of the psu IS the signal current.
Crown Grounded Bridge inherently cancels ripple injection. And a single 6300uf cap used on a bridge is equivalent to two 25200's on split rails driving parallel amplifier channels. From a ripple voltage/current standpoint.
Another thing that's counter-intuitive about the whole ripple current capacitor thing is that using a transformer with poorer regulation actually helps get the ripple down. The leakage reactance makes it work like an LC filter which increases the condution angle of the rectifier, reducing ripple voltage to values much less than the simple I=C*dv/dt would suggest. Of course, the DC regulation is poorer but you can get a cleaner supply with less capacitance.
Another thing that's counter-intuitive about the whole ripple current capacitor thing is that using a transformer with poorer regulation actually helps get the ripple down. The leakage reactance makes it work like an LC filter which increases the condution angle of the rectifier, reducing ripple voltage to values much less than the simple I=C*dv/dt would suggest. Of course, the DC regulation is poorer but you can get a cleaner supply with less capacitance.
Aaah! You've got me doing it!
OK, impulse. It requires exactly the same impulse to increment velocity regardless of velocity. But impulse is the childhood experience of work, effort applied for a time, not force * distance.
OK, impulse. It requires exactly the same impulse to increment velocity regardless of velocity. But impulse is the childhood experience of work, effort applied for a time, not force * distance.
Let's say we have a constant force. Constant force equals constant acceleration. Work equals force times distance. The faster you go the more distance you cover per second means more work per second means more power. Eg. The force that accelerates a car is proportional to the torque on the wheels. At higher speeds the rpms are higher, so if the torque (force) is the same than the power is higher. (Power is rpm times torque).
Now the trick question. If a rocket has a constant thrust (force) how does it increase power at higher speeds?
Now the trick question. If a rocket has a constant thrust (force) how does it increase power at higher speeds?
It's not constant thrust.
It's pressure inside the combustion chamber and that pressure is related to the speed that the combustion gases exit the chamber.
Thrust = pressure times exit area.
Sorry rayma, you are of course perfectly correct, I should have said:-
'It takes exactly the same force applied for the same amount of time to accelerate a given mass from 1 m/S to 2 m/S as it does the same mass from 0 m/S to 1 m/S.'
The work or energy involved depends on the initial speed, which affects the distance through which the force acts.
while these guys would love to talk about it.....😀
i did something about it on my own.....😉 the owner is smiling from ear to ear....
16 KT88 triode wired, no global negative feedback...
broskie ccda line amp...
- Status
- Not open for further replies.