So what exactly do you know about me that allows you to make that last statement. I taught Windows programming using most of those tools you mention and starting before you because I had a slight advantage.
Any more detail is none of your business or anyone else's here. And by the way, I was being kind to your Win8 app. I said nothing about your desktop version because I don't know it.
Just don't get into this Windows programming stuff with me. Wrong person on the receiving end. If you search long enough you might be able to find out what me job titles were from 1985 to 1995.
That works very well when the output current is relatively low compared to the maximum current output.
This probably limits the output current to ~~~10% of the maximum current for the divide by 3 rule to apply. 10% of maximum current is the same as 10% of the maximum power into 10 times the load impedance. Into the same load impedance 10% of maximum current is equivalent to 1% of maximum power.
Once the current increases towards maximum, then the subtraction for losses through the system become very significant and cannot be ignored, not even for a very short transient peak.
Last edited:
So why rip into the desktop version if you know nothing about it?
It is a very successful piece of software which has been developed over 20+ years.
I have a huge client base.
I have also designed 95 pcb's with it myself and so if there are any bugs I would definitely have found them by now.
As for the Win 8 free app.
That has some seriously good algorithms in it from the desktop app.
You have made a very basic mistake and that is criticise software before you have taken time to properly get into it.
Cursory criticisms like that are very amateur.
It is a very successful piece of software which has been developed over 20+ years.
I have a huge client base.
I have also designed 95 pcb's with it myself and so if there are any bugs I would definitely have found them by now.
As for the Win 8 free app.
That has some seriously good algorithms in it from the desktop app.
You have made a very basic mistake and that is criticise software before you have taken time to properly get into it.
Cursory criticisms like that are very amateur.
As far as I can tell I didn't say a single bad word about the desktop app.
I cannot get to the good stuff - the seriously good algorithms - in the Win8 app because it has so many user interface issues. That's what I think I wrote the first time around about the Win8 app also: "limited library, weird interface on Win8 ...". Maybe I should have written: too many Win8 UI issues. I can't get anything done in the free app.
No word ever from me about the quality of your algorithms ... I never used the word pcb.
Win8 UI issues, that's all. Try it on a couple more configurations.
I cannot get to the good stuff - the seriously good algorithms - in the Win8 app because it has so many user interface issues. That's what I think I wrote the first time around about the Win8 app also: "limited library, weird interface on Win8 ...". Maybe I should have written: too many Win8 UI issues. I can't get anything done in the free app.
No word ever from me about the quality of your algorithms ... I never used the word pcb.
Win8 UI issues, that's all. Try it on a couple more configurations.
The issues aren't with the app they are with Win 8 apps in general.
Win 8 apps don't have menu systems or dialogue boxes.
Therefore I had to write my own from scratch.
Its free for gods sake what more do you want ?
You can pay upwards of £10,000 for PCBCAD software.
Win 8 apps don't have menu systems or dialogue boxes.
Therefore I had to write my own from scratch.
Its free for gods sake what more do you want ?
You can pay upwards of £10,000 for PCBCAD software.
Why shouldn't people charge for software ?
It takes many man hours to create.
Its free software that kills off software companies who otherwise might have brought out something leading edge.
Would you work for free ?
I am getting out about +/- 42 volts on the scope.
So its not quite 500 watts but not far off.
No reason why it cant run off higher rails. The output transistors are conservatively rated.
Last edited:
so that makes it 84 volts peak to peak, or 84/2.8 for rms, i do it 84/3 = 28volts rms..
into 8 ohms load this results to 98 watts..
lesser than 196 into 40hms, assuming your amp can survive this...
this is what i meant to say in my post #7 above....
I have flogged it to death overdriving it for over an hour and the heatsink barely got warm.
This is what comes of specifying components properly.
And not designing it down to a price.
This is what comes of specifying components properly.
And not designing it down to a price.
42/1.414=29.7V and this is without a load i guess.
29.7*29.7/8=110W at 8ohm. 220W at 4ohm. 440W PEAK at 4ohm. and this is with NO voltage drop under load. so the acctual numbers will be lower.
and then there is the question, will only 2 output pairs handle 4ohm load and this amount of power over time?
29.7*29.7/8=110W at 8ohm. 220W at 4ohm. 440W PEAK at 4ohm. and this is with NO voltage drop under load. so the acctual numbers will be lower.
and then there is the question, will only 2 output pairs handle 4ohm load and this amount of power over time?
there is a happy combination of power traffo size, rail voltage and amplifier heatsinking that results is a robust amp for the power....looks like you hit it...😀
can you post pics of your amp please?
yes, dividing by 3 is much easier than by 2.8 specially if using pen and paper only, no point in being too accurate....😀
most likely it is more accurate too. one will have some voltage drop under load. so the acctual voltage will be lower then the calculation anyway🙂
Bigger picture.
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
Is this intended to help you understand what I wrote about your 3times rule?
Or, do you have a hidden agenda?
this is a diy'ers forum, when was the last time you posted a picture of your amp?
did i ask your help?