![]() |
Fuses
Don Pearce wrote:
hope we don't get a war of the axis label :-)) Big endians vs. little endians? No, bring back 24 bit ICL kit, octal made sense then. -- Nick |
Fuses
In article , Ian Bell
wrote: A colleague of mine did his PhD on fuses about 30 years ago. If you are still in contact with him it would be interesting to see what info he could provide on the topic of how they might affect impedance and distortion. Slainte, Jim -- Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm Audio Misc http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/AudioMisc/index.html Armstrong Audio http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/Audio/armstrong.html Barbirolli Soc. http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/JBSoc/JBSoc.html |
Fuses
In article , Oddjob
wrote: "Don Pearce" wrote in message ... On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 20:01:56 -0000, "Oddjob" wrote: Nice graph Jim :-) The labelling of your x y axis would be better (mathematically correct) by using / instead of ( ) Current / mA instead of Current (mA) Oddjob ;-) I've never bought this theory - that the axis of a graph is the other side of an equation. As far as I am concerned the graph axis is the current in milliamps - not one-over-milliamps (or current per milliamp as you have it, which is dimensionless). So it is Current (mA) - a good label Not Current / mA - an incorrect representation of what is on the graph. But the axis is the description of the quantity on the graph, so that: Current / mA = 300 therefore Current = 300 mA this is correct :-) "Correct" or not as an equation, like Don, it is not a usage I tend to employ. It can confuse some students in my experience who are puzzled by thinking they somehow have to divide the values by 'mA' or think of it as being a 'current per mA'. I think the meaning of Current (mA) is fairly clear, but of course, anything may be misunderstood. :-) TBH I'm more concerned that I only obtained some fairly rough data over a small range, etc. Slainte, Jim -- Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm Audio Misc http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/AudioMisc/index.html Armstrong Audio http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/Audio/armstrong.html Barbirolli Soc. http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/JBSoc/JBSoc.html |
Fuses
In article , Oddjob
wrote: Point taken, it depends on one's education I suppose, my Physical Chemistry lecturer pointed this out to me and I always label my axis as though it were equal to the values on the graph. I have seen both types of label used with total success. I'm sure some of the group will agree with you and some with me.... hope we don't get a war of the axis label :-)) Is *this* why Germany, etc, were called the "Axis Powers" during WW2? :-) Slainte, Jim -- Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm Audio Misc http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/AudioMisc/index.html Armstrong Audio http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/Audio/armstrong.html Barbirolli Soc. http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/JBSoc/JBSoc.html |
Fuses
In article , Nick Gorham
wrote: Don Pearce wrote: hope we don't get a war of the axis label :-)) Big endians vs. little endians? No, bring back 24 bit ICL kit, octal made sense then. I still have a bundle of blank punch-cards somewhere. Threw away all the old paper tapes of data, though... :-) First learned about computing on ICL1900's. Slainte, Jim -- Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm Audio Misc http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/AudioMisc/index.html Armstrong Audio http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/Audio/armstrong.html Barbirolli Soc. http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/JBSoc/JBSoc.html |
Fuses
"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message ... In article , Graham Holloway wrote: "Pooh Bear" wrote in message ... One of the fuses will blow before the other. What happens to the voltage at the speaker output then? And could it toast the speaker? Sounds well dangerous to me. Far more reliable is to fit 'crowbar protection' on the output to guard against excessive DC. Whatever else - the speaker won't see prolonged DC. Supply rail fuses will blow. Graham If either fuse blew, the output would float to zero. My experience was similar. I tried various kinds of 'problems and faults' on the designs I played with and they tended to either: 1) Blow one fuse and the output floaded down to zero with no real ability to o/p current. 2) Blow both fuses almost at the same moment. I assume this depends a lot on the design details, but I concluded that I could omit any d.c. crowbar, etc and just depend on the fuses. My concern was more for the amp than the speakers, though... 8-] Slainte, Jim -- Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm Audio Misc http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/AudioMisc/index.html Armstrong Audio http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/Audio/armstrong.html Barbirolli Soc. http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/JBSoc/JBSoc.html Jim My boss was more concerned about £10 amplifiers failing, followed by a claim for £100 speaker damage. Graham |
Fuses
Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article , Pooh Bear wrote: Recently acquired some new dummy loads for amplifier testing. The measured THD figures seemed rather high. Swapping to an earlier dummy load reduced the THD. Concluded that the resistance element was thermally modulating on a cycle by cycle basis. The cable to the load acted like a potential divider in series withe lon-linear load. Measuring THD directly at the amplifer output itself proved the point. Was the 'suspect load' THD high at HF or at LF? Seemed to be pretty much independent of frequency IIRC which seemed odd. I was more interested in just sorting it to spend too much time though. Not all dummy loads are equal it seems ! The best I've found in this respect are the alumium clad bolt down types. Agreed. I think I know the type of loads you mean, and if so, they are the sort I used to use many years ago. However the reason I ask the above question is that I recall a review in HFN of the Armstrong 600 range where the reviewer got much higher THD values than the company had measured. Investigation lead to us deciding that the reviewer's load had a high series inductance which was changing the distortion. (However it may have been a thermal effect, despite our conclusion at the time.) I used to think that too. I even measured the inductive component of some of our loads. It wasn't that high. The ceramic tubular loads appear to be the ones with the problem. More recent ones seem worse too. Different resistance wire ? Graham |
Fuses
Arny Krueger wrote: "Pooh Bear" wrote in message Recently acquired some new dummy loads for amplifier testing. The measured THD figures seemed rather high. Swapping to an earlier dummy load reduced the THD. oops! Concluded that the resistance element was thermally modulating on a cycle by cycle basis. The cable to the load acted like a potential divider in series with the non-linear load. Been there, done that. Measuring THD directly at the amplifer output itself proved the point. Perhaps. Not all dummy loads are equal it seems ! The best I've found in this respect are the alumium clad bolt down types. Interesting. What were these new dummy loads composed of, exactly? 2 of these in series to make a 600W 4 ohm load. Tubular ceramic wirewound type. http://uk.farnell.com/jsp/endecaSear...=1840290&N=401 They're still fine for soak tests. The biggest problem I've found with my dummy loads is variation of actual DC resistance with lnger-term heating and cooling. I have acquired a stash of precision NI wirewound resistors from Mouser for my next pass at the problem. These take my fancy. Supposed to be non-inductive. http://uk.farnell.com/jsp/endecaSear...=3067920&N=401 Hugely expensive though. Graham |
Fuses
"Pooh Bear" wrote in message
Arny Krueger wrote: "Pooh Bear" wrote in message Recently acquired some new dummy loads for amplifier testing. The measured THD figures seemed rather high. Swapping to an earlier dummy load reduced the THD. oops! Concluded that the resistance element was thermally modulating on a cycle by cycle basis. The cable to the load acted like a potential divider in series with the non-linear load. Been there, done that. Measuring THD directly at the amplifer output itself proved the point. Perhaps. Not all dummy loads are equal it seems ! The best I've found in this respect are the alumium clad bolt down types. Interesting. What were these new dummy loads composed of, exactly? 2 of these in series to make a 600W 4 ohm load. Tubular ceramic wirewound type. http://uk.farnell.com/jsp/endecaSear...=1840290&N=401 They're still fine for soak tests. The biggest problem I've found with my dummy loads is variation of actual DC resistance with lnger-term heating and cooling. I have acquired a stash of precision NI wirewound resistors from Mouser for my next pass at the problem. These take my fancy. Supposed to be non-inductive. http://uk.farnell.com/jsp/endecaSear...=3067920&N=401 Hugely expensive though. Interesting design. Seem to be very compact about 1 x 3". Thay are in about the same price range as my 300 watters, of which I have 8. They are huge - about 2 inches in diameter and about 8 inches long. Here is the catalog page I order precision NI wirewounds from - I have a mixture of sizes and wattage ratings related to my reactive and non-reactive loads: http://www.mouser.com/catalog/620/411.pdf In my tests these are amazingly stable over a large temperature range. Rated power puts the surface temp up in the 400F range. The resistance barely changes. This is quite a contrast with other cheaper NI parts I have tested (and regrettably used). |
Fuses
"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
... In article , Oddjob wrote: Point taken, it depends on one's education I suppose, my Physical Chemistry lecturer pointed this out to me and I always label my axis as though it were equal to the values on the graph. I have seen both types of label used with total success. I'm sure some of the group will agree with you and some with me.... hope we don't get a war of the axis label :-)) Is *this* why Germany, etc, were called the "Axis Powers" during WW2? :-) Even today, Bush et al declare war on the "Axis of Evil" this is also very much open to interpretation ;-) |
All times are GMT. The time now is 11:24 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
SEO by vBSEO 3.0.0
Copyright ©2004-2006 AudioBanter.co.uk