[Jerry]

wrote in message
...
Jerry wrote:
wrote in message
...
Jerry wrote:
Serge, OK, but what about caps ACROSS woofers and coils ACROSS
tweeters?

Kind sir, you made the claim elsewhere about your knowledge
of electronics. One of the most fundamental principles of
AC electronics is that capacitors and inductors DO NOT
DISSIPATE POWER.

Well, you should know that's it's a complex issue. There is both real
and
apparent power. Apparent power looks at total impedance and ignores the
phase shift between voltage and current.

And what is the phase shift between the current and voltage
in an inductor? How much of the impedance of an inductor
is real, how much is imaginary ("i")? What is the phase shift
of the current and voltage across a capacitor? How much of
the impedance of a capacitor is real, how much is imaginary
("i")?

Let's ask the question once again: how much power is
DISSIPATED in a capacitor or an inductor?

Tell you what, you can read it and learn for yourself:

http://www.ibiblio.org/obp/electricC.../AC/AC_11.html

Jerry

[Jerry]

Dick wrote on 8/17/2006:

When I opened the case I was
amazed at how few components there are. It appears
the entire driver and output stage is contained in a
single IC --- for both channels!!

It's not an IC, it's a hybrid, and so what?

Dick, you are just a wealth of mis-information. NOT an IC?????

"Depending on the way they are manufactured, integrated circuits could be
divided into two groups: hybrid and monolithic."

http://www.mikroelektronika.co.yu/en...oks/keu/07.htm

http://www.n-tronics.com/ntronics_in..._circuits_.htm

http://www.bdent.com/howto_id.jsp

http://www.cybercity-online.net/CCEN..._industry.html

http://www.electronica.ro/audio.shtml

http://www.bmm-electronics.com/Produ...roep _A_ID=31

[[email protected]]

Jerry wrote:
Well, you should know that's it's a complex issue. There is both real
and
apparent power. Apparent power looks at total impedance and ignores the
phase shift between voltage and current.

And what is the phase shift between the current and voltage
in an inductor? How much of the impedance of an inductor
is real, how much is imaginary ("i")? What is the phase shift
of the current and voltage across a capacitor? How much of
the impedance of a capacitor is real, how much is imaginary
("i")?

Let's ask the question once again: how much power is
DISSIPATED in a capacitor or an inductor?

Tell you what, you can read it and learn for yourself:

http://www.ibiblio.org/obp/electricC.../AC/AC_11.html

So, we take it then, given your inability, reluctance or,
in any case, refusal to answer the question, that you
do not know?

Well, as has been stated before, and the article you
cited clearly states, the amount of power dissipated
in an inductor or a capacitor is essentially zero, save
for the very small parasitic resistances.

Stated differently: the capacitors and inductors in a
crossover do NOT absorb, do NOT dissipate, do
NOT waste power.

Got it?

[[email protected]]

Jerry wrote:
Dick wrote on 8/17/2006:
It's not an IC, it's a hybrid, and so what?

Dick, you are just a wealth of mis-information. NOT an IC?????

"Depending on the way they are manufactured, integrated circuits could be
divided into two groups: hybrid and monolithic."

Dick is correct.

Regardless of the links you posted a hybrid has a specific meaning in
the electronics industry.

Laypersons (and random websites) may call a hybrid an IC but for a
professional to do so invites ridicule.

[[email protected]]

Jerry wrote:
Serge, OK, but what about caps ACROSS woofers and coils ACROSS tweeters?

Well, what about them?

Nominally lossless components don't consume power.

[[email protected]]

wrote:
Jerry wrote:
Serge, OK, but what about caps ACROSS woofers and coils ACROSS tweeters?

Well, what about them?

Nominally lossless components don't consume power.

Strictly speaking, your statement is about as close to a
DEFINITION as one can get: if it has no losses, it, by
definition, doesn't (indeed CAN'T) consume power.
To prove the point: a lossless "resistor", i.e. a dead
short (0 ohms) consumes no power.

But, since our friend is into deflection and web-directed
circumlocution, I would modify your statement slightly to
say, given the context of the discussion, that:

"lossless REACTIVE components, specifically
inductors and capacitor, don't consume power."

Save this instructional qualification, which I fear
might be missed, we are in complete agreement,
not only with each other, but with the entire electrical/
electronics profession.

[Jerry]

Dick wrote on 8/23/2006:

Let's ask the question once again: how much power is
DISSIPATED in a capacitor or an inductor?

Tell you what, you can read it and learn for yourself:

http://www.ibiblio.org/obp/electricC.../AC/AC_11.html

So, we take it then, given your inability, reluctance or,
in any case, refusal to answer the question, that you
do not know?

Well, as has been stated before, and the article you
cited clearly states, the amount of power dissipated
in an inductor or a capacitor is essentially zero, save
for the very small parasitic resistances.

Stated differently: the capacitors and inductors in a
crossover do NOT absorb, do NOT dissipate, do
NOT waste power.

Got it?

Dick, it's more complicated than that. Had you read the entire article, you
would have seen:

"We know that reactive loads such as inductors and capacitors dissipate zero
power, yet the fact that they drop voltage and draw current gives the
deceptive impression that they actually do dissipate power. This "phantom
power" is called reactive power, and it is measured in a unit called
Volt-Amps-Reactive (VAR), rather than watts. The mathematical symbol for
reactive power is (unfortunately) the capital letter Q. The actual amount of
power being used, or dissipated, in a circuit is called true power, and it
is measured in watts (symbolized by the capital letter P, as always). The
combination of reactive power and true power is called apparent power, and
it is the product of a circuit's voltage and current, without reference to
phase angle."

Regards,
Jerry

[[email protected]]

Jerry wrote wrote on 8/15/2006:

Well, Dick, what about passive components that shunt drivers (caps and
coils). Isn't their function to dissipate energy associated with
frequencies NOT intended for that driver?

Jerry wrote wrote on 8/24/2006:

Dick, it's more complicated than that. Had you read the entire article, you
would have seen:

"We know that reactive loads such as inductors and capacitors dissipate zero
power, yet the fact that they drop voltage and draw current gives the
deceptive impression that they actually do dissipate power. This "phantom
power" is called reactive power, and it is measured in a unit called
Volt-Amps-Reactive (VAR), rather than watts. The mathematical symbol for
reactive power is (unfortunately) the capital letter Q. The actual amount of
power being used, or dissipated, in a circuit is called true power, and it
is measured in watts (symbolized by the capital letter P, as always). The
combination of reactive power and true power is called apparent power, and
it is the product of a circuit's voltage and current, without reference to
phase angle."

Thanks for the laugh.

Telling Dick "had you read the article..." is like telling Einstein
"have you read J.C. Maxwell?".

Despite the sophomoric explaination given in the article you quoted it
doesn't change your argument about dissipation. In fact, the quote in
the article "deceptive impression that they actually do dissipate
power" actually refutes your claim.

Why do you continue to argue something taught in high school physics?
It's not like this wasn't settled about 150 years ago.

[Jerry]

BEAR wrote on 8/19/2006:

An "old Scott"?? IF it is really a Scott and not something newer with
that name brand on it, is an old old design. Although I can not recall
the real Scott company ever making large solid state amps...

Well, it's really a Scott, but I can't say who actually made it. I bought
it new in 1987. Does that help any??

What should I look for in a modern design?? I mean it does NOT have a
separate transformer for each amp, the amps share the rails. It does have
multiple output devices - 4 transistors per channel - 8 in total.

Liking older stuff is fine... but you can't expect to get modern
performance from /most of the old circuit designs/ or from most of the
older implementations. If you really like vintage stuff, consider using
tubes especially for applications that do not need high Damping Factor.

Bear, I built a 70 watt Eico tube amp years ago. I have zero interest in
returning to tubes. The ONLY good thing about tubes is they keep you nice
and comfy on those bitter cold winter nights.

As far as the heat, power level = dissipation. Except for the quiescent
current, which ought to be low as these are class AB amplifiers. More
specifically, dissipation tracks directly with power output level. A
certain percentage of the power in the output stage is lost to heat. So,
if you play it less loud it should be less hot. UNLESS there is a
parasitic oscillation, which may or may not run full bore when excited.
If there is a parasitic being excited, the heat level will be far higher
than normal for any nominal power output level.

It looks like there is an oscillation in the AR-3a's. See my impedance
graph for the mid-range/tweeter. Something "funky" is going on there.

Again, regarding the responses on this USENET newsgroup, a large number
of individuals here are of the strict "objectivist" philosophy. Which
means that they want measurements and engineering to go along with
claims of any sort. It is perfectly reasonable (here) to report your
subjective results and how you achieved them, but it is more problematic
to then ascribe said results to some presumed hypothetical alone... it
is better to pose the latter part in the form of a query, rather than a
statement. Had you done it in a query form -eg: "is it possible
that...", we probably would have arrived where we are via a smoother
ride...

Well, it took me hours to generate the impedance maps ... take a look!
It's clear that the two amps (in the bi-amp) see a totally different load
than a single amp.

Imho, it's fine to enjoy your vintage gear, and try all sorts of things,
even if they are "wacky" and/or if they "make sense engineering
wise". But do not expect to get "high-end" results from random pieces of
vintage gear connected in odd and assorted ways... be sure to keep in
mind the nominal subject here is "high-end audio."

Bear, I consider my AR-3a's and my AR-1500 "high-end". Here is a review of
the AR-1500 that shows it was the most powerful and most sensitive receiver
of it's day:

http://www.ckopfell.com/HeathkitAR1500.htm

Regards,
Jerry

[Jerry]

Thanks for the laugh.

Telling Dick "had you read the article..." is like telling Einstein
"have you read J.C. Maxwell?".

Despite the sophomoric explaination given in the article you quoted it
doesn't change your argument about dissipation. In fact, the quote in
the article "deceptive impression that they actually do dissipate
power" actually refutes your claim.

Why do you continue to argue something taught in high school physics?
It's not like this wasn't settled about 150 years ago.

Happy to amuse you!

Why do you waste your time arguing with me, when you can save yourself a
fortune on your electric bill. All you need do is arm your self with
Maxwell's equations to convince your local utility they shouldn't be
charging you for apparent power dissipated in reactive devices.

Happy I've been able to save you some money.

Regards,
Jerry

[BEAR]

Jerry wrote:

BEAR wrote on 8/19/2006:


An "old Scott"?? IF it is really a Scott and not something newer with
that name brand on it, is an old old design. Although I can not recall
the real Scott company ever making large solid state amps...


Well, it's really a Scott, but I can't say who actually made it. I bought
it new in 1987. Does that help any??

What should I look for in a modern design?? I mean it does NOT have a
separate transformer for each amp, the amps share the rails. It does have
multiple output devices - 4 transistors per channel - 8 in total.


Liking older stuff is fine... but you can't expect to get modern
performance from /most of the old circuit designs/ or from most of the
older implementations. If you really like vintage stuff, consider using
tubes especially for applications that do not need high Damping Factor.


Bear, I built a 70 watt Eico tube amp years ago. I have zero interest in
returning to tubes. The ONLY good thing about tubes is they keep you nice
and comfy on those bitter cold winter nights.


As far as the heat, power level = dissipation. Except for the quiescent
current, which ought to be low as these are class AB amplifiers. More
specifically, dissipation tracks directly with power output level. A
certain percentage of the power in the output stage is lost to heat. So,
if you play it less loud it should be less hot. UNLESS there is a
parasitic oscillation, which may or may not run full bore when excited.
If there is a parasitic being excited, the heat level will be far higher
than normal for any nominal power output level.


It looks like there is an oscillation in the AR-3a's. See my impedance
graph for the mid-range/tweeter. Something "funky" is going on there.


Again, regarding the responses on this USENET newsgroup, a large number
of individuals here are of the strict "objectivist" philosophy. Which
means that they want measurements and engineering to go along with
claims of any sort. It is perfectly reasonable (here) to report your
subjective results and how you achieved them, but it is more problematic
to then ascribe said results to some presumed hypothetical alone... it
is better to pose the latter part in the form of a query, rather than a
statement. Had you done it in a query form -eg: "is it possible
that...", we probably would have arrived where we are via a smoother

ride...

Well, it took me hours to generate the impedance maps ... take a look!
It's clear that the two amps (in the bi-amp) see a totally different load
than a single amp.


Imho, it's fine to enjoy your vintage gear, and try all sorts of things,
even if they are "wacky" and/or if they "make sense engineering
wise". But do not expect to get "high-end" results from random pieces of
vintage gear connected in odd and assorted ways... be sure to keep in
mind the nominal subject here is "high-end audio."


Bear, I consider my AR-3a's and my AR-1500 "high-end". Here is a review of
the AR-1500 that shows it was the most powerful and most sensitive receiver
of it's day:

http://www.ckopfell.com/HeathkitAR1500.htm

Regards,
Jerry

Jerry,

You can't post graphs or images to a USENET newsgroup - this is one.
You can post a link to an outside site (URL) if you like.

4 transistors per channel is minimal by today's standards for a high
current, high power amplifier. 8 per channel seems ok for a basic amp.
It also has the nice side effect of decreasing the output impedance
(higher DF before FB) and also decreasing the output stage's inherent
distortion (again before FB is applied).

This is 2006, your AR-1500 was hot stuff in its day - I repaired
Heathkits for Heath in NYC back ~1970, that was good back in the day.
It's not back in the day anymore. Not for tubes, not for solid state.

Tubes, like your old Eico would surprise you greatly with updates based
on modern understandings: caps, power supply, resistors, etc... the
results would surprise you greatly, as the limiting factors on these old
tube amps /often/ were not the tubes or the output iron at all. The
benefits of tubes today are found in terms of the spectra of distortion,
and the comparatively soft clipping characteristic compared to most
solid state gear.

Similarly, the better new solid state gear has much to commend itself
over the typical offering of the 70s and 80s for sure.

As far as what you found in the impedance graph, not being able to see
it, I don't know what you mean by an "oscillation" or "funky". But the
speaker won't oscillate, the amplifier can. What is causing that is
something that you can investigate. Could be a bad capacitor, if both
sides are doing it, or as I said earlier an *unstable amplifier*!!

What to look for in a modern amplifier design??

Long story, and a big subject. You can search the archives on this
newsgroup, look at other forums, search the internet for all sorts of
sites on modern amplifier design... look at patented circuits via the
USPTO site (patent office), read the seminal Cherry design paper, or
work backwards from the expensive large amplifiers that are found in the
glossy mags, and do the research to answer the questions that you will
have about them... you'll seem common elements amongst them!

Brands to check out include Bryston (I don't like the first half of that
companys design history, but they publish those schematics), Krell
(whose early amps are amazingly similar to Brystons!), Levinson (again
the early designs are published schematics), Parasound's HCA2200, the
big Rotel amp, etc., etc...

Wanna look at a very good kit site with published schematics and some
design theory? http://www.borbeleyaudio.com

Back issues of Audio Amateur and Audio Express will have some nice amp
design articles... your library can get them in all probability. Some
are published by the authors on their sites too...

Or you could start a thread here and see what people say... fwiw.

The simple answer? Very good topology, implemented well.

_-_-bear

[[email protected]]

Jerry wrote:
Why do you waste your time arguing with me, when you can save yourself a
fortune on your electric bill. All you need do is arm your self with
Maxwell's equations to convince your local utility they shouldn't be
charging you for apparent power dissipated in reactive devices.

Happy I've been able to save you some money.

There you go again making ridiculous claims about reactive devices
dissipating power. They may consume reactive power but they do not
dissipate.

Arming myself with knowledge is sufficient with regards to my local
utility. I don't need Maxwell and they don't need convincing.

I only pay for energy usage i.e. kWh. My reactive power is free.

I don't know where you live but in the USA we don't pay for reactive
energy usage. Utility companies do not charge for it and in fact the
ubiquitous induction watt-hour meter is incapable of even measuring
reactive energy.

Only large (3,000 kW) customers are affected by reactive power usage.
However, even they aren't charged for reactive power. Industrial
customers see a base charge, a capacity charge, and an energy charge.
The capacity charge is typically adjusted for each kVA of capacity
above 110% kW capacity. The energy rate remains unchanged, is measured
in kWh and is unaffected by reactive energy.

[Jerry]

wrote on 8/23/2006:

Jerry wrote:
Dick wrote on 8/17/2006:
It's not an IC, it's a hybrid, and so what?

Dick, you are just a wealth of mis-information. NOT an IC?????

"Depending on the way they are manufactured, integrated circuits could
be
divided into two groups: hybrid and monolithic."

Dick is correct.

Regardless of the links you posted a hybrid has a specific meaning in
the electronics industry.

Laypersons (and random websites) may call a hybrid an IC but for a
professional to do so invites ridicule.

Yes, and regardless of your useless banter, please quote some source, ANY
source the says a hybrid is NOT an IC.

Who cares what jargon the self appointed "experts" use. Please look at text
books and distributors as both are in the business.

Regards,
Jerry

[[email protected]]

Jerry wrote:
wrote on 8/23/2006:

Jerry wrote:
Dick wrote on 8/17/2006:
It's not an IC, it's a hybrid, and so what?

Dick, you are just a wealth of mis-information. NOT an IC?????

"Depending on the way they are manufactured, integrated circuits could
be
divided into two groups: hybrid and monolithic."

Dick is correct.

Regardless of the links you posted a hybrid has a specific meaning in
the electronics industry.

Laypersons (and random websites) may call a hybrid an IC but for a
professional to do so invites ridicule.

Yes, and regardless of your useless banter, please quote some source, ANY
source the says a hybrid is NOT an IC.

1. The Authoritative Dictionary of IEEE Standards and Terms, 7th
Edition. ISBN: 0-7381-2601-2
http://shop.ieee.org/ieeestore/Produ...duct_no=SP1122

Comprehensive Dictionary of Electrical Engineering, Phillip A.
Laplante, ISBN:0849330866
http://www.powells.com/cgi-bin/bibli...4-0849330866-0

Standard Handbook of Electronic Engineering 5TH Edition,Donald
Christiansen, ISBN:0071384219
http://books.mcgraw-hill.com/getbook...sbn=0071384219

2. Several thousand journal articles and conference proceedings.
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/search/fr...Go.x=16&Go.y=4

3. Any manufacturer of hybrid circuits:
http://www.okwelectronics.com/produc...tomhybrid.html

For bonus points what are the black things in the photos in item #3?

Who cares what jargon the self appointed "experts" use.

As opposed to those who make up their own jargon?

Please look at text books and distributors as both are in the business.

Obviously you haven't.

[Serge Auckland]

Jerry wrote:
wrote on 8/23/2006:

Jerry wrote:
Dick wrote on 8/17/2006:
It's not an IC, it's a hybrid, and so what?
Dick, you are just a wealth of mis-information. NOT an IC?????

"Depending on the way they are manufactured, integrated circuits could
be
divided into two groups: hybrid and monolithic."
Dick is correct.

Regardless of the links you posted a hybrid has a specific meaning in
the electronics industry.

Laypersons (and random websites) may call a hybrid an IC but for a
professional to do so invites ridicule.

Yes, and regardless of your useless banter, please quote some source, ANY
source the says a hybrid is NOT an IC.

Who cares what jargon the self appointed "experts" use. Please look at text
books and distributors as both are in the business.

Regards,
Jerry


Jerry, my own experience this side of the pond backs up Dick's usage. An
IC consists of a single piece of silicon onto which the various circuit
components (active devices, resistors and, with a little more
difficulty, capacitors) are etched. By its very nature, only low value
of capacitance can be included, and inductance hardly at all (except for
specialist RF circuits) A Hybrid circuit consists of silicon chip
devices plus passive components, all attached to a normally ceramic
substrate and encapsulated. The passive components can theoretically be
of any value, but for space reasons are also normally confined to small
values. However, the method of construction of ICs and Hybrids use very
different technologies.

S.

[Jerry]

wrote in message ...

Yes, and regardless of your useless banter, please quote some source,
ANY
source the says a hybrid is NOT an IC.

1. The Authoritative Dictionary of IEEE Standards and Terms, 7th
Edition. ISBN: 0-7381-2601-2
http://shop.ieee.org/ieeestore/Produ...duct_no=SP1122

Comprehensive Dictionary of Electrical Engineering, Phillip A.
Laplante, ISBN:0849330866
http://www.powells.com/cgi-bin/bibli...4-0849330866-0

Standard Handbook of Electronic Engineering 5TH Edition,Donald
Christiansen, ISBN:0071384219
http://books.mcgraw-hill.com/getbook...sbn=0071384219

2. Several thousand journal articles and conference proceedings.

http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/search/fr...Go.x=16&Go.y=4

3. Any manufacturer of hybrid circuits:
http://www.okwelectronics.com/produc...tomhybrid.html

For bonus points what are the black things in the photos in item #3?

Who cares what jargon the self appointed "experts" use.

As opposed to those who make up their own jargon?

Please look at text books and distributors as both are in the business.

Obviously you haven't.

OK, hereeee we go .... let's use ieee your first reference:

http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/tocre...ResultStart=25

(Hybrid integrated-circuit digital phase shifters)

http://www.ieee.org/organizations/so...ed_riomar9.htm

Hybrid Integrated Circuits and Single Chip Parallel Optical Transceivers

http://www.ieee.org/web/aboutus/hist...ter/seiko.html

Crucial elements included a quartz crystal oscillator, a hybrid integrated
circuit,

And most importantly here is the 1998 IEEE Approved Indexing Keyword List

http://www.ieee.org/organizations/pu...d/keywrd98.txt

Hybrid integrated circuit bonding
Hybrid integrated circuit fabrication
Hybrid integrated circuit interconnections
Hybrid integrated circuit packaging
Hybrid integrated circuit reliability
Hybrid integrated circuit thermal factors
Hybrid integrated circuits

Now, I am using YOUR references (NOT random websites), if you don't like it,
perhaps you should spend your time educating ieee.

Remember I never said monolithic and hybrid were the same. I said (and my
post is still there):

"Depending on the way they are manufactured, integrated circuits could be
divided into two groups: hybrid and monolithic."

Regards,
Jerry

[Jerry]

Serge Auckland wrote on 8/27/2006:

Jerry, my own experience this side of the pond backs up Dick's usage. An
IC consists of a single piece of silicon onto which the various circuit
components (active devices, resistors and, with a little more
difficulty, capacitors) are etched. By its very nature, only low value
of capacitance can be included, and inductance hardly at all (except for
specialist RF circuits) A Hybrid circuit consists of silicon chip
devices plus passive components, all attached to a normally ceramic
substrate and encapsulated. The passive components can theoretically be
of any value, but for space reasons are also normally confined to small
values. However, the method of construction of ICs and Hybrids use very
different technologies.

S.

Hi, Serge!

Dick, in his normal abrupt fashion expounded, "It's not an IC, it's a
hybrid"

Turns out, hybrids fall under the definition of IC, ... as a subclass.

In my other post, I quoted the ieee approved index for keywords.

Unless someone objects to the ieee approved keyword index, I think we can
conclude things are NOT always "black and white" and no one person "knows it
all".

Regards,
Jerry