Scott Dorsey wrote:

Pooh Bear wrote:
Scott Dorsey wrote:

Pumping ultrasonic stuff into a tweeter is a very quick way to get smoke.

Same for DC and woofers. ;-)

Yes, and for the same reason! DC resistance of a typical woofer is a good
bit lower than its nominal impedance... lots of DC can flow through there.

Plus no cooling *again* due to lack of cone movement.

The possibilities for blowing spkrs are endless !

We currently sell a range of plastic cabs that aren't too bad actually. Made in
Thailand ( I'll let you guess the manufacturer ) to a modified spec the
standard product that only we are supplied.

They take one hell of a hammering ( kapton voice coil formers for example ) but
the 12" unit has a weak spot. It's between the flexible lead in wire and the
voice coil. It uses an aluminium strip to make connection and quite simply it's
too high resistance - for *some* ppl it seems anyway ! Damn thing *fuses* if
substantially overdriven. Never seen anything like that failure mode in any
other spkr. Nothing else is damaged which begs the question how damn hard it
might be capable of being thrashed otherwise.

We've requested a design mod to improve it. That should up it's 'safe' amp
rating from 500W to God knows what !


Graham

Pooh Bear wrote:


The possibilities for blowing spkrs are endless !


I think it typically involves some type of booze, though.

Scott Dorsey wrote:

Pooh Bear wrote:

Except there is no such thing as a standard music signal !

Yes, there is! It's the Osipov State Balalaika Orchestra recording on
Mercury! I always use it for musical testing, so it's a standard. That's
the great thing about audio standards... everybody has their own....

LOL !

My 'torture test' for amps and speakers involves track 4 of disc 3 of a 'rave
compilation' that one of our guys once bought for this purpose. Set the CD
player on auto repeat and set the amp to just clip occasionally and let it
rip.

Then do it & 2 ohms ( to fry the amp ).

Then do it & elevated ambient temp !

If that doesn't fry something in the speaker - then there's always the Sisters
of Mercy for an interesting spectral content ! I recommend Lucretia actually.
I made a serious point with the Sisters once. I burnt out the 'standard'
tweeter protection bulb on a product we were evaluating ! Further
investigation showed that the bulb was stupidly rated and only allowed about
10W into the compression driver. Soon fixed that with a bigger and higher
voltage bulb ! In fact I entirely redesigned the crossover with more 'ample'
components. They're so reliable it's wicked. It pays to test.


Graham

On Tue, 10 May 2005 21:12:46 +0100, Pooh Bear
wrote:

William Sommerwerck wrote:

I've rarely seen a pro amp that didn't deliver its rated rms power.

There is no such thing (other than a mathematical definition) as RMS power. The
correct term is average (or average continuous) power.

Well, that'll be a surprise for everyone that's been using rms quite happily to
measure AC voltages, currents

Yes. Average power = RMS voltage * RMS current. It's standard AC
circuits analysis.
The sine-wave RMS voltage across a resistor, or sine-wave RMS
current through it, gives the same amount of heat (resulting from
power dissipation) as the same value DC voltage or current. The
average power is the same in both cases. The instantaneous power is
the average power in the DC case, but in the sine-wave AC case it's
sine-squared (sine-wave voltage * sine-wave current), or 1 + cosine
wave, which varies from zero to twice the average, tracing out a sine
wave (actually a cosine, or sine wave shifted 90 degrees).

and powers for the last century or so !

No, it's only since the mid-70's or so when the FTC got involved
with the overinflated power output claims of stereo manufacturers that
the the term "RMS power" became in use.

Actually *average* is also a mathematical definition.

The usage of the term average in the FTC spec is highly misleading since average
and rms power have different mathematical definitions.

For example 500W rms = ~ 600W average power ( mathematically ).

So can you tell us the mathematical definitions of these?

I'm afraid you're talking nonsense.

The use of RMS power is nonsense, but then the use of nonsense in
the consumer stereo industry has been constant, since well before the
term "RMS power" became common.

The power ratings and testing methods required by the FTC (or
whoever it was), as I vagely recall them, may actually be reasonable,
and results in a useful figure to compare the power outputs of
different amplifiers. But calling it "RMS power" was a mistake.

Graham

-----
http://mindspring.com/~benbradley

Joe Sensor wrote:

Pooh Bear wrote:

The possibilities for blowing spkrs are endless !


I think it typically involves some type of booze, though.

LMAO !

I have to admit to taking out a couple of RCF compression drivers at the
end of a very successful gig with a band we did sound for regularly in
what I could only excuse as a fit of exuberance !

I rarely fried anything to be honest - but I guess I just got carried
away on that occasion.

Not sure if alcohol was involved. I do recall it was an an ex-church
building though if that helps ?


Graham

There is no such thing (other than a mathematical definition) as RMS power.
The correct term is average (or average continuous) power.

Well, that'll be a surprise for everyone that's been using rms quite happily
to
measure AC voltages, currents and powers for the last century or so !

Actually *average* is also a mathematical definition.

The usage of the term average in the FTC spec is highly misleading since
average and rms power have different mathematical definitions.

For example 500W rms = ~ 600W average power ( mathematically ).

I'm afraid you're talking nonsense.


No, I'm speaking the truth. Sorry about that. Check any textbook on electronics.

Multiplying RMS voltage by RMS current produces average power. There is no such
thing as RMS power.

On Tue, 10 May 2005 17:17:13 -0700, "William Sommerwerck"
wrote:

I'm afraid you're talking nonsense.

No, I'm speaking the truth.

Y'all are from different countries. In the Land of the Free
and the Home of the Brave, the FTC mandated a "continuous
average power" rating, that included preconditioning,
specified line voltage, yada-yada. Furrners have different
meanings.

Is that FTC ruling still in effect?

Chris Hornbeck

William Sommerwerck wrote:

There is no such thing (other than a mathematical definition) as RMS power.
The correct term is average (or average continuous) power.

Well, that'll be a surprise for everyone that's been using rms quite happily
to
measure AC voltages, currents and powers for the last century or so !

Actually *average* is also a mathematical definition.

The usage of the term average in the FTC spec is highly misleading since
average and rms power have different mathematical definitions.

For example 500W rms = ~ 600W average power ( mathematically ).

I'm afraid you're talking nonsense.

No, I'm speaking the truth. Sorry about that. Check any textbook on electronics.

Multiplying RMS voltage by RMS current produces average power. There is no such
thing as RMS power.

Maybe in your country !

As I mentioned before, rms and average power are very different. Most meters measure
ac voltage and current as 'average calibrated rms' but that definition only holds
true for sine wave. The accuracy fails for any other waveform. Hence you can get
rather more expensive meters like one we have in the lab that are 'true rms
reading'.

If you want to read up on the difference between average and rms etc I believe
analog devices did a great app note for their rms converter chip.

Graham

Ben Bradley wrote:

On Tue, 10 May 2005 21:12:46 +0100, Pooh Bear
wrote:

William Sommerwerck wrote:

I've rarely seen a pro amp that didn't deliver its rated rms power.

There is no such thing (other than a mathematical definition) as RMS power. The
correct term is average (or average continuous) power.

Well, that'll be a surprise for everyone that's been using rms quite happily to
measure AC voltages, currents

Yes. Average power = RMS voltage * RMS current. It's standard AC
circuits analysis.

Over here we call that rms power, which has the same heating effect as DC power.


The sine-wave RMS voltage across a resistor, or sine-wave RMS
current through it, gives the same amount of heat (resulting from
power dissipation) as the same value DC voltage or current. The
average power is the same in both cases. The instantaneous power is
the average power in the DC case, but in the sine-wave AC case it's
sine-squared (sine-wave voltage * sine-wave current), or 1 + cosine
wave, which varies from zero to twice the average, tracing out a sine
wave (actually a cosine, or sine wave shifted 90 degrees).

and powers for the last century or so !

No, it's only since the mid-70's or so when the FTC got involved
with the overinflated power output claims of stereo manufacturers that
the the term "RMS power" became in use.

This seems to be an American definition thing.


Actually *average* is also a mathematical definition.

The usage of the term average in the FTC spec is highly misleading since average
and rms power have different mathematical definitions.

For example 500W rms = ~ 600W average power ( mathematically ).

So can you tell us the mathematical definitions of these?

Sure. For a simple example take 3 numbers, say 1, 2 and 3.

The average of these is ( 1+2+3 ) / 3 = 2

The rms value is sqrt ( 1^2 + 2^2 + 3^2 ) / 3 ) = sqrt ( 1+4+9 / 3 ) = sqrt (
4.6666) = 2.16

That method applies to any waveform if you integrate it. Hence average voltage is
different to rms voltage and average power is doubly so ( to the power of 2 in fact )
..


I'm afraid you're talking nonsense.

The use of RMS power is nonsense, but then the use of nonsense in
the consumer stereo industry has been constant, since well before the
term "RMS power" became common.

In Europe I can only say the opinion is different simply bevcause average is the
*wrong* description.


The power ratings and testing methods required by the FTC (or
whoever it was), as I vagely recall them, may actually be reasonable,
and results in a useful figure to compare the power outputs of
different amplifiers. But calling it "RMS power" was a mistake.

Well.. the FTC didn't call it rms power IIRC.

The FTC spec sounds to me like someone attempting to use the word average in a
layman's context and forgetting that it has a mathematical meaning.

Graham

"Pooh Bear" wrote in message
...

And speaker ratings tend to assume a standard music/speech signal rather
than sine waves. High frequency drivers in a system are often rated at a
much lower power than low frequency drivers - something like 20W in a
100W
system. With normal music most of the power is used at the bass/mid
frequencies so highly rated tweeters aren't needed.

Except there is no such thing as a standard music signal !

E-V used to use pink noise that had been filtered so that its spectrum
represented a heavily-distorted electric guitar.

Peace,
Paul

Chris Hornbeck wrote:

On Tue, 10 May 2005 05:21:59 +0100, Pooh Bear
wrote:

Actually, it's often the adhesive that gives up first.

Or the VC former hitting the magnet enough to bend itself
fatally. But, yeah, most all abuse failures are thermal, and
clipping/overdriving the amplifier causes most tweeter
failures. My personal experience, with my first pair (always
mono before) of store-bought (always homemade before) of
Smaller Advent's on the very evening that I bought them, excepted,
playing the Yes _Close to the Edge_ album, was clearly Divine
intervention.

I have that on vinyl somewhere ! ;-)

Graham

Pooh Bear wrote:
Well, that'll be a surprise for everyone that's been using rms quite happily to
measure AC voltages, currents and powers for the last century or so !

It may well be, but the fact remains that while RMS current and voltage
measurements have a useful real-world meaning, rms power doesn't.

Two signals of arbitrary waveform (including DC) but the same RMS
voltage develop the same power (heating effect) in a resistive load.

Same for current.

"RMS power" is the language of marketing droids, possibly intended to
mean power based on rms voltage to distinguish it from peak power based
on peak voltage.

Of course the term is widely (ab)used but it still doesn't mean anything.

Anahata

Paul Stamler wrote:

"Pooh Bear" wrote in message
...

And speaker ratings tend to assume a standard music/speech signal rather
than sine waves. High frequency drivers in a system are often rated at a
much lower power than low frequency drivers - something like 20W in a
100W
system. With normal music most of the power is used at the bass/mid
frequencies so highly rated tweeters aren't needed.

Except there is no such thing as a standard music signal !

E-V used to use pink noise that had been filtered so that its spectrum
represented a heavily-distorted electric guitar.

Ah yes. I still have a copy of that on the Sentry IV 'engineering bulletin' (
all 4 pages of it ). Was probably quite accurate for modern music. They also
showed the DIN ? curve for comparison that was supposed to be representative of
orchestral music too IIRC. What a difference !

Graham

Anahata wrote:

Pooh Bear wrote:
Well, that'll be a surprise for everyone that's been using rms quite happily to
measure AC voltages, currents and powers for the last century or so !

It may well be, but the fact remains that while RMS current and voltage
measurements have a useful real-world meaning, rms power doesn't.

Two signals of arbitrary waveform (including DC) but the same RMS
voltage develop the same power (heating effect) in a resistive load.

Actually voltage on its own produces *NO* power !

That's why you need rms power - it produces the same heating effect as DC of the same
value.

Same for current.

Current on its own also produces no power.

"RMS power" is the language of marketing droids, possibly intended to
mean power based on rms voltage to distinguish it from peak power based
on peak voltage.

Of course the term is widely (ab)used but it still doesn't mean anything.

Rubbish ! Explain what the power in the load is say during a bench test of an
amplifier delivering 40 V rms sinewave into a pure resistive 4 ohm load for example.

Graham

Pooh Bear wrote:

Two signals of arbitrary waveform (including DC) but the same RMS
voltage develop the same power (heating effect) in a resistive load.

Actually voltage on its own produces *NO* power !

Of course, which is why I was careful to mention a resistive load.

That's why you need rms power - it produces the same heating effect as DC of the same
value.

No, that is simply not true of power, but it it true of voltage or
current. The whole point is that you need to compare RMS volts
(root-mean-square) in order to compare mean power, because power is
proportional to the square of the voltage.

Rubbish ! Explain what the power in the load is say during a bench test of an
amplifier delivering 40 V rms sinewave into a pure resistive 4 ohm load for example.

What's the problem?
The average power over a cycle is 400 watts, same energy as if it had
been 40V DC over the same time period. You did not have to specify sine
wave either, by the way. 40V rms any waveshape you like will do the
same, by definition.

It doesn't help that you can buy what's described as a "pure RMS power
meter", but what that means is that the meter will measure true RMS
*volts* (as opposed to the cheap way: rectifying, averaging and scaling
by a fudge factor that only works for sine waves).

To summarize:

Squaring power, taking an average and then the square root of that
average does not yield a figure which corresponds to anything meaningful
in the physical world.

Doing that with volts yields a figure that corresponds to power, which
is a measure of something real.

Anahata

"RMS power" is the language of marketing droids, possibly intended to
mean power based on rms voltage to distinguish it from peak power based
on peak voltage.

Of course the term is widely (ab)used but it still doesn't mean anything.

Thank you.

Pooh Bear wrote:
William Sommerwerck wrote:

I've rarely seen a pro amp that didn't deliver its rated rms power.

There is no such thing (other than a mathematical definition) as RMS
power. The correct term is average (or average continuous) power.

Well, that'll be a surprise for everyone that's been using rms quite
happily to measure AC voltages, currents and powers for the last
century or so !

Not for power we don't.


Actually *average* is also a mathematical definition.

The usage of the term average in the FTC spec is highly misleading
since average and rms power have different mathematical definitions.

Yes. "rms power" has no physical meaning.


For example 500W rms = ~ 600W average power ( mathematically ).

This is a meaningless relation. I would have to actually check the value
of the rms conversion factor. No one uses it, as it has no physical
purpose.


I'm afraid you're talking nonsense.


It seems that there is some confusion here on terms here.

There is no meaningful technical application of the term "rms power".
The term is an erroneous one that is used to refer to "average power".

The root mean square of the power waveform is:

rms power = sqrt((integral((VI)^2 dt)/T)

This has no physical meaning whatsoever.

The average power of a waveform, which is its heating power, is given
by:

Average Power = integral(VI) dt/T

If one does the sums, this can be reduced, for sine waves, to:

Average Power = Vrms.Irms.

Hence, why the erroneous term of rms power came about. Average power is
give by the product of rms values of V and I.

Now the complication for speakers.

Music consistes of "peak average powers" which have an "average average
power".

"Peak", in this context has no relation to the instantaneous peak to
peak values of a waveform on an individual cycle basis. This is where
much confusion steps in. "Peak" is being used in two different contexts.

Consider a 1Khz sine wave that has a power amplitude first of 1W for 1
sec, then 0.5W for the next second. Noting that this is many cycles. The
average heating power of this waveform is 0.75W.

Speakers are rated as to their average power, as in heating power. This
means that if a signal is applied as above, it should be rated for
0.75W, so long as the time that the higher average power is not applied
for to long. This is why one sometimes argues that an amp twice the
rating can be used, as if the music isn't clipping, its peak average
power is usually much higher than its average average power. Against
this argument, is that an amplifier is rated by is sine wave output. If
signals look squarish, then the amplifier output is double that of a
sine wave with the same peak. Music is complex. There is no telling what
its shape will be. I go for the amp power = speaker power.

So, we should really use the terms:

average power
peak average power
average average power

as standard, because that is what is meant. The average average power,
is the heating power that a non constant power waveform will have. Its
the average, of the average power.

Kevin Aylward

http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.

That's why you need rms power - it produces the same heating effect
as DC [power] of the same value.

No, AVERAGE power is the term for that.

I just love it when people redefine something that has a proper meaning, then
justify the validity of their new definition, because they want things to be the
way they think things ought to be.

In article writes:

Except there is no such thing as a standard music signal !

There was a standard test signal for the IHF(m) power rating that gave
a number somewhat higher than RMS power with a sine wave, but not
nearly as high as the "music power" claims that were common in
consumer audio equipment of the day - mid 1960s as I recall. It was a
burst of 1 kHz sine wave, generally performed with one channel of a
stereo amplifier operating.


--
I'm really Mike Rivers - )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

For example 500W rms = ~ 600W average power (mathematically).

This is a meaningless relation. I would have to actually check the value
of the RMS conversion factor. No one uses it, as it has no physical
purpose.

Some years back I computed the RMS value of the power of a sine wave. If memory
serves me, it was lower than the average value. So if an amp were rated
according to its "RMS" power, the number would be lower than it would be for
average.

Although the RMS value of power can be computed, it has no correlation to "the
real world" that I know of.

On Wed, 11 May 2005 07:48:49 +0100, Pooh Bear
wrote:


Ben Bradley wrote:

On Tue, 10 May 2005 21:12:46 +0100, Pooh Bear
wrote:

William Sommerwerck wrote:

I've rarely seen a pro amp that didn't deliver its rated rms power.

There is no such thing (other than a mathematical definition) as RMS power. The
correct term is average (or average continuous) power.

Well, that'll be a surprise for everyone that's been using rms quite happily to
measure AC voltages, currents

Yes. Average power = RMS voltage * RMS current. It's standard AC
circuits analysis.

Over here we call that rms power, which has the same heating effect as DC power.

Do you have an engineering textbook that says that? Can you find
some other credible reference for it?



The sine-wave RMS voltage across a resistor, or sine-wave RMS
current through it, gives the same amount of heat (resulting from
power dissipation) as the same value DC voltage or current. The
average power is the same in both cases. The instantaneous power is
the average power in the DC case, but in the sine-wave AC case it's
sine-squared (sine-wave voltage * sine-wave current), or 1 + cosine
wave, which varies from zero to twice the average, tracing out a sine
wave (actually a cosine, or sine wave shifted 90 degrees).

and powers for the last century or so !

No, it's only since the mid-70's or so when the FTC got involved
with the overinflated power output claims of stereo manufacturers that
the the term "RMS power" became in use.

This seems to be an American definition thing.


Actually *average* is also a mathematical definition.

The usage of the term average in the FTC spec is highly misleading since average
and rms power have different mathematical definitions.

For example 500W rms = ~ 600W average power ( mathematically ).

So can you tell us the mathematical definitions of these?

Sure. For a simple example take 3 numbers, say 1, 2 and 3.

The average of these is ( 1+2+3 ) / 3 = 2

The rms value is sqrt ( 1^2 + 2^2 + 3^2 ) / 3 ) = sqrt ( 1+4+9 / 3 ) = sqrt (
4.6666) = 2.16

That method applies to any waveform if you integrate it. Hence average voltage is
different to rms voltage

Well, I get the same answers for a square wave but I agree for
most waveshapes they are different.

and average power is doubly so ( to the power of 2 in fact )

I also agree that your calculations of average power and "RMS
power" will give different answers. Which one causes the same
temperature rise in a resistor as does the same amount of DC power put
into it?

Can you demonstrate mathematically with a sine wave where an RMS
voltage multiplied by an RMS current gives RMS power? I recall seeing
the EE prof do something like that and getting average power.

Well, actually, that's putting the cart before the horse. The whole
purpose of using an RMS measurement of voltage or current is to make
it convenient to calculate the average power. It had been noticed that
using the average of an AC voltage into a resistance to calculate
power using P=(E^2)/R did not quite give the correct answer as it did
for DC circuits, and so the concept of RMS voltage and current was
developed.



.


I'm afraid you're talking nonsense.

The use of RMS power is nonsense, but then the use of nonsense in
the consumer stereo industry has been constant, since well before the
term "RMS power" became common.

In Europe I can only say the opinion is different simply bevcause average is the
*wrong* description.

Looks like Kevin and a few others have chimed in on this, do you
suppose we all got it wrong?


The power ratings and testing methods required by the FTC (or
whoever it was), as I vagely recall them, may actually be reasonable,
and results in a useful figure to compare the power outputs of
different amplifiers. But calling it "RMS power" was a mistake.

Well.. the FTC didn't call it rms power IIRC.

Where did you learn about RMS power? If I were you I wouldn't be
very happy with my education on this...

Quite seriously, you should look this up in an engineering
textbook. Well, hell let's look on the World Wide Web, someone over
there has probably gotten it right by now.

Here's one that uses your definition, but then there's that nagging
"For the Purist..." section at the end:
http://www.bcae1.com/voltages.htm
Here's a good explanation of how RMS power came to be:
http://www.hifi-writer.com/he/misc/rmspower.htm
This says RMS power is the same as average power (!):
http://www.audiovideo101.com/diction...ctionaryid=378
Moving right along...
Here's an academic page that talks about it:
http://www.eece.ksu.edu/~starret/589/man/A.html

The FTC spec sounds to me like someone attempting to use the word average in a
layman's context and forgetting that it has a mathematical meaning.

Quite the contrary, they were using RMS in a previously unused
context, applying it to a measurement (power) where it doesn't make
sense and isn't useful.

Graham

-----
http://mindspring.com/~benbradley

Ben Bradley wrote:
On Wed, 11 May 2005 07:48:49 +0100, Pooh Bear


Yes. Average power = RMS voltage * RMS current. It's standard AC
circuits analysis.

Over here we call that rms power, which has the same heating effect
as DC power.

Do you have an engineering textbook that says that? Can you find
some other credible reference for it?

Its called "rms power" , but it isn't. The name is wrong that's all.
Most say "rms power", not realising the correct term is "average power".




The sine-wave RMS voltage across a resistor, or sine-wave RMS
current through it, gives the same amount of heat (resulting from
power dissipation) as the same value DC voltage or current. The
average power is the same in both cases. The instantaneous power is
the average power in the DC case, but in the sine-wave AC case it's
sine-squared (sine-wave voltage * sine-wave current), or 1 + cosine
wave, which varies from zero to twice the average, tracing out a
sine wave (actually a cosine, or sine wave shifted 90 degrees).

and powers for the last century or so !

No, it's only since the mid-70's or so when the FTC got involved
with the overinflated power output claims of stereo manufacturers
that the the term "RMS power" became in use.

This seems to be an American definition thing.


Actually *average* is also a mathematical definition.

The usage of the term average in the FTC spec is highly misleading
since average and rms power have different mathematical
definitions.

For example 500W rms = ~ 600W average power ( mathematically ).

So can you tell us the mathematical definitions of these?

Sure. For a simple example take 3 numbers, say 1, 2 and 3.

The average of these is ( 1+2+3 ) / 3 = 2

The rms value is sqrt ( 1^2 + 2^2 + 3^2 ) / 3 ) = sqrt ( 1+4+9 / 3
) = sqrt (
4.6666) = 2.16

That method applies to any waveform if you integrate it. Hence
average voltage is different to rms voltage

Well, I get the same answers for a square wave but I agree for
most waveshapes they are different.

and average power is doubly so ( to the power of 2 in fact )

I also agree that your calculations of average power and "RMS
power" will give different answers. Which one causes the same
temperature rise in a resistor as does the same amount of DC power put
into it?

Average power is the heating power. End of story. Why the story started
is a mystery.


In Europe I can only say the opinion is different simply bevcause
average is the *wrong* description.

Graham, with all due respect, I don't know why you have this
information, because its blatantly incorrect.

P(t) = V(2.pi.t).I(2.pi.t), for 1hz

P(t) = Vp.sin(2.pi.t).Ip.sin(2.pi.t)

Ave = integral {f(x)}/(b-a)| a-b

Pav = integral {Vp.Sin(2.pi.t).Ip.Sin(2.pi.t)} dt / 1 sec

Pav = Vp.Ip . integral{Sin^2(2.pi.t)}

Pav = Vp.Ip . integral { 1/2 (1 - cos(4.pi.t))} , t = 0-1

Pav = Vp.Ip . { 1/2 (t - sin(4.pi.t))/4.pi.t} , t = 0-1

Pav = Vp.Ip.1/2 = Vp/sqrt(2) . Ip/sqrt(2) = Vrms.Irms


Looks like Kevin and a few others have chimed in on this, do you
suppose we all got it wrong?

Professor Aylward wrong on an analogue technical matter? Hardly likely
is it?

Kevin Aylward

http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.

On Wed, 11 May 2005 07:58:40 +0100, Pooh Bear
wrote:

the Yes _Close to the Edge_ album,

I have that on vinyl somewhere ! ;-)

Would love to hear an English pressing; never have.
Just ordinary A&M's.

Plenty good enough for cooking tweeters, of course.
Pass the oregano, would ya?

Chris Hornbeck

On Wed, 11 May 2005 06:51:00 GMT, "Paul Stamler"
wrote:

E-V used to use pink noise that had been filtered so that its spectrum
represented a heavily-distorted electric guitar.

Did they call it "guitar-colored noise"?

Chris Hornbeck