Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Acronyms-a little OT
A MEN! David R. Henry LME Licensed Master Electrician Amateur Radio W2DRH Member ARRL Accredited Instructor - Original Message - From: "Doug Fitts" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Monday, July 09, 2007 12:09 AM Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Acronyms-a little OT > Well Guys N Gals: > > I started something here as an off topic query yesterday [Saturday] > and didn't think the responses [replies] on this list and direct > emails to me, would be that overwhelming and informative. I thank > Kevin W3KKC for his patience and understanding and I wish to thank all > who responded and to say that NOW.we spare him and other list > members any further comments. Lets bring the Acronyms-a little OT > issue to a nice, quiet close on the Repeater-Builder list. > > Stay tuned for my exploits with a new project, a remotely controlled > HF station and repeater system via the Internet. Yes, it is happening > amongst several Hams around the globe with good success with the > TRX-Manager and Ham Radio Deluxe programs and a host of online VO/Ip > audio/soundcard, "PC Anywhere", Speak Freely, Skype type configs. > > Hope everyone had a SUPER nice weekend. I did, especially after > watching the new flick with the wife, "Transformers" this afternoon. > There are a couple of Hams in this town I would love to transform into > an acronym.chuckle-chuckle-chuckle!!! Heard from a famous actor > often on his cellphone or HT on the show, 24."CT" [copy that]!! > > 73 > > Doug W7FDF > Vail, Arizona U.S.A. > 927.850/R PL 114.8 hz > IRLP node 3850since 2001 > > --- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, Doug W7FDF <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: >> >> In the eight to nine years I've been involved with computers and >> electronic mail and having been licensed since 1959, I have read [and >> still read everyday] > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > >
Re: [Repeater-Builder] ctcss and dcs at same time?
chances are one will interfere with the other. They would but be present and active at the same time. I have never seen it done successfully. David R. Henry LME Licensed Master Electrician Amateur Radio W2DRH Member ARRL Accredited Instructor - Original Message - From: "Jim" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Monday, July 02, 2007 11:08 AM Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] ctcss and dcs at same time? > ku4zs1 wrote: >> Is it possible to run CTCSS and DCS at the same time on a >> transmitter? Aside from the fact that most radios will not allow you >> to select both at the same time (I will be using an outboard DCS >> encoder and the built in CTCSS encoder). I am not sure if they are >> capable of both running at the same time. Thanks. > > Chances are-the transmitter will be perfectly happy. The decoder on the > other end most likely will not. > > I have never been successful at it, even using a good service monitor > with an outboard DCS encoder (test instrument grade, I think it was a > Motorola box) as the 'trasnmitter'. Several different radios, none would > decode both. > -- > Jim Barbour > WD8CHL > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > >
Re: [Repeater-Builder] When 4, 6 or 8 Cavities just won't do...
You are so correct. My second set was set to commercial and I retuned them for 2 Mtr ham. I don't know where the other info came from, butt, they will work just fine. Also make sure you are using the CORECT LENGTH CONNECTING CABLES! THIS IS CRITICAL! David R. Henry LME Licensed Master Electrician Amateur Radio W2DRH Member ARRL Accredited Instructor - Original Message - From: "Daron J. Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2007 9:16 AM Subject: RE: [Repeater-Builder] When 4, 6 or 8 Cavities just won't do... > >The blue sticker has what appears to be 152 or 153 on >>it, but that could just be the three left cavities. >>Also, it only shows PASS and REJECT freqs; a real >>duplexer would have high-pass and low-pass freqs >>listed. > > Yes, these cans may have been sold the first time on 152 or 153, that > doesn't mean it won't do 145. My commercial duplexer on my VHF repeater > was > originally ordered and used in the 152 commercial stuff, the sticker says > so, but it still tunes and works fine at 147. > > A real duplexer would have high pass and low pass frequencies listed? > What > if it were a notch only duplexer? A 'real' duplexer is under no such > requirements. > > 73 N7HQR > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > >
[Repeater-Builder] YAHOOEY FOOEY!
... > > > This is from Yahooey! > > Duplicate Messages and Email Delivery > We're aware of the duplicate message bug that has been affecting groups > today and are working to resolve the issue (a side effect of this bug is > that some messages are also being delayed). We have actually pushed two > fixes already, but we are aware that some groups are still experiencing > the > problem and that more needs to be done to fully resolve the issue. > > There is, however, one silver lining to this bug. It was the result of our > latest system updates intended to improve email delivery speeds. So once > the > bugs are resolved, we should see a significant reduction in the time it > takes to deliver messages to Yahoo! Groups members. > > We will update this blog entry as soon as we have more definitive > information on the status of this issue. > > Thank you and our apologies for any inconvenience caused by the duplicate > messages. > > The Yahoo! Groups Team > > - Original Message - > From: "Barry C'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2007 4:00 AM > Subject: Re: [Amateur-repairs] failure notices > > >> >> >> I lothe this , I just 1126 emails from the few groups I suscribe :( >> >> _ >> Advertisement: Your Future Starts Here. Dream it? Then be it! Find it at >> www.seek.com.au >> > http://a.ninemsn.com.au/b.aspx?URL=http%3A%2F%2Fninemsn%2Eseek%2Ecom%2Eau%2F > %3Ftracking%3Dsk%3Ahet%3Ask%3Anine%3A0%3Ahot%3Atext&_t=754951090&_r=seek&_m= > EXT >> >> >> >> TO UNSUBSCRIBE: login to groups.yahoo.com, select group amateur-repairs, > click on "leave group" on right side of screen and follow instructions. > PLEASE do not send UNSUBSCRIBE messages to the list. >> Yahoo! Groups Links >> >> >> > > > > TO UNSUBSCRIBE: login to groups.yahoo.com, select group amateur-repairs, > click on "leave group" on right side of screen and follow instructions. > PLEASE do not send UNSUBSCRIBE messages to the list. > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > >
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Multiple Emails
HELL YES! MANY COPIES OF EACH ! What in GODS' name is going on?? I received 195 emails this morning. MANY had numerous copies of single emails!!! David R. Henry LME Licensed Master Electrician Amateur Radio W2DRH Member ARRL Accredited Instructor - Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2007 11:37 PM Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Multiple Emails > Anyone else getting multiple copies of the same email on any or all of > their subscribed Yahoo Groups? > > I'm seeing as many as 10-12 exact duplicates showing one time stamp then > the same exact email 6-8 times at a different time stamp. > > Randy > > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > >
Fw: [Repeater-Builder] Watch your use of the English Language here 2nd response
What happend to my original posting? This is my 2nd response! What is this English class? It says Repeater builder! Where is the moderator? David R. Henry LME Licensed Master Electrician Amateur Radio W2DRH Member ARRL Accredited Instructor - Original Message - From: Paul Metzger To: repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, March 24, 2007 1:53 PM Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Watch your use of the English Language here Begin forwarded message: From: Gary <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: March 24, 2007 08:42:39 PDT To: Paul Metzger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Power-Pole connectors NOT for power Paul, please get out of the habit of saying or writing "I myself" as it is redundant and an improper use of our language. To simply write "I have found..." or "I have utilized..." accomplishes the same thing but does not make you look uneducated. This message has been sent direct, off of the reflector. Gary Paul Metzger wrote: I second that. I myself have found these little power pole connectors (which are recommended by emergency groups) to be a bit too delicate for me. And if improperly built, will have little or almost no contact tension at all. Honestly I was a little shocked when I started seeing these little buggers marketed for emergency amateur radio purposes. The bright side I see in that is everyone can connect with minimal fuss. But if the connectors were improperly built, I wouldn't be surprised to see a few of these tapped up during a real disaster in order to keep them from falling out of their other mating half. For years, I myself have utilized the larger SB 50A Anderson connectors on my primary Amateur Radio (TS-450 / IC-910) and Solar system at my home QTH. Now try and pull those babies apart. Talk about contact tension. You can't accidently tug on you power harness and pull these apart. One more thing, my jaw dropped when I had built my K2-100W. It uses a chassis mount variant of the tiny power pole connectors out from the rear of the unit. Well, just my two cents. Paul Metzger K6EH --- On Mar 24, 2007, at 06:42, Tedd Doda wrote: On Fri, 23 Mar 2007 23:01:17 -, skipp025 wrote: I try not to use the small powerpoles any more.. the smaller made power-poles don't have adequate contact tension/pressure and have been real trouble makers for me. *Smaller* being what Skipp? I've had excellent results using the 30 amp contacts on equipment that pushes the current rating of these to the limit (and then some). Tedd Doda, VE3TJD Lazer Audio and Electronics Baden, Ontario, Canada www.ve3tjd.com (personal) www.eraradio.ca (Linked repeater system) Yahoo! Groups Links Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Watch your use of the English Language here
Harold, I garee. Being Human I make lots of mistakes (OOPPS I MISPELED IT)! We MUST get back to repeater building and and associated issues, not gammer and spelling corrections or comments! Go to a grammer or spelling group and make your position known. David R. Henry LME Licensed Master Electrician Amateur Radio W2DRH Member ARRL Accredited Instructor - Original Message - From: "Harold Farrenkopf" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Sunday, March 25, 2007 1:58 PM Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Watch your use of the English Language here >I think you meant "foolproof". > > I personally make lots of grammar and spelling mistakes which I often > see after they are posted. Oops, drop the word personally, must be > the lack of education. (Professional Engineer) But repeating similar > words is how we talk. Oops, bad to start a sentence with "but". > > Harold
[Repeater-Builder] Fw: posting of messages
David R. Henry LME Licensed Master Electrician Amateur Radio W2DRH Member ARRL Accredited Instructor - Original Message - From: DaveH To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, March 25, 2007 5:07 AM Subject: posting of messages What is going on with messages? My responses take forever to make the post or they don't make it at all? is anyone else having this problem? David R. Henry LME Licensed Master Electrician Amateur Radio W2DRH Member ARRL Accredited Instructor
[Repeater-Builder] posting of messages
What is going on with messages? My responses take forever to make the post or they don't make it at all? is anyone else having this problem? David R. Henry LME Licensed Master Electrician Amateur Radio W2DRH Member ARRL Accredited Instructor
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Watch your use of the English Language here
What is this English class? It says Repeater builder! Where is the mderator? David R. Henry LME Licensed Master Electrician Amateur Radio W2DRH Member ARRL Accredited Instructor - Original Message - From: Paul Metzger To: repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, March 24, 2007 1:53 PM Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Watch your use of the English Language here Begin forwarded message: From: Gary <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: March 24, 2007 08:42:39 PDT To: Paul Metzger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Power-Pole connectors NOT for power Paul, please get out of the habit of saying or writing "I myself" as it is redundant and an improper use of our language. To simply write "I have found..." or "I have utilized..." accomplishes the same thing but does not make you look uneducated. This message has been sent direct, off of the reflector. Gary Paul Metzger wrote: I second that. I myself have found these little power pole connectors (which are recommended by emergency groups) to be a bit too delicate for me. And if improperly built, will have little or almost no contact tension at all. Honestly I was a little shocked when I started seeing these little buggers marketed for emergency amateur radio purposes. The bright side I see in that is everyone can connect with minimal fuss. But if the connectors were improperly built, I wouldn't be surprised to see a few of these tapped up during a real disaster in order to keep them from falling out of their other mating half. For years, I myself have utilized the larger SB 50A Anderson connectors on my primary Amateur Radio (TS-450 / IC-910) and Solar system at my home QTH. Now try and pull those babies apart. Talk about contact tension. You can't accidently tug on you power harness and pull these apart. One more thing, my jaw dropped when I had built my K2-100W. It uses a chassis mount variant of the tiny power pole connectors out from the rear of the unit. Well, just my two cents. Paul Metzger K6EH --- On Mar 24, 2007, at 06:42, Tedd Doda wrote: On Fri, 23 Mar 2007 23:01:17 -, skipp025 wrote: I try not to use the small powerpoles any more.. the smaller made power-poles don't have adequate contact tension/pressure and have been real trouble makers for me. *Smaller* being what Skipp? I've had excellent results using the 30 amp contacts on equipment that pushes the current rating of these to the limit (and then some). Tedd Doda, VE3TJD Lazer Audio and Electronics Baden, Ontario, Canada www.ve3tjd.com (personal) www.eraradio.ca (Linked repeater system) Yahoo! Groups Links Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [Repeater-Builder] OT- Activity Level On Ham Repeaters Way Down In My Area
Hi, There has been no decline in repeater use here. As a matter of fact it's getting busier than ever. After next week I suspect there will be even more traffic. I hold a "TECH NET" on our local machine one a week. It's usually handled as a "round table". works extremely well. 73 David R. Henry LME Licensed Master Electrician Amateur Radio W2DRH Member ARRL Accredited Instructor - Original Message - From: "Tony L." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Thursday, February 22, 2007 2:36 PM Subject: [Repeater-Builder] OT- Activity Level On Ham Repeaters Way Down In My Area > The number of active ham repeaters in my area is way, way down in > comparison to levels of 10 years ago. It isn't uncommon to monitor a > repeater frequency and hear no traffic for weeks. Some clubs & > individuals have just walked away from coordinated pairs. > > However, there are a few repeaters that have remained active, although > certainly not to the extent they were in the past. Interestingly, even > though traffic is way down, there's still a waiting list in my area for > coordinated pairs on all bands. > > Questions: > > 1) Has there been a decline in traffic and the number of active > repeaters in your area? > > 2) If so, what do you feel the primary cause is? > > 3) What can be done to generate renewed interest? > > > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups - Join or create groups, clubs, forums & communities. > Links > > > > >
Re: [Repeater-Builder] State sites
Ok I missread it! Sorry guys! - Original Message - From: "Ken Arck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2007 12:56 PM Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] State sites > At 08:09 AM 1/31/2007, you wrote: > >>Hello Mike, >>The American Civil Liberties Union sure would love this. > > <--Huh??? > > > > -- > President and CTO - Arcom Communications > Makers of the world famous RC210 Repeater Controller and accessories. > http://www.arcomcontrollers.com/arcom/index.html > Authorized Dealers for Kenwood and Telewave and > we offer complete repeater packages! > AH6LE/R - IRLP Node 3000 > http://www.irlp.net > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > >
Re: [Repeater-Builder] A little OT perhaps...
I've been a Ham since 1964. I have never had a problem using a mobile rig.
Using a mobile rig is NO WHERE NEAR as DISTRACTING AS TALKING ON A CELL PHONE.
We don't talk to our bosses or sweet talk the girl friends using this media. To
much emotion on the phone as compared to Ham radio. I have also been a Fireman
and involved with the emergency services for 35 years. On the Fire Truck we
have a radio operator that assumes all communications and order relay. Same
holds true on the Ambulance crew. NO problems exist here.
If I know the emergency services and I do. They will be making their points
well know. HAMS MUST DO THE SAME! This is not a universal "fits all" situation.
Stand up for your right. It's time we tell those in Government that we won't
stand still for more intrusion in our lives and more liberties being eroded!
- Original Message -
From: Chris Rosing
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2007 11:27 AM
Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] A little OT perhaps...
Jack, I see your point, done that my self. But if u set up will in a parking
lot, and while driving, hit the PTT key, your relativly safe. Seeing as how
this is a techinal field, not many "ID10T"s are out there. Think most of us
can multi-task holding a mic and driving at the same time. Like someone else
said, there are a few people that cant handle multi-tasking with a comms device
and driving. Oh well I guess.
Chris
- Original Message
From: Jack Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2007 10:16:17 AM
Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] A little OT perhaps...
On the other hand, I need to join in here. True it seems like everyone has a
cell phone glued to their
ears these days. But from the ham radio aspect, cell phones aren't nearly as
attention consuming as
setting up your mobile whilst driving! Many times I've swerved dangerously
all over the road while
trying to set up to QSY to a different channel/frequency! Dumb me, I know
but with the miniature
readouts and push buttons the ham rig requires more concentration than does a
cell.
73 de Jack
- Original Message -
From: Chris Rosing
To: Repeater-Builder@ yahoogroups. com
Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2007 9:05 AM
Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] A little OT perhaps...
You know, There is a lot of states out there and cities, and for me, bases,
that permit talking on cellphones while driving. The msg that would get
reported out of this would be the cell phone part as the masses in this country
use cellphones all the time. I am curious as to how many other places that
have banded cell phones, have it written this way to ban 2 way radios like our
ham radios, FRS radios that groups such as boy scouts, large families,
etc...use when convoying to a new location. And truckers with their ever
popular CB's. What about my customers that have a GPS tracking device, with a
Data Terminal Display on their dash to receive txt msgs, and route info? This
is basically blocking out all communications in vehicles that have become ever
popular over the last decade to save companies money, therefore pushes money
back into the economy in other ways. AND why are emergency people so special.
They drive at a higher rate of speed then the average person, swerving out of
the way of people that don't pay any attention to what is going on. Any ways,
that's just by beef to the stupidity of people in this country that run it. So
if you know of any other places that have a ban on all communication devices
please let me/us know.
Thanks
Chris
KD5ZBE
- Original Message
From: Ken Arck <[EMAIL PROTECTED] net>
To: Repeater-Builder@ yahoogroups. com
Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2007 8:54:40 AM
Subject: [Repeater-Builder] A little OT perhaps...
but the morons who run our State are considering this (time to mobilize
Oregon hams(coming to a State near you?)
http://www.leg. state.or. us/07reg/ measures/ sb0200.dir/ sb0293.intro.
html
74th OREGON LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY--2007 Regular Session NOTE: Matter within
{ + braces and plus signs + } in an amended section is new. Matter within
{ - braces and minus signs - } is existing law to be omitted. New sections
are within { + braces and plus signs + } . LC 1265
Senate Bill 293 Printed pursuant to Senate Interim Rule 213.28 by
order of thePresident of the Senate in conformance with presession filing
rules, indicating neither advocacy nor opposition on the partof the
President (at the request of Senate Interim Committee onJudiciary)
SUMMARY The following summary is not prepared
by the sponsors of the measure and is not a part of the body thereof subject
to consideration by the Legislative
Re: [Repeater-Builder] State sites
Hello Mike, To the best of my knowledge, FEDERAL law superceedes state and local laws. I certainly hope someone is fighting this. The American Civil Liberties Union sure would love this. Dave - Original Message - From: "Mike Mullarkey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2007 10:03 AM Subject: [Repeater-Builder] State sites > Ha anybody ran across someone in there state that has threatened a state > agency if they don't allow them to install there repeater. We have such an > indvudel here in Oregon. Now that this indivudel has threatened to sick > the > media and governor on them for politely saying no, we don't allow amateur > or > commercial repeaters in our sites. They have made it official and wrote > into > policy that no commercial or amateur equipment be located at these sites. > > Huge set back for the amateur community and its too bad we have idots like > this. > > > K7PFJ > > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > >
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Coordination Thread (Please Read- Do Not Reply)
THANK YOU KEVIN! - Original Message - From: Kevin Custer To: Repeater Builder Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2007 9:37 AM Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Coordination Thread (Please Read- Do Not Reply) Recently, I asked you folks that are participating in the now lengthy coordination thread to stop. Now, I am TELLING YOU to stop, and reminding you that this list is not for discussing coordination efforts, problems, or whatever. Here is a group that will handle this type of discussion: Repeater-Builder Coordination http://groups.yahoo.com/group/repeater-builder-coordination/ Post message: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED] DO NOT reply to this message on the list. Personal Mail always welcomed. Regards, Kevin Custer List Owner
Re: [Repeater-Builder] For Sale GE MVP Repeater
What do you consider reasonable? - Original Message - From: "Vincent Caruso" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: ; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2007 9:40 PM Subject: [Repeater-Builder] For Sale GE MVP Repeater >I just took out of service an MVP repeater on the 464.XXX /469.XXX it > is already duplexed and wired for a Zetron model 38 controller. This > radio was privately labeled for Logisticon by GE and is in a blue case > with just an on off switch on the front and the mic connector on the side. > > It was in use until 1/12/07 and in good working condition the only > reason we pulled it was to replace it with a narrow band complaint > repeater. > > The tx was set to low power and drove a continuous duty Henry amp with > no problem. > > Looking for reasonable offers. > > Make me an offer I can't refuse + shipping and it's yours > > If you would like pics please contact me off the list > > Thanks > Vince > > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > >
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Switching Power Supply vs. Astron Etc.
This is what I had hoped for! It's bringing out the best in the group and some great experiances , situations, and opinions have been presented. That type of response is what built our country! Great job guys! God Bless The USA! :) - Original Message - From: Jack Davis To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2007 12:42 AM Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Switching Power Supply vs. Astron Etc. I have to wade in here! The ferroresonant power supplies are horribly inefficient under light loads. Several years ago we replaced 15 hops of tube type microwave with solid state. Each repeater site had a Sola ferroresonant voltage regulator and they all ran slightly warm. After we reduced the load, the transformers ran so hot they would cause a skin burn and actually burned the paint on several sites. We ended up making a trip to remove every one of them to prevent a shelter fire. The load went down and the circulating currents in the Sola transformers went way up. If you have a power supply feeding a repeater, it is sized for the maximum transmit power demands and during receive time the load goes way down and guess what, the efficiency goes to pot! Ferroresonant transformers can also increase the damage caused by a sharp rise and fall time spike. They can actually ring and cause one spike to turn into a bunch of spikes with lots of energy that stresses components. As far as overvoltage damage is concerned, that can happen on both analog and switchers, that is why you use a good stiff crowbar circuit to protect the equipment. It is very common to have a "reach through" failure on a series pass transistor, where a hole gets punched between the emitter and collector causing a short. This then puts the full regulator input voltage on the output, yet the emitter base and collector base junctions will test OK! Don't get me wrong, I would much rather work on an analog supply than a switcher! They both have good and bad points, but sometimes the situation drives one into favor over the other. I like switch mode supplies where size and heat are issues and I like analog supplies for the simplicity and lower parts count. Ferroresonant supplies have their place, just not at my place! Jack K6YC
Re: [Repeater-Builder] minor formula typo in formula switching power supplies
MessageHello Paul, That is strictly your choice and I respect you for it. My DAD told me to reverantly respect any man who stood by his opinions and decisions! I certainly do and always will. That's what makes us the great country we are! GOD BLESS Paul! I look forward to speaking again some time in the future! Dave - Original Message - From: Paul Finch To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, January 15, 2007 5:40 PM Subject: RE: [Repeater-Builder] minor formula typo in formula switching power supplies Again, in my case it does. The payback would not take that long! Paul -- From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of DaveH Sent: Monday, January 15, 2007 3:30 PM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] minor formula typo in formula switching power supplies Once again Retrofit does NOT make justifiable sense under any circumstances> Do so when the unit fails. There is no contest there. Retrofit to save energy does NOT get it. - Original Message - From: Paul Finch To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, January 15, 2007 4:01 PM Subject: RE: [Repeater-Builder] minor formula typo in formula switching power supplies David, True, but in a commercial application like mine where I have around 12 supplies (beside my Ham stuff) in the building it does make a difference. One other thing you may want to consider, the tower owner that is giving you free (or very cheap) tower space for your Ham repeaters. I am sure he would like any help he could get to lower his already out of site electric charges. I know I do! Just offering the "other" side of the equation. One other thing that has not been mentioned here, this time. The idle current that the Ferro-resonant supplies exhibit on the input without a load that the switchers don't. Every way I have looked at the problem I can't get past that idle current even when the repeater is not on the air. Wish someone could explain that in a way I could understand. Someone mentioned the inline AC meter the other day, the problem so far with them is I can't put them in line with the Paging transmitters to check how much the use per month. Anyone know of one that has a high current setting that reads up to 30 or 40 Amps? Guess I will have to drag out a GE Ferro-resonant supply and test it against on of my big switchers. Paul From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of DaveH Sent: Monday, January 15, 2007 1:14 PM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] minor formula typo in formula switching power supplies Hello, I can respect your opinion. Taking into account that average ham radio station has a duty cycle of 10% or less, the figures you quote are much to high. This response is general information relative to normal amateur use. As far as a single repeater running off one, most repeater systems use in this nation has fallen off dramatically, Once again the number you quote is much to high. I have proven this many times over. If, as you indicate the load had A duty cycle of ten hours, you observations would be correct relative to cost if the playing field was level. . In a commercial setting perhaps that might bear fruition. However, in a commercial setting power factor would become a point of concern. Here the utility company becomes concerned about power factor and keeping loads on the three phase supply in nominal balance relative to amperage loads. If someone has to worry about approx $7.00 per month, there are other issues that will indeed out weigh that. In addition, utility companies have MINIMUM monthly charges and it is highly doubtful one would even see $7.00 savings given the monthly bill calculated by your example is $22 and change . Here the minimum charge utility companies have is approx $17.00 monthly (and that is lowest). The VERY BEST one could expect is perhaps $5.00 and that is extremely doubtful. Using the terms decades to repay is perhaps exaggeration. However, return on investment would not even come close to being justifiable. David R. Henry LME - Original Message - From: WYSA To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, January 15, 2007 1:27 PM Subject: RE: [Repeater-Builder] minor formula typo in formula switching power supplies Hi Dave, I read with interest your comments. Lets do some math to see if your decades long pay back is correct. I agree with your observation about efficiency being the only real difference between the two types of supplies.
Re: [Repeater-Builder] minor formula typo in formula switching power supplies
gt; issues. Most modern switchers now come with power factor correction in
> the AC input side. The analysis was meant to be simplistic to give the
> reader an idea on how much efficiencies can affect situations. YMMV and
> other such sayings...
>
> Hope this helps someone,
> Marc
>
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> *From:* Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] *On Behalf Of *DaveH
> *Sent:* Monday, January 15, 2007 8:41 AM
> *To:* Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
> *Subject:* [Repeater-Builder] minor formula typo in formula
> switching power supplies
>
> A minor formula exists in the P=EI formula in the original message. The
> corrected version is below. To many annoying phone calls! Sorry
> about that!
> Dave
> - Original Message -
> From: "DaveH" <[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:w2drh%40hvc.rr.com>>
> To: <mailto:Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com>>
> Sent: Sunday, January 14, 2007 6:27 PM
> Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Switching Power Supply vs.
> Astron Etc.
>
> > Erick,
> > I agree with you! The only difference will be any increased
> > efficiencies in the switcher over the mag and that will be small.
> I have
> > had
> > a Master Electrical License for 38 years. A physical law of
> science says
> > that 746 watts equal 1 horsepower> There is no deviation from that
> > scientific fact. In addition, if the equipment that is powered by the
> > astron, draws 30 amps, it's going to draw 30 amps on the
> switcher. THAT
> > CANNOT CHANGE> The power supply, both switcher and mag type, will
> draw
> > the
> > required line current that is demanded by that load. Ohm's law
> says P=EI
> > (power ((wattage)) = E((voltage)) multiplied by the amperage
> ((I)). If 30
> > amps
> > are required at 13.8 volts the resultant power consumed will
> REMAIN THE
> > SAME POWERED BY THE MAG OR SWITCHER SUPPLY. Since this physical
> law cannot
> > change, then the efficiency differences between the two types of
> supply
> > will
> > be the ONLY POSSIBLE DECREASE IN CONSUMED ELECTRICITY.
> > Since efficiency is the ONLY POSSIBLE GAIN and the switcher cannot
> > generate electricity and there is no perpetual motion, needed
> magnetizing
> > current decrease and possible utility current power factor
> improvements
> > are
> > the ONLY POSSIBLE IMPROVEMENTS THAT CAN OCCUR. If you consider these
> > facts,
> > you will instantly see that utility cost reductions will be
> minimal at
> > best.
> > Electrical company power charges are calculated in KWH (kilowatt
> hours).
> > That is calculated by the formula KHW (killer what hours ((hi hi)) =
> > wattage load (both apparent and actual) multiplied by the time
> used and
> > divided by one thousand. Since the inefficiencies are these SMALL
> > differences, any real electrical cost savings will be in pennies
> on the
> > monthly bill and that is if the utility apparent wattage is in
> line with
> > actual use (power factor corrected).
> > As you can see, the only real advantage to the switching supplies are
> > mostly physical. By the way. Accurately measuring these electrical
> > differences with metering equipment can get quite complicated
> since ac
> > power factor is involved. To correctly measure this you need to
> correct
> > power factor by using correction capacitors. That is why utility
> meters
> > have
> > a designed and approved accuracy of 1.5 to 2 percent (this is
> national
> > standard and regulation required). If anyone believes they are
> going to
> > save
> > any substantial amount of money by converting to switchers, they
> are going
> > to be rudely awakened. It would take decades to recoup the cost
> of such
> > equipment replacements based upon utility savings.
> > One last myth left to clear up. A power supply connected to ac
> current
> > and left turned on 24/7/365 is the way to insure increased equipment
> > longevity. I have heard many people say they must "turn their
> power supply
> > off when equipment is not being used to save electricity."
> NOTHING COULD
> > BE
> > MORE E
Re: [Repeater-Builder] minor formula typo in formula switching power supplies
MessageOnce again Retrofit does NOT make justifiable sense under any circumstances> Do so when the unit fails. There is no contest there. Retrofit to save energy does NOT get it. - Original Message - From: Paul Finch To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, January 15, 2007 4:01 PM Subject: RE: [Repeater-Builder] minor formula typo in formula switching power supplies David, True, but in a commercial application like mine where I have around 12 supplies (beside my Ham stuff) in the building it does make a difference. One other thing you may want to consider, the tower owner that is giving you free (or very cheap) tower space for your Ham repeaters. I am sure he would like any help he could get to lower his already out of site electric charges. I know I do! Just offering the "other" side of the equation. One other thing that has not been mentioned here, this time. The idle current that the Ferro-resonant supplies exhibit on the input without a load that the switchers don't. Every way I have looked at the problem I can't get past that idle current even when the repeater is not on the air. Wish someone could explain that in a way I could understand. Someone mentioned the inline AC meter the other day, the problem so far with them is I can't put them in line with the Paging transmitters to check how much the use per month. Anyone know of one that has a high current setting that reads up to 30 or 40 Amps? Guess I will have to drag out a GE Ferro-resonant supply and test it against on of my big switchers. Paul -- From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of DaveH Sent: Monday, January 15, 2007 1:14 PM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] minor formula typo in formula switching power supplies Hello, I can respect your opinion. Taking into account that average ham radio station has a duty cycle of 10% or less, the figures you quote are much to high. This response is general information relative to normal amateur use. As far as a single repeater running off one, most repeater systems use in this nation has fallen off dramatically, Once again the number you quote is much to high. I have proven this many times over. If, as you indicate the load had A duty cycle of ten hours, you observations would be correct relative to cost if the playing field was level. . In a commercial setting perhaps that might bear fruition. However, in a commercial setting power factor would become a point of concern. Here the utility company becomes concerned about power factor and keeping loads on the three phase supply in nominal balance relative to amperage loads. If someone has to worry about approx $7.00 per month, there are other issues that will indeed out weigh that. In addition, utility companies have MINIMUM monthly charges and it is highly doubtful one would even see $7.00 savings given the monthly bill calculated by your example is $22 and change . Here the minimum charge utility companies have is approx $17.00 monthly (and that is lowest). The VERY BEST one could expect is perhaps $5.00 and that is extremely doubtful. Using the terms decades to repay is perhaps exaggeration. However, return on investment would not even come close to being justifiable. David R. Henry LME - Original Message - From: WYSA To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, January 15, 2007 1:27 PM Subject: RE: [Repeater-Builder] minor formula typo in formula switching power supplies Hi Dave, I read with interest your comments. Lets do some math to see if your decades long pay back is correct. I agree with your observation about efficiency being the only real difference between the two types of supplies. So taking that input, lets see what the numbers say. Typical Setup (numbers rounded to make the math easy): DC Load: 14 vdc at 30 amps Usage: 10 hours per day, 365 days per year Electricity cost: 10 cents per KHw Setup 1: Linear supply (ASTRON RM35 for example) Looking at the schematic, the output of the transformer (into the linear regulator circuit) is 25 volts at full load, lets say 30 amps. The load power is 14 volts times 30 amps or 420 watts. The power into the linear regulator is 25 volts times 30 amps or 750 watts. Linear regulators dissipate the difference as heat... This gives an efficiency of 56% (420/750 *100) Lets say the supply needs 750 watts to supply 420 watts, ignoring mag core losses, phase, etc. The total yearly run time is about 3650 hours (10*365). Total KWh is 750*3650/1000 = 2,737 KWh per year Total cost is about $273 per year (10 cents * 2737 KWH). Setup 2: Switching power supply (General type)
Re: [Repeater-Builder] minor formula typo in formula switching power supplies
MessageHello again Marc, Yes to an extent we are looking at different angles. However, retrofiting any setup just for the sake of energy saving just doesn't cut it. As does turning off any power supply to save energy. That is in fact what instituted this response. To much "black box" and "snake oil" out there! Thanks for the good responses. God Bless. 73 David R. Henry LME - Original Message - From: WYSA To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, January 15, 2007 3:26 PM Subject: RE: [Repeater-Builder] minor formula typo in formula switching power supplies David, Well, being that this is the repeater group, I assumed we were discussing repeaters, not an average ham HF station. Certainly, no one I know uses his HF radio 10 hrs a day, 7 days a week... My mis-understanding of your e-mail. Anyone can certainly bend the numbers to make any point you'd like, even me. If you never turn them on, who cares what type of supply you have! In any case, I was referring to more of a commercial repeater situation or a busy ham situation, of which there are lots of owners/builders on this reflector. Your original e-mail did not indicate any duty cycle. Your limited use view is not universal and I was trying to make that point. I believe there are plenty of people here who deal with high use equipment and multi-transmitter type sites, including hams (clubs) who run multiple repeaters on multiple sites. I was simply trying to make the point that switchers are more efficient and cost effective, especially in a high use environment. And yes, my ham club would love to save $10 a month on the electric bill (being hams of course!). By the way, Power factor is not a problem on properly designed modern switching power supplies. You keep saying return on investment. In my industry, switching power supplies do not significantly cost more than linears (new vs new), so my only guess is you are referring to taking working linears out of service to be replaced with switchers, just to save money. (Ignoring heat load and size savings) Is this correct? If not, there is no significant difference on investment, so I'm confused as to what you mean by return on investment in this case. And if this is a new installation, why put in equipment which draws more power than needed, is larger, and produces more heat under load? (Again, for a VHF/UHF repeater situation, not an HF station in your basement). Thanks for the discussion! I guess we are approaching this from two different angles. Take care, Marc -Original Message- From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of DaveH Sent: Monday, January 15, 2007 2:14 PM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] minor formula typo in formula switching power supplies Hello, I can respect your opinion. Taking into account that average ham radio station has a duty cycle of 10% or less, the figures you quote are much to high. This response is general information relative to normal amateur use. As far as a single repeater running off one, most repeater systems use in this nation has fallen off dramatically, Once again the number you quote is much to high. I have proven this many times over. If, as you indicate the load had A duty cycle of ten hours, you observations would be correct relative to cost if the playing field was level. . In a commercial setting perhaps that might bear fruition. However, in a commercial setting power factor would become a point of concern. Here the utility company becomes concerned about power factor and keeping loads on the three phase supply in nominal balance relative to amperage loads. If someone has to worry about approx $7.00 per month, there are other issues that will indeed out weigh that. In addition, utility companies have MINIMUM monthly charges and it is highly doubtful one would even see $7.00 savings given the monthly bill calculated by your example is $22 and change . Here the minimum charge utility companies have is approx $17.00 monthly (and that is lowest). The VERY BEST one could expect is perhaps $5.00 and that is extremely doubtful. Using the terms decades to repay is perhaps exaggeration. However, return on investment would not even come close to being justifiable. David R. Henry LME
Re: [Repeater-Builder] minor formula typo in formula switching power supplies
I'm not sure of what you are asking. Line current on genset is not going to be any less than on normal utility power. Line is line no matter what. I sure don't understand your reference to metric? Power is power. If perhaps you had a large commercial site, this would have to be considered. However, it would take conversion of a number of power supplies to become a real significant issue. Lighting, heating, air-conditioning, and power to "other equipment" far outweigh this. - Original Message - From: "Jay Urish" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Monday, January 15, 2007 1:48 PM Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] minor formula typo in formula switching power supplies > How about the other metric? Load on th AC Mains should the grid drop and > everything switches over to Genset. > > Does the switcher pull less AC as well? With DC load and without? > > WYSA wrote: >> >> >> Hi Dave, >> >> I read with interest your comments. Lets do some math to see if your >> decades long pay back is correct. >> >> I agree with your observation about efficiency being the only real >> difference between the two types of supplies. >> So taking that input, lets see what the numbers say. >> >> Typical Setup (numbers rounded to make the math easy): >> >> DC Load: 14 vdc at 30 amps >> Usage: 10 hours per day, 365 days per year >> Electricity cost: 10 cents per KHw >> >> Setup 1: >> Linear supply (ASTRON RM35 for example) >> >> Looking at the schematic, the output of the transformer (into the linear >> regulator circuit) is 25 volts at full load, lets say 30 amps. >> The load power is 14 volts times 30 amps or 420 watts. >> The power into the linear regulator is 25 volts times 30 amps or 750 >> watts. Linear regulators dissipate the difference as heat... >> This gives an efficiency of 56% (420/750 *100) >> Lets say the supply needs 750 watts to supply 420 watts, ignoring mag >> core losses, phase, etc. >> The total yearly run time is about 3650 hours (10*365). >> Total KWh is 750*3650/1000 = 2,737 KWh per year >> Total cost is about $273 per year (10 cents * 2737 KWH). >> >> >> Setup 2: >> Switching power supply (General type) >> >> Load power is again 420 watts. >> Typical efficiency is 80%. There are higher efficiency power supplies, >> but lets use 80% for now. >> This gives an input power of 525 watts (420 / 0.8) >> Total yearly run time is again 3650 hours. >> Total KWh is 525*3650/1000 = 1,916 KWH per year >> Total cost is about $191 per year. >> >> >> The switcher will save you $82 per year in lower electric costs. This >> savings is for each power supply in use, given the duty cycle above. Of >> course, the lower your current requirements or lower duty cycle, the >> less you save in real dollars per year. However, I do not see any >> chance of a decades long pay back... I'll take the $82 per year savings >> and the lower heat load in the cabinet any time. The one exception >> might be if the room also houses or uses LF of HF communications. I'd >> be more careful in the situation. Otherwise, why not??? >> >> Sometimes the devil is in the details. I've been a BSEE for 23 years >> now and the smallest details can get ya. One comment about my analysis, >> I have not taken into account power factor correction or phase angle >> issues. Most modern switchers now come with power factor correction in >> the AC input side. The analysis was meant to be simplistic to give the >> reader an idea on how much efficiencies can affect situations. YMMV and >> other such sayings... >> >> Hope this helps someone, >> Marc >> >> >> >> >> -Original Message- >> *From:* Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com >> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] *On Behalf Of *DaveH >> *Sent:* Monday, January 15, 2007 8:41 AM >> *To:* Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com >> *Subject:* [Repeater-Builder] minor formula typo in formula >> switching power supplies >> >> A minor formula exists in the P=EI formula in the original message. >> The >> corrected version is below. To many annoying phone calls! Sorry >> about that! >> Dave >> - Original Message - >> From: "DaveH" <[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:w2drh%40hvc.rr.com>> >> To: > <mailto:Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com>> >> Sent: Sunday, January 14, 2007 6:27 PM >> Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Switchin
Re: [Repeater-Builder] minor formula typo in formula switching power supplies
MessageHello,
I can respect your opinion. Taking into account that average ham radio station
has a duty cycle of 10% or less, the figures you quote are much to high. This
response is general information relative to normal amateur use. As far as a
single repeater running off one, most repeater systems use in this nation has
fallen off dramatically, Once again the number you quote is much to high. I
have proven this many times over. If, as you indicate the load had A duty
cycle of ten hours, you observations would be correct relative to cost if the
playing field was level. . In a commercial setting perhaps that might bear
fruition. However, in a commercial setting power factor would become a point of
concern. Here the utility company becomes concerned about power factor and
keeping loads on the three phase supply in nominal balance relative to amperage
loads.
If someone has to worry about approx $7.00 per month, there are other
issues that will indeed out weigh that. In addition, utility companies have
MINIMUM monthly charges and it is highly doubtful one would even see $7.00
savings given the monthly bill calculated by your example is $22 and change .
Here the minimum charge utility companies have is approx $17.00 monthly (and
that is lowest). The VERY BEST one could expect is perhaps $5.00 and that is
extremely doubtful. Using the terms decades to repay is perhaps exaggeration.
However, return on investment would not even come close to being justifiable.
David R. Henry LME
- Original Message -
From: WYSA
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, January 15, 2007 1:27 PM
Subject: RE: [Repeater-Builder] minor formula typo in formula switching power
supplies
Hi Dave,
I read with interest your comments. Lets do some math to see if your decades
long pay back is correct.
I agree with your observation about efficiency being the only real difference
between the two types of supplies.
So taking that input, lets see what the numbers say.
Typical Setup (numbers rounded to make the math easy):
DC Load: 14 vdc at 30 amps
Usage: 10 hours per day, 365 days per year
Electricity cost: 10 cents per KHw
Setup 1:
Linear supply (ASTRON RM35 for example)
Looking at the schematic, the output of the transformer (into the linear
regulator circuit) is 25 volts at full load, lets say 30 amps.
The load power is 14 volts times 30 amps or 420 watts.
The power into the linear regulator is 25 volts times 30 amps or 750 watts.
Linear regulators dissipate the difference as heat...
This gives an efficiency of 56% (420/750 *100)
Lets say the supply needs 750 watts to supply 420 watts, ignoring mag core
losses, phase, etc.
The total yearly run time is about 3650 hours (10*365).
Total KWh is 750*3650/1000 = 2,737 KWh per year
Total cost is about $273 per year (10 cents * 2737 KWH).
Setup 2:
Switching power supply (General type)
Load power is again 420 watts.
Typical efficiency is 80%. There are higher efficiency power supplies, but
lets use 80% for now.
This gives an input power of 525 watts (420 / 0.8)
Total yearly run time is again 3650 hours.
Total KWh is 525*3650/1000 = 1,916 KWH per year
Total cost is about $191 per year.
The switcher will save you $82 per year in lower electric costs. This
savings is for each power supply in use, given the duty cycle above. Of
course, the lower your current requirements or lower duty cycle, the less you
save in real dollars per year. However, I do not see any chance of a decades
long pay back... I'll take the $82 per year savings and the lower heat load in
the cabinet any time. The one exception might be if the room also houses or
uses LF of HF communications. I'd be more careful in the situation.
Otherwise, why not???
Sometimes the devil is in the details. I've been a BSEE for 23 years now and
the smallest details can get ya. One comment about my analysis, I have not
taken into account power factor correction or phase angle issues. Most modern
switchers now come with power factor correction in the AC input side. The
analysis was meant to be simplistic to give the reader an idea on how much
efficiencies can affect situations. YMMV and other such sayings...
Hope this helps someone,
Marc
-Original Message-
From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
Of DaveH
Sent: Monday, January 15, 2007 8:41 AM
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Repeater-Builder] minor formula typo in formula switching power
supplies
A minor formula exists in the P=EI formula in the original message. The
corrected version is below. To many annoying phone calls! Sorry about that!
Dave
- Original Message -----
From: "DaveH" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Sunday, January 14, 2007 6:27 PM
Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder
[Repeater-Builder] minor formula typo in formula switching power supplies
A minor formula exists in the P=EI formula in the original message. The corrected version is below. To many annoying phone calls! Sorry about that! Dave - Original Message - From: "DaveH" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Sunday, January 14, 2007 6:27 PM Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Switching Power Supply vs. Astron Etc. > Erick, >I agree with you! The only difference will be any increased > efficiencies in the switcher over the mag and that will be small. I have > had > a Master Electrical License for 38 years. A physical law of science says > that 746 watts equal 1 horsepower> There is no deviation from that > scientific fact. In addition, if the equipment that is powered by the > astron, draws 30 amps, it's going to draw 30 amps on the switcher. THAT > CANNOT CHANGE> The power supply, both switcher and mag type, will draw > the > required line current that is demanded by that load. Ohm's law says P=EI > (power ((wattage)) = E((voltage)) multiplied by the amperage ((I)). If 30 > amps > are required at 13.8 volts the resultant power consumed will REMAIN THE > SAME POWERED BY THE MAG OR SWITCHER SUPPLY. Since this physical law cannot > change, then the efficiency differences between the two types of supply > will > be the ONLY POSSIBLE DECREASE IN CONSUMED ELECTRICITY. >Since efficiency is the ONLY POSSIBLE GAIN and the switcher cannot > generate electricity and there is no perpetual motion, needed magnetizing > current decrease and possible utility current power factor improvements > are > the ONLY POSSIBLE IMPROVEMENTS THAT CAN OCCUR. If you consider these > facts, > you will instantly see that utility cost reductions will be minimal at > best. > Electrical company power charges are calculated in KWH (kilowatt hours). > That is calculated by the formula KHW (killer what hours ((hi hi)) = > wattage load (both apparent and actual) multiplied by the time used and > divided by one thousand. Since the inefficiencies are these SMALL > differences, any real electrical cost savings will be in pennies on the > monthly bill and that is if the utility apparent wattage is in line with > actual use (power factor corrected). >As you can see, the only real advantage to the switching supplies are > mostly physical. By the way. Accurately measuring these electrical > differences with metering equipment can get quite complicated since ac > power factor is involved. To correctly measure this you need to correct > power factor by using correction capacitors. That is why utility meters > have > a designed and approved accuracy of 1.5 to 2 percent (this is national > standard and regulation required). If anyone believes they are going to > save > any substantial amount of money by converting to switchers, they are going > to be rudely awakened. It would take decades to recoup the cost of such > equipment replacements based upon utility savings. >One last myth left to clear up. A power supply connected to ac current > and left turned on 24/7/365 is the way to insure increased equipment > longevity. I have heard many people say they must "turn their power supply > off when equipment is not being used to save electricity." NOTHING COULD > BE > MORE ERRONEOUS. The ONLY electricity being consumed when the load is > switched off, is magnetizing current and voltage correction current from > leakage etc. > Since this is relatively minute, those "significant savings" are > nonexistent. Once again we speak of pennies. If you consider the stress > caused by switching the power supply on and off many times, in the end you > loose. Life expectancy is decreased by in rush, each time the unit is > re-energized. I have had Astron mag. supplies functioning for DECADES with > no failure. As long as the input is protected by GOOD electronic spike > suppression, failure is mostly limited to age or abuse (possible load > shorts). >I can only hope this helps clear up confusion and to eliminate > conjecture regarding these subjects. > > David R. Henry LME > > - Original Message - > From: "Eric Lemmon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: > Sent: Sunday, January 14, 2007 3:07 PM > Subject: RE: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Switching Power Supply vs. Astron Etc. > > >> Larry, >> >> You have a golden opportunity to provide an extremely valuable service to >> the radio community! If you can obtain the use of a wattmeter, you can >> make >> a comparison between the two power supplies. One such meter is the "KILL >> A >> WATT" meter that is sold under several brand names. It is inexpensive, >> and >> accurate enough for our purposes. &
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Switching Power Supply vs. Astron Etc.
Erick, I agree with you! The only difference will be any increased efficiencies in the switcher over the mag and that will be small. I have had a Master Electrical License for 38 years. A physical law of science says that 746 watts equal 1 horsepower> There is no deviation from that scientific fact. In addition, if the equipment that is powered by the astron, draws 30 amps, it's going to draw 30 amps on the switcher. THAT CANNOT CHANGE> The power supply, both switcher and mag type, will draw the required line current that is demanded by that load. Ohm's law says P=E/I (power ((wattage)) = E((voltage)) divided by the amperage ((I)). If 30 amps are required at 13.8 volts the resultant power consumed will REMAIN THE SAME POWERED BY THE MAG OR SWITCHER SUPPLY. Since this physical law cannot change, then the efficiency differences between the two types of supply will be the ONLY POSSIBLE DECREASE IN CONSUMED ELECTRICITY. Since efficiency is the ONLY POSSIBLE GAIN and the switcher cannot generate electricity and there is no perpetual motion, needed magnetizing current decrease and possible utility current power factor improvements are the ONLY POSSIBLE IMPROVEMENTS THAT CAN OCCUR. If you consider these facts, you will instantly see that utility cost reductions will be minimal at best. Electrical company power charges are calculated in KWH (kilowatt hours). That is calculated by the formula KHW (killer what hours ((hi hi)) = wattage load (both apparent and actual) multiplied by the time used and divided by one thousand. Since the inefficiencies are these SMALL differences, any real electrical cost savings will be in pennies on the monthly bill and that is if the utility apparent wattage is in line with actual use (power factor corrected). As you can see, the only real advantage to the switching supplies are mostly physical. By the way. Accurately measuring these electrical differences with metering equipment can get quite complicated since ac power factor is involved. To correctly measure this you need to correct power factor by using correction capacitors. That is why utility meters have a designed and approved accuracy of 1.5 to 2 percent (this is national standard and regulation required). If anyone believes they are going to save any substantial amount of money by converting to switchers, they are going to be rudely awakened. It would take decades to recoup the cost of such equipment replacements based upon utility savings. One last myth left to clear up. A power supply connected to ac current and left turned on 24/7/365 is the way to insure increased equipment longevity. I have heard many people say they must "turn their power supply off when equipment is not being used to save electricity." NOTHING COULD BE MORE ERRONEOUS. The ONLY electricity being consumed when the load is switched off, is magnetizing current and voltage correction current from leakage etc. Since this is relatively minute, those "significant savings" are nonexistent. Once again we speak of pennies. If you consider the stress caused by switching the power supply on and off many times, in the end you loose. Life expectancy is decreased by in rush, each time the unit is re-energized. I have had Astron mag. supplies functioning for DECADES with no failure. As long as the input is protected by GOOD electronic spike suppression, failure is mostly limited to age or abuse (possible load shorts). I can only hope this helps clear up confusion and to eliminate conjecture regarding these subjects. David R. Henry LME - Original Message - From: "Eric Lemmon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Sunday, January 14, 2007 3:07 PM Subject: RE: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Switching Power Supply vs. Astron Etc. > Larry, > > You have a golden opportunity to provide an extremely valuable service to > the radio community! If you can obtain the use of a wattmeter, you can > make > a comparison between the two power supplies. One such meter is the "KILL > A > WATT" meter that is sold under several brand names. It is inexpensive, > and > accurate enough for our purposes. > > Try measuring the power- both real and apparent- drawn by the same > equipment > while operating on the TPN1110B supply, and again while operating on the > TPN1151A supply. Make a note of all parameters in both the idle state and > while transmitting. I'll be surprised if the energy used by the switcher > is > not much less than the ferro-resonant unit. > > Keep in mind that the utility charges its customers for the consumption of > real power in watts over time, in kWh. In an AC circuit, the independent > measurement of volts and amperes does not equal watts unless the load is > resistive, which is definitely not the case with a power supply. > Therefore, > the measurement of current drawn by each power supply is meaningless, > since > it is not in phase with the voltage. The product of u
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Switching Power Supply vs. Astron Etc.
Mathew, Ok fine business. Hope it all works fine! God Bless! 73 Dave - Original Message - From: Mathew Quaife To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, January 14, 2007 7:15 AM Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Switching Power Supply vs. Astron Etc. Dave, Thanks. The only reason I am considering changing is that I can put the 70 amp back into my radio room, since the 100 amp is available. I'm going to try it today and see what it does, see if any noise shows up. As they say, it can't hurt to try. And that the 100 amp is much lighter than the 70 amp. Mathew DaveH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Hi Mathew, If the supply you are using is fine why change? Yes, you would gain some amperage capacity. However, switching supplies are inherently noisy. You could experience problems from these noises. I realize we are not talking about HF. But, it is possible to wind up with a problem you don't have now. If that 50 amp supply is fine, I see no advantage in the change. Dave - Original Message - From: "n9lv" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Saturday, January 13, 2007 10:48 AM Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Switching Power Supply vs. Astron Etc. > With all the talk about switching power supplies, I asked a question > but did not really see my answer. Currently I have an Astron 70 Amp > power supply on the repeater system. I have access to a 100 Amp > Audiopipe DSPS10012 switching power supply available for the > repeater. What would be the (dis)advantage of using this power supply > and release the 70 Amp Astron that is in line currently? > > Mathew > > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > -- Check out the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta - Fire up a more powerful email and get things done faster.
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Switching Power Supply vs. Astron Etc.
Hi Mathew, If the supply you are using is fine why change? Yes, you would gain some amperage capacity. However, switching supplies are inherently noisy. You could experience problems from these noises. I realize we are not talking about HF. But, it is possible to wind up with a problem you don't have now. If that 50 amp supply is fine, I see no advantage in the change. Dave - Original Message - From: "n9lv" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Saturday, January 13, 2007 10:48 AM Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Switching Power Supply vs. Astron Etc. > With all the talk about switching power supplies, I asked a question > but did not really see my answer. Currently I have an Astron 70 Amp > power supply on the repeater system. I have access to a 100 Amp > Audiopipe DSPS10012 switching power supply available for the > repeater. What would be the (dis)advantage of using this power supply > and release the 70 Amp Astron that is in line currently? > > Mathew > > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > >
