Call Search
     

New to Ham Radio?
My Profile

Community
Articles
Forums
News
Reviews
Friends Remembered
Strays
Survey Question

Operating
Contesting
DX Cluster Spots
Propagation

Resources
Calendar
Classifieds
Ham Exams
Ham Links
List Archives
News Articles
Product Reviews
QSL Managers

Site Info
eHam Help (FAQ)
Support the site
The eHam Team
Advertising Info
Vision Statement
About eHam.net

   Home   Help Search  
Pages: Prev 1 [2] 3 4 5 Next   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Astron Power Supply efficiency  (Read 16212 times)
WX7G
Member

Posts: 6136




Ignore
« Reply #15 on: February 19, 2011, 06:26:02 AM »

Troubleshooting and repairing switchers is not the impossible task that the uninitiated like to speak about, either.

I design switching power supplies and would prefer not to have to troubleshoot an unfamiliar unit. At the price of ham power supplies they are disposable. Broken power supply? Buy a new one for $89.
Logged
W3LK
Member

Posts: 5639




Ignore
« Reply #16 on: February 19, 2011, 06:45:55 AM »


I'm also well known for buying a new car and hanging on to it until I have driven it into. the. ground.  *grin*


73

I'm not quite THAT bad, but my '03 Windstar does have 147k on it. Smiley It was my company vehicle that I bought when I retired. It got a rebuilt transmission at about 95k and I will drive it until the repairs exceed the book value.  Of course, I'm not driving 25-30k a year any more.
Logged

A smoking section in a restaurant makes as much sense as a peeing section in a swimming pool.
KE7DZS
Member

Posts: 22




Ignore
« Reply #17 on: February 19, 2011, 11:09:16 AM »

I have have an astron ra 20 and ss 30.  I only bought the ss 30 because I got a new radio that needed a beefier supply.  I can't see how upgrading to a switcher would be cost efficient in most ham shacks as I am sure sure we all have wall warts that wast much more energy each year.
     I am not a fan of CFL bulbs.  They are expensive, in my experience don't last much longer than incandescent bulbs and are much less green in their manufacture and disposal.  Perhaps it is just me but CFL bulbs seem to break easily. A drop where an incandescent bulb would bounce and be OK results in a shattered CFL bulb. As I understand it the manufacture of CFL bulbs produces more toxic wast and uses more energy than the manufacture of incandescent bulbs. So in the end I believe CFL bulbs are worse for the environment.
      My 91 car and 96 Diesel PU are paid for and run fine.
     
      When someone tells you a newer technology is better and more energy efficient  be skeptical and look at the whole picture. How many folks look at electric cars as the answer to pollution. Depends on where the power comers from, burning coal to make electricity to run a can is about as stupid as using corn to make ethanol to put in gasoline.  Do any of you recall the recent fraud where a guy was selling stock in a company to run cars on compressed air.  He made a lot of money the disappeared.  A large tank of compressed air may propel a small car a couple miles at best. 
      Time to get off my soap box.

KE7DZS
Logged
W8JX
Member

Posts: 6088




Ignore
« Reply #18 on: February 20, 2011, 10:00:43 AM »

I have have an astron ra 20 and ss 30.  I only bought the ss 30 because I got a new radio that needed a beefier supply.  I can't see how upgrading to a switcher would be cost efficient in most ham shacks as I am sure sure we all have wall warts that wast much more energy each year.

Wall warts or not, wasted energy with a old supply is wasted energy and will use more than a switch so I see no logic in this.

     I am not a fan of CFL bulbs.  They are expensive, in my experience don't last much longer than incandescent bulbs and are much less green in their manufacture and disposal.  Perhaps it is just me but CFL bulbs seem to break easily. A drop where an incandescent bulb would bounce and be OK results in a shattered CFL bulb. As I understand it the manufacture of CFL bulbs produces more toxic wast and uses more energy than the manufacture of incandescent bulbs. So in the end I believe CFL bulbs are worse for the environment.

They can be had for peanuts today and they are evolving too. I have some that have been in service since they first came out and my house has long been all CFL except for oven and fridge lights. A incandescent bulb converts approx 5% of energy to light and other 95% to waste heat. It gets kinda scary to consider how many billion o tons of coal, billions of barrels of oil and natural gas we have wasted over the years with incandescent bulbs. CFL does have draw backs in outdoor cold weather applications as they can take several minutes to warm up at zero and below but now there is LED PAR replacements available that are not too pricey. I bought a few to test with outdoor lights on rear of house and while they draw 13 watts each they are very bright and broad and instant on even below zero. Also in another test I replaced 3ea 60 watt incandescent bulbs outside for porch and outside of garage with 3ea 2w SMD LED bulbs. They are nearly as bright and very clean white light.  If you run numbers and average 12 hrs a night. Old bulb used 788KW and new ones 26kw a year. Saving is even bigger when you consider they are sometimes left on all day. 

      My 91 car and 96 Diesel PU are paid for and run fine.

I have a 89 4x4 burb I bought new that is still cherry and runs like new at over 200k original running gear.

     
      When someone tells you a newer technology is better and more energy efficient  be skeptical and look at the whole picture. How many folks look at electric cars as the answer to pollution. Depends on where the power comers from, burning coal to make electricity to run a can is about as stupid as using corn to make ethanol to put in gasoline.  Do any of you recall the recent fraud where a guy was selling stock in a company to run cars on compressed air.  He made a lot of money the disappeared.  A large tank of compressed air may propel a small car a couple miles at best.
 
Well you are somewhat correct on electric cars but being that a IC car only puts about 15% of energy to wheels and rest goes to heat and friction while a electric car can be in 80% range and above. On corn it is real dumb to convert a food source to motor fuel, REAL DUMB. Furthermore because of JQ Public affinity's for 87 octane which severely limits engine design as far as CR ratio which has a big effect on fuel efficiency. Alcohol has a much higher octane and much higher CR could be used in a engine made for alcohol.  Main reason diesels are more efficient is because average CR is twice that of a gas motor. Many will only change when forced too.
Logged

--------------------------------------
All posted wireless using Win 8.1 RT, a Android tablet using 4G/LTE/WiFi or Sprint Note 3.
WX7G
Member

Posts: 6136




Ignore
« Reply #19 on: February 20, 2011, 01:31:10 PM »

Alcohol contains one half the energy per weight as does gasoline. It takes about as much petroleum energy to produce a BTU of corn ethanol energy as can be usefully obtained from it. Our food production and distribution is petroleum intensive. So goes the price of oil goes food prices.

Diesel is more efficient because the engine - a heat engine - has a higher temperature differential. But it takes 1/3 more petroleum to produce a gallon a diesel. Savings gone!

Electric cars are actually coal cars. Plug an electric car into the power grid and where does the power come from? Not from wind or solar. That power is already spoken for and always runs as full as it can. Plug in an electric car to charge and someone somewhere turns up the knob a little bit at a coal plant. Drive an electric car with lead-acid batteries and roughly 3 lbs of battery must be rebuilt each day. That's not so green now, is it?

Why do gasoline cars rule? Because they the free market has decided (correctly) that they provide the lowest cost per mile.

Incandescent bulbs? No more 100 watts bulbs as of the end of this year. The next after that 60 watters go away. And the year after that go the 40 watters. If you enjoy incandescents stock up now.

Have fun and consume. Who are you saving the petroleum for? The world will drink deeply of it until it's gone, global warming or no global warming. Crank back the power on an amp to make a tube last a little bit longer? No way! Push that puppy and work that DX. Buy a bigger power supply so it "loafs along?" A waste of capital. But the smallest and use it. Use the left over money to buy something else. Consume, don't conserve.

Logged
W8JX
Member

Posts: 6088




Ignore
« Reply #20 on: February 20, 2011, 02:34:12 PM »

Alcohol contains one half the energy per weight as does gasoline. It takes about as much petroleum energy to produce a BTU of corn ethanol energy as can be usefully obtained from it. Our food production and distribution is petroleum intensive. So goes the price of oil goes food prices.

Not is all as it seems here. First is has about 60% of BTU energy but it also has much higher octane and cools mixture far more with means greater expansion and power (Indy cars have long raced on Alcohol) The Problem is that all fuel cars do not exploit E85 and do not use it efficiently because they are ham stringed with a lower CR for 87 octane tolerance. A much higher CR would raise MPG up to nearly par with gas PLUS much greater power too.

Diesel is more efficient because the engine - a heat engine - has a higher temperature differential. But it takes 1/3 more petroleum to produce a gallon a diesel. Savings gone!

Heat engine? It is not a Sterling. It gets its efficiency for greater expansion from higher CR as this captures more energy. As far as cost, when they crack a barrel of oil they get several products problem is diesel demand has unbalance the split demand and therefore costs more to make today than in past. 


Electric cars are actually coal cars. Plug an electric car into the power grid and where does the power come from? Not from wind or solar. That power is already spoken for and always runs as full as it can. Plug in an electric car to charge and someone somewhere turns up the knob a little bit at a coal plant. Drive an electric car with lead-acid batteries and roughly 3 lbs of battery must be rebuilt each day. That's not so green now, is it?

Actually they are natural gas and oil cars too because last administration pushed expansion and use of oil and natural gas for power plants because it was cheaper to clean even though we are the middle east of coal with proven reserves exceeding 300 years. Power plants are about 50% efficient for overall more efficient than a gas car.  Plus there is wind power and such and nuclear. Nobody uses lead acid batteries for cars except home brew or golf carts.
 

Why do gasoline cars rule? Because they the free market has decided (correctly) that they provide the lowest cost per mile.

A Myth. It is because other forms of energy have been stifled. Do you think Big Oil wants solar, nuclear or coal power to expand? People complain about a 30 or 40 cent tax on gas that at least is spent here but not the 2 dollars plus of ever gallon that goes overseas.

Incandescent bulbs? No more 100 watts bulbs as of the end of this year. The next after that 60 watters go away. And the year after that go the 40 watters. If you enjoy incandescents stock up now.


Good riddance.

Have fun and consume. Who are you saving the petroleum for? The world will drink deeply of it until it's gone, global warming or no global warming. Crank back the power on an amp to make a tube last a little bit longer? No way! Push that puppy and work that DX. Buy a bigger power supply so it "loafs along?" A waste of capital. But the smallest and use it. Use the left over money to buy something else. Consume, don't conserve.
Nothing wrong with trying to use power more wisely as the wasteful attitude by masses has put us in this pickle today. I remember many many years ago during cheap fuel days my dad telling me it was cheaper to heat than insulate well we are paying for it now.
Logged

--------------------------------------
All posted wireless using Win 8.1 RT, a Android tablet using 4G/LTE/WiFi or Sprint Note 3.
W3LK
Member

Posts: 5639




Ignore
« Reply #21 on: February 20, 2011, 05:42:56 PM »

I just love demagogues who try to impose their "vision" upon others. Smiley
Logged

A smoking section in a restaurant makes as much sense as a peeing section in a swimming pool.
W8JX
Member

Posts: 6088




Ignore
« Reply #22 on: February 20, 2011, 09:00:39 PM »

I just love demagogues who try to impose their "vision" upon others. Smiley

Not imposing anything. Some just like to ignore facts and reality and pretend things are fine and we can go on the way we have forever. Many will not conserve or get more efficient until costs force them too. And if one tries to even remotely discuss it they are brandished for it
Logged

--------------------------------------
All posted wireless using Win 8.1 RT, a Android tablet using 4G/LTE/WiFi or Sprint Note 3.
N0SYA
Member

Posts: 369




Ignore
« Reply #23 on: February 21, 2011, 08:30:45 AM »

pave the planet!
Logged

If you have a clumsy child, you make them wear a helmet. If you have death prone children, you keep a few clones of them in your lab.
W3LK
Member

Posts: 5639




Ignore
« Reply #24 on: February 21, 2011, 12:22:24 PM »

pave the planet!

<gggggggg>
Logged

A smoking section in a restaurant makes as much sense as a peeing section in a swimming pool.
KE3WD
Member

Posts: 5689




Ignore
« Reply #25 on: February 21, 2011, 03:39:17 PM »

and nuke the whales...
Logged
N0SYA
Member

Posts: 369




Ignore
« Reply #26 on: February 21, 2011, 06:00:50 PM »

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cR1A_HNGVMM
Logged

If you have a clumsy child, you make them wear a helmet. If you have death prone children, you keep a few clones of them in your lab.
W3LK
Member

Posts: 5639




Ignore
« Reply #27 on: February 21, 2011, 06:26:38 PM »

and nuke the whales...

I didn't know there were whales in Tehran and Tripoli. <g>
Logged

A smoking section in a restaurant makes as much sense as a peeing section in a swimming pool.
WX7G
Member

Posts: 6136




Ignore
« Reply #28 on: February 23, 2011, 10:51:04 AM »

W8JX, an internal combustion engine is a heat engine. Your answers tell me you have not taken college physics.
Logged
W8JX
Member

Posts: 6088




Ignore
« Reply #29 on: February 23, 2011, 11:35:59 AM »

       Do not make assumptions about me as you would be quite wrong. I actually wrote a large research paper on improving efficiency of IC engine while working on a degree in college in 70's. (got a A on it too)  IC engines are not true heat engines in that while they do harness heat energy from expanding gasses they require fuel to be burned internally while a heat engine like a Sterling (which in theory is more efficient too) it uses a external heat source to run and is not fuel or heat source type dependent. So you could argue either way on the IC engine being a heat engine and yet not one too. The CR (Compression Ratio) of a engine has a direct bearing on its efficiency because the greater that expansion the more energy that is captured and the main reason that diesels are more efficient (BTW diesels were originally designed to run on coal dust too). Gas engines by limitation of fuel octane must run a lower CR and therefore lower efficiency too. (a E-85 only engine could have a much higher CR and have more power and greater efficiency than current all fuel engines) You can also improve efficiency by raising engine block temperatures (less heat from expanding gases is lost to cooling system) but this creates cooling and lubrication problems as temperatures rise. During WW2 and for many years after we had 115 plus octane aviation fuel that allowed for some very powerful and efficient compound super charged IC gas motors that could reach into low 40% range in overall efficiency but that fuel is gone and old aircraft still flying today have to run at reduced power and efficiency with lower octane fuel. Furthermore while diesel are more fuel efficient that have long been very big NOx generators and only recently been required to reduce this but still a lot dirtier than a gas motor in NOx emissions. For many years diesels have disguised this by moving a lot of excess air through engine with a turbo charged which can reduce/dilute PPM (parts per million) but not actual GPM (grams per mile) so they are not really as clean as they seem at times.
Logged

--------------------------------------
All posted wireless using Win 8.1 RT, a Android tablet using 4G/LTE/WiFi or Sprint Note 3.
Pages: Prev 1 [2] 3 4 5 Next   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!