Typical mains power for mid-range PC?

On Sat, 05 Aug 2006 05:12:24 GMT, Phat Bytestard
wrote:

On Fri, 04 Aug 2006 01:07:14 -0400, kony Gave us:

On Thu, 03 Aug 2006 04:57:56 GMT, Phat Bytestard
wrote:

On Wed, 02 Aug 2006 12:29:57 -0400, kony Gave us:

and that when it
happens rapidly it is another way to describe ripple, though
at a larger magnitude.

Bull****.

Ripple has a very specific definition, and that ain't it.

So sorry but ripple is ripple, including all causes... not
just the ones that suit your blind argument.


Ripple and noise are defined as periodic or random signals over a
frequency band of 10 Hz
to 20 MHz.

Your transient current draw CRAP is NOT ripple.

What did you expect to be this transient when it comes from
multi-MHz if not GHz chips, at least dozens of KHz
switching?

This is not like some motor that is a one-shot turn on.
These are constant variable loads that induce more rail
ripple than put out by the PSU itself.

On Sat, 05 Aug 2006 05:12:49 GMT, Phat Bytestard
wrote:

On Fri, 04 Aug 2006 01:10:21 -0400, kony Gave us:

Again I ask why are you repeating the obvious?

**** you, BOY!


So you feel this attitude does anything other than make you
look an idiot?

On Sat, 05 Aug 2006 05:14:39 GMT, Phat Bytestard
wrote:

On Fri, 04 Aug 2006 01:10:21 -0400, kony Gave us:

Or, did you always use low quality PSU yourself so you have
no context of what normal quality is?

You're a goddamned idiot.


Why would I take anything you write seriously when you have
already demonstrated a propensity to troll-like behavior?

BTW, as mentioned previously, it is a bit ridiculous that
you couldn't manage to reply to entire posts at a time
instead of fragmenting them into over a dozen. If you
continue further fragmenting them, that dozen will turn into
several dozen and it is senseless when they were all on the
same subtopic.

If you would like to screw your head on straight, combine
your multiple posts into a summary reply, then perhaps we
can continue to discuss this a bit more like adults.
Somehow I doubt that will happen so unless it does, this
will be my last round of replies.

On Sat, 05 Aug 2006 05:15:33 GMT, Phat Bytestard
wrote:

On Fri, 04 Aug 2006 01:11:08 -0400, kony Gave us:

I'm not the one who is clueless about dynamic loads.

I've designed and characterized far more power supplies than a
retarded **** like you ever will.


I'm not interested in your ego or characterization, rather
some real-world testing experience would be relevant. You
have not done that relevant testing on a modern system if
you have not observed this load-induced ripple.

On Sat, 05 Aug 2006 05:18:47 GMT, Phat Bytestard
wrote:

On Fri, 04 Aug 2006 01:14:56 -0400, kony Gave us:

No, while there is certainly a level of ripple at the
steady-load state you previously described, that *would be*
beyond tolerable by the equipment being powered, that ripple
is of a much smaller magnitude than that caused by the
dynamic nature of today's systems.

You're an idiot. READ IT AGAIN. The ATX SPECIFICATION (you do know
what that is, right jackass) DECLARES A RIPPLE SPEC.

I never claimed it didn't.

Again I ask, WHY ARE YOU STATING THE OBVIOUS?



You dont' understand the large current swings

Yes... I most certainly do.

Apparently not, you continue to deny them else you'd see
them for what they are- regularly reoccuring (no, actually
CONSTANT) high frequency current changes.


nor slow SMPS
global feedback.

You're an idiot.I have conditioned more feedback loops in switcher
than you ever will.

"IF" that is even remotely true, I hope none of your designs
are still in use today powering modern computers, because
you obviously don't understand that the goal is to design
the supply for the load, not just to reach the minimal
static (pseudo) load ripple.




Until you do, you're missing a very large
piece of the puzzle.

You keep jacking off at the mouth as if you know what I do or do not
know about. You couldn't be more wrong, dumbass.

I know what you wrote, and that you think your current tone
somehow diverts attention from it.

On Sat, 05 Aug 2006 05:19:56 GMT, Phat Bytestard
wrote:

On Fri, 04 Aug 2006 01:17:45 -0400, kony Gave us:

The fact remains that your overly simplistic description of
relevant ripple, is eclipsed by the actual ripple induced by
factors you don't understand.

Since you have no clue as to what I do or do not understand, the
only fact here is that you are full of ****.

Can you get that factor, you retarded ****?


I can see you must be a very productive person if everyone
around you doesn't pretend you are always right.

On Sat, 05 Aug 2006 05:21:10 GMT, Phat Bytestard
wrote:

On Fri, 04 Aug 2006 01:18:07 -0400, kony Gave us:

On Thu, 03 Aug 2006 05:13:52 GMT, Phat Bytestard
wrote:

On Wed, 02 Aug 2006 12:51:12 -0400, kony Gave us:

Whatever ripple you see at steady
full load is a pointless measure beyond meeting the spec

That has to be one of the most stupid things you've said yet.


You fail to see the larger picture here.

You wouldn't know what the bigger picture is if it bit you in the
ass, which it already has.

I think you're on a roll here, so far your content per post
ratio is so low that it is justifying what I'd already
planned to do, stop bothering to post when you have nothing
of worth to discuss.

On Sat, 05 Aug 2006 05:25:14 GMT, Phat Bytestard
wrote:

On Fri, 04 Aug 2006 01:26:18 -0400, kony Gave us:

I'm considering compliant supplies. Please tell us you're
not trying to use non-compliant supplies.


Grow the **** up, retard boy. The discussion was about cheap non
compliant OEM supplies,

No, though you might have wanted, even needed to try to
shift the conversation in that direction to make any of what
you wrote seem sensible.

We can cover non-compliant supplies with one brief
statement- Nobody should be using them. With that out of
the way we have left those that are compliant to consider.


and if you had any brains, or any memory
capacity, you would know (remember) that I already stated what types
of supplies I use. So **** off, you know nothing presumptuous ****!

Did you think writing "**** off" the 2nd or 3rd time was any
more significant than the first?




Since we can assume you will claim you're not using
non-compliant supplies, and that everyone else should be
rejecting non-compliant supplies too, we can ignore them and
move on to compliant supplies.

Nope. Not when the entire discussion was about what makes a claimed
to be compliant supply fail to be compliant.

Was it the discussion? Please quote this in context.

It seems this started out with the following:

===========================================

the other rails are at their rated output. As the rated output of the
rail being tested is approached, a good supply will still have low
ripple. A **** supply will be very high in ripple at rated output,
which cancels the validity of the rating.


Most supplies are better at outtputing their max
steady-state capacity than they are at a real dynamic load
such as CPU that can vary by a couple dozen watts
instantaneously.

The quality of the supply is its ripple spec at max rated load. Since
it will be at a lower load, and even lower ripple at any other time,
that is the max that would be presented to it and is the standard by
which such supplies get qualified

==========================================

You pretty much ignored that there's far far more to this
mystical "quality" than the one simplistic parameter. Far
more than I suggested too, and I only addressed one factor
relating to the ripple.

On Sat, 05 Aug 2006 05:26:04 GMT, Phat Bytestard
wrote:

On Fri, 04 Aug 2006 01:32:13 -0400, kony Gave us:

On Thu, 03 Aug 2006 05:18:47 GMT, Phat Bytestard
wrote:

On Wed, 02 Aug 2006 12:51:12 -0400, kony Gave us:

Read up a bit, then a bit more.

**** off a bit... then a bit more.

Believe it or not, educating yourself about the issue of
dynamic loads would help.

I have designed switchers for years.


I hope not.

On Sat, 05 Aug 2006 05:28:53 GMT, Phat Bytestard
wrote:

On Fri, 04 Aug 2006 01:53:05 -0400, kony Gave us:

Hypothetical PSU outputting 20A RMS full load with very low,
100mA ripple with a constant load.

Shows how little you know, ****tard. Ripple is not expressed in
amps.


You're the one claiming ripple at full load. Thus a current
spec was required to put that in context.