If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#261
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#262
|
|||
|
|||
Typical mains power for mid-range PC?
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? |
#263
|
|||
|
|||
Typical mains power for mid-range PC?
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. |
#264
|
|||
|
|||
Typical mains power for mid-range PC?
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. |
#265
|
|||
|
|||
Typical mains power for mid-range PC?
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. |
#266
|
|||
|
|||
Typical mains power for mid-range PC?
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. |
#267
|
|||
|
|||
Typical mains power for mid-range PC?
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. |
#268
|
|||
|
|||
Typical mains power for mid-range PC?
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. |
#269
|
|||
|
|||
Typical mains power for mid-range PC?
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. |
#270
|
|||
|
|||
Typical mains power for mid-range PC?
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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Typical mains power for mid-range PC? | Jon D | General | 52 | August 1st 06 02:18 PM |
My monitor went black in Linux/Debian (X) and text mode earlier today... | [email protected] | Nvidia Videocards | 9 | June 15th 06 12:00 AM |
24 pin power supplies, stability issues? | Don Burnette | General | 28 | March 13th 06 10:25 PM |
Newbie: OC Advice: AMDXP2200 CPU | Donald Bock | Overclocking AMD Processors | 2 | March 12th 05 12:14 AM |
Processor heat dissipation, Leakage current, voltages & clockspeed | The little lost angel | General | 21 | November 1st 04 02:43 AM |