Wilbur,

Stick to stuff you understand.
1. The VHF is on at a100% duty cycle so it's output is 25 watts as you
stated.
2. The RADAR has a pulsed output. The shorter the pulse the better the
resolution of the radar. I remember one 25KW radar I was repairing only used
5 watts for the magnetron.

Power consumed depends on the pulse width and the pulse repetition
frequency.

wrote in message
...
Wilbur,

Stick to stuff you understand.
1. The VHF is on at a100% duty cycle so it's output is 25 watts as you
stated.
2. The RADAR has a pulsed output. The shorter the pulse the better the
resolution of the radar. I remember one 25KW radar I was repairing only
used
5 watts for the magnetron.

Power consumed depends on the pulse width and the pulse repetition
frequency.



That's odd, I could have sworn the link I posted rated the yacht radar
described at 2.2 kilowatt output.

Wilbur Hubbard

It is a 2.2 KW pulse for say one microsecond 200 times a second and off the
rest of the time. Do the math, 200 microseconds on the rest of the time it
is off.
You can see this is not going to be a very high average power.

wrote in message
...
It is a 2.2 KW pulse for say one microsecond 200 times a second and off
the
rest of the time. Do the math, 200 microseconds on the rest of the time it
is off.
You can see this is not going to be a very high average power.



I see your point. If it only runs at that kilowatt output for 1/10 of a
second then for the entire second it will have a draw 1/10 for the entire
second. When talking amps it is better to talk amp/hours. But even so, 2.2
kilowatts - one tenth of that is still 22 watts only for generating the
signal. You still have gears and motor turning that rotor and you still have
the receiver power draw, the cpu power draw and the screen power draw. That
idiot who claimed his radar only draws 2.1 amps continuously is lying. You
don't get something for nothing.

Wilbur Hubbard

A microsecond is one millionth of a second.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsecond

Not 1/10 of a second. 200/1,000,000 of a second or 0.0002 second.

http://www.radartutorial.eu/18.expla...s/ex28.en.html
This site explains it better than I can.

On Wed, 3 Jun 2009 18:16:30 -0400, "Wilbur Hubbard"
wrote:

wrote in message
...
It is a 2.2 KW pulse for say one microsecond 200 times a second and off
the
rest of the time. Do the math, 200 microseconds on the rest of the time it
is off.
You can see this is not going to be a very high average power.



I see your point. If it only runs at that kilowatt output for 1/10 of a
second then for the entire second it will have a draw 1/10 for the entire
second. When talking amps it is better to talk amp/hours. But even so, 2.2
kilowatts - one tenth of that is still 22 watts only for generating the
signal. You still have gears and motor turning that rotor and you still have
the receiver power draw, the cpu power draw and the screen power draw. That
idiot who claimed his radar only draws 2.1 amps continuously is lying. You
don't get something for nothing.

Wilbur Hubbard


I got that figure out of the manual for my Furuno 1623 RADAR.

And I didn't say my RADAR draws that much continuously. It draws
considerably less than that most of the time.

Wilbur Hubbard wrote:
wrote in message
...
It is a 2.2 KW pulse for say one microsecond 200 times a second and off
the
rest of the time. Do the math, 200 microseconds on the rest of the time it
is off.
You can see this is not going to be a very high average power.



I see your point. If it only runs at that kilowatt output for 1/10 of a
second then for the entire second it will have a draw 1/10 for the entire
second. When talking amps it is better to talk amp/hours. But even so, 2.2
kilowatts - one tenth of that is still 22 watts only for generating the
signal. You still have gears and motor turning that rotor and you still have
the receiver power draw, the cpu power draw and the screen power draw. That
idiot who claimed his radar only draws 2.1 amps continuously is lying. You
don't get something for nothing.

Wilbur Hubbard


What a clueless twit!

Brian W

On Wed, 3 Jun 2009 17:48:22 -0400, "Wilbur Hubbard"
wrote:

wrote in message
...
Wilbur,

Stick to stuff you understand.
1. The VHF is on at a100% duty cycle so it's output is 25 watts as you
stated.
2. The RADAR has a pulsed output. The shorter the pulse the better the
resolution of the radar. I remember one 25KW radar I was repairing only
used
5 watts for the magnetron.

Power consumed depends on the pulse width and the pulse repetition
frequency.



That's odd, I could have sworn the link I posted rated the yacht radar
described at 2.2 kilowatt output.

Wilbur Hubbard


What a complete dope.

On Wed, 3 Jun 2009 17:48:22 -0400, "Wilbur Hubbard"
wrote:

wrote in message
...
Wilbur,

Stick to stuff you understand.
1. The VHF is on at a100% duty cycle so it's output is 25 watts as you
stated.
2. The RADAR has a pulsed output. The shorter the pulse the better the
resolution of the radar. I remember one 25KW radar I was repairing only
used
5 watts for the magnetron.

Power consumed depends on the pulse width and the pulse repetition
frequency.



That's odd, I could have sworn the link I posted rated the yacht radar
described at 2.2 kilowatt output.

Wilbur Hubbard


You should have read the whole page before trying to use it as a
reference, dumbass. Further down it says:

Power consumption Max. 36 W, 8 W in standby mode

To get it to draw the max, you would need to crank up the gain all the
way while in 16 mile range. The only time you might do that for a very
brief period is when looking for rain off in the distance.

Realistically, you will almost never draw more than 2 amps, and most
of the time less than that.