From: bill.sloman@ieee.org   
      
   On 12/11/2025 6:05 pm, Edward Rawde wrote:   
   > "Bill Sloman"  wrote in message news:10f   
   9b8$18b8d$1@dont-email.me...   
   >> On 12/11/2025 4:24 pm, john larkin wrote:   
   >>> On Wed, 12 Nov 2025 00:13:08 -0500, "Edward Rawde"   
   >>>  wrote:   
   >>>   
   >>>> Due to a "Header too long" message while trying to reply to Bill Sloman's   
   post at 11:41 PM in "coil impedance".   
   >>>> Here is my reply.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> "Bill Sloman"  wrote in message news:   
   0f135p$17b8q$1@dont-email.me...   
   >>>>> On 12/11/2025 1:49 am, Edward Rawde wrote:   
   >>>>>> "Bill Sloman"  wrote in message new   
   :10evhdm$p0a1$2@dont-email.me...   
   >>>>>>> On 11/11/2025 11:12 pm, Edward Rawde wrote:   
   >>>>>>>> "Bill Sloman"  wrote in message n   
   ws:10eunlu$hv9m$1@dont-email.me...   
   >>>>>>>>> On 11/11/2025 2:48 am, Edward Rawde wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>> "Bill Sloman"  wrote in message   
   news:10es5mv$3r8qk$1@dont-email.me...   
   >>>>>>>>>>> On 10/11/2025 4:01 pm, Edward Rawde wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> "Bill Sloman"  wrote in message   
   news:10erqko$3o5c0$6@dont-email.me...   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/11/2025 3:29 pm, Edward Rawde wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Bill Sloman"  wrote in message   
   news:10ermr8$3o5c0$1@dont-email.me...   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/11/2025 2:57 am, Edward Rawde wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Bill Sloman"  wrote in message   
   news:10epc7k$33b3h$1@dont-email.me...   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/11/2025 4:01 am, Edward Rawde wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Bill Sloman"  wrote in message   
   news:10emnnb$2cnh3$1@dont-email.me...   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/11/2025 4:49 am, Edward Rawde wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Bill Sloman"  wrote in message   
   news:10elb3i$20r3i$3@dont-email.me...   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/11/2025 3:31 am, Edward Rawde wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Liz Tuddenham"    
   wrote in message   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:1rlfnmd.5t4y3yjlsancN%liz@poppyrecor   
   s.invalid.invalid...   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bill Sloman  wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/11/2025 9:24 pm, Liz Tuddenham wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bill Sloman  wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/11/2025 10:41 am, john larkin wrote:   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>    
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>> If you believe that I ever mentioned tantalum bead capacitors anywhere   
   >>>>>> else then you need to reference that post and the specific part of it   
   or shut up.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> I never said you did. The schematic just showed big capacitors, and in   
   real life they would have been tantalum bead parts.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Excuse me while I fall about laughing.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> I could ask you to reference or post this schematic which showed big   
   capacitors (plural)   
   >>>> but I'm not going to bother.   
   >>   
   >> I've got the file on my computer under the file name "John May 2025-02-15".   
   The file shows C3 and C6 as 100uF electrolytics.   
   >> You have to dig into the part name to find the word "tantalum".   
   >>   
   >>> Tantalums are prone to detonation, if handled badly. And they are   
   >>> often handled badly.   
   >>   
   >> John Larkin may be in the habit of not taking data sheets seriously, but   
   more serious people are more careful. George Kent and   
   >> Cambridge Instruments designed them into products, and  they didn't   
   "detonate" in the field. Junior engineers did occasionally   
   >> solder them into prototypes the wrong way around, but they didn't do it   
   twice.   
   >>   
   >   
   > After fixing microfarad extraneous character issues I found that the circuit   
   you posted with the "tantalum" capacitors does   
   > simulate.   
   > But it is not equivalent to the circuit JM posted and it has much worse   
   harmonic performance.   
   > And I have never seen it before.   
      
   It's clearly going to have more rectifier ripple feed-through, which   
   should equate to more harmonic content in the output, but it struck me   
   as a more practical circuit, at the time.   
      
   I probably didn't post it anywhere. It was just the version on my hard disk.   
      
   > The only circuit I clearly remember (very very clearly) is the one with the   
   470uF capacitor which JM certainly did post because I   
   > just took it from his post.   
      
   But when you posted your version here just now it had 470F rather than   
   470uF at C6, so it wasn't equivalent to his circuit either   
   > So I suspect that the "tantalum" version is a creation of your own which you   
   never posted until now.   
      
   The 470uF capacitor would almost certainly have to be an electrolytic   
   part  (and most likely a tantalum part) in practice. You did object to   
   the size of C6 and claimed that you put together your eight transistor   
   version to get rid of it. The basic idea was interesting, but you didn't   
   explain how it worked, and JM demonstrated that four transistors were   
   enough. It took me a while to get my head around even that, and when I   
   posted my five transistor version I did explain what I thought was going   
   on, rather expecting to have some misconception or other jeered at.   
      
   --   
   Bill Sloman, Sydney   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)