From: bill.sloman@ieee.org   
      
   On 13/11/2025 2:29 am, john larkin wrote:   
   > On Wed, 12 Nov 2025 02:05:28 -0500, "Edward Rawde"   
   >  wrote:   
   >   
   >> "Bill Sloman"  wrote in message news:10   
   19b8$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   
   10f135p$17b8q$1@dont-email.me...   
   >>>>>> On 12/11/2025 1:49 am, Edward Rawde wrote:   
   >>>>>>> "Bill Sloman"  wrote in message ne   
   s:10evhdm$p0a1$2@dont-email.me...   
   >>>>>>>> On 11/11/2025 11:12 pm, Edward Rawde wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>> "Bill Sloman"  wrote in message    
   ews:10eunlu$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@poppyreco   
   ds.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 was probably a tidied up version of what JM posted. I do remember   
   playing with it and finding it needed a lot of by-pass capacitance, at   
   R17 and R21. which would have needed to be electrolytic if it wasn't   
   going to be bulkier than the rest of the circuit put together.   
      
   >> 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.   
   >>   
   >> So I suspect that the "tantalum" version is a creation of your own which   
   you never posted until now.   
   >   
   > We don't often use tantalums these days. They do have about the right   
   > ESR to stabilize some older voltage regulators. They are reliable if   
   > peak current stays low, and if voltage derated at least 2:1.   
   >   
   > We use polymer aluminums whenever we can. Low ESR, low ESL, don't   
   > detonate or dry out. Adding ESR isn't difficult.   
      
   I've seen them in catalogues, but haven't designed them into anything yet.   
      
   --   
   Bill Sloman, Sydney   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)