From: bill.sloman@ieee.org
On 13/11/2025 4:39 am, Edward Rawde wrote:
> "Bill Sloman" wrote in message news:10f
s7j$1d4bm$1@dont-email.me...
>> On 12/11/2025 5:50 pm, Edward Rawde wrote:
>>> "Bill Sloman" wrote in message news:1
f19b8$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 new
:10f135p$17b8q$1@dont-email.me...
>>>>>>> On 12/11/2025 1:49 am, Edward Rawde wrote:
>>>>>>>> "Bill Sloman" wrote in message n
ws:10evhdm$p0a1$2@dont-email.me...
>>>>>>>>> On 11/11/2025 11:12 pm, Edward Rawde wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> "Bill Sloman" wrote in message
news:10eunlu$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@poppyrec
rds.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.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I've never seen that before and it does not simulate at a reasonable speed
in 24.1.10
>>
>> It simulates fine for me, but since I'm still running under Windows 7 I'm
running LTSpice 17.0.37.0. It's not quick - about
>> 11msec/sec but not too bad.
>
> As per my other thread it also simulates here after fixing Microfarad
character issues.
> What is the harmonic performance?
>
> (I'd start thinking about moving off Windows 7 if I were you. I'd also get
rid of the Norton
> crapware your headers suggest you have installed. Windows 10 IoT LTSC works
fine for
> me and has just installed the November update.)
>
>>
>>> It is also not equivalent to what JM actually posted which was as follows.
>>>
>>> This does simulate and has good performance, as would be expected from JM.
>>> The word "tantalum" is not mentioned.
>>
>> It has C6 as 470 Farad - not nF or uF but farads!
>
> Er no Bill. Copying my post into a new text file shows 470ТЕ
> If you delete the character between 470 and Е then you get
> 470 Microfarad. Whether those characters will display properly here depends
> on many factors including differences between newsreaders and their settings.
>
> This reminds me of schematics I can remember from the past which would
> spell it out as 470 Microfarad. Probably because they didn't have a Greek
> letter mu. Sometimes it would be shortened to 470MF because 470 Mega
> Farads would be insane so it obviously meant 470 Microfarad.
>
>>
>> When I finally nerved myself to go back to the thread and downloaded JM's
.asc file from February 15 2025 C6 was 470uF, which is
>> huge, but not 470F!
>
> 470F only exists in your imagination.
That's what your .asc file showed when I ran it.
> So no apology for telling me I produced the "tantalum" version?
What I actually said was the you didn't like the big capacitor.
Something with that much capacitance would be electrolytic in practice -
probably tantalum in my experience. I don't think that there's
anything in there that warrants an apology, but I do apologise for
getting the detail marginally wrong.
> Yes I know those weren't your exact words but close enough.
> No problem. And no surprise.
>
>> It simulates fine, at about 13msec/sec. The amplitude control loop is a bit
underdamped
>>
>> We were having trouble with getting LTSpice to display uF values at the
time. Presumably I tweaked it get something more sensible.
>> I do remember that it needed quite a lot of capacitance at C6, and I
couldn't get it to get by with much less than 100uF at C3 and
>> C6, equivalent to 47uF directly between the two emitters.
>
[continued in next message]
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
