From: invalid@invalid.invalid   
      
   "Bill Sloman"  wrote in message news:10f3l   
   4$1t67r$1@dont-email.me...   
   > On 13/11/2025 4:39 am, Edward Rawde wrote:   
   >> "Bill Sloman"  wrote in message news:10   
   1s7j$1d4bm$1@dont-email.me...   
   >>> On 12/11/2025 5:50 pm, Edward Rawde wrote:   
   >>>> "Bill Sloman"  wrote in message news:   
   0f19b8$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 ne   
   s:10f135p$17b8q$1@dont-email.me...   
   >>>>>>>> On 12/11/2025 1:49 am, Edward Rawde wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>> "Bill Sloman"  wrote in message    
   ews:10evhdm$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@poppyre   
   ords.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 470??   
   >> If you delete the character between 470 and ? 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.   
      
   Which is not what I actually said.   
   I did want to produce a circuit which didn't need such a big capacitor if   
   possible.   
   But I do like big capacitors when there's no other way.   
      
   > 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   
   >>>   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)