>>>>> 2) Never met Ian, but the gut feeling grows that anyone who challenges
>>him
>>>>>in the area of network analysis or any fundamental EE stuff has a real
>>good
>>>>>chance of losing. Very respectable stuff, Ian - I appreciate it.
>>>>
>>>>However, adding a bit of X to make one's calculations come out more
>>>>favourably, undoubtedly gives one a leg up.
>>>
>>>The 200 nH is inductance for the anode lines to the blocking cap were a
>>>guess by Ian. So the inductance is less. It still doesn't change the
>>>mathematical principles. Also, as we have discussed recently, the job of
>>>the resistor is not to abosrb oscillations, but supress them. So wether
>>>the 100 Ohms is transformed to 1K or 100K by inductances makes no
>>>difference. The math still holds.
>>>
>>I don't think it will hold up on a Z-analyzer.
>
>So Rich, are you saying that textbooks are incorrect?
I don't see any such manoeuvre in my text books. Transforming 100 j+0
ohms to 100k j+0 ohms by a single reactance is seemingly a bit of a
stretch.
Rich...
R. L. Measures, 805-386-3734, AG6K, www.vcnet.com/measures
--
FAQ on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/ampfaq.html
Submissions: amps@contesting.com
Administrative requests: amps-REQUEST@contesting.com
Problems: owner-amps@contesting.com
Search: http://www.contesting.com/km9p/search.htm
|