Steve Hunt wrote:
>Yes, when the choke reactance and the CM path reactance have the same
>sign there's a bonus. But what I was actually trying to show in that
>analysis is that the CM path reactance may have an upper limit; and if
>that's the case, even when the signs are opposite there may still be a
>very useful contribution from the choke reactance.
>Jim's own figures show a #61 choke having >5000 Ohms reactance over a
>2:1 frequency range; if the worst-case path reactance is 2000 Ohms, we
>know that choke is going to provide a "net" 3000 Ohms impedance over
>that frequency range, no matter what. That seems to me pretty useful,
>particularly as it will handle a lot more power than an equivalent 3000
>Ohm choke wound on one of the lossy mixes.
>I'm simply questioning whether we have too readily dismissed reactive
>chokes because "only a choke's resistance counts".
What I have said (and consistently, I hope) is that "only the choke's
resistance is completely DEPENDABLE" for solving RFI problems.
Your insight is a very valuable one, and it may well explain why even
quite inferior on the test bench may work well enough in practice.
73 from Ian GM3SEK
TowerTalk mailing list