Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[Amps\]\s+Amps\s+Digest\,\s+Vol\s+93\,\s+Issue\s+11\s*$/: 7 ]

Total 7 documents matching your query.

1. Re: [Amps] Amps Digest, Vol 93, Issue 11 (score: 1)
Author: Marius Hauki <rezycle.bin@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2010 13:45:38 +0200
Good idea to use diodes instead of drop resistor Bill. Thank you for helping out! I would think that the diodes should be able to withstand very large surges, as you mention in case of a glitch. If t
/archives//html/Amps/2010-09/msg00064.html (12,001 bytes)

2. Re: [Amps] Amps Digest, Vol 93, Issue 11 (score: 1)
Author: TexasRF@aol.com
Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2010 09:54:37 EDT
In my view, a diode pair reverse connected from B minus to ground is the preferred combination. Back to back would look like an open circuit until one or both fail shorted. The inclusion of a series
/archives//html/Amps/2010-09/msg00067.html (12,982 bytes)

3. Re: [Amps] Amps Digest, Vol 93, Issue 11 (score: 1)
Author: "Bill, W6WRT" <dezrat1242@yahoo.com>
Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2010 09:23:11 -0700
ORIGINAL MESSAGE: REPLY: Correct, however in my experience diodes in normal operation always fail in the shorted mode rather than open. A truly large glitch such as a lightning strike might cause the
/archives//html/Amps/2010-09/msg00069.html (8,366 bytes)

4. Re: [Amps] Amps Digest, Vol 93, Issue 11 (score: 1)
Author: "Bill, W6WRT" <dezrat1242@yahoo.com>
Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2010 09:35:55 -0700
ORIGINAL MESSAGE: REPLY: That is what I meant - in parallel but with reversed polarity. At one time I used the term anti-parallel but some people on this reflector objected to it. Quoting Wikipedia:
/archives//html/Amps/2010-09/msg00070.html (7,813 bytes)

5. Re: [Amps] Amps Digest, Vol 93, Issue 11 (score: 1)
Author: "Carl" <km1h@jeremy.mv.com>
Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2010 13:09:10 -0400
Since the Brits are into the anti side of definitions I suppose we should go with what has been used here for decades...reversed parallel...and not the improperly used "reverse parallel" Carl KM1H __
/archives//html/Amps/2010-09/msg00071.html (8,724 bytes)

6. Re: [Amps] Amps Digest, Vol 93, Issue 11 (score: 1)
Author: Steve Thompson <g8gsq@f2s.com>
Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2010 23:16:22 +0100
I've always known it as 'back to back'. A 35A bridge can be had for a dollar or three - cross wire the connections and you get 70A worth of diodes in both directions and you'll have a fixing hole to
/archives//html/Amps/2010-09/msg00073.html (8,295 bytes)

7. Re: [Amps] Amps Digest, Vol 93, Issue 11 (score: 1)
Author: "Bill, W6WRT" <dezrat1242@yahoo.com>
Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2010 17:44:26 -0700
ORIGINAL MESSAGE: REPLY: Excellent idea. I see Mouser has a 1000 amp surge rated bridge for $1.80. I think I'll use that in the future. Thanks!! Bill, W6WRT __________________________________________
/archives//html/Amps/2010-09/msg00074.html (8,080 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 7
Page: [1]
This search system is powered by Namazu