Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[Amps\]\s+dual\s+section\s+cap\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[Amps\]\s+dual\s+section\s+cap\s*$/: 4 ]

Total 4 documents matching your query.

1. Re: [Amps] dual section cap (score: 1): Author: "Jim Garland" <4cx250b@miamioh.edu>; Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2014 17:07:37 -0600; Carl, I remeasured the cap, and the two sections are 17-63pF and 24-316 pF, pretty much what I had measured before N years ago. A single section cap on the same frame would be 379 pF, or maybe a smid; /archives//html/Amps/2014-06/msg00091.html (9,522 bytes)
2. Re: [Amps] dual section cap (score: 1): Author: "Carl" <km1h@jeremy.mv.com>; Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2014 21:20:37 -0400; OK that explains it Jim, I thought you bought it with those markings on it. The poor response on the small section shows it wasnt designed for a good minimum capacitance which would be a problem on 1; /archives//html/Amps/2014-06/msg00094.html (11,280 bytes)
3. Re: [Amps] dual section cap (score: 1): Author: MU 4CX250B <4cx250b@miamioh.edu>; Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2014 19:32:03 -0600; Interesting, Carl. I don't understand why the minimum capacitance on the small section is so high. I suppose I could remove a plate nearest the frame of the capacitor, but I wouldn't think that would; /archives//html/Amps/2014-06/msg00096.html (11,426 bytes)
4. Re: [Amps] dual section cap (score: 1): Author: "Carl" <km1h@jeremy.mv.com>; Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2014 08:23:07 -0400; Look at the Cardwell in Alpha photos for spacings and then swap sides with one section to further decrease coupling. An old Millen method from the 40's. Carl Interesting, Carl. I don't understand why; /archives//html/Amps/2014-06/msg00102.html (12,862 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 4
Page: [1]