Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[TowerTalk\]\s+twisted\s+pair\s+capacitance\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[TowerTalk\]\s+twisted\s+pair\s+capacitance\s*$/: 4 ]

Total 4 documents matching your query.

1. Re: [TowerTalk] twisted pair capacitance (score: 1): Author: Jim Jarvis <jimjarvis@optonline.net>; Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 14:56:13 -0400; Tom's right. What you were thinking of is telco cable, where the pairs are twisted for a distance, then twisted in the REVERSE direction for an equal distance. the result is that at audio frequencies; /archives//html/Towertalk/2007-06/msg00293.html (7,399 bytes)
2. Re: [TowerTalk] twisted pair capacitance (score: 1): Author: "Tom Rauch" <w8ji@contesting.com>; Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 15:11:06 -0400; No, the net capacitance is increased. The cross talk to other pairs is reduced, but that's a parallel transmission line effect between pairs. Twisting improves balance but it always increases capaci; /archives//html/Towertalk/2007-06/msg00299.html (8,430 bytes)
3. Re: [TowerTalk] twisted pair capacitance (score: 1): Author: Jim Jarvis <jimjarvis@optonline.net>; Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 15:16:07 -0400; Incidentally, this just goes to prove that man does not multi-task well. Back to work... Jim No, the net capacitance is increased. The cross talk to other pairs is reduced, but that's a parallel tran; /archives//html/Towertalk/2007-06/msg00301.html (8,841 bytes)
4. Re: [TowerTalk] twisted pair capacitance (score: 1): Author: Jim Lux <jimlux@earthlink.net>; Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 15:59:12 -0700; Or, actually, that cross talk to adjacent pairs is reduced, and that the parasitic C from conductor to shield/ground is balanced. I don't think it would reduce C, and because it's very stretched out,; /archives//html/Towertalk/2007-06/msg00313.html (8,132 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 4
Page: [1]