I suspect that the manual error is simply using "mH" instead of "uH".
Jerry, I keep a running tally of Corsair II manual errata I run across at
http://corsair.wikidot.com/corsair-errata
73,
Barry N1EU
On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 10:13 PM, Steve Hunt <steve@karinya.net> wrote:
> A few calculations suggest that L9 and L10 *must* be 8.8uH, but I'll take
> a look and check the board.
>
> I agree that L11 and L12 must also be wrong - they obviously form some
> tuning/matching function. To put two in series suggests the composite value
> was fairly critical.
>
> 73,
> Steve G3TXQ
>
>
>
>
> On 13/03/2013 21:34, Steve Hunt wrote:
>
>> Barry,
>>
>> I can't say for certain - I didn't lift them to measure!
>>
>> They are the same style of component as L5, and clearly the values can't
>> be 8.2mH as shown. It seems likely the same sort of error has been made,
>> but whether they are 8.2uH or 820nH I'm not sure. If I get a chance
>> tomorrow I'll take another look at them.
>>
>> I guess a quick calculation around those LPF component values -
>> C24/L9/C25/C26 - might also resolve it.
>>
>> 73,
>> Steve G3TXQ
>>
>>
> ______________________________**_________________
> TenTec mailing list
> TenTec@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/**mailman/listinfo/tentec<http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec>
>
_______________________________________________
TenTec mailing list
TenTec@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
|