Towertalk
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [TowerTalk] two benefits of postings on Re: Resonance is over rated

To: radioman007@comcast.net, towertalk@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] two benefits of postings on Re: Resonance is over rated
From: TexasRF@aol.com
Date: Sun, 9 Aug 2009 21:56:12 EDT
List-post: <towertalk@contesting.com">mailto:towertalk@contesting.com>
 
Make sure all Xc values are negative. Xl and R are positive numbers.
 
Perhaps the concept should be "self resonance is over rated". We all spend  
a lot of time to achieve resonance more or less by adjusting lengths and 
various  matching networks. 
 
73,
K5GW
 
In a message dated 8/9/2009 8:19:24 P.M. Central Daylight Time,  
radioman007@comcast.net writes:

One  benefit of so many postings on this subject is that raises concepts or 
 
different ways
of analying the "problem".

A second benefit is  that some postings causes us (me) to review my 
understanding of things  that I learned long ago--in this case over 50 
years!

The following  posting states something that is not only incorrect but the 
truth is  exactly the opposite. Actually it was probably mistated.  For 
those  
less trained, here is the correction:

1. All circuits have both a  capacitive and an inductive reactance at the 
same time.  All circuits  will have some lead length
which will result in an inductance, no matter  how short the lead.  The 
inductive reactance xl will be  2piFL  accordingly.
Similarly all circuits will have some spacing between  components or leads 
resulting in capacitance.  The  capacitive
reactance will be 1/2piFL.  These two reactances can be  mathematically 
combined serially or parallel.  I forget if it  was
Norton, Thevinin, etc. who established the series and parallel  formulas. 
There will also be a resistance which must also be  included
(or ignored). The resultant equation is (r1+xl)(r2+xc)/r 1+ xl +  r2 + xc) 
for a parallel combination.

2. The units for the resultant  equation is called impedance-- not 
reactance?

3. A minor mistatement  probably?

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "W3YY"  <w3yy@cox.net>
To: <towertalk@contesting.com>
Sent: Friday,  August 07, 2009 7:44 PM
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Resonance is over  rated


>
> Something either has capacitive or inductive  reactance, both not both at 
> the
> same  time.

_______________________________________________



_______________________________________________
TowerTalk  mailing  list
TowerTalk@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk




**************A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy 
steps! 
(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1222846709x1201493018/aol?redir=http://www.freecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?sc=668072&hmpgID=115&bcd
=JulystepsfooterNO115)
_______________________________________________



_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
  • Re: [TowerTalk] two benefits of postings on Re: Resonance is over rated, TexasRF <=