I have noticed that Ten-Tec uses "mf" to mean "microfarads" - yet everybody
EXCEPT Ten-Tec uses "uF" to mean microfarads.
I have no idea why they do this.
The suffixes I normally see are (where ** is exponentiation):
fF - femtofarads 10** -15 Farads
pF - picofarads 10** -12 Farads
nF - nanofarads 10** -9 Farads (in older schematics we see, for example,
0.022 uF rather than 22 nF )
uF - microfarads 10** -6 Farads (e.g. "10 mike cap" is 10 uF; often
electrolytic)
mF - millifarads 10** -3 Farads (Big Value Caps; 22,000 uF is 22 mf)
F - Farads 10** 0 Farads (Used with "super caps" mostly; note: 10**
0 equals 1 )
Mike K3MC
On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 4:06 PM, Rick - DJ0IP / NJ0IP <Rick@dj0ip.de> wrote:
> I also volunteer to create a page on my web site and post Barry's work
> there.
> Barry, contact me directly and we'll do this together.
>
> 73
> Rick, DJ0IP
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: TenTec [mailto:tentec-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Jerry
> Haigwood
> Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2013 11:07 PM
> To: 'Discussion of Ten-Tec Equipment'
> Subject: Re: [TenTec] FW: Corsair vs Corsair II
>
> Steve and Barry,
> After studying the schematic for a while, I think L1, L2, L3, L4, L7,
> L8 are all 100 uHy and not 100 mHy. First, 100 mHy inductors are huge
> devices and second that large of value is not needed for the circuits in
> questions. I also question L11, L12. I suspect they are also wrong and
> should be in uHy. If I have missed any, please let me know. Barry, after
> you compile all the changes to the Corsair II manual, maybe you could
> publish it with the corrections? If you have a scanner, you could just
> scan
> the pages that have problems, put them up on the web as a .PDF and then be
> a
> hero to all of us with Corsair IIs. ;-) Jerry W5JH "building something
> without experimenting is just solder practice"
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: TenTec [mailto:tentec-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Steve
> Hunt
> Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2013 4:34 PM
> To: Discussion of Ten-Tec Equipment
> Subject: Re: [TenTec] FW: Corsair vs Corsair II
>
> 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
>
>
>
> On 13/03/2013 21:26, Barry N1EU wrote:
> > Steve, are L9 and L10 equal to 820nH (0.82uH), and not 8.2mH as
> indicated?
> >
> > I've been compiling a Corsair II manual errata so just want to make sure.
> >
> > thanks & 73,
> > Barry N1EU
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 4:13 PM, Steve Hunt <steve@karinya.net> wrote:
> >
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> TenTec mailing list
> TenTec@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
>
> _______________________________________________
> TenTec mailing list
> TenTec@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
>
> _______________________________________________
> TenTec mailing list
> TenTec@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
>
_______________________________________________
TenTec mailing list
TenTec@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
|