Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*LF\:\s+RE\:\s+Re\:amplifiers\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*LF\:\s+RE\:\s+Re\:amplifiers\s*$/: 3 ]

Total 3 documents matching your query.

1. LF: Re: Re:amplifiers (score: 1): Author: "Andrew Talbot" <[email protected]>; Date: Sat, 09 Dec 2000 18:35:48 +0100; About 95% correct I reckon Jim, I think the overlap betwen turn off and on is a function of the FET itself, and turn off will always be faster that turn on even for an infinietly steep drive waveform; /rsgb_lf_group-archives/html/rsgb_lf_group/2000-12/msg00393.html (9,710 bytes)
2. LF: RE: Re:amplifiers (score: 1): Author: "Talbot Andrew" <[email protected]>; Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2000 11:46:37 +0100; The parasitic diode is no good in this configuration for catching the spikes from what I call the transient soak choke, I use separate clamp diodes up to the rails effectively 'crosing over' the cent; /rsgb_lf_group-archives/html/rsgb_lf_group/2000-12/msg00419.html (11,319 bytes)
3. LF: Re: Re:amplifiers (score: 1): Author: "Vernall" <[email protected]>; Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2000 09:13:35 +1300; -- Original Message -- My main driver for using a 340V rail was the need to not have to have a separate PA. A 50V 25A PSU is fine if you can get one - I have an old telephone exchange PSU - but norma; /rsgb_lf_group-archives/html/rsgb_lf_group/2000-12/msg00425.html (8,606 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 3
Page: [1]