Tube DIY Asylum

Do It Yourself (DIY) paradise for tube and SET project builders.

Use this form to submit comments directly to the Asylum moderators for this forum. We're particularly interested in truly outstanding posts that might be added to our FAQs.
You may also use this form to provide feedback or to call attention to messages that may be in violation of our content rules.

You must login to use this feature.

Inmate Login

By default, logging in will set a session cookie that disappears when you close your browser. Clicking on the 'Remember my Moniker & Password' below will cause a permanent 'Login Cookie' to be set.

Moniker/Username: The Name that you picked or by default, your email. Forgot Moniker?	Examples "Rapper", "Bob W", "joe@aol.com".
Password:	Forgot Password?
	Remember my Moniker & Password ( What's this?)

If you don't have an Asylum Account, you can create one by clicking Here.

Our privacy policy can be reviewed by clicking Here.

Inmate Comments

From:
Your Email:
Subject:

Message Comments

Original Message

RE: Details of modification

Posted by mikeyb on July 18, 2007 at 10:23:17:
I did a quick PSUD2 analysis of the 'before' and 'after' power supply, which confirms the drop in B+ voltage (somewhat surprising to me). The transient behavior was about the same (well damped response to a change in current draw of from 100 to 120 mA), but there was considerably more ripple in the low DCR low H configuration. Whatever is going on is not obvious from the simulation results.

However, your 'experiment' is not really valid because you changed so many variables - differnt caps, added bleeder resistor, differnt supply voltage, etc. Maybe the improved response is primarly due to the better transient characteristics of the ASC oil cap as compared to the orginal electrolytic. I know, who cares - if your happy with it, stay with it.