Hmmm, let me think--well, I have--I think I will take that as a complement!
grin

Warmest regards,
John
--
When Viagra fails to work--you are DOOMED!!!

"Richard Clark" wrote in message
...
| On Sun, 8 May 2005 15:37:06 -0700, "John Smith"
| wrote:
|
| The caps are an attempt to limit "peak reverse spikes" (especially across
| the fets drain-to-source) but, only if they (the spikes) are any more
than a
| figment of my imagination (besides, at this point we only wish DC and rf
| dumped to ground is a "good thing")... at the most--they do little
harm...
|
| Hi Brett,
|
| Little Harm? It has been quite evident that electronics is quite new
| to you (contrary to whatever experience you may feel you have
| accumulated). Putting a capacitor at the output of a rectifier
| doubles the reverse voltage stress that the rectifier has to tolerate.
| If you are worried about FETs (like cutting out cholesterol for the
| sake of your appendix), then your lacking equal fear for the LEDs'
| breakdown is a bit strange.
|
| Anyway, I doubt you have actually worked through the analysis given
| all the gauche designs that lead to this. It is presumed that the RF
| will be "spike" free (the FCC frowns on such spurious content); or
| that if you are simply speaking about HF in general, then it follows
| that you could have simply dumped the RF to ground by shorting the
| Caps in the first place (no need for the useless FETs either).
|
| I threw the second fet in because I felt guilty about having too few
| parts!!! innocent-look-with-fingers-tightly-crossed-behind-the-back
|
| Uh-huh. As I said, Mad Man Muntz would have a field day.
|
| 73's
| Richard Clark, KB7QHC