Hi Tom,
thanks for the suggestion. I think that looks very workable. Sadly it's
only been minutes since I released v0.0.7, which still has the "Reactance"
label - but it won't be long before 0.0.8 (or even 0.1.0!) comes out. :-) I
think I'll go with what you suggested.
--
Rune / 5Q5R
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On Sun, 8 Sep 2019 at 21:59, Tom VA7TA <tma.7ta@...> wrote:
Hi Rune,
With regards to the "Reactance" label I wonder if it would be beneficial
to provide both C and L equivalent values for the measured X. Considering
the 126.1 MHz example of Xc = 358 your might consider replacing the
"Reactance:" label with something like this:
"C/L equiv. values: 3.52 pF / 452 nH"
It would be up to the user to know that -j is C and +j is L. Knowledge of
both values could be useful for component selection for cancellation of X
with resonance.
--
Best Regards,
Tom, VA7TA
