[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

Re: Idiot's Guide

At 10:32 PM 1/24/97 -0700, you wrote:
>> Subject: Re: Idiot's Guide
>> Subject: Re: Idiot's Guide
>
>Subscriber: tom_mcgahee-at-sigmais-dot-com Fri Jan 24 22:27:12 1997
>Date: Fri, 24 Jan 1997 16:26:58 -0500
>From: Thomas McGahee <tom_mcgahee-at-sigmais-dot-com>
>To: tesla-at-pupman-dot-com
>Subject: Re: Idiot's Guide
>
>    [The following text is in the "ISO-8859-1" character set]
>    [Your display is set for the "US-ASCII" character set]
>    [Some characters may be displayed incorrectly]
>
>
>I would like to thank Malcolm Watts for his EXCELLENT Comments on the
>Idiot's Guide. This is the kind of Feedback that is NEEDED! I certainly do
>not want to be writing stuff that contains inaccuracies that don't Have to
>be there. Such Feedback will enable All of US to be better informed. I have
>added a few comments of my own interspersed with Malcom's comments.
>
>-

snip


>> > the Q of the Spark Gap relates to its ability to go from a
>non-conducting
>> > to a conducting state in a Short Period of Time, Conduct LARGE
>quantities
>> > of current, and then turn OFF rapidly. Making ANY ONE OF THESE FACTORS
>> > GREATER would increase the Q of the Spark Gap.
>> 
>> I think the accepted engineering definition of Q is that it is the 
>> inverse of the dissipation factor of the circuit - in other words, it 
>> relates to circuit losses. 
>>
>
>Malcolm is right. I was attempting to put things in very simple terms.
>Maybe I got TOO simple. Maybe someone out there can e-mail me a Good Simple
>explanation of Q that I can use instead of the one I gave. It needs to be
>simple enough that a Beginner can understand it, and Exact enough that it
>doesn't make Engineers Shake Their Heads in Dismay.

snip


>All Other comments from Interested Parties are MOST WELCOME! Let us Learn
>from One Another!
>
>If all else fails, try somethings else.
>Fr. Tom McGahee

Tom,

Your explaination of Q was good for the use of most coilers.  I have always
used the term "Q" in a fast and loose manner.  It is a term for the most
part when speaking verbal demands a relative qualifier.  i.e. "this or that
is of higher Q than this other thing.

Q is a matter of relative performance of one part or method over another! I
have written extensively on this in the TCBA News in the past and my book on
Tesla's Colorado Springs notes.  Q, in short, is a statement of relative
performance.  It need not be fettered or limited to reactive components or
circuitry except within engineering (where it has a nice equation and rigid
definition).

Being an amateur scientist and practicing E.E., I can appreciate the
precision definition supplied, but as a thoughtful person can expand the
wonderful concept of Q as a time saving verbal entity to all processes in
coiling where one process or component is of greater merit or efficacy than
another without precise formula or rigid definition.

Richard Hull, TCBOR