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

Re: Medhurst Formula (fwd)





---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Fri, 7 Aug 1998 13:09:15 -0600
From: "D.C. Cox" <DR.RESONANCE-at-next-wave-dot-net>
To: Tesla List <tesla-at-pupman-dot-com>
Subject: Re: Medhurst Formula (fwd)

to: Mike

Very interesting.  Us and others have also noted these curious results --
it just seems to keep getting closer to 3.14159.  Hmmmm indeed.

DR.RESONANCE-at-next-wave-dot-net

----------
> From: Tesla List <tesla-at-pupman-dot-com>
> To: tesla-at-pupman-dot-com
> Subject: Re: Medhurst Formula (fwd)
> Date: Thursday, August 06, 1998 9:52 PM
> 
> 
> 
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> Date: Thu, 6 Aug 1998 00:44:03 EDT
> From: ESchulz531-at-aol-dot-com
> To: tesla-at-pupman-dot-com, Hollmike-at-aol-dot-com
> Subject: Re: Medhurst Formula (fwd)
> 
> Hi Mike,
> 	I did a little thinking.
> Since (from you) Cself = 0.256479 * H + 0.78646 * D.  If you 
> set H = 0.78646 and D = 0.256479 you will get the largest coil
> (as in most wire which leads to more inductance) for a given 
> amount of capacitance.  It just so happens that H / D or 
> 0.78646 / 0.256479 = 3.06637.  So this would suggest a  
> reason to use a height to diameter ratio of 3. Hmm
> 
> Just a thought.
> 
> Erik Schulz