Re: Keeping up with the theory (was is Corum and Corumforbidden topic?)

["Tesla list" <tesla-at-pupman-dot-com>]

Original poster: "Malcolm Watts by way of Terry Fritz <twftesla-at-qwest-dot-net>" <m.j.watts-at-massey.ac.nz>

Hi Ray,

On 7 May 2002, at 8:21, Tesla list wrote:

> Original poster: "Ray von Postel by way of Terry Fritz
<twftesla-at-qwest-dot-net>" <vonpostel-at-prodigy-dot-net>
> 
> Malcom;
> As you say, there are two issues.  However, when you go beyond, what you 
> describe
> as "back of the envelope" engineering and start using a computer, don't 
> you think
> it time to take as much advantage of it's number crunching power as 
> possible?  Why
> use approximations when you can do better?  
> 
> Example:  Why use Wheeler when Nagoka's formulas are more accurate? 
>  There is
> no need to use tables when you can calculate Nagoka's constant.  Just 
> calculate the
> needed constant each time you use the program and to any degree of accuracy
> within the limits of the computer.

For the purposes I outlined, Wheeler and Medhurst work just fine 
every time. No need for computers - or even a calculator. I have the 
conversion factors for Medhurst memorized for the range of h/d ratios 
I use. The formulae are so simple that it isn't a major chore to do 
the calcs mentally. This is not cutting edge research - it is a 
simple way of building a working coil.
 
> You also mentioned the problems associated with top loading.  Perhaps 
> that should
> be the first project.  I didn't intend to set priorities.

I can use fairly good guestimates based on experience and these get 
initial tuning close enough for power to be applied safely. Again, 
this is just for a quick coil lashup, not research. My research 
methods are considerably more scientific than that.

Regards,
Malcolm
 
> I presume you disagree that this is "getting a bit far from coiling".  I 
> just meant
> it was probably not of interest to many and I was being a bore.  Or, have I
> misunderstood!
> 
> >>This seems to be getting a bit far from coiling,  I would be glad to
continue
> >>this
> >>discussion off list.
> >>
> >>Best
> >>Ray
> >>
> >
> >Don't agree - unless I've misunderstood.
> >
> >Regards,
> >malcolm
> >
> >
> >
> >
> Best
> Ray
> 
> 
> 
>