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

Re: (Fwd) Re: Formula for self C of a Coil (not Medhurst)

At 01:52 PM 04/27/2000 +1200, you wrote:
snip...
>
>So let's ask all the questions.  How about this one:  are we in fact
looking at
>the resonator the correct way at all? Is it even valid to assign some
>simplistic electrical parameters to it in an attempt to characterize it 
>(this would surely apply to transmission lines as well as lumped 
>models)?
>
>Regards,
>malcolm
>
>

I should point out that E-Tesla5, that predicts Fo frequencies so well, is
based on electrostatics, physics, and math.  No electrical engineering
stuff there at all...  Hmmmmm


I should also point out the E-Tesla5 does have two "fudge" factors.

The first is an integration constant that takes the calculations from a 2-d
plane to a 3-d space.  Earlier versions had this figured out by hand but in
the 5 version I let the program calculated if for me.  I didn't feel like
spending another 20 hours doing those nasty hand cylindrical integrations
that I am so poor at.  I am sure that it can be calculated out if anyone cares.

The second is the voltage distribution along the secondary for the bare and
top terminal cases.  This is found by matching equations to actual
measurements.  However, I think this situation is much like finding the
displacement in "Malcolm's ruler" which could also be calculated by hand
for the situation if anyone had the time and remember statics.  I have
taken a ruler and flexed it over the graphs and they match ;-)

So the fudge factors were based on lazyness rather than the factor's true
nature being totally a mystery.  I always meant to go back and clean them
up through mathematical torture but I still haven't got round to it ;-))  I
really should fix this just so I can truly say it is based on "pure" science.

Cheers,

	Terry