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

*To*: tesla-at-pupman-dot-com*Subject*: Re: 1/4 wave theory/cite the variance?*From*: "Tesla list" <tesla-at-pupman-dot-com>*Date*: Sat, 16 Feb 2002 10:11:41 -0700*Resent-Date*: Sat, 16 Feb 2002 10:13:54 -0700*Resent-From*: tesla-at-pupman-dot-com*Resent-Message-ID*: <bOEFkD.A.SJ.PNpb8-at-poodle>*Resent-Sender*: tesla-request-at-pupman-dot-com

Original poster: "harvey norris by way of Terry Fritz <twftesla-at-qwest-dot-net>" <harvich-at-yahoo-dot-com> --- Tesla list <tesla-at-pupman-dot-com> wrote: > Original poster: "Peter Lawrence by way of Terry > Fritz <twftesla-at-qwest-dot-net>" <Peter.Lawrence-at-Sun-dot-com> > > Michael, > fear not!, while this particular question > has come up before, it has > been shown both experimentally and theoretically > that 1/4 wave length wire > is irrelevant to TC performance. The resonant > frequency of a TC secondary > is a function of its inductance and its self > capacitance, and not on any > magical length of wire. > > The 1/4 wave length "theory" comes from the thought > that signals travel in > a straight wire at the speed of light (or something > related to it, slightly > less for various choices of conductor). BUT, in a TC > the wire that would be > 100 feet away in a straight line antenna (where 1/4 > wave theory does apply) > will only be a fraction of an inch away in a TC > coil, and the inductive > and capacitive coupling between those portions of > the coil that are 100 feet > appart wire length wise are "much closer" in the > electrical (and physical) > sense. So the propagation speed of signals along a > coil do not have anything > to do with the propagation speed in straight wire. > > -Peter Lawrence. I have heard this mentioned again and again, and it is very discouraging and tiresome to delete post after post from tesla list just to see everyones opinion on a subject, so if you are speaking up on this subject here, pray tell me what this deviance from quarterwavelength actually consists of? Is it 10% lower? Is it 15% by added top polar capacity? Is it no known figure of percentage basis compared to that quarterwavelength value, but obviously so significant a deviance that percentages of what should be attained compared to a standard are of no consequence? I submit that this is mere jumping on a bandwagon of derision of the Tesla observation to make it appear redundant that the quarterwave length observation has realistic basis for projected standing waves. If the top load capacity can deviate from the historical vales made by texts, those in better understanding should elaborate their well observed data as a % basis of deviation from historical standard, rather than an outright denial of that standard from the start, where then no valid comparisons can be made. Sincerely polite; HDN ===== Tesla Research Group; Pioneering the Applications of Interphasal Resonances http://groups.yahoo-dot-com/group/teslafy/ __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Sports - Coverage of the 2002 Olympic Games http://sports.yahoo-dot-com

- Prev by Date:
**RE: Then what's the topload FOR?** - Next by Date:
**Variacs - Overpowering an NST.** - Prev by thread:
**Re: 1/4 wave theory/cite the variance?** - Next by thread:
**Re: 1/4 wave theory/cite the variance?** - Index(es):