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

Re: Seibt Photo



Original poster: "Bob (R.A.) Jones" <a1accounting@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>

 Correction: up to 18% error depending on the conditions

Robert (R. A.) Jones
A1 Accounting, Inc., Fl
407 649 6400
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tesla list" <tesla@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: <tesla@xxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Sunday, June 12, 2005 9:49 PM
Subject: Re: Seibt Photo


> Original poster: "Bob (R.A.) Jones" <a1accounting@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > Hi Kurt, > > > > Original poster: Kurt Schraner <k.schraner@xxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > I'm yet wondering, what's wrong about using Medhurst/Lundin (or even > > Wheeler) for these coils, as a preliminary design tool... > > > > Best regards, > > Kurt > > I am surprised this question still comes up. > > Medurst built his tables to determine the parallel C that had to be added to > a much larger parallel C to correctly (<1%) predicted the resonance > frequency in the usual equation. > Its is only valid for large parallel C's, isolated, one end earthed coils. > > At and near resonance with a lightly top loaded coil, the coil current is > not constant a long its length which is the conditions that Medhurst > measured his coils. > The none constant current leads to significant errors relative to Medurst > conditions. About 18%. > > There are also other errors caused by other none Medhurst conditions like a > ground plane and using it in a series. Some of these tend to cancel the > errors caused by the variable coil current in many usual Tesla coil > configurations. I suspect in a long coil the dominate error is the none > constant current hence the error. > If you want an idea of what frequency your coil will resonate, Medurst > remains a very convenient way to ESTIMATE it. > > Robert (R. A.) Jones > A1 Accounting, Inc., Fl > 407 649 6400 > >