[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: Ed H's Nifty Program (was: Magnifier system)
[The following text is in the "ISO-8859-1" character set]
[Your display is set for the "US-ASCII" character set]
[Some characters may be displayed incorrectly]
> From wesb-at-spectra-dot-netSun Nov 24 22:29:34 1996
> Date: Sun, 24 Nov 1996 15:17:31 -0500 (EST)
> From: Wes A Brzozowski <wesb-at-spectra-dot-net>
> To: tesla-at-pupman-dot-com
> Subject: Ed H's Nifty Program (was: Magnifier system)
>
>
> Ed;
>
>
> It appears that the mutual inductance matrix should be able to hold
> both primary and secondary inductance segments, and you'd need to
> evaluate your loop equations in two bunches, rather than one, since the
> primary and secondary aren't physically connected. Speaking of loop
> equations, I think that the equation:
>
> f(k) = dt * (q(k%-1) * oc(k%) - i(k%) * r(k%) - q(k%) * oc(k%))
>
> might instead possibly need to be:
>
> f(k) = dt * (q(k%-1) * oc(k%-1) - i(k%) * r(k%) - q(k%) * oc(k%))
>
> If so, the difference might be negligible for any realistic data, but
> let me know what you think.
Hi Wes,
You're right about the correction you have above! I never noticed the
difference
since my oc() vector is either constant with node ( uniform transmission
line) or
varies very slowly with nodal position.
-Ed Harris