Re: Coherence

To: tesla-at-pupman-dot-com
Subject: Re: Coherence
From: Bert Hickman <bert.hickman-at-aquila-dot-com> (by way of Terry Fritz <terryf-at-verinet-dot-com>)
Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1998 17:19:45 -0600
Approved: terryf-at-verinet-dot-com

Malcolm and all, 

No problem - The bottom line's still the same! A theory that doesn't
mirror reality still doesn't wash. We've all looked at many a waveform -
in a dual-tuned circuit, the secondary fully "coheres" as it's ringing
up. 

The most glaring error in their coherence proposal is that it would
violate the Conservation of Energy. Once the [already coherent]
resonator dissipates the system's energy, where does the additional
energy come from to ring it up per their coherence theory? 

I don't buy it either, Malcolm! 

-- Bert --

Malcolm Watts wrote:
> 
> Dear all,
>           I have made an error of my own in this piece which I just
> discovered:
> 
<SNIP>
> 
> The upshot is that their coherence time formula is quite correct
> despite the wrong formula for Q being given. Howver, the sight of
> coherence on the scope remains as elusive as ever. My sincere and red-
> faced apologies.
> 
> Malcolm
> <snip>