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

*To*: tesla-at-pupman-dot-com*Subject*: Re: Tesla Coil Blunders*From*: "Tesla list" <tesla-at-pupman-dot-com>*Date*: Tue, 03 Apr 2001 20:04:08 -0600*Resent-Date*: Tue, 3 Apr 2001 20:08:41 -0600*Resent-From*: tesla-at-pupman-dot-com*Resent-Message-ID*: <ndhdmB.A.jcH.KHoy6-at-poodle>*Resent-Sender*: tesla-request-at-pupman-dot-com

Original poster: "Ed Phillips by way of Terry Fritz <twftesla-at-uswest-dot-net>" <evp-at-pacbell-dot-net> Tesla list wrote: > > Original poster: "John H. Couture by way of Terry Fritz <twftesla-at-uswest-dot-net>" <couturejh-at-worldnet.att-dot-net> > > Malcolm - > > Sorry - the two R's are shown in the following equations: > > Q = Xl/Rq Rq = Xl/Q > > F = .159 sqrt(1/LC - (Rf/2L)^2) > > Rf = 2L sqrt(1/LC - (6.283F)^2) > > The Rq in the Q factor equation is the one to which you are referring. The > other Rf is the one in the Resonant Frequency equation and is a different > resistance. This resistance affects the resonant frequency of the RLC > circuit. > > The meager TC operating test data (scope/antenna probe) I have been able to > collect from coilers indicates this Rf may be involved in reducing the > resonant frequency compared to the low voltage, low current > Wheeler/Medhurst/Freq meter test. > > This resonant frequency reduction has resulted in coilers and TC programers > having to make an adjustment in the calculation of the resonant frequency > compared to the operating test. Apparently you haven't noticed this > reduction. > > John Couture Any secondary with enough resistance to produce a noticable change in frequency would be so very lossy that it couldn't function at all. Calculate the equivalent Q for a frequency shift of a couple of percent. Ed

- Prev by Date:
**Re: Essex magnet wire** - Next by Date:
**Re: Need Ozone** - Prev by thread:
**RE: Tesla Coil Blunders** - Next by thread:
**RE: Tesla Coil Blunders** - Index(es):