Re: Keeping up with the theory (was is Corum and Corumforbidden topic?)

["Tesla list" <tesla-at-pupman-dot-com>]

Original poster: "rob by way of Terry Fritz <twftesla-at-qwest-dot-net>" <rob-at-pythonemproject-dot-com>

Tesla list wrote:
> 
> Original poster: "Jim Lux by way of Terry Fritz <twftesla-at-qwest-dot-net>"
<jimlux-at-earthlink-dot-net>
> 
> > I am intrigued by your statement regarding Maxwell's equations.  Do you
> > think
> > they are amenable to numerical analysis?  That should make them
> programmable
> > on the average desk top.  Can I volunteer you for the project or would you
> > prefer working on the spark gap?  Me?  I don't have the skills.
> 
> What do you think all the EM simulators are based on?  All those EFIEs and
> MFIEs used in MoM codes, etc., are just specialized cases of Maxwell's
> equations (i.e. some of the terms are zero, by virtue of the constraints on
> the problem)..  So, the simple answer to the question is: Yes, they are
> amenable to numerical analysis.. and you've been doing it, without even
> knowing it!


The problem with the ones we can easily get our hands on, like antenna
analyzers, is that they rely on Pocklingon's equation, or in other
words, a thin-wire approximation kernel.  Both NEC2 and ASAP have the
equation buried in the code.  So you can't model wires that are within a
diameter or two of each other.  I've pretty much proved that with ASAP. 
If I could replace the kernel in ASAP, I might have a chance.  However,
ASAP does a very good job with helical resonators that have larger
spacing.  From the pictures I've seen of Tesla's big coil, it would
probably work on that one :)

Rob.

-- 
-----------------------------
The Numeric Python EM Project

www.pythonemproject-dot-com