[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: LC III
- To: tesla@xxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: LC III
- From: "Tesla list" <tesla@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 01 Apr 2005 07:38:40 -0700
- Delivered-to: testla@pupman.com
- Delivered-to: tesla@pupman.com
- Old-return-path: <teslalist@twfpowerelectronics.com>
- Resent-date: Fri, 1 Apr 2005 07:42:31 -0700 (MST)
- Resent-from: tesla@xxxxxxxxxx
- Resent-message-id: <HAfzT.A.eXF.V3VTCB@poodle>
- Resent-sender: tesla-request@xxxxxxxxxx
Original poster: FIFTYGUY@xxxxxxx
In a message dated 3/30/05 10:30:47 PM Eastern Standard Time,
tesla@xxxxxxxxxx writes:
I had also better set the record straight and explain what I
meant in an earlier post when I mentioned the system "looking lumped"
with regard to the nature of the energy source. In a paper I read
from some ITS symposium, the Corums spelt out what they saw as a
clear distinction of voltage gain by Q (lumped - simple LC with
uniform current) and voltage gain by VSWR (distributed/transmission
line). As we all know there is really no such thing as a lumped
circuit and I've long since wondered about that distinction given the
very high and easily measurable Q present in a well-built resonator.
I pointed a retired EE with no Tesla Coil experience at the Corums
papers for his opinion. This was one of the discrepancies that he noticed
right off the bat. His conclusion was that the Corums were very mistaken
about many things - and their work was a lot of talk with no actual
experimental data of their own to back up their claims.
-Phil LaBudde