[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 07:37:53 -0700
- Delivered-to: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Delivered-to: email@example.com
- Old-return-path: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Resent-date: Fri, 1 Apr 2005 07:43:17 -0700 (MST)
- Resent-from: tesla@xxxxxxxxxx
- Resent-message-id: <XAojHC.A.MgF.53VTCB@poodle>
- Resent-sender: tesla-request@xxxxxxxxxx
Original poster: FIFTYGUY@xxxxxxx
In a message dated 3/30/05 7:12:06 PM Eastern Standard Time,
The LC values which give the correct Fres
and Vtop/Ibase don't give the correct energy storage at Fres,
however, because the single LC model doesn't contain a storage
element to represent energy stored in the coil's internal
capacitance (meaning - E flux lines from one point of the coil to
another). The error is only small - a few percent. Another way
to treat this in a lumped model is to use three capacitors, one to
ground from each end, plus a capacitance in parallel with the coil.
The last part of the last sentence above confuses me.
If you add the three caps to the simple LC model to tweak it closer to
actual secondary behavior, the "one to ground from [the bottom end]" is
shunted by the secondary's base-to-ground connection, and the "one to
ground from [the top end]" is the same as "a capacitance in parallel with
Or should the "ends" where the extra model caps are connected actually
be "towards the ends"?
Another case where a schematic is worth a thousand words?