[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 16:39:16 -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 16:42:34 -0700 (MST)
- Resent-from: tesla@xxxxxxxxxx
- Resent-message-id: <nnuzzB.A.UIC.oxdTCB@poodle>
- Resent-sender: tesla-request@xxxxxxxxxx
Original poster: "Bob (R.A.) Jones" <a1accounting@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Original poster: "acmdq" <acmdq@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>I don't see a reason for a difference in the capacitance
>>obtained by either method. The Medhurst capacitance is
>>supposed to generate the right resonance frequency with the
>>DC inductance (and it really works),
I believe the difference has been explained in this thread.
Med C is a correction you add to a much larger C. The large C forces the L
current to be almost uniform.
Near resonance the L current is not uniform hence the difference in L and
self C between low frequency and fr..
Mathematically its impossible to represent all the responses (poles and
zeros to infinity) with a single resonance that is accurate at low frequency
and near fr.
Its like trying to represent one of your multi resonant networks with the
first resonance and expecting it not to have errors.
Which of the above do you not except and or do not see?
>>A possible reason for the Medhurst capacitance being
>>somewhat higher that one half of the capacitance of a
>>cylinder is the equivalent capacitance from one end of the
>>coil to the other end, that adds to one half of the body
>>capacitance of the cylinder to form the Medhurst capacitance.
Consider this. Looking in to the base near resonance you see L and Cmed in
series or so you might conclude from the Cmed models.
But at low frquencies you see only Cintrinsic, but you should see Cmed!!!!!.
Robert (R. A.) Jones
A1 Accounting, Inc., Fl
407 649 6400