[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re:: Secondary Resonance LC and Harmonics
- To: tesla@xxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Re:: Secondary Resonance LC and Harmonics
- From: "Tesla list" <tesla@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 01 Jul 2005 23:30:37 -0600
- Delivered-to: testla@pupman.com
- Delivered-to: tesla@pupman.com
- Old-return-path: <teslalist@twfpowerelectronics.com>
- Resent-date: Fri, 1 Jul 2005 23:50:40 -0600 (MDT)
- Resent-from: tesla@xxxxxxxxxx
- Resent-message-id: <MJUIpD.A.D8C.usixCB@poodle>
- Resent-sender: tesla-request@xxxxxxxxxx
Original poster: Jared E Dwarshuis <jdwarshui@xxxxxxxxx>
Hi Terry
(I)
The equation L = u Nsqrd pi Rsqrd / (l) is from classic physics, we
made no claim that it was our own equation. Sometimes textbooks write
the above in a slightly different form.
The assumptions made in the classic derivation is that the flux is
uniform within the inductor. In reality the flux could only be
perfectly uniform for an infinitely long inductor with a "uniform
sheet of current".
Wheelers is handy for building (most) inductors, but is not very
useful for analytic work. The degree of accuracy of either the classic
formulae or the Wheeler formulae depends essentially on the length of
the inductor and how closely packed the windings are.
You remarked that many coilers build non wire length coils that work
just fine. We never said that wire length standing wave resonance was
the whole story. Waves obey superposition and energy must go
somewhere.
(II)
The matter of an apology to terry:
I (Jared) stated that you deleted my posting. The fact that you did re-
post the specifications for our 1.5 wave coil and any subsequent
postings we have made, attests to your integrity concerning the
posting of dissenting opinions.
I hope that you accept my apology.
Jared Dwarshuis