[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Wire length LC derivation,
- To: tesla@xxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: Wire length LC derivation,
- From: "Tesla list" <tesla@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2005 16:58:17 -0700
- Delivered-to: email@example.com
- Delivered-to: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Old-return-path: <email@example.com>
- Resent-date: Mon, 14 Mar 2005 17:00:56 -0700 (MST)
- Resent-from: tesla@xxxxxxxxxx
- Resent-message-id: <Ncmmv.A.6FB.2WiNCB@poodle>
- Resent-sender: tesla-request@xxxxxxxxxx
Original poster: "Bob (R.A.) Jones" <a1accounting@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tesla list" <tesla@xxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, March 14, 2005 7:06 AM
Subject: Re: Wire length LC derivation,
> Original poster: "Jim Lux" <jimlux@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
74), or one can numerically integrate the configuration.
> 2) The self capacitance is not that of an isolated sphere. If you must
> approximate, you should probably use that for a cylinder over a ground
> plane. Medhurst is the standard reference for these equations. Or, as
> inductance, you can numerically integrate.
Just reminder, Medhurst C is NOT the isotropic capacitance of a coil.
In the few paper on coils by Medhurst, that I have read he never derives
the isotropic capacitance of a coil.
Robert (R. A.) Jones
A1 Accounting, Inc., Fl
407 649 6400