[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: wirelength LC derivation,
- To: tesla@xxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: wirelength LC derivation,
- From: "Tesla list" <tesla@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2005 12:16:55 -0700
- Delivered-to: testla@pupman.com
- Delivered-to: tesla@pupman.com
- Old-return-path: <teslalist@twfpowerelectronics.com>
- Resent-date: Tue, 15 Mar 2005 12:17:55 -0700 (MST)
- Resent-from: tesla@xxxxxxxxxx
- Resent-message-id: <jT-CAC.A.sHH.gTzNCB@poodle>
- Resent-sender: tesla-request@xxxxxxxxxx
Original poster: jdwarshui@xxxxxxxxx
Hi Jim
(1) Assuming an infinite solenoid is a classic argument, not one we
invented.
(2) We only remarked that R would be smaller then the derivation
indicates. This merely owes up to the fact that solenoids have self
capacitance that contributes to the sum of capacitance.
Actually where the derivation really breaks down, as applied to Tesla
coils, is that it assumes that the current in each wind at any given
instant in time is the same. Also it does not directly address the
issue of node formation (a clear indication that current is not the
same in each wind at any given instant in time).
Jared