[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: Mon, 28 Mar 2005 18:15:29 -0700
- Delivered-to: testla@pupman.com
- Delivered-to: tesla@pupman.com
- Old-return-path: <teslalist@twfpowerelectronics.com>
- Resent-date: Mon, 28 Mar 2005 18:24:46 -0700 (MST)
- Resent-from: tesla@xxxxxxxxxx
- Resent-message-id: <-Zwi6C.A.n_G.b5KSCB@poodle>
- Resent-sender: tesla-request@xxxxxxxxxx
Original poster: Ed Phillips <evp@xxxxxxxxxxx>
"Fortunately, for coiling, we don't need any of that detailed
knowledge. We can just use the distributed models to calculate
'equivalent' reactances which we can then use in a lumped
equivalent model of the system. This represents an improvement
on earlier methods which relied on the product of low frequency
inductance and Medhurst C in lumped models."
How much improvement in accuracy do you get using the distributed
model? I've tested a number of secondaries with about 5:1 aspect ratio
and using conventional (accurate) lumped-constant inductance formulae
and an approximation to Medhurst I always got within 5% of predicting
the unloaded SRF, and often within a couple or better. Seems to me
that's plenty good enough for the average coiler's use.
I always thought the Corum's made a fetish over their
"transmission-line" approach, to the point where what could have been a
simple paper because a lengthy and somewhat tangled one. Have a couple
of examples they gave to a DARPA conference on UWB radar and its
supposed anti-stealth capabilities. Report from one of the attendees
was that they did a poor job of answering questions.
Ed