Re: AC wire resistance with proximitry effects

["Tesla list" <tesla@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Original poster: "Gerry  Reynolds" <gerryreynolds@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>


Hi Bart,

Were your "1/2 power" points at 0.707 * Vpeak??

> Original poster: "Barton B. Anderson" <bartb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> I  then tuned generator to half power points (via low-z amp).

> Oh, btw, I checked Les and Ces in the equations. It's worse and has 
> twice the error. As Fraga, Terman, Gary, etc. all compare and base 
> their equations from Medhurst, it actually makes sense that the 
> least error would occur with Ldc and Cdc in their particular equations.

I'm not sure what this means.  Could you elaborate on what you did to 
"check Les and Ces in the equations"??

Where does Fraga, Terman, and Gary use Ldc and Cdc in their 
equations??  I might have missed this point.

I just reread my post and it sure got corrupted.  I'll have to have a 
"talking to" with my typing fingers.  What I meant to say was the 
Fraga equation does NOT look at L and C directly but only looks at 
frequency in the skin depth calculation.  So, if your Les and Ces 
predict the same frequency as the The Medhurst C and Wheeler L, then 
I would think the Fraga prediction would be unaffected.  Of course, 
you dont need the Les or Ces since you have a very accurate frequency 
prediction.

Gerry R.


> > > Original poster: "Gerry  Reynolds" <gerryreynolds@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > >
> > > Hi Bart,
> > >
> > > After looking at the Fraga equation again, it does look and L and 
> > > C directly. It uses the product of L and C by virtue of the 
> > > frequency needed for skin depth.  Your Les and Ces are the 
> > > frequency determining equivalents that are suppose to be accurate to like 1%.
> > > How accurate are Medhurst C and Wheeler L in predicting the 
> > > correct frequency.  I doubt there will be any significant 
> > > difference especially since f gets sqrt'd which will cut the error in half.
> > >
> > > Gerry R.