[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

*To*: tesla@xxxxxxxxxx*Subject*: Re: Re: Frequency Splitting*From*: "Tesla list" <tesla@xxxxxxxxxx>*Date*: Tue, 23 May 2006 19:20:16 -0600*Delivered-to*: testla@xxxxxxxxxx*Delivered-to*: tesla@xxxxxxxxxx*Old-return-path*: <vardan01@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>*Resent-date*: Tue, 23 May 2006 19:05:22 -0600 (MDT)*Resent-from*: tesla@xxxxxxxxxx*Resent-message-id*: <ZUGU4fQgRzI.A.v0C.SF7cEB@chip1>*Resent-sender*: tesla-request@xxxxxxxxxx

Original poster: <a1accounting@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Hi Ed, > >> > > I cringe when I see the words "frequency splitting", and I will tell > you why. > > We could take two identical tank circuits and couple them. We will > still get a beat frequency. > > Ah , but what about "frequency splitting?" > > Be realistic, they are identical tank circuits. One tank could not > possibly operate at a different frequency then the other. There is > no "splitting"."

> > With two identically-tuned circuits, before the spark gap > quenches there will certainly be two frequencies present, with > separation determined by the degree of coupling. Is that "frequency > splitting"? > All a matter of definition I guess. Of course, when the gap opens > the secondary will ring with the fundamental resonant frequency. > > Ed > >

- Prev by Date:
**Re: Frequency Splitting** - Next by Date:
**Re: Frequency Splitting** - Previous by thread:
**Re: Frequency Splitting** - Next by thread:
**Re: Frequency Splitting** - Index(es):