Re: BPS vs. Resonant frequency (fwd)

["Tesla list" <tesla@xxxxxxxxxx>]

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2007 20:11:43 EDT
From: Mddeming@xxxxxxx
To: tesla@xxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: BPS vs. Resonant frequency (fwd)

 
Hi Scott,
 
John is right. The answer is "NO", but here is WHY:
 
The damped oscillations at 120 KHz last for only a few cycles (a few  
1/120,000ths of a second) while these trains of pulses occur only every 1/120th  of a 
second. There is 99%+ "dead time" between consecutive pulse trains.  
Therefore, there is no reinforcement from one pulse train to the next to build  up any 
resonance. Your BPS would have to be in the tens of thousands before  there 
would be any hope of seeing the slightest effect. 
 
Matt D.
 
 
 
 
 
In a message dated 7/5/07 6:31:32 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,  
tesla@xxxxxxxxxx writes:


---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2007  18:04:36 EDT
From: FutureT@xxxxxxx
To: tesla@xxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re:  BPS vs. Resonant frequency (fwd)


In a message dated 7/5/2007  3:34:48 P.M. US Eastern Standard Time,  
tesla@xxxxxxxxxx  writes:

Hey  all,
Here is a theoretical question for you  guys.   Would there be any 
advantage to designing a TC secondary  system, so that  it's resonant 
frequency would be a harmonic,  multiple, x octaves above,  etc, of the BPS 
(for example 122.88kHz  for 120 BPS)?  Just  curious.
Scott  Bogard.



Scott,

No, there's no advantage to doing  that.

John








************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.