Re: MIT wireless energy transfer etc. (fwd)

["Tesla list" <tesla@xxxxxxxxxx>]

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2007 09:41:16 +0100
From: Chris Swinson <list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: Tesla list <tesla@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: MIT wireless energy transfer etc. (fwd)



> 
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2007 08:31:01 -0700
> From: Ed Phillips <evp@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: List moderator <mod1@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: MIT wireless energy transfer etc.
> 
>    Perhaps this question might be closer to 'on topic'.  One of the 
> features of this demonstration was the use of "self-resonant" coils and 
> another was speculation as to why their measured Q was less than 
> expected, with a suggestion that further research was needed in that 
> respect.  My personal thought would be that capacity loaded coils would 
> have less loss [higher Q].  I'm not about to spend the money to copy 
> their coil but their measured Q seems to be in line with what I would 
> expect.  Also in working with smaller antenna loading coils [perhaps 6" 
> x 6" maximum size] I've never seen much difference between bare coils 
> which had been sitting around until thoroughly oxidized and the same 
> coils wound with enamel wire which presumably were shiny clean copper.
> 
>    Anyone have any thoughts here?



"self-resonant"  ??

imho top capacitance lowers Q. 

chris