Re: Mode Questions ??? (fwd)

["Tesla list" <tesla@xxxxxxxxxx>]

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2007 12:06:22 -0800
From: Barton B. Anderson <bartb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: Tesla list <tesla@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Mode Questions ??? (fwd)

Wow, ok, I sure got that wrong. Considering those particular terms, I 
assumed he had read something in your papers regarding inductances, 
mutual inductance, and coupling of which those letters would typically 
suggest. Thanks for clarifying for myself and likely others who might 
have thought the same.

Take care,
Bart

Tesla list wrote:
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2007 15:42:03 -0300
> From: Antonio Carlos M. de Queiroz <acmdq@xxxxxxxxxx>
> To: Tesla list <tesla@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: Mode Questions ??? (fwd)
>
> Tesla list wrote:
>   
>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2007 19:42:33 -0800
>> From: Barton B. Anderson <bartb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> To: Tesla list <tesla@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> Subject: Re: Mode Questions ??? (fwd)
>>
>> Good job Finn! I was just getting ready to reply and paste the "exact 
>> same" email from Carlos. I think we were all waiting to see if Carlos 
>> was going to reply. Glad I checked my messages before I duplicated the info.
>>
>> BTW Dave, the lkm terms are inductance(l), coupling coefficient(k), and 
>> mutual inductance(m)
>>     
> No! k:l:m (maybe a bad choice of letters...) is just the ratio of the three
> frequencies present on the energy transfer waveforms, before output 
> breakdown
> or primary quenching. With three values, the system can be a magnifier or a
> drsstc.
>
> Antonio Carlos M. de Queiroz
>
>
>
>
>
>
>