Re: [TCML] Measured Q vs. Predicted

["DC Cox" <resonance@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

There is always a great distance between static Q (measured with a 9 VDC
powered meter) and dynamic (measured on an operating system) Q factor.

Dr. Resonance



On Fri, Dec 26, 2008 at 5:00 PM, Phillip Slawinski <pslawinski@xxxxxxxxx>wrote:

> I recently acquired a nice LCR meter.  This meter happens to measure Q
> factor.  I was noticing that there is a huge discrepancy between the
> measured value and predicted value.  I was hoping you might be able to shed
> some light on this.  Lets take my secondary as an example.  This is for the
> bare secondary, no topload.
>
> Predicted:
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
> 39.7637 Ohms = DC Resistance
> 19.131 mH = Ldc-Low Frequency Inductance
> 246 = Q
>
> Actual
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
> 38.99 Ohms = DC Resistance
> 19.487 mH = Ldc-Low Frequency Inductance
> 2.785 = Q
>
> Now this secondary is probably not the best secondary in the world, but it
> certainly is not the worst.  Is there a reason why my measured Q is so much
> lower than that given by JAVATC?
> _______________________________________________
> Tesla mailing list
> Tesla@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://www.pupman.com/mailman/listinfo/tesla
>
_______________________________________________
Tesla mailing list
Tesla@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.pupman.com/mailman/listinfo/tesla