RE: Effective Resistance

["boris petkovic" <petkovic7-at-yahoo-dot-com> (by way of Terry Fritz <twftesla-at-uswest-dot-net>)]

--- Tesla list <tesla-at-pupman-dot-com> wrote:
> Original poster: "John H. Couture"
> <couturejh-at-worldnet.att-dot-net> 
> 
> 
> Bart -
> 
> What I tried to point out is that ESR has two
> answers, Rac and Reff. In the
> past coilers have used both categories of
> calculations for ESR and always
> end up with different answers and wonder why. Like
> is the Q factor 100 or
> 900? The Rac calculation is standardized but the
> Reff calculation has too
> many unknowns to produce explicit answers at the
> design stage. It is obvious
> that this situation must be taken into consideration
> when developing a TC
> computer program.
> 

John,
I wonder why so much  interest of yours relating 
secondary spark unloaded Q and radiation resistance(?)
There could be some reasons such as CW operation and
relation Energy radiated/Energy dissipated in a coil
structure or you want to build better radio transmiter
of TC?  
Most of us are however interested in disruptive TC
designs ,with big secondary sparks that lower  Qs down
to ~10.In that case ,it is of really small importance
for successful performance whether Q secondary
unloaded  =100 ,200 or 500 (energy delivered to arc 1%
more or less).
I would pay much more attention to the modeling  of  Q
of TC primary.    


Regards,
Boris





__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - Free email you can access from anywhere!
http://mail.yahoo-dot-com/