From: Paul
Date: Wed, 04 Oct 2000 14:31:07 +0100
Subject: Re: [TSSP] Progress report 28th Sep 2000
Malcolm Watts wrote: > I am far from being uninterested in reading the > results of your work. Long may the postings continue. Thanks - encouragement much appreciated, and needed at the moment as we square up to some difficult problems ahead. > I wonder why the big discrepancy in the measured and predicted > value of the spaced coil? Easy enough when the measured Q is lower than predicted, we just propose some additional sources of loss. But what do we do with a coil that has a significantly higher Q than allowed by the series resistance calculated from Medhurst? Perhaps Mark has some comments. I'm stumped. > Towards the end of the year I may just get the opportunity to > do some further secondary measurements for you. Well its going to take some time to absorb the results which you and Mark have already sent. A sample of three of these results has been enough to break the model nicely! I'm rewriting the laplace solver in the hope that it can be made to deal with these better. After that I hope to do some studying to try and get underneath the Medhurst empirical work. > I am also planning some measurements to try and resolve > issues pertaining to primary "Q" (gap included) with a bunch > of series gaps and gap spacings to get a better handle on > absolute losses. Thats some challenge you're taking on there! So many variables. Got one of those fancy digital scopes, the ones where you can read the trace through an RS232 cable? There must be a lot of information hidden in the ringdown envelope. > For you this is a side-issue I expect. Well I try to stay focused on secondary issues, and I know nothing about spark gaps, but I'd like to hear more about your plans. Cheers, -- Paul Nicholson, Manchester, UK. --
Maintainer Paul Nicholson, paul@abelian.demon.co.uk.