magnifier vs. classic tc (magnifier modeling)

To: "'Tesla List'" <tesla-at-pupman-dot-com>
Subject: magnifier vs. classic tc (magnifier modeling)
From: Tesla List <tesla-at-stic-dot-net>
Date: Sun, 22 Mar 1998 00:01:44 -0600
Approved: tesla-at-stic-dot-net


----------
From:  Malcolm Watts [SMTP:MALCOLM-at-directorate.wnp.ac.nz]
Sent:  Saturday, March 21, 1998 8:52 PM
To:  Tesla List
Subject:  Re: magnifier vs. classic tc (magnifier modeling)

HI all,

> From:  FutureT [SMTP:FutureT-at-aol-dot-com]
> Sent:  Friday, March 20, 1998 10:31 AM
> To:  tesla-at-pupman-dot-com
> Subject:  Re: magnifier vs. classic tc (magnifier modeling)
> 
> Bert, Antonio, Malcolm, all,
> 
> I've been re-checking my work on the coupling issue, using 
> different equipment to make the measurements, and I'm coming
> up with very different results.  It is possible that my posted results
> were incorrect.  I won't know until I go through the whole project
> over again what's really happening.  I'm now measuring k values
> for the driver that are well *below* what they should be for the
> observed beat periods, which really doesn't make any sense.
> My apologies if the work is invalid.  Hopefully we'll be hearing 
> from others who may have done similar tests.
> 
> John Freau

I am personally happy with the results I've obtained. As I say, k for 
my driver was somewhere between 0.4 and 0.5 and I obtained overall
k with unequivocal resolution from the scope of less that 0.1. In fact 
I have the first piccies of the traces back now. I will scope the 
same driver with different primaries and different resonators at some 
stage.

Malcolm