[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Theory In General (was Secondary Theory)
> Original Poster: "John H. Couture" <COUTUREJH-at-worldnet.att-dot-net>
>
>
> Malcolm, Terry, All-
>
> I agree when Malcolm and Terry say only measurements can solve this
> problem. With the JHCTES program I show how the exact frequency, total
> secondary capacitance, and toroid capacitance can be determined. For the
> preliminary TC design a graph is provided to find the approximate toroid
> capacity. This is entered as an input in the program. The program output
> gives the approximate frequency for building the coil.
Measurement is a reality check on theory was what I really said.
Additionally, new theory may arise, old theory may be revised or
thrown out as a result of experimental observations. Measurement
helps solve problems but I don't regard producing a graphical output
of a number of data points as being in any way a fundamental solution
to a problem. Useful for many applications I agree. Wouldn't it be
far more satisfying to throw the figures into an algorithm and have
the correct answers pop out? Graphs by their nature often require
extrapolation beyond their boundaries for unusual cases which shows a
limit on their usefulness (extreme h/d ratios for example).
Furthermore, the limited number of points appearing on a curve might
lead one to interpolate results within the bounds of a curve, a
tricky business especially when dealing with statistical data.
> After the coil is built a test is made to find the exact frequency. The
> program toroid capacitance (input) is then adjusted to show this exact
> frequency in the output. When the adjustments are complete you will now also
> have in the outputs the exact total secondary circuit capacitance and the
> actual capacitance of the toroid when placed on the secondary coil. Even if
> the toroid is an inner tube covered with foil. What a fantastic program! (:>)
>
> John Couture
But does practice confirm that your program's outputs are "exact"?
One finds in practice it takes very little capacitive loading on a
high Q resonator to introduce a significant error into both Q and
frequency measurements. You might claim the program's output is
good enough for its purposes and based on testimony from those who
have used it, it would seem so. Reality checks on any results: the
height the resonator is mounted off the floor when you measure it;
the proximity of the coil to its surroundings.
Regards,
Malcolm
<snip>
> >Always interested. As you rightly point out, measurement must be the
> >final arbiter of theory.
> >
> >Regards,
> >Malcolm