It's _NOT_ a parallel resonance in the sense that you have a capacitive
value in parallel with an inductive value.
You have two non-equal lumped values in parallel.
Whip out Thenevin's theorem to solve this one -- in this particular dynamic
example, the two lumped values are not equal. Together, they provide a
lumped value that is equal to neither individual value, and is not
necessarily proportional to one or the other because of the complex
interactions between the two doorknob caps and the components on each end.
Hell, even a Second Class Boy Scout could figure THAT one out.
Now -- could you see parasitic effects within an octave of the operating
frequency of the two-doorknob network?
Apparently, somebody can in their application.
Theory is great and models are great, but the rubber meets the road when
you hook these things up. Empirical results need to be given significant
consideration, especially when things start blowing up.
Jim N6OTQ
And because of some things that have gone past on my monitor recently AND
in years past, I do have to remind everybody -- the fundamental basis for
this discussion is "when things start blowing up."
>>\ This does not appear to be the result when one experimentally
>>parallels two, equal value doorknob caps with straps and checks for
>>resonance with a dipmeter.
>>
>If anyone other than Rich feels that I have not explained clearly enough
>in pervious postings why this is *not* a parallel resonance, I will try
>again.
--
FAQ on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/FAQ/amps
Submissions: amps@contesting.com
Administrative requests: amps-REQUEST@contesting.com
Problems: owner-amps@contesting.com
|