🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <4350@cruzio.santa-cruz.ca.us>, snarfy@cruzio.santa-cruz.ca.us writes:
> 
> 
>   In message-ID: <1992Sep23.001937.23567@voder.nsc.com>(Paul Denny) writes:
> 
>    What  is  "w"?   If  it  takes  an  infinitely  long time to measure this
>    quantity and I get paid by the hour  it  sounds  like  a  very  expensive
>    proposition . I hope you've looked into the alternatives :

It is the usual electronics notation for angular frequency in radians.seconds^-1
and is simply 2*pi*frequency.

> 
>    MY physics book gives me the following formulas for Q:
> 
>    Q=Xl/R  (Xl = inductive reactance)

	Xl=2*pi*f*L  (f=frequency = need to know frequency to calculate Q)

> 
>    Q=Px/Pr (Px = reactive power , Pr = real power)

	Px and Pr are averages over one period of the fundamental
	frequency = need to know frequency 

> 
>    Q=El/Er (El = voltage accross the inductance  Er  =  voltage  across  the
>             resistance)
	
	El and Er are averages over one period of the fundamental
	frequency = need to know frequency

> 
>    Q=Fr/BW (Fr = Resonant frequency  , BW = bandwidth)

	Fr is frequency = need to know frequency

> 
>    Q=Il/Ir  (Il  =  current  through  the inductor , Ir = current through the
>              resistor)

	Il and Ir are averages over one period of the fundamental
	frequency = need to know frequency

> 
>     > How are you measuring instananeous changes in Q ?

I note in a later post you concede the point that you can't measure frequency
instantaneously so I hope from the above you can see that your theory that
Q changes instantaneously is meaningless and even if it were true you would
not be able to transmit information by this technique.

 - Paul

P.S. There are more definitions of Q than those we've covered - if you look at
any of them the above will apply - this is no surprise as you are just looking 
at alternative ways to measure the same thing.