You are to be commended on your exploratory attitude, but you should be aware of a few things.

Calculations are only as good as the data that goes into them. You have made a calculation and a radical claim based on a frequency reading from a classic instrument that depends upon capacitors for timing. In addition you are calling a dial reading from this instrument "data". You have shown no calibration data: there is no assurance that your Signal Generator's dial is giving you an accurate frequency value, and unless you have recently replaced all its ancient capacitors and recalibrated the instrument to a known frequency standard, it is _certain_ to be off-frequency.

In fact, I would do it the other way around. Peaking the known coil will give you a more accurate frequency reading than your "line on a dial" method and could even be used to roughly calibrate your signal generator !

If, that is, your coil parameters are accurately known. How do you know you have 800 feet exactly, how is it coupled to the primary, etc etc.

I would like to see your resonant frequency calculated based on the usual Tesla coil parameters of diameter, winding height, wire gauge and coupling to primary, rather than the simplistic 1/4-wavelength by wire length calculation alone.

http://www.classictesla.com/java/javatc/javatc.htmlAnd I would like to see some calibration check of your signal generator frequency reading (you have a "personal equation" to deal with too: when you see "261 kHz" someone else might see "262" or "260" kHz.)

In short, your research is interesting, but you really can't support your calculations and claims because your data is, at this point, unreliable, and you should repeat your observations with properly calibrated frequency counting instruments. Do you have access to an oscilloscope, or can you budget 200 dollars to obtain one? And you shouldn't set up straw men (the simplistic resonance calc) that don't consider all determining aspects of resonance in a coupled coil set.

(And I am afraid you go completely off the rails when you take the ratio of the calculated resonance to your "measured" values and come up with a velocity ratio.)

There is a difference in the resonant frequency of your two conditions. That is shown reliably by your uncalibrated instruments. Until you calculate the predicted resonance correctly in the two cases, which you haven't done, and until you get concurrently valid frequency readings for the two conditions of resonance, which you also haven't done, you can't possibly say whether your results are predicted by classic theory or not.

"Let's not worry about explanations, yet. Let's just make sure that we agree on the observations, first." -- S.Weir

--TK