[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: More Coupling...



Original poster: "Kurt Schraner by way of Terry Fritz <twftesla-at-uswest-dot-net>" <k.schraner-at-datacomm.ch>

Hi Paul, Bart, all

I did some quite extensive coupling measurements on my big coil
(~16"dia, 10kVA, flat primary), and compared it successfully with
Dr.Mark Rzeszotarskys great program MandK. The drawback may be, I
did'nt have the big spacial possibilities, Paul was asking
initially, and I have the results, so far, in Excel97 only. If
it's of use, it can be downloaded from:

http://home.datacomm.ch/k.schraner/BandW_MandK.zip  (16k)

BTW the data I used for the calculations in MandK are in the
Excel as well, but I can give perhaps more, regarding geometry of
the situation. I'm not shure, if the precision of my mesurements
are sufficient, to be of good use for furter ACMI testing (it's
certainly less than yours ;-)), But it might be of some value
too, to see the influence of variable "tap-position", in addition
to variable "primary-height", on coupling.

I also did measurements for my 8"Twin coils, again as Excel97
file downloadable:

http://home.datacomm.ch/k.schraner/8inchTC_k.zip (17k)

Hope, it might help the interesting topic!

Cheers, 
Kurt Schraner



Tesla list wrote:
> 
> Original poster: "Barton B. Anderson by way of Terry Fritz
<twftesla-at-uswest-dot-net>" <tesla123-at-pacbell-dot-net>
> 
> Hi Paul and Everyone,
> 
> My reply here is to ask (plead) for more coiers to make coupling
measurements.
> All that is needed is a DMM capable of volt and amp readings (or meters
capable
> of this). Also needed is a primary that can be moved above and below the
> secondary base line in steps (or the secondary to achieve the same result).
> Measurement is easy (we can define that later).
> 
> If case you haven't kept up with this thread, I have found an increase in
> coupling error to Paul's program "acmi" predictions (error increases in the
> direction of increased coupling). What I would like to find out with your
help
> is:
> 
> 1. is current changing during measurement (and not realized),
> 2. is the flat primary shape causing the error,
> 3. if #2 is correct, does acmi need to apply a correction of some type,
> 4. if #3, is this true for only flat primary's?
> 5. Lot's of other little tid bits to increase our coupling knowledge.
> 
> So we need some flat, helical, and conical coupling measurements as well.
This
> type of comparison has been needed for some time and the information will add
> another little wrinkle in our coiling brains.
> 
> Any takers? Anyone?
> 
> Thanks,
> Bart
> 
> Tesla list wrote:
> >
> > Original poster: "by way of Terry Fritz <twftesla-at-uswest-dot-net>"
> > <paul-at-abelian.demon.co.uk>
> >
> > Barton B. Anderson <tesla123-at-pacbell-dot-net> wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> > The only way to take this further is with more results from other
> > sources. If a systematic error develops, either it can be calibrated
> > out of acmi, or I can do something smarter with the current filaments.