RE: How to rise the secondary? (fwd)

To: tesla-at-pupman-dot-com
Subject: RE: How to rise the secondary? (fwd)
From: Tesla List <mod1-at-pupman-dot-com>
Date: Fri, 17 Jul 1998 22:24:08 -0600 (MDT)
Approved: mod1-at-pupman-dot-com


---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Fri, 17 Jul 1998 18:51:51 -0600
From: terryf-at-verinet-dot-com
To: Tesla List <tesla-at-pupman-dot-com>
Subject: RE: How to rise the secondary? (fwd)

Hi John,

At 09:51 AM 7/17/98 -0600, you wrote:
>From: "John H. Couture" <couturejh-at-worldnet.att-dot-net>
>To: Tesla List <tesla-at-pupman-dot-com>
>Subject: RE: How to rise the secondary? (fwd)
>
>
>  Terry -
>
>  I like the way you have placed TC computer programs into three categories.
>However, the names that you have given these groups do not reflect the true
>differences between the programs. I think the groups should be called the
>simple TC program, the empirical TC program, and the theoretical TC program.
>The empirical program can do what the simple program does and more, however,
>the theoretical program cannot do what the empirical program can do. The
>theoretical programs like SPICE cannot show spark lengths and other
>parameters without the necessary empirical data from real world coils.  


I like your new categories.  They don't quite reflect the internal
programming differences but only computer programming people care about that
anyway.


>  The JHCTES program started out as a theoretical program to solve the TC
>problems. The plan was simple. First order differential equations would
>solve for the RCL, etc. parameters.. Second order equations would solve for
>the TC pri, sec, and third coil circuits. Fourth order equations would solve
>for the classical TC and sixth order equations would solve for the magnifier
>with the extra coil. The first and second order equations can easily be set
>up on any spreadsheet. The fourth and sixth order equations were another
>matter as I found out. The Corum's showed the second and fourth order
>equations in their TCTUTOR but did not use them for the examples they showed`.


The fact that your program started out as theoretical is interesting.  It
has both formulas and empirical calculations.  I was wondering how that all
came together over the years.  

Spice programs can easily iterate through the high order equations to
produce the outputs.  The internal workings of these programs is extremely
complex and not within reach of the normal casual programmer.  Fortunately,
TCs are simple enough to forgo the fancy iteration methods and just grind
through the calculations.  This is much slower but it still works.  I
haven't written a program like this in fifteen years.  I guess I'll have to
use visual BASIC or C++.  That will be a challenge all by itself.  All that
windows stuff....  Perhaps I could hire a little kid to do it.  They are
born with programming skills these days :-)) 

MathCad and even a pencil can find all the equations.  Solving them for real
world situations is not practical without computer help, however.
Hopefully, we can get the "theoretical" programs good enough to supply the
data the "empirical" programs need.  You know all too well how hard it is to
get and sift through real data.  Building your own coils goes a long way but
a single person can't build enough coils to really do all the tests
required.  A computer model can run in seconds and in many cases produce the
same results that a real coil would.  Thus, saving years of work.  Once the
output arcs can be modeled we will really have arrived.  There are still
mechanical and material factors but at least we will know what we are trying
to build.


>  I soon realized the theoretical equations would have limited use unless
>modified by empirical data to make them conform with real world coils. That
>is why I changed the JHCTES program to the empirical type. However, this
>program needs to be improved and will be someday. Your research work and the
>work of other coilers is very much needed so TC programs can be improved.


Fortunately, good reliable data is becoming available and the basic theory
is getting worked out.  This allows the models to produce results that match
the real coils very well.  Still more work to do but the end is in sight.


>  I believe that theoretical programs have a use for Tesla coils and I will
>be interested in your program. When are you going to put it on the market?


I have no dates or anything like that right now.  I do know that I would
post the program for free.  I gave up getting rich off this hobby long ago :-)


        Terry Fritz

>
>  John Couture
>
>------------------------------------------------------
>
SNIP>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>