RE: More Coupling...

["Tesla list" <tesla-at-pupman-dot-com>]

Original poster: "Terry Fritz" <twftesla-at-uswest-dot-net>

Hi John,

	That's really good!  I am surprised the frequency came out so close.  I
have some extra primary turn to account for streamer loading which accounts
for the small difference there.

Cheers,

	Terry

At 11:47 PM 12/21/2000 -0800, you wrote:
>
>Terry -
>
>I ran your coil numbers thru the JHCTES Ver 2.3 with the following results.
>
>Inputs         JHCTES/2.3         Terry
>
>Pri cap uf       .017             .017
>Avg pri rad      9.00              -
>Width            6.00              -
>Sec rad          5.00             5.00
>Turns            1030             1000
>TPI              34.0               -
>Wire dia        .0201             .0201
>Sec term pf     14.00             12.25
>
>Outputs
>
>Res Freq Khz    107.4             107.8
>Sec mh           76.23             75.4
>Pri uh          129.10            127.9
>Pri turns        14.83             15.13
>Mut Ind uh      634.78               ?
>K factor- 0"       .20              .2069
>
>I agree that the parameters of many more coils should be measured.
>
>John Couture
>
>-------------------------------
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Tesla list [mailto:tesla-at-pupman-dot-com]
>Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2000 6:39 PM
>To: tesla-at-pupman-dot-com
>Subject: Re: More Coupling...
>
>
>Original poster: "Terry Fritz" <twftesla-at-uswest-dot-net>
>
>Hi Bart and Paul,
>
>The measurements for my big coil (as it was then) and the coil's details are
>at:
>
>http://hot-streamer-dot-com/TeslaCoils/MyPapers/sgap/sgap.html
>
>For those that wish to help, the "best method" of measuring coupling is at:
>
>http://www.pupman-dot-com/listarchives/1997/november/msg00898.html
>
>Cheers,
>
>        Terry
>
>
>
>At 05:52 PM 12/21/2000 -0600, you wrote:
>>
>> 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
>>
>---------------------- snip
>