Re: Coupling - ACMI trend

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

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:

> How's that for accuracy of a program?

Looks pretty good from this one set of readings. However I think you
should review all the available readings - it can be misleading if you
focus too closely on one set. eg your measurements with this version
of acmi give 4% to 7% error on k. I have no grounds for preferring one
set above another, so they all must be considered. Also, you'll notice
the primary self inductance is a long way out - several percent.

I would say then that the good results you show are not
representative.

> I took your new secondary diameter and misc. other details refining
> data inputs to achieve as near a model as your coil should be via
> dimensions and measurement.

I don't know what refinements your're making here, other than putting
in Terry's latest dimensions and converting units. The temptation to
tweak the input measurements to get better agreement must be resisted.

> Paul, I think you should wait a while until more data can be checked
> and rechecked before making any changes to acmi.

Err, too late :). I've made a few improvements which will have upset
your nice results but give a better overall agreement. They can be
reversed easily enough if proved to be inappropriate.

Keep up the good work, and don't worry - if your comparison of acmi
with Terry's results turns out to be a correct assessment of the program's
accuracy, we'll achieve it again, rest assured.

Cheers,
--
Paul Nicholson,
Manchester, UK.
--