Re: Design tool: TC-plan V 1.0

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

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

Hi Godfrey,

what I've tried to do, is just putting together a useful TC design-tool,
in contrast to a scientific work, which tool, nevertheless of course, is
relying on scientific methods, mostly developed by others. The
relatively simple formulas, used in the spreadsheet itself, can be
followed with relative ease, using the auditing-toolbar of the Excel
application. I agree with you, knowing the mathematical details of the
different tools to be very interesting and important. But 'cause of
integrating different modules, within this spreadsheet, I'm probably the
wrong man, to explain their in depth mathematics: it's shurely better to
contact the authors of the different programs. For ACMI it's Paul
Nicholson, from whose scientific work it has evolved. Please take a look
at:

http://www.abelian.demon.co.uk/acmi/

..where the source c-code can be seen. More about Paul's (truly
scientific-) work is to be seen on the TSSP (Tesla Secondary Simulation
Project) page:

http://www.abelian.demon.co.uk/tssp/

where you might download some of the PDF-files, which may point in the
direction of your special interests.
About ACMI and it's testing, a search of the pupman TCML archives for
'acmi', will reveal 159 answers. A few of them are:

http://www.pupman-dot-com/listarchives/2000/December/msg00578.html
http://www.pupman-dot-com/listarchives/2000/December/msg01108.html
http://www.pupman-dot-com/listarchives/2000/December/msg01197.html

http://www.pupman-dot-com/listarchives/2000/December/msg01221.html
http://www.pupman-dot-com/listarchives/2000/December/msg00625.html
http://www.pupman-dot-com/listarchives/2000/December/msg00712.html
http://www.pupman-dot-com/listarchives/2000/December/msg00724.html
http://www.pupman-dot-com/listarchives/2000/December/msg00814.html
http://www.pupman-dot-com/listarchives/2000/December/msg00816.html
http://www.pupman-dot-com/listarchives/2000/December/msg00840.html
http://www.pupman-dot-com/listarchives/2000/December/msg01104.html
http://www.pupman-dot-com/listarchives/2000/December/msg01117.html
http://www.pupman-dot-com/listarchives/2000/December/msg01142.html
http://www.pupman-dot-com/listarchives/2000/December/msg01144.html
http://www.pupman-dot-com/listarchives/2000/December/msg01148.html
http://www.pupman-dot-com/listarchives/2000/December/msg01160.html
http://www.pupman-dot-com/listarchives/2000/December/msg01259.html
http://www.pupman-dot-com/listarchives/2000/December/msg01308.html
http://www.pupman-dot-com/listarchives/2000/December/msg01338.html
http://www.pupman-dot-com/listarchives/2000/December/msg01353.html

Regarding E-Tesla6, Terry's research is relevant: please see

http://hot-streamer-dot-com/TeslaCoils/TeslaCoils.htm
http://hot-streamer-dot-com/TeslaCoils/Programs/Programs.htm

It's obvious, if you look at a number of websites of different
list-members: very successful TC's can be buildt, without too much
calculations. But personally, I had really "good luck" with coils,
calculated before, as much as accessible, at the time (very few parts
lost!). I'm also with those, feeling some satisfaction, if the
engineering predictions are in nice agreement, with the real device -
and if not: expecting progress of the engineering practice, by
explaining "why not". Because TC's, by 'virtue' of making sparks, are
very nonlinear devices, we will have challenging questions, for some
more time...;-). And I guess, the coilers (=some of...) themselves, ARE
the authorities for those funny 'useless' devices, which no more are an
object for great mathematical physicists.

Kurt Schraner


Tesla list wrote:
> 
> Original poster: "Loudner, Godfrey by way of Terry Fritz
<twftesla-at-uswest-dot-net>" <gloudner-at-SINTE.EDU>
> 
> Hi Kurt
> 
> It would be extremely interesting to know the mathematical details which
> support these programs. For example, what are the details behind Paul
> Nicholson's computation of mutual inductance? Did Paul derive a rigorous
> formula from Neumann's general formula for mutual inductance, or is an
> empirical formula employed? Maybe Paul's program performs a numerical
> integration of Neumann's formula. I am making a wild guess that Paul's
> computation of mutual inductance is based upon an empirical formula derived
> from a large data base. A listing of all the formulas used would be of great
> interest. It should also be stated weather each formula is empirical or
> derived from electromagnetic theory. I tried to work out a complete
> mathematical treatment of the Tesla coil based upon electromagnetic theory,
> but I immediately collided with extreme mathematical difficulties which I
> could not resolve. I have not given up, but have limited my objectives.
> People like Richard Quick have build great Tesla coils using little of
> mathematics, but I think that the mathematics of Tesla coils is a mystery
> needing explication. Somehow Tesla coilers will have to workout the details
> themselves. The great mathematical physicists of the world will not work on
> these problems. Thinking about the mathematical nature of Tesla coils will
> not lead to tenure at a university, or will research grants be awarded to
> support such work.
> 
> Godfrey Loudner
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Tesla list [SMTP:tesla-at-pupman-dot-com]
> > Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2001 7:30 PM
> > To:   tesla-at-pupman-dot-com
> > Subject:      Design tool: TC-plan V 1.0
> >
> > Original poster: "Kurt Schraner by way of Terry Fritz
> > <twftesla-at-uswest-dot-net>" <k.schraner-at-datacomm.ch>
> >
<snip>