RE: FW: Updated JHCTES Ver 3.3

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

Original poster: "John H. Couture by way of Terry Fritz <twftesla-at-qwest-dot-net>" <couturejh-at-worldnet.att-dot-net>


Bart -

Thank you for checking the JHCTES Ver 3.3 program. This is an empirical
program based on actual tests of real world coils. This info may have to be
updated. If the program does not match real world then I can easily change
it. I would be interested in how the program compares with real world coils
of all sizes of classical TC coils. I can then change the program to be more
accurate if necessary. It is my understanding that the other programs have
been checked with only a few coils.

It should be noted that tests for the mutual inductance and coupling factor
can be done by several different methods. Some methods are more accurate
than others. This means that the results of the tests will vary. Getting
tests and programs to match exactly is probably not realistic.

Note that the Ver 3.3 has an "x" dimension in the secondary inputs. This is
for secondary coils that are raised above the primary coil. The "x" is
limited to only plus values because minus values have little use for
classical coils.

John Couture

------------------------

-----Original Message-----
From: Tesla list [mailto:tesla-at-pupman-dot-com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2001 6:28 AM
To: tesla-at-pupman-dot-com
Subject: Re: FW: Updated JHCTES Ver 3.3


Original poster: "Barton B. Anderson by way of Terry Fritz
<twftesla-at-qwest-dot-net>" <tesla123-at-pacbell-dot-net>

Hi John,

I tested JHCTES couping tonight. It did very well!

I compared it to ACMI and MandK testing we did a while back using the same
parameters as previous into JHCTES.
It was close, but still off by more than I expected. Then I realized the
coil turns is calculated by JHCTES
and therefore the previous testing would not match. So I adjusted Cp to
move the calc'd turns but found that
the coulping factor didn't change (I assume the coupling factor in JHCTES
is a lookup value from a table?).
The only way I could manage to get the programs to compare was to input
JHCTES cacl'd turns into ACMI (this
did the trick). As you know, ACMI and MandK can calc better than we can
measure.

ACMI ----- Mu = 461.2uH, K = 0.1696
JHCTES--- Mu = 440.8uH, K = 0.165

So it looked much closer at that point.
Excellent work!

Bart Anderson