Re: FW: Updated JHCTES Ver 3.3

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

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

Hi John,

Tesla list wrote:

> Original poster: "John H. Couture by way of Terry Fritz
<twftesla-at-qwest-dot-net>" <couturejh-at-worldnet.att-dot-net>
>
> Bart -
>
> Your changing the primary capacitor Cp to change the primary turns is one
> way of changing the primary turns. However, the Cp is usually known
> accurately or can be easily measured so changing this variable is not
> necessary.

Yes of course. But it made sense to do this to get turns to relate
accurately. You are correct in a statement
below about changing the primary dimensions accordingly. I obvisously left
this step out and the results now
make sense.

> On the other hand the secondary terminal capacitance is never known
> accurately at the design stage. There are several ways to estimate only this
> variable at the design stage and the best is the ETesla6 program. By
> adjusting the secondary terminal capacitance with the JHCTES Ver 3.3 program
> the primary turns you need can be easily found. The better your estimate the
> closer you will be to the actual test secondary terminal capacitance. There
> are several other variables that will be changed by the computer because the
> program automatically keeps all TC primary and secondary parameters in tune.

Measurement is the best method, and ETesla6 is next. Question John: If we
use Actual measured values for Top
C, will JHCTES assume this is an isolated sphere and reduce accordingly? I
don't think so, but just want to be
clear on this.

> Note that when you changed the primary capacitor Cp the coupling did not
> change because the avg primary radius and spiral inside radius were not
> changed. However, the c/c spacing changed and this may not be what you need
> for proper clearance. You, therefore, may have to change the avg primary
> radius for proper c/c spacing clearance and pri/sec clearance.

Yes, as stated above, I agree. This step was left out and is why I went a
different route.

> Bart - The JHCTES, ACMI and MandK all use the same standard equations except
> for the mutual inductance so the following variables for the three should be
> very close.

Yes, but the Mutual Inductance is what is being looked at here, so the
comparison is valid. I think all 3
programs go about mutual inductance differently.

> Could you send me the values you used for the JHCTES, ACMI and
> MandK? The JHCTES Sec Term Cap should be adjusted to give you the actual
> test Pri Turns.
>
>    Pri Cap - Avg Rad - Width turns - Pri Turns - Pri Ind
>    Sec Rad - Turns - TPI - Sec Height(x) - Sec Term Cap
>    Oper Freq - c/c Spacing - Sec Ind - Mut Ind - Coupling
>
> John Couture

Well, hopefully I saved that info somewhere. If not, I'll reproduce it. I
think I still have the .in file from
acmi which should help me reproduce the data if needed.

Btw, I managed to wind a conical coil a couple weeks ago on pvc supports,
so I'll be trying to get some of
that testing done soon. JavaTC, ACMI, MandK, (except JHCTES because it
doesn't use conical primary's) really
need some real life testing. Hopefully I can produce some good data soon. I
plan to start at 45 deg., then
rewind for 30, then 20, then 10, then 5, and so on.

Take care,
Bart

>
> ----------------------------
>
> -----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