Re: All pain no gain

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

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

Hi Terry,

Fully agree here. The sec toroid and secondary capacitance is generalized. I
agree, it would be nice to adapt E-Tesla 6 to other programs, but I'm not
sure how
capable Javascript is at performing the function. Scripting has a river of
limitations. I actually tried compiling E-Tesla 6 source code with the same
compiler you use, but I had problems and haven't got back to it (problems were
knowledge related). On the To Do list however.

Thanks for the reminder.

Bart A.

Tesla list wrote:

> Original poster: "Terry Fritz" <twftesla-at-uswest-dot-net>
>
> Hi Ed and All,
>
> All the programs do use the same formulas and do give pretty much identical
> results.  However, the trick is the secondary toroid/system capacitance.
> There is no easy formula to come up with that number so the program use
> various methods of guessing and that is where the numbers vary greatly.
>
> E-Tesla6 can find the secondary system frequency accurately and then the
> rest is easy.  Unfortunately, no programs I know of use that method "yet"
> (hint, hint :-))
>
> E-Tesla6 and it's internal algorithms are free and public domain so there
> is no reason not to use it's guts in a more general program...
>
> http://hot-streamer-dot-com/TeslaCoils/Programs/E-Tesla6.zip
>
> The simple C source code and all is included in the above.  It will run
> under practically any C compiler Hint, hint....
>
> Cheers,
>
>         Terry
>
> At 03:28 PM 3/9/2001 -0500, you wrote:
> >In a message dated 3/8/01 9:48:38 PM Pacific Standard Time, tesla-at-pupman-dot-com
> >writes:
> >
> ><<
> > I'm curious. Do you have a bit more dimensional info on your primary?
> > JavaTC, JHCTES, Ed Sonderman's
> > Spreadsheet, WinTesla, etc.. are all very close to one another. For the
> > most part, we all use the same calc's,
> > however, there are a few calcs we go about differently for different
> > reasons. I suspect there are dimensions
> > which are off one way or another due to the degree the tap point you
> > indicated is off. JavaTC shows about 18
> > turns if I use similar inputs to Johns. But, everyone is kind of guessing
> > at a few unknown dimensions. If the
> > program is that far off I'd like to find out why. Others have used it with
> > excellent results at first light.
> > Yours is the first case I've heard otherwise which is partially why I'm
> > interested in your input dimensions vs.
> > your actual measurements.
> >
> > For TPI, simply count the turns in an inch and verify this at different
> > points (this isn't exact, but it's as
> > close as you'll get without counting the entire coil - as I once did). This
> > helps fine tune the secondary which
> > of course affects the resonant frequency and thus primary calcs. I would
> > also back up John about measuring the
> > cap and verifying all dimensions. They do make a difference regardless of
> > which program you use. I personally
> > like to use them all.
> >
> > Keep us posted.
> >
> > Take care,
> > Bart A.
> >  >>
> >Bart,
> >
> >The idea of different programs producing different numbers is expected I
> >guess.  It would be nice if we could rely on the programs to produce
> >consistent results, within a few percent anyway.  I will supply the data on
> >my smaller coil here and maybe others could run it on their programs and
> >report back.  In this situation, I am solving for the primary tap point.
> >Secondary: 3.0" O.D.  closewound,  winding length 13.1", #28 wire, using
72.7
> >turns per inch
> >Toroid capacitance" 18 pf
> >Primary:  5.8" I.D., diameter of wire .10", spacing between turns .35" (not
> >center to center - but actual clearance), flat spiral
> >Primary tank capacitor:  .009 ufd
> >
> >I calculate the proper tap point should be 10.9 turns.
> >
> >Ed Sonderman
> >