RE: JavaTC 7.05 Program (was Space winding question)

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

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


Bart -

I checked your JavaTC 7.05 Program and now our programs are in agreement as
they should be because they are using the same equations. I also checked
your program when a spacewound coil is used and found no problem. However,
there are some important differences in how the two programs are used that
should be noted. Both programs have advantages and disadvantages that can
make them easier to use for the coiler.

The JavaTC 7.05 uses the "Spacing between turns" but with the JHCTES you
have to calculate this parameter. As an example, if your coil is

    #30 AWG - .01 dia - 1 mil insulation - 60 TPI - 19 inches long

This is a spacewound coil because

     Overall dia = .01 + 2(.001) = .012

     TPI x Overall Dia = 60 x .012 = .72 (<1) (spacewound)

To find the spacing between the insulation at each turn

The spacing is  1/TPI - Overall Diamater

     Spacing = 1/60 - .012 = .0047 = 4.7 mils

John Couture

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


-----Original Message-----
From: Tesla list [mailto:tesla-at-pupman-dot-com]
Sent: Sunday, March 18, 2001 2:13 PM
To: tesla-at-pupman-dot-com
Subject: Re: Space winding question


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

Hi John C.,

Tesla list wrote:

> Original poster: "John H. Couture by way of Terry Fritz
<twftesla-at-uswest-dot-net>" <couturejh-at-worldnet.att-dot-net>
>
> Bart -
>
> For #30 AWG - 1 mil insulation - closewound - 19" long
>
> The JHCTES Program
>   Bare wire dia          .01"
>   Insul Thick            .001"  (1 mil)
>   Overall dia = .01 + 2(.001) = .012" dia
>   Wire c/c    = .012"
>   Spacing     = 0  (closewound)
>   TPI = 1/.012 = 83.3 Turns per inch
>   Turns = TPI x length = 83.3 x 19 = 1582.7 Total coil turns
>
> To get this same result with your Java TC Designer Program I used .01 for
> the bare wire, .002 for the insulation (to get the same result), and 0 for
> the spacing because of coil being closewound.

Ok John, I now understand what you were getting at. Your right, JavaTC
should have included 2 * the insulation
factor. The reason it didn't was a typo mistake on my part when writing the
code. It is modeled after my Excel
version of JavaTC which does include each side of the insulation. Thank you
for pointing out the mistake. All
of my calc's have "always" included the insulation factor correctly and I
thought I had it in there. This is
why I didn't understand what the problem was. Anyway, I have updated JavaTC
to version 7.05 to correct the
insulation error. It now calcs the "above" parameters correctly. Take a
look if you wouldn't mind.

>
> Note that the overall dia includes TWO thicknesses of insulation per wire
> c/c or TPI = 1/Overall dia (as above). A spacing factor should not be used
> because that is only a wild quess. The spacing is used when
>
>        TPI x Overall dia = 1   (closewound)
>        TPI x Overall dia < 1   (spaced windings)
>        TPI x Overall dia > 1   (TPI incorrect)
>
>  If there is any doubt the turns should be actually measured. Your program
> calcs do not appear to do what you said below.
>

John, regardless of the insulation error the "method" is unchanged. Let me
restate since it appears to me that
my method is unclear to you.

1) If winding a closewound coil, use zero for the spacing.
2) If winding a spacewound coil, use the spacing factor.
3) Following actually winding the coil, measure TPI, then adjust the
spacing factor to match the calculated TPI
to the actual measured TPI regardess if it's a spacewound coil.

This is exactly what I'm trying to say below. If you thought the insulation
factor I was using in version 7.04
was designed in, please understand it was not. Just a simple mistake. Thank
you for pointing it out. My mouth
dropped open when I took a look at the code and compared it to my Excel
version and found I'd left out the
2*INS.

Do you have a problem with my method described above?

Bart A.