[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Mutual inductance and K factor
Original poster: "by way of Terry Fritz <twftesla-at-qwest-dot-net>" <couturejh-at-telocity-dot-com>
Bart -
Thank you for bringing your list of coil parameter comparisons to my
attention. This list must have been a lot of work. I did some research on
this list when you first showed it but my notes are buried in boxes and not
readily available.
A quick comparison of tests of your coil and the JHCTES Ver 3.3 gave the
following results.
K Factor
Inches Bart JHCTES Difference
0 .173 .165 4.6%
1 .157 .146 7.0%
3 .126 .119 5.5%
Mutual Inductance (uh)
Inches Bart JHCTES Difference
0 522 494 2.0%
1 473 438 7.4%
3 378 356 5.8%
Comparisons with Weazle's tests and the JHCTES appeared to have a better
agreement. This was a Mutual Inductance test. What did you use for the K
Factor tests?
John Couture
----------------------------
-----Original Message-----
From: Tesla list [mailto:tesla-at-pupman-dot-com]
Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2001 5:33 AM
To: tesla-at-pupman-dot-com
Subject: Re: Mutual inductance and K factor
Original poster: "Barton B. Anderson by way of Terry Fritz
<twftesla-at-qwest-dot-net>" <tesla123-at-pacbell-dot-net>
Hi John, All,
I remember checking ACMI a while back. I distinctly remember checking MandK
against
measured and ACMI outputs and they all agreed closely. I believe I checked
JHCTES as well
when you included this into your program.
You might want to take another look at some of these measurements and
compare them.
http://www.classictesla-dot-com/temp/k.html
I have a feeling there's an input that's been over-assumed in the use of
either MandK or
JHCTES.
Bart
--
Barton B. Anderson
http://www.classictesla-dot-com
Tesla list wrote:
> Original poster: "by way of Terry Fritz <twftesla-at-qwest-dot-net>"
<couturejh-at-telocity-dot-com>
>
> Have any coilers used these programs and compared them with
> tests of their coils for the mutual inductance and the K Factor?