RE: Mutual Inductance & K Factor

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

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


Paul, Bart -

I agree the TC programs should use calculations that give accurate answers.
However, I also believe the answers should agree with the real TC world. We
can only determine this with enough proper TC testing. My experience is that
for the present the Wheeler equation is sufficiently accurate for the
accuracy of the test data available.

The greatest weakness of present TC testing is that no indication is ever
given as to the possible +/- error of the test data. Without this additional
information the accuracy of the program outputs is still in doubt regardless
of the accuracy of the calculations.

John Couture

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



-----Original Message-----
From: Tesla list [mailto:tesla-at-pupman-dot-com]
Sent: Monday, March 18, 2002 10:00 PM
To: tesla-at-pupman-dot-com
Subject: Re: Mutual Inductance & K Factor


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

Hi Paul (I'll be quick, I know your involved heavily with Terry's testing)

Tesla list wrote:

> Original poster: "Paul Nicholson by way of Terry Fritz
<twftesla-at-qwest-dot-net>" <paul-at-abelian.demon.co.uk>
>
> BTW, I do hope that no programmers are using this formula in their
> TC programs. These cheap and cheerful formulas are just for hand
> calculations. As a programmer, you have zero excuse not to use a
> more accurate approximation for the shape factor K, eg as per the
> Lundin formula.

Agree. But, most of us do use Wheeler and have been for long time.

I will be making the change for JavaTC soon following in TSSP's foot steps.
I hope others will follow. The
last testing I did with Les confirmed in my mind that Wheeler needs to be
replaced in order to gain a
closer approximation.

Take care,
Bart