Re: Mutual Inductance & K Factor

["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-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.

So far, the programs do agree with the real world coils that we've been
able to test. I think best
testing occurs when a project is erected and several coilers discuss and
perform the testing at the
same time. The little errors add up with individual testing and I would not
rely heavily on it without
many checks and double-checks of test parameters, environment, coil, etc.
It's difficult to get that
kind of data without driving the tester nuts.

With a project as stated, all this data comes in with much discussion
including a lot of verification,
checks and rechecks. We went through this same type of testing and
verification with Acmi using
several coil geometry's, relational heights, etc. Granted, we can't hit
every type of geometry. But
what we did test, were real world coils with "good" data. I now do this
with any new coil I build out
of  curiosity to see if it holds to Acmi. This includes the flat coil I
built. Acmi was again
incredibly accurate. I'm not trying to sit here and boast Acmi, but just
want to be sure people
realize the work and brains Paul has put into it as well as the real world
testing and verification
which is at it's heart.

Take care,
Bart