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>


Bart -

The 15 to 25% reduction is what I was recommending as a start for the toroid
pf input when a coiler was entering inputs for a new coil in the JHCTES Ver
3.3 program. If the toroid he was using was 5 x 20 inches with a rating of
21.6 pf he would enter a rating of
21.6 x (1 -.25) = 16.2 pf.

This pf could be later verified or changed when the coil was built and the
actual operating frequency determined. In some cases the operating frequency
might be higher or lower than shown by the program. In this event the toroid
pf input would be adjusted until the test frequency is shown by the program.
I believe this is the only way the true capacitance of the toroid on the TC
secondary can be found.

By following the above procedure you are in effect incorporating the real
world empirical conditions into the program on the fly to solve an otherwise
difficult (impossible?) problem. This can also be done with the Java9.1
program by adjusting the Percent Reduction. However, I have not studied this
in detail.

John Couture

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


-----Original Message-----
From: Tesla list [mailto:tesla-at-pupman-dot-com]
Sent: Friday, March 22, 2002 6:58 AM
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 John,

Hope I didn't sound condescending or anything like that (that wasn't my
intent). I just wanted to
point out my personal observations. Regarding a standard reduction, I
thought you "were" using one in
JHCTES, which is why I threw out some of my thoughts about it's use. As you
were referring only to the
limited testing, I stand corrected. Sorry about that.

Best regards,
Bart

Tesla list wrote:

> Original poster: "John H. Couture by way of Terry Fritz
<twftesla-at-qwest-dot-net>" <couturejh-at-mgte-dot-com>
>
> Bart -
>
> Wow - I didn't mean the 15 to 25% was a "standard reduction". As I said my
> tests were limited. If you found greater reductions by tests I would not
be
> surprised and would accept this as valid information. I also agree that
the
> ETesla6 program is the best available at present unless Malcolm knows of a
> better one.
>
> John Couture
>
> ----------------------------
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tesla list [mailto:tesla-at-pupman-dot-com]
> Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2002 7:14 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 Malcolm, John -
>
> ETesla6 is the best program to date for a pre-determined frequency with
> topload by which we can
> determine effective top C because it pulls in the walls and ceilings.
> Measurements run against ETesla6
> confirmed it's accuracy to me. My top C measurements varied a wider range
> than 15 - 25% and can easily
> be confirmed by any coiler who takes Fres measurements while changing top
> load dimentions, terminal
> heights, terminal to ground heights, etc. Modeling with ETesla6 will also
> show a large variation.
>
> If empirical data is where the 15 - 25% values were derived, then I
suspect
> this data-set of coils just
> happened to fall within that range and probably from a commonality of
coil,
> toroid, and terminal height
> ratios. I do agree that about 20% appears common. The only problem I have
> with a "standard reduction" is
> that the value used can be way off on many coils. If ETesla6 is used, a
> standard reduction is no longer
> needed. The real trick is to pull this function into design programs. We
> have all the parts (electrical
> and physical). It's just a matter of sitting down and getting it done.
>
> Take care,
> Bart

--------------------- snip