E-Tesla6 vs FANTC

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

Original poster: "J. B. Weazle McCreath by way of Terry Fritz <twftesla-at-qwest-dot-net>" <weazle-at-hurontel.on.ca>


Hello Coilers,

I had an opportunity this evening to run my coil specs through the
new program FANTC (it's great!) and came up with a surprising, yet
satifying result.

I use WinTesla to do the ballpark number crunching for my coil and
for the topload capacity I've been using the value given to me by
E-Tesla6.  The resulting tap point on the primary never coincided
with what WinTesla said it should be, and I've been wondering why.

After running FANTC, I inputed the topload capacity it came up with
and found that it crunched well with WinTesla and gave me a tapping
point the same as reality.  I'm rather surprised that the difference
between the calculated capacity of my topload was so large between
the two programs, 24 pF. from E-Tesla6 and 17 pF. from FANTC, with
all of the input parameters to the programs being the same.

I suppose it's just another of those quirks that computers have,
and overall I'm quite happy with the end results.  After all is
said and done, it's streamer length that matters most!

73, Weazle, VE3EAR/VE3WZL
G-1#1214

Listening: 147.030+ and 442.075+
E-mail:    weazle-at-hurontel.on.ca
            or ve3ear-at-rac.ca
Web site:  http://www.hurontel.on.ca/~weazle