[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: JavaTC - Please Help !



Original poster: Bart Anderson <classi6-at-classictesla-dot-com> 

Hi Ian,
Absolutely, send me your data (off list). Why are you thinking your coil 
should be 260 kHz? It's not, it IS in the 160 kHz range as Javatc told you.

I ran your numbers. I simply put in:
Units = inches
Ground plane = 100
Secondary inputs = 3, 3, 10, 42, 1020, .0236 (wire diam.). [ note: 10" 
above ground, thus, 42"-10"= 32" length ].
Primary inputs = 4, 18, 10, 10, 14, 0.25, 0.01, 0 [ note: 10" ht 1 and 2 
set flat primary even with sec base, also used 0.01uF cap ].
Toroid inputs = 6, 18, 52 [ note: 52" is placing toroid center 4" above 
sec. as referencing bottom of toroid 4" above top sec ].

The sec resonant frequency ends up at 161.25 kHz [ the primary is already 
close to this and really no need to autotune].
But, I checked for Autotune and reran Javatc anyway.
The primary tuned in at 13.99 turns and the outer radius of the primary 
changed to 17.982" from it's original 18".

I'd like to find just how you tried to autotune below 1 turn. So send me 
your inputs (cap size?).

I'll be waiting,
Bart



Tesla list wrote:

>Original poster: "Ian McLean" <ianmm-at-optusnet-dot-com.au>
>Hello,
>
>     I need some help with JavaTC.  I cannot for the life of me get the output
>I'm expecting.  For a secondary of 1020 turns of 0.0236" (0.6mm), 32 inch x
>6 inch, with a 6 inner to 28 inch outer toroidal topload placed 4 inches
>above the secondary, I would expect an Fres of about 260kHz, but JavaTC is
>telling me about 160kHz.  If I try using auto-tune with a primary of 0.25
>inch diameter wire, 14 turns with 0.75 inch between turns, JavaTC tells me
>it cannot allow primary turns less than one, i.e. I guess that means it
>cannot tune my coil.
>
>     Bart, you said if I needed help with JavaTC, to ask you for it.  If
>possible, could I send you a consolidated output of what I am inputting to
>JavaTC so you can tell me where the *#-at-! I am going wrong ?
>
>Thanks
>Ian.
>
>
>
>