Original poster: "Barton B. Anderson" <bartb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Hi Jim,Rather than use Java 9.1, I would highly recommend Javatc 10.m which is currently up at the website. There's nothing you can do with 9.1 that you can't do with 10.m, and 10.m is far, far more accurate. 9.1 was fine when we were highly based on empirical models (not so long ago, was it). But now, empirical models are falling short to the equations driven models. Versions 10.m is far more accurate than 9.1. So much has changed since 9.1. Paul Nicholson is really the genius behind Fantc and Javatc, not myself. For Javatc (through my work with Fantc) I realized I could incorporate Pauls magic (programming into a real physics calculation and point of reference for Inductances and Capacitances) into Javatc. When Javatc changed from 9.1 to 10, there was a milestone achieved. (9.1 can't even imagine the situation). Version 10 took on a whole new vision and based on simple known physics. Unfortunately, most of us did not realize that coil physics were worked out long, long ago. Paul realized this, endeavored to study those physics, then explained them to us in words we could associate with. He did so much more with the TCML. There, he took the lead (in many ways) and had many of us perform experiments. Always checking our work, holding our hands at times, but always to get the "real" result (true to prediction or not).
I discussed with Paul the need for a good C evaluation. He had some thoughts, and then more thoughts came rolling out of his mind through the process. In the end, we had Fantc. Fantc was the first program that could accurately calc L's and C's of coils together or alone, or even within the framework of topload objects (discs, spheres, toroids, etc., etc.,). During all this, Javatc 9.1 was still up at the web site. After my front end work of Fantc, I realized I could easily incorporate Pauls derivations to Javatc. So I did. AKA, Javatc 10. Were now at 10.m, so there have been several revisions since. Some revisions are errors on my part, others are enhancements, some of which Jerry Reynolds helped out with in the spark gap arena. The latest change (form 10.n to 10.m) was the inclusion of static inductances in the lead wires to the primary. Although this is a small change in the scheme of things for most coils, small coils will greatly benefit.
Versions 10 is not that different from 9, but there is a longer wait for results. I understand that better than anyone on this list (or to ever be on this list). I've ran more coils on Javatc than anyone here may realize. One thing I know, Javatc 9.1 can't perform like the latest Javatc can. The wait for results takes some getting use to, but it's worth it. Just my opinion.
Take care, Bart Tesla list wrote:
Original poster: "Jim Mora" <jmora@xxxxxxxxxxx> Hello all, I am building a demo coil that will eventually be mobile on a trailer (three phase 15kva generator and dc). In the mean while, I will be using a neon bombardier 14400v. I have been modeling with Java 9.1, as this is outside and local factors are nill, besides I like it! The coil form is 1/8? pvc 12.25? (31.115cm) diameter and is at presently 6 feet tall. The primary will be ½?(1.27cm) soft copper tubing spaced 1/2 with a 2?(5.08cm) arc space btw the coil and the first turn. K=.133. Here?s the question: What are the practical limits of the top load? I plan to wind the coil 68 inches (172.72cm). 18 awg magnet (1.024mm) - wire reactance 30K. Ratio 5.55, 30 dc ohms. The toroid will be 60?(152.4cm) x 12?(30.4cm) I will likely glue a 4?(10.16) toroid under it as a arc shield. Why the big ratios and still enjoy the bang of a reasonably large Pri cap? I want as much windings as I can get into the primary. The cap is a MMC (15) strings of (18).15 CD?s .125uf fair on hold off excellent on temp rise. I plane to leave room on the mmc form to add 3 more strings and five more caps per string if needed. Here what?s interesting: If a place a 32?(81.28cm) toroid in the center of top and say a large colander on top of that (essentially a 24?(60.96cm) spheroid which is what I first tried, the mutual inductance goes > 425 and the primacy inductance gets up to 97 and 11 turns out! Probably this would all work better with a fatter coil, but this is what I?ve got and my budget is tapped on this. Jim Mora I have no problem using a breakout (may need one for safety sake anyway), but I followed this logic with my first coil and didn't need one at all. I got the idea of adding more on top from a toroid full of water and wet leaves and retuning out to 15. I already have a 1"(2.54) square wood truss system in my mind for the toroid support. Two separated by 6"(15.24cm) like spokes in a wheel complete with 45 degrees joining two wood disks in the center with a 1/2" (1.27cm) hard copper 6" pipe epoxied to except a .5" all thread fiberglass threaded into the top plate or pipe extensions. The circles would be cardboard covered in aluminum foil ... Should be light and very strong...Thumb tacked or glued to completion. The nice thing about additional top load is they are just set there. Ok, please poke some hole in this where needed! I know there have to be trade offs!