Re: secondary frequency problem (fwd)

["Tesla list" <tesla@xxxxxxxxxx>]

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2007 19:08:35 -0700
From: Barton B. Anderson <bartb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: Tesla list <tesla@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: secondary frequency problem (fwd)

Hi Chris,

>Seems at some points its almost spot on , then others its way off. My coil 
>could be 50% + or - in JavaTC ?
>

No, not at all, but I also showed you the wrong chart. It was in my temp 
directory at classictesla and I thought it showed the latest calcs (it 
didn't). There was an update moons ago and that chart does not reflect 
the current Javatc. Here is the latest "in chart format" of Javatc vs Q 
measurement.

http://www.classictesla.com/temp/RAC-Q2.gif

There are a lot of data points here and it's all crunched together in 
order to be able to do a quick screen capture of the chart.

As far as % error from Javatc prediction versus actual measurement, this 
chart may be helpful.
http://www.classictesla.com/temp/Qerror.gif

As you can see from this chart how the error increases as h/d is 
lowered. Still, this is one of the hardest numbers to predict. 
Considering that, I think Javatc actually does an incredible job. Some 
of the higher error is due to low resolution Q measurements (some of 
those peaks that don't quite give the accuracy it's due). The best 
measurements were taken by Malcolm Watts where he used top of the line 
equipment. Really, it's his measurements that made the predictions 
possible. Most coils are in the 3:1 to 5:1 h/d category and that is what 
I really wanted to show and which is why I specifically indicate that in 
Javatc in the help file for those outputs. One thing about the numbers 
you see that you probably don't realize is that several coils say along 
a particular h/d are various turns and various top load geometry. From 
toroids to spheres.

Take care,
Bart