[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [TCML] Stacking vs Large Diameter
On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 7:41 PM, bartb <bartb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi Phillip,
>
> (Wow, someone who knows first hand the woe's of JavaScript coding! Cool!).
>
> The extra toroid (2nd, 3rd, 4th, etc. top load object) does take more time
> to run, but for me only a little. Not only does your PC speed effect the
> time of a run, but also the browser used. I run the default coil in 12.9
> seconds. If I install a second toroid of the same size 14 inches above the
> 1st, then 16.6 seconds. Your 300 seconds is really strange! My browser is
> Firefox.
I also use firefox, and I agree that it's faster, but then so do the
numbers. It wasn't just a one time thing, it was repeatable.
> It's actually a little faster than IE. The newer IE7 (1 toroid ran in 14
> seconds, 2 toroids ran in 20.4 seconds). The older browser IE6 is about the
> same. However, some browsers like Netscape 6 and 7 are almost twice as slow.
> The only difference is the browser [how objects are passed to and fro].
>
>
> Take care,
> Bart
>
> Phillip Slawinski wrote:
>
>> Bart,
>>
>> Thanks for that. I had been playing around in JavaTC as well. It did
>> cross
>> my mind to compare stacking the toroids one on top of the other, and then
>> with some separation, but I never got around to it. The laptop I run it
>> on
>> is a piece of garbage.
>>
>> One thing I should note is that when I was running calculations when I had
>> my 23x7 and 21x6 stacked on top of each other the calculations took an
>> excruciatingly long time. Granted, my laptop is a piece of garbage, but
>> we're talking about 20 times as long as opposed to a single toroid.
>> [300sec
>> vs 18]
>>
>> By the way, thanks for writing this tool. I too code in JavaScript and I
>> know what a humongous pain it is to get it to work correctly in several
>> browsers. What you've done with JavaTC is no small feat.
>>
>> On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 11:54 PM, bartb <bartb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> I believe Ed Sonderman put the cylinder between the toroids to add a
>>> little
>>> contribution to capacitance. However, I've never looked at that aspect
>>> since
>>> Javatc had the capability to decipher it. Ok, well, I took a whole 30
>>> seconds of my life and looked at it.
>>>
>>> I used the default coil in Javatc (default toroid dimensions are 6.25" x
>>> 21").
>>> Ctoroid = 23.286pF
>>>
>>> I then inserted a second toroid 14 inches above the original (same toroid
>>> geometry): A dual stack with 14" separation center to center.
>>> Ctoroid = 34.397 pF
>>>
>>> I then inserted a cylinder with a diameter equal to the outer radius of
>>> the
>>> toroids with top and bottom cylinder ends at each toroids center line.
>>> Ctoroid = 36.072 pF ( Yipes! Not a big change, is it?).
>>>
>>> Well, capacitive contribution of the cylinder is minimal. I doubt it made
>>> a
>>> big difference after that analysis. The coil probably would have done
>>> just
>>> as well with out it.
>>> For what it's worth, lets look at the top toroid simply sitting on the
>>> bottom of the first toroid:
>>> Ctoroid = 29.183pF (big difference from the 34.397 pF due to the 14"
>>> separation).
>>>
>>> Clearly, the toroid at 14" above hit nearly 34.5pF. Ok, good for
>>> identical
>>> toroids stacked with a decent distance apart.
>>> Let us look at a single "larger" toroid, and I'll only increase it by
>>> 25%
>>> in both minor and major diameters (7.8125" x 26.25").
>>> Ctoroid = 31.051 pF (Nice increase for only a single toroid).
>>>
>>> Now, I increase the original by only 50% (9.375" x 31.5"): Oh yea, that
>>> toroid rocks!
>>> Ctoroid = 39.325 pF
>>>
>>> Certainly beat out the dual stack. Only 50% increase with a single toroid
>>> and I've certainly beaten the dual stack even at 14" separation! So, why
>>> the
>>> need for dual, triple, etc.? No real need, more convenience and
>>> mechanical
>>> in nature. If you have them on hand, use them. If you just happen to have
>>> a
>>> nice 10" x 32" toroid lying around, then use it!
>>>
>>> Take care,
>>> Bart
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Phillip Slawinski wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 9:56 PM, bartb <bartb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Looks perfectly acceptable to me! I like the distance you have between
>>>>> toroids. Ed Sonderman did similar except to have put a sheet metal type
>>>>> cylinder between the two toroids.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Was this for support, or otherwise?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> He did get some long sparks on this dual-stack toroid.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Your base looks really nice also. I like those red colored standoffs!
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Thanks, it's taken a lot of work to get my coil where it is now. I've
>>>> only
>>>> been building coils since the beginning of May, I think I've made a lot
>>>> of
>>>> progress in the short time. I scored the standoffs for free!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Take care,
>>>>> Bart
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Tesla mailing list
>>>> Tesla@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>> http://www.pupman.com/mailman/listinfo/tesla
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Tesla mailing list
>>> Tesla@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> http://www.pupman.com/mailman/listinfo/tesla
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Tesla mailing list
>> Tesla@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> http://www.pupman.com/mailman/listinfo/tesla
>>
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Tesla mailing list
> Tesla@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://www.pupman.com/mailman/listinfo/tesla
>
_______________________________________________
Tesla mailing list
Tesla@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.pupman.com/mailman/listinfo/tesla