RE: More Coupling...

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

Original poster: "John H. Couture by way of Terry Fritz <twftesla-at-uswest-dot-net>" <couturejh-at-worldnet.att-dot-net>


Terry -

I ran your coil numbers thru the JHCTES Ver 2.3 with the following results.

Inputs         JHCTES/2.3         Terry

Pri cap uf       .017             .017
Avg pri rad      9.00              -
Width            6.00              -
Sec rad          5.00             5.00
Turns            1030             1000
TPI              34.0               -
Wire dia        .0201             .0201
Sec term pf     14.00             12.25

Outputs

Res Freq Khz    107.4             107.8
Sec mh           76.23             75.4
Pri uh          129.10            127.9
Pri turns        14.83             15.13
Mut Ind uh      634.78               ?
K factor- 0"       .20              .2069

I agree that the parameters of many more coils should be measured.

John Couture

-------------------------------


-----Original Message-----
From: Tesla list [mailto:tesla-at-pupman-dot-com]
Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2000 6:39 PM
To: tesla-at-pupman-dot-com
Subject: Re: More Coupling...


Original poster: "Terry Fritz" <twftesla-at-uswest-dot-net>

Hi Bart and Paul,

The measurements for my big coil (as it was then) and the coil's details are
at:

http://hot-streamer-dot-com/TeslaCoils/MyPapers/sgap/sgap.html

For those that wish to help, the "best method" of measuring coupling is at:

http://www.pupman-dot-com/listarchives/1997/november/msg00898.html

Cheers,

        Terry



At 05:52 PM 12/21/2000 -0600, you wrote:
>
> Hi Paul and Everyone,
>
> My reply here is to ask (plead) for more coiers to make coupling
> measurements. All that is needed is a DMM capable of volt and amp readings
> (or meters capable of this). Also needed is a primary that can be moved
above
> and below the secondary base line in steps (or the secondary to achieve
the
> same result). Measurement is easy (we can define that later).
>
> If case you haven't kept up with this thread, I have found an increase in
> coupling error to Paul's program "acmi" predictions (error increases in
the
> direction of increased coupling). What I would like to find out with your
> help is:
>
> 1. is current changing during measurement (and not realized),
> 2. is the flat primary shape causing the error,
> 3. if #2 is correct, does acmi need to apply a correction of some type,
> 4. if #3, is this true for only flat primary's?
> 5. Lot's of other little tid bits to increase our coupling knowledge.
>
> So we need some flat, helical, and conical coupling measurements as well.
> This type of comparison has been needed for some time and the information
> will add another little wrinkle in our coiling brains.
>
> Any takers? Anyone?
>
> Thanks,
> Bart
>
---------------------- snip