TSSP: List Archives

From: Finn Hammer
Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2001 21:46:07 +0200
Subject: Re: [TSSP] Interesting article on Medhurst, Wheeler, modeling,etc.

Paul!

A close count revealed that I had 505 turns. Stripped off those 5 turns,
the coil now measures 144.5 mm long, and 28.8 ~ 28.9 mH. (1kHz out of
the Isotech LCR.)
DCR is measured to 87 ohms.

Material: 5.5 mm thick PVC

Measured on 1 by 1 metre groundplane,(one meter from walls and ceiling)
with coax all the way, antenna pickup, i now get:

F1 = 359.5 

f3 = 839.2 (not so sure about this one, the Grundig generator is real
hard to adjust precisely enough to get a stable lissajous pattern, so i
skipped the higher modes for now)

Are data from these small coils valuable? I would rather move up to
larger coils with frequencies that I can count.

You mentioned that you need time to code, so perhaps it would be a good
idea that you make a wish list of coils that you want data from, then I
can make them and we can pick up the thread when I have gotten the
generator and counter stuff sorted out, and you have got the code sorted
out?

Cheers, Finn Hammer





Paul wrote:
> 
> Hi Finn,
> 
> Thanks for the info.  Up to now the smallest h/d examined in detail is
> h/d=1.36, so therefore you are taking us into new territory.
> 
> Finn Hammer wrote:
> 
> > The wire diametre is 0.25mm, and with 20m insulation, it ends up
> > occupying 0.29mm per turn. The coil is closewound.
> 
> Gosh, that makes a high spacing ratio, 0.29*500/146 = 0.99!!
> You must have a superb coil winding machine!  Have you really
> got exactly 500 turns?
> 
> The measured inductance, 29.4mH, compares with 28.9mH from
> Nagaoka, +1.7%, quite a bit on the high side - we need to resolve that.
> Can you take a DC resistance reading?  Do you know what frequency the
> Iso-tech runs at when measuring the inductance?  If not, perhaps you can
> observe it on the scope?
> 
> > The generator is 50 ohms. impedance.
> 
> Fine.
> 
> > I had no groundplane under the coil, but have PCB sheets 1 by 1 metre
> > square, which I can use. Is that big enough?.
> 
> Do you have four of them, to make a 2m x 2m square?  In view of comments
> below, this may not be a big issue at the moment, so don't worry too
> much about this right now.
> 
> > Is it ok to just pick up the oscillations from an antenna, or
> > should I rather measure the voltage drop across a resistor in series
> > with the coil at the base?
> 
> Either.  It's important to make sure the field pickup is not perturbing
> the coil.  With plenty of signal from the generator and a sensitive
> scope input, you can put the antenna a long way away, with little risk
> of upset.  Confirm this by taking set of readings, then bring the
> antenna in significantly closer and take another set. They should change
> by less than say, 0.2%, if the pickup is far enough away.
> 
> If the generator provides insufficient power for a distant pickup
> reading, then the base current is a good alternative.  With a resistance
> in series with the base feed,  just tune for a dip in the voltage
> downstream of the resistor.
> 
> With careful measurements, you may notice that the frequencies obtained
> by tuning for maximum antenna pickup are not quite the same as the ones
> measured by looking for maximum base current.
> 
> > Nordmende SRG 389 (2mHz)
> > Grundig TG 11 (300kHz)
> 
> > Fluke 87
> > Iso-tech 9053 handheld LCR meter
> 
> > Gould 10000 (20mHz)
> > Tektronix 485 (350 mHz)
> 
> OK.
> 
> > By creating lissajous figures on the scope, it is possible to
> > determine the relationship btwn 2 frequences.
> 
> That will work fine, providing the Nordmende doesn't drift too fast.
> We need the frequencies to about 0.1% accuracy, which should be no
> problem for this method.
> 
> > Pls. allow me into the weekend to finish the measurements, I need some
> > coax and hardware, and time to take the whole setup out into the
> > backyard.
> 
> Well, no rush. These things take their time, and it might take quite a
> while to fully understand the behaviour of this coil.  We need first to
> resolve the discrepancy in the DC inductance.
> 
> Here are some preliminary comparison results for your coil,
> 
>  fh1: bare d=0.160m h/d=0.91 sr=0.86 b/h=6.85 turns=500
>        measured   modeled  error = (modeled-measured)/measured * 100%
>  f1    340.0kHz  361.8kHz +6.4%
>  f3    725.0kHz  878.5kHz +21.2%
>  f5   1100.0kHz 1355.9kHz +23.3%
>  f7   1450.0kHz 1838.2kHz +26.8%
> 
> By comparison, the lowest h/d tested so far (one of my big CW coils)
> gives:
> 
>  pn1: bare d=0.590m h/d=1.36 sr=0.91 b/h=0.05 turns=356
>  f1    150.7kHz  151.5kHz +0.5%
>  f3    360.0kHz  357.8kHz -0.6%
>  f5    543.0kHz  538.6kHz -0.8%
> 
> You can see, we have some way to go.  Can you let me know how thick the
> coil former material is?  Do you have available any polyethylene film,
> suitable for wrapping several layers around the outside of the coil?
> 
> Incidentally, if I switch off Cint in the model, and re-run the pn1
> coil, we get:
> 
>  pn1: bare d=0.590m h/d=1.36 sr=0.91 b/h=0.05 turns=356
>  f1    150.7kHz  172.8kHz +14.7%
>  f3    360.0kHz  617.5kHz +71.5%
>  f5    543.0kHz 1232.8kHz +127.0%
> 
> from which we can see that Cint is contributing around 30% of the total
> capacitance at f1, and considerably more at the higher modes.  As h/d
> falls lower still, we expect an even bigger proportion of Cint.
> 
> Can you see why I believe the long-range Cint theory?  There are no
> fiddle factors in the code - it is just Coulombs law and I have no
> choice about it, so to get the pn1 readings to be all better than 1% as
> they are, would otherwise require a miracle of coincidence!
> 
> Why are your initial readings so far out?  Not your measurements - that
> is almost certain.  Rest assured I have a number of other readings from
> similar coils which have much the same sort of error pattern. For
> example, two of Malcolm Watts' h/d=1.0 coils:
> 
>  mwa1-1hd0: bare d=0.168m h/d=1.00 sr=0.91 b/h=3.94 turns=272
>  f1    600.0kHz  639.8kHz +6.6%
> 
>  mwa2-1hd0: bare d=0.168m h/d=1.00 sr=0.49 b/h=3.94 turns=272
>  f1    605.0kHz  641.8kHz +6.1%
> 
> also exhibit the same offset at f1 (higher modes not measured on these
> coils, so diagnosis is limited).
> 
> I can account for around 5% to 8% of the f7 error because the short-
> range Cint calculation is not quite right. Shows up more at lower h/d.
> We see the errors appear asymptotic to around 30% as the mode number
> goes up, which is a sure sign that Cint is being under-estimated by the
> model, for some reason.  (You can reach f9 on the Nordmende - see if
> it's getting on for 1764 kHz, (1764  + 30% = the predicted 2294 kHz).
> Cint almost completely dominates the coil's capacitance at these high
> modes - so they are important to look at.
> 
> Why does my coil, at only a little larger h/d give a good account,
> compared with yours?  I'm beginning to suspect that this is due to the
> coil former material - the model does not account for its permittivity.
> In my coil, 1.5mm thickness of polyethylene is much less, in proportion
> to coil length, than is likely for your coil. Lines of E-field
> contributing to short-range Cint have to pass inside the material, and
> we are not allowing for this. I think this may increase short-range
> Cint by up to 50%, which would account for all our problems at small
> radius, high elevation, and small h/d.  All coils tested with diameter
> less than around 20cm are exhibiting this Cint shortfall.
> 
> In view of the initial errors from your coil, probably no need to run
> it outside - if the external C was badly wrong, we would see a different
> pattern of errors altogether - so stay indoors, at least for now!
> 
> But can you let me know the distance to the nearest wall, and to the
> ceiling?
> 
> Anyway, Finn, I'll hope that you write back to say that your coil former
> has a really thick wall, and that you can wind another using a
> paper-thin cylinder of the same size!  Of course, that may be not be
> possible, so the plan (b) would be to wrap the outside of the coil in
> plenty of plastic, which should - if my theory is correct - make the
> higher mode frequencies fall even lower than they are now.  That in
> itself would give a good indication that the former material cannot be
> ignored when computing Cint.
> 
> Cheers,
> --
> Paul Nicholson,
> Manchester, UK.
> --


Maintainer Paul Nicholson, paul@abelian.demon.co.uk.