From: "Barton B. Anderson"
Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2002 19:30:44 -0700
Subject: Re: [TSSP] F A N T C: - It's NEW! - and needs some TSSP input
Hi Greg, Funny, I was thinking about Electrum being modeled just last night as I was updating fantc (my ears must have burning or something). This is exciting that Electrum modeled so well (minus L as Paul mentioned). I think this is an astounding testimony to the potential here for coilers everywhere to use. We just have to get it so it runs well on all our systems. Take care, Bart Greg Leyh wrote: > At 11:59 PM 10/14/2002, Paul wrote: > >Well I hope everyone is busy plugging their coil details > >into Fantc to check it out. With 24 members on the list > >there should be at least 24 coils to test :) > > I tried out the stats for the final design set on Electrum. > The FANTC program seems to have hit it spot on... certainly > well within the error bars of my actual measurements. > > Here's the actual measurements from the final setup: > > Lpri = 66.7uH > Lsec = 130mH > Coupling k = ~0.12 to 0.13 > Fo (with sphere) = 37.92kHz > > Here's the program results. I used a detail level of 3. > I'm assuming that both the current and voltage profiles > are normalized to a base current of 1A? > > ------------------------------------------------------- > Running F A N T C version x.6 using core functions of G E O T C version: 2.0 > > Computing ..... please wait > Primary Inductance (L1): 65.995 uH > Run Complete > Time elapsed: 1.8 secs > > Secondary Inductance (L2): 123.144 mH > Run Complete > Time elapsed: 2.4 secs > > Mutual Inductance (L1,L2): 392.31 uH > Coupling Coefficient(K): 0.138 > Run Complete > Time elapsed: 5.8 secs > > Secondary Resonant Frequency: 38.32 kHz > Secondary Voltages and Currents > I[0]=1.01 I[1]=1.01 I[2]=1.02 I[3]=1.03 I[4]=1.03 I[5]=1.04 I[6]=1.04 > I[7]=1.04 I[8]=1.04 I[9]=1.03 I[10]=1.03 I[11]=1.02 I[12]=1.02 I[13]=1.01 > I[14]=1 I[15]=0.99 I[16]=0.98 I[17]=0.97 I[18]=0.96 I[19]=0.94 I[20]=0.93 > I[21]=0.91 I[22]=0.89 I[23]=0.88 I[24]=0.86 I[25]=0.84 I[26]=0.81 > I[27]=0.79 I[28]=0.77 I[29]=0.75 V[0]=145.07 V[1]=498.03 V[2]=1382.33 > V[3]=2374.08 V[4]=3430.69 V[5]=4528.87 V[6]=5654.33 V[7]=6797.6 > V[8]=7952.09 V[9]=9112.88 V[10]=10276.16 V[11]=11438.8 V[12]=12598.14 > V[13]=13751.82 V[14]=14897.68 V[15]=16033.67 V[16]=17157.83 V[17]=18268.16 > V[18]=19362.6 V[19]=20438.93 V[20]=21494.67 V[21]=22526.87 V[22]=23531.84 > V[23]=24504.67 V[24]=25438.39 V[25]=26322.44 V[26]=27139.57 V[27]=27858.14 > V[28]=28142.63 V[29]=28259.35 > Energy Storage Inductance (Lee): 114.3 mH > Effective Series Inductance (Les): 117.38 mH > Low Frequency Inductance (Ldc): 123.14 mH > Energy Storage Capacitance (Cee): 141.21 pF > Effective Shunt Capacitance (Ces): 147.44 pF > Low Frequency Capacitance (Cdc): 272.11 pF > Total Topload Capacitance (Ctop): 102.25 pF > Run Complete > Time elapsed: 86.3 secs > --------------------------------------------- > > The discrepancy of about 0.01 in the coupling is well within > the noise... I remember that the coupling was *incredibly* > sensitive to primary altitude. A shift in altitude of one inch > yielded a coupling shift of about 0.01. > > FANTC appears to be an excellent program. The data entry > portion is clean and relatively straightforward, and the > results are amazingly accurate. Given the complexity of the > system being modeled, I'm actually downright astounded that > a modeling program could get that close... I rarely if ever > have that kind of luck with EM modeling software on the first try.
Maintainer Paul Nicholson, paul@abelian.demon.co.uk.