From: Jon Kirwan on
On Wed, 09 Jun 2010 11:10:22 -0500, John Fields
<jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote:

>On 8 Jun 2010 10:11:18 -0700, Winfield Hill
><Winfield_member(a)newsguy.com> wrote:
>
>>George Herold wrote...
>>>
>>> default wrote:
>>
>>>> I'd be curious to see values. It isn't "necessary" but I would like
>>>> to know what core, type, size and material you used. Did you tweak
>>>> the tuning? Running with banks of them to simulate a real bell, did
>>>> you calculate and tune for specific harmonics?
>>>
>>> OK not my circuit, but try whatever they build audio transformers
>>> out of. The LC on the collector sets the freqeuncy so that pretty
>>> much determines your L.
>>
>> Right, it's an L, not a transformer. Inductors can be wound
>> from the same ferrite cores as transformers, etc., but with
>> one *big* difference: They need an intentional air gap, to
>> set a predictable A_L value, and insure a stable inductance.
>
>---
>Strange, but I thought that two (or more) magnetically coupled
>inductors comprised a transformer...

I believe Win is saying that the core in a transformer can be
designed without necessarily caring so much for (or wanting)
a known A_L and/or energy storage in interstitial vacuum.
While an inductor usually has the L as a design parameter and
in that case using _some_ transformer cores (iron) where the
A_L isn't a goal in their design can mean that the L is not
nearly as 'designable' with those materials.

Energy is stored in vacuum, not atoms (most of it, anyway,
though there is, I believe, a _miniscule_ storage of energy
used in aligning.) Including an air gap (in iron) completely
dominates by providing a huge, known gap for energy storage
and what tiny bit of vacuum remains in the iron path is
nearly completely swamped out by it. So that makes the A_L
designable in that case.

Another way of saying all the above is that in transformers
the flux through the core links the windings together and
energy storage is actually parasitic, not desired. The A_L
is basically "not wanted" and therefore minimized, but not
designed to some specific value. Inductors are designed for
specific values and therefore the A_L needs to be known, not
merely minimized, and otherwise the core is actually supposed
to provide flux linkage to the known effective gap, not two
windings. The 'flyback transformer' is kind of a misnomer to
me, since in reality it is really an inductor that uses a
known A_L or gap to store energy and also is designed to link
the flux to the gap, except that it _also_ needs to provide
subsequent linkage from the gap to a secondary winding, as
well.

Or, at least, that's how it seems to me.

Jon
From: George Herold on
On Jun 9, 2:18 pm, "Tim Williams" <tmoran...(a)charter.net> wrote:
> "George Herold" <gher...(a)teachspin.com> wrote in message
>
> news:f6583252-3a4f-4fe9-8c1f-ad3b1f4c6037(a)g19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Thanks Tim,  I've been through the math.  The air gap helps to smooth
> > out the terrible non-linearity of the magnetic material.  I've just
> > never done it in practice.  (Which for me, makes all the
> > difference.)
>
> This is partly true, but flux is still flux, so for example, saturation
> occurs at the exact same time if you're applying the same square wave,
> regardless of gap (in practice, fringing flux spreads it out slightly).  If
> you're testing an inductor by applying a squarewave and measuring current,
> and you see the current jump up when it saturates, the time that occurs does
> not change as you move the core in and out.

OK I wasn't talking about saturation, which is a whole other regieme.
(sp)
>
> > But I see the problem.  Even with iron the non-linearity means that
> > the inductance changes with the current, so the resonance frequency
> > changes as the supply voltage decreases.
>
> Powdered iron inductors are kind of peculiar.  They store lots of energy at
> high magnetization, and they saturate gradually (even a widely gapped
> ferrite saturates fairly suddenly, though you may not notice the difference
> because the gap is so wide to begin with).  A 10uH inductor might drop to
> 3uH at peak current handling.

Cool, Though I'm not sure I'd call that peculiar. You're lining up
all those spins in a piece of iron, that stores energy.

>
> It's just like using a Z5U ceramic to bypass a power line, but its
> capacitance drops 70% because you're using it at rated voltage..
>

I never use Z5U for bypass. X7R is what I like... though some X5R
creeps in via purchasing.

George H.


> Tim
>
> --
> Deep Friar: a very philosophical monk.
> Website:http://webpages.charter.net/dawill/tmoranwms

From: George Herold on
On Jun 9, 6:34 pm, Jon Kirwan <j...(a)infinitefactors.org> wrote:
> On Wed, 09 Jun 2010 11:10:22 -0500, John Fields
>
>
>
>
>
> <jfie...(a)austininstruments.com> wrote:
> >On 8 Jun 2010 10:11:18 -0700, Winfield Hill
> ><Winfield_mem...(a)newsguy.com> wrote:
>
> >>George Herold wrote...
>
> >>> default wrote:
>
> >>>> I'd be curious to see values. It isn't "necessary" but I would like
> >>>> to know what core, type, size and material you used. Did you tweak
> >>>> the tuning? Running with banks of them to simulate a real bell, did
> >>>> you calculate and tune for specific harmonics?
>
> >>> OK not my circuit, but try whatever they build audio transformers
> >>> out of.  The LC on the collector sets the freqeuncy so that pretty
> >>> much determines your L.  
>
> >> Right, it's an L, not a transformer.  Inductors can be wound
> >> from the same ferrite cores as transformers, etc., but with
> >> one *big* difference:  They need an intentional air gap, to
> >> set a predictable A_L value, and insure a stable inductance.
>
> >---
> >Strange, but I thought that two (or more) magnetically coupled
> >inductors comprised a transformer...
>
> I believe Win is saying that the core in a transformer can be
> designed without necessarily caring so much for (or wanting)
> a known A_L and/or energy storage in interstitial vacuum.
> While an inductor usually has the L as a design parameter and
> in that case using _some_ transformer cores (iron) where the
> A_L isn't a goal in their design can mean that the L is not
> nearly as 'designable' with those materials.
>
> Energy is stored in vacuum, not atoms (most of it, anyway,
> though there is, I believe, a _miniscule_ storage of energy
> used in aligning.)  Including an air gap (in iron) completely
> dominates by providing a huge, known gap for energy storage
> and what tiny bit of vacuum remains in the iron path is
> nearly completely swamped out by it.  

Hi Jon, so good to see a post from you. Everything OK?

I'm going to have to go an reread Fenyman on this... (I thought I got
it the last time, but that's how it is with Feynman.) I think there's
a magnetic field everywhere in the magnetic circuit. In an electro-
magnet it starts with the current in the coils and is transfered to
the gap by the magnetic material...iron. But the field is everywhere
in the circuit. It may very well be that the gap determines the field
strength. But the magnetic energy is stored over the entire volume
of the field.

George H.

So that makes the A_L
> designable in that case.
>
> Another way of saying all the above is that in transformers
> the flux through the core links the windings together and
> energy storage is actually parasitic, not desired.  The A_L
> is basically "not wanted" and therefore minimized, but not
> designed to some specific value.  Inductors are designed for
> specific values and therefore the A_L needs to be known, not
> merely minimized, and otherwise the core is actually supposed
> to provide flux linkage to the known effective gap, not two
> windings.  The 'flyback transformer' is kind of a misnomer to
> me, since in reality it is really an inductor that uses a
> known A_L or gap to store energy and also is designed to link
> the flux to the gap, except that it _also_ needs to provide
> subsequent linkage from the gap to a secondary winding, as
> well.
>
> Or, at least, that's how it seems to me.
>
> Jon- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

From: Winfield Hill on
Jon Kirwan wrote...
>
> Another way of saying all the above is that in transformers
> the flux through the core links the windings together and
> energy storage is actually parasitic, not desired. The A_L
> is basically "not wanted" and therefore minimized, but not
----------------------------------------- ^^^^^^^^^
----------------------------------------- maximized
> designed to some specific value. Inductors are designed for
> specific values and therefore the A_L needs to be known, not
> merely minimized, and otherwise the core is actually supposed
> to provide flux linkage to the known effective gap, not two
> windings. The 'flyback transformer' is kind of a misnomer to
> me, since in reality it is really an inductor that uses a
> known A_L or gap to store energy and also is designed to link
> the flux to the gap, except that it _also_ needs to provide
> subsequent linkage from the gap to a secondary winding, as
> well.

Yep, one winding has a well-establish inductance, not at
all like a common transformer, but the second winding is
well coupled to it, and with low leakage inductance, just
like a good transformer.

We really need a new name for these beasts, inductors with
transformer windings. BTW, toroid cores need not apply.
Very poor AL control.


--
Thanks,
- Win
From: Jon Kirwan on
On Wed, 9 Jun 2010 19:02:56 -0700 (PDT), George Herold
<gherold(a)teachspin.com> wrote:

>Hi Jon, so good to see a post from you. Everything OK?

Nah. Still horribly busy around here -- probably going to be
killing myself through the summer... too much to do (or, at
least, I hope I can force myself to keep at it without giving
up at some point.)

>I'm going to have to go an reread Fenyman on this... (I thought I got
>it the last time, but that's how it is with Feynman.) I think there's
>a magnetic field everywhere in the magnetic circuit. In an electro-
>magnet it starts with the current in the coils and is transfered to
>the gap by the magnetic material...iron. But the field is everywhere
>in the circuit. It may very well be that the gap determines the field
>strength. But the magnetic energy is stored over the entire volume
>of the field.

I _imagine_ aligned atoms as 'short circuits' that bridge
vacuum. Vacuum is where the energy gets stored. (I think a
tiny amount of energy is 'used' to align an iron atom, for
example. But it is tiny and doesn't represent recoverable
energy... I think it gets converted to heat in the end.) I'm
very much open to being wrong, of course.

With all this in mind, it's easy to imagine the concept of
permeability arising. For air core, it's vacuum all the way
down, so to speak. All of the loop length is, in effect, the
magnetic path length where energy gets packed away. But when
you insert iron atoms chained end to end they act as short
circuits, each of them bridging across a small bit of vacuum
to make the effective length of vacuum shorter (when aligned
-- the molecules of O2 and N2 don't align and don't bridge so
in effect they simply don't count and don't short the
vacuum.) So if you imagine a core material inserted there,
what counts is the interstitial vacuum that remains when
computing the magnetic path length. But what remains?? Well,
that depends. You can take a ruler and measure that core
piece, of course. But that ruler won't help you figure out
what the effective remaining vacuum length is and that is
what you need to know. So in order to come up with a number
that represents the percentage of the measurable length, you
need a factor of some kind. This is the permeability figure.
A permeability of 1000 would mean that if you had a toroid
with a mean centerline path length measurable with a ruler of
say 100mm, that the actual vacuum path length would be 100
microns and the other 99.9mm would be shorted out by the iron
that is present there. A permeability of 100 would mean that
1mm would be vacuum and 99mm would be iron. Since all of us
can only use observable measures, we need to have some idea
about what it looks like from the magnetic field's point of
view, vacuum wise. At least, this is how I like to imagine
all of this... energy gets stored in vacuum and the rest is
just fudge factors to get around how we practically measure
lengths.

Jon
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Prev: Twin T circuit wanted
Next: And blocking oscillators