Maker Pro
Maker Pro

Help winding my own inductor?

K

Keith R. Williams

I read in sci.electronics.design that DarkMatter <DarkMatter@thebaratthe
endoftheuniverse.org> wrote (in <54obuv852g9t12b4126vte2udn44eme6st@4ax.
com>) about 'Help winding my own inductor?', on Sun, 21 Dec 2003:

It isn't worth discussing with you, because you are blatantly dishonest.
I wrote that Litz weaving works only for certain numbers of strands,
ROUGHLY as twisting...

LITZ is woven, not twisted.

John, I looked back through the patents on such things (I didn't
do a really thorough search). The earliest such thing I could
find was US1996186 by Affel (ATT), filed in 1932. It's not
described as "Litz" wire, but it does describe insulated twisted
wires, as well as better solutions (what is now known as "Litz").
 
D

DarkMatter

You seem to have missed that I posted this, which is included in your
post, above:

"But not because of the diminution of skin effect, unless you're talking
RF."

Skin effect is measurable, and notable at lower than RF frequencies.
You must have also missed that there's no confict between what I posted
and what your "reputable magnet wire maker" posted, namely that skin
effect only becomes pronounced at radio frequencies (RF).

That depends on how one defines "pronounced". We save several
points on both final operating power factor, and overall efficiency at
full load.
In any case, regardless of what you may think, your seven-strand affair
is _not_ a piece of litz wire,

Yes, it is.
and will _never_ porform as well as litz
wire will at radio frequencies.

At RF Freqs it wi be like 17 or 39 57s or such. Hardly something I'd
wind my HV POWER switching transformers from.
You really ought to Google "skin effect" and find the relationship
between frequency and concentration of current in a conductor to find
out how really stupid the pseudo-knowledgeable spew you've been writng
makes you sound.

I'm sorry but ten inductors, each wound with one thru ten wires in
parallel, will exhibit skin effects when tested on pro equipment.

The frequency these skin effect differences in performance begin to
appear is much lower than RF frequencies... Sorry.
 
J

John Woodgate

I read in sci.electronics.design that Paul Burridge
[email protected]>) about 'Help winding my own inductor?', on Sun, 21 Dec
2003:
I've often wondered when winding these little toroids you get that are
only about an inch across what effect, if any, scraping off the wire's
enamel has on the finished job. I mean it would be tragic to end up
accidentally shorting turns out... But there again I don't think the
mateial they're made from is particularly conductive, is it?

Ferrites for frequencies below about 1 MHz are quite conductive.
Ferrites for higher frequencies have a different chemical composition
and are insulators.
 
J

John Woodgate

I read in sci.electronics.design that Keith R. Williams
John, I looked back through the patents on such things (I didn't
do a really thorough search). The earliest such thing I could
find was US1996186 by Affel (ATT), filed in 1932. It's not
described as "Litz" wire, but it does describe insulated twisted
wires, as well as better solutions (what is now known as "Litz").


The name 'Litzendraht' might just be a clue that the original patent is
German? And I guess that 1932 is about 30 years too late. Those huge
spark and alternator transmitters used very thick wires for their
inductors.
 
J

John Woodgate

I read in sci.electronics.design that John Popelish <[email protected]>
wrote (in said:
How about if you adjust the gap to hold a constant flux for a given
current as you change the number of turns?
Then the inductance is *independent* of the number of turns, by the
definition of inductance (induction per unit current).
 
Y

YD

I read in sci.electronics.design that DarkMatter <DarkMatter@thebaratthe
endoftheuniverse.org> wrote (in <car9uv0h7lm0d1d9arflkr2kk7146d2b7k@4ax.
com>) about 'Help winding my own inductor?', on Sat, 20 Dec 2003:

Au contraire.


Anyone who is selling 'bunched' wire as litz is ripping you off. If
necessary, search for the original patent, whole reference I used to
have but I can't now find.


There are only certain numbers of strands that can be made into
*genuine* litz.

Well, perhaps 'woven' is not quite the right word, but the strands are
not just twisted together.


Absolutely not. That's 'wave winding'.

First hit on askjeeves (Litz wire weaving):

http://www.litz-wire.com/applications.html

- YD.
 
K

Keith R. Williams

I read in sci.electronics.design that Keith R. Williams



The name 'Litzendraht' might just be a clue that the original patent is
German? And I guess that 1932 is about 30 years too late. Those huge
spark and alternator transmitters used very thick wires for their
inductors.

Perhaps. I was simply doing a search in the Delphion database
and filtered it back as far as the patent I referenced above.
That pretty much covered the interesting issues of such cable.
If there is a prior claim, I can't find it. A German name isn't
evidence of German origins.
 
J

John Popelish

John said:
I read in sci.electronics.design that John Popelish <[email protected]>

Then the inductance is *independent* of the number of turns, by the
definition of inductance (induction per unit current).

I have seen the definition of inductance as flux times area per
current (1 henry = (1 tesla * meter^2)/amp)) but this gives my mind a
snag. Perhaps you can straighten me out.

Lets say you have a large toroid core of infinite permeability with a
small air gap sawed through it, and 1 turn through the hole. I
measure the inductance and find x henries. So at 1 ampere, I have 1/2
x joules stored in the inductor and in the magnetic field in the air
volume of that gap. I then saw the gap to twice as wide and wind a
second turn through the hole, and get the same flux passing through
this thicker but same area air gap, and still measure x henries. So
by 1/2L*I^2 I still have the same energy stored in the inductor and in
the air volume in that gap, but there is now twice the original volume
of air stressed with the original flux. How can that be the same
total amount of magnetic energy?
 
J

John Woodgate

I read in sci.electronics.design that John Popelish <[email protected]>
I have seen the definition of inductance as flux times area per
current (1 henry = (1 tesla * meter^2)/amp)) but this gives my mind a
snag. Perhaps you can straighten me out.

The formula is L = N x [phi]/I, where N = number of turns, [phi] = flux
= flux density x area and I = current.
Lets say you have a large toroid core of infinite permeability with a
small air gap sawed through it, and 1 turn through the hole. I
measure the inductance and find x henries. So at 1 ampere, I have 1/2
x joules stored in the inductor and in the magnetic field in the air
volume of that gap. I then saw the gap to twice as wide and wind a
second turn through the hole, and get the same flux passing through
this thicker but same area air gap, and still measure x henries.

There are now two turns, so L = 2x. If you hadn't widened the gap, the
inductance would have been 4x.
So
by 1/2L*I^2 I still have the same energy stored in the inductor and in
the air volume in that gap, but there is now twice the original volume
of air stressed with the original flux. How can that be the same
total amount of magnetic energy?

It isn't. The inductance has doubled. From L = N[phi]/I, we get

L = NBA/I, B = induction, A = cross-sectional area

B = [mu]H, [mu] = permeability of air, H = magnetic field strength

and H = NI/l l = length of air-gap, since the rest of the circuit has
infinite permeability

So L = [mu]N^2IA/lI = [mu]N^2A/l

To get L back to its original value, with 2 turns instead of 1, we need
the gap to be 4 times longer.

If we then do a similar substitution for the stored energy:

LI^2/2 = (N[phi]I^2)/(2I) = N[phi]I/2 = N[mu]HAI/2 = N[mu](NI/l)AI/2

= [mu]/2 x N^2I^2A/l

N^2 has gone up 4 times and l has gone up 4 times, so the energy remains
the same. H, B and [phi] doubled due to the two turns, but dropped by a
factor of 4 due to the longer air-gap, giving a net halving.
 
J

John Popelish

John said:
I read in sci.electronics.design that John Popelish <[email protected]>
I have seen the definition of inductance as flux times area per
current (1 henry = (1 tesla * meter^2)/amp)) but this gives my mind a
snag. Perhaps you can straighten me out.

The formula is L = N x [phi]/I, where N = number of turns, [phi] = flux
= flux density x area and I = current.
Lets say you have a large toroid core of infinite permeability with a
small air gap sawed through it, and 1 turn through the hole. I
measure the inductance and find x henries. So at 1 ampere, I have 1/2
x joules stored in the inductor and in the magnetic field in the air
volume of that gap. I then saw the gap to twice as wide and wind a
second turn through the hole, and get the same flux passing through
this thicker but same area air gap, and still measure x henries.

There are now two turns, so L = 2x. If you hadn't widened the gap, the
inductance would have been 4x.
So
by 1/2L*I^2 I still have the same energy stored in the inductor and in
the air volume in that gap, but there is now twice the original volume
of air stressed with the original flux. How can that be the same
total amount of magnetic energy?

It isn't. The inductance has doubled. From L = N[phi]/I, we get

L = NBA/I, B = induction, A = cross-sectional area

B = [mu]H, [mu] = permeability of air, H = magnetic field strength

and H = NI/l l = length of air-gap, since the rest of the circuit has
infinite permeability

So L = [mu]N^2IA/lI = [mu]N^2A/l

To get L back to its original value, with 2 turns instead of 1, we need
the gap to be 4 times longer.

If we then do a similar substitution for the stored energy:

LI^2/2 = (N[phi]I^2)/(2I) = N[phi]I/2 = N[mu]HAI/2 = N[mu](NI/l)AI/2

= [mu]/2 x N^2I^2A/l

N^2 has gone up 4 times and l has gone up 4 times, so the energy remains
the same. H, B and [phi] doubled due to the two turns, but dropped by a
factor of 4 due to the longer air-gap, giving a net halving.

Does this answer contradict your last one?

I said, "How about if you adjust the gap to hold a constant flux for a
given
current as you change the number of turns?"

And you answered, "Then the inductance is *independent* of the number
of turns, by the definition of inductance (induction per unit
current)."
 
J

John Woodgate

I read in sci.electronics.design that John Popelish <[email protected]>
Does this answer contradict your last one?

I said, "How about if you adjust the gap to hold a constant flux for a
given
current as you change the number of turns?"

And you answered, "Then the inductance is *independent* of the number
of turns, by the definition of inductance (induction per unit
current)."

Yes. I misread your question to mean keeping N[phi] constant.
 
R

R.Legg

You must be thinking of the type of build the winding process on
Absolutely not. That's 'wave winding'.

I believe the correct term for this is 'progressive winding', when
applied to a coil structure.

RL
 
J

John Woodgate

I believe the correct term for this is 'progressive winding', when
applied to a coil structure.
There is wave winding and there is progressive wave winding, which is a
development of wave winding to make coils which are very long compared
with the diameter.

Progressive wave winding works by effectively mounting the waver wire
guide on a stock driven by a lead screw, so that the wave slowly creeps
along the former. When the desired length is reached, the lead screw
rotation reverses.

I didn't find any hits on Google, but I think I know who invented it. If
so, there should be a UK and a US patent dated in the early 1950s,
probably. Certainly, we had the machine in our model shop in 1958.
 
J

John Fields

There is wave winding and there is progressive wave winding, which is a
development of wave winding to make coils which are very long compared
with the diameter.

Progressive wave winding works by effectively mounting the waver wire
guide on a stock driven by a lead screw, so that the wave slowly creeps
along the former. When the desired length is reached, the lead screw
rotation reverses.

I didn't find any hits on Google, but I think I know who invented it. If
so, there should be a UK and a US patent dated in the early 1950s,
probably. Certainly, we had the machine in our model shop in 1958.
 
Top