- #1

- 5,560

- 198

You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.

You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.

You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.

- Thread starter yungman
- Start date

- #1

- 5,560

- 198

- #2

uart

Science Advisor

- 2,776

- 9

It looks like it's just [itex]L = \mu \mu_0 N^2 A/l[/itex] where [itex]\mu_0 \simeq 1.26 E-6[/itex] H/m is folded in with the conversion from meters to inches to give the combined constant of 3.2E-8.

Last edited:

- #3

- 5,560

- 198

Thanks for the reply. What is the magnetic path l?It looks like it's just [itex]L = \mu \mu_0 N^2 A/l[/itex] where [itex]\mu_0 \simeq 1.26 E-6[/itex] is folded in with the conversion from meters to inches to give the combined constant of 3.2E-8.

[tex]L_0=\frac {3.2A\mu N^2}{10^8\times l}[/tex]

Also where is 3.2EE2 come from. [itex]\mu_0\;[/itex]=1.256EE-6 won't get 3.2EE2.

Thanks

Alsn

Last edited:

- #4

uart

Science Advisor

- 2,776

- 9

Thanks for the reply. What is the magnetic path l?

[tex]L_0=\frac {3.2A\mu N^2}{10^8\times l}[/tex]

Also where is 3.2EE2 come from. [itex]\mu_0\;[/itex]=1.256EE-6 won't get 3.2EE2.

Thanks

Alsn

No, the geometric factor A/l just has units of length. In SI units you use m^2 and m to give A/l in meters. Then of course you use [itex]\mu_0[/itex] in H/m (1.26E-6 H/m).

If however you use inches for A/l then you'll need [itex]\mu_0[/itex] in H/in, so approx divided by 39.4 to give 3.2E-8

- #5

- 5,560

- 198

So what is the path length [itesx]l[/itex]? It was given 4.5 inches, where is this come from? Is this the length of the coil?

- #6

uart

Science Advisor

- 2,776

- 9

So what is the path length [itesx]l[/itex]? It was given 4.5 inches, where is this come from? Is this the length of the coil?

Yeah, it's the mean flux path length.

- #7

- 5,560

- 198

Thanks Uart, you are of big help.

- #8

- 5,560

- 198

We know for solenoid, [itex]B=\mu_0\mu n I\;\hbox{ where n is number of turns per unit length.}[/itex]

So [itex] L=\mu_0\mu n^2 A \;\hbox{ where A is the cross section area of the solenoid.}[/itex]

The equation in the article, N is the total number of turns in the given length. so:

[tex]n=\frac N l\;\Rightarrow\; n^2=\frac {N^2}{l^2}[/tex]

With that [itex]L_0\;[/itex] should be:

[tex] L_0= \frac {3.2A \mu_0\mu}{10^8}\frac{N^2}{l^2}\;\hbox{ instead of }\;L_0= \frac {3.2A \mu_0\mu}{10^8}\frac{N^2}{l}[/tex]

- #9

uart

Science Advisor

- 2,776

- 9

With that [itex]L_0\;[/itex] should be:

[tex] L_0= \frac {3.2A \mu_0\mu}{10^8}\frac{N^2}{l^2}\;\hbox{ instead of }\;L_0= \frac {3.2A \mu_0\mu}{10^8}\frac{N^2}{l}[/tex]

No, the equation you post for the solenoid is not for the total inductance, it is for the inductance

[tex]\frac{L}{l}=\mu_0\mu n^2 A [/tex]

- #10

- 5,560

- 198

No, the equation you post for the solenoid is not for the total inductance, it is for the inductanceper unit length. It should read :

[tex]\frac{L}{l}=\mu_0\mu n^2 A [/tex]

Thanks, do you go to sleep? I put in my sleeping in between these posts and you're still here!!!

So basically the total inductance is take the inductance per unit length times the length:

[tex] L_0= \frac {3.2A \mu_0\mu}{10^8}\frac{N^2}{l^2} \times l \Rightarrow \; L_0= \frac {3.2A \mu_0\mu}{10^8}\frac{N^2}{l}[/tex]

- #11

- 5,560

- 198

I have a different question, below is the equivalent circuit from the book: The first image is the part in question about the input impedance. The middle picture is the equivalent circuit at different frequency from the book.

The last picture on the right is my equivalent circuit. The top is the equivalent circuit of the real transformer.

(1) is the equivalent circuit refer to the primary.

(2) is the low frequency equivalent.

(3) is the equation of RA using my equivalent circuit which is different from the book in the first image.

(4) is the high frequency equivalent.

As you can see, the way I draw the equivalent circuit is different from the book, I don't think I can agree with the derivation of the book in the first image on the left. Even the equivalent circuit from the book Handbook of Transformer Design and Application by Flanagan and Wikipedia agree with me as in (1) of my drawing:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transformer

The last picture on the right is my equivalent circuit. The top is the equivalent circuit of the real transformer.

(1) is the equivalent circuit refer to the primary.

(2) is the low frequency equivalent.

(3) is the equation of RA using my equivalent circuit which is different from the book in the first image.

(4) is the high frequency equivalent.

As you can see, the way I draw the equivalent circuit is different from the book, I don't think I can agree with the derivation of the book in the first image on the left. Even the equivalent circuit from the book Handbook of Transformer Design and Application by Flanagan and Wikipedia agree with me as in (1) of my drawing:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transformer

Last edited:

- #12

- 5,560

- 198

Anyone?

Share:

- Replies
- 1

- Views
- 2K