Where Does the Formula for L_0 in Audio Output Transformers Come From?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on the derivation and understanding of the formula for L_0 in audio output transformers, including its components and the implications of using different units. Participants explore the relationship between inductance, magnetic path length, and the geometric factors involved in the calculations.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant seeks clarification on the origin of the formula for L_0, referencing a source (RDH4) and asking about the magnetic path length (l).
  • Another participant suggests that the formula can be expressed as L = μμ₀N²A/l, where μ₀ is approximately 1.26E-6 H/m, and discusses the conversion from meters to inches affecting the constant used.
  • There is a question about the value of 3.2E2 in the formula, with participants discussing how the conversion to inches impacts the use of μ₀.
  • Some participants clarify that the magnetic path length (l) is given as 4.5 inches, which is identified as the mean flux path length.
  • One participant proposes a modification to the formula for L_0, suggesting it should involve N²/l² instead of N/l, based on the relationship between turns per unit length and total turns.
  • Another participant counters that the equation for the solenoid provided is for inductance per unit length, not total inductance, and discusses the relationship between total inductance and inductance per unit length.
  • A participant shares their equivalent circuit diagrams and expresses disagreement with the derivation presented in a referenced book, indicating a difference in approach to the equivalent circuit design.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the correct formulation of L_0 and its components, particularly regarding the use of N/l versus N²/l². There is no consensus on the derivation of the equivalent circuit, as some participants challenge the book's approach while others reference it as a source of agreement.

Contextual Notes

Discussions include various assumptions about unit conversions and the definitions of terms like magnetic path length and turns per unit length. The implications of these assumptions on the derived formulas remain unresolved.

yungman
Messages
5,741
Reaction score
291
I am reading audio output transformers. This is a paragraph from RDH4 and I don't understand where the formula of [itex]L_0\;[/itex] come from. Please see attachment.
 

Attachments

  • Tr2.PNG
    Tr2.PNG
    20.4 KB · Views: 534
Engineering news on Phys.org
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:
uart said:
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.
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
 
Last edited:
yungman said:
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
 
Thanks, so it's just going from meter to inches.

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?
 
yungman said:
Thanks, so it's just going from meter to inches.

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. :smile:
 
Thanks Uart, you are of big help.
 
Actually I have another question:

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]
 
yungman said:
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 per unit length. It should read :

[tex]\frac{L}{l}=\mu_0\mu n^2 A[/tex]
 
  • #10
uart said:
No, the equation you post for the solenoid is not for the total inductance, it is for the inductance per 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
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
 

Attachments

  • Freq limit.PNG
    Freq limit.PNG
    13.8 KB · Views: 482
  • TrEq2.PNG
    TrEq2.PNG
    16.2 KB · Views: 458
  • Equiv1L.png
    Equiv1L.png
    48.2 KB · Views: 495
Last edited:
  • #12
Anyone?
 

Similar threads

Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
Replies
20
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 39 ·
2
Replies
39
Views
5K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K