[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: Secondary size
At 08:40 PM 10/22/98 -0600, you wrote:
>Original Poster: Hollmike-at-aol-dot-com
>
>In a message dated 10/21/98 6:33:42 PM Mountain Daylight Time,
>tesla-at-pupman-dot-com writes:
>
>> There have been a number of posts recently, more or less suggesting a
>> "standardized" language set, to describe various coil geometries, etc.
>> I would suggest that the term "coil diameter" and "coil height" be used
>> to describe a helical inductance's form factor, instead of "radius to
>> winding length." When I read "winding length," I think in terms of how
>> many feet of wire are being used. Certainly, it is correct to say that a
>> coil that has a large diameter, will also have a large curvature of
radius.
>>
>
>Hi Bill, all,
> I guess I should have used the coil diameter rather than the radius, but I
>thought it would make more sense to anyone reading who didn't know that
>maximum inductance geometry and maybe notice where it comes from in the
>Wheeler eqn.
> I suppose that the term winding length is somewhat ambiguous. I usually
>refer to wire length, but will take your suggestion to heart and use coil
>height rather than winding length.
>That's all.
>Mike
>
------------------------------
Mike, Bill -
In the past "coil length" was ofter mistaken for coilform length which is
always greater than the actual coil winding length and less than the length
of wire required for the coil.
I agree that a standard terminology is necessary as evidenced by the
different understandings of what "bang", "dwell", etc. meant in recent posts..
John Couture
------------------------------