[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

*To*: tesla-at-pupman-dot-com*Subject*: RE: New Inductance Formula*From*: "Tesla list" <tesla-at-pupman-dot-com>*Date*: Sat, 04 May 2002 12:36:24 -0600*Resent-Date*: Sat, 4 May 2002 12:42:48 -0600*Resent-From*: tesla-at-pupman-dot-com*Resent-Message-ID*: <A56nHD.A.DaE.YuC18-at-poodle>*Resent-Sender*: tesla-request-at-pupman-dot-com

Original poster: "David Thomson by way of Terry Fritz <twftesla-at-qwest-dot-net>" <dave-at-volantis-dot-org> Hi Shaun, >And Dave, the reason that inductance formula is way off is because it is missing a "pi", see below: >> In the book Physics, by Edward R. McCliment, Univ of Iowa, the formula for >> self inductance is given as: >> >> 4pi * km * R^2 * N^2 >> Lself = -------------------- >> l >Should read: > > 4 * pi^2 * 10^-7 * R^2 * N^2 >Lself = ---------------------------- > l >which is the expanded version of that physics text inductance formula for a long selenoid. I expanded u and area. You are correct that I missed the pi. But the actual expanded formula is: 4 * pi^2 * 10^-7 *tesla * m * R^2 * N^2 Lself = --------------------------------------- l * amp And this formula, while it gives the correct units, is 356% greater than Wheeler's when: R = .61m l = .305m N = 411.5 Dave

- Prev by Date:
**Re: Keeping up with the theory (was is Corum and Corumforbidden topic?)** - Next by Date:
**Re: Oil caps** - Prev by thread:
**RE: New Inductance Formula** - Next by thread:
**Re: New Inductance Formula** - Index(es):