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

Re: B vs H/ Transformer analogies of Poynting Vector.

Original poster: "Malcolm Watts" <m.j.watts@xxxxxxxxxxxx>

Hi Harvey,
           I wouldn't want any leakage flux to be present in any
transformer I designed unless it was an integral part of a resonant
supply. Having some present in any transformer is of course


On 22 Apr 2005, at 2:44, Tesla list wrote:

> Original poster: Harvey Norris <harvich@xxxxxxxxx>
> http://www.itee.uq.edu.au/~aupec/aupec00/edwards00.pdf
> Thought the eggheads would like this one. Sorry my
> physics is fuzzy, and I shouldnt care but do...
> However the debate goes on, these authors state;
> "leakage flux is a essential aspect of the ideal
> transformer".

I can't imagine why these people consider it as being "essential".
Who are they?

> They have to rationalize how a transformer can work
> without flux lines crossing the cores...
> When I went to school B and H were strictly defined
> when talking about effects. B is defined as a cross
> section of amp/turns per area of cross section: H was
> the magnetic intensity per unit length of core...
> >From records...
> Around the early 80's I also attended Akron State Univ
> after dropping out, but the different text from that
> same Elementary Classical Physics course does not seem
> to deal with H at all, as the other text did. In the
> early 90's I purchased another Physics text,(Physics
> for Scientists and Engineers) in which the following
> is noted on pg 654;
> We have named B the magnetic field and H the magnetic
> intensity. These names are not universal. Sometimes B
> is called the magnetic flux density and H is called
> the magnetic field. Admittedly, the terminology is
> confusing, and universal adoption of a single set of
> terminology is unlikely in the near future.
> Fortunately, the usage of the symbols B and H as we
> have defined them is nearly universal. Thus the
> calculation of a magnetic force on a moving charge or
> a current nearly always involves B; similarly H is the
> appropriate field in Ampere's Law.
> Of course the above authours deal with H, and never
> mention B, so I see every explanation can be made
> according to the authours viewpoint. according to how
> they wish to explain effects...