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

Re: AC wire resistance with proximitry effects



Original poster: "Barton B. Anderson" <bartb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

Hi Gerry,

I have tried using Les and Ces with Fraga, but I have seen Q error increase when I've tried it with Fraga. However, tonight I found an error with effective Rho. I had parenthesis wrong as well as a 2* where it didn't belong. So, all is lost :-( . (well, not all). As soon as I corrected it, Fraga Q went high and now I can see why you are contemplating Les. It would certainly make the numbers better.

What does concern me however is even current distribution was an assumption in their work.

I'll have to go all back through  it.

Thanks for being persistent.

Take care,
Bart


Tesla list wrote:

Original poster: "Gerry  Reynolds" <gerryreynolds@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>

Hi Bart,

I agree. At the time I started the post, I had forgotten that WoL/R was an intermediate result. My main concern is that the correct L be used with your equation (or the correct L and C be used with my equation). The effective L is smaller than Ldc and can't really be measured correctly because of the current profile. Same goes for effective C. I'm assuming that your Les and Ces are correctly calculated from the FEA portion of your program and can be used to calculate Q. Also, the peak frequency response, in general, will be smaller than that associated with Wo (except for an infinite Q coil where ESR is zero).

Take care,
Gerry R.

Original poster: "Barton B. Anderson" <bartb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

Hi Gerry,

The equations are identical, but there are considerations. When using Q=sqrt(L/C)/R, assuming R is the same for both forms, the final value will only be identical when Wo=w (1/sqrt(LC)=2pi*F). To ensure this is true, it's best to measure L and calc C or vice-versa. I simply find it easier to implement as Q=wL/ESR. This removes an incorrect input situation if L and C are actual inputs and if C is found from L, than it saves a step.

Take care,
Bart