[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: AC wire resistance with proximitry effects
- To: tesla@xxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: AC wire resistance with proximitry effects
- From: "Tesla list" <tesla@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2005 23:22:54 -0600
- Delivered-to: testla@pupman.com
- Delivered-to: tesla@pupman.com
- Old-return-path: <vardin@twfpowerelectronics.com>
- Resent-date: Tue, 11 Oct 2005 23:25:23 -0600 (MDT)
- Resent-from: tesla@xxxxxxxxxx
- Resent-message-id: <AB5cFC.A.pDF.A5JTDB@poodle>
- Resent-sender: tesla-request@xxxxxxxxxx
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