Re: Secondary size

To: tesla-at-pupman-dot-com
Subject: Re: Secondary size
From: Hollmike-at-aol-dot-com (by way of Terry Fritz <terryf-at-verinet-dot-com>)
Date: Thu, 22 Oct 1998 20:40:50 -0600
Approved: terryf-at-verinet-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