[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: Four Layer Coil
Subject: Re: Four Layer Coil
Date: Sun, 15 Jun 1997 22:38:55 +0500
From: "Alfred A. Skrocki" <alfred.skrocki-at-cybernetworking-dot-com>
To: Tesla List <tesla-at-pupman-dot-com>
On Sun, 15 Jun 1997 16:39:48 -0500 Robert W. Stephens
<rwstephens-at-headwaters-dot-com> wrote;
> > It would see to me that placing the layers in parallel you would be
> > decreasing the inductance, ie.
> >
> > Total I = 1 / (1/Ifirstlayer) + (1/Isecondlayer)...+(1/Inthlayer)
> >
> > Are you saying that even though it reduces the inductance it is still
> > a gain over using the equivelent larger gauge wire?
> Alfred,All,
>
> Bert Pool's scheme of winding additional layers of secondary,
> precisely over the first one laid down does NOT reduce the inductance
> because the additional wire is continuously and mutually enveloped in
> the magnetic field of the original coil.
>
> If these were separated single layer solenoids connected in parallel
> then yes, the result would be reduced inductance.
About 6 hours after I posted that message I realized exactly what
your saying! I got too focused on the parallel windings to step back
and realize thay were all in the same magnetic field!
> Bert's scheme is like winding rectangular wire on edge
> to give greater copper cross section without changing the
> turn-to-turn spacing. In this manner he maintains high inductance.
> His technique is actually superior to a single
> rectangular wire however because splitting the cross section over
> several conductors acts like Litz wire, increasing the available skin
> area, and thusly giving lower total RF resistance to the coil.
Yes, it seems he has definetely improved the art of secondary
construction with this idea of his!
Sincerely
\\\|///
\\ ~ ~ //
( -at- -at- )
-----o00o-(_)-o00o-----
Alfred A. Skrocki
alfred.skrocki-at-cybernetworking-dot-com
.ooo0 0ooo.
-----( )---( )-----
\ ( ) /
\_) (_