Inductance (fwd) [correction]

From:  Alan Sharp [SMTP:AlanSharp-at-compuserve-dot-com]
Sent:  Thursday, April 02, 1998 3:50 AM
To:  INTERNET:tesla-at-pupman-dot-com
Subject:  Inductance (fwd) [correction]

Malcolm wrote:
>Hi Alan,
>         Sorry to say this but there is a formulaic error in your snip<

Its more than possible - the alagbra circuits could have got
fried along with the calculus neurons.

but I just did it again with pencil and paper - rather than
directly on the screen and it checks out, and I looked again
at Bylund he also comes to h=0.9r.

There is a typo in the original script N = b / d is N = b * d
but Erik got to the right result. Must have been a copy
error. But however we have got there, we have now two
Maximum L when h = 0.9 * r
or h/d = 0.45
And you supply:
Maximum Q when h= 2 * r
or h/d = 1
Is this result from theory or observation?

Is this because while h = 0.9 * r   minimises the length of
wire and therefore the resistance but it is going to have
a higher voltage rise on each turn - increasing the effects
of inter turn capacitance?

Presumably then h = 2 * r gives the best comprimise between
wire resistance and the effects of inter turn capacitance.

Have fun,

Alan Sharp (UK)