A Revised Inductance Calculator

[Jim Thompson]

On Tue, 05 Aug 2003 23:40:51 GMT, Jonathan Kirwan
<jkirwan@easystreet.com> wrote:

On Tue, 5 Aug 2003 23:52:08 +0100, "John Jardine"
john@jjdesigns.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:


Jonathan Kirwan <jkirwan@easystreet.com> wrote in message
news:mavviv44egtj99d3ssah9ise2dtj5pg3db@4ax.com...
On 5 Aug 2003 05:34:36 -0700, Winfield Hill <whill@picovolt.com
wrote:

Strange, I only see one gif there, page 181 from Grover.

I see two attachments. Sadly, they are both in GIF and Acrobat
assumes there is 72 pixels/inch in this case, so it won't OCR
the text for me. If these were scanned into TIFF, with the
resolution per inch at say 300 DPI, I could try and OCR scan
this text and clean it up some. But other than that, they are
quite legible.

Jon

Jon. The GIF pages were scanned 'line art' at 300dpi. I'll see if I've got a
bitmap converter that'll do a GIF to TIFF.

I know. My Acrobat tools has the ability to do OCR (so they
say, anyway) for anything done between 200 and 400 DPI. Which
is exactly what you did. But GIF doesn't contain the number of
pixels for each inch in its format, so Adobe (apparently)
assumes that the DPI is 72. Natually, it claims you scanned in
a "darn big page" and claims that the pixels per inch is bad.

TIFF includes that information in it. But I'm not sure what
happens if you just convert GIF to TIFF. Probably nothing good.

Jon

Could someone repost the original scans? For some reason they never
showed on my server.

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona Voice480)460-2350 | |
| Jim-T@analog_innovations.com Fax480)460-2142 | Brass Rat |
| http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

For proper E-mail replies SWAP "-" and "_"

Why is it that Democrats can't debate politely?
And are only rude and interruptive.
Lack of mental capacity?

 

[YD]

On Tue, 05 Aug 2003 07:18:48 +0000, Brian Kraft <bkraft@nyx.net>
wrote:

YD wrote:

Since astraweb went pay-only I'm lacking binary access. Know any free
news servers with binaries? Living without a cc can have its downsides
but makes life easier in other respects.

news://dp-news.maxwell.syr.edu/alt.binaries.schematics.electronic

Astraweb is still free 50 MB/day, but if you try to use more than one
free account at the same time, there will be an IP address match and
both/all of your free Astraweb accounts will be de-activated.
They say "you are only allowed one free account" and they mean it.

Here's a place to get a free account at Newscene, no CC needed:
http://www.eastbaytech.com/usenet-acct-setup.asp?P=U

Ok, thanks. Seems they got wise to the free e-mail account I used.
Just set back up again with another less known. I'll try the others
too.

- YD.

 

[Terry Pinnell]

Winfield Hill <whill@picovolt.com> wrote:

Terry wrote...

Terry wrote:

Win wrote:

John Jardine wrote...

I've stuck 2 Gif's on A.B.S.E. Any problems and I'll be
happy to email 'em direct.

Strange, I only see one gif there, page 181 from Grover.

I don't even see one yet (14:32 UK time).

But now I see both. (17:00 UK time).

Are they contained in one post or two?

One. In Agent, it appears as a 3285 line post:
Subject: Flat Spiral Coils-2xgifs
Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2003 02:47:13 +0100

File names are
flatspiral1-300-bw.gif 69.9 kBytes
flatspiral2-300-bw.gif 73.6 kBytes

--
Terry Pinnell
Hobbyist, West Sussex, UK

 

[Jonathan Kirwan]

On Wed, 06 Aug 2003 07:56:23 -0700, Jim Thompson
<Jim-T@analog_innovations.com> wrote:

On Wed, 06 Aug 2003 10:48:09 +0100, Terry Pinnell
terrypinDELETE@dial.pipexTHIS.com> wrote:

"John Jardine" <john@jjdesigns.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:


Jonathan Kirwan <jkirwan@easystreet.com> wrote in message
news:mavviv44egtj99d3ssah9ise2dtj5pg3db@4ax.com...
On 5 Aug 2003 05:34:36 -0700, Winfield Hill <whill@picovolt.com
wrote:

Strange, I only see one gif there, page 181 from Grover.

I see two attachments. Sadly, they are both in GIF and Acrobat
assumes there is 72 pixels/inch in this case, so it won't OCR
the text for me. If these were scanned into TIFF, with the
resolution per inch at say 300 DPI, I could try and OCR scan
this text and clean it up some. But other than that, they are
quite legible.

Jon

Jon. The GIF pages were scanned 'line art' at 300dpi. I'll see if I've got a
bitmap converter that'll do a GIF to TIFF.
regards

Jon/John: I made an attempt to improve the text but having trouble
re-posting as TIF in alt.binaries.schematics.electronic. (They appear
to be being rejected due to their size, approaching 1 MB each, but
haven't thoroughly investigated.) Meanwhile I've posted to
http://www.terrypin.dial.pipex.com/Images/flatspiral2-300-bwT.tif
http://www.terrypin.dial.pipex.com/Images/flatspiral1-300-bwT.tif

I opened them with PSP8 and converted to PDFs....

Newsgroups: alt.binaries.schematics.electronic
Subject: Re: A Revised Inductance Calculator (SED), Flat Spirals
Message-ID: <nh52jvgrm9n25atme26d0mja6jiirv2u1k@4ax.com

Not the greatest of images, but not bad considering the originals.

Oh, I can convert them to much better PDF files. But what I'd
like to do is to get "paper capture" to work so that the OCR
function will convert the pixelized text back into normal PDF
style text and the images inside into little PDF images. (If
you can't search and find textual words, the job isn't done.)

Thought I'd give that tool a try on the GIFs, but the Acrobat
program has flummoxed me about how -- seems to always insist the
resolution is wrong (even in your PDF files or those I converted
to PDF earlier, for that matter.)

Also, I wrote a short TIFF dump of the IFDs and the new TIF
files that Terry put up show:

IFD: Count of entries = 18
Subfile type (new) = <no flags set>
Width = 1308
Length = 2120
Bits per sample = 740
Compression = 5 (unrecognized type)
Photometric interpretation = 2 (unrecognized type)
Fill order = high to low
Strip offsets, Count = 265
Tag = 0112, Type = 0003, Count = 1, Value = 00000001
Samples per pixel = 1
Rows per strip = 1
Strip byte counts, Count = 265
X resolution = 72/1
Y resolution = 72/1
Planar configuration = Chunky
Resolution unit = in
Software = "Oi/GFS, writer v00.06.01P"
Tag = 80a6, Type = 0004, Count = 1, Value = 00000000

Taking particular note of the X and Y resolution entries above,
and the Resolution Unit, you can see that it is 72 pixels per
inch. And my acrobat paper capture program will barf at that
resolution statement.

I may try tinkering with it, though. Would be nice to see that
OCR working, if possible.

Jon

 

[Jim Thompson]

On Wed, 06 Aug 2003 16:21:58 GMT, Jonathan Kirwan
<jkirwan@easystreet.com> wrote:

On Wed, 06 Aug 2003 07:56:23 -0700, Jim Thompson
Jim-T@analog_innovations.com> wrote:

[snip]

I opened them with PSP8 and converted to PDFs....

Newsgroups: alt.binaries.schematics.electronic
Subject: Re: A Revised Inductance Calculator (SED), Flat Spirals
Message-ID: <nh52jvgrm9n25atme26d0mja6jiirv2u1k@4ax.com

Not the greatest of images, but not bad considering the originals.

Oh, I can convert them to much better PDF files. But what I'd
like to do is to get "paper capture" to work so that the OCR
function will convert the pixelized text back into normal PDF
style text and the images inside into little PDF images. (If
you can't search and find textual words, the job isn't done.)

Thought I'd give that tool a try on the GIFs, but the Acrobat
program has flummoxed me about how -- seems to always insist the
resolution is wrong (even in your PDF files or those I converted
to PDF earlier, for that matter.)

[snip]

I haven't found the "Capture" function in Acrobat to be terribly
useable. I use OmniPagePro when I need to OCR.

*Any* OCR isn't going to do well with equations.

Why do you want "searchable" for a two page document?

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona Voice480)460-2350 | |
| Jim-T@analog_innovations.com Fax480)460-2142 | Brass Rat |
| http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

For proper E-mail replies SWAP "-" and "_"

Why is it that Democrats can't debate politely?
And are only rude and interruptive.
Lack of mental capacity?

 

[Jonathan Kirwan]

On Wed, 06 Aug 2003 16:21:58 GMT, Jonathan Kirwan
<jkirwan@easystreet.com> wrote:

Oh, I can convert them to much better PDF files. But what I'd
like to do is to get "paper capture" to work so that the OCR
function will convert the pixelized text back into normal PDF
style text and the images inside into little PDF images. (If
you can't search and find textual words, the job isn't done.)

Thought I'd give that tool a try on the GIFs, but the Acrobat
program has flummoxed me about how -- seems to always insist the
resolution is wrong (even in your PDF files or those I converted
to PDF earlier, for that matter.)

Also, I wrote a short TIFF dump of the IFDs and the new TIF
files that Terry put up show:

IFD: Count of entries = 18
Subfile type (new) = <no flags set
Width = 1308
Length = 2120
Bits per sample = 740
Compression = 5 (unrecognized type)
Photometric interpretation = 2 (unrecognized type)
Fill order = high to low
Strip offsets, Count = 265
Tag = 0112, Type = 0003, Count = 1, Value = 00000001
Samples per pixel = 1
Rows per strip = 1
Strip byte counts, Count = 265
X resolution = 72/1
Y resolution = 72/1
Planar configuration = Chunky
Resolution unit = in
Software = "Oi/GFS, writer v00.06.01P"
Tag = 80a6, Type = 0004, Count = 1, Value = 00000000

Taking particular note of the X and Y resolution entries above,
and the Resolution Unit, you can see that it is 72 pixels per
inch. And my acrobat paper capture program will barf at that
resolution statement.

I may try tinkering with it, though. Would be nice to see that
OCR working, if possible.

Okay. I just hacked Terry's TIFF files, pasting in a 300 DPI
specification, where the 72 lay. Then that darned Paper Capture
thing decided to actually *do* something.

Newsgroup: alt.binaries.schematics.electronic
Message-ID: <ded2jvsu0ooi21euvolkpa6qr6927aum4m@4ax.com>

First time I tried using that tool. But the text does appear
searchable. I'm curious about how useful this tool is, so I'm
interested in any impressions.

Jon

 

[Jonathan Kirwan]

On Wed, 06 Aug 2003 10:01:57 -0700, Jim Thompson
<Jim-T@analog_innovations.com> wrote:

On Wed, 06 Aug 2003 16:21:58 GMT, Jonathan Kirwan
jkirwan@easystreet.com> wrote:

On Wed, 06 Aug 2003 07:56:23 -0700, Jim Thompson
Jim-T@analog_innovations.com> wrote:

[snip]

I opened them with PSP8 and converted to PDFs....

Newsgroups: alt.binaries.schematics.electronic
Subject: Re: A Revised Inductance Calculator (SED), Flat Spirals
Message-ID: <nh52jvgrm9n25atme26d0mja6jiirv2u1k@4ax.com

Not the greatest of images, but not bad considering the originals.

Oh, I can convert them to much better PDF files. But what I'd
like to do is to get "paper capture" to work so that the OCR
function will convert the pixelized text back into normal PDF
style text and the images inside into little PDF images. (If
you can't search and find textual words, the job isn't done.)

Thought I'd give that tool a try on the GIFs, but the Acrobat
program has flummoxed me about how -- seems to always insist the
resolution is wrong (even in your PDF files or those I converted
to PDF earlier, for that matter.)

[snip]

I haven't found the "Capture" function in Acrobat to be terribly
useable. I use OmniPagePro when I need to OCR.

Okay. That's good information. I haven't used OCR software in
many years and I'm curious about how well it does. You have
experience with it, I guess, which isn't so good.

*Any* OCR isn't going to do well with equations.

Indeed. Still, it's interesting to see what does happen.

Why do you want "searchable" for a two page document?

No need at all. Mostly, I just wanted to experiment with OCR
again, "because it's there."

Jon

 

[Brian Kraft]

YD wrote:

Ok, thanks. Seems they got wise to the free e-mail account I used.
Just set back up again with another less known. I'll try the others
too.

Newscene is no longer free (you have to buy their software).

So use
news://biggulp.readfreenews.net/alt.binaries.schematics.electronic
or
news://dp-news.maxwell.syr.edu/alt.binaries.schematics.electronic

 

[Terry Pinnell]

Jonathan Kirwan <jkirwan@easystreet.com> wrote:

Okay. I just hacked Terry's TIFF files, pasting in a 300 DPI
specification, where the 72 lay. Then that darned Paper Capture
thing decided to actually *do* something.

Newsgroup: alt.binaries.schematics.electronic
Message-ID: <ded2jvsu0ooi21euvolkpa6qr6927aum4m@4ax.com

First time I tried using that tool. But the text does appear
searchable. I'm curious about how useful this tool is, so I'm
interested in any impressions.

PDF remains something of a black art to me - probably because I've
never invested the effort to learn it properly. Hopefully one of the
PDF experts will get on the case...

--
Terry Pinnell
Hobbyist, West Sussex, UK

 

[Paul Burke]

Terry Pinnell wrote:

PDF remains something of a black art to me - probably because I've
never invested the effort to learn it properly. Hopefully one of the
PDF experts will get on the case...

There are several freebies about, Jaws PDF or PDF Factory for example.
They just pop up as another printer, output to them in the normal way,
and you've got a rather non- optimal PDF. But it's better than none at all.

Paul Burke

 

[Terry Pinnell]

Paul Burke <paul@scazon.com> wrote:

Terry Pinnell wrote:


PDF remains something of a black art to me - probably because I've
never invested the effort to learn it properly. Hopefully one of the
PDF experts will get on the case...


There are several freebies about, Jaws PDF or PDF Factory for example.
They just pop up as another printer, output to them in the normal way,
and you've got a rather non- optimal PDF. But it's better than none at all.

Paul Burke

Thanks. Yes, I've occasionally used PDF995 in that printer driver
mode. But never really found any great incentive to write PDF files.

--
Terry Pinnell
Hobbyist, West Sussex, UK

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

Terry Pinnell wrote:

Paul Burke <paul@scazon.com> wrote:

Terry Pinnell wrote:


PDF remains something of a black art to me - probably because I've
never invested the effort to learn it properly. Hopefully one of the
PDF experts will get on the case...


There are several freebies about, Jaws PDF or PDF Factory for example.
They just pop up as another printer, output to them in the normal way,
and you've got a rather non- optimal PDF. But it's better than none at all.

Paul Burke

Thanks. Yes, I've occasionally used PDF995 in that printer driver
mode. But never really found any great incentive to write PDF files.

--
Terry Pinnell
Hobbyist, West Sussex, UK

I use it to create printable pages for websites. I display a HTML page
with the information, and have a link to the PDF file if someone wants
to print a chart or schematic. That way, they have it in the proper
layout, without all the extra crap on the printout like the URL, date
and extra garbage that prints by default.
--


Its August 5, 2003, so I'm 51 today!
Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

 

[Terry Pinnell]

"Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:

Terry Pinnell wrote:

Paul Burke <paul@scazon.com> wrote:

Terry Pinnell wrote:


PDF remains something of a black art to me - probably because I've
never invested the effort to learn it properly. Hopefully one of the
PDF experts will get on the case...


There are several freebies about, Jaws PDF or PDF Factory for example.
They just pop up as another printer, output to them in the normal way,
and you've got a rather non- optimal PDF. But it's better than none at all.

Paul Burke

Thanks. Yes, I've occasionally used PDF995 in that printer driver
mode. But never really found any great incentive to write PDF files.

--
Terry Pinnell
Hobbyist, West Sussex, UK

I use it to create printable pages for websites. I display a HTML page
with the information, and have a link to the PDF file if someone wants
to print a chart or schematic. That way, they have it in the proper
layout, without all the extra crap on the printout like the URL, date
and extra garbage that prints by default.

Thanks, Michael - I'll give that a try sometime.

--
Terry Pinnell
Hobbyist, West Sussex, UK

 

[DarkMatter]

On Mon, 04 Aug 2003 05:31:27 GMT, Active8
<mcolasono@earthlink.net.invalid> Gave us:

negative. inductance is directly propotional to the number of flux
linkages which is prop to flux, N, and the area of the loop that links
the flux. inductance is prop to coil volume and the square of (N/len).

ONLY for a single layer coil.

 

[Fred Abse]

On Thu, 07 Aug 2003 12:13:43 +0100, Paul Burke wrote:

There are several freebies about, Jaws PDF or PDF Factory for example.
They just pop up as another printer, output to them in the normal way,
and you've got a rather non- optimal PDF. But it's better than none at
all.

Not forgetting the daddy of them all, AFPL / GNU Ghostscript, which runs
on just about every platform there is.

--
Then there's duct tape ...
(Garrison Keillor)
nofr@sbhevre.pbzchyvax.pb.hx

 

[Active8]

In article <chk6jv4d97l174hrnd4lva6frun4t6g3sj@4ax.com>,
DarkMatter@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org says...

On Mon, 04 Aug 2003 05:31:27 GMT, Active8
mcolasono@earthlink.net.invalid> Gave us:

negative. inductance is directly propotional to the number of flux
linkages which is prop to flux, N, and the area of the loop that links
the flux. inductance is prop to coil volume and the square of (N/len).


ONLY for a single layer coil.

since when? you said a small diameter coil had more inductance than a

large one. not so.

now you're telling me that an extra winding layer won't increase L?
wrong, it's directly proportional to N if the layers are wound in the
same sense, i.e., series aiding. it'll be more, due to L1+L2+2M, but
it's still proportional.

physics hasn't changed, nor has math.

proportional - varies in accordance with an independant variable.
directly proportional - both increase or decrease.
inversely proportional - one decreases while the other increases.

mike