Help winding my own inductor?

[DarkMatter]

On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 17:12:26 +0000, John Woodgate
<jmw@jmwa.demon.contraspam.yuk> Gave us:

I read in sci.electronics.design that DarkMatter <DarkMatter@thebaratthe
endoftheuniverse.org> wrote (in <8i7auvkadbh93ss7i7et2v4v4s5n6eg1p2@4ax.
com&gt about 'Help winding my own inductor?', on Sat, 20 Dec 2003:
They were either 27uH or
27mH.

I LIKE it! just a factor of 32 times as many turns. Expert? Ha!

Dumbshit. I just don't happen to remember the reading we got the
other day. It is likely to be in microhenries, however, as the turns
count is low.

Fuck you! Ha!

 

[John Fields]

On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 17:10:14 +0000, John Woodgate
<jmw@jmwa.demon.contraspam.yuk> wrote:

I read in sci.electronics.design that DarkMatter <DarkMatter@thebaratthe
endoftheuniverse.org> wrote (in <8ocbuvcfke2pu8joqfoc9mt9j4itr9ip9u@4ax.
com&gt about 'Help winding my own inductor?', on Sun, 21 Dec 2003:
On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 08:27:36 +0000, John Woodgate
jmw@jmwa.demon.contraspam.yuk> Gave us:


Absolutely not. That's 'wave winding'.

That isn't the proper term for that either.

The term "helical wound" seems to pop to the surface of my ravaged
mind.

Tie a weight on it and let it sink back. (;-)

---
Hmmm... Let's see, if the weight caused the sink rate to be 1cm/s it
would take about 500ms for it to sink through the entire structure!

--
John Fields

 

[John Fields]

On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 17:12:26 +0000, John Woodgate
<jmw@jmwa.demon.contraspam.yuk> wrote:

I read in sci.electronics.design that DarkMatter <DarkMatter@thebaratthe
endoftheuniverse.org> wrote (in <8i7auvkadbh93ss7i7et2v4v4s5n6eg1p2@4ax.
com&gt about 'Help winding my own inductor?', on Sat, 20 Dec 2003:
They were either 27uH or
27mH.

I LIKE it! just a factor of 32 times as many turns. Expert? Ha!

---
1000 times, no, John?

Z = n˛ through a transformer, but for an inductor, L changes linearly
with n.

--
John Fields

 

[John Fields]

On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 09:45:42 -0800, DarkMatter
<DarkMatter@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote:

On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 10:35:43 -0600, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> Gave us:

--
What effect?

Now, it appears that you don't even know what litz wire is for.

---
No, just trying to see if you know what the Litz effect is.
---

I found a chart that lists litz configurations with strand counts as
low as three.

---
Not two, as you previously pontificated?

--
John Fields

 

[John Fields]

On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 09:48:25 -0800, DarkMatter
<DarkMatter@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote:

On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 10:35:43 -0600, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> Gave us:

But not because of the diminution of skin effect, unless you're talking
RF.


Skin effect is the exact reason. Again, I can place the same number
of turns at the SAME circular mil area onto a core and get different
performance at different operating frequencies, and said performance
is HIGHER on the multi-strand configurations, and the reason IS skin
effect.

Where have you been?

---
Watching you bury yourself.

I thought people only had two feet, but you seem to have a never-ending
supply of them you use to insert into your mouth.

--
John Fields

 

[John Fields]

On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 09:50:14 -0800, DarkMatter
<DarkMatter@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote:

On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 10:35:43 -0600, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> Gave us:

In lower frequency applications, the reason for using multiply stranded
conductors is usually to allow more completely filling a winding window
and has _nothing_ to do with skin effect.

I make linear and switched power supplies, and I know that there is
an effect, and we get better operation at the same gauges on any given
choke. It has everything to do with skin effect.

---
If you think a Litz-wound choke has anything to do with better operation
of a linear supply because of skin effect then I suggest that the threat
to your livelihood which I pose, as you claimed in a previous post,
diminishes to zero when compared to the threat you pose to yourself.

The reason there may be an advantage gained by using Litz-wound
inductors in a switching supply should be evident to a swich-mode power
supply maker like you, so what is it?

--
John Fields

 

[John Fields]

On Sat, 20 Dec 2003 16:45:20 -0800, DarkMatter
<DarkMatter@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote:

On Sat, 20 Dec 2003 14:56:35 -0600, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> Gave us:


winding a bobbin and slipping it over the center leg of one of the
halves of a pot core is harder than winding a toroid? Imagine that!!!

Without a winding mandrel, holding a loose bobbin in one's hand
while winding it is no easier than winding a hand held toroid would
be.

Imagine that.

---
Well, considering that winding the wire on a shuttle (if you're going
to put more than just a few turns on the toroid) is equivalent to
winding the bobbin, then unwinding the shuttle onto the toroid is an
extra step that needs to be taken when winding the toroid. Of course
the shuttle could be dispensed with, but then having to wind the
entire loose length of the remaining wire through the toroid for every
turn while holding all the turns already wound tight sure makes it
seem like winding the bobbin would be easier, even if you've got hands
like hams.

Try to imagine that.

 

[John Fields]

On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 09:53:35 -0800, DarkMatter
<DarkMatter@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote:

On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 10:35:43 -0600, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> Gave us:

I suggest you get on over to Google, type in "litz wire" and actually
read what you see. Then get back to us and let us know how many
instances of two-strand Litz wire you find.

A few posts ago, you were telling us how seven strands did not make
a litz wire. Now, after your lame ass has done some searching, and
you know there are 3 strand configurations, your lame ass attacks my
statement that any strand count above one is litz.

---
The seven strands I was telling you about, as you well know, are the
seven strands of #22 you were referring to as equivalent to a strand of
#16. You, you phony, don't even know how Litz wire is wound and before
you got called on it you thought that any number of paralled conductors
was referred to as Litz wire, as evidenced from your misuse of the term.
---

You're an idiot.

---
Along with your other claims...
---

I am right. It is, but it doesn't take up any more space to go
three strand, and that twists easily. It is usually the minimum
strand count offered. I already knew that, however.

---
OK, find me a reference to two-strand Litz wire and I'll believe you.

--
John Fields

 

[John Fields]

On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 10:01:11 -0800, DarkMatter
<DarkMatter@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote:

On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 11:05:46 -0600, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> Gave us:

On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 08:17:07 -0800, DarkMatter
DarkMatter@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote:

On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 09:46:43 -0600, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> Gave us:

#14 AWG, _not_ #16 is a close equivalent to 7 strands of #22,

7 parallel strands of #22 AWG, each with a cross sectional area of
0.0005046 square inches, will enclose a total area of 0.003532 square
inches.

Here we go again.

Wire gauge doubles every THREE full integer wire sizes.

22Ga is then 19 Ga at three strands, and just bigger than 16 Ga
seven strands.

At six strands, it would be 16 Gauge equivalent.

---
Omigod! You don't even know how to use a wire chart, or how to use
simple arithmetic. Sorry, I didn't know.

Here, let me help you. Starting with a piece of #22, to double its
cross sectional area you would have to go to #19, as you say, and then
to double _that_ area you would have to go to #16, again as you say.

However, doubling the area twice only gets you to 4 times the area of a
single strand of #22, so to get to 8 times the area you'd have to
increase the gauge by another three sizes, to #13.

But, seven strands of #22 doesn't enclose the same area as eight strands
of #22, they enclose seven times the area. Now, looking at the entry in
the wire chart for the cross sectional area of #22 and then finding the
entry which most closely yields seven times that area results in #14 AWG
being found. Got it?



Look, chucko. WIre size doubles every three gauges. That is what I
said, and that is what is true.

In fact... Three 22s makes a 19, and three more makes another 19.

Two 19s doesn't even make one 16 so seven 22s is most certainly
closer to a single 16 than it is your lame assed 14 claim.

Try again.

---
LOL! If, when you go to work tomorrow, you hear snickers and giggles
behind your back everywhere you go it'll probably be because your
coworkers read what you've been posting on this thread and won't be able
to help themselves.

--
John Fields

 

[John Fields]

On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 10:16:27 -0800, DarkMatter
<DarkMatter@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote:

On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 17:09:03 +0000, John Woodgate
jmw@jmwa.demon.contraspam.yuk> Gave us:


'Litz' is short for the German word 'Litzendraht'. Being a German noun,
it starts with a capital letter. 'Litze' means 'lace', 'cord' or
'braid'. The strands of genuine Litz are interwoven in a specific way,
not just twisted or bunched.

Wrong. They MAY be woven, but generally are just twisted.

It works only for certain numbers of
strands, in the same way, roughly, as twisting works properly only for
7, 19, 37, 61, 97... etc. strands (numbers above 37 may be slightly
wrong).

Here you speak of perfect twisting. Which is it, boy, twisted or
woven?

No. TWISTING only works well with certain strand counts. You
describe circular object nesting numbers. A given, and known for
centuries. You state nothing new.

Litz effects occur with any count above one. It is simple math.
More skin, better performance. Period.

---
Litz effects???

--
John Fields

 

[John Fields]

On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 10:19:11 -0800, DarkMatter
<DarkMatter@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote:

On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 17:12:26 +0000, John Woodgate
jmw@jmwa.demon.contraspam.yuk> Gave us:

I read in sci.electronics.design that DarkMatter <DarkMatter@thebaratthe
endoftheuniverse.org> wrote (in <8i7auvkadbh93ss7i7et2v4v4s5n6eg1p2@4ax.
com&gt about 'Help winding my own inductor?', on Sat, 20 Dec 2003:
They were either 27uH or
27mH.

I LIKE it! just a factor of 32 times as many turns. Expert? Ha!


Dumbshit. I just don't happen to remember the reading we got the
other day. It is likely to be in microhenries, however, as the turns
count is low.

---
Remembering the reading should only be something a grunt would have to
come up with. Someone conversant in inductor design would surely be
able to come up with at least a good guess in differentiating between
two inductors with a thousand-fold difference in inductance knowing,
very roughly, the core size and current requirements.

--
John Fields

 

[Tim Auton]

DarkMatter <DarkMatter@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote:
[snip]

Look, chucko. WIre size doubles every three gauges. That is what I
said, and that is what is true.

In fact... Three 22s makes a 19, and three more makes another 19.

Two 19s doesn't even make one 16 so seven 22s is most certainly
closer to a single 16 than it is your lame assed 14 claim.

Please, move on to the 20th century (if you can't manage the 21st) and
use metres (mm in this case). This is the perfect example of why
metric is overwhelmingly superior to the array of units that
constitute that various imperial systems still in use in some parts of
the world.

They were nice when we had to do calculations in our heads. Those days
ended decades ago. Move on.


Tim
--
The .sig is dead.

 

[John Woodgate]

I read in sci.electronics.design that DarkMatter <DarkMatter@thebaratthe
endoftheuniverse.org> wrote (in <54obuv852g9t12b4126vte2udn44eme6st@4ax.
com&gt about 'Help winding my own inductor?', on Sun, 21 Dec 2003:

On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 17:09:03 +0000, John Woodgate
jmw@jmwa.demon.contraspam.yuk> Gave us:


'Litz' is short for the German word 'Litzendraht'. Being a German noun,
it starts with a capital letter. 'Litze' means 'lace', 'cord' or
'braid'. The strands of genuine Litz are interwoven in a specific way,
not just twisted or bunched.

Wrong. They MAY be woven, but generally are just twisted.

It works only for certain numbers of
strands, in the same way, roughly, as twisting works properly only for
7, 19, 37, 61, 97... etc. strands (numbers above 37 may be slightly
wrong).

Here you speak of perfect twisting. Which is it, boy, twisted or
woven?

It isn't worth discussing with you, because you are blatantly dishonest.
I wrote that Litz weaving works only for certain numbers of strands,
ROUGHLY as twisting...

LITZ is woven, not twisted.
--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk
Interested in professional sound reinforcement and distribution? Then go to
http://www.isce.org.uk
PLEASE do NOT copy news posts to me by E-MAIL!

 

[John Woodgate]

I read in sci.electronics.design that John Fields <jfields@austininstrum
ents.com> wrote (in <jkqbuvkurlkr4thpr1t1be47mlkl41eci9@4ax.com&gt about
'Help winding my own inductor?', on Sun, 21 Dec 2003:

---
1000 times, no, John?

Z = n˛ through a transformer, but for an inductor, L changes linearly
with n.

Oh, no, John, no, John, no, John, no! Not if the turns are close-
coupled, as they are in a pot core.
--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk
Interested in professional sound reinforcement and distribution? Then go to
http://www.isce.org.uk
PLEASE do NOT copy news posts to me by E-MAIL!

 

[Paul Burridge]

On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 19:12:25 GMT, jfields@texas.net (John Fields)
wrote:

Well, considering that winding the wire on a shuttle (if you're going
to put more than just a few turns on the toroid) is equivalent to
winding the bobbin, then unwinding the shuttle onto the toroid is an
extra step that needs to be taken when winding the toroid. Of course
the shuttle could be dispensed with, but then having to wind the
entire loose length of the remaining wire through the toroid for every
turn while holding all the turns already wound tight sure makes it
seem like winding the bobbin would be easier, even if you've got hands
like hams.

I've often wondered when winding these little toroids you get that are
only about an inch across what effect, if any, scraping off the wire's
enamel has on the finished job. I mean it would be tragic to end up
accidentally shorting turns out... But there again I don't think the
mateial they're made from is particularly conductive, is it?
--

"I expect history will be kind to me, since I intend to write it."
- Winston Churchill

 

[Paul Burridge]

On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 09:56:26 -0800, DarkMatter
<DarkMatter@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote:

On 21 Dec 2003 09:00:22 -0800, Winfield Hill
Winfield_member@newsguy.com> Gave us:

I'll
venture that most commercial litz wire isn't fully woven, but
it performs much better than simple twisted strands.

You lose. Most commercial litz is simple twisted or even non
twisted bundling.

No it's not. You're an idiot.
:->

--

"I expect history will be kind to me, since I intend to write it."
- Winston Churchill

 

[Paul Burridge]

On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 17:09:03 +0000, John Woodgate
<jmw@jmwa.demon.contraspam.yuk> wrote:

I read in sci.electronics.design that DarkMatter <DarkMatter@thebaratthe
endoftheuniverse.org> wrote (in <jacbuv8j5gbhknk9v8t1g3bvu3htoh1qb8@4ax.
com&gt about 'Help winding my own inductor?', on Sun, 21 Dec 2003:
which we credit Mr. Litz for
discovering.

Brilliant! You call me an idiot and claim to know all about the subject,
yet you think it was invented by someone called 'Litz'!

That's right, John. Litz was a German composer, as in "Brahms and
Litz"
--

"I expect history will be kind to me, since I intend to write it."
- Winston Churchill

 

[Paul Burridge]

On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 20:06:51 +0000, Tim Auton <tim.auton@uton.[group
sex without the y on the end]> wrote:

Please, move on to the 20th century (if you can't manage the 21st) and
use metres (mm in this case). This is the perfect example of why
metric is overwhelmingly superior to the array of units that
constitute that various imperial systems still in use in some parts of
the world.

They were nice when we had to do calculations in our heads. Those days
ended decades ago. Move on.

Screw the metric system. Long live Imperial measures!

--

"I expect history will be kind to me, since I intend to write it."
- Winston Churchill

 

[Daniel Haude]

["Followup-To:" header set to sci.electronics.design.]
On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 10:01:11 -0800,
DarkMatter <DarkMatter@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote
in Msg. <donbuvsd9as6v69nbvu2non3l0ebmaip09@4ax.com>

Look, chucko. WIre size doubles every three gauges. That is what I
said, and that is what is true.

In fact... Three 22s makes a 19, and three more makes another 19.

I've never in my life used AWG and I don't intend to ever work with it,
but the interesting thing is that one doesn't have to know shit about
gauges to see that your two above statements just contradict each other.

Two 19s doesn't even make one 16

According to you, they do: "WIre size doubles every three gauges."

--Daniel

--
"With me is nothing wrong! And with you?" (from r.a.m.p)

 

[John Fields]

On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 20:43:43 +0000, John Woodgate
<jmw@jmwa.demon.contraspam.yuk> wrote:

I read in sci.electronics.design that John Fields <jfields@austininstrum
ents.com> wrote (in <jkqbuvkurlkr4thpr1t1be47mlkl41eci9@4ax.com&gt about
'Help winding my own inductor?', on Sun, 21 Dec 2003:
---
1000 times, no, John?

Z = n˛ through a transformer, but for an inductor, L changes linearly
with n.

Oh, no, John, no, John, no, John, no! Not if the turns are close-
coupled, as they are in a pot core.

---
Aaarrrghhh!!! n = sqrt(L/AL)

Thanks for the reality check!-)

--
John Fields