Welcome to our site! EDAboard.com is an international Electronics Discussion Forum focused on EDA software, circuits, schematics, books, theory, papers, asic, pld, 8051, DSP, Network, RF, Analog Design, PCB, Service Manuals... and a whole lot more! To participate you need to register. Registration is free. Click here to register now.
My mean is set them together carefully .
If you have a distance between them , however a bit , your calculations will change , because inductance per turn will change . consider this is your E : E and this is your I : I
correct setting : EI wrong setting : E I .
By the way , if you need gap space , you should , measure inductance per turn when you created your desired gap , thus it is possible that you need more turns as N1 ( because permeability will decrease )
Good luck
Goldsmith
can you take a picture from your core and your wound inductor , and the number that LCR meter showing per one turn , and the number that it shows instead of 13 turn . please ?
thx for ur kind concern. today i implemented that transformer. becz of MUR3020 and inductor, voltage was little dropped. but overall the response was great. tomorrow i il increase the secondary turn to increase the power.
Is that mean , that your LCR meter could show you the correct number , at last ? If yes , good .
By the way , i have designed all of my magnetic elements with this method ( even at my transmitters )
Good luck
Goldsmith
the calculated value of the secondary turns was 2. but becz of my power requirements, i wind 4 turn (total 8 turns becz of center tap), and regulate it by the PWM op-amp feedback.
Dear samhtcandroid
Hi
About your first question , you should look for both of them ! did you read them carefully ? i told what you should do at those literatures .
And for question number two : yes , you should select your core at first .
Best Wishes
Goldsmith
Dear chemelec
Hi
The formula that you suggested , is a general way , but it has a problem ! and it is the reason that i didn't use it more than some little times , at some years ago , and after that problem i thought , and these ( the ways that i told at first of this thread ) , brought in my mind . so what is the problem of your way : it is simple , you'll find the value of AL in datasheet of each core simply , but as you probably know , there isn't any even things available in this world that are similar together exactly . hence the suppose that you have two PQ4040 core , the AL for both of them are different together . i hope that you got my meaning .
Best Regards
Goldsmith
but as you probably know , there isn't any even things available in this world that are similar together exactly . hence the suppose that you have two PQ4040 core , the AL for both of them are different together . i hope that you got my meaning .
They shoud be Fairly Close to the same.
But it also depend on the GAP you use.
I "Don't use the Manufacturers", AL Values.
I wind a specific number of turns on one, than use the formula to Calculate the "Correct AL Value" for the "Particular core and Gap", that I have on my ferrite.
I find that it than works correctly with the Same Other ferrites, made in the same way.
There are several prerequisites to get correct inductance values from L = n²*Al
- as a trivial point, trustworthy reference measurements. May be a problem with extreme n2/n1 ratios, e.g. n1=1
- the core setup, particularly exact gap width must not change between measurements, see previous discussion
- L ~ n2 is only valid if windings are perfectly magnetically coupled, in other words sharing the same flux.
Obviously the latter condition isn't fulfilled for open magnetic pathes, e.g. a ferrite rod or bobbin core. But also cores with closed magnetical path have some leakage inductance that shows up when comparing windings of different geometry.
well . i forgot to talk about what core we can select for .
Ok tomorrow , i'll attach a table of power instead of core .
( it's table is common with the other methods , such as methods that you can see at pressman's book or the other books .)
Good luck
Goldsmith
Hi insider ,
Thank you for your remark and sorre because of that i forgot it completely there is some weeks that i'm pretty busy . i will try to attach it but if i forgot , send a PM to me for recall .
again sorry because i forgot it .
BTW : however it depends on your frequency but i think for 1100w a PQ4040 seems good .
Best Wishes
Goldsmith
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
