Delivered-To: daveyxm@virginmedia.com Received: by 10.50.93.2 with SMTP id cq2csp31229igb; Fri, 30 Aug 2013 04:08:26 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.194.120.68 with SMTP id la4mr10190981wjb.33.1377860905801; Fri, 30 Aug 2013 04:08:25 -0700 (PDT) Return-Path: Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com. [195.171.43.25]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id on9si1136913wic.68.1969.12.31.16.00.00; Fri, 30 Aug 2013 04:08:25 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: neutral (google.com: 195.171.43.25 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org) client-ip=195.171.43.25; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=neutral (google.com: 195.171.43.25 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org) smtp.mail=owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1VFMBy-0000ap-IX for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Fri, 30 Aug 2013 11:44:38 +0100 Received: from [195.171.43.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1VFMBx-0000ag-Pv for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Fri, 30 Aug 2013 11:44:37 +0100 Received: from rhcavuit01.kulnet.kuleuven.be ([134.58.240.129] helo=cavuit01.kulnet.kuleuven.be) by relay1.thorcom.net with esmtp (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from ) id 1VFMBv-0001jl-L8 for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Fri, 30 Aug 2013 11:44:36 +0100 X-KULeuven-Envelope-From: rik.strobbe@fys.kuleuven.be X-KULeuven-Scanned: Found to be clean X-KULeuven-ID: 20C251380A0.AF56F X-KULeuven-Information: Katholieke Universiteit Leuven Received: from icts-p-smtps-2.cc.kuleuven.be (icts-p-smtps-2e.kulnet.kuleuven.be [134.58.240.34]) by cavuit01.kulnet.kuleuven.be (Postfix) with ESMTP id 20C251380A0 for ; Fri, 30 Aug 2013 12:44:27 +0200 (CEST) Received: from ICTS-S-HUB2.luna.kuleuven.be (icts-s-hub2.luna.kuleuven.be [10.112.9.16]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by icts-p-smtps-2.cc.kuleuven.be (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1D9A020041 for ; Fri, 30 Aug 2013 12:44:27 +0200 (CEST) Received: from ICTS-S-MBX1.luna.kuleuven.be ([fe80::edaf:341f:90e:f70e]) by ICTS-S-HUB2.luna.kuleuven.be ([fe80::8559:ca7c:e195:e15d%26]) with mapi id 14.02.0328.009; Fri, 30 Aug 2013 12:44:26 +0200 X-Kuleuven: This mail passed the K.U.Leuven mailcluster From: Rik Strobbe To: "rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org" Thread-Topic: LF: iron powder toroid cores Thread-Index: AQHOpWc9MfrpRY0yNE+mVvT3vA37zJmtjQEz Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2013 10:44:26 +0000 Message-ID: <7E7DFBB4D102A04DB5ADC88D66628A4A0FC36D4D@ICTS-S-MBX1.luna.kuleuven.be> References: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: nl-BE, en-US Content-Language: nl-BE X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.112.13.13] MIME-Version: 1.0 X-HELO-Warning: Remote host 134.58.240.129 (rhcavuit01.kulnet.kuleuven.be) used invalid HELO/EHLO cavuit01.kulnet.kuleuven.be - verification failed X-Spam-Score: -2.8 (--) X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "relay1.thorcom.net", has identified this incoming email as possible spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it (if it isn't spam) or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see the administrator of that system for details. Content preview: Hi Christian, according to the "mini ringcore calculator" (by DL5SWB) it is just on the edge (a flux of 223 G while 221 G is the max. flux). But as I have sufficient T200-2 cores I prefer to be on the safe side, also taking in mind that modes as QRRS120 and WSPR will require a 2 minute carrier. [...] Content analysis details: (-2.8 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -0.7 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/, low trust [134.58.240.129 listed in list.dnswl.org] -2.1 RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay domain X-Scan-Signature: f1498eebf16822c5ea85527a90413169 Subject: RE: LF: iron powder toroid cores Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on post.thorcom.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=TO_ADDRESS_EQ_REAL autolearn=no version=2.63 X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes Sender: owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org X-Listname: rsgb_lf_group X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: rs_out_1@blacksheep.org X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No; SAEximRunCond expanded to false Status: O X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 1745 Hi Christian, according to the "mini ringcore calculator" (by DL5SWB) it is just on the e= dge (a flux of 223 G while 221 G is the max. flux). But as I have sufficien= t T200-2 cores I prefer to be on the safe side, also taking in mind that mo= des as QRRS120 and WSPR will require a 2 minute carrier. For an indentical LPF filter (coil reactance remains the same) the flux wil= l drop with the square root of the frequency increase. So on 475 kHz the fl= ux will be double compared to 1850 kHz. Or otherwise said: on 475 kHz you can only use half the power you can use o= n 1850 kHz. 73, Rik ON7YD - OR7T ________________________________________ Van: owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org [owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org= ] namens C. Groeger [aot.aot@gmx.de] Verzonden: vrijdag 30 augustus 2013 12:09 To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org Onderwerp: Re: LF: iron powder toroid cores Hi Rik, One T200_2 is enough for that power. I tried it on 160m at 1000w. Temperature was abaout 40C. Hpe cu on 630 Df5qg Christian Groeger Rik Strobbe schrieb: >Dear all, > > > >I intend to replace the air coils in the LPF on my 475 kHz transmitter by = toroid core coils. I have a stock of T200-2 cores but for the power level w= ant to get (500W would be required to get near the 5 W EIRP limit) one T20= 0-2 is just on the edge in regard with the maximum flux (and thus temperatu= re rise. > >To be on the save side I would use 2 T200-2 toroids for each coil, and the= re are 2 options: > > > >1. Glue 2 cores together to make one core of the double height. > >This would reduce the flux to 70%, well under the limit. It would also red= uce the number of windings to 70%, but due to the double coil height the wi= re length will increase slightly (abt. 10%). > >But as the cores have rounded egdes there wil be some air space between th= e wire an the core, what might increase loss. > > > >2. Put 2 toroid core coils, each of half the inductance, in series. > >This will also reduce the flux to 70%, but the total wire length needed wi= ll increase by abt. 40%. > > > >In option 1 I will need lees wire (=3D less loss) compared to option 1, bu= t the air space might undo this advantage. > > > >So my question is: what will be best? > >All advice is welcome. > > > >73, Rik ON7YD - OR7T > >=