Re: Re[4]: LF: Zmag of 45.6 Ohms OK, or should I try for better?

To:	[email protected]
Subject:	Re: Re[4]: LF: Zmag of 45.6 Ohms OK, or should I try for better?
From:	Andy Talbot <[email protected]>
Date:	Mon, 2 Nov 2015 13:53:36 +0000
Dkim-signature:	v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=Hgnmi3qQEwkPr69N+bbg2fW5u/2qAKM5AoSXQl2l8q4=; b=Et2CU2a8bXGNCZmsQEEZEguM+Zeh1Zk5PykjamomfMda4Htlwj5FjcPbwsAVgnI1Vk rhR415wSnYrVgdp70KTn2uc0X6Jo/V/hTm8NYg27aFBKzHc+qNlsTK2xHTGy19QFw2DU rc/q89Df6s2bqUmlLp5JlaHolyhmWIebR59Fxd23x3i/F6Xo3pOTNUzzdajI3+lMCaAk MelHvyxRaW35+jSHKclrNBUuCu2RWE8KUnu3ZCzn+rsO7mhuHph1HvInrZfRkjZQEWuL ejBw61qxQ0uoVdgLvjoHp+TSh8iEE3Q0afF82KtTvjbL0fw25OJxTqoP1Z9sLPZ2jC4O pd9g==
In-reply-to:	<[email protected]>
References:	<[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <CAA8k23RPmHS1tb+H3=J0ZB0w-HEEY_deo5RSOy+dvVuwsFWN9A@mail.gmail.com> <[email protected]>
Reply-to:	[email protected]
Sender:	[email protected]

Ae is specified as 211mm^2 for that size core,

So, at 137kHz Mike's 16 turns with a Bmax of 0.1Tesla means :

V = 4.44.F.N.A.B = 205 Vrms

In a 50 ohm system this equates to 840 Watts

Andy G4JNT

On 2 November 2015 at 13:42, Chris Wilson <[email protected]> wrote:

Hello Andy,

Monday, November 2, 2015

This is a link to the cores I have in this material Andy:

http://uk.farnell.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ProductDisplay?catalogId=15001&langId=44&urlRequestType=Base&partNumber=3056417&storeId=10151

> 3C90 is a type of ferrite material, and doesn't specify a transformer type.

> What is the Ae (cross sectional area) of that core?
> Or just the diameter to work it out from?

> Andy

--
Best regards,
Chris mailto:[email protected]

<Prev in Thread]	Current Thread	[Next in Thread>
Re: Re[2]: LF: Zmag of 45.6 Ohms OK, or should I try for better?, Mike Dennison Re[4]: LF: Zmag of 45.6 Ohms OK, or should I try for better?, Chris Wilson Re: Re[2]: LF: Zmag of 45.6 Ohms OK, or should I try for better?, Andy Talbot Re[4]: LF: Zmag of 45.6 Ohms OK, or should I try for better?, Chris Wilson Re: Re[4]: LF: Zmag of 45.6 Ohms OK, or should I try for better?, Andy Talbot <= Re[6]: LF: Zmag of 45.6 Ohms OK, or should I try for better?, Chris Wilson Re: Re[2]: LF: Zmag of 45.6 Ohms OK, or should I try for better?, Mike Dennison Re: Re[2]: LF: Zmag of 45.6 Ohms OK, or should I try for better?, Andy Talbot Re: Re[2]: LF: Zmag of 45.6 Ohms OK, or should I try for better?, Mike Dennison Re: Re[2]: LF: Zmag of 45.6 Ohms OK, or should I try for better?, Andy Talbot Re: Re[2]: LF: Zmag of 45.6 Ohms OK, or should I try for better?, Mike Dennison Re: Re[2]: LF: Zmag of 45.6 Ohms OK, or should I try for better?, Andy Talbot Re[4]: LF: Zmag of 45.6 Ohms OK, or should I try for better?, Chris Wilson Re[4]: LF: Zmag of 45.6 Ohms OK, or should I try for better?, Chris Wilson

<Prev in Thread]

Current Thread

[Next in Thread>

Previous by Date:	Re[4]: LF: Zmag of 45.6 Ohms OK, or should I try for better?, Chris Wilson
Next by Date:	Re[6]: LF: Zmag of 45.6 Ohms OK, or should I try for better?, Chris Wilson
Previous by Thread:	Re[4]: LF: Zmag of 45.6 Ohms OK, or should I try for better?, Chris Wilson
Next by Thread:	Re[6]: LF: Zmag of 45.6 Ohms OK, or should I try for better?, Chris Wilson
Indexes:	[Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists]

Previous by Date:

Re[4]: LF: Zmag of 45.6 Ohms OK, or should I try for better?, Chris Wilson

Next by Date:

Re[6]: LF: Zmag of 45.6 Ohms OK, or should I try for better?, Chris Wilson

Previous by Thread:

Re[4]: LF: Zmag of 45.6 Ohms OK, or should I try for better?, Chris Wilson

Next by Thread:

Re[6]: LF: Zmag of 45.6 Ohms OK, or should I try for better?, Chris Wilson

Indexes:

[Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists]