Re: Re[2]: LF: Zmag of 45.6 Ohms OK, or should I try for better?

To:	[email protected]
Subject:	Re: Re[2]: LF: Zmag of 45.6 Ohms OK, or should I try for better?
From:	Andy Talbot <[email protected]>
Date:	Mon, 2 Nov 2015 16:13:10 +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=CQfH7en9VSMnqxctqMfKNd6lfiaWJFv8RyHFpy1PG9E=; b=AbevBuDaKyd3RCskzm99VSkZCmbEPGWAq/QBzvf95UxARSWfiPqAnikDi9VPvq1P2q PhziSu8ak/2x70TORxzmgIe9Go77LHVT4WeBKUV/W3YScMlsFUm3rRQwQrXiL6HfhJx4 MuRojKNe1Q8PqRSiv91uamSoNDpGLoxOWI8AUCdXWwiFYFKd5ilSx5gKkxMYE5dqCGAJ uf8t2Z8DJw/Z8vEW77N6nsxlrzNbSKG/nSodvIlpQ9NYQRPBWN9G+oNsMhoIebRiQJ8O vsX5IhurZpDX4MERu2LjwtxVzFknrWP75EAxqKMeNgpHHSRnpWp4HwrXwRu+Q+OmB2u0 2WXA==
In-reply-to:	<[email protected]>
References:	<[email protected]> <[email protected]> <CAA8k23TxUKZ700AHSjWg0CTRqQPA6C=zWYKG15WTi0r0Gc7KVA@mail.gmail.com> <[email protected]>
Reply-to:	[email protected]
Sender:	[email protected]

Yes, the dimension that actually defines the core cross sectional area. That's the vital parameter when choosing Nmin for a given frequency / voltage

Andy

On 2 November 2015 at 15:58, Mike Dennison <[email protected]> wrote:

> That is not the core diameter - if it were it would be an ENORMOUS
> core.
>
> > Well, I specified the core type as Chris was originally using a
> > different type, but of course the size is relevant. The diameter is
> > 55mm and I use two cores, one on top of the other, to reduce heat.

55mm is the OD. Did you need the ID?

Mike
====

<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: Re[2]: LF: Zmag of 45.6 Ohms OK, or should I try for better?, Mike Dennison
Next by Date:	Re: Re[2]: LF: Zmag of 45.6 Ohms OK, or should I try for better?, Mike Dennison
Previous by Thread:	Re: Re[2]: LF: Zmag of 45.6 Ohms OK, or should I try for better?, Mike Dennison
Next by Thread:	Re: Re[2]: LF: Zmag of 45.6 Ohms OK, or should I try for better?, Mike Dennison
Indexes:	[Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists]

Previous by Date:

Re: Re[2]: LF: Zmag of 45.6 Ohms OK, or should I try for better?, Mike Dennison

Next by Date:

Re: Re[2]: LF: Zmag of 45.6 Ohms OK, or should I try for better?, Mike Dennison

Previous by Thread:

Re: Re[2]: LF: Zmag of 45.6 Ohms OK, or should I try for better?, Mike Dennison

Next by Thread:

Re: Re[2]: LF: Zmag of 45.6 Ohms OK, or should I try for better?, Mike Dennison

Indexes:

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