Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Old September 8th 06, 01:11 AM posted to rec.radio.amateur.homebrew
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Jul 2006
Posts: 30
Default Inductance specification

As I was re-reading Boswick's RF Design book it occurred to me that I
may have overlooked something very fundamental.

I often transform components from series to parallel form, and visa
versa ,depending on what I am wanting to achieve.

What I have over looked is. What form do manufacturer's state Q and
inductance ?

I took a look at a coil manufacturer's specs and they don't explicitly
say whether the test circuit was series or parallel. I would assume that
the standard would be series form ?

Would someone please advise me which it is ?

Though the Q would be same in either form, the inductance and loading
could be slightly different.(ie. If I have assumed series form then when
I transform into parallel form and calculate a specific Rp and L it
would be incorrect if the inductance and Q in the manufacturer's data
were specified in parallel form.)

Hopefully someone can make sense of what I am getting at here.

Thanks in advance

Regards

David
  #2   Report Post  
Old September 8th 06, 02:20 AM posted to rec.radio.amateur.homebrew
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,374
Default Inductance specification

The Q should be identical when transformed. Q = Xs/Rs = Rp/Xp. It's true
that Xs isn't exactly the same as Xp(*) (and therefore Ls isn't exactly
equal to Lp), but for even a poor Q, they're much closer than typical
component tolerances or even your ability to measure. Any design
requiring this kind of accuracy should be reconsidered.

Of course, a series-parallel conversion is correct only at a single
frequency, and the Q also varies with frequency. So such conversions
need to be applied with caution.

(*) Xp/Xs = (Q^2 + 1) / Q^2, so the ratio is 1.01 when Q is 10, 1.0001
when Q is 100, etc.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

David wrote:
As I was re-reading Boswick's RF Design book it occurred to me that I
may have overlooked something very fundamental.

I often transform components from series to parallel form, and visa
versa ,depending on what I am wanting to achieve.

What I have over looked is. What form do manufacturer's state Q and
inductance ?

I took a look at a coil manufacturer's specs and they don't explicitly
say whether the test circuit was series or parallel. I would assume that
the standard would be series form ?

Would someone please advise me which it is ?

Though the Q would be same in either form, the inductance and loading
could be slightly different.(ie. If I have assumed series form then when
I transform into parallel form and calculate a specific Rp and L it
would be incorrect if the inductance and Q in the manufacturer's data
were specified in parallel form.)

Hopefully someone can make sense of what I am getting at here.

Thanks in advance

Regards

David

  #3   Report Post  
Old September 8th 06, 03:03 AM posted to rec.radio.amateur.homebrew
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Jul 2006
Posts: 30
Default Inductance specification

Roy,

Thanks for your response. So basically it makes no real practical
difference which way they specify the parameters. The lowest Q inductors
I use have Q = 30 anyway.

Regards

David




Roy Lewallen wrote:
The Q should be identical when transformed. Q = Xs/Rs = Rp/Xp. It's true
that Xs isn't exactly the same as Xp(*) (and therefore Ls isn't exactly
equal to Lp), but for even a poor Q, they're much closer than typical
component tolerances or even your ability to measure. Any design
requiring this kind of accuracy should be reconsidered.

Of course, a series-parallel conversion is correct only at a single
frequency, and the Q also varies with frequency. So such conversions
need to be applied with caution.

(*) Xp/Xs = (Q^2 + 1) / Q^2, so the ratio is 1.01 when Q is 10, 1.0001
when Q is 100, etc.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

David wrote:
As I was re-reading Boswick's RF Design book it occurred to me that I
may have overlooked something very fundamental.

I often transform components from series to parallel form, and visa
versa ,depending on what I am wanting to achieve.

What I have over looked is. What form do manufacturer's state Q and
inductance ?

I took a look at a coil manufacturer's specs and they don't explicitly
say whether the test circuit was series or parallel. I would assume
that the standard would be series form ?

Would someone please advise me which it is ?

Though the Q would be same in either form, the inductance and loading
could be slightly different.(ie. If I have assumed series form then
when I transform into parallel form and calculate a specific Rp and L
it would be incorrect if the inductance and Q in the manufacturer's
data were specified in parallel form.)

Hopefully someone can make sense of what I am getting at here.

Thanks in advance

Regards

David

Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
inductance loop versus inductance dipole ... Telamon Shortwave 1 June 2nd 06 06:06 PM
inductance loop versus inductance dipole ... Telamon Shortwave 2 June 2nd 06 12:09 AM
inductance loop versus inductance dipole ... switcher Shortwave 1 June 1st 06 11:18 PM
mutual inductance / coupling coefficient Active8 Homebrew 2 July 29th 03 04:16 AM
mutual inductance / coupling coefficient Active8 Homebrew 0 July 28th 03 07:15 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:11 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 RadioBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Radio"

 

Copyright © 2017