Circuit Response
every model has an edge, and the figure carries it
Concept

Field solution — where it appears

The magnetic potential solved on a grid over a cross-section, rather than reduced to a reluctance or to a stack of one-dimensional layers. It returns the loss and the stored energy for the geometry actually built, which is what says how much a closed form derived under a different geometry is worth.

Named by 9 essays across one field — each of them below, with the objects they name alongside it.

The winding window solved in two dimensions, copper filling 100% of it. computed by solving, not by drawing. The grey frame is iron of infinite permeability, which in this formulation is a Neumann boundary — flux enters it at right angles and pays nothing. The thin curves are flux lines, which are contours of the vector potential, so equal spacing is equal flux. The copper is shaded by its own share of the loss. At 100 per cent fill the solved ratio is 16.280 against Dowell's 16.382, and the difference is entirely the flux that curls round the ends of the foils — which the one-dimensional model has no way to hold.

The assumption that is a geometry

Every alternating-resistance number this collection has computed for a winding rests on one sentence — the field is parallel to the layers everywhere — and the sentence has never been tested, because testing it needs a field. Solved as one, a portion of foils that fills its window returns Dowell's expression to 0.155 per cent; the same copper filling a quarter of it returns 9.00 against the expression's 16.38, and dissipates 0.528 watts a metre against 0.232. The ratio falls by 45 per cent and the loss more than doubles.

magnetics · Winding field The fringing field, and the turns standing in it. computed by solving, not by drawing. The slot on the left is the gap, cut through the centre leg to the core's own symmetry plane where the potential is zero. Flux crossing it does not stay in the slot: it bulges into the window and crosses the copper at right angles to the layers, which is the one direction Dowell's expression and every ladder in this collection assumes has no field in it. The turns are shaded by their own loss. The worst is turn 4, level with the gap, at 32.5 times its direct-current dissipation; the best is 1.39 times. Same wire, same current, same winding, and a spread of 23.4 between them.

The turns nearest the gap

A gapped inductor's flux does not turn a corner into the iron on its way out of the gap; it bulges into the window and crosses the copper at right angles to the layers. Four tenths of a millimetre from a one-millimetre gap, the worst turn of an eight-turn winding dissipates 37.5 times its direct-current loss and the winding as a whole 14.1 times. Move the same winding three millimetres further out and those become 2.9 and 2.4 — and the distance that governs it is 0.60 millimetres, which is not the gap length and does not scale with it.

magnetics · Winding field A porosity of 0.50, with the field the substitution smooths away. computed by solving, not by drawing. The flux lines between the conductors are the whole difference. The porosity substitution replaces this layer with a foil of the same direct-current resistance spread over the full breadth, in which the field is parallel to the layers by construction; here it is not, and it crowds between the turns. The solved ratio is 5.816 against the substitution's 6.212, 6.4 per cent apart. The copper is shaded by its own loss, which is what says the turns inside a layer are not alike either.

The wire that is not a foil

Almost no winding is made of foil, and the closed form for a winding's alternating-current resistance is about foils. The bridge between them is a substitution — squeeze the layer's conductors together, spread the result back across the breadth, divide the conductivity by the porosity — and it replaces a two-dimensional geometry with a one-dimensional one. Solved as a field it is exact where it must be, at a porosity of one, and 7.2 per cent high at a porosity of 0.40. It errs on the safe side, which is the half of the answer nobody could have assumed.

magnetics · Winding field How much larger a gap is than its own length says. computed by solving, not by drawing. A magnetic circuit prices a gap as g/(µ₀A) and everybody knows that is low, because the flux bulges out of the sides. The usual repair is to add one gap length to each dimension of the gap's area, which is the dashed line. The measurement is the solid one: at a 0.3 mm gap in a 6 mm leg the true correction is 1.100 and the rule offers 1.050, so the rule supplies 50 per cent of a correction worth 10 per cent of the inductance; at 1.7 mm it supplies 85 per cent. The rule is not wrong so much as it is a rule whose accuracy depends on the thing it is correcting.

The gap that is bigger than it is

A magnetic circuit prices a gap as g/µ₀A and everybody knows that is low, because the flux bulges out of the sides. The usual repair — add one gap length to each dimension of the gap's area — supplies half the correction at a 0.3 mm gap and 85 per cent at 1.7 mm, on a correction worth 10 per cent of the inductance at the first and 33 at the second. It is not a rule that is right or wrong; it is a rule whose accuracy is a function of the very thing it is correcting.

magnetics · Magnetic path Where a transformer's leakage inductance actually is. computed by solving, not by drawing. Both windings carry the same ampere-turns in opposite directions, which is the short-circuit condition a leakage measurement is made under, so the flux drawn here is the flux that fails to link the two — the leakage field, and nothing else. It is largest in the insulation between the portions, where the magnetomotive force is at its full value and there is no copper to be in. The energy in this window is 2.058 microjoules per metre, which is 4.116 microhenries per metre referred to the primary against a closed form of 5.213.

The inductance that is a shape

Leakage inductance is the one transformer parameter that belongs to the geometry rather than to the material: twice the magnetic energy in the window under equal and opposite ampere-turns, divided by the square of the current. Solved as a field it is 3.086 microhenries a metre against a closed form's 3.128 when the copper fills the window, and 4.608 against 6.255 when it fills half of it. Interleaving is worth 3.11 times and not the four it is quoted as, and the missing 0.89 is the insulation nobody puts in the formula.

magnetics · Transformer The one number the window does not move. computed by solving, not by drawing. Loss against foil thickness, at three window fills, with each curve's minimum located by a parabola through its three lowest points rather than read off the grid. The optimum sits at 0.654 skin depths at full fill, 0.708 at forty per cent, against the closed form's 0.663 — a drift of 8.3 per cent while the ratio the same winding carries moves by eighty. The alternating-current resistance at the optimum is 1.340, 1.351, 1.406, against four thirds. What did move is the loss it costs: 0.0555 watts a metre at full fill and 0.1383 at forty per cent, for the same current in the same number of layers.

The optimum that does not move

A foil winding has a best thickness — past it, more copper is more resistance — and at that thickness the alternating-current resistance is four thirds of the direct-current resistance, whatever the layer count. Both of those are one-dimensional results, and this ladder has spent three rungs finding that the one-dimensional picture is 82 per cent wrong about the resistance ratio. Solved as a field, the optimum drifts by 8.3 per cent between a full window and a quarter-full one, and four thirds becomes 1.34, 1.35, 1.41. The trade barely moves while everything it is made of moves a great deal.

magnetics · Winding 3 gaps of 0.40 mm, where one of 1.20 would do. computed by solving, not by drawing. The same total gap, the same turns, the same core, and very nearly the same inductance — cut into 3 instead of one. Each gap now drops one part in 3 of the magnetomotive force, so the field it throws into the window is that much weaker; and because the field's own energy goes as its square, the loss it causes falls faster than the field does. The winding dissipates 3.00 times its direct-current loss here against 6.52 with a single gap, and its worst turn 3.7 against 13.3.

The gap that is three gaps

Reluctances in series add, so one gap of 1.2 millimetres and three of 0.4 are the same magnetic circuit: the same inductance, the same saturation current, the same energy in the air. They are not the same field. Solved in two dimensions, the winding beside the single gap dissipates 6.52 times its direct-current loss and its worst turn 13.3; beside three gaps those are 3.00 and 3.7. And there is a best number of gaps rather than a monotone gain — past three, spreading them along the leg brings each one close to a different part of the winding.

magnetics · Magnetic path The winding window solved electrostatically, in two portions. computed by solving, not by drawing. The same cross-section the loss solve reads, read with ∇·(ε∇φ) = 0 instead. Two things are the opposite way round from the magnetic problem and both are the whole difference. The iron is now a Dirichlet boundary rather than a Neumann one — an earthed core is an equipotential, so the field meets it at right angles instead of running along it — and a conductor carries a prescribed potential rather than a prescribed current. The thin curves are equipotentials, which are contours of φ, so equal spacing is equal potential step and crowded curves are a strong field. The copper is shaded by the potential each foil sits at, which rises along the winding rather than being one number. Winding to winding this window is 926.9 picofarads a metre, and 89 per cent of the energy is inside insulation that occupies a fraction of the window.

The other half of the same window

The two-dimensional solve that settled what a winding's alternating-current resistance really is computed one of the window's two parameters and never mentioned the other. Read with Laplace instead of the vector potential, the same cross-section returns 926.9 picofarads a metre — and 89 per cent of that energy sits inside films that occupy 14.1 per cent of the window. The instrument agrees with a layered slab to three parts in ten thousand billion and converges on a real winding at order 1.34, and the reason for the shortfall is not the arithmetic but the corner of a conductor.

magnetics · Winding capacitance The trade, in the plane where both halves of it live. computed by solving, not by drawing. Leakage inductance across, interwinding capacitance up, both solved on the same cross-section with the same cells. The faint diagonals are lines of constant leakage-times-capacitance, so a design action that runs along one of them has bought nothing and only moved where the energy is kept. Interleaving runs at slope -0.78, which is nearly along them: six sections cut the leakage 21.3 fold and multiply the capacitance 11.0 fold, and the product moves by 1.94. What it does change is the winding's characteristic impedance, 95 ohms down to 6.2 — a factor of 15. Thickening the interlayer instead runs at -4.8, steeply across the diagonals, and moves the product 5.2 fold over the same sweep. It is the cheaper action by that measure and it is not free either: the millimetre it spends is a millimetre of window that is not copper.

Interleaving is a choice, not an improvement

Splitting a transformer's windings into six sections divides its leakage inductance by 21.4 and multiplies its winding-to-winding capacitance by 11.0. The product of the two — which is what sets the frequency the part stops being a transformer at — moves by 1.94, and the resonance it decides goes from 1.804 to 2.515 megahertz for all that work. What interleaving really changes is the winding's characteristic impedance, 95.2 ohms down to 6.2, and nobody quotes it.

magnetics · Winding capacitance

Named alongside it

The objects these essays reach for when they reach for this one.

Design tradeoffModel rangeEnergy-storageProximity effectWindingClosed formVerificationAir gapFringing fieldLeakage inductanceMagnetic pathSkin effect

All concepts