Concept

Incremental inductance — where it appears

The inductance a small excitation measures on a component already carrying a direct current: the local slope of flux linkage against current, not their ratio. On a hysteretic core there are two of them at any one current, because the slope depends on which way the excitation is going.

Named by 4 essays across one field — each of them below, with the objects they name alongside it.

One part, three saturation currents: 1.90 A, 2.40 A, 2.69 A. computed by solving, not by drawing. B(H) is μ₀H plus a saturating magnetisation, written as a flux linkage, and the inductance drawn here is dλ/di — the slope of that flux, which is what a small signal on a direct current actually meets. It is 18.92 µH at no current, 16.73 µH at two amps and 10.43 µH at three, and it never reaches zero: the vacuum is still there, so the part falls to its air-core 0.05 µH and stays. The three marks are the ten, twenty and thirty per cent drops different manufacturers print as the saturation current — 1.896, 2.395, 2.694 amps, a spread of 42 per cent on one part.

The inductance the current decides

The rung below bounded the flux and the boundary is exact: the volt-seconds decide the flux swing whatever the material does, and a cycle whose current ripple runs from 519 mA to 75 A has the same flux excursion to better than two per cent. What saturation breaks is the relationship between that flux and the current — so a ripple the design expression puts at 514 mA is 1,022 mA at 2.56 A of load, the peak reaches 3.57 A where the part is at a fifth of its nameplate inductance, and the same part has three saturation currents depending on which per cent it was quoted at.

magnetics · Saturation

The same core at the same current has two inductances, 1.80 times apart. computed by solving, not by drawing. The small-signal inductance of a sixty-turn winding on a core walked down from 400 amperes per metre, measured by pushing the excitation up and by pushing it down at each bias. They are never the same: 14.899 millihenries against 8.297 at zero bias, a factor of 1.796, and up to 1.796 across the sweep. The mechanism is that an operator held inside its own backlash contributes nothing to dB/dH, so a reversal is measured by whichever operators are still moving, and that is a different set in each direction. The single-valued curve the field already had is drawn above both, which is what it is: an optimistic reading of an object with two answers.

Two inductances at one current

A data sheet prints one L(i) curve and there are two. An operator sitting inside its own backlash contributes nothing to dB/dH, so a small excitation sees only the operators still moving — every one at the tip of a loop, none just after a reversal — and the same core at zero bias measures 14.90 millihenries pushed downward and 8.30 pushed upward, a factor of 1.80. The same split decides what a converter's ripple costs: held at the flux swing volt-seconds actually fix, a twenty-millitesla ripple costs twelve times more at a hundred and seventy-five amperes per metre of bias than at none, and above a hundred and eighty-three the question has no answer at all.

magnetics · Magnetic loss

Four threshold densities, all matched to the same measured coercivity. computed by solving, not by drawing. Every hysteresis figure below this one used a uniform density of play-operator thresholds, and the reason given was that a uniform density makes the small-signal loss law come out cubic — Rayleigh's law, which is what soft ferrites do. That is a real constraint and it is a weak one. These four are all bisected to a measured coercivity of 9 amperes per metre on a deeply driven loop, and they need threshold spreads from 30.1 to 76.0 amperes per metre to get there. The slider moves the coercivity they are all matched to.

The distribution the bench cannot see

Six rungs of this ladder assumed a uniform density of operator thresholds, and the reason given was that a uniform density makes the small-signal law come out cubic. That reason is weaker than it looks: every density finite at the origin does the same. Matched on a measured coercivity, four distributions whose spreads differ by 2.5 times give the same remanence to 0.6 per cent, the same loop area to 1.0, and the same branch-slope ratio to 0.54 — and small-signal exponents from 2.81 to 3.81. The major loop cannot see the shape and the small signal cannot see anything else.

magnetics · Magnetic loss

The Q a 10 mH coil with 1.2 Ω of winding and 8 pF across it shows, against frequency. computed by solving, not by drawing, the coil's impedance at each frequency and its reactance over its resistance. The straight ωL/R line (pale) rises without limit; the coil's Q follows it at first, peaks at 11340 at 325 kHz — 0.5773 of the 563 kHz self-resonance, which is 1/√3 — and falls to zero at the resonance. The peak is 0.3849 of what the line reaches at resonance, 2/(3√3).

The Q that peaks before resonance

A coil's quality factor is quoted as ωL/R and drawn rising with frequency, and its own winding capacitance turns it over: Q peaks at the self-resonance over √3 and falls to zero at the resonance. Eighteen coils from 1 mH with 300 pF to 100 mH with 1 pF all peak at 0.5774 of their resonance, at 2/(3√3) of the line's value there. Skin effect moves the peak down toward the resonance over √5. And the falling Q is a property of the coil read alone: in a tank tuned at 0.8 of its self-resonance, the same coil gives the full ωL/R, 23,570 against the 8,485 a meter reads off the bare part.

magnetics · Real inductor

Named alongside it

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

B h loop Coercivity Core Design tradeoff Magnetic loss Measurement condition Play operator Remanence Switching converter Closed form Equivalent series resistance Flux linkage

All concepts