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

Magnetic loss — where it appears

The energy a magnetic material dissipates per cycle of magnetisation, equal to the area its B–H loop encloses. A single-valued curve has no area and therefore no loss, so producing this quantity at all needs a model whose flux depends on where the field has been and not only on where it is.

Named by 12 essays across 3 fields — each of them below, with the objects they name alongside it.

A major hysteresis loop at 9.0 A/m of coercivity, and the anhysteretic curve it closes onto. computed by solving, not by drawing. The B–H loop of a core driven sinusoidally to ±400 A/m, marched through a superposition of twenty-four play operators and drawn over the single-valued curve the two rungs below this one measured. The loop encloses 12.481 joules per cubic metre per cycle, which is the core loss and which no single-valued model can produce, because a curve has no area. The coercivity is 8.96 amperes per metre and the remanence 22.3 millitesla; both are read off the marched descending branch rather than handed in. The slider takes the threshold spread down to zero, where the two branches become one, the area falls to 9.8e-15 J/m³, and the object is exactly the core the field already had.

The area a curve cannot have

Every magnetic model in this collection is a single-valued B(H), and a single-valued B(H) cannot dissipate: ∮H dB around a curve is zero, so the transformers and inductors here have all run cold. Giving the material a second branch costs one object — a play operator, which lags the field by a threshold and is otherwise nothing — and a superposition of twenty-four of them produces a loop with 12.481 joules per cubic metre in it, a coercivity of 8.958 amperes per metre and a remanence of 22.3 millitesla, none of which was handed in. At zero threshold the whole thing collapses onto the curve the field already had, to fifteen figures.

magnetics · Magnetic loss The temperature through a 20 mm core that makes its own heat. computed by solving, not by drawing. Conduction with volumetric generation, solved on forty-one cells with a surface film at each face and the loss density evaluated at each cell's own temperature — so the middle of the core makes less heat than its faces do, which a closed form for uniform generation cannot express. The peak is 115.05 °C and the surface 112.45: a gradient of 2.59 kelvin, which is 2.9 per cent of the 90.0 kelvin rise. That share is Bi/(Bi + 2) — 3.0 per cent at a Biot number of 0.063 — so it is decided by how well the surface is cooled and not by how much heat is made.

The degrees a thermocouple cannot see

Every thermal answer in this collection has been one temperature, and a core makes its heat in its volume and loses it from a surface, so it has two. Solved as a conduction problem, a twenty-millimetre core in still air is 2.59 kelvin hotter in the middle than on the outside — 2.9 per cent of a ninety-kelvin rise, which is why the lumped answer has been good enough. Cool the same core on a plate and the gradient does not shrink; it grows to 3.37 kelvin and becomes 78 per cent of what is left.

power · Thermal feedback The Steinmetz exponent is a local slope, and how far it moves is a property of the material. computed by solving, not by drawing. Loss per cycle against peak flux density over three decades, marched on a play-operator core, with the local exponent d ln W / d ln B drawn across the top of the same frame. It is not a constant anywhere: 2.797 at 5.5 millitesla, heading for the three that Rayleigh's law gives, and 1.462 near saturation where the material has run out of magnetisation to give — a range of 1.420. How wide that range is is itself a property of the material: over the same amplitudes a soft core's exponent moves by 1.73 and a hard one's by 0.21. A single power law fitted across the whole range returns β = 2.518 and misses by 72.2 per cent; the same law fitted over the quarter of it from 9.7 to 24 millitesla returns 2.743 and misses by 0.97. Below 0.58 millitesla this discretisation has no loss at all, which is the finite operator count showing and not the material; the sweep starts above it.

The exponent nobody put in

A catalogue prints core loss as a coefficient times the frequency raised to one power and the flux to another, and the two exponents look like material constants. Neither is. On a loop built from play operators the frequency exponent is exactly one — a theorem, not a fit, because a rate-independent locus has the same area however fast it is traced — and the flux exponent is a local slope that runs from 2.94 at half a millitesla to 1.46 near saturation, so five windows on one measured curve give β from 1.58 to 2.84 and predictions three times apart at a hundred and fifty millitesla.

magnetics · Magnetic loss A 4.0:1 flux slope ratio and a sinusoid enclose the same loop to 0.00%. computed by solving, not by drawing. A core driven in flux rather than in field — the way a winding drives it, by integrating a rectangular voltage — around a triangle of ±100 millitesla at a duty cycle of 0.2, whose two slopes differ by 4.00 to one. The loop it traces encloses 2.1006 joules per cubic metre, against 2.1007 for a symmetric triangle and 2.1006 for a sinusoid of the same peak: the same number to 0.001 per cent. That is not an approximation, it is a theorem about the model — a rate-independent locus depends on where the flux went and not on how fast — and it is the prediction that real cores disagree with by tens of per cent. The disagreement is the measurement of what the model has left out.

The duty cycle that costs nothing

A converter drives its core with a rectangular voltage, so the flux is a triangle whose two slopes differ by nineteen to one at a five per cent duty. The play-operator core charges exactly the same for all of them — 2.1006 joules per cubic metre at every duty and for a sinusoid of the same peak, to three parts in ten thousand — because a rate-independent locus depends on where the flux went and not on how fast. Real cores charge tens of per cent more, and the standard correction hides its entire waveform dependence in α − 1, which is the one term a rate-independent model has none of.

magnetics · Magnetic loss 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 The eddy term is f² below the skin-depth frequency and f^1.5 above it, both exactly. computed by solving, not by drawing. Eddy-current loss in a 0.35 millimetre lamination held at a mean flux of 1 tesla, against frequency, with the classical uniform-flux expression drawn beside it and the local exponent across the top. Below the frequency at which the sheet is two skin depths thick — 465 Hz here — the two agree and the exponent is 2.0000. Above it the flux is confined to a layer whose thickness falls as one over the square root of the frequency, and the exponent is 1.5000: three halves, exactly. It does not arrive there monotonically — it undershoots to 1.4847 at ξ = 3.28 and comes back up, which is the bounded cosine term the asymptotic statement drops. At 1.00 kHz the classical term is already 1.74 times the truth. The solve and the closed form agree to 7.5e-3 per cent across six decades.

The current inside the iron

Every core-loss law has an eddy term of the form d²f²B²/6ρ, and it is derived by assuming the flux is uniform across the lamination — an assumption that is a frequency and that the expression does not carry. Solved instead as a diffusion, the exponent is exactly 2 below the frequency at which the sheet is two skin depths thick, exactly 1.5 above it, and it undershoots to 1.485 on the way. For a 0.35 mm sheet the crossing is 465 hertz, so at a kilohertz the classical term is 1.74 times the truth and at ten kilohertz it is forty-seven times.

magnetics · Magnetic loss A core loss of 100 kΩ gives the resonance a floor at −66 dB, and by 10.0 GHz the choke is worth 0.02 dB. computed by solving, not by drawing. The common mode at the load, in decibels against the same circuit with no choke in it, with 5 pF across each winding and a core loss of 100 kΩ across each, drawn over the lossless curve. At the winding's resonance, 1.59 MHz, the inductance and the capacitance cancel and what is left is the loss, so the deepest point is 66.02 dB — 20·log(1 + (Rp/2)/(Zs + Zl)), with no inductance and no capacitance in it. Above the resonance the part is a capacitor across the path it was fitted to block, and by 10.0 GHz it attenuates 0.02 dB.

The depth a resonance does not have

The inductor one mode cannot see printed its choke's best attenuation as 102 decibels at 1.59 megahertz. Swept with 1,999, 2,000 and 2,001 samples the same lossless part reports 110.0, 96.3 and 103.6 decibels, because a resonance with nothing to dissipate has no bottom and a sweep reports how near its nearest sample fell. Give each winding a core loss and the depth is 20·log(1 + (Rp/2)/(Zs + Zl)) — 66.02 decibels at a hundred kilohms, twenty more per decade of loss, with no inductance and no capacitance in it, and half of it belonging to the circuit the choke sits in.

lines · Common-mode choke The winding current a hysteretic core asks for, and the current the same circuit's single-valued core asks for. computed by solving, not by drawing. One netlist — a 22.6 volt peak sinusoid at 5.00 kHz through 4 ohms into a sixty-turn winding — marched twice, once with the core as a superposition of play operators and once with the single-valued saturating curve every earlier figure in this field used. The two currents differ in shape and not only in size: the hysteretic one leads the flux by an angle that is not ninety degrees, which is the whole of the core loss, and its peak is 59.45 milliamperes against 50.12. The energy the source delivers over a complete cycle is 17.19 microjoules for the loop and 2.5e-5 for the curve, which is zero to the resolution of the march. The slider takes the flux the drive demands from a twentieth of the material's saturation to most of it.

The core the solver has to remember

A saturating inductor's state is one number, because the current is a function of the flux linkage. A hysteretic core's is not: half an amp is one flux on the way up and a different flux on the way down, and there is no function of the current that returns the flux. So the march's state vector gains twenty-four more numbers, one per play operator, and the Newton loop is forbidden to touch them. The circuit and the bench then agree on the loss to three parts in ten million — one integral taken at two wires, the other inside the material.

magnetics · Magnetic loss The heat a core makes against the heat its path removes, and the two temperatures where they are equal. computed by solving, not by drawing. The rising straight line is what the thermal path can carry away at a temperature — (T − 25)/45 watts, a line because a thermal resistance is a resistance. The curve is what the wound part actually dissipates at that temperature, marched from a hysteresis loop at a material whose saturation flux and permeability both move with temperature. They cross twice. The lower crossing at 88.8 degrees is the operating point and its loop gain is -0.192 — negative, so the core is a stabilising feedback and not a destabilising one. The upper crossing at 191.1 degrees is an ignition temperature: above it the part cannot get rid of what it makes. The slider moves the thermal resistance.

The loss that depends on what it causes

Every thermal figure in this collection has had the power handed in. A ferrite's has no business being: its saturation flux falls with temperature, its permeability rises, and both move the loss. Closing that loop makes the temperature a fixed point rather than a product — and the fixed point has a stable root at 89 degrees whose loop gain is negative, an ignition root at 191 whose loop gain is 120, and a thermal resistance of 183 kelvin per watt at which the two touch and neither exists.

magnetics · Thermal feedback 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 temperature a part cannot come back from, and how long it takes to leave. computed by solving, not by drawing. The same fixed-point equation as the rung below, marched in time with a thermal capacitance rather than solved for its steady states: C dT/dt = P(T) − (T − T_a)/R_th, stepped adaptively on the temperature change because dT/dt goes through zero at each fixed point. Every trajectory starting below 191.1 °C returns to 88.8, however far above the operating point it began; every one starting above it leaves the material's range entirely, the closest in 0.2 minutes. The two nearest starts are 3.0 kelvin apart. The ignition temperature is a boundary in the STARTING CONDITION, and no steady-state analysis contains one.

The boundary that is a starting point

A wound part with a stable operating point at 88.8 degrees and an ignition temperature at 191.1 will never reach the second, because nothing takes it there. Marched in time rather than solved for its steady states, the same equation says what does: a trajectory starting at 189.6 degrees settles back and one starting at 192.6 leaves the material's range in twelve seconds — two starts three kelvin apart. And an overload of four times the normal loss is survivable for ever, while seven times is survivable for seventeen minutes.

magnetics · Thermal feedback A core walked from lossless to lossy, and the three straight lines it walks along. computed by solving, not by drawing. Loop area, measured coercivity and measured remanence against the threshold spread the model was handed, over five decades of it, driven sinusoidally to ±400 A/m. None of the three is an input: the area is ∮H dB round the marched loop, the coercivity is interpolated where the descending branch crosses zero, and the remanence is read at zero field. Over the lowest four decades all three are exactly proportional to the spread — 0.625961 joules per cubic metre per ampere-metre of spread, a coercivity 0.4499 of it and a remanence of 1.1304 millitesla per ampere-metre — and at 80 A/m the area is 2.69 per cent below the line and the remanence 16.42 per cent, because the pinned operators have reached the flat of the magnetisation curve. At zero the area is 9.8e-15 J/m³, which is the single-valued core the rungs below this one measured.

One dissipation, two exponents

The core this ladder built takes two numbers — a threshold spread and the fraction of the magnetisation that follows the field with no threshold — and seven rungs moved the first and left the second at 0.55 without ever saying why. The first decides how much loss there is: area, coercivity and remanence are all exactly proportional to it over four decades, at 0.625961 joules per cubic metre, 0.449775 and 1.130408 millitesla per ampere-metre of spread, the last two of which are closed forms. The second decides nothing about the loss at all — it is single-valued, so it contributes exactly zero to the loop area, to twelve digits — and it moves the Steinmetz exponent from 1.5042 to 2.9860.

magnetics · Magnetic loss

Named alongside it

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

B h loopModel rangePlay operatorCoercivityCoreRemanenceSteinmetz equationDesign tradeoffMarchingMeasurement conditionRayleighs lawSaturation

All concepts