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

Winding — where it appears

The turns of wire on a magnetic component, whose count sets the inductance and whose resistance and capacitance set two of the edges the component has. Its resistance is not constant: above the skin depth's own frequency it rises as the square root of frequency.

Named by 11 essays across 2 fields — each of them below, with the objects they name alongside it.

A 0.5 mm conductor's resistance against frequency, exact and asymptotic. computed by solving, not by drawing. The exact ratio is computed from the Kelvin functions by their series; the dashed curve is the asymptote everybody quotes, which treats the current as flowing in one skin depth of the rim and is drawn only where that annulus is inside the wire. At 17.4 kHz, where the skin depth equals the radius and the rule of thumb says the effect "starts", the asymptote says 1.0000 — no effect at all — and the exact answer is already 1.0208. The rule of thumb names a frequency the effect has passed, which is the same shape as the tenth-of-a-wavelength criterion marking a point at which the lumped model is already 30% wrong. Two decades above, the two agree to 0.00%, which is what makes it an asymptote rather than a formula.

The resistance that grows with frequency

The rule of thumb names the frequency at which the skin depth equals the conductor's radius as the point where the effect begins. Computed exactly from the Kelvin functions, the resistance is already 2.05% up there — and the rule's own asymptote says 1.0000, no effect at all. Two decades higher the two agree to 0.01%, which is what makes it an asymptote rather than a formula, and what makes the frequency it names the wrong one to design at.

magnetics · Winding A 10 mH inductor with 8 pF across it, and where ωL stops being its impedance. computed by solving, not by drawing. The dashed line is ωL, which is what an inductor is supposed to be; the solid one is the impedance of the same inductor with 8 pF of winding capacitance across it. They part company at 170 kHz, which is ten per cent, and the impedance peaks at 563 kHz and falls thereafter — above which the component is a capacitor. The ratio between the two is 3.317, and the slider shows it is the same ratio at every capacitance: the shape of the departure belongs to the resonance rather than to either part. This is the capacitor essay with the components exchanged, and it comes out with the same structure and a different number.

The inductor that is a capacitor

The frequency field's second essay measures where a capacitor stops being one, because its own leads are an inductance. This is the same measurement with the components exchanged, and it comes out with the same structure and a different number: the ten-per-cent departure from ωL sits at f₀/3.317, and it sits at f₀/3.317 at every winding capacitance and every inductance tried. The shape of the departure belongs to the resonance rather than to either part.

magnetics · Real inductor Alternating-current resistance against foil thickness, 4 layers. computed by solving, not by drawing. The falling dashed curve is the direct-current resistance, which is what more copper buys. The solid curve is the alternating-current resistance at 100 kHz for a portion of 4 layers, and it turns over: past ξ = 0.663 skin depths, thicker foil has MORE resistance, not less. The minimum sits at 1.3368 times the direct-current resistance of the same foil, which is four thirds and is the same number for every layer count above one. The resistance per turn there is 2.016 against √m = 2.000, which is the law the layer count obeys.

The copper that makes it worse

The rung below measured one conductor pushing its own current to its rim, and there is nothing to optimise in it: thicker wire is always less resistance. Stack the conductors and the quantity changes character. Each layer sits in the field of the ones below it, the loss that field drives has no upper bound in the thickness, and the product turns over — so a portion of four layers has a best foil thickness, and above it more copper is more resistance. The best thickness is the fourth root of three over the square root of the layer count, in skin depths, and the penalty at it is four thirds for every layer count above one.

magnetics · Winding 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 one-dimensional winding model 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 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 The best foil thickness for 4 layers, for three currents with the same fundamental. computed by solving, not by drawing. The loss of a portion of 4 layers against foil thickness, with the loss weighted by the current in each harmonic rather than computed for one frequency. A sinusoid wants 0.6631 skin depths and lands at 1.3368 times the direct-current resistance — four thirds, the single-frequency constant, reproduced. A triangular ripple wants 0.6432, which is the same answer to within 3.0 per cent, so a winding carrying one needs none of this. A square current of the same fundamental wants 0.3838 — thinner by a factor of 1.728 — and lands at 1.8313, which is not four thirds and is not any constant the geometry knows. Building to the sinusoid's answer costs 16.8 per cent more loss.

The optimum a spectrum moves

The best foil thickness for a winding is derived for one sinusoid and quoted as a property of the geometry: a minimum at four thirds of the direct-current resistance, whatever the layer count. Weight the loss by the current in each harmonic instead and a square current of the same fundamental wants foil 1.728 times thinner and lands at 1.83, and a narrow pulse wants it 3.68 times thinner. Four thirds is a property of the current. The constant that replaces it for an ideal square edge is exactly two, and a real winding sits between them at a place its edge rate decides.

magnetics · Winding A 50 Ω source over 20.0 Hz–20.0 kHz: the best turns ratio is 10.7, giving 1.30 dB; the white optimum's 11.5 gives 1.31, and no transformer at all 13.2. computed by solving, not by drawing, the band integrals checked by quadrature. The drifting part of the essay before — 4 nV/√Hz and 0.6 pA/√Hz white, flicker corners at 10 Hz and 1 kHz — fed from a 50 Ω source through an ideal step-up transformer of ratio n, so it sees n²·50 Ω. The noise figure over 20.0 Hz to 20.0 kHz against n: least at n = √(√(E/I)/Rₛ) = 10.73, where the amplifier sees 5.76 kΩ, at 1.298 dB. The ratio that matches the white optimum, 11.55, gives 1.310 dB; the source connected directly, 13.23 dB. The slider is the band.

One turns ratio for a band

A 50 Ω source and an amplifier whose optimum is 6.67 kΩ want a step-up transformer, and the ratio that matches the white optimum, 11.5, is the one a design note computes. Over the audio band it is nearly right: 1.31 dB against 1.30 at the band's own best ratio, 10.7. Over 1 Hz to 100 Hz it is badly wrong — 9.2 dB where a ratio of 4.8 gives 5.4 — because the band's noise lives in its bottom decade, where the flicker has moved the optimum down. One ratio for a two-decade band costs at most 0.24 dB against a ratio that could follow the optimum. The transformer's winding resistance multiplies the whole noise factor by one plus the winding's resistance over the source's, not just its own share: a tenth of the source costs 0.41 dB where its own noise alone would cost 0.31. And 115 amplifiers in parallel are an ideal 10.7:1 transformer, noise for noise.

noise · Device noise The same imbalance at five winding resistances, and the fixed point three of them reach. computed by solving, not by drawing. The peak flux density in each cycle, against the cycle, under a square drive whose positive half carries 1 per cent more volt-seconds than its negative one, for winding resistances of 0, 0.05, 0.15, 0.4, 1.5 ohms. With none the flux walks to 0.35 T in 15 cycles, which is the walk an earlier measurement of this drive found. With 1.5 Ω it settles at an offset of 5.67 millitesla and stays there, because the offset draws a direct magnetising current and that current's drop across the winding opposes the imbalance. The resistance at which the two outcomes change places is 0.1014 ohms, bisected on whether saturation is reached at all. Every curve carries the identical drive; the resistance is the only difference between them.

The walk that stops

A drive whose two half-cycles differ in volt-seconds walks the flux to saturation in a count of cycles, and the essay that measured it concluded that no amplitude puts the design inside a limit. That model has a stiff source and a winding of no resistance. With resistance in the loop the walk has a fixed point, held by an identity the material is not in — the mean magnetising current is the drive's direct component divided by the resistance, to seven parts in 10¹³ — and the boundary becomes a resistance rather than a time: 0.1014 ohms bisected, at a one per cent imbalance and half the volt-second limit.

magnetics · Saturation

Named alongside it

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

Design tradeoffModel rangeProximity effectSkin effectField solutionVerificationClosed formTransformerConvergence orderInterleavingMagnetic pathAir gap

All concepts