You would not use a stacker for small audio stuff, correct?
Ni core vs. M6 core
- Thread starter edcorusa
- Start date
Help Support GroupDIY Audio Forum:
Cool! Tell Guilherme I will buy some!! If you got them working let me know
(knowing him I doubt you wont :wink: ) we can buy it togheter to bring the price down a bit...
That is crazy!!! We really cant source M6 down here but M4 is everywhere! :green: I am with Rafael... love the sound of all Lynx stuff with M4!
:guinness:
edcorusa
Active member
[quote author="CJ"]You would not use a stacker for small audio stuff, correct?[/quote]
We have stacking machines down to EI375 (3/8" core). Any thing below that like EI25 or EI187 we hand stack. They do make stacking machines for smaller cores. They just do not work well from what I have see and been told.
We have stacking machines down to EI375 (3/8" core). Any thing below that like EI25 or EI187 we hand stack. They do make stacking machines for smaller cores. They just do not work well from what I have see and been told.
> M4 is a M6 steel that has been rolled down to 0.011? opposed to the standard M6 that is 0.014? thick.
Should "sound" essentially the same, aside from the 5% loss of bass, which you "fix" by stacking 5% higher, but that's silly if the stuff also costs more per pound.
Core losses will be different. But core loss has not been a primary factor in audio iron design since the 1940s.
The refined silicon irons have core loss typically smaller than copper loss. Core loss is a function of Gauss, which means that at the very high Gauss used in commercial power transformers, core loss can be an issue. In audio, we run very low peak gauss (and super low average Gauss) for low Distortion. Core loss really should not matter. For most designs, it doesn't hurt, and for a few designs a little damping may help.
Rupert Neve had a theory that the rust is important. We used to insulate with shellac, but carefully grown iron oxide is a good-enuff insulator and thinner too. There are several varieties of oxide treatments listed on a link above, but none of them are "pickled in fine wine and aged in rosewood sawdust".
> The M4 is also more expensive and harder to get in the US.
> That is crazy!!! We really cant source M6 down here {Brasil} but M4 is everywhere!
The tradeoffs between 0.011" and 0.014" are along a broad minimum, and you could pick either size for any design and get essentially the same result. It sounds like, for whatever historical reason, some dominant US supplier has a big machine turning out 0.014", the Brazillian market has focused on 0.011". Could be cost of fuel, labor, or even over-supply of 0.011" machinery not bought by US iron-mongers.
> stacking machines down to EI375 (3/8" core)
I suspect, for fine audio, unless you have Permalloy/Radiometal or face a serious size (or price) problem, we should be using at least 3/8" even for line input iron. What does a square-stack of plain-steel EL375 cost? Just roughly, and whatever you think it costs, "double it and add a nickle" before you say a cost here. Unless lams cost a lot more per pound than fine beef-steak, I bet we should start with a quarter-pounder for almost any audio purpose.
Should "sound" essentially the same, aside from the 5% loss of bass, which you "fix" by stacking 5% higher, but that's silly if the stuff also costs more per pound.
Core losses will be different. But core loss has not been a primary factor in audio iron design since the 1940s.
The refined silicon irons have core loss typically smaller than copper loss. Core loss is a function of Gauss, which means that at the very high Gauss used in commercial power transformers, core loss can be an issue. In audio, we run very low peak gauss (and super low average Gauss) for low Distortion. Core loss really should not matter. For most designs, it doesn't hurt, and for a few designs a little damping may help.
Rupert Neve had a theory that the rust is important. We used to insulate with shellac, but carefully grown iron oxide is a good-enuff insulator and thinner too. There are several varieties of oxide treatments listed on a link above, but none of them are "pickled in fine wine and aged in rosewood sawdust".
> The M4 is also more expensive and harder to get in the US.
> That is crazy!!! We really cant source M6 down here {Brasil} but M4 is everywhere!
The tradeoffs between 0.011" and 0.014" are along a broad minimum, and you could pick either size for any design and get essentially the same result. It sounds like, for whatever historical reason, some dominant US supplier has a big machine turning out 0.014", the Brazillian market has focused on 0.011". Could be cost of fuel, labor, or even over-supply of 0.011" machinery not bought by US iron-mongers.
> stacking machines down to EI375 (3/8" core)
I suspect, for fine audio, unless you have Permalloy/Radiometal or face a serious size (or price) problem, we should be using at least 3/8" even for line input iron. What does a square-stack of plain-steel EL375 cost? Just roughly, and whatever you think it costs, "double it and add a nickle" before you say a cost here. Unless lams cost a lot more per pound than fine beef-steak, I bet we should start with a quarter-pounder for almost any audio purpose.
edcorusa
Active member
For those who are interested in the more information or spec. on the M2, M3, M4, M6 and M19 steel. The web site to check out is http://www.aksteel.com. They are the only rollers of line grain steel in the US. They have some great information. From what I under stand they are the only steel roller company for all of the Americas. They do have factories in other areas.
A few places use 50 hz in Brazil.
0.011 is 50 hz steel.
0.014 is 60 hz steel
I hate the 11 because if the fork driver nicks the roll, you have to unwind 5 or 6 layers before you get to the good stuff.
This pisses off the boss, who see's the recycle bin fill up twice as fast. (remember the less stacking factor thing?)
The 0.014 is a lot harder to damage when on the pallet.
Stacking Factor on the amorphous stuff is pretty whacked.
0.011 is 50 hz steel.
0.014 is 60 hz steel
I hate the 11 because if the fork driver nicks the roll, you have to unwind 5 or 6 layers before you get to the good stuff.
This pisses off the boss, who see's the recycle bin fill up twice as fast. (remember the less stacking factor thing?)
The 0.014 is a lot harder to damage when on the pallet.
Stacking Factor on the amorphous stuff is pretty whacked.
> 0.011 is 50 hz steel.
> 0.014 is 60 hz steel
> The M4 is ...0.011? .... M6 ...is 0.014? thick.
I don't think either of these assertions is dead-true.
At least the original meaning of the number-grades did not include thickness.
But in practice: it does not make sense to use a low-loss alloy rolled real thick, or to roll a high-loss alloy very thin. There is a lowest-cost balance between alloy cost and rolling cost, and apparently that's what the numbers now mean. M4 costs more up front but may save on electric costs (or cooling costs) over the life of the machine.
Losses are a bigger issue on 50Hz power transformers than on 60Hz. In either case, small cores don't care and large cores may have big problems with loss, but the range where it starts to matter comes sooner at 50Hz than at 60Hz. In an ideal world, we'd pick the prefect combination of alloy and thickness for each design. In real life, it is cheaper to stock a few or even just one material and use it for almost all designs. If what Brian and Rafe say is correct, somehow that "one grade" ended up M6 in the US and M4 in Brasil.
But all this stuff is about Power Transformers. In AUDIO, even Power Output transformers are a very different problem. Even Armco's notes say that your optimum iron changes as you design-down from 17KG to 13KG. In audio, we usually don't push past 5KG: distortion gets too bad. "Core Loss" as watts/pound decreases as the square of flux density, so our core losses at 5KG are less than 1/10th of those at 17KG. In uses like studio line-level transformers, we might stay down to 1KG.
I've read enough old literature to know when core loss DID matter to audio design, but it seems to be quite unimportant with today's much-improved irons. Seems to me you use M6 or M4, or just about anything that is in-stock at the local iron-monger. Sure, a sharp pencil may show some slight improvement if you could special-order M4.9 0.013".... but the minimum order for a custom pour and roll might be 1,000 tons. Nobody in audio needs that much iron! And in many audio applications, "more is better" is a valid design path.... which suggests using the cheapest stuff that doesn't suck much.
Why are we talking M4/M6? These are oriented irons. They work real good along the grain, real bad across the grain. They are great for spiral-tape cores, but dubious for E-I cores where half the magnetic path runs cross-grain. Armco suggests that a scrapless E-I may work OK with oriented iron; still worth running the numbers with M-15 and M-45, if they are available at cost similar to M-4/M-6 stuff.
> 0.014 is 60 hz steel
> The M4 is ...0.011? .... M6 ...is 0.014? thick.
I don't think either of these assertions is dead-true.
At least the original meaning of the number-grades did not include thickness.
But in practice: it does not make sense to use a low-loss alloy rolled real thick, or to roll a high-loss alloy very thin. There is a lowest-cost balance between alloy cost and rolling cost, and apparently that's what the numbers now mean. M4 costs more up front but may save on electric costs (or cooling costs) over the life of the machine.
Losses are a bigger issue on 50Hz power transformers than on 60Hz. In either case, small cores don't care and large cores may have big problems with loss, but the range where it starts to matter comes sooner at 50Hz than at 60Hz. In an ideal world, we'd pick the prefect combination of alloy and thickness for each design. In real life, it is cheaper to stock a few or even just one material and use it for almost all designs. If what Brian and Rafe say is correct, somehow that "one grade" ended up M6 in the US and M4 in Brasil.
But all this stuff is about Power Transformers. In AUDIO, even Power Output transformers are a very different problem. Even Armco's notes say that your optimum iron changes as you design-down from 17KG to 13KG. In audio, we usually don't push past 5KG: distortion gets too bad. "Core Loss" as watts/pound decreases as the square of flux density, so our core losses at 5KG are less than 1/10th of those at 17KG. In uses like studio line-level transformers, we might stay down to 1KG.
I've read enough old literature to know when core loss DID matter to audio design, but it seems to be quite unimportant with today's much-improved irons. Seems to me you use M6 or M4, or just about anything that is in-stock at the local iron-monger. Sure, a sharp pencil may show some slight improvement if you could special-order M4.9 0.013".... but the minimum order for a custom pour and roll might be 1,000 tons. Nobody in audio needs that much iron! And in many audio applications, "more is better" is a valid design path.... which suggests using the cheapest stuff that doesn't suck much.
Why are we talking M4/M6? These are oriented irons. They work real good along the grain, real bad across the grain. They are great for spiral-tape cores, but dubious for E-I cores where half the magnetic path runs cross-grain. Armco suggests that a scrapless E-I may work OK with oriented iron; still worth running the numbers with M-15 and M-45, if they are available at cost similar to M-4/M-6 stuff.
edanderson
Well-known member
re: M4 vs M6, i think it really comes down to what is available locally, and the material, and transport costs. with M4 you can build the same transformer design as with M6, but with a smaller core. even though the M codes originally described mainly loss figures, today as you go up the scale, the permeability also increases. also, as the AK steel (descendent of armco) notes indicate (p20 mag cores data bulletin), M4 is what they consider "ideal" for high perm at all flux densities.
[quote author="PRR"]Why are we talking M4/M6? These are oriented irons. They work real good along the grain, real bad across the grain. They are great for spiral-tape cores, but dubious for E-I cores where half the magnetic path runs cross-grain.[/quote]
this is what i've really been wondering about. i understand that when the domains are all oriented in one direction, as the magnetic path "turns the corner" on an EI core, there should be some kind of distortion, as getting the domains to flip when the flux field is perpendicular to the domain orientation should be "more difficult" by some factor. so how would this distortion manifest itself? would it be worse at high frequency? at low level? some kind of phase shift?
i certainly can think of some designs where i don't need a boatload of inductance, and using a lower perm, higher loss material would be fine. but what will i be gaining, and how can i measure it? from my research, most of the audio transformer houses deal mainly with M6 because it is easiest to get and applicable over a wide range of designs. so if i'm going to go hunting for M15 or M19 or (dare i go so far) M45 i want to know why.
ed
[quote author="PRR"]Why are we talking M4/M6? These are oriented irons. They work real good along the grain, real bad across the grain. They are great for spiral-tape cores, but dubious for E-I cores where half the magnetic path runs cross-grain.[/quote]
this is what i've really been wondering about. i understand that when the domains are all oriented in one direction, as the magnetic path "turns the corner" on an EI core, there should be some kind of distortion, as getting the domains to flip when the flux field is perpendicular to the domain orientation should be "more difficult" by some factor. so how would this distortion manifest itself? would it be worse at high frequency? at low level? some kind of phase shift?
i certainly can think of some designs where i don't need a boatload of inductance, and using a lower perm, higher loss material would be fine. but what will i be gaining, and how can i measure it? from my research, most of the audio transformer houses deal mainly with M6 because it is easiest to get and applicable over a wide range of designs. so if i'm going to go hunting for M15 or M19 or (dare i go so far) M45 i want to know why.
ed
> i understand that when the domains are all oriented in one direction, as the magnetic path "turns the corner" on an EI core, there should be some kind of distortion
No "corner distortion"
The main issue is that you pay extra to get the iron "oriented", and then use some of it "the wrong way". Like cutting house-studs by cross-cutting an 8-foot tree: the grain goes the wrong way, and it cost more. Or more like orienting the grain in both joints and studs horizontally: you get great joists and poor studs. With wood sticks we nail them together with grain the "right way". With E-I lams it is like punching whole rooms out of a tree, and letting half the sticks be cross-grain.
OK, cross-grain oriented iron is not as bad as a cross-grain stud. It is actually pretty good iron at a high price. Under today's economics, it may even be the best deal we can get. Maybe they don't make non-oriented iron any more, because the advantage of having most of the path right-way out-weighs the "waste" of some being "wrong-way".
And of course there are geometric tricks to get more of the core "right way". Tape-wound gets everything going right. A core that is long in the direction of the center tongue has more right-way path, though longer total path length.
With E-I in conventional (near-square EI, "scrapless") proportion, the length of the tongue and outer limbs, and the I, all run right-way. Only the necks of the E are wrong-way.
There is another distortion, at corners or wrong-orientation. The iron saturates first where the flux concentrates. That gives a step in the permeability at about half the flux of the bulk material. That is a real factor in Permalloy, with high perm but low saturation. In audio, I don't think the power-irons should ever be worked so they are in danger of going over the top of the permeability curve.
> i certainly can think of some designs where i don't need a boatload of inductance
No, you can't. You can trade inductance against other factors by changing the turns. Ultimately it comes down to the "Q": bass impedance to copper resistance, and the flux level to set your frequency, power, distortion trade-off.
Our audio world is different from the bulk power world. In many modern transformers, iron losses at full power are much smaller than copper losses. But if you are a utility company, in the dead of night, you still have to feed ALL your iron losses, even though nobody is buying power. Copper losses only happen when people are buying power, so you just factor it into the rates. They control copper loss only because, on Thanksgiving when every oven in town is running full-blast, copper losses heat the transformers and they want that to happen slow enough that nothing blows before dinner is served.
In audio, we spend 99% of the time at 1% of full voltage. Core loss is like a negligible additional load. But we like deep bass, which means we need a lot of turns, but we like low-impedance sources, so hate the extra copper-loss.
No "corner distortion"
The main issue is that you pay extra to get the iron "oriented", and then use some of it "the wrong way". Like cutting house-studs by cross-cutting an 8-foot tree: the grain goes the wrong way, and it cost more. Or more like orienting the grain in both joints and studs horizontally: you get great joists and poor studs. With wood sticks we nail them together with grain the "right way". With E-I lams it is like punching whole rooms out of a tree, and letting half the sticks be cross-grain.
OK, cross-grain oriented iron is not as bad as a cross-grain stud. It is actually pretty good iron at a high price. Under today's economics, it may even be the best deal we can get. Maybe they don't make non-oriented iron any more, because the advantage of having most of the path right-way out-weighs the "waste" of some being "wrong-way".
And of course there are geometric tricks to get more of the core "right way". Tape-wound gets everything going right. A core that is long in the direction of the center tongue has more right-way path, though longer total path length.
With E-I in conventional (near-square EI, "scrapless") proportion, the length of the tongue and outer limbs, and the I, all run right-way. Only the necks of the E are wrong-way.
There is another distortion, at corners or wrong-orientation. The iron saturates first where the flux concentrates. That gives a step in the permeability at about half the flux of the bulk material. That is a real factor in Permalloy, with high perm but low saturation. In audio, I don't think the power-irons should ever be worked so they are in danger of going over the top of the permeability curve.
> i certainly can think of some designs where i don't need a boatload of inductance
No, you can't. You can trade inductance against other factors by changing the turns. Ultimately it comes down to the "Q": bass impedance to copper resistance, and the flux level to set your frequency, power, distortion trade-off.
Our audio world is different from the bulk power world. In many modern transformers, iron losses at full power are much smaller than copper losses. But if you are a utility company, in the dead of night, you still have to feed ALL your iron losses, even though nobody is buying power. Copper losses only happen when people are buying power, so you just factor it into the rates. They control copper loss only because, on Thanksgiving when every oven in town is running full-blast, copper losses heat the transformers and they want that to happen slow enough that nothing blows before dinner is served.
In audio, we spend 99% of the time at 1% of full voltage. Core loss is like a negligible additional load. But we like deep bass, which means we need a lot of turns, but we like low-impedance sources, so hate the extra copper-loss.
> if i'm going to go hunting for M15
Two ways to reduce eddy-current losses. Go thinner, or add resistance to the iron. Adding Silicon increases resistance. Finding the right mix of Silicon and other spice and the right kneading and roasting may give you low loss without thin gauge.
Two ways to reduce eddy-current losses. Go thinner, or add resistance to the iron. Adding Silicon increases resistance. Finding the right mix of Silicon and other spice and the right kneading and roasting may give you low loss without thin gauge.
edanderson
Well-known member
[quote author="PRR"]
[quote author="edanderson"]> i certainly can think of some designs where i don't need a boatload of inductance
[/quote]
No, you can't. [/quote]
let me clarify what i was saying. bear in mind, i still have a lot to learn, and perhaps i didn't execute my measurements correctly. but this is the case i was thinking of:
i have two similar output transformers from two different manufacturers. same bobbin and core size. (edit: also the same ratio, all windings wound together, and both are EI cores.) from what i can see of the magnet wire, the gages of the primary windings are not very dissimilar, perhaps identical. the core material on both is clearly steel, with one unknown and the other specified as M6. the unknown core transformer has an inductance of a bit less than 300mH per winding at a resistance of 8.8ohms. the M6 core transformer, over 600mH at 9ohms. now, granted, some of the difference may come from a small difference in wire gage that i cannot see. but the inductance difference is significant enough, and the resistance similar enough that i think there must be some difference in the core material, even though they are both steel.
in circuit, connected to the very low impedance output of a high current opamp, even the low inductance transformer gives full frequency bass respsonse, basically flat down to 10Hz, the limit of my generator. naturally the higher impedance transformer does just as well, but not, in any way that i know how to measure, better. again, i could be missing some crucial measurement.
in this circumstance, i suspect the lower inductance transformer is using a non-oriented steel core, with a lower permeability than the M6 core, with a similar winding structure. if the lower inductance doesn't hurt my bass response, and the M6 core, despite its higher inductance, is introducing some kind of distortion, then wouldn't i want to use the non-oriented steel core transformer? isn't there a point where for a particular circuit you have enough inductance, and adding more doesn't help?
i still would very much like to know what the "corner distortion" is, and how i could measure it. i believe it is there, it makes sense to me, but i don't know what i'm looking for.
also, while it may seem that i would have to pay more for M6, in my experience recently talking to audio transformer winders, they generally stock the M6 and no other kind of steel, because they feel they can do anything with it that they could do with the lower grades, and with fewer turns to boot. thus the lower grades are special order, and in most cases so far, more expensive unless you're willing to order quite a bit.
ed
[quote author="edanderson"]> i certainly can think of some designs where i don't need a boatload of inductance
[/quote]
No, you can't. [/quote]
let me clarify what i was saying. bear in mind, i still have a lot to learn, and perhaps i didn't execute my measurements correctly. but this is the case i was thinking of:
i have two similar output transformers from two different manufacturers. same bobbin and core size. (edit: also the same ratio, all windings wound together, and both are EI cores.) from what i can see of the magnet wire, the gages of the primary windings are not very dissimilar, perhaps identical. the core material on both is clearly steel, with one unknown and the other specified as M6. the unknown core transformer has an inductance of a bit less than 300mH per winding at a resistance of 8.8ohms. the M6 core transformer, over 600mH at 9ohms. now, granted, some of the difference may come from a small difference in wire gage that i cannot see. but the inductance difference is significant enough, and the resistance similar enough that i think there must be some difference in the core material, even though they are both steel.
in circuit, connected to the very low impedance output of a high current opamp, even the low inductance transformer gives full frequency bass respsonse, basically flat down to 10Hz, the limit of my generator. naturally the higher impedance transformer does just as well, but not, in any way that i know how to measure, better. again, i could be missing some crucial measurement.
in this circumstance, i suspect the lower inductance transformer is using a non-oriented steel core, with a lower permeability than the M6 core, with a similar winding structure. if the lower inductance doesn't hurt my bass response, and the M6 core, despite its higher inductance, is introducing some kind of distortion, then wouldn't i want to use the non-oriented steel core transformer? isn't there a point where for a particular circuit you have enough inductance, and adding more doesn't help?
i still would very much like to know what the "corner distortion" is, and how i could measure it. i believe it is there, it makes sense to me, but i don't know what i'm looking for.
also, while it may seem that i would have to pay more for M6, in my experience recently talking to audio transformer winders, they generally stock the M6 and no other kind of steel, because they feel they can do anything with it that they could do with the lower grades, and with fewer turns to boot. thus the lower grades are special order, and in most cases so far, more expensive unless you're willing to order quite a bit.
ed
NewYorkDave
Well-known member
Drive those transformers from an amp that doesn't have feedback wrapped around it and you'll get a better picture. Or insert a series resistance between the amp/feedback loop and the transformer. As it is, your feedback amp is straining (at least in the relative sense) at the low frequencies to drive that low impedance and you're losing open-loop gain at those frequencies, but its trevails are slightly obscured from your view by the feedback. You could probably detect it as a rise in distortion at low frequencies.
Most every lam stamped today is 0.014 steel.
Don't worry about 0.011. You might find it collecting dust at the xfmr factory in the US, but it will never get used. Everything steel is 0.014 grain or. sil.
Brazil is obviously a different story.
But Linx might be using old stock 0.011 also.
Now C cores, thats a different story.
If you have two steel core transformers with identical coils and one is different, obviously it is the core. If the core is different, the most obvious differences will be at the low end.
Signal levels have an influence to. If you hit the two different steels with a healthy signal, they will equalize out.
But if you have two different steels and you inject a small signal, you will get different results, due to differences in core loss.
You need excitation curent to start those domains moving. How much current depends on the core.
Henries change with freq and level. In Ed's case, I see two inductance vs freq curves that are relatively the same until low freq and low level signals are applied.
Don't worry about 0.011. You might find it collecting dust at the xfmr factory in the US, but it will never get used. Everything steel is 0.014 grain or. sil.
Brazil is obviously a different story.
But Linx might be using old stock 0.011 also.
Now C cores, thats a different story.
If you have two steel core transformers with identical coils and one is different, obviously it is the core. If the core is different, the most obvious differences will be at the low end.
Signal levels have an influence to. If you hit the two different steels with a healthy signal, they will equalize out.
But if you have two different steels and you inject a small signal, you will get different results, due to differences in core loss.
You need excitation curent to start those domains moving. How much current depends on the core.
Henries change with freq and level. In Ed's case, I see two inductance vs freq curves that are relatively the same until low freq and low level signals are applied.
wkbdgeorge
Well-known member
So when you say that the Ni transformer costs 4 times as much..... I take it a standard wsm line would then be in the 40 - 50 dollar range? Does anyone have experience with ordering the nickel from edcor?
leswatts
Well-known member
I've been toying with a ribbon mic line, and as such have been looking pretty closely at the transformers.
It's hard not to notice the Edcor RMX-1 ribbon transformers low price. But it's NICKEL core.
I'm looking at in house transformers too...looking at nickel, Si steel, tapewound metglass, powder. Most likely in house would be impractical...but still...
Comments welcome on the advantages of nickel when very low primary resistance/ is required...
Are the cheap Chinese ribbon transformers M6?
I'm not unfamiliar with mu metal and other ni alloys. I designed deep drawn shields for audio transducers long ago using them. Magnetic circuit cores too.I remember the hydrogen anneals... and don't drop em on the table!
Les
L M Watts Technology
It's hard not to notice the Edcor RMX-1 ribbon transformers low price. But it's NICKEL core.
I'm looking at in house transformers too...looking at nickel, Si steel, tapewound metglass, powder. Most likely in house would be impractical...but still...
Comments welcome on the advantages of nickel when very low primary resistance/ is required...
Are the cheap Chinese ribbon transformers M6?
I'm not unfamiliar with mu metal and other ni alloys. I designed deep drawn shields for audio transducers long ago using them. Magnetic circuit cores too.I remember the hydrogen anneals... and don't drop em on the table!
Les
L M Watts Technology
skipwave
Well-known member
leswatts said:
I think so. I've got one in hand which was pulled from a stock ShinyBox 46 and replaced with a Cinemag 9888.
Is there a "scratch" test that will reveal with some certainty whether these lams are steel or Ni?
Brian
leswatts
Well-known member
Hmmm. Never saw mu metal rust. Hydrochloric acid ? Nickel(II) chloride solution is green... Iron(III) chloride (ferric chloride) solution is yellow....
I'm trying to study up on very low level audio transformers (again) particularly in the cubic law BH region. Nickel seems to have considerable advantage...
Les
L M Watts Technology
leswatts
Well-known member
Heh, yeah...I was about to type "calculate it" from primary turns, core area, path length,and primary inductance....but how do you know the turns? turns ratio is easy but not number of turns...
Les
Les
