|
|
|||||||
| Home | Forums | Rules | Articles | Store | Gallery | Blogs | Register | Donations | FAQ | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read | Search |
| Multi-Way Conventional loudspeakers with crossovers |
|
Please consider donating to help us continue to serve you.
Ads on/off / Custom Title / More PMs / More album space / Advanced printing & mass image saving |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#1 |
|
diyAudio Member
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Germany
|
We've had various discussions here on the advantages of AlNiCo, Neodymium and field coils. One thing that crystallized here was that it is advantageous to saturate the iron return system because that makes a modulation of the iron and magnet magnetization impossible, and it also keeps the pole piece from acting like a core that increases the inductance of the voice coil.
One point that I found in the literature was that ferrite magnets had too low a flux density to saturate iron (1.0-1.2 vs. 1.3-1.5 T). Nobody has challenged this view. While this statement is certainly true if the magnet and the iron share the same cross section, I wonder if it is possible to saturate a part of the return system by letting it have a smaller cross section than the rest of the return system and the magnet. Where the iron becomes thinner, the field lines move together und the flux density increases. If the iron becomes thin enough, it will sature. Any "extra" field lines will have to go through the air until the system get back to its original thickness. The gap should be placed in the thin area so that all iron that has contact with the field of the VC is saturated. Also, this will keep the stray field spread out, so that we won't have a strong assymetric stray field around the gap. The thin area should, however, not extend too far because this will keep the iron barely in saturation, making it easier for the VC's field to drive the iron out of saturation. Any flaw in my reasoning? How come it's not done? |
|
|
|
|
#2 |
|
diyAudio Member
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Switzerland
|
I think it is already done more often than not !
If you look at the cross section of the magnet and the cross section of the air gap the former is usually significantly larger than the latter one for the average driver with ferrite magnet. I think the WHOLE iron part of the magnetic loop must be saturated to take any advantage of saturation. Regards Charles |
|
|
|
|
#3 |
|
diyAudio Member
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Germany
|
Hi Charles,
theoretically, it should be sufficient to saturate anything that interacts with field of the VC. So the upper pole plate (both sides of the gap) should be saturated, and also the upper few cm of the pole piece. In a standard system, if the inner side of the gap is just saturated, the outer side is probably not. Maybe a pole plate that becomes thinner as the radius increases is the solution? Greetings, Eric |
|
|
|
|
#4 | |
|
diyAudio Member
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Switzerland
|
Quote:
Regards Charles |
|
|
|
|
|
#5 | |||
|
diyAudio Member
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: SW MI
|
Hi Guys,
Yes, it certainly is possible to achieve very high gap flux density with ceramic mags. Just to see what was possible, I recently created a finite element magnetic simulation of a ceramic-magnet motor with a steel and permandure return circuit. I achieved 2 tesla across the gap! But it took a *big* grade-8 magnet. I'll try to post a pic of the simulation after lunch. Quote:
Quote:
Here's a sim I did of my best guess at Adire Audio's (still secret!) XBL2 topology. Neither the pole nor top plate are saturated in this example, but you can see what I mean about the way flux spreads out between the top plate and pole. Incidentally, here's here's the thread where I expose this secret motor, if you're interested! Quote:
Bill |
|||
|
|
|
|
#6 | |
|
diyAudio Member
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Germany
|
Quote:
at last somebody who has played with these things! Yes, I was thinking about T-shaped pole piece. What do you mean by "tapered", i.e. what would be growing successively thinner, the vertical column of the T or the top? What software do you use for FE modelling? I am a little surprised about the calibration. Your ferrite magnet seems to have a pretty uniform flux of below 0.36 T. I have not studied magnet catalogues, but I am told that regular ferrite can be magnetized at about 1 T, maybe even a little higher if magentization is done with a return system installed. What is the grade 8 vs. grade 5 stuff you are talking about in your linked thread? Similarly, the iron seems to reach almost 2.0 T where I thought the limit was somewhere around 1.5 T. Is this a special alloy? If so, does it get used in common drivers? Regards, Eric |
|
|
|
|
|
#7 |
|
diyAudio Member
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: SW MI
|
Hi Eric,
By tapered, I mean that the ears of the T taper down with increasing diameter toward the gap. If they are not tapered, the flux-conducting area is greater at the gap than where the T ears join the cylinder of the pole piece, creating a flux bottleneck that prevents saturation at the gap. The program I use is FEMM. I haven't taken the time to check the values FEMM specs for ceramic magnets, I just plugged 'em in. My understanding is that there are two broad categories of industrial ceramic magnetic material--grade 5 and 8. The material properties in FEMM are easily modified if I need to. The steel alloy I specd for the XBL2 motor sim is 1006, a very low-carbon steel with good magnetic properties. I believe P-Audio uses it in some models, and probably other manufacturers as well. The simulation wasn't supposed to accurately reflect the flux numbers in an actual XBL2 driver, just the shape of the BL curve that results from the topology. Driver design is my favorite hobby right now, in case you couldn't tell! Bill |
|
|
|
|
#8 | |
|
diyAudio Member
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Germany
|
Quote:
![]() Of course, one could continue the tapering with the top plate, or at least the inner half inch of the top plate. Has it been done, with either the pole piece or pole piece + top plate? So if acutal magnets are 3x stronger than you assumed in your calculation, you could easily saturate large parts of your geometry... I gather FEMM is not exactly freeware? Greetings, Eric |
|
|
|
|
|
#9 | |
|
diyAudio Member
|
Quote:
http://femm.berlios.de/ |
|
|
|
|
|
#10 | ||
|
diyAudio Member
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: SW MI
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
|
|
| Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
|
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| Box-tuning magnet-to-magnet construction | Mr_Oasis | Full Range | 21 | 2nd June 2009 12:51 AM |
| WHY???? Midrange magnet's vented pole piece sealed by design - Thiel CS3.5 ???? | dtm1962 | Multi-Way | 1 | 24th July 2008 04:28 PM |
| Magnet Wire | TaaJ | Chip Amps | 4 | 26th September 2004 08:00 PM |
| Nd doping of ferrite magnet drivers | capslock | Multi-Way | 2 | 6th July 2004 01:10 PM |
| Does this Peerless 6in look familiar? Neo magnet? Underhung design? | capslock | Multi-Way | 10 | 30th May 2003 02:14 PM |
| New To Site? | Need Help? |
| Page generated in 0.12714 seconds (83.57% PHP - 16.43% MySQL) with 11 queries |