Core lamination

[gorgon53]

hi Andrew, it can be confusing.
To clear things up, my "longer" does not refer to the length per turn of the conductor or total wire-length. It is the length of the coil wich is restricted by core window-length "G", or the width of the window "ba". Air core inductor inductance formulas use coil length "l" in the same way as I do. A longer, more stretched out coil simply means more turns side by side instead of on top of each other.

[Tony]

i remember that in some other threads here, it was suggested that to get that ratio larger and get "longer" layers, use E-E's instead of E-I's.....

i am inclined to try this in some future builds....

[AndrewT]

Gorgon.
would that be the same as a wider layer?

[pieter t]

Andrew,
With all respect: do you have a language problem?
You are asking the same things over and over, and IMO there is clear enough explanation already. YES A LONGER COIL MEANS A WIDER LAYER (is Scottish different from English?)

[AndrewT]

The versions of english I see displayed in this Thread are different from mine.
I know of one longer.
Between you lot there seem to be three or four longers describing different things.

It's about time you got a consistent set of definitions.
Start with a diagram. Label it up. Agree that set of definitions.
Everybody sticks with the agreed diagram.

[pieter t]

There is no consistent set of definitions.
Just the fact that values like F, G, ha, ba and others are used illustrate that fact.
I am afraid we can not supply you with a universal diagram with an agreed set of definitions; you have to do something yourself by some sensible deduction.
When everything could be diagrammed with consistent sets of definitions, the world would be quite a bit simpler.
And by the way I don't understand what is so unclear with the "longer" thing.

[Tony]

AndrewT, merely asking questions can not help you....you have to "do it yourself, DIY" learning by doing and not just asking will get you there.....

[gorgon53]

Originally Posted by AndrewT

Gorgon.
would that be the same as a wider layer?

Andrew, I would say a "longer" coil has usually wider layers.
But i would not say , for example, that a "half layer" stretches out over only half of the coil length.

[gorgon53]

Originally Posted by Tony

i remember that in some other threads here, it was suggested that to get that ratio larger and get "longer" layers, use E-E's instead of E-I's.....

i am inclined to try this in some future builds....

It is a tradeoff where you exchange the lower frequency advantages of the short coil into the disadvantages of the long coil, and the higher frequency disadvantages of the short coil into advantages of the long coil. As i see it, the possible higher copper to iron ratio of a E-E OPT has advantages. All sort of deviations of the output in respect to input should be possible to get smaller, especially in bigger pp-OPT needing an airgap and symmetric windings.

Since I am into the idea of feeding a OPT from a practically zero impedanz pp-amplifier (with fb taken only on the primary) to reduce distortion, i came up with the idea of using a E-E OPT to complement it. I expect the then resulting high Q can be a problem. Everything is in the design state yet, alltough i have a couple of ideas on how to reduce the capacitance to takle Q.

With higher impedanz feed you would have to accept higher transformer related distortion anyhow, and Q wont be that much of a problem. I can see some advantages in favor of the EE-OPT also in the more usual applications,
as i thinck can anybody that understands what is going on in a OPT used at high audio frequencies.

[gorgon53]

should read:
As i see it, the possible higher copper to iron ratio of a E-E OPT has also advantages.