[Amps] Hipersil, the myth and the truth. (Updated)

[Will Matney]

Pete,

About the only thing I can think of is weight, which the military sure
does look at. I looked over the cataloges from Magnetic Metals for both a
M6 lam which would make 4 sq. inches (2X2) and a comparable C-core using
the same material. Both the "watts per pound loss curves" were compared
and the M6 core was just as good if not better than the C-core. I think
this was due to the gap in the C-core making it a shade lower. M6 EI cores
show that they can have as high as a 98-99% efficiency, and that sure aint
to shabby (where did the losses go?). Now if they could figure out a way
of defeating that gap in a C-core, they most likely would have it licked or
at least be the same.

What I'm getting at is a cooler running transformer will last longer even though
it may weigh 15-20% more and be just as efficient if not more. It almost has
to be as reluctance raises with temperature too.

Best,

Will


*********** REPLY SEPARATOR  ***********

On 4/18/05 at 6:13 AM G3rzp at aol.com wrote:

>In a message dated 18/04/2005 04:03:29 GMT Standard Time, craxd1 at ezwv.com
> 
>writes:
>
>Is an EI  core better than a C-core?
>
>In my opinion, Yes! The reason being is the  heat. 
>
>
>All very interesting, and useful info. But for some reason, nearly all the
> 
>military stuff over here has, for years, tended to use 'C' cores. I can
>see the 
> weight saving for aircraft stuff, but why would the Navy be so keen if
>there 
> weren't other advantages? Or the Army, bearing in mind that 'portable' to 
>them  tends to mean 3 men and a truck?
> 
>I vaguely remember somewhere the claim that because the C cores are  
>precision ground, the overall magnetic reluctrance is less.
> 
>73
> 
>Peter G3RZP
>_______________________________________________
>Amps mailing list
>Amps at contesting.com
>http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/amps