STEORN DEMO LIVE & STREAM in Dublin, December 15th, 10 AM

[PaulLowrance]

If the metglas retains 79% of its magnetization when the coil is de-energized and 79% of the energy stays inside the core, then PL can't possibly recover up to 95% of the energy from the pulse.  The most that could be recovered from the pulse is 21% in the perfect case.

That is a 174% gain just by energizing and de-energizing the metglas core if you can re-capture 95% of the pulse according to PL, which is close to PL's 170% efficiency claim for his tiny Orbo replication.  We have OU just by energizing and de-energizing the metglas core.  I don't think so, lol.

PL, your COP calculations don't add up. 

GB

LOL, the problem at this forum is either a lack of mental power or paid posters. I keep telling you ding dongs that nearly all of the work that goes into the Orbo toroid core is when it's well into the saturation curve. Example, from say 95% saturated to 97% saturated. The core is nearly completely flat in the saturation curve. If you don't believe me then look at an Ising plot. Hello? Anyone home?

I'm not spending much time on you people anymore. By all means dwell in your silly and obvious disinformation acts. Paid posters IMO because the odds of nearly everyone in a thread being so dense is highly unlikely.

If you think I'm wrong about the energy coming back from the core then put your $ where your mouth is. Anytime.

[gravityblock]

If you think I'm wrong about the energy coming back from the core then put your $ where your mouth is. Anytime.

Everyone conveniently forgets about the time aspect.  If the coil is on for 10ms and it takes 1ms for the field to collapse, then you only recovered 95% of the energy for 1ms.  The other 9ms of energy the pulse was on for is lost along with the 5% that was lost during the 1ms.

Now, please tell me how you can re-capture 95% of the energy during the entire pulse duration again?  According to you, if the coil is energized for 1 minute, it will retain all of the energy during this 1 minute period so you can re-capture 95% of the total energy that went into keeping it energized for 1 minute.  I don't think so, lol.

GB

[gravityblock]

Deleted, Duplicate Post

[0c]

It has to do with both remenance and coercivity.

So which is better, high or low coercivity?

Metglas 2714AS has coercivity somewhere about 3.0 A/m (taken from the "Coercive Force vs. Frequency" chart on page 3 of:
http://metglas.com/downloads/magamp.pdf

and the Hc of Finemet FT-1H is 0.8 A/m:
(page 8 in: http://www.hilltech.com/pdf/hl-fm10-cFinemetIntro.pdf )

Let's say you used a pulse with enough energy to magnetize it to 100%. If the metglas core is 79% magnetized after the pulse, then it is holding 79% of the energy from the pulse.  If you re-capture 95% of the pulse, then you lost 5%, but the core is holding 79% of the energy it took to magnetize it.  (79-5=74% above unity or 174%).

So, you're saying it only took 5% of the energy from the pulse to magnetize the core to 79% while the 95% that could be recovered only magnetize the core 21%?

There will be a higher cost for the initial pulse, but all the thousands and millions of pulses thereafter will benefit from the remanent state. What I'm saying is that Metglas has to be pushed 21% of the way from remanence into complete saturation. Finemet only needs to be pushed 10%.

[gravityblock]

So which is better, high or low coercivity?

Metglas 2714AS has coercivity somewhere about 3.0 A/m (taken from the "Coercive Force vs. Frequency" chart on page 3 of:
http://metglas.com/downloads/magamp.pdf

and the Hc of Finemet FT-1H is 0.8 A/m:
(page 8 in: http://www.hilltech.com/pdf/hl-fm10-cFinemetIntro.pdf )


There will be a higher cost for the initial pulse, but all the thousands and millions of pulses thereafter will benefit from the remanent state. What I'm saying is that Metglas has to be pushed 21% of the way from remanence into complete saturation. Finemet only needs to be pushed 10%.

I would think Finemet is a better choice because it only needs to be pushed 10% of the way from remanence into complete saturation, which would benefit after the initial pulse. I see exactly what you're saying now.  Thanks.

GB