Re: Instead scopes

On 2/09/2024 6:32 am, john larkin wrote:

On Mon, 2 Sep 2024 02:20:42 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
 

On 2/09/2024 12:09 am, john larkin wrote:

On Sun, 1 Sep 2024 17:45:46 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
>

On 30/08/2024 2:21 am, Jan Panteltje wrote:

On a sunny day (Fri, 30 Aug 2024 00:43:39 +1000) it happened Bill Sloman
<bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in <vaq1f2$jdj$1@dont-email.me>:
>

It's lot easier and quicker to bread-board a circuit in LTSpice than it
is to wire up a test circuit, but what that means is that you need to
make fewer real circuits and they are a lot more likely to work when tested.
>
That, on it's own, is enough to explain why labs look different today
than they did in the dark ages.

>
All it explains is boeings falling apart and astronuts ending up stuck at the ISS
and no moonlanding from the US, not even a probe.
Slimulations are _not_ realty and never will be.

>
But they can capture useful parts of reality, if you know what you are
doing.
>
John Larkin's simulated inductors tend not to have any parallel capacitance.

>
The trick is to know when it matters. ESR and core loss are usually
more important.

>
And you don't simulate them either.

 Only when they matter.
   Simulation is - in part - about

letting the math throw up unexpected effects that appear when you hook
up a bunch of components. Knowing when it matter relies on the
simulation inside your head.
>

I designed this surface-mount inductor for my Pockels Cell driver,
after several tries using commercial parts. They all smoked.

>
So you didn't read the data sheets carefully enough.

 Sure I did. They should have worked, based on the data sheets.

Based on your understanding of the data sheet, which was obviously inadequate. It's revealing that you don't post links to the data sheets or specify the number that you relied on when you assumed that they ought to have worked.

It's not a part

that would usually be described as "surface mount". If you'd scraped the
enamel off the bottom of the coil and soldered each turn down onto an
isolated copper pad on the board, it probably would qualify as surface
mount, and would have had better thermal contact with the board.

 I did that on the ends. I think the gap-pad works better thermally
than soldering every turn to the board.

Solder is metal, and has a higher conductivity than your gap-pad material. You can over-fill the joint, which would help.

 Have you ever used a surface-mount coil that soldered every turn to
the board? Got a link?

No. It's merely an obvious possibility.

You might have had to make it as a sintered metal 3-D printed structure to
get this to work - the wound coil looks a bit irregular.

 Losses would be crazy.

What makes you think that? The fact that the part is sintered doesn't mean that you won't get close to solid metal electrical conductivity.

Lost wax casting could have worked too.

And even you must concede that that wouldn't have been lossy.

It's wound on a specially marked Sharpie pen that we have carefully
reserved.

>
That defines it diameter. Measuring that with a vernier caliper would
give you a number you could document.
>

https://www.highlandtechnology.com/Product/T850

>

The grey gap-pad gives it some extra cooling. The board has lots of
thermal vias down to the water-cooled baseplate.

>
If you'd wound it with copper tube you could have pumped water through
the tube, or made it a heat pipe.

 And supply a water tank and a pump and water connectors?

Heat pipes don't need that. A closed system doesn't need a water-tank, and lots of top-end computer coolers do rely on circulating water.

A 3-D printed structure would have offered more options.

 Again, massive losses.

Imagined massive losses.

My inductor is cheap and simple and works.

It's hand-wound, so it looks cheaper than it is.

If I get a gigantic order, I'll have a coil winding company make them
and retire the Sharpie.

Or come up with a more sensible solution?
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney