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@aol.com wrote:
>In a message dated 18/04/2005 04:03:29 GMT Standard Time, craxd1@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@contesting.com
>http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/amps
_______________________________________________
Amps mailing list
Amps@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/amps
|