[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

# Re: [femm] Scaling question

- To: femm@yahoogroups.com
- Subject: Re: [femm] Scaling question
- From: David Meeker <dmeeker@foster-miller.com>
- Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 16:46:25 -0500
- Organization: Foster-Miller, Inc.
- References: <96ibd2+ac74@eGroups.com>

    rtickle@visi.com wrote:

    > Question for David and group:
    >
    > I've modelled a simple C core type electromagnet with two sets of
    > coils in femm based on a design we are considering building. We are
    > looking at building a quarter scale prototype first to make sure we
    > can produce the fields the numerical solution tells us we can. I've
    > noticed however, that in scaling down the original design by 1/4 and
    > recalculating in femm, much smaller fields are produced in the
    > airgap. Only by multiplying the original current density by 4 are the
    > original fields of the full scale model produced along the centerline
    > of the airgap. I had assumed that I would want to keep the current
    > density fixed while scaling the model down; the numerics seem to be
    > saying this is wrong. Can anyone explain why this is so?

    It sounds like you have just scaled all of the dimensions linearly by some
    scaling factor. In this case, the amp turns needed to drive a given flux
    scales linearly with the scale factor: i.e., if you scale down by with a
    scale factor of 1/4, the gap is only 1/4 as long, and you only need 1/4 as
    many amp-turns to drive the given level of flux density. However, the total
    amp-turns are the product of the current density and the coil area. Coil
    area scales with the square of the scaling factor, so if you scale down with
    a scaling factor of 1/4, you would only have 1/16 the number of amp-turns
    driving the flux if J is held constant. With the scaled system, when the
    decreased amp-turns required to get a given flux density in the gap is
    combined with the more greatly decreased number of amp-turns, the net result
    is only 1/4 of the flux density of the full-scale system. All of this falls
    out of considering Ampere's loop law:

    Path Length*Field Intensity = Amp-Turns

    Dave.

    begin:vcard
    n:Meeker;David
    tel;fax:781-890-3489
    tel;work:781-684-4070
    x-mozilla-html:TRUE
    url:http://members.aol.com/dcm3c
    org:Foster-Miller, Inc.;Electrical and Electronic Systems Group
    version:2.1
    email;internet:dmeeker@foster-miller.com
    title:Senior Engineer
    adr;quoted-printable:;;350 Second Avenue=0D=0A;Waltham;MA;02451-1196;USA
    fn:David Meeker, Ph.D.
    end:vcard

- Follow-Ups:
  - Re: [femm] Scaling question
    - From: David Meeker <dmeeker@foster-miller.com>

- References:
  - Scaling question
    - From: rtickle@visi.com

- Prev by Date: Re: [femm] Scaling question
- Next by Date: Re: [femm] Scaling question
- Previous by thread: Re: Scaling question
- Next by thread: Re: [femm] Scaling question
- Index(es):
  - Date
  - Thread