next topic »

[Reply #45 on:]

Where I worked we held close tolerances and sold parts that met them. We had plaques from RCA and Kodak for going a year at a time with zero rejects. We weren't trying to hold any better than we could make but we did precision work within tolerances every day.
Part of it is not trying to hold impossible tolerances, but you have to know not only what's possible but what's practical in order to do business. Not just theory, we made the parts.

Why not turn the windings at 1 diameter + (tolerance * 110%) apart per turn? When you come back across the new layer will sit on top. Or is there some reason why the windings have to jam in side to side all along the coil? Does this wire vary thickness by even 10%? You'd get a tighter pack if the diameters set in a hex pattern anyway.

[Reply #46 on:]

You'd get a tighter pack if the diameters set in a hex pattern anyway.

I hear hands on experience!

[Reply #47 on:]

You'd get a tighter pack if the diameters set in a hex pattern anyway.

I hear hands on experience!

I don't see how they can do, because alternate layers are wound in opposite directions.

[Reply #48 on:]

They could still be sure how many turns to make per layer without needing to monitor wire thickness. Even the wire should have dimensions and tolerance.

[Reply #49 on:]

 All the automatic or semi-automatic coil winders I've ever seen just relied on a turns counter for feedback and assuming normal tolerances of the bobbin size and wire gage, I would think it would turn out very repeatable induction values, and many of them turned out beautiful looking windings. One could always measure the final induction value and trim if needed. As far as creating a 'perfect' symmetrical magnetic field, I have no idea how critical or difficult that can be nor if wire gauge variation would have an effect, turns is turns.

Lefty