Re: Inductance

[brian whatcott <inet@INTELLISYS.NET>]

As a fanciful aside, I note that Fred's first definition is
'results oriented', whereas the latter definition seems like
a process description.

 On a more practical note, though it's not apparent in a textual
description of the back EMF due an inductance, I prefer the
appropriate sign to be preserved in the symbolic definition thus:

         V = -L dI/dt
...rather than
         V =  L dI/dt

Brian W

At 20:42 4/12/00 -0500, you wrote:
> By habit, I define the inductance of a circuit element as the ratio of  "V
> sub L"  across that element to the rate of change of current in it,  where
> "V sub L"  is the potential difference that appears only when the current is
> changing.  But lately I've noticed that currently popular textbooks tend to
> define inductance as number of turns times flux divided by current.  Is
> there some reason to prefer this "flux-based" definition?
> ______________________________________
> Fred Lemmerhirt
brian whatcott <inet@intellisys.net>
Altus OK