Re: [Phys-l] Inductive cooking

[Bernard Cleyet <bernardcleyet@redshift.com>]

I'm a bit ignorant here, as I though reactive impedance was a  
function of inductance, capacitance, and frequency in an electrical  
circuit.  A ferromagnetic core coil will raise the coils impedance  
more than a non one -- consistent w/ skin depth and relaxation in the  
core, etc.   simple mindedly, I'd think this might reduce the current  
thru the coil and result is lowered efficiency.

bc evidently must read the references.


On 2009, Apr 06, , at 04:57, Brian Whatcott wrote:

> An interesting objection.  Does magnetic steel provide a higher  
> reactive
> impedance  than a
> non-magnetic steel of equivalent size and shape? I would think the
> answer is yes.
>
> Or do you think not?
>
> Brian W
>
> Bernard Cleyet wrote:
> > No;  I think one of JD's references explains hysteresis loss is more
> > effective than brewer Joule's loss.
> >
> > bc  thought this back then, but his error was thinking steel's
> > critical point was at a much lower temperature.
> >
> >
> > On 2009, Apr 05, , at 18:16, Brian Whatcott wrote:
> >
> >
> > > Not a good idea particularly, but a plausible thought.
> > >  In hindsight, one can imagine a magnetic steel pan carcass couples
> > > more
> > > effectively to a driving coil as a higher lossy reactive impedance,
> > > providing a better opportunity to dissipate the drive into the pan
> > > case.
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Forum for Physics Educators
> > Phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
> > https://carnot.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l
>
> _______________________________________________
> Forum for Physics Educators
> Phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
> https://carnot.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l