Talk:Litz wire

Litz Wire is not simply Twisted wires

Twisting wires together does not have the same effect. It is important that a wire be on the outside of the cable for a small distance but also be in the center of the cable for a small distance. Just twisting a bunch of wires together would keep a small number on the outside of the bunch and not significantly improve the high frequency conductivity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Glrx (talk • contribs) 22:37, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

It's certainly true that simply twisted bundles have the problem you describe. However, to me, weaving implies something like braiding, in which the strands are interlocked in some way, rather than the multi-level twisting schemes used in most litz wire, as illustrated for example in the New England Wire Catalog on the page after this page (The URL for the page I wanted was too long). Some of that was explained, albeit poorly, in the text you deleted. I'm tempted to revert, but will wait until I have time to try to make it a little better. Note that truly braided or woven litz wire is used--it's just less common than multi-level twisted wire. Ccrrccrr (talk) 02:22, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I originally believed the "naive" explanation that with separate conductors with insulation of negligible thickness each conductor would have its own skin depth.

On reflection if the strands weren't insulated the current would be pushed to the outer strands and since the current flows perpendicular to the insulation its distribution won't be influenced by the insulation, so it seems sensible to expect a parallel bundle to behave similarly to a stranded cable of comparable cross section.

I can see that "braiding" would force current into the middle of the bundle.

I think the real issue is more complicated than this though as the wire is used for winding coils, where turns are packed together and the concept of inside strands and outside strands has less meaning.

2A00:23A8:C6B:4601:6D87:D444:FE63:D763 (talk) 12:53, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

While it is important that the wire is twisted, it is also important to understand that each individual wire has a film coating (magnet wire) which insulates it from all the other wires in the group. Yes, each wire should take a position on the outer portion of the twist and not remain buried such as that of a concentric strand where 6 wires are stranded around the seventh wire used as a core. In this meaning, a true litz would not be a 6 around one construction. Usually litz wires take on a strand construction such as 3 x or 5 x construction. For this example, if you need 105 strands, you would twist as 5x21. 5 groups of 21 wires.

Gobbledegook?

Anyone care to guess what this means?

Litz wire is one kind of stranded wire, but in this case possible material fatigue with its associated danger of complete wire breakage is not a reason for its use.

--Light current 02:45, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

They mean it's not braided in order to take a tensile load like a multiple element steel cable is. MJ Brinkmann 21 June 2006

They're saying that stranded wire is often selected for applications where material fatigue would be an issue; but with Litz wire, stranded wire is selected to increase conductor surface area.

Graph

A chart or graph showing the effective conductor size or relative ampacities as a function of frequency might be helpful. I haven't been able to find anything like that on line, though. Maybe the people who edit the Skin effect page might know where to look? --W0lfie 22:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Recent edits

Two other problems with the recent edits:

• The intro describes skin effect in detail but says little about litz wire. It would be better to describe litz wire in the intro and link to the article on skin effect.
• Terman expression: Pointless to provide that formula without enough detail for anyone to use the formula. It would be better to just say "Terman provides a formula but it's too complicated to present here.

Ccrrccrr (talk) 03:56, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

The Terman expression

The formula is not widely available because the reference and its citations are very old. It does little good to point to an expression that is almost impossible to find. The provided expression covered the desirable operating range of litz wire.

Image

Having a schematic picture at the beginning of the article looks nice. However, I fear that it is leaving a wrong impression: One sees a just a bunch of parallel wires. Maybe it's better to not show this picture (unless someone creates a modified version, in which you can see that the thin wires are twisted)? 130.83.197.163 (talk) 14:19, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree. We have a huge picture there at the top of the article, and that simply is not litz wire! I will look to see if I can find a suitable image. CosineKitty (talk) 17:04, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! I agree that the image there now is at best not very helpful.Ccrrccrr (talk) 18:27, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I substituted a photograph from wiki commons, hope it helps. Removed diagram requests. Egmason (talk) 02:43, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Tinsel wire v litz wire

Litz wire does not always have a core. Litz strands are insulated. Litz strands are permuted. Litz wire is made from round wire. Although litz wire is stranded and therefore more flexible, that is not a fundamental goal of litz wire. Any similarity to tinsel wire is superficial. A see also to tinsel wire does not aid the understanding of litz wire. Glrx (talk) 21:13, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Of course it's superficial, that's why it just belongs under the See alsos.

Why are you claiming that the unrelated Solid wire & Twisted pair belong under the See also list, yet tinsel wire doesn't? Andy Dingley (talk) 21:26, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Superficial does not imply relevant. I did not claim other see also links were relevant. I was going to delete twisted pair but got distracted. Glrx (talk) 22:01, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

"Distracted"?! You were focussed enough to twice revert two different editors, and to post a diatribe demanding that other editors refute your consensus of one. Yet you're happy to leave most of the terms behind, even though they're already linked in the intro, and the other terms that have far less similarity to Litz. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:35, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

skin depth discrepancy

I am confused by the two sections in quotes below. First skin effect is explained, with the rational that a conductor should be at least 1 skin depth to minimize conductive losses. Then moving on to Litz wire, it states each strand is "less than a skin-depth, so an individual strand does not suffer an appreciable skin effect loss."

I was reviewing this article to have a better design understanding of the strand diameter used for Litz wire, and I do not see the consistency in the article.

• • • • • • • • Article Excerpt *********************

Round conductors larger than a few skin depths don't conduct much current near their axis, so the central material isn't used effectively. When larger area conductors are needed, measures are taken to reduce skin effect. One method is the use of a hollow pipe with a "conducting wall with a thickness approximately that of the skin-depth at intended frequency." ... "Each thin conductor is less than a skin-depth, so an individual strand does not suffer an appreciable skin effect loss." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.155.108.190 (talk) 16:41, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Your "rational[e] that a conductor should be at least 1 skin depth to minimize conductive losses" is an incorrect summary. For good performance, the conductors should be less than a skin depth so all the copper is a used for conduction. When the diameter is many skin depths, the interior space is not used. Glrx (talk) 21:31, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Remove ?

WWVB transmitting station

NIST uses litz wire in the time code broadcasting station WWVB. The station transmits on 60 kHz. The litz wire consists of 6075 strands of #36 (0.127 mm) magnet wire in a cable ¾ inch (19 mm) in diameter. Litz wire is used in an impressive variable inductor. (Hansen & Gish 1995)

This seems utterly obscure, and in addition, I can't tell what the point is. Why not remove it? 178.39.122.125 (talk) 16:39, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Why not leave it? Its obscurity is what makes it such a remarkable example of an application for very large diameter Litz wire. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:56, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

• Keep. WWVB's 70 kW ERP is an extreme (and therefore interesting) example of Litz wire. Glrx (talk) 04:28, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Litz wire. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110714141635/http://www.mwswire.com/litzmain.htm to http://www.mwswire.com/litzmain.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100416073659/http://www.wiretron.com/litz.html to http://www.wiretron.com/litz.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:18, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

I would like to provide an update for an External link that was archived. Can we please unarchive that External link and change it from http://www.mwswire.com/litzmain.htm to https://mwswire.com/litz-wire/

That content has been updated recently and should be more relevant + current than the archived content. Thanks! Searlecg (talk) 00:31, 25 July 2024 (UTC)