Hello,

I know that for a transformer, it has hysteresis losses and leakage flux.

Will this be the same for the inductor?

So an inductors emf magnitude will be determined not just by it's inductance but also by how much flux is leaked and the hystersis?

Also the inductor current will be determined by the resistance of the inductor, amount resisted by the emf, and the amount drawn by hyseresis losses?

 

Yes, yes, and yes. Also, an inductor core can saturate, causing all kinds of weird things to happen. This is mostly true for ferrous core inductors.

 

So what is "leakage inductance" in just a normal inductor?

At first I was thinking that it would refer to flux from one turn not going through all the turns, but it seems like this would just manifest itself as a lower than expected self-inductance and not as a traditional "leakage" inductance. But my background in power systems is pretty nonexistent.

 

Glad i got that right,
Thanks for the reply

 

I'm still curious about the origin of "leakage inductance" in an inductor. Is it the losses due to things like eddy current heating of the core material?

 

My understanding is that "leakage inductance" is a parasitic inductance in series with the windings of a transformer or coupled inductor. Such inductance would simply add to the normal inductance of a single winding inductor so it would not be considered as a separate inductance. It is not due to eddy currents which are an unrelated parasitic effect.

 

Okay. So hopefully Brownout will see this and expand on his answer. I'd be most interested in learning more.

 

You won't find my definition of inductor leakage inductance in any books, because it's a matter of practical electronics as opposed to theoretical electronics. It is my definition alone. In the vacuum of space, there would be no leakage inductance. However, on a circuit board, in the vicinity of other components, board traces, etc, some of the magnetic flux couples other components, thus subtilely changing the properties of the inductor.

Mostly, I was responding to the question of core losses.

 

Okay. I think I have a better picture of what you were referring to. Thanks.