Kevin Aylward wrote:
ehsjr wrote:


What you are suggesting is a good issue to keep in mind for
the real
world (and one I had overlooked).
However, what you have actually said is not true.
An inductance - a specific element we both referred to as L -
will not
saturate.

You mentioned the behavior of L and C, which refers to the


Inductors saturate. Inductance doesn't.

Behavior refers to the way the component performs.
Inductance as a property - see the definition, #1 - does not
perform or saturate. Inductance as a component - see the
definition, #2 - performs, and can saturate.

snip


Since Floyd was referring to a definition of inductance as a property
not as a circuit element, his statement is indeed correct. Introducing
*another* alternative definition doesn't change what the statement was
actually referring to. It just complicates things by having to introduce
another word for the property of inductance to distinguish it from a
circuit element sometimes referred to as "inductance". Your trying to
win an argument by slight of hand, i.e. changing word meanings on the
fly.


Had you not written the above, my response would be this paragraph:
Agreed - it is sloppy English (as you mention at the bottom of
your post) to use definitions that indicate that "inductance" is
both a property and a circuit element and to use the word
"inductance" to mean both simultaneously. It would be better to
state that one was talking about the component (if that's what he
was talking about) or the property, if that was what he meant.

As to trying to win the argument by slight of hand - and
changing the meaning of the word on the fly, what a crock!
I posted the definition "inductance" the first time I used
it in this discussion, and have been consistent throughout
in using it with reference to which part of the definition
applied. I don't give a s*** about winning an argument, but
I will not brook people telling me I meant something I did
not.

You are mistaken about this: " Introducing *another* alternative
definition". There was no other definition posted in this
discussion, prior to my post. I posted the first, and *only*
definition (prior to your post) in this discussion, and have
consistently talked about the component. And I stated why I
was talking about the component. The poster to whom I responded
initially attributed "behavior" to L. Inductance as a property
doesn't "behave", it simply exists. It is the component that
possesses the property of inductance that "behaves".

And if you want to talk about slight of hand, and changing
the meaning of words thereby, how about the first url you
posted below for the definition of "inductance"? It defines
"inductance unit" not "inductance". If you use that site to
define "inductance", you will see that it defines it as both
a property and a circuit element. Let me state clearly that
in my opinion it was not slight of hand on your part. I believe
it was an honest mistake. And I'll attribute your apparent
opinion that an "electrical device" in the definition found at
the third url site you posted does not count as a "circuit
element" to another mistake. That definition starts with:
"inductance
A noun
1 inductor, inductance
an electrical device that introduces inductance into
a circuit
"

If I misunderstand your opinion, and you do think that an
electrical device fits as a "circuit element" as used in the
definition of inductance I posted, then your statement further
down in your post "None of which refer to inductance as a circuit
element" is misleading.

It would be easy to call that "slight of hand". I would rather
think of those as mistakes with an innocent motive.

All this misses the point, which was the analysis of
an R,L,C load impedance in the presence of both a DC voltage
and an AC signal. The answer given seemed to indicate that
you analyze the circuit for AC and for DC separately.

If you don't consider saturation, your analysis could be wrong.
Neither the AC signal by itself, nor the DC voltage by itself,
might cause a current at or over the saturation point, if
there is one. But combined, the possibility exists that
saturation might occur. The DC voltage alone might cause
a current at or over Isat, while the AC signal might result in
currents below Isat. The point being that when analyzing
the circuit in the presence of an AC signal, you must
at the same time consider the DC voltage. Separate analysis
could result in the wrong answer.

Ed





What I referred to is a circuit element that can saturate, as per
the definition for inductance.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=inductance
"1. The property of an electric circuit by which an
electromotive force is induced in it as the result of a changing
magnetic flux.
2. A circuit element, typically a conducting coil, in which
electromotive force is generated by electromagnetic induction."



My view is that the dictionary is misleading. This seems to be a case
where English has been replaced by common, but poor use of it.

While I agree, that the phrases such as "the circuit contains a
capacitor and an inductance" are used, I have always considered this to
be sloppy English.

A little search on "definition of inductance" came up with

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/inductance%20unit

http://encyclopedia.laborlawtalk.com/Inductance

http://www.wordreference.com/definition/inductance

http://www.allwords.com/word-inductance.html

None of which refer to inductance as a circuit element. Sure, some other
references have the two definitions, but its still poor style by my
book. One needs to distinguish between the circuit element itself
(inductor) and its properties (inductance). Using the same word for
both, is confusing.

My view is that dictionaries just get confused up when they try to
include technical terms. If you look in just about any technical/physics
reference, inductance is defined simply as a *property* of a component
named an inductor.

Like, if we say "there is a capacitance in the circuit", when we are
referring to the capacitor itself, it just sounds like the person is an
amateur. Its almost as bad as "current flow".

So, as far as making oneself clearly understood in electrical
engineering, one should, restrict to terms such as capacitors having
capacitance and inductors having inductance. This discussion itself is
proof enogh why this should be the case.

Kevin Aylward

http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.