On Tue, 09 Dec 2003 09:19:23 -0800, Bill Turner
wrote:

Perhaps an example will make it clear.

Suppose you have a coil which measures 1 uH at 1 MHz. It is known to
have a self-resonant (parallel) frequency of 100 MHz.

You measure its reactance at 1 MHz using the formula X=2*pi*F and find
it to be 6.28 ohms.
At 2 MHz you find it to be 12.56 ohms.
At 10 MHz you find it to be 62.8 ohms.
So far the reactance is changing linearly with respect to frequency.
(Actually it is not perfectly linear, but the difference at these
frequencies is small and probably would not be observed with run of the
mill test equipment.)

But, as you approach 100 MHz, you find the change is obviously no longer
linear.
At 95 MHz you would expect the reactance to be 6.28*95=596.6 ohms, but
much to your surprise, it measures 1000 ohms.
At 99 MHz, instead of the expected 6.28*99=621.72 ohms, it measures
50,000 ohms!!

All the above is perfectly normal and easily observable.

My point is that when a coil measures 50,000 ohms at 99 MHz, its
inductance HAS TO BE L=X/(2*pi*F), or 50,000/(6.28*99)=80.4 uH!

This is not an illusion. If you have an inductance meter which uses 99
MHz as a test frequency, it WILL MEASURE 80.4 uH.

And therefore, I maintain that inductance DOES vary with frequency.

How can it be otherwise?

Measurement errors? I don't know enough about your way of working to
say. But thanks for giving your worked example. It'll no doubt help to
pin down the exact area of disagreement between us.

--

"I expect history will be kind to me, since I intend to write it."
- Winston Churchill