Induction

Eddy Current Losses in a Transformer

Group Project
Introduction
Induction is a process where an electromotive force (EMF) is generated due to a change in
magnetic flux passing through a conductive loop. This process was first extensively documented
by Michael Faraday in the 1830s. A famous experiment by Faraday had two sets of coils
insulated from each other wrapped around an iron torus. This allowed him to observe induction
and develop the formulas below. Heinrich Lenz was also involved in the formulation of the
theory of induction. (Serway, 2010).
It was observed by Faraday that induced EMF was directly proportional to the rate of change
in flux for a given number of loops of conductor. It was also observed that for a constant rate
of change in magnetic flux that the induced EMF was directly proportional to the number of
conductive loops. (Serway, 2010) These observations form a substantial platform on which a
formula which describes induction can be built.

Where is the induced EMF,

N is the number of conductive loops,
and
is the rate of change in magnetic flux passing through these loops with respect to time.
Although Faraday made this observation as well, Lenz' contribution to the field was to note that
the direction of the induced EMF was such that it would set up a magnetic field so as to oppose
the change in the magnetic flux passing through the coil. For the purposes of the above formula
this means that we need to take a negative sign out the front of the formula to represent this
process. This gives the final formula for characterising induction.

The method by which the flux passing though the conductive loops changes is not limited to
physical processes such as moving a magnet closer or further away from the loops, or even just
changing the angle of the flux incident the coil. It can also be changed by a time varying current
in a nearby conductor (Kane, 1988) .This is because a current traveling through a conductor
produces a magnetic field whose strength and polarity is proportional to the current in the
conductor. Effectively what this means is that if a conductor has a time varying current traveling
through it near another conductor, it can induce a current in this second conductor. This is the

principle (mutual induction) behind transformers (Kane, 1988).

There are several important considerations in transformer design. If these considerations are
taken into proper account then the transformer can be very efficient. Efficiencies in excess
of 98% are often found associated with transformers in industrial use (International Copper
Association, 2011).
The first big consideration when dealing with transformers is selecting a material that will thread
nearly all of the flux from one coil through another coil. If just air is used this is essentially
the same as taking the permeability of free space and the flux will head at the ends (very
roughly speaking) in all directions instead of heading through the other coil. Some materials
have permeabilities much higher than free space. Steel, for example has a relative (to free
space) permeability of 100. (Nave, 2011) Almost like electricity, the flux will seek the path of
highest permeability (lowest resistance). This means that the vast majority of flux will thread the
steel core, rather than just head out (Nave 2011). This consideration is used when designing
transformers. So transformers are constructed with cores made of a material with a high
permeability so that as much flux as possible threads from one coil through the other and often
the choice is something like steel.
There is a problem with simply using a steel bar as a core. As mentioned above a change in
flux threading a conductor, with respect to time, induces and EMF and hence a current in the
conductor. This is not just limited to coils, but can also happen in the core. What this means is
that the EMF induced by the changing current in the coils will cause currents to form in the core.
These currents are called eddy currents (Serway, 2011). Now there will be some small amount
of electrical resistance in a core made of just pure steel and consequently these currents will
dissipate energy via resistive losses (Kane, 1988). This can be overcome by designing a core
with a high permeability but with a low conductivity and certain materials, such as amorphous
metals (discussed further in the discussion) have these properties. A more traditional method of
reducing eddy currents (used in many home appliances) is to place non-conductive laminations
between sheets of metal (Elliot, 2011). This keeps the high permeability of the metal, while
restricting eddy currents to a much smaller size (introduction figure 1) and hence limiting losses
to eddy currents.
Hypothsis
This effect should be observable in first hand investigations and forms the basis of this
experiment's hypothesis, which is that core materials with high conductivity, but no laminations
will experience greater losses than those with laminations.

Introduction Figure 1

Aim
The aim of this project is to investigate the dissipation of power in a transformer due to eddy
currents. This will lead to the investigation of effect of different using different core materials and
then lead on to investigate possible ways to improve upon current transformer design.

Materials and Procedure

Required Materials
Item

Quantity

Notes

Voltmeter

This can actually just be a

multimeter as long as it has
reasonable accuracy for AC
voltage in the 12V range.

Ammeter

This can actually just be a

multimeter as long as it has
reasonable accuracy for
AC current. Note that many
multimeters don't measure
AC current.

Transformer coils

The ratio of coils does not

really matter because power
is being measured, but for
this experiment a ratio of 1:1
was used.

Steel Core

This should be large enough

that it fits snugly inside the
coils. For this experiment
four iron rods were used to
achieve this. Ideally there
should be one bar the same

shape and size as the inside

of the coils.
Laminated Iron Core

This should be large enough

that it fits snugly inside the
coils. For this experiment
such a bar was available and
laminations were spaced
at roughly 1mm intervals
throughout the bar.

Copper Core

This should be large enough

that it fits snugly inside the
coils. For this experiment a
round bar which fitted snugly
inside the coils was found,
however it did not fill the
entire inside as the inside of
the coils were in the shape of
a square.

Aluminium Core

This should be large enough

that it fits snugly inside the
coils. For this experiment a
round bar which fitted snugly
inside the coils was found,
however it did not fill the
entire inside as the inside of
the coils were in the shape of
a square.

Laminated Iron Horseshoe

This should be a laminated

iron core in a horseshoe
configuration. For this
experiment such a core was
available and laminations
were spaced at roughly 1mm
intervals throughout the core.
This horseshoe core was of
such a shape that it matched
up nicely with the laminated
iron core to form a closed
loop.

Wires

There should be enough

For this experiment banana

wires to complete the

hookups required, and

hown, in Method Figure 1.

plug leads were used as all

the other equipment accepted
these leads.

12 AC Source

This should be able to deliver

in excess of 5amps of current
as some configurations may
draw this much current on
the primary coil.

Resistor

This may just be a

rheostat but it should
be able to handle fair
high powers (5W+) as
some
configurations may provide
that much power. The
benefit if a rheostat is that
different power resistances
can be used so that the
voltage and current across
and passing through the
coils can be changed. (The
power on each side should
stay more or less the same
however).

Procedure
1. The experiment needs to be setup such that the voltage across and the current traveling
though each coil can be measured. This should be done as shown in method figure 1. Seeing
as in the experiment performed, multimeters were used as AC ammeters, care had to be
taken to not to blow the fuses on the multimeters. Particular care needs to be taken on the
primary side (the side connected to the AC power source) where the currents are quite often
large (several amps). This can be done by selecting the correct range on the multimeter.
2. After the circuit is configured the coils should be "warmed up" so that resistive losses can be
discounted from comparisons. This can be done by simply turning on the power supply with no
core between the coils and letting one of the coils warm up. Then swap the coils and repeat. As
long as the experiments are performed at a reasonable pace the coils should stay consistently
warm throughout the experiment. A key point to note here is the aim is to get the coils "warm",
not hot. At any point during the experiment should the coils get too hot to hold by hand then
they are too hot and the experiment should be paused until the coils cool down. The point of
this step is to try and warm up the coils so that the first measurements don't have less resistive
losses than the other ones so the aim should be to keep the temperature consistent throughout
the experiment.

A safety note here is that the experiment's safety could be increased by using a normally open
momentary switch in series with the primary coil. This means that the coils could not overheat
accidentally by leaving the power supply on.
3. After these initial preparations have been completed then start by placing the laminated iron
core through the coils and keep the coils right next to each other. Turn on the power supply
and note down the voltage and current on the primary and secondary side. This can be
used to calculate the power for each side by P=IV. Turn off the power supply and change
the setting on the rheostat (if using one), turn on the power supply and take down a new set of
measurements. Do this until three sets of results have been obtained. Repeat for all the different
cores available.
4. When dealing with core with a lower permeability it may be that the current and voltage
on the secondary side are too small to measure with the range used for cores with higher
permeabilities. If possible change the range on the multimeters to pick up these smaller values.
5. A set of measurements for an air core should also be taken this is done by simply placing the
coils right next to each other but with no core threading through each coil.
6. A set of measurements for a closed core can also be taken by using the laminated horseshoe
and laminated iron bar and forming a closed loop with the coils on either side.
7. The results collected can then be used to calculate efficiencies for each configuration.

Method Figure 1

Results
High
Permitivity
Cores

Primary
Voltage (V)
0.05

Primary
Current (A)
0.005

Primary
Power
(W)

Secondary
Voltage (V)
0.05

Secondary
Current (A)
0.005

Secondar
y Power
(W)

Efficiency
(%)

Laminated
Open
Horseshoe

12.2

1.39

16.87
0.49

1.7

0.37

0.581
0.13

3.46
0.876

Laminated
Closed
Horseshoe

12.3

0.74

9.06 0.49

4.3

0.58

2.50 0.26

27.8 4.39

Steel Bar

11.8

1.83

21.6 0.92

3.7

0.50

1.76 0.22

8.10 1.36

Laminated
Core
Straight

11.9

2.07

25.6 0.79

2.8

2.87

0.8 0.22

3.22
0.985

Low
Permitivity
Cores

Primary
Voltage (V)
0.05

Primary
Current (A)
0.005

Primary
Power (W)

Secondary
Voltage (V)
0.05

Secondary
Current
(mA)
0.5

Secondary
Power
(mW)

Efficiency
(%)

Aluminum
Bar

11.2

4.12

45.97
0.91

0.1

45

6.16 3.4

1.3 x 10-2
7.7 x 10-3

Copper Bar

11.2

3.92

43.73
1.03

0.1

42

4.15 0.97

9.5 x 10-2
2.4 x 10-2

Air

11.1

4.13

45.81
1.05

0.2

28

5.61 0.89

1.2 x 10-1
2.2 x 10-2

*Italicised columns are calculated not measured.

Results Table 1

Error Calculation
Error was taken for the multimeter to be half the least significant figure displayed. As the three
sets of results were averaged in each case (for voltage, current and power), the power error
calculation is the range of powers calculated divided by two.The efficiency error number was
calculated using the primary power percentage error + secondary power percentage error.

Important Comparisons
Obviously because of the large range of results in the above table it is important to select
situations where the conditions were most similar and compare the results for these setups.

Straight Core
These results relate to the configuration shown in the diagram below, where coils were placed
next to each other with the core material traveling trough both coils, but with each end of the
core material "open" (not joined back to the other side).

High
Permeabili
ty Cores

Primary
Voltage (V)
0.05

Primary
Current (A)
0.005

Primary
Power (W)

Secondary
Voltage (V)
0.05

Secondary
Current (A)
0.005

Secondary
Power (W)

Efficiency
(%)

Steel Bar

11.8

1.83

21.6 0.92

3.7

0.50

1.76 0.22

8.10 1.36

Straight
Laminated
Core

11.9

2.07

25.6 0.79

2.8

2.87

0.8 0.22

3.22

0.985

Low
Permeabil
i ty Cores

Primary
Voltage (V)
0.05

Primary
Current (A)
0.005

Primary
Power
(W)

Secondary
Voltage (V)
0.05

Secondary
Current
(mA)
0.5

Secondar
y Power
(mW)

Efficiency
(%)

Aluminum
Bar

11.2

4.12

45.97
0.91

0.1

45

6.16 3.4

1.3 x 10-2
7.7 x 10-3

Copper Bar

11.2

3.92

43.73
1.03

0.1

42

4.15 0.97

9.5 x 10-2
2.4 x 10-2

Air

11.1

4.13

45.81
1.05

0.2

28

5.61 0.89

1.2 x 10-1
2.2 x 10-2

Results Table 2

It should be noted that as expected the laminated core actually did have a higher efficiency than
the core without laminations.
The low permeability cores also produced some interesting results. As expected air performed
the best in terms of efficiency. An unusual result was obtained where aluminium was vastly less
efficient than copper despite having a lower conductivity and a higher permeability.

Results Figure 1

Results Figure 2
Laminated Horseshoe Core
These results correspond to a transformer configuration shown below (with or without the end
bar). The purpose of these results, somewhat tangentially, was to highlight the importance of
threading all (or as much as possible) the flux through the coils of a transformer.

High
Permeabili
ty Cores

Primary
Voltage (V)
0.05

Primary
Current (A)
0.005

Primary
Power
(W)

Secondary
Voltage (V)
0.05

Secondary
Current (A)
0.005

Secondar
y Power
(W)

Efficiency
(%)

Laminated
Open
Horseshoe

12.2

1.39

16.87
0.49

1.7

0.37

0.581
0.13

3.46

0.876

Laminated
Closed
Horseshoe

12.3

0.74

9.06 0.49

4.3

0.58

2.50 0.26

27.8 4.39

Results Table 3

Results Figure 3

Discussion
The aim of this project was to measure the eddy current losses in a transformer given different
core materials and then, if possible, propose a better core material. This experiment did test
various core materials and the results do show that different transformer configurations do result
in vastly different efficiencies. The results do show the effect of eddy currents but because of
various experimental design issues they really don't provide the platform from which to quantify
theses losses.
If considering a comparable pair of configurations, the "straight laminated iron bar" and "steel
bar", an expected but interesting result can easily be seen in results table 1. The laminated bar
had a higher efficiency than the steel bar with no laminations. This is consistent with the theory
discussed in the introduction which essentially predicts that without the laminations there will be
larger losses due to eddy currents.
The percentage uncertainties for these results were quite large, and there was potential
uncertainty introduced by experimental design. The metals that were used were not necessarily
identical. This can have quite an effect as trace elements can drastically change permeability
(Nave, 2011). Also as noted in the material notes the steel bars were round and did not snugly
fill the inside of the coils, unlike the laminated iron bar. This could mean that different amounts
of flux were threading the coils in each case. This could reduce the efficiency in some cases, as
changing flux not threading the coils could dissipate energy into the environment.
An improvement for this particular source of error and uncertainty would be to select identical
metals to compare. A practical way to do this would be to take strips of iron and form a bar with
conductive paste between them, then take another set of strips, laminate them, then form a
bar out of the laminated strips. This would mean that metals with identical permeabilities would
be being compared and it would be potentially much easier to isolate the losses due to eddy
currents.
Although the experiment yielded the theoretically "correct" results the above improvements
would mean that the experiment was more reliable than the one actually conducted. These
improvements could very likely show an increase in the relative difference between the two
different core materials, further highlighting the losses directly caused by eddy currents.
Both systems were quite inefficient. Commercial and industrial transformers have efficiencies up
in the high nineties (International Copper Association, 2011) while these setups did not get over
10%.This indicates that a large amount of energy was being lost, and unfortunately these very
large losses could come from other sources than eddy currents, especially in the case of the
laminated core. These losses should be considered, not because they caused the wrong result
to be obtained, but because the reduce the certainty of the results and the ability to calculate
losses specifically due to eddy currents.
A possible explanation for the reduction in efficiency could come from experimental design.
As the coils are used for extended periods of time their temperature increases quite markedly
due to resistive heating. This heating reduces the conductivity of the coils. The order that the

measurements were taken, laminated then not laminated or vica versa This is because more
energy would be lost due to resistance rather than due to eddy currents. This explanation is
unlikely to have distorted the relative efficiencies of each setup. This is because the coils heated
up during preliminary testing, before any results were taken down, and it is unlikely, although
not impossible, that one set of measurements had substantially more resistive losses than
another.
One possible fix for the problem outlined above could be done by characterising the sensitivity
of the resistivity of the coil material to the temperature and then measure the temperature of
the coils during eddy current measurements to calculate, and hence compensate for, resistive
losses. Specifically for this case an easy way to measure the coil's sensitivity to temperature
changes would be to measure the resistance of the coil at room temperature (20 degrees)
and then heat the coils up until they reached some chosen temperature, say 80 degrees and
then remeasure their resistance. Assuming the relationship is linear this would allow for the
calculation of the resistance of the coil at a given temperature and hence the magnitude of the
resistive losses expected in the coil during eddy current measurements. This could be used to
remove these losses and further isolate eddy current losses.
There are another set of results that are worth looking at. They are the ones which are from
selecting cores with low permeabilities as presented in results table 2 and results figure 2. The
results here are also consistent with theory, for the most part. The air core, as shown in results
figure 2, has the highest efficiency.
This is to be expected as they all have more or less the same permeability (see discussion
table 1) but air is by far the least conductive of the set. This would suggest that air should not
have eddy current while the other two should. This is actually exactly what the results suggest
happened.
There is a counter intuative result with the aluminium. Aluminium is slightly less conductive than
copper (so there should be fewer eddy currents) and it has a slightly higher permeability than
copper (so more flux should be threading the coils and less being lost to other elements in the
environment). This is not reflected in the result. There is possible explanation for this however.
As noted in the materials section above the experiment was conducted with not much aluminum
going through each core. (See discussion figure 1 for an image) It is quite possible that this
difference acted to affect the experiment but it is still not clear why it didn't have a result similar
to air. The reason a comparison to air, in the case should be made is because the limiting case
of less aluminium would be air so one would expect that if there was less aluminium then it
would behave more like air.
The way to minimise this uncertainty would be to get a square rod of aluminium to fit inside the
coils. The same should likewise be done for the other materials should be conducted to give a
more reliable set of results.

Discussion Figure 1
Material

Relative Permeability (relative to free

space)

Air

1.00000037 (Cullity, 2008)

Copper

0.999994 (Clarke, 2008)

Aluminium

1.000022 (Clarke, 2008)

Material

Conductivity (Sim)

Air

5 x 10-15 (Pawar, 2009)

Copper

5.96 x 107 (Grifiths, 1999)

Aluminium

3.5 x 107 (Serway, 1998)

Discussion Table 1

An aditional source of uncertainty which affected almost all of the results was the fact that for
many measurements the multimeters were giving results at the edge of their measurement
range. This means that there was a higher percentage uncertainty for several results such as
for the aluminium bar. Ideally more accurate multimeters should be used to get more accurate
results and greatly increase the certainty in the results.
Another set of results to look at is the closed and open horseshoe configuration show in results
table 3 and results figure 3. While this configuration does not actually further the isolation of
eddy currents it does show the importance of getting the flux to thread through both coils when
designing efficient transformers. Huge efficiency gains were had by closing the horseshoe
and ""forcing" the flux to thread each coil. Interestingly even after closing the flux loop the
efficiency was still not over 50%. Commercial transformers, as already noted get much higher
efficiencies.
Although not all other sources of inefficiency in the setups in this experiment have been isolated
it is possible to see that there is a reduction in efficiency due to eddy currents. In other word

power is being consumed by eddy currents instead of being transferred to the secondary coil.
With the comparison between the steel bar and the laminated iron core there is a roughly 3%
(50% relative) reduction in efficiency with some of it attributable to eddy currents. In the case
of air - copper there is a roughly 0.02% (10% relative) reduction in efficiency. In this case, for
these particular transformer coils, with a conductive core at least 10% of losses are probably
attributable to eddy currents. Because of experimental limitation there is not much certainty in
these numbers however. Most of this uncertainty comes from experimental limitations such as
not having snugly fitting cores, rather than measurement uncertainties which are relatively small
as can be seen in the results charts above.
In terms of designing a transformer with a
better core, research has focused on
selecting cores with a high permeability
but low conductivity. This is done to
minimise eddy currents, as discussed in
the introduction. In common transformers
used around the home this is often done
with "E" type transformers where the
primary and secondary coils are wrapped
around the middle "leg" of the E and the
flux is threaded around using the other
legs with a connecting bar at one end
(Elliot, 2001). This is shown in diagram to the right.
This is efficient because it keeps the eddy currents small while allowing the magnetic flux to be
threaded through each coil. The coils are also placed in close proximity, sometimes on top of
each other, to maximise flux threading each coil.
There is ongoing industrial research and practical implementation of cores made of amorphous
metal. This metallic material has the property that it has a high permeability while having a
relatively low conductivity. This is ideal in the case of transformers as it allows almost all of the
flux to be threaded through each coil and it also also prevents large eddy currents from forming
and causing losses (General Electric Company, 2011).
Hysteresis losses are another type of loss that can occur because of the core material but
these losses are most prevalent at high frequencies, much higher than the 50Hz used in the
above experiment. These losses are also reduced by selecting an amorphous metal core. North
American wind farms are currently making extensive use of these cores because they allow for
the production of extremely efficient transformers. (General Electric Company, 2011).

Conclusion
This experiment aimed to isolate losses due to eddy current. While quantitative value of the
losses could not be reliably determined because of experimental limitations, the losses could
be qualitatively isolated. By this it is meant that losses, which were predicted by theory were
observed in the results as theoretically predicted, but these losses were not consistent enough

to quantify. Research into secondary sources provided more information on how a transformer
core may be selected or designed to minimise eddy current losses and maximise efficiency was
conducted. On the whole this experiment was largely successful given the limited resources
available.

References
Clarke, R. 2008, "Magnetic properties of materials", University Of Surrey [online] available at
http://info.ee.surrey.ac.uk/Workshop/advice/coils/mu/
Cullity B. D & Graham C. D. 2008, Introduction to Magnetic Materials, Wiley IEEE Press, New
Jersey
Elliot, R. 2001, "Transformers - The Basics (Section 1)", Elliott Sound Products [online] available
at http://sound.westhost.com/xfmr.htm
General Electric Company (Producer). "Prolec GE High-Efficiency Transformers Chosen
for North American Wind Farms", General Electric Company [online] available at http://
www.genewscenter.com/content/detail.aspx?releaseid=3635&newsareaid=2
International Copper Association 2011, "Higher Efficiency Copper-Wound Transformers
Save Energy and Dollars", International Copper Association [online] available at http://
www.copperinfo.com/energy/transformers.save.html
Kane, W.M. & Sternheim, M.M. 1988, Physics Third Eddition, John Wiley & Sons, Singapore.
Nave, C. R. 2011, "Magnetic Susceptibilities of Paramagnetic and Diamagnetic Materials at
20C", Georgia State University [online] available at http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/
tables/magprop.html
Pawar, S. D. & Murugavel, P. & Lal, D. M. 2009, "Effect of relative humidity and sea level
pressure on electrical conductivity of air over Indian Ocean". Journal of Geophysical Research
114
Serway, R.A. & Jewett, J.W. 2010, Physics for Scientists and Engineers with Modern Physics
eighth eddition, Brooks / Cole Cengage Learning, California.
Serway, R. A. (1998). Principles of Physics (2nd ed), Brooks / Cole, Texas

Acknowledgements
We would like to acknowledge and thank the demonstrators for their help in carrying out this
experiment.
We would like to acknowledge and thank the lab staff for their help sourcing equipment and
materials for this experiment.
We would like to acknowledge each other's hard work in carrying out this experiment.

Apendix
Below is a table of raw results for many configurations tested.
Config

Vp

Ip

Pp

Vs

Is

Ps

Laminated

12.1

1.4

16.94

1.5

0.4

0.60

3.54%

Open
Horseshoe

12.2

1.34

16.35

2.6

0.27

0.70

4.29%

12.2

1.42

17.32

0.44

0.44

2.54%

Closed
Horseshoe

12.3

0.71

8.73

4.8

0.56

2.69

30.78%

Laminated

12.3

0.79

9.72

3.4

0.64

2.18

22.39%

Closed
Horseshoe

12.3

0.71

8.73

4.8

0.55

2.64

30.23%

Aluminium

11.1

4.23

46.95

0.2

5.00E-02

0.01

0.0213%

11.2

4.09

45.81

0.1

3.13E-02

0.00

0.0068%

11.2

4.03

45.14

0.1

5.36E-02

0.01

0.0119%

11.1

4.04

44.84

0.1

4.20E-02

0.00

0.0094%

11.2

3.89

43.57

0.1

5.10E-02

0.01

0.0117%

11.2

3.82

42.78

0.1

3.16E-02

0.00

0.0074%

Copper

Air

Laminated
Core Straight

Steel

11.1

4.11

45.62

0.2

3.04E-02

0.01

0.0133%

11.1

4.23

46.95

0.2

3.13E-02

0.01

0.0133%

11.1

4.04

44.84

0.2

2.24E-02

0.00

0.0100%

12

1.97

23.64

2.6

2.00E-01

0.52

2.20%

11.9

2.12

25.23

2.9

3.20E-01

0.93

3.68%

11.9

2.11

25.11

2.8

3.40E-01

0.95

3.79%

12

1.79

21.48

3.9

4.00E-01

1.56

7.26%

11.9

1.91

22.73

2.9

6.90E-01

2.00

8.80%

11.6

1.8

20.88

4.2

4.10E-01

1.72

8.25%

Note the follwing results have no uncertainties. They were conducted with a resistor
hooked up at 250hm for the load.

Copper Round
Bar

10.5

3.92

41.16

0.2

0.0133

0.00266

0.0064625
85

Neodymnian
Magnet Iron backed

10.7

3.54

37.878

1.3

0.0644

0.08372

0.2210253
97

Neodymnian
Magnet Tube
Iron Magnet Bars

10.5

3.9

40.95

0.4

0.0226

0.00904

0.0220757
02

10.7

3.59

38.413

0.05

0.05

0.1301642
67

Iron Bar Homebrew

Horseshoe Opposite Sides

12.1

0.74

8.954

5.2

0.11

0.572

6.3882063
88

Iron Bar Homebrew

Horseshoe Same Side

12

0.78

9.36

7.2

0.26

1.872

20

Iron Bar Homebrew with

tissue laminations

12.1

0.86

10.406

6.4

0.23

1.472

14.145685
18

Pole on a

12.2

0.83

10.126

6.5

0.23

1.495

14.763973

laminated
horseshone
Double
Horseshoe Laminated Next
to each other

93
12.2

0.51

6.222

8.8

0.33

2.904

46.673095
47