Talk:Choke (electronics)

Pictures or diagrams

Can we get some pictures or diagrams? --66.37.246.163 19:41, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Merge 2007

It may not be a good idea to merge the choke article with the ferrite bead article. From what I understand, a choke can consist of a ferrite bead, but it could also simply be an inductor. The difference is that a ferrite bead has a real component in addition to a reactive component at high frequencies, whereas an inductor is (theoretically) purely reactive.

I agree. However, both of these articles need cleanup. See my comment on Talk:Ferrite bead for a list of related articles. This notice has been in both pages for too long. As I don't think merging is appropriate, I'm going to remove the notice, and look for a project page appropriate for a cleanup request. --ssd 04:19, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Merge 2010

This article needs to be merged into "inductor"! A choke is an identical and somewhat archaic term for an inductor. It is what "condenser" is to "capacitor". Please merge the content into "inductor" and provide a redirect. 71.129.86.9 (talk) 20:11, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Only Radio

The article focuses on their use in radio and audio circuits. I've seen these things used in computer cables, including data and video monitors. Should the article mention non-radio/audio uses? 206.53.197.12 (talk) 23:27, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Solid-state choke

The article does not mention solid-state chokes. What are these? -- Frap (talk) 17:10, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Solid state chokes are mentioned, but the reference is nonsense. It provides no useful information and is fatally flawed. In electronics, a gyrator is the closest to an inductor, but these have limited application and are not usable for high currents.

A couple of websites refer to capacitance multiplier circuits as "solid state chokes" but this is not true either - they are capacitance multipliers. All in all, a very disappointing entry on all counts. (RodE)

211.30.251.62 (talk) 13:08, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

some of this might be from MSI's new computer products which use "solid state chokes." It seems these are what some SMD chokes are called by one chinese manufacturer. They seem to be a specially formed powdered-iron core that also encases a normal copper coil. I suspect the real benefit is the acoustic properties and that the claim here on wikipedia is untrue. They might be refering to the choke as "solid state" because the entire interior is solid, not because it makes use of semiconductors or is fundamentally different than other types of inductors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.130.9.71 (talk) 03:04, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Whatever is intended, is completely unclear. Since it is also unsupported by any reference, I have deleted the section. If anyone can dig up anything more substantial with references, then feel free to add it. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 12:22, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Common mode choke

The description either isn't right or ambiguous.

The picture caption says,

"A typical common-mode choke configuration. Noise is induced equally on both lines (V1 = V2). This causes current (I1 and I2) to pass through the choke, which generates two opposing magnetic fields, cancelling the noise"

This is not correct. I1 and I2 are obviously the noise currents. They generate two magnetic fields that are in the same direction as each other. The choke thus acts as an inductor presenting a high impedance to the noise signal. The load current flows in opposite directions through the two windings which produces two opposing magnetic fields which cancel each other. The choke thus does not act as an inductor to the load current and presents only the winding resistance. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 12:18, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

In fact reviewing the reference given, supports my view and not the caption as written. Reworded. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 12:11, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Let's tear this puppy down

I'm was thinking much of this article should be moved to inductor also, as mentioned above, however the common mode choke is still common terminology.  I'm hesitant to move common mode choke to the inductor article as it is already large.  I think we should move everything unique outside of common mode choke to inductor(which should not be much) and leave only the common mode information here; change the title to Common mode choke; and list it in disambiguation that way.  All other chokes will point to inductor.  I will put it on my to-do list or someone else can tackle it.  Thanks for the fixes, DieSwartzPunkt.  I think we still need more information on common mode choke, however, to make this a worthwhile article.   :- ) Don 04:47, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

• I’d support merging the general choke-a.k.a.-inductor stuff to Inductor. Then WP:move this page to Common-mode choke; these seem a bit too transformery to be considered simple inductors anyway. However I don’t see any need for WP:disambiguation; people don’t specifically mean a common-mode choke if they just use the term choke do they?. Vadmium (talk, contribs) 09:19, 24 January 2013 (UTC).

Comments on the article

1. I don't quite like the way a choke and an inductor are explained. I think the description should be revised although I also agree with some people on this page that inductor and choke are really interchangeable names for the same thing. I have designed LC output filters for DC/DC converters and always called L an inductor. However, my coworker who has been in the business for 30 years calls the same thing a choke.

2. "A major use in the past was in power supplies to produce direct current (DC), where they were used in conjunction with large electrolytic capacitors as filters to remove the alternating current (AC) ripple at the output of rectifiers."

I disagree with the statement since chokes are still used in power supplies and they tend to reduce voltage ripple.

3. "A rectifier circuit designed for a choke-input filter may produce too much DC output voltage and subject the rectifier and filter capacitors to excessive in-rush and ripple currents if the inductor is removed."

The sentence should be rephrased. It just doesn't present the idea well.

4. "However, modern electrolytic capacitors with high ripple current ratings, and voltage regulators that remove more power supply ripple than chokes could, have eliminated heavy, bulky chokes from mains frequency power supplies."

This sentence needs to be revised. The punctuation is improper and the meaning is vague.

ICE77 (talk) 19:54, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

5. "They are commonly found in direct-current motor controllers to produce direct current (DC), where they were used in conjunction with large electrolytic capacitors to remove the voltage ripple (AC) at the output DC."

This is confused. The primary use of chokes in DC motor controllers is/was to improve power factor and crest factor by increasing the motor armature inductance and so prolonging the thyristor firing period on each half-cycle. The same reasoning applies to the use of choke-input filters in DC rectifier circuits: improves efficiency and voltage regulation and reduces stress on components by prolonging rectifier conduction period. Back in the day they were an expensive option for a high-quality power supply. In these days of switch-mode power supplies and controllers, they perform this function almost universally, especially needed as conduction times are so much shorter, although the chokes themselves are much smaller and cheaper due to the higher frequencies used.

Puposet (talk) 16:45, 17 January 2021 (UTC)