174.118.142.187 (talk) |
→Close gaps to get to 'Equivalent circuit' with Heyland factor?: May comment is made in good faith, good faith responses expected in return |
||
Line 466: | Line 466: | ||
::- M is mutual inductance, i is current & L is winding self-inductance |
::- M is mutual inductance, i is current & L is winding self-inductance |
||
::- subscripts 'o', 'k', '1' & '2' are no-load, short-circuit, primary & secondary, respectively. |
::- subscripts 'o', 'k', '1' & '2' are no-load, short-circuit, primary & secondary, respectively. |
||
Where a is equal to winding turn ratio, the 'Equivalent circuit' can then be defined to the way it is now as follows: |
|||
:<math>L_P=L_1-a |
:<math>L_P=L_1-a{M}</math>, primary leakage inductance -> <math>X_P</math>, primary leakage reactance |
||
:<math>L_M=a^2{M}</math>, magnetizing inductance -> <math>X_M</math>, magnetizing reactance. |
:<math>L_M=a^2{M}</math>, magnetizing inductance -> <math>X_M</math>, magnetizing reactance. |
||
:<math>L_S=L_2-a |
:<math>L_S=L_2-a{M}</math>, secondary leakage inductance -> <math>X_S</math>, secondary leakage reactance |
||
The 'Equivalent circuit' can lastly be expressed with all secondary terms referred to the primary as follows: |
The 'Equivalent circuit' can lastly be expressed with all secondary terms referred to the primary as follows: |
||
:<math>L_S^'=a^ |
:<math>L_S^'=a^2L_2-a{M}</math>, secondary leakage inductance -> :<math>X_S^'</math>, secondary leakage reactance |
||
:<math>R_S^'=a^2R_S</math>, secondary resistance referred to primary side |
:<math>R_S^'=a^2R_S</math>, secondary resistance referred to primary side |
||
:<math>V_S^'=aV_S</math>, secondary voltage referred to primary side |
:<math>V_S^'=aV_S</math>, secondary voltage referred to primary side |
||
Line 478: | Line 478: | ||
:Comments?[[User:Cblambert|Cblambert]] ([[User talk:Cblambert|talk]]) 21:06, 21 April 2013 (UTC) |
:Comments?[[User:Cblambert|Cblambert]] ([[User talk:Cblambert|talk]]) 21:06, 21 April 2013 (UTC) |
||
::This is not an engineering text, a place to confuse readers, or a place to show off to the crowd with, it is an encyclopedia. You can add all this gooble-dee-gook techno-babble formulae but I can assure you it will be erased and simplified before too long. Most readers could not care less about formulae, they want prose explanations. You know the professor you couldn't wait to get away from? I don't place any value about hit counts similar to the masses slowing down to see the dead body at the side of the road? That doesn't make it good. Let's hear about how long readers stayed. [[Special:Contributions/174.118.142.187|174.118.142.187]] ([[User talk:174.118.142.187|talk]]) 22:30, 21 April 2013 (UTC) |
::This is not an engineering text, a place to confuse readers, or a place to show off to the crowd with, it is an encyclopedia. You can add all this gooble-dee-gook techno-babble formulae but I can assure you it will be erased and simplified before too long. Most readers could not care less about formulae, they want prose explanations. You know the professor you couldn't wait to get away from? I don't place any value about hit counts similar to the masses slowing down to see the dead body at the side of the road? That doesn't make it good. Let's hear about how long readers stayed. [[Special:Contributions/174.118.142.187|174.118.142.187]] ([[User talk:174.118.142.187|talk]]) 22:30, 21 April 2013 (UTC) |
||
:::This response is clearly not maybe in good faith. Sour grapes on steroid, so to speek. The response is not worthy of Wikipedia pillars. So I will ignore it. I have made so correction to my initial comment.[[User:Cblambert|Cblambert]] ([[User talk:Cblambert|talk]]) 23:11, 21 April 2013 (UTC) |
Revision as of 23:11, 21 April 2013
![]() | This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||
Copper losses etc.
@Cblambert, do you really think that "lower advantageous resistive conductor circuit losses" is more intelligible than "less power is lost by dissipation in conductor resistance"? I also think it was mistaken to remove "the voltage must be reduced to the voltage required at the user's equipment." The two majopr purposes of transformers (in AC power distribution) are step-up for distribution and step-down to something safe for the user. One is the corollary of the other and should rightly be mentioned here. SpinningSpark 08:09, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
- Did not see this until now. I assume this is not an issue anymore . . .Cblambert (talk) 18:44, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
PRI and SEC
Does anyone, beside the editor trying to edit war this in, think that these abbreviations add anything to the article? SpinningSpark 23:22, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
- no Constant314 (talk) 23:36, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
power converter or just electrical device?
The lede contained the description "A transformer is a power converter that transfers energy..." I reverted the change of User:Wtshymanski, who changed it into "A transformer is an electrical device that transfers energy...", with a cryptic edit summary. I like to understand what is wrong with the more specific classification power converter? I'm not aware of transformers not falling under this classification. Thanks, SchreyP (messages) 23:02, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
- It is a power converter of course, but that is not the essence of what it does and the wikilink is not particularly useful to the reader. If we are going to say that at all, the first sentence of the lede is not the right place. SpinningSpark 23:35, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
- Ok, explanation accepted. Also the edit summary during the second revert by User:Wtshymanski was this time more clear ("revert; give specific type of apparatus instead of hokey redirect...") Thanks, SchreyP (messages) 12:16, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
- Also a "power converter" is only one role a transformer can be used for. They also can be (and frequently are) used to match and isolate and block DC in signal transmission. Plugwash (talk) 11:46, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
- I saw someone preface another article a '. . . a passive electrical device . . .'; maybe this would fit.Cblambert (talk) 07:07, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
- I think the first paragraph could be reworded so that inductive coupling only appears once.Constant314 (talk) 03:23, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
- I agree about eliminating inductive coupling. I saw it again this article and it was '. . . a static device . . .'. Lineman's handbook citation also refers to '. . . a static device . . .', which is why I changed it to '. . . a static electrical device . . .'. It is hard to judge when to act, when to talk . . .CblambertCblambert (talk) 20:05, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
- I think the first paragraph could be reworded so that inductive coupling only appears once.Constant314 (talk) 03:23, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
- I saw someone preface another article a '. . . a passive electrical device . . .'; maybe this would fit.Cblambert (talk) 07:07, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
- Also a "power converter" is only one role a transformer can be used for. They also can be (and frequently are) used to match and isolate and block DC in signal transmission. Plugwash (talk) 11:46, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
- Ok, explanation accepted. Also the edit summary during the second revert by User:Wtshymanski was this time more clear ("revert; give specific type of apparatus instead of hokey redirect...") Thanks, SchreyP (messages) 12:16, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
Equivalent circuit
Having recent had a stab as creating new Steinmetz equivalent circuit section, I have a few problems with Equivalent circuit section.
- Section adds little to the section but laboriously regurgitates already cover content.
- Wording puts the cart before the horse in referring and to the primary. Diagram should accordingly be replaced by
- Transformer equivalent circuit should be linked to rich available historical background.
- Sauce good for the goose Equivalent circuit should be sauce good for the gander Steinmetz equivalent circuit. That is, the two section should be, harmonized because the two are so closely related.
- Any eventual referring of and to the primary should NOT include the ideal transformer. The whole point of equivalent circuits is to simplify things as much as possible. This is what is done in practice:
- Do a transformation looking at everything from the primary side.
- Do another transformation looking at everything fromt the secondary side.
- And so on.
- All self-respecting AC power analysis should preface reactances with the j letter 90 degree rotation operator with good reason.
- Equivalent circuit should inject so realism, rules of thumb, anything to connect the article to transformer practice. For example, like to basic Transformer parameters like impedance and voltage regulation.
And so on and so forth. I welcome any and all comments.Cblambert (talk) 08:03, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
- Link at http://www.electrical4u.com/electrical-transformer/equivalent-circuit-of-transformer.php provides good treatment of earlier comment above, including in terms of needing to look at transformations referred to both primary side and secondary side, which in turn is as done in Steinmetz equivalent circuit.
- Note also that Equivalent circuit needs to clarify that circuit is single-phase presentation valid in steady-state only.
- In Equivalent circuit, what is meant by '. . . Saturation effects cause the relationship between the two to be non-linear, but for simplicity this effect tends to be ignored in most circuit equivalents. . . .'?Cblambert (talk) 21:07, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
- I think it is simpler and easier to understand if the secondary impedances are on the secondary side of the ideal transformer.Constant314 (talk) 11:51, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
- I also think that the inductances should be Lp and Ls, not jXp and jXs. I understand exactly what you mean, but it is too technical. Anyone who understands what you mean does not need to see the explicit use of the j operator and anyone who doesn't will just be confused.Constant314 (talk) 11:56, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
- With all due deference to Proteus, I have sort of come around to the same thinking. As short term fix, I could come up with change to TREQCCT.jpg easily enough but will ponder this for a while more pending more comments. However, transformers and other electrical machines and j concept are collectively probably too important to be ignored in longer term in treatment of related Wikipedia articles. Also, such articles should make clear that sll types of equivalent circuits 'are physically identical and lead to same results' and 'a suitable choice of the transformation is a question of expedience'.Cblambert (talk) 20:12, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
- Delay in showing conversion without j, because of huge problem purging Wiki Commons image. Amazingly, only way to purge cached images of late is by increasing image size to 840px!! It is unclear is this is due to my computer or is a generalized problem. If the the latter, this would be incredible Wiki Commons problem. But anyway here is equivalent proposed new equivalent circuit sans the j.Cblambert (talk) 21:41, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
- Delay in showing conversion without j, because of huge problem purging Wiki Commons image. Amazingly, only way to purge cached images of late is by increasing image size to 840px!! It is unclear is this is due to my computer or is a generalized problem. If the the latter, this would be incredible Wiki Commons problem. But anyway here is equivalent proposed new equivalent circuit sans the j.Cblambert (talk) 21:41, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
- With all due deference to Proteus, I have sort of come around to the same thinking. As short term fix, I could come up with change to TREQCCT.jpg easily enough but will ponder this for a while more pending more comments. However, transformers and other electrical machines and j concept are collectively probably too important to be ignored in longer term in treatment of related Wikipedia articles. Also, such articles should make clear that sll types of equivalent circuits 'are physically identical and lead to same results' and 'a suitable choice of the transformation is a question of expedience'.Cblambert (talk) 20:12, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
- In Equivalent circuit, what is meant by '. . . Saturation effects cause the relationship between the two to be non-linear, but for simplicity this effect tends to be ignored in most circuit equivalents. . . .'?Cblambert (talk) 21:07, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Components or parameters
I think that converting all instances of component to parameter may be a mistake. I prefer that we use the best word in each instance, even if that means we have both components and parameters. Circuits, even equivalent circuits, are composed of components. Even if those components represent parameters of the transformer. Thus, when we talk about R_sub_P we should use the word component. When we talk about its value we can use the word parameter. We can also say that the component represents a parameter of the transformer or that value of a component is the same as a parameter of the transformer.Constant314 (talk) 18:24, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
- I am easy. Component infers something that is a physical, real, which is not the case in a transformer equivalent circuit. Hence, parameter is probably more appropriate . . .?Cblambert (talk) 19:46, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
- I think the elements of equivalent circuits are components even it they are not physical.Constant314 (talk)
- IEEE 112, IEEE Standard Test Procedure for Polyphase Induction Motors and Generators, which makes extensive use of euivalent circuit, makes no mention of 'component' in relation to equivalent circuit but does refer to 'machine parameters of the equivalent circuit' and 'motor parameters have been determined from the no-load and locked-rotor tests'. Only mention of 'component' is in relation to 'component of stray load loss is not available', 'each of the components of the loss', 'various components with stray-load loss', and 'pulsating component of current'. 'Parameter' does seem more appropriate.Cblambert (talk) 01:28, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
- I think the elements of equivalent circuits are components even it they are not physical.Constant314 (talk)
- "Component" is a particularly bad term to use in our field where it invariably refers to a physical item. In network theory we talk about elements which immediately indicates we are talking about idealized abstracted items. Although the elements of an equivalent circuit can often be identified with a physical component, in many cases this is not so and the elements bear no relation to the physical circuit at all. As an example, consider a delta connected three-phase transformer. It is quite straightforward to find an equivalent circuit star connected transformer. However, the windings of this new equivalent circuit cannot be mapped on to the physical windings at all. SpinningSpark 17:41, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
- I suppose the components of a transformer are the iron, the wire, the insulation etc. I would prefer elements over parameters then when discussing the equivalent circuits.Constant314 (talk) 02:13, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
- In connection with AC machine equivalent circuit parlance, the much more usual expression is parameters, which can be verified by a cursory look in IEEE Xplore abstrasts. Also browse through websites such as http://www.electrical4u.com/electrical-transformer/equivalent-circuit-of-transformer.php and http://www.ece.ualberta.ca/~knight/electrical_machines/induction/basics/circuit.html. AC machine equivalent circuit parameters are typically derived from tests whereas implication is from Spinningspark's comment above that element is used for more or less precise circuit abstraction definition purposes. The term component invariably denotes either a smaller, lighter current device or as IEEE 112 suggests some sort of contribution, part to things like 'stray loss', 'current', etc.. Cblambert (talk) 18:49, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
- Another AC machine equivalent circuit usage is treatment by P.L. Alger et al. in 'Induction Machines' section of old Knowlton EE handbook which refers simply to either equivalent circuit 'contants' or 'impedances' throughout, 'impedances' being used as caption in separate impedance circuit diagram along with a long listing of 'Definitions of Equivalent-circuit Constants'. No elements, no parameters, no components. Use of term 'parameter' may have evolve somewhat since. Moral in all this is perhaps that equivalent circuit parameters should be used but as sparingly as possible.Cblambert (talk) 19:42, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
- It seems to me that the items that make up the equivalent circuit are entities that may have parameters but are not parameters. Of course the parameter of an element might be the same as a parameter of the transformer. So I suppose it comes down to careful language. Are you referring to a parameter of the transformer or an element of the equivalent circuit? Anyway, my concerns have been heard. I'm satisfied.Constant314 (talk) 00:22, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
- Another AC machine equivalent circuit usage is treatment by P.L. Alger et al. in 'Induction Machines' section of old Knowlton EE handbook which refers simply to either equivalent circuit 'contants' or 'impedances' throughout, 'impedances' being used as caption in separate impedance circuit diagram along with a long listing of 'Definitions of Equivalent-circuit Constants'. No elements, no parameters, no components. Use of term 'parameter' may have evolve somewhat since. Moral in all this is perhaps that equivalent circuit parameters should be used but as sparingly as possible.Cblambert (talk) 19:42, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
- In connection with AC machine equivalent circuit parlance, the much more usual expression is parameters, which can be verified by a cursory look in IEEE Xplore abstrasts. Also browse through websites such as http://www.electrical4u.com/electrical-transformer/equivalent-circuit-of-transformer.php and http://www.ece.ualberta.ca/~knight/electrical_machines/induction/basics/circuit.html. AC machine equivalent circuit parameters are typically derived from tests whereas implication is from Spinningspark's comment above that element is used for more or less precise circuit abstraction definition purposes. The term component invariably denotes either a smaller, lighter current device or as IEEE 112 suggests some sort of contribution, part to things like 'stray loss', 'current', etc.. Cblambert (talk) 18:49, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
- I suppose the components of a transformer are the iron, the wire, the insulation etc. I would prefer elements over parameters then when discussing the equivalent circuits.Constant314 (talk) 02:13, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
- "Component" is a particularly bad term to use in our field where it invariably refers to a physical item. In network theory we talk about elements which immediately indicates we are talking about idealized abstracted items. Although the elements of an equivalent circuit can often be identified with a physical component, in many cases this is not so and the elements bear no relation to the physical circuit at all. As an example, consider a delta connected three-phase transformer. It is quite straightforward to find an equivalent circuit star connected transformer. However, the windings of this new equivalent circuit cannot be mapped on to the physical windings at all. SpinningSpark 17:41, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Series-looped parameters or just series
I think the construct series-looped sounds like specialty jargon and is confusing. In most cases, if not all, the word series by itself is adequate and more commonly used.Constant314 (talk) 18:30, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
- Here again, I'm easy. Would series loop seem less jarring? We are talking about equivalent circuit so some distinction is needed between shunt leg and the outer loop all around . . .Cblambert (talk) 19:52, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Types?
I was going to start a section on RF transformers but... Should we be expanding this section or collapsing it to include just brief descriptions of transformer types with a link Transformer types for more detail? If we do not the whole thing and details would be a duplicate of the other article. This article has the potential (pun intended) to become huge and very clumbsy. There is a lot of ground to cover, yet, as we break away from just power transformers. This may be a good way to keep some of the article size down. 174.118.142.187 (talk) 03:13, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
- I'd like to see the stuff specific to large industrial and power company transformers moved to its own page.Constant314 (talk) 11:43, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
- I agree. There are way too many signal, RF and weird transformers to lump them all into one article. Perhaps an intro/disambiguation page with transformer basics branching into various articles on power (industrial) transformers (>1 kVA), power supply transformers (<1 kVA), signal, rf, etc.. (or perhaps just small transformers?). Sections and statment could be moved from one to the other if they pertain to another sub-article. There are already a bunch of articles out there that repeat a lot of info. 174.118.142.187 (talk) 16:52, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
- There's parts catalogs out there for details. This article should give general principles and just point at the rest of the types that are made. --Wtshymanski (talk) 18:52, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
- I agree. There are way too many signal, RF and weird transformers to lump them all into one article. Perhaps an intro/disambiguation page with transformer basics branching into various articles on power (industrial) transformers (>1 kVA), power supply transformers (<1 kVA), signal, rf, etc.. (or perhaps just small transformers?). Sections and statment could be moved from one to the other if they pertain to another sub-article. There are already a bunch of articles out there that repeat a lot of info. 174.118.142.187 (talk) 16:52, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
- For what? All these power electronics articles are full of anecdotes written by wire connection technicians. Fact checking and source finding is a higher priority right now. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 19:01, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
- I too strong suport idea that portions specific to large industrial and power company transformers should be moved to own article, possibly using Distribution transformer renamed Power and distribution transformers for the purpose.Cblambert (talk) 22:48, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
- I removed the duplicate info, transferring some were I didn't find duplicate info, in order to compact this article. Much more needs to be done in order to prepare to clean this article out as Wtshymanski suggested and I agree with him. This article has become a repetitive tidbit junk drawer. 174.118.142.187 (talk) 00:15, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
- Sudden yanking of Types section content raises questions as to whether some content better than that replacing Transformer types disappeared. Some attempt should be made to merge best content from each article in Transformer types.Cblambert (talk) 01:19, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
- I love what you (and SS) have done with the section. More pro looking. 174.118.142.187 (talk) 07:24, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
- Sudden yanking of Types section content raises questions as to whether some content better than that replacing Transformer types disappeared. Some attempt should be made to merge best content from each article in Transformer types.Cblambert (talk) 01:19, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
- I removed the duplicate info, transferring some were I didn't find duplicate info, in order to compact this article. Much more needs to be done in order to prepare to clean this article out as Wtshymanski suggested and I agree with him. This article has become a repetitive tidbit junk drawer. 174.118.142.187 (talk) 00:15, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
- I too strong suport idea that portions specific to large industrial and power company transformers should be moved to own article, possibly using Distribution transformer renamed Power and distribution transformers for the purpose.Cblambert (talk) 22:48, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
- For what? All these power electronics articles are full of anecdotes written by wire connection technicians. Fact checking and source finding is a higher priority right now. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 19:01, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
- The dividing line of 1kVA some anonymous editor suggested is completely arbitrary and I oppose using that as point of reference. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 23:45, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
- Definitely arbitrary. I have heard it used before but there is no clear dividing line based on electrical rating. The formula may be complex not well defined and there may be some crossover, for sure. The formula will most likely not be mentioned in any article. OTOH it may be the disambiguation line in the article to redirect readers and editors to stay in the correct teritory. I doubt we will find a perfect one. There will always be exceptions. It will definitely require technical people and lots of input to find major exceptions and write them in using 20 words or less :) 174.118.142.187 (talk) 00:06, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
- The dividing line of 1kVA some anonymous editor suggested is completely arbitrary and I oppose using that as point of reference. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 23:45, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
'Notes' and 'References' sections misnomers?
Following suggestion by Spinningspark, I've reverted back to original 'Notes' and 'References' section headings in order to table here for consideration. I accordingly suggest and invite comments about the following section heading title changes:
- Existing 'Notes' section headingh to be changed to new 'References' heading
- Existing 'References' section heading to be changed to new 'Bibliography' heading.
Any new 'Notes' section heading could then be used for explicit notes with text.Cblambert (talk) 21:14, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
- I don't know why this article is different than almost every other article. The section references contains a reflist. What more do wee need to label it that way? 174.118.142.187 (talk) 00:09, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
- Refer to the following excerpted paragraph from recent VFD GA review Talk:
- "There is this Wikipedia:Citing sources, and if you wish to see a good example of a GA using that style try Leoš Janáček. Arguable this is Scientific article (well, engineering) so there is also Wikipedia:Scientific citation guidelines. Pyrotec (talk) 20:09, 20 May 2012 (UTC)"
- Refer to the following excerpted paragraph from recent VFD GA review Talk:
- I don't know why this article is different than almost every other article. The section references contains a reflist. What more do wee need to label it that way? 174.118.142.187 (talk) 00:09, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
- The source citing scheme for Leoš Janáček article is as follows:
- == References ==
- ===Notes===
- Reflist|2
- ===Sources===
- refbegin|2
- ===Further reading===
- So I think Transformer had good intentions which got confused with 'References' instead of 'Sources' and which did not follow through with proper 'Notes' along lines above.
- I agreed with the VFD GA reviewer to the following simple citing scheme:
- ==Notes==
- notelist
- == References ==
- reflist
- Which is along the lines of the way it is now done for Transformer, whereby 1st instance of source is spelled out in full per templates, following instances of sources being shown in current abbrteviated format, on the basis that this what I am accustomed for engineering practice.Cblambert (talk) 06:20, 14 January 2013 (UTC)Cblambert (talk) 17:49, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
- I think Cblambert's change is a great improvement and should be kept. By the way, I had not meant to suggest that the change should be reverted. SpinningSpark 20:24, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Wall wart picture
I have removed the AC adapter picture (and I seem to remember that this was reverted by someone else some time ago) because it is not actually a transformer. It might contain a transformer, but if it is at all recent it probably doesn't. Most AC adapters nowadays are switched mode. I can provide a picture of a wall wart type adapter that is just a transformer if anyone wants it - that is, AC to AC adapter, but that is probably too obscure and confusing and not adding a lot to the article. SpinningSpark 18:45, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
- I added it in an attempt to show contrast from a larger pole-top unit to a miniature unit. I agree that it may not be completely a transformer and contain other parts and not show the windings, laminations or even sheilding but it was the best I could findat the time. A small RF trans. photo would be really great. A few 100 MVA (not a bunch of switchyard coolers and bus work) unit would be good too to show some middle and extreme cases. 174.118.142.187 (talk) 18:54, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
- A small RF trans. photo is just not the place for this article.Cblambert (talk) 19:26, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
- Yup. My bad. Wrong article. A really small core unit would have been better. SInce this article is gravitating towards power transformers, only perhaps it should be renamed? I believe this was raised before. The trouble is Transformer types needs to adopt this article name as Transformers as a disambiguation article linking to the various types. Other clean-ups would be in order, here, and there, but the appropriate article titles would define that. 174.118.142.187 (talk) 21:20, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
- "It might contain a transformer, but if it is at all recent it probably doesn't. Most AC adapters nowadays are switched mode."
- Switched mode wall warts still contain a transformer to provide isolation and voltage conversion. It's just that rather than running at line frequency the transformer operates at a much higher frequency. This allows a much smaller transformer to be used and generally works out more efficient for small power supplies. Plugwash (talk) 03:47, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
- Yup. My bad. Wrong article. A really small core unit would have been better. SInce this article is gravitating towards power transformers, only perhaps it should be renamed? I believe this was raised before. The trouble is Transformer types needs to adopt this article name as Transformers as a disambiguation article linking to the various types. Other clean-ups would be in order, here, and there, but the appropriate article titles would define that. 174.118.142.187 (talk) 21:20, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
- A small RF trans. photo is just not the place for this article.Cblambert (talk) 19:26, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Lede
What is "... or winding circuits" adding to the definition? SpinningSpark 18:46, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
- Autotransformer says one winding. See also Types which refers to circuits.Cblambert (talk) 19:16, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
- Maybe '. . . two or more of its windings or circuits of the same winding.' would be better.Cblambert (talk) 20:10, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
- It's a little confusing. Definitely fringe. Can't an autotransformer have a primary winding and a secondary winding even though some winding turns are shared? They are still linked inductively, and act as the rest of the breeds, otherwise current transformation could not occur. 174.118.142.187 (talk) 21:24, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
- I tend to agree but one winding is definitely not two or more windings. I am comfortable with '. . . its winding circuits. Grounding zigzag transformers also don't have 'two or more windings', which is why you can ground them. Polygon transformers, used on input to VFDs, don't have 'two or more windings'. . .Cblambert (talk) 00:26, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
- That phrase is a good compromise, for lack of a beter one that covers the continguencies. Zig-zag windings on grounding banks were never called transformers in my world. They have no secondary and do not transform voltages (in the usually defined way) Zig-zag windings on transformers are just another shape of wye winding configuration. I am not very familiar with VFD technology. 174.118.142.187 (talk) 02:54, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
- Zigzag transformer exists in wikipedia world and real world. And yes zigzag bank is often used but the two terms, transformer and bank, are not mutually exclusive. Phase-shifting zigzag transformers have two windings, which are definitely transformers. And, zigzag are often evidently derived from two-winding transformers judging from Lawless citation, but I have see them customized for fit-for-purpose grounding application. The point is that caution is in order in lede woring regardless of grounding zigzag definitive description. Polygon transformer details are not very common on the web but windings are exactly that, polygon in physical configuration.Cblambert (talk) 03:24, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
- Knowlton, p. 550 says 'A grounding transformer is a transformer primarily for the purpose of providing a neutral point for grounding purposes.' Ergo, hence, grounding transformer seems ligit. And zigzag transformer being a special type of grounding transformer also seems ligit.Cblambert (talk) 03:34, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
- Yeah, a zig-zag grounding transformer falls about the same spot as an autotransformer. Not all grounding transformers are zig-zag windings and not all zig-zag transformer windings have anything to do with grounding. I have worked with both types of grouding banks. I built one out of three 5 MVA trans. once for a 40MVA delta transformer system conversion. :) (I guess "bank" is a just short form of "transformer bank"). You would be an interesting guy to reminisce with. 174.118.142.187 (talk) 04:43, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
- Knowlton, p. 550 says 'A grounding transformer is a transformer primarily for the purpose of providing a neutral point for grounding purposes.' Ergo, hence, grounding transformer seems ligit. And zigzag transformer being a special type of grounding transformer also seems ligit.Cblambert (talk) 03:34, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
- Zigzag transformer exists in wikipedia world and real world. And yes zigzag bank is often used but the two terms, transformer and bank, are not mutually exclusive. Phase-shifting zigzag transformers have two windings, which are definitely transformers. And, zigzag are often evidently derived from two-winding transformers judging from Lawless citation, but I have see them customized for fit-for-purpose grounding application. The point is that caution is in order in lede woring regardless of grounding zigzag definitive description. Polygon transformer details are not very common on the web but windings are exactly that, polygon in physical configuration.Cblambert (talk) 03:24, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
- That phrase is a good compromise, for lack of a beter one that covers the continguencies. Zig-zag windings on grounding banks were never called transformers in my world. They have no secondary and do not transform voltages (in the usually defined way) Zig-zag windings on transformers are just another shape of wye winding configuration. I am not very familiar with VFD technology. 174.118.142.187 (talk) 02:54, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
- I tend to agree but one winding is definitely not two or more windings. I am comfortable with '. . . its winding circuits. Grounding zigzag transformers also don't have 'two or more windings', which is why you can ground them. Polygon transformers, used on input to VFDs, don't have 'two or more windings'. . .Cblambert (talk) 00:26, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
- It's a little confusing. Definitely fringe. Can't an autotransformer have a primary winding and a secondary winding even though some winding turns are shared? They are still linked inductively, and act as the rest of the breeds, otherwise current transformation could not occur. 174.118.142.187 (talk) 21:24, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
- Maybe '. . . two or more of its windings or circuits of the same winding.' would be better.Cblambert (talk) 20:10, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Here is, compliments of Block, VDE/IEV-based approach to LEDE:
- 'A transformer is a static device with two or more coils which transforms a system of alternating voltage and alternating current through electromagnetic induction, usually with different values but the same frequency, for the purpose of transmitting electrical energy.'
- Cblambert (talk) 19:09, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Zig-zag?
I understand that "zig-zag" is a winding configuration and not a major transformer type as discussed in this article. "Zig-zag is a nickname used by EE people as a shortform description. Should the term "grounding transformer" be used more appropriately? We don't refer to transformers as "delta" or "wye" for their types. Many power transformers have zig-zag wndings but are not referred to as zig-zag, delta or wye to describe them as their major descriptor. It only describes one winding. Also, there are other winding configurations used for grounding trasformers. Anybody have sources for the official usage of this name? 174.118.142.187 (talk) 17:12, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
- I could not disagree with you more. Transformer article is part of Electrical engineering WikiProject. Zig-zag term is a very well known term, on a par with delta, wye, and autotransformer, which is used for both phase-shifting and grounding purpose. Is Wikipedia an encyclopedia or not? Where does Wikipedia draw the line on truth?Cblambert (talk) 22:24, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
- Re official usage, have a look as Lawless reference, which provides all the various EIC winding configuration combination.Cblambert (talk) 22:29, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
- Strawman arguments. "Zig-zag" being a term or its importance is not disputed. Please read what I wrote. Would you describe all the transformer types under the zig-zag heading all over again? e.g. "Zigzag/wye tr.", "zig-zag/delta tr.", "zig-zag/zig/zag tr.", "zig-zag grounding tr." I believe people, here using "zig-zag transformer" are referring to a "zig-zag grounding transformer". Should we mention the "star/delta grounding transformer" also? We haven't been entering transformer types as "star transformer", "delta transformer" or "open delta transformer". Types have been listed by their distinct functions. 174.118.142.187 (talk) 22:48, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
- The current issue is the importance of zigzag in no far as showing zigzag Types category in Transformer. According to Lawless and EIC delta is delta, wye is wye, autotransformer is autotransformer and zigzag is zigzag. Further, details should go in Zigzag transformer article. IEEE Xplore gives about 50 titles of zigzag transformer search, another 50 titles for zig-zag transformer search.Cblambert (talk) 23:05, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
- See also, which defines 4 general winding configuration letter designations: D or d for delta, Y or y for wye or star, Z or z for interconnected star or zigzag, and N or n for neutral brought out to terminal (ie, not a winding phase), where uppercase is primary and lowercase is secondary. Note change making distinction for General winding configuration type according to IEC vector group or 'other'.Cblambert (talk) 02:05, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
- You have only provided strawman arguments, refusal to understand and discuss the actual issue, article links to articles that do not exist, references that are behind paywalls, obscure Lawless reference, and a Google book that both agree with my initial post and (the book never once mentions "zigzag transformer"). I have to reject your input to this discussion. Now I see you have gone and editted more of the same confused thinking into the Transformer type section while we are discussing it? We need to wait for other fresh input and eyes. 174.118.142.187 (talk) 02:22, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
- See also, which defines 4 general winding configuration letter designations: D or d for delta, Y or y for wye or star, Z or z for interconnected star or zigzag, and N or n for neutral brought out to terminal (ie, not a winding phase), where uppercase is primary and lowercase is secondary. Note change making distinction for General winding configuration type according to IEC vector group or 'other'.Cblambert (talk) 02:05, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
- The current issue is the importance of zigzag in no far as showing zigzag Types category in Transformer. According to Lawless and EIC delta is delta, wye is wye, autotransformer is autotransformer and zigzag is zigzag. Further, details should go in Zigzag transformer article. IEEE Xplore gives about 50 titles of zigzag transformer search, another 50 titles for zig-zag transformer search.Cblambert (talk) 23:05, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
- Strawman arguments. "Zig-zag" being a term or its importance is not disputed. Please read what I wrote. Would you describe all the transformer types under the zig-zag heading all over again? e.g. "Zigzag/wye tr.", "zig-zag/delta tr.", "zig-zag/zig/zag tr.", "zig-zag grounding tr." I believe people, here using "zig-zag transformer" are referring to a "zig-zag grounding transformer". Should we mention the "star/delta grounding transformer" also? We haven't been entering transformer types as "star transformer", "delta transformer" or "open delta transformer". Types have been listed by their distinct functions. 174.118.142.187 (talk) 22:48, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
- Re official usage, have a look as Lawless reference, which provides all the various EIC winding configuration combination.Cblambert (talk) 22:29, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
- And what is your contention with paywall? Verifiability do not require openly accessible for free through WWW. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 09:42, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
- See WP:PAYWALL. There is nothing in our rules about free. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 12:02, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Here is way another source puts it: "Winding connection designations
First Symbol: for High Voltage: Always capital letters.
- D=Delta, S=Star, Z=Interconnected star, N=Neutral
Second Symbol: for Low voltage: Always Small letters.
- d=Delta, s=Star, z=Interconnected star, n=Neutral.
Third Symbol: Phase displacement expressed as the clock hour number (1,6,11)
See link at http://electrical-engineering-portal.com/understanding-vector-group-transformer-1 Where interconnected star & zigzag used interchangeably. All of this as been known for over half a century.Cblambert (talk) 03:38, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
- Still another source, p. 105. Zigzag pretty clear. Very good source, by Shoaib Khan.Cblambert (talk) 04:03, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
- I rest my case with this source: http://www.transformerworld.co.uk/vector.htm.Cblambert (talk) 04:31, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
In South Africa, it is called zig-zag here
This is a German book in English. Page 89-92 is a wealth of information on zig-zag. And it calls it that. here Cantaloupe2 (talk) 09:38, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
- I looked over Cblambert's references. It seems that that zigzag is used to describe a type of winding (such as Wie or Delta) and it is also used to describe a type of transformer. It seems the most common usage is in grounding, but it has other uses. I think that the only thing that needs to be done is to explicitly write either zigzag winding or zigzag transformer.Constant314 (talk) 13:54, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
On more careful reading, that should have/now read, I gather from the three previous comments about paywall, free, www and so on that this is no longer an issue.'Cblambert (talk) 18:24, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Error in Transformer universal EMF equation?
In Transformer universal EMF equation and in
becomes .
What's wrong (2*pi/sqrt(2)≈4.44...)?
212.152.15.118 (talk) 16:44, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
- I agree. There are several issues:
- Re 1st equation line
- is not defined; it should be defined in SI system as square meter unit
- should be used instead of using and
- as 4.44 is accurate to 2 decimal places should be used instead of
- N is not defined as to which winding relates to which emf
- ie, emf of respective winding should read
- Re 2nd equation line
- This is also an issue here as Knowlton reference (p. 38, equation 2-36, Sec.2-32) suggests that 2nd equation line should, for any half cycle interval of time , read:
- and not .
- Cblambert (talk) 20:52, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Better lead 2nd paragraph
Following is proposed for the transformer's lead's 2nd paragraph:
- From:
- "Transformers range in size from a thumbnail-sized coupling transformer hidden inside a stage microphone to huge units weighing hundreds of tons used in power plant substations or to interconnect portions of the power grid. All operate on the same basic principles, although the range of designs is wide. While new technologies have eliminated the need for transformers in some electronic circuits, transformers are still found in many electronic devices. Transformers are essential for high-voltage electric power transmission, which makes long-distance transmission economically practical."
- To:
- "Transformers range in size from a thumbnail-sized coupling transformer hidden in microphones to units weighing hundreds of tons used in electrical substations at power generation locations and to interconnect the power grid. Transformers are used in wide-ranging designs for electrical and electronic devices of all types and are essential for transmission, distribution, and utilization of electricity."
- Cblambert (talk) 20:50, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Cooling
Most of the discussion of cooling should be moved to the Distribution transformer page.Constant314 (talk) 16:19, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
- I tend to not agree. In my view, good treatment of cooling in Transformer is important to anchor the article to the two main types of transformer insulating systems: dry-type and liquid-immersed. Not having cooling in Transformer would overly delute the article. My 2 cents.Cblambert (talk) 22:51, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
- Most of the transformers in existence don't have a cooling system, other than the ambient, and they don't have any type of liquid in them. You can still mention the temperature effect on insulation, but most of what you write is specific to power distribution transformers.Constant314 (talk) 06:03, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- We're in this together. Cooling section was all there before my arriving on the scene. The value of liquid transformers is very high. It would take an awfull lot of dry type transformers to equal to the value of a 1,000 MVA liquid transformer, likely multiplied by two or more in terms of generation-transmission-distribution stepup, stepdown, etc. But let's not quibble. I don't have strong feelings. If all are agreed, so be it. If so, consideration should be given toDistribution transformer being renamed, say, 'Transformers (Liquid-immersed)' or 'Power and distribution transformers and reactors'Cblambert (talk) 07:40, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- The article is way too long and reducing the size of the Cooling section, similar to the way I reduced the size of Types would be a good sart to reduce some bulk. Constant314 is correct in that cooling only applies to distribution transformers and should be mostly moved or merged in there. Microphone transformers, and most other types, do not have cooling fins or oil pumps. 174.118.142.187 (talk) 03:37, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
- What does 'way too long' mean? While having no strong feeling either way, rhe logic of microphone transformers have nothing to do with fins may be beside the point. Cooling is a transformer property that applies to all types of transformers. In electrical matters, cooling is always a life and death isssue. The issue here is where you draw the line - a matter of degree. There is no black and white here. , , ,
- Also what is wrong with the following stats: 'Transformer has been viewed 549549 times in the last 90 days. This article ranked 1882 in traffic on en.wikipedi a.org.'
- And Distribution transformer 'has been viewed 13771 times in the last 90 days.'
- And Transformer types 'has been viewed 51157 times in the last 90 days.'
- The article is way too long and reducing the size of the Cooling section, similar to the way I reduced the size of Types would be a good sart to reduce some bulk. Constant314 is correct in that cooling only applies to distribution transformers and should be mostly moved or merged in there. Microphone transformers, and most other types, do not have cooling fins or oil pumps. 174.118.142.187 (talk) 03:37, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
- We're in this together. Cooling section was all there before my arriving on the scene. The value of liquid transformers is very high. It would take an awfull lot of dry type transformers to equal to the value of a 1,000 MVA liquid transformer, likely multiplied by two or more in terms of generation-transmission-distribution stepup, stepdown, etc. But let's not quibble. I don't have strong feelings. If all are agreed, so be it. If so, consideration should be given toDistribution transformer being renamed, say, 'Transformers (Liquid-immersed)' or 'Power and distribution transformers and reactors'Cblambert (talk) 07:40, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- Most of the transformers in existence don't have a cooling system, other than the ambient, and they don't have any type of liquid in them. You can still mention the temperature effect on insulation, but most of what you write is specific to power distribution transformers.Constant314 (talk) 06:03, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- Quadrature booster 'has been viewed 3678 times in the last 90 days.'
- Delta-wye transformer 'has been viewed 18408 times in the last 90 days.'
- Autotransformer 'has been viewed 42054 times in the last 90 days.'
- Scott-T transformer 'has been viewed 7643 times in the last 90 days.'
- Zigzag transformer 'has been viewed 8162 times in the last 90 days.'
- Capacitor voltage transformer 'has been viewed 10424 times in the last 90 days.'
- Isolation transformer 'has been viewed 28487 times in the last 90 days.'
- Padmount transformer 'has been viewed 4413 times in the last 90 days.'
- Neon-sign transformer 'has been viewed 4439 times in the last 90 days.'
- Current transformer 'has been viewed 76533 times in the last 90 days.'!!!!!
- Maybe it is Distribution transformer that needs to come to Transformer.Cblambert (talk) 08:10, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
Staying on topic: Since we agreed in a previous thread[1] that we should start a new article title to group all this cooling and power transformer related information away from this overcrowded article; the title needs to be kept simple (not compound) in order to be easily found by readers. I cannot initiate new article titles so it would require effort on your part to start this process and keep this article from specialising too much on one type of transformer. Perhaps the title Transformer liquid cooling systems or something to suggest a more specific area other than another transformer type? It would be found with the autocompletion feature of WP after typing Transformer.
Distribution transformer includes mostly air cooled types. Larger substation transformers with gas detection systems and advanced driven oil cooling systems would not fit. There is a whole field of gauges and oil protection systems waiting for an article like that and it would overload this article. 174.118.142.187 (talk) 14:47, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
- There are millions and millions of oil-immersed distribution transformer like that in article's lead showing pole-mounted photo. You mean 'lighting' or dry-type transformers, not distribution transformer. See definition for distribution transformer in Types section. I say leave cooling as a general property of transformer. Half a million hits is good enough for a general property of transformer called cooling. Cblambert (talk) 16:45, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
- Finishing off on stats:
- 'Flyback transformer has been viewed 24005 times in the last 90 days.'
- 'Buck–boost transformer has been viewed 7986 times in the last 90 days.'
- 'Trigger transformer has been viewed 1029 times in the last 90 days.'
- Here is some thoughts about what to do of all these stats:
- Make Padmount transformer & isolation transformer part of distribution transformer, dividing latter article into more or less: general, pole-mounted, padmounted etc.
- Converter Current transformer, Capacitor voltage transformer & Rogowski coil into a new 'Instrument transformer' article expanded with new 'potential transformer' sub-section.
- Combine Quadrature booster, Delta-wye transformer, Autotransformer, Scott-T transformer, and Zigzag transformer into an article for group various vector group and other phase configurations.
- Clean up Transformer types, this task being harder than it might seem at first blush.
- Combine Trigger transformer & Neon-sign transformer with Transformer types.
- Also, went through 'View reader feedback', in which no trend was discerned other than impression that those who comment are all over the map, with however some excellent feedback comments.Cblambert (talk) 21:01, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
- @Constant314 Re rule for halving of life expectancy for every 8 C increase, it should be clear that while the rule applies, in context, strictly-speaking, to the paper insulation of such paper-oil insulation system transformers, it remains that, everything being equal, insulation life expectancy is the best predictor of life expectancy for all electrical equipment including transformers of all types, motors of all types, etc. Concerning oil-paper insulation system transformers, the focus is necessarily on paper insulation because that is where irreversible damage occurs. Regarding failure that is not directly due to insulation, it is generally not possible to predict failures due to transportation damage, short-circuits, tap-changer mechanisms, etc.. Also, as paper insulation ages, transformers become more vulnerable to failures due to other causes such as due to transportation, short-circuits, and so on. All to say that the 8 C rule is generic to all transformers and should therefore be so reflected in this article.Cblambert (talk) 18:38, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
- The reference is clearly talking about the lifetime of the insulation and not the lifetime of the transformer. If you want to say that the lifetime of a transformer doubles with every 8 degree decrease of temperature then you need a reference that says that. The Arrhenius equation equation only applies to chemical reactions and the reference is careful to use it that way.Constant314 (talk) 07:31, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
- Re Arrhenius equation, it should be clear that paper insulation IS considered a chemical reaction, there indeed being quite a bit of literatue about it. See for example the paper "Chemical degradation of cellulosic insulation paper for power transformers" at http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/ICPADM.1994.414127, the abstract of which says 'An Arrhenius analysis of these rate parameters yielded an activation energy for chain scission of 79.5 kJ mol-1. These data have been used to prepare lifetime prediction curves for transformer insulation at the typical operational temperatures of power transformers.' Arrhenius equation is admitedly somewhat crude, but it does serve as thumb of rule useful for encyclopedia inclusion.Cblambert (talk) 04:15, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
- None of this is related or progressing the question you posed and discussion of it. "Most of the discussion of cooling should be moved to the Distribution transformer page." 174.118.142.187 (talk) 15:09, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
- @Constant314 I am not disagreeing with your. In fact I agree 100% with you. All I'm saying is that the insulation life expanctancy rule is generic to all electric machine insulation, not just paper insulation and that insulation's thermal degradation is pretty well the best predictor of overall electrical machine life expectancy. But I agree with you. I have re-wording the life expectancy rule accordingly. Please comment to suit.Cblambert (talk) 18:57, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
- The reference is clearly talking about the lifetime of the insulation and not the lifetime of the transformer. If you want to say that the lifetime of a transformer doubles with every 8 degree decrease of temperature then you need a reference that says that. The Arrhenius equation equation only applies to chemical reactions and the reference is careful to use it that way.Constant314 (talk) 07:31, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
- @Constant314 Re rule for halving of life expectancy for every 8 C increase, it should be clear that while the rule applies, in context, strictly-speaking, to the paper insulation of such paper-oil insulation system transformers, it remains that, everything being equal, insulation life expectancy is the best predictor of life expectancy for all electrical equipment including transformers of all types, motors of all types, etc. Concerning oil-paper insulation system transformers, the focus is necessarily on paper insulation because that is where irreversible damage occurs. Regarding failure that is not directly due to insulation, it is generally not possible to predict failures due to transportation damage, short-circuits, tap-changer mechanisms, etc.. Also, as paper insulation ages, transformers become more vulnerable to failures due to other causes such as due to transportation, short-circuits, and so on. All to say that the 8 C rule is generic to all transformers and should therefore be so reflected in this article.Cblambert (talk) 18:38, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
Not to put to fine a point on it but the lead's thumb-sized transformers are hidden so well that I'm having a hard time find them either in or inside microphones. What I discern from such as http://www.holmco.de/mik.html,is that microphones are generally either dynamic type voice coil based or electret consender-based. As a minor deception, the thumb-sized microphone transformer is a good one judging from the number of internet sites copying the expression. In any case, the lead should use a more robust example to illustrate the small end of the transformer size range. Instead of 'thumbnail-sized units hidden inside microphones', how about 'ultra miniature fraction-of-a-watt PCB transformers'? See for example http://www.block-trafo.de/en_IN/products/electro_transformers/product/1703963/ http://www.picoelectronics.com/plugin/pe40_41.htm http://www.picoelectronics.com/plugin/Pe30wb.htmCblambert (talk) 17:38, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
- Much smaller miniaturized transformers are used in power supplies for some handheld devices like cellphones and electronic meters, somebody should be able to ref this. Reify-tech (talk) 20:36, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
- "Generally" isn't "always" - piezelectric microphones need transformers, as do other types according to various dull "handbook for sound engineers"-type books found on Google Books. I like the pithy "ultra miniature fraction-of-a-watt PCB transformers" because its so Wikipedia-like in its precision and obscurity. "Ultra" miniature, no less. Now all we need to do is work in Tesla's contribution in the lead and we'll have all the criteria for a "Misfeatured Article: Some of Wikipedia's Worst Work." --Wtshymanski (talk) 20:50, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
- About 1023 revisions ago, that sentence said "stage" microphones, which would have helped narrow it down a bit...but that bit of wordiness had to go, even though we have infinite tolerance for "It is important to note that" and "From this it can be seen that" and "This can be accomplished by" elsewhere in the 'pedia. --Wtshymanski (talk) 20:55, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
- Googling on " microphone transformer picture" gives scads of 'em; including one fellow who shows you how to soup up your ribbon microphone by changing the transformer (with step by step pictures), and a manufactuer's site that warns you not to check resistance with an ordinary multimeter because it will magnetize the core! Cool...these are *really* bitsy tranformers if a DMM can saturate them!--Wtshymanski (talk) 21:27, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
- An 'ordinary multimeter' and a DMM are not the same thing, as I am certain that you are well aware. I B Wright (talk) 18:46, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
- It is hard to say if you, Wtshymanski, are for or against. Precision is not the object in the lead. Plausibility and currency is. I would settle for something like 'fraction-of-a-watt cellphone power supply transformers'. I have a thing about transformers 'hidden' inside microphones.Cblambert (talk) 21:48, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
- Umm, i'd think the transformers in a cellphone power supply would be a big bigger than "fractions of a watt". Plugwash (talk) 03:35, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
- I believe the transformers being referred to are the ones that are actually in the cellphone itself, rather than in its charger. I B Wright (talk) 18:49, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
- Well ok, back to original 'fraction-of-a-watt PCB' then Reify-tech says cellphone power supplies are much smaller than fraction-of-a-watt.Cblambert (talk) 04:00, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
- Umm, i'd think the transformers in a cellphone power supply would be a big bigger than "fractions of a watt". Plugwash (talk) 03:35, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
- Googling on " microphone transformer picture" gives scads of 'em; including one fellow who shows you how to soup up your ribbon microphone by changing the transformer (with step by step pictures), and a manufactuer's site that warns you not to check resistance with an ordinary multimeter because it will magnetize the core! Cool...these are *really* bitsy tranformers if a DMM can saturate them!--Wtshymanski (talk) 21:27, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
- About 1023 revisions ago, that sentence said "stage" microphones, which would have helped narrow it down a bit...but that bit of wordiness had to go, even though we have infinite tolerance for "It is important to note that" and "From this it can be seen that" and "This can be accomplished by" elsewhere in the 'pedia. --Wtshymanski (talk) 20:55, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
- "Generally" isn't "always" - piezelectric microphones need transformers, as do other types according to various dull "handbook for sound engineers"-type books found on Google Books. I like the pithy "ultra miniature fraction-of-a-watt PCB transformers" because its so Wikipedia-like in its precision and obscurity. "Ultra" miniature, no less. Now all we need to do is work in Tesla's contribution in the lead and we'll have all the criteria for a "Misfeatured Article: Some of Wikipedia's Worst Work." --Wtshymanski (talk) 20:50, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Don't forget to link "PCB". And "watt". And "fraction". And (probably) "of". And to use the right kind of dash/hyphen. And non-break spaces. --Wtshymanski (talk) 17:44, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
- Where? I B Wright (talk) 18:46, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
- "We're all bozos on this bus." --Wtshymanski (talk) 2:34, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
- I'm sorry I brought it up. No hard feelings but for my part this discuss is closed.Cblambert (talk) 23:28, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
- Do not let Wtshymanski get to you. That is where he gets seems to get his kicks. He is seldom happier than when engaged in a good edit war and extending what should be a short discussion into lengthy argument. For more information see here (and from what I have seen recently elsewhere, I would say that this RfC is highly likely to be extended and enhanced). I B Wright (talk) 16:44, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
- Perhaps try to add constructive edits to the article or discussion instead of canvassing. 174.118.142.187 (talk) 16:39, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
- For someone who seems to spend his waking hours compiling 'evidence' against editors who oppose you, that is the pot calling the kettle black. In order to be canvassing, I would have to invite the editor to contribute to the RfC. If you read my post again, you might discover that at no point did I do that. I B Wright (talk) 18:10, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
- Perhaps try to add constructive edits to the article or discussion instead of canvassing. 174.118.142.187 (talk) 16:39, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
- Do not let Wtshymanski get to you. That is where he gets seems to get his kicks. He is seldom happier than when engaged in a good edit war and extending what should be a short discussion into lengthy argument. For more information see here (and from what I have seen recently elsewhere, I would say that this RfC is highly likely to be extended and enhanced). I B Wright (talk) 16:44, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
- I'm sorry I brought it up. No hard feelings but for my part this discuss is closed.Cblambert (talk) 23:28, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
- "We're all bozos on this bus." --Wtshymanski (talk) 2:34, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
- Where? I B Wright (talk) 18:46, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
- Only one bozo here as you so admirably proved with you stupid post above. I B Wright (talk) 16:44, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Dot Convention
This looks like just "I want to get the last word in even if I have to make it unintelligible by adding more flowers".
Want to discuss before somebody gets their ass kicked in a drive-by? 174.118.142.187 (talk) 03:08, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
- I am satisfied for now with the wording as is.Cblambert (talk) 16:28, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
- You don't mind if I call you 187 for short? I have a problem with 2nd sentence's ending, '. . . and polarities of voltages are the same instantaneous polarity at each marked winding terminal.'
- What is intent of:
- . . . polarities . . .' are '. . . same instantaneous polarity . . .'?! Is this not circular nonsense?
- 'instantaneous polarity'?! Are transformer voltages and currents not always instantaneous? Do you mean changing waveform? What?
- As nothing about this ending makes sense, it cannot remain long without explanation from you or others.Cblambert (talk) 18:44, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
- It could be a lot simpler all around. You might as well say " a chiral embedment in an orientable 3-space manifold". What's wrong with saying "When current goes in at the dot end of a primary winding, current comes out at the dot end of secondary windings." ? --Wtshymanski (talk) 20:14, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
- I note addition of citation to Csanyi reference, which gives clue as to origin of word 'instantaneous', quoting from Csanyi post:
- "Transformers are sometimes marked at their terminals with polarity marks. Often, polarity marks are shown as white paint dots (for plus) or plus-minus marks on the transformer and symbols on the nameplate. These marks show the connections where the input and output voltages (and currents) have the same instantaneous polarity."
- Csanyi is a unreliable source as Csanyi is a draftsman with no known engineering credentials, his reference to the 'instantaneous polarity' term not surprisingly being as technically sloppy as currently used in =Dot convention=. Not only should Csanyi reference be removed from this citation but Wikipedia should block references to the complete Electrical Engineering Portal.Cblambert (talk) 20:41, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
- Here is how some unknown author from Shanghai Jiao Tong University define dot convention:
- 'When the reference direction for a current enters the dotted terminal of a coil, the reference polarity of the voltage that it induces in the other coil is positive at its dotted terminal.'
- Here is how Professor King define dot convention on slide 3 of Lecture 13 of his Fall 2003 EECS40 course:
- 'If a current “enters” the dotted terminal of a coil, the reference polarity of the voltage induced in the other coil is positive at its dotted terminal. If a current “leaves” the dotted terminal of a coil, the reference polarity of the voltage induced in the other coil is negative at its dotted terminal.'
- Though Wtshymanski tends to be right in thinking this all this effort seems terribly complicated, it is also obvious that pinning the dot convention to a stable, intelligent strings of words is evidently very illusive.
- Proposed new wording, assuming existing ref. [43] is removed, follows:
- "Often used in transformer circuits, nameplates or terminal markings to define the relative polarity of transformer windings with polarity dots such as shown in Ideal transformer circuit diagram, the dot convention is understood to mean that positively-increasing current IP entering (or leaving) the primary winding's dot induces positive (or negative) polarity voltage ES at the secondary winding's dot."Cblambert (talk) 01:47, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
- Whether the current is entering or leaving or rising or falling, it produces the same polarity at all the dots, including the one that it may be entering or leaving.Constant314 (talk) 03:59, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
- Quoting from current Brenner reference, where subscripts 1 & 2 refer respectively to primary & secondary winding, L refers to winding inductance, refers to the emf induced by mutual inductance:
- "With no current in L2, the voltage of its [ie, secondary's] dotted point with respect to its undotted point is equal to , where i1 is the current whose reference arrow goes from the dotted point to the undotted point in L1."
- Which is the exactly equivalent to what is stated by above references by Professor King and Shanghai anonymous source.
- To Constant314: since is a derivative, one has to specify whether waveform is increasing or decreasing to determine whether voltage at the dot is positive or negative. For example, the classic test for determining polarity is a positive step function. A steady state DC current signal will not determine polarity. And so on.Cblambert (talk) 06:17, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
- I didn't write carefully enough. What I mean is the polarity of the signals at all the dots is the same, whether that be positive or negative.Constant314 (talk) 23:36, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
- Perhaps we should discuss atomic electron charge theory using RPN math notation, in Latin so that all will understand what is really happening here. It's convenient way of frequently avoiding resolution discussion. 174.118.142.187 (talk) 03:16, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
- I didn't write carefully enough. What I mean is the polarity of the signals at all the dots is the same, whether that be positive or negative.Constant314 (talk) 23:36, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
- Quoting from current Brenner reference, where subscripts 1 & 2 refer respectively to primary & secondary winding, L refers to winding inductance, refers to the emf induced by mutual inductance:
- Whether the current is entering or leaving or rising or falling, it produces the same polarity at all the dots, including the one that it may be entering or leaving.Constant314 (talk) 03:59, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
- "Often used in transformer circuits, nameplates or terminal markings to define the relative polarity of transformer windings with polarity dots such as shown in Ideal transformer circuit diagram, the dot convention is understood to mean that positively-increasing current IP entering (or leaving) the primary winding's dot induces positive (or negative) polarity voltage ES at the secondary winding's dot."Cblambert (talk) 01:47, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
- Here is how some unknown author from Shanghai Jiao Tong University define dot convention:
- I note addition of citation to Csanyi reference, which gives clue as to origin of word 'instantaneous', quoting from Csanyi post:
- It could be a lot simpler all around. You might as well say " a chiral embedment in an orientable 3-space manifold". What's wrong with saying "When current goes in at the dot end of a primary winding, current comes out at the dot end of secondary windings." ? --Wtshymanski (talk) 20:14, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Mechanical model of a transformer
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7e/Mech_trafo_anim.gif/400px-Mech_trafo_anim.gif)
I have made a file for electrical laymen which could be inserted at the beginning of the "basic principles" section to explain how it works. The basic principles section is rather difficult to understand for somebody who does not know much about electricity. In my comparison model the voltage would be the diameter of the pipe and the current being the speed of the water flow. Because no energy gets lost (except of some heat loss) it becomes clear that the water going in will be the same water amount as going out, just with more speed and the ratio depends on each other.
Here is the text that I would include: A transformer mainly transforms electrical energy. Most of them do it in households where the supply voltage needs to be converted into low voltage. This conversion can be seen as water (= energy) flowing through a pipe which becomes narrow. On the left side the pipe diameter (= voltage) is big (= higher voltage), on the right side it is narrow (= lower voltage). Because the same amount of water goes in and out it has to flow slow on the left side (= supply current) and faster on the right side (= higher current). Some of the energy gets lost because the transformer has thermal losses, indicated by some small arrows leaving the pipe. I think this would be a good explanation, would do you think? RegardsSonk11 (talk) 06:37, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
- Probably not. There is already a good mechanical analogy which is gears and gear ratios. Also, I would be against any analogy that suggests energy is a physical substance.Constant314 (talk) 07:19, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
- Where can I find this analogy? In Wikipedia? I have some problems in imagining that a gear system can have something in common with a transformer. I find this too abstract for understanding. I have the intention of making the working principle clear to people who do not know about electromagnetic induction. I have asked some people, they did not understand it according to the article, but easily according to the model. Or is Wikipedia only supposed to be from and for experts? By the way I should rather write "transfers energy" instead of "transform".Sonk11 (talk) 11:51, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
- The analogy is pretty simple. Torque is analogous to voltage and angular velocity is analogous to current. A 10 to 1 voltage step down transformer would be represented, for example by a primary gear with 1000 teeth and the secondary by a gear with 100 teeth. The output torque (voltage) would be 1/10 of the input torque. The output velocity (current) would be 10 times the input velocity. Power is proportional to torque times velocity so output power is equal to input power. Multiple secondaries are represented by multiple secondary output gears. Outputs can have different ratios. Power can flow from any gear to any other gear. It is not a perfect analogy; it is dc coupled.Constant314 (talk) 16:51, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
- This is a terrible proposal. Any such proposal should be used experimented upon using separate article.Cblambert (talk) 18:41, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
- Where can I find this analogy? In Wikipedia? I have some problems in imagining that a gear system can have something in common with a transformer. I find this too abstract for understanding. I have the intention of making the working principle clear to people who do not know about electromagnetic induction. I have asked some people, they did not understand it according to the article, but easily according to the model. Or is Wikipedia only supposed to be from and for experts? By the way I should rather write "transfers energy" instead of "transform".Sonk11 (talk) 11:51, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
Cblambert, which one do you think is terrible - Constant314's proposal or mine? Actually his proposal is a good one because it can be easily understood. The only problem that I have with it is that the step from turning wheels to flowing energy is too far away in my opinion. After somebody understood that how do you do the next step of making him understand? Sonk11 (talk) 00:54, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
- Although your illustration is a very interesting analogy it is a poor one, IMHO, because water flow in pipes is used frequently for analogies for voltage and current illustration. I can't get the choke point out of my head as an electrical resistance analogue and the pressure will not change which is usually the analogue of voltage. The gear ox one suggested would be the best if somebody had an animation. 174.118.142.187 (talk) 03:05, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
- I agree with Cblambert. A mechanical analog is as likely to create as much confusion as it clears up. It would have to be explained and it would have to be explained how it applies and how it doesn't apply and in the end you don't really understand any better than you did. The Ideal transformer section provides as least as good of an explanation and is more to the point. It might make sense to move that section up nearer to the top where the casual reader can find it. For those that want to to read about mechanical analogs, Google will reveal many such web pages.Constant314 (talk) 05:16, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
- This is a Electrical engineering WikiProject with high-importance (see above). Transformer is already probably on the long side as WP articles go. This is not the time to start re-assessing fundamentals. Better to make a real good job of simplifying existing electromechanical aspects. The recent exhaustive review of polarity is a good case in point. The nub of the polarity/dot convention issue hinges on understanding mutual inductance, something which is at the very heart of transformer. No amount of second-guess or analogies from other disciplines or fields can really do justice to such understanding. Better to address the electromechanical issues head-on than to skirt around the periphery in other fields. At Transformer article's relatively mature stage, I would tend to just not try to deal with anything but simplication and honing of essential electromechanical issues. My 3 Canadian cents' worth.Cblambert (talk) 08:33, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
- A much better proposal would be for someone to make a proposal to turn transformer article into a GA, which I can't do because I have contributed significantly to the article. Now there's a challenge that transformer is ripe for. Effort needed for GA would likely help focus the issues better than they seem to have been of late.Cblambert (talk) 08:52, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
- This is a Electrical engineering WikiProject with high-importance (see above). Transformer is already probably on the long side as WP articles go. This is not the time to start re-assessing fundamentals. Better to make a real good job of simplifying existing electromechanical aspects. The recent exhaustive review of polarity is a good case in point. The nub of the polarity/dot convention issue hinges on understanding mutual inductance, something which is at the very heart of transformer. No amount of second-guess or analogies from other disciplines or fields can really do justice to such understanding. Better to address the electromechanical issues head-on than to skirt around the periphery in other fields. At Transformer article's relatively mature stage, I would tend to just not try to deal with anything but simplication and honing of essential electromechanical issues. My 3 Canadian cents' worth.Cblambert (talk) 08:33, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
- I agree with Cblambert. A mechanical analog is as likely to create as much confusion as it clears up. It would have to be explained and it would have to be explained how it applies and how it doesn't apply and in the end you don't really understand any better than you did. The Ideal transformer section provides as least as good of an explanation and is more to the point. It might make sense to move that section up nearer to the top where the casual reader can find it. For those that want to to read about mechanical analogs, Google will reveal many such web pages.Constant314 (talk) 05:16, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your feedback, Cblambert. Most of the people seem to have the feeling, this idea does not help. I agree it does not make sense to follow up. Sonk11 (talk) 12:38, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
- One thing about WP is that someone is free to too just about anything within reason. Feel free to create a new article around this idea . . .Cblambert (talk) 18:02, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Dot convention, Parker reference
To 187 for short: In continuation to =Dot convention= section comments above, a valid reason is needed to remove the Parker reference, which cannot be removed arbritarily as now done. If the consensus is to remove it, it will be removed. Valid substantial reasons are needed from you or others, or both. Arbitrary flip-flopping on your part of reference removals and addition is not acceptable and must be done by consensus. As explained EE Portal reference used was not reliable. I invite comments from other editors on this issue. In the meantime the Parker reference will stay.Cblambert (talk) 08:06, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
Turn ratio
If turn ratio is good enough for Knowlton, it's pretty good for me. But if consensus is to be more comfortable, even if wrong, with turns ratio, so be it. Let's see a consensus.Cblambert (talk) 06:48, 14 April 2013 (UTC) Re use of n to signify turn ratio, Brenner and hundreds of other references can be found for this. n is used as simple convenient as one would for any mathematical convenience. To object to this is splitting hairs, capricious, and of dubious sincerity.Cblambert (talk) 06:48, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
- No splitting hairs and your reference research is flawed or assumed. The original text was the phrase "turns ratio" in all occurrences and you have made the changes without sources to back these up, mixed in with other edits. Please note that the rest of WP uses the term "turns ratio" in dozens of articles, and so does your beloved Knowlton source. The term 'turn ratio' is used in 7 occurrences but also "turns ratio" is used 2 times indicating spelling errors or perhaps the second author:Fowler? inappropriate usage of BrEng for this article. I checked many other references used in this article including the John Winders Book (0 occurrences of "turn ratio", 23 occurrences of "turns ratio"), and the Flanders Book (0 occurrences of "turn ratio", 13 occurrences of "turns ratio"). The Canadian government website defines "turn ratio" as incorrect and "turns ratio" as correct usage giving many references, including:
- McGraw-Hill dictionary of scientific and technical terms. -- New York : McGraw-Hill, c2003. xvii, 2380 p.;ISBN 007042313X;
- Basic electricity : theory & practice / Milton Kaufman, J. A. Wilson. - Kaufman, Milton. New York ; Montreal : McGraw-Hill, [1973] Symbols and vocabulary words: p. [489]-498.;Includes index
- Academic Press dictionary of science and technology / edited by Christopher Morris. --Morris, Christopher G. San Diego : Academic Press, c1992. xxxii, 2432 p.;ISBN 0122004000 as references. See [[2]]
- Electrical machines, drives, and power systems / Theodore Wildi. -- Wildi, Théodore, 1922- Upper Saddle River, N.J. : Pearson Prentice Hall, ©2006. xxiii, 934 p.;ISBN 0131776916
- Dictionnaire encyclopédique d'électronique : anglais-français / Michel Fleutry. -- Fleutry, Michel. Paris : Maison du dictionnaire, c1991. 1054 p.;Titre au dos : Dictionnaire d'électronique.;ISBN 285608043X.
- I have returned the original prose term to the article. As per WP:BRD you were bold, I reverted, and now the onus is on the initiator (you) to get consensus to change the commonly used spelling of the term turns ratio. Please produce the "hundreds of other references can be found" you refer to and please note the EngVar they are written in. 174.118.142.187 (talk) 03:04, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Also;
- Ratios are never referred to as "n". This is incorrect mathematically and original research by yourself and not welcome in WP articles. These edits were also not supported by your supplied references. It will be corrected until further sources to support this notion can be supplied. Thanks. 174.118.142.187 (talk) 03:04, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
- I will go along with 'turns ratio' on basis that usage has evidently won the day.
- Brenner reference on p. 508 & 509, Ideal Transformer section says
- Current ratio: i1/i2=1/n
- Voltage ratio: v1/v2=n
- Driving-point impedance: Zab=1/n2 * Zt
- I can't believe that someone would not willing to call a ratio a ratio!
- But I will dig up the other references showing a ratio can be called a ratio.Cblambert (talk) 04:09, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
- In the excellent 2001 reference by RWTH Aachen University Institute of Electrical Machines's Professor Kay Hameyer, "Electrical Machine I: Basics, Design, Function, Operation" there is extensive treatment of transformer turns ratio (including expecially in regarding to equivalent circuits) in Section 3.2, Definition of the transformation ratio (ü) where ü = w1/w2. Unfortunately, Hayemer had removed this reference from the Internet.
- I had now had the time to take a look a WP:BRD and will digest this shortly.Cblambert (talk) 04:53, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
- I guess you will get your way one way or the other on Ideal transformer diagram and n. I don't think it's worth arguing about.
- Problem with old diagram:
- it can no longer be changed
- it shows a transformer under load, not an ideal transformer
- it does not show the dot convention.
- Which is why I came up with new diagram.
- Re use of ratio such as n to mean turns ratio, refer also for example to U. of Alberta Professor Andy Knight's Electrical Machines website http://www.ece.ualberta.ca/~knight/electrical_machines/induction/basics/circuit.html, where he uses the letter 'a' to designate turns ratio. Use of 'a' or 'n' is quite common when used in equivalent circuits to refer secondary impedances to the primary side as done by Andy Knight's webpage. Cblambert (talk) 06:04, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
- Just for the record, re use of 'turn/turns ratio', IEEE Xplore search shows that though 'turns ratio' seems to indeed be more common, 'turn ratio' is far from uncommon. I got carried away with Knowlton's official description of 'Turn ratio' being defined as NP/NS (which was until then not even fixed, leaving it open for ratio to be NS/NP!). It seems clear that 'turns ratio'. Indeed, I myself used 'turns ratio' all my life. Nevertheless, the case is closed.Cblambert (talk) 06:48, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
- Excellent Electrical4u website's http://www.electrical4u.com/voltage-and-turn-ratio-test-of-transformer/ refers to Turn ratio.Cblambert (talk) 07:07, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
- http://www.federalpacific.com/university/transbasics/chapter2.html Here is another one from FPUniversity showing the following 'turns ratio' as, well, ratios: 2/1, 5/1, 4/1, 2.88/1, 20/1 & 1.73/1. This is hilarious, accusing me of heaven forbid original research!Cblambert (talk) 07:25, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
- As Andy Knight does, Electrical4u's webpage, http://www.electrical4u.com/equivalent-circuit-of-transformer-referred-to-primary-and-secondary/, uses K = N1/N2 = E1/E2 to refer secondary values to the primary (and vice versa). No original research there. Different sources use different letter K, u, n, . . .Cblambert (talk) 07:39, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
- In Bakshi & Bakshi's book http://books.google.ca/books?id=ghAIqmUX2YEC&pg=SA2-PA15&lpg=SA2-PA15&dq=secondary+referred+transformer+impedance&source=bl&ots=08dpE6FWFQ&sig=gAjou_2APAi8sgrXwQCNpkGLjlE&hl=en&sa=X&ei=saxrUbXuPMbwiwKny4CoCg&sqi=2&ved=0CD8Q6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=secondary%20referred%20transformer%20impedance&f=false K = N1/N2 is used to refer secondary to the primary (and vice versa). No original research here.Cblambert (talk) 07:50, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
- Chapter 7 of web.uettaxila.edu.pk/CMS/SP2012/.../notes%5CTransformer.pdf says 'The constant K is called voltage transformation ratio.' However, they define K as N2/N1. Wrong way around. Still no evidence of original research on my part here.Cblambert (talk) 08:02, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
- http://my.safaribooksonline.com/book/electrical-engineering/9788131760901/1-transformers/navpoint-62 says 'Let the turns ratio be ‘a’.' No evidence of original research on my part here.Cblambert (talk) 08:11, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
- Rajput book http://books.google.ca/books?id=k22bKyWqWD0C&pg=PA316&lpg=PA316&dq=secondary+referred+transformer+impedance&source=bl&ots=vE1G_p044h&sig=2isYtW-myoRiYkkYRMFFkZHJ1EI&hl=en&sa=X&ei=k7drUceMC67nigKn7IHwDA&ved=0CC4Q6AEwADgK#v=onepage&q=secondary%20referred%20transformer%20impedance&f=false uses the term 'turn ratio' =N1/N2 but seems to then use N1/N2 = 1/K in referring values to the primary (and vice versa). No evidence of original research on my part there either.Cblambert (talk) 08:27, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
- http://www.egr.unlv.edu/~eebag/Chap%203%20Solutions.pdf uses the example at the very top 'The turns ratio of the transformer is 50:200 (a = 0.25).' No evidence of original research on my part there.Cblambert (talk) 08:35, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
- http://www.openelectrical.org/wiki/index.php?title=Referring_Impedances says 'Where n is the transformer winding ratio'. No evidence of original research on my part here either.Cblambert (talk) 08:41, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
- http://www.euro-science.com/HOW%20TO%20DETERMINE%20PARAMETERS%20OF%20TRANSFORMER.htm states V1/ V2 = n1/n2 = n. No evidence of original research on my part here either.Cblambert (talk) 08:46, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
- http://www.site.uottawa.ca/~rhabash/ELG3311SA1.pdf uses the example 'The turns ratio is a = 8000/ 230 = 34.78'. No evidence of original research on my part here either.Cblambert (talk) 08:51, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
- Excellent presentation as www.ee.lamar.edu/gleb/.../lecture%2004%20-%20transformers.ppt says 'Here a is the turn ratio of the transformer.'No evidence of original research on my part here either.Cblambert (talk) 09:00, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
- http://nptel.iitm.ac.in/courses/Webcourse-contents/IIT%20Kharagpur/Basic%20Electrical%20Technology/pdf/L-24(TB)(ET)%20((EE)NPTEL).pdf says a = N1/N2. No evidence of original research on my part here either.Cblambert (talk) 09:19, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
- Do I need to say more. Echoing what I said at the outset, to object to use of n or similar letter for turn or turns ratio was splitting hairs, capricious, and of dubious sincerity.Cblambert (talk) 09:31, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
- In retrospect, a is probably a better letter to use than n because a is less likely to be confused with N1/N2 etc. Like I said, to object to use of n or similar letter for turn or turns ratio was splitting hairs, capricious, and of dubious sincerity.Cblambert (talk) 09:38, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Well there is some peculiar stuff there. I was always familiar with the term "turns ratio" also, but your injection raised an eyebrow, Why do we use a plural term "turns"?. We say "gear ratio" and yet there are two gears involved. Is it because the are plural turns on each winding and not because of the winding count? What about "tooth ratio"? or is it "teeth ratio"? "Turn ratio" brings to mind vehicle steering where there is not more than one turn of the driving wheels. Is this all nonsense semantics? I really suspect EngVar problems there but everything I found suggests the Knowlton was published in the US. His name is common in British geography though so I suspect he may have been fresh off the boat. LOL. 174.118.142.187 (talk) 12:11, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
- I have in my heart very recently come to see 'turn ratio' is the better semantical term, which have been vulgarized with usage to currently more common 'turns ratio'. I don't know what you mean by EngVar. Knowlton is of course American (McGraw-Hill). Knowlton is today's Fink, Fink figuring in Knowlton.Cblambert (talk) 17:05, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
- Misplaced aversion to use of commonly used letters 'n', 'a', 'K' and 'ü' for transformer/winding turns ratio definition likely comes from impossibility of sometimes specifying ratios such as gear ratio except as irreducible fraction.Cblambert (talk) 20:55, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
- Knowlton was of course handbook's chief editor, article 6-13 that defined 'turn ratio' being authored by V.M. Montsinger, G.E. Research Engineer, and co-authored by W.M. Dann, Youngtown College EE dept professor. Montsinger is very well known and it is unlikely that the definition was grammatical lapse, handbook being 8th edition. I would normally identify a citation down to subordinate author level by did not think it necessary for such seemingly mundate definition. Little did I know.Cblambert (talk) 22:46, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
- Funny thing I ran into several brands of "Transformer Turn Ratio Testers". And yet every one of them opened with the phrase "turns ratio" in its lede sentence description. You need to read WP:ENGVAR People get real uptight aboot the variation of English used in articles. I've had my eyes opened few times. 174.118.142.187 (talk) 01:27, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
- I have said that I considered the issue closed. The issue was anything but clear and after all is said and done turns ratio is fine with me but turn ratio has been and still is being used.Cblambert (talk) 02:01, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
- In post-closure postscript, note that IEEE Xplore yields today exactly '2,969 Results returned' for both search terms 'turn ratio' and 'turns ratio', as in for example the search http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/search/searchresult.jsp?newsearch=true&queryText=turn+ratio&.x=39&.y=11. This evidently suggests that IEEE Xplore does not make a distinction between the two terms.Cblambert (talk) 17:28, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
- P.P.S.:Latest available library copy of McGraw-Hill's Std Handbook for EEs is 13th or 1993 ed. by chief eds Fink and Beatty no longer has Knowlton's pat 6-13 turn ratio definition but does maintain the term turn ratio in connection with:
- ' Voltage ratio is the ratio of number of turns ("turn ratio") in the respective windings.'
- ' Effect of Turn Ratio: ', with several mentions of the terms.
- It would be interesting to see what 15th or 2006 ed. of Fink Handbook. say.Cblambert (talk) 23:51, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
- I have said that I considered the issue closed. The issue was anything but clear and after all is said and done turns ratio is fine with me but turn ratio has been and still is being used.Cblambert (talk) 02:01, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
- Funny thing I ran into several brands of "Transformer Turn Ratio Testers". And yet every one of them opened with the phrase "turns ratio" in its lede sentence description. You need to read WP:ENGVAR People get real uptight aboot the variation of English used in articles. I've had my eyes opened few times. 174.118.142.187 (talk) 01:27, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
- Knowlton was of course handbook's chief editor, article 6-13 that defined 'turn ratio' being authored by V.M. Montsinger, G.E. Research Engineer, and co-authored by W.M. Dann, Youngtown College EE dept professor. Montsinger is very well known and it is unlikely that the definition was grammatical lapse, handbook being 8th edition. I would normally identify a citation down to subordinate author level by did not think it necessary for such seemingly mundate definition. Little did I know.Cblambert (talk) 22:46, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
- Misplaced aversion to use of commonly used letters 'n', 'a', 'K' and 'ü' for transformer/winding turns ratio definition likely comes from impossibility of sometimes specifying ratios such as gear ratio except as irreducible fraction.Cblambert (talk) 20:55, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Improvement of explanation for the non-expert
To improve the article for the non-expert reader I suggest the following:
- Move the Basic principles section ahead of the history section.
- Move The ideal transformer to the head of Basic principles.
- Add a section called The linear transformer.
- In The ideal transformer retain only the part about the turns ratio and its effect on voltage, current and impedance. Move everything else including reluctance, magnetic field, magnetic flux, magnetic circuit, magnetizing current, winding resistance, counter EMF and Lenz law to The linear transformer.
- Improve what remains in The ideal transformer.Constant314 (talk) 18:02, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
- First, my first reaction is that this is general a good idea. However, and correct me if I'm not reading this properly, the implication seems to be that there is something amiss with transformer article, that is needs to be dumbed down significantly where it really counts. But the view statistics have been steadily improving of the years so my impression is that the article has been steadily improving.
- Second, I don't quite understand the rationale behind 'The linear transformer'. And again correct me if I'm not reading this properly, but not only does the heading's wording seem alien to me, but the implication seems to be that these aspects are somehow slightly sub-standard, second-rate technical content. My view is that all this 'reluctance, magnetic field, magnetic flux, magnetic circuit, magnetizing current, winding resistance, counter EMF and Lenz law' content is of course part of the story that needs to be told as well as anything else of encyclopedian interest to WP.
- Third, just for curiosity, where does Equivalent circuit fit in this re-arranged scheme?
- Good idea but maybe for the wrong reasons.Cblambert (talk) 19:40, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not advocating that the article be "dumbed down" or that any material be removed. I'm simply suggesting putting the "easy" material at the top. The ideal transformer has a coupling coefficient of exactly unity. It doesn't have any leakage inductance. Its magnetizing inductance is infinite. It doesn't have any resistance. Its terminal behavior is determined completely by its turns ratio. It is a black box. The section would be entirely about what it does and not about how it works. The next section I think would be the induction law that explains how a transformer works. After that would be a discussion of the linear transformer. A linear transformer has resistance, leakage inductances, etc., but doesn't have nonlinearities like saturation. The linear transformer discussion could be absorbed into the equivalent circuit section and that whole section placed after the induction law. Constant314 (talk) 21:26, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
- On that basis, sounds good to me. I am somewhat concerned about putting history section after as it provides a way of easing into the subject but the thought had crossed my mind that the history could come after. I for one support your proposal in principle.Cblambert (talk) 22:00, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not advocating that the article be "dumbed down" or that any material be removed. I'm simply suggesting putting the "easy" material at the top. The ideal transformer has a coupling coefficient of exactly unity. It doesn't have any leakage inductance. Its magnetizing inductance is infinite. It doesn't have any resistance. Its terminal behavior is determined completely by its turns ratio. It is a black box. The section would be entirely about what it does and not about how it works. The next section I think would be the induction law that explains how a transformer works. After that would be a discussion of the linear transformer. A linear transformer has resistance, leakage inductances, etc., but doesn't have nonlinearities like saturation. The linear transformer discussion could be absorbed into the equivalent circuit section and that whole section placed after the induction law. Constant314 (talk) 21:26, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
- I think highly technical information is good in articles for people that really want to know but.... It really needs to be dumbed down at the beginning of articles for the beginner and younger reader. Starting into the formulae too quickly is a turn off for most readers. They want a bedtime story first and then they can quit or continue into the nitty-gritty of tech details if they can handle it. If not they got what they wanted. Many articles have a second article with top warnings about math levels etc. I am not suggesting we do that here but the placement of some of our formulae may be too soon by placement. For example that "Faraday's law formulae at the top of the article turns me off. I want more story before I get into that study. Perhaps a collapsible bottom section with all the tech stuff we can manage? It may work well and not scare off the non-tech crowd from the article. 174.118.142.187 (talk) 12:45, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
- The proof of the WP article pudding is in the WP article view statistic eating. Article should not fight with success. There is overabundance of other sources on the internet available with dumbed-down Pablum content. WP articles need to be as broad-based a possible. Accordingly, the going throughout the article should not be too easy for lowest-level knowledge readers.Cblambert (talk) 17:17, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
- The dumbing-down issue is to great extent one reflected in Blaise Pascal's quote, 'I have made this letter longer than usual, only because I have not had the time to make it shorter.' Explaining something technical for lay consumption can take a lot of effort. But I agree that judicial use of collapsible tables is good way to allow drilling to differentiate varying technical subject difficulty levels, as indeed I have used, evidently successfully, in a few WP articles.Cblambert (talk) 19:03, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
- Just an observation. It would seem to me that any formulae is not a good presentation thing for non-tech persons. This would mean:
- -moving all formulae sections to the end of the article, making the flow progression of the article scrambled, or,
- -making all technical formulae collapsible and that would look awful in the prose of the article everywhere, or,
- - we do mini duplications of sections again with the tech info in a complete collapsible section at the bottom. IOW the top would read as "dumbed-down" as possible, like a giant lede (multiple) paragraph.
- I like the latter concept best but it means dividing a lot of the article already done into two sections and duplicating some. Anybody see another style or another article as a model for a style? 174.118.142.187 (talk) 17:19, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
- Constant314 and I are in agreement that there is no need to dumb-down: 'I'm not advocating that the article be "dumbed down" or that any material be removed.' Constant314's plan is start with the easier part first. The ideal transformer. I for one am dead-set on dumb-down.Cblambert (talk) 18:37, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
- You may be in agreement but you are putting all the sections with math at the top, contrary to what I perceive as his very point. The article is a turn off for people not looking for a math lesson. Keep the concepts and construction at the top. Math stuff should be in a theory section later for the more hungry tech reader. 174.118.142.187 (talk) 19:32, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
- I don't agree. Constant314's proposal is a good one. One has to start with basic principles and build from there. Always as been, always will be. It is called the scientific method. Cblambert (talk) 20:53, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
- That is, I don't agree with down-dumbing in general and believe that starting with basic principles seems good approach.Cblambert (talk) 21:13, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
- You may be in agreement but you are putting all the sections with math at the top, contrary to what I perceive as his very point. The article is a turn off for people not looking for a math lesson. Keep the concepts and construction at the top. Math stuff should be in a theory section later for the more hungry tech reader. 174.118.142.187 (talk) 19:32, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
- Constant314 and I are in agreement that there is no need to dumb-down: 'I'm not advocating that the article be "dumbed down" or that any material be removed.' Constant314's plan is start with the easier part first. The ideal transformer. I for one am dead-set on dumb-down.Cblambert (talk) 18:37, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
- I like the latter concept best but it means dividing a lot of the article already done into two sections and duplicating some. Anybody see another style or another article as a model for a style? 174.118.142.187 (talk) 17:19, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Implementation of plan to improve article for non-expert readers
Per proposal made in previous section, the plan is:
- - Move the Basic principles section ahead of the history section.
- - Move The ideal transformer to the head of Basic principles.
- - Add a section called The linear transformer.
- - In The ideal transformer retain only the part about the turns ratio and its effect on voltage, current and impedance. Move everything else including reluctance, magnetic field, magnetic flux, magnetic circuit, magnetizing current, winding resistance, counter EMF and Lenz law to The linear transformer.
- - Improve what remains in The ideal transformer.
- - The linear transformer discussion could be absorbed into the equivalent circuit section and that whole section placed after the induction law.
- First step done today - move =Basic principles= to the top with its ==Ideal transformer== sub-section first, move =History= to the botttom for now.Cblambert (talk) 01:53, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
- Step two - Promote =Equivalent circuit= to before =Basic transformer parameters and construction=Cblambert (talk) 18:53, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
- Step three - Create 'The real transformer' sect. & 'Real deviations from ideal' sub-sect w. content consisting of re-wording last part of 'The ideal transformer', promote 'Leakage flux' and 'Polarity' Cblambert (talk) 04:56, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
- The Real Transformer section is a good idea, but the last item which starts with "Since the ideal windings have no impedance" seems to be incomplete. I think it should say something like "the windings in a real transformer have a finite non-zero impedance".Constant314 (talk) 12:54, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Core form and shell form transformers: where are the secondaries?
The figure shows four examples. The single phase core type (upper left) has an obvious primary and secondary. I presume that in the other three cases that each winding represents a primary and a secondary. Is that true? Constant314 (talk) 16:23, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
- Yes. I would say that upper left is representative, not literal, such that both winding could in practice be wound on one side only or more typically as half winding on each of the two legs. That is my general recollection. Hameyer reference shows, on p. 39, core form with full winding describing it as 'high magnetic leakage -> useless!' and core form with half each winding on each leg describing it as 'low magnetic leakage'. Hameyer shows w1 (presumably usually HV) winding closest to the core, which is probably typically preferred, for economical reasons.Cblambert (talk) 20:21, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
Close gaps to get to 'Equivalent circuit' with Heyland factor?
There are now unexplained gaps in getting from 'Real transformer deviations from ideal' section and 'Equivalent circuit' section, which motivates the question 'Add new section about Heyland factor?', the question in turn being asked as a question instead of fait accompli because of the relatively high encyclopedically complexity. Referring for example to Hameyer reference, the Heyland factor σ is, by neglecting winding resistances, defined as the ratio of transformer's σ short circuit and no-load inductances as follows:
- where,
- - M is mutual inductance, i is current & L is winding self-inductance
- - subscripts 'o', 'k', '1' & '2' are no-load, short-circuit, primary & secondary, respectively.
Where a is equal to winding turn ratio, the 'Equivalent circuit' can then be defined to the way it is now as follows:
- , primary leakage inductance -> , primary leakage reactance
- , magnetizing inductance -> , magnetizing reactance.
- , secondary leakage inductance -> , secondary leakage reactance
The 'Equivalent circuit' can lastly be expressed with all secondary terms referred to the primary as follows:
- , secondary leakage inductance -> :, secondary leakage reactance
- , secondary resistance referred to primary side
- , secondary voltage referred to primary side
- , secondary voltage referred to primary side.
- This is worth pondering because of the importance of this derivation for all electrical machines, not just transformer. The derivation all ties in to Thévenin's theorem, Norton's theorem, short circuit test, open circuit test, blocked rotor test, circle diagram, Steinmetz equivalent circuit, etc.. The Heyland factor allows relatively simple visualization of electric machine principles.
- Comments?Cblambert (talk) 21:06, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
- This is not an engineering text, a place to confuse readers, or a place to show off to the crowd with, it is an encyclopedia. You can add all this gooble-dee-gook techno-babble formulae but I can assure you it will be erased and simplified before too long. Most readers could not care less about formulae, they want prose explanations. You know the professor you couldn't wait to get away from? I don't place any value about hit counts similar to the masses slowing down to see the dead body at the side of the road? That doesn't make it good. Let's hear about how long readers stayed. 174.118.142.187 (talk) 22:30, 21 April 2013 (UTC)