Talk:Transformer/Archive 4

message: (hdg for nav)
If both lots of flux are not included in the diagram of a transformer, you tend to get into all sorts of trouble in explaining whats happening- which is the situation we have now. Both lots of flux should be shown in the diag. Pri flux generated by pri winding  and sec flux generated by sec wdg. Then they both cancel out and everybody's happy!--Light current 22:13, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your unique perspective challenges us all. Everyone else seems to have a different understanding of how a transformer works. Only one flux, two opposing MMFs.  --Wtshymanski 22:16, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Resultant flux in core 

message: First you apply an ac voltage to the primary. This gives rise to a pri current which tend to cause a flux in the core. If the sec is loaded, a current will flow in it creating an opposing flux. This leaves only the magnetising flux in the core . Very simple!.
Paul, Now you will see that in order to get flux in the core in the first place, you need to apply a primary voltage. THis is what starts the whole process off. So it it ludicrous to say that the primary flux CAUSES the primary voltage. Just plain Madness!!!--Light current 00:11, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Go complain to Michael Faraday.  The standard way to write this is that voltage is proportional to the change in flux.  It makes no sense to do it the other way around in wikipedia.  Also, I think you are confusing the input voltage with the voltage across the primary.  The voltage across the primary is not at all what starts the process.  It is a response to a change in flux (change in current).  At the start, there is zero voltage across the primary.  You attach an input voltage.  This causes a small amount of current.  The winding reacts to this current with a back EMF.  There is no EMF until there is current.  Pfalstad 03:55, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

text: The second equation is labeled "Similarly, the voltage induced across the secondary winding is".  That is clearly talking about the EMF, which is caused by the flux.  Would you feel better if we said "the voltage induced across the primary winding is proportional to the rate of change of flux"?  That makes it clear that we are talking about the EMF not the input voltage.  And if you want you can say "this must be equal to the input voltage Vf".  The text is a bit unclear about which is the applied voltage and which is the EMF.  (They're equal, so it's easy to get them confused.)  The applied voltage is labeled V_f in the diagram, but lowercase v is used in the text to mean either the emf or the applied voltage.  Pfalstad 04:13, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Mathematical equality is not assignment and has no sequence implied. --Wtshymanski 19:00, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The truth is that it can be the current or the voltage that induces the flux in the winding(s), to prove this you can look at the extreme cases, assuming an ideal lossless transformer: A. Short circuit at the secondary.  if an ideal current source was applied to the primary no voltage would be iduced at either end, but there would be current at both.  B. Open circuit, if a voltage source were applied no current would flow in either, but we would see proportional voltages at each end.  Of course, the problem with this explaination is that it does not account for the transients that are present in a real transformer, which you need to take into account to really explain what happens sequentially in a transformer, but that is really too deep for wikipedia I think, becuase it is different for different scenarios.  All that i really wanted to say is that the way it is right now, in the opening is fine i think, but the section on coupling by mutual induction is symantically wrong.  Magnetomotive force is IpNp, it has nothing to do with Vp (although it's a common confusion, because of the fact that magnetomotive force is analogous to electromotive force).  Anwyay, i'm not going to make this change right now.  But it's something to consider.  Nozog 09:58, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

text: No..  The secondary current opposes the primary flux.  It generates a magnetic field that (mostly) cancels the flux generated by the primary.  So the image is correct.  Pfalstad 23:11, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  How a transformer works 

message: Transformer will appear on the front page of Wikipedia on Friday 28th April. If you can find ways to polish the article in time for that date, it would be welcome! --BillC 17:48, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Where was the featured article proposed. I have seen no info on this and it doesnt appear in the featured article list. So whats going on?--Light current 17:58, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Front page 

message: Sorry if I was misleading. Transformer isn't a Featured Article, needing to go through peer review and then FA candidacy. However, :Image:Transformer3d col3.svg will be a featured picture of the day on the front page then, and will contain a small intro section taking the reader straight to the Transformer article. It will, therefore be subject to more eyes than normal. The plan for next month's front page Featured Pictures is at Wikipedia:Picture_of_the_day/April_2006.-BillC 19:11, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Now that you've got this picture, could you do the "turn of wire turning in a magnetic field" that the generator article needs desparately? I've had Inkscape for months but no time to practice using it (and not enough skill to use it for a decent picture without practice).--22:37, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured article or picture? 

message: Regardless of any merits of its inclusion, the new branchlist box is disrupting the top of the article. If you really want navboxes of this nature, they're generally better placed as horizontal boxes at the bottom of the article. See for example any of the Swiss canton navboxes, or those relating to a pope. --BillC 20:10, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Im afraid I cant agree here Bill. The branch list must me at the article top to aid speedy navigation back and forth. After all, when you dial up a new page, it displays from the top down.--Light current 20:12, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  But the "branchlist" is in fact a menace to navigation - it clutters up the top of the article which is supposed to grab the user and give them enough information to decide if they need to read the rest or not. LINKS are for navigation.  Many of the branchlists have been stunningly irrevant to the pages they appear on - maybe someone things tubes and MOSFETs are alike, but I doubt J. Random Encyclopedia User wants to be diverted off-topic at the very start of the article.  --Wtshymanski 21:16, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Ah well, its going to be a trade off isnt it. I dont regard it as a diversion, more as a handy way to waltz aroun the topic. Those who know where they are going will ignore it anyway! The lesser of two evils lets say! Can you make +ve suggestion?--Light current 21:20, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes I will consult with Lindosland reagrding the placement of the branchlist. Thank you for your comments.--Light current 21:31, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Ive moved the lede img to the left . Is that any good?--Light current 21:37, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Well where would you suggest putting it . (Be polite please!)--Light current 21:44, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wish we had a better picture - what an ugly little pole-pig. Didn't we used to have a better picture?  --Wtshymanski 21:59, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's this in the Commons. The image description translates as 'three-phase medium voltage transformer cross-section'. --BillC 02:50, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Well BillC,  the idea is supposed to make it easier for newbies and others to find thier way around their topic of interest. For instance, if I was a newbie, and got to a page that wasnt quite what I was looking for, I wouldnt want to have to scroll all the way down to the bottom and hack my way thro' a complicated category list. I want to hit the 'back button' (or equivalent) or choose another subject from the conveniently palced menu at the top of the page.--Light current 22:39, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Branchlist 

message: LC, it must be clear that inserting the branchlist, if nothing else, is really spoiling the format of the start of the article. I have inserted a breakafterimages template to try to improve things a little. If you move text from Introduction into the lead section, then the space there will be filled and it should look better. In fact, there is no real need for an 'Introduction' at all. Why not move all of that into the lead? Per WP:LEAD, an article of this length should expect 2-3 medium-length paragraphs in its lead. This was tried before, but you removed it. --BillC 21:47, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done it! Any better?--Light current 22:16, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

text: What? Is that not what you suggested? Or Ihave I misunderstood you?--Light current 00:01, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Format of lead paragraph 

message: I have been asked to come back and comment on the improvements made to this page since I last commented. And I must say that the improvements have helped a lot, well done to all those who were involved in making the changes. --Badharlick 06:43, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Improvements have helped

message: Question moved from article to talk page:
What is the relationship between the AC voltage waveform on the primary and the AC voltage waveform on the secondary?    Are the two waves synchronized in time and frequency?    Are they in phase? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.255.22.129 (talk • contribs) 
:The flux in the core is 90° in phase behind the primary voltage. The voltage induced on the secondary is 90° ahead of the flux, so if the primary and secondary windings are in the same sense, the primary and secondary voltages are in phase with each other (i.e. synchronised). If the secondary is wound in the opposite sense, there is a 180° phase change between primary and secondary. The two waveforms have the same frequency, as a transformer alone cannot change this. (Magnetic saturation can introduce non-linearities into the equation, which has the effect of introducing component frequencies, but this is an effect associated with a non-ideal transformer.) (BTW, questions should be posted to talk pages, not to articles, thanks.) --BillC 16:59, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Phase relationship 

message: I have renamed "High frequency operation" to "Operation at different frequency". 400 Hz is not "HF". I do not know if this a good solution. I have added additional data to this section.
*Analogies are useful, this article needs something different. alex 17:19, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Read Dynamical Analogies by Harry F. Olson ;-)--Light current 17:49, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I have now edited this out. It is preserved as an example for over-complicated explanation, which any already exists at an other place. I am collecting examples of such language usage here: User:Akidd_dublin/cleanup/language_usage Akidd dublin•tl•ctr-l 15:10, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have reinstated the gearbox analogy (which is a good one) until someone can come up with something better.--Light current 17:30, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's fine, however it is already explained within the gear box article. If a schoolteacher talks that way, i do not like it, because it is over-complicated. Akidd dublin•tl•ctr-l 12:39, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Sorry this is an analogy for transformer operation, not an explanation of gear boxes. 8-| --Light current 13:59, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  rewrite