Talk:Transformer/Archive 2

message: Do we really need two pictures of essentially the same thing (laminated core transf) in the article. I think one would do. Any comments?--Light current 17:45, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pictures 

message: Lightcurrent do you not think the big transformer pic is too big?
Just got out of jail. LOL Scott 01:16, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Best to talk on talk:transformer really. Sorry I thought you meant the small lam core one. Well I think the large 13.8 kv is such a good picture, thats why I increased it but feel free to reduce it slightly if you like. Welcome out of the cooler!--Light current 16:36, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Large (MVA) Transformer Pic

message: What is the general consensus on forking off some of this article to Transformer (component) as was done with Capacitor and Capacitor (component)? DV8 2XL 19:11, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you outline your reasoning please?--Light current 01:15, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

text: You dont need to quote me - just tell me your reasons! ;-) I assume you think the page is to big? I dont happen to agree with you in this case since transformers do not have as many off-the-shelf variations as capacitor components do! I think splitting would destroy the integrity of the message- but please try to convince me otherwise- Im always open to a good argument!--Light current 01:40, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Possibly! I will think about it!--Light current 02:09, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split article 

message: This image is from the from a wellknown site ... with alil text added to it .... :Image:Transformer.jpg ... ripped off of http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/magnetic/transf.html ... Sincerely, JDR 21:53, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Removed inferior PMT picture as we dont need three of the same. We dont even need 2!--Light current 20:04, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Image removed

message: The structure of this article seems to me to have grown somewhat unwieldy. I've placed a proposed restructure in the article space for comment. For the most part, the changes are simply shunting around sections of text, though I have deleted a couple of sentences which I thought extraneous, plus one of the pole-mounted autotransformer images. I also slightly reduced the size of a couple of the wider images. For the time being, I have commented out the two circuit symbol tables, since I couldn't immediately see where to place them. At the least, I think they could be combined into one in order to compact things a little. --BillC 19:34, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed new structure

message: I think the text for primary and secondary current in the first diagram could do with enlarging to make it easier to see.--Light current 02:15, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Transformer diagram 

message: I think that Image:Polemount-singlephase-closeup.jpg is the best image of that type that I have seen in the article.  I would delete from the caption: "in a rural setting." I assume that it is an oil-filled transformer and would suggest adding that. It would be nice to have, in addition, an image of a 3-phase dry-type transformer with the cover removed to show the core and coils. --C J Cowie 15:46, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I agree its superb. We'd all like a nice picture of the insides of a largish power transformer-- but where to get one?--Light current 17:12, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll have a rummage around too. I used to do investigative analysis on three-phase transformers in the 240-800MVA range. --BillC 19:04, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Thats good. but well need to have a copyright free version dont forget--Light current 19:09, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Yes no problem, be my guest--Light current 23:41, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Anyone got a better image of transformer internals than the one we have?--Light current 18:58, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  If someone can find a suitable photo, I might be able to produce something similar to what has been done at the top right of Mouse (computing). BillC 19:21, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

text: There are many good photos on the web, but all copyrighted. If you did this diagrammization (for want of a better word) would there be any copyright restriction regarding the photograph from which it was copied?--Light current 23:19, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The one that I uploaded is the best I have of 3-phase transformers. I have a variety of small single phase transformers that I could photograph, but I think that they are all similar to the one that shows the laminations. -C J Cowie 19:41, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

text: The photo copyright would still belong to the original owner, unless it was released under some appropriate licence. It might be possible to contact the owner and ask for a release, though. I think an example of what we might be looking for is here:  BillC 23:44, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes I really like that diagram especally if it were a bit bigger!--Light current 23:49, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, I think the internals of a large 3 ph trans would be good. If there are no copyright problems, then I feel User:BillC's kind offer could sove the problem. I think a good couple of eyepopping diagrams at the head of the article will go a very long way to selection as a featured article.--Light current 23:23, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Here is a small 1-phase transformer: -C J Cowie 20:55, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

text:  Incidently, the idealised single-phase transformer diagram is a WP:FP candidate, after it was modestly self-nominated by me. (I would ask that no-one from here goes over there and votes though, since this message would look like I'm attempting to spam the vote process). BillC 23:44, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's not spamming if you tell them about vote and ask to vote if they like the image. Nikola 08:58, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Transformer images 

message: ===Flux coupling===
The word "some" bothers me in the sentence "In this way, some of the electrical power fed into the primary winding is delivered to the secondary winding." With 50 & 60 Hz transformers, most of the power is transferred from primary to secondary. With 400 Hz transformers, the losses are higher, but most of the power is transferred. At some higher frequencies, it is probably true that only some of the power is transferred. --C J Cowie 16:10, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah. Lets delete the word some. It will only confuse the innocent!--Light current 17:06, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Basic principles

message: The word "some" bothers me in the sentence "In this way, some of the electrical power fed into the primary winding is delivered to the secondary winding." With 50 & 60 Hz transformers, most of the power is transferred from primary to secondary. With 400 Hz transformers, the losses are higher, but most of the power is transferred. At some higher frequencies, it is probably true that only some of the power is transferred. --C J Cowie 16:10, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah. Lets delete the word some. It will only confuse the innocent!--Light current 17:06, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Flux coupling

message: For consideration:
Power transformers
:Either single phase or three phase
:Either isolating or autotransformer
:Either dry-type or oil filled
:Special types
::Variable transformers (I think this term applies only the sliding contact type. I don't think it is used when the ratio is changed in steps even if there is a tap changing device that permits changing ratio without rewiring.
Signal transformers
:Either air core or iron core (aren't all solid cores iron or material containing iron?)
:Either audio frequency or radio frequency with a gray area in between
Special types
:Resonant (can be either power or signal)
:Instrument (power to signal transducer)
:Pulse (can be either power or signal)
--C J Cowie 02:43, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes... and what?? Are you suggesting a page split by any chance??--Light current 02:49, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Well since it has recently been substantially changed by User:BillC and we have new photos, I thought we might give it a rest for a while. But why dont you try to rough out a new page layout in your sandbox and then post it on talk:transformer before going further. Your idea will involve a lot of work and Im not sure the page is really that large at the moment to warrant it. But hey-- be bold! Why not?
--Light current 04:22, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Classification 

message: moved from User talk:Light current
A gearbox would imply a speed or frequency change. I think a lever is a closer analogy. See here and here, for example. Regards, --BillC 00:35, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Gear box changes the speed (equiv to voltage), current (equ to torque) and impedance (equiv to gear ratio). The example you quote is one of a rectilineal transformer but for this to be the correct analogy, it would requre 2 lever arms and three pivots. The gearbox analogy, by contrast, only requires two gear wheels and is therefore more accurate and simpler as an analogy. Refer to Dynamical Analogies, H.F Olson,  pub van Nostrand 2nd ed 1958, Lib of Congress Cat card No 58-14102, p95.--Light current 00:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  A gear box analogy explains nothing to the article readers. The reader may think a gear box is like a transformer because it's a green-painted  metal box full of oil that makes noise when it's working. A "dynamical analogy" is OK for an engineering student already familiar with notions of speed, torque and power and who actually *can* comprehend the relationships with electrical quantities...but we're not aiming at engineering students in this article.  Either write up the analogy properly or else leave it out. --Wtshymanski 18:46, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Alrighty then. YOU & try to satisfy the plea (quoted below) of an innocent reader:
This article is too technical to the lay man, making no effort to explain to those unfamiliar with electronics what a transformer is and does, or even how it works. I suspect that many who've read this have become lost in a sea of technical terms in an attempt to garner some intelligable information, and have probably given up trying. Learning about the meaning of each and every single term and word used on this article is a pointless waste of time and energy if all that's needed is a simple explanation of the JOB and PURPOSE of a transformer, and possibly a few words on how they work - this explanation should be understandable with a bare minimum knowledge of basic electronics. This can be added at the beginning as a "basic explanation" or added alongside each section to clarify.
As youll see in the hist, this was changed from a lever analogy put in by someone else. Ill leave it to him to expand on my replacement analogy.--Light current 22:21, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

text: This, unfortunately, I feel I am unable to do. --BillC 23:18, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

text: The analogy section is much better but still disappoints me...and what's a "two wheel" gearbox? --Wtshymanski 04:01, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Because the particular analogy of a "gearbox" is a rubber crutch at best and the only way to improve it is to remove it. There's a perfectly good explanation in the article.  --Wtshymanski 23:38, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I see the analogy got fixed again. Tricky things, analogies...better to learn the physics.  --Wtshymanski 19:01, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Analogies 

message: Gentlemen, this constant warring is not really working to the betterment of the article. If I can provide any assistance in resolving things, please let me know. --BillC 09:52, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Current edits