Talk:Transformer/Archive 15

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Label your notation

The math in this article isn't quite as bad as I've seen (for example, a missing division was once propagated through half a dozen papers, it may still be there in the latest ones in that field), but it comes close.

Label your notation. State what the variables are, and for Pete's sake don't leave parts of the equations out "that everyone knows should be there."

This is why Western science has become such a joke. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.238.235.99 (talk) 04:49, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Ha-ha. Poor old WS... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.3.147.210 (talk) 06:34, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Further changes to the article's lead are subject to discussion in new Talk section

Further changes to the article's lead are subject to discussion in new Talk section.Cblambert (talk) 21:13, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

You have no authority to demand any such thing. See WP:OWN. Anyone can edit, that is one of the pillars of Wikipedia. SpinningSpark 21:24, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for setting off the discussion. The lead for this GA has not changed subtantially for over two years. It is not acceptable following lead approval in GA to make without discussion wholesale changes such as done earlier today. What is the point of having GAs if anyone can out of the blue make wholesale changes to the lead?

If too many poor changes are made to a GA, the article can accordingly be downgraded.

A criterion for immediate failure for consideration for GA nomination states that 'The article is not stable . . .'. Making wholesale changes following 2 years of stability of GA's lead implies by definition unstability of GA.Cblambert (talk) 22:36, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Those are criteria looked at before an article becomes a GA. It has nothing to do with what happens afterwards. SpinningSpark 22:52, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

You didn't say either in your edit summary or here that you thought the changes were poor or why. A rational reason for reverting is what is expected, not a demand from authority that everything is discussed first. I'm pretty sure you won't find anything in guidelines that make GAs an exception to that. Hell, there is not even an exception for FAs, and there is more of a case there for caution in making major edits given the depth of reviewing and work that goes into those. SpinningSpark 22:52, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

I stand by my comments above. If you want mediocrity, go right ahead and suit yourself any old day you care to. Many thanks, Spinningspark.Cblambert (talk) 23:09, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Core model extension

A few suggestions about the core modelling

• Under section "Ideal transformer" -> "Deviations from ideal" there should be a mentioning about "The magnetizing current, $I_{M}$, caused by the finite permeability of the core." possibly with a internal link to a new subsection "Core model"
• The new subsection "Core model" could be inserted after "Leakage flux" and the related content within "Equivalent circuit" can be moved to this new section. This section can also be extended with more facts.
• Extending the sentence "With sinusoidal supply, core flux lags the induced EMF by 90°. With open-circuited secondary winding, magnetizing branch current I0 equals transformer no-load current.[25]" + "This current is also called the exciting current, $I_{e}$." .
• The shunt reactance $X_{M}$ can be estimated as

$X_{m}={\frac {N_{1}^{2}\omega }{{\mathcal {R}}_{c}}}$

where $N_{1}$ is the number of turns on the primary side, $\omega$ the electrical angular frequency and ${\mathcal {R}}_{c}$ is the magnetic_reluctance of the core . It can be noted that as the core permeability → $\infty$, ${\mathcal {R}}_{c}$ → 0, $X_{m}$ → $\infty$ and $I_{m}$ → 0 (as for the ideal transformer). Mogge ketchup (talk) 11:04, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

References

Poor lead

We should avoid introducing too much technical jargon into the lead of hte article. We can give a clear summary of the contents without linking to external dictionary sites to explain ourselves. --Wtshymanski (talk) 15:38, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

I've temporarily protected the article to stop this developing into a full-blown edit war. Here is my take on what our guidelines have to say about the issues in dispute

• WP:LEAD says the lead should summarize the contents of the article. No version of the lead has so far come anywhere near close to doing this IMO.
• MOS:INTRO says the lead should be accessible. This is usually interpreted as meaning the lead should be at least understandable to a general reader with no special knowledge of the subject.
• WP:EL says external links "should not normally be placed in the body of an article". Creating a Harvard ref link that skips down to the external links section is still in contravention of this guideline and is also horribly confusing. If the Electropedia links are to be used as references at all, they should be formatted as normal references in the same reference style used in the rest of the article. SpinningSpark 16:12, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

I would also comment that user:Cblambert restored the Electropedia links several times with the comment "per talk". I see no mention of Electropedia anywhere in the talk page archives of this page. If you are going to refer to a talk page discussion, especially if it has been archived, it is best to provide a link to it so we can all see what was said. SpinningSpark 17:07, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

The statement 'If the Electropedia links are to be used as references at all' is not good enough. What exactly is the Wikipedia policy on "World's Online Electrotechnical Vocabulary"?Cblambert (talk) 18:39, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Let us be clear about the statement, "No version of the lead has so far come anywhere near close to doing this IMO." This statement is user Spinningspark's own personal opinion.Cblambert (talk) 18:39, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

The article archive clearly shows that much effort has been devoted over a period of many years to come up with the Transformer article's lead before, during and after GA finalization. If it was so obvious, there should accordingly be no issue at some point about the lead.Cblambert (talk) 18:39, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Also, I completely disagree with the paragraph comment starting with "WP:EL says external links . . . " The assertion "is also horribly confusing" is obviously not an objective reason to disprove external link usage.Cblambert (talk) 19:18, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

As Cblambert says, the lede was a result of a collaborative effort with give and take and compromise. I was one of the collaborators as was Clambert. I didn’t get everything that I wanted. I would like to see the lede reverted back from Wtshymanski’s most recent good faith edit, as a starting point for improvement. That would restore the wording to close to what it has been for some time. When we finish the improvement process, we may indeed wind up with exactly with Wtshymanski’s edit. I do not care for the inline internet links, but I do not have a strong opinion about them.Constant314 (talk) 22:40, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Transformer GA Reassessment

In light of absence of consensus, I suggest that Transformer article be nominated for re-assessment in accordance with Wikipedia Good Article Reassessment Guidelines] until such time as the quality of article's lead is restored to GA requirements.Cblambert (talk) 21:41, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

I think it would be better to work out a mutually-acceptable improved version of the lead, rather than wasting the GA evaluator's time. Reify-tech (talk) 00:07, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

This is what the GA reviewer's lead read like when he give the article a GA pass grade late in the day on July 27, 2014:

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A transformer is an electrical device that transfers energy between two or more circuits through electromagnetic induction.

A varying current in the transformer's primary winding creates a varying magnetic flux in the core and a varying magnetic field impinging on the secondary winding. This varying magnetic field at the secondary induces a varying electromotive force (emf) or voltage in the secondary winding. Making use of Faraday's Law in conjunction with high magnetic permeability core properties, transformers can thus be designed to efficiently change AC voltages from one voltage level to another within power networks.

Transformers range in size from RF transformers a small cm3 fraction in volume to units interconnecting the power grid weighing hundreds of tons. A wide range of transformer designs are used in electronic and electric power applications. Since the invention in 1885 of the first constant potential transformer, transformers have become essential for the AC transmission, distribution, and utilization of electrical energy.[3]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A key criterion of GA is that the article has stabilized so that there an absence of drastically different changes including of course re that of the lead. The criterion has been blown to shreds several times in the past few weeks. This provides ample evidence of lack of consensus. The only way to regain consensus is to give the article some teeth so the stakes are high enough. Choosing between de-listing of GA and restoring lead stability comparable to that of most recent GA review provides such stakes.

Cblambert (talk) 01:39, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

In postscript, according to Good article criteria, "an article can, but by no means must, be failed without further review (known as quick failing) if, prior to the review . . . the article is not stable due to edit warring on the page." By extension, the same applies to GA reassessment review. Although the general implication is that a GA should always be edit-warring-free, the Transformer GA has in fact recently had to be partially or completely protected twice for edit-warring reasons.

Cblambert (talk) 16:46, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

I have filed a GAR project in accordance with GAR guidelines. Refer to http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_reassessment/Transformer/1#Community_reassessment.Cblambert (talk) 19:13, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Cblambert, this is an inappropriate use of GAR: The only way to regain consensus is to give the article some teeth so the stakes are high enough. It will also be remarkably ineffective. The so-called instability has settled down each time within a matter of days, and starting a GAR while an article is fully protected means that nothing at all can be done—and the article was actually stable (due to protection) when the GAR was filed. Remember, the goal of a GAR is to retain the article at GA if at all possible by working on it, and that work should be done here, on this talk page, even if it takes some weeks and a great deal of back and forth. Community GARs typically run for months, not weeks, and the people who comment there are unlikely to have the necessary scientific knowledge to be able to parse many of the issues; based on my experience at GAR, they'd be more likely to complain about dense jargon in the lead than to support its retention. My advice is to withdraw the GAR, and work things out here on the talk page. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:19, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree with that. GAR is not a productive way forward. SpinningSpark 22:23, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Working things on the talk page has not worked and there should be no need for protection is a GA. The quick fail option can be invoked is consensus cannot be reached. De-listing of GA may be what is needed to give time to talk, invoke protection every so often, etc. I say keep the GAR process going with justification as outlined in above talk page.Cblambert (talk) 00:25, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

It is with the Transformer article's lead that this GAR applies to for consensus reaching purposes. Opinions about the lead are wide ranging. We have of course the original GA's lead that was given the pass grade on July 27, 2014, this version of the lead having stayed essentially the same until February 3 last. On that day, User:CPES, who had, and has since, never made a contribution to the article, made 15 consecutive changes in 16 hours 80 minutes. No opportunity for working out on the talk page there. We have the opinion of User:Wtshymanski, who, having collaborated extensively to the Transformer article, including during the GA process, now seems anxious to term the article as having a ==Poor Lead== (see above, I have added the ? so the section now reads ==Poor Lead?==). We also have the opinion of User:Spinningspark, who is of the opinion that "WP:LEAD says the lead should summarize the contents of the article. No version of the lead has so far come anywhere near close to doing this IMO." (refer to this talk page). So, do we have a GA or don't we? Clearly, the answer to this question is that we don't know. Hence, the need for the GAR process.Cblambert (talk) 02:06, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

While realizing that all Wikipedia editors have equal editing rights and with all due respect for the impressive contribution that you, BlueMoonset & Spinningspark, have made to some 30+ good articles in terms of helping promote them on Wikipedia, the user contribution statistics that follow may help place in perspective the key users mentioned in the above talk page:

- 0 edits by BlueMoonset, 0.0% of the total edits

- 10 edits by Reify-tech, 0.17% of the total edits, 29-03-12 to 15-01-14

- 15 edits by CPES, 0.26% of the total edits, 07:42 to 09:02, 03-02-17

- 62 edits by Spinningspark,1.06% of the total edits, 31-12-10 to 07-03-17

- 87 edits by Constant314, 1.49% of the total edits, 18-08-11 to 21-07-16

- 239 edits by Wtshymanski,4.1% of the total edits,10-12-04 to 07-03-17

- 684 edits by Cblambert,11.73% of the total edits, 17-02-12 to 07-03-17 .

I consider having helped promote 2 good articles on Wikipedia, including the Transformer article.Cblambert (talk)

Wikipedia:Editcountitis SpinningSpark 15:21, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Edit counts count for little, because they don't reflect the content or quality of the edits. I could easily have inflated my edit count by a factor of 10 or more, simply by saving each small change as a separate edit, but this just clutters up the logs. Wikipedia does not have a policy encouraging this. Reify-tech (talk) 16:13, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Zero edit count is zero count. CPES did have 15 edits in 80 minutes never to be heard from again. Aside from having edit count issues, what are the pros and cons of GAR?Cblambert (talk) 17:42, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Other editors have already advised you that GAR is an unsuitable process for what you are trying to achieve. You seem to want GAR to approve the original GA so that you can continue to demand that no substantial changes to the article are made in the future. This was never what GA was intended to do and you are developing a WP:OWN attitude by continuing to push for that. Remember, GA is awarded by just a single reviewer and the competence and care of reviewers can vary enormously. GA has never been meant to represent any sort of finished article. Later improvements are actually expected. You might have a better case if the page was a Featured Article. FAs undergo an open community review and are much more exacting. But even for FAs, there is no support for denying changes simply because the change goes against the original article promotion. If you insist on going ahead with the GAR, I will request that the close explicitly makes this point (that there is no proscription against making substantial changes to GAs and that the GAR does not in any way enable such). SpinningSpark 20:52, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 18 April 2017

Remove duplicate RECTIFORMER entry under See Also WordSurd (talk) 21:38, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Done. SpinningSpark 10:32, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Phasor diagrams

Phasor diagrams Asifayoubdar (talk) 11:42, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

The Transformer is Hungarian invention.

References: https://pte.hu/english/hungarian_inventions

http://www.edisontechcenter.org/Transformers.html

https://books.google.hu/books?id=g07Q9M4agp4C&pg=PA95&lpg=PA95&dq=transformator+hungarian+invention&source=bl&ots=BDwG_EihLR&sig=PR5nP-yAyPbLqM1LjF0g20tBkoc&hl=hu&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjF9qb35P3YAhUSJlAKHWK-AdUQ6AEIWTAJ#v=onepage&q=transformator%20hungarian%20invention&f=false — Preceding unsigned comment added by InterCity(IC) (talk • contribs) 29 jan 2018 19:43 (UTC)

This is not reflected in the text of this article. Could you try amending that as well? ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 18:46, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

When i have a time i will write in the article, otherwise in the Spanish (and Hungarianin categories) wikipedia as a Hungarian invention, the transformer is indicated, but I did not look at all the language versions. InterCity(IC) (talk) 19:10, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

It is not obvious at all that the transformer is a Hungarian invention. This issue is discussed more in depth in this source: --Ita140188 (talk) 02:16, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Faraday wasn't Hungarian. --Wtshymanski (talk) 18:20, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

The truth hurts that Hungarians invented the transformer. Faraday only defined the law of electromagnetic induction. Closed-core transformer Károly Zipernowsky, Ottó Bláthy and Miksa Déri (ZBD) This type of transformer is widespread. I will not go deep into this useless debate, if you know that I speak the truth, but it denies. InterCity(IC) (talk) 19:07, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

If there is no argument against it, it will be put back as a Hungarian invention. InterCity(IC) (talk) 18:08, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Needs a citation. Faraday wasn't Hungarian. Now, if you're talking of a transformer used in a power distribution system, you might have a slightly better case...but without very specific qualifications and references, it's not a good claim. --Wtshymanski (talk) 19:35, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Faraday, brilliant and accomplished experimenter that he was, did not just "define the law of electromagnetic induction" (and actually that was much more Maxwell than Faraday). Faraday demonstrated electromagnetic induction. That means he made a transformer. Not a very good or practical one, but a transformer nonetheless. Jeh (talk) 20:01, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

The book cited at the top of this section says that the Hungarians made substantial improvements, but it does not attribute the invention to them.Constant314 (talk) 21:11, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Faraday was a great man like Edison or Tesla, but I could not find anywhere about it, that he would have invented the transformer. For the transformer, so much to Faraday that he found his operation, to define the law of electromagnetic induction. Anyway if the closed-core transformer had not been invented, then the world would look like is not so at present. The modern world would not exist and we would not be talking here on the wikipedia. since this would not exist if they did not find the closed-core transformer. InterCity(IC) (talk) 21:16, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Did you read about Faraday's experiment? He used a closed core - it was even the efficient toroidal shape, not the rectangular approximation that so many transformers have. --Wtshymanski (talk) 23:05, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Assuming that it makes sense at all to talk about who invented the transformer (as that depends on what do you mean by invention.. first demonstration? First practical device? First commercial device?), I would say Faraday too. But I think it doesn't make much sense to specify an inventor. --Ita140188 (talk) 03:04, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

@InterCity(IC):: Do you disagree with the first sentence? "A transformer is an electrical device that transfers electrical energy between two or more circuits through electromagnetic induction." Well, Faraday demonstrated that phenomenon. That means he made a transformer. But I agree with Ita140188: it shouldn't be attributed to any one country. Jeh (talk) 03:18, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

This is one of those fractured ‘inventions’. All the accepted sources show that Michael Faraday constructed the first piece of apparatus that was recognisably a transformer in around 1830ish and can therefore be said to have invented it. Faraday built the device solely to investigate if switching on or off the current in one coil induced an emf in the other (as a permanent magnet had done with a single coil of wire). However, Faraday never investigated further and certainly never made the connection between numbers of turns and changes of emf in the windings. Joseph Henry (an American) unaware of Faraday’s work, independently built a similar apparatus about a year later to (re)‘discover’ the phenomenon and give it the name ‘mutual induction’. He also failed to make the connection between turns and emf.

Various engineers explored using a similar pair of coils to produce high voltages (as in the induction coil or Rhumkorff coil - not invented by Rhumkorff) by regularly interrupting the primary current. In doing so they discovered most of the characteristics that we understand today, mostly by trial and error. Many inventors have been put forward as the inventor of such induction coils but the reality is that no one person can be said to have truly invented it.

It was subsequently found that similar coils could be powered from AC without having to use an interrupter. This was a true application of the classic transformer, but it was still seen as an induction coil for producing high voltage sparks. In 1878, the Hungarians started using transformers for electric lighting. However, Yablochkov, a Russian, beat them to it by 2 years using AC powered induction coils to power arc lamps of his own invention (the Yablochkov candle). Yablochkov’s induction coils were essentially transformers.

The bottom line is: that the transformer was invented by Faraday about 15 years before the Hungarians. It is fair to say that the Hungarian Ganz company turned it into a more efficient device that could be produced on a reasonable scale. 85.255.233.138 (talk) 18:00, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

References

Missing

Where is the e-core diagram? Why is torroidol missing in types?--2605:6000:1A0D:1C0:0:94F:F47E:FDD1 (talk) 23:10, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Regarding zero flux in the core of an ideal transformer

First an analogous situation: a capacitor with infinite capacitance. No matter how many amp seconds of charge you put into it, its voltage is zero. But, if you put an amp of current into it for 1 second, then it has 1 coulomb of charge, even though the voltage is zero. Analogously, if I have an infinite inductance and I apply 1 volt for 1 second, then there is 1 weber of flux in that inductor, even though the current is zero. What is true is that the net magnetomotive force is zero because if it wasn’t, there would be infinite flux. So, how do you get flux when there is zero magnetomotive force. Well, in this case zero times infinity is something finite. When you mess with infinity casually, sometimes strange things happen. The proper way to deal with it is to assume that the inductance is very large and then see what happens as that inductance approaches infinity. So, if I apply 1 volt for 1 second to an inductor with finite inductance L, the inductor gets 1 weber of flux. No matter how big the inductor is, 1 volt applied for 1 second always produces 1 weber of flux. Even in the limit of infinite inductance. Constant314 (talk) 21:31, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Flux cutting depreciated

Flux cutting is graphic, but it is a 19’th century concept. The modern concept (from at least the mid 20’th century) is that the flux doesn’t move. Its components just change value. Accordingly, I am going to replace referrals to flux cutting in the article with more modern language.Constant314 (talk) 00:32, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Ideal transformer has zero Magnetomotive force

This involves a slight bit of synthesis from Brenner and Javid. Page 599 gives i₂/i₁ = 1/n and 1/n = n₁/n₂ which can be combined by simple arithmetic to give i₁n₁ = i₂n₂ or i₁n₁ - i₂n₂ = 0.

Hayt & Kemmerly in Engineering Circuit Analysis, 5'th on page 446 state plainly that i₁n₁ = i₂n₂, but it doesn't seem worth adding a reference for that.

(i₁n₁ - i₂n₂) is the magnetomotive force, using the current reference directions given in the figure in the same section. Constant314 (talk) 20:40, 9 December 2018 (UTC)