On Sat, 05 Jan 2013 11:30:14 -0000, wrote:

Lieutenant Scott wrote:
On Fri, 04 Jan 2013 13:14:54 -0000,
wrote:

Lieutenant Scott wrote:
On Tue, 11 Dec 2012 13:18:22 -0000,
wrote:

Lieutenant Scott wrote:






"a transformer is actually creating the voltage on the output" in
exactly the same way as, in your impractical transformer, the primary
current flowing through the "secondary" winding creates the secondary
current .......... *ain't going to happen!!*

Daniel

http://petersphotos.com/temp/transformer.jpg

Correct so far?

Where I've written "?A", it has to add up to 1.5A upwards, otherwise
you'd be getting current from nowhere - 3 amps has to come out of the
centre tap.

I see this as the 1.5A flowing down (round the source circuit), plus the
3A flowing up round the load circuit. 1.5 down plus 3 up = 1.5 up.

Sorry I've been away so long!!

Your diagram is not going to happen.....ever!!

Primary power = 240 Vp times 1.5 Ip equals 360 Watts
Secondary power = 120 Vs times 3.0 Is equals 360 watts

Secondary power equals Primary power, so no (i.e. zero, zilch) power can
be dissipated in the top half of the transformer, so zero voltage
developed across the top half of the transformer, so Vs must equal Vp,
i.e. 240 V not the 120 V your diagram shows.

Not going to happen....ever!! Sorry!!

Daniel

It was simply a rough diagram to work out the approximate current flow,
I was assuming no losses!


In my calculations I was assuming no losses, too, so it doesn't work, in
any case.

Daniel

The diagram I drew at http://petersphotos.com/temp/transformer.jpg makes perfect sense to me.

If you create a secondary coil in the lower half and seperate the two circuits, it's just like a normal transformer.

--
http://petersparrots.com
http://petersphotos.com

System error 4C: kernel panic