Stefek Zaba wrote:

Andy Wade wrote:

Stefek Zaba wrote:

[...] though (and 99.999% of the losses are inductive, too ;-)



A nonsensical statement, Sir. 100% of losses are resistive :-). Pure
inductance, whether of the self or the mutual flavour, can only store
(and retrieve) energy. If losses you want, resistance you need.

Argh! Uncle! Uncle! I give up!

Actually the iron losses whilst they may appear as resistive in an
idealised model, are not strictly resistive in nature...

You and the NatPhis are both right to take me to task on the sloppy
stuff I wrote. What I was kinda trying to get across is that the energy
transfer and energy losses are all to do with electromagnetism, rather'n
capacitive effects. And I was more or less wrong on both counts (tail
between legs) - there is an (unwanted) capacitive component to the
transfer, and as you detail the underlying mechanism for the energy loss
(inefficiency, giving rise to heating) is resistive - with actual
"ordinary" resistance dominating in small domestic transformers, while
the eddy currents (which I was thinking, loosely, about) are more
accurately considered as resistive.

We now return you to your normal broadcasts...

hmm.


Stefek