Connect with us

New Inductance

Discussion in 'Electrical Engineering' started by The Real Chris, Jul 15, 2006.

Scroll to continue with content
  1. I was only fooled once. A co-worker gave me a small screw with
    buggered up threads on it, and told me to go ask the supervisor to
    "cram" it, stating that he had a screw crammer that would straighten
    out the threads. Turns out such tools do exist, but the boss, and the
    boys had a different agenda with me.

    They got REAL mad when I drew Secretariat in the pool. I friggin
    won too, and they ripped me off for the loot. Me, a kid, didn't even
    know I got screwed. They gave me $20, and it was supposed to be like
    $80 or more (a lot back then).

    So much for my story of humility. Boss still liked me though.

    Polishing huge stainless steel plates to a grade 6 surface quality
    for use by Proctor and Gamble, and the food industry to make food
    processing tanks out of. Sheets... bars... you name it.

    I learned a lot about the world learning about surface quality and
    the like. I think it would a lot of guys good to learn such things on
    the way up.

    Why does english work in billiards? What? Not an instantaneous clack
    and rebound when the balls hit? No? Really?

    The phrase for today is:

    Modulus of Elasticity

    Not to mention:

    Coefficient of Friction

    Stainless steel is some neat stuff!

    Jus' grindin' out the pits...
     
  2. By the way Faraday said the motor force is between the windings. This is
    similar. The electronic interaction in a transformer is between the
    windings. The closer they are the better.

    Try two straight parallel wires in a resin filled with iron filings carrying
    alternating curent. It is still a 1:1 transformer. No bother with flux path.

    Chris.
     
  3. This reminds me of some english textbook long ago...
    "The boss told me to get a glass nail, a left handed screwdriver and a can
    of striped paint".
    "Just stop and think for a minute, lad!"
     
  4. Skenny

    Skenny Guest

    Sky hook and wire stretcher comes to mind...

     
  5. Ross Mac

    Ross Mac Guest

    At that point it isn't DC anymore since it is duty cycled......That would be
    a square wave would it not?....
     
  6. daestrom

    daestrom Guest

    As sailors in the Navy, we used all sorts of tricks like that on the newbie.

    Some of the more famous...
    1) Fetch me some relative bearing grease
    2) I need ten feet of water line.
    3) We drew straws and you have the mail bouy watch.

    daestrom
     

  7. What are the iron filings for?
     
  8. No, he didn't.
    No, it isn't.
    Wrong. Interwinding capacitance becomes an issue.

    AGAIN, I have made transformers, and so has the rest of the world
    where the secondary MUST be segregated from the primary. They have
    OVER 2kV isolation, and they are just as efficient as a transformer
    where the windings are placed over each other.
    You're an idiot. A loop is REQUIRED. Two, in fact for
    transformers.
     
  9. Dear Phat Bytestard:

    message ....
    Every rule has an exception (even this one?)...

    An autotransformer is a transformer with one winding ("loop").
    ;>)

    David A. Smith
     
  10. A "loop" is a turn in this case, not a winding. He stated that two
    straight wires will work, and they will not.
    More accurately, in an autotransformer a portion of the same winding
    effectively acts as part of both the primary and secondary winding.
    Still requires a core, and more than one turn (loop).

    Even with only two loops, a 1 to 1 transformer can be made in this
    configuration.

    There are no single loop autotransformers (or transformers of any
    kind). That would be an inductor. The taps cannot be on the same turn
    (loop).
     
  11. The straight wire does need a connection to a power supply and the other to
    a meter. It all goes in circles you know thats why it called circuit theory.
    Not done waveguids yet?
     
  12. He did. Have look.

     
  13. They make the wires appear to themselves closer together by slowing down the
    photons.

    Don't you know any new electricity?

    You could use a dielectric like barium titanate, or possibly a
    ferro-electret. Or a ferrite.

    Chris.
     
  14. Duct tape should do just as well. In fact, better. Photons can get
    between the filings.
     
  15. Cite the source of that Faraday quote.

    Furthermore, what about motors with only ONE winding?
     
  16. Look, you TOP POSTING USENET RETARD! (get a clue there too, boy)

    A wire placed next to another will NOT act like a transformer. A
    transformer must be able to make power, and have a high efficiency.

    Some stray signal mutually passed from a current carrying wire over
    to another proximal wire is NOT a transformer, idiot.

    You need turns (plural), as well as a core.
     
  17. You're an idiot.
    Do you know any at all?

    Ever seen a transformer used for X-ray generation? One winding is
    five inches away from the other with a huge, tape wound core.

    Kinda blows your retarded "the closer the better" assertion all to
    hell.

    Come back when you have one one-hundredth of a clue.
    You could end up being an idiot... Oooops... too late!
     
  18. Jeez, don't egg the boy on.
     
  19. Dear Phat Bytestard:


    .... which meter has another connection to the other polarity
    terminal on the power supply, forming a loop.

    Not a waveguide with only one end connected to the power supply.
    I think that is called either an "antenna" or "lightning" if that
    is the case.
    A transformer induces a current flow in a separate circuit, with
    a current flow in the driven circuit. Lightning striking a tree
    outside induces a current in oriented-similarly-to-the-tree
    wiring, thereby burning out serial I/O chips. Nothing says the
    circuit on either side has to be "closed", only that current
    flows hoever transiently.
    It is still a transformer if it makes no significant power, and
    is very inefficient. Search on "current transformer" (aka.
    "current donut").
    Right, this is called "crosstalk", and cannot be relied on for a
    paycheck... unless you find it and remove it.
    "air core transformer" 12,200 hits
    "vacuum core transformer" 0 hits
    "coreless transformer" 460 hits

    "Always in motion is the future." -- Yoda

    Don't argue from a "power magnetics" perspective. The Universe
    of electronics is bigger than that.

    David A. Smith
     
  20. Don Kelly

    Don Kelly Guest

    ----------------------------
    Yes some of the questions are rhetorical. You know the limits of circuit
    theory. You know the advantages of it where it is valid.
    As far as a magnetic field being dependent on moving electric fields - no
    problem (in fact this is a common derivation) Now the interaction of charged
    particles may well be due to particles -i.e the virtual photon which is:
    a)not observable, b)an artifact of perturbation theory, c)may not even
    exist except as a useful QED technique. I have no problem with this. As to
    magnetic fields existing-they do and can be measured and analysed. The fact
    that the effect called magnetism is caused by something else doesn't make it
    unreal. I also note that some discussions of virtual photons try to explain
    them in terms of waves, simplifying by ignoring magnetic moments. In
    addition several quantum mechanics effects involve, directly, the use of
    magnetic flux density-why?- because it is useful.

    Now, as to electromechanical energy conversion, assuming that what you imply
    by M;w and E:w as mechanical and electrical energy then one approach used
    in the analysis of electromagnetic devices such as motors/transformer and
    relays is conservation of energy along with the idea of virtual work (a form
    of perturbation) .
    Then :

    change of mech energy out =f*delta(x) =change of electrical energy in +
    change in magnetic energy stored +change in losses.

    White & Woodson, of MIT in "Electromechanical Energy Conversion" dealt with
    generalised machine models, involving use of the Hamiltonian and coordinate
    transforms. Both electrostatic and electromagnetic conversion were
    considered. Much of this was picked up by later authors. Gabriel Kron also
    wrote a very difficult to follow text using tensor analysis. While these
    authors were well aware of GR and Quantum mechanics, they did not deal with
    them because there was no need to do so.

    Certainly, in terms of semiconductors, quantum theory and energy levels are
    important but for typical machines, classical electrodynamics is quite
    adequate. It may well be that for nanomachines, this is not the case.

    However, you appear to want to deal with GR and energy conversion- The
    relationsips between GR and classical electrodynamics probably cover it.

    However, any exposure that I have had to GR, QED etc was quite a while ago
    and I cannot and will not claim any expertise in those areas. Will I learn
    more? Possibly, because of curiosity. Will I argue with the Real Chris-
    probably not--not worth the effort.
     
Ask a Question
Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?
You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.
Electronics Point Logo
Continue to site
Quote of the day

-