Use of the word "transformer"

[JohnW2]

Thank you. So the premise that "A TRANSFORMER" is a specific item and everyone knows what you mean is a flawed one.

I'm a bit confused. Why are you thanking Gerry for saying that "it seems a shame" (i.e. would be better if it wasn't the case) that people are using "transformer" to refer to something which is not just a wire-wound component?

Kind Regards, John

 

[Gerrydelasel]

So the premise that "A TRANSFORMER" is a specific item and everyone knows what you mean is a flawed one.

Not in the sense that it is a coil wound on a core. Transformers always had that in common.
But if you put converters under the same umbrella then you have diluted the name to the point where whole circuits can now be called 'transformers'. It's a slipperly slope to vaguerity.

 

[JohnW2]

Admittedly even in the context of an electronics wholesaler you would still have to specify whether you wanted a power transformer, line matching transformer, current transformer...

Sure - and, as with most products, you might want to specify the brand, type of mounting or even colour etc. ... BUT it would be nice (and, IMO, preferable) if it was at least certain that what you were asking for was some sort of wire-wound component.

But it does seem a shame to overload the name even more with something that's not even a wound component.

Exactly,

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

I thanked Gerry for stating that it is necessary to qualify 'transformer' to get what you want.

Even to the extent, probably, that you have to say 'a traditional wire-wound one'

 

[JohnW2]

I thanked Gerry for stating that it is necessary to qualify 'transformer' to get what you want. Even to the extent, probably, that you have to say 'a traditional wire-wound one'

Fair enough, but the more specific/unique is the first-used word, the fewer the number of levels of 'drill-down' one has to go through as regards details - hence making for easier/quicker/better communication, which is the purpose of language ...

... I could go into a shop and ask for 'food'. When questioned, I could first indicate that I was looking for meat, then meat products, then sausages, then pork sausages. However, if I'd asked for sausages in the first place, those four levels of 'drill-down' would have been reduced to one. Similarly, with things as they are, if I ask for a "transformer", I first have to indicate that I want a wire-wound one, before going on to answer questions about further details. If the current trend hadn't happened, that first 'drill-down' stage of 'clarification' would not be necessary.

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

I said similar to that but much more succinctly - loaf - remember?.

Are you trying to prolong the discussion?


Your definition of transformer is much vaguer than you have been implying.

 

[JohnW2]

Your definition of transformer is much vaguer than you have been implying.

I'm not really interested in the (dictionary) definition of of "transformer" since, as discussed, that encompasses a high proportion of manufactured and biological things, and a good few others! What I am interested in is the 'common usage' of the word (in the context of electrical things), which was well-established for many decades, and which was/is anything but vague.

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

I'm not really interested in the (dictionary) definition of of "transformer" since, as discussed, that encompasses a high proportion of manufactured and biological things, and a good few others!

That's a pity as it's what I have been trying to get through to several of you.

What I am interested in is the 'common usage' of the word (in the context of electrical things), which was well-established for many decades, and which was/is anything but vague.

On the contrary, you will still need a few of your drill-downs.

I cannot understand why w-w cores have to be protected from evolution.



It has all been a waste of time, really.



It's as I said; 'telly' is an abbreviation only used for 'televisions' while it actually means 'distant' and there are many other 'tele' words. An inappropriate abbreviation but no one has any trouble with it.
If I watch telly on my PC or tablet, will it engender equal vehemence and such true pedantry as does the transformer?

oops, wrong one.

 

[JohnW2]

It's as I said; 'telly' is an abbreviation only used for 'televisions' while it actually means 'distant' and there are many other 'tele' words. An inappropriate abbreviation but no one has any trouble with it.

Exactly, and the reason why they don't have trouble with it is that (although things could, but didn't, have happened differently), "telly" has come into common usage, for a number of decades, to relate to one specific thing out of the spectrum of possible"tele" things.

Similarly, although "transformer" could have (but didn't) come to be commonly used to refer to other things (any thing which transforms), what happened was that it came into common usage, for many decades to refer to just one of those many things which technically (linguistically) qualify as "transformers".

If I watch telly on my PC or tablet, will it engender equal vehemence and such true pedantry as does the transformer?

Would that be a paracetamol tablet, an aspirin tablet, or what? ... and what has Political Correctness (or did you mean Privy Councillor?) got to do with it?

Kind Regards, John

 

[stillp]

At first sight I cannot see anything there which looks like a 1:1 isolating transformer. I'm also a bit confused, because the defintion given for just "transformer" appears to be: .... which is very different from the definition which you posted (and which I recently quoted), not to mention being seemingly very vague.

Kind Regards, John

You need to look at the context in which the definition applies, i.e. the specific Part of IEC 60050. You've quoted from Part 351 "Control technology", whereas my definition is from 151 "Electrical and magnetic devices". Another example is in "Circuit theory":
ideal transformer

two-terminal-pair network for which the sum of instantaneous powers at the two-terminal pairs is identically equal to zero and for which the ratio of the input voltage and the output voltage has a constant value K
Note 1 – An ideal transformer can be considered as a linear inductive 2-terminal-pair element characterized by a singular inductance matrix.

Note 2 – For an ideal transformer, the input voltage u1, the output voltage u2, the input currenti1 and the output current i2 are related by the formula:

u1u2=−i2i1=K MathType@MTEF@5@5@+=feaagKart1ev2aqatCvAUfeBSjuyZL2yd9gzLbvyNv2CaerbbjxAHXgaruavP1wzZbItLDhis9wBH5garmWu51MyVXgaruWqVvNCPvMCG4uz3bqee0evGueE0jxyaibaieYdi9WrpeeC0lXdi9qqqj=hEeeu0lXdbba9frFj0xb9Lqpepeea0xd9s8qiYRWxGi6xij=hbba9q8aq0=yq=He9q8qiLsFr0=vr0=vr0db8meGabaGacmGadiWaaiWabaabaiaafaaakeaadaWcaaqaaKqzGeGaamyDaOWaaSbaaSqaaKqzadGaaGymaaWcbeaaaOqaaKqzGeGaamyDaOWaaSbaaSqaaKqzadGaaGOmaaWcbeaaaaqcLbsacqGH9aqpcqGHsislkmaalaaabaqcLbsacaWGPbGcdaWgaaWcbaqcLbmacaaIYaaaleqaaaGcbaqcLbsacaWGPbGcdaWgaaWcbaqcLbmacaaIXaaaleqaaaaajugibiabg2da9iaadUeaaaa@4D6A@" role="presentation" style="display: inline; font-size: 14.6667px; word-spacing: normal; word-wrap: normal; white-space: nowrap; float: none; direction: ltr; max-width: none; max-height: none; min-width: 0px; min-height: 0px; border: 0px; padding: 0px; margin: 0px; position: relative;">u1u2=−i2i1=KMathType@MTEF@5@5@+=feaagKart1ev2aqatCvAUfeBSjuyZL2yd9gzLbvyNv2CaerbbjxAHXgaruavP1wzZbItLDhis9wBH5garmWu51MyVXgaruWqVvNCPvMCG4uz3bqee0evGueE0jxyaibaieYdi9WrpeeC0lXdi9qqqj=hEeeu0lXdbba9frFj0xb9Lqpepeea0xd9s8qiYRWxGi6xij=hbba9q8aq0=yq=He9q8qiLsFr0=vr0=vr0db8meGabaGacmGadiWaaiWabaabaiaafaaakeaadaWcaaqaaKqzGeGaamyDaOWaaSbaaSqaaKqzadGaaGymaaWcbeaaaOqaaKqzGeGaamyDaOWaaSbaaSqaaKqzadGaaGOmaaWcbeaaaaqcLbsacqGH9aqpcqGHsislkmaalaaabaqcLbsacaWGPbGcdaWgaaWcbaqcLbmacaaIYaaaleqaaaGcbaqcLbsacaWGPbGcdaWgaaWcbaqcLbmacaaIXaaaleqaaaaajugibiabg2da9iaadUeaaaa@4D6A@

with the usual reference conventions for associated voltages and currents given for two-port networks in IEC 60375:2003, Clause 7.

Note 3 – Under sinusoidal conditions, the impedance Z1 seen at the input port is the product of the terminating impedance Z at the output port by the square of the constant K:

Z1 = K2Z

Note 4 – An ideal transformer is a circuit element that neither stores nor dissipates energy. The transformer as a device is defined in IEC 60050-151.

 

[JohnW2]

You need to look at the context in which the definition applies, i.e. the specific Part of IEC 60050. You've quoted from Part 351 "Control technology", whereas my definition is from 151 "Electrical and magnetic devices".

Fair enough - but all I did was look at the definition of "transformer" on the page to which you gave me a link!

In any event, what do you think about what I said in relation to the (Part 151) definition of "transformer"? Do you agree with me that it would include "a resistor or three in a box" (which presumably would count as an "electrical device"), but that it would exclude a 1:1 wire-wound isolation transformer?

Kind Regards, John

 

[stillp]

Fair enough - but all I did was look at the definition of "transformer" on the page to which you gave me a link!

There are 87 definitions on that link!

Do you agree with me that it would include "a resistor or three in a box" (which presumably would count as an "electrical device"), but that it would exclude a 1:1 wire-wound isolation transformer?

Not sure if the resistors in a box would count as a device, and at least one of the definitions requires the output power to be substantially equal to the input power, but I've looked at several of the definitions and haven't found one that would describe a 1:1 isolating transformer. I'll have to look at some transformer standards for a product-specific definition.

 

[JohnW2]

There are 87 definitions on that link!

There are, indeed - but only one of them (the second in the list) is a definition of just "transformer" - so I don't think I can be blamed for looking at it!

Not sure if the resistors in a box would count as a device ....

I don't know how the IEC's 'mind' works - but if an auto-transformer (just an inductor) counts, I'm not too sure why resistors shouldn't.

... Not sure if the resistors in a box would count as a device, and at least one of the definitions requires the output power to be substantially equal to the input power ....

I suppose that if the resistors were low in resistance, then the output power could be 'substantially the same' as the input power! ... but, in any event, that is not the definition you provided.

... but I've looked at several of the definitions and haven't found one that would describe a 1:1 isolating transformer. I'll have to look at some transformer standards for a product-specific definition.

Thanks. However, it's not really a question of whether there is a definition (of 'some other word') that would describe a 1:1 transformer but, rather, whether IEC definitions allow us to call it "a transformer" (of any sort) at all. It's certainly far closer to a traditional wire-wound transformer (with a ratio which is not 1:1) than is an SMPSU!

Kind Regards, John

 

[stillp]

For what it's worth, IEC 61558 "SAFETY OF POWER TRANSFORMERS, POWER SUPPLIES, REACTORS AND SIMILAR PRODUCTS" contains the following:
NOTE 1 The distinction between transformers, power supplies and switch mode power supplies is as follows: – for transformers, there is no change in frequency .However, transformers (e.g. constant voltage transformers) may have an internal resonance frequency not exceeding 30 kHz; – for power supplies, the internal operational frequency and waveform are different from the supply frequency and waveform, and the internal operational frequency does not exceed 500 Hz (see definition 3.1.19); – for switch mode power supplies, the internal operational frequency and waveform are different from the supply frequency and waveform and the internal operational frequency exceeds 500 Hz and does not exceed 100 MHz.

 

[stillp]

It's certainly far closer to a traditional wire-wound transformer (with a ratio which is not 1:1) than is an SMPSU!

Perhaps, but what does it transform?