Doorbell transformer

[333rocky333]

Doorbell works.....

good

 

[mattylad]

Well done Andy, you have successfully turned another thread into yet another argument

Luckily the OP actually came back into this one sand his bell works, now how about everyone dropping the nominal $h1t and help the OP?

 

[AndyPRK]

sorry

 

[mattylad]

lol

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I don't think that Winston really understands what nominal voltage means.

IMO there can be no doubt whatsoever that he doesn't have a clue what it means.

 

[winston1]

I don't think that Winston really understands what nominal voltage means.

IMO there can be no doubt whatsoever that he doesn't have a clue what it means.

It's a meaningless concept when it bears no relation to what the average voltage is.

 

[stillp]

From the Concise Oxford:
nominal
n adjective
1 existing in name only. Ørelating to or consisting of names.
2 (of a sum of money) very small; far below the real value or cost: a nominal fee.
3 (of a quantity or dimension) stated but not necessarily corresponding exactly to the real value.
4 Grammar headed by or having the function of a noun.
5 informal functioning normally or acceptably.

DERIVATIVES
nominally adverb

ORIGIN
C15: from Latin nominalis, from nomen, nomin- 'name'.

 

[JohnW2]

sorry

Even if it wouldn't have happened without you, I don't think you're significantly to blame - you didn't do any of the 'arguing'! I also don't think it was a very good thread for mattylad to choose for the comment (there are plenty of others which would have been far more appropriate!!) since (a) essentially none of the 'argument' arose until after the OP had been given all the help and advice he needed and (b) much of the 'argument' represented (undoubtedly futile) attempts to persuade winston not to mess up/confuse other threads with the same boring old stuff in the future!

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

From the Concise Oxford: nominal
3 (of a quantity or dimension) stated but not necessarily corresponding exactly to the real value.

To be fair, we are talking about a very unusual (probably unique in terms of my experience) use of that definition of the word.

It is very common to see 'nominal' values of 'quantities or dimensions' when the real value of that quantity is subject to variation (e.g. when there is natural variation or manufacturing tolerance). However, when that is done, the nominal value quoted is almost invariably some sort of average (mean, median, mode or whatever) of the 'real values' around which the variation exists - and therefore represents the best available indication/estimate of what value is 'expected'. Off the top of my head, I can think of no other situation in which a 'nominal value' is quoted which is clearly appreciably different from any sort of average of the real values that one could think of - and hence which is a poor indicator/estimate of what real values are likely.

Kind Regards, John

 

[skotl]

Well done Andy, you have successfully turned another thread into yet another argument

Luckily the OP actually came back into this one sand his bell works, now how about everyone dropping the nominal $h1t and help the OP?

Indeed. I hadn't read this thread before tonight and wondered how a discussion on bell transformers could run to three pages.
Now I know

It's not just Winston who keeps rising to the bait, folks...

 

[JohnW2]

It's not just Winston who keeps rising to the bait, folks...

Indeed not - many of us are guilty, although I'm sure that we would all prefer not to 'have to be'. EFLI had the solution back on page 1 ....

Can the moderators please remove winston's pointless and illogical ramblings whenever they occur in order to remove the need to swear and abuse him.

Kind Regards, John

 

[AndyPRK]

Well done Andy, you have successfully turned another thread into yet another argument

Luckily the OP actually came back into this one sand his bell works, now how about everyone dropping the nominal $h1t and help the OP?

Indeed. I hadn't read this thread before tonight and wondered how a discussion on bell transformers could run to three pages.
Now I know

It's not just Winston who keeps rising to the bait, folks...

When it runs to pages it's usually gone off topic one way or another !

 

[winston1]

It's not just Winston who keeps rising to the bait, folks...

Indeed not - many of us are guilty, although I'm sure that we would all prefer not to 'have to be'. EFLI had the solution back on page 1 ....

Can the moderators please remove winston's pointless and illogical ramblings whenever they occur in order to remove the need to swear and abuse him.

Kind Regards, John

That would be censorship which is something that should not happen in a civilised country.

 

[winston1]

From the Concise Oxford: nominal
3 (of a quantity or dimension) stated but not necessarily corresponding exactly to the real value.

To be fair, we are talking about a very unusual (probably unique in terms of my experience) use of that definition of the word.

It is very common to see 'nominal' values of 'quantities or dimensions' when the real value of that quantity is subject to variation (e.g. when there is natural variation or manufacturing tolerance). However, when that is done, the nominal value quoted is almost invariably some sort of average (mean, median, mode or whatever) of the 'real values' around which the variation exists - and therefore represents the best available indication/estimate of what value is 'expected'. Off the top of my head, I can think of no other situation in which a 'nominal value' is quoted which is clearly appreciably different from any sort of average of the real values that one could think of - and hence which is a poor indicator/estimate of what real values are likely.

Kind Regards, John

Very well put John. This so called nominal value of UK mains voltage is not nominal at all.

 

[JohnW2]

Very well put John. This so called nominal value of UK mains voltage is not nominal at all.

Well, it fulfils the dictionary definition of 'nominal' which stillp posted. However, since you appear to agree with me, can you also agree that there is no need to ever go over this ground again in the future?

Kind Regards, John