Talk:Transformer types

thank you very much for your conributions to the topic, on transformers.....

Composition
I'm a big fan of keeping the fog index as low as possible on the encyclopedia; I've reverted a paragraph that I didn't think moved the article toward clarity. The previous paragraph was described "as if it was written by a 5th grader" which I think is a high compliment. Saying "simply" is pompous. Extra links don't clarify the purpose of this paragraph. We don't need to describe all of heat transfer theory in this article. We're talking about losing heat, so the additional adjective "thermal" here is superfluous. "Relatively low" is a foggy way of saying "small". "oils containing polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) as a flame retardant" is factually incorrect; PCB is not a flame retardant and oils with quite high levels of PCB will still burn and were not approved for indoor use with out a vault. Nearly pure PCB was used, with only inadvertant traces of mineral oil. And so on. The purpose of an encyclopedia article is to transmit information, not to display long leaky sentences full of pompous generalizations and irrelevant links. --Wtshymanski (talk) 13:08, 20 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Binksternet (talk) 13:54, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Transformer taxonomy
Here for discussion purposes is first-cut transformer taxonomy which may serve as checklist for further mulling, massaging and development planning:

Cblambert (talk) 06:33, 17 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I think this is a terrible diagram. A transformer may be oil-filled and pad mounted, or it may be water-coooled and single-phase, etc. - you just have a random list of attributes down one side and random lines linking them. If you do a taxonomy of animals, the clade diagram shows common ancestry and common features; the proposed diagram is a completely inappropriate application of a taxonomy system. --Wtshymanski (talk) 14:40, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the support. Rome wasn't build in a day. The diagram is offered for discussion purposes, not for inclusion as is so much as for comparison purposes. Can you provide any further constructive comments as to direction to go to move this article forward? Again, many thanks.Cblambert (talk) 18:31, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * What is the purpose of the diagram? It's not apparent to me why, for example, "reactors" are lumped in with "power transformers" at all. You've also got instrument transformers and control transformers on the same mash-up. What, exactly, does the diagram do to organize types? --Wtshymanski (talk) 18:50, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The diagram is my attempt at brainstorming Transformer types issue. To do this I went to p. 43 of Leornardo market study at http://www.leonardo-energy.org/webfm_send/2731, which gives breakdown of global transformer market share. I then sampled each transformer firm's website to get a favor of nomenclature each firm uses to offer transformers, touching on many of these firms in the process, including ABB, Siemens, Alsthom, GE, Toshiba, Hitachi, Waukesha, Pauwels, Schneider, Kulman, and Cooper. Also looked at more specialized transformer and reactor firms like Southwest Electric, MTE, Trench and Tauscher. I also dug up personal references. The result is an admitedly imperfect first attempt to catalogue what I consider to be important for the article in terms of major categories, how they might be organized, in comparison to current Transformer types article. I know of no better way than this diagram to quickly consolidate a lot of information like this. I realize the diagram leaves a bit to read in between the lines. I know whereof I speak of sort of thing. I started tree with 'Power Transformer Taxonomy' using the term 'Power' in a very generic sense at the root because my background strength is in power and the tree is a starting point. Diagram does not attempt to be fine-grained about control transformer types. Also, I do not perceive of a reactor in a PCB board.Cblambert (talk) 20:04, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note that diagram includes reactors in the tree as term 'transformer' is also used in very generic sense, it being customary to include reactors with transformers in handbook sections, standards and so on.Cblambert (talk) 20:44, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * So that makes this "taxonomy" original research and unusable on Wikipedia. Try Wikibooks. It's not a consolidation, it's an illogical random assocation - their is no "hierarchy" of forms to be described here.  Reactors aren't transformers (they have different standards, too). --Wtshymanski (talk) 21:11, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Even through Trench is firm heading up HVDC Converter Transformer and Smoothing Reactor Sub-Committee of IEEE Transformer Committee, I concede that Committee may have less to do with reactors than I thought. Far enough, keep the reactor out for now. Which re-ordered leave the following re-ordered 1st tier categories in the diagram:
 * Standard class
 * Construction
 * Winding configuration
 * Dry-type
 * Liquid-filled
 * Special applications
 * Instrument transformer.
 * Which is defendable. Control transformers is shown under Special applications but could be included instead as sub-category of 1st tier's Instrument (and control) transformer category. Many thanks for the constructive comments UW. Don't get hung up on the word taxonomy. Let's keep it constructive. How do we move forward? Cblambert (talk) 22:09, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Laminated core vs Torroidall?
Many torroidal cores I have witnessed are laminated types. Should the first section be labelled "Rectangular" or "E I stamped" or something similar? The titles overlap as they as now. 174.118.142.187 (talk) 03:38, 11 January 2013 (UTC)


 * anecdotal experience should not find its way into article. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 15:12, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

homemade
'Home manufacturing

It is possible to make the transformer laminations by hand too. Such transformers are encountered at times in 3rd world countries, using laminations cut from scrap sheet steel, paper slips between the laminations, and string to tie the assembly together. The result works, but is usually noisy due to poor clamping of laminations.

picture device in use'

"its been there for four years" is not a reason for challenging removal. Just because its gone by unnoticed does not mean that it is consensus. This looks like a publication of DIY project and no evidence is presented taht "it is encountered" at "3rd world countries" and this fails WP:V and it is not easily verified without citation. Therefore, removal is justified. The link to external hosting site to introduce non-free image to circumvent the creative commons requirement should also be questioned. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 15:12, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I have seen transformers that looked like homemade quality for sale in third world countries. I don't know that they actually were homemade. Gah4 (talk) 19:27, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Quarter-wave transformers
I have removed this entry from the article. The only connection they have with transformers is that that word appears in the name. To me, the defining feature of a transformer is having a primary and secondary winding, or more fundamentally, having a turns ratio, n by which voltage and current are transformed. Quarter-wave transformers are not even functionally equivalent to this. An ideal transformer behaves as,


 * $$Z_\mathrm {in} = n^2 Z_\mathrm {out}$$

which obviously is not frequency dependent. A quarter-wave impedance transformer, on the other hand, behaves as,


 * $$Z_\mathrm {in} = \frac {Z_0^2}{Z_\mathrm {out}}$$

which will be all over the place with frequency (try putting a capacitor on the output for instance) even in the ideal case - and these things can only be anywhere near ideal over a very narrow band. In fact, in terms of ideal fundamental elements, this is a variety of gyrator, not transformer.  Spinning Spark  18:12, 15 January 2013 (UTC)


 * It appears to transform but not in the sense of this type of transformer's article. 174.118.142.187 (talk) 14:42, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * High Z at one end becomes a different Z at the other. People who use 'um, call 'em transformers. Some random bunch of people on the Internet are not an authority (especially when what "reality" is depends on "which" tiny subset of the radnom group are disucssing the topic). --Wtshymanski (talk) 20:10, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with Wsms. This article is about Transformer types, not power transformers and it is labelled and functions as an impedance matching transformer and is electrical. It could be considered an type of non-ferrous core voltage dividing capacitive transformer. It does open up a whole new wing for this article though. 174.118.142.187 (talk) 20:56, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * You cannot include everything with transformer in its name on this page. If you did you would have to include this transformer and this transformer or even this transformer.  That would make it a disambiguation page.  If the devices we are discussing are going to "employ the same basic principle as discovered in 1831 by Michael Faraday" then quarter-wave transformers are definitely excluded.  They are a variety of impedance inverters, which makes them gyrators, a completely different electrical element.  Wtshymanski, those of us that use them never call them transformers, it is always "quarter-wave transformers" or "inverters".  Also, I don't know who are these "random people on the internet" you refer to, they do not seem to be taking part in this discussion and I suspect they are made of straw.  174.118, no one is arguing that this article should only be about power transformers, there is still plenty in there about electronic applications.  I don't understand why you think it behaves as a "voltage dividing capacitive transformer", I think I explained above that it does not behave at all like a transformer.  A transformer has a linear relationship between input and output impedance, a quarter-wave impedance transformer has a reciprocal relationship.  Spinning  Spark  23:35, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * No-one but a Wikipedia editor (as random a group as you'll find anywhere) would willfully confuse a toy with a bit of electrical apparatus. I think mentioning "quarter wave transformers" in the RF transformers section is a suitable way to point at that article for those who want to learn more of the subject. Perhaps that article could explain why they are different from that tank full of oil on a pole that's humming away in my neighbor's yard. And the impedances seen on either side of a regular old copper-wires-wrapped-around-iron-cores transformer are also in reciprocal relationship by the square of the turns ratio. --Wtshymanski (talk) 19:22, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm delighted that you like an article that I created and want to link to it, and I am certainly not trying to conceal it as your edit summary implies, but it really is not the same device and does not fulfil the same function. You are completely wrong that the impedances of a transformer are in reciprocal relationship, that's just nonsense.  Do you think an open-circuit secondary would be seen on the primary side as a short-circuit?  Because that is what reciprocal relation implies.  Spinning  Spark  18:20, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I disagree that they don't belong here, but the link from the transmission-line transformers section is probably enough for me. Note that like more usual transformers, they do work by converting between electric and magnetic fields, which is a natural function in a transmission line. Also, (separate question) there should somewhere be a good description of IF transformers, which are also frequency specific and tuned. Gah4 (talk) 21:25, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Autotransformer VA calculation
''The equivalent power rating of the autotransfomer is lower than the actual load power rating. It is calculated by: load VA × (|Vin – Vout|)/Vin. '' The reference is for step-down transformers. Seems to me that for step-up transformers it should be load VA × (|Vout – Vin|)/Vout by symmetry. (Even more, note that the reference uses Vh and Vl for the description, which sound like V(high) and V(low). In either case, it would be (Vhigh-Vlow)/Vhigh where Vhigh is the higher of the two voltages, and Vlow is the lower of the two. Gah4 (talk) 21:02, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Ferrite core transformers
Under RF transformers there is a discussion of ferrite core transformers that only mentions IF transformers. Ferrite cores are commonly used for RF transformers, such as impedance matching between 75 ohm and 300 ohm radio and TV antennas and inputs. I believe we really do need a section on IF transformers that is better than the current one under RF transformers. They are also not well described in the Superheterodyne article. Gah4 (talk) 19:24, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Interphase transformer
There was a question on quora "what an What is an interphase transformer" so I think a wikipedian should describe one. I do not know enough. the transformer sedscription is fascinating this is a 1MW (megawatt) multiphase transformer that makes more anodes out of three phase power. something that amazing should have a description. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.90.99.62 (talk) 21:14, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Transmission and distribution of electricity
Energy efficient transformer including dry type transformer Fuchumona kumar (talk) 12:11, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

duty cycle
Under pulse transformers, it says: Pulse transformers by definition have a duty cycle of less than 0.5. The transformers commonly used with UTP Ethernet are usually called pulse transformers, though don't necessarily run at less than 0.5 duty cycle. 10baseT uses Manchester coding, which I would call 100% duty cycle. Since transformers don't pass DC, Ethernet signals are carefully designed to minimize the DC offset over appropriate time scales. Gah4 (talk) 21:14, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Rationalising articles and content about Instrument Transformers
It is helpful that this article covers Instrument Transformers, at least at a high level. At present, there is useful and much more detailed article Current transformer. There is also an article Instrument transformer, but it is not particularly well developed, and has content about current transformers that directly overlaps with the article specifically on that topic. There is currently no separate article on Voltage transformer.

Here is a suggestion for feedback: I also propose to include all these articles within Wikiproject: Electrical engineering.
 * 1) Treat the article Transformer types as the top of the hierarchy, and retain the existing summary content about Instrument transformers – both current and voltage
 * 2) Retain the more detailed article Current transformer as the “main” article on that topic
 * 3) Remove the re-direct that currently takes you to Transformer types if you enter Voltage transformer in the search box
 * 4) Move the present article Instrument transformer to Voltage transformer and remove all content about current transformers.  Add content as appropriate so that it can be a useful “main” article on that topic
 * 5) Update the Transformer types article to show the “Main” reference for Voltage transformer to the newly moved article as above

I am willing to undertake the above, if there is support (albeit that I might need some brief guidance with changing re-directs, and moving a page). Marshelec (talk) 00:46, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Transformers
The two types of transformers are:Power transformer Chopper transformer — Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.159.252.247 (talk) 12:06, 11 August 2023 (UTC)