Jump to content

Talk:Transformer

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 2605:6000:1a0d:1c0:0:94f:f47e:fdd1 (talk) at 23:10, 24 June 2018 (missing). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Former good articleTransformer was one of the Engineering and technology good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Did You Know Article milestones
DateProcessResult
July 23, 2007Peer reviewReviewed
July 27, 2014Good article nomineeListed
May 23, 2017Good article reassessmentDelisted
Did You Know A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on September 3, 2014.
The text of the entry was: Did you know that the two basic transformer (pictured) constructions in common use today are based on designs described in patent applications from 1885?
Current status: Delisted good article

Template:Vital article


Missing

Where is the e-core diagram? Why is torroidol missing in types?--2605:6000:1A0D:1C0:0:94F:F47E:FDD1 (talk) 23:10, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Transformer GA Reassessment

In light of absence of consensus, I suggest that Transformer article be nominated for re-assessment in accordance with Wikipedia Good Article Reassessment Guidelines] until such time as the quality of article's lead is restored to GA requirements.Cblambert (talk) 21:41, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be better to work out a mutually-acceptable improved version of the lead, rather than wasting the GA evaluator's time. Reify-tech (talk) 00:07, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is what the GA reviewer's lead read like when he give the article a GA pass grade late in the day on July 27, 2014:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A transformer is an electrical device that transfers energy between two or more circuits through electromagnetic induction.
A varying current in the transformer's primary winding creates a varying magnetic flux in the core and a varying magnetic field impinging on the secondary winding. This varying magnetic field at the secondary induces a varying electromotive force (emf) or voltage in the secondary winding. Making use of Faraday's Law in conjunction with high magnetic permeability core properties, transformers can thus be designed to efficiently change AC voltages from one voltage level to another within power networks.
Transformers range in size from RF transformers a small cm3 fraction in volume to units interconnecting the power grid weighing hundreds of tons. A wide range of transformer designs are used in electronic and electric power applications. Since the invention in 1885 of the first constant potential transformer, transformers have become essential for the AC transmission, distribution, and utilization of electrical energy.[3]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A key criterion of GA is that the article has stabilized so that there an absence of drastically different changes including of course re that of the lead. The criterion has been blown to shreds several times in the past few weeks. This provides ample evidence of lack of consensus. The only way to regain consensus is to give the article some teeth so the stakes are high enough. Choosing between de-listing of GA and restoring lead stability comparable to that of most recent GA review provides such stakes.
Cblambert (talk) 01:39, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In postscript, according to Good article criteria, "an article can, but by no means must, be failed without further review (known as quick failing) if, prior to the review . . . the article is not stable due to edit warring on the page." By extension, the same applies to GA reassessment review. Although the general implication is that a GA should always be edit-warring-free, the Transformer GA has in fact recently had to be partially or completely protected twice for edit-warring reasons.
Cblambert (talk) 16:46, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have filed a GAR project in accordance with GAR guidelines. Refer to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_reassessment/Transformer/1#Community_reassessment.Cblambert (talk) 19:13, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Cblambert, this is an inappropriate use of GAR: The only way to regain consensus is to give the article some teeth so the stakes are high enough. It will also be remarkably ineffective. The so-called instability has settled down each time within a matter of days, and starting a GAR while an article is fully protected means that nothing at all can be done—and the article was actually stable (due to protection) when the GAR was filed. Remember, the goal of a GAR is to retain the article at GA if at all possible by working on it, and that work should be done here, on this talk page, even if it takes some weeks and a great deal of back and forth. Community GARs typically run for months, not weeks, and the people who comment there are unlikely to have the necessary scientific knowledge to be able to parse many of the issues; based on my experience at GAR, they'd be more likely to complain about dense jargon in the lead than to support its retention. My advice is to withdraw the GAR, and work things out here on the talk page. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:19, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with that. GAR is not a productive way forward. SpinningSpark 22:23, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Working things on the talk page has not worked and there should be no need for protection is a GA. The quick fail option can be invoked is consensus cannot be reached. De-listing of GA may be what is needed to give time to talk, invoke protection every so often, etc. I say keep the GAR process going with justification as outlined in above talk page.Cblambert (talk) 00:25, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It is with the Transformer article's lead that this GAR applies to for consensus reaching purposes. Opinions about the lead are wide ranging. We have of course the original GA's lead that was given the pass grade on July 27, 2014, this version of the lead having stayed essentially the same until February 3 last. On that day, User:CPES, who had, and has since, never made a contribution to the article, made 15 consecutive changes in 16 hours 80 minutes. No opportunity for working out on the talk page there. We have the opinion of User:Wtshymanski, who, having collaborated extensively to the Transformer article, including during the GA process, now seems anxious to term the article as having a ==Poor Lead== (see above, I have added the ? so the section now reads ==Poor Lead?==). We also have the opinion of User:Spinningspark, who is of the opinion that "WP:LEAD says the lead should summarize the contents of the article. No version of the lead has so far come anywhere near close to doing this IMO." (refer to this talk page). So, do we have a GA or don't we? Clearly, the answer to this question is that we don't know. Hence, the need for the GAR process.Cblambert (talk) 02:06, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
While realizing that all Wikipedia editors have equal editing rights and with all due respect for the impressive contribution that you, BlueMoonset & Spinningspark, have made to some 30+ good articles in terms of helping promote them on Wikipedia, the user contribution statistics that follow may help place in perspective the key users mentioned in the above talk page:
- 0 edits by BlueMoonset, 0.0% of the total edits
- 10 edits by Reify-tech, 0.17% of the total edits, 29-03-12 to 15-01-14
- 15 edits by CPES, 0.26% of the total edits, 07:42 to 09:02, 03-02-17
- 62 edits by Spinningspark,1.06% of the total edits, 31-12-10 to 07-03-17
- 87 edits by Constant314, 1.49% of the total edits, 18-08-11 to 21-07-16
- 239 edits by Wtshymanski,4.1% of the total edits,10-12-04 to 07-03-17
- 684 edits by Cblambert,11.73% of the total edits, 17-02-12 to 07-03-17 .
I consider having helped promote 2 good articles on Wikipedia, including the Transformer article.Cblambert (talk)
Wikipedia:Editcountitis SpinningSpark 15:21, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Edit counts count for little, because they don't reflect the content or quality of the edits. I could easily have inflated my edit count by a factor of 10 or more, simply by saving each small change as a separate edit, but this just clutters up the logs. Wikipedia does not have a policy encouraging this. Reify-tech (talk) 16:13, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Zero edit count is zero count. CPES did have 15 edits in 80 minutes never to be heard from again. Aside from having edit count issues, what are the pros and cons of GAR?Cblambert (talk) 17:42, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Other editors have already advised you that GAR is an unsuitable process for what you are trying to achieve. You seem to want GAR to approve the original GA so that you can continue to demand that no substantial changes to the article are made in the future. This was never what GA was intended to do and you are developing a WP:OWN attitude by continuing to push for that. Remember, GA is awarded by just a single reviewer and the competence and care of reviewers can vary enormously. GA has never been meant to represent any sort of finished article. Later improvements are actually expected. You might have a better case if the page was a Featured Article. FAs undergo an open community review and are much more exacting. But even for FAs, there is no support for denying changes simply because the change goes against the original article promotion. If you insist on going ahead with the GAR, I will request that the close explicitly makes this point (that there is no proscription against making substantial changes to GAs and that the GAR does not in any way enable such). SpinningSpark 20:52, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Protected edit request on 18 April 2017

Remove duplicate RECTIFORMER entry under See Also WordSurd (talk) 21:38, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done. SpinningSpark 10:32, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Phasor diagrams

Phasor diagrams Asifayoubdar (talk) 11:42, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Transformer is Hungarian invention.

References: https://pte.hu/english/hungarian_inventions

http://www.edisontechcenter.org/Transformers.html

https://books.google.hu/books?id=g07Q9M4agp4C&pg=PA95&lpg=PA95&dq=transformator+hungarian+invention&source=bl&ots=BDwG_EihLR&sig=PR5nP-yAyPbLqM1LjF0g20tBkoc&hl=hu&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjF9qb35P3YAhUSJlAKHWK-AdUQ6AEIWTAJ#v=onepage&q=transformator%20hungarian%20invention&f=false — Preceding unsigned comment added by InterCity(IC) (talk • contribs) 29 jan 2018 19:43 (UTC)

This is not reflected in the text of this article. Could you try amending that as well? ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ᐐT₳LKᐬ 18:46, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

When i have a time i will write in the article, otherwise in the Spanish (and Hungarianin categories) wikipedia as a Hungarian invention, the transformer is indicated, but I did not look at all the language versions. InterCity(IC) (talk) 19:10, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is not obvious at all that the transformer is a Hungarian invention. This issue is discussed more in depth in this source: [1] --Ita140188 (talk) 02:16, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Faraday wasn't Hungarian. --Wtshymanski (talk) 18:20, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The truth hurts that Hungarians invented the transformer. Faraday only defined the law of electromagnetic induction. Closed-core transformer Károly Zipernowsky, Ottó Bláthy and Miksa Déri (ZBD) This type of transformer is widespread. I will not go deep into this useless debate, if you know that I speak the truth, but it denies. InterCity(IC) (talk) 19:07, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If there is no argument against it, it will be put back as a Hungarian invention. InterCity(IC) (talk) 18:08, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Needs a citation. Faraday wasn't Hungarian. Now, if you're talking of a transformer used in a power distribution system, you might have a slightly better case...but without very specific qualifications and references, it's not a good claim. --Wtshymanski (talk) 19:35, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Faraday, brilliant and accomplished experimenter that he was, did not just "define the law of electromagnetic induction" (and actually that was much more Maxwell than Faraday). Faraday demonstrated electromagnetic induction. That means he made a transformer. Not a very good or practical one, but a transformer nonetheless. Jeh (talk) 20:01, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The book cited at the top of this section says that the Hungarians made substantial improvements, but it does not attribute the invention to them.Constant314 (talk) 21:11, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Faraday was a great man like Edison or Tesla, but I could not find anywhere about it, that he would have invented the transformer. For the transformer, so much to Faraday that he found his operation, to define the law of electromagnetic induction. Anyway if the closed-core transformer had not been invented, then the world would look like is not so at present. The modern world would not exist and we would not be talking here on the wikipedia. since this would not exist if they did not find the closed-core transformer. InterCity(IC) (talk) 21:16, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read about Faraday's experiment? He used a closed core - it was even the efficient toroidal shape, not the rectangular approximation that so many transformers have. --Wtshymanski (talk) 23:05, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming that it makes sense at all to talk about who invented the transformer (as that depends on what do you mean by invention.. first demonstration? First practical device? First commercial device?), I would say Faraday too. But I think it doesn't make much sense to specify an inventor. --Ita140188 (talk) 03:04, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@InterCity(IC):: Do you disagree with the first sentence? "A transformer is an electrical device that transfers electrical energy between two or more circuits through electromagnetic induction." Well, Faraday demonstrated that phenomenon. That means he made a transformer. But I agree with Ita140188: it shouldn't be attributed to any one country. Jeh (talk) 03:18, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is one of those fractured ‘inventions’. All the accepted sources show that Michael Faraday constructed the first piece of apparatus that was recognisably a transformer in around 1830ish and can therefore be said to have invented it. Faraday built the device solely to investigate if switching on or off the current in one coil induced an emf in the other (as a permanent magnet had done with a single coil of wire). However, Faraday never investigated further and certainly never made the connection between numbers of turns and changes of emf in the windings. Joseph Henry (an American) unaware of Faraday’s work, independently built a similar apparatus about a year later to (re)‘discover’ the phenomenon and give it the name ‘mutual induction’. He also failed to make the connection between turns and emf.
Various engineers explored using a similar pair of coils to produce high voltages (as in the induction coil or Rhumkorff coil - not invented by Rhumkorff) by regularly interrupting the primary current. In doing so they discovered most of the characteristics that we understand today, mostly by trial and error. Many inventors have been put forward as the inventor of such induction coils but the reality is that no one person can be said to have truly invented it.
It was subsequently found that similar coils could be powered from AC without having to use an interrupter. This was a true application of the classic transformer, but it was still seen as an induction coil for producing high voltage sparks. In 1878, the Hungarians started using transformers for electric lighting. However, Yablochkov, a Russian, beat them to it by 2 years using AC powered induction coils to power arc lamps of his own invention (the Yablochkov candle). Yablochkov’s induction coils were essentially transformers.
The bottom line is: that the transformer was invented by Faraday about 15 years before the Hungarians. It is fair to say that the Hungarian Ganz company turned it into a more efficient device that could be produced on a reasonable scale. 85.255.233.138 (talk) 18:00, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Guarnieri, Massimo (December 2013). "Who Invented the Transformer? [Historical]". IEEE Industrial Electronics Magazine. 7 (4): 56–59. doi:10.1109/MIE.2013.2283834. {{cite journal}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Transformer&oldid=847380832"