|
Jul
11 |
|
comment |
Does the primary of an ideal transfomer have a zero reactance? @Andyaka I've edited my question, does it make more sense now? |
|
Jul
9 |
|
revised |
Would the primary current of the transformer be zero in the no load condition? added 5 characters in body |
|
Jul
9 |
|
accepted | Would the primary current of the transformer be zero in the no load condition? |
|
Jul
9 |
|
comment |
Would the primary current of the transformer be zero in the no load condition? In my previous question I was asking about the properties of the inductor in XFMRI. For example, does it have a reactance? |
|
Jul
9 |
|
comment |
Would the primary current of the transformer be zero in the no load condition? By setting R2 and L2 to zero keeping only L1 means I am just taking into consideration the finite permeability of the iron core. That means the transfomer isn't an ideal transfomer in such a case, is it? |
|
Jul
9 |
|
revised |
Would the primary current of the transformer be zero in the no load condition? added 7 characters in body |
|
Jul
9 |
|
asked | Would the primary current of the transformer be zero in the no load condition? |
|
Jul
8 |
|
revised |
Does the primary of an ideal transfomer have a zero reactance? added 30 characters in body |
|
Jul
7 |
|
revised |
Does the primary of an ideal transfomer have a zero reactance? added 10 characters in body |
|
Jul
7 |
|
comment |
Does the primary of an ideal transfomer have a zero reactance? @Andyaka isn't that what you suggested as what an ideal transfomer is in my previous question?....You mentioned that it has an infinite magnetic inductance because of the infinite permeability of the iron core. But an infinite permeability means an infinite reactance as well. How one can model this infinite reactance. As the figure depicts, one can connect an inductor in parallel with the primary. My question is, if one subtracts the infinity out of the primary by adding the parallel inductor, what would be the properties of the then left primary? Would it have no reactance at all? |
|
Jul
7 |
|
asked | Does the primary of an ideal transfomer have a zero reactance? |
|
Jul
6 |
|
accepted | Why is the generator voltage in phase with current? |
|
Jul
6 |
|
comment |
Why is the generator voltage in phase with current? Thank you very much for your help. |
|
Jul
6 |
|
comment |
Why is the generator voltage in phase with current? So, the calculation I have curried out assumed the version of the ideal transfomer where the inductance is infinite? |
|
Jul
6 |
|
comment |
Why is the generator voltage in phase with current? So what went wrong in the calculation in my question? |
|
Jul
6 |
|
comment |
Why is the generator voltage in phase with current? So, my original statement is right? My first comment? |
|
Jul
6 |
|
comment |
Why is the generator voltage in phase with current? I mean the one that takes a small current to magnetize the core when unloaded |
|
Jul
6 |
|
comment |
Why is the generator voltage in phase with current? The current isn't zero though in an ideal transfomer. It is small but not zero. Enough to magnetize the core. |
|
Jul
6 |
|
comment |
Why is the generator voltage in phase with current? But the magnetizing current lags the source voltage by 90° angle in the no load condition? Doesn't it? |
|
Jul
6 |
|
comment |
Why is the generator voltage in phase with current? You're saying that the phase shift between the primary current of first transformer and the primary voltage is one quarter out of phase in the no load condition. However, when the secondary of the second transformer is loaded by a resistive load, that phase shift drops to zero? |