We say we match tubes when we intend to choose those as near as
possible the same on a variety of paramaters.

We say we match impedances when we intend to make one a minimum of ten
times the impedance of the other.

Is it any wonder that some are confused?

These are not the only examples of tube and general audio terminology
that, if you think about it, is unclear and confusing.

Andre Jute
Codger

wrote:

We say we match tubes when we intend to choose those as near as
possible the same on a variety of paramaters.

We say we match impedances when we intend to make one a minimum of ten
times the impedance of the other.

Is it any wonder that some are confused?

These are not the only examples of tube and general audio terminology
that, if you think about it, is unclear and confusing.

Andre Jute
Codger

I'm still ****ed about "Hertz."

The old term, "cycles per second (or 'CPS,' or just plain 'cycles')"
was just fine. In fact, it's what you have to tell someone when he
asks you what a Hertz is. Phooey.

Lord Valve
Approaching Codgerhood

We say we match tubes when we intend to choose those as near as
possible the same on a variety of paramaters.

We say we match impedances when we intend to make one a minimum of ten
times the impedance of the other.

Is it any wonder that some are confused?

These are not the only examples of tube and general audio terminology
that, if you think about it, is unclear and confusing.



** Like most words "match" has a variety of meanings - deciding which
one applies depends on the reader's ability to comprehend the context. NG
readers are appallingly inept at this skill.

The Macquarie dictionary lists no fewer than 21 meanings for the word
"match" - all of them quite distinct.

There are three that readily apply to electronics:


Firstly as a noun:

#4 a corresponding or suitably associated pair,

Then as a verb:


#12 to fit together, as two things,

#19 to be equal or suitable,



There is an Aussie saying that use the word amusingly:


Q. Got a match ?

A. Not since Errol Flynn died.




............ Phil

Lord Valve wrote:


I'm still ****ed about "Hertz."

The old term, "cycles per second (or 'CPS,' or just plain 'cycles')"
was just fine. In fact, it's what you have to tell someone when he
asks you what a Hertz is. Phooey.

Lord Valve
Approaching Codgerhood

What happened to ratings in watts? Every transformer is now rated with
VA. Volt Amps? Uhhh isn't that watts anyhow?


Adam

"Adam Stouffer"

What happened to ratings in watts? Every transformer is now rated with VA.
Volt Amps? Uhhh isn't that watts anyhow?



** Power transformers have *always* been rated in VA - tube output types
are rated in watts.




........... Phil

"Phil Allison" wrote

...
Q. Got a match ?

A. Not since Errol Flynn died.

Or my arse and your face, as they say here.

Matchmakers don't look for identical people. A football match isn't
between identical sides.

Are there two other words we could use instead?

cheers, Ian

On Sat, 02 Apr 2005 21:26:59 GMT, Adam Stouffer
wrote:

Lord Valve wrote:


I'm still ****ed about "Hertz."

The old term, "cycles per second (or 'CPS,' or just plain 'cycles')"
was just fine. In fact, it's what you have to tell someone when he
asks you what a Hertz is. Phooey.

Lord Valve
Approaching Codgerhood

What happened to ratings in watts? Every transformer is now rated with
VA. Volt Amps? Uhhh isn't that watts anyhow?

Not exactly... watts = volts x amps, in phase... and since transformers don't
always have them in phase, we get volts and amps separately. In other words, a
transformer could be good for 120 volts and 2 amps, but the inductance will put
them out of phase, so you may not get the 240 watts... but you will have the 240
volt/amperes...



Adam

On Sun, 03 Apr 2005 00:53:18 GMT, "Ian Iveson"
wrote:

"Phil Allison" wrote

...
Q. Got a match ?

A. Not since Errol Flynn died.

That's a good one!

Or my arse and your face, as they say here.

Matchmakers don't look for identical people. A football match isn't
between identical sides.

Are there two other words we could use instead?

cheers, Ian



We used to say - Your breath and a buffalo fart...

but

How about - third on a match, die in a whore house?

"Bob"

What happened to ratings in watts? Every transformer is now rated with
VA. Volt Amps? Uhhh isn't that watts anyhow?

Not exactly... watts = volts x amps, in phase... and since transformers
don't
always have them in phase, we get volts and amps separately. In other
words, a
transformer could be good for 120 volts and 2 amps, but the inductance
will put
them out of phase, so you may not get the 240 watts... but you will have
the 240
volt/amperes...



** What absolute, ****ing garbage - even for Flintstone the ****wit !!

Power transformers are rated to deliver a certain VA figure into a *load*.

If that *load* is resistive ( like a lamp) then the rated VA = watts
**exactly** !!!

In other cases where the load is reactive or non linear, the rms load
current should not exceed the number derived from the rated VA figure for
the secondary winding.

Any transformer phase shift does not come into it at all.




........... Phil

Phil Allison wrote:


We say we match tubes when we intend to choose those as near as
possible the same on a variety of paramaters.

We say we match impedances when we intend to make one a minimum of
ten
times the impedance of the other.

Is it any wonder that some are confused?

These are not the only examples of tube and general audio
terminology
that, if you think about it, is unclear and confusing.



** Like most words "match" has a variety of meanings - deciding
which
one applies depends on the reader's ability to comprehend the
context. NG
readers are appallingly inept at this skill.

The Macquarie dictionary lists no fewer than 21 meanings for the word

"match" - all of them quite distinct.

There are three that readily apply to electronics:


Firstly as a noun:

#4 a corresponding or suitably associated pair,

Then as a verb:


#12 to fit together, as two things,

#19 to be equal or suitable,



There is an Aussie saying that use the word amusingly:


Q. Got a match ?

A. Not since Errol Flynn died.




........... Phil

Yeah, precisely, those definitions, each of them with two meanings!,
could all fit either a tube match or an impedance match, with the added
nightmare of calling for "A Macquarie No 19, the equal pair, not the
suitable ten times one, you know." Maybe on mainland China they do
engineering by the numbers on the menu... We have a local Thai and
Chinese restaurant with at least five different menus where the same
numbers get you different dishes. The place gives "pot luck" an
entirely new meaning.

What I would like to suggest is that instead of "matching impedances"
we "tenex impedances" and instead of "matching tubes" we "sex a quad of
tubes". A least "tenex" is more than somewhat descriptive of what we
do, and "sexing" also describes sorting baby chickens like with with
like, so there is some mnemonic quality to the words.

Andre Jute
Wordsmith

What I would like to suggest is that instead of "matching impedances"
we "tenex impedances" and instead of "matching tubes" we "sex a quad
of
tubes". A least "tenex" is more than somewhat descriptive of what we
do, and "sexing" also describes sorting baby chickens like with with
like, so there is some mnemonic quality to the words.

Andre Jute
Wordsmith

Sometimes I'm so brilliant, I walk straight into a tree while studying
the wood.

Okay, we sex a pair or a quad or an octet of tubes.

We tenex the input impedance of the receiving device, for instance in a
pre- to power-amp interface.

It follows logically that on those occasions where we have to control
the impedance on the output of the device, we will *exten* it! If the
impedance a device "sees" is tenex, the backward looking impedance is
exten.

And that, as they used to say in audio engineering before NuRATspik, is
a match. But now we aren't trying to make one word perform three
functions all a magnitude apart.

Let no one say we don't look after our Canadian friends and all the
others who struggle with English, engineering and the zips on their
anoraks.

Andre Jute
Editor, NuRATspik dikshenary

wrote:
Phil Allison wrote:


We say we match tubes when we intend to choose those as near as
possible the same on a variety of paramaters.

We say we match impedances when we intend to make one a minimum
of
ten
times the impedance of the other.

Is it any wonder that some are confused?

These are not the only examples of tube and general audio
terminology
that, if you think about it, is unclear and confusing.



** Like most words "match" has a variety of meanings - deciding
which
one applies depends on the reader's ability to comprehend the
context. NG
readers are appallingly inept at this skill.

The Macquarie dictionary lists no fewer than 21 meanings for the
word

"match" - all of them quite distinct.

There are three that readily apply to electronics:


Firstly as a noun:

#4 a corresponding or suitably associated pair,

Then as a verb:


#12 to fit together, as two things,

#19 to be equal or suitable,



There is an Aussie saying that use the word amusingly:


Q. Got a match ?

A. Not since Errol Flynn died.




........... Phil

Yeah, precisely, those definitions, each of them with two meanings!,
could all fit either a tube match or an impedance match, with the
added
nightmare of calling for "A Macquarie No 19, the equal pair, not the
suitable ten times one, you know." Maybe on mainland China they do
engineering by the numbers on the menu... We have a local Thai and
Chinese restaurant with at least five different menus where the same
numbers get you different dishes. The place gives "pot luck" an
entirely new meaning.

What I would like to suggest is that instead of "matching impedances"
we "tenex impedances" and instead of "matching tubes" we "sex a quad
of
tubes". A least "tenex" is more than somewhat descriptive of what we
do, and "sexing" also describes sorting baby chickens like with with
like, so there is some mnemonic quality to the words.

Andre Jute
Wordsmith

On Sat, 02 Apr 2005 20:57:52 -0500, Bob wrote:

snip

What happened to ratings in watts? Every transformer is now rated with
VA. Volt Amps? Uhhh isn't that watts anyhow?

Not exactly... watts = volts x amps, in phase... and since transformers don't
always have them in phase, we get volts and amps separately. In other words, a
transformer could be good for 120 volts and 2 amps, but the inductance will put
them out of phase, so you may not get the 240 watts... but you will have the 240
volt/amperes...


You are almost there. The VA rating is equal to the W rating into a load
with a power factor of 1.0 i.e. purely resistive (voltage & current are
in phase as you say.). If the load is inductive or capacitive then the two
values are not equal and the current drawn from the transformer must be
reduced appropriately, Multiply the VA rating by the power factor of the
load then divide the result by the AC secondary voltage to give the final
current available from the winding.

--
Mick
(no M$ software on here... :-) )
Web: http://www.nascom.info
Web: http://projectedsound.tk

"mick" = piling more confusion upon bull****

Bob wrote:


What happened to ratings in watts? Every transformer is now rated with
VA. Volt Amps? Uhhh isn't that watts anyhow?

Not exactly... watts = volts x amps, in phase... and since transformers
don't
always have them in phase, we get volts and amps separately. In other
words, a
transformer could be good for 120 volts and 2 amps, but the inductance
will put
them out of phase, so you may not get the 240 watts... but you will have
the 240
volt/amperes...


You are almost there. The VA rating is equal to the W rating into a load
with a power factor of 1.0 i.e. purely resistive (voltage & current are
in phase as you say.).


** So far - so good.


If the load is inductive or capacitive then the two
values are not equal and the current drawn from the transformer must be
reduced appropriately, Multiply the VA rating by the power factor of the
load then divide the result by the AC secondary voltage to give the final
current available from the winding.


** Totally WRONG !!!!!

The current value NEVER changes - that is WHY it is specified as VA and
not watts.

That 120 volt 2 amp ( ie 240 VA ) tranny will supply 2 amps at ANY phase
angle or power factor.

Definition:

VA = AC voltage x AC amps rms


Amps must be measured in *true rms* since the heating effect on the
windings is what sets the VA rating.




............ Phil

On Sun, 03 Apr 2005 18:13:04 +1000, Phil Allison wrote:


"mick" = piling more confusion upon bull****

Bob wrote:


What happened to ratings in watts? Every transformer is now rated with
VA. Volt Amps? Uhhh isn't that watts anyhow?

Not exactly... watts = volts x amps, in phase... and since transformers
don't
always have them in phase, we get volts and amps separately. In other
words, a
transformer could be good for 120 volts and 2 amps, but the inductance
will put
them out of phase, so you may not get the 240 watts... but you will have
the 240
volt/amperes...


You are almost there. The VA rating is equal to the W rating into a load
with a power factor of 1.0 i.e. purely resistive (voltage & current are
in phase as you say.).


** So far - so good.


If the load is inductive or capacitive then the two
values are not equal and the current drawn from the transformer must be
reduced appropriately, Multiply the VA rating by the power factor of the
load then divide the result by the AC secondary voltage to give the final
current available from the winding.


** Totally WRONG !!!!!

The current value NEVER changes - that is WHY it is specified as VA and
not watts.


The current *drawn by the load* never changes, but the current *available
from the transformer* does, depending on the characteristics of the load.

Your secondary voltage is fixed and your load power factor is fixed. The
current available from the transformer will depend on the maximum
transformer temperature allowable. You produce heating effect (power in
W) in the transformer as the result of a "wattless load" as the power
factor is moved away from 1.0 (the VA remains constant as this does not
depend on the power factor). Therefore the transformer has to be de-rated
away from its rated operating current to prevent it overheating when
feeding anything other than a purely resistive load. The transformer
cannot provide the current stated in the VA rating under these conditions.
It will allow PF*A amps to be drawn before the transformer W rating is
reached. A small transformer is usually given a VA rating because the
power factor of the load is unknown. Large power distribution transformers
and generators are often given a kW or MW rating at a stated power factor
(often between 0.8 and 0.9 for distribution networks).

That 120 volt 2 amp ( ie 240 VA ) tranny will supply 2 amps at ANY
phase
angle or power factor.


WRONG!
This is a common mistake when calculating transformer loads (and one of
the reasons that a lot of small trannies are found to be running much
hotter than expected). It is why you should *always* derate a
supply transformer unless you *know* that the load is purely resistive. A
120v 240VA tranny will provide 2A into a load of power factor 1.0. Only at
this point does VA=W and the transformer operate at its maximum designed
temperature.

--
Mick
(no M$ software on here... :-) )
Web: http://www.nascom.info
Web: http://projectedsound.tk

On Sun, 3 Apr 2005 12:22:39 +1000, "Phil Allison"
wrote:


"Bob"

What happened to ratings in watts? Every transformer is now rated with
VA. Volt Amps? Uhhh isn't that watts anyhow?

Not exactly... watts = volts x amps, in phase... and since transformers
don't
always have them in phase, we get volts and amps separately. In other
words, a
transformer could be good for 120 volts and 2 amps, but the inductance
will put
them out of phase, so you may not get the 240 watts... but you will have
the 240
volt/amperes...



** What absolute, ****ing garbage - even for Flintstone the ****wit !!

Too bad you're too stupid to read...

Power transformers are rated to deliver a certain VA figure into a *load*.

Yes, we know that, dumbass...

If that *load* is resistive ( like a lamp) then the rated VA = watts
**exactly** !!!

yes, that is true, dum****! I didn't mention 'power factor' since the OP
wouldn't understand. I said "so you may not get the 240 watts". (or you might -
that's the nature of the phrase).

In other cases where the load is reactive or non linear, the rms load
current should not exceed the number derived from the rated VA figure for
the secondary winding.

That's what I said, ****wit!

Any transformer phase shift does not come into it at all.

The phase shift caused by the loading, stupid! Go READ WHAT I WROTE YOU
BLITHERING IDIOT!

I said:

and since transformers don't always have them in phase,

meaning sometimes they do and sometimes they don't!! Go take a reading course
****head!


.......... Phil
.......... Phuchead

**** you're dense!!! You think you're so smart but really, you have no common
sense at all!! You're just a memory with no intelligence to back it up. You
can't even understand what I write!! If I'm so stupid -






think about it...

"Bob"
"Phil Allison"


Not exactly... watts = volts x amps, in phase... and since transformers
don't always have them in phase, we get volts and amps separately. In
other
words, a transformer could be good for 120 volts and 2 amps, but the
inductance
will put them out of phase, so you may not get the 240 watts... but you
will have
the 240 volt/amperes...


In other cases where the load is reactive or non linear, the rms load
current should not exceed the number derived from the rated VA figure for
the secondary winding.

That's what I said, ****wit!


** What a blatant LIAR !!!

Your post said no such things.


Any transformer phase shift does not come into it at all.

The phase shift caused by the loading, stupid!


** Nothing about that in your post - ****head.


I said:

and since transformers don't always have them in phase,


** Which has no mention of the word "load" at all.


**** you're dense!!!


** Bob - you are simply not sane.

If you were not such a complete asshole I might feel sorry for you.




............. Phil

"mick" = piling MORE and MORE confusion upon his previous bull****

Phil Allison


If the load is inductive or capacitive then the two
values are not equal and the current drawn from the transformer must be
reduced appropriately, Multiply the VA rating by the power factor of the
load then divide the result by the AC secondary voltage to give the
final
current available from the winding.


** Totally WRONG !!!!!

The current value NEVER changes - that is WHY it is specified as VA
and
not watts.


The current *drawn by the load* never changes, but the current *available
from the transformer* does, depending on the characteristics of the load.


** Totally WRONG !!!!!

The current value NEVER changes !!!!!

That is WHY !!!! it is specified as VA and not watts.



Your secondary voltage is fixed and your load power factor is fixed.


** Wrong again - the load PF is a variable.

The
current available from the transformer will depend on the maximum
transformer temperature allowable.


** So only depends on I squared R losses.

R is virtually fixed so the I value does not vary.

QED !!!!!!!!!!!



You produce heating effect (power in
W) in the transformer as the result of a "wattless load" as the power
factor is moved away from 1.0 (the VA remains constant as this does not
depend on the power factor).


** Gobbledegook.


Therefore the transformer has to be de-rated
away from its rated operating current to prevent it overheating when
feeding anything other than a purely resistive load.


** You just keep repeating the SAME absolute Rot !!


The transformer
cannot provide the current stated in the VA rating under these conditions.


** Can I remind you of you very own words ?

" the VA remains constant as this does not depend on the power factor "

Consistency is not your forte !!



That 120 volt 2 amp ( ie 240 VA ) tranny will supply 2 amps at ANY
phase angle or power factor.


WRONG!


** You are * truly * a colossal MORON !!


This is a common mistake when calculating transformer loads (and one of
the reasons that a lot of small trannies are found to be running much
hotter than expected). It is why you should *always* derate a
supply transformer unless you *know* that the load is purely resistive. A
120v 240VA tranny will provide 2A into a load of power factor 1.0. Only at
this point does VA=W and the transformer operate at its maximum designed
temperature.



** Go figure out how the formula " I squared R" works - ****head.

Make sure you know why " I " must to be quoted in "true rms" amps.

Then come back and apologise.




............ Phil

On Mon, 4 Apr 2005 12:39:03 +1000, "Phil Allison"
wrote:


"Bob"
"Phil Allison"


Not exactly... watts = volts x amps, in phase... and since transformers
don't always have them in phase, we get volts and amps separately. In
other
words, a transformer could be good for 120 volts and 2 amps, but the
inductance
will put them out of phase, so you may not get the 240 watts... but you
will have
the 240 volt/amperes...


In other cases where the load is reactive or non linear, the rms load
current should not exceed the number derived from the rated VA figure for
the secondary winding.

That's what I said, ****wit!


** What a blatant LIAR !!!

Your post said no such things.

Yes I did - you just are too dense to understand. I said the volts and current
are separate, you have the VA but not the watts. In the case above, I said "good
for 120v and 2a" but not necessarily 240 WATTS!! GO READ IT AGAIN!

Any transformer phase shift does not come into it at all.

The phase shift caused by the loading, stupid!


** Nothing about that in your post - ****head.

You just can't read that's all. oops you snipped what I said again! SNIPPER!!

I said:

and since transformers don't always have them in phase,


** Which has no mention of the word "load" at all.

WHAT THE **** ELSE WOULD CHANGE THE PHASE, YOU STUPID FOOL???????????

**** you're dense!!!


** Bob - you are simply not sane.

That has no bearing on the fact you're an asshole!

If you were not such a complete asshole I might feel sorry for you.




............ Phil


There was nothing wrong with my post. I didn't include too technical info since
the OP wouldn't have understood it. If he doesn't know VA he wouldn't know power
factor.


And lastly - stop stalking me troll-face.

On Mon, 4 Apr 2005 13:00:48 +1000, "Phil Allison"
wrote:
"mick" = piling MORE and MORE confusion upon his previous bull****

Phil Allison
snip

Phil dear please be good.
I'm trying hard to get you a good job.
Love Mummy...

On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 03:13:37 GMT, "Rio sound & vision"
wrote:

Greetings all,

We at Rio Sound & Vision are looking for a full time sales person. They must
be eager to learn and have a good handle on home cinema and Hi-Fi. You will
not need to know the full workings of the brands we sell, as we can train
the right person for the job. We carry brands such as B&W, Harman / Kardon,
Yamaha, Boston, M&K, Adcom, Celestion, Toshiba Etc...

If you think you are up to the task and are looking for a new and
exciting career in a fantastic field, email, fax or mail your resume to the
below address. We are based in Melbourne by the way.


Kind Regards

Rio Sound & Vision



Rio Sound & Vision

414 St. Georges Rd
Thornbury 3071
PH: 9416 9943
Fax: 9416 9272
Email:


Dear Mr. Rio,

I think it's about time my boy Philip had a real job. He's been
running a
muck since he moved to Sydney and I'm sure that cramped and damp
little
bed-sit flat isn't doing him any good either. He doesn't have any
friends
up there and a job in Melbourne would mean he can come and live closer
to
his mum where I can keep an eye on him.

Phillip says he's an expert on hi-fi. He's got one of those CD
thingies he
bought back in 1983 which he still uses, built his own speakers from a
kit
and he uses an amplifier he fixed up after collecting it from the
verge
throw out a couple of years ago. I noticed in your advertisement that
you
will offer to train him. Just as well, because just between me and
you I
think he has a bit of catching up to do.

He writes to me every so often and says his toaster fixing business
isn't
doing too well so I'm hoping you might consider giving my boy a job in
your
store. He isn't too keen on that HT stuff but I'm sure you will bring
him
to his senses sooner of later. He doesn't have good people skills
even
though he has frequently said "...all my posts are brilliant examples
of
communication, either on some technical point related to hi-fi..... ".
Perhaps you can find him a job keeping the storeroom tidy where no one
will
hear him swearing?

I hope you don't sell Quad speakers. Philip isn't very good at those.
A
couple of years back he bought a pair while I was up visiting him in
his
Sydney bed-sit. Within hours of getting them home he was taking one
of them
apart with a screwdriver. There was this terrible sparking and a
small puff
of smoke came out of the back of one of them. Frightened the hell out
of
me. It didn't work after that. Philip assured me the speaker must
have been
faulty and was going to take them back first thing next week and
demand his
money back.

Now I know my Philip is devoted to his work. He's never been married
and
doesn't have a girlfriend, although I'm not completely sure of that,
as
there was a pink tutu hanging in his wardrobe along with some red
glitter
stiletto shoes. Anyhow Philip has never mentioned her and I surely
have not
been introduced.

Philip's Education:
Catholic schooling
4 years of Latin 1
University drop out.

Please, please, please give my Philip a meaningful job. Heaven knows
he
needs the money and a way to usefully occupy his time.
you can reach him on 02 9799 8242

Sincerely,

Mrs. Allison (Phil's mum).

On Sun, 03 Apr 2005 06:52:49 GMT, mick wrote:

On Sat, 02 Apr 2005 20:57:52 -0500, Bob wrote:

snip

What happened to ratings in watts? Every transformer is now rated with
VA. Volt Amps? Uhhh isn't that watts anyhow?

Not exactly... watts = volts x amps, in phase... and since transformers don't
always have them in phase, we get volts and amps separately. In other words, a
transformer could be good for 120 volts and 2 amps, but the inductance will put
them out of phase, so you may not get the 240 watts... but you will have the 240
volt/amperes...


You are almost there. The VA rating is equal to the W rating into a load
with a power factor of 1.0 i.e. purely resistive (voltage & current are
in phase as you say.). If the load is inductive or capacitive then the two
values are not equal and the current drawn from the transformer must be
reduced appropriately,

I don't get you here... the current will always be the same but the POWER will
drop. I think you mean the IN PHASE CURRENT will be lower... no?

Multiply the VA rating by the power factor of the
load then divide the result by the AC secondary voltage to give the final
current available from the winding.

hmmm the VA divided by the supply volts will tell you the maximum current you
can have in the winding... IE a 120v 2a transformer can supply 240 watts to a
resistor, but something like a motor will take less 'in phase power', I guess at
45 degrees phase it would use 120 watts... but the total current will still be
2a, and the volts will always be 120, so the VA will still be 240...

in other words, a motor can take 2 amps at 120 volts for 240 VA but the POWER
will be less then 240 watts. AND a 240VA rated 120 volt transformer can only
supply 2amps no matter what the load is, in phase or not... more current can fry
it, even at low wattage.

That's why the electric company doesn't like people with large motors, they make
them put caps on the line to correct the phase, since the meter doesn't read
out-of-phase current or VA, but the electric company still needs the big lines
to supply it.

"Bob"
"Phil Allison"

Not exactly... watts = volts x amps, in phase... and since
transformers
don't always have them in phase, we get volts and amps separately. In
other
words, a transformer could be good for 120 volts and 2 amps, but the
inductance
will put them out of phase, so you may not get the 240 watts... but
you
will have
the 240 volt/amperes...


In other cases where the load is reactive or non linear, the rms load
current should not exceed the number derived from the rated VA figure
for
the secondary winding.

That's what I said, ****wit!


** What a blatant LIAR !!!

Your post said no such things.

Yes I did -


** You are not sane Bob.



Any transformer phase shift does not come into it at all.

The phase shift caused by the loading, stupid!


** Nothing about that in your post - ****head.

You just can't read that's all.


** You are not sane - Bob.



I said:

and since transformers don't always have them in phase,


** Which has no mention of the word "load" at all.

WHAT THE **** ELSE WOULD CHANGE THE PHASE,


** The transformer's own inductance - which you alluded to:

" but the inductance will put them out of phase, "



** Bob - you are simply not sane.

That has no bearing on the fact you're an asshole!


** I take it are aware or your mental condition.

Have you been under care for it ?

If you were not such a complete asshole I might feel sorry for you.



There was nothing wrong with my post.


** There was nothing right with it .

You do not comprehend the topic .



And lastly - stop stalking me troll-face.


** Which I am not doing.






................ Phil

On Mon, 04 Apr 2005 13:00:48 +1000, Phil Allison wrote:

snip

The current *drawn by the load* never changes, but the current *available
from the transformer* does, depending on the characteristics of the load.


** Totally WRONG !!!!!

The current value NEVER changes !!!!!

That is WHY !!!! it is specified as VA and not watts.


Fine, Phil, anything you say. I'm sure that physics will change to
accommodate you.

Welcome to my killfile.

--
Mick
(no M$ software on here... :-) )
Web: http://www.nascom.info
Web: http://projectedsound.tk

"mick" = " mick the prick "
Phil Allison

The current *drawn by the load* never changes, but the current
*available
from the transformer* does, depending on the characteristics of the
load.


** Totally WRONG !!!!!

The current value NEVER changes !!!!!

That is WHY it is specified as VA and not watts.


Fine, Phil, anything you say. I'm sure that physics will change to
accommodate you.


** Mick - you are know nothing, lying, gutless, ****ing turd.

And they are all your good points.



Welcome to my killfile.


** **** the hell off this NG - you pathetic ****** !!!



Web: http://projectedsound.tk

** Good for a belly laugh.





................. Phil

On Mon, 4 Apr 2005 14:17:11 +1000, "Phil Allison"
wrote:


"Bob"
"Phil Allison"

Not exactly... watts = volts x amps, in phase... and since
transformers
don't always have them in phase, we get volts and amps separately. In
other
words, a transformer could be good for 120 volts and 2 amps, but the
inductance
will put them out of phase, so you may not get the 240 watts... but
you
will have
the 240 volt/amperes...





** The transformer's own inductance - which you alluded to:

" but the inductance will put them out of phase, "

'of the load' .... which I simply didn't write - so what? I DIDN"T SAY SELF
INDUCTANCE! Power factor always comes into play when powering motors with
transformers - I'm an electrician, remember?

I was not writing for the benefit of an EE, but for an OP with a simple
question. And it's YOU who 'ALLUDED'!



You do not comprehend the topic .

if you say so... I guess I should disconnect all those transformers I
re-wound...

anyway - bye.

"Bob" = a schizo asshole

"Phil Allison"


** The transformer's own inductance - which you alluded to:

" but the inductance will put them out of phase, "

'of the load' .... which I simply didn't write - so what?


** A load can be capacitive, resistive, non-linear or inductive - HOWEVER
you mentioned only inductance - the one that is also transformer
characteristic.

The only relevant one for power transformers used in electronics is the
"non-linear" case - where there is no phase angle but there is a low PF.



I DIDN"T SAY SELF INDUCTANCE! Power factor always comes into play when
powering motors with
transformers - I'm an electrician, remember?


** But we are not electricians and this NG is not about motors -
dickhead.

**** the **** off !!!



You do not comprehend the topic .

if you say so... I guess I should disconnect all those transformers I
re-wound...


** Shove the whole lot up you ****ing arse.



............. Phil

On Tue, 5 Apr 2005 13:07:21 +1000, "Phil (poop-lips) Allison"
spewed the following garbage.


**** the **** off !!!


Make me, asshole...


............ Phil
............. the psycho


We all know very well that YOU are the ASSHOLE of the INTERNET!!

You win every year!!!

Shall we have another vote?

You're such a psycho-troll-dum****!

Goodbye, poop-lips...

"Bob" ...


** Bob - go back for more treatment.

Bob - you are not sane.



.............. Phil