Ask a question - edaboard.com
elektroda.net NewsGroups Forum Index - Electronics Equipment - Mains transformer weights
Jim Hawkins
Guest
Guest
Mon Jan 16, 2012 4:40 pm
Is a mains transformer designed for 60Hz significantly lighter than one of
the same VA rating designed for 50Hz ?
Jim Hawkins
PeterD
Guest
Guest
Mon Jan 16, 2012 5:36 pm
On 1/16/2012 10:40 AM, Jim Hawkins wrote:
Quote:
Is a mains transformer designed for 60Hz significantly lighter than one of
the same VA rating designed for 50Hz ?
Jim Hawkins
the same VA rating designed for 50Hz ?
Jim Hawkins
Significantly? No... One for 400 Hz would however.
--
I'm never going to grow up.
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz
Guest
Guest
Mon Jan 16, 2012 5:56 pm
On Mon, 16 Jan 2012 15:40:41 -0000, "Jim Hawkins" <jimhawkins_at_manx.net> wrote:
Quote:
Is a mains transformer designed for 60Hz significantly lighter than one of
the same VA rating designed for 50Hz ?
the same VA rating designed for 50Hz ?
About 20%. Is that significant?
Jamie
Guest
Guest
Tue Jan 17, 2012 1:37 am
Jim Hawkins wrote:
Quote:
Is a mains transformer designed for 60Hz significantly lighter than one of
the same VA rating designed for 50Hz ?
Jim Hawkins
not really a lot of difference..
the same VA rating designed for 50Hz ?
Jim Hawkins
not really a lot of difference..
~ 17% lighter.
But you must remember that many places where 50Hz
is used, the voltages are a little different so one
transformer could conceivably be used for both. It
most likely wouldn't pass a local ordinance rule due
to a name plate not agreeing.
For example, not to long ago I approved a motor to be
used in a 480 60hz application where the name plate was
as a ~400 v 50hz unit.
End results was the same, with the exception of a little higher
RPM than marked on the ID of course.
Just think V/hz ratio.
Jamie
PeterD
Guest
Guest
Tue Jan 17, 2012 12:27 pm
On 1/16/2012 7:37 PM, Jamie wrote:
Quote:
Jim Hawkins wrote:
Is a mains transformer designed for 60Hz significantly lighter than
one of the same VA rating designed for 50Hz ?
Jim Hawkins
not really a lot of difference..
~ 17% lighter.
But you must remember that many places where 50Hz
is used, the voltages are a little different so one
transformer could conceivably be used for both. It
most likely wouldn't pass a local ordinance rule due
to a name plate not agreeing.
For example, not to long ago I approved a motor to be
used in a 480 60hz application where the name plate was
as a ~400 v 50hz unit.
End results was the same, with the exception of a little higher
RPM than marked on the ID of course.
Just think V/hz ratio.
Jamie
Is a mains transformer designed for 60Hz significantly lighter than
one of the same VA rating designed for 50Hz ?
Jim Hawkins
not really a lot of difference..
~ 17% lighter.
But you must remember that many places where 50Hz
is used, the voltages are a little different so one
transformer could conceivably be used for both. It
most likely wouldn't pass a local ordinance rule due
to a name plate not agreeing.
For example, not to long ago I approved a motor to be
used in a 480 60hz application where the name plate was
as a ~400 v 50hz unit.
End results was the same, with the exception of a little higher
RPM than marked on the ID of course.
Just think V/hz ratio.
Jamie
It is also not uncommon for smaller power transformers to be rated as
50/60 hz, too. The dual rating means that there is one less item that
they have to manage in the inventory and manufacturing process.
--
I'm never going to grow up.
Jim Hawkins
Guest
Guest
Sat Jan 21, 2012 3:51 pm
Jim Hawkins wrote:
Quote:
Is a mains transformer designed for 60Hz significantly lighter than
one of the same VA rating designed for 50Hz ?
Jim Hawkins
one of the same VA rating designed for 50Hz ?
Jim Hawkins
Following on from this, why is it that electricity generation is limited to
such low frequencies as 50 or 60 Hz ?
As the frequency rises, the energy lost through electromagnetic radiation
from the wires rises, but is it really a significant amount ? Would it be
significant at 1 kHz ? If not, why isn't generation done at that sort of
frequency ? The savings in transformer weights and sizes everywhere would
be enormous. Is it because of mechanical engineering limitations on the
rotational speeds of the large rotary generators the power stations use ?
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz
Guest
Guest
Sat Jan 21, 2012 4:53 pm
On Sat, 21 Jan 2012 14:51:55 -0000, "Jim Hawkins" <jimhawkins_at_manx.net> wrote:
Quote:
Jim Hawkins wrote:
Is a mains transformer designed for 60Hz significantly lighter than
one of the same VA rating designed for 50Hz ?
Jim Hawkins
Following on from this, why is it that electricity generation is limited to
such low frequencies as 50 or 60 Hz ?
Is a mains transformer designed for 60Hz significantly lighter than
one of the same VA rating designed for 50Hz ?
Jim Hawkins
Following on from this, why is it that electricity generation is limited to
such low frequencies as 50 or 60 Hz ?
Losses. Mechanics.
Quote:
As the frequency rises, the energy lost through electromagnetic radiation
from the wires rises, but is it really a significant amount ?
from the wires rises, but is it really a significant amount ?
Yes.
Quote:
Would it be significant at 1 kHz ?
Yes, certainly.
Quote:
If not, why isn't generation done at that sort of frequency ?
The savings in transformer weights and sizes everywhere would
be enormous. Is it because of mechanical engineering limitations on the
rotational speeds of the large rotary generators the power stations use ?
The savings in transformer weights and sizes everywhere would
be enormous. Is it because of mechanical engineering limitations on the
rotational speeds of the large rotary generators the power stations use ?
Partly. 1kHz translates to a 60,000 RPM generator. That's kinda high for a
generator of a useful size (60Hz = 3600RPM, much better). Multipole
generators are possible, but that only reduces this linearly and increases the
size similarly.
tm
Guest
Guest
Sat Jan 21, 2012 5:10 pm
<krw_at_att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote in message
news:rhnlh7pbb5rpbb6qr1qe8o7vphb73khim5_at_4ax.com...
Quote:
On Sat, 21 Jan 2012 14:51:55 -0000, "Jim Hawkins" <jimhawkins_at_manx.net
wrote:
Jim Hawkins wrote:
Is a mains transformer designed for 60Hz significantly lighter than
one of the same VA rating designed for 50Hz ?
Jim Hawkins
Following on from this, why is it that electricity generation is limited
to
such low frequencies as 50 or 60 Hz ?
Losses. Mechanics.
As the frequency rises, the energy lost through electromagnetic radiation
from the wires rises, but is it really a significant amount ?
Yes.
Would it be significant at 1 kHz ?
Yes, certainly.
If not, why isn't generation done at that sort of frequency ?
The savings in transformer weights and sizes everywhere would
be enormous. Is it because of mechanical engineering limitations on the
rotational speeds of the large rotary generators the power stations use ?
Partly. 1kHz translates to a 60,000 RPM generator. That's kinda high for
a
generator of a useful size (60Hz = 3600RPM, much better). Multipole
generators are possible, but that only reduces this linearly and increases
the
size similarly.
wrote:
Jim Hawkins wrote:
Is a mains transformer designed for 60Hz significantly lighter than
one of the same VA rating designed for 50Hz ?
Jim Hawkins
Following on from this, why is it that electricity generation is limited
to
such low frequencies as 50 or 60 Hz ?
Losses. Mechanics.
As the frequency rises, the energy lost through electromagnetic radiation
from the wires rises, but is it really a significant amount ?
Yes.
Would it be significant at 1 kHz ?
Yes, certainly.
If not, why isn't generation done at that sort of frequency ?
The savings in transformer weights and sizes everywhere would
be enormous. Is it because of mechanical engineering limitations on the
rotational speeds of the large rotary generators the power stations use ?
Partly. 1kHz translates to a 60,000 RPM generator. That's kinda high for
a
generator of a useful size (60Hz = 3600RPM, much better). Multipole
generators are possible, but that only reduces this linearly and increases
the
size similarly.
Instead of hum, you would have whine.
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz
Guest
Guest
Sat Jan 21, 2012 5:52 pm
On Sat, 21 Jan 2012 11:10:06 -0500, "tm" <No_one_home_at_white-house.gov> wrote:
Quote:
krw_at_att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote in message
news:rhnlh7pbb5rpbb6qr1qe8o7vphb73khim5_at_4ax.com...
On Sat, 21 Jan 2012 14:51:55 -0000, "Jim Hawkins" <jimhawkins_at_manx.net
wrote:
Jim Hawkins wrote:
Is a mains transformer designed for 60Hz significantly lighter than
one of the same VA rating designed for 50Hz ?
Jim Hawkins
Following on from this, why is it that electricity generation is limited
to
such low frequencies as 50 or 60 Hz ?
Losses. Mechanics.
As the frequency rises, the energy lost through electromagnetic radiation
from the wires rises, but is it really a significant amount ?
Yes.
Would it be significant at 1 kHz ?
Yes, certainly.
If not, why isn't generation done at that sort of frequency ?
The savings in transformer weights and sizes everywhere would
be enormous. Is it because of mechanical engineering limitations on the
rotational speeds of the large rotary generators the power stations use ?
Partly. 1kHz translates to a 60,000 RPM generator. That's kinda high for
a
generator of a useful size (60Hz = 3600RPM, much better). Multipole
generators are possible, but that only reduces this linearly and increases
the
size similarly.
Instead of hum, you would have whine.
Good point. Perhaps it should be 20kHz.
tm
Guest
Guest
Sat Jan 21, 2012 6:07 pm
<krw_at_att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote in message
news:v9rlh75ksbe5uvhkuuncd5l0b8mev0iihg_at_4ax.com...
Quote:
On Sat, 21 Jan 2012 11:10:06 -0500, "tm" <No_one_home_at_white-house.gov
wrote:
krw_at_att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote in message
news:rhnlh7pbb5rpbb6qr1qe8o7vphb73khim5_at_4ax.com...
On Sat, 21 Jan 2012 14:51:55 -0000, "Jim Hawkins" <jimhawkins_at_manx.net
wrote:
Jim Hawkins wrote:
Is a mains transformer designed for 60Hz significantly lighter than
one of the same VA rating designed for 50Hz ?
Jim Hawkins
Following on from this, why is it that electricity generation is limited
to
such low frequencies as 50 or 60 Hz ?
Losses. Mechanics.
As the frequency rises, the energy lost through electromagnetic
radiation
from the wires rises, but is it really a significant amount ?
Yes.
Would it be significant at 1 kHz ?
Yes, certainly.
If not, why isn't generation done at that sort of frequency ?
The savings in transformer weights and sizes everywhere would
be enormous. Is it because of mechanical engineering limitations on the
rotational speeds of the large rotary generators the power stations use
?
Partly. 1kHz translates to a 60,000 RPM generator. That's kinda high
for
a
generator of a useful size (60Hz = 3600RPM, much better). Multipole
generators are possible, but that only reduces this linearly and
increases
the
size similarly.
Instead of hum, you would have whine.
Good point. Perhaps it should be 20kHz.
wrote:
krw_at_att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote in message
news:rhnlh7pbb5rpbb6qr1qe8o7vphb73khim5_at_4ax.com...
On Sat, 21 Jan 2012 14:51:55 -0000, "Jim Hawkins" <jimhawkins_at_manx.net
wrote:
Jim Hawkins wrote:
Is a mains transformer designed for 60Hz significantly lighter than
one of the same VA rating designed for 50Hz ?
Jim Hawkins
Following on from this, why is it that electricity generation is limited
to
such low frequencies as 50 or 60 Hz ?
Losses. Mechanics.
As the frequency rises, the energy lost through electromagnetic
radiation
from the wires rises, but is it really a significant amount ?
Yes.
Would it be significant at 1 kHz ?
Yes, certainly.
If not, why isn't generation done at that sort of frequency ?
The savings in transformer weights and sizes everywhere would
be enormous. Is it because of mechanical engineering limitations on the
rotational speeds of the large rotary generators the power stations use
?
Partly. 1kHz translates to a 60,000 RPM generator. That's kinda high
for
a
generator of a useful size (60Hz = 3600RPM, much better). Multipole
generators are possible, but that only reduces this linearly and
increases
the
size similarly.
Instead of hum, you would have whine.
Good point. Perhaps it should be 20kHz.
Hmmm, waveguide at 133kv. Sounds like that would qualify for an energy
department grant.
Uwe Hercksen
Guest
Guest
Thu Jan 26, 2012 12:12 pm
Jim Hawkins schrieb:
Quote:
Following on from this, why is it that electricity generation is limited to
such low frequencies as 50 or 60 Hz ?
such low frequencies as 50 or 60 Hz ?
Hello,
400 Hz is used for electric power distribution in airplanes, but if we
would use this frequency for terrestic distribution, problems with
transmission line effects would be much worse. If an AC generator would
feed a distribution line with the length of a quarter wavelength, the
voltage at the other end would rise infinitly. This is called Ferranti
effect:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferranti_effect
Bye
Michael A. Terrell
Guest
Guest
Thu Jan 26, 2012 7:22 pm
tm wrote:
Quote:
Instead of hum, you would have whine.
Like a lot of Usenet posts. ;-)
--
You can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense.
tm
Guest
Guest
Thu Jan 26, 2012 8:28 pm
"Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell_at_earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:7tmdnY45-5R9BLzSnZ2dnUVZ_oOdnZ2d_at_earthlink.com...
Quote:
tm wrote:
Instead of hum, you would have whine.
Like a lot of Usenet posts. ;-)
--
You can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense.
Ha. I have a sticker on my helmet that says "Stop Global Whining". :)
Regards, etc.
Sjouke Burry
Guest
Guest
Fri Jan 27, 2012 12:50 am
"Jim Hawkins" <jimhawkins_at_manx.net> wrote in
news:uZ6dnX1KQIiQTIfSnZ2dnUVZ8nCdnZ2d_at_supernews.com:
Quote:
Jim Hawkins wrote:
Is a mains transformer designed for 60Hz significantly lighter than
one of the same VA rating designed for 50Hz ?
Jim Hawkins
Following on from this, why is it that electricity generation is
limited to such low frequencies as 50 or 60 Hz ?
As the frequency rises, the energy lost through electromagnetic
radiation from the wires rises, but is it really a significant amount
? Would it be significant at 1 kHz ? If not, why isn't generation
done at that sort of frequency ? The savings in transformer weights
and sizes everywhere would be enormous. Is it because of mechanical
engineering limitations on the rotational speeds of the large rotary
generators the power stations use ?
Is a mains transformer designed for 60Hz significantly lighter than
one of the same VA rating designed for 50Hz ?
Jim Hawkins
Following on from this, why is it that electricity generation is
limited to such low frequencies as 50 or 60 Hz ?
As the frequency rises, the energy lost through electromagnetic
radiation from the wires rises, but is it really a significant amount
? Would it be significant at 1 kHz ? If not, why isn't generation
done at that sort of frequency ? The savings in transformer weights
and sizes everywhere would be enormous. Is it because of mechanical
engineering limitations on the rotational speeds of the large rotary
generators the power stations use ?
I have worked in the airforce, they also used 400 Hz
on(or under) the ground.
You could hear the 3rth harmonic(1200 Hz) all over the
place, wich is not such a good idea in your home.
Very iritating for new workers, old workers had a
measurable dip in their hearing curve, and could not
hear that frequency anymore.Permanent damage.
Fred Abse
Guest
Guest
Fri Jan 27, 2012 6:42 pm
On Sat, 21 Jan 2012 10:53:11 -0500, krw_at_att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
Quote:
Partly. 1kHz translates to a 60,000 RPM generator. That's kinda high for a
generator of a useful size (60Hz = 3600RPM, much better). Multipole
generators are possible, but that only reduces this linearly and increases the
size similarly.
generator of a useful size (60Hz = 3600RPM, much better). Multipole
generators are possible, but that only reduces this linearly and increases the
size similarly.
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Alexanderson_alternator
--
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence
over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled."
(Richard Feynman)
elektroda.net NewsGroups Forum Index - Electronics Equipment - Mains transformer weights
