• Congratulations to the Class of 2024 on your results!
    Let us know how you went here
    Got a question about your uni preferences? Ask us here

Transformers (1 Viewer)

Suvat

part timer
Joined
Feb 8, 2003
Messages
645
Gender
Male
HSC
N/A
Here's something I've been pondering over for a while...

Aussuming all other factors equal, would a transfromer with 10 turns on the primary coil and 20 turns on the secondary be more, less or equally efficient as a transformer with 20 turns on the primary coil and 40 turns on the secondary coil and why?

I know its a 1/3 chance but no wild guesses please ;)
This is a serious question
Thanks.
 
N

ND

Guest
Here is what i *think*(its been a while since i did transformers):

the 20-40 transformer will be less efficient, because the wire the current flows through is longer, therefor there will be a higher resistance, resulting in a greater energy loss.
 

kini mini

Active Member
Joined
Sep 19, 2002
Messages
1,272
Location
Sydney
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
2002
Originally posted by Suvat
Here's something I've been pondering over for a while...

Aussuming all other factors equal, would a transfromer with 10 turns on the primary coil and 20 turns on the secondary be more, less or equally efficient as a transformer with 20 turns on the primary coil and 40 turns on the secondary coil and why?

I know its a 1/3 chance but no wild guesses please ;)
This is a serious question
Thanks.
If the coils are of equal size, then the resistance of the wires will make the 10/20 more efficient as ND said :)
 

Mathematician

Member
Joined
Nov 3, 2002
Messages
188
Heres something lol.

P=I^2*R
(since P=VI , V=IR)

P=Et , E is Energy , P is power
therefore E=P/t = I^2*R/t

And Resistance is Proportional to L(As length of wire increases , Resistance Increases).

Let us say this greater resistance in the longer wire in comparison(or can u say relative?) to the wire with less turns(shorter wire) is R'

Some Electrical Energy is converted into heat energy(energy loss) as current flows through the wire

Therefore Energy losses(In longer wire)=I^2*R'/t >Energy losses(In shorter wire)=I^2*R/t

I have a feeling i said something wrong , someone tell me if i did.





For some reason i also have a feeling that they will both have same efficency( i cant explain why) , i think its got to do with conservation of energy from primary to secondary.


I mean i understand ur point ND and kinimini but still...
 

kini mini

Active Member
Joined
Sep 19, 2002
Messages
1,272
Location
Sydney
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
2002
Re: Heres something lol.

Originally posted by Mathematician

For some reason i also have a feeling that they will both have same efficency( i cant explain why) , i think its got to do with conservation of energy from primary to secondary.

I mean i understand ur point ND and kinimini but still...
It's a bit hard to argue with someone's bad feeling :p

Under most circumstances in the HSC, the wires are assumed to be superconducting to ease calculation.
 

tieki

Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2003
Messages
240
Location
"The 'Wong..." :-)
It's easy...more length in the magnetic field creates a stronger field, in turn creating a larger voltage in the secondary coil...although the ratio is the same, increasing the amount of coils also increases the efficiency of the transformer...that's why most transformers need to be big, to fit the iron core and to fit as many coils as they can, in the right ratio...

:)
 

Twintip

Member
Joined
Dec 15, 2002
Messages
392
Location
a cardboard box
Re: Re: Heres something lol.

Originally posted by kini mini
Under most circumstances in the HSC, the wires are assumed to be superconducting to ease calculation.
If you're asked to qualitatively describe their relative efficiencies, I would expect the length of the wire would need to be mentioned (in fact it's probably a more likely question under this gay new syllabus).
 

kini mini

Active Member
Joined
Sep 19, 2002
Messages
1,272
Location
Sydney
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
2002
Re: Re: Re: Heres something lol.

Originally posted by Twintip
If you're asked to qualitatively describe their relative efficiencies, I would expect the length of the wire would need to be mentioned (in fact it's probably a more likely question under this gay new syllabus).
Definitely - but I feel that it's rather unlikely to be in a quantitative question. Or should I say, in the quantitative question :p.
 

Suvat

part timer
Joined
Feb 8, 2003
Messages
645
Gender
Male
HSC
N/A
Thanks guys,
like some of you, I now believe that the efficiency increases as the number of turns increases. The reason for this is that my teacher dismantled a commercial transformer and there were literally THOUSANDS of turns in the coils of both the primary and secondary. I reasoned that if the number of turns did not effect efficiency, then it would be much cheaper to have less turns in the coil....

Still unsure about the reason though... :rolleyes:
 

wogboy

Terminator
Joined
Sep 2, 2002
Messages
653
Location
Sydney
Gender
Male
HSC
2002
Having more turns in a transformer increases the magnetic flux DENSITY through the core.

The reason why using many coils in a transformer is more efficient, is that more turns will concentrate the magnetic field into the iron core better rather than having the magnetic flux go everywhere and anywhere, thus reducing the "iron loss" (the "iron loss" means whatever energy is lost in the iron core due to hysteria, eddy currents etc; whereas "copper loss" is loss due to heat dissipated in the wires). However if the number of turns are too numerous, there will be problems too because the iron core will be "saturated" (there is only so much magnetic flux that an iron core will be able to convey from primary to secondary windings, and if this is exceeded some of the input energy is wasted as heat).

Also increasing the number of turns of the coil means making the coil longer & increasing resistance, and therefore increasing the "copper loss", but this is usually quite small/insignificant compared to the "iron loss", so you can sort of ignore it.

There are actually some quite complicated equations that are used to determine at what number of turns the core is saturated (when a transformer operates at maximum efficiency the core must be ALMOST saturated), and this depends on a huge number of factors such as the permability of the core, voltage level, frequency etc, but you won't need to know these (unless you're doing EE at uni ;) ).

In fact you won't really need to know more than half of what I posted, the main idea is just that moderation is needed. Not too much turns on the tranformer, but not too little either depending on the circumstances. In practice, it happens that the required number of turns is usually quite high, sometimes in the hundreds or thousands (or more!).

BTW kini, what's your dad's name? (the EE lecturer/academic staff at UNSW :) )
 
Last edited:

wogboy

Terminator
Joined
Sep 2, 2002
Messages
653
Location
Sydney
Gender
Male
HSC
2002
For some reason i also have a feeling that they will both have same efficency( i cant explain why) , i think its got to do with conservation of energy from primary to secondary.
The conservation law of energy holds for transformers of any type and efficiency, regardless of whether it's efficiency is 0.1% or 99.9%, and regardless of the number of turns of the coils. The conservation law of energy states that the total energy in equals the total energy out (in any form, be it electrical, heat etc), and this is always true because a less efficient transformer will give less electrical power and more heat, while a more efficient transformer will give more electrical power and less heat (but the sum of the heat & electrical output energy remains constant and is equal to the input electrical energy).

However, just as the efficiency doesn't affect the conservation law of energy, the conservation law of energy doesn't affect the efficiency.
 
Last edited:

kini mini

Active Member
Joined
Sep 19, 2002
Messages
1,272
Location
Sydney
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
2002
Originally posted by wogboy

BTW kini, what's your dad's name? (the EE lecturer/academic staff at UNSW :) )
What you said before was a good explanation, hopefully it'll satisfy Suvat :p

As for my dad's name, he doesn't teach there anymore :)
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

Top