B Basics of Transformers: Negative Signs in EMF Terms

Click For Summary
The discussion focuses on understanding the negative signs in the induced EMF terms of transformers, specifically -N1dΦ/dt and -N2dΦ/dt. Participants clarify that the negative signs arise from Lenz's law, indicating that the induced EMF opposes the change in magnetic flux. The polarity of the induced EMF is influenced by the winding direction of the coils, with the sense of the windings determining whether the induced currents and voltages are in phase or out of phase. The conversation emphasizes that while the direction of the induced EMF is dependent on the winding configuration, the fundamental principle remains that it opposes the cause of its induction. Overall, the negative signs reflect the relationship between induced EMF and the direction of magnetic flux changes in transformers.
  • #31
cnh1995 said:
The net flux is the flux set up by the magnetizing current. It is constant as long as the applied voltage (rms) is constant.

If flux is constant , how is EMF induced in the two coils ?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
Vibhor said:
If flux is constant , how is EMF induced in the two coils ?
RMS value of the flux is constant. Or you can say, the amplitude of the flux waveform is constant.
Merlin3189 said:
I think it would - so long as by constant you mean, varying sinusoidally with constant amplitude.
A literally constant flux does not cause any emfs. EMF is always associated with changing flux.
 
  • Like
Likes Merlin3189 and Vibhor
  • #33
Ok . I will stop here for the time being :wink:

You and @Merlin3189 both have been amazing . Thanks both of you for your time and patience . I really admire the way you both stuck with me in this thread . Some expert members would have been fretting and fuming by now ?:)

You might have also been irritated at times . But the good part is that ,you didn't let me know o0) .

People might have more knowledge than you , but few have finer qualities like patience :smile:

Keep up the good work :thumbup: .
 
  • Like
Likes cnh1995 and jerromyjon
  • #34
cnh1995 said:
This reflected secondary current cancels the secondary mmf.
We have been using this term frequently in this thread, but I think we haven't discussed its another important physical significance.

This reflected secondary current Ip1 is actually the reflection of the load connected to the secondary.
For a resistive load, the product of applied primary voltage and reflected secondary current gives the power supplied by the source, which is dissipated in the secondary.
Hence,
Vp*Ip1=Vs*Isec.

Other than maintaining the core flux constant by cancelling the secondary mmf, the reflected load current in the primary is responsible for supplying power (active and reactive) from the source to the load on the secondary.

And thanks for your kind words!:smile:
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
837
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
13K
Replies
64
Views
7K
Replies
4
Views
2K