-2
\$\begingroup\$

What exactly is not clear in this question? Transformer basics: Why don't they shift phase by about 90°?

The question is clearly stated:

why aren't primary current and secondary voltage out of phase by about 90°?

It was put on hold after it was edited, and closed after it even received one answer. With this reason:

closed as unclear what you're asking by winny, laptop2d, RoyC, Sparky256, Finbarr Apr 5 at 16:37 Please clarify your specific problem or add additional details to highlight exactly what you need. As it's currently written, it’s hard to tell exactly what you're asking.

The question is interesting, the remarks on near and far field have a reason to be and the topic is deserving of discussion (for example in how the behavior of a perfect transformer change with changing load and coupling factor).

So why was it put on hold and then closed? The reason given is blatantly false: what the op is asking is crystal clear. And was crystal clear before the question was even put on hold. If someone had a problem with the verbose exposition of the OP's background, they could have simply edited the question and deleted that part (which I believe it is useful to understand what the OP know, but that's debatable).

I tried contacting one of the people who put on hold and closed the question but no answer came.

EDIT: highlighted for ease of comprehension.

\$\endgroup\$
9
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ I don't see a big deal here. So a poor question got closed. Oh well. If you don't like that, don't ask poorly written questions. \$\endgroup\$ – Olin Lathrop Apr 15 '18 at 14:40
  • \$\begingroup\$ You ought to re-read what's written here: stackexchange.com/tour \$\endgroup\$ – Sredni Vashtar Apr 15 '18 at 14:59
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ From the comments you're written in response to Olin's answer below is appears that you believe that those who voted to close the question are moderators. They are not. They are normal users exercising their normal user privileges on EE.SE and giving poor questions the expected treatment. \$\endgroup\$ – brhans Apr 15 '18 at 16:07
  • \$\begingroup\$ I probably used the wrong term, but the problem remains intact: people with power to close a question abused it ("there is a good question there") and gave a false motivation ("not clear what you are asking") preventing in this way further editing (perhaps EESE should add a "screw this, I do not have to time to fix it" tag, so that people desperate to get their 15 minutes of fame - ROTFL - could fix it for them). And people in here seems to defend that behavior, regardless. \$\endgroup\$ – Sredni Vashtar Apr 15 '18 at 16:26
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ We already have a screw this reason. It's whichever you feel like clicking on. I usually go for unclear, but it doesn't really matter. I'm just not going to get worked up about how exactly people that abuse the site get sent home without their cookie. \$\endgroup\$ – Olin Lathrop Apr 15 '18 at 19:31
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ @SredniVashtar Closed questions can be edited. \$\endgroup\$ – dim Apr 16 '18 at 10:44
  • \$\begingroup\$ - and once edited they can be voted on to be re-opened. \$\endgroup\$ – brhans Apr 16 '18 at 11:19
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ @OlinLathrop It gets even better. The reason for closing a question can be false (it was) and actually be "whichever the 'normal users exercising their normal user privileges on EE.SE and giving poor questions the expected treatment' (moderators was shorter and to the point) decide it to be, in their head . So users have to be telepathic, and read your mind in order to be able to know what was wrong and fix it. And you still don't see what's wrong, looking from subsequent comments. I had already edited it and made the question CRYSTAL CLEAR. Not being telepathic, how could I have know that... \$\endgroup\$ – Sredni Vashtar Apr 16 '18 at 17:27
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ ... (see, that 'moderators' was a better handle?) I could I have known that pointing out a possible explanation (far field... near field...) and giving a background (that is always helpful in targeting a question - actually more detail was asked!) was the problem? (note: my edit had been accepted and the 'normal users exercising their normal user privileges on EE.SE and giving poor questions the expected treatment' could have used their time more wisely with a single click and drag). Oh, and by the way: when you cut the far field near field part you cut out an interesting part of the question. \$\endgroup\$ – Sredni Vashtar Apr 16 '18 at 17:32
6
\$\begingroup\$
What exactly is not clear in this question?

It is mostly verbal diarrhea.

I can sympathize with those that voted to close. I suspect it wasn't as much unclear as screw this.

However, there is actually a good question in there. As Dave Tweed says, the OP has a misconception, but that does seem to be exactly what he's asking about. Given Andy's excellent answer, this is a worthwhile question to keep around.

In this case I did something I almost never do, which is to try to re-open a closed question. I removed all the extraneous blah blah from the question, upvoted Andy's answer, and voted to reopen. I also left a note with the edit about how this site is not a Kaffeeklatsch, and to cut the drivel next time.

If someone had a problem with the verbose exposition ... they could have simply edited the question

That's not how it works. At least not how you can expect it to work. We are all volunteers here. It's not our job to clean up others' messes. But messes can't be allowed to live, so the most expedient way of dealing with them is to vote to close and downvote to oblivion.

That may sound unfair at first glance, but note that the problem is wholly caused by the OP dumping a bad question on us in the first place. I just checked, and nope, considering how people that abuse this site and waste volunteer time are treated isn't even on my list of things to think about. In fact, we want those that dump crap here to have a somewhat unpleasant experience. If not, there is no cost in doing so, and they will surely be back doing more of the same in the future.

This is the main reason I pretty much never vote to reopen, regardless of how good a new edited version of a question is. They shouldn't have dumped crap on us in the first place. I made a exception in this one case because of the discussion here, because there was actually a good question in there, and because of Andy's answer. Don't expect me to make a habit of it.

\$\endgroup\$
9
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ So, the motivation is wrong, there is a good answer there, and the moderators could have simply removed the 'verbal diarrhea' with a single drag and click instead of going through the hold and close process. As to the OP misconception, I have LTSpice simulations where I can get Ip and Vs out of phase of nearly 90 degrees, and others where I can get Vp out of phase with Vs of a similar amount. But I am not going to waste my time in formatting an answer for a question who could be closed. See the problem, here? I am the one saying "screw this!". \$\endgroup\$ – Sredni Vashtar Apr 15 '18 at 14:28
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ Others could have spent their volunteer time cleaning up someone else's mess. They chose not to. I can't blame them. Get over it. As for you not wanting to answer: That's your call. I don't care. There is no problem here for me to see. \$\endgroup\$ – Olin Lathrop Apr 15 '18 at 14:36
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ Moderators should not let their ignorance get in the way of other users. So much for the "Improve posts by editing or commenting" "so if you see questions or answers that can be improved, you can edit them. Use edits to fix mistakes, improve formatting, or clarify the meaning of a post." You can't, because the question has been closed by people who didn't have the time to improve it. And you see no problem, here? LOL (Also, you shouldn't think of me only - more knowledgeable people would be put off by such behavior). \$\endgroup\$ – Sredni Vashtar Apr 15 '18 at 14:43
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ I see no problem with volunteers spending their volunteer time as they like. If you thought the question should have been edited, they you could have edited it. Don't blame others for not doing your janitorial work in their free time. \$\endgroup\$ – Olin Lathrop Apr 15 '18 at 14:46
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ You are clearly not understanding. I am not blaming them for not cleaning up the question. I blame them for preventing others from doing it - and for discouraging people from posting complex answers because - guess what? - they would find the question closed by the time they completed it (in their free time). So go on closing good question in a day or two, you'll end up answering questions like "what resistor should I put to light this LED?". \$\endgroup\$ – Sredni Vashtar Apr 15 '18 at 14:49
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ In a perfect world, we wouldn't need the close mechanism. Unfortunately, there will always be a few misguided do-gooders that put their 15 seconds of fame from answering a question ahead of the site. We close to prevent those people, which apparently would have included you, from providing the desired result to someone that writes a bad question. It seems to have worked. You have proven the necessity of having the close mechanism. \$\endgroup\$ – Olin Lathrop Apr 15 '18 at 14:54
  • 7
    \$\begingroup\$ "15 seconds of fame"??? Do you really think this site can give "fame"? Oh, dear. You people have a bigger problem than I thought. \$\endgroup\$ – Sredni Vashtar Apr 15 '18 at 14:58
  • \$\begingroup\$ I answered the question in the full knowledge that within hours (due to the extreme amount of verbal diarrhea it contained) the question would be closed - it didn't stop me answering because my motivation was "I'm answering because I feel like doing so" and sometimes that is a bigger motivator. I don't care that it got closed and I don't care if the guy writing the question never reads it. I guess I may be weird but that's a different story. \$\endgroup\$ – Andy aka May 13 '18 at 20:37
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ @Andyaka Well, I do not like to waste my time only to see my efforts deleted shortly afterwards. That's why I am mostly limiting my interaction on this site to comments. They can still help the OP, but won't be as much a waste of time. I guess I'll have to renounce to the idea of being interviewed by CNN for my contributions, though, but... oh, well. \$\endgroup\$ – Sredni Vashtar May 13 '18 at 21:42
4
\$\begingroup\$

The answer shows that the premise of the question is flawed to begin with — the OP doesn't understand the relationships among voltage, current and magnetic field in a transformer. In other words, there's no real reason to expect a 90° phase shift between Vin and Vout. This makes the question uninteresting for the site, long term.

\$\endgroup\$
5
  • 3
    \$\begingroup\$ That's an opinion and you are entitled to have it. But it does not mean that what the OP is asking is not clear. Perhaps if you read it more carefully, you would have noticed the the op is asking about Iin and Vout and not Vin and Vout. And I can show you at least one book (printed by Prentice Hall, not some vanity press) showing Iin and Vout out of phase of 90 degrees. So, I'd say that nullified the 'makes the question uninteresting' explanation (which by the way has nothing to do with the "unclear what you are asking" \$\endgroup\$ – Sredni Vashtar Apr 14 '18 at 23:32
  • \$\begingroup\$ -1 for not reading with attention my question and/or the OP question. \$\endgroup\$ – Sredni Vashtar Apr 15 '18 at 2:21
  • \$\begingroup\$ it is funny that the most voted answer is the one that did not even get the problem right, and also exposes ignorance on how it could be possible to get a nearly 90 degrees phase shift between Vin and Vout (under proper conditions). \$\endgroup\$ – Sredni Vashtar Apr 16 '18 at 17:41
  • \$\begingroup\$ @SredniVashtar the OP was under the illusion that current is induced (it's actually voltage as per Faraday) and so the question was fundamentally flawed right at the beginning. This means no-matter how hard you read the question you are drawn back to the basic misconception in it. For this reason I felt that the best way to answer was to give the facts based on applied voltage => 90 degrees phase shift => magnetization current => flux => another 90 degrees => secondary voltage. So my answer was to put the record straight and correct the OP's original misconception about current being induced. \$\endgroup\$ – Andy aka May 13 '18 at 20:46
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ Far field, near field. It has a meaning. Actually, it had a meaning before Olin stripped all references to it from the question (apart from a tag) rendering it meaningless. As I said, I have simulation showing how you can get that (nearly) quadrature. You just have to play with the load and the coupling. Of course commercial transformers are designed to work to avoid that phase shift, due to the tight coupling that you described but that does not change the fact that you can get significant phase shift. I'll let someone else earn their 15 seconds of fame to find out how, though. \$\endgroup\$ – Sredni Vashtar May 13 '18 at 21:36

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .