Discussion:
What mean TC in TC transformer?
(too old to reply)
Pavel
2003-09-07 11:53:30 UTC
Permalink
Dear collegues,

Please help.

What is TC in TC transformer?

Internet search gives only commercial links.
--
Sincerely,

Pavel
Evertjan.
2003-09-07 12:24:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pavel
What is TC in TC transformer?
Tesla Coil [resonance] transformer

One of Nikola Tesla's inventions:

<http://www.resonanceresearch.com/Electrical-Energy-high-voltage-
railguns.htm>
<http://www.crystalinks.com/nicola.html>
<http://www.svensons.com/newweb/?Tesla>
--
Evertjan.
The Netherlands.
(Please change the x'es to dots in my emailaddress)
Pavel
2003-09-07 13:52:05 UTC
Permalink
Sorry, I made error in question.

Here context:
"Transistor Q1 must be mounted on a large heatsink.
T1 is a 12.6 V, 450 mA transformer. Radio Shack 273-1375 is suitable for
this project but,
because it has a CT transformer, you should use only two of the three
secondary wires.
You can experiments with a transformer with secondary currents ranging from
300 to 800 mA
and voltages between 9 and 15 V for better performance."
Post by Pavel
Dear collegues,
Please help.
What is TC in TC transformer?
Internet search gives only commercial links.
It could be several things. Please give us some context.
--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk
Interested in professional sound reinforcement and distribution? Then go to
http://www.isce.org.uk
PLEASE do NOT copy news posts to me by E-MAIL!
Evertjan.
2003-09-07 15:20:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pavel
T1 is a 12.6 V, 450 mA transformer. Radio Shack 273-1375 is suitable for
this project but,
because it has a CT transformer, you should use only two of the three
secondary wires.
Center Tabbed, so 2 x 6.3 Volt
--
Evertjan.
The Netherlands.
(Please change the x'es to dots in my emailaddress)
Peter Twydell
2003-09-07 17:14:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Evertjan.
Post by Pavel
T1 is a 12.6 V, 450 mA transformer. Radio Shack 273-1375 is suitable for
this project but,
because it has a CT transformer, you should use only two of the three
secondary wires.
Center Tabbed, so 2 x 6.3 Volt
I think you mean centre tapped, 2 x 6.3 volts
--
Peter

Ying tong iddle-i po!
Peter Twydell
2003-09-07 17:34:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Twydell
Post by Evertjan.
Post by Pavel
T1 is a 12.6 V, 450 mA transformer. Radio Shack 273-1375 is suitable
for this project but,
because it has a CT transformer, you should use only two of the
three secondary wires.
Center Tabbed, so 2 x 6.3 Volt
I think you mean centre tapped, 2 x 6.3 volts
Yes, tapped.
No, Volt. The plural is technically inferior.
OK, that may well be, but it's still volt, not Volt.
6.3 V is the most used nominal radio tube filament voltage value.
--
Peter

Ying tong iddle-i po!
Peter Twydell
2003-09-07 18:26:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Twydell
Post by Peter Twydell
I think you mean centre tapped, 2 x 6.3 volts
Yes, tapped.
No, Volt. The plural is technically inferior.
OK, that may well be, but it's still volt, not Volt.
No, the unit is Volt, named after mr Volta.
so, it's 6,3 Volt or 6,3 V, never volt, volts or Volts
-------------------------------------------
MH
SI unit names taken from people's names have a lower case initial
letter, but the symbol has an upper case initial letter:

volt V
newton N
henry H
watt W
becquerel Bq
etc.
--
Peter

Ying tong iddle-i po!
Richard Kaulfuss
2003-09-07 18:35:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Twydell
Post by Peter Twydell
I think you mean centre tapped, 2 x 6.3 volts
Yes, tapped.
No, Volt. The plural is technically inferior.
OK, that may well be, but it's still volt, not Volt.
No, the unit is Volt, named after mr Volta.
so, it's 6,3 Volt or 6,3 V, never volt, volts or Volts
You would think so, but it's not the convention. See:
http://www.npl.co.uk/npl/reference/si_conventions.html
--
Dick
John Woodgate
2003-09-07 19:01:43 UTC
Permalink
No, the unit is Volt, named after mr Volta. so, it's 6,3 Volt or 6,3 V,
never volt, volts or Volts
The symbol is V, but the unit name is NOT capitalized. See IEC 60027 or
ISO 7000.

We had a short thread about whether unit names should be pluralized. The
answer is that in formal scientific work they should not, so '6.3 volt',
but in text for the general public that is unfamiliar, and pluralization
is preferable.
--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk
Interested in professional sound reinforcement and distribution? Then go to
http://www.isce.org.uk
PLEASE do NOT copy news posts to me by E-MAIL!
Bettina Price
2003-09-07 19:41:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Woodgate
No, the unit is Volt, named after mr Volta. so, it's 6,3 Volt or 6,3
V, never volt, volts or Volts
The symbol is V, but the unit name is NOT capitalized. See IEC 60027
or ISO 7000.
And that's why you can have them as scrabble words...

Bettina
Jean Dufresne
2003-09-07 21:44:20 UTC
Permalink
Then what is the convention on the decimal separator; dot or comma?
According to the National Physical Laboratory (UK) in the document
already mentioned in Richard's message:
"The SI preferred way of showing a decimal fraction is to use a comma
(23,993) to separate the whole from its fractional part but a point
placed on the line may be used (23.993)."
Iif I write 6.300 V or 6,300 V do I mean 6300 V or 6+3/1000 V ?
You mean 6,3 V or 6.3 V. If you had meant 6300 V, you would have
written 6300 V or 6 300 V. If you had meant 6 V + 0,003 V, you would
have written 6,003 V or 6.003 V. If you had meant 0,006 V + 0,003 V,
you would have written 0,009 V or 0.009 V.
--
Jean
MH
2003-09-08 18:38:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jean Dufresne
Iif I write 6.300 V or 6,300 V do I mean 6300 V or 6+3/1000 V ?
You mean 6,3 V or 6.3 V. If you had meant 6300 V, you would have
written 6300 V or 6 300 V. If you had meant 6 V + 0,003 V, you would
have written 6,003 V or 6.003 V. If you had meant 0,006 V + 0,003 V,
you would have written 0,009 V or 0.009 V.
I wanted to write;
- 6.300 V or 6,300 V do I mean 6300 V or 6+300/1000 V

But never mind, I get the point from your other answer - thanks.

-------
MH
Jean Dufresne
2003-09-07 22:59:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Woodgate
No, the unit is Volt, named after mr Volta. so, it's 6,3 Volt or 6,3 V,
never volt, volts or Volts
The symbol is V, but the unit name is NOT capitalized. See IEC 60027 or
ISO 7000.
The answer is that in formal scientific work they should not, so '6.3 volt',
but in text for the general public that is unfamiliar, and pluralization
is preferable.
This seems to touch two different conventions, at least according to the
National Physics Laboratory (UK) and to the National Institute of
Standards (US). The first convention is that unit *names* are
pluralised, as opposed to unit *symbols*, which are not pluralised. For
example: 6 volts (not 6 volt); 6 V (not 6 Vs). That first convention is
valid for formal scientific works as well as for texts for the general
public. The distinction between the two types of texts arises in
connection with a second convention, which says that for the key
elements of a scientific paper the use of unit symbols should be
preferred to the use of unit names. But when someone does use the unit
names, they are pluralised.

To quote from the recommendations of the NPL:

"If the spelled-out name of a unit is used, the normal rules of English
are applied."

"For unit values more than 1 or less than -1 the plural of the unit is
used and a singular unit is used for values between 1 and -1."

To quote from the _Guide for the Use of the International System of
Units (SI)_, on the NIST website:

"Plural unit names are used when they are required by the rules of
English grammar. They are normally formed regularly, for example,
"henries" is the plural of henry."
http://physics.nist.gov/Pubs/SP811/sec09.html

"This Guide takes the position that the key elements of a scientific or
technical paper, particularly the results of measurements and the values
of quantities that influence the measurements, should be presented in a
way that is as independent of language as possible. This will allow the
paper to be understood by as broad an audience as possible, including
readers with limited knowledge of English. Thus, to promote the
comprehension of quantitative information in general and its broad
understandability in particular, values of quantities should be
expressed in acceptable units using the Arabic symbols for numbers,
that is, the Arabic numerals, not the spelled-out names of the Arabic
numerals; and the symbols for the units, not the spelled-out names of
the units. (...) Occasionally, a value is used in a descriptive or
literary manner and it is fitting to use the spelled-out name of the
unit rather than its symbol. Thus this Guide considers acceptable
statements such as "the reading lamp was designed to take two 60-watt
light bulbs," or "the rocket journeyed uneventfully across 380 000
kilometers of space," or "they bought a roll of 35-millimeter film for
their camera." "
http://physics.nist.gov/Pubs/SP811/sec07.html#7.6

(Of course, in the last sentence quoted above, the qualifiers "60-watt"
and "35-millimeter" are in the singular not because of the rule about
the pluralisation of unit names used as nouns, but only because they
are used to qualify "light bulb" and "film".)
--
Jean
John Woodgate
2003-09-08 06:00:11 UTC
Permalink
I read in sci.lang.translation that Jean Dufresne
Post by Jean Dufresne
This seems to touch two different conventions, at least according to the
National Physics Laboratory (UK) and to the National Institute of
Standards (US).
The definitive authorities outside the US are IEC 60027 and ISO 7000.
--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk
Interested in professional sound reinforcement and distribution? Then go to
http://www.isce.org.uk
PLEASE do NOT copy news posts to me by E-MAIL!
Jean Dufresne
2003-09-08 09:39:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Woodgate
Post by Jean Dufresne
This seems to touch two different conventions, at least according to the
National Physics Laboratory (UK) and to the National Institute of
Standards (US).
The definitive authorities outside the US are IEC 60027 and ISO 7000.
ISO 7000: "Graphical symbols for use on equipments"? Does it include
something about SI units and their plurals? Did you mean ISO 1000 ?

IEC 60027, AFAICT from its title, seems to be about letter symbols to be
used in electrical technology. Does it include provisions regulating
the writing of SI unit names?

What do those norms say about unit names and their plurals? Are the
relevant parts quoted somewhere? Do they actually say that unit names
(not unit symbols) should not be pluralised in scientific texts? I have
some real difficulty to imagine that they would say that. Could they
perhaps merely say that the fact of not pluralising some names can be
accepted in some circumstances?
--
Jean
James Lee
2003-09-08 13:46:17 UTC
Permalink
The NIST guide to SI units states:
9.2 Plurals
Plural unit names are used when they are required by the rules of English
grammar. They are normally formed regularly, for example, "henries" is the
plural of henry. According to Ref. [8], the following plurals are irregular:
Singular - lux, hertz, siemens; Plural - lux, hertz, siemens. (See also Sec.
9.7.)

However, in many cases the units are used as adjectives, as in 'a 60-watt
bulb', so according to the rules of English grammar they are not pluralized.

AIUI the names of units in German follow the rules of German orthography, so
although they do not have initial capitals in other languages, they do in
German.

Someone referred to a query of mine from before my vacation. This referred
to symbols, which do not take a plural, partly because 's' is an SI unit in
its own right.

'Lbs' is, of course, an abomination. 'Lb' comes from 'libra' which, if it
were a noun, would take a Latin plural, but it was originally the adjective
part of 'pons libra'. The correct Latin plural construction goes beyond my
abilities.

James Lee
John Woodgate
2003-09-08 21:05:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by James Lee
'Lb' comes from 'libra' which, if
it were a noun, would take a Latin plural, but it was originally the
adjective part of 'pons libra'. The correct Latin plural construction
goes beyond my abilities.
Is it an adjective? 'Pons' is not 'pons, pontis', a bridge, but a form
of 'pondus, ponderis', weight, which is neuter, so that a first or
second declension adjective would end in '-um'.

I think 'libra' is the ablative of 'libra, librae', a balance, so that
'pons libra' is 'weight by the balance'. In this sense, 'libra' is
collective, representing all balances, so the plural is 'pondes libra'
or 'ponderes libra'.
--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk
Interested in professional sound reinforcement and distribution? Then go to
http://www.isce.org.uk
PLEASE do NOT copy news posts to me by E-MAIL!
John Woodgate
2003-09-08 20:47:55 UTC
Permalink
I read in sci.lang.translation that Jean Dufresne
Post by Jean Dufresne
ISO 7000: "Graphical symbols for use on equipments"? Does it include
something about SI units and their plurals? Did you mean ISO 1000 ?
Yes. Obviously (;-)

The poor old bugger's memory isn't as reliable as it used to be.
--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk
Interested in professional sound reinforcement and distribution? Then go to
http://www.isce.org.uk
PLEASE do NOT copy news posts to me by E-MAIL!
Evertjan.
2003-09-08 11:09:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jean Dufresne
(Of course, in the last sentence quoted above, the qualifiers "60-watt"
and "35-millimeter" are in the singular not because of the rule about
the pluralisation of unit names used as nouns, but only because they
are used to qualify "light bulb" and "film".)
My old mathematics teacher warned me for the lack of scientific logic in
"of cource" statements.

Why would it be a "60-watt lightbulb" and not a "6.3-volt transformer" ?

As is obvious [beware: an "of cource" equivalent!] to me from this thread
even "official" recommandations do not agree on this.

As I read recently the "-", even in "60-watt", is out of fashion nowadays.

And finally "there are no rules in English" is the only rule in English.
--
Evertjan.
The Netherlands.
(Please change the x'es to dots in my emailaddress)
Jean Dufresne
2003-09-08 20:54:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Evertjan.
Why would it be a "60-watt lightbulb" and not a "6.3-volt transformer" ?
It's the same thing. It is used in adjectival form, not as a noun, so
it is written following a practice that is not specific to the names of
SI units. It can be the same for other words.

The question is wether the full names of SI units follow the ordinary
rules of grammar in general, or if a special rule exists that would
supersede ordinary grammar and say that the full names of SI units
should be singular when used in scientific texts. The difference would
certainly become manifest for nouns. For example, should one write "a
voltage of 15 volts" or "a voltage of 15 volt"?
Post by Evertjan.
As is obvious [beware: an "of cource" equivalent!] to me from this thread
even "official" recommandations do not agree on this.
The recommandations that have been quoted seem to agree. Maybe there is
a rule stating that one should write "a duration of 15 second" instead
of "a duration of 15 seconds", but I cannot see why that would be better
and to my admittedly non-English eyes it looks strange.
--
Jean
John Woodgate
2003-09-07 18:57:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pavel
Sorry, I made error in question.
"Transistor Q1 must be mounted on a large heatsink. T1 is a 12.6 V, 450
mA transformer. Radio Shack 273-1375 is suitable for this project but,
because it has a CT transformer, you should use only two of the three
secondary wires. You can experiments with a transformer with secondary
currents ranging from 300 to 800 mA and voltages between 9 and 15 V for
better performance."
'CT' in this context means 'centre-tapped'. A wire is brought out from a
winding, halfway between the first turn and the last turn.
--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk
Interested in professional sound reinforcement and distribution? Then go to
http://www.isce.org.uk
PLEASE do NOT copy news posts to me by E-MAIL!
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...