Nobody is "right"here :-).
It's in part a matter of semantics.

Technically the fact that each transformer half can have a net DC
component does not necessarily mean that the primary having one is
good - so Robert's assertion is in fact incorrect - but that is
irrelevant to the semantics of what is being said.
....

> > seem to be different ways of saying the same thing,

> Clearly ...

:-)
English she is such a marvellous language,


> ... not. =A0First, there is no such thing as a "full wave rectifier
> transformer". =A0There is nothing special about a transformer because it
> happens to be used in a full wave rectifier circuit except that it needs =
at
> least a center tapped secondary.

Semantics.
ie you are picking at a point which essentially does not exist.
A FWRT can reasonable be taken as meaning =E4 transformer used with a
FWR". There is no implication that it is "special".
It may be special (eg it may have high DC saturation rating in the
secondary limbs because of the way it is used, but that was not
relevant to the statement.)

To be clear (unusual for me :-), you seem very much to be picking at
what is said because Robert said it. You seem to be =F6n his case"and
trying to find ways to criticise him. When you build straw men to
knock down in order to try to make somebody else look silly, you run
the severe risk of making yourself look silly, or if not silly, then
trivially vindictive.
The "seeming" MAY be all in my mind alone. But, I think not.

> However, there are many other applications
> for a center tapped secondary, and the existance <sic>  of one doesn't ma=
ke it a
> "full wave rectifier" transformer.

Straw man.
When a T is used to drive a FWR it is a FWRT by normal understanding.
A very very very trivial and unworthy point to to be arguing if the
aim is to try to make somebody look silly. Take care, you may succeed.

> Second, we were talking about load on the AC power line.

True.

> Whether a
> transformer is used in a configuration so that DC runs thru parts of its
> secondary has nothing to do with that.

May have nothing <-- has nothing.

>It is neither a argument for or
> against whether drawing net DC from the power line is OK.

True.

> In short, it was a meaningless comment making little sense and certainly
> having on bearing on the point in question.

not very much <--- on

not especially pertinent <--- meaningless

and while it was entirely sensible <--- making little sense

____________

Nobody wins in argy bargy like this.
You may wish to stand back slightly and see how vindictive and trivial
such picking may look to others.
Or may not :-).

You may explain it as valid technical comment, but the Bard's Queen
Gertrude would have something to say about that.



           Russell

--=20
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
.