As I posted earlier on:

Electrical Science for Technicians

Ref: Electrical Science for Technicians: Page 198

and I quote again directly from this document:

The waveform shows the no-load primary current (I_O), lagging the supply voltage (E_P) by very nearly 90^o, and being mainly responsible for setting up the magnetic flux (ϕ) in the core which, itself, also lags the supply voltage by practically 90^o. The self-induced voltage in the primary winding (-U_P) is shown in anti-phase (i.e. 180^o out of phase) with the supply voltage.

I have clearly said on many ocasions, E.M.F is not Current, and it is not Magnetic Flux! Faradays Law of Electromagnetic Induction Predicts E.M.F, Not Magnetic Flux and Not Current!

Transformers, as is stated in the document I provided, do have phase relationships. Most all of these relationships are governed by Reactance of the Circuit, thus the reason we have seen phase angles that have been shown.

Ref:Transformer Phasor Diagrams come in several varietys, I have listed them below:

   Chris Sykes
       hyiq.org

As I posted earlier on:


and I quote again directly from this document:

Quote

Electrical Science for Technicians

Ref: Electrical Science for Technicians: Page 198

Quote

The waveform shows the no-load primary current (IO), lagging the supply voltage (EP) by very nearly 90o, and being mainly responsible for setting up the magnetic flux (ϕ) in the core which, itself, also lags the supply voltage by practically 90o. The self-induced voltage in the primary winding (-UP) is shown in anti-phase (i.e. 180o out of phase) with the supply voltage.

I have clearly said on many ocasions, E.M.F is not Current, and it is not Magnetic Flux! Faradays Law of Electromagnetic Induction Predicts E.M.F, Not Magnetic Flux and Not Current!

Transformers, as is stated in the document I provided, do have phase relationships. Most all of these relationships are governed by Reactance of the Circuit, thus the reason we have seen phase angles that have been shown.

Once again you post a quote from your source that clearly states that TK was correct in his answer to Tinman when he stated that the scope capture showing the 90 degree phase difference between the primary current and the open circuit secondary voltage was the correct scope capture.

The above quote also states that the primary current is mainly responsible for the magnetic flux and that both the primary current and magnetic flux lag the primary voltage by very nearly 90 degrees, just as TK also stated in his answer to Tinman. 

The above quote also refutes your answer to Tinman and clearly indicates that your answer was wrong wherein you stated that correct scope capture should have been the one showing the 180 degree phase shift.  Again, the above quote clearly  indicates that your answer to Tinman's question was wrong.

Surely you must also agree with the elegant logic in TK and Tinman's use of Faraday's law to further bolster their answers beyond the empirical when they stated that, as per Faraday's law, the induced voltage (open circuit secondary voltage) will be at its minimum when the rate of change of the magnetic flux is at its minimum.  And as your above quote further confirms, the primary current (as viewed on the scope) was an excellent proxy for measurement of magnetic flux.   

Other than continuing to prove that TK was correct and that your multi-page "episode" of disrespect towards him was totally unwarranted, what exactly is your point?

PW

PW an appology is in order! As I have now clearly shown that you are wrong on so many levels!!!

How does it go? "Man Up"

Be a man and admit I was right all along!

   Chris Sykes
     

Your references clearly indicate that you were wrong.  Your answer was incorrect.

It is you that owes TK an apology.

Your references clearly indicate that you were wrong.  Your answer was incorrect.

It is you that owes TK an apology.

Clearly you do not know enough to be able to interpret.

Youre even more Wrong than TK is. At least he got most of it right. You got all of it Wrong!

   Chris Sykes
       hyiq.org

So, are you still claiming that both TK and Tinman are wrong and that the correct scope capture was the one showing a 180 degree phase difference between primary current and secondary voltage?

PW

PW - First, Can you Read? Second, do you read? Third, what did you read?

You have proven to me, that Legible, Variable Facts are not part of your curriculum!!!

This here trail I have left behind, of Legible, Variable Facts, already makes you look stupid in the eyes of the world. Playing dumb just adds to it all!!!

Nighty Nite PW

   Chris Sykes
       hyiq.org

EMJ,

Are you also claiming that Faraday's law does not predict that the induced voltage will be at its minimum when the rate of change of the magnetic flux is also at its minimum?

PW - First, Can you Read? Second, do you read? Third, what did you read?

You have proven to me, that Legible, Variable Facts are not part of your curriculum!!!

This here trail I have left behind, of Legible, Variable Facts, already makes you look stupid in the eyes of the world. Playing dumb just adds to it all!!!

Nighty Nite PW

   Chris Sykes
       hyiq.org

PW - First, Can you Read? Second, do you read? Third, what did you read?

You have proven to me, that Legible, Variable Facts are not part of your curriculum!!!

This here trail I have left behind, of Legible, Variable Facts, already makes you look stupid in the eyes of the world. Playing dumb just adds to it all!!!

Nighty Nite PW

   Chris Sykes
       hyiq.org

Should I take this disrespectful tirade to be an admission by you that your answer regarding the two scope captures was indeed incorrect?

Should I take this disrespectful tirade to be an admission by you that your answer regarding the two scope captures was indeed incorrect?

Assumptions is what youre best at, I have proven that also!!!

   Chris Sykes
       hyiq.org