In article
<c1867459-a308-4a2d-8522-416826ea2234@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
Peter Wieck <pfjw@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On Apr 22, 10:24 am, John Byrns <byr...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > In article
>
> > Correct, but the parallel connected lamps in your house are feed from
> > what is essentially a constant voltage source, not a constant current
> > source. If you house hold power was supplied by a constant current
> > source, each time you turned on another lamp the ones that were
already
> > on would get dimmer, and if you had only one lamp on it probably
> > wouldn't last very long before burning out.
>
> Um - let's make sure I understand this correctly - current is limited
> by the fuse on each individual leg. *BUT* the amount of current
> relative to the individual devices is unlimited, the fuse being the
> actual controlling factor? That makes more sense - But if the filament
> winding is sufficiently robust (and it should be in a well-designed
> transformer), would this not be essentially the same condition - the
> tube filament (heater) becoming the de-facto fuse?
Peter, the point was that the lights in your house that you were talking
about are feed from a voltage source, not a current source as is being
discussed in this (sub) thread.
> Now, something that would exceed the current capacity of a transformer
> winding sufficiently to cause individual tubes to behave differently
> based on differents in filament draw (but still within "normal"
> operating specifications for each tube) should be a remarkably rare
> condition - again assuming a properly designed transformer?
The issue was feeding two parallel connected tube heaters from a single
current source, I don't think the OP even mentioned transformers or
their current capacity.
Regards,
John Byrns
--
Surf my web pages at, http://fmamradios.com/
|
