John Byrns wrote:
> Peter Wieck <pfjw@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > John Byrns <byr...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >
> > > 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.
It seems to be your misunderstanding that a *current source* was what was
being
considered.
My understanding was a regulated voltage with a *current limit* which is
quite
different. The current limit might be set for say 110% of Inominal and
would
only kick in during the warm-up period.
In any case since both tubes would be receiving the same heater voltage
your
point is moot.
Graham
|
