"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:480F45FF.BADC96DF@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
> 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.
Indeed. This is exactly what I had in mind.
Iain
|
