through life, there are many books on electronics that I see calling a transformer an inductor.

I understand a choke, and how it's different in that it is wired and what it does. i understand that the difference between a transformer and an inductor is that a transformer induces current into one coil by charging another, while an inductor is just the coil itself.

but here in this picture is an example of what is unmistakably a transformer, which depending on windings will result in a different or similar voltage, yet the book describes it not as a transformer but an inductor. Even in classes I've taken the instructor is empty handed with reasonable answers that can apply in a logical sense with this question.

Why is it that in some settings, particularly in power supplies, these transformers are called inductors, not in a casual way, but 100% of the time by the text? They are inductors, sure, in the sense that there are some in it, of course all transformers are composed of a specific arrangement of inductors, but calling a transformer an inductor is a casual thing to do, not a textbook thing to do. textbooks subject to professional educated review should use the words that are most correct, clear, and comprehensive. "hand-wavium" is ok in some settings, but university level textbooks using the word should mean that the definition of the word includes that application, or else that the textbook should be using a different word.

Therefore, there MUST BE a very specific definition that makes this example not a transformer, but an inductor instead, what is it? Is this just an example of bro-ism that just won't die? Or is this a technical definition that somehow never made the dictionary?

This book is "switching power supply design" by Lazar Rozenblat. Without a doubt, I have had test questions marked wrong for calling a transformer a transformer, which means that he calls it an inductor because he wants a job. Is this some kind of illuminati conspiracy, is the dictionary wrong, or exactly what is the difference between a transformer and a transformer when in a power supply?

 

All transformers are inductors.

Not all inductors are transformers.

It's in the naming convention, something that looks like a transformer in a schematic may be a choke.

 

All transformers are inductors.

Not all inductors are transformers.

It's in the naming convention, something that looks like a transformer in a schematic may be a choke.

oh right sure but actually no. transformers are NOT inductors. transformers HAVE inductors in them, but also have other parts, including other inductors. Also, and inductor does not pass current from one inductor to another, which is the entire function of the component in that picture.

 

Well, if you want to split hairs...

Like I said it's in the "naming conventions".

 

Well, if you want to split hairs...

Like I said it's in the "naming conventions".

so then it's back to the question of whether it's bro-ism that just won't die or a legit illuminati style conspiracy to maintain a mechanism of exclusivity. There isn't any "mechanism" in scientific or technical documentation for using words that are not thoroughly defined. Or in other words, you can't just use a naming convention unless it's in the dictionary to get a peer-reviewed paper published, and this same peer-review process is supposed to be required for any textbook used in a professional education setting. Or in other words, unless it's defined in a dictionary recognized by the professional education system and cited in the sources, you can't use that word. That means either there is a definition hidden away somewhere and published nowhere that google can find, or else the professional peer-review process is just missing that one and it's just an error that has persisted for two generations. either way it's not some thing to brush off, it's a serious problem.

 

transformers HAVE inductors in them, but also have other parts, including other inductors.

Normal transformers have one inductor.
The value of the inductance is determine by the number of winding turns, and the magnetic permeability of the core material, so the measured inductance will be different for windings with a different number of relative turns.

And it's not just an arbitrary convention or "bro-ism that just won't die or a legit illuminati style conspiracy" to call a transformer an inductor in some situations--

Transformers can be called multi-winding inductors when their inductance is used, and is a necessary as part of, the voltage conversion process, as in a flyback "transformer".
In that case the inductance is used to store the energy that is transferred from the primary to the secondary by transformer action.
The energy is stored in the inductance for part of the cycle from the primary, and then transferred to the secondary during the last part of the cycle.

In normal transformer use, the inductance is just to establish the magnetizing current for the normal AC input voltage, and allow the transfer of energy from the primary to the secondary via the magnetic field, not the inductance.
It does not store the energy that is transferred.

Does that clear up your concern?

 

Normal transformers have one inductor.
The value of the inductance is determine by the number of winding turns, and the magnetic permeability of the core material, so the measured inductance will be different for windings with a different number of relative turns.

And it's not just an arbitrary convention or "bro-ism that just won't die or a legit illuminati style conspiracy" to call a transformer an inductor in some situations--

Transformers can be called multi-winding inductors when their inductance is used, and is a necessary as part of, the voltage conversion process, as in a flyback "transformer".
In that case the inductance is used to store the energy that is transferred from the primary to the secondary.
The energy is stored in the inductance for part of the cycle from the primary, and then transferred to the secondary during the last part of the cycle.

In normal transformer use, the inductance is just to establish the magnetizing current for the normal AC input voltage, and allow the transfer of energy from the primary to the secondary via the magnetic field.
It does not store the energy that is transferred.

Does that clear up your concern?

no, because you said a transformer has one inductor, but the most basic possible transformer has two. There is a primary winding, which is one inductor, and a secondary winding, which is the other inductor. These inductors are typically wound around a ferro-magnetic core, and with inductors, this is described in the "naming convention" if they are wound around a ferro-magnetic core, which means that even the core is normally described in the name if there is one.

a transformer has no less than two inductors to be a transformer, this is the minimum possible number.

edit:: I do mean "in english". I'm speaking only as far as when using english is concerned. in english, a transformer is composed of at least two inductors.

 

oh right sure but actually no. transformers are NOT inductors. transformers HAVE inductors in them, but also have other parts, including other inductors. Also, and inductor does not pass current from one inductor to another, which is the entire function of the component in that picture.

NOT that "transformers have inductance IN THEM, but that one of the PROPERTIES of all transformers is is INDUCTANCE.That is inescapable for the reason that a transformer transfers energy by the means of creating a magnetic field, and that energy is then transfered to another winding on the transformer. I view "inductance" as the ability to convert an electrical current into a magnetic field. Of Course, there is a more definitive description that oncludes actual formulas adding numerical relationships, which is quite useful.

 

no, because you said a transformer has one inductor, but the most basic possible transformer has two. There is a primary winding, which is one inductor, and a secondary winding, which is the other inductor. These inductors are typically wound around a ferro-magnetic core, and with inductors, this is described in the "naming convention" if they are wound around a ferro-magnetic core, which means that even the core is normally described in the name if there is one.

a transformer has no less than two inductors to be a transformer, this is the minimum possible number.

edit:: I do mean "in english". I'm speaking only as far as when using english is concerned. in english, a transformer is composed of at least two inductors.

Just like a multi coil transformer, there is one inductance that transfers energy via a coupled magnetic field.

 

NOT that "transformers have inductance IN THEM, but that one of the PROPERTIES of all transformers is is INDUCTANCE.That is inescapable for the reason that a transformer transfers energy by the means of creating a magnetic field, and that energy is then transfered to another winding on the transformer. I view "inductance" as the ability to convert an electrical current into a magnetic field. Of Course, there is a more definitive description that oncludes actual formulas adding numerical relationships, which is quite useful.

inductor , not inductance . transformers have inductors in them

 

View attachment 367905

Just like a multi coil transformer, there is one inductance that transfers energy via a coupled magnetic field.

well ok it is possible to have a single coil transformer but it is still not the most basic type, nor is it as common when compared.

You don't get isolation, honestly, I think that if I read the definition of transformer, the image you shared is actually not within that definition, as this would be defined as a tapped inductor, just in english though.

 

because you said a transformer has one inductor, but the most basic possible transformer has two. There is a primary winding, which is one inductor, and a secondary winding, which is the other inductor.

inductor , not inductance . transformers have inductors in them

You are misunderstanding how a transformer works.
A transformer does not have "inductors".
It has one inductor with one magnetic field that can have a different inductance values depending upon the relative value of the primary and secondary winding turns.
Why is that difficult for you to understand?

 

A transformer does not store energy in the core, and an ideal transformer will have magnetizing inductance equal to infinity.
Only coupled inductors store the energy in the core.

 

well ok it is possible to have a single coil transformer but it is still not the most basic type, nor is it as common when compared.

You don't get isolation, honestly, I think that if I read the definition of transformer, the image you shared is actually not within that definition, as this would be defined as a tapped inductor, just in english though.

Your current understanding is too limited to make definitive statements on what is what. These are also transformers.

https://minicircuitsjapan.com/note/demystifying-rf-transformers-part-1/

 

Only coupled inductors store the energy in the core.

For a flyback, most of the energy isn't even stored in the core. It's stored in the air gap (or the air "spaces" in a powder core).

 

For a flyback, most of the energy isn't even stored in the core. It's stored in the air gap (or the air "spaces" in a powder core).

The purpose of the core is to conduct the magnetic flux from one side of the airgap to the other.