1

AN EXPERIMENT WITH TRANSFORMERS

A Report by Anirbit
Chennai Mathematical Institute (CMI)

1. The Objectives :

Part A
Usually while writing the transformer equations
we neglect the mutual inductance of the coils and
hence there is no dependence of the current in the
primary to the details of the secondary circuit .

But it would be shown through the following

experiment that the current in the primary is non-
trivially dependent on the resistance of the secondary
and hence the effect of the mutual inductance cannot
be ignored.
It shall be shown theoretically that that the
effect of the mutual inductance manifests itself coupled
with the self-inductance of the secondary coil as a
factor named as the “ reflected impedance “ .
Part B

It is to be noted that the differential equations in time

that a three arm transformer follows are extremely
complex to solve though a steady state circuit analysis
is feasible.

i) In the following the aforementioned fact

shall be exploited to get a qualitative idea of the
distribution of the flux of the primary in the left and the
right secondaries ( gauged by its manifestations
through potential differences and currents ) in a 3 arm
transformer by varying the loads in the 2 arms .

ii) Secondly we shall also show how the

dependency of the potential across a secondary coil on
 2

the current through it shows drastic changes depending

on the load in the other secondary.

iii) Thirdly we shall show that there exists a

strong linear dependency of the magnitude of
impedance of the primary on the resistance of a
secondary circuit irrespective of what the load in the
other secondary is.
 3

2. Part A

a) The experimental set-up and the circuit

details…

In this part of the experiment the following circuit is

set up :

where
1. The left side is the primary circuit of the
transformer and the right ride is the secondary
of the transformer .
2. The variables are as follows :

a) Ip = R.M.S value of the current in the

primary circuit .
b) Is = R.M.S value of the current in the
secondary circuit.
c) Rp = lumped resistance in the primary
circuit .
d) Rl = lumped resistance in the secondary
circuit.
e) Rs = the variable load in the secondary
circuit.
f) Ls = the self inductance of the secondary
.
 4

g) Lp = the self inductancwe of the primary.

h) M = the mutual inductance of the
secondary and the primary coils .

{ The currents are all in Ampere (A) units and

the Voltages are in Volt (V) units }
3. Ep is the sinusoidal potential source in the
primary achived by a step down
18-0-18 V transformer ( from 230 V 50 Htz A.C
mains supply ).
4. The coils in the transformer comprise of 300
turns of 23 SWG copper wires over the
laminated core.
5. 6 digital-multimeters are supplied for both the
parts.

b) The observation table

The circuit is set up as as shown above and the

R.M.S values of Ip is measured with the DMM for various
values of Rs and the following observation table is
obtained :

Rs (  Ip
) ( A)
1 3.15
1.8 2.95
2.2 2.8
3.3 2.64
4.7 2.37
5.8 2.2
7 2.05
8.2 1.92
5
 6

The graph of Ip vs Rs is :

Ip

3.2

3.0

2.8

Ip ( Amperes )
2.6

2.4

2.2

2.0

1.8
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Rs ( Ohms )

c) The Inferences

The graph is non-linear , convex to the origin

and downward sloping.

This allows us to make the qualitative inference that the

current in the primary is inversely proportional to the
resistance in the secondary and the dependence although
not very steep is monotonically decreasing .

d) The Theoretical Analysis

Let Ip be the complex number whose real part
is the approximately sinusoidal steady state current in the
primary and similarly Ep .
Ip Ep
{ We note that the DMM s measure | 2
| and | 2
| }

So in the complex representation of the AC circuit we

have by Kirchoff’s Laws applied to the steady state :
( Rp + i  Ls) Ip - i  M Is = Ep ( Primary Circuit )
 7

( Rs + Rl +i  Lp) Is - i  M Ip = 0 ( Secondary circuit )

So eliminating Is we get :

Ep
Ip = Rp  iLp 
M
( Rs  Rl )  iLs

So we observe the following from the above expression :

1. If M is not accounted for then Ip is independent of Rs and

by varying Rs we have shown a strong dependence
of | | on M
Ip

2. Due to the complex representation of the above

equation the dependence of Ip on Rs is not apparent
whereas the graph shows the inverse relation between
them .

M
3. The term is called the “ Reflected
Rs  Rl  iLs
Impedance “
4. If the secondary is open i.e (Rs + Rl) =  then the
primary current is determined by the parameters of the
primary circuit alone ie

Ep
Ip = Rp  iLs

5. If the secondary is shorted i.e ( Rs+ Rl)  0 then we

shall have
 8

Ep
Ip = 
Rp  i  Lp 
M

 Ls 

6 . As a further special case of the above if we consider that

as in an ideal case M = K (LsLp) and that K = 1 then we
have :
Ep
Ip = Rp
 9

3. Part B

a)The experimental set-up and the circuit details…

The circuit diagram is as follows :

where
1. E0 = the potential across the terminals of the
step down transformer which steps down
from 220 V (approx.) A.C mains to 7.4 V
(approx.)
2. Ip , Il , Ir = the RM.S values of the steady state
currents in the primary circuit
and left and the right secondary respectively.
3. Rp , Rl , Rr = the lumped resistances of the
primary circuit and the left and the
right secondary respectively.
4. Lp , Ll , Lr = the self inductances of the primary
circuit and the left and the right
secondary respectively.
5. Ml , Mr = the mutual inductances between the
left coil and the primary coil and between
the right coil and the primary coil respectively .
6. Ep , El , Er = the potential difference across the
coils in the primary , left and the
right secondary respectively.
 10

b) Certain Observations About The Procedure Of

This Experiment

1. We neglect any mutual inductance between the coils

of the left and the right secondaries.
2. Because of the very geometry of the transformer we
find it difficult to measure the flux linkage through any
coil.
3. Due to the above mentioned constraint we
measure/observe 3 other parameters of sny of the
arms as and when which is found to be more easy or
useful. i.e

a) the current in that arm of the circuit .

b) potential drop across a coil or a
resistance .
c) or qualitatively estimate by observing the
glow of the bulb in the left arm.

4. We necessarily observe that in this experiment the

number of parameters is > 2 ( the number of
independent variables is already = 2 i.e Rl and Rs )
hence the dependencies are very high dimensional . So
to be able to demonstrate the dependencies well we
have 2 alternatives :
a) We plot 3 dimensional plots to show the
dependencies on the 2 independent
variables.
b) We take our independent variables in such
combinations (by keeping either of them
constant) that we can pick out pairs of
interdependent parameters to plot and
hence effectively take projections in our
very high dimensional parameter space.

2. We assume the 2 sides of the primary coil to be

symmetrical and the 2 coils (each of 300 turns of 23
SWG wires ) of the left an the right secondaries to be
 11

identical . We assume this symmetry in the circuit and

assume that if the circuit conditions in the left and the
right interchanged then the results would be identical .
So we create out parameters on either side depending
on when which is found convenient.

c) The Observation Tables

We vary the load resistances in the left and the right

secondary and measure the parameters Ep ( in the sense
as specified in the brackets above ) ,El , Er , Ip , Il and Ir
For each of the configurations.

i) Both The Secondaries Have Finite Resistances (With

One Constant)

Rr Il Ip Ir
(Ohms Rl El Ep Er (Amperes (Amperes (Amperes
) (Ohms) ( Volts) (Volts) (Volts) ) ) )

1.3 1.2 2.28 6.17 2.27 2.000 2.000 1.98

1.3 2.1 1.96 6.30 3.3 1.486 1.474 1.455

1.3 2.4 1.844 6.34 3.55 1.38 1.374 1.35

1.3 3.5 1.545 6.50 4.2 1.164 1.155 1.127

1.3 5.1 1.250 6.67 4.82 0.943 0.938 0.905

1.3 6.0 1.117 6.73 5.10 0.845 0.838 0.806

1.3 7.3 0.974 6.79 5.37 0.735 0.733 0.696

1.3 8.0 0.824 6.79 5.59 0.608 0.602 0.577

1.3 8.9 0.779 6.80 5.66 0.574 0.58 0.528

1.3 10.6 0.670 6.90 5.9 0.500 0.500 0.475

 12

1.3 15.6 0.515 7.01 6.23 0.381 0.39 0.341

1.3 18.4 0.448 7.02 6.33 0.337 0.344 0.291

1.3 22.6 0.364 6.93 6.3 0.36 0.272 0.234

1.3 27.0 0.317 7.09 6.62 0.244 0.244 0.144

ii) The Left Secondary is shorted ( Rl  0 )

Il Ip Ir
Rr (Ohms) Rl (Ohms) El ( Volts) Ep (Volts) Er (Volts) (Amperes) (Amperes) (Amperes)

0 1.2 0.1864 5.93 3.17 2.92 2.86 2.84

0 2.1 0.143 6.12 4.22 2.2 2.21 2.17

0 2.4 0.437 5.98 4.29 1.725 1.705 1.662

0 3.5 0.333 6.02 4.76 1.347 1.327 1.291

0 5.1 0.273 6.51 5.55 1.104 1.09 1.054

0 6.0 0.242 6.61 5.77 0.976 0.962 0.924

0 7.3 0.209 6.68 5.96 0.839 0.83 0.79

0 8.0 0.191 6.66 5.98 0.772 0.764 0.725

0 8.9 0.178 6.73 6.09 0.715 0.708 0.668

0 10.6 0.154 6.77 6.1 0.623 0.617 0.575

0 15.6 0.114 6.93 6.51 0.454 0.45 0.407

 13

0 18.4 0.0979 6.97 6.54 0.396 0.395 0.35

0 22.6 0.0833 6.99 6.63 0.338 0.338 0.291

0 27.0 0.0721 7.04 6.63 0.293 0.294 0.245

0 50.7 0.1974 6.97 6.73 0.1737 0.1804 0.1283

0 99.5 0.1334 7.02 6.83 0.1174 0.1249 0.0672

iii) The Left Secondary Is Open ( Rl   )

Rr Rl El Ep Er Il Ip Ir
(Ohms) (Ohms) ( Volts) (Volts) (Volts) (Amperes) (Amperes) (Amperes)

infinity 1.2 6.92 7.15 0.1389 0 0.0715 0.0628

infinity 2.1 6.85 7.11 0.1884 0 0.0712 0.0619

infinity 2.4 6.83 7.12 0.214 0 0.0709 0.0615

infinity 3.5 6.77 7.10 0.276 0 0.0702 0.0604

infinity 5.1 6.70 7.1 0.362 0 0.0695 0.0590

infinity 6.0 6.64 7.09 0.413 0 0.0689 0.0579

infinity 7.3 6.54 7.04 0.479 0 0.0685 0.0568

infinity 8.0 6.54 7.06 0.511 0 0.0683 0.0563

infinity 8.9 6.51 7.05 0.558 0 0.0675 0.0553

infinity 10.6 6.45 7.07 0.631 0 0.0669 0.0541

 14

infinity 15.6 6.28 7.09 0.846 0 0.0651 0.0502

infinity 18.4 6.2 7.12 0.955 0 0.0640 0.0483

infinity 22.6 6.05 7.08 1.09 0 0.0629 0.0461

infinity 27.0 5.93 7.11 1.229 0 0.0614 0.0435

infinity 50.7 5.4 7.1 1.765 0 0.0569 0.0338

d) Analysis Of The Graphs To Determine The

Qualitative Behaviour.

I) Both Secondaries Have Finite Non Zero Resistances

i) Behaviour of the currents when both the

secondaries have finite resistances

a) The graph of Il vs Rr :

Il
2.2

2.0

1.8

1.6

1.4
Il (Amperes)

1.2

1.0

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Rr (Ohms)
 15

We can easily infer from the above graph that Il

is(non-linear) inversely proportional to Rr
and Il undergoes a slight rise and fall after 15 Ohms
 16

b) The graph of Ip vs Rr

Ip
2.2

2.0

1.8

1.6

1.4
Ip (Amperes)

1.2

1.0

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Rr (Ohms)

We can infer from the above graph that Ip is (non-

linear) inversely proportional to Rr

c) The graph of Ir vs Rr

Ir

2.0

1.5
Ir (Amperes)

1.0

0.5

0.0

0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Rr (Ohms)
 17

We can infer from the above graph that Ir is (non-

linear)inversely proportional to Rr

ii) Behaviour of the potential differences when both

the secondaries have finite resistances

a) The graph of El vs Rr

El
2.5

2.0

1.5
E l (Ohms)

1.0

0.5

0.0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
R r (Ohms)

We can infer from the graph that El is (non-linear)

inversely proportional to Rr

b) The graph of Ep vs Rr
 18

Ep
7.2

7.0

6.8

Ep (Volt) 6.6

6.4

6.2

6.0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
R r (Ohms)

We can infer from the graph that Ep is (non-linear)

directly proportional to Rr.

and it undergoes a slight fall and rise after around

20 ohms.

c) The graph of Er vs Rr

Er
7

5
E r (Volts)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30
R r (Volts)
 19

We can infer from this graph that Er is (non-linear)

inversely proportional to Rr
and it undergoes a slight fall and rise from around
20 ohms.

d) The graph of Er vs Ir

Er
7

5
Er (Volts)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Ir (Amperes)

We can infer from the above graph that Er is (non-

linear) directly proportional to Ir and undergoes a
slight fall and rise from around 20 ohms.
 20

II) The Left Secondary Is Shorted

i) Behaviour of the currents when the left

secondary is shorted .

a) The graph of Il vs Rr

Il

3.0

2.5

2.0
Il (Amperes)

1.5

1.0

0.5

0.0

0 20 40 60 80 100
Rr (Ohms)

We can infer from the above graph that Il is (non-

linear) inversely proportional to Rr
 21

b) The graph of Ip vs Rr

Ip

3.0

2.5

2.0
I p (Amperes)
1.5

1.0

0.5

0.0

0 20 40 60 80 100
Rr ( Ohms )

We can infer from the above graph that Ip is (non-

linear) inversely proportional to Rr

c) The graph of Ir vs Rr

Ir

3.0

2.5

2.0
Ir (Amperes)

1.5

1.0

0.5

0.0

0 20 40 60 80 100
R r (Ohms)

We camn infer from the above graph that Ir is (non-

linear) inversely proportional to Rr
 22

ii) Behaviour of the potentials when the left

secondary is shorted.

a) The graph of El vs Rr

El

0.45

0.40

0.35

0.30
E l ( Volts)

0.25

0.20

0.15

0.10

0.05

0 20 40 60 80 100
Rr ( Ohms)

We can infer from the above graph that El is ( non-

linear ) inversely proportional to Rr and it
undergoes a rise and fall in the approximate ranges
1 to 2.5 ohms and after around 27 ohms.

b) The graph of Ep vs Rr
 23

Ep
7.2

7.0

6.8

6.6

Ep (Volts)
6.4

6.2

6.0

5.8
0 20 40 60 80 100
R r (Ohms)

We can infer from the above graph that Ep is (non –

linear) directly proportional to Rr and it increases
with a decreasing rate and thus showing an
asymptotic behaviour.

c) The graph of Er vs Rr

Er

7.0

6.5

6.0

5.5
E r ( Volts)

5.0

4.5

4.0

3.5

3.0

0 20 40 60 80 100
Rr (Ohms)

We can infer from the above graph that Er is (non –

linear) directly proportional to Rr and it increases
 24

with a decreasing rate and thus showing an

asymptotic behaviour.
 25

III) The Left Secondary Is Open

i) Behaviour of the currents when the left

secondary is open .

a) The graph of Ip vs Rr

Ip

0.072

0.070

0.068

0.066
Ip (Amperes)

0.064

0.062

0.060

0.058

0.056

0 10 20 30 40 50
Rr (Ohms)

We can infer from the above graph that Ip is

inversely proportional to Rr
And the dependency is almost linear

b) The graph of Ir vs Rr
 26

Ir

0.065

0.060

0.055

Ir (Amperes)
0.050

0.045

0.040

0.035

0.030
0 10 20 30 40 50
Rr ( Ohms)

We can infer from the above graph that Ir is

inversely proportional to Rr
and the dependency is almost linear.

ii) Behaviour of the potentials when the left

secondary is open.

a) The graph of El vs Rr

El

7.0

6.8

6.6

6.4
E l (Volts)

6.2

6.0

5.8

5.6

5.4

5.2
0 10 20 30 40 50
R r (Ohms)
 27

We can infer from the above graph that El is

inversely proportional to Rr and the dependency is
strongly linear.

b) The graph of Ep vs Rr

Ep
7.4

7.3

7.2

7.1
Ep (Volts)

7.0

6.9

6.8

6.7

6.6
0 10 20 30 40 50
R r ( Ohms)

We can infer from the above graph that Ep is

almost constant with respect to Rr but slightly
oscillating around a mean value of 7.1 V which is
slightly lower than the potential across the
transformer.

a) The graph of Er vs Rr
 28

Er

1.8

1.6

1.4

1.2

Er (Volts)
1.0

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0
0 10 20 30 40 50
Rr (Ohms)

We can infer from the above graph that Er is

directly proportional to Rr
And the dependency has strong linear behavior
below 30 ohms.

IV) Some Special Dependencies That Were

Observed

i) Dependency of Er on Ir when both secondary

resistances are finite(non-zero)
 29

Er
7

Er (Volts) 4

0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Ir (Amperes)

We observe that Er is non-linearly and directly

proportional to Ir and though it shows a slight rise
and fall at around 20 – 30 ohms we might expect it
to have an asymptotic behaviour.

This also indicates from its slope that the

magnitude of the impedance of the right secondary
is also increasing sharply with increase of its
current.

ii) Dependency of Er on Ir when the left secondary is

open.
 30

Er

1.8

1.6

1.4

1.2

Er (Ohms)
1.0

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0
0.030 0.035 0.040 0.045 0.050 0.055 0.060 0.065

Ir (Amperes)

We observe from the above graph that Er is

inversely related to Ir when the left secondary is
open ( exactly reverse behaviour from previous
case when the left secondary had a finite non zero
resistance ).

Secondly this dependency is strongly linear

whereas the previous case was highly non-linear.

Thirdly from the slope of the graph we have the

unavoidable conclusion that it shows a negative
value of the magnitude of impedance (!)

iii) Dependency of Impedance of the primary on the

resistances of either of the secondaries.

Ep
We see that the value of Ip is equal to the
effective A.C resistance or Impedance of the primary
which we denote as Zp. In the following we observe some
interesting dependencies of Zp on the values of the load
resistances in the secondaries.
31
 32

a) The graph of Zp vs Rr when both the secondary

resistances are finite

EpIpZp

30

25
Ep/Ip = Zp (Ohms)
20

15

10

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Rr (Ohms)

We observe that Zp is directly proportional to Rr

and the dependency is strongly linear till 30 ohms.

EpIpZp

60

50

40
Ep/Ip = Zp (Ohms)

30

20

10

0 20 40 60 80 100
Rr (Ohms)
 33

We observe that Zp is directly proportional to Rr

and the dependency is strongly linear till 30 ohms .

c) The graph of Zp vs Rr when the left secondary is

open.

EpIpZp

125

120
Ep/Ip = Zp (Ohms)

115

110

105

100

0 10 20 30 40 50
Rr (Ohms)

We observe that Zp is directly proportional to Rr

and the dependency is strongly linear till 30 ohms.
 34

e) Theoretical Analysis Of This Experiment

i) The experimenter’s observations regarding the

procedure of the experiment have been already put
down in section 3)Part B (b) .

ii) Theoretical Analysis Of The Experiment

The Basic Theory Of Transformer :

The maxwell’s law about the curl of the electric

field states that the curl of the electric field in an
infinitesimal region is equal to the negative of the parial
derivative of the magnetic field at that region at that
instant. This law when surface integrated and surface
integral of the curl of the electric field converted to line
integral of the field along the circuit loop involved in the
secondary coil tell us that that a potential difference will
be generated across the secondary as the flux of the
magnetic field through it is changing with time since the
current passing in the primary i.e the current causing the
magnetic field in the secondary coil is AC .

Hence a potential is generated across the

secondary whose magnitude depends on the coupling
between the primary and the secondary coils which in
turn depends on the relative geometries as is reflected in
the Neumann integral taken over these 2 coils .

In order to avoid the complex differential equations

that a
dynamic analysis of time evolution of the circuit will
involve we look at the approximate steady
state analysis
of the flux distribution of the primary coil among the 2
secondary coils.
 35

We assume for theoretical ease

that the magnetic permeability of the laminated core
of the conductor is sufficiently high to contain the total
flux produced and there is no loss of flux out of the
transformer .

Let  p be the flux through the primary coil of the

transformer and let  l and  r be the flux through the
left and the right secondary coils. Therefore from the
above assumption we get  p =  l +  r.
We note that that  p ,  l,  r are
all due to the self inductance of the respective coils
and mutual inductances ( ignoring mutual inductance
between the 2 secondaries ).
We also observe that the
potential differences and the current measured are a
reflection of the time variation of the  ’s . But as the
time intervals considered are the same for all
ultimately the measurements indicate how is  p
distributed among  l and  r .
We consider the following special
cases to get a qualitative feel of the situation :

i) Both Secondaries Are Open ( Rr = Rl   )

Here we have Rr = Rl   and we

expect the current in the primary to behave as if there are
no secopndaries and hence determined by the parameters
of the primary alone. Let Np , Nl and Nr be the number of
turns in the primary and the left and the right secondaries .
Here we note that there will exist a El and an Er but no Il or
Ir .So we have the following equations :
dp dp dl dr
Ep = - Np , = +
dt dt dt dt

By symmetry we have  l =  r and Np = Nl = Nr

and hence
dl dr Ep
Er = El = - Nl = - Nr =
dt dt 2
 36

Ep
i.e Er = El = 2

ii) Both Secondaries Are Shorted ( Rr = Rl  0 )

Since the geometries of the 3 arms of the transformer are

equal we expect their inductances to follow the following
equations :
Ll = CNl2 , Lr = CNr2 and Mr = k LpLr = kCNpNr and
similarly Ml = kCNpNl

Where C is a constant which depends on the inherent

geometries of the coils and hence equal for both the left
and the right coils . k is the coupling constant between the
primary and the secondary and by symmetry is the same
for both .
Now invoking the fact that Np = Nl = Nr we get
Mp = Mr = Ll = Lr and let Mp = Mr be = M and Ll = Lr = L .
So when the above equality conditions are invoked in the
steady-state’s maximal current equations along with the
fact that Rr = Rl  0 we get :
i  MIp = i  LIl and i  MIp = i  Lir

and hence the conclusion that Il = Ir = Ip .

Further due to the above equations we also get that

there will be ideally no net flux intercepted through either
of the secondaries and hence no potential differences
across them and by the equation  p =  l +  r we get
that there will be no flux through the primary as well .As a
result the effective impedance of the primary is greatly
reduced and hence the primary current is very high .

iii) Extreme Asymmetric Loading ( Rl   and Rr 

0)

Here the Ir is not limited by any load resistance and it will

be ideally of such value so that the magnetic flux it
 37

produces almost completely negates the flux produced by

mutual induction from the primary i.e ideally
MIp = LIr
dr
So  r = 0 and hence Er = - Nr dt = 0 . Further 
p =  l +  r and hence  p =  l.
Therefore taking the time derivative and since Np = Nl
we get Ep = El .and we already have Er = 0 .
And since M = L we get Ip = Ir .
 38

iv) Both Secondaries Have Equal Resistances

We note that the three legged core of the

transformer is symmetrically fabricated ( with respect
to the number of turns of the wire , the wire type and
dimensions ) hence the values of Lp , Ll , Lr are equal
and and also Ml = Mr for similar reasons . Hence with
symmetric loading the circuit is expected not to
differentiate between the two sides and we have  p =
 l +  r , and  l =  r and hence  l =  r =  p/2 and
hence we expect their time derivatives to be also
Ep
equal and hence El = Er = and Il = Ir .
2
V) Any Combination Of Values Of Rr And Rl

From a theoretical standpoint this is the most important

case as the behaviour of the circuit is characterized by its
response to this range of finite values . Here the
theoretical analysis is very complex for the dynamic time
evolution of the circuit but the steady state values can be
estimated by the solutions of the 3 variables Ip , Il , Ir for a
given value of Rr , , Rl and Eo of the following approximate
equations in the complex number representation :

Ip Rp + i  ( M( Il + Ir ) - L Ip ) = Eo
Rl Il + i  (M Ip - L Il ) = 0
Rr Ir + i  ( M Ip - L Ir ) = 0
 39

{
This equations other than being approximate in
neglecting the very small transient component of the
steady state current are also assuming resistances of the
wires to be = 0 and hence we should ideally have the
potential across the transformer to be equal to the potential
across the primary but in practice this assumption is not
found to be true always as shown in the readings of section
(e)
}

Hence to overcome these above cited difficulties we resort

to experimental results to be able to atleast qualitatively
gauge the mode of dependency of the currents and the
potential drops on the Rr and Rs from the graphs .

Here we more clearly see the need to do the measurements

by varying only one of Rr or Rl at a time so that the
individual dependencies of the complex solutions can be
gauged.
 40

iii) Theoretical Analysis Of Some Of The Precautions In

This Experiment

{ The explanations are with respect to the configuration

of Part A with the addition of a bulb in the primary
circuit }

a) If secondary is shorted

If the secondary circuit is completed then the

resistance in it will be very low and it will allow a high
current to pass through it and its maximal value will
increase till the net flux through through it becomes
equal to 0.
The current flowing in the secondary will cause
a time variant flux to be induced in the primary (mutual
induction ) and then the current in the primary will also
increase to nullify this change . Hence a high current will
flow in the primary making the attached bulb glow
brighter .
The process will equilibriate (i.e the maximal
values of the sinusoidal variations will stabilize ) when
the flux linkage in the secondary becomes 0 and the flux
linkage is restored to its original values . (final maxima of
the currents will be solutuions of 2 simultaneous
equations )

b) Effect of shorting the secondary on the

impedance of the primary

The phenomenon of mutual inductance makes

the current in the primary dependent on the current in
the secondary and hence by shorting the secondary or
making any change in the secondary changes the
impedance ( or the effective resistance in an A.C
circuit ) .The dependence is strong if the coupling
constant is near to 1 as it is in this experiment.
 41

c) If turns If the number in the secondary coil

is is increased

Increasing the number of turns in the secondary

will increase the flux linked through it and the potential
induced across it proportionately ( if current is not
allowed to flow through the secondary ) if it is done
without affecting the relative geometries between the
coils i.e the coupling constants remain remain near to 1
even after the change .
A higher potential induced in the secondary will
trigger the same response as explained in b) and will
cause a huge current to flow in the primary and this may
cause burning or damaging of the components in the
primary if it goes beyond its tolerance limit.

d) The precaution that results from the above

discussions

The explanation b) and c) together indicate that we

must not allow high current to flow through the secondary
for the safety of components connected t0 the primary.

But if flux linkage through the secondary

increases (either due to changes in the primary or due to
effects as in c) or effects in ans b) nature will take its
own course to increase the flux linkage of the opposite
sign to negate the effect . So that nature does it not at
the expense of passing more current we must use the
coils of high inductance so that current in the secondary
is kept low . This will be able to prevent the sudden rise
of current in the primary since that can increase only due
to mutual induction which here will only depend on the
secondary current .
Overall we must avoid shorting the secondary.
 42

iv) The Sources Of Errors And Their Remedies

Suggested/Adopted

i) The DMM shows arbitary fluctuations and at times the

amplitude is about 1 V or 1 A . To glean the truth out of
such situations we have adopted the following measures :

a) Instead of the DMM probes banana clips were used

so that the fluctuation caused due to the
movement of the contact point of the pin head
probe and the large socket is reduced .
b) Attempt was made to reduce disturbances in the
circuit due to movement of the wires as minimum
as possible.
c) The rust on the sockets could also have caused the
readings to fluctuate frantically and so it is
suggested to use sockets of stainless steel
d) The mean value of the fluctuations has been taken
as the data

ii) The resistors heat up very fast and causing thus

making the current drop at times by around 1.5 A
per 7 min . To counter this the following things were
done :

a) 6 DMM’s were used in the second try of the

experiment to be able to take the measurements
of the 6 parameters simultaneously ( initially due
to insufficient DMM’s error due to continual
change of circuit was huge) . Further this reduces
time for which current has to continually pass
through the circuit and hence prevents heating
up.
b) Power was turned off in between circuit
rearrangements.
 43

c) Measurements were tried to be noted down within

1 min to reduce the time for which current
passes.
d) The process of taking the mean of the readings
was used to get quality data.

iii) In the attempt to reduce the time for which

current had to be passed continually there could have
been some minor errors in not allowing the circuit to reach
the steady state after the transient components become
negligible.

iv) The magnetic fields of the transformer in

the 3 arm case are not well contained and hence was a
fairly good amount of time variant magnetic field around it
producing a potential difference of about .3 to .4 V in the
atmosphere near it . Presence of this magnetic field was
causing unwanted induction effects in the adjoining parts
of the circuits . (especially the crocodile clips ) . This
induction effect introduced caused a spatial dependence
of the resistance of the circuit elements . To minimize this
attempt was made to keep the movement of the circuit
linkages as low as possible and positions as constant as
possible during the process of reading the data. 2
remedies can be suggested here :

a) The transformer can be made of better layering

by reduction of gaps and by using material of higher
magnetic permeability.

b) To create some magnetic shield around the

transformer)
44
 45

f) Experimental Test Of Some Of The Special Cases

1.
Let a bulb be attached to the left secondary.We
observe that the bulb glows when the right secondary is
complete and not when the right secondary is open
although there is no electrical connection between them.
As explained in Part B section e (ii) (iii) when one of
the secondaries is shorted the entire flux of the primary
links to the other secondary whereas when both of the
secondaries have resistances ( may be infinite when open
as here ) the flux distributes itself in some proportion and
hence the flux linkage is less than when it is shorted .
And potential drop across the bulb is proportional to
the flux linkage in the coil to which it is connected . Hence
the above observation is explained.

2.
Confirmation of theory when both the
secondaries are open.

We make the following observations in this case :

Ep = 7.25 V
El = 3.58 V
Er = 3.52 V
Ip = 0.02 A
Il = 0.00 A
Ir = 0.00 A

We note the following agreements with the theory

of e(ii) (i)
1. El  Er  Ep/2
2. Potential created by the transformer across its
terminals is = 7.36 V and it is found to be very
close to Ep = 7.25 .
 46

3.
Confirmation of theory when both the
secondaries are shorted .

We observe the following

El = 0.10 V
Er = 0.14 V
Ep = 6.50 V

We observe the following correspondences with

theory:

i) El and Er are almost equal as predicted by theory .

ii) Potential across the transformer is not equal to Ep

4.
Confirmation of theory in the case of
asymmetric loading

We set Rl   and Rr  0 and we make the

following observations
Ep = 7.25 V
El = 7.20 V
Er = 0.00 V
Il = 0.01 A
Ir = 0.05 A
Ip = 0.05 A

We observe the following correlations with the

theory of e(ii) (iii)
1. Ep and El are almost equal as predicted in
theory (deviation of 0.69 %)
 47

2. Ip and Ir are equal as predicted by theory .

3. Er is equal to 0 as predicted .
4. Ep and ( El + Er ) are almost equal as predicted
by theory (deviation of 0.69%)

5.
Confirmation of theory when both the
secondaries have the same resistance.

We fix Rr = Rl = 3.3 Ohms and obtain the following

observation table.

Ep = 6.92 V
El = 3.25 V
Er = 3.05 V
Ip = 0.92 A
Il = 0.92 A
Ir = 0.91 A

We see the following correspondences with the

theory of e(ii) (iv)

1. El and Er are very close ( deviation of 6.56 % )

but not exactly equal as predicted.
2. El and Er are close to Ep/2 but not exactly equal
as predicted (deviation of about 6.46%)
3. Potential across the transformer is not equal to
Ep .

We note from the comparison of values of Ep and

Eo that only when the secondaries are in extreme
asymmetric loading or both open state the
 48

resistance of the wires of the primary circuit can

be neglected and otherwise not.
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57