Sorry, I didn't state my question clear. I meant I understand the equation I^2R=lo-load losses but I don't understand how they come up with (2,950-420)/(I/100)^2 as the I^2R value.Losses at 0% output are all core losses. Core losses remain relatively constant regardless of load.
The losses at 100% load are the sum of the core losses and the copper losses. The copper losses are determined by subtracting the core losses from the total.
They didn't get it backwards.Yeah. I think they screwed up this problem. Clearly, the power is at max efficiency at 17%. The current I is 41 %, which is what they calculated. Yet the problem asks for power. They got it backwards.
Power dissipated through a resistance is proportional to I2. However the I2 relationship is arrived at by algebraic manipulation of P=VI and ohms law.The Power is proportional to the square of the current, not to the current.
The problem may be silly from a real-world perspective, but it isn't wrong.I understand, and you are right. However, I disagree on this problem. This problem presumes that the resistance is constant; not voltage. Go to the solution. The solution is based on the formula that:
R = 420 W(Pnl)/I^2 = (2950 W - 420 W - P fl)/100^2
So while their ratio (Power/I^2) explicitly explains that P varies in proportion to the square of the current, they nevertheless disregarded their own formula. It's silly. It's plain wrong.
16. I'm an asshole, and FLYER you are CORRECT. I apologize.
Enter your email address to join: