Talk:Transformer oil

Chemistry Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemistry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of chemistry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChemistryWikipedia:WikiProject ChemistryTemplate:WikiProject ChemistryChemistry
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Electrical engineering Low‑importance

	Engineering portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Electrical engineering, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Electrical engineering on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Electrical engineeringWikipedia:WikiProject Electrical engineeringTemplate:WikiProject Electrical engineeringelectrical engineering
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Comments

how many type of insulating oil or transformer oil we used in 11 kv line?

Delete The coverage of the only source is promotional. Not notable — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pgarg78 (talk • contribs) 06:25, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

is usually a highly refined mineral oil

Reference or correction required. As noted further down in the article, Transformer oil is usually not mineral oil, and before that was PCB.

Speaking of which, the article calls mineral oil "flammable." The link is to a wiki on combustibility and flammability. At normal temperatures, mineral oil is not defined as flammable: it does not produce vapors that will ignite. It is, however, combustible: it will burn if you soak it onto a wick. Sufficient heat to produce vapors will push mineral oils to flammability, but I think, for the intent of this article, the word should be combustible, perhaps with a note that flammable vapors may be produced in malfunctions that produce severe heating. Tomligon (talk) 19:45, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

That the repeated deletion of cited material be restored. The last revert was this edit and this should be reversed.

Evidence

The paragraph was already referenced, but has been deleted because of Wtshymanski's apparent superior knowledge which apparently is regarded as superior to the added cite. Wtshymanski claims that the low sulphur oil is exactly the same as the regular variety, but clearly removal of the sulphur makes it different. There is considerable material via Google that shows that the sulphur corrodes the copper windings, hence the problem this oil apparently solves. Google only brings up 39,000 odd hits on the matter. This is important and notable enough to be included in the article.

For those concerned that a manufacturer's paper is not impeccable enough, then this ER requests that this and this reference be either added or substituted as this comes from a much more impeccable source (University of Southampton and a transformer manufacturer respectively). I could add more references, but three should be more than adequate. 85.255.235.66 (talk) 13:06, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:10, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

European and non US ballasts don't contains transformer oils

Some members reverting my edits that mentions that only North American ballasts contains transformer oils, which are true. No other territories of the 220-240V regions uses ballast with transformer oils, including European Union, United Kingdom, Israel, Middle East, former USSR, and the Far East. זור987 (talk) 13:11, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Some fluorescent chokes contained transformer oil. That was an application of transformer oil. That is all that needs to be said on the subject in an article such as this. Your obsession that this is not the American Wikipedia is nonsense. The Americans read and edit this Wikipedia. Even if Canada and America were of relevance, then a reference would be required because there is no evidence that transformer oil was not used for such chokes anywhere else in the world. For all any of us know, the USSR may have produced the odd choke or three. India may have produced some. I am not aware of any European chokes that used such oil but that is no evidence that they don't exist. 86.146.209.237 (talk) 13:37, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've never heard about non-American ballast filled with a transformer oil. Also: Lots of American know nothing about the nature of ballasts outside North America. What I know is that choke ballast made in the European Union states aren't filled with transformer oils and so here in Israel, since they aren't transformers like in your country but only current limiters, and I know that Russian and Polish ballast also aren't filled with transformer oils. זור987 (talk) 15:10, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The very fact that you are using the claim the you have never heard of such a ballast means that your claim is original research which is absolutely not allowed. That you have never heard of one or encountered one is not acceptable evidence that such does not exist. I have never encountered one, but I would never use that as evidence that such does not exist. I often discover new things that I have never encountered before.

Ballasts may not be filled with oil today, but it is a fair bet that they (possibly) may have been in the past. Old (up to 1970ish) transformers and power supply chokes were often filled with oil (I have a few examples of these) so who not fluorescent chokes? They were often made in the same factory. 86.146.209.237 (talk) 16:12, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]