Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Copper loss

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 02:21, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Copper loss[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I considered boldly redirecting, but I am not entirely sure this should not be outright deleted; moreover there are multiple potential targets (I also considered redirecting and bringing it to WP:RFD).

Most of the content is duplicate of Joule heating as it seems this is just the application of JH to transformers. The only ref is a WP clone (articleworld).

I could find some mentions of the term online, though not much, in the context of transformers, in which case redirecting to Transformer#Energy_losses would be adequate. If the term exists in a larger context, Joule_heating#Power_loss_and_noise is a more suitable target. Finally, there is also Magnetic_core#Core_loss (to which Iron loss currently redirects).

In any case, I am not convinced this deserves a standalone article.

~~For the same reason of content organization, I will leave a note at WP:RFD, and I nominate the following redirect:~~

~~Iron loss (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)~~ Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 15:32, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

At second thought, the bundling looks like a poor idea, considering the number of incoming links to iron loss. So I withdraw that, let us discuss on separate pages. I recommend redirection to Transformer#Energy_losses. RFD discussion here. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 16:02, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You'd probably be fine, there are only 5 article mainspace links, most of the rest are user/user talk pages Tpdwkouaa (talk) 16:38, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - to Transformer#Energy_losses, subsection "Winding joule losses" or Keep. It does not relate to Iron loss as that is about the losses in the core material, not the windings. The transformer article can use the content as the Core losses section also has the formula to calculate the loss. DeVerm (talk) 21:12, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I agree with others that this is a notable subject and should have it's own article on Wikipedia; the current article however is not that and would fit better merged like I showed above. When editors expand the article then we have the content that is needed to simply keep it. It seems we're caught somewhere in the middle and this also means that I have no strong preference of merge over keep. I have therefor added keep to my !vote so that the closing admin can use my vote for either but not for delete or redirect. DeVerm (talk) 12:51, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Transformer#Energy_losses, subsection "Winding joule losses". This article is just about the resistive power loss in the windings, typically made of copper. There isn't a great deal to say about it, and it is best discussed in the context of other transformer losses. --Mark viking (talk) 09:19, 18 June 2016 (UTC) Update Using Glrx's explanation below, I was able to find a number of sources taking about the proximity effect, skin effect and winding strategies in the context of copper loss. It has convinced me that this topic can be developed with multiple RS discussing various aspects of copper loss. Hence, keep. --Mark viking (talk) 23:34, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Transformer is already quite a large article and should not be further expanded with peripheral details. "Copper loss" is a well known term, and readers searching for it would be better served by having an article directly addressing the subject. --R. S. Shaw (talk) 18:57, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are far more shitty articles on WP worthy of deletion than this.--178.103.190.96 (talk) 23:28, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As it is written, it looks like textbook WP:OTHERSTUFF. Care to develop? Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 09:43, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I click on the books link above and get 45,700 hits. The term copper loss is not just about Joule heating but includes the notion of skin effect and proximity effect (carrier crowding due to electromagnetism). Maybe this article will mostly be a short description of what copper loss is with links to the articles about the technical physical phenomena, but that seems OK. If copper loss were only used in the context of power transformers, then a redirect to Transformer#Winding Joule losses might suffice, but the term copper loss is not just for transformers: inductors, motors, and generators also have copper losses. On the first page of the book search, there are references to rotor copper loss and stator copper losses (Kothari). The current article mentions copper loss in induction motors. Maybe it is important in other electric machinery; copper loss / power dissipation may be important in induction coils and ignition coils. Also, WP has several articles related to transformers: e.g., welding power supply and inverters. The design of induction heaters often involves minimizing copper losses (e.g. Litz wire stove top elements) or countering the generated heat by liquid cooling the induction heater#Work coil.[1] The analogy to Magnetic core#Core loss is poor because that section just hits the main points; it provides only one attack on eddy-current losses (laminations; the section ignores mixtures and glasses) and does not address modeling (e.g., Legg's equation). Furthermore, this article is just a stub; it does not discuss what winding techniques are available to mitigate proximity loss. Glrx (talk) 23:00, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the in-depth justification. I stand corrected--there is more to say about this topic. Changing my vote to keep, --Mark viking (talk) 23:34, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with everything you write Glrx but the current article is not that wide and fits in the transformer article listed above. If an editor want to write a full article on copper losses, then that can still be done by taking the section from the transformer article and making a "main article" from that by expanding into inductors etc. I don't see much advantage for one option over the other and can live with keep as well as with the merge. DeVerm (talk) 00:11, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by nom: I see two issues here. One is the age-old WP philosophical dispute about whether a topic which could be expanded into a standalone but is not developped right now belongs to a stub or to a subsection of the parent article (FWIW I advocate the second). The other is the precise scope of the topic "copper loss" - is it any Joule loss in copper, Joule loss in wiring, Joule loss during AC operation, Joule loss in transformers...? Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 10:57, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.