"Transformers DO explode. The industry term is 'fault'. Consists of high to very high potentials escaping from where they belong, exceeding the trip rating of the switchgear feeding them, accompanied by an immense amount of heat inside a sealed container, breaching said container. In other words, exploding."
Of course they explode, and yes an uncleared fault within a transformer or uncleared external short circuit on the secondary of a transformer can cause one to explode from the oil boiling over and building pressure within the tank. Pole mounted units are the most susceptible because they are only protected by fuses and not sophisticated differential protection. That however does not make downed wires, arcing and sparking, an exploding transformer.
"I've seen it happen. So have a crew of hapless firemen helplessly watching it burn for hours. As though prescient, I awoke at 3AM just in time to hear a huge EXPLOSION a mile away, and the LED clock went dark. Only one thing within a mile of my house to explode. I drove to the substation and sure enough, 138kV transformer with 30-foot flames where the top used to be."
I never said transformers do not explode. In fact I've personally seen a few, from a distance go up in a fireball. Nowhere did I say they were in capable of doing that, but people are insinuating I did.
"Here's where you're right: Media covering a tornado, video of purple plasma on the horizon, voiceover says "transformer exploding". It's typically not. The industry calls that "faulting" too. And there is a rapid expansion of heated gas (atmosphere) making a sound akin to thunder but with a 120Hz component thrown in."
But why call it a transformer explosion when its not? Where would a doctor go calling a blocked artery an aneurysm? Or calling asthma, diabetes? Sure all of them are medical conditions, but their is a clear distinction.
"Here's why they say that: They have to call it something their audience (of dummies) can relate to and they settled on 'transf explod'g'."
The audience wouldn't be dummies if the media could call things for what they are. People understand "power lines arcing" just as well as an 'exploding electrical giget'
"Here's where you're also right: EVERY time I hear media reporting on something *I* know in some depth, they misspeak to some extent and sometimes a great extent. But to the bulk audience, the distinction is immaterial as it wouldn't understand the 'correct' terminology anyway, much less the physics. Worse, from media's perspective, the audience would actually tune away because their ignorance was being exposed. And if there's anything stupid people don't like it's their stupidity exposed."
Its not just in depth stuff, its everything. People would not be stupid or afraid if the media did not create an artificial understanding of reality such that people would run away when given the true facts.
"Which ironically is the root cause of the stupidity plague. Media being caught in that loop. It wouldn't pay them to be dead on balls accurate. (It's an industry term. My Cousin Vinny.)"
Its safe to say even you think the media plays a role in this, correct?
But going back to the fridge, I'd like to see solid evidence by those reporting it that the fridge exploded.
