On Fri, 6 Jan 2006 22:05:02 -0600, "Robert Swinney"
wrote:

This may be going out on a limb, and if so, I'm quite sure Don is ready with
a saw but here goes:

When I said: "Sorry, Don. The lead between the 3rd leg terminals does
not place them in
parallel with each other because it connects from one end of one winding
to
the *other* end of the other winding. "

This concept was immediatly poo-pooed by the "if its connected as a RPC,
then it is in parallel". Later, then a definition of parallel was given as:
"By this definition, if there are wires connecting each terminal of one
device to a corresponding terminal of another device, they are in
parallel -- regardless of what else might be connected to those
terminals."

Consider 2 wye motors connected as a RPC, seemingly in parallel. It appears
to me that 2 wye motors connected in parallel by the definition of
corresponding terminals, above, are not in parallel by that definition
unless the "star" or neutral points within each motor are connected by a
solid lead. Then, all corresponding points are connected.

RPC connected motors do not meet the criteria.

Kapeesh?

Poo-pooed? That connotes fluffy dismissal. I flat disagreed.

I do capish. Kapeesh indeed! Texas is obviously a long ways from
Brooklyn, Ol' Son. Roger thet, big ol' ten-four. Yer waltz ain't
quite in synch with mah foxtrot, but we ain't that fur apawrt.
See recent post. They're still topologically connected in parallel
per conventional definition, but I can see how one might regard them
as functionally in series, particuarly if neutral floats as it must
in an RPC.

In any case, my chainsaws are put away for the MN winter and I'm way
too lazy to pull a Swedesaw anymore.

Bob (getting tired of all this)Swinney

What, time for your nap? (ducking.....)