On Tuesday, November 26, 2013 8:27:35 AM UTC-5, wrote:
On Tue, 26 Nov 2013 05:16:17 +0000 (UTC), Danny D'Amico

wrote:



On Mon, 25 Nov 2013 22:03:35 -0500, clare wrote:



I have given you a couple references that "prove" the ground is not

GENERALLY used as the return, because they specifically mention the

odd case where it DOES get used , SWERT, as an anomoly (being out of

the ordinary)



Just admit it. You don't like to be "wrong" - but in this case, you

and the sources you reference ARE.



You're getting too personal. This is not a personal issue.

We are all among friends here.

This is merely a discussion about what the TRUTH is.



I don't see a single reference in all your posts which state that

the earth is not used as the return path for electrons in typical

American power distribution.



In contrast, I have provided a half-dozen references which directly

state that the earth is used as the return path for electrons in

power distribution in the United States.



For example, read this reference:

http://www.science.smith.edu/~jcarde...ecPwr_HSW.html



Which states, clearly as the sun shines on the truth:

"The power company essentially uses the earth as one of

the wires in the power system. The earth is a pretty good

conductor and it is huge, so it makes a good return path

for electrons."



This is from this electrical engineering class:

http://www.science.smith.edu/~jcardell/Courses/EGR220/

EGR 220, Spring 2013, Engineering Circuit Theory



Taught by this associate professor:

http://www.science.smith.edu/~jcardell/



Again, this is not a personal issue. I don't care if I'm right or

wrong. I don't care if you are right or wrong.



I just want to know what the truth is.

And, if this EE class is wrong, then I would think we can find a single

reference that refutes the statement I quoted.



I can't find any. No matter how hard I look.

Can you?

You are only giving ONE reference for your position - associate

professor J Cardell..



And many of us are saying she is not totally correct.

Uh, no, it's worse than that. His one reference is the creator
of "How stuff works". He justs keeps googling and finding the
exact same verbage or a direct link back to that, and then he
counts it as a new, independent "reference". Unless I missed
something, I think he's showing tht ap Cardell referenced the
"how stuff works" description in her course.

He refuses to even acknowledge the links that you provided that
talk about how systems are grounded, what the earth is used for, etc.
And he's too lazy to spend an hour learning how 3 phase works
and why you only need those 3 wires to transmit power.