On Wednesday, November 27, 2013 1:35:08 AM UTC-5, wrote:
On Tue, 26 Nov 2013 20:54:23 -0800 (PST), "

wrote:



They are confusing "phase" with "ungrounded conductor"







Two points:



1 - Who is the "they" that are confused? The IEEE engineers at a power engineering conference? The IEEE peer reviewed publication? The author

of so many very technical papers published by the IEEE? The two manufacturers

of electrical eqpt with white papers?



2 - Saying "they are confusing phase" isn't a definition of phase.



Why is it that no one that says I'm wrong can give their definition

of a very basic electrical engineering term? Until you can define it,

what's the point? I gave my definition, which I believe is consistent

with it's use in the broadest sense of electrical engineering days ago.







Two ungrounded conductors that are 180 degrees out of phase are simply



single phase, looked at from different ends.







If you draw a line from the north pole to the south pole, it is still



one line, no matter which end you look at it from.



And the north pole still differs by approximately 180 deg from the south pole.

In essence, someone stating that, with regard to split-phase, ie that the two

legs are 180 deg opposite in phase, is what started all this.



I imagine I could get an argument started at an IEEE meeting about

what you call single phase too but it would not happen at an IAEI

meeting.

Except of course there is no evidence that there was ever any
argument. The paper was presented by an IEEE engineer with a long
list of technical papers on power systems, power systems modeling,
etc. It was presented at an IEEE conference on power engineering.
It was published by the IEEE.


If you are talking about things in the NEC, the definition is

well established.



The definition of what? You've hurled insults, that I'm confused
or know very little. All I've asked of you is to define the
electrical engineering term phase. Yet, you can't do that.