On Thursday, December 5, 2013 2:42:38 PM UTC-5, bud-- wrote:
On 12/5/2013 10:30 AM, wrote:
On Wednesday, December 4, 2013 4:01:53 PM UTC-5, bud-- wrote:
On 12/4/2013 2:49 AM, wrote:
as credible a refernce as you can get, a paper delivered at an IEEE conference of power engineers, where the author/speaker, says there is a 180 deg phase relationship, that you do have two phases. He's the author
of a whole bunch of very technical papers on power engineering, all
published by the IEEE, a peer reviewed group. Is he and the IEEE nuts too?
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/artic...number=4520128
"Which now brings into focus the reality that standard 120/240 secondary systems are not single phase line to ground systems, instead they are three wire systems with two phases and one ground wires. Further, the standard 120/240 secondary is different from the two phase primary system in that the secondary phases are separated by 180 degrees instead of three phases separated by 120 degrees."
As I have responded twice already, the author is suggesting a change
from how "distribution engineers" view this - that is in the first
(missing) sentence. The author suggest a change to view split-phase as
two phases. Where did anyone agree with him?
It's isn't a question of viewpoint. It's very basic electrical
engineering. He clearly says that you have two phases present and
that is how it needs to be correctly analyzed using electrical
engineering.
He says that is how he thinks it should be viewed, which is a change
from how "distribution engineers" currently view it (first sentence).
He never uses the word "think". It's not an opinion piece. He
says they have been "treated" as single phase because they originate
from a single phase on the primary side, but in reality two phases
are present.
The fact that it's called split-phase, single phase
whatever doesn't change electrical engineering. Which is why I've
asked a dozen times now for your definition of the electrical
engineering term "phase".
Which I supplied, below.
That isn't an engineering definiton of phase by any stretch
of the imagination. It's not even at a high school level.
This source ("distribution engineers") supports my view.
Which source is that? I don't see a cite.
Your IEEE cite, first sentence in the context of the abstract.
The author has a different view from "distribution engineers". Did
"distribution engineers" change their view? Not in the abstract.
Third repetition.
He explains that the reason it's been viewed that way is because
it originates from one phase of the primary. He then clearly
explains how in fact there are two phases present. Which is why
I've asked 15 times now for YOUR definition of the electrical engineering
term phase. You can't give your own definition? Neither can
anyone else on the other side of it. Instead you come up with one
reference at an embarrasing level, from the glossary of a transformer
catalog? That's your engineering? On my side I have a engineer
who has written many highly technical papers that have been peer
reviewed and published by the IEEE. He says there are two phases
present and I'm sure if you asked him, like me, he could give you
a definition.
Maybe we need an english teacher, not an engineer.
Any english teachers around?
http://www.behlman.com/applications/AC%20basics.pdf
Says the same thing.
Thats the one with a 2-wire circuit, hot and neutral, with the hot
labeled "Phase A"
Good grief. Did you even look at it? The first diagram is a 2
wire circuit. That's what you're looking at?
Of course. It has a single hot wire that is "phase A". It is a way of
referring to the wire.
Why are you deliberately looking at what is the wrong diagram
instead of the second one which is the one that obviously is
split-phase? Now you're resorting to basically lying instead
of dealing with the issue.
The second diagram
is split-phase 240/120V, which is what we're talking about.
It shows 3 wires: PHASE A, PHASE B, and a neutral. It states:
"The two legs represented by PHASE A and PHASE B, are 180 deg apart."
And the above, which you did not respond to, is the section,
complete with diagram, of EXACTLY what we're talking about.
It says there are two phases, A and B present. Yet you keep
harping back to the circuit that has nothing to do with the
discussion. Unbelievable.
I've given you several other sources that describe split-phase
that say the same thing, ie that there are two phases present.
And I'm still waiting for someone on the other side of this to provide
their definition of the engineering term "phase".
I supplied one, below.
For my amusement I looked at a major transformer manufacturer.
http://www.eaton.com/ecm/idcplg?IdcS...me=TB00900004E
Eaton defines "Phase: Type of AC electrical circuit; usually
single-phase two- or three-wire, or three-phase three- or four-wire".
Sigh.... I was hoping for an engineering definition, which
clearly that isn't.
But I supplied one, below.
I'm surprised you even posted that. It's kind
of like saying Planters and everyone else calls peanuts a nut.
Then arguing with someone who has horticulturists describing it
as the legume, Arachis hypogaea L, and saying it just isn't so.
It is kind of like your other references (not IEEE) that use Phase A...
as a label for the wires.
The fact is I have multiple references, including the IEEE. I
can give you the engineering definition of phase. I don't have
to go look in the glossary of a transformer catalog. Hmmm.
IEEE engineer paper delivered at a power engineering conference,
published by the IEEE, vs an unbelievably dumb defintion from
a transformer catalog. Which one should we believe?
I would define a meaningful use of "phase" as using the "imaginary" axis
in a phasor representation. Split-phase uses just the "real" axis.
Eaton has no single phase transformers with 2 phases on the secondary.
Do capacitor manufacturers that sell caps call them two phase? Yet the
current and voltage are out of phase in a cap too. You can see it on
a scope. Just like you can see two phases present on a split-phase
service.
Still waiting for an answer to the question of why two phase is two phase
when it was 100 years ago and delivered via two hots and a neutral, one
hot 90 deg off from the other. If it were 130 deg off would it be two
phase? 160 deg off, still two phase? Then explain to us why if I make
it 180 deg off, suddenly there are no longer two phases present? In
my world, the IEEE world, at least two others here now who agree,
there are still two. And at 180 deg, that two phase service looks
electrically exactly like split-phase. In your world apparently something magic happens at 180 degrees and hence it can't be explained.