On 12/6/2013 8:03 AM, wrote:
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.

Of course it is.

It is his opinion of how split-phase should be viewed. He contrasts it
with the view of "distribution engineers".

He
says they have been "treated" as single phase because they originate
from a single phase on the primary side,

That is the viewpoint of "distribution engineers".

but in reality two phases
are present.

That is his opinion
He wants to change how "distribution engineers" view split-phase.


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.

I didn't know phasors were taught in high school.
[Note: these are not the same phasors that are used as weapons in the
21st century.]


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.

The way "distribution engineers" view it.

He then clearly
explains how in fact there are two phases present.

In his opinion.

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?

I did, 2 posts ago, and pointed that out in my last post.

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?

That is not my definition.
Perhaps if you learned to read...

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

In his opinion.


Maybe we need an english teacher, not an engineer.

Any english teachers around?

Still need - an english teacher for the paper, and also to tell trader I
put up a definition of "phase".


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.

Why can't you figure out if the piece says a single phase 2-wire circuit
has "Phase A" it is a label.


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.

And it is still there.


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.

And it is still there.


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.

Multiple references that use "phase A" as a label.
And an IEEE paper that supports my view ("distribution engineers").

And two posts ago I put up a definition of phase.

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 believe the "distribution engineers" in the paper.
I didn't see where anyone supported the opinion of the author.

And a definition not from a transformer catalog.


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.

Oooh... an new idea. Capacitors are 2 phase. One terminal is 90 degrees
out of phase with the other?