On Tue, 26 Nov 2013 05:06:25 +0000 (UTC), Danny D'Amico
wrote:

On Mon, 25 Nov 2013 20:03:04 -0600, Nightcrawler® wrote:

Are your references from Australia?

Nope. You saw the references. They were all for standard
power distribution in the United States.

For example, this reference from Smith College, Northampton, MA:
http://www.science.smith.edu/~jcarde...ecPwr_HSW.html

Says:
"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."

That's from an EE class:
http://www.science.smith.edu/~jcardell/Courses/EGR220/
EGR 220, Spring 2013, Engineering Circuit Theory

Taught by Judith Cardell, who researches this stuff:
http://www.science.smith.edu/~jcardell/

So, why do you constantly disparage my comments when I can
easily prove that exactly what I have said all along is being
taught to electrical engineers in college-level courses?

All I'm asking is for you to provide a reference that refutes
the statement above. You can *say* you don't believe it all
you want; but, all I ask is a single reliable reference
backing up the claim that the power company does *not*
use the ground as the a "good return path for electrons".
That is definitely NOT college level electrical engineering. Looks
like a junior college introduction course to me.

On Tue, 26 Nov 2013 03:09:10 +0000 (UTC), Doug Miller
wrote:

wrote in :

The "neutral" is NEVER bare in North America (except in some parts
of rural Sakatchewan Canada, where single wire earth return IS
actually still in limited use)

Absolute nonsense. You see bare neutrals all over the place in rural areas of the U.S. with
overhead service.

http://www.southwire.com/products/Tr...erviceDrop.htm

Don't you think it's time you stopped assuming that what is true in your [obviously limited]
experience is true everywhere?
In DISTRIBUTION, yes - but not on the "consumer" side.

On Tue, 26 Nov 2013 05:31:45 +0000 (UTC), Danny D'Amico
wrote:

On Tue, 26 Nov 2013 05:55:20 +0100, nestork wrote:

And I can't see why that net voltage sine wave wouldn't energize the
ground cable coming out of the main panel and cause current to flow
through that cable and into and out of the Good Earth.

I loved your description. It was an elegantly written logical
thought process. I like the way your mind works!

To clarify this important issue, this is what I found:
"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."

That was found in an EE class taught by this associate professor:
http://www.science.smith.edu/~jcardell/

This is the EE class where that concept is being taught:
http://www.science.smith.edu/~jcardell/Courses/EGR220/
EGR 220, Spring 2013, Engineering Circuit Theory

That statement above is part of the curriculum on power generation
and distribution in the United States:
http://www.science.smith.edu/~jcarde...ecPwr_HSW.html

So, like you, since the fact the ground is used as the return path for
electrons seems to be as clear as day, I wonder why there are vehement
arguments (some of which are getting unnecessarily personal) that it's not.

I'm ok with the answer being either way. I don't care who is right
and who is wrong (and I'll admit when I'm wrong any time that I am).

But, this one seems clear as the earth revolves around the sun.

But, maybe I'm wrong. Maybe the earth is *not* used as a return
path for electrons back to the power company.

Q: Can anyone find a reliable reference that refutes the statement
above (taught in EE classes) that the earth is used as a return path
for electrons back to the power company?
Note the "essentially" - it is not "litterally"

On Tue, 26 Nov 2013 08:20:23 +0100, nestork wrote:

No, houses very rarely have power factor correction. Most of the reason
why is that electrical utilities only charge their residential customers
on the actual kilowatts they used, not the KVA the consumed.

I always thought they only measured current at the meter?

there is always going to be some net voltage sine wave in that
neutral buss, and therefore in the ground wire cable coming out of
the main panel. So, how can you NOT have current into and out of the
Good Earth through the grounding rod or pipe ...

Agreed.

I'm not saying that current flows back to the generating station through
the ground. Or, at least, I'm not saying that yet.



And, I can't see why a net voltage sine wave in the neutral buss
wouldn't cause current flow into and out of the Good Earth at the
grounding rod or plumbing pipe.

Exactly!

And, according to one of the pictures posted by G. Fretwell, the current
measured through his grounding rod is 0.142 amps. And that's without
any intentional effort to imbalance the electrical load at the main
panel.

When it gets light, and I take care of the grandkids getting to school,
I'm going to see if I can find my old ammeter and I'm going to check
my neutral and ground wires too!

Those pictures from gfrewell were inspiring!
We can make our own observations!

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.

On Tue, 26 Nov 2013 01:20:20 -0500, gfretwell wrote:

There is some incidental current going back through the ground but
there is also a neutral wire on the pole wherever you have wye
distribution.

This PDF, which is all about neutral and ground currents, says
repeatedly there is no current flowing in the neutral for 240V loads;
but that there is, in practice, always some current flowing in the
neutral of 120V loads.
http://www.dataforth.com/catalog/pdf/an108.pdf

However, I never quite understood why or when they use the delta
versus the wye so, I'm reading up on that as we speak.

http://gfretwell.com/electrical/Feed...ree%20Lane.jpg

It's interesting that the neutral is lower than the power in
that I would have expected that ... but ...

http://gfretwell.com/electrical/transformer.jpg

Here, the neutral is *above* the power lines.
I would not have expected that!

They use delta distribution on the long haul lines so there is no real
ground current.

I wish I understood why/when they use delta versus wye.

At the moment, I don't yet understand the effective difference between
the two, other than that to transform the voltage, you need to start with
either one and then use the other on the other side.

But, which one you start with, and which you end up with, always
confused me as to the why... but I'm digging further into that.

On 11/25/2013 03:33 PM, Danny D'Amico wrote:
On Mon, 25 Nov 2013 14:15:05 -0800, wrote:

They are *not* both valid. You have it wrong.

Well, this entire discussion is about how the power supply works, so,
it is germane to the discussion how the power company completes the
circuit.

I don't have any more arguments, and, we *do* have at least one
reference which supports my statement.

That doesn't mean I'm correct. What it means is we need more references
(either way), instead of our statements (since we all sincerely believe
what we're stating).

Googling for:
"how does electricity get back to the power company -solar"

This is on the first page (which was referenced already):
http://science.howstuffworks.com/env...rgy/power3.htm
It agrees with what I said (on page 4).

Here it says the same thing (that the earth is the return path):
http://www.science.smith.edu/~jcarde...ecPwr_HSW.html

And he
http://www.electricityforum.com/elec...-it-works.html

But those are all repeats. How about this Physics forum?
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=429670

Now, that does not prove that the earth is the return path
for the electricity back to the power company, but, it is clearly
a half dozen (or so) references which say what I've always thought
was the case.

That means that the idea isn't so far fetched as it may appear.
Admittedly, most of these references were cut out of the same
mold (probably due to my search terms?), so I welcome someone
who can find a reference that says the earth is *not* the return
path for the HVAC typical power generated in the USA.


Modern polyphase power has no ground for reference. This is a major pain
in the ass when trying to find 120Vac on top of a mountain.

On Monday, November 25, 2013 6:40:55 PM UTC-5, Danny D'Amico wrote:
On Mon, 25 Nov 2013 13:43:23 -0800, wrote:



That isn't an alternate way of thinking, it's

just wrong.



Again, I don't think we'll get anywhere with you saying it's wrong,

and me saying they're both right. We can repeat ourselves until we're

blue in the face, and we'll get nowhere toward the correct answer.



We clearly showed multiple references, some of them from schools and

physics forums, which clearly stated the ground is the return path

back to the power company. This may or may not be true, but, we

can certainly find people stating that this is the case.



But, maybe all those web sites & physics forums are wrong.



If we are to learn the truth, what we need is simply a reliable

reference that says the ground is *not* the return path.



Clearly LOTS of people think it is (I certainly do, and so do the

half dozen scientific, howto, and physics web sites I referenced).



So, if they're all wrong (and they just might be), then there should

be a reference that says that this is wrong. Right?



So, if it is really "nonsense" that the ground is the return path

to the power company, then we should be able to find a reference

that says that.



Don't you think?

I googled, but didn't find it.



Maybe someone else can? (I'm not wedded to an opinion; I only wish for

the truth).


You just keep harping back to the same thing. You're asking for us to
prove a negative. And what is really annoying, is that you're so lazy
that you refuse to educate yourself or listen to everyone else here,
who knows a lot more. You didn't know the difference
between a neutral and a ground at your house. You still don't understand
the concept of a neutral, a ground, the difference, on the PRIMARY side.
Neither, apparently does the author of the "How things work piece". That
same exact verbage is in ALL the references you've found, cut and pasted,
or even directly referred back to, yet you keep
claiming you have 6 references. In fact, all you've got is one reference
from a very elementary description, and it's wrong.

I've pointed out several times now, that the same reference, just a
couple sentences earlier, says that the power plant has 3 phase wires,
plus a "neutral or ground". If that's true, then why do you need the
earth as a return path? That statement also shows that the author doesn't
know the difference between a neutral and a ground. Yet, you don't
address that, don't respond to it, just ignore it. Why is that?

I've also tried to educate you on 3 phase power and why those 3 wires
alone are all it takes to deliver power. Those of us familiar with 3 phase
see 3 wires running down a transmission line and know how the power flows,
that just those 3 wires allow the power to flow, no separate earth
return is needed. It's shown here in an animated figure, which I also
provided previously:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-phase_electric_power

Three wires deliver the power. Now explain to us why you need the
earth for a return path? Not understanding 3 phase, you believe the current
needs an earth return, instead of flowing back on the same 3 wires.
And instead of learning, you insist that we do your research for you.

On Tue, 26 Nov 2013 08:19:28 -0500, clare wrote:

That is definitely NOT college level electrical engineering. Looks
like a junior college introduction course to me.



I won't go into a discussion of how facts at a junior college are any
different than facts at a high school or university, or even those same
facts at the power company (the references I cited were from industry also),
simply because, I'll lose any argument like that on the net due to the
old adage...

And, I'll stop asking for references that state the currents *don't* go
back to the power company transformers through the ground...

I will simply continue to locate, read, and quote sources that explain the
return path for current, back to the power company's transformers.

The more I read, the more I find that this return path is not
straightforward.

There are local loops, where the math can get complex, so, I'm trying to
unwind this wye-versus-delta thing as we speak ...

Here's a good starter paper on what those ground paths back to the power
supply transformers looks like that I am still reading with great interest:
www.dataforth.com/catalog/pdf/an108.pdf

That's from a company that makes isolation transformers, so, they're not
"junior college" level, right?

On Monday, November 25, 2013 8:36:34 PM UTC-5, Carson Vos wrote:
On Mon, 25 Nov 2013 16:44:45 -0800, wrote:



I never said I would call the service 2 phase.



Well thank God we finally agree it is single phase service.

Again, the disagreement started when the simple statement was
made that the two hot legs on a 240v/120v service are 180 deg
OUT OF PHASE WITH EACH OTHER. That is absolutely true. The discussion
was *not* about what it's called. And technically, it's called a "split-phase
service".

I'm still waiting for even one of you alleged experts to give us
your definition of "phase" in electrical engineering.

On Tue, 26 Nov 2013 08:16:40 -0500, clare wrote:

She is referring to the "safety groun d", not the neutral, or she is
"dumming it down". It IS still used as a ground return on a VERY small
basis in very limitted locations - as SWERT.

heh heh ... rather than supply a reference, another guy also attacked
the credentials of the many references providing, implying, essentially,
that facts taught at a junior college are essentially wrong, simply
because it's not a four-year college.

And, now you bring up SWERT, which also has nothing to do with the
question of typical power distribution in the United States, since
neither you nor I are getting our household power through SWERT.

Let's keep SWERT out of this because the entire discussion is about
the typical US power distribution system, which is basically how
we're getting the electrons to do this typing at our keyboards.

Also, let's not try to prove our points simply by stating that the
reference is wrong because it's from a junior college or that the
answer is simplified so therefore it must be wrong.

The statement the professor made is simplified, but, it's not
untrue because it's simplified.

The class teaches students:
"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."

Anyway, I'll stop asking for a reference that shows otherwise.

What I'll do is continue to try to understand the typical power
distribution scheme in the United States, with your help.

On Monday, November 25, 2013 9:59:04 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Mon, 25 Nov 2013 21:31:54 +0000 (UTC), Danny D'Amico

wrote:



On Mon, 25 Nov 2013 15:10:28 -0500, clare wrote:



Line1 and Line2 are generally red and black, with the neutral white

and safety ground bare or green



Everything you said about the "single phase" center tap made perfect sense.



People keep saying the neutral wires is normally bare, but, I must

say, mine is insulated.

http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3780/1...9139da3c_o.gif



Maybe that's odd, for the USA though, 'cuz everyone is saying that

the neutral is normally bare.

The "neutral" is NEVER bare in North America (except in some parts

of rural Sakatchewan Canada, where single wire earth return IS

actually still in limited use)


Oh my lying eyes. I must be hallucinating when I see all those
bare service neutrals run to houses. Or all those base primary
neutrals I see on poles going down the road.....

On Tue, 26 Nov 2013 08:22:27 -0500, clare wrote:

Note the "essentially" - it is not "litterally"

Indeed. The return path to the power company's transformers is complex.

I've found a few references that try to explain it (some of which
are on google books, so I can never tell if you'll see the same
pages that I do).

The math is horrendously complex.

But the summary is simple:
"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."

Anyway, I'm moving on to trying to understand *why* and *when*
the power companies use the wye versus the delta transformers ...

I'm starting with the *simplified* answer, and then working toward
the key details:
http://www.phaseconverterinfo.com/ph...r_deltawye.htm

"Three-phase power is most commonly provided by the electric
utility in a wye configuration. The main advantage to wye power
is that the phase-to-neutral voltage is equal on all three legs."

On Tuesday, November 26, 2013 9:23:35 AM UTC-5, wrote:
On Monday, November 25, 2013 9:59:04 PM UTC-5, wrote:

On Mon, 25 Nov 2013 21:31:54 +0000 (UTC), Danny D'Amico



wrote:







On Mon, 25 Nov 2013 15:10:28 -0500, clare wrote:







Line1 and Line2 are generally red and black, with the neutral white



and safety ground bare or green







Everything you said about the "single phase" center tap made perfect sense.







People keep saying the neutral wires is normally bare, but, I must



say, mine is insulated.



http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3780/1...9139da3c_o.gif







Maybe that's odd, for the USA though, 'cuz everyone is saying that



the neutral is normally bare.



The "neutral" is NEVER bare in North America (except in some parts



of rural Sakatchewan Canada, where single wire earth return IS



actually still in limited use)





Oh my lying eyes. I must be hallucinating when I see all those

bare service neutrals run to houses. Or all those base primary

neutrals I see on poles going down the road.....

Hell, the hots on poles are bare too pretty much everywhere.

On Tue, 26 Nov 2013 08:27:35 -0500, clare wrote:

You are only giving ONE reference for your position - associate
professor J Cardell..
And many of us are saying she is not totally correct.

I gave almost a dozen references, and I simply stopped because
how many do we need that say the same thing?

We can't refute the credentials of *every* one of these, can we?

PowerPoint presentation from Fundamentals of Electricity & Electronics:
http://freezow.weebly.com/uploads/2/...e2023_wk06.ppt

EE Class at Smith College in Massachusetts:
http://www.science.smith.edu/~jcarde...ecPwr_HSW.html

Word document on "How Power Grids Work" for a Massachusetts school:
http://www.rcmahar.org/ahartshorn/fi...le-and-Qs.docx

Power Generation Specialists:
http://www.galpower.com/en/resources...owitworks.aspx

Green Lantern Electric Company in California:
http://www.green-lantern-electric.com/Electricity.html

Word document on "How Electricity Works" by a Radio Club:
http://www.rcwa.org/Training/How%20E...y%20Basics.doc

Physics Forum:
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=429670

Megger Electricity Forum:
http://www.electricityforum.com/elec...-it-works.html

Electrical energy monitoring company in Delewa
http://www.powerkuff.com/Download_Electricity.pdf

Elements of Electricity
http://sandytechprod.wikispaces.com/...lectricity.pdf

Word document from Covenent University
http://eprints.covenantuniversity.ed.../1/BLD223.docx

etc.

On Tuesday, November 26, 2013 12:06:25 AM UTC-5, Danny D'Amico wrote:
On Mon, 25 Nov 2013 20:03:04 -0600, Nightcrawler® wrote:



Are your references from Australia?



Nope. You saw the references. They were all for standard

power distribution in the United States.



For example, this reference from Smith College, Northampton, MA:

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





Sigh.... The same "How stuff works" reference is still that one
source, no matter how many times various people use it. And it's wrong.




Says:

"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."



That's from an EE class:

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

EGR 220, Spring 2013, Engineering Circuit Theory



Taught by Judith Cardell, who researches this stuff:

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



All I see at that link is a course outline, nothing that addresses
the earth return issue.




So, why do you constantly disparage my comments when I can

easily prove that exactly what I have said all along is being

taught to electrical engineers in college-level courses?



When you have a link that shows that, I'll be happy to look at it.

On Tuesday, November 26, 2013 12:07:43 AM UTC-5, Danny D'Amico wrote:
On Mon, 25 Nov 2013 21:52:34 -0500, clare wrote:



Only in some rather rare circumstances is the "ground" actually used

in place of a current carrying conductor



This reference from Smith College, Northampton, MA:

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



Says:

"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."



That's from an EE class:

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

EGR 220, Spring 2013, Engineering Circuit Theory



Taught by Judith Cardell, who researches this stuff:

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



She should know, shouldn't she?


Good grief. Now I get it. A college course has a link to that
same one reference "How stuff works", and that makes it right?
Every single "reference" you keep coming up with, points right
back to there. It's quite possible the associate professor didn't
even fully read the thing. And you have to wonder about any college course
that uses "How stuff works"

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.

On Tuesday, November 26, 2013 9:01:11 AM UTC-5, Danny D'Amico wrote:
On Tue, 26 Nov 2013 08:19:28 -0500, clare wrote:



That is definitely NOT college level electrical engineering. Looks

like a junior college introduction course to me.







I won't go into a discussion of how facts at a junior college are any

different than facts at a high school or university, or even those same

facts at the power company (the references I cited were from industry also),

simply because, I'll lose any argument like that on the net due to the

old adage...



What references from industry? Every "reference" you have that I've
seen uses the same exact verbage from "How stuff works" or is in fact
a direct link back to it. One place that got it wrong, cited 10 times,
doesn't make it right.




And, I'll stop asking for references that state the currents *don't* go

back to the power company transformers through the ground...



I will simply continue to locate, read, and quote sources that explain the

return path for current, back to the power company's transformers.



The more I read, the more I find that this return path is not

straightforward.



Actually it is. See the Wikipedia diagram I gave you a link to twice now:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-phase_electric_power

It shows power coming and going on just 3 wires, no planet earth
required. That simple animation shows how it works. Look at that
and tell us why another path is needed.



There are local loops, where the math can get complex, so, I'm trying to

unwind this wye-versus-delta thing as we speak ...



Here's a good starter paper on what those ground paths back to the power

supply transformers looks like that I am still reading with great interest:

www.dataforth.com/catalog/pdf/an108.pdf



That's from a company that makes isolation transformers, so, they're not

"junior college" level, right?

No and there isn't anything there that says power plants use
the earth as a return path. It's all consistent with what
everyone here has been telling you.

On Tuesday, November 26, 2013 9:20:18 AM UTC-5, Danny D'Amico wrote:
On Tue, 26 Nov 2013 08:16:40 -0500, clare wrote:



She is referring to the "safety groun d", not the neutral, or she is

"dumming it down". It IS still used as a ground return on a VERY small

basis in very limitted locations - as SWERT.



heh heh ... rather than supply a reference, another guy also attacked

the credentials of the many references providing, implying, essentially,

that facts taught at a junior college are essentially wrong, simply

because it's not a four-year college.



Claire provided you with reference that talk about grounding power
systems. They don't talk about the earth being used as part of the
power flow path.

And again, ALL your references are straight back to the one
"How stuff works", which has it wrong. Citing the same thing 10
times doesn't make it right.






And, now you bring up SWERT, which also has nothing to do with the

question of typical power distribution in the United States, since

neither you nor I are getting our household power through SWERT.



Good grief. It directly addresses the issue. They talk about using
the earth as a return path in special cases, eg isolated rural areas
in AU. And they give a list of problems with it, why it's the exceptional
case.




Let's keep SWERT out of this because the entire discussion is about

the typical US power distribution system, which is basically how

we're getting the electrons to do this typing at our keyboards.



Fine, so then we're back to you being wrong.




Also, let's not try to prove our points simply by stating that the

reference is wrong because it's from a junior college or that the

answer is simplified so therefore it must be wrong.



The statement the professor made is simplified, but, it's not

untrue because it's simplified.



The class teaches students:

"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."



Where is the link to what the prof actually said? Or is it
like I think it is, that she's just using a link to "How stuff
works?"




Anyway, I'll stop asking for a reference that shows otherwise.



What I'll do is continue to try to understand the typical power

distribution scheme in the United States, with your help.


Look at the Wikipedia animation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-phase_electric_power

Case closed.

On Tuesday, November 26, 2013 9:28:16 AM UTC-5, Danny D'Amico wrote:
On Tue, 26 Nov 2013 08:22:27 -0500, clare wrote:



Note the "essentially" - it is not "litterally"



Indeed. The return path to the power company's transformers is complex.



I've found a few references that try to explain it (some of which

are on google books, so I can never tell if you'll see the same

pages that I do).



The math is horrendously complex.



But the summary is simple:

"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."



If you post that same verbage from "How stuff works", one more time,
we're all going to throw up.




Anyway, I'm moving on to trying to understand *why* and *when*

the power companies use the wye versus the delta transformers ...



I'm starting with the *simplified* answer, and then working toward

the key details:

http://www.phaseconverterinfo.com/ph...r_deltawye.htm



"Three-phase power is most commonly provided by the electric

utility in a wye configuration. The main advantage to wye power

is that the phase-to-neutral voltage is equal on all three legs."

Hopeless.

On Tuesday, November 26, 2013 10:00:47 AM UTC-5, wrote:
On Tuesday, November 26, 2013 9:01:11 AM UTC-5, Danny D'Amico wrote:

On Tue, 26 Nov 2013 08:19:28 -0500, clare wrote:







That is definitely NOT college level electrical engineering. Looks



like a junior college introduction course to me.















I won't go into a discussion of how facts at a junior college are any



different than facts at a high school or university, or even those same



facts at the power company (the references I cited were from industry also),



simply because, I'll lose any argument like that on the net due to the



old adage...







What references from industry? Every "reference" you have that I've

seen uses the same exact verbage from "How stuff works" or is in fact

a direct link back to it. One place that got it wrong, cited 10 times,

doesn't make it right.









And, I'll stop asking for references that state the currents *don't* go



back to the power company transformers through the ground...







I will simply continue to locate, read, and quote sources that explain the



return path for current, back to the power company's transformers.







The more I read, the more I find that this return path is not



straightforward.







Actually it is. See the Wikipedia diagram I gave you a link to twice now:



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-phase_electric_power



It shows power coming and going on just 3 wires, no planet earth

required. That simple animation shows how it works. Look at that

and tell us why another path is needed.







There are local loops, where the math can get complex, so, I'm trying to



unwind this wye-versus-delta thing as we speak ...







Here's a good starter paper on what those ground paths back to the power



supply transformers looks like that I am still reading with great interest:



www.dataforth.com/catalog/pdf/an108.pdf







That's from a company that makes isolation transformers, so, they're not



"junior college" level, right?



No and there isn't anything there that says power plants use

the earth as a return path. It's all consistent with what

everyone here has been telling you.

The earth is not a power path. Period.

I don't see the earlier comment, but from the links and the search question,
I presume the conversation was about a circuit term referred to as "return".

A lot f folks are fixated on naming one power lead as "return", when there
is nothng related to any sort of "return" taking place in a circuit.

There are 2 conductors.. and one is a higher potential than the other.
That's all there is to it, but you'll probably never fnd ths statement in
any text book.

The power is disspated at the load, and there is nothing to return to any
other location.

I don't know where the fantasy of a return originated, but there is none iin
an electrical circuit.
Hydraulic circuit, yes, thre is generally always a return line.. for obvious
reasons.

The earth, meaning the planet, is not half of an electrical crcuit.. with
maybe one exception being lightning strikes.
Hills and terrain affect RF energy, and the ground/earth at the base of an
antenna is often imbedded with conductors to form a ground plane.

Electrical circuts deliver power to an appliance, tool, light bulb etc as
the two differing potentials, and the power is disspated as heat, light,
motion etc at the device beng powered.

It is aburd to belive that power is returned thru many miles of distribution
gear and back to the generation source, or that it's returned thru the soil.
Yet, the majorty of folks believe and continue to express/repeat this
concept.

--
Cheers,
WB
..............


"Danny D'Amico" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 25 Nov 2013 14:15:05 -0800, wrote:

They are *not* both valid. You have it wrong.

Well, this entire discussion is about how the power supply works, so,
it is germane to the discussion how the power company completes the
circuit.

I don't have any more arguments, and, we *do* have at least one
reference which supports my statement.

That doesn't mean I'm correct. What it means is we need more references
(either way), instead of our statements (since we all sincerely believe
what we're stating).

Googling for:
"how does electricity get back to the power company -solar"

This is on the first page (which was referenced already):
http://science.howstuffworks.com/env...rgy/power3.htm
It agrees with what I said (on page 4).

Here it says the same thing (that the earth is the return path):
http://www.science.smith.edu/~jcarde...ecPwr_HSW.html

And he
http://www.electricityforum.com/elec...-it-works.html

But those are all repeats. How about this Physics forum?
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=429670

Now, that does not prove that the earth is the return path
for the electricity back to the power company, but, it is clearly
a half dozen (or so) references which say what I've always thought
was the case.

That means that the idea isn't so far fetched as it may appear.
Admittedly, most of these references were cut out of the same
mold (probably due to my search terms?), so I welcome someone
who can find a reference that says the earth is *not* the return
path for the HVAC typical power generated in the USA.

"Danny D'Amico" wrote in message
...
I will simply continue to locate, read, and quote sources that explain
the
return path for current, back to the power company's transformers.

The more I read, the more I find that this return path is not
straightforward.


It is not straight forward. It zig zags.

No joke, look up zig zag transformer.

On 11/25/2013 11:07 PM, Danny D'Amico wrote:
On Mon, 25 Nov 2013 21:52:34 -0500, clare wrote:

Only in some rather rare circumstances is the "ground" actually used
in place of a current carrying conductor

This reference from Smith College, Northampton, MA:
http://www.science.smith.edu/~jcarde...ecPwr_HSW.html

Says:
"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."

It is fatally flawed, as described in another post.


That's from an EE class:
http://www.science.smith.edu/~jcardell/Courses/EGR220/
EGR 220, Spring 2013, Engineering Circuit Theory

It is not from an EE class.

It is something Smith College picked up from somewhere. As far is I know
it was not written by anyone ever associated with the college.


Taught by Judith Cardell, who researches this stuff:
http://www.science.smith.edu/~jcardell/

She should know, shouldn't she?

What should she know? She didn't write the piece at the top.

Why does everyone who understands power distribution disagree with you?

On 11/25/2013 1:43 PM, nestork wrote:
bud--;3155057 Wrote:

The earth does not complete the circuit. Wires complete the circuit.


Bud, until recently I would have agreed with you. But, whomever wrote
this web page obviously knows something about electric power generation
and distribution and seems to disagree:

http://tinyurl.com/y4syno6

Look at the bottom paragraph in the section entitled "The Power Plant:
Three Phase Power" where it says:


And what about this "ground," as mentioned above? 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. (Car manufacturers do something similar; they
use the metal body of the car as one of the wires in the car's
electrical system and attach the negative pole of the battery to the
car's body.) "Ground" in the power distribution grid is literally "the
ground" that's all around you when you are walking outside. It is the
dirt, rocks, groundwater, etc., of the earth.


I don't think he could have said it any clearer.


As trader noted, the author says "there are four wires coming out of
every power plant: the three phases plus a neutral or ground common to
all three."

The 4th wire is a neutral, which is grounded.

The author has a problem of identifying neutrals as grounds throughout
the piece.

Nowhere does the author describe how earth is used as a conductor in
power transmission.
------------------------
"The fourth wire lower on the poles is the ground wire"

The 4th wire is a neutral which is earthed.
--------------------------
"Past a typical house runs a set of poles with one phase of power (at
7,200 volts) and a ground wire (although sometimes there will be two or
three phases on the pole, depending on where the house is located in the
distribution grid)."

The "ground wire" is in fact a neutral wire (which is earthed).
--------------------------
"There are two things to notice in this pictu
There is a bare wire running down the pole.
This is a grounding wire. Every utility pole on the planet has one."

Actually every utility pole does not have one. With the overhead
distribution in Minneapolis poles with transformers have an earthing
wire. Other poles may or may not have one.
---------------------
Continuing "If you examine a pole carefully, you will see that the
ground wire running between poles (and often the guy wires) are attached
to this direct connection to ground."

The wire is a neutral that is earthed.

The distribution voltage in my area has one of the 3-phase wires tapped
off the distribution and feeding 4-8 blocks. The 3-phase neutral is
tapped off the supply neutral at the same place and runs with the phase
wire. As above, the neutral is earthed at multiple locations. The same
primary neutral is used as the secondary neutral, and so the secondary
neutral at the transformer is earthed.
-------------------------------
Continuing
"There are two wires running out of the transformer and three wires
running to the house.
The two from the transformer are insulated, and the third one is
bare. The bare wire is the ground wire."

As about everyone here knows, the 3rd wire is a neutral, not a ground.
-------------------------------
There is an electrical diagram of a transformer with the secondary
center tap labeled "ground".

Also is obviously a neutral.
--------------------------------
There are multiple pictures of distribution lines, all of which have a
neutral. Sometimes the author misidentifies the neutral as "ground".
Transmission lines also have a neutral. Sometimes it is run on the top
for lightning strikes.
----------------------------
"When a 120-volt power line connects directly to ground, its goal in
life is to pump as much electricity as possible through the connection."

The electricity does not flow to earth. It returns to the utility
transformer through the N-G bond at the service and through the service
neutral wire.
-------------------------------
The author consistently misidentifies neutral wires as "ground" wires.
His pictures show neutrals along with distribution wires. He does not
explain how the earth is used in power distribution. He does not appear
to understand power distribution.

This piece is fatally flawed.

On 11/26/2013 1:20 AM, nestork wrote:

...

You can't have current without voltage. Ergo, there is always going to
be some net voltage sine wave in that neutral buss, and therefore in the
ground wire cable coming out of the main panel. So, how can you NOT
have current into and out of the Good Earth through the grounding rod or
pipe if there is a voltage imposed on that grounding cable by the white
buss?

I'm not saying that current flows back to the generating station through
the ground. Or, at least, I'm not saying that yet.

...
And, I can't see why a net voltage sine wave in the neutral buss
wouldn't cause current flow into and out of the Good Earth at the
grounding rod or plumbing pipe.

And, according to one of the pictures posted by G. Fretwell, the current
measured through his grounding rod is 0.142 amps. And that's without
any intentional effort to imbalance the electrical load at the main
panel.

Where am I wrong there?


The current in the legs of a split phase service are not likely to ever
be balanced with a zero neutral current, so most of your post is kinda
irrelevant. There will be a neutral current.

Since the utility transformer neutral is earthed, and the house service
neutral is earthed, the earth is a parallel path to the neutral wire.
That produces some current in the parallel earth path. But the
resistance of the neutral wire is far lower than the ground path. A very
good resistance to earth at a house might be 10 ohms. What is the
resistance of the neutral wire? What fraction of the neutral current
takes the parallel earth path? Not much.

This earth current is not an intentional current flow, but a result of
how electrical systems are earthed for safety. Electrical systems use a
metal path for power distribution.

Wild_Bill scrit:

It is aburd to belive that power is returned thru many miles of distribution
gear and back to the generation source, or that it's returned thru the soil.

The guy gfretwell showed us a few amps of current heading directly into
the ground.

Where did those few amps come from, and where did they go?

scrit:

One place that got it wrong, cited 10 times,
doesn't make it right.

I was taught the same thing, and I'm an Industrial Engineer.

Most EEs don't learn power distribution. Most learn basic
transistor theory.

But, when they cover it, at least for us, they tell us that
the earth is the return.

But why does it matter if it's not? It doesn't change the
wiring either way.

On Tuesday, November 26, 2013 11:04:53 AM UTC-5, bud-- wrote:
On 11/25/2013 11:07 PM, Danny D'Amico wrote:

On Mon, 25 Nov 2013 21:52:34 -0500, clare wrote:



Only in some rather rare circumstances is the "ground" actually used

in place of a current carrying conductor



This reference from Smith College, Northampton, MA:

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



Says:

"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."



It is fatally flawed, as described in another post.





That's from an EE class:

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

EGR 220, Spring 2013, Engineering Circuit Theory



It is not from an EE class.



It is something Smith College picked up from somewhere. As far is I know

it was not written by anyone ever associated with the college.





Taught by Judith Cardell, who researches this stuff:

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



She should know, shouldn't she?



What should she know? She didn't write the piece at the top.



Why does everyone who understands power distribution disagree with you?

Bud-

The one and only place AFAIK that all of this is coming from is the website
"How stuff works". That link at the top produces the piece apparently
authored by Marshal Brain. As I understand it, he's the creator of
the "How stuff works" website. ALL the references Danny has are
either the exact verbage from there repeated, a link back to it,
or a copy thereof. You would hope that an assistant prof would
check the stuff, but who knows if she did, who actually posted it
as part of the course, etc. You also have to wonder about any college
that uses stuff from "How stuff works" for course material.

But there is no question it's wrong.

On Tuesday, November 26, 2013 11:13:49 AM UTC-5, bud-- wrote:
On 11/25/2013 1:43 PM, nestork wrote:

bud--;3155057 Wrote:



The earth does not complete the circuit. Wires complete the circuit.





Bud, until recently I would have agreed with you. But, whomever wrote

this web page obviously knows something about electric power generation

and distribution and seems to disagree:



http://tinyurl.com/y4syno6



Look at the bottom paragraph in the section entitled "The Power Plant:

Three Phase Power" where it says:





And what about this "ground," as mentioned above? 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. (Car manufacturers do something similar; they

use the metal body of the car as one of the wires in the car's

electrical system and attach the negative pole of the battery to the

car's body.) "Ground" in the power distribution grid is literally "the

ground" that's all around you when you are walking outside. It is the

dirt, rocks, groundwater, etc., of the earth.





I don't think he could have said it any clearer.





As trader noted, the author says "there are four wires coming out of

every power plant: the three phases plus a neutral or ground common to

all three."



The 4th wire is a neutral, which is grounded.



The author has a problem of identifying neutrals as grounds throughout

the piece.



Nowhere does the author describe how earth is used as a conductor in

power transmission.

------------------------

"The fourth wire lower on the poles is the ground wire"



The 4th wire is a neutral which is earthed.

--------------------------

"Past a typical house runs a set of poles with one phase of power (at

7,200 volts) and a ground wire (although sometimes there will be two or

three phases on the pole, depending on where the house is located in the

distribution grid)."



The "ground wire" is in fact a neutral wire (which is earthed).

--------------------------

"There are two things to notice in this pictu

There is a bare wire running down the pole.

This is a grounding wire. Every utility pole on the planet has one."



Actually every utility pole does not have one. With the overhead

distribution in Minneapolis poles with transformers have an earthing

wire. Other poles may or may not have one.

---------------------

Continuing "If you examine a pole carefully, you will see that the

ground wire running between poles (and often the guy wires) are attached

to this direct connection to ground."



The wire is a neutral that is earthed.



The distribution voltage in my area has one of the 3-phase wires tapped

off the distribution and feeding 4-8 blocks. The 3-phase neutral is

tapped off the supply neutral at the same place and runs with the phase

wire. As above, the neutral is earthed at multiple locations. The same

primary neutral is used as the secondary neutral, and so the secondary

neutral at the transformer is earthed.

-------------------------------

Continuing

"There are two wires running out of the transformer and three wires

running to the house.

The two from the transformer are insulated, and the third one is

bare. The bare wire is the ground wire."



As about everyone here knows, the 3rd wire is a neutral, not a ground.

-------------------------------

There is an electrical diagram of a transformer with the secondary

center tap labeled "ground".



Also is obviously a neutral.

--------------------------------

There are multiple pictures of distribution lines, all of which have a

neutral. Sometimes the author misidentifies the neutral as "ground".

Transmission lines also have a neutral. Sometimes it is run on the top

for lightning strikes.

----------------------------

"When a 120-volt power line connects directly to ground, its goal in

life is to pump as much electricity as possible through the connection."



The electricity does not flow to earth. It returns to the utility

transformer through the N-G bond at the service and through the service

neutral wire.

-------------------------------

The author consistently misidentifies neutral wires as "ground" wires.

His pictures show neutrals along with distribution wires. He does not

explain how the earth is used in power distribution. He does not appear

to understand power distribution.



This piece is fatally flawed.

My hat's off to you Bud. Excellent job taking it apart piece by
piece. What's ironic is Danny came in here not knowing the difference
between a neutral and ground with a house service. Now he's hitched
his wagon to an author that clearly doesn't know the difference between a
neutral and a ground either.

scrit:

I've also tried to educate you on 3 phase power and why those 3 wires
alone are all it takes to deliver power.

Without earth you have a big problem.

Buy Fake Passport ) Diplomatic Passport, Canadian ID Cards Online,ID Cards drivers License

Hello, Getting a fake and real passport , ID or driving license or any other document is simple. I can make you both real and fake documents However, the real documents are more expensive than the fake because it takes time, skill and contacts to get it done. Note that, the fake is going to be in 100% unique and very good quality. The difference is
based on the registration numbers. The real Document will be registered with the country's database so you can use it to travel to any country of your choice or in the country, mean while the fake will not be registered but can be use as well.

Contact
General
Technical
skype.....................kannymary1990
tel........................ 505-948-4785

contact via email or call at anytime.
-———-
Keywords:
fake USA passports,
fake Australian passports,
es) passports for sale,
fake Australian passports for sell,
fake Belgium passports for sell,
fake Brazilian(Brazil) passports for sell,
fake Canadian(Canada) passports for sell,
fake Finnish(Finland) passports for sell,
fake French(France) passports for sell,
fake German(Germany) passports for sell,
fake Dutch(Netherland/Holland) passports for sell,
fake Israel passports for sell,
fake UK passports for sell,
fake Spanish(Spain) passports for sell,
fake Mexican(Mexico) passports for sell,
fake South African passports for sell,
fake Australian driver licenses for sell
order false passports,
order novelty passports,
order fake driver license,
order false driver license,
order novelty driver license,
order Diplomatic passports,
obtain fake passports,
obtain false passports,
obtain novelty passports,
obtain fake driving licence,
obtain false driver license,
obtain novelty driver license,
obtain Diplomatic passports,

fake passport of St Kitts & Nevis
fake passport of Saint Vincent & the Grenadines
fake passport of Samoa
fake passport of San Marino
fake passport of Saudi Arabia
fake passport of Senegal
fake passport of Serbia
fake passport of Singapore
fake passport of Slovakia
fake passport of Slovenia
fake passport of Solomon Islands
fake passport of Somalia
fake passport of South Africa
fake passport of Spain
fake passport of Sri Lanka
fake passport of Sudan
fake passport of Suriname
fake passport of Swaziland
fake passport of Sweden
fake passport of Switzerland
fake passport of Syria
fake passport of Taiwan
fake passport of Tajikistan
fake passport of Tanzania
fake passport of Thailand
fake passport of Trinidad & Tobago
fake passport of Tunisia
fake passport of Turkey
fake passport of Uganda
fake passport of [SPAM]
fake passport of United Arab Emirates
fake passport of United Kingdom
fake passport of United States
fake passport of Uruguay
fake passport of Uzbekistan
fake passport of Vatican City
fake passport of Venezuela
fake passport of Vietnam
fake passport of Yemen
fake USA(United States) passports,
fake Australian passports,
fake Belgium passports,
fake Brazilian(Brazil) passports,
fake Canadian(Canada) passports,
fake Finnish(Finland) passports,
fake French(France) passports,
fake German(Germany) passports,
fake Dutch(Netherland/Holland) passports,
fake Israel passports,
fake UK(United Kingdom) passports,
fake Spanish(Spain) passports,
fake Mexican(Mexico) passports,
buy fake South African passports.
buy fake Australian driver licenses,
buy fake Canadian driver licenses,
buy fake French(France) driver licenses,
buy fake Dutch(Netherland/Holland) driving licenses,
buy fake German(Germany) driving licenses,
buy fake UK(United Kingdom) driving licenses,
buy fake Diplomatic passports,
buy false USA(United States) passports,
buy false Australian passports,
buy false Belgium passports,
buy false Brazilian(Brazil) passports,
buy false Canadian(Canada) passports,
buy false Finnish(Finland) passports,
buy false French(France) passports,
buy false German(Germany) passports,
buy false Dutch(Netherland/Holland) passports,
buy false Israel passports,
buy false UK(United Kingdom) passports,
buy false UK(United Kingdom) driving licenses,
buy false Diplomatic passports,
buy Camouflage passports,
buy passport Duplicates,
fake USA(united States) passports for sale,
fake Australian passports for sell,
fake Belgium passports for sell,
fake Brazilian(Brazil) passports for sell,
fake Canadian(Canada) passports for sell,
fake Finnish(Finland) passports for sell,
fake French(France) passports for sell,
fake German(Germany) passports for sell,
fake Dutch(Netherland/Holland) passports for sell,

On 11/26/2013 10:57 AM, wrote:


You are the king of pictures.

(But that should further confuse Danny. Maybe if he started with the
basics...)


There is also a corner grounded delta but you usually only see it in
places like sewer lift stations where there is no L/N load at all.
The equipment will look exactly like single phase with 2 pole breakers
and a white neutral but the voltages are 240 to ground on the
ungrounded legs and 240 P to P

Corner grounded delta is also common, I have heard, for center pivot
irrigation. Not likely something you have in Florida.

On Tuesday, November 26, 2013 12:45:26 PM UTC-5, Harold W. wrote:
scrit:



One place that got it wrong, cited 10 times,

doesn't make it right.



I was taught the same thing, and I'm an Industrial Engineer.



Most EEs don't learn power distribution. Most learn basic

transistor theory.



But, when they cover it, at least for us, they tell us that

the earth is the return.



But why does it matter if it's not? It doesn't change the

wiring either way.

It doesn't change what wiring? If grounds had to be sized and
installed to accomodate normal current flow, it certainly does change
wiring in a big way. And that's just one way it changes it.

Also, we just went through the whole discussion of the difference
between a neutral and a ground for a house service. Are you saying
that doesn't matter either?

bud-- scrit:

This earth current is not an intentional current flow, but a result of
how electrical systems are earthed for safety

The return path is intentional in so much as the system is engineered
to take it all into account because it's going to happen. All over
the place.

scrit:

Again, the disagreement started when the simple statement was
made that the two hot legs on a 240v/120v service are 180 deg

You are too emotional about this. Calm down. Stop repeating yourself.
Take a deep breath. This is just the net! It's not the real world.

scrit:

he counts it as a new, independent "reference".

He said they all said the same thing so he probably googled
the sentence. It's logical. There's nothing wrong with finding
multiple references that were vetted by multiple people that
say the same thing.

You seem to have a personal problem.

On Tuesday, November 26, 2013 2:20:23 AM UTC-5, nestork wrote:
Tony Hwang;3155652 Wrote:



You are trying to say if I and V is out of phase by certain degree

there will be a current flow which is wasteful. That current does not

do any work. That is why in big industrial site or buildings use power

factor correction device.



No, houses very rarely have power factor correction. Most of the reason

why is that electrical utilities only charge their residential customers

on the actual kilowatts they used, not the KVA the consumed. So, why

have power factor correction if it's not going to save you any money on

your electric bill?



I'm saying that in the real life situation, electrical loads being

carried by L1 and L2 are rarely ever going to be perfectly balanced.

The result is always going to be some timing differences in the current

sine waves travelling in the white wires returning to the electrical

panel. The result is going to be a "net current sine wave" as a result

of superposition of all the individual current sine waves in the neutral

buss in the main panel.



You can't have current without voltage. Ergo, there is always going to

be some net voltage sine wave in that neutral buss, and therefore in the

ground wire cable coming out of the main panel.

Usually there is going to be some current flow, specifically the
unbalanced portion. But if the only loads on are 240V, eg oven
and water heater, then you would have zero current flow in the
neutral. Or if you had that and you put two 100W 120V light bulbs,
one on each leg/phase, then again you'd have zero current flow in
the neutral.




So, how can you NOT

have current into and out of the Good Earth through the grounding rod or

pipe if there is a voltage imposed on that grounding cable by the white

buss?


Yes, if there is current flow in the neutral, then some smaller portion
of that current will flow through the earth, back to the transformer.
It will divide according to the impedance of the neutral vs the impedance
of the earth. The neutral is going to have a lot less impedance, hence
most of the current is going that way. Also, that current is incidental,
it's *not* the primary path and it's not being relied on to deliver power.
THAT last part is what Danny doesn't get.



I'm not saying that current flows back to the generating station through

the ground. Or, at least, I'm not saying that yet.



Thank God.




I'm saying that electrical loads are rarely going to be perfectly

balanced, and any imbalance in the impedance of electrical loads is

going to cause timing differences in the amperage sine waves carried by

the white wires connected to the neutral buss in the main panel. That

means there HAS TO BE some net voltage sine wave in that neutral buss to

drive that net current sine wave.



Generally correct, except for the timing difference part. Assuming
pure resistance loads, there are no timing difference in the various
loads. And adding power factor, which would get you timing differences,
would only obfuscate the issue.




And, I can't see why a net voltage sine wave in the neutral buss

wouldn't cause current flow into and out of the Good Earth at the

grounding rod or plumbing pipe.



If the loads aren't balanced, then yes a small portion of that
unbalanced current is going to flow back to the transformer via
earth. The vast majority of it is going to flow back via the
lower impedance neutral.




And, according to one of the pictures posted by G. Fretwell, the current

measured through his grounding rod is 0.142 amps. And that's without

any intentional effort to imbalance the electrical load at the main

panel.



Where am I wrong there?



You've basically got it correct. The big disagreement with Danny is
that he's insisting that the power company uses the earth as a
return conductor to deliver power. That's what is wrong. In the
..142 amps example, it's an insignificant part of the power.

On Tuesday, November 26, 2013 8:16:40 AM UTC-5, wrote:
On Tue, 26 Nov 2013 05:07:43 +0000 (UTC), Danny D'Amico

wrote:



On Mon, 25 Nov 2013 21:52:34 -0500, clare wrote:



Only in some rather rare circumstances is the "ground" actually used

in place of a current carrying conductor



This reference from Smith College, Northampton, MA:

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



Says:

"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."



That's from an EE class:

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

EGR 220, Spring 2013, Engineering Circuit Theory



Taught by Judith Cardell, who researches this stuff:

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



She should know, shouldn't she?

She is referring to the "safety groun d", not the neutral, or she is

"dumming it down". It IS still used as a ground return on a VERY small

basis in very limitted locations - as SWERT.



She SHOULD know, but obviously is not expressing her knowledge very

well.

Who is the "she" here? Unless I'm missing something, what I think Danny
showed us is the college having a copy of the same flawed explanation
that Danny has posted from 6 other places. It all appears to me to have
originated from the website "How stuff works", where that piece has
Marshal Brain as the author.