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?

This source ("distribution engineers") supports my view.

Maybe we need an english teacher, not an engineer.


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"


And I'm still waiting for someone on the other side of this to provide
their definition of the engineering term "phase".

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".

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.

On 12/3/2013 6:28 PM, Salmon Egg wrote:
In raweb.com,
wrote:

On 12/3/2013 8:25 AM, wrote:

And I'm still waiting for an answer why a system with
two phases that differ by 90 deg is acknowledged by everyone to have two
phases. If they differ by 240 deg, that's two phase right? If they
differ by 170 deg, that must be two phases, right? So, what magically
happens when they differ by 180 deg that suddenly there are no longer two
phases? And how do the electrons know?


For a garden variety split-phase supply (240/120V from a transformer
with a centertap) are there 2 "phases"?

The above post and other replies indicate that knowledge is more
important than jargon. In terms of poly phase jargon, think of a
symmetrical 4-phase system with neutral. What we call 2-phase really is
a subsystem of two adjacent phases. Two opposite phases give you an
Edison system. You can get other such combinations.

The specific question is whether in US distribution, split phase
240/120V has "2 phases", phase A and phase B?
Is the centertapped secondary "single phase"?
When "phase B" is negative "phase A" does it make sense to talk about 2
phases?


In principle, as long as you have at least two phases other than
completely in-phase (three or four wires) or completely out of phase,
you can use transformer combinations to give you any phase combination
you like. The Scott T-connection happens to be the one that converts
between 3-phase and 2-phase (adjacent phases of a 4-phase) system.



Relatively small 480/277V to 208/120V wye transformers sometimes use 2
transformers with a Scott connection. The transformers operate at true
2-phase.

On 12/3/2013 8:18 PM, Dean Hoffman wrote:
On 12/2/13 7:24 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 02 Dec 2013 17:05:15 -0600, Dean Hoffman
" wrote:

Suppose you wanted to run an irrigation system that requires three
phase, 480 to operate. Suppose the local rural power company could only
supply you with single phase 480. Suppose Emma Genius then built a
rotary phase converter to make that three phase load run from single
phase.
Suppose that rotary phase converter created only the third leg of
the three phase to operate the three phase load. Where did the other
two necessary phases originate to operate that three phase load?

It's quite simple. The rotary phase converter is a generator.

But doesn't a phase converter manufacture just the third phase?
So how would three phase motors run off of it if single phase is
actually just one phase? There must actually be two incoming phases.
That's why it makes sense to me that the term single phase is a misnomer
at least on the secondary side of the utility transformer.

So lets take the UK system in Andrew's post - 230V, 2 wires, hot and
neutral. It is clearly single phase. Connect it to a phase-converter and
you have 3-phase. One-phase becomes 3-phase.

Your argument doesn't work. The phase-converter creates the 3rd phase
relative to the single phase source.

It is like open delta, where a single transformer adds the 3rd phase.
You could do a corner grounded open delta - you have 2 clearly single
phase transformers that give you 3-phase.

On 03/12/2013 9:58 AM, Andrew Gabriel wrote:
In article om,
bud-- writes:
On 12/3/2013 8:25 AM, wrote:

And I'm still waiting for an answer why a system with
two phases that differ by 90 deg is acknowledged by everyone to have two
phases. If they differ by 240 deg, that's two phase right? If they
differ by 170 deg, that must be two phases, right? So, what magically
happens when they differ by 180 deg that suddenly there are no longer two
phases? And how do the electrons know?

For a garden variety split-phase supply (240/120V from a transformer
with a centertap) are there 2 "phases"?

In maths/physics, you have two phases with a mathematical
relationship of -x (or a 180 deg phase shift).

In electrical distribution, two-phase is a specific jargon term
which means something else.

There's no one right answer - it depends on the context of the
discussion.

Any supply with two voltages which are not in phase can be considered 2
phase (3 or 4 wires). "Balanced" 2 phase, mathematically speaking
(where for equal loads on each phase such that the sum of the currents
is 0), will have a phase difference of 180 degrees - as in the 3 wire
120/240V system. This is not generally called 2 phase in North America
where it is commonly used. "2 phase" generally refers to the 2 phase
90 degree shift system (sum of currents will not be 0) which, for
motors, has the advantage that, as for 3 phase, a rotating field with
ideally no pulsations is produced. Such motors are not common-no
advantage in general with respect to 3 phase motors. They have been used
as control motors in the 40's-80's.

With regard to comparative practices in distribution-this is a kettle of
fish with pros and cons either way which were determined by (sometimes
poor) choices made over 100 years ago. Practice depends on the past as
well as factors such as housing styles, lot sizes, peak and average
demands, price of copper, etc with compatibility with the past being a
major factor.
While, in many places 3 phases are run down each street, in many areas
only a single phase is used. In my district a single HV phase is run
underground supplying several pad mounted transformers- each feeding a
few houses. Heavy air conditioning loads are not a concern.



--
Don Kelly
remove the cross to reply

On 12/04/2013 04:17 AM, wrote:

All simple questions, that even a high school student could answer,
but we have no answers, just crickets and insults.


I can't figure out whether you're a moron or a troll.

On Wednesday, December 4, 2013 6:12:42 PM UTC-5, Don Kelly wrote:
On 03/12/2013 9:58 AM, Andrew Gabriel wrote:

In article om,

bud-- writes:

On 12/3/2013 8:25 AM, wrote:



And I'm still waiting for an answer why a system with

two phases that differ by 90 deg is acknowledged by everyone to have two

phases. If they differ by 240 deg, that's two phase right? If they

differ by 170 deg, that must be two phases, right? So, what magically

happens when they differ by 180 deg that suddenly there are no longer two

phases? And how do the electrons know?



For a garden variety split-phase supply (240/120V from a transformer

with a centertap) are there 2 "phases"?



In maths/physics, you have two phases with a mathematical

relationship of -x (or a 180 deg phase shift).



In electrical distribution, two-phase is a specific jargon term

which means something else.



There's no one right answer - it depends on the context of the

discussion.



Any supply with two voltages which are not in phase can be considered 2

phase (3 or 4 wires). "Balanced" 2 phase, mathematically speaking

(where for equal loads on each phase such that the sum of the currents

is 0), will have a phase difference of 180 degrees - as in the 3 wire

120/240V system.

Thank you. That's consistent with what I've been saying. It's also
what the paper delivered at the IEEE conference on power engineering
that I've cited says. The only part I would disagree with is that
there is no reqt that it be balanced. If it's not balanced, you
still have two phases,, 180 deg off, you also have current flowing
in the neutral.






This is not generally called 2 phase in North America

where it is commonly used.

I agree with that too. I've said from the beginning that the
240/120V is commonly referred to as split-phase.





"2 phase" generally refers to the 2 phase

90 degree shift system (sum of currents will not be 0) which, for

motors, has the advantage that, as for 3 phase, a rotating field with

ideally no pulsations is produced. Such motors are not common-no

advantage in general with respect to 3 phase motors. They have been used

as control motors in the 40's-80's.



Those arguing the other side of this, accept the two phase system that
was used 100 years ago for awhile as being two phase. I've presented
a simple learning exercise that no one will address. With that two
phase distribution system, we had two
phases, A and B and a neutral. B phase is 90 deg off from A. Everyone
I believe here agrees that two phases are present. So, let's change
the phase to being off by 120 deg. Still two phases? I think we
agree the answer is yes. Make it 280 deg off, it's still two phase?
So, if we now make it 180 deg off, how many phases are there?
I think you and I agree there are still two, unless some magic happens.
And if the power source voltages are 120V, then at that point what
you have is identical to 240/120V split phase at the panel. You could
not tell them apart. Neither can the electrons. That is what is there,
no matter what anyone calls it.




With regard to comparative practices in distribution-this is a kettle of

fish with pros and cons either way which were determined by (sometimes

poor) choices made over 100 years ago. Practice depends on the past as

well as factors such as housing styles, lot sizes, peak and average

demands, price of copper, etc with compatibility with the past being a

major factor.

While, in many places 3 phases are run down each street, in many areas

only a single phase is used. In my district a single HV phase is run

underground supplying several pad mounted transformers- each feeding a

few houses. Heavy air conditioning loads are not a concern.



Agree with that too.



--

Don Kelly

remove the cross to reply

On Wednesday, December 4, 2013 12:25:53 AM UTC-5, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
" wrote:

I can define it. And I'm still waiting for an answer why a system with

two phases that differ by 90 deg is acknowledged by everyone to have two

phases. If they differ by 240 deg, that's two phase right? If they

differ by 170 deg, that must be two phases, right? So, what magically

happens when they differ by 180 deg that suddenly there are no longer two

phases? And how do the electrons know?



You are in fact exactly correct.



If you have three distinct conductors that are not connected to

each other, it is defined as a 2 phase system.



Between any two conductors there is just one phase. Hence if

any one of the three conductors is labeled as "Neutral", the

other two are Phase 1 and Phase 2. (If there are 40 conductors,

there are 39 phases.)



The magic about 180 degree phase shift is not really magic. No

matter what the phase relationship is, there is a single phase

between any two conductors. Of course with a two phase system

the voltage between the two non-neutral conductors will be

greatest if the phase relationships to neutral are 180 degrees

different. It will be minimum of course if the phase

relationships are 0 degrees.



The same significance for a three phase system occurs of course

with 120 degree phase relationships.



--

Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/

Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)


Thank you. There are now at least 3 of us here that agree.

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 doesn't say, "There really aren't two phases present,
but let's pretend there are". He's saying there are two and
that is how it needs to be modeled, analyzed, etc., which he
does in the paper.

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".







This source ("distribution engineers") supports my view.



Which source is that? I don't see a cite.



Maybe we need an english teacher, not an engineer.





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? 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."

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".



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. 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.





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.

Phase in basic electrical engineering terms is simply the relationship
between two periodic waveforms, expressed in degrees. One complete
cycle is 360 degs.

In the case of the power company, they generate 3 phases at the
generating station. They differ by 120 deg. You have 3 phases,
you can see it on a scope. At your house, they take one of those
3 phases, and via a center tap transformer, create split-phase 240/120V
service. It has two phases, that differ by 180 deg. You can see it
on a scope. When you split something, do you know of any examples
where you stil just have one thing? The industry may refer to it as
single phase, because it originates from a transformer connected
to just one of their primary phases, but that doesn't change what
it really is.

And where is the answer to the exercise in two phase power? I've
asked that 6 times now too:

Those on the other side of this agree that two phase existed
100 years ago. They have no problem with it being called two
phase, that was two phase according to them.
So, that system had two phases, let's call them A and B
and a neutral. Phase B was 90 deg off from phase A. Everyone OK
so far?

Now, instead of having phase B be off by 90 degrees, let's make it
off by 120 deg. How many phases are there now? I say two. Let's
change it again, so phase B is off by 220 degrees. How many phases
do we have now? I say two. Let's change it to being off by 170 deg,
how many phases do we have now? I say two. And now, let's change
it to be off by 180 deg. How many phases do we have now? I say
two. And if it they agree that it is indeed still two, then it
is in fact electrically identical to split-phase 240/120V service,
so you have two phases there too.

Note that the above view of phase is 100% consistent, from a
piece of paper, to circuit analysis, to the 3 phases
at the generating plant, the two phase system of old, the split-phase
of today. The alternate view is apparently that something magical
happens at 180 deg phase difference.

On Wed, 04 Dec 2013 18:32:45 -0500, Fred wrote:

On 12/04/2013 04:17 AM, wrote:

All simple questions, that even a high school student could answer,
but we have no answers, just crickets and insults.


I can't figure out whether you're a moron or a troll.


The transformer on my house is single phase in and single phase out.

The secondary may be split-voltage but it sure ain't two phase.

All we know for certain is that traitor4 is wrong. :-)

On Wednesday, December 4, 2013 6:32:45 PM UTC-5, Fred wrote:
On 12/04/2013 04:17 AM, wrote:



All simple questions, that even a high school student could answer,

but we have no answers, just crickets and insults.





I can't figure out whether you're a moron or a troll.


That figures. You're confused. I can figure it out in
your case though.

In article om,
bud-- writes:
On 12/3/2013 4:36 PM, Andrew Gabriel wrote:
In raweb.com,
writes:
The context is, specifically, in US power distribution is a split-phase
supply called 2 phase with a phase A and phase B.

(Not "2-phase", which as you say is rather different.)

If I remember right, construction sites may have 120/60V circuits.

Construction sites here use a safety supply of 110V with
earthed centre-tap, i.e. 55-0-55 for single phase and 65/110V
for 3-phase, but the 0V connection is only grounded at the
transformer and carried to tools as a protective ground
conductor, and never used as a power conductor, so these
are never described as 55-0-55 or 65/110V supplies, because
there's no neutral connection. This is designed to prevent
electrocution of construction workers if a tool gets dropped
into a puddle or the cord is damaged or something similar,
as the highest voltage to ground is only 55 or 65V.

It is what I attempted to convey it too few words.

If I remember right, there are bathroom outlets that are connected the same.

Rules for bathroom sockets in the UK are that it must be from
an isolating transformer, and restricted to (IIRC) 25W (usually
restricted by a very slow acting self reset thermal fuse, or
just a self-reset thermal switch on the isolating transformer).
It's intended for shavers, electric toothbrushes, etc.
The isolating transformer is to prevent risk of electrocution
in an environment which is likely to be wet, and the person
and appliance is also likely to be wet. The output is
isolated and not connected to ground (which would defeat the
whole object).

There's always a 120V socket and a 240V socket, simply because
if you have an isolating transformer there anyway, the cost of
providing an extra voltage output is negligable.

This rule has been relaxed in the latest regs to allow ordinary
socket outlets providing they are at least 3 meters from a
bath or shower (IIRC - haven't got the regs to hand just now).
This allows for having a shower in a bedroom, for example,
and having standard sockets in the rest of the bedroom.

This safety supply used to be mandatory on UK construction
sites. It's no longer mandatory (that would be contrary to
EU rules on movement of workers and products), but it's what
you'll still find on all UK construction sites.

How does the EU get involved.

EU has rules requiring that all member states allow free movement
of people and products across borders. This prevents the UK from
insisting that construction site tools must all operate on a
special voltage only found in the UK, as a carpenter from, say,
Italy won't have 110V tools, and thus would not be able to take
up a job on a UK construction site.

In practice all UK construction sites are still 110V and all UK
construction workers tools are 110V, but in theory an Italian
carpenter could now turn up on site and request a 230V supply
for his tools - that used to be illegal. At one point in the
negotiation of this change, 110V construction site tools were
to have become illegal in the UK - they were only saved because
they result in far fewer construction site electrocutions than
is the case in other EU countries which use 230V tools.

--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]

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).


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.


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.


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.

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."

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.


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.

On Thu, 05 Dec 2013 11:36:07 -0600, Carson Vos
wrote:

On Wed, 04 Dec 2013 18:32:45 -0500, Fred wrote:

On 12/04/2013 04:17 AM, wrote:

All simple questions, that even a high school student could answer,
but we have no answers, just crickets and insults.


I can't figure out whether you're a moron or a troll.


The transformer on my house is single phase in and single phase out.

The secondary may be split-voltage but it sure ain't two phase.

All we know for certain is that traitor4 is wrong. :-)

Oh, my! Now he'll be stalking you.

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.

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?

In article ,
Emma Genius wrote:

Here's what my genius mind came up with.

First I obtained a standard D-cell battery pack that holds 2 batteries in
series.

Next I installed a center tap between the two batteries in the battery pack.

So now I have a series battery pack with three terminals:

L1 is the (-) negative terminal on battery A
N is the center or neutral tap between battery A and B
L2 is the (+) positive terminal on battery B

So to prove I have 2-phase DC, I connected a dual-trace oscilloscope as
follows:

The reference leads from both probes were connected to the center neutral
tap.
Probe A was connected to L1
Probe B was connected to L2

As I expected, the scope showed a 1.5 volt positive phase trace and a 1.5
volt negative phase trace.

Clearly I have 3 volt 2 phase DC.

The only thing left to do is submit my paper to IEEE.

This discussion seems to keep going on, continued from prior identical
threads on other newsgroups. Each person is repeating the same thing
over and over. It is clear that I'm not the only one with too much time
on their hands!

Yes, everyone (should) agree with the basic idea of phase. Yes, the
grids of push-pull tubes are 180 degrees apart in phase, as are the
plates. Yes, the two leads of a simple transformer secondary are 180
degrees apart in phase, regardless of whether there is a center tap or
not.

The argument seems to hinge on whether the power grid uses the same
definition of phase. Of course it does. But then you confuse "split
phase" of a 3-phase power system with the obvious fact that a
center-tapped transformer secondary has each side 180 degrees apart from
the other. Big deal. You are still referring to the one phase of a 3
phase power distribution system, that is split into two voltages by
center-tapping a local distribution transformer.

I think this discussion is comparable to two political parties refusing
to acknowledge their positions are just two ways of looking at the same
thing. If they agreed, there would be no need for two parties!

Fred

On Friday, December 6, 2013 3:44:48 PM UTC-5, bud-- wrote:
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's as much opinion as it's opinion that water is formed from
2 hydrogen, one oxygen atoms.




It is his opinion of how split-phase should be viewed. He contrasts it

with the view of "distribution engineers".



It's not his opinion of how it should be viewed. He clearly states
that two phases are present and that is how it has to be correctly
analyzed, modeled, etc. If there were not two phases present, it
would be really dumb to analyze it that way to come up with a
correct and meaningful answer. And it would be pretty dumb for the
IEEE, the most credible of sources, to publish a technical paper
as an opinion piece. This is something anyone who has taken
a first course in EE knows.

He's clearly saying that while it's been called single phase, there
are in fact two phases present on the secondary side.
He further says that distribution engineers have treated it as
single phase, BECAUSE IT's SINGLE PHASE ON THE PRIMARY SIDE OF
THE TRANSFORMER. He doesn't say that distribution engineers insist
that there is only one phase present at the service panel in the house.

You apparently can't understand the difference betwen engineers
casually referring to something from a limited perspective with an
accurate engineering analysis of a circuit. It;s like bitching
because a hortoculturist calls a peanut a legume and insisting that
because it's commonly called a peanut, that's all there is to it
and it's just the "opinion" of the misguided hortoculturist.






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".


It's not a viewpoint issue. You can't magically create a phase
that does not exist. And that is why you can't give your own basic
definition of the engineering term phase. Funny thing. Those of
us on the side of the IEEE paper can define it and define it
consistently.

In fact, with regard to magic, that is what is required to
make your world work. I'll get back to that later.







but in reality two phases

are present.



That is his opinion

Just as much as it's opinion that water is made of 2 atoms of
hydrogen, one water.



He wants to change how "distribution engineers" view split-phase.



He said no such thing. He said that for it to be correctly
analyzed in electrical engineering you have to recognize that
two phases are present. And he presented that paper at a room
full of power systems engineers, did they toss







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.

I was referring to the crap definition from a tranformer
catalog glossary. Is that what they used to define engineering
terms where you went to school?

Regarding your phasor obfuscation, who in their right mind
uses "phasors" to define phase? Phase is the beginning, the
origin, you need to define that before you ever get to phasors. But if
you want to draw a phasor diagram of the split-phase service,
repersenting the two hot legs and their phase relationship,
you have two at the panel, one for each leg, 180 deg apart.
At the primary side of the transformer, you have just one.




[Note: these are not the same phasors that are used as weapons in the

21st century.]



This from the guy who uses a glossary in a transformer catalog
to define phase in electrical engineering terms.





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.



Yes, just like Planters and everyone else views a peanut
as a nut. It's a commmon reference. It can be explained where
it came from, why it's commonly called that. But it doesn't
change the fact that when in scientific terms, it's really a
legume. Your argument boils down to exactly that. Because
it's commonly called single phase, that's all there can be,
just one phase.

On the other side, we can tell you why it's called single
phase. It's because it's single phase on the PRIMARY side
of the transformer. That is where the distribution system
engineers stop looking, stop caring, etc. That doesn't
change the fact that there are two phases present coming out
of the transformer. It's defined in electrical engineering.
You can see it on a scope.



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...



It's the only source you've cited with a definition.




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.



Phase is not a matter of opinion. And it's not this one
IEEE engineer at a power conference with an IEEE published paper.
I've given you references from electrical equipment manufacturers.
Not a glossary definition of phase from a catalog. Actual white
papers on split-phase complete with CIRCUIT DIAGRAMS. And they say
the same thing, that two phases, 180 deg different, are present.





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".



Still need any kind of teacher for bud to help him learn.
I post a detailed reference and he's incapable of realizing that
the second example they talk about, where they call it split-phase
and say there are two phases present, is the relevant one. Instead
bud covers that up and lies, pretending that the first single wire
example is all that is there.






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.



You're just losing all credibility now. Sure, the first single
wire circuit is labeled as having one phase, "Phase A". So what?
That is entirely consistent with everything I've said, what the IEEE
engineer says, the other references I've supplied, and those in
this thread that agree with me have said.

It's the SECOND circuit that shows split-phase and describes it.
It says there are TWO PHASES, Phase A and Phase B and that they
are 180 deg apart. Good grief. It could not be any clearer.
Yet you won't acknowledge it and instead just keep going back
to the single wire circuit, with one phase that is above. Split-phase
is NOT a single wire circuit.






Multiple references that use "phase A" as a label.


All your credibility is gone. They don't just use Phase A as a label.
They use both Phase A and Phase B. All these references talk
about two phases being present and that they are 180 deg apart.

Behlman:

http://www.behlman.com/applications/AC%20basics.pdf

"The two legs, represented by Phase A and Phase B are 180 deg apart."
They go on to say that since they are 180 deg apart, wiring them L-N
gives 120V, L-L gives 240V.

Samlexamerica:

http://www.samlexamerica.com/support...Circuit s.pdf

"Phase of hot leg 2 (phase B) is in the opposite direction, ie 180 deg
apart from hot leg 1 (phase A)."

It's as clear as can be to anyone that will look and learn.



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.

No distribution engineers made any statements in that paper.




I didn't see where anyone supported the opinion of the author.



Which of course is a lie. I've given you many references, two
I;ve posted, yet again, above. They all say two phases are
present.



And a definition not from a transformer catalog.



I'm curious. Do you have a degree in electrical engineering?
If you do, I'd be embarrassed if I had to go to an tranformer
glossary when asked to define phase.


And I'm still waiting for an answer to these simple excercises.
They are very easy to answer for anyone that understands
electrical engineering:

#1

Those on the other side of this agree that two phase existed
100 years ago. They have no problem with it being called two
phase, that was two phase according to them.
So, that system had two phases, let's call them A and B
and a neutral. Phase B was 90 deg off from phase A. Everyone OK
so far? Let's make the voltage from either phase to neutral 120V.

Now, instead of having phase B be off by 90 degrees, let's make it
off by 120 deg. How many phases are there now? I say two. Let's
change it again, so phase B is off by 220 degrees. How many phases
do we have now? I say two. Let's change it to being off by 170 deg,
how many phases do we have now? I say two. And now, let's change
it to be off by 180 deg. How many phases do we have now? I say
two. And if it you agree that it is indeed still two, then it
is in fact absolutely electrically identical to split-phase 240/120V service,
so you have two phases there too.



#2

We have 3 phase power coming from a power plant. Everyone
agrees that is three phases. So, you have Phase A, B, C and
a neutral. Phases A,B, C differ by 120 deg. Let's make the
phase to neutral voltage 120V. Now lets eliminate phase C.
We have Phase A, Phase B and a neutral. How many phases now?
My answer: two. Let's run that into a house panel. So, we
have two phases. Instead of 120 deg apart, make them 170 deg
apart, or 250 deg apart. How many phases now? My answer: two.
Now make them 180 deg apart. How many phases now? If your
answer is two, which is should be, then what you have is
indistinguishable from split-phase 120/240v service. There is
no electrical difference, no test you could perform at the
panel, no difference in voltages, current flow, nada.

And if your answer is just one phase, then explain the magic
that just happened.

Note that the above treatment of phase is 100% consistent, from a
piece of paper, to circuit analysis, to the 3 phases
at the generating plant, the two phase system of old, the split-phase
of today. The alternate view is apparently that something magical
happens at 180 deg phase difference or else because distribution
engineers commonly call something single phase, that no further
analysis that shows electrically what is going on is required or
even allowed.

On Friday, December 6, 2013 5:22:39 PM UTC-5, Fred McKenzie wrote:
In article ,

Emma Genius wrote:



Here's what my genius mind came up with.



First I obtained a standard D-cell battery pack that holds 2 batteries in

series.



Next I installed a center tap between the two batteries in the battery pack.



So now I have a series battery pack with three terminals:



L1 is the (-) negative terminal on battery A

N is the center or neutral tap between battery A and B

L2 is the (+) positive terminal on battery B



So to prove I have 2-phase DC, I connected a dual-trace oscilloscope as

follows:



The reference leads from both probes were connected to the center neutral

tap.

Probe A was connected to L1

Probe B was connected to L2



As I expected, the scope showed a 1.5 volt positive phase trace and a 1.5

volt negative phase trace.



Clearly I have 3 volt 2 phase DC.



The only thing left to do is submit my paper to IEEE.



This discussion seems to keep going on, continued from prior identical

threads on other newsgroups. Each person is repeating the same thing

over and over. It is clear that I'm not the only one with too much time

on their hands!



Yes, everyone (should) agree with the basic idea of phase.

Yes, they should, but only a few have even tried to define it.


Yes, the

grids of push-pull tubes are 180 degrees apart in phase, as are the

plates. Yes, the two leads of a simple transformer secondary are 180

degrees apart in phase, regardless of whether there is a center tap or

not.



Not true. If a transformer has only two leads, they are *not* 180 degrees out of phase because there is just a single circuit. You can't see two waveforms
on a scope, because there aren't two.

Going back to what started all this, someone just said that the
two hot legs of a split-phase service are 180 deg apart. krw said
that was flat out wrong, that they are just "opposites" Aside from
the fact that "opposites" is not exactly an engineering term, what
about your push-pull example? Is it not correct to say the output
is 180 degrees apart from the input?




The argument seems to hinge on whether the power grid uses the same

definition of phase. Of course it does. But then you confuse "split

phase" of a 3-phase power system with the obvious fact that a

center-tapped transformer secondary has each side 180 degrees apart from

the other. Big deal.

It's not a big deal. It's just that you then have a 3 wire circuit
with two phases present that are 180 deg apart. You can see it on a
scope.


You are still referring to the one phase of a 3

phase power distribution system, that is split into two voltages by

center-tapping a local distribution transformer.



Who is the you? And just because it's common to refer to something
as one thing, does that make it so? If everyone calls a peanut a
nut, does it make it one? My guess would be that those stuck on
the other side of this call it single phase because the PRIMARY
of the transformer is on a single phase. That doesn't change the
physics of what is on the secondary side. Also, in your experience,
can you cite an example where you split something and still have
just one thing? It is called "split-phase".



I think this discussion is comparable to two political parties refusing

to acknowledge their positions are just two ways of looking at the same

thing. If they agreed, there would be no need for two parties!



Fred

If you believe the last nonsense, I can see why you're totally confused.

On 12/10/2013 12:30 PM, wrote:
My guess would be that those stuck on
the other side of this call it single phase because the PRIMARY
of the transformer is on a single phase. That doesn't change the
physics of what is on the secondary side.

If the secondary winding had 9 equally spaced taps, how many phases would you have then?

On Tuesday, December 10, 2013 8:13:33 PM UTC-5, Elan wrote:
On 12/10/2013 12:30 PM, wrote:

My guess would be that those stuck on

the other side of this call it single phase because the PRIMARY

of the transformer is on a single phase. That doesn't change the

physics of what is on the secondary side.



If the secondary winding had 9 equally spaced taps, how many phases would you have then?

You would still have two phases.

On 12/10/2013 9:48 AM, wrote:
On Friday, December 6, 2013 3:44:48 PM UTC-5, bud-- wrote:
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's as much opinion as it's opinion that water is formed from
2 hydrogen, one oxygen atoms.

I haven't seen anyone recently write an engineering paper about what
water was made from.

The IEEE paper is the authors opinion.
It is not the same as the view of "distribution engineers".


You apparently can't understand the difference betwen engineers
casually referring to something from a limited perspective with an
accurate engineering analysis of a circuit.

Would that be like your source that shows a single-phase 2-wire circuit
with the hot wire labeled "Phase A"? And then a split-phase circuit with
"Phase A" and "Phase B"?

You have to label them something.


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".


It's not a viewpoint issue. You can't magically create a phase
that does not exist.

I agree.

The primary is single-phase. So is the secondary.

And that is why you can't give your own basic
definition of the engineering term phase.

I did give a definition. At least 4 posts ago.
It uses phasor math. It seems to have disappeared.


He wants to change how "distribution engineers" view split-phase.

He said no such thing. He said that for it to be correctly
analyzed in electrical engineering you have to recognize that
two phases are present.

Did anyone agree with him.

And what is the point of what he said. I have no idea because I have not
read the paper that was abstracted. Perhaps you have.


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.

I was referring to the crap definition from a tranformer
catalog glossary. Is that what they used to define engineering
terms where you went to school?

My definition used phasors. (It seems to have disappeared).


Regarding your phasor obfuscation, who in their right mind
uses "phasors" to define phase?

Phasors (or the math behind them) are used to analyze multi-phase circuits.

But if
you want to draw a phasor diagram of the split-phase service,
repersenting the two hot legs and their phase relationship,
you have two at the panel, one for each leg, 180 deg apart.

Both on the "real" axis which is trivial and does not require phasor math.


[Note: these are not the same phasors that are used as weapons in the
21st century.]

This from the guy who uses a glossary in a transformer catalog
to define phase in electrical engineering terms.

I thought Danny might be reading.


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.

On the other side, we can tell you why it's called single
phase. It's because it's single phase on the PRIMARY side
of the transformer. That is where the distribution system
engineers stop looking, stop caring, etc.

Distribution engineers are not concerned about power delivery up to the
customer?
News to me.


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

Still need any kind of teacher for bud to help him learn.
I post a detailed reference and he's incapable of realizing that
the second example they talk about, where they call it split-phase
and say there are two phases present, is the relevant one. Instead
bud covers that up and lies, pretending that the first single wire
example is all that is there.

The 2-wire example shows "Phase A" is used as a label.


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.

You're just losing all credibility now. Sure, the first single
wire circuit is labeled as having one phase, "Phase A". So what?
That is entirely consistent with everything I've said, what the IEEE
engineer says, the other references I've supplied, and those in
this thread that agree with me have said.

They said there was a "Phase A" with only 2 wires?


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.

No distribution engineers made any statements in that paper.

So I can not conclude they have been convinced by the paper.



And a definition not from a transformer catalog.

I'm curious. Do you have a degree in electrical engineering?
If you do, I'd be embarrassed if I had to go to an tranformer
glossary when asked to define phase.

I said (still quoted above) my definition was not from a transformer
manufacturer.

I defined "phase" by use of the tool that is used to analyze multiple
phases - phasors. (My definition seems to have disappeared).

In article om,
bud-- wrote:

Would that be like your source that shows a single-phase 2-wire circuit
with the hot wire labeled "Phase A"? And then a split-phase circuit with
"Phase A" and "Phase B"?

You have to label them something.

What you label them may depend on context. An electrician might label
three wires L1, L2 and N.

Fred