240v debate....

[jumper]

*sneaking in AGAIN*

Wow at this thread!

*sneaking out AGAIN*

I can't believe it's still going. Mike Holt is going to have to add extra storage, before all is said and done. LOL!!!

Darn it ma'am, get back here and join in. :happyyes:

PS. I told you it was just starting 200 posts ago.

 

[__dan]

Congratulations. You got all that exactly backwards. :slaphead:

:slaphead:

:slaphead:

:slaphead:

Truly, you have dissed SANTA CLAUS

 

[Rick Christopherson]

I understand that it is a different setup. And that, oddly enough, is a point that I would like to use later. But I just wanted to be sure we agreed on the "other setup" first.

I am OK with discussing it later. Are we in agreement to let this sit for now so we don't further confuse this current discussion?

I was thinking so as well until you said: "Your example is taking two sources that are physically out of phase and reconnecting them to be in-phase." I do not understand why you said that if we are in agreement on the two phase-opposed sources. Nothing had to be re-connected.

As I prefaced at the time, I was pressed for time. If I misspoke, we can also re-address that too.

 

[Rick Christopherson]

Congratulations. You got all that exactly backwards. :slaphead:

And fear of doing the same thing is exactly why I didn't leap off the same cliff. :lol::lol: (I can never remember which direction those darned arrows are supposed to point.) Nevertheless, backward or forward, his overall assessment was correct in principle.

 

[Besoeker]

and therefore, the voltage from A to B is zero volts.

Bet you wouldn't willingly stick your fingers across the "zero" volts from A to B.

 

[mivey]

I am OK with discussing it later. Are we in agreement to let this sit for now so we don't further confuse this current discussion?

OK

As I prefaced at the time, I was pressed for time. If I misspoke, we can also re-address that too.

Fair enough. I'll move forward under the premise that we are in agreement about the two phase-opposed sources.

 

[Rick Christopherson]

Bet you wouldn't willingly stick your fingers across the "zero" volts from A to B.

Not if you wired it, I wouldn't.

But if you actually wired it the way you drew it, yeah, I would.

The problem is, I don't think you realize what you drew, or you wouldn't have re-posted it at least three times, especially after I called out the significant error in it a few pages back.

 

[Besoeker]

The problem is, I don't think you realize what you drew, or you wouldn't have re-posted it at least three times, especially after I called out the significant error in it a few pages back.

No error, sunshine.
Problem is that you won't accept that simple point.

 

[Besoeker]

So, it appears I cannot choose to say Van+Vnb=Vab, instead I must say Van-Vbn = Vab

And I am stating that Van and Vbn are mutually displaced by 180deg.
Do you dispute that?

 

[Besoeker]

Just because the two SCR's are forward biased at 180? apart is not because the source is 180? out of phase but because they are in-phase.

Forward biased 180deg apart from sources that are in phase?????
Obviously the circuit I Posted in #431 can't possibly work or produce this voltage:

Yet somehow, magically, it does.
The pic that follows, post #432, is obviously fake. Two ends of a centre-taped winding to two anodes and a common cathode. The two SCRs fired 180deg apart to deal with a phase displacement that doesn't exist....
What a bummer. All these years and I have been making kit that could have been so much simpler.
Sir, I am deeply indebted to you.....
Do you want half the Royalties from your new invention?

 

[Rick Christopherson]

No error, sunshine.
Problem is that you won't accept that simple point.

Apply KVL to what you drew....not what you meant, but what you drew. You labeled your nodes. Apply KVL to your nodes. If you don't know what it means to label your nodes, then don't come back with a smart alec answer until you look it up.

 

[Besoeker]

But if you actually wired it the way you drew it, yeah, I would.

Fine. Submit YOUR drawing of how it should be drawn.
Clues:

1. No batteries.
2. No diode(s) in the primary. That would be daft.

Go for it.

 

[Besoeker]

Apply KVL to what you drew....not what you meant, but what you drew. You labeled your nodes. Apply KVL to your nodes. If you don't know what it means to label your nodes, then don't come back with a smart alec answer until you look it up.

See #452.
Put up or.......

 

[Rick Christopherson]

See #452.
Put up or.......

If you don't know what it means to label your nodes, then don't come back with a smart alec answer until you look it up.

Do you or do you not know what a node is?

 

[Besoeker]

Do you or do you not know what a node is?

Present YOUR version of the circuit as you think it should be drawn.

 

[jumper]

Gentlemen, math only. I may be a low level grunt, but I want numbers-not words.

Yes, you may tell me to take a hike.

 

[Rick Christopherson]

Present YOUR version of the circuit as you think it should be drawn.

I was chastised for asking whether you were an engineer by degree or by job title, but I am going to lightly step back into that question. I noticed that you very carefully danced around that question just as you are doing with this current question. My B.S. meter is fully pegged on both, but I am not going to ask what I should not ask. But I will point out that a degreed engineer would have known what a node was, and would have seen why a nodal diagram was in error without dancing around the topic.

 

[hurk27]

Congratulations. You got all that exactly backwards. :slaphead:

H'mm ok I know my mind plays tricks on me, but with the cathode of each SCR connected to A and B respectively a positive voltage on the cathode at 90? and 270? respectively will produce conduction across the SCR if the gate is fired TDC?

with diodes replacing the SCR's the same thing minus the gate trigger or gate trigger off in the case of GTO's?

I found this: http://www.allaboutcircuits.com/vol_3/chpt_3/4.html
that seems to say the same thing but doesn't show a time line to reference the ripple with to show when A is positive, but does show polarity cycle as a reference

 

[Besoeker]

I was chastised for asking whether you were an engineer by degree or by job title, but I am going to lightly step back into that question. I noticed that you very carefully danced around that question just as you are doing with this current question. My B.S. meter is fully pegged on both, but I am not going to ask what I should not ask. But I will point out that a degreed engineer would have known what a node was, and would have seen why a nodal diagram was in error without dancing around the topic.

In post #433, you claimed
"that your circuit, as drawn, is wrong."
Please post what YOU think is a correct version.
Without dancing around the topic.

 

[Besoeker]

H'mm ok I know my mind plays tricks on me, but with the cathode of each SCR connected to A and B respectively

Actually, that's the anode. As drawn, the cathodes are connected to each other and form the positive leg of the load.
Of course, a certain member claims that my drawing is wrong so, I extend you the same invitation. Draw it as how you think it should be.