240v debate....

[mivey]

Just because you see them as two pictures on your scope does not make them two waveforms. Using that rationale, a single piece of copper wire would have an infinite number of waveforms as you moved your second probe farther down the length of the wire and recorded an increasing voltage drop.

So all of the possible outputs from a variac are the same to you?

 

[Rick Christopherson]

A voltage is defined between two points/nodes. Use a different pairing of nodes and you have a different voltage, even if the second voltage is equivalent in value to the first voltage. Basic physics, fundamental electrical theory.

You're confusing waveform with voltage.

 

[mivey]

You're confusing waveform with voltage.

Don't think so. I'm pretty sure I know the difference.

 

[Rick Christopherson]

Don't think so. I'm pretty sure I know the difference.

So according to you, there should be an infinite number of waveforms in a single conductor because the voltage is infinitely variable with the length of the copper? That doesn't jibe with what you said earlier.

 

[david luchini]

If you can't win a debate, just change the rules.

Yes. Yes I do, and that is the topic we have been trying to cover for a few days now. It is not a phase shift, and examining a non-symmetrical waveform will reveal this. It is nothing more than a magnitude reversal.

First off David, 180? is a phase shift.

LOL, that's funny :lol:

Well, that is exactly what I have been saying. The mathematics are either true or they are not. If your model does not handle the non-symmetrical waveform that I suggested, then it is not a true model. It's a "simplified" model (to use your words) that works 90% of the time, but some members in this thread are putting that model forth as an absolute.

The problem is your non-symmetrical waveform analysis in Post #88 is incorrect. You show Van on the top and Vbn on the bottom, and you also show Vab on the top right with no "phase shift" and Vab on the bottom right with "180? phase shift."

The problem of course is that your graphing of Van and Vbn ALREADY have the "180? phase shift" between them. You are adding an additional "phase shift" to make your case. The result in the upper right, your "0? result" is the correct result for a "180? phase shift" between Van and Vbn. In the result in the lower right, you are providing an additional "time delay" to move Vbn out the same half cycle of your primary rectified transformer. The results in this graph are meaningless.

Instead enact your experiment like this. Assume both Van and Vbn = 120sin(ῳt), and graph them for one full cycle. You will see that the Van and Vbn waves are on top of each other. Now, "phase shift" Vbn 180? such that Vbn = 120sin(ῳt-180) and graph them for one full cycle. You will see that Van and Vbn are "mirrored" along the base line. Now rectify your primary as shown, removing the second half of the cycle from both Van and Vbn. What results do you get? You get the same result as in the upper right of your analysis.

 

[Little Bill]

If this keeps up, the Presidential debate tonight ain't gotta a chance!:lol:

 

[weressl]

Just because you see them as two pictures on your scope does not make them two waveforms. Using that rationale, a single piece of copper wire would have an infinite number of waveforms as you moved your second probe farther down the length of the wire and recorded an increasing voltage drop.

You're kidding, right?

Even the Court Jester knows when he carried the joke too far, but then again Court Jesters were highly inteligent.

When everybody is saying I am wrong, I usually take a breather and re-asess my stand or the way I am presenting things, because either I am wrong or am unable to communicate.

http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q...5CBBFAFCEBF7390520AE5C&view=detail&FORM=VIRE6

 

[iwire]

When everybody is saying I am wrong, I usually take a breather and re-asess my stand or the way I am presenting things, because either I am wrong or am unable to communicate.

Wow, I had typed almost the same thing yesterday but deleted it thinking I was off base. You and I are thinking alike, I am not sure what that says but I am a bit disturbed by it.

 

[jumper]

You're kidding, right?

Even the Court Jester knows when he carried the joke too far, but then again Court Jesters were highly inteligent.

When everybody is saying I am wrong, I usually take a breather and re-asess my stand or the way I am presenting things, because either I am wrong or am unable to communicate.

http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q...5CBBFAFCEBF7390520AE5C&view=detail&FORM=VIRE6

:thumbsup:

 

[jumper]

Wow, I had typed almost the same thing yesterday but deleted it thinking I was off base. You and I are thinking alike, I am not sure what that says but I am a bit disturbed by it.

You two agreeing.hmy: The end is near. Run for the hills folks.

 

[Rick Christopherson]

You're kidding, right?

Even the Court Jester knows when he carried the joke too far, but then again Court Jesters were highly inteligent.

I think this speaks very poorly for the bias of the moderation on this forum when a comment like this goes unchecked (and even affirmed by the moderator), but if I had made a comment similar, I would be publicly chastised for it.

When everybody is saying I am wrong, I usually take a breather and re-asess my stand or the way I am presenting things, because either I am wrong or am unable to communicate.

I am not the only one with the same viewpoint. I am just the only one with enough confidence to stand up to the old boys club on this forum.

So if I am so wrong, then why has every one of you continued to dance around the topic of how non-symmetry causes your alleged perfect model to fail? Not a single person has addressed it. They simply keep trying to redirect off to another topic or explanation. Why?

 

[weressl]

Wow, I had typed almost the same thing yesterday but deleted it thinking I was off base. You and I are thinking alike, I am not sure what that says but I am a bit disturbed by it.

You're maturing Sonny:lol:

 

[david luchini]

So if I am so wrong, then why has every one of you continued to dance around the topic of how non-symmetry causes your alleged perfect model to fail? Not a single person has addressed it. They simply keep trying to redirect off to another topic or explanation. Why?

Nice try. See for example, post #165:

The problem is your non-symmetrical waveform analysis in Post #88 is incorrect.

Or post #122:

Then you ask why we won't address how a non-symmetrical waveform doesn't fit into a model with a "phase shift" that you have created.

Under the model that I have suggested, using KVL, the graph in the Upper Right is the expected result of Vab=Va-Vb. It works perfectly. I do not see why you think it doesn't.

Your non-symmetry model has been refuted, but you have danced around providing any response to the refutation.

As for this statement:

I think this speaks very poorly for the bias of the moderation on this forum when a comment like this goes unchecked (and even affirmed by the moderator), but if I had made a comment similar, I would be publicly chastised for it.

I would juxtapose this statement,

Even the Court Jester knows when he carried the joke too far, but then again Court Jesters were highly inteligent.

with this one.

Besoeker, my apologies for assuming that this was something patently obvious to anyone with an engineering degree. However, if you spend a little time giving this some critical thought, I am sure that you will see the distinction between how a system is perceived versus how it is defined, and it cannot be defined with this artificial time delay.

 

[iwire]

You're maturing Sonny:lol:

:lol:

 

[Rick Christopherson]

Nice try. See for example, post #165:

David, if it wasn't already obvious, I have stopped responding to you, because your reading comprehension in this discussion is insufficient to fully grasp what is being discussed. This is most evident if you go back and look at the out of context quotes you keep duplicating. As for your post #165, it doesn't address what I am discussing.

 

[weressl]

David, if it wasn't already obvious, I have stopped responding to you, because your reading comprehension in this discussion is insufficient to fully grasp what is being discussed. This is most evident if you go back and look at the out of context quotes you keep duplicating. As for your post #165, it doesn't address what I am discussing.

Again, I am warning you, condescension is MY DOMAIN and I will SEW you for plagarism, or whatever......:lol:

 

[Rick Christopherson]

Again, I am warning you, condescension is MY DOMAIN and I will SEW you for plagarism, or whatever......:lol:

Keeping my condescension in check is why I blow off many of the postings that warrant it.

If condescension is what you like, then I sure hope you capitalized "SEW" for a reason, because my mom taught me how to be quite the handy seamstress. :lol: As for plagiarism, I don't think that would be much of an issue.....Trademark infringement, would be another story, but mine was registered long before yours.

 

[david luchini]

David, if it wasn't already obvious, I have stopped responding to you, because your reading comprehension in this discussion is insufficient to fully grasp what is being discussed. This is most evident if you go back and look at the out of context quotes you keep duplicating. As for your post #165, it doesn't address what I am discussing.

And you had a problem with weressl's statement in post #167. Talk about hypocrisy.

My post #165 directly addresses your "non-symmetrical" waveform experiment in post #88 that you claim everyone is dancing around, and finds it to be quite lacking. Since you apparently are the one with the reading comprehension problem, and insufficient capacity to grasp what is being discussed, let me put it in simple terms.

In post #88 you show non-symmetrical wave forms for Van and Vbn from your primary rectified single phase transformer. The diode on the primary creates a nearly halve cycle wave form for both Van and Vbn. Are you with me so far? I'm trying to go slow to make it easy to understand.

If we assign a starting point at time zero, then the half cycle time is 8.3ms. In your example, you show a wave for both Van and Vbn measured at the starting point of zero seconds, as well you should, and ending at the 1/2 cycle point, and each has a small artifact on the end from the collapsing magnetic field. This is to be expected from your rectified primary.

Now come the rub. To demonstrate why the rest of us are wrong, you take Vbn and magically move it 8.3ms into the future. STOP THE PRESSES!!!! TIME TRAVEL!!!! Somebody alert the American Physical Society.Van and Vbn were both measured at the first half cycle. The resulting Vab should be calculated by Van-Vbn within the same half cycle. Because of your primary rectifier, there is NO wave in the second half cycle (except for your small artifact.) You can't arbitrarily move Vbn. This is basic electrical engineering which the rest of us understand.

If I understand your view, you believe there is an actual "phase shift" in a 3 phase system, but not in the single phase system. Try using your half-wave rectified transformer on a 120/208 secondary, 3-phase transformer, with a diode on the "input" to each winding. I think if you plot the voltage of Van and Vbn, and then Vab, you will find that you are not getting 208V from A-B.

If you want to keep up your condescension and "I'm right while everyone else is wrong" attitude, go right ahead. But you're really making yourself look stupid.

 

[Rick Christopherson]

Now come the rub. To demonstrate why the rest of us are wrong, you take Vbn and magically move it 8.3ms into the future. STOP THE PRESSES!!!! TIME TRAVEL!!!! Somebody alert the American Physical Society.Van and Vbn were both measured at the first half cycle. The resulting Vab should be calculated by Van-Vbn within the same half cycle. Because of your primary rectifier, there is NO wave in the second half cycle (except for your small artifact.) You can't arbitrarily move Vbn. This is basic electrical engineering which the rest of us understand.

Ding! Ding! Ding! David gets the cupie doll.

The resultant waveform can't arbitrarily be moved by 180? because this represents a shift in time. You can get away with hiding this shift in time due to symmetry, but when you break symmetry, the false shift in time becomes plainly obvious to violate all that we know.

 

[david luchini]

Ding! Ding! Ding! David gets the cupie doll.

The resultant waveform can't arbitrarily be moved by 180? because this represents a shift in time. You can get away with hiding this shift in time due to symmetry, but when you break symmetry, the false shift in time becomes plainly obvious to violate all that we know.

Wow. All that for some phantom time shift that only you argued was occurring. What a let down.