current returning to a different source

[crossman]

I'm getting the impression you are thinking of an e-field more from the electromagnetic point of view.

To be blunt, I have a good understanding of the difference between an electromagnetic field and an electrostatic field. For you to make that comment about my thinkking and latest thoughts leads me to believe that the shortcoming is on your end. Nowhere did I confuse the realities of electrostatic versus electromagnetic fields.

After so much has been written, I'm beginning to ask myself, what exactly are we trying to explain/answer? So I put forth that very question to you.

It was speculated that current can flow from one terminal of a voltage source (such as a xfmr secondary) through a single wire to a conductive body and back to the same terminal of the source, and that this current flow can exist without any "return" wire, completed circuit, or capacitance.

 

[zog]

This is probably going to raise a few hackles, but any time you have a difference in voltage, you will have current flowing. It does not matter if there is a completed circuit or not. The monkey wrench in this statement is that in order to have a difference in voltage, there will generally need to be a common reference point, and in most cases, this will end up being a return current path.

I once got into this discussion a long time ago on a different forum, but the participants were the same as this forum. Frankly, it is too complex of a discussion to get into, and I don't want to try to defend it again. I just put this out there as "food for thought". It is possible, but I don't want to get into the drawn out discussion of defending it.

I registered for the forum because I wanted to ask a question, but this topic caught my eye. Sorry.

Rick, I went back to see how this all got started and saw your 1st post. ROTFLMAO! Glad you didnt get into the discussion! HA!

 

[crossman]

I don't understand about "not wanting to be in the discussion", about "regretting getting into it", all that. Are y'all kidding me? This stuff is great. I'll bet there isn't a person in this thread that hasn't gained something, some tidbit of understanding they didn't have before. And that is even if we still disagree. Hey, it is okay to disagree. You guys are great in my book. Thanks for being here.

 

[qcroanoke]

After so much has been written, I'm beginning to ask myself, what exactly are we trying to explain/answer? So I put forth that very question to you.

Not to be sarcastic but this was the original post:
What happens when current originating from from one source (transformer) returns on a nuetral to a different source (different transformer)?

Say I have a 120V single phase transformer 1 which is sending current out via the hot leg of transformer 1 to a device, however the the nuetral coming off of the device does not return to the nuetral of transformer 1, but rather the nuetral of a different transformer I'll call transformer 2. Will the load or device still see the correct current and voltage it needs or will no current circulate because there is no path back to its origonal source?

 

[jghrist]

Not to be sarcastic but this was the original post:
What happens when current originating from from one source (transformer) returns on a nuetral to a different source (different transformer)?

Say I have a 120V single phase transformer 1 which is sending current out via the hot leg of transformer 1 to a device, however the the nuetral coming off of the device does not return to the nuetral of transformer 1, but rather the nuetral of a different transformer I'll call transformer 2. Will the load or device still see the correct current and voltage it needs or will no current circulate because there is no path back to its origonal source?

I think the OP was answered satisfactorily. If the neutral from the device that goes to the second transformer is bonded to a grounding electrode which is also bonded to the first transformer neutral, then this will make the circuit complete. Current will flow from transformer 1, through the device, to transformer 2 neutral, to the grounding electrode, to the transformer 1 neutral.

Subsequent posts show that there is another path. Through the helicopter, ionizing the air to an EHV conductor, then capacitively to the tower, into the continuous counterpoise of the EHV line, back to the grounding electrode.:grin:

 

[Smart $]

Smart,

You must have written your own Physics text because you refer to your interpretation rather than to facts.

And what if have written my own physics text? I haven't, but I'm just asking to make a point.

On the same token, you refer to texts which are considered by many as authoritative. That's fine as long as it is kept in that context. Authoritative is not synonymous with factual and corroborating interpretations doesn't make anything a fact! It just means more than one person is of the same opinion. And texts regardless of how factual they are, are nothing more than published one-sided discussions. If you choose to put absolute faith in any text, that's your prerogative... but please refrain yourself from encroaching on mine!

Simple truth is man is by his very nature fallible. I have yet to meet or hear of one* that isn't... and that includes myself. Where do you feel you fit into this picture. I know what you have stated many times.

There are "closed circuits" and "open circuits". Your nit-picking of my quote is simply your method of side-stepping the obvious.

Yes there are "open circuits", but 1) this term is also an oxymoron, 2) we use this term to describe a circuit which is broken, does not function as a circuit, and by any other phraseology is an incomplete circuit, and 3) you are referring to a text that openly demonstrates inconsistencies as such while asserting them to be beyond question.

There can be no field between two shorted plates.

Well that's not entirely true, but I'll concur in the sense the components shown cannot be the source of an electrostatic field (ESF) between the plates. A source other than the components shown can be a source for an ESF between the plates. Regardless, that's not what I asked. After Crossman's response I can see I was not explicit enough. Elaborating on that, the components are to be immersed entirely within an ESF. The question remains, will current flow on the conductor?

"Case closed" means I have proven my point with one simple quote and do not wish to argue about your home grown interpretations.

Hmm... IMSO, proving one's point requires acknowledgement by someone other than the person attempting to make the point. If it'll make you stop being antagonistic beyond the scope of this discussion, I'll acknowledge that you have made your point :grin:

* reserving the right to make an exception if contested on a spiritual level.

 

[rattus]

Case closed!

Case closed!

The case is closed because I have given a solid reference which refutes your argument. You and Rick have ignored that reference and tried to disprove a solid principle of engineering. The reference in itself disproves your position. There is no need for corroboration. That is what it is all about.

 

[Smart $]

To be blunt, I have a good understanding of the difference between an electromagnetic field and an electrostatic field. For you to make that comment about my thinkking and latest thoughts leads me to believe that the shortcoming is on your end. Nowhere did I confuse the realities of electrostatic versus electromagnetic fields.

Well quite frankly, thank you for being blunt!

Perhaps there is a shortcoming on my end. I do not profess to be all knowing, and there are even times where I act before thinking it through entirely. This shorted two plate immersed in an ESF scenario seems to be one of them. I keep forgetting that no matter what situation I present, you and others of the same persuasion will continue to do whatever is necessary to turn the situation into a "circuit" based response.

I have further thought out the scenario I presented and the truth of the matter is we are both right about which direction the current flows, inside versus outside conductors. I will not elaborate because of what I stated in the previous paragraph... which is to say elaborating on such will not change the overall outcome.

It was speculated that current can flow from one terminal of a voltage source (such as a xfmr secondary) through a single wire to a conductive body and back to the same terminal of the source, and that this current flow can exist without any "return" wire, completed circuit, or capacitance.

IIRC the highlighted requirements were not stated initially. They were only stated after several have attempted to disprove the possibility based on the "circuit" premise. Electrostatics are one plausible explanation... but it is a premise which must be considered completely separate from the "circuit" premise because electrostatics do not look at charge flow in terms of a circuit, but rather, and more simply as charges and discharges.

 

[mivey]

I don't understand about "not wanting to be in the discussion", about "regretting getting into it", all that. Are y'all kidding me? This stuff is great. I'll bet there isn't a person in this thread that hasn't gained something, some tidbit of understanding they didn't have before. And that is even if we still disagree. Hey, it is okay to disagree. You guys are great in my book. Thanks for being here.

I agree. I am enjoying this also. Thanks for the inputs.

 

[rexsx]

got to try it

got to try it

i have about 2500 ' of # 14, may i give this a try and record it, its your ideal, never thought that may work


you mind?

 

[Smart $]

The case is closed...

From your point of view only.

..because I have given a solid reference which refutes your argument. You and Rick have ignored that reference and tried to disprove a solid principle of engineering. The reference in itself disproves your position. There is no need for corroboration. That is what it is all about.

Actually your reference simply supports your position. It cannot dispute my argument, for it is based on an entirely different premise. Both Rick and I have maintained all along that the "current-circuit" premise is not the only premise. We are not trying to disprove your premise... we are only asking that you recognize another.

In the field of physics, are electrostatic forces and electric current considered the same phenomenon, or two different phenomena? The latter would justify a basis for an alternate premise.

[edited minor grammar and spelling errors]

 

[Rick Christopherson]

Rick, I went back to see how this all got started and saw your 1st post. ROTFLMAO! Glad you didnt get into the discussion! HA!

Yeah, the irony of it all is rather ironic, wouldn't you say?

I don't understand about "not wanting to be in the discussion", about "regretting getting into it", all that. Are y'all kidding me? This stuff is great. I'll bet there isn't a person in this thread that hasn't gained something, ....

You mean like high blood pressure? :grin:

I keep forgetting that no matter what situation I present, you and others of the same persuasion will continue to do whatever is necessary to turn the situation into a "circuit" based response.

This made me laugh. Someone in this discussion asked me privately why I got frustrated earlier, and this is the very same answer I gave.:grin:

 

[cschmid]

just for the record whether you guys are upset with one another is minor..I have enjoyed the education I have recieved from all of you..thank you

 

[Rick Christopherson]

Rick, I went back to see how this all got started and saw your 1st post. ROTFLMAO! Glad you didnt get into the discussion! HA!

Oh, I almost forgot, but when is the last time a newbie with his very first posting ended up with a 40-page, nearly 400 post discussion? That has got to be some kind of record, isn't it?:smile: :smile: :smile:

Holy Cow. I just noticed that this thread has now surpassed the "Is it Single or Two Phase" thread by a whopping 70 replies! This is now the longest thread on the engineering forum, and it all started with my very first posting.

And my mom said I'd never amount to anything. :grin: :grin: :grin:

 

[mivey]

So Rick, are you buying rounds for everybody?:grin:

 

[rattus]

From your point of view only.


Actually your reference simply supports your position. It cannot dispute my argument, for it is based on an entirely different premise. Both Rick and I have maintained all along that the "current-circuit" premise is not the only premise. We are not trying to disprove your premise... we are only asking that you recognize another.

In the field of physics, are electrostatic forces and electric current considered the same phenomenon, or two different phenomena? The latter would justify a basis for an alternate premise.

[edited minor grammar and spelling errors]

Smart, the point is that you have not proven your "other" premise. You have merely made some arbitrary statements about fields and charge distribution. You have not supported your case with a valid reference, and you pooh-pooh one that is rock solid. All you have to do is perform a circuit analysis to see that it is capacitive current that flows through the arc. You kept denying that obvious fact.

Your horse is dead! Quit beating it!

 

[Smart $]

Smart, the point is that you have not proven your "other" premise. You have merely made some arbitrary statements about fields and charge distribution. You have not supported your case with a valid reference, and you pooh-pooh one that is rock solid. All you have to do is perform a circuit analysis to see that it is capacitive current that flows through the arc. You kept denying that obvious fact.

Your horse is dead! Quit beating it!

Again, all your point of view.

There is a major flaw in your argumentation... and I'm speaking in the general sense here, disregarding the issue under "debate" and regarding the debate itself. You seem to believe that I'm arguing your point. I am not. I am not denying what you claim to have pointed out. What I'm trying to point out is outside that, but the issues are so closely related, its hard to make a solid distinction.

Let me put it to you in the form of an anology: You have two incandescent lamps on a circuit. Circuit analysis will reveal that one lamp is not working. But you didn't really need to do a circuit analysis to prove it, because the faulty lamp is not providing any light. Furthermore, circuit analysis does not explain why light is emanating from the lamp that is working.

When the analogy is likened to the arcing between the power line and the helicopter. Circuit analysis will prove there was current in the helicopter itself prior to any arcing and would likely prove current existed in the power line, also prior to arcing. Circuit analysis will prove there is current in the arc when it does occur. However, circuit analysis does not explain why and how the arc occurs!

Electrostatics is the [sub-] phenomena of electricity by which the arc occurs. If you are in doubt, look it up on Wikipedia... and if you do not feel Wiki' is an authoratative reference, refer to the list of references on its pages for additional information... because I am not going to assume the role of teacher.

 

[rattus]

Do you suppose the SPCA would step in here? Smart is still beating his deceased equine.

 

[mivey]

Do you suppose the SPCA would step in here? Smart is still beating his deceased equine.

neigh neigh

 

[Smart $]

Do you suppose the SPCA would step in here? Smart is still beating his deceased equine.

INVESTIGATOR: Do we have any witnesses?

View attachment 1286