Yes, as a mater of fact it is all your fault.
Glad I could help :ashamed1:
240v debate....
- Thread starter stickboy1375
- Start date
- Status
Glad I could help :ashamed1:
- Location
- Wisconsin
- Occupation
- PE (Retired) - Power Systems
I believe I asked this question a year or so ago. IIRC, his(?) answer was it didn't make a difference.
- Location
- Simi Valley, CA
:thumbsup:
- Location
- San Francisco Bay Area, CA, USA
- Occupation
- Electrical Engineer
Wow, 27 pages of postings in 12 days on such a simple issue. We are a contentious bunch. I can't take the time to read them all, so I will not join the fray because frankly, I'm confused as to why this is so contested (he says hopefully without divulging his bias so as to avoid being banned or ridiculed, because lord knows I've made enough of my own gaffs in here already).
I would imagine that the poor OP has run the other way by now.
I would imagine that the poor OP has run the other way by now.
jumper
Senior Member
- Location
- 3 Hr 2 Min from Winged Horses
Rick,
Why? You are a smart guy.
Your challenges/threats to Bob are silly-he is a member first and a mod second. As a member you will not rattle him, he is as hard headed as he is stubborn-you seem to imply that dual standards are acceptable-and they are not. I neither defend or support Bob-he does need me to be that presumptuous.
As for calling the other EEs in this thread "old school", I find that funny-especially concerning Mivey (I cannot comment on Bes, David, or Lazlo-I do not know them well enough to comment without their permission, although I have great respect for all three, as I do I for you).
Mivey merely points out the different aspects involved in looking at a particular install. He never thinks inside the box, he makes people think outside it. Mivey-conventional-ya gotta be kidding. He is like no EE I have ever met.
In a nutshell, this is how I see it:
You are doing this:
to land here:
You will not get banned for your previous comments here, that would be too easy at this point and give you a false sense of self-vindication.
Why? You are a smart guy.
Your challenges/threats to Bob are silly-he is a member first and a mod second. As a member you will not rattle him, he is as hard headed as he is stubborn-you seem to imply that dual standards are acceptable-and they are not. I neither defend or support Bob-he does need me to be that presumptuous.
As for calling the other EEs in this thread "old school", I find that funny-especially concerning Mivey (I cannot comment on Bes, David, or Lazlo-I do not know them well enough to comment without their permission, although I have great respect for all three, as I do I for you).
Mivey merely points out the different aspects involved in looking at a particular install. He never thinks inside the box, he makes people think outside it. Mivey-conventional-ya gotta be kidding. He is like no EE I have ever met.
In a nutshell, this is how I see it:
You are doing this:
to land here:
You will not get banned for your previous comments here, that would be too easy at this point and give you a false sense of self-vindication.
Rick Christopherson
Senior Member
Actually, even before reading your posting, I was planning on apologizing for allowing myself to get so irritated last night. Besoeker's sudden apparent flip-flop set the stage, when I thought we were making some progress. It spiraled downhill from there.
Bob's posting(s), if they had come from any regular member, would be easy to dismiss. However, he is a moderator and has asserted himself as a moderator in this discussion. He is supposed to be the person preventing that type of behavior, not instigating it. It is the antithesis of a moderator's duties. If he was an active participant in this discussion contributing content, then it would be just fine. However, he is not adding content, but instead, his only contributions to the discussion have been antagonist barbs originating from someone with "moderator" in his moniker. Yes, my comment was made in the heat of irritation, but it was not entirely idle, and I have had moderators removed from their position on other forums for this same behavior.
Nevertheless, I do apologize to everyone reading this discussion for allowing myself to get so irritated last night. I will do my best to keep this in check as this discussion hopefully continues.
Bob's posting(s), if they had come from any regular member, would be easy to dismiss. However, he is a moderator and has asserted himself as a moderator in this discussion. He is supposed to be the person preventing that type of behavior, not instigating it. It is the antithesis of a moderator's duties. If he was an active participant in this discussion contributing content, then it would be just fine. However, he is not adding content, but instead, his only contributions to the discussion have been antagonist barbs originating from someone with "moderator" in his moniker. Yes, my comment was made in the heat of irritation, but it was not entirely idle, and I have had moderators removed from their position on other forums for this same behavior.
Nevertheless, I do apologize to everyone reading this discussion for allowing myself to get so irritated last night. I will do my best to keep this in check as this discussion hopefully continues.
jumper
Senior Member
- Location
- 3 Hr 2 Min from Winged Horses
I say we drop the whole mod discussion and let the math and and analysis continue. This really is a fascinating thread.
We all have tempers, we just need to rein them in-easier said than done-I know.
Last edited:
Isn't this supposed to be
Vl = Van + Vnb = (120<0) + (120<0) ?
I don't think you get to reverse the direction of your leads when you take the measurements. B > N > A not N > B and N > A
- Location
- Simi Valley, CA
Oh yeah, well, YOU JUST REIN IN YOUR OWN TEMPER MISTER! And don't tell me to have a nice day, I'll have any kind of day I want! :lol::lol::angel:
I'm sure you would like me to bow out of this discussion. Denigrating my grasp of the English language is hardly the way of constructive discourse.
And, for the record, I am totally sure about my position. We design and manufacture things that have to work in the real world. Getting them wrong isn't an option.
Yep. I dropped a goolie in post #85 where I did mention a phase shift when I commented "i.e 180 deg phase shifted from each other."
The "from each other" might have been a clue that one is not actually generated by phase displacing the other. Yes, I accept that it wasn't entirely evident from my post. For that, I apologise.
Phase displaced is how I should have put it and indeed did in that and similar terms in a number of other posts.
Post #22 - To get twice the magnitude they have to be 180 degrees apart
Post #34 - If they were all the same and in phase, how would you get 240V end to end on the transformer?
Post #49 - It's what you would see and do see on an oscilloscope using the the neutral as the common point. Each half 0f the 120V-0-120V HAS to be displaced 180deg
Post #66 - *If you don't do so simultaneously, you can't determine the phase relationship.
Post #67 - How else can you determine their phase relationship?
Post #86 - Unless the 120V supplies were in anti-phase i.e. 180deg apart
Post #86 - Note that Ia and Ib are displaced by 180deg.
Post #86 - Note that the two SCRs HAVE to be triggered 180deg apart because the voltages are 180 deg apart.
Getting from that to claiming that I have have emphatically stated that you must have a 180? phase shift is a bit of a stretch.
I should have thought from the above, all previously posted, that my position is perfectly clear and without ambiguity.
It is. Where did I deny it?
You are leaving??
Get on with it then.
stickboy1375
Senior Member
- Location
- Litchfield, CT
hurk27
Senior Member
- Location
- Portage, Indiana NEC: 2008
Lol, no, but it really went somewhere I had not intended.
Why does "Space the final frontier" come to mind from this post:lol:
Rick Christopherson
Senior Member
Wait, let me get this straight. You are arguing over a "descriptor"?
It doesn't matter what you want to label it. When you stick the 180? into your voltage, the effect is the same. It is a "difference", "time shift", "phase shift", "phase relationship", "displacement", or what ever else you want to call it. It is the same thing. Do you honestly believe that giving it less offensive name makes it do something different with your voltage waveform? Shouldn't we be having a Bill Clinton joke in here somewhere?
stickboy1375
Senior Member
- Location
- Litchfield, CT
jwelectric
Senior Member
- Location
- North Carolina
jwelectric
Senior Member
- Location
- North Carolina
I have a question and I am serious about the question is someone would please take some time and help me.
How can two coils connected in series (or one coil that has a center tap) be 180 degrees in or out of anything?
:?
How can two coils connected in series (or one coil that has a center tap) be 180 degrees in or out of anything?
:?
Rick Christopherson
Senior Member
They can't. That's why I am arguing this topic so strongly.
Edit: Actually, two unrelated coils in series can. Contrary to the posting of Mivey's that I was going to go after a little later, it is the common core flux that prevents it from happening with a center tapped coil.
Last edited:
jumper
Senior Member
- Location
- 3 Hr 2 Min from Winged Horses
hurk27
Senior Member
- Location
- Portage, Indiana NEC: 2008
And I also agree, and in a strange way Mivey confirmed for me in post 243 that these two half windings are in fact in-phase, which leads me to what Besoeker stated back in post 32:
At 90? into the cycle, with L1 positive with N and L2 negative in respect to N then N has to comprise of being a negative and a positive just like in the series batteries, this is how they become an adder to get 240 volts. if you had two negatives at N you would not have 240 from L1-L2 no more then you would have 3 volts with two batteries in series with the negative ends together, so this using of the common point as a reference with both traces negative input leads on the common point is not referencing the two windings in their correct polarity.
If at 90? the correct polarity of each winding is A+---A-N|B+N----B- why would you try to reference the B+ with a black lead and place the red lead on the B- as we know this would reverse your reading the same as it would reverse a DC measurement this and only this is why you see a 180? displacement.
Also bringing in other types of circuits in to a discussion that was only about a transformer on a single phase 120-0-120 system made no sense other then to keep the discussion going.
Rick Christopherson
Senior Member
There is a significant difference between changing how one measures a voltage and physically changing what is being measured. When this topic last came up about 3 1/3 years ago, I put together this picture of batteries to help explain the concept. It is very similar to this discussion pertaining to a center tap transformer.
The right hand stack of batteries represents what happens when you "define" the system based on reversing your test leads. The image to the left is what happens when you simply relabel the system with a chosen reference point in the middle.
The right hand stack of batteries represents what happens when you "define" the system based on reversing your test leads. The image to the left is what happens when you simply relabel the system with a chosen reference point in the middle.
- Status