That bollocks and I suspect that you know it is.But OOPS, the voltage from B to N to A isn't 240V like you suggest. As Drawn the voltage from B to N to A is zero volts.
That bollocks and I suspect that you know it is.But OOPS, the voltage from B to N to A isn't 240V like you suggest. As Drawn the voltage from B to N to A is zero volts.
Understood. As stated in the Bible, there are none so.....etc.I'm going to put myself on time out. I'm tired and getting grumpy.
Except that you have been consistent about it. This discussion would not exist if not for the fact that you have continually restated what you now claim to be "Bollocks".That bollocks and I suspect that you know it is.
Van and Vbn are mutually displaced by 180deg.Except that you have been consistent about it. This discussion would not exist if not for the fact that you have continually restated what you now claim to be "Bollocks".
120<0 - 120<180 does equal 240 but not <0. That statement would create a 240<0<180 load, dual-phased.
Huh?:?
Its simple math.
(120<0) - (120<180) = 240<0.
(120+j0) - (-120+j0) = 240+j0 = 240<0
ooo, ooo, to resolve your dual-phased 240<0<180 circuit you went back to applying double negatives again like you said didn't exist.
120<0 - 120<180 does equal 240 but not <0. That statement would create a 240<0<180 load, dual-phased.
For the sake of discussion, let's add labels to your nodes. Call the lower node "B", the middle node "N", and the upper node "A". You have labeled the voltages of your nodes: A=120v, N=0V, B=120V
As drawn, the voltage from N to A is 120V. The voltage from N to B is 120V. But OOPS, the voltage from B to N to A isn't 240V like you suggest. As Drawn the voltage from B to N to A is zero volts.
...You have physically redefined your voltage between those two nodes, and done so in a manner that violates Kirchhoff's Voltage Law (Kirchhoff's Second Law).
If the neutral is not used, you just have a two terminal supply to the load and the neutral does not enter the picture.Are you really saying the presence of an unused neutral point between two sources must always be considered, because it will provide different results than an equivalent 2-wire source?
Even if we did use the neutral and then have a 3-wire circuit, nothing says you must use a different methodology. I have never said you have to.Or is it that different methodologies must be used because a neutral exits?
For the 208 2-wire with no use of the neutral, it is just a 2-wire network and the neutral does not enter the picture.If we can't get this multi-source issue resolved, how will we ever graduate to evaluating a circuit of two resistors in series (i.e. two 5' elements in a 10' baseboard heater) fed at 208V 2-wire from an open-wye source?
You originally mentioned two supplies and I thought you were referencing a 3-wire circuit. If we do not use any intermediate connections, you can connect as many supplies together as you want and you will still only have one two-terminal supply to the load and the intermediate connections do not enter the picture. These supplies will all have the same current through them and it will be the same current that goes through the load.
Correct on these points.Then you might want to start with Faraday's Law of Induction and Lenz's Law...It is dictated by the physics of electromagnetism. They're not guidelines. They're not hypotheses. They're not optional. They are physical laws.
Incorrect. Shows me the formula that dictates the voltage direction....and Lenz's Law dictates the direction.
No physical laws are being violated. I have shown a solution to your circuit back in post #290 that uses two voltages with a 180? phase difference. Would you agree that no physical laws are being violated there?To do otherwise violates physical laws.
Your polarity markings were wrong.Question: Why is this diagram wrong?
Answer: Because instead of "examining" the voltage from n to b, the voltage has been redefined as though that examination was absolute.
Look at the solution I provided for your circuit. I did not change any polarities. I simply rotated one of the generator windings 180?, no different than if I would have had three generators tied together and sequentially rotated them 120? to get three voltages with 120? differences.This is what Mivey and Besoeker are doing when they claim that there is an absolute 180? phase difference between the two voltage sources, instead of simply that they have changed the polarity on their reference points.
No "voltmeter mentality" to my solution at all. It is a physical fact that the two voltages had a 180? difference.3 1/2 years ago, I think I referred to this as the "voltmeter mentality"...
And no physical laws were violated.... where you violate the physical laws governing the system
Your previous example in post 290 was for generators that are physically out of phase. This isn't applicable to this discussion. We are discussing a single-core center-tapped transformer.No physical laws are being violated. I have shown a solution to your circuit back in post #290 that uses two voltages with a 180? phase difference. Would you agree that no physical laws are being violated there?
Your previous example in post 290 was for generators that are physically out of phase. This isn't applicable to this discussion. We are discussing a single-core center-tapped transformer.
Lenz's Law does dictate direction, and you are violating it. Not all Laws are based on an equation. Faraday was not proficient in mathematics, so you will not find any equations in his original laws either.
The answers are pretty obvious, so I am not sure where you are headed. However, this did remind me of one important fact that possibly not everyone is fully aware of.May I ask you a simple question or two?
If I am standing in the middle of a street: Are the cars coming at me or away from me?
If I am in the median between two streets: same question.
Shows me the formula that dictates the voltage direction.
Look at the solution I provided for your circuit. I did not change any polarities. I simply rotated one of the generator windings 180?, no different than if I would have had three generators tied together and sequentially rotated them 120? to get three voltages with 120? differences.
No "voltmeter mentality" to my solution at all. It is a physical fact that the two voltages had a 180? difference.
The answers are pretty obvious, so I am not sure where you are headed. However, this did remind me of one important fact that possibly not everyone is fully aware of.
There are several different topics running in this discussion that are similar, but slightly different. For example, I believe David has been fairly careful with his discussions regarding Van and Vbn but unfortunately interjected these into portions of the thread where this was not being contested. There are a few other examples like this with other posters, but I would have to go dig for them to recall the specifics.
I can only speak for myself, but I am not contesting what anyone may choose as their point of reference. My contestation arises when this reference point choice is misapplied to redefining the actual system it is intended to represent.
Certain.
Van and Vbn are mutually displaced by 180deg.
Van and Vbn are mutually displaced by 180deg.
Fact. And I have not ever claimed otherwise.
I am not contesting a reference point. I apparently can't get that point across. What I am contesting is that some people are taking a chosen reference point and redefining the system with it.My questions were simple as I am. It is all about what reference you choose, I cannot look it in two directions at once, but whatever way I face, the cars (voltages) are real. No? My direction defines my outlook/definition. No?
The cars coming at me and the cars going away from me are not shifted to some time warp of 8.3 msecs, yet they are 180 degrees apart by observation or their places in my sight.
I laughed too but not until tomorrowI think you're the only one that got that.:happyyes: