Center-tap Transformer Voltages

[__dan]

and their relationship to ground would be very relevant.

The winding turn, by itself, is an ungrounded source. The load by itself, the circuit, may also be ungrounded. Adding a second winding in series ungrounded, how would you do it? Is the second winding added in series in or out of phase. I have done it both ways, adding and subtracting voltage.

The point of this does escape me. If I recall, you would tell me the electron is a point charge and the photon has mass.

Volatility in the financial markets. Is it evidence of an underlying physical fact, or is it an artifact. A fact created in part by obscuring the underlying physical reality.

 

[rattus]

The winding turn, by itself, is an ungrounded source. The load by itself, the circuit, may also be ungrounded. Adding a second winding in series ungrounded, how would you do it? Is the second winding added in series in or out of phase. I have done it both ways, adding and subtracting voltage.

What are you trying to say?

 

[__dan]

There is always another way a problem can be defined. Of course, how the problem is defined and worked towards solution, makes a big difference in the efficiency of finding solutions.

The post asked a question, is the second winding in series added in or out of phase. For the answer, the thread could have been buried in cement last month. I am not wiring something on the answer.

 

[rattus]

The post asked a question, is the second winding in series added in or out of phase. For the answer, the thread could have been buried in cement last month. I am not wiring something on the answer.

Answer: It depends on the reference point. Any voltage can be measured in two ways.

There is no law that says one must place the red probe on the polarity dot. One can just as well place the black probe on the reference dot. There are two possibilities for the in phase condition and two possibilities for the 180 out case. Two of one and a couple of the other. Either way, the voltages are induced by the same changing flux. Much ado about nothing.

 

[pfalcon]

Actually, I have been saying both methods produced real, valid voltages. The other side said one one method produced real voltages but the other method produced voltages that only appeared to be real.

See, no one has ever said that real and actual voltages were not obtained.

And it no longer AC.

Exactly, and the difference between AC and DC can be pretty much compared to wiggling and doing more than wiggling.

Sorry, but it's still AC. At a particular diode in the circuit it may no longer be a sine wave but that doesn't mean the AC has disappeared throughout the circuit. It's just being USED.

Answer: It depends on the reference point. Any voltage can be measured in two ways.

There is no law that says one must place the red probe on the polarity dot. One can just as well place the black probe on the reference dot. There are two possibilities for the in phase condition and two possibilities for the 180 out case. Two of one and a couple of the other. Either way, the voltages are induced by the same changing flux. Much ado about nothing.

EXACTLY: It depends on the reference point. Which is why it's called APPARENT voltage. It's the appearance based on the reference point!

 

[Besoeker]

Sorry, but it's still AC. At a particular diode in the circuit it may no longer be a sine wave but that doesn't mean the AC has disappeared throughout the circuit. It's just being USED.

The current through the diode is in one direction only. It is thus no longer Alternating Current.

 

[rattus]

EXACTLY: It depends on the reference point. Which is why it's called APPARENT voltage. It's the appearance based on the reference point!

Would you please cite a reference that defines apparent voltage? Somehow I've missed that in my 50+ years since graduation.

 

[rattus]

Citation?

Citation?

Apparently, "Apparent Voltage" is not defined in any textbook or reference work. Apparently, what we see when we place a non-inverted probe on any node is what we get. Apparently, we are not looking at it funny, and apparently it is not a mathematical trick. Apparently it is commonly done, and apparently it is valid if not conventional. Apparently.

 

[pfalcon]

The current through the diode is in one direction only. It is thus no longer Alternating Current.

Because if I'm using a diode in the circuit there cannot possibly be any other circuit components that use both halves of the sine wave. :slaphead:

Apparently, "Apparent Voltage" is not defined in any textbook or reference work. Apparently, what we see when we place a non-inverted probe on any node is what we get. Apparently, we are not looking at it funny, and apparently it is not a mathematical trick. Apparently it is commonly done, and apparently it is valid if not conventional. Apparently.

http://science.yourdictionary.com/apparent-time
http://science.yourdictionary.com/magnitude
http://www.allaboutcircuits.com/vol_2/chpt_11/2.html

Apparently people in science have been using the word apparent for quite some time since you graduated 50+ years ago. But please, explain to me why you're so hung up over a single word used by someone who is actually agreeing with you? You just don't like agreement unless you're quoted verbatim or what? Give it a shot. Tell me EXACTLY where I'm disagreeing with you? Other than apparently that the word apparent has an apparent use in science.

 

[mivey]

http://science.yourdictionary.com/apparent-time

The measured time differs from real time.

http://science.yourdictionary.com/magnitude

The measured brightness differs from the real brightness.

http://www.allaboutcircuits.com/vol_2/chpt_11/2.html

The apparent power differs from the real power.

Tell me EXACTLY where I'm disagreeing with you?

Calling one voltage apparent implies that it differs from a real voltage.

 

[rattus]

Apparently people in science have been using the word apparent for quite some time since you graduated 50+ years ago. But please, explain to me why you're so hung up over a single word used by someone who is actually agreeing with you? You just don't like agreement unless you're quoted verbatim or what? Give it a shot. Tell me EXACTLY where I'm disagreeing with you? Other than apparently that the word apparent has an apparent use in science.

Not the word, but the term "apparent voltage". You keep throwing that out after several members have said it is not defined. You are disagreeing with me and others when you use that term. You are implying that the waveforms are not really there when you use that term. Why use that term in the first place? I think gar has already asked that question.

 

[pfalcon]

The measured time differs from real time.
The measured brightness differs from the real brightness.
The apparent power differs from the real power.
Calling one voltage apparent implies that it differs from a real voltage.

Not differs from real; It means as measured at a given point. Once you define a reference point - such as when we CLAIM ground is 0 volts - then the measurements are as real as anything in existence. You keep trying to shove "not real" into an adjective where it doesn't belong. I have NEVER claimed your voltage readings were anything but real. We aren't disagreeing on the reality of your voltage readings.

Not the word, but the term "apparent voltage". You keep throwing that out after several members have said it is not defined. You are disagreeing with me and others when you use that term. You are implying that the waveforms are not really there when you use that term. Why use that term in the first place? I think gar has already asked that question.

Wow! It's not the word "Apparent" except when it's used as an adjective. Sorry, no dice Rattus. If you can't handle the adjective then just ignore it. Find something real we disagree on. Or should we digress further to the proper use of the semi-colon?

 

[rattus]

From Merriam Webster:

From Merriam Webster:

The implication is:

"Apparent: manifest to the senses or mind as real or true on the basis of evidence that may or may not be factually valid."

The word is used properly in the term "apparent power".

It has nothing do with the choice of a reference; all voltage measurements require a reference.

Your use of this adjective is misleading and superfluous. Why use it if it does not add to the meaning? Why use it if it is not commonly used in the industry?

 

[mivey]

Why use it if it does not add to the meaning? Why use it if it is not commonly used in the industry?

Or why not just pepper it around on everything? The selective use is apparently a connotative use.

 

[gar]

111129-2012 EST

rattus's post #153 gets my support.



Separate subject. The functionality of this forum continues to degenerate.

Now when you post a reply and are composing content and you scroll down to other posts the post numbers do not appear.

When I use Google spell checker there is no wrap-around and I have to scroll sideways, each paragraph is a single horizontal line.

If I make the last post display first, then page numbers are backwards. So page 1 contains the lasts posts starting with the last post. And the last page number contains the first posts. The last page number should contain the last posts.

Preview continues to fail to display formatting as it will actually display when posted. Big problem when you try to align columns.

While editing and composing, and when the text is vertically greater than one window, then the displayed area keeps jumping away from the area where the cursor is located.

.

 

[pfalcon]

The implication is:
"Apparent: manifest to the senses or mind as real or true on the basis of evidence that may or may not be factually valid."
The word is used properly in the term "apparent power".
It has nothing do with the choice of a reference; all voltage measurements require a reference.
Your use of this adjective is misleading and superfluous. Why use it if it does not add to the meaning? Why use it if it is not commonly used in the industry?

1) It's not an implication when you're quoting a definition: It's a definition
2) It's used properly in an adjective on any noun where your measurements are relative to an arbitrary reference.
3) May or May Not: Which means it's independant of whether it's real or not: Which means you've consistently tried to connote your own meanings into the word and blamed me for it.
4) As voltage requires a reference (as you state above) that means it's relative, otherwise it would be absolute and not referenced: Therefore it has everything to do with a choice of reference.
5) When I first used it, it was not superfluous but limited by your understanding of the term. Since then it's become the whole center of your arguments against someone in AGREEMENT with you.

Or why not just pepper it around on everything? The selective use is apparently a connotative use.

1) It's not used where absolute measurements are available. It's not selective. Just outside your normal vocabulary.
2) It's not connotative when it follows the definition.

So here ya go:
I apologize for using a science adjective for a scientific concept when addressing persons steadfastly interested only in trades applications where it's rarely, if ever, used.

 

[rattus]

pfalcon,

Cut the smoke and dust and provide a reference which defines "apparent voltage".

BTW, there is nothing arbitrary about using the neutral as a reference.

 

[mivey]

It's not used where absolute measurements are available.

Measuring the voltage between two points is pretty absolute (for conservative fields anyway).

It's not selective. Just outside your normal vocabulary.

You are right. I don't ever remember using "apparent voltage".

So here ya go:
I apologize for using a science adjective for a scientific concept when addressing persons steadfastly interested only in trades applications where it's rarely, if ever, used.

 

[pfalcon]

pfalcon,
Cut the smoke and dust and provide a reference which defines "apparent voltage".
BTW, there is nothing arbitrary about using the neutral as a reference.

Sounds like you're confusing arbitrary with random. :happysad:

Measuring the voltage between two points is pretty absolute (for conservative fields anyway).

Because the neutral at your house is exactly 0 volts. Just like the voltage at my house is 0 volts. And if we measure between them we would get 0 volts? Not likely.
It's why we use a building grid. If we drove separate rods for each machine we'd shock everyone with the potential difference between different machines. 0 volts is a fiction except in relative measurements.

Measuring between two points is called relative not absolute. And assigning your neutral 0 volts is called establishing an arbitrary reference. Not to be confused with assigning it some other arbitrary value like 538 volts which would be not only arbitrary and inconvenient but senseless. The math would work all the same of course. The relative magnitude will still be |120V| between neutral and either hot. It will read plus/minus depending which probe you stick where. And you can assign any arbitrary phase angle you want to either phase as long as they're either 0 degrees or 180 degrees apart.

It's a convenience to select +120V, 0V, -120V as values. A sensible convenience mind you but not a required one. Which makes it all pretty NOT absolute.

You are right. I don't ever remember using "apparent voltage".

Yea! I got a smiley!

The question would be whether you've ever used the word "apparent" in its scientific application. Voltage is just the noun it's modifying. Unless you're proposing that we can't borrow words from other disciplines. In which case I'll have to concede that George is right.

 

[rattus]

No reference?

No reference?

Seems there is no reference forthcoming, so we must assume that you just made up this term and are trying to justify your usage of the term by your endless arguments.