rattus said:
...You are sidestepping the issue by hiding behind the IEEE standard. ...
Well, that would fit my signature wouldn't it?
rattus said:
...I doubt that many of our members have a copy of IEEE 100. ...
Can't help with this one. I would consider the ieee the governing authority for these concepts. They are the ones with the peer reviewed standards, practices, papers. You certainly have the choice to not use their definitions.
rattus said:
... For example, the term "unit rotating phasor" is used in,
[van Valkenburg, "Network Analysis", Prentice-Hall, 1955]. ...
Haven't read his book. But I'll bet he defined the term - and his definition did not conflict.
rattus said:
...From your own quote, a phasor is defined as,
"A complex number expressing the magnitude and phase of a time-varying quantity. Unless otherwise specified, it is used only within the context of steady-state alternating linear systems".
There is no rotation implied in this definition. It is what some authors call a "fixed phasor". ...
You must have missed my answer on this. It was in post 65. I've already discussed my attitude on repeating.
rattus said:
...You are stonewalling me. ...
Oh yeah - big time. Glad you picked up on that. I realized I was done when you said I was making this "too complicated". My translation was this discussion did not make a logical extension to mathamatical models, symetrical components, rotating equipment.
rattus said:
... So cut out the pedantics and rebut my criticism.
I didn't even know what "pedantics" is (are?). But it sounded like a putdown, so I looked it up in my Funk and Wagnalls. (See there I can use sometning besides ieee 100). I'm going to pick 2c, "A formalist or precisionist in teaching."
Okay, I'll except that. The concepts for symmetrical components, rotating equipment, power systems analysis, are pretty well defined. My inclination is to stick with the governing authority definitions. (But it still sounds like a mean putdown)
Regardless, I can't rebut your critism. As I understand, you choose to land the low side of a two channel scope on a single phase neutral, the high side probes on L1, L2. When you see the resulting signals show as 180 out, you then choose to represent this as two "fixed, non-rotating, phasors connected tail to tail" (Ouch that hurt to type).
Okay, I certainly can't refute your choice to do that. It isn't IDHL or illegal. It's okay with me.
signed
The SSPSH
(single subject pedantic stonewalling haranguer)