Is this calc right?

[Ingenieur]

General question:
when a single line to n or g equivilent ckt is drawn for analysis of a 3 ph ckt
with source and load, are both the load and n-g currents shown going INTO the load?
or line IN and l-g OUT, so a loop is formed
????

power in
x0 out
power out
x0 in
opposite sign

 

[mivey]

Most of those show the accepted convention
positive in
negative out
the ones that don't are being applied to machines or transmission lines
oy a wye source to wye load

Reinforcing my position
eq 4.2
Eq 3-4
Eq 22-16 show a current as negative
Eq 168 shows a current of oppossite sign, ie, other side of =
Fig 235 a shows line out x0 in, opposite for, EXACTLY AS I DESCRIBED
2.2.4 opposite signs, see the - in front?

let the reader decide

Every one disputes claims you have made. Quit trying so hard to mis-read.

The very first sideways one n = a + b + c !!!
2-44 show nothing about sign convention: only that sum = 0 at node
abc pos and n neg
15 is the same
4.1 and 4.2 oh bidirection transmission line, NOT load and source


let the reader decide

I looked at the first one. It disputes your claim that I made up the subscript notation. Subscripts are alternates to arrows.

Get the subscripts back to the same direction and you sum to zero. Leave them as is and you equate to In = -(Ia + Ib + Ic) which you have claimed is wrong.

I might look through the others to point out case by case how they dispute your claim but with the effort you are putting forth trying to misread I'm not sure it would be worth the effort.

Pitiful. Absolutely pitiful and disappointing.

Oh well.

 

[Ingenieur]

MIT https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/electri...tems-spring-2011/readings/MIT6_061S11_ch3.pdf
Fig 6
Eq 20

 

[Ingenieur]

Every one disputes claims you have made. Quit trying so hard to mis-read.

I looked at the first one. It disputes your claim that I made up the subscript notation. Subscripts are alternates to arrows.

Get the subscripts back to the same direction and you sum to zero. Leave them as is and you equate to In = -(Ia + Ib + Ic) which you have claimed is wrong.

I might look through the others to point out case by case how they dispute your claim but with the effort you are putting forth trying to misread I'm not sure it would be worth the effort.

Pitiful. Absolutely pitiful and disappointing.

Oh well.

lol
yes, every one uses the standard convention
n = a + b + c

are you saying fig 235 does not?
supply line out
x0 in
therefor opposite sign?
inverse for load

 

[Ingenieur]

Your 'proof'
gen supply out, x0 in
load in, 0 out
each wye has the n the opposite sign of the line

 

[mivey]

lol
yes, every one uses the standard convention
n = a + b + c

are you saying fig 235 does not?
supply line out
x0 in
therefor opposite sign?
inverse for load

I'm not going to continue to try to have a rational discussion with someone who goes out of their way to misunderstand and misrepresent what is presented. It is just not worth the effort.

If I just felt like arguing and continuing to point out your errors, that could be entertaining if I was in the mood for that but I was after a thoughtful, reasoned discussion where the two sides try to dig in and understand the information being shared. That did not happen so as you said, let the readers decide.

I'm done with you on this.

 

[Ingenieur]

I'm not going to continue to try to have a rational discussion with someone who goes out of their way to misunderstand and misrepresent what is presented. It is just not worth the effort.

If I just felt like arguing and continuing to point out your errors, that could be entertaining if I was in the mood for that but I was after a thoughtful, reasoned discussion where the two sides try to dig in and understand the information being shared. That did not happen so as you said, let the readers decide.

I'm done with you on this.

about time you saw the err of your ways
don't get all bunged up and make it personal

pretty sure the readers see the same posts as us (unfortune as it may be for them)
let
them
decide
....
they are smart folk

 

[mivey]

about time you saw the err of your ways

I spent more time on it than I should. Not really much productive came of it as far as our exchange.

don't get all bunged up and make it personal

It's all good. Just not the type dialog I was after. Sometimes my mood is different but I'm just not fully into poking sticks in the cage at the moment.

 

[GoldDigger]

If you want to see a consistent framework to operate under, and want your "justification" to apply to arbitrary complex networks and not just simple source-load circuits, here is my suggestion:

For each line (wire) in the mesh arbitrarily assign a direction. The current at both ends will be identical and the assigned direction will tell you whether that number adds or subtracts in the node current equation.

No more problems. What any given node equation looks like depends entirely on the random (or purposeful) direction assignments you have made.
Note carefully that for AC you will still have both a magnitude and a phase angle for each current. All the assignment has done was fix a sign for the way the magnitude and angle are determined.
There is still an ambiguity between + at 0 and - at 180.

 

[iwire]

let the reader decide

Here is this readers decision

I have no idea about technical aspects of this discussion

However it seems like you keep changing what you are looking for as the others show you it


You say: show me any book

They point some out

You say: Thats not a good enough book

They show you others

You laugh at them say: You have to show me a page

They did, multiple pages

You say: most of them show

You clearly have closed your mind. In the word of the moment 'Sad'.

 

[iwire]

don't get all bunged up and make it personal

As a reader of this thread it was you again and again making it personal by talking down to the other posters.

pretty sure the readers see the same posts as us (unfortune as it may be for them)
let
them
decide
....
they are smart folk

And with that the thread is closed.