May I ask a question about the single vs two phase stuff

Status
Not open for further replies.

LarryFine

Master Electrician Electric Contractor Richmond VA
Location
Henrico County, VA
Occupation
Electrical Contractor
1 we are discussing 120/240/1 60 Hz sinusoidal waveform
2 BOTH are equally correct since when you use phasors/trig the result is negation in this special case, so perhaps the 180 is MORE CORRECT than negation?
Yes.

try that with 3 ph, so good for 3 phase 0/120/240 deg but not 0/180?
nope, not buying it
Three phase is comprised of three separate single-phase sources, and there are indeed timing differences. Each one, if each had its own center tap, would still individually behave the way we are saying.
 

mivey

Senior Member
But they aren't mirror images; if they were, we'd have two 120v outputs but no 240v output.
No. With a CT reference, the voltage difference from the positive peak of one wave to the negative peak of the other is 240 volts.

Therein lies the disagreement: We should be taking the start of both waveforms simultaneously.
Then in the case I was referencing, that would be when the first wave is going positive WRT center and the second wave is going negative WRT center.

The positive of the second wave starts 8.333 ms after the positive of the first.

No, we haven't defined the positive direction to be away from the center tap. We (the "opposition") are saying one line is positive while the other is negative. Yes, we realize they both will be of opposite polarity (or "direction" if you prefer) 8.333 ms later.
"We" did not mean you. You choose both waveforms to start going positive at the same time. Another choice is for the second wave to go positive 8.333 ms after the first.

Both choices are valid.
 

LarryFine

Master Electrician Electric Contractor Richmond VA
Location
Henrico County, VA
Occupation
Electrical Contractor
No. With a CT reference, the voltage difference from the positive peak of one wave to the negative peak of the other is 240 volts.
A matter of polarity.

Then in the case I was referencing, that would be when the first wave is going positive WRT center and the second wave is going negative WRT center.
Exactly.

The positive of the second wave starts 8.333 ms after the positive of the first.
No argument there.

"We" did not mean you. You choose both waveforms to start going positive at the same time.
No, one positive and one negative.

Another choice is for the second wave to go positive 8.333 ms after the first.
Yes, but not because that's how it's generated.

Both choices are valid.
The simultaneous inverted polarity is how it's produced; the delay in time is merely an observation.
 

jaggedben

Senior Member
Location
Northern California
Occupation
Solar and Energy Storage Installer
I wouldn't use a single channel scope to determine that.

That wasn't the question. The question was, supposing you didn't have a choice in scopes, what mathematical function would you use to predict the appearance of the other waveform.

Why the L2-N prediction? They are separate waveforms and are rarely mirrors of each other and practically never exact matches. Or is it more of an academic question?

You can call it academic if you like. Certainly this whole thread could be labeled such.

The -1 multiplier is okay, but it doesn't really show that we are taking the start of the 1st waveform to be 8.333 ms before the 2nd waveform.

I agree that the -1 method doesn't show what you are taking as given. My question is not about what you're taking as given. I'm asking you to test a hypothesis. Taking which method as given results in a more reliable prediction?

Also, surely you're not suggesting that, when a primary coil is energized, one secondary takes a half-cycle longer than the other to energize. I'm trying not to read it that way, because I know you know that's not true, but it's kind of hard not to read it that way.
We have defined ...

You and some others. Not all of us.
 

mivey

Senior Member
Also, surely you're not suggesting that, when a primary coil is energized, one secondary takes a half-cycle longer than the other to energize.
No, of course not.

Both energize at the same time. With the voltage rise selected to be positive away from center, one rises and one falls. If you want to see a rise in the second wave like you have at the start with the first wave, wait a half cycle and that is what I took "predict the other wave" to mean.

There have been posts suggesting one MUST consider the voltages both to rise from one end of the windings to the other or that polarity must be taken the same way. That simply is not true.

The field increases in all parts of the winding as a whole, not in any particular direction. The one defining the voltage defines the direction.

The point about a half cycle is pick any polarity you want and a half cycle later the world is reversed. An AC wave continuously reverses polarity so the choice can be either way.

I'm trying to get people to think about the system differently than a stack of batteries because that loses sight of a polarity that is constantly changing. Batteries have a fixed polarity so you can't define positive away from the center of the stack (I guess you could but it would stray from normal convention).

One standard convention is to define the positive terminal such that current leaves the source from that terminal when the voltage rises in that direction. You won't see many circuits using a single-phase transformer that care because they are polarity agnostic.

However, a 2-diode full-wave bridge rectifier does care. Current only flows in each winding half for 1/2 cycle. If we define the + terminal using the prior convention, then positive is directed away from the center tap and is actually correct by standard convention. The winding halves never produce during the other polarity cycle available so the transformer is being used as a source of two different phases.

This would be the same as driving two pulse circuits from two sources with a 180d displacement. The cyclical nature is why the single-phase transformer can substitute as a supply for two 180d displaced signals. Two flux events, two windings, four flux results, time-varying. You can't get that with a fixed-polarity stack of batteries.
 

buffalonymann

Senior Member
Location
NC
No. With a CT reference, the voltage difference from the positive peak of one wave to the negative peak of the other is 240 volts.

Then in the case I was referencing, that would be when the first wave is going positive WRT center and the second wave is going negative WRT center.

The positive of the second wave starts 8.333 ms after the positive of the first.

"We" did not mean you. You choose both waveforms to start going positive at the same time. Another choice is for the second wave to go positive 8.333 ms after the first.

Both choices are valid.

There is no second wave; the is one sine wave; the primary produces one wave only. If you insist there more that one wave, explain to me where it comes from
 

buffalonymann

Senior Member
Location
NC
No, of course not.

Both energize at the same time. With the voltage rise selected to be positive away from center, one rises and one falls. If you want to see a rise in the second wave like you have at the start with the first wave, wait a half cycle and that is what I took "predict the other wave" to mean.

There have been posts suggesting one MUST consider the voltages both to rise from one end of the windings to the other or that polarity must be taken the same way. That simply is not true.

The field increases in all parts of the winding as a whole, not in any particular direction. The one defining the voltage defines the direction.

The point about a half cycle is pick any polarity you want and a half cycle later the world is reversed. An AC wave continuously reverses polarity so the choice can be either way.

I'm trying to get people to think about the system differently than a stack of batteries because that loses sight of a polarity that is constantly changing. Batteries have a fixed polarity so you can't define positive away from the center of the stack (I guess you could but it would stray from normal convention).

One standard convention is to define the positive terminal such that current leaves the source from that terminal when the voltage rises in that direction. You won't see many circuits using a single-phase transformer that care because they are polarity agnostic.

However, a 2-diode full-wave bridge rectifier does care. Current only flows in each winding half for 1/2 cycle. If we define the + terminal using the prior convention, then positive is directed away from the center tap and is actually correct by standard convention. The winding halves never produce during the other polarity cycle available so the transformer is being used as a source of two different phases.

This would be the same as driving two pulse circuits from two sources with a 180d displacement. The cyclical nature is why the single-phase transformer can substitute as a supply for two 180d displaced signals. Two flux events, two windings, four flux results, time-varying. You can't get that with a fixed-polarity stack of batteries.

Please identify the two windings you reference to exist
 

mivey

Senior Member
Please identify the two windings you reference to exist
The secondary windings. This type transformer is in a class know as multi-winding transformers.

They may be connected in series to produce two 120 volt outputs or in parallel to produce one 120 volt output at twice the kVA rating of a single 120 volt output.
 

mivey

Senior Member
Ahhhh. I forgot about peak voltage.

But yes, I was referencing the RMS value. It is also updated instantaneously in a meter.

add: at 1/2 cycles anyway.
It may be more often. I forget. I have that somewhere around here.
 

drktmplr12

Senior Member
Location
South Florida
Occupation
Electrical Engineer
This thread will never come close to the #1 longest, it was 2,567 posts The second post should have been where it stopped but noooooooooo. I don't think we could stand that many repeats, thoughts, and circular conversations again. :lol:

Roger

i tried to view but my privileges are insufficient. :weeping:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top