Power Distribution At Residential Level Understanding

[gar]

180516-1442 EDT

Education is a theme that has popped up in this thread.

I also think education has degenerated in most areas. From 1st grade on.

My belief is that an education should be directed at basic knowledge, understanding, skills, tools, and how to build on this background to understand, and study new problems.

I spent in the range of 11 years in college, and had some great teachers that taught basic concepts.

Precise equations with constants to get some absolute value were not a primary concern.

I don't know off the top of my hat the scaling constants for a shunt wound DC motor. But I still know how this type of motor works. How speed varies with shunt excitation. How speed varies with mechanical load. How a compound motor works. I had an excellent prof, J. G. Tarboux, that taught basic fundamental concepts. I also had him for AC Machinery. By the way my field of interest was communications or electronics. But we were expected to have a broad knowledge of electrical theory. If I need absolute constants I can look them up, but I generally have no need.

In one class we had a problem to shoot an electron at some initial velocity perpendicular to the surface of one side of a cube at a particular location on that surface so as to exit a hole at another location on the opposite side of the cube. The magnetic and electric fields in the cubic space had to be determined to accomplish the necessary path.

An electron at constant velocity moving perpendicular to a constant magnetic field moves in an arc. This is how a magnetron works. Here you deal with the force on an electron moving in a magnetic field, the electron motion produces a magnetic field that interacts with the fixed magnetic field, and then counteracted by a mechanical force from f = mass*acceleration.

When I see students in classes on TV I see virtual none that know how to properly hold a pen or pencil. This is first grade stuff. They were never taught this skill.

I remember very few differential or integral equations, easily found in references, but I retain the basic concepts of calculus. Differential equations made transient circuit analysis quite understandable.

I have a basic concept of magnetic fields, ferromagnetic materials, saturation, and magnetic coupling. Helps to understand many things.

From what I see more theoretical basics need to be taught, too much is skipped (return to some past basics), add more practical experience, and increase a BSEE to possibly 6 years. Students should be on paid work programs in their field along with their academic work to get an association with real problems and equipment. Student loans should be greatly reduced. These loans are the wrong kind of burden.

.

 

[Ranes]

he is not the only one questioning why a bsee does not have the knowledge base to analyse how 120/240 is derived

this is not personal against the op, but more commentary on the system

the op's query can be answered (I did) AND questions raised why new bsee's do not have the basic tools they need

My question wasn't how 120/240 systems are derived, by the way, it was a misunderstanding of how phasing naturally occurs for these systems (as I had never thought about it before). I would call it a "brain fart", but since it seemed to have spawned this discussion about the "lowly, lazy BSEE of these days doesn't know how to be an engineer", I now have a point to make.

"basic tools they need" is fairly generic and I am interested in hearing what you meant by this. In this specific context, its literally just understanding how polarity functions on the secondary of these transformers. The tool I would need to understand this is some explanation in a reference text? Or maybe actually testing a working setup? Or pencil and paper phasor mock ups of the situation? Simulating in software?

Why do any of that when the internet provides unfathomable amounts of information in seconds?

What basic tools are being missed? The ability to find answers when you need answers? Has this thread not proven that the ability still exists? Or is the internet (a huge collection from millions of educated people about all sorts of concepts) not permissible as a tool?

You had mentioned earlier in this thread that this sort of thing is better to be taught to oneself by picking up a text. Texts are written by other people who have a good understanding of these concepts. They are explanations from other people in written form, just as you have provided to me in this thread. So now I pose this to you: Do YOU lack the basic tool you need by running to texts when you have a question?

There seems to be this thought of a fundamental difference here, that for some reason its out of the question to be more efficient and look online for answers or to ask a direct question when a concept doesn't click?

When those with answers are willing, I see no problem in this, especially when the "recommended" solution (of researching in text) is nearly identical in result AND less efficient.

 

[Ingenieur]

My question wasn't how 120/240 systems are derived, by the way, it was a misunderstanding of how phasing naturally occurs for these systems (as I had never thought about it before). I would call it a "brain fart", but since it seemed to have spawned this discussion about the "lowly, lazy BSEE of these days doesn't know how to be an engineer", I now have a point to make.

"basic tools they need" is fairly generic and I am interested in hearing what you meant by this. In this specific context, its literally just understanding how polarity functions on the secondary of these transformers. The tool I would need to understand this is some explanation in a reference text? Or maybe actually testing a working setup? Or pencil and paper phasor mock ups of the situation? Simulating in software?

Why do any of that when the internet provides unfathomable amounts of information in seconds?

What basic tools are being missed? The ability to find answers when you need answers? Has this thread not proven that the ability still exists? Or is the internet (a huge collection from millions of educated people about all sorts of concepts) not permissible as a tool?

You had mentioned earlier in this thread that this sort of thing is better to be taught to oneself by picking up a text. Texts are written by other people who have a good understanding of these concepts. They are explanations from other people in written form, just as you have provided to me in this thread. So now I pose this to you: Do YOU lack the basic tool you need by running to texts when you have a question?

There seems to be this thought of a fundamental difference here, that for some reason its out of the question to be more efficient and look online for answers or to ask a direct question when a concept doesn't click?

When those with answers are willing, I see no problem in this, especially when the "recommended" solution (of researching in text) is nearly identical in result AND less efficient.

don't be defensive

'right hand rule'

the basic tool IS using and understanding a text

 

[Ranes]

don't be defensive

'right hand rule'

the basic tool IS using and understanding a text

I was not being defensive?

I feel my point eludes you. My previous reply was my thoughts about this topic. I am not responding to a perceived insult, I am trying to explain misconceptions.

 

[Ingenieur]

I was not being defensive?

I feel my point eludes you. My previous reply was my thoughts about this topic. I am not responding to a perceived insult, I am trying to explain misconceptions.

sure sounded like it

that is the common pearl
when someone doesn't agree or care they "don't understand"
it's not that complex
lighten up, I would not give much thought to it

 

[Ranes]

sure sounded like it

that is the common pearl
when someone doesn't agree or care they "don't understand"
it's not that complex
lighten up, I would not give much thought to it

You made a claim, I responded, this is a forum after all. :roll:

 

[ggunn]

FWIW, I graduated BSEE with good grades from what was at the time the 12th ranked engineering school in the world, but after 20 years of being out of school and living in semiconductorland, until I had to start dealing with AC power I couldn't have told you how single phase electrical power was made from a three phase distribution network. I could have looked it up and understood it, or I could have asked the question of some guys who seem to know about that sort of stuff - like the OP did.

I hope you guys with your "You don't know THAT? What third rate barber college did you buy your degree from?" didn't run him off.

 

[Ingenieur]

You made a claim, I responded, this is a forum after all. :roll:

yep, people feel compelled to defend their position
they assume they are 'right'
I assign no pretention of accuracy to my 'claim', it's only experience based opinion
I fear you doth protest .....

 

[retirede]

Agreed. An EE degree doesn't teach you everything about all things electrical, it just gives you a grasp of the fundamentals that will enable you to understand an explanation when you get it.

My version of this is: any degree primarily gives you the proper tools to continue to learn in your area of study!

 

[RumRunner]

he is not the only one questioning why a bsee does not have the knowledge base to analyse how 120/240 is derived. . . . .
d

Multiple wrongs don't make a right.

 

[mivey]

Phoo to the distainers.

He asked a question. Move along. Hard to judge much of anything based on such limited interaction.

Now if a pattern developes that might be interesting and worth noting but good grief already.

That said, I find the lack of knowledge from some recent grads interesting. Not sure if theory is being stressed as much or what. Hardly enough info to make a complete assessment. But thinking back, I was green as grass when I got out of school as well and probably asked plenty of silly questions.

I think it might be interesting to look into what some of these recent grads actually covered. I know they had AC, DC, physics, motors, etc as I looked over the classes but not any of the actual material covered. How they progress when tasked with OJT stuff might be informative. If they stall or things don't click like they should then perhaps there is a loss of fundamental teaching.

I also find that those with drive to dig in and learn more tend to excel and those that don't just never contribute greatly. The cream rises to the top as they say.

 

[ggunn]

The cream rises to the top as they say.

So does pond scum.

 

[Ingenieur]

Multiple wrongs don't make a right.

are you the judge as to which position is 'wrong' ?
obviously it could not be YOUR position lol :lol:

no right or wrong here, just opinion

 

[GoldDigger]

no right or wrong here, just opinion

Well, that's your opinion. :angel:
Matters of theory may involve facts, about which statements which can be right or wrong.


Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

 

[ggunn]

When I made the transition from semiconductors to renewable energy after 20+ years of being out of school and working on low voltage DC designs and failure analysis, I joined this forum to help me get up to speed with AC systems. I asked some pretty simple questions at first. I sure as hell am glad that I didn't get belittled for asking questions that some of you seem to feel would indicate that I didn't go to a good school or work very hard in earning my degree, neither of which is true.

 

[Ingenieur]

Well, that's your opinion. :angel:
Matters of theory may involve facts, about which statements which can be right or wrong.


Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

the subject was subjective, not objective
opinion vs fact

theory is not fact until cooborated, verified and/or proven via experimentation
until then it only intended to explain 'facts'

 

[RumRunner]

are you the judge as to which position is 'wrong' ?
obviously it could not be YOUR position lol :lol:

no right or wrong here, just opinion

Hold on to your horses.

You are deluding yourself as well as other responders by bringing an argument purporting to establish a particular conclusion that is directed to proving a different conclusion . . . your own conclusion.

No one is arguing about what everyone had presented in terms of the validity, and correctness of the engineering principles. This is about a behavior designed to demean engineers. And thus, for the sake of fostering professional conduct. . . is not acceptable

So, your hacked statement “there is no right or wrong” is out of place.

You can't bake your cake and eat it too.

You are a committing a logical fallacy:ignoratio elenchi.
An irrelevant conclusion with an attempt to mislead. . .but I'm not here to get misled yet.

 

[Ranes]

Hold on to your horses.

You are deluding yourself as well as other responders by bringing an argument purporting to establish a particular conclusion that is directed to proving a different conclusion . . . your own conclusion.

No one is arguing about what everyone had presented in terms of the validity, and correctness of the engineering principles. This is about a behavior designed to demean engineers. And thus, for the sake of fostering professional conduct. . . is not acceptable

So, your hacked statement “there is no right or wrong” is out of place.

You can't bake your cake and eat it too.

You are a committing a logical fallacy:ignoratio elenchi.
An irrelevant conclusion with an attempt to mislead. . .but I'm not here to get misled yet.

No joke, all his comments so far have been along these lines.

He can't logically back up the claims he makes, so he just rambles some irrelevant idiom and pretends to take the high road. There is no point in trying to add logic to argument at this point. On top of that, he seems to be very stuck in his ways.

Regardless, I'm glad there are those willing to share experience of being in my shoes. Its encouraging, to say the least.

 

[Ingenieur]

Hold on to your horses.

You are deluding yourself as well as other responders by bringing an argument purporting to establish a particular conclusion that is directed to proving a different conclusion . . . your own conclusion.

No one is arguing about what everyone had presented in terms of the validity, and correctness of the engineering principles. This is about a behavior designed to demean engineers. And thus, for the sake of fostering professional conduct. . . is not acceptable

So, your hacked statement “there is no right or wrong” is out of place.

You can't bake your cake and eat it too.

You are a committing a logical fallacy:ignoratio elenchi.
An irrelevant conclusion with an attempt to mislead. . .but I'm not here to get misled yet.

simmer done, your entire position is a strawman arguement
whose conclusion should I support? yours? lol

hbiss did not demean engineers (nor did I)
we questioned the quality and/or content of the current curriculum

there is no right or wrong, at least that can be judged by your ilk
and again, you are not the arbitor of professional conduct

you have misled yourself, you are confused and conflating, and in the worst case being disingenuous to contort what was said to elevate your position above those of others
we call that BS, no latin required

 

[mbrooke]

No joke, all his comments so far have been along these lines.

He can't logically back up the claims he makes, so he just rambles some irrelevant idiom and pretends to take the high road. There is no point in trying to add logic to argument at this point. On top of that, he seems to be very stuck in his ways.

Regardless, I'm glad there are those willing to share experience of being in my shoes. Its encouraging, to say the least.

If it makes you feel better, I too am in your shoes