single vs. 3 phase

[mivey]

Image replaced. Since it is linked, the updated image shows in the original post.

Does it conform now?

Looks good to me. Now I can post numbers that conform to the ANSI/IEEE 30 degree standard:

[edit to add:
For Delta-Wye L-N load on A & B winding
Secondary Conductor: A= 1x, B=1x, C=0, N=1x
Secondary Winding: A= 1x, B=1x, C=0
Primary Conductor: C= 1x, A=1.732x, B=1x
Primary Winding: C= 1x, A=1x, B=0

For Wye-Wye L-N load on A & B winding
Secondary Conductor: A= 1x, B=1x, C=0, N=1x
Secondary Winding: A= 1x, B=1x, C=0
Primary Conductor: A= 1x, B=1x, C=0, N=1x
Primary Winding: A= 1x, B=1x, C=0

For Delta-Wye L-L load on A & B winding
Secondary Conductor: A= 1x, B=1x, C=0, N=0
Secondary Winding: A= 1x, B=1x, C=0
Primary Conductor: C= 1x, A=2x, B=1x
Primary Winding: C= 1x, A=1x, B=0

For Wye-Wye L-L load on A & B winding
Secondary Conductor: A= 1x, B=1x, C=0, N=0
Secondary Winding: A= 1x, B=1x, C=0
Primary Conductor: A= 1x, B=1x, C=0, N=0
Primary Winding: A= 1x, B=1x, C=0, N=0
]

 

[rattus]

...and in those steady-state solutions, rotation must still be taken into consideration. Simply put, I cannot make a phasor rotate when I draw it on paper, can I? (i.e. without rotating the paper :grin: ) ...yet rotation still occurs in the system, right?

Why confuse the issue? You're trying to tell me things I already know!!!

Just what is it that rotates, and why must rotation be mentioned at all?

 

[mivey]

Just what is it that rotates, and why must rotation be mentioned at all?

Since we have transformed out of the time domain, we have dropped e^jwt and it does not matter. I just noted that the phasors he drew at first were indicating an a-c-b sequence instead of an a-b-c sequence (this was assuming standard notation but he explained he was using some other kind of notation). I don't really see that it matters.

 

[Smart $]

If it is ok with you, it is ok with me, it is just different from the way I'm used to. Where have you seen this used in the electric industry? Do you have some books that use this method?

1) Yes, and 2) No (or perhaps, as my recollection is rather vague :grin: ). Not going to search for such at this time either

See #455 where I got rid of the angles. A non-resistive load can cause a power factor change and you can get whatever current angle makes you happy.

OK... but a moot issue for the topic at hand.

I'm not sure what you are saying about the common node, but I had A-B-C going down the left side, not C-A-B. BTW, very nice graphic. The secondary currents look good, the primary currents need work.

Common node is where the Line conductor connects mutual to the two conducting primary windings. In my transformer winding diagram it would be where Line A connects to the top and middle primary windings.

Changed primary current direction... is it okay now?

I know you had A-B-C going down the left side, but that is an improper connection of a delta-wye transformer bank. The proper connection is CA-AB-BC. Note it is the second connection that is labeled H1, third H2, and C is connected to at the bottom as H3, even though it is jumpered to the first winding connection. See linked image below (the creator of the diagram has it flipped bi-axially compared to mine)

I have not changed my mind about my numbers in #425.

The only thing that changes is which Line your numbers are associated with.

 

[Smart $]

Since we have transformed out of the time domain, we have dropped e^jwt and it does not matter. I just noted that the phasors he drew at first were indicating an a-c-b sequence instead of an a-b-c sequence (this was assuming standard notation but he explained he was using some other kind of notation). I don't really see that it matters.

It doesn't for the issue at hand. It only mattered concerning your comment. I don't even know why rattus jumped in on it (other than he always does when I rotate my phasor reference angle :grin: )

 

[mivey]

Smart $,
RE #464, see #461. I think we are on the same page now.

[edit: I think the sketch I used was a wye-delta instead of a delta-wye]

 

[Smart $]

Smart $,
RE #464, see #461. I think we are on the same page now.

We are

 

[rattus]

Since we have transformed out of the time domain, we have dropped e^jwt and it does not matter. I just noted that the phasors he drew at first were indicating an a-c-b sequence instead of an a-b-c sequence (this was assuming standard notation but he explained he was using some other kind of notation). I don't really see that it matters.

Right, sequence does not matter here. Now one is free to visualize any way one wishes, but drawn phasors can only point in the direction defined by their phase angles. 0 points right, 90 points up, +/- 180 points left, and -90 points down. To do otherwise is simply wrong.

 

[rattus]

It doesn't for the issue at hand. It only mattered concerning your comment. I don't even know why rattus jumped in on it (other than he always does when I rotate my phasor reference angle :grin: )

Because it is wrong.

 

[Smart $]

Because it is wrong.

There are two types of truths in life (i.e. rights and wrongs). One type is truly universal truths. These existed before us and will continue to exist after us. The others are highly opinionated truths. The difference between right and wrong regarding this type is merely what individuals think.

 

[mivey]

There are two types of truths in life (i.e. rights and wrongs). One type is truly universal truths. These existed before us and will continue to exist after us. The others are highly opinionated truths. The difference between right and wrong regarding this type is merely what individuals think.

But we do try to adhere to some type of standard so we do not have to include a preface for everything we discuss. The international standard is for phasors to rotate in a counter-clockwise direction, but are drawn at a fixed point for the state we are evaluating (impedance and power phasors do not rotate). The phasors can be drawn as the peak or rms values, with rms being more common.

When talking about these phasor quantities, we use zero degrees east and 90 degrees north. You can use any coordinate system you want, but it will only lead to confusion. I'm sure there is a standards reference somewhere but this also matches the standard right-handed cartesian coordinates frame used for real and reactive power, impedance, etc.

The only two truths established so far are TRVTHS and TRMTHS :smile:

 

[rattus]

How many ways?

How many ways?

There are two types of truths in life (i.e. rights and wrongs). One type is truly universal truths. These existed before us and will continue to exist after us. The others are highly opinionated truths. The difference between right and wrong regarding this type is merely what individuals think.

It seems there are three ways: right way, wrong way, and Smart's way which is only useful when he is talking to himself.

 

[Smart $]

...but this also matches the standard right-handed cartesian coordinates frame used for real and reactive power, impedance, etc.

Yes, I'm quite familiar with the right-handed Cartesian coordinate system, as I am 3D CAD capable. As such, one learns many viewpoints may be necessary to convey a particular aspect. The same applies here.

Some engineers tend to think they are so completely organized. Yet I, among others, find flaws in across the board integration. Yet there are those that go to extremes in defending the standards they self-develop as being incontrovertible. Heck, it's plainly evident from the exorbitant threads that some engineers can't even agree among themselves.

The only two truths established so far are TRVTHS and TRMTHS :smile:

Yes. The opinion of the person purporting one so-called truth, and the opinion of the person purporting an alternate so-called truth!!!

 

[crossman]

You guys are killing me!

 

[rattus]

Yes. The opinion of the person purporting one so-called truth, and the opinion of the person purporting an alternate so-called truth!!!

Smart, whatever that means, you are still wrong. If you persist in drawing your phasor diagrams upside and backwards, some may think you don't know what you are doing. Some might even call it poor engineering.

 

[jim dungar]

Smart, whatever that means, you are still wrong. If you persist in drawing your phasor diagrams upside and backwards, some may think you don't know what you are doing. Some might even call it poor engineering.

This sounds a whole lot like my response to many of rattus's postings.

Just because you can do something, doesn't mean you should do it.

 

[Smart $]

Smart, whatever that means, you are still wrong. If you persist in drawing your phasor diagrams upside and backwards, some may think you don't know what you are doing. Some might even call it poor engineering.

First, if others have an inaccurate perspective on matters... that's their problem. If they admit to themselves they have this problem, I'd be more than willing to help them correct their viewpoint, time permitting!

But here's the point at hand: I am not engineering anything. I am not an engineer and I don't claim to be one either (if the attitude goes with the position, count me out ). Therefore, I do not have to [comply] to any engineer's standards (which should not be construed to mean I can't or won't, or haven't at times when necessary). Most times I post anything that is not "up" to engineers' self-proclaimed, embodied standards, it is for lay people to have a better understanding, not the engineers—whom should already have an understanding that goes well beyond the standards (but apparently not all do). Other times, it's just to correlate discontinuity in engineering standards, as in transformer symbology compared to vectors/phasors. If you are as good as you think you are, you would be able to see the fault is not mine :grin:

Second, you knew damn well before you ever mentioned the word "wrong" that I know the correct way. Does it make you feel superior to state it publicly. Perhaps you should should state it a few more times if you haven't quite reached that plateau yet...

Here's a correlative analogy. If the devil tells me I have to do something a certain way because he has standards, I suppose I should comply!!!

 

[Lxnxjxhx]

There are two types of truths in life (i.e. rights and wrongs).

There are two types of truths in life (i.e. rights and wrongs).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability

 

[Smart $]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability

So you are aware that even in the discussion of truths (or falsehoods), it splits into two sub-types of truths... and it continues to expand like the branches of a tree, but never develops any more than the original two types, just various "blends" thereof. Ultimately, a truth is of one type or the other. But people hardly ever agree on which when the truth is not so obvious.

 

[Lxnxjxhx]

As long as we're on the subject. . .

As long as we're on the subject. . .

http://www.poemhunter.com/poem/the-veiled-statue-at-sais/