The idea is that parts of the circuit require positive pulses of energy at different points in time. With in-phase voltages, the positive pulses would occur at the same time and the circuit would not work. Thus the need for a source with 180? displaced voltages (or 30? for some of the circuits Besoeker has shown).
That is why the battery analogy does not work. The AC waveforms can give you positive pulses at 180? intervals but the battery can't. I tried in other threads to fix that by flipping the batteries at regular intervals but that went over some heads and did not prove useful.
The different pulses come from the connection of the rectifier, not because of a phase difference. You could rewire the rectifier components to work using one of the hot legs as a common.
I have shown how one of Besoeker's wiring diagrams supports my position that there is no phase difference.
View attachment 6410
How do we show a phase difference in this circuit? I know one method included 'different math techniques' when writing KCL formulas at nodes A, N, and B.
View attachment 6411
Thanks for the drawings Jim. Maybe we can get you and Mivey on the same page now.
TECHNICALLY (at great need): 120/240 is a single-phase, single-phase-angle circuit. Which is where Jim is. Altering reference points, changing angles/phases/voltages and then resolving the math doesn't change this. It is what it is.
then since we can attach wires, meters, etc. to the circuit wherever we like AND since the typically residential setup provides the 240V with a standard voltage division at the half mark and that half mark is grounded
PRAGMATICALLY: We can immediately use this circuit as though it was +120, 0, -120 or 120<0, 0, 120<180. Howsoever you wish to express it. That except for some exceptional purposes we're not likely to encounter: We can ignore the literal technical physics of the circuit in favor of how we're going to use it (which is where Mivey is). And this is where Besoeker is designing things from.
An often underlooked part of this circuit is the inherent synchronization. As, technically speaking, they are a single waveform they are always synchronized. Whereas if we provided separate sources then special circuits would have to be added to keep them from getting out of sync.
Mivey and I had this massive discussion in another thread. It took awhile, but I no longer see any point where Mivey and I have any substantial disagreement.