In addition to center tap 120/240v transformer supplied homes,where two voltages with a 0? displacement or two voltages with a 180? displaced are available,in homes supplied with 120v only, one voltage with a 0? displacement and another voltage with a 180? displaced can also be derived from the same 120V supply.There is no logical inconsistency here.What is your opinion?
See, this is the frustrating point for me. You quote me as:
Leaving off the
Thereby implying I don't think those voltages are available.
It's frustrating that you keep trying to write disagreement into my quotes for me.
I'm pretty sure I have in prior threads. Not sure if I can find it at the moment but surely you can picture this with an impedeance imbalance. The extreme example of course is the two-diode full-wave rectifier where the resulting winding currents are in opposite directions.
Nonsense statement. You have a continuous voltage gradient from one end of the secondary coil to the other. You can tap and reference in all sorts of different ways but their relationship will always reflect the gradient.
No it isn't. Which is one of the reasons why you're not grasping this. Without looking at instantaneous force directions this circuit cannot be understood.
Only in theory where loads don't create lead or lag. Only in theory where noise doesn't hit the circuit. Then this "equivalent" build proves it's not really equivalent.
A property of an AC voltage divider. Pick a point inside the ends and you have two usable opposed voltages. But it's still just an AC voltage divider. And the two endpoints at any given instance in time are nothing more than a continuous voltage gradient. In reality, this divider circuit is far more useful than the ideal build above because the entire phase is always affected by changes.
I think you and I certainly agree on the particle physics. But we do not agree on the use of the word "phase". A phase is a point on an AC waveform. If a circuit has two currents with phases that are different at a given instant, then we technically have two phases present in the circuit. This can't happen with a two-wire circuit but certainly can with a three-wire circuit. That is a disagreement we have on definition.
We certainly do not agree here because that is based on a single direction choice being a given and AC is bi-directional. How is it that you can't see that the two phases from my phase-opposed generators are producing one phase voltage in one direction across the two windings but that there are still two phase voltages out from (or into) the common point of the windings? In reality there are also two phases present. My position is that both cases are true because they physically map to the same space.
Your insistance that it is uni-directional is not true.
And without understanding that "positive direction" is a choice you will not understand why the instantaneous details do not contradict what I have said.
The circuit proves that what we call the positive (or zero degree) direction is strictly a choice we make and not dictated by the physical apparatus.
And the direction of the voltage gradient is a choice. It is not a given that the positive voltage gradient must be in one direction across the winding. It is a choice made by convenience or other reasons but it is still a choice. There is no universal positive direction. That goes back to the very definition of voltage we learned in physics long ago.
Outside of some remote harmonics theory or something, no. Not sure where you are getting that from.
Only, at any given instance in time it's Uni-directional. Over time it will move in both directions. But it's never going two ways at once. Therefore it's not truly bi-directional.
Agreed. Bi-directional may not be the best word but I don't feel like finding a better word at the moment, especially since you get what I meant.
Half of the time, the current in the first winding is in one direction while the current in the second winding is zero. The other half of the time, the current in the second winding is in the opposite direction from what we saw before and the current in the first winding is now zero.
Unfortunately it proves nothing.
Interesting that you jumped from the fact that at any given instance the coil is a voltage gradient to "Bi-directional".
Until you understand that "instantaneous" direction is important you'll never understand why assigning an arbitrary direction has meaning and they do contradict what you've said.
Only under ideal conditions. A state you continually protest doesn't exist. Except now it seems it's convenient for you.
Now here's an attempt by you to build another safe haven. Since AC always has an instantaneous direction it's important to understand which way things are flowing at any given instance. Assigning a direction as "Positive" is no different than assigning neutral to "0V". The choice of direction is arbitrary but important to understand just as the voltage at neutral is arbitrary but important to understand. Analysis can't take place without a reference frame. There may be no "universal" direction but there certainly is a direction for reference, just as there is a 0V value for voltage reference. Both arbitrary, both essential. And you knew better than to spout that nonsense.
Want a better word?
Call it single phase.
. Any two-terminal voltage is single-phase. But there is not a given single direction for a positive direction.
On the contrary, it proves that either direction can be assumed to be positive.
That's right. It can produce forces that are opposite in direction at 180? displacements.
Did not say it wasn't important, just that it was not contradictory to my position.
If you think they contradict, then you do not understand what I have said. Evidently, I have not been able to get you to read what I am actually saying.
The discussion continually swings from the ideal to the actual and I focus on the topic at hand. Discussing one does not prevent discussion of the other.
I do understand, in great detail. I am well versed in physics, math, and circuit theory; above average I would say.
Ok, so we agree that the direction is a choice so what's the problem?
If it is nonsense, why repeat it in agreeement?
But not both at the same time.
