Why is residential wiring known as single phase?

[pfalcon]

Why I believe you do in the next few sentences.
Could you please site reference material that describes both to and from as indicating a single direction?

Thanks Jim, I was just about to point that out myself. Two things moving away from a center are NOT going in "a positive direction".

Who in the world has said they move in two different directions at the same time? What is critical to understand is how we define direction. I contend that there are two valid ways to define the direction because the voltage can produce forces in two valid directions.

"Away" and "Toward" the neutral is not a valid choice.

See? There it is. What direction are you talking about? One option says the positive direction is defined as one linear direction across both windings (one way or the other), the other says the positive direction is directed from or to the neutral. I have shown circuits and generator sources that show both are valid.

ooo, here we go again. As that little coulomb of charge passes the neutral it magically goes from moving in a positive to a negative motion. Nonsense.

That is one option. It is a choice, not a given.

It's a given, not a choice. It's the physical reality of the circuit. At any given instance the voltage increases in one and only one direction across the length of the secondary coil. At any given instance the current moves in one and only one direction across the length of the secondary coil. At any given instance the power flows in one and only one direction across the length of the secondary coil.

Really? What about the one little coulomb charge in the middle of the winding? Are the other charges all moving towards it or away from it? Review basic physics before answering.

Lol, they're moving IN-PHASE, IN-SYNC, and IN THE SAME DIRECTION as that little charge in the middle. They are NOT moving either "towards" or "away" from "it" unless you're going to claim your nose is moving away from you when you walk while your backside is moving towards you.

Which is why your arguments are really suffering here. They all depend on that little piece of magic that claims reality is what you see and not what it is. No one in their right mind says their nose is moving "away" in a positive/negative direction from their eyes when they walk. No one claims their nose and backside are moving in opposite directions and are out of phase with each other. But you put a probe on the neutral and all that logic goes out the window for the sake of a scope display.

 

[gar]

120214-1728 EST

A mathematical model used to represent some physical process is of no value if it does not read on that process.

In my world I can not make any use of some model that says shifting a sine wave 180 deg produces a result that is "in phase" with the unshifted wave. That just does not work for my type of problem.

If I have a measurement signal A sin t and multiply this with a reference signal B sin t the result is A*B sin² t . Averaging this over N full cycles results in a DC signal +A*B/2. If the phase of the measurement signal changes by 180 deg, then the result is -A*B/2 . Clearly these two are not the same, and my meter reading will change from + to -. Very important for a readout from an LVDT. My definition of the term "in phase" would require the above two different input signals to produce the same output, but clearly I get a sign change.

Thus a 180 deg phase shift in my real world does not equate to being "in phase".

.

 

[rbalex]

120214-1728 EST

A mathematical model used to represent some physical process is of no value if it does not read on that process.

In my world I can not make any use of some model that says shifting a sine wave 180 deg produces a result that is "in phase" with the unshifted wave. That just does not work for my type of problem.

If I have a measurement signal A sin t and multiply this with a reference signal B sin t the result is A*B sin² t . Averaging this over N full cycles results in a DC signal +A*B/2. If the phase of the measurement signal changes by 180 deg, then the result is -A*B/2 . Clearly these two are not the same, and my meter reading will change from + to -. Very important for a readout from an LVDT. My definition of the term "in phase" would require the above two different input signals to produce the same output, but clearly I get a sign change.

Thus a 180 deg phase shift in my real world does not equate to being "in phase".

.

Do you differentiate between, ?in-sync? and ?in-phase? in the colloquial? If so, how are they differentiated in your mind? I honestly understand the reluctance to separate them and for most practical purposes it doesn?t make much difference.

 

[jim dungar]

A mathematical model used to represent some physical process is of no value if it does not read on that process.

Your choice of measurement connections forces you to use a specific model. Said another way, your choice of model only works with a specific measurement connection.
Regardless, your choice, does not preclude other choices.

 

[rattus]

Do you differentiate between, ?in-sync? and ?in-phase? in the colloquial? If so, how are they differentiated in your mind? I honestly understand the reluctance to separate them and for most practical purposes it doesn?t make much difference.

Bob, how can a wave have the same phase as its inverse?

I am one of those who erroneously think that the negative sign should be considered.

Using complex notation,

V2 = -Vp(cos(wt) + jsin(wt))

V2 = Vp(-cos(wt) - jsin(wt))

That is, the negative sign is an operator which inverts the real and imaginary components of the expression--a 180 degree shift which can't be ignored.

 

[rbalex]

Bob, how can a wave have the same phase as its inverse?

I am one of those who erroneously think that the negative sign should be considered.

Using complex notation,

V2 = -Vp(cos(wt) + jsin(wt))

V2 = Vp(-cos(wt) - jsin(wt))

That is, the negative sign is an operator which inverts the real and imaginary components of the expression--a 180 degree shift which can't be ignored.

First, I'll ask you the same question, "Do you differentiate between, ?in-sync? and ?in-phase? in the colloquial? If so, how are they differentiated in your mind?"

You seem to want them to be synonymous. The definition I referenced doesn't require it. If you have an authoritative one that does - post it.

 

[rbalex]

Heading home for Valentine's Day - won't be checkin' in for some time - possibly not until tomorrow.

 

[John120/240]

This thread reminds me of discussions amongst distant family members about religion &

politics. The sky is blue. No, no ,no that is just your perception of what you see.

 

[gar]

120214-2103 EST

ebalex:

Do you differentiate between, ?in-sync? and ?in-phase? in the colloquial? If so, how are they differentiated in your mind? I honestly understand the reluctance to separate them and for most practical purposes it doesn?t make much difference.

Two signals that are in-phase have the same period and a maximum correlation coefficient. They also are in-sync.

Two signals in-sync do not necessarily have a high correlation or the same period.

.

 

[rattus]

First, I'll ask you the same question, "Do you differentiate between, ?in-sync? and ?in-phase? in the colloquial? If so, how are they differentiated in your mind?"

You seem to want them to be synonymous. The definition I referenced doesn't require it. If you have an authoritative one that does - post it.

"In phase" indicates that two waveforms reach their positive/negative peaks simultaneously. That requires that the phases of the two waveforms must be equal.
[Tang, Alternating Current Circuits, International, 1960]

"In synch" indicates that the outputs of two or more generators in parallel are all in phase. That is, the generators are operating in synchronism.
[Puchstein, Lloyd, and Conrad, Alternating Current Machines, Wiley, 1954]

Therefore the two terms are synonymous.

Not to be confused with synching a scope though.

Now, answer my question please.

 

[T.M.Haja Sahib]

Now, how about you answer the simple question I asked you in post #756?

Please see
http://www.jmargolin.com/mtest/LJfigs.htm

 

[rbalex]

Both gar and rattus were kind enough to respond as I have asked. There does appear to be some modest disagreement about what they believe “in-synch” means. If I understand them correctly, rattus would say "in-synch" is synonymous with "in-phase"; I believe gar would say they aren’t necessarily. I'm open to being corrected by either or both of them.

Nevertheless, I only challenged rattus to provide an authoritative definition. Although he only provided descriptions rather than definitions, I’ll still attempt to answer his question.

In order to do so, I’ll need two things:

1. The characteristic function for V1 in the same format he provided for V2
2. The what he believes to be the phase of both of the characteristic functions, based on the definition he provided.

 

[T.M.Haja Sahib]

Both gar and rattus were kind enough to respond as I have asked. There does appear to be some modest disagreement about what they believe ?in-synch? means. If I understand them correctly, rattus would say "in-synch" is synonymous with "in-phase"; I believe gar would say they aren?t necessarily. I'm open to being corrected by either or both of them.

Nevertheless, I only challenged rattus to provide an authoritative definition. Although he only provided descriptions rather than definitions, I?ll still attempt to answer his question.

In order to do so, I?ll need two things:

1. The characteristic function for V1 in the same format he provided for V2
2. The what he believes to be the phase of both of the characteristic functions, based on the definition he provided.

Will you please describe to me briefly the points of disagreement between you and rattus and gar?

 

[Besoeker]

Please see
http://www.jmargolin.com/mtest/LJfigs.htm

Interesting that you post a link rather than describing them in your own words.
Do you understand why they appear like that?
If so, can you explain it. In your own words.

 

[T.M.Haja Sahib]

If so, can you explain it. In your own words.

Is it necessary for the purpose of this thread?

 

[Besoeker]

Is it necessary for the purpose of this thread?

Interesting that you should ask that rather than just answering the question.
You asked me to do the tests.
I did so connected as you detailed in #747.
Clearly, you thought it relevant then.
I'm just asking for your explanation of the results.

 

[T.M.Haja Sahib]

Interesting that you should ask that rather than just answering the question.
You asked me to do the tests.
I did so connected as you detailed in #747.
Clearly, you thought it relevant then.
I'm just asking for your explanation of the results.

You have not yet got the results yourself.Have you?

 

[Besoeker]

You have not yet got the results yourself.Have you?

You asked me to do the tests.
I did so connected as you detailed in #747.

 

[T.M.Haja Sahib]

You asked me to do the tests.
I did so connected as you detailed in #747.

My dear friend-cum-mentor,where is the result of your test?Please show it here.

 

[Besoeker]

My dear friend-cum-mentor,where is the result of your test?Please show it here.

First, won't you answer the question I posed in post #814?