Why is residential wiring known as single phase?

[jim dungar]

Do you not see that in my SINGLE CONFIGURATION EXAMPLE that I have both the series voltage given by X1->X2+X3->X4 and the series voltage given by X2->X1+X6->X5 ? Can you not follow that reasoning that shows that both X1->X2 and X2->X1 exist in the SINGLE CONFIGURATION. Again, I have not connected X2 to X4. X2 stays connected to X3.

Because I have never, ever, tried to address your combined transformer, except to point out the terminal designations, and thus connections, are not the same as in the 120/240V utility transformer I have been consistently referring to.

Lets try it again.
Besoeker said the independent unconnected actual voltages V12 and V34 are in phase, or else they could not be connected in parallel without fireworks. For you phasor people ,this means their 'arrows' are pointing in the same direction.

V12 is series connected with V34 at the common terminals of 2 and 3. Again for the phasor people, this means the Point of arrow V12 would be connected to Tail of arrow V34 or the Tail of arrow V12 would be to the Point of arrow V34.

Now say V43 = -V34, this can be represented by rotating the phasor arrow for V34 by 180? so that it now points in the other direction or by swapping the labels on the ends of the arrow so it still points in the same direction but reads V43 instead. Different physical results yielding same mathematical results.

Rattus consistently picks one method over the other. Why?
Could it be because the resultant phasor still needs to be connected to phasor V12 at ends 2 and 3, if not they would no longer replicate the actual connections?

 

[Rick Christopherson]

From the omniscient one who brought us the "Charge Reservoir", aka as a helicopter.

There we go Rattus. That's more like what I expect from you. When you can't dispute the information, then by all means necessary, attack the person. :thumbsup:

On the other hand, you could be a man and own up to your statements on their merits. Personally, I would prefer an honest debate. So I'll wait for an honest answer.

 

[rattus]

Thanks, then you recognize that each and every relevant voltage or current function of your circuit has the same period P and the fraction t/P of each and every relevant voltage and current function must be identical. (Making the wild assumption they all started at the same time.) Since polarity is not relevant to phase, every relevant voltage and current has the same phase. That means there is only one phase in your circuit; i.e., it is single-phase.

The currents I_a and I_b must have the same phase by definition, but they aren?t synchronized ? which is why your circuit works.

Why don't you respond to my post 1431 which includes a phasor diagram which I have posted at least three times?

 

[Besoeker]

Strictly speaking we can't assign a phase to non sinusoids, but we can easily see that Ia and Ib are separated by T/2, or if you insist, PI radians.

I've made this point before but it may be worth reiterating it and expanding on it a little.

I introduced the centre-tapped rectifier circuit to demonstrate that I_a and I_b flow at different times.They do.
And do so regardless of whether or not there are rectifiers in the circuit. That's an important point.
The rectifiers do not make the current flow at any particular time. The currents would still flow at that time without the presence of the rectifiers.
At the risk of repetition, that's an important point to grasp and I'm not sure that all here have.
What the rectifiers do is prevent the currents flowing at times when they otherwise would. Take them out and I_a an I_b would still flow at different times. For the full sinusoidal waveform. And still separated by Pi radians.
In short, they are not in phase.

 

[rattus]

There we go Rattus. That's more like what I expect from you. When you can't dispute the information, then by all means necessary, attack the person. :thumbsup:

On the other hand, you could be a man and own up to your statements on their merits. Personally, I would prefer an honest debate. So I'll wait for an honest answer.

Please do!

 

[rbalex]

Why don't you respond to my post 1431 which includes a phasor diagram which I have posted at least three times?

Because it is irrelevant rattushopper; it is irrelevant. And while we're at it, for yours and Besoeker's information, EVERY periodic function has a phase.

 

[Rick Christopherson]

I've made this point before but it may be worth reiterating it and expanding on it a little.

Do you honestly believe that the rest of us E.E.'s here don't know what a rectifier circuit looks like, or how it functions? You're hanging your hat and trying to prove a point on something so simple that we all know quite well.

 

[rattus]

It suddenly occurred to me. If Va and Vb are in phase, we could short them without frying anything. I tried that one time, and lost the end off my Kraeters needle nose pliers. Maybe not.

 

[Besoeker]

Thanks, then you recognize that each and every relevant voltage or current function of your circuit has the same period P and the fraction t/P of each and every relevant voltage and current function must be identical. (Making the wild assumption they all started at the same time.)

It's a wildly inaccurate assumption.
I_a starts at π/4 and I_b at 5π/4 in my diagram.
They are not at the same time. There is a time interval between them - 10ms in my case.
While I'm about it I might as well advise you of another inaccuracy in your statement. Each and every relevant voltage or current function of my circuit does not have the same period P.
I'll let you ponder that.

 

[rattus]

Because it is irrelevant rattushopper; it is irrelevant. And while we're at it, for yours and Besoeker's information, EVERY periodic function has a phase.

I was just responding to your question. How can that be irrelevant?

 

[Besoeker]

Do you honestly believe that the rest of us E.E.'s here don't know what a rectifier circuit looks like, or how it functions? You're hanging your hat and trying to prove a point on something so simple that we all know quite well.

Evidently not. Otherwise you would instantly disabuse yourself of the notion that there is only one phase at work.

 

[Rick Christopherson]

Evidently not. Otherwise you would instantly disabuse yourself of the notion that there is only one phase at work.

No, because I know the difference between a physical inversion and a mathematical phase shift. That is the question I put before you, Mivey, and Rattus. You have yet to even acknowledge it. Why is that?

 

[Besoeker]

No, because I know the difference between a physical inversion and a mathematical phase shift. That is the question I put before you, Mivey, and Rattus. You have yet to even acknowledge it. Why is that?

You have yet to acknowledge that I_a and I_b are not in phase.
And remind me of how many industrial scale rectifiers you have designed built....and, while you're at it, remind me of how you get hexaphase from three phase?

 

[Rick Christopherson]

You have yet to acknowledge that I_a and I_b are not in phase.

They are in phase! But you never asked me that. That's because you have avoided my questions for several weeks--not days.

And remind me of how many industrial scale rectifiers you have designed built....and, while you're at it, remind me of how you get hexaphase from three phase?

Not all of us E.E.'s are so insecure in our knowledge and abilities that we need to keep showing pictures of projects to make us look super smart. Most of us actually refrain from such things, because we find it to be in poor taste. But then again, that is just most of us. I certainly don't speak for all E.E.'s.

 

[rbalex]

It's a wildly inaccurate assumption.
I_a starts at π/4 and I_b at 5π/4 in my diagram.
They are not at the same time. There is a time interval between them - 10ms in my case.
While I'm about it I might as well advise you of another inaccuracy in your statement. Each and every relevant voltage or current function of my circuit does not have the same period P.
I'll let you ponder that.

Are you asserting the driving voltage functions don't start at the same time?

 

[rattus]

No, because I know the difference between a physical inversion and a mathematical phase shift. That is the question I put before you, Mivey, and Rattus. You have yet to even acknowledge it. Why is that?

Because we think it is irrelevant. That is we don't care.

 

[Rick Christopherson]

Because we think it is irrelevant. That is we don't care.

We? Would that include you and the pet turd in your pocket? This is a point that you appear to stand alone on.

 

[mivey]

I'm the one calling you out on the math manipulation, but you, Rattus, and Besoeker are the ones dodging the discussion.

• Mivey dodged the question via deflection and tried to move down some unrelated path without addressing the real topic.
• Rattus blew it off by claiming that we're only dealing with "Ideal" systems, and therefore only mathematical...all while denying that this is a mathematical discussion.
• Besoeker simply remained silent on the discussion altogether until it blew over.

The three of you keep making your absolute assertions, but when you get cornered by them, you run away. When I ask you guys to confront these assertions, you either run away or deflect the discussion to something else.

Call away then, but please remind me of what you were addressing and I'll respond. If it was a post where you were leveling a bunch of insults, I probably ignored most of it. The best I recall, most of your arguments hinged on there not being a phase shift. Depending on your definition of phase shift, I might agree with you and I believe I have said so before.

 

[mivey]

You had no idea what he was saying. Go all the way back and read his relevant posts that led up to 1176.

Do you really want to commit to buying into his position?

I remember the string being rattus asking how you could drop a negative sign from one side of the equation without changing the other side. In other words, he called you on the fake math term you created called a "characteristic phase" that gave you a fake license to "resolve" a phase constant into nothing. I called you on the same thing. You wanted to claim that you had the correct interpretation of "phase" and "in phase" although I proved that our industry has a different interpretation.

If there is some other position you are claiming from that string of posts, you will have to state it here as you have a tendency to just make things up and I can't be sure what "commitment" you might have conjured up. I have stated the position that I commit to.

 

[mivey]

Because I have never, ever, tried to address your combined transformer, except to point out the terminal designations, and thus connections, are not the same as in the 120/240V utility transformer I have been consistently referring to.

Can you explain how you feel that the X1-X2-X3-X4 transformer in my open-wye example is not the same configuration as the 120/240V utility transformer you have been consistently referring to? Can you explain how you feel that the transformer on the right side of my generator example is not the same configuration as the 120/240V utility transformer you have been consistently referring to?

Besoeker said the independent unconnected actual voltages V12 and V34 are in phase, or else they could not be connected in parallel without fireworks. For you phasor people ,this means their 'arrows' are pointing in the same direction.

No dispute.

V12 is series connected with V34 at the common terminals of 2 and 3. Again for the phasor people, this means the Point of arrow V12 would be connected to Tail of arrow V34 or the Tail of arrow V12 would be to the Point of arrow V34.

No dispute.

Now say V43 = -V34, this can be represented by rotating the phasor arrow for V34 by 180? so that it now points in the other direction

No dispute, as long as the rotated arrow is for V43 or -V34, not V34.

or by swapping the labels on the ends of the arrow so it still points in the same direction but reads V43 instead. Different physical results yielding same mathematical results.

Don't see that. How are you going to just swap the labels on a phasor arrow without also rotating the arrow? Or were you referring to the rotated arrow from before?

Rattus consistently picks one method over the other. Why?

Don't know. I'm fine with either direction. I say the voltage at the winding can be V43 or V34 because they both physically exist between the terminals but just have different positive directions. Both directions manifest real physical results.

Could it be because the resultant phasor still needs to be connected to phasor V12 at ends 2 and 3, if not they would no longer replicate the actual connections?

Can you re-phrase that?