The IEEE is made up of trolls? From an IEEE published paper given at a recent IEEE conference on power engineering. You couldn't ask for a more credible source:
formatting link
4520128
"Distribution engineers have treated the standard "singlephase" distributio n transformer connection as single phase because from the primary side of t he transformer these connections are single phase and in the case of standa rd rural distribution single phase line to ground. However, with the advent of detailed circuit modeling we are beginning to see distribution modeling and analysis being accomplished past the transformer to the secondary. Whi ch now brings into focus the reality that standard 120/240 secondary system s are not single phase line to ground systems, instead they are three wire systems with two phases and one ground wires. Further, the standard 120/240 secondary is different from the two phase primary system in that the secon dary phases are separated by 180 degrees instead of three phases separated by 120 degrees."
Of course it would work. You just would not have the transformer bonded to ground.
Apparently you not only can't read IEEE papers, you can't read what anyone said. He's clearly not talking about eliminating the neutral, he's only talking about not earthing it.
equipment and ground.
He never said that.
If you mean that only the ground bond
It only took you about 6 tries to get it right.
renced from tap to "low" terminal.
Now that is indeed a good question. He's taken a turn here that I don't think anyone can figure out.
The IEEE says you're wrong.
You can't make another. With two phases, you can make any number you
Funny thing, I have the IEEE agreeing with me. From a recent IEEE publishe d paper delivered at an IEEE conference of power engineers.
formatting link
4520128
"Distribution engineers have treated the standard "singlephase" distributio n transformer connection as single phase because from the primary side of t he transformer these connections are single phase and in the case of standa rd rural distribution single phase line to ground. However, with the advent of detailed circuit modeling we are beginning to see distribution modeling and analysis being accomplished past the transformer to the secondary. Whi ch now brings into focus the reality that standard 120/240 secondary system s are not single phase line to ground systems, instead they are three wire systems with two phases and one ground wires. Further, the standard 120/240 secondary is different from the two phase primary system in that the secon dary phases are separated by 180 degrees instead of three phases separated by 120 degrees."
Pay special attention to those last two sentences. And just in case you want to claim this is some lightweight engineer, here's a link to the multitude of IEEE papers he's authored:
Most, that I have installed, are Wye. Onsite protection of these units is simpler and more cost effective. 3+ units going straight onto grid as Wye (stepped up, of course) or a Wye-Delta step-up. However, most long range delivery is done via a pure Delta (no neutral) system.
The type of transformer system depends on where on the grid the sub-system is pulling from, and if the utility wants to cooperate with the end-user. In certain situations they will tell you to bugger off since you might be the only service trying to pull a Wye drop in a 90%+ Delta grid. I know of one machine shop that begged for a Wye service to gain 1/3 more 120V branch circuits out of their almost overloaded 1200 amp Delta service. The answer was no, unless they wanted to pay for the entire switch over.
It was cheaper to purchase a Delta-Wye transformer and have a new drop brought in and have all of the 120V circuits transferred over to the 120/
208 panels. Total PITA to accomplish, but allowed the original service to gain some breaker spaces, equalize the load distribution to all phases, and permitted the installation of a couple more three phase mills and some headroom for that poor, old, tired Delta service. On hot days that thing would be around 1% away from going critical. This was with cooling added to the distribution panel.
I think that what you are trying to say is that an open neutral may have an adverse reaction with some 120V devices. However, the reference is not zero. Hehe, it is Earth.
I do believe that none of the neutral current is carried back to the power plant. As you might describe it, with your scope, the neutral is pulling from another phase to make up the imbalance. So, pulling from the power plant via a different leg.
s a zero reference. But that technically is not necessary. Your house wou ld work fine without it. Your oven would still "see" 240 volts and your li ghts 120. The problem is you might have a voltage difference between some of your equipment and ground.
sily be tapped at 60, 120, 180 and 240 volts referenced from tap to "low" t erminal.
tion transformer connection as single phase because from the primary side o f the transformer these connections are single phase and in the case of sta ndard rural distribution single phase line to ground. However, with the adv ent of detailed circuit modeling we are beginning to see distribution model ing and analysis being accomplished past the transformer to the secondary. Which now brings into focus the reality that standard 120/240 secondary sys tems are not single phase line to ground systems, instead they are three wi re systems with two phases and one ground wires. Further, the standard 120/
240 secondary is different from the two phase primary system in that the se condary phases are separated by 180 degrees instead of three phases separat ed by 120 degrees."
Two points:
1 - Who is the "they" that are confused? The IEEE engineers at a power eng ineering conference? The IEEE peer reviewed publication? The author of so many very technical papers published by the IEEE? The two manufactur ers of electrical eqpt with white papers?
2 - Saying "they are confusing phase" isn't a definition of phase.
Why is it that no one that says I'm wrong can give their definition of a very basic electrical engineering term? Until you can define it, what's the point? I gave my definition, which I believe is consistent with it's use in the broadest sense of electrical engineering days ago.
And the north pole still differs by approximately 180 deg from the south po le. In essence, someone stating that, with regard to split-phase, ie that the t wo legs are 180 deg opposite in phase, is what started all this.
Anyone notice that most of these "How it" whatever websites, Discovery channel shows, and such, get the physical aspect of manufacture down (duh, they are filming it), but they always seem to pull something out of their butts when trying to explain the science behind how something works? I think this is caused by having professional writers only having a limited knowledge of what it is that they are writing about, and winging it when an item of confusion comes along. Peer review of the final script obviously is not in the cards.
If a LOT of people think that you get a cold from being cold, then you can rest assured that an MD would explain that you get colds from viruses.
If a some people think that AIDS can be transmitted by a sneeze, then you can rest assured that another MD will explain that it's not transmitted that way.
If a group of people think that high octane gas is more "powerful" than lower-octane rated fuels, then you can rest assured that the Gasoline FAQ will explain what an octane rating really means.
If some lesser educated people confuse who versus whom, or lay versus lie, then you can rest assured that there will be linguists who explain the difference, in detail, on the web.
Point is, there are *many* examples of negatives being explained.
Anyway, I'm sick and tired of that part of this discussion, simply because people are wedded to their views and all they can do is attack the references, without supplying a single reference to the contrary (yes, I read the entire 10-page paper on grounding systems, and it didn't cover that specific point at all, at least not in plain language that *I* could understand).
Anyway, I learned a lot in this thread, and I, for one, am grateful for the conversation with my friends and compatriots on a.h.r, from whom I have the greatest respect.
Now, if that reference is "fatally flawed", then the dozen sites that repeated it *should* have vetted the information more fully.
Still, at least I posted a reference that directly discussed the issue, which is more than those with the opposing view provided.
Note: The 10-page PDF on ground distribution was complex, and, after reading all ten pages, never *directly* discussed the issue, although I'm sure I'll be reamed for stating that since the *entire* paper was all about grounding paths (but very technical).
As a (retired) accountant, we never covered *this* stuff in college way back when.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.