AC Current Flow: #6 Summary

[@brucegraham2128]

I have watched your videos on electrical theory. This is the second time I have heard of the two phases of a single-phase service are in-phase with each other. The theory makes sense since the direction of flow in a coil (transformer) goes all the way through the coil in one direction. Its not like the direction of flow changes as it goes past the neutral (center-tap). It may help if you were to explain your theory in a system with only one hot wire and one neutral. Example: the secondary side of a transformer is 120V between two terminals and there are only two terminals. In the graph you show, I would expect the first half cycle to be called a-phase, but the second half cycle to be called neutral (or negative of a-phase). I understand that it is not truly a "neutral" in this situation since there is no imbalance. I am just using terms that most can relate to when talking about electrical circuits. On first half of cycle, the flow would be going into the neutral. On second half of cycle, the flow would be coming out of the neutral. For a service with two hots and neutral (120/240V), I think the directional arrows on your graphs for neutral flow is wrong though. I would expect the direction to be dependent on the phase with more amp load. The flow on neutral would be the return path for the imbalance so it would be in the direction to cancel out with the phase with more amp load. This is basically how a GFCI receptacle operates.

[@scalephrase]

Thanks for watching-and keeping an open mind. I'd like to respond, but PLEASE keep in mind that I am NOT an electrician, an engineer, or a professional of any sort. Regarding almost any field of study, I do not "see" what most people are seeing. My mind doesn't work that way. I have no education, so I simply try to use common sense when working through a concept. I'll try to address most of what you've mentioned, but some of what I'm trying to impart is extremely difficult to put into words. To me, the truth of the matter is hidden in plain sight; the challenge is to get others to see realize this. (1) You seem to understand that the basis of my perspective starts with the premise that the generator, with ONE rotation, yields ONE CYCLE, and each single cycle is comprised of TWO PHASES-A and B. Most contemporary professionals will disagree with this view because they are steeped in traditional/modern theory and its attendant terms. (2) In my latest video (#7 A Graphic View), I iterate that current flows in only ONE direction in any given moment-even if that moment is a mere billionth of a second. When you see “lines” and “legs” and “conductors” and what-not, you are tricked into believing that current is moving in many different directions simultaneously; but this is NOT true. Granted, if you had a massive highway/interchange system, you WOULD have cars moving in all different directions simultaneously. But “alternating current” (whether Single Cycle or Triple Cycle; my terms) does NOT work that way. The movement of “electrical charge” is NOT analogous to the movement of road vehicles. (3) The two distinct phases (of each cycle) are nothing more than indications of “direction.” Most modern professionals have this peculiar love affair with the term “phase.” They use it perpetually; they stubbornly hold to it; and they will not relinquish it. Simply put, a PHASE is "a distinguishable PART in a course of cycle." Moreover, it's an "action-part." Thus, the terms "in phase" and "out of phase" can respectively mean nothing more than "NOT in the phase" and "out OF the phase." If you think it through, the bandied-about term "out of phase" makes no sense. (4) I DON'T disagree with your thinking that the “directional arrows” might APPEAR to be wrong. The key thing to keep in mind is that each primitive graph that I drew represents ONLY a moment in time, like a photo snapshot. (5) I DON'T disagree with your thinking that the “return path for the imbalance” will CHANGE per the loads effected on the two Power Bus Bars. Again, any primitive graph that I use represents ONLY one incredibly brief MOMENT. (6) Regarding your suggestion that “Phase B” could be referred to as a “neutral” or “negative” phase, I would strongly disagree. As I mentioned-repeatedly-the term “neutral” should be trashed. All it does is confuse the thinker-obviously, because you’re still using that crappy term while trying to put the pieces/terms together to make a coherent whole! If I get time, in the future, I’ll speak more on this “neutral” thing. Once my message “clicks,” my audience will understand, and that will be the end of the confusion over not only the “term” neutral” but also the mystical “function” of the neutral.

[@brucegraham2128]

@@scalephrase for comment #6, I was referring to a circuit that only has one “hot” and one “neutral”. Yes it is not a hot and a neutral but using those terms to describe the conductors. Example, a LIM (Line Isolation Monitoring) panel that is found in an OR room of a hospital.

[@scalephrase]

Revised Comment: This "Line Isolation Monitoring" thing is most interesting. I'll study it for a while to see if I can interpret it "scalephrase style." I especially like the Two-60V-leg" configuration. Wish I had known about this before I finalized my ideas. Thanks for alerting me to this system.