120V from both legs

| > Could you detail the numerical problems so I can fix them? | >

| > | is that it is assumed | > | that the meter is somehow measuring power loss "upstream" of the meter. | >

| > That's not the assumption; it's the result. :) | >

| > | It | > | doesn't- It measures the power on the consumer side of the meter. This | will | > | include losses on the consumer's side - for which the consumer is | > | responsible - not those on the utility side. | >

| > I think pretty much everyone else now agrees that the typical 4-terminal | > (i.e., "1.5 element") split-phase meter does indeed measure power losses | > in the neutral on the utility's side of the meter. If you do not agree | > could you explain exactly how the meter avoids this error? | >

| > | I suggest that you check Charles Perry's reference | >

| > Mr. Perry has posted a reference and provides one way of looking at | > the error as proportional to "1/2 of" the voltage difference. (I quote | > "1/2 of" since it doesn't actually add any information to a proportional | > relation, but I think we know what it means in this context.) I prefer | > to think of it in terms of the customer paying for 150% of the loss in | > the utility's neutral wiring, but that's just for the simple one-meter | > case. | >

| > Dan Lanciani | > ddl@danlan.*com | | Dan, | | You seem to having trouble with the handbook reference.

No, I was trying to scrupulously avoid ambiguous terminology, but in the process I made it sound more confusing than I had intended. :) Normally when we say that A is proportional to B we imply some unstated multiplicative term (which could include constants and other variables) such that A = B * C. Since C could absorb any constant, saying that A is proportional to B means that A is proportional to B/2 or 2*B or 100*B for that matter. The danger in saying that A is proportional to B/2 is that it could be taken to mean that A is _equal_ to B/2, since otherwise why would you have included the meaningless constant. As I said, I believe we all know what the 1/2 means in this context, but I wanted to be clear.

I apologize for the pedantry. I think I was worried that if I wasn't very, careful with my wording one of the hand-wavers would pick up on it as a reason to "debunk" me again...

Dan Lanciani ddl@danlan.*com

And we should believe you? You still have not explained this "back emf" that is traveling from motors out into the power system. Back emf occurs in the motor as a result of the turning rotor. It creates a voltage (back emf) to oppose the voltage on the motor terminals. This reduces current, that otherwise would only be limited by internal resistance. The effect is reduced current entering the motor. If you externally turn the shaft of a motor at exactly the correct speed, you can balance the back emf and the terminal voltage and get zero current. If you externally turn the shaft faster, the back emf can exceed the terminal voltage and you get generated current. Of course, with an induction motor you have to have a source of vars since an induction motor, or generator, is always a sink for vars, never a source. So far the back emf does not really effect the utility, except the generator case. During system disturbances, motors can be sources of fault duty because of this. But under steady state conditions, the back emf doesn't travel anywhere.

What does effect the utility is reactive current. Induction machines are inductive (of course) and thus require a good deal of reactive current to function. The utility would prefer a customer supply his own vars of course. The closer the vars are supplied to the load, the more efficient the power system operates. Still doesn't answer the question as to what you are referring to when you say "back emf". Perhaps you would like to explain? And since back emf is a voltage by definition, are you saying a voltage travels from the motor into the system?

This might help you some:

Charles Perry P.E.

---------- Excuse me. On what do you base this?. If the voltage at the terminals has negligable harmonics the only source of harmonics in the current are due to saturation effects if the motor is operated at a voltage above the rated range. In the case of a motor where there is an air gap, the harmonic content of the exciting current is small. Power factor correction tends to raise voltage -so that, if (?) this is a problem, the problem is worsened. There are harmonics in the field produced-even with a sinusoidal current- these exist with or without pf correction and are due to winding distribution and slot distributions in the motor - without rebuilding the motor there is nothing that can be done to "correct" this. Typically the

7th spatial harmonic is cited asthe dominant one and this will produce a local peak in the speed torque curve at about 1/7th the synchronous speed but will have essentially "sweet toot" effect on the operation at normal speed. This is nothing new, nor is it generally significant ( I had a textbook from the 40's-50's which dealt with this quite nicely). External capacitors or tuned filters will not deal with this. By the way- slip is essential for the production of torque in an induction motor so the statement that slip makes things go south fast does not appear to be based on any understanding of induction motors. Now - with electronic drives- then there is a harmonic problem- and this can affect other electronic drives. I have a copy of a former student's PhD. thesis dealing with this problem.

----------------- The subject that I was responding to was power factor correction and some of the claims that you have made with respect to the reason for this and claims as to its benefits.

---------- I am not one Charles' "PhD references" but do hold a PhD (EE) from University of Illinois, Champagne Urbana and spent 35 years teaching in the areas of power systems and machines (as well as having spent some time in a utility environment) and fully agree with Charles. From what he has been saying and what he has said before on other topics, it is clear that he knows and understands what he is talking about. I cannot say the same for you. I have been assuming and hoping that it is a communication problem.

I have re-read your various comments and have also looked at the "numerical error". Please accept my apology for a stupid, off the cuff, analysis. I had taken the sum of voltages as 118+120 - which is incorrect. In any case - I should have picked up on the fact that the result is not

1180 watts. You are correct and I am red faced.. Thank you

message

message

news:xAU8d.24774$ snipped-for-privacy@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...

meter...

any

do,

distortions

propogate

beyond

(EE) from

teaching in the

some time in a

what he has been

clear that he

say the same for

communication problem.

If you are not aware the back emf from a motor, especially one thats slipping..generates emf that escapes the motor back into the grid... you have some serious holes in your data base

Phil Scott

problems

utility,

not

message

primary

on

the

a

You

some

various

and

only a

of

correction

taken

that

unity

true

tell

cases.

other

relatively

loads...as

motor

its

theoretical

power

by

at

compensated

easily on

loss

motor is

The

factors.

efficiency

the

motor

measured.

the

much

you

> > > search string.. electric, harmonics, line, motor,

out

what

aren't

creates

terminals has

current are due to

above the rated

What? you said *voltage *above the rated range cause harmonic distortions?...thats rare to the point of being almost nill....

Voltage **below the motor rating creates slip, and is utterly and pervasively common..along with phase imbalances....especially in high torque applications with the voltage falling 10% or more below the rating..and YOU excluded this?

errrr? what are you smoking there boy? You guys are not sounding like you have much of a clue on these very well known issues.

Phil Scott

harmonic

correction tends to

problem is worsened.

sinusoidal current-

winding

rebuilding the

Typically the

will produce a

synchronous speed

operation at normal

( I had a

nicely). External

in an induction

does not appear

problem- and this

former student's PhD.

with

everything

is a

correction and some of

this and claims

message

NO...you should not believe me...or anyone else. you should do some research, study the physics until you can see for yourself.

so far it is entirely evident that you need to start at step one...doing some research.

Phil Scott

Here is one article of thousands... for articles on grid effects add grid, degradation, harmonic distortions to the seach...you will get thousands of hits... this is NOT a new concept.

There are books on it...do a google search and take your pick of books and professional assn articles. You want ME to write you my own thesis? On this issue that is written about extensively and very easily referenced?

I will abstain from selecting any particular link...as one article is just one article the complete picture is contained in the larger body of work. Sorry, your education is an inside job... there is not much I can or wish to do in that regard.

"the term Back EMF' is also self describing.. a back flow of electro motive force though the feeders from the motor. your complete unawareness of this very commonly faced and studied situation defines your level of insight in the electrical engineering field.

Yammering on about some real or bogus PhD status is a bogus argument... then a supposed PhD posts denying the existence this well known phenomena...not too bright.

search

'web' tab...with the key words "back EMF, motors, grid, harmonic distortion, pf"

you will get 2860 hits in less than 2.3 seconds. Here is one from the University of South Wales. defining back emf in the context of motors

add 'harmonic distortion, power grid effects, degratation' and you will get articles on the broader range of issues, back emf into the utility grid.

Back emf occurs in

voltage (back emf)

current, that

effect is

Correct. But missing the next step...this back emf goes back into the power grid ..and that increases with phase angle distortions etc. You think there is some magic door at the motor leads that stop these effects? read up bud.

emf and the

Only if there is no slip are you correct......but all motors have some slip...and slip goes exponential with DROPS in voltage below the motor rating and with unbalanced phases, harmonic distortions into the supply grid from other nearby factories for instance...a very very well known phenomena. all of which you appear to be utterly ignorant of.

Amazing... this is not new, or even esoteric stuff...its common electrical engineering on any power grid that serves heavy industry...completely common. Old news... with all osrts of remediation available both in plant and at the utility (capacitor banks).

You didnt know this? You are unable to search google? Please.

get generated

have a source of

sink for vars,

the utility,

motors can be

state conditions,

ah now you are getting a little brigher ...you have covered your ass, albeit a little late and issued an exception...in your last sentence... 'under steady state conditions'... most industrial motors operate in anything but steady state conditions..with line voltage constantly varying... and low voltage an absolutely cronic problem in hot weather in most parts of the country... so much for 'steady state conditions'

But thats progress...at least now you are admitting to 'back emf.' generation..are you admitting now also that such generated effects travel on the line and do not automatically and magically stop at the lug connectors?

You are demonstrating that you are a theorist with little or no understanding of the pervasive anomalies in which the real world operates...

did you know that utility supplied service is virtually NEVER perfectly balanced or to a steady prescribed voltage? Do you know that voltage deviations in the 10% range are the RULE...not an exception?

So you describe a motor operating in perfect conditions with no slip as an example of what? Actuality.

You are demonstrating a level of utter cluelessness that is hard to fathom, except that I have spent a lot of time consulting for E and C's in the previous 40 years and I find the level of sheer mind boggling ignorance and confusion the rule.... rather than the exception.

correct. Otherwise described as 'back emf'

reactive current to

own vars of

more efficient

question as to what you

like to

you saying a

look... really you must get a grip here...voltage alone as you surely must know is not particularly relevant unless there is amperage involved..so the back EMF is NOT just voltage as you state...it is as its own term says Electro Motive Force...and that is comprised of both voltage, and amperage and in an AC system, wave function. Force is an energy function... the number of electrons and the voltage applied defines the net 'force'... thus the term EMF.

You should know enough to address EMF issues in its proper context but obviously you do not. Thats revealing. I suggest you avail yourself of the nearly countless books and articles on these very very common issues. Its not rocket science...

References that do not address the issues of back emf and the power grid distortion by such forces will of course not address the issue at hand.

I suggeset instead of looking in the wrong places you look at references that address these issues.

Phil Scott

.

You give me the same reference that I gave you?! And it does not say anything about back emf effecting the grid.

Hahahahahahahahahaha. You really should get a copy of IEEE STD 100. It would help you with your terminology errors. Back emf and reactive current are NOT the same.

Odd, you give the same reference as support for your arguement and then say when I give the same reference that it is irrelevant.

I think you should get an engineering education and then return to this group. You evidently are suffering from knowing a problem needs addressing (reactive current) but never learning the correct terminology used in the field. Just as Don Kelley, and I, said, you are having a problem communicating because you are "speaking the wrong language". Documents like IEEE STD 100 (it is a dictionary of electrical terms) exist so that people can discuss technical subjects using a common terminology. Of course in this case, any power systems text book would correct your error in terminology.

Charles Perry P.E.

Back EMF is a voltage.

Back EMF is a voltage. It opposes the terminal voltage, but it doesn't go anywhere.

Wrong answer. By steady state I mean the power system is supplying power to the motor which is turning a load as opposed to the power system having a fault and the motor acting as a generator supplying fault current.

Wrong, back emf is a voltage.

Now you are just being annoying. Back EMF, or counter EMF, as defined by IEEE STD 100: "The effective electromotive force within the system that opposes the passage of current in a specified direction."

Now we look up EMF: "Electromotive Force. See Voltage"

What was that? Oh no, it really is a voltage. Just as anyone familiar with Faradays Law would know.

For your reference, this was out of IEEE STD 100-1988 but I doubt the definition has changed since then.

Other references that will help you understand exactly what emf is:

"Electromagnetics", Third Edition, J. D. Krauss, McGraw Hill, 1984, pages

124-128.

"A Programmed Review for Electrical Engineering", Second Edition, J. H. Bentley, K. M Hess, Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, 1984, page 91. (nice equation for emf, answer is in volts...imagine that)

"Electric Machinery", Fourth Edition, A. E. Fitzgerald, C. Kingsley, S. D. Umans, McGraw Hill, 1983, pages 151-152. (Very nice explanation. They even use the term "speed voltage" to try to give an visual of what EMF is).

"Electric Machinery", Fifth Edition, A. E. Fitzgerald, C. Kingsley, S. D. Umans, McGraw Hill, 1990, page 10. ( very nice illustration and discussion of emf..again as in induced voltage).

"Standard Handbook for Electric Engineers", 12th Edition, D. G. Fink, H. W. Beaty, McGraw Hill, 1987, page 8.19. (nice formula for calculating emf. Sadly, for you at least, the answer is in volts).

"Electrical Machinery", F. A. Annett, McGraw Hill, 1938, pages 119-137. ( an old book but a great explanation of how motors work. It is particularly good for people without engineering degrees since it uses some very nice analogies...you should like this one.)

These are just some of the books that I have in my office. I could come up with dozens more if I walked down the hall to our library.

I think you would be well served to read the above mentioned texts.

Even your own reference calls it a voltage. Sad really.

You have shot your credibility with your posts. You have used incorrect terminology in nearly every post in this thread. When this was pointed out to you, you attacked those who knew what they were talking about. I suggest you reference a few text books before posting again. This may save some embarrassment on your part.

Charles Perry P.E.

message

grid

new

back

does not say

Not the same reference at all... I pulled that off of a google search...you asked for a definition of back emf... thats it... period.. now you want proof that back flows onto the grid... the very nature of back emf.... and there are over

2000 hits on that and you dont read any them... then if I post ONE you say thats insufficient without any elaboration except to make your utterly ludicrious denials yet again... then as I see you are doing some research you try to hedge by saying that in unbalanced conditions there is a feed back.... thats really choice charles... conditions are ALWAYS unbalanced... there is no such thing as perfectly balanced lines, the voltage is off by upt to 10% or more a majority of the time.

so the best you can do now is ignore my remarks on that point...and do your ridicule.

Charlie, you might think you look good, you might think your idiot friend with the 'PhD' looks good.... but by denying the issue of back emf affecting the grid you prove with no doubt your incompetence in that area.... its obvious charlie...

so now you are trying to hair split terms in order to obfuscate your ignorance.... its too late for that Charlie...you are already on record first saying back emf is confinced to themotor and doesnt affect the grid..... then later saying it does if the supplied power out of balance.... but then adding onlyif voltage is high.

Charlie, it does not get anymore ludicrous than that.... the voltage in these cases is almost always low for a wide range of well understood reasons...and thats one of the primary causes of back emf into the grid...and the best you can do now is try to spin the terms and weasle?

You and your idiot friend have trashed yourselves in less than a day...on very basic issues....impressive.

Then you snip my replys and your own idiot remarks exposing yourself.... Charlie, those are the marks of intellectually corrupt and incompetent people.

STD 100. It

reactive current

Back EMF charlie IS a form of reactive current... a primary form of it...but yes there *additional froms of reactive current besides back EMF...

You have dug yourself a large and abusive and bogus hole in the dirt here Charlie...and its obvious.

My argument is at the level of saying water is wet.... then you say ICE is not wet... thats spin pal...not impressive...and a real cheap and non effective way to save your ass after exposing it so badly in your series of posts here (snipping my arguments and your error)..

Kiddy games Charlie... and these do not speak will for you...such intellectual lack of integrity bodes badly for its host... this thread is a prime example. You have toasted yourself with your own behavior.

> > > >

>

the

look at

arguement and then say

nah I just posted the same link twice.... you don't read well charlie. and you quirm like a guilty perb during interrogation. The squuirming is fully obvious charlie.

return to this

needs addressing

back emf is a primary form if not the THE primary form of 'reactive current', especially with motors. ..but not all reactive current is not back emf from a motor...thus the distinction which you are clearly and utterly unable to fathom...when someone is blatanly this dense then wishes to put up such bogus arguments, they hurt only themselves charlie. Reactive current is the generic term... back EMF is a specific term in the class, related to motors.

Given utterly your obvious lack of comprehension you want ME to parse this for you while you lie at me? Charlie.... its a waste of time...

problem

Back EMF is the correct term in motor applications that I have been referencing extensively. and that feeds back into the grid as you finally admitted, if the supplied voltage is not *perfectly in balance...and it never is charlie...

so the best you can do is come up with theoretical examples... then admit that if the power is out of balance there is feed back....

QED

not impressive bud... especially for an EE PE.

Documents like

so that people

Of course in

error in

you might wish to learn how to read your own references Charlie... you list a generic term then attempt to divorce it from its own specific examples.

thats bogus pal.

Phil Scott

I give up. I should know better than to try to teach electrical engineering to an electrician. Some just won't listen.

Charles Perry P.E.

message

flow

more bogus argument Charlie... without amperage there is nothing that flows to create the *force implicit in the term.... force charley is Mass x Accleration... you are tying to leave the mass out of the equation...and describe EMF as voltage only.

it doesnt get any farther south than that bud

You cant possibly be that ignorant Charlie... and if its spin,,, you are spinning yourself in with such ludicrous positions.

reduces

The

back

the

it doesn't go

:) you have now contradicted your earlier remarks that back EMF goes into the grid if the power to the motor generating it is unbalanced (and it virtually allways is Charlie)... have you ever seen for instance a dead nuts perfect read of 240 volts to ground on a three phase service..for an entire day with no deviation? Of course not... our nations power grid is not remotely that stable.

covered

exception...in

most

low

most

conditions'

supplying power to

system having a

current.

Yer wobbling real bad with that bit of spin there Charlie. Real loopy argument there pal, it doesnt parse well... its is in contraction to your long time assertion that back emf doenst feed back onto the grid...that is if one can even parse such a masacre of the english language.

Again yes back EMF has voltage as *one of its aspects... but by leaving out the amperage component you attempt to deny flow, and the FORCE implicit the term,.. voltage alone is not force... voltage alone charlie is just a potential... when ^force comes into the equation, and the third word in the anagram EMF is force... then you have actual current flow... back EMF is *current flow charlie...and current flow affects the grid obviously

QED charlie.

as

there

as

amperage

applied

as defined by

opposes the

thats a correct but limited definition... and you know better by now, evidence by your own earlier weaseling.

Yes voltage is one aspect of force...it is absolutely nothing though without amperage (the actual electrons)...you have a dictionary confused with a text. A dictionary defines terms, a text tells you how it all fits together... you have not learned how voltage and amperage fit together to create

*force... which IS *mass x accleleration..

your view on physics Charlie seems to virtually non existent... so you are trying argue these ludicrous positions of yours with out of context one liner definitions.

I rest my case Charlie... you will have to spin in the wind alone now.

Phil Scott

anyone familiar with

doubt the

emf is:

Hill, 1984, pages

Edition, J. H.

page 91. (nice

Kingsley, S. D.

explanation. They even

what EMF is).

Kingsley, S. D.

and discussion

G. Fink, H. W.

calculating emf.

pages 119-137. (

is particularly

some very nice

I could come up

suggest

articles

science...

texts.

used incorrect

was pointed out

about. I suggest

may save some

message

electrical engineering

Smart move, wrong reason.

Phil Scott

---------------- I am quite aware of what a motor does. You keep referring to a motor that is slipping- all induction motors slip - they must if they are to work. Most motors are induction motors. No slip- no mechanical output. Basic. Also please note that any motor must produce some back emf- in fact this is necessary- a consequence of conservation of energy- emf proportional to speed and current proportional to torque. No emf- then torque*speed = mech power=0. Again basic.

If an induction motor is disconnected from the system, it will generate a back emf for a very short while. Adding pf correction at the terminals increases the time that this occurs. This can lead to problems if the motor is reconnected while this voltage exists- the problem will be with excess torque on the machine itself.

If you are referring to a synchronous machine and this may be where your confusion is coming from- there will be a field controlled generated voltage (i.e. your back emf) and this is normal and necessary in operation.

If a synchronous machine slips- there is a problem with system stability (in fact -the lower the emf generated the more likely is the chance of instability). That is a problem that will not be corrected by power factor correction (in fact a synchronous machine doesn't need external power factor correction) as it is a fairly complex dynamic situation involving the masses of the (more than one) synchronous machines coupled through impedances of transmission lines.

The concept of EMF "escaping" into the system appears to be your own invention. You have given noting to back up this idea. The only reference that you have given so far is quite alright but sketchy and certainly doesn't support your contentions.

I would suggest that you review data base and add some energy conversion theory and concepts to it as you have, so far, shown a distinct weakness in this area, just as I would show a distinct weakness in electronic or RF technology.

--------- If so then the claim that you have made for harmonic distortion has no basis in fact. Please tell me the basis for your claim of harmonic distortions- you have evaded that question

-----------.

--------- Dealing with induction motors - there will be slip at any load and any voltage. Slip is needed for energy conversion in these machines which are the dominant industrial motors. Certainly, at any given torque, the slip will be higher at lower voltage (or, conversely, the torque will vary approximately with the square of the voltage) at any given slip- at rated voltage a slip of 3% may occur- at 90% voltage the slip will be about 4% - difference is 18rpm for a 4 pole 60Hz motor). I did not deny that. It also follows that at starting the available torque at 90% rated voltage will be

81% of the normal starting torque.

I suggest that you re-read what I said -not what you wish I said, . Pf correction can reduce slip ONLY if it improves the voltage at the motor terminals.

I note that you have not produced a counter argument (or definite references to back up your position) to my point that the efficiency and other performance factors of induction motors depends on the terminal voltage(including its frequency) and the mechanical load on the motor- you don't correct the pf of the motor itself- you correct the overall pf of the "motor Plus capacitors". The difference is fundamental.

-------------------------

-------------------- Could it be that "we" are working from a knowledge of machine (and power system) behaviour and the factors involved?

-------- Are you saying that back emf is a mechanical force? That is what mass times acceleration implies. Note also that a spring produces a force proportional to position and there is no acceleration involved. Also frictional forces depend on speed -not acceleration speed. Your "definition" of force is strictly one of several mechanical cases. Sorry- by all definitions- emf is a voltage only- the problem is that the name "electromagnetic force" was coined analogously over a century ago and this nomenclature leads to misconcepts such as you indicate. The analogy was that as a force can cause motion, a voltage can cause a current flow (note: "can" doesn't mean that it will). In a motor there will be a generated voltage opposing the applied voltage and this got the unfortunate name "back" emf. In fact, in analysis of an induction motor, it is not actually a useful concept. In a synchronous or DC motor it is just the voltage that is generated internally at a given speed. As with any voltage- it exists only between two points-it doesn't propagate or flow.

Please note that no-one is saying that back emf doesn't affect current. In fact it better do so if a motor is to operate at any speed other than 0 or "fly apart".

---------- Normal fluctuation of voltage (or frequency) on a power system is not considered any form of instability. If you are referring to power systems- "stability" has a particular meaning. Voltage instability has another meaning and this is not related to fluctuations at the 240V level. Unbalance does affect motor performance - that is true. Since loads on a system, particularly at the low voltage distribution level (i.e 240V) are generally not balanced the voltages seen at a particular point will be unbalanced. Neither harmonic or pf correction will deal with this. Again- emf =voltage doesn't propagate.

----------------

------------- EMF or electromotive force according to the Oxford dictionary- "a potential difference between two points which tends to give rise to a current" ( doesn't mean that it will actually do so-that depends on the circuit) "Back emf" is an emf opposing some applied voltage.I also checked with several university level texts. I note that texts on electric machines don't even bother with the term "back emf"or even the term "emf". A beginning circuits text mentions "so called" emf. The term is an anachronism and is disappearing because it gives rise to the nonsense that you have given above. You may give whatever interpretation to the words that you want but I would recommend that you use the terminology that is in standard use. I would also recommend a basic high school physics book and then some of the texts that Charles has suggested.

If you are depending on such simplistic sources as the one (repeated below) as you gave Charles, you really have problems. It is a hand waving approach which really doesn't cut it. This appears to be aimed at prospective grade school teachers. It certainly is not what I would expect from an engineering faculty.

If you want to rest your case- fine- but please learn some of the fundamentals of what you are resting it on.

message

message

back

motor.

and

is

tying

as

I am saying it is Electro Magnetic Force... if you cant fathom that look up each word in the term... and dont skip

*force.. and the definition of force... In the physical sciences, including electro magnetics,,, force is defined as *MASS x Acceleration ... its very simple.

the MASS in the term is the mass of the electrons when you are talking about Electro Magnetic FORCE...

You are not at all up to speed this extremely rudimentary aspect of physics...and yes it applies broadly to electricity as well...where ever force is involved there is MASS as far as modern science understands the issue to date.

No MASS no force.

Voltage without something to move (electrons) is a sheer potential... only with electrons involved and moving does it become FORCE.. EMF.

Sorry... thats real basic.

Lacking those insights you end up with a very very thin grasp of electricity... then fail to understand these sorts of issues, confusing a sheer *potential.. (voltage) with power, of which electro magnetic force is the integral derivation

force proportional

frictional forces

Mass is involved in both.. in the case of a spring the atomic structures in the steel are deformed...and that deformation in in direct proportion to the amount of mass (steel) as long as you hold the spring compressed you must assert energy .

but yes it is in static equilibrium...somthing like two oposing jets of water colliding in mid air... both streams stop,,

of force is

Physics is a very broad subject... there are all sort of live and static examples. The definition of force in its many manifestations always includes mass.

I am not prepaired to spend time trying to educate you in basic physics for many reasons..not the least of which is your effort to justify your own lack of insight on this EMF thang.

You waste a lot time that way..

problem is that the

century ago and

The physics of Force were unstood by Newton... its not a new concept.. voltage with no electrons involved presents no force what so ever, you can do nothing with it...even at 10 billion volts and no electrons you couldnt electrocute an ant or light a billionth of a watt lamp.

You are in a position where these exeedingly basic issues are a mystery to you... you will do better to come up to speed rather than seek to justify your lack of insight.

The analogy was

current flow (note:

You are neither right or wrong here...you are wobbling around and bouncing off the side walls... I will not bother trying to sort your confusion out.

applied voltage

analysis of an

synchronous or DC

a given speed.

That remark was more or less right but still attached to your larger confusion.

doesn't propagate

This remark arises from a broad range of ignorances.

affect current. In

other than 0 or

You are not lookinga the unbalance situation when back EMF is not neutralized in the motor...but progagates to the source feed and grid, as yer friend Charlie finally admitted to...in the case of unbalanced voltage or other harmonic disturbances across the lines.. (he missed by saying it was only too high a voltage...that was dim of him... with our power grid too high almost never happens unless you count the occasional spike... low voltage is pervasively common..and its a big problem.. the root of harmonic disturbances in local and area grids primarily motor and transformer caused.

and there are books on it... if are an EE your texts would have a chapter on the issue.

system.

creates a

resistance.

goes

angle

at

but

that

system is not

:) getting a little spinny here are we? Yes *normal* fluxuation is considered....well...errrr. Normal..Duh...

but its still instablity..it only gets called an unstable grid if the voltage deviations exceed 10% or so and or fluxate wildly..

You would do better to understand the physics than trying to spin the language.

has another

level. Unbalance

a system,

240V) are generally

unbalanced.

Oh please... look what you said is not wrong it is an attempt at jabber jabber jabber and obfuscation though.. you have no clue about the larger issues, make one erronious remark after the other then toss in some generically true but not related remarks..

Not impressive.

Again- emf =voltage

Now thats a real hoot there bud.

Phil Scott

conditions'...

and

is

power

fault

Charlie.

its is

parse

aspects...

deny

not

flow...

affects

dictionary- "a potential

current"

depends on the

checked with

with the term

mentions "so

gives rise to the

interpretation to

the terminology

school physics

(repeated below)

waving approach

prospective grade

from an engineering

of the

alone

unless

voltage

Motive

energy

EMF,

that

know

absolutely

electrons)...you

defines

have

create

positions

wind

but I

what

C.

C.

illustration

Edition, D.

It

uses

office.

library.

proper

mentioned

have

this

talking

This

Look, Don...you have been so far south on basics that I will not be spending any more time trying to parse your wide range of scientifically illerate replies..

Good luck in your life otherwise.

Phil Scott

message

in

news:q2Y8d.24906$ snipped-for-privacy@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...

wrote in

wrote in

about

do

you

the

intelligent

incorrect...

well

major

any

statements.

years

spent

is

cannot

especially

back

base

a motor that is

to work. Most

Basic.

in fact this is

proportional to

torque*speed = mech

will generate a

terminals

problems if the motor

be with excess

be where your

generated voltage

operation.

system stability

chance of

by power factor

external power factor

involving the masses

impedances of

your own

only reference

certainly

some energy

shown a distinct

weakness in