Lathe Motor Amperage Rating

[strantor]

Is it just me or are these terrible videos? I sat down to enjoy them, and and quickly realized either they don't understand what they are talking about or can't explain it. Maybe both.
rScotty

You're probably referring to the two videos near the end of my post, which are the ones I recorded. I accept the criticism and admit, I am not an educator.

The last video was a demonstration in response to claims on another forum that current flows opposite directions through the loads on L1 and L2. The claims were "proven" by others using LTSpice simulator, which allows one to change the direction of current flow by re-orienting "polarized resistors." Without that context I can see how it would be confusing. My apologies for not explaining.

Regarding the second to last video, that is my first and (so far) only attempt at an instructional video. It is understandable for some and not for others. Two years of responding to comments on it reveals that I lack the skill to broadcast ideas in a way that is universally understandable to all. I recorded it because, at the time, there were no other videos which clearly explained the topic, which I could direct people to when the topic came up. That has changed however, and Dave Gordon has put together a much better video than mine. If you're interested in a better understanding of 120/240V and my videos weren't on your wavelength, please check out his. With the understanding he imparts, it should be more apparent what I was failing to convey.

 

[rScotty]

You're probably referring to the two videos near the end of my post, which are the ones I recorded. I accept the criticism and admit, I am not an educator.

The last video was a demonstration in response to claims on another forum that current flows opposite directions through the loads on L1 and L2. The claims were "proven" by others using LTSpice simulator, which allows one to change the direction of current flow by re-orienting "polarized resistors." Without that context I can see how it would be confusing. My apologies for not explaining.

Regarding the second to last video, that is my first and (so far) only attempt at an instructional video. It is understandable for some and not for others. Two years of responding to comments on it reveals that I lack the skill to broadcast ideas in a way that is universally understandable to all. I recorded it because, at the time, there were no other videos which clearly explained the topic, which I could direct people to when the topic came up. That has changed however, and Dave Gordon has put together a much better video than mine. If you're interested in a better understanding of 120/240V and my videos weren't on your wavelength, please check out his. With the understanding he imparts, it should be more apparent what I was failing to convey.

OK. I hear the same thing from my friends. Apparently I don't explain well either.
My tractor seems to understand me well enough; my old dog less so. The cat doesn't even try.
rScotty

 

[strantor]

If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough.

Albert Einstein

Albert Einstein, the brain behind the Theory of Relativity, said this? He whose theories are so abstract that some people who spend years studying them still don't understand them, and whose equations require math that most people never learn? Uhhh...

Sorry to burst your bubble, but he never said this. This is one of the most flagrantly repeated false quotes ever to meet the internet. It's #2 on the list of fake Einstein quotes and it isn't attributed to just him. People take these words and shove them in the mouth of the smartest person they can think of; Einstein, Feynman, Hawking, you name it. All the important physicists have "said" this in form or another. It's hilarious when people put "-Richard Feynman" after these words, as he actually said the exact opposite:

"Hell, if I could explain it to the average person, it wouldn't have been worth the Nobel prize."
-Richard Feynman





How about this:
"If you can't explain colors to a blind man then you don't understand colors."
-strantor


This isn't about a misattributed quote. It's about my disdain for this vapid notion that, by intent or unintended consequence, undermines the betterment of knowledge itself. That assertion (that if someone can't force understanding on you, then they don't have understanding themselves) seeks to tear down the credibility of the person providing the explanation so that nobody else will listen to them either. Why do that? If the notion made any sense it wouldn't need to be artificially propped up by the name of Albert Einstein in order for people to perpetuate it.

I wonder how many Gregor Mendels, Louis Pasteurs and Ludwig Boltzmanns never made the history books because they never found that one influential person willing to listen long enough to understand them, and what potential troves of collective knowledge we lack as a result. It must suck existing in obscurity, questioning your own sanity amid chants of "if you can't explain it to me then you're stupid, not me."

That's not me. I'm no brilliant pioneer of electrical theory, I was just trying to help folks understand something that I see as being fundamental to understanding single phase power, that the textbooks typically gloss over. If it wasn't helpful then I'm sorry. I can handle criticism of my inability to eloquate concepts but that is an entirely different (and recognized) deficiency than not personally understanding the subject matter. You can call me a bad orator but don't call me wrong until you have something more substantial than your own lack of understanding to submit as evidence.

 

[MTGreen]

Albert Einstein, the brain behind the Theory of Relativity, said this? He whose theories are so abstract that some people who spend years studying them still don't understand them, and whose equations require math that most people never learn? Uhhh...

Sorry to burst your bubble, but he never said this. This is one of the most flagrantly repeated false quotes ever to meet the internet. It's #2 on the list of fake Einstein quotes and it isn't attributed to just him. People take these words and shove them in the mouth of the smartest person they can think of; Einstein, Feynman, Hawking, you name it. All the important physicists have "said" this in form or another. It's hilarious when people put "-Richard Feynman" after these words, as he actually said the exact opposite:

"Hell, if I could explain it to the average person, it wouldn't have been worth the Nobel prize."
-Richard Feynman





How about this:
"If you can't explain colors to a blind man then you don't understand colors."
-strantor


This isn't about a misattributed quote. It's about my disdain for this vapid notion that, by intent or unintended consequence, undermines the betterment of knowledge itself. That assertion (that if someone can't force understanding on you, then they don't have understanding themselves) seeks to tear down the credibility of the person providing the explanation so that nobody else will listen to them either. Why do that? If the notion made any sense it wouldn't need to be artificially propped up by the name of Albert Einstein in order for people to perpetuate it.

I wonder how many Gregor Mendels, Louis Pasteurs and Ludwig Boltzmanns never made the history books because they never found that one influential person willing to listen long enough to understand them, and what potential troves of collective knowledge we lack as a result. It must suck existing in obscurity, questioning your own sanity amid chants of "if you can't explain it to me then you're stupid, not me."

That's not me. I'm no brilliant pioneer of electrical theory, I was just trying to help folks understand something that I see as being fundamental to understanding single phase power, that the textbooks typically gloss over. If it wasn't helpful then I'm sorry. I can handle criticism of my inability to eloquate concepts but that is an entirely different (and recognized) deficiency than not personally understanding the subject matter. You can call me a bad orator but don't call me wrong until you have something more substantial than your own lack of understanding to submit as evidence.

It would appear that this is the TBN week of taking umbrage.
Rscotty's post about difficult to apprehend teaching videos reminded me of a quote commonly attributed to Albert Einstein which I posted and thought others might appreciate.
Nothing personal and wasn't aimed at you nor did anyone say you were wrong

 

[strantor]

It would appear that this is the TBN week of taking umbrage.
Rscotty's post about difficult to apprehend teaching videos reminded me of a quote commonly attributed to Albert Einstein which I posted and thought others might appreciate.
Nothing personal and wasn't aimed at you nor did anyone say you were wrong

Sorry if I responded disproportionately. I'm just sick of seeing that "quote." It's been weaponized against me more than once in the past and left me with a chip on my shoulder.

 

[rScotty]

You're probably referring to the two videos near the end of my post, which are the ones I recorded. I accept the criticism and admit, I am not an educator.

The last video was a demonstration in response to claims on another forum that current flows opposite directions through the loads on L1 and L2. The claims were "proven" by others using LTSpice simulator, which allows one to change the direction of current flow by re-orienting "polarized resistors." Without that context I can see how it would be confusing. My apologies for not explaining.

Regarding the second to last video, that is my first and (so far) only attempt at an instructional video. It is understandable for some and not for others. Two years of responding to comments on it reveals that I lack the skill to broadcast ideas in a way that is universally understandable to all. I recorded it because, at the time, there were no other videos which clearly explained the topic, which I could direct people to when the topic came up. That has changed however, and Dave Gordon has put together a much better video than mine. If you're interested in a better understanding of 120/240V and my videos weren't on your wavelength, please check out his. With the understanding he imparts, it should be more apparent what I was failing to convey.

I just watched Dave Gordon's video. It is fascinating. Excellent. Thanks to Strantor for recommending it.

For anyone who watches it, there is a slight chance of misunderstanding at roughly 12:07 minutes into his video where he uses the words "180 degrees out of phase" when he is clearly talking about two voltages opposite in their polarity. Keep in mind that is just a manner of speaking. Relative polarity is not phase. In his video the example circuit is DC, and DC cannot be out of phase with itself. What he could have and should have said is that the two different measurements "are exactly 180 degrees opposite in their relative polarity.

It is just the way we all use language sometimes. He is speaking about voltage measurements, but unfortunately uses the word "phase" to mean "in opposition to". The culprit there is not our understanding, it is in the we way we tend to speak.

It may also help to realize that his pwn use of the word "phase" changes meaning as he switches from his example of a DC circuit over to AC electrical/magnetic theory.

The reason for this is that AC theory is more complicated because in AC motor theory we need to distinguish between simultaneous displacements in both electrical polarity and the timing of the sine wave. To help with that, AC discussions reserve the word "phase" to refer only to temporal displacement.

Think of it this way: In AC electrical theory, a "phase difference" means simply that things are happening at different times. At any moment the relative polarity of two voltages may be in opposition or not, but relative polarity and phase are different things which are not necessarily related.

I hope this helps, but I am not the talented teacher that Dave Gordon is. This is no way a detraction from his presentation - which I enjoyed very much.

rScotty

 

[strantor]

I just watched Dave Gordon's video. It is fascinating. Excellent. Thanks to Strantor for recommending it.

For anyone who watches it, there is a slight chance of misunderstanding at roughly 12:07 minutes into his video where he uses the words "180 degrees out of phase" when he is clearly talking about two voltages opposite in their polarity. Keep in mind that is just a manner of speaking. Relative polarity is not phase. In his video the example circuit is DC, and DC cannot be out of phase with itself. What he could have said is that the two different measurements "are exactly 180 degrees opposite in their relative polarity.

It is just the way we all use language sometimes. He is speaking about voltage measurements, but unfortunately uses the word "phase" to mean "in opposition to". The culprit there is not our understanding, it is in the we speak.

It may also help to realize that his use of the word "phase" changes meaning as he switches from his example of a DC circuit over to AC electrical/magnetic theory, The reason for this is that AC theory is more complicated because we need to distinguish between simultaneous displacements in both electrical polarity and the timing of the sine wave. To help with that, AC discussions reserve the word "phase" to refer only to temporal displacement.

Think of it this way: In AC electrical theory, a "phase difference" means simply that things are happening at different times. At any moment the relative polarity of two voltages may be in opposition or not, but relative polarity and phase are different things which are not necessarily related.

I hope this helps, but I am not the talented teacher that Dave Gordon is. This is no way a detraction from his presentation - which I enjoyed very much.

rScotty

Yes he made the same mistake, or fell into the same trap, as I did in my video. He tried to frame his argument in the same (incorrect) terminology used by those making the counter-argument, so as to make the content of the video stay "on topic," insofar as viewers would expect the topic to be.

What we both should have done is start early on by pointing out the difference between a 180 degree phase shift and a polarity inversion (indistinguishable difference for an unmolested sine wave but still important to understand), make it clear that what we are really seeing and what we are really talking about is a polarity inversion, and then use the proper term (polarity inversion) for the remainder of the video.