Talk:Split-phase electric power

It is the AC equivalent of the former Edison direct current distribution system.
How is this related to the Edison direct current distribution system?-Crunchy Numbers 18:13, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


 * A more correct title or term would be "split wiring system". There is nothing inherint in the wiring system that makes it specific to DC or AC. The sources would be different (a battery or rectifier system for DC, or a generator or transformer secondary for AC), but the concepts are essentially the same.


 * Think of wiring up a 12 volt electrical system in a small isolated cabin. You might use a marine deep cycle battery, trickle charged from a solar energy source, to run the system. You could double the system essentially just like Edison's 110/220 volt system, as a 12/24 volt system, and 3 wires. By adding only 50% more wire of the same gauge on the feed from the 2 batteries, you have doubled the system capacity.


 * Now suppose you install a generator that puts out 240 volts. You get a transformer that reduces that 240 volts AC to 2 separate secondary windings of 12 volts each. One of those windings would be good to operate the original 2 wire 1 battery system. But with the split phase 12/24 volt system on 2 batteries, you could run it from the transformer instead by wiring the 2 secondary windings together in place of the batteries just like the batteries were wired. As long as everything in the cabin doesn't care whether it gets AC or DC (incandescent lights and universal motors), it should work fine. Skapare 02:13, 27 September 2006 (UTC)


 * In short, the statement "It is the AC equivalent of the former Edison direct current distribution system." is a red herring. The reader would need to know so much detail about the Edison system, and which specific parts of that were relevant to the "equivalence", that the comparison will inform no one who doesn't already know about split phase system. I suggest removing the statement because it just presents a pointless barrier to understanding. Gwideman (talk) 01:35, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Phasor
The claim that a split-phase system is a type of "single phase" system is wrong. The statement: "Since the two phasors do not define a unique direction of rotation for a revolving magnetic field, a split single-phase is not a two-phase system." Is wrong and not supported by wikipedia phasor narrative, or any other narrative anywhere else.

If the claims made here that a 240V split-phase system is a single phase system because the waveforms are 180 degrees apart, it leaves the question of a 208V system, with voltages 120 degrees apart. Cycle0 (talk) 17:49, 11 July 2019 (UTC)


 * linear phasing does NOT generate rotating magnetic fields. 76.179.89.229 (talk) 01:42, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Intro: "Its primary advantage..." ?
"Its primary advantage is that it saves conductor material over a single-ended single-phase system, while only requiring a single phase on the supply side of the distribution transformer."

1) "Its [split phase's] primary advantage" -- relative to what? Presumably single phase?

2) "it saves conductor material over a single-ended single-phase system" How does it save conductor material? It seems the opposite: a) It requires supplying an additional conductor to the house. b) The conductors within the house have to have twice the current-carrying capacity for the same load power. (Assuming we're comparing 240V single phase with 2 x 120V split phase). The only advantages of split phase that I am aware of are: a) There are two different voltages available for different loads. Which is only an advantage if one already has loads of "half-voltage" appliances. b) 120V is less than 240V and thus somewhat less of a shock hazard. Gwideman (talk) 01:43, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Connections section seems POV
The section read slightly biased towards split-phased power. For instance, the discussion and diagram about loads being chained together in a balanced-power system (which is erroneously described as "series") ignores that the split-phase load balanced diagram actually describes an Edison circuit (i.e., shared neutral), which is really just a pair of circuits (including paired circuit breakers). The equivalent balanced power installation wouldn't be a single higher-ampacity circuit, it would be two separate circuits with the same wire size as the Edison circuit. True, the wire savings is still the same (or even slightly better) – 3 wires vs. 4 wires (current-carrying), and 1 ground vs. 2 grounds – but it doesn't describe real-world installations on an even basis.

Additionally, an Edison circuit prevents GFCI receptacles on only one branch of the Edison circuit; it requires a 2-pole GFCI breaker, which could easily offset the wiring cost of separate balanced power branches. &emsp;—&#8239;sbb&#8239;(talk) 17:49, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The description left out the function of the neutral, which is the whole point of the Edsion3-wire distribution system. Nothing to do with GFCI. Yeah, articles tend to have a bias in favor of things that work. --Wtshymanski (talk) 23:08, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Figure 4 In Error?
In, the upper-left example and upper-right example both appear to depict parallel and therefore balanced loads. The only difference is one more device on the left, but this doesn't change the topology of the circuit so why is the right side labeled as unbalanced? 72.141.157.76 (talk) 17:59, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Definition of "2-phase" is logicall wrong
Article states "Since the two phasors do not define a unique direction of rotation for a revolving magnetic field, a split single-phase is not a two-phase system." In reality, NO two phasors define a unique direction of rotation. Proof: An electric machine with a single rotating magnetic field can be constructed to produce 2 phasors with ANY arbitrary phase difference. Therefore, ANY 2 phasors with phase difference not equal to 0 are a 2-phase system. 142.120.216.159 (talk) 20:38, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
 * And what are the phasors doing in your hypothetical machines? What do they do when the machine is turned in the other direction? --Wtshymanski (talk) 22:57, 24 June 2023 (UTC)