?

Don, you now have me confused. I suspect the terminology used may be
the cause. DC does not have phase. I am not sure how a three-wire DC
system works. Since AC and DC are quite different I don't see how a DC
system could be "copied" for AC.
Three wire AC distribution is at the end user where the pole
transformer usually reduces voltage from the pole lines to the consumer
voltage. Very often these transformers have a center tapped secondary
feeding the house. The outlets in the house can go to either side of the
incoming feed and the center tap or, for some high power items like
electric stoves or clothes dryers, across both sides for double the
voltage. The center tap is the return for the single side feeds and is
not used for the across the line feed except as a neutral. This does not
include ground connections, which do not usually go to the power line
but to an independent ground, perhaps a ground stake.
For this system to work the phase of the two sides is opposite.
That is, when one is most negative the other will be most positive. That
gives the full voltage across the line, while going to the center tap
gives you half the total voltage. The voltages are determined by the
pole transformer and have nothing to do with the distribution line.
Now, DC is one voltage. It can't be "split" into two phases because
DC doesn't have phases. One side is negative, the other positive. Stays
that way back to the generator. To have double the voltage on must have
two transmission lines from the generating station wired in opposite
polarity. Then one could connect between them and get the twice the
voltage of either line, but they are still essentially independent.
For long distance tranmission at very high voltages but is not
suitable for general distribution. That's why AC is the overwhelming
system in use.
Edison was a genius but had his limits. His name lives on in many
places including a great many electrical energy companies with Edison in
their names. For instance locally the Southern California Edison
Company. In New York City, the Consolidated Edison Co (one of the last
to supply DC current) and many others. Note that the General Electric Co
before its merger was the Edison General Electric Co.
I think I am beating a dead horse and will quite now.

?

Don
According to Mr. A.I. Google, the grounding of the neutral line became
mandatory with the 1913 update to the NEC.? Grounding of the building
service was not explicitly required until 1918.? It seems that the NEC
has always been a work in progress. My search terms were: "when did the
NEC require that the neutral line be grounded" and "when did NEC require
grounded outlets".

Tesla, Sarnoff, Armstrong, de Forest, Shockley, Collins, among many
others, are all demigods, some with a vocal cult following, others with
vocal detractors.? For me it would be Oliver Heaviside and John Costas
to name two relatively unknows but both have made great contributions in
the field of electrical engineering.
Jim

Jim, ??from ?your 3^rd paragraph and the references I agree with the
phrase? “split phase or Edison” ?for AC? systems with the OR included.

I agree Edison was the big man for DC, and he should not be forgotten.
And that 3-Wire DC system was copied for AC.

Thanks for that interesting link to way back. You no doubt notice that
the letters ”ground” do ?not appear.

I am quite aware of the development of AC, but my past “research” leaves
exactly who did what first as an ongoing debate. I have a few Tesla
books that I got at the AWA Rochester 30 years ago.

The use of the term "multi-phase":


<>

<https://
www.britannica.com/science/eddy-current>

<https://
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyphase_system> ???“Multi-phase power generation
designs with 5, 7, 9, 12, and 15 phases in conjunction with “

*From:*[email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Jim Whartenby via
groups.io
*Sent:* Monday, January 13, 2025 4:15 AM
*To:* [email protected]
*Subject:* Re: [HallicraftersRadios] Power distribution, was: 2-wire,
unpolarized outlet ?

Don

I'm really confused by your post and the casual use of terms.? I assume
that you are still annoyed by the use of "Edison" to describe the center
tapped transformer distribution system currently in use?

There were three systems proposed to transmit power early on (1883-1896,
see:

<
PROC.1976.10325>) in the US and perhaps Canada too.? They are single
phase (Westinghouse), two phase aka polyphase (Tesla) and three phase
(Dolivo-Dobrovolsky*)*.? Tesla was the champion of the two phase system
where the two phases are separated by 90 degrees, in the 3 phase system,
120 degrees separates each phase.? The three phase system eventually won
the day.

Some sources credit Tesla with the three phase motor (patent filed in
1897) but his patent specified six wires connecting the motor to the
generator.? This is not what is used today.? Dolivo-Dobrovolsky a
Russian born German working for AEG developed the three phase system now
in use along with the delta-wye configuration, the three phase motor
(1888), three phase transformer and he designed the first three phase
hydroelectric power plant (1891) using all of his developments.

The split phase or Edison distribution system is part of the single
phase system.? The use of the term "multi-phase" is a distortion of
facts and implies a three phase system which it is clearly not.? Yes,
Edison developed his system for the lights powered by the Pearl Street
Station which used a "neutral" and two "hot" conductors.? From one hot
conductor to neutral was 110 VDC and across both hot conductors was 220
VDC.? This configuration is still used today but at a slightly higher
voltage using AC power but the principle is still valid and Edison still
deserves the credit.

Regards,

Jim

Logic: Method used to arrive at the wrong conclusion, with confidence.
Murphy

On Sunday, January 12, 2025 at 08:25:11 PM CST, don Root
<drootofallevil@...> wrote:

This is unfortunately a continuation of a part of the off-topic stuff
that brings down the respect of our forum, but must be done.

Re ??the *wording that began in a different topic**/g/
HallicraftersRadios/message/31466 </g/
HallicraftersRadios/message/31466> *?and somehow has been continued in
this topic and that continues a dispute is:

“Yes, it is known as the Edison split phase system, see:


phase_electric_power#:~:text=A%20split-phase%20or%20single,-
wire%20direct-current%20system. <
phase_electric_power#:~:text=A%20split-phase%20or%20single,-
飞颈谤别%20诲颈谤别肠迟-肠耻谤谤别苍迟%20蝉测蝉迟别尘.&驳迟;”

I previously glossed over the above wording believing that a comma was
just accidentally missing, and knowing people often use loose wording to
express difficult stuff, however when looking at the quoted link, I see
the following:

quote

“A *split-phase* or *single-phase three-wire* system is a type of
single-phase electric power <
phase_electric_power> distribution. ??It is the alternating current
<> (AC) equivalent of
the original Edison Machine Works <
Edison_Machine_Works> three-wire direct-current <https://
别苍.飞颈办颈辫别诲颈补.辞谤驳/飞颈办颈/顿颈谤别肠迟-肠耻谤谤别苍迟&驳迟;”

End quote???and not“Edison split phase system”

The term “split-phase” is used frequently in the above link , and
?“Edison” is used twice, but not beside “split-phase” or “split phase”.

Now, Re?? the previously quoted
v=yl35KT64g2g <>

Here is what I see in that quoted text at the top on my bit-machine and
screen with my old eyes:

*Ask An Electrician - How Does Edison 3 Wire (Split Phase) System Work?*

As I see it , [with? added spaces,color, etc ?for clarity ] the area in
dispute says :

*Edison 3 Wire****( **Split Phase****)*System.***

*I read that in my grammar as: *

*Edison 3 Wire****or *Split Phase***System …*

*Which ?means to me that the system can be identified by **either *

*1-**?the term **“**Edison 3 Wire”***

*????????or*

*2-**the term **“Split Phase”

*?????the term ?“single-phase three-wire” is perhaps more clear ?in a
multi-phase environment*

*And intentionally misquoting it as **“**_Edison split phase system_**”
and then reinforcing it seems to me to be intentionally part of the
“misinformation” society that is plaguing this side of the world. *

see


disinformation <
misinformation-disinformation>

?quote

Misinformation is false or inaccurate information—getting the facts
wrong. Disinformation is false information which is deliberately
intended to mislead—intentionally misstating the facts.

The spread of misinformation and disinformation <
pubs/reports/health-misinformation> has affected our ability to improve
public health, address climate change, maintain a stable democracy, and
more. By providing valuable insight into how and why we are likely to
believe misinformation and disinformation, psychological science can
inform how we protect ourselves against its ill effects.

End quote


--
don??? va3drl

?

?

Barry,

Re _Your comment about it might be a replacement for the 0.25_.? Is
the .25 also in the circuit?

Re _additional Electrolytic Capacitors added in parallel with 2 of the
leads from the Multi value tubular capacitor_. ?Many people say not to
leave the old electrolytics connected since they might short out. There
are various ways of dealing with this, and yet keep the can there for
appearances.

My guess is that that 0.2 was found to be needed; but perhaps it was
factory original on your version?

It is too bad that the general “we” have not accumulated more manuals/
schematics for various versions.

*From:*[email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] *On Behalf Of *W4LSV Barry via
groups.io
*Sent:* Sunday, January 12, 2025 9:36 AM
*To:* [email protected]
*Subject:* Re: [HallicraftersRadios] S-38 recapping Query

Hi Don,

Thank you for adding the drawing and explanation. ?Your comment about it
might be a replacement for the 0.25. ?I found 2 additional Electrolytic
Capacitors added in parallel with 2 of the leads from the Multi value
tubular capacitor. ?Rather than cutting off the leads of the 2 bad
sections, the new ones were just wired in parallel. So it’s possible
that was also done in this instance.

I sure appreciate the help.

When I ?was a Novice in 1965, a friend loaned me his Hallicrafters S-38
to use as the receiver in my station. ? Johnson Adventurer was my
transmitter. I had to return the S-38. ? I’ve recapped my Johnson
Adventurer and used it during Straight Key Night several times with my
Novice J-38 Key. ? ?Thought it would be fun to try using this newly
acquired S-38 during Straight Key Night next year.

73

Barry W4LSV

_._,_._,_


--
don??? va3drl

?

?

I am looking at a schematic from Riders, probably from BAMA. It
shows Pin 6 of the 12SK7 to be the screen grid, going to a line also
connected to the a 0.25mfd cap on the B+ going to T-4 and the screen of
the 35L6 output tube. There is a 0.25 mfd cap connected to ground to
by-pass this line but in this schematic its shown at the B+ side of T-4.
Same line. Its called C-17. This line goes to the B+ filter. Its
bypassed by one of the filter caps but that may not be effective at RF
so this additional cap is included. See if there is also a bypass at the
B+ input to T-4. It may have been moved or there may have been caps in
both locations if it was found better bypassing was needed. There were
evidently lots of changes to the S-38. From the circuit I would keep a
cap there, replacing it with a new cap of course.
Even though the B+ goes to a filter cap there may be pick up in the
wiring or the filter cap may not give good bypassing at RF.

On 1/11/2025 6:08 AM, W4LSV Barry via groups.io wrote:

I am in the process of recapping a S-38 that was given to me. ? I have
not powered it up. ?It still has all the paper capacitors and non
polarized AC Plug. ?It has 6 tubes and a BFO. ? It does not have the
C-38 and C-39 silver micas that, according to my schematic, were added
to later models of S-38.
I have found an extra 0.2 @200 V paper capacitor connected between Pin 6
of 12SK7 tube and ground. ?Its condition is similar to all the other
paper capacitors that I am replacing. ?As far as the physical location,
one lead is connected to the same ground lug that C-36 uses.

Should I replace it or not?

I would greatly appreciate any insights and suggestions, as my
experience with vintage radios is minimal
73,
Barry W4LSV

--
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles
WB6KBL
SKCC 19998 ?