Delta Capacitor Connection

I think it is not so much a nonsense, but a bit weird..

Why is it perceived as <...nonsense...>?

because 1,5 is a bit weird in terms of 3 phase systems. Also what would you say if I ask you the capacitance value of the same kind for the same terms with delta? How would it be? 1, 5 again? or 0666?

in short , since the current departing the middle point of the series C deltas must be zero so we can accept this scheme constitutes such a formula. But this current is not zero. And it fails automatically to accept this formula..

can anyone tell me , what is the capacitance when looked into rs phase capacitor? How is it calculated ? (consider that a point is connected to another supply )

I still think it is nonsense to claim such a formula, delta connection and 1,5 Cdelta, do not conform to my idea...

I think this is valid for the situation in which there is no a branch leaving the middle point of this two series capacitors. So you say in short, the third phase line will not effect our calculation logic? I have seen for the first time such a logic... (By the way , I admit that if there was no the third line leaving the middle point of the two capacitors, This calculation would have a meaning since everything would be so simple to accept)

then with this logic, we would have 1/2 C value for Star connection assuming that there is a balanced load.Since we do not care the third line leaving the middle point of two series capacitor then we can say the capacitance value is C/2 ??? ....

No, this is just a mesh network with 3 capacitors and 3 voltage sources. You were asking (and the article was just talking about) what V_RS sees as the capacitance value across it. The connection to T doesn't concern it. You can evaluate the network for each voltage source (V_RS, V_ST, V_TR) independently, and use superposition if you want the response of the whole system. But for the case of RS, it sees just what was analyzed = 1.5 CΔ. If you had resistors or inductors, you would do it the same way (except for how you add series/parallel elements).

what is intended here with "taped" here?

I think "taped" is a bit weird here too:) Does it try to make us understand that if this 3 phase bank is connected as only RS phase and not the third one is connected to the supply then total c is 1,5 c. Then I comply with this calculation...

also I see no use in calculating such a thing. In a three phase system it is absurd to speak of the capacitance between phases r and s is...

then what?? What is use ? We talk about three phases (where line currents are not equal even in most ideal situations in practicality ).... I think english version is just a crap...

So did you decide if the calculation is crap?

Yes, it is crap and useless, tell me just a single reason for this calculation then I will admit it .

First of all I think there is a difficulty to make us understand what it says...

I claim it is nonsense to talk about the equivalent value of Capacitance of a single phase-phase circuit. This is not a single supply basic circuit . This is a special case of supplying loads..

The value of 1.5 times one capacitor is correct if the other two phases are disconnected. If connected, they have low resistance which will change the value of the parallel capacitance. So I would say that the catalog "over-simplified" the value. Now get over it and get back to work.

the other two phases?? you try to say "the other phase" is not connected??

I am just saying if there is a fault or not?

I think original spanish is nonsense since there is no such a hint as there are only two phase is connected on the contrary it says all phases are connected.

And I ask a simple question, is there a use in assuming such a situation. I guess if one of the phases is not connected then one of the phases will have the same current as another since it will be a simplified situation to understand. I do not denounce it. But I rejected the nonsense written in the original paper....

...and I think that you should take a look at some of the fractured English and incorrect documentation that comes out of your country (including your own rantings) before you go criticizing anyone else's. This is an international forum; be nice or be gone....

RamConsult Good Morning ! I am impressed that you know this is an international forum. I actually think to be guru is not a big thing after seeing your this meaningless post.

I think sometimes it is difficult to make some people like you understand what is the gist of the affair you talk about. Anyway, I wish we had a technical debate here rather than hearing your conceited comments.

I think "fractured" here needs proval, or it just turns out to be a crap of you...

by the way, I do not criticize anyone here, I just try to debate , Did I be rude anytime? Nonsense is "nonsense" dude! I cant change it , I waited for some people to change my opinion on this point...

dear friend, I got what you said. I had got to that point lately, Thanks for your good intention! If I had not understood it , this would make me understand my fault. Just refuse saying that "when you measure phase-phase capacitance" while the bank is depicted as connected to the supply. I think this is not an academical way of thinking. The essence should be explained in a little detail. When you read the spanish text it is not clear what it says. Thanks dude. good and polite answer...