@JRE Oh.. No. I've measured the primary current. I've measured everything. I wouldn't come here if I didn't. The link to the answer and question don't answer my question.

@JRE The primary current is in a list of many other reasons of why nothing is adding up. My problem IS NOT SIMPLE. It's in fact very complicated. I should know and I do know. This is why I thought maybe soneone else might have a clue or even say something that gets me thinking and then somehow helps me figure it out. This is NOT an in the BOOK question and answer. As some may say.

@JRE I'm going to call it a night. I'm just frustrated, confused, tired, as well as burned out along with other things. It takes a lot to get me burned out like this. It's probably because I've been pulling a couple all nighters to figure this dumb problem out. Please excuse my manners. It just seems like it's too hard. But I'm still determined. ... Sorry, but I've got to call it a night.

@ScientistSmithYT If you've measured the primary current, you haven't mentioned it. You keep going on about how the breaker didn't trip, but no where have you mentioned actually measuring the current.

@JRE On 1 MOT it measures 15 amps and on the other it measures 10.5 amps. This is running current. Startup current is 18.6 amps on the first MOT and on the other it is 13.7 amps. (On the second one it has got up to 15 amps. But I'm giving it the benefit of the doubt with the lowest measurement I've taken on that one)

@JRE What I just said seems familiar to me in a way that it seems I've already said it here.

@ScientistSmithYT If you tell us on Wednesday what currents you measured on the primary, then wait until Friday to tell us what the secondary currents were or the voltages or whatever, nobody's going to remember. Put all the relevant information together, and give it to us within 10 minutes, and we might be able to advise you. But we're not going to remember what you told us 2 days or 2 weeks ago. We have lives away from the keyboard.

@JRE Easy math tells us the 32.3 amps startup current is above 20 amps, and it is supposed to definitely trip the breaker. And it does. But the running current doesn't. Even though that is above the 20 amp mark. It uses 25.5 amps when running normally. This makes no sense and is not possible.

Quote: "Repeat after me: A breaker is not a calibrated piece of test equipment."

@JRE I've checked everything countless times and they are all working properly. The breaker is working properly, my measuring equipment is working properly and there is nothing interfering with my meters or measurements. Obviously its drawing less than 20 amps. I've made theoretical educated guesses as to how much it is actually using v.s what the other instruments and formulas say. I say its using 19.6 amps.

Mine are calibrated.

That's the issue.

But I have nothing to prove It's using that much current. The formulas aren't giving correct values obviously and the meters are working properly.

My breaker trips right as 20 amps is reached. Normal beakers which is what you're referring to have a 2-5 second delay after its maximum amperage is reached. If the current goes up to the maximum then down a little and repeat. A normal breaker won't trip. Normal breakers must sustain its maximum amperage for 2-5 seconds before tripping.

@ScientistSmithYT So you have a meter on the primary current ( in series with the "calibrated" breaker )?

If your primary current meter is reading more than 20 A, then your breaker is malfunctioning (or not really calibrated)

Or your meter is faulty

Everything cannot be "working properly" and give disagreeing values by that much.

@JRE The meter reads 20 amps when I test the breaker and then the breaker trips. And its in parallel. Measuring current isn't considered series. Voltage is a series measurement. Well I thought those same things you're saying. But it isn't. Eveeything is working properly, the meter and the breaker are working perfectly. Ans go ahead, call it a calibrated breaker. Don't disown it by saying "calibrated" breaker.

@JRE But when I measured the current on input from my device with nothing effecting it. It was drawing more current than 20 amps. The wattage is also too high. So something else is wrong.

@ScientistSmithYT Voltage measurement is parallel to the circuit. Current measurement is in series with the circuit.

@JRE I know what It is because I do it all of the time. And I'm telling you it is in parallel for measuring current. It's with the wire. Not a seperate connection from 1 side to the next like measuring voltage. If you wont take my word for it take an electricians word for it.

@JRE I learned it from more than 15 electricians down at IBEW.

@JRE I'm not going to argue because I simply don't have the energy for such small things right now.

@ScientistSmithYT, breaking the wire and inserting the meter is putting the meter in series.

Putting the two terminals of the meter across the two terminals of the device whose voltage you want to measure is putting the meter in parallel with the device.

If you refuse to use the words "series" and "parallel" to mean the same thing everybody else does, you're not going to have an easy time communicating with people here.

This is probably the same thing that your 15 electricians told you, but you decided to just reverse the way you use the words to make life harder for yourself.

@ScientistSmithYT There's nothing to argue about. You are wrong. Look it up.

@JRE Read his text. He's just going to say the AAC page shows the meter placed in parallel to measure current.

Anyway his EE buddy across the street will tell him to put the meter in diode mode to measure current and capacitor mode to measure voltage because that's how educated EE's do it, and the buddy across the street is much more authoritative than you, me, Wikipedia, or Feynmann.

@ThePhoton Shrug. Then he'll say it and still be wrong.

@JRE Point is, he's shown a rather intense desire to remain wrong, rather than pay any attention to the people he's asking for advice from.

@ThePhoton Yep. I keep arguing with myself whether I ought to put him on my "ignore" list.

@ThePhoton Yeah. That worries me, too. You saw the notice of the incident a couple of weeks ago here in chat? Scary. Even scarier that he's going on with things.

@JRE You just showed a link that says exactly what I just said.

@ScientistSmithYT No, it calls the series connection a series connection, not a parallel connection.

@JRE, Shit. Is there a prize for predicting his reaction?

@JRE I guess you think I dont do my homework thoroughly before I say something. Its not scary that I know the beyond the text book stuff. There's more leeway than a text book or a wiki page will cover. And that accident wasnt my fault. it was another separate electricians fault. I brought in electricians who had a masters or higher. Obviously the electrician over looked something that I already know isn't safe.

@ScientistSmithYT, from the page linked by JRE:

>The most common way to measure current in a circuit is to break the circuit open and insert an “ammeter” in series (in-line) with the circuit so that all electrons flowing through the circuit also have to go through the meter.

@ScientistSmithYT It's scary that you think you know beyond the textbook stuff when you constantly make it obvious that you don't know or understand the textbook stuff

@JRE If I would have seen it when I was making my rounds I would have been pissed off. The electrician would have been removed immediately and I would have taken his position until it was over. I just so happened to be making 1 of my rounds and not get to him yet. Thats when it happened. I ran over and commanded others to pull my student away with insulating pole. Because I guess book knowledge isn't enough these days.

@JRE That's not what professors at colleges think when I demonstrate my knowledge. That's why I was the head of that demonstration. We already resumed the session. And that student had me as his instructor. No problems happened when I supervised him.

@ThePhoton I could award you a "Spider Robinson" prize for it, but I don't think you'd like it. And I'm not going to explain because it is slightly obscene and not a good subject for polite company.

@ScientistSmithYT You know it all. You've got the market on "right" cornered. Why do you keep asking half assed, incoherent questions here then?

@JRE What do you understand about how electricity behaves without googling it? The reason why I ask certain questions is not because the answer is simple. Its because the answer is complicated. It doesnt seem like anyone has answered my question I've asked.

@JRE True you've given me answers. But they don't answer my question. The answers youve given me are suggestions and ideas.

@Her And no. I don't always think I'm right. If you're assuming that. I would give you complete question and information. But like I've said already, it could be considered spam. And that's why I asked for another room. But you didn't think that was a good idea.

If it were simple or I was able to figure it out. I wouldn't ask.

@ThePhoton I see what you're saying. And yes those are true. But there is another way of measuring in parallel. (Refering back to your series and parallel statement) I didn't know of this form of parallel measuring before, but some kind gentlemen told me. And I told them no way. That's not how it works. But they showed me. And the results were compelling. So I did it myself. I got the same results.

@ScientistSmithYT So the AAC article wasn't saying exactly the same as you were?

@JRE If you want I'll write everything down then send it all at once. So we can figure this out all together.

@ThePhoton Yes, but it said the basic measuring we all know about.