kda3310
Senior Member
- Location
- Dry Prong, Louisiana
That is not what my spread sheet comes up with for the given phase currents.
Ok, then what is the right ampage. That was the first time I used that calcultion. I do not know.
That is not what my spread sheet comes up with for the given phase currents.
Hint, you missed one part of the formula.Ok, then what is the right ampage. That was the first time I used that calcultion. I do not know.
Hint, you missed one part of the formula.
Roger
Ok, is it 1.38 amps? I missed the square root.
Three balanced phases with any neutral that carries no current would also give you no current.If you get a group of A, B, C & N that you suspect is one MWBC place the amp clamp around all four conductors and it should read pretty darn close to 0.
Three balanced phases with any neutral that carries no current would also give you no current.
Maybe.Yes, and the chances of that in the installation he describes are vitally nonexistent.
Maybe.
If he has 30 bundles of 50 conductors wouldn't that be about 375 3-ph+N circuits?
Maybe.
If he has 30 bundles of 50 conductors wouldn't that be about 375 3-ph+N circuits?
Now I am wondering about the size of this panel. Did he really mean there are over 1500 wires in this panel?
Why the rolling eyes? I was just pointing out that, with so many conductors, the the method might not be foolproof.You are right, mix ups could happen so lets hear your helpful suggestion to the OPs problem.:roll:
Dennis, there are groups and groups and groups of panelboards running these machines and these are not linear loads by any means.
Roger
D there are groups and groups and groups of panelboards running these machines and these are not linear loads by any means.
Why the rolling eyes?
You all know I like MWBCs but I am very surprised the job specs allow the use of MWBCs for this job considering that it is all non-linear loads.
I guess that proves MWBCs can be used successfully.
It likely would make a difference if the conductors are carrying minimal load or near max ampacity.
I have no experience in casino wiring but am guessing that in general owners want more circuits with less load per circuit.
A - less load per circuit will likely result in less overload trip conditions.
B - Less machines per circuit means if a circuit goes down less machines are effected.
These machines are their revenue source and they do not want them out of service - especially if there is nothing wrong with them.
Negative to point out a potential flaw in the method with who knows what consequences?Because IMPO instead of being helpful you seemed more interested in being negative.
Negative to point out a potential flaw in the method with who knows what consequences?
If you see that as negative, then OK. But it wasn't intended that way.
Besoeker said:I'd still want to do a continuity check whether there was one or several remaining candidates.
Besoeker said:As my father was fond of saying, "Measure it twice. Cut it once."