Generator short circuit.

[mivey]

I agree with you, mivey. However, if we take formula 4-58 from IEEE 399 :
I = E/Xd + (E/X'd - E/Xd)e^(-t/T'd) + (E/X''d - E/X'd)e^(-t/T''d)
In this case if t=0 I=E/X"d [VLL/SQRT(3)/X"d] as maximum rms short-circuit current.:weeping:

Thank you for looking that up and for the correction.

I made a typo in my post #31 after I looked up the formula in the EE handbook (I typed Xd instead of X'd in the third part of the equation).

 

[Besoeker]

I have the nec which is based on awg
did not feel like looking up metric sizing
but I note you did niether, contributed nothing but criticism
only kibitz

It was actually a constructive suggestion (not criticism) that would reduce the number of steps in the calculation.
If it says 95mm^2 then it is physically 95mm^2. That's it. Nothing to look up. How much simpler could you get than that?

No big deal.

 

[Ingenieur]

It was actually a constructive suggestion (not criticism) that would reduce the number of steps in the calculation.
If it says 95mm^2 then it is physically 95mm^2. That's it. Nothing to look up. How much simpler could you get than that?

No big deal.

if it was that simple why did you not do it?

it was passive aggressive
the area means nothing without a table of x, r and z
it would have been more 'constructive' if you worked the problem and showed us your work
or at least posted the metric wire size values for the lcr parameters
you did niether, and still have not
your first post was to 'correct' and criticize my effort
that appears to be your sop
but I don't feel special lol you do that quite often
criticize but do not contribute
let's avoid each other, there is nothing in it for us

no biggee

 

[Besoeker]

if it was that simple why did you not do it?

it was passive aggressive
the area means nothing without a table of x, r and z
it would have been more 'constructive' if you worked the problem and showed us your work
or at least posted the metric wire size values for the lcr parameters
you did niether, and still have not
your first post was to 'correct' and criticize my effort
that appears to be your sop
but I don't feel special lol you do that quite often
criticize but do not contribute
let's avoid each other, there is nothing in it for us

no biggee

OK. Let's assume copper and singles. And 95mm^2.
OK so far?
Reference method 3 or 4 - enclosed in conduit.
Volt drops in mV/A/m
r = 0.49
x = 0.28
z = 0.56

According to BS7671 which was suggested by another poster.

 

[Ingenieur]

OK. Let's assume copper and singles. And 95mm^2.
OK so far?
Reference method 3 or 4 - enclosed in conduit.
Volt drops in mV/A/m
r = 0.49
x = 0.28
z = 0.56

According to BS7671 which was suggested by another poster.

ok
next step please (don't forget the 50)

 

[Besoeker]

ok
next step please (don't forget the 50)

Not my bag. I've given you the data you asked for. You are the guy with all those skills aren't you?

 

[Ingenieur]

Not my bag. I've given you the data you asked for. You are the guy with all those skills aren't you?

ok