Resi calc - test drive op

[e57]

Been needing a residential calc with simple input/output that anyone could use. I had a much more simple one, and I know there are many more out there - but I wanted this one to do a little more - like spit out a letter, etc.

Anway I need some test drivers - anyone wanna give it a try? If you find any bugs let me know. Or just let me know what you think. Use it if you like...

http://www.57electric.com/Resi Calc.xls

 

[mweaver]

e57,

It is obvious you have put much thought into this and I have only begun to play with it, so I do not have much to add yet... Initially it looks pretty nice, and all inclusive

I did notice that the entry for Home Office Equipment is locked down with a minimum entry of 2,400va. I am assuming you did not mean to lock this down ??

mweaver

 

[mweaver]

You have put much work into this, and it is quite nice.

You have put much work into this, and it is quite nice.

E57,

On another note, this calculator could be quite valuable to individuals for determining adequate dwelling service ? feeder size and it does incorporate (encompass) most of the NEC requirements for said dwelling calculations. It is quite functional.

I believe it was in the 05 NEC that Article 220 was revamped, renumbered, and subtle changes were made in the optional method calculation process (I believe there is also an optional method change in the 08, but I have not checked to see if this effects any of your spreadsheet calcs...). Your spreadsheet does not seem to reflect? at least, the NEC Section renumbering within Article 220.

It does not seem to accurately reflect all of the NEC stipulated differences between the general (standard) method of Calculation (reflected in Part III) and the Optional method of calculation) contained within Part IV) of Article 220.

?I did not know if these issues were actually relevant to your ultimate purpose?

I do not mean to detract from your work because no question, you have definitely put much work into this and overall, it is quite nice.

mweaver

 

[rcelec]

Very nice !!!I wish I could program like that.

I think there is a flaw in your calculations though.I played with it a little and got the service amps up to 90 and the program said it had to have a minimum service size of 125 amps.
That should be a 100 amp service.When sizing a service you do not use 80% of the main breaker.

 

[rcelec]

e57

I found the one I use, it is mikeholt.com go to free stuff scroll down to residential load calculations.

When I show this to inspectors that question my service size they are impressed.

It is pretty cool!

 

[e57]

Very nice !!!I wish I could program like that.

I think there is a flaw in your calculations though.I played with it a little and got the service amps up to 90 and the program said it had to have a minimum service size of 125 amps.
That should be a 100 amp service.When sizing a service you do not use 80% of the main breaker.

Not a flaw - just a prefferance - I set triggers to go to the next size when tight to a size - like 181 triggers a 320/200. While it could stay at 200 - it leaves not room for future expansion, and 225 and 250 are not common sizes. You can edit the letter and reported size on it.

 

[e57]

E57,

On another note, this calculator could be quite valuable to individuals for determining adequate dwelling service ? feeder size and it does incorporate (encompass) most of the NEC requirements for said dwelling calculations. It is quite functional.

I believe it was in the 05 NEC that Article 220 was revamped, renumbered, and subtle changes were made in the optional method calculation process (I believe there is also an optional method change in the 08, but I have not checked to see if this effects any of your spreadsheet calcs...). Your spreadsheet does not seem to reflect? at least, the NEC Section renumbering within Article 220.

It does not seem to accurately reflect all of the NEC stipulated differences between the general (standard) method of Calculation (reflected in Part III) and the Optional method of calculation) contained within Part IV) of Article 220.

?I did not know if these issues were actually relevant to your ultimate purpose?

I do not mean to detract from your work because no question, you have definitely put much work into this and overall, it is quite nice.

mweaver

Yes..... I do need to addres that. This is from a spreadsheet I have used for some time now and am revamping - realized last night that motors needs some work....