Cody K said:
...I used the ugly's "alternate voltage drop calculations"...
Why does the power factor have anything to do with the vd, but is not factored in sizing wire in shorter run applications? ...
Sorry for the delay... I got sidetracked. Managed to dig out my Ugly's Revised 2002 Edition. It's alternate method is seemingly a vast departure from most methods I've come across. I haven't had a chance to evaluate it to any great length... but it appears that the table contains values from a partial calculation of vd. I'm somewhat perplexed when I get to the "Multiply by 1/(#/phase)" part. In the two examples given, both are 3? yet the example calculation shows values multiplied by 1/1... what gives???
For those that don't have an Ugly's on hand, the same method of calculation is
on the Web here in pdf format, documernt pg 199 or pdf pg 8 of 10. Ugly's only published the "How to figure volt loss (drop):" and "How to select size of wire:" sections, and only the steel conduit section of copper conductors table on the next page.
To answer the question, sizing of wire has a two part solution: ampacity vs. voltage drop. In shorter runs the ampacity required dictates the size of the wire. All AC circuits have a reactance. However, in many cases the effect it has on voltage drop is negligible. Hence it is not included in the most basic of voltage drop calculations. Nevertheless, on longer runs it becomes a more substantial factor on voltage drop, as the magnitude of its effect is directly proportional to circuit length. As to why reactance adjustment isn't used more often, I can't say for sure. I'm of the impression it has something to do with having used the basic voltage drop calculation for decades and the "haven't had a problem" syndrome follows.
[edited a couple typo's and for easier readability]