Misplaced Pages

User talk:174.118.142.187: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 19:11, 17 December 2012 edit174.118.142.187 (talk) →Alteration of other editor's contributions on article talk pages.: further comment← Previous edit Revision as of 04:46, 18 December 2012 edit undo174.118.142.187 (talk) →Alteration of other editor's contributions on article talk pages.: indentionNext edit →
Line 66: Line 66:


::The problem was that you showed me as initiating the concensus sweep which was not the case. Misplaced Pages strictly regards such alterations as vandalism and the tag used is the recommended for repeat violation. You altered my comment ''three'' times as I have reverted it ''three'' times (check the revision history). I still fail to see why you are trying to get such a concensus as ] is quite clear on the point. ] (]) 18:56, 17 December 2012 (UTC) ::The problem was that you showed me as initiating the concensus sweep which was not the case. Misplaced Pages strictly regards such alterations as vandalism and the tag used is the recommended for repeat violation. You altered my comment ''three'' times as I have reverted it ''three'' times (check the revision history). I still fail to see why you are trying to get such a concensus as ] is quite clear on the point. ] (]) 18:56, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
:: Again, the consensus was demanded by ] on the talk page. I agreed with your logic and didn't think it really necessary either, based on original edits, but it's not my decision. I doubt anything will change but maybe it will force a collaboration example from agressive editors. I think we all got dragged inwith some driveby newbie IPs. Thanks ] (]) 19:11, 17 December 2012 (UTC) ::: I only count two and this appears as an exageration to make a point. Can you produce the three diffs you claim? Again, the consensus was demanded by ] on the talk page. I agreed with your logic and didn't think it really necessary either, based on original edits, but it's not my decision. I doubt anything will change but maybe it will force a collaboration example from agressive editors. I think we all got dragged inwith some driveby newbie IPs. Thanks ] (]) 04:46, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Revision as of 04:46, 18 December 2012

My Sandbox - developing a project

My Sandbox - Please do not modify

Where:

a,b,c represent phase identifiers
Ean, Ebn, Ecn represent phase to neutral voltages (volts)
Eab, Ebc, Eca represent phase to phase voltages (volts)
Ia, Ib, Ic represent phase line currents (amperes)
In represents neutral current (amperes)
θ {\displaystyle \theta } is the phase angle each current lags the listed potential (degrees)
P t {\displaystyle Pt} represents total system power (watts)

3 phase 4 wire (wye) using 3 element metering

See Measurement Canada Standard Drawing
P t = I a E a n ∗ c o s ( θ ) + I b E b n ∗ c o s ( θ ) + I c E c n ∗ c o s ( θ ) {\displaystyle Pt=IaEan*cos(\theta )+IbEbn*cos(\theta )+IcEcn*cos(\theta )}

Each line current and respective voltage is metered as three single phase circuits and then totalized in the meter.

3 phase 4 wire (wye) using 2.5 element metering

See Measurement Canada Standard Drawing
P t = I a E a n ∗ c o s ( θ ) − I b E a n ∗ c o s ( θ ) − I b E c n ∗ c o s ( θ ) + I c E c n ∗ c o s ( θ ) {\displaystyle Pt=IaEan*cos(\theta )-IbEan*cos(\theta )-IbEcn*cos(\theta )+IcEcn*cos(\theta )}

Ia and Ic currents are metered with their respective voltages as two single phase circuits. Ib is fed, polarity reversed, through an additional (split) winding on each element. Since the reversed Ib is 60° out of phase (at system unity PF) from each potential each element will meter cos(60°) or 50% of Ib, resulting in 100% metering for Ib. The two elements are totallized in the meter. Balanced system voltages are a requirement for technique accuracy.

3 phase 4 wire (wye) using 2.0 element metering and delta connected CTs

See Measurement Canada Standard Drawing
P t = ( I a − I b ) E a n ∗ c o s ( θ ) + ( I c − I b ) E c n ∗ c o s ( θ ) {\displaystyle Pt=(Ia-Ib)Ean*cos(\theta )+(Ic-Ib)Ecn*cos(\theta )}

Ia and Ic currents are metered with their respective voltages as two single phase circuits. Ib is fed, polarity reversed, via a current transformer delta connection through each element. Since the reversed Ib is 60° out of phase (at system unity PF) from each potential each element will meter cos(60°) or 50% of Ib, resulting in 100% metering for Ib. The two elements are totallized in the meter. Balanced system voltages are a requirement for technique accuracy.

3 phase 3 wire (delta) using 2 element metering

See Measurement Canada Standard Drawing
P t = I a E a b ∗ c o s ( θ ) + I c E c b ∗ c o s ( θ ) {\displaystyle Pt=IaEab*cos(\theta )+IcEcb*cos(\theta )}

Two phase line currents are metered with phase to phase voltages. The odd combination of each current and voltage results in using voltages 1.732 higher and shifted by 30° resulting in 1.732 EI * cos(30°) = 1.5EI (at system unity pf) on each element. The elements are totalized to 3EI * cos( θ {\displaystyle \theta } ) and correct metering. Balanced system voltages are a requirement for technique accuracy.

References

  1. "Measurement Canada Standard Dwg. No.3403" (PDF). MEASUREMENT CANADA. Retrieved 12 December 2012.
  2. "Measurement Canada Standard Dwg. No.3412" (PDF). MEASUREMENT CANADA. Retrieved 12 December 2012.
  3. "Measurement Canada Standard Dwg. No.3407" (PDF). MEASUREMENT CANADA. Retrieved 12 December 2012.
  4. "Measurement Canada Standard Dwg. No.3312" (PDF). MEASUREMENT CANADA. Retrieved 12 December 2012.

MC3

You have new message/s Hello. You have a new message at Tvoz's talk page. Tvoz/talk 20:48, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

another one at my talk Tvoz/talk 03:21, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Welcome to Misplaced Pages: check out the Teahouse!

Teahouse logo Hello! 174.118.142.187, you are invited to the Teahouse, a forum on Misplaced Pages for new editors to ask questions about editing Misplaced Pages, and get support from peers and experienced editors. Please join us! heather walls (talk) 03:47, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

October 2012

Hello, I'm Widr. I noticed that you recently removed some content from AC/DC (electricity) without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Misplaced Pages with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks, Widr (talk) 22:18, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Yachtsman1. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to AC/DC (electricity) because it didn't appear constructive. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! Yachtsman1 (talk) 22:23, 29 October 2012 (UTC) PS: You need to seek a consensus before making such a large change.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 22:23, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

  • Thanks for the message, and a much better solution, otherwise it will keep getting rolled back. You have to try to seek a consensus before striking such a large portion of an article. I would also suggest staring an account. Good luck!! --Yachtsman1 (talk) 22:46, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

AC/DC (electricity)

I apologize for not noticing your explanation for the removal. Feel free to undo the edit if a consensus is reached. Widr (talk) 22:47, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

December 2012

Hello, I'm Cantaloupe2. I noticed that you made a change to an article, three phase electric power, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you.

Alteration of other editor's contributions on article talk pages.

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize Misplaced Pages, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.

It is not permitted to refactor, reword or reformat other editor's comments on article talk pages (See WP:TPNO). You have now done so for a third time with this edit on the talk page of Talk:Three-phase electric power. In doing so you have erroneously emphasised a point that I did not intend to be emphasised and you have also credited me with imposing a limit on the discussion length. If you alter my comment again, it will be referred to the administrator's noticeboard without further warning. This matter is serious enough that an editing block will almost certainly be the result. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 17:56, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Just to be clear. I did not modify any text in your comments on the talk page and I resent your vandalize generalisation. I did revert your removal of the request for consensus title I had injected. That would be two alterations, according to your words, as I thought perhaps you did not understand the process. An administrator demanded a consensus and I arranged it. In the process of formalizing it included your previous edit where you opined your preference. I apologize if your comment became part of that section header I inserted and you wanted to vote again expressing the same or perhaps a different preference of the English dialect to be used in the article. I assumed it would save you some effort but you seem to to be radically opposed to my smoothing the process for you. Again I apologize for actions that have been objectionable to you in this matter. I will repost the consensus vote without including your preference. 174.118.142.187 (talk) 18:22, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
The problem was that you showed me as initiating the concensus sweep which was not the case. Misplaced Pages strictly regards such alterations as vandalism and the tag used is the recommended for repeat violation. You altered my comment three times as I have reverted it three times (check the revision history). I still fail to see why you are trying to get such a concensus as WP:ENGVAR is quite clear on the point. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 18:56, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
I only count two and this appears as an exageration to make a point. Can you produce the three diffs you claim? Again, the consensus was demanded by User:DMacks on the talk page. I agreed with your logic and didn't think it really necessary either, based on original edits, but it's not my decision. I doubt anything will change but maybe it will force a collaboration example from agressive editors. I think we all got dragged inwith some driveby newbie IPs. Thanks 174.118.142.187 (talk) 04:46, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
User talk:174.118.142.187: Difference between revisions Add topic