Ze 'too low'

[JohnW2]

You said if 'Zs is low enough for disconnection times' then that is 'it', nothing more to consider.

... with the qualification "as far as that consideration [[i.e.disconnection times]] is concerned"

This is the first time you have included the 'i.e. disconnection times' bit.

It is, indeed, the first time I included the "i.e.", but surely you did not need that in order to be able to understand? My initial statement, which you seemed to have so much difficulty in understanding, was (with new emboldening):

If Zs is low enough to satisfy disconnection times, then that it surely 'it' as far as that consideration is concerned, and I'm almost certain that no-one could find any regulation which said otherwise.

Crumbs. Are you really saying that I should have put "(i.e. disconnection times)" after it to enable you to understand what 'that consideration' refers to? What other 'that consideration' could I possibly have been referring to? This seems to be reducing to a question of your ability to understand what I would have thought was pretty clear English and/or your desire to find something to argue about!

Kind Regards, John

 

[mikhailfaradayski]

John, why don't you go back to the beginning and look closely at what you actually typed instead of what you are now trying to suggest you mean't to say.

Your statement implies that you are evaluating Zs.
You say that so long as disconnection times are satisfactory, there is nothing more to consider.
I say there is more to consider when evaluating Zs. The reason for this is that if you have a loop impedance of less than 0.04Ohms then you must also consider the effects of a fault current at or close to the PFC and then consider the rated breaking capacity of the relevant protective device and whether it is sufficient.
This could mean that the installation is not compliant wrt 133.2

I have no difficulty in understanding what you initially typed. I do, however, have slight difficulty in understanding why you are so determined to manoeuvre your position to make it appear as though i am suffering from some kind of senior moment when a very simple and noble 'I didn't think about that bit, oops' would have been far more dignified.

Your half baked attempts to be rude and condescending toward me have not gone un-noticed, yet i shall decline to reciprocate as I believe its somewhat distasteful for someone of your apparent intellect to have to stoop so low and I don't fancy joining you down on that level. I can only imagine that your current lack of mental composure is bourne from frustration that you have failed to win what you see as an arguement.

You've had a shaky few days here recently, is everything ok at home?

 

[JohnW2]

John, why don't you go back to the beginning and look closely at what you actually typed instead of what you are now trying to suggest you mean't to say.

I keep copying and pasting what I originally 'actually typed' - with a bit of added highlighting to try to help you. I think it was clear, but you don't - so there's really nothing more that I can, or should, say.

Your half baked attempts to be rude and condescending toward me have not gone un-noticed, yet i shall decline to reciprocate .... You've had a shaky few days here recently, is everything ok at home?

Does that count as 'declining to reciprocate'?

Even if you're right and what I originally wrote was not crystal clear, I've now told you several times what my intended meaning was, so I really see no point in your keep coming back and arguing. If the original was not written clearly enough for you to be able to understand, then I apologise. Maybe my posts can be verbose, 'waffly', off-topic and goodness knows what else, but at least they usually relate directly or indirectly to matters electrical. On the other hand, this repeated harping on the wording of something I wrote is just a plain waste of time, particularly given that it's pretty clear that we agree totally on the electrical issues involved.

Kind Regards, John.

 

[mikhailfaradayski]

John, why don't you go back to the beginning and look closely at what you actually typed instead of what you are now trying to suggest you mean't to say.

I keep copying and pasting

But have you actually stopped for a moment to read it?

what I originally 'actually typed' - with a bit of added highlighting to try to help you. I think it was clear, but you don't - so there's really nothing more that I can, or should, say.

Yet i imagine you will

Your half baked attempts to be rude and condescending toward me have not gone un-noticed, yet i shall decline to reciprocate .... You've had a shaky few days here recently, is everything ok at home?

Does that count as 'declining to reciprocate'?

Yes, it does. I was just a little curious as to why you are being the way you are.

Even if you're right and what I originally wrote was not crystal clear,

it wasn't

I've now told you several times what my intended meaning was,

but it that is not what you initially typed.

so I really see no point in your keep coming back and arguing.

ditto. But why are you still posting?

If the original was not written clearly enough for you to be able to understand,

it was, but if you have one thing in your head, but then type something different, how is one to differentiate between thoughts in your head and thought commited to type?

then I apologise.

Accepted, thank you

Maybe my posts can be verbose, 'waffly', off-topic and goodness knows what else, but at least they usually relate directly or indirectly to matters electrical. On the other hand, this repeated harping on the wording of something I wrote is just a plain waste of time

i take it that you no longer wish to waste any time discussing something you wrote.

, particularly given that it's pretty clear that we agree totally on the electrical issues involved.

I'm pleased that you agree with me, it intensifies my playful inner warmth. I imagine that if you are true to your word, then this will probably be the very last post in this thread. Its been fun.

 

[westie101]

A few points to ponder

The effect of PSC has been known and dealt with in my side of the industry for many years (it used to be expressed as "fault level" being the prospective power dissipation for a symmetrical phase to phase & phase earth fault on the system.
As an industry we can usually give a figure for any point on the HV systems (we need to know that for switchgear ratings)(oh as you do) but never bothered about the LV system, but can give a maximum figure that would never be exceeded as equipment we use is limited to this figure.

I would suggest that most "consumer's" equipment is designed with this in mind so the minimum Zs is a fixed figure

(in old terms the maximum fault level on any part of the LV system is 25MVA)

 

[JohnW2]

I would suggest that most "consumer's" equipment is designed with this in mind so the minimum Zs is a fixed figure

Thanks. So roughly what would you consider to be the lowest credible Ze as measured at the origin of a 'normal' (whatever that may be!) domestic consumer's installation?

Kind Regards, John.

 

[riveralt]

I would suggest that most "consumer's" equipment is designed with this in mind so the minimum Zs is a fixed figure

Thanks. So roughly what would you consider to be the lowest credible Ze as measured at the origin of a 'normal' (whatever that may be!) domestic consumer's installation?

In view of Westie's statement who then gives a toss about a credible Ze -its a fixed figure that takes into account the consumer's equipment - end of story.
John, while I accept this is your post, there does seem be a pattern of behaviour developing, most notably verbal diarrhea - I know thats not new, but also the unwillingness to accept that statements you have made are wrong - despite them being copied and pasted back to you - only for you to 'highlight' areas - to somehow justify what you meant to say but didn't actually say.
I'd say this was a circular argument but in reality its quickly disappearing up its own rear end - enough already.