Re: [PSES] NEC vs CEC for Transformer Protection

> On 29-Mar-15, at 08:58, John Woodgate wrote: > > In message <9dd08e56-75ed-4ae5-a80a-26a08324b...@ieee.org>, dated Sun, 29 Mar > 2015, Mr. Doug Nix C.E.T. writes: > >> Typically, designers in Canada use two general rules for guidance in >> protecting

Re: [PSES] NEC vs CEC for Transformer Protection

Typically, designers in Canada use two general rules for guidance in protecting transformers, with little actual calculation of inrush currents considered: 1) If no secondary OCD is provided, then the primary OCD will be selected at 125% of rated full load current, if inrush proves a problem, t

Re: [PSES] Safety standards versus safety engineering

TANSTAAFL = There Ain’t No Such Thing As A Free Lunch :-) Doug Nix d...@ieee.org +1 519 79 5704 > On 6-Mar-15, at 02:53, John Woodgate wrote: > > In message > .com>, dated Fri, 6 Mar 2015, Brian Oconnell > writes: > >> TAANSFL. > > Pardon? TANSTAAFL? > -- > OOO -

Re: [PSES] Arc Flash Requirements NFPA 79

Dave, Brian, Electrical field inspectors commonly require that labels of the type I referenced be installed by the manufacturer. The detailed labels with the arc flash degree and the details on the PPE requirements can only be installed post installation and post arc-flash hazard analysis. This