A power company generates 100kW to supply an industrial load of 94kW. The
transmission line has a resistance of 0.09 ohms. If the power factor is
0.83 lagging, what is Vl?

On Sunday, 20 December 2015 16:42:18 UTC, Cursitor Doom wrote:
A power company generates 100kW to supply an industrial load of 94kW. The
transmission line has a resistance of 0.09 ohms. If the power factor is
0.83 lagging, what is Vl?

113.327 kVA at the load? A bit more at the generator.

Do I get my £5 ?

rusty

On Sun, 20 Dec 2015 10:35:51 -0800, therustyone wrote:

113.327 kVA at the load?

Nope.

Do I get my £5 ?

Nope!

On 20/12/2015 18:35, therustyone wrote:
On Sunday, 20 December 2015 16:42:18 UTC, Cursitor Doom wrote:
A power company generates 100kW to supply an industrial load of 94kW. The
transmission line has a resistance of 0.09 ohms. If the power factor is
0.83 lagging, what is Vl?

113.327 kVA at the load? A bit more at the generator.


I can see why you said that, being the apparent power at the load. Not
all fonts can differentiate between Vl and VI.

"Cursitor Doom" wrote in message ...

A power company generates 100kW to supply an industrial load of 94kW. The
transmission line has a resistance of 0.09 ohms. If the power factor is
0.83 lagging, what is Vl?

6

On Sun, 20 Dec 2015 19:02:14 +0000, Richard wrote:

"Cursitor Doom" wrote in message ...

A power company generates 100kW to supply an industrial load of 94kW.
The transmission line has a resistance of 0.09 ohms. If the power factor
is 0.83 lagging, what is Vl?

6

***MILES*** out.

In article , Cursitor Doom
writes
A power company generates 100kW to supply an industrial load of 94kW. The
transmission line has a resistance of 0.09 ohms. If the power factor is
0.83 lagging, what is Vl?
6
--
bert

On 20/12/2015 16:39, Cursitor Doom wrote:
A power company generates 100kW to supply an industrial load of 94kW. The
transmission line has a resistance of 0.09 ohms. If the power factor is
0.83 lagging, what is Vl?

A crude editor on *nix systems...


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

John Rumm wrote:
On 20/12/2015 16:39, Cursitor Doom wrote:
A power company generates 100kW to supply an industrial load of 94kW. The
transmission line has a resistance of 0.09 ohms. If the power factor is
0.83 lagging, what is Vl?

A crude editor on *nix systems...

That's vi and it's far from crude.

--
Chris Green
·

On 20/12/2015 20:47, wrote:
John Rumm wrote:
On 20/12/2015 16:39, Cursitor Doom wrote:
A power company generates 100kW to supply an industrial load of 94kW. The
transmission line has a resistance of 0.09 ohms. If the power factor is
0.83 lagging, what is Vl?

A crude editor on *nix systems...

That's vi and it's far from crude.

You're right....

If you improved it, it would be crude.


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On 20/12/15 23:21, John Rumm wrote:
On 20/12/2015 20:47, wrote:
John Rumm wrote:
On 20/12/2015 16:39, Cursitor Doom wrote:
A power company generates 100kW to supply an industrial load of
94kW. The
transmission line has a resistance of 0.09 ohms. If the power factor is
0.83 lagging, what is Vl?

A crude editor on *nix systems...

That's vi and it's far from crude.

You're right....

If you improved it, it would be crude.


as a line editor, adapted to a screen rather than teletype, it is pretty
advanced.

AS a screen based text editor, it is appalling.

--
the biggest threat to humanity comes from socialism, which has utterly
diverted our attention away from what really matters to our existential
survival, to indulging in navel gazing and faux moral investigations
into what the world ought to be, whilst we fail utterly to deal with
what it actually is.

On 20/12/2015 16:39, Cursitor Doom wrote:
A power company generates 100kW to supply an industrial load of 94kW. The
transmission line has a resistance of 0.09 ohms. If the power factor is
0.83 lagging, what is Vl?

Power Factor is true power / apparent power (Lagging or leading
shouldn't matter)

I = 100kw / (0.83 x Vs) = 94kW / (0.83 x Vl)

Vl = Vs - I * 0.09

Vs = Vl x 100kW/94kW

Vl = Vl x 100kW/94kW - 94kW / (0.83 x V1)

0 = Vl x 6/94 - 1/V1 x 113kW

0 = V1^2 - 106457

Vl = 326
------------

Double check:
I = 347; IR = 31.2V

Vs = 347

I'd love to see why some are saying 6V. I = 18875A; R losses 32MW!!

On 20/12/2015 21:50, Fredxxx wrote:
On 20/12/2015 16:39, Cursitor Doom wrote:
A power company generates 100kW to supply an industrial load of 94kW. The
transmission line has a resistance of 0.09 ohms. If the power factor is
0.83 lagging, what is Vl?

Power Factor is true power / apparent power (Lagging or leading
shouldn't matter)

I = 100kw / (0.83 x Vs) = 94kW / (0.83 x Vl)

Vl = Vs - I * 0.09

Vs = Vl x 100kW/94kW

Vl = Vl x 100kW/94kW - 94kW / (0.83 x V1)

0 = Vl x 6/94 - 1/V1 x 113kW

0 = V1^2 - 106457

Vl = 326
------------

Double check:
I = 347; IR = 31.2V

Vs = 347

I'd love to see why some are saying 6V. I = 18875A; R losses 32MW!!

How can a 100kW generation supply end up losing 32MW?

--
Rod

On 20/12/2015 22:20, polygonum wrote:
On 20/12/2015 21:50, Fredxxx wrote:
On 20/12/2015 16:39, Cursitor Doom wrote:
A power company generates 100kW to supply an industrial load of 94kW.
The
transmission line has a resistance of 0.09 ohms. If the power factor is
0.83 lagging, what is Vl?

Power Factor is true power / apparent power (Lagging or leading
shouldn't matter)

I = 100kw / (0.83 x Vs) = 94kW / (0.83 x Vl)

Vl = Vs - I * 0.09

Vs = Vl x 100kW/94kW

Vl = Vl x 100kW/94kW - 94kW / (0.83 x V1)

0 = Vl x 6/94 - 1/V1 x 113kW

0 = V1^2 - 106457

Vl = 326
------------

Double check:
I = 347; IR = 31.2V

Vs = 347

I'd love to see why some are saying 6V. I = 18875A; R losses 32MW!!

How can a 100kW generation supply end up losing 32MW?

Rolls eyes That was the point I was trying to get across, obviously
not very well! /Rolls eyes

On Sun, 20 Dec 2015 21:50:20 +0000, Fredxxx wrote:

On 20/12/2015 16:39, Cursitor Doom wrote:
A power company generates 100kW to supply an industrial load of 94kW. The
transmission line has a resistance of 0.09 ohms. If the power factor is
0.83 lagging, what is Vl?

Power Factor is true power / apparent power (Lagging or leading
shouldn't matter)

I = 100kw / (0.83 x Vs) = 94kW / (0.83 x Vl)

Vl = Vs - I * 0.09

Vs = Vl x 100kW/94kW

Vl = Vl x 100kW/94kW - 94kW / (0.83 x V1)

0 = Vl x 6/94 - 1/V1 x 113kW

0 = V1^2 - 106457

Vl = 326
------------

Double check:
I = 347; IR = 31.2V

Vs = 347

I'd love to see why some are saying 6V. I = 18875A; R losses 32MW!!


They may be from Rome.

On 20/12/2015 22:40, Judith wrote:

I'd love to see why some are saying 6V. I = 18875A; R losses 32MW!!


They may be from Rome.



The IV of them?

On 20/12/2015 21:50, Fredxxx wrote:

I'd love to see why some are saying 6V.

No one was...

They were saying 6


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On Sun, 20 Dec 2015 21:50:20 +0000, Fredxxx wrote:

Vl = 326

Nope!

I'd love to see why some are saying 6V. I = 18875A; R losses 32MW!!

I was wondering that, too.

On 21/12/2015 00:22, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Sun, 20 Dec 2015 21:50:20 +0000, Fredxxx wrote:

Vl = 326

Nope!

Oh.

OK 6kW loss in 0.09R = I = 258A

94kW = 94/0.83 kVA = 113kVA

Vl = 113k/258 = 440V


I'd love to see why some are saying 6V. I = 18875A; R losses 32MW!!

I was wondering that, too.

Oh good, I thought I was going seriously wrong, especially as two
posters agreed!!

On Mon, 21 Dec 2015 00:47:08 +0000, Fredxxx wrote:

On 21/12/2015 00:22, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Sun, 20 Dec 2015 21:50:20 +0000, Fredxxx wrote:

Vl = 326

Nope!

Oh.

OK 6kW loss in 0.09R = I = 258A

94kW = 94/0.83 kVA = 113kVA

Vl = 113k/258 = 440V

That'll do for me. Congratulations; a 5 shilling postal order is on its
way!
Incidentally, I broke with precedent and nicked this one off Youtube. The
bloke gives the full working of how he got the answer, but IMV it's an
awfully bad explanation overall. Still, YMMV. Check it out he

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aBNHVuIbHBg

On 21/12/2015 01:27, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Mon, 21 Dec 2015 00:47:08 +0000, Fredxxx wrote:

On 21/12/2015 00:22, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Sun, 20 Dec 2015 21:50:20 +0000, Fredxxx wrote:

Vl = 326

Nope!

Oh.

OK 6kW loss in 0.09R = I = 258A

94kW = 94/0.83 kVA = 113kVA

Vl = 113k/258 = 440V

That'll do for me. Congratulations; a 5 shilling postal order is on its
way!
Incidentally, I broke with precedent and nicked this one off Youtube. The
bloke gives the full working of how he got the answer, but IMV it's an
awfully bad explanation overall. Still, YMMV. Check it out he

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aBNHVuIbHBg

Thanks, don't agree with his interpretation of reactive power, lagging =
absorbed etc!

But I have (re)learnt that apparent power is not conserved which is
where I originally went wrong, obvious if you think about it, where
power factor can be different at the generator and load!

In article , Cursitor Doom
writes
On Sun, 20 Dec 2015 21:50:20 +0000, Fredxxx wrote:

Vl = 326

Nope!

I'd love to see why some are saying 6V. I = 18875A; R losses 32MW!!

I was wondering that, too.

It's a "joke". I know they don't go down to well on usenet.
Did you not "get" the Rome reference in someone else's post?
Simple mathematical question, what is V1?
Roman numerals
V1 - 6
Now do you get it?
--
bert

On Mon, 21 Dec 2015 12:39:01 +0000, bert wrote:

Vl = 326

It's a "joke". I know they don't go down to well on usenet. Did you not
"get" the Rome reference in someone else's post?
Simple mathematical question, what is V1?
Roman numerals V1 - 6 Now do you get it?

Nope.

VI was the Roman equivalent of the Arabic 6.
V1 was a flying bomb in WW2.
Vl is something else entirely.

On 21/12/2015 12:56, Adrian wrote:
On Mon, 21 Dec 2015 12:39:01 +0000, bert wrote:

Vl = 326

It's a "joke". I know they don't go down to well on usenet. Did you not
"get" the Rome reference in someone else's post?
Simple mathematical question, what is V1?
Roman numerals V1 - 6 Now do you get it?

Nope.

VI was the Roman equivalent of the Arabic 6.
V1 was a flying bomb in WW2.
Vl is something else entirely.

And depending on the font selected in the readers newsreader (plus
screen res, eyesight etc), can all easily be confused - either
unintentionally or deliberately for comic effect.


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On Sunday, 20 December 2015 16:42:18 UTC, Cursitor Doom wrote:
A power company generates 100kW to supply an industrial load of 94kW. The
transmission line has a resistance of 0.09 ohms. If the power factor is
0.83 lagging, what is Vl?

The first line of the question is stupid in that the 100KW is neither here nor there.

Insufficient data to give a proper answer.
VI where? (At generator end or load end?)

And it will depend on the voltage the system is running at.
Losses in the line will be less if voltage is higher.

You are a ****ing idiot.

On Sun, 20 Dec 2015 22:45:04 -0800 (PST), harry
wrote:

On Sunday, 20 December 2015 16:42:18 UTC, Cursitor Doom wrote:
A power company generates 100kW to supply an industrial load of 94kW. The
transmission line has a resistance of 0.09 ohms. If the power factor is
0.83 lagging, what is Vl?

The first line of the question is stupid in that the 100KW is neither here nor there.

Insufficient data to give a proper answer.
VI where? (At generator end or load end?)

And it will depend on the voltage the system is running at.
Losses in the line will be less if voltage is higher.

You are a ****ing idiot.

I don't know enough about the subject to comment on what is or isn't
relevant, however in an exam question it's quite legitimate to put in
a red herring or two to see if the candidate can discount them.

And isn't it Vl not VI, what do you think the "l" stands for

--

Graham.

%Profound_observation%

On Mon, 21 Dec 2015 09:33:50 +0000, Graham. wrote:

And isn't it Vl not VI, what do you think the "l" stands for

Thanks for clearing that up, Graham, I had no idea what the **** was
getting at. Seems Harry needs to brush up on his basic English
comprehension before attempting any such questions. :-P

On 21/12/2015 06:45, harry wrote:
On Sunday, 20 December 2015 16:42:18 UTC, Cursitor Doom wrote:
A power company generates 100kW to supply an industrial load of 94kW. The
transmission line has a resistance of 0.09 ohms. If the power factor is
0.83 lagging, what is Vl?

The first line of the question is stupid in that the 100KW is neither here nor there.

I can assure you that this information is critical to solving the problem.

Insufficient data to give a proper answer.
VI where? (At generator end or load end?)

Vl is often used to denote voltage at the load. VI is another term not
relevant here. It is often used in worked examples and exam questions.

And it will depend on the voltage the system is running at.
Losses in the line will be less if voltage is higher.

That statement should be framed as a perfect example of your ignorance.

You are a ****ing idiot.

You come across as someone who is immensely stupid. You need to re-read
your post to discern who is the idiot.

On 21/12/15 12:04, Fredxxx wrote:
Vl is often used to denote voltage at the load.

Hmm. I never came across that one before.


--
the biggest threat to humanity comes from socialism, which has utterly
diverted our attention away from what really matters to our existential
survival, to indulging in navel gazing and faux moral investigations
into what the world ought to be, whilst we fail utterly to deal with
what it actually is.

On 21/12/2015 12:35, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 21/12/15 12:04, Fredxxx wrote:
Vl is often used to denote voltage at the load.

Hmm. I never came across that one before.

It's engrained in my brain though VL can be voltage across an inductor.

I suppose it comes about from being on a number of electrical
engineering courses.

On 21/12/15 12:50, Fredxxx wrote:
On 21/12/2015 12:35, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 21/12/15 12:04, Fredxxx wrote:
Vl is often used to denote voltage at the load.

Hmm. I never came across that one before.

It's engrained in my brain though VL can be voltage across an inductor.

I suppose it comes about from being on a number of electrical
engineering courses.

I did plenty but there was no implied 'convention' as to what various
currents and voltages were named.

Possibly because we were rapidly up to circuits where we needed to solve
simultaneous equations in half a dozen voltages.


--
the biggest threat to humanity comes from socialism, which has utterly
diverted our attention away from what really matters to our existential
survival, to indulging in navel gazing and faux moral investigations
into what the world ought to be, whilst we fail utterly to deal with
what it actually is.

On Mon, 21 Dec 2015 12:35:49 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 21/12/15 12:04, Fredxxx wrote:
Vl is often used to denote voltage at the load.

Hmm. I never came across that one before.

I'm sure you have, it's just this font problem. In textbooks, you'll see
a capital V followed by a subscript capital L; it's an extremely common
abbreviation for load voltage.

On Monday, 21 December 2015 12:04:53 UTC, Fredxxx wrote:
On 21/12/2015 06:45, harry wrote:
On Sunday, 20 December 2015 16:42:18 UTC, Cursitor Doom wrote:
A power company generates 100kW to supply an industrial load of 94kW. The
transmission line has a resistance of 0.09 ohms. If the power factor is
0.83 lagging, what is Vl?

The first line of the question is stupid in that the 100KW is neither here nor there.

I can assure you that this information is critical to solving the problem.

Insufficient data to give a proper answer.
VI where? (At generator end or load end?)

Vl is often used to denote voltage at the load. VI is another term not
relevant here. It is often used in worked examples and exam questions.

And it will depend on the voltage the system is running at.
Losses in the line will be less if voltage is higher.

That statement should be framed as a perfect example of your ignorance.

You are a ****ing idiot.

You come across as someone who is immensely stupid. You need to re-read
your post to discern who is the idiot.

I = Current in electrical calculations
VI = voltamps
W = VI x cos Phi (phi = phase angle)

On 21/12/2015 06:45, harry wrote:
On Sunday, 20 December 2015 16:42:18 UTC, Cursitor Doom wrote:
A power company generates 100kW to supply an industrial load of 94kW. The
transmission line has a resistance of 0.09 ohms. If the power factor is
0.83 lagging, what is Vl?

The first line of the question is stupid in that the 100KW is neither here nor there.

Actually its instrumental in allowing you to work out the line current.
The "loss" of power between source and load is down to resistive heating
of the cable. If you know the power and the (non reactive) resistance of
the cable, application of I^2 R will allow you to calculate the current.

Insufficient data to give a proper answer.

Not at all.

VI where? (At generator end or load end?)

V "ell" not V "eye" - here is where the question fell down a little
IMHO, since it was relying on a common but far from universal naming
convention. A more explicit "calculate the voltage at the load" would
have been preferable.

(it would also avoid the font related readability problem)

And it will depend on the voltage the system is running at.

Which is what you need to calculate.

Losses in the line will be less if voltage is higher.

No, the losses on the line total 6kW - that was given in the question!

You are a ****ing idiot.

When in glass houses....


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On Mon, 21 Dec 2015 15:11:03 +0000, John Rumm wrote:

On 21/12/2015 06:45, harry wrote:
On Sunday, 20 December 2015 16:42:18 UTC, Cursitor Doom wrote:
A power company generates 100kW to supply an industrial load of 94kW.
The transmission line has a resistance of 0.09 ohms. If the power
factor is 0.83 lagging, what is Vl?

The first line of the question is stupid in that the 100KW is neither
here nor there.

Actually its instrumental in allowing you to work out the line current.
The "loss" of power between source and load is down to resistive heating
of the cable. If you know the power and the (non reactive) resistance of
the cable, application of I^2 R will allow you to calculate the current.

Insufficient data to give a proper answer.

Not at all.

VI where? (At generator end or load end?)

V "ell" not V "eye" - here is where the question fell down a little
IMHO, since it was relying on a common but far from universal naming
convention. A more explicit "calculate the voltage at the load" would
have been preferable.

(it would also avoid the font related readability problem)

And it will depend on the voltage the system is running at.

Which is what you need to calculate.

Losses in the line will be less if voltage is higher.

No, the losses on the line total 6kW - that was given in the question!

You are a ****ing idiot.

When in glass houses....

I hope - in the interests of public safety - that Harry's not tasked with
anything more demanding than changing the odd fuse. ;-

On Mon, 21 Dec 2015 17:30:24 +0000, Cursitor Doom wrote:

I hope - in the interests of public safety - that Harry's not tasked
with anything more demanding than changing the odd fuse. ;-

What? Unsupervised??

On Monday, 21 December 2015 15:11:06 UTC, John Rumm wrote:
On 21/12/2015 06:45, harry wrote:
On Sunday, 20 December 2015 16:42:18 UTC, Cursitor Doom wrote:
A power company generates 100kW to supply an industrial load of 94kW. The
transmission line has a resistance of 0.09 ohms. If the power factor is
0.83 lagging, what is Vl?

The first line of the question is stupid in that the 100KW is neither here nor there.

Actually its instrumental in allowing you to work out the line current.
The "loss" of power between source and load is down to resistive heating
of the cable. If you know the power and the (non reactive) resistance of
the cable, application of I^2 R will allow you to calculate the current.

Insufficient data to give a proper answer.

Not at all.

VI where? (At generator end or load end?)

V "ell" not V "eye" - here is where the question fell down a little
IMHO, since it was relying on a common but far from universal naming
convention. A more explicit "calculate the voltage at the load" would
have been preferable.

(it would also avoid the font related readability problem)

And it will depend on the voltage the system is running at.

Which is what you need to calculate.

Losses in the line will be less if voltage is higher.

No, the losses on the line total 6kW - that was given in the question!

You are a ****ing idiot.

When in glass houses....


6Kw for a 100KW load???
Far outside reality.

On 21/12/2015 17:33, harry wrote:
On Monday, 21 December 2015 15:11:06 UTC, John Rumm wrote:
On 21/12/2015 06:45, harry wrote:
On Sunday, 20 December 2015 16:42:18 UTC, Cursitor Doom wrote:
A power company generates 100kW to supply an industrial load of 94kW. The
transmission line has a resistance of 0.09 ohms. If the power factor is
0.83 lagging, what is Vl?

The first line of the question is stupid in that the 100KW is neither here nor there.

Actually its instrumental in allowing you to work out the line current.
The "loss" of power between source and load is down to resistive heating
of the cable. If you know the power and the (non reactive) resistance of
the cable, application of I^2 R will allow you to calculate the current.

Insufficient data to give a proper answer.

Not at all.

VI where? (At generator end or load end?)

V "ell" not V "eye" - here is where the question fell down a little
IMHO, since it was relying on a common but far from universal naming
convention. A more explicit "calculate the voltage at the load" would
have been preferable.

(it would also avoid the font related readability problem)

And it will depend on the voltage the system is running at.

Which is what you need to calculate.

Losses in the line will be less if voltage is higher.

No, the losses on the line total 6kW - that was given in the question!

You are a ****ing idiot.

When in glass houses....

6Kw for a 100KW load???
Far outside reality.

You've exceeded your ignorance again. Even under 17th edition rules in
a domestic arrangement you're allowed a 5% loss.

There is no reason why a greater loss can't be tolerated if so designed.

On 21/12/2015 15:11, John Rumm wrote:
On 21/12/2015 06:45, harry wrote:
Insufficient data to give a proper answer.
Not at all.

Really? Single phase or 3-phase? At the given power level it would be
reasonable to assume 3-ph. Then the question of line or phase values
arises...

Part 2 of the question (assuming single phase):

What is the voltage at the generator end?

--
Andy