[OASIS Issue Tracker] Commented: (EMIX-406) basic definitions -CLONE -Omnibus issue for Acclara (David Haynes) comments

[OASIS Issues Tracker <workgroup_mailer@lists.oasis-open.org>]

    [ http://tools.oasis-open.org/issues/browse/EMIX-406?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=25776#action_25776 ] 

Aaron Snyder  commented on EMIX-406:
------------------------------------

575 "power units": recommend using "apparent power"; other terms are equally valid, depending upon the conditions present in the system. total power is not a flow direction but rather the result of a summation. one could use "total power", "phasor power", or "vector power" depending on the perspective. it is worth noting here that "...only the active power P is clearly defined and generally accepted in all circumstances: sinusoidal, nonsinusoidal, single phase, polyphase, symmetrical, nonsymmetrical, balanced, unbalanced." [Filipski/Arseneau in IEEE 90EHO327-7-PWR]

575 "voltage units": recommend leaving as is in the document

575 "VAR units": this is not a simple duplication of "power units"; despite this, recommend removing as this is contained within "power units"

739 "QMax": recommend adding explicit reference to IEEE 1547 as for VMin and VMax to tie the concepts together.

739 "QMax/Q power": no change needed. the term is defined within the note as the VA capability left after serving the W demand, which mathematically can be determined to be the reactive power Q. Further, the use of "Q" for reactive power dates at least as far back as 1927 so this could be determined to be common enough to be understood in the context of electric power: C. I. Budeanu, The different options and conceptions regarding active power in nonsinusoidal systems. Bucharest, Rumania: Rumanian National Institute, 1927, shown and referenced more recently in An Evaluation of Some Alternative Methods of Power Resolution in a Large Industrial Plant, 1990 IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery, VOL. 15, NO. 3, JULY 2000, Pretorius, van Wyk and Swart.

739 "voltVar": concur only that the field should be removed. it should only remain if there is a clear use case or tie to the (apparent) governing reference for 10.4, IEEE 1547.

> basic definitions - CLONE -Omnibus issue for Acclara (David Haynes) comments
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: EMIX-406
>                 URL: http://tools.oasis-open.org/issues/browse/EMIX-406
>             Project: OASIS Energy Market Information Exchange (eMIX) TC
>          Issue Type: Improvement
>         Environment: David Haynes
>            Reporter: Toby Considine
>            Assignee: Aaron Snyder 
>
> 575     technical       The name "power units" has a mistake in its definition. "VA" is defined to be "apparent power" not "total power". "Total" is a flow direction not an energy type. (Refer to IEC 61968-9 Annex C or IEC 61968-2:2011 for an explanation of these concepts.)
> 575     technical       Is a definition of "voltage units" really needed? Isn't voltage always measured in volts? Doesn't the unit of measure description support an SiPrefix which can indicate "k" or "M"? Isn't the unit of measure always provided with the data?
> 575     technical       The row called "VAR units" is clearly a duplication of the information contained in the row "power units". A specification should only define something once.
> 739     technical       "qmax" contains a reference to an inverter. Must the power come from an inverter? Why is this word in the definition?
> 739     technical       Is "qmax" a reference to Q power? I suspect it is not. You should either define why you are using the letter Q or use a different letter. I suspect what is going on here is that you are assuming the reader is familiar with a power equation (such as S=P+jQ) that you have in mind, and you assume that all authors of all books on power engineering have used the same nomenclature. You should instead provide the formula you want the reader to know about.
> 739     technical       What is "voltVar" referring to? This is NOT a legitimate unit of measure. If this is a multipurpose field that you have defined, I would say that having dual use of a given field is a poor modeling practice. If it is always reactive power, then why call it "voltVar"? Is this a realtime snapshot of the current VAr output? The field is ill-defined.

-- 
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
If you think it was sent incorrectly contact one of the administrators: http://tools.oasis-open.org/issues/secure/Administrators.jspa
-
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira