It is currently Thu Nov 23, 2017 4:58 pm



Post new topic Reply to topic
Author Message
ekstra   ara
 Post subject: Units for E and En in Clause D.7
PostPosted: Fri Aug 21, 2009 9:31 am 
Offline
Sparks Level

Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 7:05 am
Posts: 252
To which extent does NFPA 70E-2009 quotes correctly IEEE 1584-2002 in its Annex D?

I ask because the Annex says both En and E is in J/cm^2, while because of the 4.184 factor in equation D.7.3(c), I believe it is possible that En is in cal/cm^2 and E in J/cm^2.

Can somebody add their word on this, preferably quoting/verifying from IEEE 1584-2002?


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Aug 24, 2009 10:06 am 
Offline
Plasma Level
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2007 5:00 pm
Posts: 1219
Location: Scottsdale, Arizona
You are correct! Annex D of NFPA 70E has the wrong units for En :( - it IS cal/cm^2. I am surprised this is still carried over into the 2009 edition. IEEE is required to use all metric so En in IEEE 1584 actually does not identify the units since it is not completely metric. It just uses the label "normalized incident energy". The units of Joules/cm^2 occurs AFTER you multiply by the conversion 4.184

_________________
Jim Phillips, P.E.
Brainfiller.com


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Aug 24, 2009 2:04 pm 
Offline
Sparks Level

Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 7:05 am
Posts: 252
So you multiply by 4.184 to get E in J/cm^2, then you divide by that same factor to choose your PPE in cal/cm^2. What a great way to have another Mars probe crash!

At least, if you don't do the final conversion, you'll suit up too much, not too lightly. What a mess the opposite could bring up...


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Aug 24, 2009 2:55 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 18, 2009 5:25 pm
Posts: 13
Location: Miami Fl.
brainfiller wrote:
I am surprised this is still carried over into the 2009 edition.

Appears someone should bring this to the NFPA's attention.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Aug 24, 2009 3:14 pm 
Offline
Plasma Level
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2007 5:00 pm
Posts: 1219
Location: Scottsdale, Arizona
Vincent B. wrote:
So you multiply by 4.184 then you divide by that same factor


Pretty amazing, I know. :eek:

--Chris K. yes it should be brought up. Conference Room 1 in the forum is where we have been attempting to hash out some language for proposals for the next edition of 70E. Guess we just got another one added to the pile.

_________________
Jim Phillips, P.E.
Brainfiller.com


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 5 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 7 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
cron
© 2017 Arcflash Forum / Brainfiller, Inc. | P.O. Box 12024 | Scottsdale, AZ 85267 USA | 800-874-8883