Zs from board supplying another board

[Thomasthebeast]

I have a ccu with a Ze of 0.09 and it's supplying another ccu which that board supplies multiple other CCUs I was wondering how I would work out my zs and ze on the other boards?

 

[Strima]

Ze is only at the origin, the rest are Zs.

Measure/calculate the R1+R2 for each distribution circuit and add the Ze. (Zs=Ze+(R1+R2))

 

[davesparks]

I have a ccu with a Ze of 0.09 and it's supplying another ccu which that board supplies multiple other CCUs I was wondering how I would work out my zs and ze on the other boards?

Ze only exists at the origin, e stands for external.

In an existing installation you measure Zs at each board.

If this is at the design stage then you need to use the calculated impedance of the circuit and add it to the Ze quoted for the supply.

 

[Pete999]

Ze is only at the origin, the rest are Zs.

Measure/calculate the R1+R2 for each distribution circuit and add the Ze. (Zs=Ze+(R1+R2))

Does it not become Zs at DB? from board to board, I hear what you're saying, but does my statement not hold water in this case?

 

[davesparks]

Does it not become Zs at DB? from board to board, I hear what you're saying, but does my statement not hold water in this case?

Yes it does become the Zs at the DB, but obviously that is also the Zs of the distribution circuit because they are one and the same thing.

Strictly speaking 'Zs at DB' or 'Zdb' are not correct terminology, much like 'ring main' instead of 'ring final circuit', everyone knows what is meant by it, it's commonly used, but it's not correct terminology.

 

[Strima]

Does it not become Zs at DB? from board to board, I hear what you're saying, but does my statement not hold water in this case?

Each board would have its own Zs, sometimes referred to a Zdb. I think we're saying the same thing.

 

[westward10]

Doesn't matter what it supplies DB, light, socket etc.... it is Zs.

 

[Pete999]

Each board would have its own Zs, sometimes referred to a Zdb. I think we're saying the same thing.

Yes exactly nice one Mate

 

[ipf]

Yes it does become the Zs at the DB, but obviously that is also the Zs of the distribution circuit because they are one and the same thing.

Strictly speaking 'Zs at DB' or 'Zdb' are not correct terminology, much like 'ring main' instead of 'ring final circuit', everyone knows what is meant by it, it's commonly used, but it's not correct terminology.

But, 'Zs at DB1, 2, 3', whatever, is a statement...nothing wrong with the terminology, whatsoever.

 

[Mark Wright]

If it's the origin CUU does anything need to go into
"Zs at DB" on the "Schedule of test results" form ?