Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.electronics.design > #447143
Show key headers only | View raw
On 09/02/2017 12:25, rickman wrote: > On 2/9/2017 7:14 AM, Martin Brown wrote: >> On 09/02/2017 10:03, rickman wrote: >>> On 2/9/2017 4:46 AM, Martin Brown wrote: >>>> On 09/02/2017 05:36, rickman wrote: >>>>> On 2/8/2017 7:19 PM, pcdhobbs@gmail.com wrote: >>>>>>> That doesn't explain how the "herd" is controlled. >>>>>> >>>>>> It's mostly large-scale rotating machinery with a lot of inertia. >>>>>> When >>>>>> the load exceeds the input, the 'herd' slows down. Thus you keep the >>>>>> system in balance by watching the frequency. >>>>> >>>>> That's not the question I'm asking. >>>> >>>> But it is the answer to how does it all work together. An offline >>>> generator carefully syncs itself to the herd before joining the pack >>>> and >>>> once connected to the grid is locked to it by the sheer momentum of the >>>> mechanical energy in the turbines and the drag created by the load. >>>> >>>> Entrainment describes the tendency of oscillators at similar >>>> frequencies >>>> to lock step even when you don't want them to. >>> >>> I'm not asking how they lock to each other. That I get. I'm asking how >>> the herd is steered. I'm told in Europe they have a single measurement >>> of the frequency or more likely the phase and once a day an order is >>> sent out for all of the operators to change their speeds. >> >> OK. In familiar control terms there is a local proportional to error >> control loop on each generator that tries to maintain frequency and in >> addition there is an integral control loop over 24 hours that tries to >> maintain the running average equal to nominal cycles/day too. >> >> The latter is the one done supra nationally by asking a few of the most >> powerful stations to up their output slightly at night. >>> >>> But if they are all synced to each other, how do they change the speed? >>> Each one is outputting some amount of energy which has to do with demand >>> (which I also don't see how they know how much energy to create). >>> Theoretically they are only producing the energy their customers are >>> asking for and get billed for. >> >> If the torque applied by the mechanical drive system exceeds the drag >> presented by the load the whole system spins up very slightly. The ones >> now outputting extra power making life easier for the others. >> >>>>> You have 10,000 people on a ship as oarsmen. None can really see the >>>>> others, but they all can hear each other and they all chant the >>>>> cadence >>>>> as they paddle. It is *much* more effective if they all stroke >>>>> together. There is no guy on deck with a drum, just the chorus of >>>>> voices crying, "stroke, stroke,..." >>>>> >>>>> The pilot can talk to any of the oarsmen singly. Or maybe he has an >>>>> intercom that lets him talk to them all. I don't know. >>>>> >>>>> If the pilot wants to speed up the boat, what does he do? >>>> >>>> Asks a few of the biggest or most responsive units to increase their >>>> output accordingly or to come onstream if they are really short of >>>> power. UK uses pumped storage to handle short term transient loads like >>>> soap opera advert breaks and half time at televised football matches. >>> >>> No one said they are short of power. Say the power is perfectly >>> matched, but the phase has drifted behind. The power they generate >>> needs to match the power being consumed by their customers, no? >> >> The phase is irrelevant apart from when you are connecting a new power >> station into the grid when it needs to be matched up first. Once >> connected up its speed it regulated by the whole ensemble and daily >> corrections are done by cycle counting and an integral control loop. > > This conversation gets old when people don't understand the basics. And that is *YOU*. The phase is drifting out by more 2pi every thousand cycles when the frequency is just 0.1Hz off its nominal value (a common situation). Just about all clocks work by dividing down some form of oscillator signal and rely on counting the *cycles* of that signal. The phase error merely represents sub cycle jitter on that timing resolution - which may be important in some time critical applications like interferometry or ultra precision timekeeping for GPS. > The > phase is what controls the time on the clocks. That is the thing that > gets adjusted over the course of the day/week/month to keep the clocks > running on time. No it isn't. YOU have failed to understand the basics. It is the average frequency that is kept tightly constrained over a 24 hour period and kept even more accurate over the longer term. >> It is a dynamic system where the instantaneous load is never quite >> matched to the demand which is why the frequency is allowed to vary. It >> would be too costly to try and hold it to a tighter tolerance. >> >>>>> That's what I'm asking about keeping the grid on sync with the time. >>>>> How >>>>> does the pilot control the oarsmen and how do the oarsmen keep in step >>>>> but also nudge the stroke? >>>> >>>> They can all monitor grid frequency and so know which way they are >>>> aiming for in a classic local control loop. But the ensemble average >>>> works much better than the regulation on any single unit. >>> >>> So everyone acts independently? >> >> The first order control is eliminate proportional error from the target >> frequency but that is never achieved in practice. So the next level >> correction is based on the integral number of cycles in 24 hours (which >> can also be measured and determined locally but ISTR is for historical >> reasons is done centrally by CEGB in the UK). They have a much better >> understanding of the national and international predicted load profile >> than any one generating plant can possibly have. > > The grid is nudged by power generators outputting more power than > "something". I don't know what the "something" is. Meanwhile each > generator is charging a customer somewhere and they can only bill them > for what they are using. So how can a power plant output more power > than they are billing and still make profit? The "something" is the load on the other end. Energy is conserved so the extra torque they input results in spinning up the generators. Equivalently they can ask some of the biggest sink loads to drop off and exactly the same would happen. I begin to think you are either extremely stupid or are deliberately trolling. -- Regards, Martin Brown
Back to sci.electronics.design | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
OT: Current standard for watch precision Pimpom <pimpom@invalid.com> - 2017-02-06 11:22 +0530
Re: OT: Current standard for watch precision Phil Allison <pallison49@gmail.com> - 2017-02-05 22:13 -0800
Re: OT: Current standard for watch precision Pimpom <Pimpom@invalid.com> - 2017-02-06 17:15 +0530
Re: OT: Current standard for watch precision Phil Allison <pallison49@gmail.com> - 2017-02-06 05:11 -0800
Re: OT: Current standard for watch precision Pimpom <Pimpom@invalid.com> - 2017-02-06 19:30 +0530
Re: OT: Current standard for watch precision Phil Allison <pallison49@gmail.com> - 2017-02-06 06:33 -0800
Re: OT: Current standard for watch precision nub12 <nub12@null.com> - 2017-02-07 07:57 +0800
Re: OT: Current standard for watch precision Robert Baer <robertbaer@localnet.com> - 2017-02-08 20:06 -0800
Re: OT: Current standard for watch precision Tauno Voipio <tauno.voipio@notused.fi.invalid> - 2017-02-06 20:16 +0200
Re: OT: Current standard for watch precision Pimpom <Pimpom@invalid.com> - 2017-02-07 00:12 +0530
Re: OT: Current standard for watch precision Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-02-06 11:58 -0700
Re: OT: Current standard for watch precision Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz> - 2017-02-07 05:50 +0000
Re: OT: Current standard for watch precision rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-07 02:43 -0500
Re: OT: Current standard for watch precision Pimpom <Pimpom@invalid.com> - 2017-02-07 14:53 +0530
Re: OT: Current standard for watch precision krw@notreal.com - 2017-02-07 12:32 -0500
Re: OT: Current standard for watch precision Phil Allison <pallison49@gmail.com> - 2017-02-07 02:33 -0800
Re: OT: Current standard for watch precision upsidedown@downunder.com - 2017-02-07 17:56 +0200
Re: OT: Current standard for watch precision rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-07 17:32 -0500
Re: OT: Current standard for watch precision Lasse Langwadt Christensen <langwadt@fonz.dk> - 2017-02-07 14:52 -0800
Re: OT: Current standard for watch precision upsidedown@downunder.com - 2017-02-08 10:25 +0200
Re: OT: Current standard for watch precision rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-08 03:37 -0500
Re: OT: Current standard for watch precision Martin Brown <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> - 2017-02-08 09:01 +0000
Re: OT: Current standard for watch precision rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-08 05:24 -0500
Re: OT: Current standard for watch precision Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> - 2017-02-08 09:08 -0800
Re: OT: Current standard for watch precision rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-08 16:04 -0500
Re: OT: Current standard for watch precision Clifford Heath <no.spam@please.net> - 2017-02-09 08:12 +1100
Re: OT: Current standard for watch precision rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-08 17:28 -0500
Re: OT: Current standard for watch precision pcdhobbs@gmail.com - 2017-02-08 16:19 -0800
Re: OT: Current standard for watch precision rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-09 00:36 -0500
Re: OT: Current standard for watch precision rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-09 00:38 -0500
Re: OT: Current standard for watch precision Clifford Heath <no.spam@please.net> - 2017-02-09 18:39 +1100
Re: OT: Current standard for watch precision rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-09 04:16 -0500
Re: OT: Current standard for watch precision Martin Brown <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> - 2017-02-09 09:46 +0000
Re: OT: Current standard for watch precision rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-09 05:03 -0500
Re: OT: Current standard for watch precision Jeroen Belleman <jeroen@nospam.please> - 2017-02-09 11:45 +0100
Re: OT: Current standard for watch precision rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-09 07:12 -0500
Re: OT: Current standard for watch precision Jeroen Belleman <jeroen@nospam.please> - 2017-02-09 13:31 +0100
Re: OT: Current standard for watch precision Martin Brown <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> - 2017-02-09 12:14 +0000
Re: OT: Current standard for watch precision rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-09 07:25 -0500
Re: OT: Current standard for watch precision Martin Brown <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> - 2017-02-10 09:17 +0000
Re: OT: Current standard for watch precision Jeroen Belleman <jeroen@nospam.please> - 2017-02-10 10:45 +0100
Re: OT: Current standard for watch precision rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-10 21:56 -0500
Re: OT: Current standard for watch precision Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz> - 2017-02-11 02:06 +0000
Re: OT: Current standard for watch precision krw@notreal.com - 2017-02-10 22:24 -0500
Re: OT: Current standard for watch precision Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz> - 2017-02-11 01:54 +0000
Re: OT: Current standard for watch precision Lasse Langwadt Christensen <langwadt@fonz.dk> - 2017-02-10 18:10 -0800
Re: OT: Current standard for watch precision Cursitor Doom <curd@notformail.com> - 2017-02-08 23:34 +0000
Re: OT: Current standard for watch precision Lasse Langwadt Christensen <langwadt@fonz.dk> - 2017-02-08 15:49 -0800
Re: OT: Current standard for watch precision pcdhobbs@gmail.com - 2017-02-08 15:55 -0800
Re: OT: Current standard for watch precision Lasse Langwadt Christensen <langwadt@fonz.dk> - 2017-02-08 16:08 -0800
Re: OT: Current standard for watch precision Ralph Barone <ralph@invalid.com> - 2017-02-09 03:24 +0000
Re: OT: Current standard for watch precision Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> - 2017-02-08 20:34 -0800
Re: OT: Current standard for watch precision Tim Wescott <tim@seemywebsite.com> - 2017-02-08 23:26 -0600
Re: OT: Current standard for watch precision Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> - 2017-02-08 23:28 -0800
Re: OT: Current standard for watch precision Spehro Pefhany <speffSNIP@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> - 2017-02-09 00:48 -0500
Re: OT: Current standard for watch precision George Herold <gherold@teachspin.com> - 2017-02-09 06:52 -0800
Re: OT: Current standard for watch precision krw@notreal.com - 2017-02-09 20:37 -0500
Re: OT: Current standard for watch precision Cursitor Doom <curd@notformail.com> - 2017-02-10 17:11 +0000
Re: OT: Current standard for watch precision upsidedown@downunder.com - 2017-02-09 23:13 +0200
Re: OT: Current standard for watch precision krw@notreal.com - 2017-02-08 20:17 -0500
Re: OT: Current standard for watch precision Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> - 2017-02-08 19:29 -0800
Re: OT: Current standard for watch precision Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> - 2017-02-08 20:16 -0800
Re: OT: Current standard for watch precision Martin Brown <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> - 2017-02-08 17:13 +0000
Re: OT: Current standard for watch precision kevin93 <kevin@whitedigs.com> - 2017-02-08 12:54 -0800
Re: OT: Current standard for watch precision krw@notreal.com - 2017-02-08 12:35 -0500
Re: OT: Current standard for watch precision Lasse Langwadt Christensen <langwadt@fonz.dk> - 2017-02-08 09:50 -0800
Re: OT: Current standard for watch precision krw@notreal.com - 2017-02-08 13:14 -0500
Re: OT: Current standard for watch precision Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> - 2017-02-08 11:35 -0800
Re: OT: Current standard for watch precision upsidedown@downunder.com - 2017-02-08 23:16 +0200
Re: OT: Current standard for watch precision Jeroen Belleman <jeroen@nospam.please> - 2017-02-09 09:59 +0100
Re: OT: Current standard for watch precision Lasse Langwadt Christensen <langwadt@fonz.dk> - 2017-02-08 09:41 -0800
Re: OT: Current standard for watch precision krw@notreal.com - 2017-02-08 13:15 -0500
Re: OT: Current standard for watch precision Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz> - 2017-02-11 01:46 +0000
Re: OT: Current standard for watch precision rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-10 22:12 -0500
Re: OT: Current standard for watch precision Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> - 2017-02-09 15:25 -0800
Re: OT: Current standard for watch precision Clifford Heath <no.spam@please.net> - 2017-02-10 10:38 +1100
Re: OT: Current standard for watch precision bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-09 17:42 -0800
Re: OT: Current standard for watch precision Jeroen Belleman <jeroen@nospam.please> - 2017-02-08 11:01 +0100
Re: OT: Current standard for watch precision Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz> - 2017-02-11 04:06 +0000
Re: OT: Current standard for watch precision krw@notreal.com - 2017-02-07 21:02 -0500
Re: OT: Current standard for watch precision Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> - 2017-02-07 10:24 -0800
Re: OT: Current standard for watch precision Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> - 2017-02-07 10:48 -0800
Re: OT: Current standard for watch precision George Herold <gherold@teachspin.com> - 2017-02-07 11:12 -0800
Re: OT: Current standard for watch precision Mikko OH2HVJ <mikko.syrjalahti@nospam.fi> - 2017-02-08 09:33 +0200
Re: OT: Current standard for watch precision George Herold <gherold@teachspin.com> - 2017-02-08 06:31 -0800
Re: OT: Current standard for watch precision Martin Brown <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> - 2017-02-07 09:58 +0000
Re: OT: Current standard for watch precision Robert Baer <robertbaer@localnet.com> - 2017-02-08 20:00 -0800
Re: OT: Current standard for watch precision Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> - 2017-02-05 23:01 -0800
Re: OT: Current standard for watch precision mike <ham789@netzero.net> - 2017-02-06 03:21 -0800
Re: OT: Current standard for watch precision Pimpom <Pimpom@invalid.com> - 2017-02-06 17:25 +0530
Re: Current standard for watch precision "Tim Williams" <tiwill@seventransistorlabs.com> - 2017-02-06 06:57 -0600
Re: Current standard for watch precision Pimpom <Pimpom@invalid.com> - 2017-02-06 19:10 +0530
Re: Current standard for watch precision "Tim Williams" <tiwill@seventransistorlabs.com> - 2017-02-06 08:13 -0600
Re: Current standard for watch precision Pimpom <Pimpom@invalid.com> - 2017-02-06 21:04 +0530
Re: Current standard for watch precision Spehro Pefhany <speffSNIP@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> - 2017-02-06 09:30 -0500
Re: Current standard for watch precision George Herold <gherold@teachspin.com> - 2017-02-06 06:56 -0800
Re: Current standard for watch precision Robert Baer <robertbaer@localnet.com> - 2017-02-08 20:11 -0800
Re: Current standard for watch precision Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-02-06 12:04 -0700
Re: Current standard for watch precision Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> - 2017-02-06 14:58 -0700
Re: Current standard for watch precision Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-02-06 15:21 -0700
Re: Current standard for watch precision Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> - 2017-02-06 16:06 -0700
Re: Current standard for watch precision Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-02-06 17:19 -0700
Re: Current standard for watch precision Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> - 2017-02-06 17:52 -0700
Re: Current standard for watch precision Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-02-06 17:55 -0700
Re: Current standard for watch precision krw@notreal.com - 2017-02-06 21:44 -0500
Re: Current standard for watch precision Robert Baer <robertbaer@localnet.com> - 2017-02-08 20:04 -0800
Re: OT: Current standard for watch precision Spehro Pefhany <speffSNIP@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> - 2017-02-06 09:06 -0500
Re: OT: Current standard for watch precision Pimpom <Pimpom@invalid.com> - 2017-02-06 21:04 +0530
Re: OT: Current standard for watch precision TTman <pcw1.cad@ntlworld.com> - 2017-02-06 14:31 +0000
Re: OT: Current standard for watch precision Clifford Heath <no.spam@please.net> - 2017-02-07 08:54 +1100
Re: OT: Current standard for watch precision Tim Wescott <seemywebsite@myfooter.really> - 2017-02-06 17:33 -0600
Re: OT: Current standard for watch precision krw@notreal.com - 2017-02-06 21:23 -0500
Re: OT: Current standard for watch precision prairiesky <outgoing.server@mozilla.com> - 2017-02-06 23:00 -0800
Re: OT: Current standard for watch precision Cursitor Doom <curd@notformail.com> - 2017-02-07 18:29 +0000
Re: OT: Current standard for watch precision Robert Baer <robertbaer@localnet.com> - 2017-02-08 19:59 -0800
Re: OT: Current standard for watch precision rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-09 00:48 -0500
Re: OT: Current standard for watch precision Tim Wescott <tim@seemywebsite.com> - 2017-02-08 23:54 -0600
Re: OT: Current standard for watch precision Tim Wescott <tim@seemywebsite.com> - 2017-02-09 00:00 -0600
Re: OT: Current standard for watch precision rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-09 04:57 -0500
csiph-web