Audienceof1 - Engineer Boards
Jump to content
Engineer Boards

Audienceof1

Jr Members
  • Content Count

    15
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Audienceof1

  • Rank
    Intern
  • Birthday 11/04/1967

Previous Fields

  • Engineering Field
    Design
  • License
    EIT
  • Calculator
    Casio
  • Discipline
    Electrical

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    VA
  1. <ul> <li>My best advice to all of you using the NCEES practice exams as study guides is to know how to work the problem as it written, and every other possible problem that you could possibly derive out of that problem. I.e., if it asks for the voltage for some given circuit, know how you would find the current, resistance, etc, etc, etc, as if they weren't provided. Know those problems up one side and down the other. In preparing for the 2011 fall exam, I focused on knowing how to solve those specific problems (mainly due to time restraints and travel for work) but didn't really have it down. For this past April's exam, I spent more time digging into each problem, along with working problems out of Wildi, Grainger, and Camara, along with the Georgia Tech materials and made it through.</li> <li>One last thing-there are at least a few people reading this that will walk out of that room when the day is done feeling like you just failed the crap out of it like I did. Don't sweat it-you'll do fine. Good luck to everyone!</li> </ul>
  2. Seems like you guys have an answer, but for what it's worth, NEC section 250.53(A)(2) states that if the first one doesn't get you to less than 25 ohms, drive the second one at greater than six feet away from the first and call it a day. And by the way, who stole section 250.56 out of my 2011 NEC? I just noticed it missing! In the 2008 version, there was a section titled Resistance of Rod, Pipe, and Plate Electrodes (250.56). Sounds like someone thought it would make a nice problem, but it doesn't make sense to ask when the code addresses it directly.
  3. Looks like everyone is tracking pretty true to the Excel file. Mass picked up a few days since last year. That means VA stinks and it will probably be late Dec/early Jan.! What could possibly take them so much longer than other states?
  4. The process here: 1-Look up results 2-Discover that no results have been posted for VA 3-Remember food in refrigerator from Christmas luncheon 4-Eat a snack 5-Lightly entertain working 6-Remember that I haven't looked up results in the last few minutes 7-Repeat 1-6 every 10 minutes I need a nap...
  5. Can't get into MyNCEES this morning in VA. Just keep getting spinning wheel. Updating? I can say for sure that while I really want to see "PASS" on my results, I am very happy for all of you that have gotten the good news so far, and for those whose good news is yet to come. Congratulations for all of your hard work paying off!
  6. I will begin by stating that I fully understand and agree with the confidentiality aspect of this process. BUT, what I continue to have a problem with is that manner of which our specific proctor/spokesperson communicates the information concerning the "agreement". I went through several stabs at the FE, and now having taken my first shot at the PE with the same group of proctors presiding over the testing, and know what is coming, it still doesn't sit well with me the manner in which they tell you, "If you have a problem with what I just read, you might as well pack your little crap up and hit the door fool, 'cause them's the rules"-of course, in different terminology. Just the non-conformist side of me, I guess. I believe you can tactfully communicate expectations without being critical or overly demanding and still receive good results. That's my two cents worth.
  7. Yep, and that in itself was kind of a shock. I was expecting to go into an extension of the morning session, but felt like the difficulty level jumped noticeably.
  8. I can honestly admit that I squandered precious time when I should have been working problems in preparation for the exam. I felt pleasantly surprised after the first half, and thought during lunch that if the afternoon were at least as fruitful, I'd be getting the "Congratulations" version for Christmas. Instead, I regret to say that's not what I'm expecting now. One thing-and not topic specific-but I never thought I'd see problems on the exam that were completely foreign to me, especially given that I had almost all of the references that came with the highest recommendations by others who passed previously. I would never claim to be the sharpest engineer that God created, but having worked for 10 years+ as a tech and another 10 as an engineer, with a grad degree to boot, you could have knocked me over with a feather when I read several of those questions. I'd be curious to know who felt completely and adequately prepared and didn't get caught off guard by a single question on the exam? Also, I'd like to know what study materials prepared you that well? And lastly, if you're still reading and this applies to you and you offer an answer, thanks for still taking the time to help out others who are trudging through this process when you obviously don't have a need to be!
  9. Maybe this is a last minute panic attack, since I already walked away from this one before satisfied that had it down, but... Why doesn't the abbreviated version as provided in Ugly's or Ferm's work for this problem? Their shortcut version states that Vd=(Sq rt 3*K (for copper)*L*I)/cm Vd=(1.732*12.9*250'*400A)/500,000=4.468v??? Even if, as described above, you say 277-4.468=272.53*1.732=472.02v. While yes, it does technically push you to the correct answer, it's very close to putting you on the fence to decide between 470 and 475. I'm fine with the Chapter 9 Table 9 method-I just don't like the six minutes that would it would have to fit neatly into. Words of wisdom?
  10. Well, even though I have enough tabs in this Camara book to sink a ship, I've heard enough of my co-workers (mechanical) say that having a hard copy of the index of your main reference book(s) (Lindeburg, Camara, etc.) in your binder is a valuable time saver. With that being said, has anyone here found or have an electronic version of the index and the Camara Power Reference Manualand be willing to share? If this goes into tomorrow with no one coming forward, I'll start scanning. Until then, best of luck in the final days!
  11. I know we're down to the wire, Aerofrank, but someone clued me in on an excellent cross reference of NEC, and you get a second book of calcs, tables, etc. for $50. It's called Ferm's Fast Finder, and it's basically a cross reference of the NEC in the most commonly used key words for every topic in the book. In some cases, it refers the user to the second book, Vol. 2, and every now and then the other references like the UL White Book, but it's mostly for the NEC. The great thing is that you don't really have to get familiar with it (speaking of Vol. 1). You just rip off the plastic wrapping and start using it. Vol. 2 is another story. It's like an Ugly's only in full size and more comprehensive. I'll definitely be tabbing Vol. 2 this weekend. If you don't want to go that route, there's always the Stalcup's book, which has tons of examples and more in depth explanations of NEC sections and uses that the NEC handbook. Hope this helps...
  12. Here's the low hanging fruit for the day for somebody: Question 501 in the latest Electrical: Power NCEES sample question book asks for the voltage magnitude at the secondary terminals of a single-phase transformer, provided resistive load value (kW), voltage at the load, distance from transformer to load, and the load impedance in ohms/1000'. I worked it out similar to the examples NEC provides after Chapter 9, Table 9, with the main difference being 3-phase vice single-phase as given in this problem. My question is, why is the voltage drop doubled in the solution? What am I missing here? I'm thinking that in the single phase arrangement, the neutral is a current carrying conductor also and must be included in the calculation, thereby doubling the conductor length. Maybe I should be quiet before I expose more ignorance! Thanks for the help,
  13. 310.16 includes raceway (conduit), cable, as well as direct buried.
×
×
  • Create New...