# Another Kaplan



## jdd18vm (Sep 17, 2007)

The one thing I thought I knew and was comfortable with was the NEC. I might still contend that, but wonder what you all think.

If you have the Kaplan Sample exam see problems 1.22-1.26, or more specifically the solutions. If you don’t have it, in brief, a building service has computed load is 645 Amps (120/208 3 phase 4 wire).

1.22 - What size THHN Aluminum conductor is required if they are paralleled six times per phase?

Also OPD, Size of Neutral, Conduit If IMC, and the Grounding Electrode Conductor. Since 3 of the questions are directly related to that answer *I* only got 2 out of 5

Good problem, their procedures and methods are sound but answers… not so much imho. Their answer for 1.22 is #1 AWG. They go as far as quoting the code section for parallel conductors, perhaps didn’t read it. Among other things says you cannot parallel anything less than 1/0AWG (there are exceptions but none applicable to this problem).

I hope the NCEES has more conscientious authors.

John


----------



## Dark Knight (Sep 17, 2007)

^^^Will check on that when I go home.

Check the NEC thread here. Good examples.

On another topic John,

Did you see the thread about Power Factor correction? I strongly advice you to take a look at that thread. You will see something similar in the test...I can guarantee you that.


----------



## jdd18vm (Sep 17, 2007)

BringItOn said:


> ^^^Will check on that when I go home.
> Check the NEC thread here. Good examples.
> 
> On another topic John,
> ...



Which Thread? I am sure i have it somewhere. Recall I am doing the USF course. So I may see it yet. On that note Did you get ANYthing out of the Controls Lectures? or Electrronic for that matter??

John


----------



## benbo (Sep 17, 2007)

I did not even look at the power section of the Kaplan test, and I have no idea what it had as far as the NEC. But for me I did not use the test, and particularly the answers, in the same way I would use another sample test. It is not similar in format in any way to the actual exam. However, it is of value becuase there are so few sample exams available for the electrical test. One of the reviewers for it was the lady who taught my review class at CSULA - she has been doing it for years with great success. The Kaplan touches on the subjects and methods that are important for the actual exam (NCEES is still the best). But I certainly did not worry so much about the actual numbers they came up with. I just tried to basically follow their methodology. They had too many significant figures, and I'm sure they had errors.

One thing that was good about it as well - they also draw the schematics in a funny way, like the NCEES exam.


----------



## jdd18vm (Sep 17, 2007)

benbo said:


> I did not even look at the power section of the Kaplan test, and I have no idea what it had as far as the NEC. But for me I did not use the test, and particularly the answers, in the same way I would use another sample test. It is not similar in format in any way to the actual exam. However, it is of value becuase there are so few sample exams available for the electrical test. One of the reviewers for it was the lady who taught my review class at CSULA - she has been doing it for years with great success. The Kaplan touches on the subjects and methods that are important for the actual exam (NCEES is still the best). But I certainly did not worry so much about the actual numbers they came up with. I just tried to basically follow their methodology. They had too many significant figures, and I'm sure they had errors.
> One thing that was good about it as well - they also draw the schematics in a funny way, like the NCEES exam.


I have the NCEES as well in addition to the "the other board" and that Kaiser Exam. The Kaiser is morning only, but seems okay too. The Kaplan does seem to have a good approach. Heck if i know. It modeled more like the old exam I understand.

Benbo do you have some notes or basic concepts that may help on the morning Electronics and Computers? I think thats what you took?

John


----------



## Dark Knight (Sep 18, 2007)

jdd18vm said:


> Which Thread? I am sure i have it somewhere. Recall I am doing the USF course. So I may see it yet. On that note Did you get ANYthing out of the Controls Lectures? or Electrronic for that matter??
> John


The Controls notes were useful to me. Is still Dr. Moreno(is that his name?...I forgot) giving the lecture?


----------



## Dark Knight (Sep 18, 2007)

jdd18vm said:


> The one thing I thought I knew and was comfortable with was the NEC. I might still contend that, but wonder what you all think.
> If you have the Kaplan Sample exam see problems 1.22-1.26, or more specifically the solutions. If you don’t have it, in brief, a building service has computed load is 645 Amps (120/208 3 phase 4 wire).
> 
> 1.22 - What size THHN Aluminum conductor is required if they are paralleled six times per phase?
> ...


Which one did you have trouble John?

From 1.22 to 1.26 here are the notes I took and are not too elaborated meaning that I did not have too many trouble with this section

1.22 1.23 and 1.24 no notes

1.25 I wrote...Reference NEC Tables 4 and 5

1.26 Refer to NEC Table 8 and Table 250.66.

It is late and I had a rough day but if you still have problems tomorrow we can go over each section of the problem.

Let me know my friend.


----------



## benbo (Sep 18, 2007)

If I can think of any special concepts or find notes I'll post them. The morning ECC was pretty simple as I recall.


----------



## jdd18vm (Sep 18, 2007)

BringItOn said:


> Which one did you have trouble John?
> From 1.22 to 1.26 here are the notes I took and are not too elaborated meaning that I did not have too many trouble with this section
> 
> 1.22 1.23 and 1.24 no notes
> ...


Actually imho I got it right, they were wrong. If you read 310.4, which they reference. You cannot parallel #1s. I knew this and did the calcs base on 1/0. No biggie, since their method is correct.. Yes its Moreno but dont forget I'm watching Archived video.


----------



## Dark Knight (Sep 19, 2007)

jdd18vm said:


> Actually imho I got it right, they were wrong. If you read 310.4, which they reference. You cannot parallel #1s. I knew this and did the calcs base on 1/0. No biggie, since their method is correct.. Yes its Moreno but dont forget I'm watching Archived video.


OK....I just have the same notes you must have. The company I used to work brought a Dr. from Uinversity of Miami and he gave us a very god review in controls. I will look for the notes and see what I can find. Will have to make coipies and send them to you if you want because I have no means for scanning.

Let me know.


----------



## Frontier05 (Sep 20, 2007)

BringItOn said:


> ^^^Will check on that when I go home.
> Check the NEC thread here. Good examples.
> 
> On another topic John,
> ...



been discussed before here ........... Page 3

http://engineerboards.com/index.php?showtopic=1234

If your in consulting or have some general knowledge of the NEC, those hand full of questions on the test will be pretty easy. arty-smiley-048:


----------



## jdd18vm (Sep 22, 2007)

Frontier05 said:


> been discussed before here ........... Page 3
> http://engineerboards.com/index.php?showtopic=1234
> 
> If your in consulting or have some general knowledge of the NEC, those hand full of questions on the test will be pretty easy. arty-smiley-048:



Thanks Frontier! I actually see that I read and replied in that thread, but was inquiring about the book. Glad to see I wasn't the only one to notice that Kaplan errors Kudos to you. I have been using the NEC for over 20 years, I'm hoping for a boatload of NEC problems on the exam. Lets hope the NCEES doesn't hire the Kaplan author.

John


----------

