umrpwr
Electrical
- Dec 21, 2002
- 71
This is a somewhat of a philosophical or at least subjective question, but I would appreciate some other thoughts and opinions on the topic. I recently had discussion and debate with some fellow power engineers on the topic of whether a “fault” is the same as a “short-circuit” and the answers were divided evenly with some passionate arguments for each case.
One argument was that a short-circuit is a type of fault, although a fault may not necessarily be a short-circuit as in the case of an open conductor where there may not be short-circuit current which flows. Anderson’s classical text would tend to support this theory as is it titled “Analysis of Faulted Power Systems” since he breaks analysis into series and shunt faults, but does not refer to them as short-circuits.
However some others argued that a fault is a short-circuit and that an open conductor is neither a fault or a short-circuit so they are one in the same.
It is a question that comes down to terminology, but I am curious to hear what others opinions are on this subject. Thanks for your input.
One argument was that a short-circuit is a type of fault, although a fault may not necessarily be a short-circuit as in the case of an open conductor where there may not be short-circuit current which flows. Anderson’s classical text would tend to support this theory as is it titled “Analysis of Faulted Power Systems” since he breaks analysis into series and shunt faults, but does not refer to them as short-circuits.
However some others argued that a fault is a short-circuit and that an open conductor is neither a fault or a short-circuit so they are one in the same.
It is a question that comes down to terminology, but I am curious to hear what others opinions are on this subject. Thanks for your input.