1. Welcome to the Arc Flash Forum - A Global Community for Arc Flash and Electrical Safety!

    Register today and join the conversation! As a registered member you can:

    • Create your detailed user profile
    • Post questions and responses
    • Add a profile photo of yourself
    • Become a contributor to the Library
    • Provide status updates about yourself
    • Receive weekly email updates
    • "Like" the forum on Facebook
    • "Like" other member's posts
    • ...and much more!

    Learn More About the Arc Flash Forum Here

Clarification on the 4.184 Multiplier

Discussion in 'IEEE 1584 - IEEE Guide for Performing Arc-Flash Ha' started by balassit, Feb 29, 2008.

  1. balassit Junior Level

    I am looking on page 11 of the 1584, equation 6.

    Above it is stated that En is in J/cm^2.

    Looking at the equation (6) it states

    E = 4.184*Cf*En(t/.2)*(610^x/D^x)

    Is the 4.184 a multiplier to convert calories to Jewels? If so, why does the document state above that En is already in Jewels? Just looking for a little clarity on this.

    Thanks
  2. mnmurphy Junior Level

    Clarification on Equation 6

    It is confusing for sure. This whole section here (Equation 4-6) is stating that it is dealing in J/cm2 in the text, but admits to cal/cm2 in the footnotes for En. The 4.184 is really converting from calories to jewels, but does not follow along. It is just the next step from going from En to E.

    I think it is just an over-thinking logic mistake. If you follow the text it still works out, but has required an entire addition of Appendix E, given the logic.

    If you want to deal in cal/cm2 basically look at Appendix E. You go through the same equations for En, (4) and (5), but you use the Appendix E equation in lieu of Equation 6.

    Now this is basically converting. If you want to deal in cal/cm2, you have a supposed En in J/cm2 from equations (4) and (5) and now you are dealing with an equation in Appendix E, that is the same as Equation (6) without the 4.184 multiplier.

    I will remember this for the IEEE 1584 Meeting. Maybe there was some specific reasoning for the logic used.

Share This Page