What Happen if I Do Synchronization in Counter Clock with Synchroscpe Method?

The clock would turn backwards!

Entertain us and tell us what you think would happen!

I know that it is considered rude to criticize poor English. However your English is not fractured it is shattered to the point that your thoughts cannot be understood. If this is about a specific chip with separate up and down clock inputs then please identify the chip. If this is a part of software code then please identify the routine and/or programming language.

What is a synchroscope? Is this an oscilloscope?

You might look up terms on the internet before you critisize the OP's use of them. It does not reflect well for your inteligence. The OP comes out ahead in his question than you do in your answer

Wow, I take that as a knavely, truculent personal attack on me. I stated that I did not understand the question in my reply. I still do not understand the question as stated by the AP.

I do understand the power generation topic that this thread has become and admire the insight and knowledge that others, including you, have provided on power generation. I am not convinced that this is what the AP meant. Not once has the AP or anyone claiming to be the AP clarified if my comprehension is a foolish misreading of the real scenario distorted by my lack of understanding of power generation jargon or if this has nothing to do with power generation.

I do not understand, at all, the reason for your personal attack on me.

PS. Do not bother to report my reply. I am self reporting this.

I replied as i did because your original reply was essentially a personal attack on the poster and unwarranted. And uncalled for.

Nothing. The synchroscpe doesn't care.

That is an awful lot of critical extrapolations from a shattered sentence. Even if your extrapolation is correct that this is what the AP wants to know, the sparse information actually provided makes me wonder if the AP accurately understands their situation.

Now where is that wikipedia page on appendix removal again?

I appreciate your answers,people who ask are in need,of solution(s)/knowledge to avoid costly mistake(s)which might effect everyone.

GA for (probably) a good take on the situation, even though it was very badly explained.

But in my experience, you have selector switches for the "ON" Alternator and "ON-COMING" Alternator. If you "SELECT" them wrongly, then it is possible to for example to select ANOTHER (nothing to do with the paralleling operation) Alternator and cause havoc and despondency if that one happens to be running either OFFLINE, or supplying a different load!!!!

Or select them the "wrong way round" and an anticlockwise indication may be actually correct!!! (So that the on-coming alternator may take some load immediately and not drop off on reverse power that is.........)

Such systems are fraught with possible operator errors.......and the results of an "out of phase" situation can be shocking to all concerned. (In more than one way......!)

I cannot for the life of me understand why ANYONE would come here to ask that question???? (If we are correct!!)

Usually the incoming generator will fail to pick up load. CCW means that it is turning slightly slower than the bus, and it will slow down even further if "trying" to accept load. It may then trip out on reverse power.

There are exceptions, however. I have seen this done, but I don't remember what specific conditions enabled the incomer to "back in", so to speak.

Perhaps the OP should remain anonymous.

Maybe he/she is from Oz.

What's that supposed to mean? We do things backwards or upside down? Or we are a bit thick?

Coriolis effect; things rotate oppositely in the Southern Hemisphere. It's a standing (or revolving) jibe around here.

I have seen many operators who would never consider closing a generator with a slow or counter clockwise rotation of the synchroscope. The reason is that the generator will "motor" when the circuit breaker is closed and in the old days (prior to my time), many generators were not braced for this operation. The windings would chatter if the generator were allowed to motor and sometimes the windings would be destroyed. Even when it was found in the early days of generator manufacture that this was not a good practice to brace on only one side of the windings, the operators were always trained by the older operators and the tendency passed down. I have seen generators synchronized in the counter clockwise direction, and sometimes if the windings are not securely braced some disturbing sounds do come out. Most of the time, it would only be noise and not a failure. It is probably not as bad as when a generator losses it's prime mover before the breaker trips. What I cannot figure out, is why you are asking this question, or why anyone would want to ever want to close a breaker on a slow scope and cause a generator to intentionally "motor". Bottom line, it can be done, but why???

Closing the generator on a slow scope (synchoscope) forces the generator to accelerate or catch up to the system and for the short time it becomes a motor rater than a generator. It is not designed for that.

GA.

I have personally witnessed the aftermath of a lagging 13MW unit after being put on line when the anti-motoring protection failed to operate and isolate the unit from the grid.

The result(s) were overwhelming and gut wrenching.

We were very lucky in that only one of our shift suffered serious injury.

The person that was seriously injured lost all of his lower leg from the knee down when the #2 LP turbine blade assembly hit him during the explosion.

The building was riddled with holes and the structural beams directly above the unit were bent and in some cases severed.

It has been quite awhile but the memories are as vivid as yesterday.

Any powerhouse operator or any other person that has ever witnessed an event such as this is adamant about not attempting sychronization of a lagging generator.

I have never met heard from anyone who has witnessed this first hand.

We we warned (putting it VERY mildly!!) by our lecturers on what COULD happen.....It was in the RN and officially, an Alternator was put half through the side of a ship in the 50's......they told us 10,000 times.......but how true this was I cannot say.....

According to the lecturers, it was a dockyard accident caused by incorrect wiring to the Sync scope and lamps.....not at sea......thank God! I could not find it on the web....quick look only.

Needless to say, we were all very careful. ALWAYS!!!

As a 21 year old Petty Officer on an HMS County Class Destroyer, I had around 11 Million pounds of Electrical Equipment and 5 Junior ratings to look after it......1960 Values.....

Ahhh.... the smell of the salt air and to "skate" once again.

Ironically about 11 months ago the company I now work for suffered the loss of a small 6 MW NG fired unit at one of their remote sites due to this same scenario.

The unit was in startup and commissioning when the vendor representative (technician) decided to defeat all of the trip circuits because the generator kept tripping offline for various reasons.

He finally succeeded in closing the breaker with the genertaor in a lagging mode causing the jack shaft between the engine and the generator to rupture.

Needless to say, the machine suffered significant damage but luckily nobody was injured.

I was not present but was involved in the RCA afterwards.

It overwhelmed me that initially the focus was pointed at the failure of the jackshaft because all of the bolts did not rupture simutaneously instead of the obvious stupidity of the vendor technician in bypassing all of the generator protection.

I am very sure that given the machine had been constantly tripping offline for an undefined period time that the mechanical stress to the jackshaft was far in excess of design parameters.

When I pointed out that the jackshaft ruptured as-designed to protect the machine and that it is not possible for every bolt to sever at exactly the same time we finally were able to focus on the real cause of the event. (Vendor inexperience)

The factory sent out a different, more experienced technical support person (engineer) and amazingly the generator was repaired and has operated very well since then.

For the life of me I cannot understand why anyone would ever possibly conceive that it is ok to bypass any equipment personnel safety or protection device.

4wsilver

Closing the generator on a slow scope (synchoscope) forces the generator to accelerate or catch up to the system and for the short time it becomes a motor rater than a generator. It is not designed for that.

The OP has not ask the right question nor given enough details to answer his question. However there are generators in today's market that are designed for motoring, it is call

Synchronous Condenser - This mode allows the generator to operate as a synchronous motor at an operator selectable leading or lagging power factor for voltage stabilization and control on the power grid.

More details of the OP operations is needed to answer this question.

You appear to have slightly overlooked several posters here or maybe not read them fully....or not understood what was written....no idea which....

Firstly, the post by someone who actually witnessed such an error firsthand.....so it does happen!! I bet it was DESIGNED correctly, but wrongly installed!!!

As accidents manage to do every minute of every day of every year.....somewhere.....to someone.

Secondly, the RN accident was due to incorrectly installed synchro bits and pieces (as I said in my post!!)......accident again. I bet it was also DESIGNED correctly, but wrongly installed!!!

Now your post ONLY makes sense once everything has been designed correctly, then built and installed correctly and tested OK......that is a bit far down the road so to say.......but till you get there.......

So what did your post achieve? Basically nothing......It was all said and done before you put pen to paper finger to keyboard!

Andy,

Thanks for your earlier GA, and please understand that I was only using your later posting for "compare and contrast" purposes, not to draw any vituperative elucidations and deconstructive criticisms! Since it's Friday night here and I'm bored, I'm going to spend some of my time addressing your latest remarks.

"...You appear to have slightly overlooked several posters here or maybe not read them fully...", I read every post in every thread I post in,

"...or not understood what was written..." , please provide examples along with your understanding of how I misunderstood,

"...(I have) no idea which...", ah, something that we can agree on!

"...Firstly, the post by someone who actually witnessed such an error firsthand.....so it does happen!!...", no one said it doesn't, I too have witnessed the aftermath, as part of the forensic team who had to determine what happened, why, and how to prevent it from ever happening again.

"...I bet it was DESIGNED correctly, but wrongly installed!!!...", no way to tell that except by examining the design documentation and comparing it to the as-built, and I agree that someone didn't perform their job properly, something that I addressed in my post.

"...Secondly, the RN accident was due to incorrectly installed synchro bits and pieces (as I said in my post!!)......accident again. I bet it was also DESIGNED correctly, but wrongly installed!!!...", you "bet" because you were not part of the investigation team, so how would you "know"; and what you call an accident, I call negligence. Accidents are unlikely combinations of events that shouldn't happen but do anyway, negligence is the willful dereliction of duty; i.e., someone who knows what to do but doesn't.

"...Now your post ONLY makes sense once everything has been designed correctly, then built and installed correctly and tested OK......that is a bit far down the road so to say.......but till you get there..." Spoken like someone who has never been there, probably will never get there, and thinks that's the way the rest of the world is. Sorry, that's not how it is in the utility business, it's the investors' money, not the government's. My team of specialists and I spent the last few hours between full speed roll up, putting the excitation system in service, and closing the synchronizing breaker ensuring beyond any doubt that the instrumentation transformers' waveform at the synchronizing panel was identical to the actual waveform across the breaker contacts, and that doesn't include the countless hours spent by others ringing out the control circuit wiring/system for proper operation. Three to seven years of effort and many hundreds of millions of dollars in manpower and equipment all come down to the moment when that breaker is closed, there is absolutely no room for error. "Good enough for Government work" is not good enough for the utility business.

"...So what did your post achieve? Basically nothing..." for those who refuse to see, but hopefully provided some insight into a process that many post about but few actually participate in. I prefer to light candles in the darkness, you enjoy snuffing them out; we all have our duties to perform. Good night.

And you did not follow your own advice and fully read my post. I have no interest in being critical, that's something that you're perceiving that I did not intend; and I still want to know what you think I miscomprehended.

On second thought it may be best if you follow your own tag-line and remain silent, not everything on this site demands a response.

ps- it would be a blessing if you ignored my posts.

You wrote:-

ps- it would be a blessing if you ignored my posts.

I agree, but you missed out an important word.....between "you" and "ignored", it was "all"....but we understand that and take the full meaning to heart!!

You are right, your previous post I only read half through before giving up (50% more than you I guess!!), that was MORE than enough to see no change in your set, but who from us both started by not reading posts fully?

In case you REALLY don't know - NOT ME!!!