On 06/25/2011 02:02 PM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jason Roysdon" <nanog.20110127@jason.roysdon.net>
That's what they're doing here, opting to skip "patching" the time error. They're not ignoring frequency altogether, but rather only minding that aspects that have to do with grid stability, not your alarm clock. This is for the better anyway, and NTP/GPS/WWV/WWVH is the way to go to keep clocks accurate and hopefully will be the outcome of any consumer complaints.
I've seen conversation in various forums and lists I read that they are going to ignore or not care about the 60Hz standard. This is incorrect. They just aren't going to purposely deviate from the scheduled frequency to perform manual TEC.
Mind you, that they still care about why the frequency is off, and when things are not able to quickly compensate, they want to know and be able to pinpoint it and fix it: http://www.nerc.com/filez/standards/Frequency_Response.html
Specifically, read this PDF: http://www.nerc.com/docs/oc/rfwg/NERC%20Balancing%20and%20Frequency%20Contro...
Thank you, Jason. I did some searching before I posted that, to see if I could locate better information, but clearly, I didn't search hard enough.
Cheers, -- jr 'my google-fu requires 60.01Hz :-)' a
NERC's site is very hard to find info on if you don't know where to look. Even when you've found something before, it can be hard to find again. I run into that nearly monthly and have a document just to help me navigate to certain areas. http://www.nerc.com/page.php?cid=6|386 http://www.nerc.com/page.php?cid=6|386|391 http://www.nerc.com/files/NERC_TEC_Field_Trial_Webinar_061411.pdf http://www.nerc.com/filez/Webinars/tec_webinar_061411/index.htm <webinar Jason Roysdon