How much power does a 2.5MW turbine would produce in one complete cycle?

[Waqas2121]

jerrevd is correct:

Frequency — The number of cycles per second. Measured in Hertz. If a current completes one cycle per second, then the frequency is 1 Hz; 60 cycles per second equals 60 Hz.

Hertz is a unit of measurement.

Hi,
I hope you are doing well. I am curious to know, how much power does a 2.5MW turbine would produce in one complete cycle? Will it be equal to 2.5MW?

[RabbleRabble]

Hi,
I hope you are doing well. I am curious to know, how much power does a 2.5MW turbine would produce in one complete cycle? Will it be equal to 2.5MW?

A ideal turbine running at 100% producing 2.5M W for one cycle at 60Hz. 2500000 ÷ 216000= 11.57407 watt hours or 0.01157407 KWh. KWh is a common for expressing power over time. But it could be expressed as Watt (any measure of time).

[RabbleRabble]

A ideal turbine running at 100% producing 2.5M W for one cycle at 60Hz. 2500000 ÷ 216000= 11.57407 watt hours or 0.01157407 KWh. KWh is a common for expressing power over time. But it could be expressed as Watt (any measure of time).

Thats not why you asked that tho is it. Were you making a point about cycles and frequency?

[Waqas2121]

A ideal turbine running at 100% producing 2.5M W for one cycle at 60Hz. 2500000 ÷ 216000= 11.57407 watt hours or 0.01157407 KWh. KWh is a common for expressing power over time. But it could be expressed as Watt (any measure of time).

Why you divided it by 216000? I mean it is what quantity?

[RabbleRabble]

Why you divided it by 216000? I mean it is what quantity?

You asked a question about power over time. 60Hz = 60cycles per second. 60 seconds in one min 60 min in one hour. 60X60X60 = 216000 cycles per hour. So 2.5 MW for one hr = 2500 KWH. Divide that by 216000 gives you KW for one cycle at 60Hz.

[bob152637485]

I should really point out here that the units of the original question are completely wrong. It asks "How much power..." Technically, the answer would be 2.5MW/60 for one cycle of a sine wave. The answers are all in units of kWh, which is NOT power, but energy. The answer should either be changed to 41.7 kW, or the question changed to say energy instead of power.

EDIT:
The more I think about it, assuming the answer is meant to be power and not energy, I believe it would just remain 2.5MW, as opposed to dividing it by 60. The reason being is that the definition of power is joules/second, where energy is in joules(remember, there are 3.6 MJ in 1 kWh). In other words, it is a rate, not a quantity. Even if you only measured it for one cycle, as the question asks, the power would remain the same, just with less total energy. It would be like saying that if you drive down the highway at 60MPH, but stop driving after just 1 mile, you would have only been driving at a rate of 1MPH. That's simply not true, as during that one mile of driving, you still would have been traveling at a rate of 60MPH regardless of how far you decided to drive.

In this analogy, energy is your "miles" and power is your "MPH." Doesn't matter how "far" you drive, it has no effect on the rate you are traveling. In electrical terms, how much energy you use has no effect on your power, which is defined as a rate of energy per second. Whether I ask for the power over 1 cycle or 1 million cycles, the power would be 2.5MW at any point in time. Now ENERGY on the other hand, that we can define as our power times time, which will increase over time, and is clearly dependent on how much power we have. In math talk, you would say that power is the derivative of energy(the slope of the energy curve), or that energy is the integral of power(the area under the power curve).

[RabbleRabble]

I should really point out here that the units of the original question are completely wrong. It asks "How much power..." Technically, the answer would be 2.5MW/60 for one cycle of a sine wave. The answers are all in units of kWh, which is NOT power, but energy. The answer should either be changed to 41.7 kW, or the question changed to say energy instead of power.

EDIT:
The more I think about it, assuming the answer is meant to be power and not energy, I believe it would just remain 2.5MW, as opposed to dividing it by 60. The reason being is that the definition of power is joules/second, where energy is in joules(remember, there are 3.6 MJ in 1 kWh). In other words, it is a rate, not a quantity. Even if you only measured it for one cycle, as the question asks, the power would remain the same, just with less total energy. It would be like saying that if you drive down the highway at 60MPH, but stop driving after just 1 mile, you would have only been driving at a rate of 1MPH. That's simply not true, as during that one mile of driving, you still would have been traveling at a rate of 60MPH regardless of how far you decided to drive.

In this analogy, energy is your "miles" and power is your "MPH." Doesn't matter how "far" you drive, it has no effect on the rate you are traveling. In electrical terms, how much energy you use has no effect on your power, which is defined as a rate of energy per second. Whether I ask for the power over 1 cycle or 1 million cycles, the power would be 2.5MW at any point in time. Now ENERGY on the other hand, that we can define as our power times time, which will increase over time, and is clearly dependent on how much power we have. In math talk, you would say that power is the derivative of energy(the slope of the energy curve), or that energy is the integral of power(the area under the power curve).

I really like the energy V power point you are making. I would ask how a generator can be rated without taking into account power over time? I believe they are rated in energy output like a battery. mAH or KWH

[bob152637485]

I really like the energy V power point you are making. I would ask how a generator can be rated without taking into account power over time? I believe they are rated in energy output like a battery. mAH or KWH

This I cannot speak to, as I currently have little exposure to generators. The original test question, however, I think definitely needs re-wording no matter how you look at it.

[RabbleRabble]

This I cannot speak to, as I currently have little exposure to generators. The original test question, however, I think definitely needs re-wording no matter how you look at it.

[RabbleRabble]

I've revisited this question with a friend and we have determined that you are fully correct.