Francesco Casella

> I don't understand totally the point. You used the same powerflow set points for both IEEE14BusPowerFlow and IEEEStaticNetworkEPF, right? Not really. The initialization is configured to keep the power...

> What I said is "You used the same powerflow set points for both IEEE14BusPowerFlow and IEEEStaticNetworkEPF, right?" which means the P-Q and P-V values at the PF ports are...

> aha! So, it is just the matter of changing a few "1.0" 's to "1.05" or so? Not really. The problem is that the original problem has voltage-dependent loads,...

I'll fix this properly ASAP

> What 421.5-2016 says clarifies that when we have 1 pu on the generator field current, we should have 1 p.u. on the _no-load_ air-gap line (fig. B.1 of IEEE...

@ceraolo, I missed that you were worried about the excitation _current_, sorry about that. > In PowerGrid's ENTSOE-TestCase1 I see in the first times (when the machine has no load),...

Proposal: we can introduce a `ifPuOut` output with the appropriate conversion factor, so that when `excitationType = nominalStatorVoltageNoLoad` also the base current is changed to give `ifPu = 1` p.u....

Now that OMEdit supports conditional connectors, we could also alternatively provide a physical DC port for the excitation voltage/current interface, as we discussed some time ago when I visited UniPi....

> I remember well this discussion. For instance MSL SM_ElectricalExcited has terminals for excitation. I like the idea of using physical connectors for excitation, but we must see whether from...

I re-read Kundur's book, Section 3.4. To make things more confusing, he uses peak current and voltage whereas we use RMS current and voltage, but I guess this only changes...