<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="/assets/rss.xsl"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>KM Engineering — Power Systems Studies &amp; Design</title>
    <link>https://kmeng.ca/</link>
    <description>Working notes on ampacity, protection, grounding, and power systems design.</description>
    <language>en-ca</language>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 09 Jul 2026 12:00:00 GMT</lastBuildDate>
    <atom:link href="https://kmeng.ca/rss.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Why CEC and NEC disagree on a buried 600 A feeder</title>
      <link>https://kmeng.ca/blog/cec-vs-nec-underground-ampacity/</link>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://kmeng.ca/blog/cec-vs-nec-underground-ampacity/</guid>
      <pubDate>Thu, 09 Jul 2026 12:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <description>Same copper, same trench, same 600 A load — and two codes hand you different conductors. The gap isn&apos;t a mistake in either book. It&apos;s what happens when one code publishes a 75 °C column and the other makes you derive it.</description>
      <category>ampacity</category>
      <category>underground</category>
      <category>cec</category>
      <category>nec</category>
      <category>termination-temperature</category>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>
