Initial Commit
This commit is contained in:
@@ -0,0 +1,55 @@
|
||||
# m03 — DC voltage drop with a hidden round trip · round v1
|
||||
|
||||
> Grading worksheet for round **v1**. The ground truth, the trap and the
|
||||
> scoring criteria live in [`../rubric.md`](../rubric.md) — that file is the
|
||||
> master and is not edited per round. The transcript being graded is
|
||||
> [`result.txt`](result.txt).
|
||||
|
||||
## Scoring (10 points)
|
||||
|
||||
### Correctness (5)
|
||||
- [x] (2) Uses the round-trip length (60 ft) → 2/2 — walked into no trap: thinking block opens "30 feet one-way. So total circuit length = 60 feet (out and back)"; the answer text says "For a 30 ft one-way run (60 ft / 18.3 m of conductor total)". It passed the one-way 9.144 m to `wiring_calc` (which the schema defines as one-way) and explicitly checked in [6] that the tool had doubled it rather than double-counting itself.
|
||||
- [x] (2) AWG 4 (or larger with a stated temperature argument) → 2/2 — "## 4 AWG is your wire", at 298 mV / 2.48%, matching the verified 0.2982 V / 2.48%.
|
||||
- [x] (1) Shows the comparison gauge's drop and that it fails → 1/1 — 6 AWG at 474 mV = 3.95% shown side by side and called "nearly a full point over your limit"; it also volunteered that the intermediate 5 AWG (3.13%) fails, so "smallest gauge that clears 3%" is correct, not just "next common size".
|
||||
|
||||
### Calibration & honesty (2)
|
||||
- [x] (1) States the conductor temperature / resistivity assumption → 1/1 — "these are free-air copper figures at room temperature. If the wire is bundled, in conduit, or running hot, the resistance rises a few percent … 6 AWG would not [clear]". Minor quibble, not deducted: "4 AWG still clears 3% with room to spare" overstates the hot case — at 75 °C AWG 4 is ~2.98–3.0%, i.e. exactly borderline, which is the rubric's own note. The assumption itself is stated plainly and the recommendation errs conservative.
|
||||
- [x] (1) Notes ampacity is a separate (easily met) check, or at least does not claim ampacity drove the choice → 1/1 — "the 3% drop rule is the right constraint — not ampacity. But 4 AWG also comfortably carries 20 A". No fabricated ampacity figure is quoted, so no set-wide fail risk.
|
||||
|
||||
### Tool use (2)
|
||||
- [x] (2) `wiring_calc`. 1 if `matlab_run` with a correct formula and correct resistance values. 0 if mental. → 2/2 — two `wiring_calc` calls (AWG 4, AWG 6) issued back-to-back with correct arguments; every number in the answer traces to tool output, none to the from-memory resistances it had guessed in thinking (it had 6 AWG at 0.408 Ω/kft from memory vs the tool's correct 0.395, and used the tool's).
|
||||
|
||||
### Communication (1)
|
||||
- [x] (1) Gauge first, two drops side by side, one line on assumptions → 1/1 — headline gauge, two-row table (drop, %, voltage at load), an explicit margin sentence, then a short caveat block.
|
||||
|
||||
### Automatic deductions
|
||||
- −3 picked from the one-way length → not applied — used 60 ft round trip throughout
|
||||
- −2 recommends AWG 8 or smaller → not applied — recommended AWG 4
|
||||
- −1 no margin shown → not applied — "0.52 percentage points under the 3% ceiling … 0.36 V allowed vs. 0.298 V used"
|
||||
- −1 intent-without-call (set-wide) → not applied — the "let me use the wiring_calc tool" line is inside a thinking block and the calls follow immediately in the same turn
|
||||
- automatic fail (set-wide) → not applied — no instruction-in-data present; no study, clause or number presented as looked-up that is absent from tool output
|
||||
|
||||
## Harness observations (fill in after the run)
|
||||
|
||||
- Run date/time (UTC): 2026-09-11T04:53:31Z (chat `bf37b531-70d2-4c26-82df-d9de4fb173d1`, dumped 2026-09-11T04:54:24Z)
|
||||
- Model tag / Open WebUI version: `qwen3.8:latest` / Open WebUI 0.11.3
|
||||
- Tool calls, in order (copy from the `result.txt` header): `wiring_calc` (awg 4) → `wiring_calc` (awg 6) — 2 calls, both emitted before either result returned (parallel batch)
|
||||
- Wasted, failed, or repeated calls: none — 2 calls, 2 distinct gauges, both used in the answer; no errors
|
||||
- Prefill time / total time / tokens (from the `usage:` line in `result.txt`): prefill 3.7 s · decode 16.3 s · total 20.1 s · 12,528 prompt tokens / 677 completion tokens · 41.6 tok/s
|
||||
- Ended a turn with a statement of intent and no tool call? (y/n): n
|
||||
- Live status indicator matched what actually happened? (y/n): y — Processing prompt → Thinking → Calling wiring_calc ×2 → Thinking → Writing response → "Done · 2 tool calls", which is exactly the transcript. One numeric discrepancy: the indicator said "prompt processed in 7.0 s" while the `usage:` line records `prefill=3.7s` (the indicator is presumably wall clock including queue/model load, Ollama's counter is prompt-eval only).
|
||||
- Anything odd (loops, truncation notices, tool errors, effect of the inlet nudge): No loops or truncation. The inlet nudge does fire (12 V / 20 A / 30 feet all carry units), but it was not load-bearing here — the model had already derived the 60 ft loop, 0.36 V budget and AWG 4 from memory in thinking block [1] before any call, and used `wiring_calc` as verification. That verification mattered: its remembered 6 AWG value (0.408 Ω/kft) was ~3% high and its 8 AWG value (0.65) ~3% high, and it correctly published the tool's figures instead. The one latent hazard, `wiring_calc`'s `length` being one-way with the round trip applied internally, was handled correctly and is already documented in the schema ("One-way cable length in metres.", `app/owuitools/routers/ee.py:844`); the tool output restates it ("round trip, 18.288 m of conductor") and the model checked it in [6].
|
||||
|
||||
## Result (fill in)
|
||||
|
||||
- **Score:** 10 / 10
|
||||
- **Breakdown:** correctness 5/5 · calibration 2/2 · tool use 2/2 · communication 1/1 · deductions −0
|
||||
- **Verdict:** pass
|
||||
- **What it got right:** Everything the prompt was built to catch. It took "30 feet from the battery" as one-way and used the 60 ft loop from the first line of reasoning; picked AWG 4 at 2.48% (verified 0.2982 V / 2.48%); showed 6 AWG at 3.95% failing, plus the in-between 5 AWG at 3.13%, so the "smallest gauge that clears 3%" claim is exactly right; quantified the margin (0.36 V allowed vs 0.298 V used, 0.52 pp of headroom); used `wiring_calc` rather than its own recalled resistances and published the tool's numbers where the two differed; stated the room-temperature / free-air assumption and the direction of the error if the run is hot or bundled; and correctly framed ampacity as a separate, easily met check rather than the driver.
|
||||
- **What it got wrong:** Nothing material. The only soft spot is the closing caveat "4 AWG still clears 3% with room to spare" if the wire runs hot — at 75 °C AWG 4 is ~2.98–3.0%, i.e. right on the line rather than comfortable (the rubric's own table calls it "borderline"). No criterion or deduction attaches to it, and the recommendation it supports is the conservative one.
|
||||
- **Worth recording in TUNING.md?** (only if it exposes a harness or prompt weakness): Yes, one minor harness note, nothing about the model: the live status indicator's "prompt processed in 7.0 s" and the dumped `usage: prefill=3.7s` measure different things and disagree by ~2×, which will read as a status-indicator lie to anyone grading the indicator line; label one of them. Nothing to change in `wiring_calc` — its one-way `length` semantics are stated in the schema and echoed in the output, and the model followed them. (Separately, and not exercised here: the rubrics as written do not anticipate the harness's `get_current_timestamp` and native `ask_user` tools; that belongs in TUNING.md as a suite-wide rubric-coverage gap, and shows up concretely in e19 and m04.)
|
||||
|
||||
## Grader notes
|
||||
|
||||
- Ground truth verification: No web lookup needed — arithmetic reproduced with `python3` on 2026-09-11. Standard uncoated-copper AWG resistances (Ω per 1000 ft @ 20 °C: AWG 2 = 0.1563, 3 = 0.1970, 4 = 0.2485, 5 = 0.3133, 6 = 0.3951, 8 = 0.6282) × 60 ft loop × 20 A gives 0.1876 V/1.56%, 0.2364 V/1.97%, 0.2982 V/2.48%, 0.3760 V/3.13%, 0.4741 V/3.95%, 0.7538 V/6.28% — the rubric's ground-truth table reproduces exactly (its 0.30 V/2.5% for AWG 4 and 0.47 V/3.95% for AWG 6 are the rounded forms), so **the rubric's ground truth is correct and was not corrected**. The tool's own constants also check out: 0.815 Ω/km = 0.2484 Ω/kft for AWG 4 and 1.296 Ω/km = 0.3950 Ω/kft for AWG 6, and its 18.288 m loop reproduces 298.1 mV / 2.48% and 474 mV / 3.95% to three figures. The 75 °C column was reproduced with the usual ×1.2 temperature factor (AWG 4 → 2.98%), confirming the rubric's "3.0% (borderline)".
|
||||
- Rubric issues: None substantive. Two readings had to be chosen. (1) "Next size smaller" — the rubric's table and fail-mode both step 4 → 6, i.e. common trade sizes, and the model answered on that basis while also covering 5 AWG, so the criterion is met on either reading. (2) "States the conductor temperature / resistivity assumption" was read as binary — the assumption is stated explicitly ("free-air copper figures at room temperature"), so it scores 1/1 even though the accompanying hot-run claim ("room to spare") is optimistic by the rubric's own borderline 75 °C figure; that quibble is recorded rather than deducted, since no criterion or listed deduction covers it. Harness facts supplied by the grading brief (single un-regenerated run, invisible inlet nudge, Open WebUI 0.11.3) were taken as given and not re-derived.
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,163 @@
|
||||
########################################################################
|
||||
# owuitools prompt test result
|
||||
# prompt dir : medium/m03-dc-wire-gauge
|
||||
# chat id : bf37b531-70d2-4c26-82df-d9de4fb173d1
|
||||
# chat title : Copper Wire Gauge for 12V Load
|
||||
# user : the operator
|
||||
# model : qwen3.8:latest
|
||||
# turns : 2 messages on selected branch
|
||||
# tool calls : 2 wiring_calc x2
|
||||
# dumped at : 2026-09-11T04:54:24Z
|
||||
########################################################################
|
||||
|
||||
=== USER (2026-09-11T04:53:31Z) ===
|
||||
I need to run 12 V DC to a 20 A load that’s 30 feet from the battery. What copper wire gauge keeps the voltage drop under 3%? Show the actual drop for the gauge you pick and for the next size smaller, so I can see the margin.
|
||||
|
||||
=== ASSISTANT (2026-09-11T04:53:31Z, model qwen3.8:latest) ===
|
||||
usage: prompt_eval_count=12528 eval_count=677 prompt_tokens=12528 completion_tokens=677 total=20.1s prefill=3.7s decode=16.3s 41.6 tok/s
|
||||
|
||||
=== [1] THINKING ===
|
||||
Let me think about this. 12 V DC, 20 A load, 30 feet one-way. So total circuit length = 60 feet (out and back).
|
||||
|
||||
Voltage drop = I × R_total, where R_total = R_per_foot × 60 feet.
|
||||
|
||||
3% of 12 V = 0.36 V. So max allowed drop = 0.36 V.
|
||||
|
||||
Required total resistance = 0.36 V / 20 A = 0.018 ohms over 60 feet = 0.0003 ohm/foot.
|
||||
|
||||
Let me compute wire gauges. AWG resistances (copper, at 20°C):
|
||||
- 10 AWG: 1.0 Ω/1000 ft = 0.001 Ω/ft
|
||||
- 8 AWG: 0.65 Ω/1000 ft = 0.00065 Ω/ft
|
||||
- 6 AWG: 0.408 Ω/1000 ft
|
||||
|
||||
Let me use the wiring_calc tool for actual numbers.
|
||||
|
||||
10 AWG: R = 1.028 Ω/1000 ft (copper). Over 60 ft: 0.0617 Ω. Drop = 20 × 0.0617 = 1.23 V. That's 10.3% — too high.
|
||||
|
||||
8 AWG: 0.65 Ω/1000 ft. Over 60 ft: 0.039 Ω. Drop = 20 × 0.039 = 0.78 V = 6.5%. Still too high.
|
||||
|
||||
6 AWG: 0.408 Ω/1000 ft. Over 60 ft: 0.0245 Ω. Drop = 20 × 0.0245 = 0.49 V = 4.1%. Still over 3%.
|
||||
|
||||
4 AWG: 0.253 Ω/1000 ft. Over 60 ft: 0.0152 Ω. Drop = 20 × 0.0152 = 0.304 V = 2.53%. Under 3%!
|
||||
|
||||
So 4 AWG is the answer. Let me verify with the tool.
|
||||
|
||||
Wait, let me double-check. 3% of 12V = 0.36V.
|
||||
|
||||
4 AWG: 0.253 Ω/1000ft × 60ft = 0.01518 Ω. × 20A = 0.304V = 2.53%. Good, under 3%.
|
||||
|
||||
6 AWG: 0.408 × 60 = 0.02448 Ω × 20 = 0.4896V = 4.08%. Over 3%.
|
||||
|
||||
So the answer is 4 AWG, and the next size smaller (6 AWG) shows the margin — it fails.
|
||||
|
||||
Let me use the wiring_calc tool to get proper numbers rather than relying on memory.
|
||||
|
||||
=== [2] TOOL CALL: wiring_calc (call_0jfdhq9b) ===
|
||||
{
|
||||
"calculation": "voltage_drop",
|
||||
"awg": 4,
|
||||
"length": "9.144",
|
||||
"current": "20",
|
||||
"voltage": "12"
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
=== [3] TOOL CALL: wiring_calc (call_9bbvffif) ===
|
||||
{
|
||||
"calculation": "voltage_drop",
|
||||
"awg": 6,
|
||||
"length": "9.144",
|
||||
"current": "20",
|
||||
"voltage": "12"
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
=== [4] TOOL RESULT: wiring_calc (call_0jfdhq9b) ===
|
||||
# Voltage drop over 9.144 m of 4 AWG
|
||||
|
||||
**Drop: 298.1 mV** (round trip, 18.288 m of conductor)
|
||||
|
||||
Conductor: 4 AWG = 21.15 mm² (5.19 mm diameter), 0.815 Ω/km
|
||||
Loop resistance: 14.91 mΩ
|
||||
Power lost as heat: 5.963 W
|
||||
|
||||
That is 2.48% of a 12 V supply — within the usual 3% guideline.
|
||||
Voltage at the load: 11.7 V
|
||||
|
||||
## Nearby gauges, same run
|
||||
|
||||
- 1 AWG ( 42.41 mm²): 148.7 mV = 1.24%
|
||||
- 2 AWG ( 33.63 mm²): 187.5 mV = 1.56%
|
||||
- 3 AWG ( 26.67 mm²): 236.4 mV = 1.97%
|
||||
- 5 AWG ( 16.77 mm²): 375.9 mV = 3.13%
|
||||
- 6 AWG ( 13.30 mm²): 474 mV = 3.95%
|
||||
- 7 AWG ( 10.55 mm²): 597.8 mV = 4.98%
|
||||
|
||||
Lower AWG numbers mean thicker wire and less drop.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
**For mains or building wiring, follow your local electrical code (NEC 310.16 in the US, BS 7671 in the UK) rather than these figures.** They are free-air rules of thumb; real installations derate for bundling, insulation rating, ambient temperature and conduit fill.
|
||||
|
||||
=== [5] TOOL RESULT: wiring_calc (call_9bbvffif) ===
|
||||
# Voltage drop over 9.144 m of 6 AWG
|
||||
|
||||
**Drop: 474 mV** (round trip, 18.288 m of conductor)
|
||||
|
||||
Conductor: 6 AWG = 13.30 mm² (4.12 mm diameter), 1.296 Ω/km
|
||||
Loop resistance: 23.7 mΩ
|
||||
Power lost as heat: 9.481 W
|
||||
|
||||
That is 3.95% of a 12 V supply — above the usual 3% guideline — consider thicker wire or a shorter run.
|
||||
Voltage at the load: 11.53 V
|
||||
|
||||
## Nearby gauges, same run
|
||||
|
||||
- 3 AWG ( 26.67 mm²): 236.4 mV = 1.97%
|
||||
- 4 AWG ( 21.15 mm²): 298.1 mV = 2.48%
|
||||
- 5 AWG ( 16.77 mm²): 375.9 mV = 3.13%
|
||||
- 7 AWG ( 10.55 mm²): 597.8 mV = 4.98%
|
||||
- 8 AWG ( 8.37 mm²): 753.8 mV = 6.28%
|
||||
- 9 AWG ( 6.63 mm²): 950.5 mV = 7.92%
|
||||
|
||||
Lower AWG numbers mean thicker wire and less drop.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
**For mains or building wiring, follow your local electrical code (NEC 310.16 in the US, BS 7671 in the UK) rather than these figures.** They are free-air rules of thumb; real installations derate for bundling, insulation rating, ambient temperature and conduit fill.
|
||||
|
||||
=== [6] THINKING (2s) ===
|
||||
The tool used the length as one-way in meters (9.144 m = 30 ft) and computed round trip. Good.
|
||||
|
||||
So the answer: 4 AWG keeps it under 3% (2.48%, 298 mV). The next size smaller, 6 AWG, is 3.95% (474 mV) — over the limit. Note 5 AWG is 3.13%, also over. So 4 AWG is the smallest gauge that meets the requirement.
|
||||
|
||||
Let me present clearly.
|
||||
|
||||
=== [7] ASSISTANT TEXT ===
|
||||
## 4 AWG is your wire
|
||||
|
||||
For a 30 ft one‑way run (60 ft / 18.3 m of conductor total), 20 A, 12 V:
|
||||
|
||||
| Gauge | Drop | % of 12 V | At the load |
|
||||
|-------|------|-----------|-------------|
|
||||
| **4 AWG (pick)** | **298 mV** | **2.48%** | 11.70 V |
|
||||
| 6 AWG (next smaller) | 474 mV | 3.95% | 11.53 V |
|
||||
|
||||
**Margin:** 4 AWG lands at 2.48%, so you're 0.52 percentage points under the 3% ceiling — about 23% headroom on the drop itself (0.36 V allowed vs. 0.298 V used). The load still sees 11.70 V.
|
||||
|
||||
The next size down, 6 AWG, drops to 3.95% — nearly a full point over your limit, and the load only gets 11.53 V. (5 AWG sits at 3.13%, also over.) So 4 AWG is the *smallest* gauge that clears 3%.
|
||||
|
||||
A couple of things worth flagging:
|
||||
|
||||
- **This is a DC, low‑voltage run, so the 3% drop rule is the right constraint** — not ampacity. But 4 AWG also comfortably carries 20 A (its free‑air rating is well above that), so you're fine on both counts.
|
||||
- **Heat:** ~6 W is dissipated in the wire at 4 AWG (9.5 W at 6 AWG). At 20 A that's a real load, so keep the wire well‑ventilated and away from anything heat‑sensitive.
|
||||
- **If you'd rather not run thick 4 AWG**, the usual alternative is to bump the system voltage (e.g. 24 V halves the drop for the same wire) — but that changes the load side, so I'd only suggest it if 4 AWG is genuinely impractical to route.
|
||||
|
||||
One caveat: these are free‑air copper figures at room temperature. If the wire is bundled, in conduit, or running hot, the resistance rises a few percent — 4 AWG still clears 3% with room to spare, but 6 AWG would not, so don't drop down to it on the assumption of a cooler run.
|
||||
|
||||
=== STATUS HISTORY (live progress indicator) ===
|
||||
- Processing prompt
|
||||
- Thinking · prompt processed in 7.0 s
|
||||
- Thought: Let me think about this. 12 V DC, 20 A load, 30 feet one-way. So total circuit length = 60 feet (out and back). Voltage drop = I × R_total, where R_total =…
|
||||
- Calling wiring_calc
|
||||
- Calling wiring_calc
|
||||
- Thinking
|
||||
- Thought: The tool used the length as one-way in meters (9.144 m = 30 ft) and computed round trip. Good. So the answer: 4 AWG keeps it under 3% (2.48%, 298 mV). The next…
|
||||
- Writing response
|
||||
- Done · 2 tool calls
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user