ChatGPT Prompts for Electrical Engineers

How to use these prompts

Every prompt below follows the same shape: give ChatGPT a role, the context and inputs, clear constraints, and an instruction to show its assumptions and reasoning. That structure gets you a checkable draft instead of a black-box answer. The one rule that never bends: ChatGPT does not know your adopted code, cannot run a real study, and must never be the authority for safety-critical or code-critical work such as protection settings, arc-flash, or compliance. Use it to draft and explain, then verify every number against the official source.

1. Load schedule and demand factors

You are a senior electrical design engineer. I am building a load schedule for a [FACILITY TYPE] served at [VOLTAGE, PHASE]. Connected loads: [LIST kW or kVA, quantity, type]. Organize the schedule and explain which demand and diversity factors typically apply to each category and why. Label every assumption, show the formulas before the numbers, and list which values depend on the adopted code and must be confirmed against it.

Watch out: demand and diversity factors are code and jurisdiction specific, so confirm each one against the adopted code and the authority having jurisdiction.

2. Voltage drop and conductor sizing logic

Act as a power distribution engineer and tutor. Feeder: length [M or FT], current [A], conductor [Cu or Al], system [V, PHASE], power factor [PF], target max drop [%]. Walk through the voltage-drop method step by step, show the formula, plug in my numbers, and state the result and whether it meets the target. Keep impedance values as labeled assumptions I must replace with datasheet data, and give me a checklist of what to verify against the official ampacity tables.

Watch out: ampacity, derating, and termination-temperature rules come from code tables, and the model may cite wrong values. Never size a conductor on its number alone.

3. Protection and coordination concepts

You are a protection engineer explaining to a competent colleague. Given this radial setup [source, transformer kVA and impedance, main and downstream devices with ratings], explain the principles of selective coordination. Explain time-current-curve logic conceptually, do not output specific device settings, and list the inputs a real coordination and arc-flash study requires that you cannot substitute for.

Watch out: this is life-safety work. Use ChatGPT only to explain concepts, never to set protection or arc-flash values. Those need a proper study reviewed by a qualified engineer.

4. Control sequence and ladder pseudo-code

You are a controls engineer. Draft a first control sequence for [MACHINE or PROCESS]. Inputs: [SENSORS and switches]. Outputs: [ACTUATORS and motors]. Behavior: [sequence, interlocks, faults, E-stop]. Produce a plain-English sequence of operations, vendor-neutral ladder pseudo-code, and a list of interlocks and fault conditions. Treat safety functions as out of scope here and flag that they need a rated safety system, and add a commissioning checklist.

Watch out: generated logic is a draft that can miss edge cases. E-stop and interlocks must live in rated safety hardware, never in AI-drafted standard logic. Simulate before you trust it.

5. Single-line diagram review checklist

Act as an electrical reviewer. I will describe a single-line diagram in text [sources, transformers, main and feeder breakers, major loads, grounding, metering, protection devices]. Restate the topology to confirm understanding, list ambiguities, and give a review checklist of items commonly missing or mislabeled, such as ratings, interrupting capacity notes, grounding, and device IDs. Do not invent components I did not describe, and mark any inference clearly.

Watch out: the model cannot see the drawing and may infer parts that are not there. Use it as a checklist, and confirm everything against the real single-line.

6. Structured datasheet comparison

You are a component selection engineer. Compare these [COMPONENTS, e.g. two breakers or VFDs]. I will paste the specs for each. Build a side-by-side table of the parameters that matter for [MY APPLICATION], flag missing or ambiguous specs, and list the questions to ask the vendor. Use only the specs I paste; if a value is not provided, write not provided rather than filling it in.

Watch out: asked to recall specs from memory, the model invents numbers. Paste the real datasheet text and forbid it from guessing.

7. Standards orientation, not clause quoting

Act as an engineering mentor. For [TASK], map the standards and code areas that usually apply, what each generally governs, and exactly which official documents and tables I should open for authoritative values. Do not quote specific clause numbers or numeric limits as fact; speak at the level of which standard type applies, and stress that the locally adopted edition and any amendments govern.

Watch out: the model may cite wrong clauses, outdated editions, or the wrong jurisdiction. Use it only to find which document to open, never to quote a compliant value.

8. Troubleshooting hypothesis tree

Act as a troubleshooting partner for a [SYSTEM, e.g. motor drive or distribution board]. Symptom: [DESCRIBE]. Already checked: [LIST]. Readings: [VALUES]. Give a ranked hypothesis tree from most to least likely, and for each the next safe diagnostic test and the reading that would confirm or rule it out. Prioritize de-energized checks, remind me of lockout and PPE, and ask for any missing measurement before concluding.

Watch out: it cannot measure and can anchor on the wrong cause. Follow site safety and lockout procedures, and confirm each step with real readings.