In article , "cyrille de Brebisson" wrote:
hello,

you can start by using 240V like all decent people (read, in the rest of the
world (Japan except)) and significantly reduce your risk (with or without a
neutral or ground).
the main reason is ohm's law (U=RI) coupled with resistance law J=RI² and
power law W=UI
ie: if you divide the Voltage on a circuit by 2, you will need to increase
your intensity by 2 and therefore, the energy wated in the conductors (read
heat) (of fixed resistance) will multiply by 4.
so, for the same 'product' with the same output power, your cables will heat
4 times more in 120V than in 240...
so, 240 is much safter than 120V (at least when it comes to burning down
your house)...

That's clearly nonsense -- 240 is far more dangerous than 120, both in its
potential (pardon the pun) to electrocute, and to arc. The claim of reduced
heating in the conductors is likewise nonsense: in a properly sized circuit,
with proper overcurrent protection, heating in the conductors is insignificant
regardless of voltage (i.e. if the conductors are getting hot, it's because
they're too small for the load imposed).

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.