On Mon, 09 Jul 2007 14:34:45 -0000, (Chris
Lewis) wrote:

According to Mark Lloyd :
On Sat, 07 Jul 2007 22:58:37 -0000, (Chris
Lewis) wrote:

According to Mark Lloyd :
On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 23:39:23 -0000, (Chris
Lewis) wrote:

My posting did say I agree with your RMS-Peak calculations.
But saying the peak voltage isn't in the permissible (RMS) voltage
range is rather odd way of discussing this, don't you think?

And that's why I said it. I mentioned peak to demonstrate it NOT
explaining the use of ONE PARTICULAR VALUE (117).

BTW, I accept "110 to 130" as being more applicable than "110 to 120".
This still does not explain what is so special about that particular
value (117).

As I said before, I vaguely recollected that 117V was used in the
vernacular because it was the exact RMS conversion of some
"standardized" nominal peak voltage. But I've not been able to
find any corraboration in Google. The pecularity gets worse when
you see documents referring to main supplies as 117/230V, when
the latter really should be double the former to be logical.

We may simply have to dismiss it as a "historical quirk"/"common
usage". Eg something approaching slang.

OK. Thanks for answering my question.
--
Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.laughingsquid.com

"Unlike biological evolution. 'intelligent design' is
not a genuine scientific theory and, therefore, has
no place in the curriculum of our nation's public
school classes." -- Ted Kennedy