zxcvbob wrote:
George E. Cawthon wrote:

Greg wrote:

Vacuum cleaner cord has it's own listing category (type SVxx) and the
motor/cord assembly is an engineered system. The voltage drop is
taken into
account when they design a vacuum. In fact you would violate the
listing if you
did put a 14 ga cord on one.
It really has nothing to do with what we are talking about here



OH? You put fifty feet of #17 wire on a 12 A motor and then plug it
into a house wire that is #14 and 110 feet from the panel. Ok,
right, who cares. Oh, you might want to switch that vacuum for a 12
a table saw.



In that case, the motor is designed to run at the lower voltage you get
from the voltage drop of long cord. (maybe it's a 105V motor)

Bob


You are probably right. Doesn't do too much good for the other
appliances on the circuit tho.

A vacuum cleaner motor is not a good example if you want to commplain about
voltage drop since they are AC/DC "universal" brush motors that will accept a
large swing in voltage with speed being the only penalty.
The cord length is selected by the manufacturter as part of the listed assembly
tho and I doubt you will see a 50 footer.

BTW I am the guy who wanted the 20a so stop beating me up here.

Would a 0.6V change in voltage at the motor really violate the listing?


Any modification whatsoever invalidates the listing. It's no longer "as tested".
Also consider that all wire is not made of the same material, and two wires of
same gauge may have quite different specs as far as resistance. The type of
configuration, flexibility, flex fatigue, and the cover also make a difference.

True legally but not practically. Any design for home use has to assume
variances in voltage well beyond the 0.6V range, so such a modification
would certainly not exceed the design specifications.

Brian
( )

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DEFN: Computer - A device designed to speed and automate errors.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
( Couldn't verify my signature? Use http://www.precidia.com/precidia.crt )

wrote:

On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 11:34:12 -0500, Brian White wrote:

Would a 0.6V change in voltage at the motor really violate the listing?


Any modification whatsoever invalidates the listing. It's no longer "as tested".
Also consider that all wire is not made of the same material, and two wires of
same gauge may have quite different specs as far as resistance. The type of
configuration, flexibility, flex fatigue, and the cover also make a difference.

True legally but not practically. Any design for home use has to assume
variances in voltage well beyond the 0.6V range, so such a modification
would certainly not exceed the design specifications.

Brian
( )


Regardless of personally lax attitudes about it, ANY modifications violate the
listing, and for practical purposes, makes all previous testing and measurement
completely worthless. Legal? If there is a fire or accident involving the
altered device, expect the lawyers and insurance companies to focus all their
attentions and energy on the fact it was modiffied, regardles if the
modification actually played any part whatsoever.

That's what I said. It's true legally, but not practically. Perhaps you
should read what I wrote instead of just flaming.

Brian
( )

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tired of spam? See what you can do to fight it at: http://www.cauce.org/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
( Couldn't verify my signature? Use http://www.precidia.com/precidia.crt )

Regardless of personally lax attitudes about it, ANY modifications violate the
listing, and for practical purposes, makes all previous testing and measurement
completely worthless. Legal? If there is a fire or accident involving the
altered device, expect the lawyers and insurance companies to focus all their
attentions and energy on the fact it was modiffied, regardles if the
modification actually played any part whatsoever.

That's what I said. It's true legally, but not practically. Perhaps you
should read what I wrote instead of just flaming.


Losing insurance coverage by doing something stupid doesn't strike me as being
very practical. Your estimate of a .6v difference could be correct or it could
be very far off. You haven't taken a long list of variables into consideration.

When it comes to the law, there's very little "practical" about it. It's
about image and what you can convince others of. FUD is far more effective
than truth.

If you think my 0.6V estimate is off, please provide the variables you
mention and how they effect the calculation. I'm always interested
in learning new things and I assume others on this group are, too.
Spread facts, not FUD.

Brian
( )

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Leave it to the computer industry to shorten "Year 2000" to "Y2K".
It's that sort of thinking that led to the problem in the first place.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
( Couldn't verify my signature? Use http://www.precidia.com/precidia.crt )

Brian White wrote:

When it comes to the law, there's very little "practical" about it. It's
about image and what you can convince others of. FUD is far more effective
than truth.


Here an illustration of the effectiveness of FUD:

http://www.cs.umd.edu/~mattkat/Farside/farside1.gif

or:

http://www.worth1000.com/emailthis.asp?entry=10197

Best regards,
Bob