|
Ideal electrical systems (just idle curiosity)
On 01/08/2014 09:29, Nightjar "cpb"@ insert my surname here wrote:
On 01/08/2014 08:53, harryagain wrote: "Nightjar "cpb"@" "insert my surname here wrote in message Wrong again Harry. It was a bit of blue-sky thinking about how it could have developed if it hadn't developed in the way it actually did. Drivel. It was posted as factual. That only demonstrates that you didn't understand either the posting or the basis for the whole thread. Pretty much par for the course with harry. -- Tciao for Now! John. |
Ideal electrical systems (just idle curiosity)
On 30/07/2014 09:52, The Other Mike wrote:
On Mon, 28 Jul 2014 22:25:43 +0100, Andy Wade wrote: On 28/07/2014 10:09, Tim Watts wrote: I would say we might as well have 400V as 230V and more or less halve the conductor sizes. Much more than that is getting silly though. I'd vote for the standard domestic supply being 3x32 A (3-ph) instead of 1x100 A. Then we'd have the advantages of 3-phase for motors and rectification, and could have 400 V appliances like cookers and showers hooked-up with 2.5 or 4 mm^2 cables. Proposals now required for a compact 5-pin 16 A plug & socket... Just design a slightly enlarged version of one of these :) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DIN_connector They have: http://www.mennekes.co.uk/uploads/me...nd_sockets.pdf -- Colin Bignell |
Ideal electrical systems (just idle curiosity)
"Nightjar \"cpb\""@ insert my surname here wrote:
The Other Mike wrote: Just design a slightly enlarged version of one of these :) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DIN_connector They have: http://www.mennekes.co.uk/uploads/me...nd_sockets.pdf Don't think I'd fancy IDC connections for 32A three-phase 400V |
Ideal electrical systems (just idle curiosity)
On Fri, 01 Aug 2014 09:38:52 +0100, John Williamson
wrote: That only demonstrates that you didn't understand either the posting or the basis for the whole thread. Pretty much par for the course with harry. Seems worse lately though. Don't think he is a spring chicken so it may be Dementia creeping in. Despite his irrational postings and opinions I wouldn't actually wish that on him. G.Harman |
Ideal electrical systems (just idle curiosity)
|
Ideal electrical systems (just idle curiosity)
|
Ideal electrical systems (just idle curiosity)
On 28/07/2014 07:32, Nightjar "cpb"@ insert my surname here wrote:
That is the number of deaths and serious injuries in the UK every year. Around 2.5 million people in the UK also receive a mains voltage electric shock every year. And how many only receive a shock some years? -- Rod |
Ideal electrical systems (just idle curiosity)
On 30/07/2014 12:15, Tim Streater wrote:
My dear chap, if all but sit-on mowers get banned as a result, I shall put up a statue to you! Understand the sentiment but ... The past two or three days someone nearby has been using a ride-on every evening and leaving some kids to career round the back roads for what seems like hours. Bloody noisy things they can be. And highly illegal for two boys of, I guess, around 10 to 12, to drive themselves on the public highway, sharing the single seat and almost falling off. I have been waiting to see if Darwin will take a hand in this... Anyway, ride-ons are very much out of favour at present. -- Rod |
Ideal electrical systems (just idle curiosity)
Tim Watts wrote:
John Rumm wrote: Possibly a few stats from A&E departments as well... I slipped on some damp grass on a slope cutting the lawn last night. So that probably went down as "lawnmower accident". So when DIY lawn mowing is banned next year, blame me! With the "H&S won't allow that" attitude, some things stand out as notably dangerous, yet they seem to be allowed to continue ... This week I noticed a council workman using a largish, walk-behind mower on about a 10' high bank angled steeper than 45°, looked like an accident waiting to happen. |
Ideal electrical systems (just idle curiosity)
On 02/08/2014 08:24, polygonum wrote:
On 30/07/2014 12:15, Tim Streater wrote: My dear chap, if all but sit-on mowers get banned as a result, I shall put up a statue to you! Understand the sentiment but ... The past two or three days someone nearby has been using a ride-on every evening and leaving some kids to career round the back roads for what seems like hours. Bloody noisy things they can be. And highly illegal for two boys of, I guess, around 10 to 12, to drive themselves on the public highway, sharing the single seat and almost falling off. I have been waiting to see if Darwin will take a hand in this... .... or some other body part. -- Colin Bignell |
Ideal electrical systems (just idle curiosity)
On 02/08/2014 11:11, Nightjar "cpb"@ insert my surname here wrote:
... or some other body part. I put my foot in it there...:-) -- Rod |
Ideal electrical systems (just idle curiosity)
On 28/07/2014 16:06, Tim Watts wrote:
On 28/07/14 14:48, wrote: Nightjar wrote: It's losses in the dielectric, so it applies to underground cables too. Like the man says, although the problem is significantly greater under water. 30km is about the limit for AC transmission under water, (...) Sorry, I still don't understand this. We're talking cables not capacitors. How does a 16mm2 PVC insulated cable have a higher resistance if it's immersed in water than if it's in a vacuum? It doesn't. It has a lower Line-Earth reactance (capacitative) - at least that is what's being claimed. However, the cables are all armoured so it does not really matter if they are in a dry tunnel or under the sea. I would have thought that enclosing a cable in water would change the relative permeability of the arrangement, and hence the inductance per metre of the cable? (too long since I played with transmission line theory!) -- Cheers, John. /================================================== ===============\ | Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk | |-----------------------------------------------------------------| | John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk | \================================================= ================/ |
Ideal electrical systems (just idle curiosity)
On 04/08/14 02:26, John Rumm wrote:
On 28/07/2014 16:06, Tim Watts wrote: On 28/07/14 14:48, wrote: Nightjar wrote: It's losses in the dielectric, so it applies to underground cables too. Like the man says, although the problem is significantly greater under water. 30km is about the limit for AC transmission under water, (...) Sorry, I still don't understand this. We're talking cables not capacitors. How does a 16mm2 PVC insulated cable have a higher resistance if it's immersed in water than if it's in a vacuum? It doesn't. It has a lower Line-Earth reactance (capacitative) - at least that is what's being claimed. However, the cables are all armoured so it does not really matter if they are in a dry tunnel or under the sea. I would have thought that enclosing a cable in water would change the relative permeability of the arrangement, and hence the inductance per metre of the cable? (too long since I played with transmission line theory!) I guess it might - I was considering the capacitative effects only. But assuming the armour is steel wire - how much I wonder? |
Ideal electrical systems (just idle curiosity)
On 04/08/2014 07:47, Tim Watts wrote:
On 04/08/14 02:26, John Rumm wrote: On 28/07/2014 16:06, Tim Watts wrote: On 28/07/14 14:48, wrote: Nightjar wrote: It's losses in the dielectric, so it applies to underground cables too. Like the man says, although the problem is significantly greater under water. 30km is about the limit for AC transmission under water, (...) Sorry, I still don't understand this. We're talking cables not capacitors. How does a 16mm2 PVC insulated cable have a higher resistance if it's immersed in water than if it's in a vacuum? It doesn't. It has a lower Line-Earth reactance (capacitative) - at least that is what's being claimed. However, the cables are all armoured so it does not really matter if they are in a dry tunnel or under the sea. I would have thought that enclosing a cable in water would change the relative permeability of the arrangement, and hence the inductance per metre of the cable? (too long since I played with transmission line theory!) I guess it might - I was considering the capacitative effects only. But assuming the armour is steel wire - how much I wonder? Where is Mr Wade when you need him? - sounds like his kind of sum ;-) -- Cheers, John. /================================================== ===============\ | Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk | |-----------------------------------------------------------------| | John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk | \================================================= ================/ |
Ideal electrical systems (just idle curiosity)
On 30/07/2014 18:14, harryagain wrote:
"Tim Streater" wrote in message .. . In article , harryagain wrote: "Jaffna Dog" wrote in message ... On Sunday, 27 July 2014 20:12:35 UTC+1, David Paste wrote: My question is that if we were to have a brand new electrical system, common to all areas, what would, or could, it be? Still AC? 300 volts? Different frequency? [blank lines and other cockups caused by Mr. Paste using google groups, fixed] [long and irrelevant post by harry, deleted] The point of your post was *what*, precisely, harry? Some (obviously foreign) retard was drivelling on some crap about the history of domestic energy in the UK And even then seemed more insightful than anything I have read from you lately harry -- Cheers, John. /================================================== ===============\ | Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk | |-----------------------------------------------------------------| | John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk | \================================================= ================/ |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:51 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 DIYbanter