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.

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

"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

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

On 01/08/2014 11:44, wrote:
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.


Indeed, I know a number of people whose lives have been affected by
people suffering from it. It's not nice.


--
Tciao for Now!

John.

On 01/08/2014 11:44, wrote:
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.

I'm not sure about 'creeping in'. Would anybody who was entirely
rational have done what he did to his bungalow?

Despite his irrational postings and opinions I wouldn't actually wish
that on him.

Nor on anybody.

--
Colin Bignell

On 30/07/2014 11:58, Tim Watts wrote:
On 29/07/14 20:47, wrote:
On Tue, 29 Jul 2014 11:54:17 +0100, Tim Watts
wrote:


In reality I think the presence of a nearby ground plane (the ground)
plus the fact the helicopter is longer than 2m and has lots of sticky
out bits is likely to push the current a fair bit higher.

Plus some of those lines you speak of may be higher than 440kV.

So on that basis, whilst a small bird can sit on an HV line, if an
ostrich got up there, its feet would probably tingle

See plenty of birds on 11kV and 33kV lines but I don't think I have
ever seen any on the higher voltages. I suppose they must sense the
electrical field as they get close.

G.Harman


Sounds likely...

Anyone who doubts the field strength, take a 4-6ft fluorescent tube and
hold it upright whilst standing under a grid line set, in the dark.

Perhaps not recommended, but Tomorrow's World did it and the tube does
glow - there's that many V/m

Wasn't somebody who lived under one of the super grid lines done a few
years back for stealing electricity by induction?

--
Colin Bignell

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

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

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.

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

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

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 |
\================================================= ================/

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?

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 |
\================================================= ================/

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 |
\================================================= ================/