Rental Electrician
-
@dtech said:
Now expecting a sin gle socket to provide 3000W (as you say, 13A @ 230V = 2990W), THAT would be a WTF in my eyes.
In the UK it's not too unusual to have an electric kettle. Most efficient way to make tea. And electric kettles can certainly draw 3kW: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Stellar-1-5L-Electric-Kettle-3KW/dp/B002TJLGQC
-
@dtech said:
Now expecting a sin gle socket to provide 3000W (as you say, 13A @ 230V = 2990W), THAT would be a WTF in my eyes.
Since sockets (and cables) are designed to carry current while dissipating as little power as possible, you may want to get your glasses checked.
-
@Cassidy said:
Okay, what the trolling fuck does that mean?
It means what it means, life is cheap, go to a third world country and live among the poor for a while. You'll either get it or die from a totally preventable cause.
@Cassidy said:
That you treat life as cheap, and you don't give a shit that your cowardice could endanger someone's life?
I used to care, but I grew out of it. Nobody here cares anyways.
@Cassidy said:
Forget this cultural pressure toss
??
@Cassidy said:
if you follow the crowd like a spineless sheep, you're becoming part of the problem rather than contributing to the solution.
What problem? What solution?
@Cassidy said:
For sooner or later, you'll reap what you sow, and you can look up from your deathbed thinking "well, it's the way of this country" when some easily-preventable accident claims yet another life. Yours.
My personal take on this is that whatever we do we'll regret it later no matter what. So fuck that. Life is not made of easy black or white choices.
@Cassidy said:
Grrrrr.....
Ohh yeah baby, make it work
@pjt33 said:
electric kettle
So the kettle isn't black anymore? Way to break backward compatibility on a saying...
-
@boomzilla said:
@GettinSadda said:
It's a problem. The biggest electrical danger in the US is extension cord fire, and it's directly related to the cord being un-fused. An appliance will come with a properly sized cord and and the circuit breaker will protect the wiring in the walls from over heating. But, since a US outlet will gladly provide 15A (or sometimes 20A) to the plugged in device, using a 5A extension cord for a 15A appliance will cause a fire. A fuse in the cord would solve the problem.Also, to give the same protection as UK wiring, every cable on every device must be safe at 15A, and my understanding is that this is not true of most devices in the USA.
I'm sure it isn't. And that doesn't even address 20A sockets. But is this really a problem? Sure doesn't seem to be.
-
@Jaime said:
It's a problem. The biggest electrical danger in the US is extension cord fire, and it's directly related to the cord being un-fused. An appliance will come with a properly sized cord and and the circuit breaker will protect the wiring in the walls from over heating. But, since a US outlet will gladly provide 15A (or sometimes 20A) to the plugged in device, using a 5A extension cord for a 15A appliance will cause a fire. A fuse in the cord would solve the problem.
Sort of. I agree that it would solve the problem of the fire hazard. I usually worry more about damaging the motor in the power tool, though. I say power tool, because I suspect that's probably where most extension cord abuse comes from. But again, how big of a problem is this, really? I mean, how often does this actually happen? Is the magnitude of the actual problem worth it?
-
In the UK, appliences such as this 3kW electric heater are common:
[img]http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41hFUmyOgbL._SS500_.jpg[/img]As are ones such as this 2kW fan heater:
[img]http://247electrical.co.uk/media/catalog/product/cache/1/image/9df78eab33525d08d6e5fb8d27136e95/f/2/f2001wh.jpg[/img]And of course this 2.7kW tumble dryer:
[img]http://www.365electrical.com/images/detail/IDC85.jpg[/img]This 3kW kettle:
[img]https://direct.tesco.com/pi/Enlarge/5/SS09204-8085TPS434183.jpg[/img]And this 1.8kW toaster:
[img]http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41ZbsqdmvuL._SL500_AA300_.jpg[/img]With 15A or 16A circuits I could not plug any two of these into sockets on the same circuit and I would have to be aware of the wiring in a property to even decide what I could plug in where.
Also - a three room apartment with only 15 sockets? So 5 sockets per room on average? The room that I am in has 12 sockets, and that is not generous for the UK.
-
@GettinSadda said:
Also - a three room apartment with only 15 sockets? So 5 sockets per room on average? The room that I am in has 12 sockets, and that is not generous for the UK.
That's actually more like 10 sockets per room. US outlets are usually two sockets per outlet. The rule of thumb is an outlet every 6 feet (I think NEC requires no cord to be run for more than 6 feet). US homes also usually have dedicated outlets for appliances (of varying current capacity and voltages). Also, kitchen counters usually have several outlets and multiple circuits to accomodate microwave ovens, toasters, etc.
-
@GettinSadda said:
Firstly a typical UK house might have well over 100 sockets, each able to supply 13A if required (not all at once obviously, but you should never be far from a socket that can supply you with 13A if required).
WTF. British people always make FUN of our "McMansions", and you're saying the typical house in the UK is-- oh wait I see, either you're so fucking wealthy you have no idea what is "typical" or you're full of shit. My guess, the latter.
-
@GettinSadda said:
And of course this 2.7kW tumble dryer:
We run driers off the 240v. (Or gas, if that's available.)
The rest of the items in your list seem to work fine in US sockets. Yeah, the kettle takes slightly longer to heat up-- cry me a river.
Maybe I live around too many antique houses, but the socket numbers people are naming sound ridiculously high. I know the US "standard" is one every 6', but every house I've lived in was more like one on every wall, and the 1927 house I'm living in now has barely any at all. (I had to get one installed in the bathroom for my shaver/etc, I had a new circuit put in for my computer equipment, and I had to get 3 counter-top outlets added in the kitchen for appliances. I didn't add any wall outlets, so I still have to be careful there.)
-
@frits said:
@GettinSadda said:
Also - a three room apartment with only 15 sockets? So 5 sockets per room on average? The room that I am in has 12 sockets, and that is not generous for the UK.
That's actually more like 10 sockets per room. US outlets are usually two sockets per outlet. The rule of thumb is an outlet every 6 feet (I think NEC requires no cord to be run for more than 6 feet). US homes also usually have dedicated outlets for appliances (of varying current capacity and voltages). Also, kitchen counters usually have several outlets and multiple circuits to accomodate microwave ovens, toasters, etc.
Sockets in the UK are usually paired, and count as two sockets.
Are US double sockets on the same circuit? If so it would be interesting to know how often someone plugs a kettle into one and a toaster into the other - which is a common situation in the UK.
-
@GettinSadda said:
Are US double sockets on the same circuit? If so it would be interesting to know how often someone plugs a kettle into one and a toaster into the other - which is a common situation in the UK.
Typically, everything from a particular junction box is on the same circuit. There are exceptions, especially if you have more than two outlets. I also have a switch + socket where the switch controls my garbage disposal and the socket is on a different circuit. There's also another outlet with two plugs that's on the same circuit as the other plug in the same box.
I have a coffee maker. It's on the same circuit as my toaster, though they are rarely used simultaneously. For a while, my refrigerator, microwave and deep fryer were on the same circuit. All three running at the same time would drop the breaker. The microwave is now on a different circuit, so it isn't a problem any more. The bigger problem is typically hair dryers and vacuums. Since bathrooms are often on the same circuits for GFCI protection / isolation / whatever, this can be a problem with multiple females in the house.
-
@GettinSadda said:
@frits said:
@GettinSadda said:
Also - a three room apartment with only 15 sockets? So 5 sockets per room on average? The room that I am in has 12 sockets, and that is not generous for the UK.
Also, kitchen counters usually have several outlets and multiple circuits to accomodate microwave ovens, toasters, etc.
Are US double sockets on the same circuit? If so it would be interesting to know how often someone plugs a kettle into one and a toaster into the other - which is a common situation in the UK.
Important information bolded for you.
-
@pjt33 said:
@dtech said:
Now expecting a sin gle socket to provide 3000W (as you say, 13A @ 230V = 2990W), THAT would be a WTF in my eyes.
In the UK it's not too unusual to have an electric kettle. Most efficient way to make tea. And electric kettles can certainly draw 3kW: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Stellar-1-5L-Electric-Kettle-3KW/dp/B002TJLGQCWhile 3000W kettles are not that uncommon, the vast majority is 1KW-1,5KW. Also I meant 3000W continous, most cables and fuses can withstand the 1min it takes to boil a littlre of water with a 3KW kettle.
-
@blakeyrat said:
@GettinSadda said:
Doesn't sound unreasonable to me. A normal house here has around six rooms - say three bedrooms and three living rooms including kitchen - as well as a bathroom and often an extra toilet. Ten sockets per room (except the bathroom, which'll only have one or two), plus another ten or twenty in various other places - e.g. hallways - plus a dozen or so for things like washing machines, fridges, etc. And 'typical' doesn't just mean the one average house, but a range. A house that's not atypical might well have a couple of extra bedrooms and an extra living room - that's hardly the territory of the wealthy - and you'd expect that to have 'well over 100 sockets'. Bear in mind also that (almost) all of our sockets are doubles, making the number mount up much more quickly.Firstly a typical UK house might have well over 100 sockets, each able to supply 13A if required (not all at once obviously, but you should never be far from a socket that can supply you with 13A if required).
WTF. British people always make FUN of our "McMansions", and you're saying the typical house in the UK is-- oh wait I see, either you're so fucking wealthy you have no idea what is "typical" or you're full of shit. My guess, the latter.
Anyway, I've been avoiding this thread because there're so many myths coming out, but here goes:
- 110v or 230v - there's no real difference in safety. Higher voltage means lower current, and vice versa, but neither is significantly safer than the other.
- Ring mains 'save copper'. No they don't. No-one uses lower spec conductors that I've ever seen. Copper's not expensive compared to labour. It was an argument put forwards originally by proponents, but it was never the main selling point.
- Ring mains are safer. Again, neither system is safer as such. They have different weak points, but neither is perfect. Ring mains can have some very interesting failure modes.
- So why ring mains? Simple: because any fool can tell that wiring your sockets in parallel instead of series is the right thing to do if you're designing on a blank sheet of paper. Is your distribution box wired in series? Or the local HVHD transformer/distributor? Of course not. So why should your house be?
- 110v or 230v - there's no real difference in safety. Higher voltage means lower current, and vice versa, but neither is significantly safer than the other.
-
@blakeyrat said:
Maybe I live around too many antique houses, but the socket numbers people are naming sound ridiculously high.
You are thinking outlets, so each one would be 2 sockets (or more for the bigger outlet sets). I agree that the numbers do sound high, but not ridiculously so.
-
@frits said:
@GettinSadda said:
Also - a three room apartment with only 15 sockets? So 5 sockets per room on average? The room that I am in has 12 sockets, and that is not generous for the UK.
That's actually more like 10 sockets per room. US outlets are usually two sockets per outlet. The rule of thumb is an outlet every 6 feet (I think NEC requires no cord to be run for more than 6 feet). US homes also usually have dedicated outlets for appliances (of varying current capacity and voltages). Also, kitchen counters usually have several outlets and multiple circuits to accomodate microwave ovens, toasters, etc.
I don't know the case in the UK, but I think that is far from typical. Even new buildings usually have only 10 sockets per room (20 m^2) and the room I am currently in (also 20 m^2) has 5 outlets, which seems to be about common for my 1970 era building.
-
@blakeyrat said:
Maybe I live around too many antique houses, but the socket numbers people are naming sound ridiculously high. I know the US "standard" is one every 6', but every house I've lived in was more like one on every wall, and the 1927 house I'm living in now has barely any at all. (I had to get one installed in the bathroom for my shaver/etc, I had a new circuit put in for my computer equipment, and I had to get 3 counter-top outlets added in the kitchen for appliances. I didn't add any wall outlets, so I still have to be careful there.)
My house, circa 1825 (maybe older), had only a single light socket in each of two of the bedrooms. The previous owners just used a combination outlet/light socket for electrical distribution in those bedrooms. The whole upstairs (4 BR,1 bath) had something like 5 outlets. I gutted the whole house and rewired it from scratch.
Side note: My house had many WTFs when I bought it including: condensing humidity in the basement (where the electrical panel is), a plate glass door used as a window, a post that had been cut (maybe with a chainsaw) and left unattached (under the cast iron bathtub), and more!
-
@GettinSadda said:
Sockets in the UK are usually paired, and count as two sockets.
Ah yes, that was throwing me. I think in the American vernacular (or mine, at least) when you say "a socket" you mean either a 2-socket, or 4-socket installation-- basically it's a general term for "place where you can plug shit in." I guess in the UK, when you say "socket" you actually mean "socket".
@GettinSadda said:
Are US double sockets on the same circuit? If so it would be interesting to know how often someone plugs a kettle into one and a toaster into the other - which is a common situation in the UK.
I'm going to reply to your question with a question. I know that's generally frowned-upon, but I think you'll find that if you can understand and replicate the line of thinking that leads to my question, you'll be able to sound much smarter on Internet forums in the future. My question is this:
Do you honestly believe the average American household has to think long and hard before turning on any particular combination of appliances, and you've never actually been exposed to this quirk of American culture before just now in this forum?
-
@fterfi secure said:
4) So why ring mains? Simple: because any fool can tell that wiring your sockets in parallel instead of series is the right thing to do if you're designing on a blank sheet of paper. Is your distribution box wired in series? Or the local HVHD transformer/distributor? Of course not. So why should your house be?
It's not about parallel vs series. It's about parallel ring vs parallel star.
-
@fterfi secure said:
1) 110v or 230v - there's no real difference in safety. Higher voltage means lower current, and vice versa, but neither is significantly safer than the other.
If you're talking about personal safety you may want to think a little bit more about that. The higher voltage is less safe due to the potential for current flow. Both systems can provide 3 orders of magnitude more current than is needed to kill you, so your point about current is moot.
-
@GettinSadda said:
With 15A or 16A circuits I could not plug any two of these into sockets on the same circuit and I would have to be aware of the wiring in a property to even decide what I could plug in where.
That would actually be the smart thing to do. Altough as soon as a fuse blows you're gonna now anyway.
-
@frits said:
No, that was my point. Voltage/current are both high enough that neither 110v or 240v is significantly more dangerous. The main thing that counts in either case is the total amount of energy that passes through your body. All I was trying to get at there by mentioning current was to say that there are some minor differences as a result of the different voltages - for example, higher voltage is worse for your nerves, and is also more likely to make muscle spasms prevent you letting go of a conductor - but that overall they're not important.@fterfi secure said:
1) 110v or 230v - there's no real difference in safety. Higher voltage means lower current, and vice versa, but neither is significantly safer than the other.
If you're talking about personal safety you may want to think a little bit more about that. The higher voltage is less safe due to the potential for current flow. Both systems can provide 3 orders of magnitude more current than is needed to kill you, so your point about current is moot.
-
@fterfi secure said:
@frits said:
No, that was my point. Voltage/current are both high enough that neither 110v or 240v is significantly more dangerous. The main thing that counts in either case is the total amount of energy that passes through your body. All I was trying to get at there by mentioning current was to say that there are some minor differences as a result of the different voltages - for example, higher voltage is worse for your nerves, and is also more likely to make muscle spasms prevent you letting go of a conductor - but that overall they're not important.@fterfi secure said:
1) 110v or 230v - there's no real difference in safety. Higher voltage means lower current, and vice versa, but neither is significantly safer than the other.
If you're talking about personal safety you may want to think a little bit more about that. The higher voltage is less safe due to the potential for current flow. Both systems can provide 3 orders of magnitude more current than is needed to kill you, so your point about current is moot.
I'll let you contemplate the implications of this simple formula: P = V^2/R
-
Well, that doesn't mean much in itself: it's also true that P=RI^2, you know?
-
@dargor17 said:
It doesn't mean that the power coming out of a 230V circuit is more than 4x that coming out of a 110v circuit? Dang, and here I thought that was something.Well, that doesn't mean much in itself: it's also true that P=RI^2, you know?
-
@dargor17 said:
Well, that doesn't mean much in itself: it's also true that P=RI^2, you know?
Unless your electrical system can supply constant current, or your body can model a variable load, I would say that's not an appropriate formula.
-
@fterfi secure said:
110v or 230v - there's no real difference in safety. Higher voltage means lower current, and vice versa, but neither is significantly safer than the other.
That assumes that power is constant, but it isn't. In a simplified view, the human body is a medium with constant resistance, so twice the voltage creates twice the current (and four times the power). In reality, there is a dielectric breakdown effect and minimum excitation voltage for critical things like heart muscles that make double the voltage even more than twice as dangerous.Edit: I shouldn't have left that reply window open during lunch and posted when I got back. I seems like a lot of people beat me to this point.
-
@Jaime said:
@fterfi secure said:
Yes, but there are other effects too. You've given the reasons why higher voltages are more dangerous - chiefly, nervous-system related ones - but there are just as many reasons why higher current can be dangerous. With a certain margin, the human body does have nearly constant resistance until you get to the territory where any shock is fatal.110v or 230v - there's no real difference in safety. Higher voltage means lower current, and vice versa, but neither is significantly safer than the other.
That assumes that power is constant, but it isn't. In a simplified view, the human body is a medium with constant resistance, so twice the voltage creates twice the current (and four times the power). In reality, there is a dielectric breakdown effect and minimum excitation voltage for critical things like heart muscles that make double the voltage even more than twice as dangerous.With higher current, you get much more heating effect, leading to burning. It's actually pretty rare to get an across-the-chest shock, rather than a down-the-arm-through-the-trunk-and-down-the-legs-to-earth shock, so in practice there's no significant safety difference. Both systems are acceptably safe. Hell, I've seen a sparkie stripping live 240v cables with his teeth - whilst wearing rubber soles, I'm sure - and plenty of kids survive sticking their fingers in the socket.
-
@frits said:
I'll let you contemplate the implications of this simple formula: P = V^2/R
And is current directly proportional to damage to the body? (Hint: it's not. That's where the squared term comes back in.)The important factor here is actually power dissipated, and that's mainly down to time spent in the circuit. You have to hold onto either 230v or 110v for a good long time to do any real damage in most cases.
I'm starting to wonder whether I was the only person to do any kind of high-school physics dealing with electricity. Surely everyone knows that (in general) current kills whilst voltage doesn't? Surely you all know that the 'static' shock you get earthing yourself after walking on a nylon carpet is in the tens of thousands of volts?
-
@fterfi secure said:
@frits said:
How will the current flow? You're the 'physics guy'. Surely there must be some sort of force we can apply to make current happen. What is the relationship between that force and the current?I'll let you contemplate the implications of this simple formula: P = V^2/R
And is current directly proportional to damage to the body? (Hint: it's not. That's where the squared term comes back in.)The important factor here is actually power dissipated, and that's mainly down to time spent in the circuit. You have to hold onto either 230v or 110v for a good long time to do any real damage in most cases.
I'm starting to wonder whether I was the only person to do any kind of high-school physics dealing with electricity. Surely everyone knows that (in general) current kills whilst voltage doesn't? Surely you all know that the 'static' shock you get earthing yourself after walking on a nylon carpet is in the tens of thousands of volts?
-
@frits said:
How will the current flow? You're the 'physics guy'. Surely there must be some sort of force we can apply to make current happen. What is the relationship between that force and the current?
What are you trying to say there? That I'm suggesting voltage is unimportant? I'm not. I thought it would be relatively uncontentious to point out that in practical terms there is no safety difference between 110v and 230v. Evidently not.
-
@fterfi secure said:
Yes, but there are other effects too. You've given the reasons why higher voltages are more dangerous - chiefly, nervous-system related ones - but there are just as many reasons why higher current can be dangerous.
And current is directly proportional to voltage, so why is this relevant?
-
@fterfi secure said:
@frits said:
So by extrapolation, 130,000 volts is no more dangerous than 110 volts? I'm sure these guys wear chain mail suits for fashion purposes.How will the current flow? You're the 'physics guy'. Surely there must be some sort of force we can apply to make current happen. What is the relationship between that force and the current?
What are you trying to say there? That I'm suggesting voltage is unimportant? I'm not. I thought it would be relatively uncontentious to point out that in practical terms there is no safety difference between 110v and 230v. Evidently not.
-
@fterfi secure said:
@frits said:
I'll let you contemplate the implications of this simple formula: P = V^2/R
And is current directly proportional to damage to the body? (Hint: it's not. That's where the squared term comes back in.)The important factor here is actually power dissipated, and that's mainly down to time spent in the circuit. You have to hold onto either 230v or 110v for a good long time to do any real damage in most cases.
I'm starting to wonder whether I was the only person to do any kind of high-school physics dealing with electricity. Surely everyone knows that (in general) current kills whilst voltage doesn't? Surely you all know that the 'static' shock you get earthing yourself after walking on a nylon carpet is in the tens of thousands of volts?
I am invoking Someone You Know's Law.
Actually, I am revising it:
@Someone You Know's Law said:
Any thread in which the topic of
electrocutionelectricity is raised will inevitably degenerate into an argument between people who are not experts in the field over how much voltage and/or current is necessary to harm or kill a human being.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
I am invoking Someone You Know's Law.
That's awesome, and entirely true for this case.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
@fterfi secure said:
@frits said:
I'll let you contemplate the implications of this simple formula: P = V^2/R
And is current directly proportional to damage to the body? (Hint: it's not. That's where the squared term comes back in.)The important factor here is actually power dissipated, and that's mainly down to time spent in the circuit. You have to hold onto either 230v or 110v for a good long time to do any real damage in most cases.
I'm starting to wonder whether I was the only person to do any kind of high-school physics dealing with electricity. Surely everyone knows that (in general) current kills whilst voltage doesn't? Surely you all know that the 'static' shock you get earthing yourself after walking on a nylon carpet is in the tens of thousands of volts?
I am invoking Someone You Know's Law.
Actually, I am revising it:
@Someone You Know's Law said:
Any thread in which the topic of
electrocutionelectricity is raised will inevitably degenerate into an argument between people who are not experts in the field over how much voltage and/or current is necessary to harm or kill a human being.Now you've got me wondering what the hell I meant by "no pun intended" in that old post.
The Real WTF is footnotes that don't refer back to anything.
-
@Someone You Know said:
We'll just pretend a deleted tag made it brillant.Now you've got me wondering what the hell I meant by "no pun intended" in that old post.
The Real WTF is footnotes that don't refer back to anything.
-
@Someone You Know said:
Now you've got me wondering what the hell I meant by "no pun intended" in that old post.
You could have read a little further in the thread: @Someone You Know said:The Real WTF is footnotes that don't refer back to anything.
@PJH said:
@Someone You Know said:
The words "the potential* for harm" originally appeared in there somewhere, but didn't make it to the final post. It's been a long day.* No pun intended.
Error: Unreferenced footnote
-
@Scarlet Manuka said:
@Someone You Know said:
Now you've got me wondering what the hell I meant by "no pun intended" in that old post.
You could have read a little further in the thread: @Someone You Know said:The Real WTF is footnotes that don't refer back to anything.
@PJH said:
@Someone You Know said:
The words "the potential* for harm" originally appeared in there somewhere, but didn't make it to the final post. It's been a long day.* No pun intended.
Error: Unreferenced footnoteIt was a long day yesterday too.
