The next step in the European harmonization process is expected to take 
place in 2008, when the legally permitted supply voltage range in the UK 
will broaden to between 207V and 253V (+/-10%).  Did anyone know if it 
really happened?

Thanks,

Scott

"Scott"  wrote in message 
news:6bd0ibF3bd8v3U1@mid.individual.net...
> The next step in the European harmonization process is expected to take 
> place in 2008, when the legally permitted supply voltage range in the UK 
> will broaden to between 207V and 253V (+/-10%).  Did anyone know if it 
> really happened?
>

Thought this happened a while ago.

"The UK mains voltage supply was specified at 240V RMS +/-6%. Some while 
ago, the specifications were changed (230V +10%, -6%) to allow harmonisation 
across Europe. "

-- 
Regards,
David

Please reply to News Group

In article , Scott wrote:
> The next step in the European harmonization process is expected to take 
> place in 2008, when the legally permitted supply voltage range in the UK 
> will broaden to between 207V and 253V (+/-10%).  Did anyone know if it 
> really happened?

If it did it was just a paperwork exercise, effectively broadening the 
tolerance range of our nominally 240V (or is it 250V?) supply so it 
overlaps with the tolerance range of the continental 220V supply, so that 
it will be possible to say that our mains supply is now the same as theirs, 
even though nothing real has changed at all.

Rod.

"Scott"  wrote in message 
news:6bd0ibF3bd8v3U1@mid.individual.net...
> The next step in the European harmonization process is expected to take 
> place in 2008, when the legally permitted supply voltage range in the UK 
> will broaden to between 207V and 253V (+/-10%).  Did anyone know if it 
> really happened?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Scott

My voltage went down to 210v a while ago and my DAB receiver would not work, 
and the house lights were dim yellow.  Scottish Power came out - were very 
disturbed and immediately reconnected my street a different way as the 
original supply cable was faulty.  They said that 210 was well out of their 
tolerance.

In article , Geoff Pearson wrote:
> My voltage went down to 210v a while ago and my DAB receiver would not work,

Somehow I'm not surprised. More than twenty years ago Sony knew how to make TV 
picture monitors that could work on either American or European mains without 
the need to switch anything. The mains voltage requirement was specified as 
something like 100V - 260V, which of course I had to check because we had a 
Variac in the workshop, and it was true - they would work continuously as you 
wound the voltage down to about 90V. I guess in all that time we must have 
forgotten how to design stuff.

Rod.

In article ,
   Geoff Pearson  wrote:

> "Scott"  wrote in message 
> news:6bd0ibF3bd8v3U1@mid.individual.net...
> > The next step in the European harmonization process is expected to take
> > place in 2008, when the legally permitted supply voltage range in the
> > UK will broaden to between 207V and 253V (+/-10%).  Did anyone know if
> > it really happened?
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Scott

> My voltage went down to 210v a while ago and my DAB receiver would not
> work, and the house lights were dim yellow.  Scottish Power came out -
> were very disturbed and immediately reconnected my street a different
> way as the original supply cable was faulty.  They said that 210 was
> well out of their tolerance. 

certainly if they are feeding at 240v and you were only getting 210v, they
should be worried.  It means a lot of power was being lost in the cable.

I recently discovered that the dimmer for the "house lights" in our amateur
theatre had been set, on installation to provide 145v at maximum.  There's
a lot more light now I've set it to 200v. ;-)

-- 
From KT24 - in "Leafy Surrey"

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.11

Roderick Stewart wrote:
> In article , Geoff Pearson wrote:
>> My voltage went down to 210v a while ago and my DAB receiver would not work,
> 
> Somehow I'm not surprised. More than twenty years ago Sony knew how to make TV 
> picture monitors that could work on either American or European mains without 
> the need to switch anything. The mains voltage requirement was specified as 
> something like 100V - 260V, which of course I had to check because we had a 
> Variac in the workshop, and it was true - they would work continuously as you 
> wound the voltage down to about 90V. I guess in all that time we must have 
> forgotten how to design stuff.

Most modern switch mode PSUs will work down to 110 volts, and up to 250+.
About ten years ago the mains voltage in our road dropped to about 90 volts.
I was watching TV, and totally unaware until a neighbour knocked on our door 
saying that her cooker wouldn't work. I switched on the hallway light, and it 
barely glowed. Stuck a meter into a mains socket, and realised what was going 
on. All I'd semi registered watching the TV was a very momentary shrinkage of 
the raster, but at the time I dismissed it as my imagination.

I presume Geoff's DAB receiver has a linear PSU ?

-- 
Mark
Please replace invalid and invalid with gmx and net to reply.

"Roderick Stewart"  wrote in
message news:VA.0000041c.025d4d03@escapetime.removethisbit.myzen.co.uk...
> In article , Scott wrote:
>> The next step in the European harmonization process is expected to take
>> place in 2008, when the legally permitted supply voltage range in the UK
>> will broaden to between 207V and 253V (+/-10%). Did anyone know if it
>> really happened?
>
> If it did it was just a paperwork exercise, effectively broadening the
> tolerance range of our nominally 240V (or is it 250V?) supply so it
> overlaps with the tolerance range of the continental 220V supply, so that
> it will be possible to say that our mains supply is now the same as
> theirs,
> even though nothing real has changed at all.
> Rod.
>
Indeed the nominal voltage previously being 234volts +/- 5%
which for a long time has incorporated 220v Europe and 240v Brit

All that has changed is a theoretical widening that no one will implement

Modern switchmode PSUs will easily handle 200 to 260v

Equipment with transformer based (linear) PSUs could suffer under/over 
voltage

Steve Terry

In article <g2rtq5$ap0$1@news.albasani.net>, Steve Terry
 wrote:

> "Roderick Stewart"  wrote in
> message news:VA.0000041c.025d4d03@escapetime.removethisbit.myzen.co.uk...
> > In article , Scott wrote:
> >> The next step in the European harmonization process is expected to
> >> take place in 2008, when the legally permitted supply voltage range in
> >> the UK will broaden to between 207V and 253V (+/-10%). Did anyone know
> >> if it really happened?
> >
> > If it did it was just a paperwork exercise, effectively broadening the
> > tolerance range of our nominally 240V (or is it 250V?) supply so it
> > overlaps with the tolerance range of the continental 220V supply, so
> > that it will be possible to say that our mains supply is now the same
> > as theirs, even though nothing real has changed at all. Rod.
> >
> Indeed the nominal voltage previously being 234volts +/- 5% which for a
> long time has incorporated 220v Europe and 240v Brit

> All that has changed is a theoretical widening that no one will implement

> Modern switchmode PSUs will easily handle 200 to 260v

> Equipment with transformer based (linear) PSUs could suffer under/over
> voltage

surely the main point of the european voltage standardization is that any
equipment sold should work over the whole of Europe on whatever voltage
within the specification it happens to find.

-- 
From KT24 - in "Leafy Surrey"

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.11

Roderick Stewart wrote:
> In article , Scott wrote:
>> The next step in the European harmonization process is expected to
>> take place in 2008, when the legally permitted supply voltage range
>> in the UK will broaden to between 207V and 253V (+/-10%). Did anyone
>> know if it really happened?
>
> If it did it was just a paperwork exercise, effectively broadening the
> tolerance range of our nominally 240V (or is it 250V?) supply so it
> overlaps with the tolerance range of the continental 220V supply, so
> that it will be possible to say that our mains supply is now the same
> as theirs, even though nothing real has changed at all.
>
> Rod.

Our mains voltage has been nominally 230V for quite some time.
-- 
 >^..^< This is Kitty. Copy and paste Kitty into your signature to help
her wipe out Bunny's world domination.

In article ,
Adrian  wrote:
>Our mains voltage has been nominally 230V for quite some time.

What do you mean by this?

The European requirement specifies a range.  The voltage in the
middle is privileged in any way.  230v is no more correct than 240v.

As far as I am aware, the target voltage in the UK continues to be
240v.

-- Richard
-- 
In the selection of the two characters immediately succeeding the numeral 9,
consideration shall be given to their replacement by the graphics 10 and 11 to
facilitate the adoption of the code in the sterling monetary area. (X3.4-1963)

"Roderick Stewart"  wrote in 
message news:VA.0000041d.02a02cf6@escapetime.removethisbit.myzen.co.uk...
> In article , Geoff Pearson wrote:
>> My voltage went down to 210v a while ago and my DAB receiver would not 
>> work,
>
> Somehow I'm not surprised. More than twenty years ago Sony knew how to 
> make TV
> picture monitors that could work on either American or European mains 
> without
> the need to switch anything. The mains voltage requirement was specified 
> as
> something like 100V - 260V, which of course I had to check because we had 
> a
> Variac in the workshop, and it was true - they would work continuously as 
> you
> wound the voltage down to about 90V. I guess in all that time we must have
> forgotten how to design stuff.
>
 I remember Sony Trinitron TVs in the '70s.
Hong Kong mains was (is?) 200VAC and these Sony made a
special model just for HK with a 200V transformer.

And for our 3 phase friends the nominal voltage is now spec'd at 400 V ac
instead of the previous 415 (and in some places 440)
Paul T
"charles"  wrote in message
news:4fae658770charles@charleshope.demon.co.uk...
> In article ,
>    Geoff Pearson  wrote:
>
> > "Scott"  wrote in message
> > news:6bd0ibF3bd8v3U1@mid.individual.net...
> > > The next step in the European harmonization process is expected to
take
> > > place in 2008, when the legally permitted supply voltage range in the
> > > UK will broaden to between 207V and 253V (+/-10%).  Did anyone know if
> > > it really happened?
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > >
> > > Scott
>
> > My voltage went down to 210v a while ago and my DAB receiver would not
> > work, and the house lights were dim yellow.  Scottish Power came out -
> > were very disturbed and immediately reconnected my street a different
> > way as the original supply cable was faulty.  They said that 210 was
> > well out of their tolerance.
>
> certainly if they are feeding at 240v and you were only getting 210v, they
> should be worried.  It means a lot of power was being lost in the cable.
>
> I recently discovered that the dimmer for the "house lights" in our
amateur
> theatre had been set, on installation to provide 145v at maximum.  There's
> a lot more light now I've set it to 200v. ;-)
>
> -- 
> From KT24 - in "Leafy Surrey"
>
> Using a RISC OS computer running v5.11
>

In article , Adrian wrote:
> Our mains voltage has been nominally 230V for quite some time.

Dificult to tell from the various markings on equipment, and the 
references in textbooks.

Rod.

"charles"  wrote in message 
news:4fae658770charles@charleshope.demon.co.uk...
> In article ,
> I recently discovered that the dimmer for the "house lights" in our 
> amateur
> theatre had been set, on installation to provide 145v at maximum.  There's
> a lot more light now I've set it to 200v. ;-)

You'll have to paint the walls and clean the upholstery now then.

Bill

Richard Tobin wrote:

> The European requirement specifies a range.  The voltage in the
> middle is privileged in any way.  230v is no more correct than 240v.

Oh yes it is (and I assume you meant "not privileged")!  230 V is the 
nominal value, to be used for design purposes for appliances and in 
electrical installation work, for earth fault loop impedance 
calculations and the like.

Prior to harmonisation, appliance rating plates in the UK had to state 
240 V, or a range including 240, such as 220-240 V, to be legal for 
sale.  Although the supply tolerance was ±6%, appliance standards 
required testing at 10% below the rated minimum and 10% above the rated 
maximum voltages, so 220-240 V equipment had to be designed to operate 
safely over 198 to 264 V, which is quite a wide range for 'linear' 
regulated supplies.

With harmonisation, a single marking of 230 V 'works' anywhere in the EU 
and the working range is eased significantly to 207-253 V.  For those of 
us who are equipment designers and manufacturers, this was a very 
welcome change.

To answer the original question, the tolerance in the UK is still 
-6/+10% (216-253 V) and the plan to widen the bottom tolerance to -10%, 
already postponed from 2003, seems to have been indefinitely postponed 
again.

The tolerances are cited in legislation, in Regulation 27 of the ESQCR:
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2002/20022665.htm#27
which would need amending if the limits did change.

> As far as I am aware, the target voltage in the UK continues to be
> 240v.

Correct - but 'Uo' is 230 V for design purposes.

-- 
Andy

I'm sure what Andy says is correct in terms of designing equipment to work 
with mains in Europe.

But the fact is, I often measure the mains voltage at my home, and it 
DEFINITELY centres around 240V.  Not 230V.  If you don't believe me, take a 
number of measurements for yourself.  You will find I'm correct.

There is no doubt that our generating and transmission infrastructure is set 
up to deliver 240V, regardless of what leaway we have given ourselves in 
terms of the permissible voltage range.

Clearly, the voltage that any particular EU country delivers to its homes is 
one thing, the voltage range that a piece of equipment for use in the EU 
must cope with is another.

We shouldn't confuse the two.

SteveT

"Scott"  wrote in message 
news:6bd0ibF3bd8v3U1@mid.individual.net...
> The next step in the European harmonization process is expected to take 
> place in 2008, when the legally permitted supply voltage range in the UK 
> will broaden to between 207V and 253V (+/-10%).  Did anyone know if it 
> really happened?

This is one big con, we are not getting as much electricty as we used to,
not only has the voltage dropped but we are not getting 50 hertz,
we are only getting 45hz on average, sometimes as low as 40hz.
I know because I  measured it on my voltmeter. Well at least I
used to measure it untill I electrocuted myself and burnt out the voltmeter.
But I doubt the situation has changed much.
Of coure we are paying more then ever for inferior electricity.
Anyone noticed how bulbs are dimmer than they used to be?
I have.




>
> Thanks,
>
> Scott

"Mark Carver" <mark.carver@invalid.invalid> wrote in message 
news:6bd7goF3bltfvU1@mid.individual.net...
> Roderick Stewart wrote:
>> In article , Geoff Pearson wrote:
>>> My voltage went down to 210v a while ago and my DAB receiver would not 
>>> work,
>>
>> Somehow I'm not surprised. More than twenty years ago Sony knew how to 
>> make TV picture monitors that could work on either American or European 
>> mains without the need to switch anything. The mains voltage requirement 
>> was specified as something like 100V - 260V, which of course I had to 
>> check because we had a Variac in the workshop, and it was true - they 
>> would work continuously as you wound the voltage down to about 90V. I 
>> guess in all that time we must have forgotten how to design stuff.
>
> Most modern switch mode PSUs will work down to 110 volts, and up to 250+.
> About ten years ago the mains voltage in our road dropped to about 90 
> volts.
> I was watching TV, and totally unaware until a neighbour knocked on our 
> door saying that her cooker wouldn't work. I switched on the hallway 
> light, and it barely glowed. Stuck a meter into a mains socket, and 
> realised what was going on. All I'd semi registered watching the TV was a 
> very momentary shrinkage of the raster, but at the time I dismissed it as 
> my imagination.
>
> I presume Geoff's DAB receiver has a linear PSU ?
>
> -- 
> Mark
> Please replace invalid and invalid with gmx and net to reply.

It is an old Videologic

Lord Turkey Cough wrote:
> "Scott"  wrote in message 
> news:6bd0ibF3bd8v3U1@mid.individual.net...
>> The next step in the European harmonization process is expected to take 
>> place in 2008, when the legally permitted supply voltage range in the UK 
>> will broaden to between 207V and 253V (+/-10%).  Did anyone know if it 
>> really happened?
> 
> This is one big con, we are not getting as much electricty as we used to,
> not only has the voltage dropped but we are not getting 50 hertz,
> we are only getting 45hz on average, sometimes as low as 40hz.

Ummm, yes of course, and many mains synchronous clocks lose almost 5 hours per 
day as a result ?


-- 
Mark
Please replace invalid and invalid with gmx and net to reply.

Lord Turkey Cough wrote:
> "Scott"  wrote in message 
> news:6bd0ibF3bd8v3U1@mid.individual.net...
> 
>>The next step in the European harmonization process is expected to take 
>>place in 2008, when the legally permitted supply voltage range in the UK 
>>will broaden to between 207V and 253V (+/-10%).  Did anyone know if it 
>>really happened?
> 
> 
> This is one big con, we are not getting as much electricty as we used to,
> not only has the voltage dropped but we are not getting 50 hertz,
> we are only getting 45hz on average, sometimes as low as 40hz.
> I know because I  measured it on my voltmeter. Well at least I
> used to measure it untill I electrocuted myself and burnt out the voltmeter.
> But I doubt the situation has changed much.
> Of coure we are paying more then ever for inferior electricity.
> Anyone noticed how bulbs are dimmer than they used to be?
> I have.
> 
Not according to the demand site:
http://www.dynamicdemand.co.uk/grid.htm

On 13/06/2008 01:20, Steve Thackery wrote:

> There is no doubt that our generating and transmission infrastructure is 
> set up to deliver 240V, regardless of what leaway we have given 
> ourselves in terms of the permissible voltage range.

Yes, that's what everyone is saying, the leeway has been adjusted so 
that it encompasses UK and EU supplies, rather than the supplies having 
been adjusted to fit the leeway.

In message , Mark Carver 
<mark.carver@invalid.invalid> writes
>Lord Turkey Cough wrote:
>> "Scott"  wrote in message 
>>news:6bd0ibF3bd8v3U1@mid.individual.net...
>>> The next step in the European harmonization process is expected to 
>>>take  place in 2008, when the legally permitted supply voltage range 
>>>in the UK  will broaden to between 207V and 253V (+/-10%).  Did 
>>>anyone know if it  really happened?
>>  This is one big con, we are not getting as much electricty as we 
>>used to,
>> not only has the voltage dropped but we are not getting 50 hertz,
>> we are only getting 45hz on average, sometimes as low as 40hz.
>
>Ummm, yes of course, and many mains synchronous clocks lose almost 5 
>hours per day as a result ?
>
That's yet another government ploy to make the workers work longer. 
During out-of-work hours, they speed up to 55Hz to compensate, and to 
minimise your leisure time.
-- 
Ian

On 13/06/2008 04:13, Lord Turkey Cough wrote:

> not only has the voltage dropped but we are not getting 50 hertz,
> we are only getting 45hz on average, sometimes as low as 40hz.

Good to see you know as much about electricity as you do about television.

> we are only getting 45hz on average, sometimes as low as 40hz.
> I know because I  measured it on my voltmeter. 

Utter drivel.  But surely this is just LTC's idea of a joke?

SteveT

In article , Steve Thackery
 scribeth thus
>I'm sure what Andy says is correct in terms of designing equipment to work 
>with mains in Europe.
>
>But the fact is, I often measure the mains voltage at my home, and it 
>DEFINITELY centres around 240V.  Not 230V.  If you don't believe me, take a 
>number of measurements for yourself.  You will find I'm correct.

Yah boo!, We get 245 here sometimes a shade higher!..
>
>There is no doubt that our generating and transmission infrastructure is set 
>up to deliver 240V, regardless of what leaway we have given ourselves in 
>terms of the permissible voltage range.
>

Indeed..

>Clearly, the voltage that any particular EU country delivers to its homes is 
>one thing, the voltage range that a piece of equipment for use in the EU 
>must cope with is another.
>
>We shouldn't confuse the two.
>
>SteveT 
>

-- 
Tony Sayer

"Ian Jackson"  wrote in message 
news:+J$d+SFg7hUIFwM1@g3ohx.demon.co.uk...
> In message , Mark Carver 
> <mark.carver@invalid.invalid> writes
>>Lord Turkey Cough wrote:
>>> "Scott"  wrote in message 
>>> news:6bd0ibF3bd8v3U1@mid.individual.net...
>>>> The next step in the European harmonization process is expected to take 
>>>> place in 2008, when the legally permitted supply voltage range in the 
>>>> UK  will broaden to between 207V and 253V (+/-10%).  Did anyone know if 
>>>> it  really happened?
>>>  This is one big con, we are not getting as much electricty as we used 
>>> to,
>>> not only has the voltage dropped but we are not getting 50 hertz,
>>> we are only getting 45hz on average, sometimes as low as 40hz.
>>
>>Ummm, yes of course, and many mains synchronous clocks lose almost 5 hours 
>>per day as a result ?
>>
> That's yet another government ploy to make the workers work longer. During 
> out-of-work hours, they speed up to 55Hz to compensate, and to minimise 
> your leisure time.
> -- 
> Ian


I don't think the present government are smart enough to come up with such a 
scheme.

Has the present government that gave up bridges that wobble, I.R. 35, 
insecure databases, etc succeeded in any I.T. / engineering related plan?

In article ,
Andy Wade   wrote:

>> The European requirement specifies a range.  The voltage in the
>> middle is privileged in any way.  230v is no more correct than 240v.

>Oh yes it is (and I assume you meant "not privileged")!

(Yes, I did)

>230 V is the 
>nominal value, to be used for design purposes for appliances and in 
>electrical installation work, for earth fault loop impedance 
>calculations and the like.

But surely all those calculations are specified in such a way that,
for example, the earthing must be safe at all other voltages in the
range?  Isn't it equally true that an appliance must be safe at 207v
and 253v as at 230?

To put it another way, if the range was specified as 240v +5.4%/-13.75%
instead of 230v +/-10%, what would be different?

-- Richard
-- 
In the selection of the two characters immediately succeeding the numeral 9,
consideration shall be given to their replacement by the graphics 10 and 11 to
facilitate the adoption of the code in the sterling monetary area. (X3.4-1963)

In article <g2thcu$abs$1@pc-news.cogsci.ed.ac.uk>, Richard Tobin wrote:
> To put it another way, if the range was specified as 240v +5.4%/-13.75%
> instead of 230v +/-10%, what would be different?

Absolutely bugger all. The sun would still come up tomorrow, and nobody 
would even know that anything had been changed.

Rod.

In article <tAl4k.110473$TL1.30502@newsfe21.ams2>, Lord Turkey Cough wrote:
> The next step in the European harmonization process is expected to take 
> > place in 2008, when the legally permitted supply voltage range in the UK 
> > will broaden to between 207V and 253V (+/-10%).  Did anyone know if it 
> > really happened?
> 
> This is one big con, we are not getting as much electricty as we used to,

Never mind. If you're really not getting as much electricity you won't be 
paying as much either, because your meter will be measuring the amount of 
energy you actually use.

> not only has the voltage dropped but we are not getting 50 hertz,
> we are only getting 45hz on average, sometimes as low as 40hz.

Now you're being silly. How would electric clocks keep time if that were true?

> I know because I  measured it on my voltmeter.

And you believed it? That was silly too.

> Well at least I
> used to measure it untill I electrocuted myself and burnt out the voltmeter.

That was even sillier.

> But I doubt the situation has changed much.

Hmm. Depends on what situation you're talking about.

> Of coure we are paying more then ever for inferior electricity.

We're certainly paying more, but it's still British electricity. What could be 
inferior about that?

> Anyone noticed how bulbs are dimmer than they used to be?

Indeed. There seems no shortage of dim bulbs.

Rod.

On 13/06/2008 12:39, Roderick Stewart wrote:

> We're certainly paying more, but it's still British electricity. What could be 
> inferior about that?

Apart from the électricité we import from French nuclear stations.

Andy Burns wrote:

>On 13/06/2008 12:39, Roderick Stewart wrote:
>
>> We're certainly paying more, but it's still British electricity. What could be 
>> inferior about that?
>
>Apart from the électricité we import from French nuclear stations.

I pay EDF (Électicité de France) for using electricity, so the British
electricity is about as British as the British car industry.
-- 
Phil Cook looking north over the park to the "Westminster Gasworks"

In article ,
   Phil Cook  wrote:
> Andy Burns wrote:

> >On 13/06/2008 12:39, Roderick Stewart wrote:
> >
> >> We're certainly paying more, but it's still British electricity. What
> >> could be inferior about that?
> >
> >Apart from the électricité we import from French nuclear stations.

> I pay EDF (Électicité de France) for using electricity, so the British
> electricity is about as British as the British car industry.

and I pay Scottish Power - which is now owned by a Spanish Company

-- 
From KT24 - in "Leafy Surrey"

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.11

In message , charles 
 writes
>In article ,
>   Phil Cook  wrote:
>> Andy Burns wrote:
>
>> >On 13/06/2008 12:39, Roderick Stewart wrote:
>> >
>> >> We're certainly paying more, but it's still British electricity. What
>> >> could be inferior about that?
>> >
>> >Apart from the électricité we import from French nuclear stations.
>
>> I pay EDF (Électicité de France) for using electricity, so the British
>> electricity is about as British as the British car industry.
>
>and I pay Scottish Power - which is now owned by a Spanish Company
>
...and I pay Powergen, now Eon, which is owned by a German company.

I wonder how much "Cyril" got for his British Gas shares.
-- 
Ian

"Lord Turkey Cough"  wrote in message
news:tAl4k.110473$TL1.30502@newsfe21.ams2...
>
> "Scott"  wrote in message
> news:6bd0ibF3bd8v3U1@mid.individual.net...
>> The next step in the European harmonization process is expected to take
>> place in 2008, when the legally permitted supply voltage range in the UK
>> will broaden to between 207V and 253V (+/-10%).  Did anyone know if it
>> really happened?
>
> This is one big con, we are not getting as much electricty as we used to,
> not only has the voltage dropped but we are not getting 50 hertz,
> we are only getting 45hz on average, sometimes as low as 40hz.
> I know because I  measured it on my voltmeter.
>
How do you measure frequency on a voltmeter?

Funny my LED mains driven alarm clock hasn't lost 20% of it's time

During the day you might lose a couple of cycles, which are added back
at night, otherwise mains synchronised clocks wouldn't be of much use
>
> Well at least I used to measure it untill I electrocuted myself
> and burnt out the voltmeter.
> But I doubt the situation has changed much.
> Of coure we are paying more then ever for inferior electricity.
> Anyone noticed how bulbs are dimmer than they used to be?
> I have.
>
Whatever you are taking for recreational purposes is doing you
no good at all, I'd give it up for a while.

But yes you have a point, if the voltage drops from 240 to say 230v
we are still paying the same per kW but getting less for the money

Steve Terry

"Steve Terry"  wrote in message 
news:g2v51d$nda$1@news.albasani.net...
> <...>
> But yes you have a point, if the voltage drops from 240 to say 230v
> we are still paying the same per kW but getting less for the money
>
> Steve Terry
>
>
>

Surely a kW is a kW, init, so how is it less?

-- 
Graham W.   www.gcw.org.uk  Homebuilt Computer cooling. DIY projects
Wimborne.    www.wessex-astro.org.uk Society website, meetings,
Dorset UK.     location maps and future programs.

"Graham@home.invalid" <graham@his.com.puter.INVALID> wrote in message 
news:E9OdnXPBubacuM7VnZ2dnUVZ8uOdnZ2d@posted.plusnet...
> "Steve Terry"  wrote in message 
> news:g2v51d$nda$1@news.albasani.net...
>> <...>
>> But yes you have a point, if the voltage drops from 240 to say 230v
>> we are still paying the same per kW but getting less for the money
>> Steve Terry
>
> Surely a kW is a kW, init, so how is it less?
>
Depending on how the meter reads it, some older disc meters may
read incorrectly

Steve Terry

The message <g2v51d$nda$1@news.albasani.net>
from "Steve Terry"  contains these words:


> "Lord Turkey Cough"  wrote in message
> news:tAl4k.110473$TL1.30502@newsfe21.ams2...
> >
> > "Scott"  wrote in message
> > news:6bd0ibF3bd8v3U1@mid.individual.net...
> >> The next step in the European harmonization process is expected to take
> >> place in 2008, when the legally permitted supply voltage range in the UK
> >> will broaden to between 207V and 253V (+/-10%).  Did anyone know if it
> >> really happened?
> >
> > This is one big con, we are not getting as much electricty as we used to,
> > not only has the voltage dropped but we are not getting 50 hertz,
> > we are only getting 45hz on average, sometimes as low as 40hz.
> > I know because I  measured it on my voltmeter.
> >
> How do you measure frequency on a voltmeter?

 Good grief! This "Lord Turkey Cough" posting was most obviously done as
a joke posting (either by the 'Lord' himself or A. N. Other taking on
that persona for effect - it matters not which of those two cases
applies).

> Funny my LED mains driven alarm clock hasn't lost 20% of it's time

 That type of clock usually uses its own internal crystal tuned timebase
independent of the mains supply frequency.

> During the day you might lose a couple of cycles, which are added back
> at night, otherwise mains synchronised clocks wouldn't be of much use.

 Yes, the PSUs are obliged to supply exactly 4,320,000 cycles of mains
voltage (give or take a few) for each and every 24 hour period with day
to day adjustments to eradicate any long term drift over the months and
years so that such mains synchronised timekeeping devices are never more
than half a minute out no matter how many decades they may be kept
running.

> >
> > Well at least I used to measure it untill I electrocuted myself
> > and burnt out the voltmeter.

 This was the "Clue by Four" statement which positively identified
beyond all shadow of a doubt that this was a joke posting.

> > But I doubt the situation has changed much.
> > Of coure we are paying more then ever for inferior electricity.
> > Anyone noticed how bulbs are dimmer than they used to be?
> > I have.
> >
> Whatever you are taking for recreational purposes is doing you
> no good at all, I'd give it up for a while.

> But yes you have a point, if the voltage drops from 240 to say 230v
> we are still paying the same per kW but getting less for the money

> Steve Terry

 Sorry Steve, since the electricity meter is in fact a watt hour meter
calibrated in KWH units and not a simple amp hour meter that happens to
calibrated in watts using a fixed voltage coefficient of 240, this
statement is simply nonsense.

 Aside from the obvious dimming effect on tungsten filament GLS lamps,
which are quite sensitive to such small voltage variations, these and
most other devices will simply consume less energy per unit of time
which will be accurately recorded by the electric meter.

 I'm quite surprised at the sheer number of those who regarded Lord
Turkey Cough's posting as anything but a joke and felt impelled to
respond so inappropriately. The phrase "Look Before You Leap" springs to
mind as being appropriate advice to all those involved.

-- 
Regards, John.

 Please remove the "ohggcyht" before replying.
The address has been munged to reject Spam-bots.

"Steve Terry"  wrote in message 
news:g2v51d$nda$1@news.albasani.net...
>
> "Lord Turkey Cough"  wrote in message
> news:tAl4k.110473$TL1.30502@newsfe21.ams2...
>>
>> "Scott"  wrote in message
>> news:6bd0ibF3bd8v3U1@mid.individual.net...
>>> The next step in the European harmonization process is expected to take
>>> place in 2008, when the legally permitted supply voltage range in the UK
>>> will broaden to between 207V and 253V (+/-10%).  Did anyone know if it
>>> really happened?
>>
>> This is one big con, we are not getting as much electricty as we used to,
>> not only has the voltage dropped but we are not getting 50 hertz,
>> we are only getting 45hz on average, sometimes as low as 40hz.
>> I know because I  measured it on my voltmeter.
>>
> How do you measure frequency on a voltmeter?

I had constructed an electrical circuit to convert the frequency into
a voltage. Unfortunately I think I either used too big a capacitor or
made some other error in the circuit design.
That's how I electrocuted myself.

I am not sure if the capacitor blew or not because I don't have a voltmeter
to test it with.


>
> Funny my LED mains driven alarm clock hasn't lost 20% of it's time
>
> During the day you might lose a couple of cycles, which are added back
> at night, otherwise mains synchronised clocks wouldn't be of much use
>>
>> Well at least I used to measure it untill I electrocuted myself
>> and burnt out the voltmeter.
>> But I doubt the situation has changed much.
>> Of coure we are paying more then ever for inferior electricity.
>> Anyone noticed how bulbs are dimmer than they used to be?
>> I have.
>>
> Whatever you are taking for recreational purposes is doing you
> no good at all, I'd give it up for a while.
>
> But yes you have a point, if the voltage drops from 240 to say 230v
> we are still paying the same per kW but getting less for the money
>
> Steve Terry
>
>
>

In article <58J4k.126986$%B6.102252@newsfe13.ams2>,
   Lord Turkey Cough  wrote:

>
> I had constructed an electrical circuit to convert the frequency into
> a voltage. Unfortunately I think I either used too big a capacitor or
> made some other error in the circuit design.
> That's how I electrocuted myself.

according to my dictionary: Electrocute = kill by use of electricity.  

How are you managing to write if you're dead?

-- 
From KT24 - in "Leafy Surrey"

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.11

Johnny B Good wrote:

>  I'm quite surprised at the sheer number of those who regarded Lord
> Turkey Cough's posting as anything but a joke and felt impelled to
> respond so inappropriately. The phrase "Look Before You Leap" springs to
> mind as being appropriate advice to all those involved.

I'm well aware LTC was having a wind up, but he's not funny, he's just an 
irritating twat that pollutes this group with drivel. The problem is, future 
Googlers might well stumble across his ridiculous assertions and think they're 
true, that's why he needs to have his rubbish exposed. Although to be honest I 
normally can't be arsed to bother.


-- 
Mark
Please replace invalid and invalid with gmx and net to reply.

In article , charles
 wrote:
> In article , Phil Cook
>     wrote:
> > Andy Burns wrote:

> > >On 13/06/2008 12:39, Roderick Stewart wrote:
> > >
> > >> We're certainly paying more, but it's still British electricity.
> > >> What could be inferior about that?
> > >
> > >Apart from the électricité we import from French nuclear stations.

> > I pay EDF (Électicité de France) for using electricity, so the British
> > electricity is about as British as the British car industry.

> and I pay Scottish Power - which is now owned by a Spanish Company

Does this mean all the electrons we get now have an accent over them?

And do they shout Ole! when they pass though the base of an NPN transistor?

What else do we get from being on the Spanish Main?

I think we should be told.  :-)

Slainte,

Jim

-- 
Change 'noise' to 'jcgl' if you wish to email me.
Electronics  http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio  http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc  http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

On 2008-06-14, charles  wrote:
> In article <58J4k.126986$%B6.102252@newsfe13.ams2>,
>    Lord Turkey Cough  wrote:
>
>>
>> I had constructed an electrical circuit to convert the frequency into
>> a voltage. Unfortunately I think I either used too big a capacitor or
>> made some other error in the circuit design.
>> That's how I electrocuted myself.
>
> according to my dictionary: Electrocute = kill by use of electricity.  
>
> How are you managing to write if you're dead?

It explains a lot about the contents of his posts, to be honest.

-- 
David Taylor

In article ,
   Steve Thackery  wrote:
> I'm sure what Andy says is correct in terms of designing equipment to
> work with mains in Europe.

> But the fact is, I often measure the mains voltage at my home, and it
> DEFINITELY centres around 240V.  Not 230V.  If you don't believe me,
> take a number of measurements for yourself.  You will find I'm correct.

> There is no doubt that our generating and transmission infrastructure is
> set up to deliver 240V, regardless of what leaway we have given
> ourselves in terms of the permissible voltage range.

> Clearly, the voltage that any particular EU country delivers to its
> homes is one thing, the voltage range that a piece of equipment for use
> in the EU must cope with is another.

> We shouldn't confuse the two.

Yup - I have one of those 'power meter' thingies plugged in all the time
in the workshop. And the voltage is always near 240 - I've never seen it
as low as 230.

-- 
*Pentium wise, pen and paper foolish *

    Dave Plowman        dave@davenoise.co.uk           London SW
                  To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Sat, 14 Jun 2008 08:06:22 +0100, charles
 wrote:

>How are you managing to write if you're dead?

It must be just his brain.

-- 
Alan White
Mozilla Firefox and Forte Agent.
Twenty-eight miles NW of Glasgow, overlooking Lochs Long and Goil in Argyll, Scotland.
Webcam and weather:- http://windycroft.gt-britain.co.uk/weather

In article , Johnny B Good 
wrote:
> > Funny my LED mains driven alarm clock hasn't lost 20% of it's time
> 
>  That type of clock usually uses its own internal crystal tuned timebase
> independent of the mains supply frequency.

I have a mains driven digital alarm clock that doesn't use a crystal. It 
keeps perfect time. In fact, the long term accuracy is better than that of 
the crystal ones. Twice a year when I have to go through the madness of 
adding or removing the offset for British Silly Time for various gadgets, 
the timers that use crystals have all drifted off by significant amounts, 
but year after year that bedside alarm clock only needs the hours button to 
be pushed, once in the spring and eleven times in the autumn, nothing more.

Rod.

In article , Charles wrote:
> according to my dictionary: Electrocute = kill by use of electricity.  
> 
> How are you managing to write if you're dead?

Perhaps he employs a ghost writer.

Rod.

Roderick Stewart wrote:

> I have a mains driven digital alarm clock that doesn't use a crystal. It 
> keeps perfect time. In fact, the long term accuracy is better than that of 
> the crystal ones. Twice a year when I have to go through the madness of 
> adding or removing the offset for British Silly Time for various gadgets, 
> the timers that use crystals have all drifted off by significant amounts, 
> but year after year that bedside alarm clock only needs the hours button to 
> be pushed, once in the spring and eleven times in the autumn, nothing more.

Indeed. All four bedroom alarm clocks in our house are mains synchronised, the 
only pain is re-setting them after a power cut, because I like to have them 
all in sync with each other :-)

-- 
Mark
Please replace invalid and invalid with gmx and net to reply.

"Kelly Sigh"  ¦b¶l¥ó 
news:qkh4k.103922$SA7.22776@newsfe09.ams2 ¤¤¼¶¼g...
>
> "Roderick Stewart"  wrote in 
> message news:VA.0000041d.02a02cf6@escapetime.removethisbit.myzen.co.uk...
>> In article , Geoff Pearson wrote:
>>> My voltage went down to 210v a while ago and my DAB receiver would not 
>>> work,
>>
>> Somehow I'm not surprised. More than twenty years ago Sony knew how to 
>> make TV
>> picture monitors that could work on either American or European mains 
>> without
>> the need to switch anything. The mains voltage requirement was specified 
>> as
>> something like 100V - 260V, which of course I had to check because we had 
>> a
>> Variac in the workshop, and it was true - they would work continuously as 
>> you
>> wound the voltage down to about 90V. I guess in all that time we must 
>> have
>> forgotten how to design stuff.
>>
> I remember Sony Trinitron TVs in the '70s.
> Hong Kong mains was (is?) 200VAC and these Sony made a
> special model just for HK with a 200V transformer.
>
>
In that age, switch mode PSU has not been widely used due to high cost. 
Nowadays, almost all TVs are using switch mode PSU so it is just a piece of 
history.

Scott

Steve Terry wrote:

> Depending on how the meter reads it, some older disc meters may
> read incorrectly

Sorry, but that's absolute rubbish.  Disc-type meters have a voltage 
coil and a current coil and measure energy consumption accurately 
regardless of changes in voltage, and regardless of power factor.  A 
standard domestic meter has a basic accuracy of ±2%.

And you pay for kilowatt-hours (energy), not kilowatts (power).

-- 
Andy

"charles"  ¦b¶l¥ó 
news:4fae658770charles@charleshope.demon.co.uk ¤¤¼¶¼g...
> In article ,
>   Geoff Pearson  wrote:
>
>> "Scott"  wrote in message
>> news:6bd0ibF3bd8v3U1@mid.individual.net...
>> > The next step in the European harmonization process is expected to take
>> > place in 2008, when the legally permitted supply voltage range in the
>> > UK will broaden to between 207V and 253V (+/-10%).  Did anyone know if
>> > it really happened?
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> >
>> > Scott
>
>> My voltage went down to 210v a while ago and my DAB receiver would not
>> work, and the house lights were dim yellow.  Scottish Power came out -
>> were very disturbed and immediately reconnected my street a different
>> way as the original supply cable was faulty.  They said that 210 was
>> well out of their tolerance.
>
> certainly if they are feeding at 240v and you were only getting 210v, they
> should be worried.  It means a lot of power was being lost in the cable.
>
> I recently discovered that the dimmer for the "house lights" in our 
> amateur
> theatre had been set, on installation to provide 145v at maximum.  There's
> a lot more light now I've set it to 200v. ;-)
>
> -- 
> From KT24 - in "Leafy Surrey"
>
> Using a RISC OS computer running v5.11
>

Probably, UK has sufficient power supply and some area can get 250 all the 
time.  Unlike some power shortage areas, I.a., China, some area can get 
lower permissible voltage all the time especially at night in summer.

Scott

"Lord Turkey Cough"  ¦b¶l¥ó 
news:tAl4k.110473$TL1.30502@newsfe21.ams2 ¤¤¼¶¼g...
>
> "Scott"  wrote in message 
> news:6bd0ibF3bd8v3U1@mid.individual.net...
>> The next step in the European harmonization process is expected to take 
>> place in 2008, when the legally permitted supply voltage range in the UK 
>> will broaden to between 207V and 253V (+/-10%).  Did anyone know if it 
>> really happened?
>
> This is one big con, we are not getting as much electricty as we used to,
> not only has the voltage dropped but we are not getting 50 hertz,
> we are only getting 45hz on average, sometimes as low as 40hz.
> I know because I  measured it on my voltmeter. Well at least I
> used to measure it untill I electrocuted myself and burnt out the 
> voltmeter.
> But I doubt the situation has changed much.
> Of coure we are paying more then ever for inferior electricity.
> Anyone noticed how bulbs are dimmer than they used to be?
> I have.
>
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Scott
>
>

How accurate is your information?  It would be a serious problem as most of 
mains clocks are depending on the accuracy of the line frequency.  If they 
change it to so low, all the clock will become inaccurate.  Did you notice 
it?

Scott

"Roderick Stewart"  在郵件 
news:VA.0000041c.025d4d03@escapetime.removethisbit.myzen.co.uk 中撰寫...
> In article , Scott wrote:
>> The next step in the European harmonization process is expected to take
>> place in 2008, when the legally permitted supply voltage range in the UK
>> will broaden to between 207V and 253V (+/-10%). Did anyone know if it
>> really happened?
>
> If it did it was just a paperwork exercise, effectively broadening the
> tolerance range of our nominally 240V (or is it 250V?) supply so it
> overlaps with the tolerance range of the continental 220V supply, so that
> it will be possible to say that our mains supply is now the same as 
> theirs,
> even though nothing real has changed at all.
>
> Rod.
>


I believe you are quite right that they create European harmonization 
process that requires nothing changes in terms of power supply except 
paperwork but they require the product design to be changed to a wider 
range, new 207-253V vs old 226-254V.  Fantastic work!!

Scott

"Andy Wade"  在郵件 
news:6bdrauF3bffq0U1@mid.individual.net 中撰寫...
> Richard Tobin wrote:
>
>> The European requirement specifies a range.  The voltage in the
>> middle is privileged in any way.  230v is no more correct than 240v.
>
> Oh yes it is (and I assume you meant "not privileged")!  230 V is the 
> nominal value, to be used for design purposes for appliances and in 
> electrical installation work, for earth fault loop impedance calculations 
> and the like.
>
> Prior to harmonisation, appliance rating plates in the UK had to state 240 
> V, or a range including 240, such as 220-240 V, to be legal for sale. 
> Although the supply tolerance was ±6%, appliance standards required 
> testing at 10% below the rated minimum and 10% above the rated maximum 
> voltages, so 220-240 V equipment had to be designed to operate safely over 
> 198 to 264 V, which is quite a wide range for 'linear' regulated supplies.
>
> With harmonisation, a single marking of 230 V 'works' anywhere in the EU 
> and the working range is eased significantly to 207-253 V.  For those of 
> us who are equipment designers and manufacturers, this was a very welcome 
> change.
>
> To answer the original question, the tolerance in the UK is still -6/+10% 
> (216-253 V) and the plan to widen the bottom tolerance to -10%, already 
> postponed from 2003, seems to have been indefinitely postponed again.
>
> The tolerances are cited in legislation, in Regulation 27 of the ESQCR:
> http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2002/20022665.htm#27
> which would need amending if the limits did change.
>
>> As far as I am aware, the target voltage in the UK continues to be
>> 240v.
>
> Correct - but 'Uo' is 230 V for design purposes.
>
> -- 
> Andy


Andy,

Thanks for your useful information.  What did you mean by " 'Uo' is 230 V 
for design purposes."?  Did you mean the product design should be at 230V 
for safety, operation and reliability aspects?  I believe it should be 
216-253V for safety, operation & reliability aspects for the market in the 
UK and 207-253V for safety, operation & reliability aspects for the market 
in the EU.  As safety and operation concerns are governed by the safety 
standard but reliability is outside the safety standard requirement as long 
as it fails safely.

Scott
>

Richard Tobin wrote:

[Referring to calculations for electrical installations]

> But surely all those calculations are specified in such a way that,
> for example, the earthing must be safe at all other voltages in the
> range?

No, they aren't actually, everything is done using nominal voltage. 
There's a degree of 'statistical tolerancing' at work here - i.e. when 
several variables are involved the probability of extreme worst-case 
conditions occurring becomes vanishingly small, so designing for such 
conditions would be over-engineering.  In the case of earth fault loop 
impedance calculations, design is based on nominal voltage and conductor 
resistances at the maximum operating temperature (with all circuits in a 
group running at full-load) and for the worst-case (slowest) response 
times for fuses and circuit breakers.  In practice things are rarely 
all fully loaded at max. ambient temperature, and there's probably some 
leeway in the fuse and cct breaker operating curves, and satisfactory 
protection is maintained at reduced voltage (-6% or -10%).  In any case 
the methods here are validated by decades of practical experience.

>  Isn't it equally true that an appliance must be safe at 207v
> and 253v as at 230?

Yes, as I said, product safety standards require design and testing to 
allow for ±10% voltage variation, relative to the marked value or range. 
  So, for example, if a fault condition requires a fuse to blow to 
prevent overheating, the relevant test would be done on a supply voltage 
of 207 V for a 230 V appliance (or 198 V for 220-240 V equipment).

> To put it another way, if the range was specified as 240v +5.4%/-13.75%
> instead of 230v +/-10%, what would be different?

Appliance markings, and tests, and installation design calculations.

-- 
Andy

"Steve Thackery"  在郵件 
news:nZ6dne1fVYaXI8zVnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@bt.com 中撰寫...
> I'm sure what Andy says is correct in terms of designing equipment to work 
> with mains in Europe.
>
> But the fact is, I often measure the mains voltage at my home, and it 
> DEFINITELY centres around 240V.  Not 230V.  If you don't believe me, take 
> a number of measurements for yourself.  You will find I'm correct.
>
> There is no doubt that our generating and transmission infrastructure is 
> set up to deliver 240V, regardless of what leaway we have given ourselves 
> in terms of the permissible voltage range.
>
> Clearly, the voltage that any particular EU country delivers to its homes 
> is one thing, the voltage range that a piece of equipment for use in the 
> EU must cope with is another.
>
> We shouldn't confuse the two.
>
> SteveT

Steve,

I believe your observation is absolutely right.  It seems the EU committee 
creates the way to quote European Harmonized Process in paper but nothing to 
change in voltage in each country.  They just roll the ball onto the product 
design that requires to cope with wider operating voltage.

Scott

Scott wrote:

> Thanks for your useful information.  What did you mean by " 'Uo' is 230 
> V for design purposes."?  Did you mean the product design should be at 
> 230V for safety, operation and reliability aspects?

The 'Uo' was a reference specific to fixed electrical installation 
design in the UK, to BS 7671 (aka the IEE wiring regulations, and now 
the UK implementation of IEC 60364).  This is assuming installations fed 
from the public mains, of course - in principle you could use any 
voltage you like with private generation.

Appliance design and testing is all based around what is on the rating 
plate.

> I believe it should be 216-253V for safety, operation & reliability
> aspects for the market in the UK and 207-253V for safety, operation &
> reliability aspects for the market in the EU.

Yes, so 207-253 V covers the whole EU, including the UK.  With 230 V 
marking an appliance has to be safe down to 207 V, even if only for sale 
in the UK, so the 216 V value is irrelevant except insofar as it remains 
the minimum supply voltage here.

-- 
Andy

Scott wrote:

> I believe you are quite right that they create European harmonization 
> process that requires nothing changes in terms of power supply except 
> paperwork but they require the product design to be changed to a wider 
> range, new 207-253V vs old 226-254V.

Not quite!  The range for old 240 V appliances was 216-264 V to meet 
product safety standards.  Most manufacturers wanted to sell in 220 V 
countries too, and 220-240 V nominal required 198-264 V safe working range.

>  Fantastic work!!

Indeed, a reduction in range, not a widening.

-- 
Andy

"Andy Wade"  在郵件 
news:6bi8m7F3bo7keU1@mid.individual.net 中撰寫...
> Scott wrote:
>
>> I believe you are quite right that they create European harmonization 
>> process that requires nothing changes in terms of power supply except 
>> paperwork but they require the product design to be changed to a wider 
>> range, new 207-253V vs old 226-254V.
>
> Not quite!  The range for old 240 V appliances was 216-264 V to meet 
> product safety standards.  Most manufacturers wanted to sell in 220 V 
> countries too, and 220-240 V nominal required 198-264 V safe working 
> range.
>
>>  Fantastic work!!
>
> Indeed, a reduction in range, not a widening.
>
> -- 
> Andy


Andy,

My point is that new = 230 +10%/6% = 216-253 and old = 240 +6%/-6% = 
226-254V.  The new range is 37V and old is 28V.  Thus the new range is wider 
so only the product designers suffer issue.

Scott

Scott wrote:

> My point is that new = 230 +10%/6% = 216-253 and old = 240 +6%/-6% = 
> 226-254V.  The new range is 37V and old is 28V.

But your figures are wrong.  The range is determined by the product 
safety standards and (at least for EN 60065) is ±10%.  It is not 
determined by the actual supply voltage tolerance.  The old range for a 
220-240 V appliance is 198-264 V which is 66 V.  The new range for a 230 
V appliance is 207-253 V which is 46 V - a reduction of just over 30%.

-- 
Andy

In article ,
Scott  wrote:

>How accurate is your information?  It would be a serious problem as most of 
>mains clocks are depending on the accuracy of the line frequency.  If they 
>change it to so low, all the clock will become inaccurate.  Did you notice 
>it?

The mains is useful for testing frequency meters, not the other way round.

-- Richard
-- 
In the selection of the two characters immediately succeeding the numeral 9,
consideration shall be given to their replacement by the graphics 10 and 11 to
facilitate the adoption of the code in the sterling monetary area. (X3.4-1963)

In article ,
   Steve Thackery  wrote:
> > we are only getting 45hz on average, sometimes as low as 40hz.
> > I know because I  measured it on my voltmeter. 

> Utter drivel.  But surely this is just LTC's idea of a joke?

ITYM LTC is a joke.

-- 
*If I throw a stick, will you leave?

    Dave Plowman        dave@davenoise.co.uk           London SW
                  To e-mail, change noise into sound.

The message 
from "Dave Plowman (News)"  contains these words:

> In article ,
>    Steve Thackery  wrote:
> > > we are only getting 45hz on average, sometimes as low as 40hz.
> > > I know because I  measured it on my voltmeter. 

> > Utter drivel.  But surely this is just LTC's idea of a joke?

> ITYM LTC is a joke.

 Which is why the posting might not have actually been an LTC one. It
could so easily have been another masquerading as LTC to complete the
'comic effect' of the joke posting. Either way, it's all rather
academic.

-- 
Regards, John.

 Please remove the "ohggcyht" before replying.
The address has been munged to reject Spam-bots.

"Andy Wade"  在郵件 
news:6bilkhF3c4rtmU1@mid.individual.net 中撰寫...
> Scott wrote:
>
>> My point is that new = 230 +10%/6% = 216-253 and old = 240 +6%/-6% = 
>> 226-254V.  The new range is 37V and old is 28V.
>
> But your figures are wrong.  The range is determined by the product safety 
> standards and (at least for EN 60065) is ±10%.  It is not determined by 
> the actual supply voltage tolerance.  The old range for a 220-240 V 
> appliance is 198-264 V which is 66 V.  The new range for a 230 V appliance 
> is 207-253 V which is 46 V - a reduction of just over 30%.
>
> -- 
> Andy


Andy,

Thanks for your further explanation.  You are right on the point with EN 
60065.  With electrical appliances, EN 60335, it does not lay down the upper 
and lower limits like EN 60065.  With the previous standard, it required +/- 
6% to the rated voltage only.  For the products to UK market, should they 
comply with UK 230 V +10%/-6% (legal requirement as minimum) or have to 
comply with 230 V +/-10% (ideally EU requirement).  It is still a confusion 
since UK is part of EU.

Scott

In article ,
Scott  wrote:

>How accurate is your information?  It would be a serious problem as most of 
>mains clocks are depending on the accuracy of the line frequency.  If they 
>change it to so low, all the clock will become inaccurate.  Did you notice 
>it?

I have a digital clock which is 50Hz-Mains derived. During May, it did
indeed lose time, which is *very* unusual. Enough to need to re-set it to
bring it into line with independent quartz (battery) powered clocks.

Cross checking with a logging UPS that records the frequency every minute, 
there were extended periods of low-frequency that were not "caught up".

Usually it reads 49.9/50.0Hz, alternating. But there were extended periods,
of lower frequency that didn't get compensated.

Not as serious as Lord Turkey Cough's troll^H^H^H^H incident, but it does 
sometimes go a bit adrift ...

For 200804 (a normal month)

49.5 :       0
49.6 :       1
49.7 :     173
49.8 :    6150
49.9 :   24609
50.0 :   10802
50.1 :     520
50.2 :       5
50.3 :       0

For 200805 ...

48.6 :       0
48.7 :       1 
48.8 :       1
48.9 :       0
49.0 :       1
49.1 :       3
49.2 :       1
49.3 :       1
49.4 :       1
49.5 :       1
49.6 :       7
49.7 :     129
49.8 :    5664
49.9 :   26578
50.0 :   10120
50.1 :     306
50.2 :       0

-- 
--------------------------------------+------------------------------------
Mike Brown: mjb[at]pootle.demon.co.uk | http://www.pootle.demon.co.uk/

In article <g3364l$amv$1@posie.local.dom>, Mike  wrote:
> In article , Scott
>  wrote:

> >How accurate is your information?  It would be a serious problem as most
> >of mains clocks are depending on the accuracy of the line frequency. 
> >If they change it to so low, all the clock will become inaccurate.  Did
> >you notice it?

> I have a digital clock which is 50Hz-Mains derived. During May, it did
> indeed lose time, which is *very* unusual. Enough to need to re-set it to
> bring it into line with independent quartz (battery) powered clocks.

> Cross checking with a logging UPS that records the frequency every
> minute, there were extended periods of low-frequency that were not
> "caught up".

> Usually it reads 49.9/50.0Hz, alternating. But there were extended
> periods, of lower frequency that didn't get compensated.

> Not as serious as Lord Turkey Cough's troll^H^H^H^H incident, but it does
> sometimes go a bit adrift ...

[Snip]

it reads as though the demand for electricity was exceeding supply ;-(

-- 
From KT24 - in "Leafy Surrey"

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.11

charles wrote:

> it reads as though the demand for electricity was exceeding supply ;-(

I noticed some winter evenings during the 1984/5 miner's strike, that clocks 
sometimes lost almost a minute, they would always make up the lost time by 
next morning though.

Some friends recently moved into a new house, so new that the SEB hadn't wired 
it up to the network. As a temporary measure the road was fed from a generator 
(and no charge was made for the power). The clocks in the house were all over 
the place, gaining or losing up to 20 mins per day.
A small price to pay for 5 weeks worth of free lekky though !




-- 
Mark
Please replace invalid and invalid with gmx and net to reply.

In message , Mark Carver 
<mark.carver@invalid.invalid> writes
>charles wrote:
>
>> it reads as though the demand for electricity was exceeding supply ;-(
>
>I noticed some winter evenings during the 1984/5 miner's strike, that 
>clocks sometimes lost almost a minute, they would always make up the 
>lost time by next morning though.
>
>Some friends recently moved into a new house, so new that the SEB 
>hadn't wired it up to the network. As a temporary measure the road was 
>fed from a generator (and no charge was made for the power). The clocks 
>in the house were all over the place, gaining or losing up to 20 mins 
>per day.
>A small price to pay for 5 weeks worth of free lekky though !
>
I haven't checked, but I always understood that the number of cycles per 
day (and hence the time) were correct at 8am each morning. Thereafter 
they can wander off, and the necessary corrections take place during the 
wee small hours, when the demand is low. Therefore, if you want to set 
your mains clock, do it at 8am.
-- 
Ian

On Sun, 15 Jun 2008 16:54:17 +0100, Ian Jackson
 wrote:

>In message , Mark Carver 
><mark.carver@invalid.invalid> writes
>>charles wrote:
>>
>>> it reads as though the demand for electricity was exceeding supply ;-(
>>
>>I noticed some winter evenings during the 1984/5 miner's strike, that 
>>clocks sometimes lost almost a minute, they would always make up the 
>>lost time by next morning though.
>>
>>Some friends recently moved into a new house, so new that the SEB 
>>hadn't wired it up to the network. As a temporary measure the road was 
>>fed from a generator (and no charge was made for the power). The clocks 
>>in the house were all over the place, gaining or losing up to 20 mins 
>>per day.
>>A small price to pay for 5 weeks worth of free lekky though !
>>
>I haven't checked, but I always understood that the number of cycles per 
>day (and hence the time) were correct at 8am each morning. Thereafter 
>they can wander off, and the necessary corrections take place during the 
>wee small hours, when the demand is low. Therefore, if you want to set 
>your mains clock, do it at 8am.

I thought synchronous clocks were  pretty much a thing of the past.

In article ,
   Scott  wrote:

> I thought synchronous clocks were  pretty much a thing of the past.

no, although there aren't so many analogue ones.

-- 
From KT24 - in "Leafy Surrey"

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.11

Scott wrote:

> I thought synchronous clocks were  pretty much a thing of the past.

No, though diminishing slightly. Our new microwave oven's clock is quartz 
controlled, and it's a pain. The last one was mains synchronous, and as it was 
positioned next to the conventional oven that also has a mains sync clock, I 
had both set to within a faction of second of each other.

The new one as I soon discovered was quartz controlled, and gained about 10 
seconds a day. I took it back, and exchanged it for another. That was even 
worse, 15 seconds per day. At that point I threw the towel in, and simply 
don't set the clock. It sits there in standby with its cursor flashing, and of 
course now doesn't need to be on permanently, so good for the planet :-)

-- 
Mark
Please replace invalid and invalid with gmx and net to reply.

On Sun, 15 Jun 2008 18:17:00 +0100, Mark Carver
<mark.carver@invalid.invalid> wrote:

>Scott wrote:
>
>> I thought synchronous clocks were  pretty much a thing of the past.
>
>No, though diminishing slightly. Our new microwave oven's clock is quartz 
>controlled, and it's a pain. The last one was mains synchronous, and as it was 
>positioned next to the conventional oven that also has a mains sync clock, I 
>had both set to within a faction of second of each other.
>
>The new one as I soon discovered was quartz controlled, and gained about 10 
>seconds a day. I took it back, and exchanged it for another. That was even 
>worse, 15 seconds per day. At that point I threw the towel in, and simply 
>don't set the clock. It sits there in standby with its cursor flashing, and of 
>course now doesn't need to be on permanently, so good for the planet :-)

Good point.  I was thinking about clocks themselves and forgetting
about time displays on applicances.  Radio and TV equipment I assume
always takes its time from the broadcaster so we are left with
microwaves, cookers etc.

I must say I have not noticed them losing 10% or whatever was being
suggested earlier.

In article , Scott wrote:
> Good point.  I was thinking about clocks themselves and forgetting
> about time displays on applicances.  Radio and TV equipment I assume
> always takes its time from the broadcaster so we are left with
> microwaves, cookers etc.

When you stop and think of the number of things about the house that 
include clocks, there are quite a lot-

Quartz crystal clocks (5)
MSF clock
Mains driven clock
Video recorders (3)
Computers (3)
ADSL router
Portable radio
Internet radio
Central heating timer
Microwave cooker
Landline phone
Mobile phone
Car clock
Digital camera

Some of these things correct themselves automatically from external 
references, some of them are supposed to but don't, some of them do but 
the external reference can't always be trusted, some of them do but not 
reliably, and some of them just don't because they're not meant to. 
We've got more timepieces than ever before, but I wonder how many of us 
are any more sure of the time?

Rod.

"Scott"  wrote in message 
news:ucga54tt5mcd3ssrh6tp7c8h510ne5h1nh@4ax.com...

> I thought synchronous clocks were  pretty much a thing of the past.

Well the timeswitch that changes my electricity from peak to off-peak is the 
old synchronous type. Next to the crappy LCD meter that they gratuitously 
changed from the nice, easy to read magnetic meter.

I'm surprised they don't incorporate the timeswitch into the meter box, 
except I expect they haven't worked out a way of enabling it to cope with 
power cuts like the old one.

-- 
Max Demian

In message , Max Demian 
 writes
>"Scott"  wrote in message
>news:ucga54tt5mcd3ssrh6tp7c8h510ne5h1nh@4ax.com...
>
>> I thought synchronous clocks were  pretty much a thing of the past.
>
>Well the timeswitch that changes my electricity from peak to off-peak is the
>old synchronous type. Next to the crappy LCD meter that they gratuitously
>changed from the nice, easy to read magnetic meter.
>
>I'm surprised they don't incorporate the timeswitch into the meter box,
>except I expect they haven't worked out a way of enabling it to cope with
>power cuts like the old one.
>
The clock in my central heating controller (installed about years ago) 
seems to keep remarkably good time (seems spot-on at 7:30am, when the 
boiler fires up), so I've always assumed that it is locked to the mains. 
It doesn't lose time when the power is off, so there's obviously a 
battery in there too (presumably rechargeable), and a free-running 
oscillator. At least, that's what I'm guessing.
-- 
Ian

On Sun, 15 Jun 2008 16:05:43 +0100, charles
 wrote:

>it reads as though the demand for electricity was exceeding supply ;-(

that's precisely what happened
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/7423169.stm

-- 
http://www.kingqueen.org.uk
remove .lartsspammers to reply

"Ian Jackson"  wrote in message 
news:$iutk6IhgZVIFwm9@g3ohx.demon.co.uk...
> In message , Max Demian 
>  writes
>>"Scott"  wrote in message
>>news:ucga54tt5mcd3ssrh6tp7c8h510ne5h1nh@4ax.com...
>>
>>> I thought synchronous clocks were  pretty much a thing of the past.
>>
>>Well the timeswitch that changes my electricity from peak to off-peak is 
>>the
>>old synchronous type. Next to the crappy LCD meter that they gratuitously
>>changed from the nice, easy to read magnetic meter.
>>
>>I'm surprised they don't incorporate the timeswitch into the meter box,
>>except I expect they haven't worked out a way of enabling it to cope with
>>power cuts like the old one.
>>
> The clock in my central heating controller (installed about years ago) 
> seems to keep remarkably good time (seems spot-on at 7:30am, when the 
> boiler fires up), so I've always assumed that it is locked to the mains. 
> It doesn't lose time when the power is off, so there's obviously a battery 
> in there too (presumably rechargeable), and a free-running oscillator. At 
> least, that's what I'm guessing.

The thing about electricity meters is they are expected to run for at least 
ten years or so without any maintenance, and batteries, rechargeable or 
otherwise, can't be relied on to last that long. And a purely quartz clock 
would likely drift a significant amount in ten years. I suppose they could 
use mains synchronisation with a quartz reserve powered by a capacitor. I 
think they make special low leakage capacitors for the purpose.

-- 
Max Demian

Your UPS has picked up the low frequency event on 27th May when the grid
frrequency fell to around 48.7Hz and caused operation of the automatic
under-frequency load-shedding in parts of England. (Some set at 48.8Hz).
The electric clock correction is constantly applied by setting target
frequencies of 50Hz or 49.95Hz or 50.05Hz depending on whether the clock
error is almost zero, positive or negative respecively.  The aim is to
keep it within +/- 10 seconds but it is not specifically 'correct' at
any particular time.

RodP (former engineer at a Grid Control Centre)

In message , Max Demian 
 writes
>"Ian Jackson"  wrote in message
>news:$iutk6IhgZVIFwm9@g3ohx.demon.co.uk...
>> In message , Max Demian
>>  writes
>>>"Scott"  wrote in message
>>>news:ucga54tt5mcd3ssrh6tp7c8h510ne5h1nh@4ax.com...
>>>
>>>> I thought synchronous clocks were  pretty much a thing of the past.
>>>
>>>Well the timeswitch that changes my electricity from peak to off-peak is
>>>the
>>>old synchronous type. Next to the crappy LCD meter that they gratuitously
>>>changed from the nice, easy to read magnetic meter.
>>>
>>>I'm surprised they don't incorporate the timeswitch into the meter box,
>>>except I expect they haven't worked out a way of enabling it to cope with
>>>power cuts like the old one.
>>>
>> The clock in my central heating controller (installed about years ago)
>> seems to keep remarkably good time (seems spot-on at 7:30am, when the
>> boiler fires up), so I've always assumed that it is locked to the mains.
>> It doesn't lose time when the power is off, so there's obviously a battery
>> in there too (presumably rechargeable), and a free-running oscillator. At
>> least, that's what I'm guessing.
>
>The thing about electricity mete