Golborne Vintage Radio

Full Version: 120 V 230 Volts mains, which is best?
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
As the title says, or would another mains voltage have been better? Advantages/disadvantages of each...
I can't see any advantage to 120V mains, just disadvantages.

Current consumption would double meaning much beefier cabling - and copper isn't cheap! A 3kW 120V heater, for example, needs a 25A supply.

In the US they also have 240V supplies for the power hungry devices such as washing machines, cookers, driers and so on but I don't think they dual wire the whole house, so any portable devices would have to be 110V.

I think I'll stick with 240V, thank you very much!
You can't get a decent shock off 110VSmile
(13-04-2017, 09:13 AM)ppppenguin Wrote: [ -> ]You can't get  a decent shock off 110VSmile

110V also comes with a sparkler on all open circuit ends making fault finding easier.
Holywood's first law of electricity says so.
Some say that the US 110V supply (or 117V to be dogmatic) is only practical because Americans don't drink tea and therefore have no use for electric kettles. Those toy plugs just couldn't handle the current!

Even a 1kW coffee machine tends to push plug temperature to the limit.

Martin
Flexible cables on appliances are not as flexible as ours, they damage those terrible plugs as a consequence. Because the voltage is less likely to kill, liberties are taken with insulation and earthing.
230 (or 240V) is better - that's why Britain chose it.

Neither 110V nor 240V are enough to kill you generally; both are enough, though, to throw you off a ladder if you get a belt working up there. No differences so far!

For a couple of kW, 110V needs double the current, 240V needs double the insulation, of the the other. But insulation is cheaper and less bulky than conductor material.

Switches, connectors, control gear is much easier and less lossy with 240V than 110V.

With AC, opening switch contacts extinguish their arcs just as readily with both voltages. No difference there!

A similar question might be: In cars, which is better, 6V or 12V? And again, for the same reasons, we standardised see on 12V.
The Americans just did it there way.
They installed center tapped 220V transformers up poles close to the loads. 110V cables are short and less copper is used so the system worked. At the time of installation houses were spread apart so running through at a much higher voltage and stepping down with many small local transformers would be the answer. The system is not all that reliable as the transformers get struck by lightning and the poles get knocked down by drunk drivers but it would be cheap to install from new.

In the UK we use big transformers and longer low voltage feeders to the loads. The transformers are generally better protected and more reliable but more expensive.
No contest. We're British so it "has" to be more logical......... simples!!!!
Having just returned from a long holiday in the land of 110v and using many appliances in various locations I definitely feel safer with our system, as Jeffery said the shock is less severe but you are much more likely to get one. Many times I found overheating sockets, lose plugs and had circuits tripping out because it is so easy to overload them with their love of multiway adaptors and octopus wiring and tripping seemed to be accepted as normal by the hotel maintenance teams.
Also it seems the earth pins regularly fall out on the plugs and adaptors but again it was treated as normal, I think they have become very casual about 110v electricity. Overheating and fires seem to be the most common problem.
The choice of 110v seems to be historical that is what Thomas Edison chose at the start albeit DC and it stuck even after changing to AC and whilst there is a case to move to 220v as most of Europe did after WW2 the US now has so many small appliances on 110v the cost of change now would have be horrendous.
Chris
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7