General > General Technical Chat
The real reason why North America uses 120v instead of 240v.
<< < (5/17) > >>
Monkeh:

--- Quote from: jpanhalt on November 24, 2022, 09:09:02 pm ---Neither of those links compare death from 120V to 240V.

Please provide your data/links that  show electrical shock from 240V in not more lethal than shock from 120V.

--- End quote ---

I didn't say they did, because the data isn't broken down that way.
bdunham7:

--- Quote from: Monkeh on November 24, 2022, 07:55:36 pm ---And yet more people still die of electrical shock and electrical fires in the US than in 230V nations. In 2017, 13 shock deaths were recorded in England. In 2020, 126 were recorded in work-place incidents alone in the USA.

--- End quote ---

That doesn't really add up as an argument.  Workplace safety regulations and the relative compliance with might vary quite a bit, for example.  You don't know what voltage the workers were shocked at, either--I'm confident a good proportion were not electrocuted by 120V.  There are HVDC solar systems, 480VAC/3-phase (and higher) systems, primary high voltage (3800-14,400V), microwave oven transformers (2 deaths locally that I know about and I'm referring to people repairing the ovens, not the fractal wood burning idiots) and so on.  I doubt you are going to be able to really tease out the safety advantage (if any) of 120V.  Perhaps we need to shock some sheep or something.

When I read reports of these incidents, my reaction generally is one of two things:  1) Wow, what a dumbass! (not necessarily the victim) or 2) Wow, that's a pretty unlikely freakish accident!  90% are probably #1.  Older houses, especially attics and crawlspaces, along with barns, seem to be the among the most dangerous places.
Monkeh:

--- Quote from: bdunham7 on November 24, 2022, 09:22:06 pm ---
--- Quote from: Monkeh on November 24, 2022, 07:55:36 pm ---And yet more people still die of electrical shock and electrical fires in the US than in 230V nations. In 2017, 13 shock deaths were recorded in England. In 2020, 126 were recorded in work-place incidents alone in the USA.

--- End quote ---

That doesn't really add up as an argument.

--- End quote ---

But it's the available data to work with. I chose not to go with the more approximate total figure (upwards of 300) due to lack of motivation to find the specific source. Where's the data to suggest 120V systems and, as I originally stated, the accompanying attitudes regarding safety, are in fact safer?

Teasing out good numbers for fires will be even harder - US statistics are as ever hard to locate, and there's no ICD10 code regarding origin of fires (that I know of), they'd all come under X00.
SiliconWizard:
110V was the standard in most european countries before switching to 220V (which became 230V to 240V depending on the country.)
Sure switching to a higher voltage allowed lower currents, so lower losses. Beyond that, I think there were studies showing that 110V was actually more dangerous.
But people in the US were usually told the opposite.

While, for the same impedance, the current through your body would be twice as high with 220V as opposed to 110V - which was the main rationale invoked - and sure, the higher the current, the higher the risk. Right?

Now in those ranges, typically a few tens of mA unless your skin is very wet, it's mostly energy that matters, so the duration is key. I have consistently heard that on average,  for people with no specific health condition, 220V was more likely to trigger a withdrawal reflex (thus a very short exposure), while 110V was more likely to trigger muscle tetany (thus longer exposure.) I have no paper right now to back this up though.

The real reason, in both cases though, is just likely to be purely economical.
All I can draw from my own experience is that I sure did get shocked quite a few times with 220V in my life and always got a strong withdrawal reflex with no more consequence than an elevated heart rate for a couple minutes.

rstofer:

--- Quote from: DavidAlfa on November 24, 2022, 08:19:24 pm ---Because of inches, feet, pounds and all that standard aberration.
But they know very well what 9mm is  :-DD

--- End quote ---

And 5.56mm and 7.62 mm and 106mm.  Some of the long range guys are familiar with 6.5mm as in 6.5x284 Norma.

https://weaponsystems.net/system/1341-106mm+M40
The M40 was usually Jeep mounted on an M151A1C

And people think we don't use metric...
Navigation
Message Index
Next page
Previous page
There was an error while thanking
Thanking...

Go to full version
Powered by SMFPacks Advanced Attachments Uploader Mod