Electrician error kills plumber

[JBR]

...but due to the lethal nature of the ridiculous 240v system used in the UK...

Ridiculous? I'm assuming that you maintain that the US 110V system is safer. If so, why not go further and have a 50V supply system?

 

[Dave54]

TV repairers from the 60s always tested the chassis first - they did it because that's what they always did.


Dunno why modern sockets don't have a feedback loop that prevents them being energised if they are wired wrong.

A lot of the old TVs and some radios had a live chassis, so anyone who was working on one always checked Joe.

 

[Hysteresis]

Ridiculous? I'm assuming that you maintain that the US 110V system is safer. If so, why not go further and have a 50V supply system?

No not at all, but 110-0-110 centre tapped earth is a lot safer by a factor of 4 that the UK domestic system. Maybe you think this is ridiculous also.

Give your head a shake JBR

 

[JBR]

Ridiculous? I'm assuming that you maintain that the US 110V system is safer. If so, why not go further and have a 50V supply system?

No not at all, but 110-0-110 centre tapped earth is a lot safer by a factor of 4 that the UK domestic system. Maybe you think this is ridiculous also.

Give your head a shake JBR

Well, I'm sorry if you thought I was trying to be funny. If you look closely at my post, you'll see that I wrote 'Ridiculous?' (with a question mark), thus not accusing you of being ridiculous, but quoting your use of the word and querying its veracity.

Anyway, to repeat my question, if 110V is so much safer yet still quite practical wouldn't 50V (or something similar) be even safer?

I'm not an electrician so forgive me for asking, but is there some sort of 'cut-off point' at which the voltage would be at the minimum practical?

Accepting that 110V is so much safer than 240V, I presume the reason we (and many others) have not followed the US's example is cost: the cost of re-wiring everything using thicker conductors alone must be prohibitive.

 

[joe-90]

The lower the voltage the higher the amperage and the thicker your cables would need to be.

 

[Astra99]

The point Joe-90 made about the TV chassis being live was further compounded by the fact that in those days many homes still had 2-pin (unearthed!) sockets, 5A on the lighting circuit, and 15A on its own fuse. These installations had rewireable ceramic fuses in both Line and Neutral conductors. I remember the TV repairman testing the chassis with a neon screwdriver and reversing the 2-pin plug in the socket. How times (and regulations) have changed!

 

[JBR]

The lower the voltage the higher the amperage and the thicker your cables would need to be.

That's what I just said!

 

[joe-90]

Yeah but I said it better.

 

[JBR]

Yeah but I said it better.

No, you're just copying!

I'd still like to know whether 110V is the lowest practical voltage for domestic use. Perhaps I should be asking on the 'UK Electrics' forum.

 

[Hysteresis]

I'd still like to know whether 110V is the lowest practical voltage for domestic use. Perhaps I should be asking on the 'UK Electrics' forum.

Lowest Practical voltage is not really the issue. The point is that 240V is a lethal voltage to have in a domestic situation. In certain circumstances 110V is also lethal, but 110v is unarguably a safer voltage to have around the home.
Yes, for distribution purposes the higher the voltage the better as the corresponding current for a given power distribution is lower and therefore resistance losses reduced, but to have 110V at a local distribution level must be safer by definition. As to what is the lowest practical voltage, that is open to debate.
I think you can have a similar discussion about having Gas in the home, A leak is detectable by the smell which is in fact Macaptain ????? (or some very very smelly agent) added to Methane to give it a smell , but by the time it is detected it is very often too late.
Electricity in the home is inherently dangerous especially when the DIY guy who thinks he knows all about wiring get his hand on it.
All the point I was trying to make was that 240V is a ridiculously high voltage to have distributed about the home. One could argue that any voltage is potentially life threatening, but the lower the voltage the safer(or rather less dangerous) it is. It is all a compromise and suggesting 110V seems to me to be a good compromise as it is by definition safer than 240V.
I have never seen the statistics, but it would be interesting to see what they are regarding domestic electrical incidences in UK Homes compared to that in say Canada or the US. If, of course, the statistics suggest that there is no difference then I submit to talking a pile of 'bullocks'.
Looking back to the original incident which started this thread, 110v would still have seen off the poor guy in Bristol.

 

[EddieM]

Voltage seems to have nothing to do with it, the electrocution rates inc (industrial) are considerably higher in the US than they are in Europe.

 

[securespark]

The lower the voltage the higher the amperage and the thicker your cables would need to be.

That's what I just said!

Yeah but I said it better.

Children, children!

 

[Hysteresis]

Voltage seems to have nothing to do with it, the electrocution rates inc (industrial) are considerably higher in the US than they are in Europe.

Really - I would suggest very strongly the Voltage has an awful lot to do with it.

 

[polesapart]

" Mr Edwards, of Fishponds, Bristol was working for Bristol-based Birakos Enterprises when he was killed on March 19, 2008. "

and the court case is 5 years later!

 

[peterperfection]

Cant do with having 110v over here - Kettles take ages to boil.

Does any 'bright' '''Sparky''' know why that is ?. (sensible question)