230V/240V Question

[JBR]

Based upon the natural 15-degrees longitude for each time zone, France and Spain are clearly in the wrong. The 7.5-degrees east line runs roughly from the Dutch-German border down to the French-Italian border, meaning that the natural time zone for France, Spain, Belgium, and The Netherlands) is GMT. In fact the farthest western parts of Spain (and even the very northwestern tip of Brittany) naturally fall into the GMT-1 hr. zone (although obviously for countries this relatively small it makes sense to keep the whole country on the same time).

I'm not sure of the history for Spain, but I know for France the country did adopt GMT back in the 19th century after the time zones were defined (it had previously operated on local Paris time, about 9 minutes ahead of London). It was the German occupation during World War I which caused France to move ahead an hour, and for some reason they never reverted back at the end of the war.

I may be completely wrong here, but I have a sneaking suspicion that this may be because France, and possibly Spain too, feel happier to be 'friends' with Germany than with us for some reason. Quite a turn-around since the Second World War, but the perfidious French never cease to surprise me and I'm afraid I wouldn't trust them an inch.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

No it isn't. It's on the technically arbitrary "time" that makes the most sense for where they are and when the Sun rises and sets.

And if they are right, we are wrong.

Based upon the natural 15-degrees longitude for each time zone, France and Spain are clearly in the wrong.

Not necessarily.

I said "the technically arbitrary "time" that makes the most sense for where they are and when the Sun rises and sets".

There is no technical reason why 12:00 has to be when the sun is at its highest. Some people would express an irrational dislike of "having to get up at 3AM to start work at 5", yet move the arbitrary pointers on a dial so that they are "getting up at 7AM to start work at 9", even though they are getting up at the same "time" wrt sunrise, and they would be happier.

What makes sense is to have your clocks point to times such that correspond with your daylight hours and a generic "9 to 5" regime. And to recognise that fiddling with the pointers does not change how much daylight time there is.

 

[EFLImpudence]

Some people would express an irrational dislike of "having to get up at 3AM to start work at 5",

That is obviously true but you are exaggerating unnecessarily.
Had you said getting up at 6AM to start at 8AM surely the objections would be unfounded.

yet move the arbitrary pointers on a dial so that they are "getting up at 7AM to start work at 9", even though they are getting up at the same "time" wrt sunrise, and they would be happier.

They presumably are but that does not make them right.

What makes sense is to have your clocks point to times such that correspond with your daylight hours and a generic "9 to 5" regime.

- or not stay in bed when it is light.
A generic "8 to 4" actual time would match the Sun and so negate the need to change the clocks.
If longer evening light is desired it could be changed to 7 to 3 in the Summer.
I am sure that people who do 'early shift' (6 'til 2) have much more useful spare time than when on late shift (2 'til 10).

Also, the end of March to the end of October does not match the Sun and equinoxes.

And to recognise that fiddling with the pointers does not change how much daylight time there is.

It does not but then neither does putting them on an hour give lighter evenings if the working day day starts an hour later than it should/could.

 

[stillp]

Based upon the natural 15-degrees longitude for each time zone, France and Spain are clearly in the wrong. The 7.5-degrees east line runs roughly from the Dutch-German border down to the French-Italian border, meaning that the natural time zone for France, Spain, Belgium, and The Netherlands) is GMT. In fact the farthest western parts of Spain (and even the very northwestern tip of Brittany) naturally fall into the GMT-1 hr. zone (although obviously for countries this relatively small it makes sense to keep the whole country on the same time).

I'm not sure of the history for Spain, but I know for France the country did adopt GMT back in the 19th century after the time zones were defined (it had previously operated on local Paris time, about 9 minutes ahead of London). It was the German occupation during World War I which caused France to move ahead an hour, and for some reason they never reverted back at the end of the war.

I may be completely wrong here, but I have a sneaking suspicion that this may be because France, and possibly Spain too, feel happier to be 'friends' with Germany than with us for some reason. Quite a turn-around since the Second World War, but the perfidious French never cease to surprise me and I'm afraid I wouldn't trust them an inch.

Or might it, like using the metric system and driving on the wrong side of the road, be a consequence of the Napoleonic Empire?

 

[PBC_1966]

Then we can stop there. Harmonisation is a good thing.

If you want to make appliances which will operate over the whole range from the lowest permissible tolerance of 220V systems to the highest permissible tolerance of 240V systems, fine. But there was still absolutely no practical reason for changing the British supply specification from 240V +/-6% to 230V +10/-6% when (except as noted already for that odd volt-and-a-bit at the top end) it already lied entirely within that proposed 230V +/-10% range.

How does anyone feel about a worldwide "harmonized" supply specification of 180V +/-40% at 55Hz +/-10%?

The plan was that voltage levels across Europe should be unified at 230V single phase and 400V ±10%. Those countries with a nominal voltage of 240V (like the UK) were obliged to move to 230V +10% -6%, and those on 220V moved to 230V +6% -10%.

And changing the specification on paper from 240V +/-6% to 230V +10/-6% did what specifically, other than provide the opportunity to claim that Britain had adopted the new European 230V standard? And possibly the opportunity for the DNO to take advantage of that extended lower limit at some point, which would actually result in worse regulation of the supply than was provided for already.

I said "the technically arbitrary "time" that makes the most sense for where they are and when the Sun rises and sets".

There is no technical reason why 12:00 has to be when the sun is at its highest.

But that is what the clock was based on (hence times before noon being ante meridian and those after it post meridian). So if we abandon that basic premise (and perhaps move to a 24-hour system entirely without a.m. & p.m. designations, why not just abandon the whole concept of time zones and have the whole world use one time? (Wouldn't that be the ideal "harmonized" time-keeping system?)

GMT is already used in just such a way in certain fields where international aspects make it more practical than accounting for all the regional differences in time zone and daylight saving time, so surely that would be the logical choice? Of course, here in California that would mean having breakfast at about 14:00 hours and going to bed around 06:00 hours, but if we're abandoning the link between noon and the sun's high point, why not go the whole way to have a system where there's no need to constantly "convert" times between places?

Or might it, like using the metric system and driving on the wrong side of the road, be a consequence of the Napoleonic Empire?

I think you'll find that Napolean was long gone before France was forced into moving ahead an hour during the First World War.

 

[JohnW2]

And changing the specification on paper from 240V +/-6% to 230V +10/-6% did what specifically, other than provide the opportunity to claim that Britain had adopted the new European 230V standard?

Was not the intention behind the (rather silly, per se) on-paper "harmonisation" to 230V 'nomunal' supply voltage the hope/wish//intent that, in the fullness of (a lot of!) time, all the countries would gradually change to supplying an 'average' voltage of 230V.

I wonder what is the practice of DNOs in the UK and elsewhere in Europe? Given that they all are now claiming to provide a 'nominal' supply voltage of 230V, when it becomes necessary to replace a transformer, it would seem logical that they would replace it with one designed to give an 'average' supply voltage of 230V to the consumers served by that tranny, wouldn't it? I wonder if that's what they are doing?

Kind Regards, John

 

[PBC_1966]

Given that they all are now claiming to provide a 'nominal' supply voltage of 230V, when it becomes necessary to replace a transformer, it would seem logical that they would replace it with one designed to give an 'average' supply voltage of 230V to the consumers served by that tranny, wouldn't it? I wonder if that's what they are doing?

I wonder if they will actually do that over time, or if they'll just make use of that extra range at the low end of the new specification to cut corners as demand increases so that the poor person at the far end of a longer distribution run can end up ranging from 250V at off-peak times right down to 216V or so during the periods of heaviest demand.

 

[JohnW2]

I wonder if they will actually do that over time, or if they'll just make use of that extra range at the low end of the new specification to cut corners as demand increases so that the poor person at the far end of a longer distribution run can end up ranging from 250V at off-peak times right down to 216V or so during the periods of heaviest demand.

Who knows. However, were they challenged I would think they would find it hard to justify installing replacement trannies designed to proved an 'average' supply to consumers of ~240V when they were claiming to be providing a supply of a 'nominal' 230V.

It is also possible that those behind all this had in mind that when (if ever!) everyone had eventually changed to an 'average' supply voltage of ~230V, that the specification might then be 'tightened'.

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

 

[JohnW2]

..."EU legislation allowed variation around the nominal weight (that printed on the packet"...

Yes, we know the definition of 'nominal' but, in the voltage context, as I've said, one can but presume that hope/intent of those who invented the 'harmonisation' was that the 'on-paper harmonisation of nominal voltage' would eventually be followed by a physical change to actual 'average' supply voltages coming close to that declared nominal figure - otherwise there really would have been no point in the exercise.

However, the situation to which the example quote in your definitions refers is rather different. When packaged goods (particularly foods) bear the "e-mark" and specify the nominal weight (or volume) of the contents, the requirement is that the average actual weight/volume of the product be no less than the specified nominal weight/volume, and that no more than a specified proportion of packages are more than a specified amount below the nominal weight/volume. If similar rules (and interpretation of 'nominal') applied to electricity supplies, any country whose 'average actual supply voltage' was below 230V would be non-compliant (and the rule would probably be extended to 'over-voltage', since, in the context of electricity supplied {as opposed to packaged products} over-voltage is as much a potential consumer problem as under-voltage - so countries with average supply voltages >230V would probably also be non-compliant).

Kind Regards, John

 

[winston1]

I read somewhere that France wanted to go to 240V but decided that such a large change would be too much of a strain on existing equipment so compromised on 230V. Having said that last year when I was there I measured the voltage at 235V.

 

[PBC_1966]

And let's face it, some places, such as rural Spain, are (or at least were a few years ago, perhaps it's changed) pretty notorious for supplies which drop well outside tolerances during peak demand: Nominal 220V supplies coming in at 180V not being at all unusual.

 

[JohnW2]

And let's face it, some places, such as rural Spain, are (or at least were a few years ago, perhaps it's changed) pretty notorious for supplies which drop well outside tolerances during peak demand: Nominal 220V supplies coming in at 180V not being at all unusual.

Last time I was in 'rural Spain', the supply voltage quite frequently fell to zero

Kind Regards, John

 

[PBC_1966]

Last time I was in 'rural Spain', the supply voltage quite frequently fell to zero

Just specify the supply as 220V +10%/-100% - No problem then!

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Then we can stop there. Harmonisation is a good thing.

If you want to make appliances which will operate over the whole range from the lowest permissible tolerance of 220V systems to the highest permissible tolerance of 240V systems, fine. But there was still absolutely no practical reason for changing the British supply specification from 240V +/-6% to 230V +10/-6% when (except as noted already for that odd volt-and-a-bit at the top end) it already lied entirely within that proposed 230V +/-10% range.

You do seem to have a staggering inability to get things at times.

If you want there to be a harmonised supply, with everybody having the same V±x range, in order that you may have a single market for appliances then everybody has to have a harmonised supply with the same V±x range. That our earlier V±x was pretty much the same as the proposed harmonised one was of no relevance - the point is that we all have to have the same one.

How does anyone feel about a worldwide "harmonized" supply specification of 180V +/-40% at 55Hz +/-10%?

Doesn't sound very practical.

And changing the specification on paper from 240V +/-6% to 230V +10/-6% did what specifically, other than provide the opportunity to claim that Britain had adopted the new European 230V standard?

Dear God.

That was the whole point of it. The thing you describe as "other than" is exactly what it was for!

But that is what the clock was based on (hence times before noon being ante meridian and those after it post meridian). So if we abandon that basic premise (and perhaps move to a 24-hour system entirely without a.m. & p.m. designations,

The 24-hour clock is something which all sensible people use already, particularly where it is important to avoid ambiguity, e.g. transportation timetables. For some reason, though, the 24-hour clock is something which the USA seems to struggle to understand.

why not just abandon the whole concept of time zones and have the whole world use one time? (Wouldn't that be the ideal "harmonized" time-keeping system?)

Why not indeed - it would be much simpler.