If the UK leaves the EU, will the nominal voltage be changed back to 240v?

[stillp]

You could be right - I CBA to check.

If UK (possibly excluding Scotland) leaves the EU but wishes to be able to import and export goods and services, and to travel in and out without much hindrance, then we will have to continue to follow EU rules in many respects.

Let's clarify that: It would be to import and export goods and services to and from other EU countries.

But getting out of the EU would leave the U.K. in a much better position to trade with the rest of the world, since it would no longer be bound by the EU rules which dictate how the U.K. must trade with non-EU countries as well.

Many other countries expect compliance of goods and services with EC Directives.

 

[EFLImpudence]

Scotland voted to remain part of the UK and because of which should relinquish its separate parliament - unless England can have one which would be silly.

 

[JohnW2]

Given Un=230, in what sense is [230 - (10% of 230) - (5% of 230)] 'not quite the same' as [230 - (15% of 230)]?

Because the 5% is within the installation, and is therefore 5% of 207.

That's not what Appendix 4 of BS7671 says. It says that the 5% 'guideline' VD limit is "expressed with respect to the nominal voltage of the installation".

Kind Regards, John

 

[PBC_1966]

Many other countries expect compliance of goods and services with EC Directives.

And many others do not. Manufacturers would be perfectly free to manufacture goods which meet EU regulations for sale to places which require such and to manufacture them to other standards which might not meet EU regulations for other countries, just as they made things for various standards before the U.K. ever joined what was then the EEC. But they'd also be free to sell within the U.K. without having to meet EU regulations (assuming that a U.K. removed from the EU repealed all legislation requiring compliance with EU directives).

 

[JohnW2]

Well obviously because if you start with too high a value at 230V then at maximum voltage of 253V it is going to be even worse.

You seem to be postulating a theory that, despite 433.1.1, it's OK to have a current of In + 10% flowing through an MCB ....

... 230V plus 10% = current increase of 10%. For 9.2kW @ 230V = 40A plus 10% = 44A. An MCB shall not trip at 113% of In. For In of 40A plus 13% = 45.2A.

I don't think the fact that I1 is 13% greater than In really allows one to 'overload' an MCB up to that extent! 433.1.1 talks (explicitly) only of In, not I1.

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

It's not overloading the MCB. It is following the regulations.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Which is also what I said earlier: There is no reason for the change other than to be able to say that the U.K. now shares some Europe-wide standard.

A standard which cannot exist unless it is shared Europe-wide.

You don't seem to be disagreeing with that but seem to think it a desirable end in itself, and not the "solution" to a non-existent "problem."

The problem was not non-existent - different countries within Europe had different supply voltage standards.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

But getting out of the EU would leave the U.K. in a much better position to trade with the rest of the world, since it would no longer be bound by the EU rules which dictate how the U.K. must trade with non-EU countries as well.

You really have gone native, haven't you.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

What prevents the piece of equipment with required voltage range B from working quite satisfactorily and safely when connected to a supply with a guaranteed voltage range A?

You are missing the point, again.

Place A and Place B should have the same supply standard.

 

[JohnW2]

It's not overloading the MCB. It is following the regulations.

I suppose both of those points are a a matter of opinion....

How do you define 'overloading' an MCB? Does 'deliberately' subjecting it to an 'in normal service' current in excess of its In not count?

Whether it is 'following the regulations' or 'violating the regulations' depends upon what you regard as 'design current' - whether the actual current that you (the designer) believe will (or may) be be drawn in service, or a 'virtual' figure calculated on the basis of assumptions which may not be applicable.

Kind Regards, John

 

[JBR]

Many other countries expect compliance of goods and services with EC Directives.

And many others do not. Manufacturers would be perfectly free to manufacture goods which meet EU regulations for sale to places which require such and to manufacture them to other standards which might not meet EU regulations for other countries, just as they made things for various standards before the U.K. ever joined what was then the EEC. But they'd also be free to sell within the U.K. without having to meet EU regulations (assuming that a U.K. removed from the EU repealed all legislation requiring compliance with EU directives).

I completely agree and look forward to our regaining our independence. I feel that we are shackled in many ways, not just with regard to electricity supplies, by the EU dictators and that we are perfectly capable of working independently with a world market. We did it successfully for many years, didn't we?

 

[PBC_1966]

A standard which cannot exist unless it is shared Europe-wide.

O.K., across parts of Europe that have some sound reason for wanting to adopt it then.

The problem was not non-existent - different countries within Europe had different supply voltage standards.

And? At the moment they still do, other than sharing that new nominal 230V figure.

You are missing the point, again.

Place A and Place B should have the same supply standard.

Why?

 

[ban-all-sheds]

O.K., across parts of Europe that have some sound reason for wanting to adopt it then.

That'll be all of Europe, then.

The problem was not non-existent - different countries within Europe had different supply voltage standards.

And?

At the moment they still do, other than sharing that new nominal 230V figure.

You're missing the point, again.

That sharing is not an "other than" to be dismissed, it's part and parcel of the process of getting a harmonised supply voltage standard.

Why?

Because obviously it would be nice to have a single, standard system.

 

[PBC_1966]

You're missing the point, again.

That sharing is not an "other than" to be dismissed, it's part and parcel of the process of getting a harmonised supply voltage standard.

I think you're the one missing the point: What need is there for such a thing (in terms of both declared nominal voltage and tolerance) when the U.K.'s existing supply standard was already perfectly adequate for the intended utilization standard?

If the existing supply standard already satisfies the proposed requirements for equipment, there's absolutely no need to change it. The equipment will work down to a lower limit of 207V, the existing supply works down to a low limit of 225V (or 216V, whichever you like). So the equipment will be happy. There's absolutely no reason to demand that British supply standards be relaxed so that the lower permissible limit matches that for the equiment. Can you really not see that? In fact given that older equipment may not have been designed to operate down to such low levels, there's every reason not to allow the British supply standard to be relaxed (or further relaxed, I should say, as it's already happened).

 

[ban-all-sheds]

You're missing the point, again.

That sharing is not an "other than" to be dismissed, it's part and parcel of the process of getting a harmonised supply voltage standard.

I think you're the one missing the point: What need is there for such a thing (in terms of both declared nominal voltage and tolerance) when the U.K.'s existing supply standard was already perfectly adequate for the intended utilization standard?

The need for there to be a single standard.

There's absolutely no reason to demand that British supply standards be relaxed so that the lower permissible limit matches that for the equiment. Can you really not see that?

There is every reason for there to be a single standard. Can you really not see that?

Your argument seems to be that if the standard requires 230V ± 10% that that equates to a demand that no supply should be more tightly regulated than that. Rather similar to the fatuous claim that if a standard requires an accessory to be able to cope with 20A it's actually forbidding people from making one which can cope with more. If you invented a magic gizmo which meant that every consumer always got exactly 240V you'd probably start claiming that "Europe" was making your device illegal.