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

[stillp]

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also be free to sell within the U.K. without having to meet EU regulations (assuming that a U.K. removed from the EU repealed all legislation requiring compliance with EU directives).

But then they'd be making a multiplicity of products to meet differing national standards, just like they had to do before the creation of the EEA.

 

[stillp]

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also be free to sell within the U.K. without having to meet EU regulations (assuming that a U.K. removed from the EU repealed all legislation requiring compliance with EU directives).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?

We are not just dictated to by the EU. We are part of a 'club', which makes, in a democratic way, rules that apply across all members of that club.

 

[JohnW2]

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

There are many good reasons for there being a single standard in relation to the range of permitted supply voltages. On the other hand, there is absolutely no reason I can think of for arbitrarily selecting some figure within that range and declaring it as the 'nominal' voltage.

Kind Regards, John

 

[PBC_1966]

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.

The need for a single supply standard is the need for there to be a single supply standard?

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.

Not at all, which is exactly the point. A supply with a voltage range A satisfies the requirement of having a supply of range B if range A is a subset of range B. So there's absolutely no need to respecify the supply from range A to range B, and doing so actually then permits the DNO's to become more lax with the regulation if it suits them. How is that a good thing?

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.

Not a claim I've made.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

There are many good reasons for there being a single standard in relation to the range of permitted supply voltages. On the other hand, there is absolutely no reason I can think of for arbitrarily selecting some figure within that range and declaring it as the 'nominal' voltage.

That's what nominal means.

And it's what we have always done. 240V was a nominal value, just like 230V is.

It matters in the sense that the way in which is is done implies that 'nominal voltages' (without the tolerances, which turns them into a range) actually 'mean something' - which they don't (unless/until we eventually harmonise the actual supply voltages to correspond roughly with the arbitrary 'nominal' ones).

That's not an implication.

It is a faulty inference drawn by you and Winston.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

The need for a single supply standard is the need for there to be a single supply standard?

Kerr-ching. At last.

Not at all, which is exactly the point. A supply with a voltage range A satisfies the requirement of having a supply of range B if range A is a subset of range B. So there's absolutely no need to respecify the supply from range A to range B, and doing so actually then permits the DNO's to become more lax with the regulation if it suits them. How is that a good thing?

There's absolutely no reason to demand that British supply standards be relaxed so that the lower permissible limit matches that for the equiment.

Nobody is demanding that British supply standards be relaxed. Can you not see 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.

Not a claim I've made.

I didn't say it was a claim you made, only that it was similarly fatuous.

 

[JohnW2]

On the other hand, there is absolutely no reason I can think of for arbitrarily selecting some figure within that range and declaring it as the 'nominal' voltage.

That's what nominal means.

And the point/usefulness of picking an arbitrary numerical value from within the declared range of permitted voltages and calling it the 'nominal voltage' is?

If you want a 'nominal' descriptor then, unless it is part of a plan to get actual average supply voltages close to 230V, in what way is "230V" a more appropriate descriptor than would be "240V" - or, indeed, 235V (roughly the middle of the current UK permitted range)?

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

And the point/usefulness of picking an arbitrary numerical value from within the declared range of permitted voltages and calling it the 'nominal voltage' is?

For doing calculations.

For writing specifications.

If you want a 'nominal' descriptor then, unless it is part of a plan to get actual average supply voltages close to 230V, in what way is "230V" a more appropriate descriptor than would be "240V" - or, indeed, 235V (roughly the middle of the current UK permitted range)?

If the range is to be 207V - 253V, then 230V ± 10% seems far more appropriate than 240V +6%-13% or 235V +8%-12%.

Nobody is demanding that we have to make any changes to our LV infrastructure.

 

[winston1]

And the point/usefulness of picking an arbitrary numerical value from within the declared range of permitted voltages and calling it the 'nominal voltage' is?

For doing calculations.

For writing specifications.

Absolute madness. You do the calculations using the voltage you are likely to get not some arbitrary value chosen by muppets. That voltage is 240 volts and has been for years.

 

[JohnW2]

And the point/usefulness of picking an arbitrary numerical value from within the declared range of permitted voltages and calling it the 'nominal voltage' is?

For doing calculations.

As I've written countless times in the last few days, many of the calculations we do can only be undertaken 'safely' using the 'worst case scenario' (minimum or maximum permitted supply voltage, as appropriate) - something which BS7671 has only just started to (partially) realise.

If the range is to be 207V - 253V, then 230V ± 10% seems far more appropriate than 240V +6%-13% or 235V +8%-12%.

Yep, if we are to have a numerical 'nominal voltage' then the middle of the permitted range seems to be as 'logical' as anything else. However, as I understand it, 207V - 253V as a universal 'permitted range' is gradually disappearing over the horizon, and maybe none of us will still be around if/when it happens in the UK.

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

Absolute madness. You do the calculations using the voltage you are likely to get not some arbitrary value chosen by muppets. That voltage is 240 volts and has been for years.

No - as I keep saying, for most calculations one should really use the minimum or maximum (as appropriate) supply voltage, not 230V, 240V or the voltage "one is likely to get" - to use the latter is merely a type of gambling (usually on behalf of an unsuspecting householder).

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Absolute madness. You do the calculations using the voltage you are likely to get not some arbitrary value chosen by muppets. That voltage is 240 volts and has been for years.

I did not.

 

[PBC_1966]

The need for a single supply standard is the need for there to be a single supply standard?

Kerr-ching. At last.

I give up. If you can't see that "Because we need it" is not a satisfactory answer to the question "Why do we need a single supply standard?" then I think you must just be arguing for it for the sake of arguing.

Nobody is demanding that British supply standards be relaxed. Can you not see that?

For a couple of decades prior to 1995 Britain had a supply standard which required the electricity board/DNO to deliver a supply of 225.6 to 254.4 volts. The change in 1995 now requires only that the DNO delivers something between 216.2 & 253 volts. If the proposal to adopt 230V +/-10% ever gets implemented, the DNO would have an obligation only to ensure that the voltage delivered is somewhere between 207 & 253 volts.

Pre-1995: 254.4 - 225.6 = 28.8V (240V +/-6%)

From 1995: 253.0 - 216.2 = 36.8V (equivalent to 234.6V +/-7.8%)

Future? 253.0 - 207.0 = 46.0V (230V +/-10%)

How was the 1995 change not a relaxation of the supply standard when it permitted a wider variation, by absolute voltage range or by percentage variation from mid-point?

How would a future change to 230V +/-10% not be a further relaxation of the supply standard when it would permit a wider variation still, by absolute voltage range or percentage?

I didn't say it was a claim you made, only that it was similarly fatuous.

Fair enough.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I give up.

Good.

Because if you can't see that "Because we need it" is a satisfactory answer to the question "Why do we need a single supply standard?" then I think you must just be arguing against it for the sake of arguing.

For a couple of decades prior to 1995 Britain had a supply standard which required the electricity board/DNO to deliver a supply of 225.6 to 254.4 volts. The change in 1995 now requires only that the DNO delivers something between 216.2 & 253 volts. If the proposal to adopt 230V +/-10% ever gets implemented, the DNO would have an obligation only to ensure that the voltage delivered is somewhere between 207 & 253 volts.

The DNOs would have an obligation only to ensure that the voltage delivered is somewhere between 207 & 253 volts if the ESQCR were changed to allow those limits.

Nobody is demanding/dictating that such a change to the ESQCR be made.

 

[PBC_1966]

The DNOs would have an obligation only to ensure that the voltage delivered is somewhere between 207 & 253 volts if the ESQCR were changed to allow those limits.

Given that the legislation has already changed from 240V +/-6% to 230V +10/-6%, what makes you think it would not be changed again if the proposal to adopt 230V +/-10% went ahead? In fact, as the legislation is setting out the legal requirements for the supply standard, how could 230V +/-10% actually be adopted as an official supply standard without the legislation changing again?

And what of the legislative change which already took place on January 1, 1995?