Is Plug-it Cord for Domino XL special?

[mino]

...
I'm sure that folks who have grown up with (and lived their whole lives with) that higher voltage most just become used to it.

Not really. IMO it is just the psychology of the FUD some people spread when trying to argue how "120V is superior for safety". For all practical purposes, it is not. It is also not inferior either. Just does not matter.

120V, 230V, 400V, all is the same as far as safety goes. All will pierce dry skin and all kill by over-loading the heart muscles. Yet closing a circuit between/across fingers on one hand will not cause a permanent injury).*)

*) closing betwen fingers - DO NOT TRY - what is meant that if one pole is one finger, other is other finger of same hand, AC voltages between about 50V-1000V **) work the same - it WILL hurth /the muscles will spasm/ but will not cause an injury if hand is removed fast. There is a differennt mechanism in play as compared to beyond 1kV where the voltage becomes sufficient at some point to cause actual electric burns.

**) actually between 100V-1500V or so, for the average skin, the official ranges are set lower for safety as the surface conductivity of skin is not the same

Over here 3-phase power at 380 (now raised formally to 400V) was the norm already before WW2. It is great for synchronous motors (no need for a starter). Is just a bigger number and people intuitively think more is more dangerous, but that is not so. Not until you get beyond 1000V or so.

 

[Coen]

The fires are started by bad connections and high currents. The higher the voltage, the lower the current.

Here aluminium is used up to the grid-company's fusebox in homes. Beyond that everything copper.
Medium voltage (

 

[mino]

The fires are started by bad connections and high currents. The higher the voltage, the lower the current.
...

This is not what I refer.

With aluminum wiring even on a super-lightly-loaded circuit the connection WILL eventually arc if not maintained *or* made such the connection is protected from air access. This is most easily seen in ceiling lights which will suddenly go dark, when opened the end of the aluminum connection is melted from arcing.

What happens is that eventually the Al oxidation layer completely closes the connection, once the switch is flipped again there is a mini-arc created which burns through the oxide layer temporarily. This is repeated until the material is completely destroyed at the connection and then light starts first blinking and later goes out completely. Or the user notices the burning smell from the connection box overheating from the continuous arcing. In our flat (1962) the connection boxes were ceramic, so it was common the issue was noticed only when the wire was melted away. These were scenarios with 100 W class loads on 2.5 mm AL wiring that was not touched for decades.

 

[Jim_in_PA]

Yes, sorry. I don't know how many times I have referred to US power as 110 and have someone "correct" me, even though it isn't the 120 they claim. Most people are running somewhere around 108.

With nearly no exceptions remaining after all these years, the power grid in the US at the home and (single phase) commercial level is 240/120v and that's what they get plus or minus 2-3 volts typically. Most people are not running somewhere around "108". If there is that kind of dip, there's a serious issue with the transformer they are being fed from or there is a significant brown-out situation due to weather related demand.

 

[Cheese]

With nearly no exceptions remaining after all these years, the power grid in the US at the home and (single phase) commercial level is 240/120v and that's what they get plus or minus 2-3 volts typically. Most people are not running somewhere around "108". If there is that kind of dip, there's a serious issue with the transformer they are being fed from or there is a significant brown-out situation due to weather related demand.

Ya I agree with Jim...If I remember correctly, the NEC stipulates a ±5% fluctuation in voltage in the US. So that gives a range of 114-126 volts. Several years ago, I needed to monitor the incoming voltage to the house so I used a Fluke multimeter with data logging capabilities and over a 5 day (Thursday thru Monday) period, the house voltage swing was less than ±2 volts and I dialed in the sampling rate to be once a minute so that was over 7000 datapoints.

 

[Crazyraceguy]

See, that's why I don't mess with electricity. I seem to remember that from somewhere though? Maybe a long time ago? I'm old enough to remember when receptacles were not polarized.

 

[Coen]

Yes, sorry. I don't know how many times I have referred to US power as 110 and have someone "correct" me, even though it isn't the 120 they claim. Most people are running somewhere around 108.

With nearly no exceptions remaining after all these years, the power grid in the US at the home and (single phase) commercial level is 240/120v and that's what they get plus or minus 2-3 volts typically. Most people are not running somewhere around "108". If there is that kind of dip, there's a serious issue with the transformer they are being fed from or there is a significant brown-out situation due to weather related demand.

Yeah, at the grid company consumer meter. The voltage sag inside the home is "on top" of that.

Mainland Europe went from 220 to 230, but there are still areas it's really just 220. At my parent's home it's usually ~222 no-load. At my sister's home... usually 242. The grid in the street where my parents live is from the 1960's probably. It's kinda junk. After some work at the transformer at the end of the street the PSC increased... to 380A. Draw 16A = sag 10V..

Some areas the adjusted the transformers, but now with PV feed-in... people complain about too high grid voltage.

 

[alltracman78]

DX700 is designed for the lower amp wire. So either type can be used with it.

I don't feel like digging back through and quoting, but a couple of things stuck out to me.

All the people without power from the hurricane (not tornado ), a large  portion of that area was damaged by flooding.
Part had catastrophic flooding that tore the ground apart, which would also have torn out buried power lines.
More areas were just inundated. The ground wasn't torn up, but an underground system would have been flooded (very few things are truly waterproof). Infrastructure on poles are (generally) above the water line, even large floods. Trees only knock down a small part of the whole. And the damage is easily identified and repaired. So the amount of total damage is most likely less.

Most of the US population (areas with high density-areas where most of the population lives) have 230 volt 3 phase running on the same pole system that carries their 120 volts. It's almost as susceptible to damage (mounted slightly higher on the pole) than the "regular" wires.
So our poles don't "just" carry 120 volt wires.

Buried infrastructure vs on poles is kind of like comparing a Tiger tank vs a Sherman.
One on one with an experienced crew a Tiger tank easily overmatches a Sherman (generalities here, for any military "experts").
However a Sherman is (was) much faster to build, took less material, much easier (faster) to learn to operate, easier to repair, more reliable, easier to transport, can travel over much smaller bridges, and easier to supply. And also easier to hide in combat.
All combine to make it a much more effective weapon in reality.

It's orders of magnitude more expensive to bury wires. It would take many incidents of damage and repair to equal the cost of burying everything (not to mention how large the US is compared to Western Europe). And that assumes absolutely no repairs or updates required of the buried wires in the same time frame.
Poles are susceptible to wind/tree damage, but much less susceptible to flooding. Wind/tree damage is usually more localized than flooding damage (underground). And much faster/cheaper to repair if there is damage.
It's also much easier to locate damage on poles. And have more space between the 3 phase, single phase, and phone/internet wires.

Poles definitely have their advantages.

 

[mino]

Agree on the poles part. Anywhere poles are feasible, they should be used. Underground cabling is a luxury, not a /functional/ improvement.

That said, any wiring that is put into ground is assumed to be in water. That is not a "if" "maybe" it is "will".

In other words, any underground cabling that will get damaged during a flood will be either wrongly installed one or mechanically damaaged one from a landslide,etc.

Does not mean that the grid will work. If grid breakers, fuse boxes, breakout boxes, etc. are flooded, then the local grid will be still offline. But it will not be due to cables getting some water around them.

 

[Coen]

Lots of cabling here is buried below groundwater level so the flooding isn't that much of a problem.

Need to raise the switchgear and transformers a bit, that is all.

When the soil get washed away; yes, there might be a problem. With poles, there is a guaranteed problem. But with poles you get the additional downtime from car crashes, lightning, trees falling etc.

As for Sherman vs Tiger; yes, great war time comparison. It's peace now and guess what; the Abrahams, Leopard and Challenger currently in service in western countries are the current equivalent of the Tiger, not of the Sherman.

 

[mino]

Lots of cabling here is buried below groundwater level so the flooding isn't that much of a problem.

Need to raise the switchgear and transformers a bit, that is all.

When the soil get washed away; yes, there might be a problem. With poles, there is a guaranteed problem. But with poles you get the additional downtime from car crashes, lightning, trees falling etc.

As for Sherman vs Tiger; yes, great war time comparison. It's peace now and guess what; the Abrahams, Leopard and Challenger currently in service in western countries are the current equivalent of the Tiger, not of the Sherman.

Yeah, I really do not like the these comparisons, very few people use them correctly. Shermans to Tigers would be like a Bradley (or M60, if you will) to Abrams M1A2 today. There is just no comparison, except both were armored vehicles and fought each other..

Nough OT.  [embarassed]

 

[alltracman78]

As for Sherman vs Tiger; yes, great war time comparison. It's peace now and guess what; the Abrahams, Leopard and Challenger currently in service in western countries are the current equivalent of the Tiger, not of the Sherman.

Yeah, I really do not like the these comparisons, very few people use them correctly. Shermans to Tigers would be like a Bradley (or M60, if you will) to Abrams M1A2 today. There is just no comparison, except both were armored vehicles and fought each other..

Nough OT.  [embarassed]

Tiger to Sherman was a bad comparison, you're right. I'm not sure why the tank comparison popped into my head.

As far as calling the M1A1/A2 (for simplicity the M1 [I differentiate because the actual M1 tank is a step down from the M1A1]) the Tiger in the comparison, absolutely not.
The Shermans and the Tigers were too close in ability, the Tigers slight advantages didn't offset all it's disadvantages, or it's unnecessary complexity.
The M1 (and Leopard/Challanger) are considerably better vehicles than their Russian counterparts. That's been proven on the field with the M1 the last 35 years. It's not even a question.
The Bradly is a completely different vehicle (APC, not a main battle tank) with a completely different purpose. Apples to oranges. And don't let those videos of the Bradlys beating up on the T90s fool you, you're not going to pull that against an M1.
As for the M60, which is 1.5 tank generations back, it's not even a fair comparison. Just the fact the M1 is more accurate on the move than the M60 was sitting still settles the question.
Go look up the video of a Leopard tank with a mug of beer on the MRS. The M1 has a very similar fire control system. And that was 40 years ago.....

 

[mino]

The Shermans and the Tigers were too close in ability, the Tigers slight advantages didn't offset all it's disadvantages, or it's unnecessary complexity.
...

This is my last post on this totally OT track.

A (1944-45) Sherman is a 35-ish ton vehicle with a middle-high-velocity 76mm gun.
A (1944-45) Tiger is a 65-ish ton vehicle with a high-velocity 88 mm gun.

I used the comparison for a reason, there is just none between these two. Other that both are combat vehicles.

Will not be dragged into the current tech discussion. I could have used a T72B3/T90 versus T55 comparison as well. Same result. The only point I was making is that the Bradley Armor (and armament) is about as much a match for an M1A2 as the Sherman was for the contemporary Tiger (II). And vice versa. As in, not at all. That the US did not really have anything better fielded does not change that.

 

[Coen]

Yeah I think the different interpretations give some weird conclusions.

As I read the original comparison; "Quantity won out over quality"  [wink]

 

[alltracman78]

While part of the "lesson" is quantity trumps quality ("quantity has it's own quality"), I think the bigger lesson is advantages on paper aren't necessarily as advantageous in real life (that was kind of my original point anyways).
Also, I don't think the quality difference was as large as some think (greater armor thickness and firepower don't = better quality by themselves). If it was the Tiger would have been more dominating.

The Shermans and the Tigers were too close in ability, the Tigers slight advantages didn't offset all it's disadvantages, or it's unnecessary complexity.
...

This is my last post on this totally OT track.

A (1944-45) Sherman is a 35-ish ton vehicle with a middle-high-velocity 76mm gun.
A (1944-45) Tiger is a 65-ish ton vehicle with a high-velocity 88 mm gun.

I used the comparison for a reason, there is just none between these two. Other that both are combat vehicles.

Will not be dragged into the current tech discussion. I could have used a T72B3/T90 versus T55 comparison as well. Same result. The only point I was making is that the Bradley Armor (and armament) is about as much a match for an M1A2 as the Sherman was for the contemporary Tiger (II). And vice versa. As in, not at all. That the US did not really have anything better fielded does not change that.

I don't know how much of this is related to language translation (not meant as an insult); your comparisons are still COMPLETELY off base.
The Tiger and the Sherman were contemporary tanks that frequently fought each other.
The Shermans did frequently beat the Tiger, even if it took more than one to do it.
On paper the Tiger massively outclassed the Sherman. The reality was much less so.

T72/90 vs T55 were completely different generation vehicles. Just like the M60 vs the M1.
Completely different comparison.

While the Bradley is a contemporary of the M1, the differences are much larger than the Tiger vs the Sherman. They're also designed for a different purpose, in fact in part the Bradley is designed to assist and complement the M1....
And, while they've never fought each other, it's highly doubtful the Bradleys would be as successful against the M1 as the Sherman was against the Tiger (I served with the M1 for years, so I can speak from a position of personal experience here). In fact the Bradleys greatest anti tank weapon (TOW) negates their primary advantage against the M1 (their mobility). While the M1 can shoot all day long while on the move, and ANY hit from the main gun, with any round, will absolutely obliterate the Bradley.

There is a specific reason the Tiger vs the Sherman comparison is used so often, and not Tiger vs any other smaller tank, or Tiger vs any other combat vehicle. Or other vehicles.
Tiger vs T34 would be a similar one however.

Oh, and the Sherman wasn't the most powerful US tank. Just the most common. There were several tanks the US fielded in WW2 that were larger and more powerful than the Sherman.

 

[Packard]

About 15 years ago I accidentally cut the power cord on my circular saw.  Instead of replacing the cord, I just added a male plug on the 15” or so of cord that remained.

I bought an extension cord and used it that way and never even considered replacing the original. I had three cords, a 12 foot, a 25 foot and a 50 foot.

I use a battery powered saw now.  I would have to go look for the one with the truncated cord.

But, it worked fine.  It was my “plug-it”.  If I had to do it again, I would shorten it enough so I couldn’t accidentally cut it again.

Which reminds me that I have an extension cord waiting for a female plug end.