|
Home > Archive > Electrical Engineering > May 2007 > Another power line incedent video
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Another power line incedent video
|
|
| JohnR66 2007-05-17, 8:25 pm |
| A tree trimmer puts a branch on a line that causes a sustained arc that
leads to fallen lines and more arcing.
What is amazing, this goes on for hours stopping and starting perhaps from
automatic protective equipment. The utility can't turn this off? Heavy fault
currents probably find their way down the feeders to homes causing smoke and
small fires and the gutters to spark.
Incredible video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dmy9CHCewtg
Why can't the utility shut this down?
John
| |
| phil-news-nospam@ipal.net 2007-05-18, 3:25 am |
| On Thu, 17 May 2007 23:11:30 GMT JohnR66 <nospam@att.net> wrote:
| A tree trimmer puts a branch on a line that causes a sustained arc that
| leads to fallen lines and more arcing.
| What is amazing, this goes on for hours stopping and starting perhaps from
| automatic protective equipment. The utility can't turn this off? Heavy fault
| currents probably find their way down the feeders to homes causing smoke and
| small fires and the gutters to spark.
| Incredible video:
| http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dmy9CHCewtg
| Why can't the utility shut this down?
| John
You got an MPEG or WMV format file of this?
--
|---------------------------------------/----------------------------------|
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (ka9wgn.ham.org) / Do not send to the address below |
| first name lower case at ipal.net / spamtrap-2007-05-17-2208@ipal.net |
|------------------------------------/-------------------------------------|
| |
| Long Ranger 2007-05-18, 3:25 am |
|
"JohnR66" <nospam@att.net> wrote in message
news:Ci53i.1505$Sa4.114@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>A tree trimmer puts a branch on a line that causes a sustained arc that
>leads to fallen lines and more arcing.
> What is amazing, this goes on for hours stopping and starting perhaps from
> automatic protective equipment. The utility can't turn this off? Heavy
> fault currents probably find their way down the feeders to homes causing
> smoke and small fires and the gutters to spark.
> Incredible video:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dmy9CHCewtg
> Why can't the utility shut this down?
> John
>I used to work in a place where this clip was part of a safety film. It
>really brings home how vulnerable your home is if the primary and secondary
>ever cross. There is a nice path throughout the structure for high voltage
>to wreak all kinds of mischief. With the right soil conditions, I could
>even see a subterranean path or two that might eventually make it through.
>Those films were pretty good for waking us up to the possibilities for
>danger in our field. It is where I first pondered "step voltage", and that
>was definitely an eye opener.
| |
| JohnR66 2007-05-18, 9:25 am |
| <phil-news-nospam@ipal.net> wrote in message
news:f2j5cj116tp@news4.newsguy.com...
> On Thu, 17 May 2007 23:11:30 GMT JohnR66 <nospam@att.net> wrote:
>
> | A tree trimmer puts a branch on a line that causes a sustained arc that
> | leads to fallen lines and more arcing.
> | What is amazing, this goes on for hours stopping and starting perhaps
> from
> | automatic protective equipment. The utility can't turn this off? Heavy
> fault
> | currents probably find their way down the feeders to homes causing smoke
> and
> | small fires and the gutters to spark.
> | Incredible video:
> | http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dmy9CHCewtg
> | Why can't the utility shut this down?
> | John
>
> You got an MPEG or WMV format file of this?
>
> --
> |---------------------------------------/----------------------------------|
> | Phil Howard KA9WGN (ka9wgn.ham.org) / Do not send to the address below
> |
> | first name lower case at ipal.net / spamtrap-2007-05-17-2208@ipal.net
> |
> |------------------------------------/-------------------------------------|
Sorry, I have no file, just the Youtube link.
I can't believe the massive fault currents available to burn up the feeders
to all these houses at once!
John
| |
| Michael Moroney 2007-05-18, 1:25 pm |
| "Long Ranger" <worpylorp@mindspring.com> writes:
[color=darkred]
My father has a summer cottage. One winter, the top of a transformer pole
broke off and the distribution wiring contacted the feeders. Two cottages
supplied by that transformer burned to the ground. My father's place
was also fed by that same transformer but suffered no damage, most likely
because he always throws the main breaker when closing the place up for
the winter.
That distribution system there is quite old - either 4800V or 7200V
line-line, with delta connected primaries. The top of that pole was
loaded with carpenter ants.
| |
| phil-news-nospam@ipal.net 2007-05-18, 1:25 pm |
| On Fri, 18 May 2007 15:23:13 +0000 (UTC) Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote:
| My father has a summer cottage. One winter, the top of a transformer pole
| broke off and the distribution wiring contacted the feeders. Two cottages
| supplied by that transformer burned to the ground. My father's place
| was also fed by that same transformer but suffered no damage, most likely
| because he always throws the main breaker when closing the place up for
| the winter.
It could still have damaged the breaker and the wiring leading in to it.
I did see a video on TV once of a house fire with a downed service drop to
it. When the power company guy came to cut off the service so the firemen
could douse the flames safely, he ended up getting quite a shock from the
triplex when he picked it up from the ground. Fortunately he survived due
to probably the combination of the triplex insulation and his LV gloves.
But he was pretty much staggering back after it hit him. The video also
showed some kind of arcing along the wire, but I don't know that that was
not news media touch up. Apparently there was a primary to secondary fault
inside the transformer that caused this and was not apparent to the lineman
that tried to cut it off.
--
|---------------------------------------/----------------------------------|
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (ka9wgn.ham.org) / Do not send to the address below |
| first name lower case at ipal.net / spamtrap-2007-05-18-1109@ipal.net |
|------------------------------------/-------------------------------------|
| |
| Michael Moroney 2007-05-18, 5:25 pm |
| phil-news-nospam@ipal.net writes:
>On Fri, 18 May 2007 15:23:13 +0000 (UTC) Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote:
>| My father has a summer cottage. One winter, the top of a transformer pole
>| broke off and the distribution wiring contacted the feeders. Two cottages
>| supplied by that transformer burned to the ground. My father's place
>| was also fed by that same transformer but suffered no damage, most likely
>| because he always throws the main breaker when closing the place up for
>| the winter.
>It could still have damaged the breaker and the wiring leading in to it.
I don't disagree, however this happened 10-15 years ago, and the wiring
and main breaker work fine (at least as a switch).
>I did see a video on TV once of a house fire with a downed service drop to
>it. When the power company guy came to cut off the service so the firemen
>could douse the flames safely, he ended up getting quite a shock from the
>triplex when he picked it up from the ground. Fortunately he survived due
>to probably the combination of the triplex insulation and his LV gloves.
>But he was pretty much staggering back after it hit him. The video also
>showed some kind of arcing along the wire, but I don't know that that was
>not news media touch up. Apparently there was a primary to secondary fault
>inside the transformer that caused this and was not apparent to the lineman
>that tried to cut it off.
I had one experience with a step charge: I was walking home after a
windstorm along a street, which had a cop blocking the far end. I noticed
a downed powerline on the ground buzzing quietly across the street from
where I was walking. I noticed a tingling in my legs. When I realized
what was happening, I turned around to go back the way I came, making sure
to take very small steps. The cop at the far end was really blocking
traffic from coming toward me, and there should have been another one at
the end of the street I started down.
| |
| phil-news-nospam@ipal.net 2007-05-20, 3:25 am |
| On Fri, 18 May 2007 21:48:17 +0000 (UTC) Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote:
| phil-news-nospam@ipal.net writes:
|
|>On Fri, 18 May 2007 15:23:13 +0000 (UTC) Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote:
|
| I had one experience with a step charge: I was walking home after a
| windstorm along a street, which had a cop blocking the far end. I noticed
| a downed powerline on the ground buzzing quietly across the street from
| where I was walking. I noticed a tingling in my legs. When I realized
| what was happening, I turned around to go back the way I came, making sure
| to take very small steps. The cop at the far end was really blocking
| traffic from coming toward me, and there should have been another one at
| the end of the street I started down.
I came across something somewhat like that (a cop was there, too). I didn't
notice any step potential, but I did notice the cop was a bit too close to
the downed line which at that point wasn't really doing anything. I warned
him about it and convinced him to back away from it some more. After a few
minutes while giving him a hand taping off the area, suddenly the downed
line starts to arc and smolder, then a loud buzz, then a boom with sparks
everywhere. The look on his face I will remember forever.
I have no idea how that line came down. There hadn't been any bad weather
nor was there an accident there.
--
|---------------------------------------/----------------------------------|
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (ka9wgn.ham.org) / Do not send to the address below |
| first name lower case at ipal.net / spamtrap-2007-05-20-0056@ipal.net |
|------------------------------------/-------------------------------------|
| |
| J. B. Wood 2007-05-21, 1:25 pm |
| In article <f2kgd1$rtp$1@pcls4.std.com>, moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com
(Michael Moroney) wrote:
> My father has a summer cottage. One winter, the top of a transformer pole
> broke off and the distribution wiring contacted the feeders. Two cottages
> supplied by that transformer burned to the ground. My father's place
> was also fed by that same transformer but suffered no damage, most likely
> because he always throws the main breaker when closing the place up for
> the winter.
Hello, and assuming the usual multi-grounded neutral distribution system,
that's another good reason to have the neutral solidly tied to earth
ground at the service entrance. Not perfect but it helps. Sincerely,
John Wood (Code 5550) e-mail: wood@itd.nrl.navy.mil
Naval Research Laboratory
4555 Overlook Avenue, SW
Washington, DC 20375-5337
| |
| phil-news-nospam@ipal.net 2007-05-21, 8:25 pm |
| On Mon, 21 May 2007 11:32:04 -0400 J. B. Wood <wood@itd.nrl.navy.mil> wrote:
| In article <f2kgd1$rtp$1@pcls4.std.com>, moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com
| (Michael Moroney) wrote:
|
|> My father has a summer cottage. One winter, the top of a transformer pole
|> broke off and the distribution wiring contacted the feeders. Two cottages
|> supplied by that transformer burned to the ground. My father's place
|> was also fed by that same transformer but suffered no damage, most likely
|> because he always throws the main breaker when closing the place up for
|> the winter.
|
| Hello, and assuming the usual multi-grounded neutral distribution system,
| that's another good reason to have the neutral solidly tied to earth
| ground at the service entrance. Not perfect but it helps. Sincerely,
And to not have the neutral tied metallically to the service drop and
especially not tied to the MV distribution neutral.
Where do you think the power goes when the MV hot touches the MV neutral?
Does it take the shortest path? No, it takes all paths. One of them is
through the service drop. At least a very well grounded neutral at the
service drop will help. But isolation would help even more, as long as
the isolation can hold up to distribution medium voltage. And a MV->LV
transformer should have that ability to withstand MV. But for reasons of
lightning protection, utilities cross MV neutral to LV neutral, increasing
the exposure of service drops to distribution voltage. Of course if a
MV hot touches the LV network, isolation at the pole transformer won't
help.
--
|---------------------------------------/----------------------------------|
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (ka9wgn.ham.org) / Do not send to the address below |
| first name lower case at ipal.net / spamtrap-2007-05-21-2009@ipal.net |
|------------------------------------/-------------------------------------|
| |
| Beachcomber 2007-05-22, 9:25 am |
|
>Where do you think the power goes when the MV hot touches the MV neutral?
>Does it take the shortest path? No, it takes all paths. One of them is
>through the service drop. At least a very well grounded neutral at the
>service drop will help. But isolation would help even more, as long as
>the isolation can hold up to distribution medium voltage. And a MV->LV
>transformer should have that ability to withstand MV. But for reasons of
>lightning protection, utilities cross MV neutral to LV neutral, increasing
>the exposure of service drops to distribution voltage. Of course if a
>MV hot touches the LV network, isolation at the pole transformer won't
>help.
>
I understand that there are countries where the primaries of the
distribution transformer are not connected to the ground/earth in any
way (from the perspective of the customers ground). This is not
necessarily a 'better' or safer system. There are complex trade-offs
involved and there are a lot of good reasons (for increased and other
reasons) for making sure that at least one primary lead of that
transformer is earthed.
In the USA, there is a special case exception in rural areas where
there are problems with stray voltage traveling through the earth in
farm situations. One solution is to use a special neutral isolator to
keep the secondary neutral/ground/earth disconnected from the primary
ground unless the voltage difference reaches a certain threshold, in
which case the bond is re-established.
Not everybody does it that way. France is one such country with the
TT Earthing Scheme. In other words, the power company does not supply
any grounds to the customer on their distribution lines. The customer
is responsible for providing their own local earth connection that is
not connected to the larger distribution network. For safety, an RCD
(Residual Current Device) is required for such installations. An RCD
is similar to what we know in America as a GFI or ground-fault
interrupter. However it is not exactly the same. Typically, an RCD
is set to trip on a ground fault with a greater current than the
typical GFI 5ma threshold and also it contains complex timing circuits
and often covers more than just one circuit.
In my opinion, the North American scheme gives several advantages when
safety is concerned as you have the following unique features when
compared to the typical Euro Systems that use the RCDs.
1. Individual circuits can be protected by inexpensive outlet-type
GFI's or slightly more expensive breaker GFI's. As mentioned
previously, RCD's are expensive and complex.
2. Unlike a typical RCD installation, the whole house is not plunged
into darkness should a single GFI trip due to a real fault or from
testing.
3. In the North American System, 240 V. is available (via the split
phase wiring scheme) for the larger appliances that need it (range,
dryer, large air conditioner). However, at no point is any voltage
inside the house higher than the nominal 125 volts to ground.
4. Bathrooms are arguably safer and more convenient to wire
electrically. You don't need to worry about 240V wiring near the sink.
Light switches can be conveniently mounted on the wall (instead of
using pull chains), you don't need to install isolation transformers
as they do in the UK for shavers. Outlets don't need to have switches
on them and because of the lower voltage, you have less paranoia about
bonding everything together in the bathroom. Hair dryers can be
safely plugged into convenient bathroom outlets protected by GFI's,
etc.
I've seen some of the wiring in France and I'm not sure what they did
before RCD's became widely used. Did they just not care if anything
was grounded? I'll bet it wasn't all that safe.
I'm old enough to remember the days in the USA (late 1950s and early
1960s) when we switched to plugs and outlets with 2 prongs to 3
prongs). The electrical system became a lot safer, as a result,
particularly for users of portable power tools. Double insulated
appliances and the later GFI requirements provided further safety
improvements.
Beachcomber
| |
| The Great Attractor 2007-05-22, 9:25 am |
| On Tue, 22 May 2007 08:39:23 GMT, invalid@notreal.none (Beachcomber)
wrote:
>
>
>I understand that there are countries where the primaries of the
>distribution transformer are not connected to the ground/earth in any
>way (from the perspective of the customers ground). This is not
>necessarily a 'better' or safer system. There are complex trade-offs
>involved and there are a lot of good reasons (for increased and other
>reasons) for making sure that at least one primary lead of that
>transformer is earthed.
>
>In the USA, there is a special case exception in rural areas where
>there are problems with stray voltage traveling through the earth in
>farm situations. One solution is to use a special neutral isolator to
>keep the secondary neutral/ground/earth disconnected from the primary
>ground unless the voltage difference reaches a certain threshold, in
>which case the bond is re-established.
>
>Not everybody does it that way. France is one such country with the
>TT Earthing Scheme. In other words, the power company does not supply
>any grounds to the customer on their distribution lines. The customer
>is responsible for providing their own local earth connection that is
>not connected to the larger distribution network. For safety, an RCD
>(Residual Current Device) is required for such installations. An RCD
>is similar to what we know in America as a GFI or ground-fault
>interrupter. However it is not exactly the same. Typically, an RCD
>is set to trip on a ground fault with a greater current than the
>typical GFI 5ma threshold and also it contains complex timing circuits
>and often covers more than just one circuit.
>
>In my opinion, the North American scheme gives several advantages when
>safety is concerned as you have the following unique features when
>compared to the typical Euro Systems that use the RCDs.
>
>1. Individual circuits can be protected by inexpensive outlet-type
>GFI's or slightly more expensive breaker GFI's. As mentioned
>previously, RCD's are expensive and complex.
>
>2. Unlike a typical RCD installation, the whole house is not plunged
>into darkness should a single GFI trip due to a real fault or from
>testing.
>
>3. In the North American System, 240 V. is available (via the split
>phase wiring scheme) for the larger appliances that need it (range,
>dryer, large air conditioner). However, at no point is any voltage
>inside the house higher than the nominal 125 volts to ground.
>
>4. Bathrooms are arguably safer and more convenient to wire
>electrically. You don't need to worry about 240V wiring near the sink.
>Light switches can be conveniently mounted on the wall (instead of
>using pull chains), you don't need to install isolation transformers
>as they do in the UK for shavers. Outlets don't need to have switches
>on them and because of the lower voltage, you have less paranoia about
>bonding everything together in the bathroom. Hair dryers can be
>safely plugged into convenient bathroom outlets protected by GFI's,
>etc.
>
>I've seen some of the wiring in France and I'm not sure what they did
>before RCD's became widely used. Did they just not care if anything
>was grounded? I'll bet it wasn't all that safe.
>
>I'm old enough to remember the days in the USA (late 1950s and early
>1960s) when we switched to plugs and outlets with 2 prongs to 3
>prongs). The electrical system became a lot safer, as a result,
>particularly for users of portable power tools. Double insulated
>appliances and the later GFI requirements provided further safety
>improvements.
>
>Beachcomber
I can still remember using my dad's old metal case, two prong,
non-polarized drill motor in the garage in bare feet. Only did that
once! Should one happen to plug it in the wrong way, one gets more than
drilling action. I guess I am lucky I am still here. :-]
| |
| J. B. Wood 2007-05-22, 9:25 am |
| In article <f2tg99421rk@news5.newsguy.com>, phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote:
> And to not have the neutral tied metallically to the service drop and
> especially not tied to the MV distribution neutral.
>
> Where do you think the power goes when the MV hot touches the MV neutral?
> Does it take the shortest path? No, it takes all paths. One of them is
> through the service drop. At least a very well grounded neutral at the
> service drop will help. But isolation would help even more, as long as
> the isolation can hold up to distribution medium voltage.
Hello, and I think it's more important in this scenario to have the
neutral properly earthed at the service entrance. Any floating conductor
hot with respect to earth ground (including metallic water pipes, etc)
presents a shock hazard that exists both internal and external to the
building. If a 7200 MV wire should contact a LV service entrance wire one
hopes that fault current is either conducted to ground (accompanied by
tripping of the MV fuse) via the grounded neutral (at the pole and/or
service entrance) or a building internal LV distribution circuit
breaker/fuse is blown (MV wire touches LV "hot" wire rather than neutral.)
The purpose for MV multi-grounded neutral distribution systems is not
safety (other than lightning protection); it is to provide for rapid
operation of over-current protection devices under "hot"
conductor-to-earth fault conditions and facilitate timely fault location
and repair. This helps stabilize system voltages by not having leaky
current faults (conductors touching tree branches, etc) that can
accumulate over a period of time. In a few locales (e.g. desert areas with
few trees in western U.S.) where this is not an issue MV distribution is
done sans neutral and the cost of stringing an additional conductor is
avoided. In those systems MV-to-LV transformers are connected
line-to-line rather than the usual line-to-neutral.
Of course intentionally earthing one side of a voltage source makes the
other side "hot" and introduces an electrical hazard that must be dealt
with. Sincerely,
John Wood (Code 5550) e-mail: wood@itd.nrl.navy.mil
Naval Research Laboratory
4555 Overlook Avenue, SW
Washington, DC 20375-5337
| |
| phil-news-nospam@ipal.net 2007-05-22, 9:25 am |
| On Tue, 22 May 2007 08:39:23 GMT Beachcomber <invalid@notreal.none> wrote:
| I understand that there are countries where the primaries of the
| distribution transformer are not connected to the ground/earth in any
| way (from the perspective of the customers ground). This is not
| necessarily a 'better' or safer system. There are complex trade-offs
| involved and there are a lot of good reasons (for increased and other
| reasons) for making sure that at least one primary lead of that
| transformer is earthed.
Being earthed is one thing. Connecting primary and secondary neutrals
is another.
| In the USA, there is a special case exception in rural areas where
| there are problems with stray voltage traveling through the earth in
| farm situations. One solution is to use a special neutral isolator to
| keep the secondary neutral/ground/earth disconnected from the primary
| ground unless the voltage difference reaches a certain threshold, in
| which case the bond is re-established.
So are you saying stray voltage never happens anywhere else by in rural
areas? How clever of those electrons to recognize that.
| Not everybody does it that way. France is one such country with the
| TT Earthing Scheme. In other words, the power company does not supply
| any grounds to the customer on their distribution lines. The customer
| is responsible for providing their own local earth connection that is
| not connected to the larger distribution network. For safety, an RCD
| (Residual Current Device) is required for such installations. An RCD
| is similar to what we know in America as a GFI or ground-fault
| interrupter. However it is not exactly the same. Typically, an RCD
| is set to trip on a ground fault with a greater current than the
| typical GFI 5ma threshold and also it contains complex timing circuits
| and often covers more than just one circuit.
In many countries, an RCD main is required. I've seen the requirements
of such for Japan.
|
| In my opinion, the North American scheme gives several advantages when
| safety is concerned as you have the following unique features when
| compared to the typical Euro Systems that use the RCDs.
|
| 1. Individual circuits can be protected by inexpensive outlet-type
| GFI's or slightly more expensive breaker GFI's. As mentioned
| previously, RCD's are expensive and complex.
|
| 2. Unlike a typical RCD installation, the whole house is not plunged
| into darkness should a single GFI trip due to a real fault or from
| testing.
|
| 3. In the North American System, 240 V. is available (via the split
| phase wiring scheme) for the larger appliances that need it (range,
| dryer, large air conditioner). However, at no point is any voltage
| inside the house higher than the nominal 125 volts to ground.
.... except when the effects of MV distribution systems are factored in.
| 4. Bathrooms are arguably safer and more convenient to wire
| electrically. You don't need to worry about 240V wiring near the sink.
| Light switches can be conveniently mounted on the wall (instead of
| using pull chains), you don't need to install isolation transformers
| as they do in the UK for shavers. Outlets don't need to have switches
| on them and because of the lower voltage, you have less paranoia about
| bonding everything together in the bathroom. Hair dryers can be
| safely plugged into convenient bathroom outlets protected by GFI's,
| etc.
|
| I've seen some of the wiring in France and I'm not sure what they did
| before RCD's became widely used. Did they just not care if anything
| was grounded? I'll bet it wasn't all that safe.
|
| I'm old enough to remember the days in the USA (late 1950s and early
| 1960s) when we switched to plugs and outlets with 2 prongs to 3
| prongs). The electrical system became a lot safer, as a result,
| particularly for users of portable power tools. Double insulated
| appliances and the later GFI requirements provided further safety
| improvements.
Safer, yes. But I still think the safety can be improved even more by
better isolation from the MV distribution.
--
|---------------------------------------/----------------------------------|
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (ka9wgn.ham.org) / Do not send to the address below |
| first name lower case at ipal.net / spamtrap-2007-05-22-0730@ipal.net |
|------------------------------------/-------------------------------------|
| |
| Michael Moroney 2007-05-22, 1:25 pm |
| phil-news-nospam@ipal.net writes:
>On Mon, 21 May 2007 11:32:04 -0400 J. B. Wood <wood@itd.nrl.navy.mil> wrote:
>| In article <f2kgd1$rtp$1@pcls4.std.com>, moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com
>| (Michael Moroney) wrote:
>|
>|> My father has a summer cottage. One winter, the top of a transformer pole
>|> broke off and the distribution wiring contacted the feeders. Two cottages
>|> supplied by that transformer burned to the ground. My father's place
>|> was also fed by that same transformer but suffered no damage, most likely
>|> because he always throws the main breaker when closing the place up for
>|> the winter.
>|
>| Hello, and assuming the usual multi-grounded neutral distribution system,
>| that's another good reason to have the neutral solidly tied to earth
>| ground at the service entrance. Not perfect but it helps. Sincerely,
>And to not have the neutral tied metallically to the service drop and
>especially not tied to the MV distribution neutral.
>Where do you think the power goes when the MV hot touches the MV neutral?
>Does it take the shortest path? No, it takes all paths. One of them is
>through the service drop. At least a very well grounded neutral at the
>service drop will help. But isolation would help even more, as long as
>the isolation can hold up to distribution medium voltage. And a MV->LV
>transformer should have that ability to withstand MV. But for reasons of
>lightning protection, utilities cross MV neutral to LV neutral, increasing
>the exposure of service drops to distribution voltage. Of course if a
>MV hot touches the LV network, isolation at the pole transformer won't
>help.
This discussion of MV neutrals is interesting, but I'll mention that in
this specific case, there is no MV neutral. This is an old system, all
the transformer primaries are connected phase to phase (delta), the poles
have crossarms with two conductors on top (3 conductors further upstream
where 3 phase is available) with no neutral. The secondary neutrals of
different distribution transformers are all isolated from each other. I
have no idea how (or even if) the primary circuitry is referenced to earth
ground.
I have a "souvineer" from this incident, a rectangular fuse holder/switch
marked 7200V from the primary wiring.
| |
| Salmon Egg 2007-05-22, 1:25 pm |
| Do you really mean "Another power line indecent video"?
Bill
| |
| Michael Moroney 2007-05-22, 5:25 pm |
| phil-news-nospam@ipal.net writes:
>Being earthed is one thing. Connecting primary and secondary neutrals
>is another.
....
>Safer, yes. But I still think the safety can be improved even more by
>better isolation from the MV distribution.
In other words, no direct connection between the MV and LV neutrals
anywhere, correct?
Out of curiosity, how do you think the MV neutral should be dealt with?
Not grounded at all?
Grounded only at the substation/transformer bank that produces it?
Grounded but only at poles where the 120V/240V secondaries aren't grounded
(or some other "minimum distance" between groundings of MV and LV systems)?
Grounded at all poles with distribution transformers (like currently done),
but using a separate ground stake from the secondary (i.e. grounded at
the same pole, a few inches away)?
Something else?
Since the MV neutral would no longer connect to the LV neutral, should the
LV neutrals be connected together or isolated from each other?
As I mentioned in my last post, the old system supplying my father's place
has no MV neutral (delta), and the LV neutrals of different distribution
transformers aren't connected to each other.
| |
| Andrew Gabriel 2007-05-22, 5:25 pm |
| In article <4652a0fe.29697125@news.verizon.net>,
invalid@notreal.none (Beachcomber) writes:
>
> I understand that there are countries where the primaries of the
> distribution transformer are not connected to the ground/earth in any
> way (from the perspective of the customers ground). This is not
> necessarily a 'better' or safer system. There are complex trade-offs
> involved and there are a lot of good reasons (for increased and other
> reasons) for making sure that at least one primary lead of that
> transformer is earthed.
>
> In the USA, there is a special case exception in rural areas where
> there are problems with stray voltage traveling through the earth in
> farm situations. One solution is to use a special neutral isolator to
> keep the secondary neutral/ground/earth disconnected from the primary
> ground unless the voltage difference reaches a certain threshold, in
> which case the bond is re-established.
>
> Not everybody does it that way. France is one such country with the
> TT Earthing Scheme. In other words, the power company does not supply
> any grounds to the customer on their distribution lines.
TT earthing is unrelated to this. The supply of a TT system is
earthed at the distribution transformer, but the supply company
doesn't provide you with an earthing terminal (or it does, and
you choose not to use it).
I've heard some french supplies are IT rather than TT.
> The customer
> is responsible for providing their own local earth connection that is
> not connected to the larger distribution network. For safety, an RCD
> (Residual Current Device) is required for such installations. An RCD
> is similar to what we know in America as a GFI or ground-fault
> interrupter. However it is not exactly the same. Typically, an RCD
> is set to trip on a ground fault with a greater current than the
> typical GFI 5ma threshold and also it contains complex timing circuits
> and often covers more than just one circuit.
An RCD is exactly the same as a GFI. RCD's come in a variety of
trip current ratings and delayed trip timings. In the UK, an RCD
which is being used to protect against high earth fault loop
impedance as you might have with an earth rod is required to be
rated at least 100mA trip and can be time delayed (e.g. 200mS).
In France, a 500mA trip is commonly used for this, but I don't know
exactly what their regs require.
In the UK, TT systems tend to be limited to rural locations with
old supply infrastructure, although anyone is permitted to make
their installation TT by ignoring the earth connection provided
by the supplier. Constructing your own TT system like this is
often done for outbuildings and outdoor supplies where it can
be considered safer to have a more local earth connection, and
is explicitly mentioned in the regs as a permitted practice.
My house is a TN-C-S system, but a circuit for outdoor sockets
is an RCD protected TT system with its own earth rod which is
not connected to the rest of the house internal earthing.
> In my opinion, the North American scheme gives several advantages when
> safety is concerned as you have the following unique features when
> compared to the typical Euro Systems that use the RCDs.
>
> 1. Individual circuits can be protected by inexpensive outlet-type
> GFI's or slightly more expensive breaker GFI's. As mentioned
> previously, RCD's are expensive and complex.
I don't believe TT systems are very common across Europe,
although they certainly do exist.
> 2. Unlike a typical RCD installation, the whole house is not plunged
> into darkness should a single GFI trip due to a real fault or from
> testing.
>
> 3. In the North American System, 240 V. is available (via the split
> phase wiring scheme) for the larger appliances that need it (range,
> dryer, large air conditioner). However, at no point is any voltage
> inside the house higher than the nominal 125 volts to ground.
>
> 4. Bathrooms are arguably safer and more convenient to wire
> electrically. You don't need to worry about 240V wiring near the sink.
> Light switches can be conveniently mounted on the wall (instead of
> using pull chains), you don't need to install isolation transformers
> as they do in the UK for shavers. Outlets don't need to have switches
> on them and because of the lower voltage, you have less paranoia about
> bonding everything together in the bathroom. Hair dryers can be
> safely plugged into convenient bathroom outlets protected by GFI's,
> etc.
>
> I've seen some of the wiring in France and I'm not sure what they did
> before RCD's became widely used. Did they just not care if anything
> was grounded? I'll bet it wasn't all that safe.
Earth leakage breakers for TT systems have been around in the UK
since 1950's that I know of.
> I'm old enough to remember the days in the USA (late 1950s and early
> 1960s) when we switched to plugs and outlets with 2 prongs to 3
> prongs). The electrical system became a lot safer, as a result,
> particularly for users of portable power tools. Double insulated
> appliances and the later GFI requirements provided further safety
> improvements.
It's interesting that you cite so many things which are safer
in the US. What do you think are the things which are not safer
in the US that cause so many more electrical deaths per capita
in the US than we have in the UK (and I suspect across much of
Europe)?
--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]
| |
| phil-news-nospam@ipal.net 2007-05-23, 3:25 am |
| On Tue, 22 May 2007 19:30:58 +0000 (UTC) Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote:
| phil-news-nospam@ipal.net writes:
|
|>Being earthed is one thing. Connecting primary and secondary neutrals
|>is another.
|
| ...
|
|>Safer, yes. But I still think the safety can be improved even more by
|>better isolation from the MV distribution.
|
| In other words, no direct connection between the MV and LV neutrals
| anywhere, correct?
|
| Out of curiosity, how do you think the MV neutral should be dealt with?
|
| Not grounded at all?
No, it should be grounded. Just not at the same place the LV neutral is.
| Grounded only at the substation/transformer bank that produces it?
No. Multiple grounding is generally needed.
| Grounded but only at poles where the 120V/240V secondaries aren't grounded
| (or some other "minimum distance" between groundings of MV and LV systems)?
Some reasonable distance apart from LV grounding. I don't know if other
side of pole is enough, but it might be.
| Grounded at all poles with distribution transformers (like currently done),
| but using a separate ground stake from the secondary (i.e. grounded at
| the same pole, a few inches away)?
180 degrees on other side of pole might be enough. I don't know if that
would work or not. It might.
| Something else?
|
| Since the MV neutral would no longer connect to the LV neutral, should the
| LV neutrals be connected together or isolated from each other?
I assume you mean in a network LV system. They normally are connected
to each other. But I'm not so sure I trust such a system. I have not
put much thought into it.
| As I mentioned in my last post, the old system supplying my father's place
| has no MV neutral (delta), and the LV neutrals of different distribution
| transformers aren't connected to each other.
Then the risk is reduced to the risk of the MV lines contacting the LV lines
or the transformer having a fault between primary and secondary. Certainly
that is a non-zero risk. But it is better than having neutrals solidly
connected between MV and LV.
--
|---------------------------------------/----------------------------------|
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (ka9wgn.ham.org) / Do not send to the address below |
| first name lower case at ipal.net / spamtrap-2007-05-22-2219@ipal.net |
|------------------------------------/-------------------------------------|
| |
| Don Kelly 2007-05-23, 3:25 am |
| "Andrew Gabriel" <andrew@cucumber.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:46534629$0$642$5a6aecb4@news.aaisp.net.uk...
> In article <4652a0fe.29697125@news.verizon.net>,
> invalid@notreal.none (Beachcomber) writes:
-----snip----------------[color=darkred]
>
> It's interesting that you cite so many things which are safer
> in the US. What do you think are the things which are not safer
> in the US that cause so many more electrical deaths per capita
> in the US than we have in the UK (and I suspect across much of
> Europe)?
>
> --
> Andrew Gabriel
> [email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]
-----------
Cheaper and less robust outlets, lamp sockets, switches, etc. along with
less respect for the potential hazards might be a factor.
--
Don Kelly dhky@shawcross.ca
remove the X to answer
----------------------------
| |
| phil-news-nospam@ipal.net 2007-05-23, 9:25 am |
| I found this one from a few days ago:
http://www.click2houston.com/news/1...ss=hou&psp=news
Not as much to see.
--
|---------------------------------------/----------------------------------|
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (ka9wgn.ham.org) / Do not send to the address below |
| first name lower case at ipal.net / spamtrap-2007-05-23-0811@ipal.net |
|------------------------------------/-------------------------------------|
| |
|
| Andrew Gabriel wrote:
>
> In the UK, TT systems tend to be limited to rural locations with
> old supply infrastructure, although anyone is permitted to make
> their installation TT by ignoring the earth connection provided
> by the supplier. Constructing your own TT system like this is
> often done for outbuildings and outdoor supplies where it can
> be considered safer to have a more local earth connection, and
> is explicitly mentioned in the regs as a permitted practice.
> My house is a TN-C-S system, but a circuit for outdoor sockets
> is an RCD protected TT system with its own earth rod which is
> not connected to the rest of the house internal earthing.
Its own rod so it is at the 'local' earth potential?
What is the ground current trip level (for protecting people)?
--
bud--
| |
| Andrew Gabriel 2007-05-23, 5:25 pm |
| In article <ca0fd$46546518$4213ea56$6639@dialupusa.net>,
Bud-- <remove.BudNews@isp.com> writes:
> Andrew Gabriel wrote:
>
>
> Its own rod so it is at the 'local' earth potential?
>
> What is the ground current trip level (for protecting people)?
In the regs, 30mA or less (I suspect that's the same across
all Europe, as I commonly see 30mA RCDs in other EU countries).
In this case of my outdoor socket circuit, I have a 10mA
RCD as I would normally use no more than one appliance at
once (lawn mower, hedge trimmer, pressure washer, etc).
That's generally too low for a circuit with many appliances,
where 30mA RCD is more common.
--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]
|
|
|
|
|