|
Home > Archive > Electrical Engineering > January 2008 > Is there any way to plug a clothes dryer on the 220V oven plug?
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 |
Is there any way to plug a clothes dryer on the 220V oven plug?
|
|
| mtl343 2007-12-13, 3:25 am |
| Hi,
I was wondering if someone could help me. I have only one 220V plug
(for the oven) in my appartment and I would like to use an oven and a
clothes dryer. Would it be safe to plug the dryer on the oven plug?
Is there any adaptor I could use?
Thanks.
| |
| gfretwell@aol.com 2007-12-13, 9:25 am |
| On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 00:32:57 -0800 (PST), mtl343 <mtl343@yahoo.ca>
wrote:
>Hi,
>I was wondering if someone could help me. I have only one 220V plug
>(for the oven) in my appartment and I would like to use an oven and a
>clothes dryer. Would it be safe to plug the dryer on the oven plug?
>Is there any adaptor I could use?
>Thanks.
The problem is your dryer needs 30a overcurrent protection and the
oven circuit is probably 40 or 50a.
| |
| phil-news-nospam@ipal.net 2007-12-14, 9:25 am |
| On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 08:06:04 -0500 gfretwell@aol.com wrote:
| On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 00:32:57 -0800 (PST), mtl343 <mtl343@yahoo.ca>
| wrote:
|
|>Hi,
|>I was wondering if someone could help me. I have only one 220V plug
|>(for the oven) in my appartment and I would like to use an oven and a
|>clothes dryer. Would it be safe to plug the dryer on the oven plug?
|>Is there any adaptor I could use?
|>Thanks.
| The problem is your dryer needs 30a overcurrent protection and the
| oven circuit is probably 40 or 50a.
I wish they would lower that requirement. Sure, it would annoy people
that want to overheat their clothes. But over 3840 watts to dry clothes?
These things are electricity hogs. Too bad there is too much politics
going on between two different fundamentally corrupt political parties in
the USA for anyone to be able to get a requirement into the energy bill
in Congress to lower the standard clothes dryer power needs. Try today
to even find one that can run on a 20 amp circuit.
--
|---------------------------------------/----------------------------------|
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (ka9wgn.ham.org) / Do not send to the address below |
| first name lower case at ipal.net / spamtrap-2007-12-14-0808@ipal.net |
|------------------------------------/-------------------------------------|
| |
| gfretwell@aol.com 2007-12-14, 1:25 pm |
| On 14 Dec 2007 14:12:11 GMT, phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote:
>I wish they would lower that requirement. Sure, it would annoy people
>that want to overheat their clothes. But over 3840 watts to dry clothes?
>These things are electricity hogs. Too bad there is too much politics
>going on between two different fundamentally corrupt political parties in
>the USA for anyone to be able to get a requirement into the energy bill
>in Congress to lower the standard clothes dryer power needs. Try today
>to even find one that can run on a 20 amp circuit.
It is simply physics. You have to evaporate "X" amount of water. If
you dropped the power used per hour you would have to use it longer.
| |
| Beachcomber 2007-12-14, 1:25 pm |
|
>I wish they would lower that requirement. Sure, it would annoy people
>that want to overheat their clothes. But over 3840 watts to dry clothes?
>These things are electricity hogs. Too bad there is too much politics
>going on between two different fundamentally corrupt political parties in
>the USA for anyone to be able to get a requirement into the energy bill
>in Congress to lower the standard clothes dryer power needs. Try today
>to even find one that can run on a 20 amp circuit.
>
They are not really such energy hogs, relatively speaking, when you
consider that the average home dryer is in use, perhaps just one, or
two (if that much) hours per day. In addition, most modern dryers
have a heating element duty cycle much less than that (tied to a
moisture sensor). Much of the moisture removal process take place
just by air blowing through the clothes. The heating element makes
this more efficient by insuring that most of that is dry air.
No, it's not as cheap or as efficient as a clothesline, but an
electric dryer sure is convenient when you have a basket full of wet
clothing.
Beachcomber
| |
| gfretwell@aol.com 2007-12-14, 1:25 pm |
| On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 16:30:19 GMT, invalid@notreal.none (Beachcomber)
wrote:
>No, it's not as cheap or as efficient as a clothesline, but an
>electric dryer sure is convenient when you have a basket full of wet
>clothing.
Or when you live someplace where a clotheline is not very useful, like
most of North America above the 29th parallel right now.
| |
|
| In article <76b5m3p4nfjqsfv6adqfcvcmaj9bqsbqse@4ax.com>,
gfretwell@aol.com says...
> On 14 Dec 2007 14:12:11 GMT, phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote:
>
>
>
> It is simply physics. You have to evaporate "X" amount of water. If
> you dropped the power used per hour you would have to use it longer.
....wasting even more power (the motor will run longer).
--
Keith
| |
| phil-news-nospam@ipal.net 2007-12-15, 3:25 am |
| On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 11:19:38 -0500 gfretwell@aol.com wrote:
| On 14 Dec 2007 14:12:11 GMT, phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote:
|
|>I wish they would lower that requirement. Sure, it would annoy people
|>that want to overheat their clothes. But over 3840 watts to dry clothes?
|>These things are electricity hogs. Too bad there is too much politics
|>going on between two different fundamentally corrupt political parties in
|>the USA for anyone to be able to get a requirement into the energy bill
|>in Congress to lower the standard clothes dryer power needs. Try today
|>to even find one that can run on a 20 amp circuit.
|
|
| It is simply physics. You have to evaporate "X" amount of water. If
| you dropped the power used per hour you would have to use it longer.
That's not quite true. You can only tumble the clothes just so fast.
More heat doesn't work as effectively in removing the water if there is
more heat than the air flow rate allows evaporation of. Sure, there is
a higher evaporation rate. But it is not linear with respect to the
power used. If you pump twice the wattage in, you do not get twice the
water out, in since given time frame.
--
|---------------------------------------/----------------------------------|
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (ka9wgn.ham.org) / Do not send to the address below |
| first name lower case at ipal.net / spamtrap-2007-12-15-0015@ipal.net |
|------------------------------------/-------------------------------------|
| |
| phil-news-nospam@ipal.net 2007-12-15, 3:25 am |
| On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 18:59:40 -0500 krw <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:
| In article <76b5m3p4nfjqsfv6adqfcvcmaj9bqsbqse@4ax.com>,
| gfretwell@aol.com says...
|> On 14 Dec 2007 14:12:11 GMT, phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote:
|>
|> >I wish they would lower that requirement. Sure, it would annoy people
|> >that want to overheat their clothes. But over 3840 watts to dry clothes?
|> >These things are electricity hogs. Too bad there is too much politics
|> >going on between two different fundamentally corrupt political parties in
|> >the USA for anyone to be able to get a requirement into the energy bill
|> >in Congress to lower the standard clothes dryer power needs. Try today
|> >to even find one that can run on a 20 amp circuit.
|>
|>
|> It is simply physics. You have to evaporate "X" amount of water. If
|> you dropped the power used per hour you would have to use it longer.
|
| ...wasting even more power (the motor will run longer).
There is an optimal rate. The motor can only run at a fixed speed to
allows the clothes to tumble properly. Too fast and they don't fall
in time to avoid just following the drum around in a circle. At this
rate of tumbling, there is only so much effective air flow that can be
used optimally. That dictates the heat rate. Yes, you can push it to
dry faster at a higher temperature. But it is less optimal when you do
that.
Modern dryers are more efficient than dryers of decades ago when the 30
amp "standard" came about. Back then, the dryers lost heat in a number
of ways, and were not operating at maximum air flow efficiency. You
could feel the outside of the dryer being hot; that's wasted heat. They
run cooler on the outside today, so less power is needed for that optimal
temperate and evaporation rate.
And the motor is actually a small fraction of the power involved, especally
when on the high setting. By simply eliminating the high setting, you can
have a dryer that can still have 2 or 3 heat levels, or use the automatic
evaporation sensing mode, and never need more than 16 amps at 240 volts (with
the motor figured it wired to 240 volts instead of 120 volts).
--
|---------------------------------------/----------------------------------|
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (ka9wgn.ham.org) / Do not send to the address below |
| first name lower case at ipal.net / spamtrap-2007-12-15-0018@ipal.net |
|------------------------------------/-------------------------------------|
| |
|
| In article <fjvs2n2ulg@news3.newsguy.com>, phil-news-nospam@ipal.net
says...
> On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 18:59:40 -0500 krw <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:
> | In article <76b5m3p4nfjqsfv6adqfcvcmaj9bqsbqse@4ax.com>,
> | gfretwell@aol.com says...
> |> On 14 Dec 2007 14:12:11 GMT, phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote:
> |>
> |> >I wish they would lower that requirement. Sure, it would annoy people
> |> >that want to overheat their clothes. But over 3840 watts to dry clothes?
> |> >These things are electricity hogs. Too bad there is too much politics
> |> >going on between two different fundamentally corrupt political parties in
> |> >the USA for anyone to be able to get a requirement into the energy bill
> |> >in Congress to lower the standard clothes dryer power needs. Try today
> |> >to even find one that can run on a 20 amp circuit.
> |>
> |>
> |> It is simply physics. You have to evaporate "X" amount of water. If
> |> you dropped the power used per hour you would have to use it longer.
> |
> | ...wasting even more power (the motor will run longer).
>
> There is an optimal rate. The motor can only run at a fixed speed to
> allows the clothes to tumble properly. Too fast and they don't fall
> in time to avoid just following the drum around in a circle. At this
> rate of tumbling, there is only so much effective air flow that can be
> used optimally. That dictates the heat rate. Yes, you can push it to
> dry faster at a higher temperature. But it is less optimal when you do
> that.
the motor speed is irrelevant. Lower power implies longer drying,
which means the motor will run longer. The heater will take the same
energy but the motor more.
> Modern dryers are more efficient than dryers of decades ago when the 30
> amp "standard" came about. Back then, the dryers lost heat in a number
> of ways, and were not operating at maximum air flow efficiency. You
> could feel the outside of the dryer being hot; that's wasted heat. They
> run cooler on the outside today, so less power is needed for that optimal
> temperate and evaporation rate.
Ok, but that's irrelevant to your point. You whined that they should
be using lower power now. Power isn't the issue, rather energy. They
are.
> And the motor is actually a small fraction of the power involved, especally
> when on the high setting. By simply eliminating the high setting, you can
> have a dryer that can still have 2 or 3 heat levels, or use the automatic
> evaporation sensing mode, and never need more than 16 amps at 240 volts (with
> the motor figured it wired to 240 volts instead of 120 volts).
Good grief!
--
Keith
| |
| phil-news-nospam@ipal.net 2007-12-15, 8:25 pm |
| On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 19:00:15 -0500 krw <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:
| In article <fjvs2n2ulg@news3.newsguy.com>, phil-news-nospam@ipal.net
| says...
|> On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 18:59:40 -0500 krw <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:
|> | In article <76b5m3p4nfjqsfv6adqfcvcmaj9bqsbqse@4ax.com>,
|> | gfretwell@aol.com says...
|> |> On 14 Dec 2007 14:12:11 GMT, phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote:
|> |>
|> |> >I wish they would lower that requirement. Sure, it would annoy people
|> |> >that want to overheat their clothes. But over 3840 watts to dry clothes?
|> |> >These things are electricity hogs. Too bad there is too much politics
|> |> >going on between two different fundamentally corrupt political parties in
|> |> >the USA for anyone to be able to get a requirement into the energy bill
|> |> >in Congress to lower the standard clothes dryer power needs. Try today
|> |> >to even find one that can run on a 20 amp circuit.
|> |>
|> |>
|> |> It is simply physics. You have to evaporate "X" amount of water. If
|> |> you dropped the power used per hour you would have to use it longer.
|> |
|> | ...wasting even more power (the motor will run longer).
|>
|> There is an optimal rate. The motor can only run at a fixed speed to
|> allows the clothes to tumble properly. Too fast and they don't fall
|> in time to avoid just following the drum around in a circle. At this
|> rate of tumbling, there is only so much effective air flow that can be
|> used optimally. That dictates the heat rate. Yes, you can push it to
|> dry faster at a higher temperature. But it is less optimal when you do
|> that.
|
| the motor speed is irrelevant. Lower power implies longer drying,
| which means the motor will run longer. The heater will take the same
| energy but the motor more.
The motor speed is very relevant. If you could make the clothes tumble
around in the air faster, then blowing the air through faster and running
more heat would make the clothes dry faster in the same proportion. But
you need to have all of these elements going at the advanced rate to make
things work equally well in that lesser period of time. The problem is
the motor speed for the drum CANNOT be increased because the clothes will
not tumble through the air at other than a small range of speed. Ever
wonder why dryers do NOT come with adjustable tumble speed (other than
the ones with a dual belt position to adjust for 50 Hz vs. 60 Hz power
to keep the tumbler at the same speed in all countries)?
|> Modern dryers are more efficient than dryers of decades ago when the 30
|> amp "standard" came about. Back then, the dryers lost heat in a number
|> of ways, and were not operating at maximum air flow efficiency. You
|> could feel the outside of the dryer being hot; that's wasted heat. They
|> run cooler on the outside today, so less power is needed for that optimal
|> temperate and evaporation rate.
|
| Ok, but that's irrelevant to your point. You whined that they should
| be using lower power now. Power isn't the issue, rather energy. They
| are.
The ability to turn the heat up beyond the optimal level for total energy
efficiency should be discouraged. I don't want to prohibit it, just make
it necessary for someone to go an extra step to get the higher heat if
they really want it.
|> And the motor is actually a small fraction of the power involved, especally
|> when on the high setting. By simply eliminating the high setting, you can
|> have a dryer that can still have 2 or 3 heat levels, or use the automatic
|> evaporation sensing mode, and never need more than 16 amps at 240 volts (with
|> the motor figured it wired to 240 volts instead of 120 volts).
|
| Good grief!
I think you will find that the greatest efficiency of a dryer is actually
the lowest or 2nd to lowest heat setting (depending on actual values of
those settings). What I want is for dryers to be made available on the
market that people can choose which are made for just this lower heat
level that is most efficient. Such a dryer would do with smaller elements
and smaller electrical wiring and switches. The plug would be smaller, too,
using NEMA 6-20P or NEMA 6-15P instead of NEMA 14-30P. The circuit wiring
for new work would also be less costly. People would save money on the
product. Some people would save money on the circuit wiring. People would
save money on their electrical bill. Everyone would be better off. But if
you really want to toast your clothes and your electric bill, then go ahead
and buy one that has a double heating element and uses a big NEMA 14-60P
plug, ceramic tumbler, and microwave thermal source!
--
|---------------------------------------/----------------------------------|
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (ka9wgn.ham.org) / Do not send to the address below |
| first name lower case at ipal.net / spamtrap-2007-12-15-1831@ipal.net |
|------------------------------------/-------------------------------------|
| |
|
| In article <fk1sf612c9@news4.newsguy.com>, phil-news-nospam@ipal.net
says...
> On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 19:00:15 -0500 krw <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:
> | In article <fjvs2n2ulg@news3.newsguy.com>, phil-news-nospam@ipal.net
> | says...
> |> On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 18:59:40 -0500 krw <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:
> |> | In article <76b5m3p4nfjqsfv6adqfcvcmaj9bqsbqse@4ax.com>,
> |> | gfretwell@aol.com says...
> |> |> On 14 Dec 2007 14:12:11 GMT, phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote:
> |> |>
> |> |> >I wish they would lower that requirement. Sure, it would annoy people
> |> |> >that want to overheat their clothes. But over 3840 watts to dry clothes?
> |> |> >These things are electricity hogs. Too bad there is too much politics
> |> |> >going on between two different fundamentally corrupt political parties in
> |> |> >the USA for anyone to be able to get a requirement into the energy bill
> |> |> >in Congress to lower the standard clothes dryer power needs. Try today
> |> |> >to even find one that can run on a 20 amp circuit.
> |> |>
> |> |>
> |> |> It is simply physics. You have to evaporate "X" amount of water. If
> |> |> you dropped the power used per hour you would have to use it longer.
> |> |
> |> | ...wasting even more power (the motor will run longer).
> |>
> |> There is an optimal rate. The motor can only run at a fixed speed to
> |> allows the clothes to tumble properly. Too fast and they don't fall
> |> in time to avoid just following the drum around in a circle. At this
> |> rate of tumbling, there is only so much effective air flow that can be
> |> used optimally. That dictates the heat rate. Yes, you can push it to
> |> dry faster at a higher temperature. But it is less optimal when you do
> |> that.
> |
> | the motor speed is irrelevant. Lower power implies longer drying,
> | which means the motor will run longer. The heater will take the same
> | energy but the motor more.
>
> The motor speed is very relevant.
Not to this discussion it's not.
> If you could make the clothes tumble
> around in the air faster, then blowing the air through faster and running
> more heat would make the clothes dry faster in the same proportion. But
> you need to have all of these elements going at the advanced rate to make
> things work equally well in that lesser period of time. The problem is
> the motor speed for the drum CANNOT be increased because the clothes will
> not tumble through the air at other than a small range of speed. Ever
> wonder why dryers do NOT come with adjustable tumble speed (other than
> the ones with a dual belt position to adjust for 50 Hz vs. 60 Hz power
> to keep the tumbler at the same speed in all countries)?
Irrelevant the the discussion at hand. If you'll remember, you were
claiming that modern dryers used way too much power. You can reduce
the power, but the time will increase. The motor will run longer,
wasting power.
>
> |> Modern dryers are more efficient than dryers of decades ago when the 30
> |> amp "standard" came about. Back then, the dryers lost heat in a number
> |> of ways, and were not operating at maximum air flow efficiency. You
> |> could feel the outside of the dryer being hot; that's wasted heat. They
> |> run cooler on the outside today, so less power is needed for that optimal
> |> temperate and evaporation rate.
> |
> | Ok, but that's irrelevant to your point. You whined that they should
> | be using lower power now. Power isn't the issue, rather energy. They
> | are.
>
> The ability to turn the heat up beyond the optimal level for total energy
> efficiency should be discouraged. I don't want to prohibit it, just make
> it necessary for someone to go an extra step to get the higher heat if
> they really want it.
They already do. It's called "normal" mode (vs. "permanent press").
You're barking up the wrong tree.
>
> |> And the motor is actually a small fraction of the power involved, especally
> |> when on the high setting. By simply eliminating the high setting, you can
> |> have a dryer that can still have 2 or 3 heat levels, or use the automatic
> |> evaporation sensing mode, and never need more than 16 amps at 240 volts (with
> |> the motor figured it wired to 240 volts instead of 120 volts).
> |
> | Good grief!
>
> I think you will find that the greatest efficiency of a dryer is actually
> the lowest or 2nd to lowest heat setting (depending on actual values of
> those settings). What I want is for dryers to be made available on the
> market that people can choose which are made for just this lower heat
> level that is most efficient. Such a dryer would do with smaller elements
> and smaller electrical wiring and switches. The plug would be smaller, too,
> using NEMA 6-20P or NEMA 6-15P instead of NEMA 14-30P. The circuit wiring
> for new work would also be less costly. People would save money on the
> product. Some people would save money on the circuit wiring. People would
> save money on their electrical bill. Everyone would be better off. But if
> you really want to toast your clothes and your electric bill, then go ahead
> and buy one that has a double heating element and uses a big NEMA 14-60P
> plug, ceramic tumbler, and microwave thermal source!
Good grief!
--
Keith
| |
| Michael A. Terrell 2007-12-16, 3:25 am |
| krw wrote:
>
> Good grief!
Phil is as dense as DimBulb. 
--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.
Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida
| |
| John G 2007-12-16, 3:25 am |
|
<gfretwell@aol.com> wrote in message
news:jdb2m31k8locuoi1t3vjls9dc2na1lq39d@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 00:32:57 -0800 (PST), mtl343 <mtl343@yahoo.ca>
> wrote:
>
> The problem is your dryer needs 30a overcurrent protection and the
> oven circuit is probably 40 or 50a.
The Op wants to know if he can use smaller current appliance on an
existing circuit..
Of course you do that all the time with 110volt devices. Who ever heard
of having a breaker rated to protect your clock radio.
And it is the norm in 240volt 50 hz countries to plug in anything as
long as it is not tooo big.
Unless this is not allowed by some obscure NEC provision in 240 volt USA
installations Of course it is OK.
The breakers protect the wiring not the device.
__
John G.
| |
| gfretwell@aol.com 2007-12-16, 3:25 am |
| On Sun, 16 Dec 2007 15:26:02 +1100, "John G"
<Greentest@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>Unless this is not allowed by some obscure NEC provision in 240 volt USA
>installations Of course it is OK.
It is the manufactirer's instructions that say coonnect to a 30a
circuit, which makes it a NEC 110.3(B)
| |
| mtl343 2007-12-16, 3:25 am |
| On 14 d=E9c, 11:30, inva...@notreal.none (Beachcomber) wrote:
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
>
> They are not really such energy hogs, relatively speaking, when you
> consider that the average homedryeris in use, perhaps just one, or
> two (if that much) hours per day. In addition, most modern dryers
> have a heating element duty cycle much less than that (tied to a
> moisture sensor). Much of the moisture removal process take place
> just by air blowing through the clothes. The heating element makes
> this more efficient by insuring that most of that is dry air.
>
> No, it's not as cheap or as efficient as a clothesline, but an
> electricdryersure is convenient when you have a basket full of wet
> clothing.
>
> Beachcomber
I really like my clothesline but I live in Montreal and winter is
quite long. That's why I'm looking for a clothes drying solution.
Jacinthe
| |
| John G 2007-12-16, 9:25 am |
|
<gfretwell@aol.com> wrote in message
news:tpd9m3lbpudpn9dd4o59vst6pfan3mm6c6@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 16 Dec 2007 15:26:02 +1100, "John G"
> <Greentest@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>
>
>
> It is the manufactirer's instructions that say coonnect to a 30a
> circuit, which makes it a NEC 110.3(B)
Does that mean you must blindly comply with some arbitrary figure
dreamed up by the manufacturer or does it mean that is the minimum
supply required?
--
John G.
| |
| Stuart 2007-12-16, 9:25 am |
| In article <4764a8e0$0$20598$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au>,
John G <Greentest@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
> <gfretwell@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:jdb2m31k8locuoi1t3vjls9dc2na1lq39d@4ax.com...
[color=darkred]
> The Op wants to know if he can use smaller current appliance on an
> existing circuit..
> Of course you do that all the time with 110volt devices. Who ever heard
> of having a breaker rated to protect your clock radio.
> And it is the norm in 240volt 50 hz countries to plug in anything as
> long as it is not tooo big.
> Unless this is not allowed by some obscure NEC provision in 240 volt USA
> installations Of course it is OK.
> The breakers protect the wiring not the device.
> _
Correct. In the UK a ring main circuit (using 2.5mmsq cable) will
normally have a 30A fuse or MCB in the consumer unit but appliances
connected via a 13A fused plug (usual for all appliances except a cooker*)
will have a fuse in the plug rated to the appliance and it's flex.
Stuart
*Cookers will normally be hard-wired via an isolating switch to a separate
30A supply and use 6mmsq cable
--
Stuart Winsor
From is valid but subject to change without notice if it gets spammed.
For Barn dances and folk evenings in the Coventry and Warwickshire area
See: http://www.barndance.org.uk
| |
| Andrew Gabriel 2007-12-16, 9:25 am |
| In article <4764a8e0$0$20598$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au>,
"John G" <Greentest@ozemail.com.au> writes:
>
> The breakers protect the wiring not the device.
That's likely to be country-specific.
(It's true in the UK for breakers which are part of the installation,
but I wouldn't make assumptions about elsewhere.)
--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]
| |
| BasicGuy 2007-12-16, 1:25 pm |
| On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 09:19:38 -0700, gfretwell@aol.com wrote
(in article <76b5m3p4nfjqsfv6adqfcvcmaj9bqsbqse@4ax.com> ):
> It is simply physics. You have to evaporate "X" amount of water. If
> you dropped the power used per hour you would have to use it longer.
The solution is in the washer. My friend has a Miele washer that spins the
clothes at a very high speed which extracts the maximum of water from the
clothes. The result: shorter drying time required.
Why all manufacturers don't design this same high-rpm spin into their washers
(or why it's not required by law) is a mystery...
Dave
| |
| gfretwell@aol.com 2007-12-16, 1:25 pm |
| On Sun, 16 Dec 2007 21:19:40 +1100, "John G"
<Greentest@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>Does that mean you must blindly comply with some arbitrary figure
>dreamed up by the manufacturer or does it mean that is the minimum
>supply required?
>--
It means the manufacturer has used conductors in the dryer that will
trip a 30a breaker in a fault but might not trip a 50. At least U/L
has not tested it that way.
Certainly the OP can put a 50a plug on this dryer and it will work.
You just don't know what happens if it gets a short inside.
| |
| gfretwell@aol.com 2007-12-16, 1:25 pm |
| On 16 Dec 2007 14:03:27 GMT, andrew@cucumber.demon.co.uk (Andrew
Gabriel) wrote:
>In article <4764a8e0$0$20598$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au>,
> "John G" <Greentest@ozemail.com.au> writes:
>
>That's likely to be country-specific.
>(It's true in the UK for breakers which are part of the installation,
>but I wouldn't make assumptions about elsewhere.)
That is not exactly true. In the US part of the listing is that a
fault in the appliance will trip a beaker but it may not keep the
appliance from being destroyed in the process. This is addressed in
the sizes of "fixture wires" but they still may use smaller wire
inside if the testing shows the resulting fire is totally contained in
the appliance. In the case of a dryer you will find 14 and maybe even
16 gauge wire connected to the phase legs. I don't know if U/L
evaluates these dryers with a decade of lint in the box
| |
| Dave Martindale 2007-12-17, 5:25 pm |
| "John G" <Greentest@ozemail.com.au> writes:
>Of course you do that all the time with 110volt devices. Who ever heard
>of having a breaker rated to protect your clock radio.
North American appliances with a standard plug do have to be designed
with the knowledge that a short in the power cord will have the current
interrupted by a 15 A or 20 A breaker. Until the breaker trips, the
current is limited by the series resistance of the 14 or 12 gauge wire
feeding the outlet.
If you plug that cord into a 30 A circuit, you have half the series
resistance, and double the breaker trip current, and you're more likely
to have something arc or melt before the breaker trips.
>And it is the norm in 240volt 50 hz countries to plug in anything as
>long as it is not tooo big.
In the UK, at least, there is a fuse in each plug. So the outlet may be
capable of 13 A at 240 V, and fused appropriately, but a radio with a
power cord can have small conductors because the plug is fused for 3 A.
So there it is true that the breaker/fuse at the panel protects the
wiring in the wall - because the appliance cord is protected by its own
fuse. North America doesn't do that.
The dryer is expecting to be connected to a 30 A circuit, and to obtain
some protection from that. It almost certainly doesn't have its own
internal fuses.
Dave
| |
| Dave Martindale 2007-12-17, 5:25 pm |
| gfretwell@aol.com writes:
>It means the manufacturer has used conductors in the dryer that will
>trip a 30a breaker in a fault but might not trip a 50. At least U/L
>has not tested it that way.
>Certainly the OP can put a 50a plug on this dryer and it will work.
>You just don't know what happens if it gets a short inside.
A possibly more interesting question: Suppose someone builds an adapter
from a 50 A male plug to a 30 A female outlet *which includes a pair of
30 A fuses in the two hot legs*? Now the dryer wiring will be
protected by the 30 A fuses. This is clearly safer than just using a 50 A
plug and power cord. Is this legal? Is it as safe as using a circuit
with a 30 A breaker?
(I assume the original poster doesn't want to change the breaker on this
circuit to 30 A because they want to plug in the stove and dryer
alternately, and they'd like the original 40 or 50 A for the stove).
Dave
| |
| Palindrome 2007-12-17, 5:25 pm |
| Dave Martindale wrote:
> gfretwell@aol.com writes:
>
>
> A possibly more interesting question: Suppose someone builds an adapter
> from a 50 A male plug to a 30 A female outlet *which includes a pair of
> 30 A fuses in the two hot legs*? Now the dryer wiring will be
> protected by the 30 A fuses. This is clearly safer than just using a 50 A
> plug and power cord. Is this legal? Is it as safe as using a circuit
> with a 30 A breaker?
>
> (I assume the original poster doesn't want to change the breaker on this
> circuit to 30 A because they want to plug in the stove and dryer
> alternately, and they'd like the original 40 or 50 A for the stove).
>
Is it not possible to hard-wire both the stove and the drier into
outlets with one locally fused at 30A - plus a changeover contactor/
switch in circuit to prevent both outlets being powered together?
--
Sue
| |
| phil-news-nospam@ipal.net 2007-12-17, 5:25 pm |
| On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 21:12:41 -0500 krw <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:
| In article <fk1sf612c9@news4.newsguy.com>, phil-news-nospam@ipal.net
| says...
|> On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 19:00:15 -0500 krw <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:
|> | In article <fjvs2n2ulg@news3.newsguy.com>, phil-news-nospam@ipal.net
|> | says...
|> |> On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 18:59:40 -0500 krw <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:
|> |> | In article <76b5m3p4nfjqsfv6adqfcvcmaj9bqsbqse@4ax.com>,
|> |> | gfretwell@aol.com says...
|> |> |> On 14 Dec 2007 14:12:11 GMT, phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote:
|> |> |>
|> |> |> >I wish they would lower that requirement. Sure, it would annoy people
|> |> |> >that want to overheat their clothes. But over 3840 watts to dry clothes?
|> |> |> >These things are electricity hogs. Too bad there is too much politics
|> |> |> >going on between two different fundamentally corrupt political parties in
|> |> |> >the USA for anyone to be able to get a requirement into the energy bill
|> |> |> >in Congress to lower the standard clothes dryer power needs. Try today
|> |> |> >to even find one that can run on a 20 amp circuit.
|> |> |>
|> |> |>
|> |> |> It is simply physics. You have to evaporate "X" amount of water. If
|> |> |> you dropped the power used per hour you would have to use it longer.
|> |> |
|> |> | ...wasting even more power (the motor will run longer).
|> |>
|> |> There is an optimal rate. The motor can only run at a fixed speed to
|> |> allows the clothes to tumble properly. Too fast and they don't fall
|> |> in time to avoid just following the drum around in a circle. At this
|> |> rate of tumbling, there is only so much effective air flow that can be
|> |> used optimally. That dictates the heat rate. Yes, you can push it to
|> |> dry faster at a higher temperature. But it is less optimal when you do
|> |> that.
|> |
|> | the motor speed is irrelevant. Lower power implies longer drying,
|> | which means the motor will run longer. The heater will take the same
|> | energy but the motor more.
|>
|> The motor speed is very relevant.
|
| Not to this discussion it's not.
Sure it is. If the motor speed could be varied to match the thermal
emission rate, then it would not be relevant. But since it cannot be
made to match, it therefore does affect the efficiency curve that is
a function of what thermal rate (temperature driven) is involved.
|> If you could make the clothes tumble
|> around in the air faster, then blowing the air through faster and running
|> more heat would make the clothes dry faster in the same proportion. But
|> you need to have all of these elements going at the advanced rate to make
|> things work equally well in that lesser period of time. The problem is
|> the motor speed for the drum CANNOT be increased because the clothes will
|> not tumble through the air at other than a small range of speed. Ever
|> wonder why dryers do NOT come with adjustable tumble speed (other than
|> the ones with a dual belt position to adjust for 50 Hz vs. 60 Hz power
|> to keep the tumbler at the same speed in all countries)?
|
| Irrelevant the the discussion at hand. If you'll remember, you were
| claiming that modern dryers used way too much power. You can reduce
| the power, but the time will increase. The motor will run longer,
| wasting power.
Or you can increase the heat, and while the whole running time will be
less, it will NOT be inversely proportional to the temperature difference
used. An increased temperature _will_ be a less efficient process.
There is a temperature which is the optimal rate, in terms of total energy
used to complete the drying, and it is NOT the highest temperature position.
|> |> Modern dryers are more efficient than dryers of decades ago when the 30
|> |> amp "standard" came about. Back then, the dryers lost heat in a number
|> |> of ways, and were not operating at maximum air flow efficiency. You
|> |> could feel the outside of the dryer being hot; that's wasted heat. They
|> |> run cooler on the outside today, so less power is needed for that optimal
|> |> temperate and evaporation rate.
|> |
|> | Ok, but that's irrelevant to your point. You whined that they should
|> | be using lower power now. Power isn't the issue, rather energy. They
|> | are.
|>
|> The ability to turn the heat up beyond the optimal level for total energy
|> efficiency should be discouraged. I don't want to prohibit it, just make
|> it necessary for someone to go an extra step to get the higher heat if
|> they really want it.
|
| They already do. It's called "normal" mode (vs. "permanent press").
| You're barking up the wrong tree.
The "permanent press" mode is there to continue the drum tumbling after
the heat is gone to ensure the clothes are not in a constant position
during cooldown. This is used to reduce the wrinkles that would result
if cooldown were to take place with the tumbling stopped. It uses more
energy to have this effect, but it is necessary to get the correct effect.
|> |> And the motor is actually a small fraction of the power involved, especally
|> |> when on the high setting. By simply eliminating the high setting, you can
|> |> have a dryer that can still have 2 or 3 heat levels, or use the automatic
|> |> evaporation sensing mode, and never need more than 16 amps at 240 volts (with
|> |> the motor figured it wired to 240 volts instead of 120 volts).
|> |
|> | Good grief!
|>
|> I think you will find that the greatest efficiency of a dryer is actually
|> the lowest or 2nd to lowest heat setting (depending on actual values of
|> those settings). What I want is for dryers to be made available on the
|> market that people can choose which are made for just this lower heat
|> level that is most efficient. Such a dryer would do with smaller elements
|> and smaller electrical wiring and switches. The plug would be smaller, too,
|> using NEMA 6-20P or NEMA 6-15P instead of NEMA 14-30P. The circuit wiring
|> for new work would also be less costly. People would save money on the
|> product. Some people would save money on the circuit wiring. People would
|> save money on their electrical bill. Everyone would be better off. But if
|> you really want to toast your clothes and your electric bill, then go ahead
|> and buy one that has a double heating element and uses a big NEMA 14-60P
|> plug, ceramic tumbler, and microwave thermal source!
|
| Good grief!
That kind of response is not very informative.
--
|---------------------------------------/----------------------------------|
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (ka9wgn.ham.org) / Do not send to the address below |
| first name lower case at ipal.net / spamtrap-2007-12-17-1618@ipal.net |
|------------------------------------/-------------------------------------|
| |
| phil-news-nospam@ipal.net 2007-12-17, 5:25 pm |
| On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 23:25:30 -0500 Michael A. Terrell <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:
| krw wrote:
|>
|> Good grief!
|
|
| Phil is as dense as DimBulb.
Come on. You can be more creative that that.
--
|---------------------------------------/----------------------------------|
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (ka9wgn.ham.org) / Do not send to the address below |
| first name lower case at ipal.net / spamtrap-2007-12-17-1627@ipal.net |
|------------------------------------/-------------------------------------|
| |
| phil-news-nospam@ipal.net 2007-12-17, 5:25 pm |
| On Sun, 16 Dec 2007 08:39:50 -0700 BasicGuy <bg@nothereorthere.com> wrote:
| On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 09:19:38 -0700, gfretwell@aol.com wrote
| (in article <76b5m3p4nfjqsfv6adqfcvcmaj9bqsbqse@4ax.com> ):
|
|> It is simply physics. You have to evaporate "X" amount of water. If
|> you dropped the power used per hour you would have to use it longer.
|
| The solution is in the washer. My friend has a Miele washer that spins the
| clothes at a very high speed which extracts the maximum of water from the
| clothes. The result: shorter drying time required.
|
| Why all manufacturers don't design this same high-rpm spin into their washers
| (or why it's not required by law) is a mystery...
Maybe they do. I know mine has a high spin setting. I don't know what
the actual RPM is or if it matches the Miele one. But I do notice the
clothers are significantly dryer if it is used. I do use it on most of
my clothes.
--
|---------------------------------------/----------------------------------|
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (ka9wgn.ham.org) / Do not send to the address below |
| first name lower case at ipal.net / spamtrap-2007-12-17-1628@ipal.net |
|------------------------------------/-------------------------------------|
| |
| phil-news-nospam@ipal.net 2007-12-17, 5:25 pm |
| On Sun, 16 Dec 2007 15:26:02 +1100 John G <Greentest@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
|
| <gfretwell@aol.com> wrote in message
| news:jdb2m31k8locuoi1t3vjls9dc2na1lq39d@4ax.com...
|> On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 00:32:57 -0800 (PST), mtl343 <mtl343@yahoo.ca>
|> wrote:
|>
|>>Hi,
|>>I was wondering if someone could help me. I have only one 220V plug
|>>(for the oven) in my appartment and I would like to use an oven and a
|>>clothes dryer. Would it be safe to plug the dryer on the oven plug?
|>>Is there any adaptor I could use?
|>>Thanks.
|> The problem is your dryer needs 30a overcurrent protection and the
|> oven circuit is probably 40 or 50a.
|
|
| The Op wants to know if he can use smaller current appliance on an
| existing circuit..
|
| Of course you do that all the time with 110volt devices. Who ever heard
| of having a breaker rated to protect your clock radio.
Breakers are rated to protect the building circuit. Appliances are then
rated to be safe on circuits rated up to what they are permitted to be
plugged in to.
| And it is the norm in 240volt 50 hz countries to plug in anything as
| long as it is not tooo big.
That's the key ... not TOO big.
Circuits in the UK are typically 30 amp ring circuits. They also require
fuses in the plugs. Plugging your clock radio into a 30 amp circuit is
more risky than in a 20 amp circuit. The wire would have to be thicker
to be equally safe, unless there is a fuse. The UK scheme, though quite
inconvenient, is probably a lot safer, since you can, in theory, put in
a 1/4 amp fuse for the clock (I don't know what the legal requirements
actually are for that).
I know this is inconvenient because I have in fact dealt with fused plugs
in the USA. At least at one time, line voltage Christmas light strings
had these. I don't know if it was actually required, then, or not. But
they did periodically blow for no apparent (at the time) reason. Maybe
they were just on for too long at a time.
| Unless this is not allowed by some obscure NEC provision in 240 volt USA
| installations Of course it is OK.
It depends on the actual appliance. All new appliances today need to be
safe on a circuit protected at 20 amps. There are a number of ways to
achieve that. Having every part rated to some percentage of that current
level is one. Having parts that will ensure a higher current flow on a
failure is another, provided that higher current flow is within the range
that will trip the breaker. If the breaker is rated too high, it might
not.
If your clock motor winding shorts out and starts pulling in 30 amps of
current through the remaining part of the winding, is a 30 amp breaker
expected to trip?
| The breakers protect the wiring not the device.
Yes.
But the device has to be rated for the available un-interrupted current,
or provide its own supplemental protection.
--
|---------------------------------------/----------------------------------|
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (ka9wgn.ham.org) / Do not send to the address below |
| first name lower case at ipal.net / spamtrap-2007-12-17-1630@ipal.net |
|------------------------------------/-------------------------------------|
| |
| phil-news-nospam@ipal.net 2007-12-17, 5:25 pm |
| On Sun, 16 Dec 2007 21:19:40 +1100 John G <Greentest@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
|
| <gfretwell@aol.com> wrote in message
| news:tpd9m3lbpudpn9dd4o59vst6pfan3mm6c6@4ax.com...
|> On Sun, 16 Dec 2007 15:26:02 +1100, "John G"
|> <Greentest@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
|>
|>>Unless this is not allowed by some obscure NEC provision in 240 volt
|>>USA
|>>installations Of course it is OK.
|>
|>
|> It is the manufactirer's instructions that say coonnect to a 30a
|> circuit, which makes it a NEC 110.3(B)
|
| Does that mean you must blindly comply with some arbitrary figure
| dreamed up by the manufacturer or does it mean that is the minimum
| supply required?
If they do in fact dream it up, or just roll dice to come up with it,
then yes ... at least for insurance and legal purposes. If they tell
you the device is safe on circuits rated up to 37.5 amps, and you had
it on a 40 amp circuit, and it caused a fire that burned your house
to the ground, don't expect any reimbursement from the manufacturer.
Normally, there is at least some level of engineering applied to come
up with those figures.
--
|---------------------------------------/----------------------------------|
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (ka9wgn.ham.org) / Do not send to the address below |
| first name lower case at ipal.net / spamtrap-2007-12-17-1641@ipal.net |
|------------------------------------/-------------------------------------|
| |
| phil-news-nospam@ipal.net 2007-12-17, 5:25 pm |
| On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 20:19:23 +0000 (UTC) Dave Martindale <davem@cs.ubc.ca> wrote:
| gfretwell@aol.com writes:
|
|>It means the manufacturer has used conductors in the dryer that will
|>trip a 30a breaker in a fault but might not trip a 50. At least U/L
|>has not tested it that way.
|>Certainly the OP can put a 50a plug on this dryer and it will work.
|>You just don't know what happens if it gets a short inside.
|
| A possibly more interesting question: Suppose someone builds an adapter
| from a 50 A male plug to a 30 A female outlet *which includes a pair of
| 30 A fuses in the two hot legs*? Now the dryer wiring will be
| protected by the 30 A fuses. This is clearly safer than just using a 50 A
| plug and power cord. Is this legal? Is it as safe as using a circuit
| with a 30 A breaker?
If they get it UL listed as a supplementary protector, it probably is
perfectly legal.
| (I assume the original poster doesn't want to change the breaker on this
| circuit to 30 A because they want to plug in the stove and dryer
| alternately, and they'd like the original 40 or 50 A for the stove).
It's not the first time someone has wanted to do that.
--
|---------------------------------------/----------------------------------|
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (ka9wgn.ham.org) / Do not send to the address below |
| first name lower case at ipal.net / spamtrap-2007-12-17-1644@ipal.net |
|------------------------------------/-------------------------------------|
| |
| gfretwell@aol.com 2007-12-17, 5:25 pm |
| On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 20:19:23 +0000 (UTC), davem@cs.ubc.ca (Dave
Martindale) wrote:
>A possibly more interesting question: Suppose someone builds an adapter
>from a 50 A male plug to a 30 A female outlet *which includes a pair of
>30 A fuses in the two hot legs*?
That is certainly a viable alternative. You could use a fused
disconnect like they sell for water heaters for a simple off the shelf
answer.
| |
| John G 2007-12-17, 8:25 pm |
|
<phil-news-nospam@ipal.net> wrote in message
news:fk6ttm4qbm@news2.newsguy.com...
> On Sun, 16 Dec 2007 15:26:02 +1100 John G <Greentest@ozemail.com.au>
> wrote:
> |
> | <gfretwell@aol.com> wrote in message
> | news:jdb2m31k8locuoi1t3vjls9dc2na1lq39d@4ax.com...
> |> On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 00:32:57 -0800 (PST), mtl343 <mtl343@yahoo.ca>
> |> wrote:
> |>
> |>>Hi,
> |>>I was wondering if someone could help me. I have only one 220V
> plug
> |>>(for the oven) in my appartment and I would like to use an oven and
> a
> |>>clothes dryer. Would it be safe to plug the dryer on the oven
> plug?
> |>>Is there any adaptor I could use?
> |>>Thanks.
> |> The problem is your dryer needs 30a overcurrent protection and the
> |> oven circuit is probably 40 or 50a.
> |
> |
> | The Op wants to know if he can use smaller current appliance on an
> | existing circuit..
> |
> | Of course you do that all the time with 110volt devices. Who ever
> heard
> | of having a breaker rated to protect your clock radio.
>
> Breakers are rated to protect the building circuit. Appliances are
> then
> rated to be safe on circuits rated up to what they are permitted to be
> plugged in to.
>
>
> | And it is the norm in 240volt 50 hz countries to plug in anything as
> | long as it is not tooo big.
>
> That's the key ... not TOO big.
>
> Circuits in the UK are typically 30 amp ring circuits. They also
> require
> fuses in the plugs. Plugging your clock radio into a 30 amp circuit
> is
> more risky than in a 20 amp circuit. The wire would have to be
> thicker
> to be equally safe, unless there is a fuse. The UK scheme, though
> quite
> inconvenient, is probably a lot safer, since you can, in theory, put
> in
> a 1/4 amp fuse for the clock (I don't know what the legal requirements
> actually are for that).
>
> I know this is inconvenient because I have in fact dealt with fused
> plugs
> in the USA. At least at one time, line voltage Christmas light
> strings
> had these. I don't know if it was actually required, then, or not.
> But
> they did periodically blow for no apparent (at the time) reason.
> Maybe
> they were just on for too long at a time.
>
>
> | Unless this is not allowed by some obscure NEC provision in 240 volt
> USA
> | installations Of course it is OK.
>
> It depends on the actual appliance. All new appliances today need to
> be
> safe on a circuit protected at 20 amps. There are a number of ways to
> achieve that. Having every part rated to some percentage of that
> current
> level is one. Having parts that will ensure a higher current flow on
> a
> failure is another, provided that higher current flow is within the
> range
> that will trip the breaker. If the breaker is rated too high, it
> might
> not.
>
> If your clock motor winding shorts out and starts pulling in 30 amps
> of
> current through the remaining part of the winding, is a 30 amp breaker
> expected to trip?
>
>
> | The breakers protect the wiring not the device.
>
> Yes.
>
> But the device has to be rated for the available un-interrupted
> current,
> or provide its own supplemental protection.
>
> --
> |---------------------------------------/----------------------------------|
> | Phil Howard KA9WGN (ka9wgn.ham.org) / Do not send to the address
> below |
> | first name lower case at ipal.net /
> spamtrap-2007-12-17-1630@ipal.net |
> |------------------------------------/-------------------------------------|
Thanks Phil.
A much more informative post related to the original question.
Drum speed and economy was really off topic.
In Australia with 230 volts (often up to 250) normal General Purpose
outlets are on a 16 amp breaker with some formula as to how many on
each.
Older installations often have hand wired fuses which can easily be
abused.
Then the appliance plug is by definition only to be up to 10 amps and
there are no fuses at the plug or in simple appliances.
There is a 15 amp variation of the GP plug which will only go in a 15
amp socket but the 10 amp plug will go there too.
Oh just a gloat for you Amaricans! 3phase 230/400 is available most
anywhere except some distant rural properties supplied only with SWER.
(Single wire earth return) at some high voltage and a local transformer
to 240 v
--
John G.
| |
|
| In article <0001HW.C38A94D60007943EF0305600
@news.west.earthlink.net>, alt.engineering.electrical,
bg@nothereorthere.com says...
> On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 09:19:38 -0700, gfretwell@aol.com wrote
> (in article <76b5m3p4nfjqsfv6adqfcvcmaj9bqsbqse@4ax.com> ):
>
>
> The solution is in the washer. My friend has a Miele washer that spins the
> clothes at a very high speed which extracts the maximum of water from the
> clothes. The result: shorter drying time required.
>
> Why all manufacturers don't design this same high-rpm spin into their washers
> (or why it's not required by law) is a mystery...
It's available if people want to buy it (our Whirlpool is 1000RPM).
Since they don't...
--
Keith
| |
| Don Kelly 2007-12-18, 3:25 am |
| ----------------------------
"krw" <krw@att.bizzzzz> wrote in message
news:MPG.21d0f0318635ea59896ab@news.individual.net...
> In article <0001HW.C38A94D60007943EF0305600
> @news.west.earthlink.net>, alt.engineering.electrical,
> bg@nothereorthere.com says...
>
> It's available if people want to buy it (our Whirlpool is 1000RPM).
> Since they don't...
>
> --
> Keith
There are now many high efficiency front load washing machines on the
market- all the major manufacturers have got on the bandwagon that started
in Europe where energy saving became important long before it caught on
here. In the early 50's, Westinghouse had a front loader which had some of
the advantages of modern machines in terms of water usage but it didn't have
the high spin speed. For some reason, this machine disappeared (was it more
expensive to build and maintain when both energy and water were cheap? ).
--
Don Kelly dhky@shawcross.ca
remove the X to answer
| |
| phil-news-nospam@ipal.net 2007-12-18, 3:25 am |
| On Tue, 18 Dec 2007 11:17:51 +1100 John G <Greentest@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
| Thanks Phil.
| A much more informative post related to the original question.
|
| Drum speed and economy was really off topic.
Technically, yes. I mentioned my interest and got challenged by some
non-thinkers or people stuck in boxes. I always try to give a chance
for someone to open their eyes and learn. But some people are just
stuck and can't go beyond.
| In Australia with 230 volts (often up to 250) normal General Purpose
| outlets are on a 16 amp breaker with some formula as to how many on
| each.
| Older installations often have hand wired fuses which can easily be
| abused.
| Then the appliance plug is by definition only to be up to 10 amps and
| there are no fuses at the plug or in simple appliances.
| There is a 15 amp variation of the GP plug which will only go in a 15
| amp socket but the 10 amp plug will go there too.
Sounds fine to me. The USA has 20 amp plugs and a 20/15 amp outlet that
can do similar.
The various requirements about wire size and circuit limits have lots of
wide tolerance factors built in. A 10 amp outlet is supposed to be able
to handle that 10 amps continuously for as long as you want. It should
be able to handle twice that for short periods of time. It will get hot.
But something else should give before the outlet melts. So a slightly
lesser cord and outlet could be OK due to the extra margins the the normal
ratings. Well, that's at least how we do it in the USA.
| Oh just a gloat for you Amaricans! 3phase 230/400 is available most
| anywhere except some distant rural properties supplied only with SWER.
| (Single wire earth return) at some high voltage and a local transformer
| to 240 v
Yeah, we have wimpy 120/208 for three phase, and even that's not readily
available everywhere. Some places have 277/480. The higher voltage is
more efficient. That's one of the reasons I try to promote it where I
can, for the places and uses where it is safe to do. And our 240 volt
circuits are 120 volts relative to ground, so there isn't as much reason
to be concerned over safety as there would be if we adopted 230 volts as
used in Aus/EU/UK/etc.
I'm looking at connecting computers to 240 volts. The power supplies do
have 2 pole AC switching, so that end is OK (we need that because both
wires are "hot" on 240 volts and users of Schuko need it because either
wire can be "hot"). The catch I've run into is finding a suitable UPS.
Those wired to handle the "two hots" are generally 5 kVA and up.
--
|---------------------------------------/----------------------------------|
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (ka9wgn.ham.org) / Do not send to the address below |
| first name lower case at ipal.net / spamtrap-2007-12-17-2251@ipal.net |
|------------------------------------/-------------------------------------|
| |
| John G 2007-12-18, 3:25 am |
|
>
> | Oh just a gloat for you Amaricans! 3phase 230/400 is available most
> | anywhere except some distant rural properties supplied only with
> SWER.
> | (Single wire earth return) at some high voltage and a local
> transformer
> | to 240 v
>
> Yeah, we have wimpy 120/208 for three phase, and even that's not
> readily
> available everywhere. Some places have 277/480. The higher voltage
> is
> more efficient. That's one of the reasons I try to promote it where I
> can, for the places and uses where it is safe to do. And our 240 volt
> circuits are 120 volts relative to ground, so there isn't as much
> reason
> to be concerned over safety as there would be if we adopted 230 volts
> as
> used in Aus/EU/UK/etc.
>
> I'm looking at connecting computers to 240 volts. The power supplies
> do
> have 2 pole AC switching, so that end is OK (we need that because both
> wires are "hot" on 240 volts and users of Schuko need it because
> either
> wire can be "hot"). The catch I've run into is finding a suitable
> UPS.
> Those wired to handle the "two hots" are generally 5 kVA and up.
>
> --
I guess any 240 volt UPS made for Australia should be able to handle
either wire hot because there is no ABSOLUTE guarantee that the wall
socket will be wired correctly.
And I don't imagine there would then be any problem on the US
(Edison )system where both wires are 120 volts off ground.
I don't want to start the "Mines Safer than yours" argument but there do
not seem to be many electrocutions here.
--
John G
| |
| Stuart 2007-12-18, 9:25 am |
| In article <47675eac$0$20614$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au>,
John G <Greentest@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
> I guess any 240 volt UPS made for Australia should be able to handle
> either wire hot because there is no ABSOLUTE guarantee that the wall
> socket will be wired correctly.
Same applies to equipment made for the UK market. The wiring in any
appliance or flex has to have exactly the same insulation rating whether
nominally the neutral or live. Earh leakage tests on equipment are carried
out "neutral" to earth as well as "live" to earth.
--
Stuart Winsor
From is valid but subject to change without notice if it gets spammed.
For Barn dances and folk evenings in the Coventry and Warwickshire area
See: http://www.barndance.org.uk
| |
| phil-news-nospam@ipal.net 2007-12-18, 9:25 am |
| On Tue, 18 Dec 2007 05:00:57 GMT Don Kelly <dhky@shaw.ca> wrote:
| ----------------------------
| "krw" <krw@att.bizzzzz> wrote in message
| news:MPG.21d0f0318635ea59896ab@news.individual.net...
|> In article <0001HW.C38A94D60007943EF0305600
|> @news.west.earthlink.net>, alt.engineering.electrical,
|> bg@nothereorthere.com says...
|>> On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 09:19:38 -0700, gfretwell@aol.com wrote
|>> (in article <76b5m3p4nfjqsfv6adqfcvcmaj9bqsbqse@4ax.com> ):
|>>
|>> > It is simply physics. You have to evaporate "X" amount of water. If
|>> > you dropped the power used per hour you would have to use it longer.
|>>
|>> The solution is in the washer. My friend has a Miele washer that spins
|>> the
|>> clothes at a very high speed which extracts the maximum of water from the
|>> clothes. The result: shorter drying time required.
|>>
|>> Why all manufacturers don't design this same high-rpm spin into their
|>> washers
|>> (or why it's not required by law) is a mystery...
|>
|> It's available if people want to buy it (our Whirlpool is 1000RPM).
|> Since they don't...
|>
|> --
|> Keith
| There are now many high efficiency front load washing machines on the
| market- all the major manufacturers have got on the bandwagon that started
| in Europe where energy saving became important long before it caught on
| here. In the early 50's, Westinghouse had a front loader which had some of
| the advantages of modern machines in terms of water usage but it didn't have
| the high spin speed. For some reason, this machine disappeared (was it more
| expensive to build and maintain when both energy and water were cheap? ).
Front loading washing machines are still more expensive to buy in the USA
compared to the top loading ones. It's not quite double the cost, but it
is sufficiently more so that most people will get the top loaders. What
I see in that price difference is partially some increase in materials and
manufacturing cost, but also partially some increase due to the smaller
market size. In other words, if people did buy the front loading ones more
than the top loading ones, the economy of scale would reduce the price of
the front loaders, and increase the price of the top loaders, to about the
same. The problem, is there will also be bottom-end competition that keeps
people going for whatever is cheaper. Until there are mandates, this will
probably continue to be the case.
--
|---------------------------------------/----------------------------------|
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (ka9wgn.ham.org) / Do not send to the address below |
| first name lower case at ipal.net / spamtrap-2007-12-18-0650@ipal.net |
|------------------------------------/-------------------------------------|
| |
| phil-news-nospam@ipal.net 2007-12-18, 9:25 am |
| On Tue, 18 Dec 2007 16:46:19 +1100 John G <Greentest@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
|
|>
|> | Oh just a gloat for you Amaricans! 3phase 230/400 is available most
|> | anywhere except some distant rural properties supplied only with
|> SWER.
|> | (Single wire earth return) at some high voltage and a local
|> transformer
|> | to 240 v
|>
|> Yeah, we have wimpy 120/208 for three phase, and even that's not
|> readily
|> available everywhere. Some places have 277/480. The higher voltage
|> is
|> more efficient. That's one of the reasons I try to promote it where I
|> can, for the places and uses where it is safe to do. And our 240 volt
|> circuits are 120 volts relative to ground, so there isn't as much
|> reason
|> to be concerned over safety as there would be if we adopted 230 volts
|> as
|> used in Aus/EU/UK/etc.
|>
|> I'm looking at connecting computers to 240 volts. The power supplies
|> do
|> have 2 pole AC switching, so that end is OK (we need that because both
|> wires are "hot" on 240 volts and users of Schuko need it because
|> either
|> wire can be "hot"). The catch I've run into is finding a suitable
|> UPS.
|> Those wired to handle the "two hots" are generally 5 kVA and up.
|>
|> --
| I guess any 240 volt UPS made for Australia should be able to handle
| either wire hot because there is no ABSOLUTE guarantee that the wall
| socket will be wired correctly.
What I have found is that at least many, if not most, UPS systems will
simply gracefully shut down, or at least not accept the input source,
when the voltage configuration is incorrect. I downloaded several of
the online manuals for various European models and found that most had
a means to detect "plug reversal" and indicate the "error" either by
a light or sound. The instructions said to reverse the plug. Some also
said the possibility of the output the UPS is plugged into might be
wired wrong (presumably in the case of places with polarized outlets).
| And I don't imagine there would then be any problem on the US
| (Edison )system where both wires are 120 volts off ground.
It probably would be a significant problem. To begin with, they probably
pass the neutral connection straight through (with the output disconnected
entirely if the plug is reversed).
| I don't want to start the "Mines Safer than yours" argument but there do
| not seem to be many electrocutions here.
I've examined some of the rules in Europe and found that restrictions are
much tighter there. I'd bet they have a lot more experience with higher
voltages than their counterparts in the USA. In the end I bet the final
safety comes out about the same, all things considered. But do consider
the "work site" voltage for outdoor construction work in the UK has been
chosen as 55 volts. Clearly some circumstances have an increased risk of
line to ground electrocution than others.
--
|---------------------------------------/----------------------------------|
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (ka9wgn.ham.org) / Do not send to the address below |
| first name lower case at ipal.net / spamtrap-2007-12-18-0659@ipal.net |
|------------------------------------/-------------------------------------|
| |
|
| In article <duI9j.512$Tx.37@pd7urf3no>, alt.engineering.electrical,
dhky@shaw.ca says...
> ----------------------------
> "krw" <krw@att.bizzzzz> wrote in message
> news:MPG.21d0f0318635ea59896ab@news.individual.net...
> There are now many high efficiency front load washing machines on the
> market- all the major manufacturers have got on the bandwagon that started
> in Europe where energy saving became important long before it caught on
> here. In the early 50's, Westinghouse had a front loader which had some of
> the advantages of modern machines in terms of water usage but it didn't have
> the high spin speed. For some reason, this machine disappeared (was it more
> expensive to build and maintain when both energy and water were cheap? ).
>
Unfortunately, the front-loaders, at least the ones sold in the US,
are crap. I wouldn't (and didn't) waste the money on one. We'll
see if the Whirlpool is any better.
--
Keith
| |
| Ben Miller 2008-01-18, 9:25 am |
| John G wrote:
> Does that mean you must blindly comply with some arbitrary figure
> dreamed up by the manufacturer or does it mean that is the minimum
> supply required?
It is not arbitrary. UL has tested the appliance and evaluated it for the
protection specified by the manufacturer. By Code, if the fuse/breaker size
is marked on the label, then you must comply with that. If it says to use a
certain type of fuse, then other fuse types and circuit breakers are not
acceptable. If it gives optional fuse & breaker ratings, then you have a
choice of those.
--
Benjamin D Miller, PE
www.bmillerengineering.com
|
|
|
|
|