AC Efficiency: Fact or Fiction?

[russ_watters]

This is pretty obvious to me but one has to compare apples with apples. You have doubled the voltage so the available power is double, for the same current.

Kind of. You've doubled the voltage because you have two "hot" wires out of phase with each other -- you haven't changed anything about the phases themselves (they are each still 120V vs ground).

Insulation for an AC 120V system need not be as good as for an AC 240V (or the split phase that the US use) system.

Not true. Per the above, both 120V single phase and 240V split phase are 120V vs ground and therefore need exactly the same insulation.

But I think there could be a similar 'misdirection' in claiming an advantage for three phase and single phase - because the effective volts are different for the two systems. The voltage limit is less obvious than the Current situation because the relevant I is RMS but the relevant Voltage is Peak...
[separate post]
...It is the peak voltage that determines whether or not the insulation will fail. That's what I meant.

You got yourself chasing a red herring and you're still on it. In both cases, we're considering the RMS voltage and we're considering it to be the same. There's nothing "hidden" here: for the same voltage (peak or RMS), you need less "wire" with 3-phase to carry the same power. The √3 factor used when calculating three-phase power has nothing to do with RMS voltage. It's there because of the phasing of the waveforms (120 degrees out of phase with each other).

 

[jim hardy]

I will search for a suitable version of the argument with some diagrams and Maths.

lots of them about

http://ece.k-state.edu/~starret/581/3phase.html

 

[Averagesupernova]

The whole 240 volts thing without the neutral is just adding more confusion to the thread. If I am not mistaken, we are talking about adding the most power for the least cost in additional wire while maintaining the same voltage into the devices that are the load. You cannot do this unless we keep the neutral which means we go to three current carrying wires. While it is true that 240 volt devices such as a residential water heater do not need a neutral and only require 2 current carrying conductors the rules of the game have changed since we raised the voltage in that particular load.

 

[nsaspook]

The whole 240 volts thing without the neutral is just adding more confusion to the thread.

Reminds me of this thread. https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/total-amperage-in-a-service-panel.705961/

 

[sophiecentaur]

I now understand those formulae about three phase currents and voltages. But I still don't see why people are making out that there's a magic 'profit' to be made by using three phase, because the amount of current is reduced. Using three phases requires higher voltage specification, afaics. So the power capacity of a single phase system could also be increased by increasing its running voltage. The system voltages are chosen, in the same way that the currents are matched to the wire gauges used. I remember my old Dad pointing out that you had to be much more careful in places where there were more than one phases supplied. In the UK we had / have just a 240V supply to most dwellings and offices. It is not easy to find yourself with two appliances in the same house, operating on different phases. The safety practices are based on that fact. In premises with three phase supplies, the whole system is specified differently, with expensive, different connectors and switch panels - because of the higher voltages.
You can always get more capacity by increasing the volts but this costs real money.
The choices that have been made are, presumably, optimal but copper is not the only factor involved.

 

[Averagesupernova]

I now understand those formulae about three phase currents and voltages. But I still don't see why people are making out that there's a magic 'profit' to be made by using three phase, because the amount of current is reduced. Using three phases requires higher voltage specification, afaics. So the power capacity of a single phase system could also be increased by increasing its running voltage. The system voltages are chosen, in the same way that the currents are matched to the wire gauges used. I remember my old Dad pointing out that you had to be much more careful in places where there were more than one phases supplied. In the UK we had / have just a 240V supply to most dwellings and offices. It is not easy to find yourself with two appliances in the same house, operating on different phases. The safety practices are based on that fact. In premises with three phase supplies, the whole system is specified differently, with expensive, different connectors and switch panels - because of the higher voltages.
You can always get more capacity by increasing the volts but this costs real money.
The choices that have been made are, presumably, optimal but copper is not the only factor involved.

The highest voltage between 240 volt split-phase or single phase conductors is no less than it is for the conductors in 240 volt 3-phase delta for instance. The wire used is the same concerning voltage rating. Been there, done that, passed inspection. A single phase 240 volt motor rated at 10 horsepower we will say for the sake of argument uses about 10000 watts. When estimating power consumption it is not unusual to estimate 1000 watts per horsepower. So in this hypothetical case the motor draws about 42 amps. #6 copper is the minimum size to be run for this load. A 3 phase motor will still be estimated at 1000 watts per horsepower but we compute the current draw differently for 3 phase so the current draw will be less. It may sound like it is not a big deal but any time we are able to reduce wire size we take advantage of it. It is not just a concern of the wire safely carrying the current but reducing the loss in a long length of wire.
-
Now concerning non-motor loads utilizing a 3 phase source. The split phase system in the US with balanced currents eliminates current in the neutral wire. This is a savings in that there is no loss in the neutral conductor. In the US it is permitted to size the neutral one size smaller than the hot conductors in residential service. This is a savings. It is no different in a 3-phase system. If all 3 phases are loaded similarly then the neutral current is very low if not zero. Do this with 3 separate sets of feeders for 3 different loads which means a total of 6 current carrying conductors and you have just doubled the power loss in the conductors. 3 phase makes sense no matter how you look at it. The wire insulation is the same, the conduits are often the same since the wire size can shrink, motors are more inexpensive, etc. You will get more power through a 3 phase load center panel than you will a single or split-phase panel rated at the same voltage and current so the extra material required will not cost as much as it first appears when you figure cost per watt.

 

[jim hardy]

Using three phases requires higher voltage specification, afaics...
...but copper is not the only factor involved.

One can have 240 or 120 3 phase let's take a look

three 240 volt 15 amp single phase circuits could move 240 X 15 X 3 = 10,800 VA over six conductors = 1800 VA per conductor

a single three phase circuit could move 240 X 15 X √3 = 6235 VA over three conductors = 2078 VA per conductor,

half as many conductors carrying 6235/10800 = 58% the power seems modest gain indeed

where three phase really shines is in rotating machinery
motors need no starting capacitor and there's no pulsating torque

a 6235 VA 240 volt motor would need three wires sized for 15 amps
or two wires sized for 26 amps and a starting switch
and a start winding that's idle 99.9% of the timeold jim

 

[sophiecentaur]

The highest voltage between 240 volt split-phase or single phase conductors is no less than it is for the conductors in 240 volt 3-phase delta for instance.

That comment is not really relevant to my case. So many of the arguments on this subject seem to hang on whichever system the proponent happens to have in their home. The UK system has to have a Star arrangement because everyone down a street gets the neutral and just one of the (240V) phases. You couldn't do it with a delta system. The Volts between any two of the phases is 415V, which can be consider significantly more 'dangerous, compared with the standard 240V supply. This bears no comparison with a split phase 240V system, where there is never more than 240V between conductors (even for connections between neighbouring premises). But the US domestic split phase system is a complete red herring in the context of the '3Phase current' discussion afaics. It is such a totally different arrangement.
When considering Power capacity of a 3 phase star system, the voltage between the phases is, imo, the relevant voltage to be considering when deciding how the power is being carried and not the 'phase Voltage. Any transmission system design has to consider that PD, surely (insulation and separation of conductors). 70% extra is a very relevant amount of Volts. Perhaps my point is really that the '240V' figure is not the relevant one but that, comparing system with system, one should really be talking 415V. (This is the Voltage value that's printed in the warning sign on the front of 3 Phase panels in the UK). If you take that inter-phase voltage, then the advantage of using smaller cables is explained simply in terms of the V that's used in the VA.
The calculations and diagrams that show how the 'return' current is taken care of by the other two phases are fine but they do show that current flows due to an 'extra' net voltage that's additional to the volts of the phase in question. I think my problem is that I am trying to explain it to myself more or less from a fresh perspective and I don't actually see a conflict with my view and 'the rest of you', who got taught it conventionally.
Interestingly, I came across this page which has explained a lot to me about the WYE and DELTA systems and also sneaks in a comment about the different number of windings for the two systems. IN the caption ro Fig 2 it says "(Note: In a Wye transformer, line-to-line voltage encompasses two phases that are electrically 120 degrees apart.)" and this seems to support what I have been droning on about- i.e. the relevant voltage is, in fact higher than is acknowledged in this thread.
I believe that "you don't get owt for nowt" (ancient Yorkshire saying) and I have been desperate to explain away this case where it is claimed that you can. It seems that it may just be the way that it's being looked at. (I am not arguing that the systems are not engineered properly, btw, they are obviously getting it right, in practice)

 

[Averagesupernova]

But the US domestic split phase system is a complete red herring in the context of the '3Phase current' discussion afaics. It is such a totally different arrangement.

I disagree. And as someone who lives in the US and is very familiar with the split-phase system I feel that my opinion that there are enough similarities between the systems to warrant its inclusion at this point in this thread should carry some weight.
-
You say:

But I still don't see why people are making out that there's a magic 'profit' to be made by using three phase, because the amount of current is reduced. Using three phases requires higher voltage specification, afaics.

Then I say:

The highest voltage between 240 volt split-phase or single phase conductors is no less than it is for the conductors in 240 volt 3-phase delta for instance.

Then you say:

That comment is not really relevant to my case.

Really? How much more contradictory can you get? It doesn't matter what the arrangement is. The voltage is what it is.

I believe that "you don't get owt for nowt" (ancient Yorkshire saying) and I have been desperate to explain away this case where it is claimed that you can.

So far, I would say you have not succeeded. Per my post #76:

It is no different in a 3-phase system. If all 3 phases are loaded similarly then the neutral current is very low if not zero. Do this with 3 separate sets of feeders for 3 different loads which means a total of 6 current carrying conductors and you have just doubled the power loss in the conductors.

Does this fit not getting owt for nowt?
-
Edit: For the record I am not in complete agreement about what they call legs and what they call phases in your link sophie.

 

[jim hardy]

nice link there sophiePublic Service of Colorado(central US) will no longer install figure 1, though it used to be common with phase B known colloquially as "Wild Leg"

fig 2 is what I'm accustomed to for small commercial installations
208 volt 3 phase HVAC and elevator motors, and 120 volt lighting/, all from one service drop

 

[russ_watters]

The whole 240 volts thing without the neutral is just adding more confusion to the thread.

Unfortunately yes. I thought it would help - it did not. I didn't expect so much resistance to what is a fairly basic (if quirky) concept in electricity, particularly from people who I know understand the issue. It certainly is bizarre.

If I am not mistaken, we are talking about adding the most power for the least cost in additional wire while maintaining the same voltage into the devices that are the load.

Constraints were never really specified and that's a lot of the problem here. Yes, we were discussing why three-phase circuits can carry more power with less "wire" than single phase circuits. When I brought-in split-phase, it added a new wrinkle that confused things: 240V single phase and 240V split (single) phase are not the same and as a result, I changed the constraint.* Perhaps people picked-up on it (or tripped over that), but several of the responses I got were wrong and continue to be wrong:

You cannot do this unless we keep the neutral which means we go to three current carrying wires.

That's wrong. If you want to compare 240V split phase and 240V single phase, both need two wires. 240V single phase uses a hot and a neutral and 240V split phase uses two hots. The third wire is only needed for a dual-voltage circuit. No one, that I've seen here, has specified they want to discuss dual-voltage circuits, so I need us to be absolutely clear on this, so I'll say it again: both 240V single phase and 240V split (single) phase can be done with two wires. I even provided an example receptacle, with description that explicitly states this.

While it is true that 240 volt devices such as a residential water heater do not need a neutral and only require 2 current carrying conductors the rules of the game have changed since we raised the voltage in that particular load.

Raised it from what? You seem to be arguing opposite sides of the same point at the same time. The fact that 240V split phase can be done with two wires is true regardless of anything else we are discussing.

*And the reason why I changed it is that I'm more interested in real-world situations than hypotheticals. In the real world you may have complete control over what you can do (in new construction) or you may have limited control based on a pre-existing system. In a real world system that already exists, 240V split phase and 240V single phase are not equivalent and equally available choices. In a real-world situation, you have one or the other, but pretty much never both. Heck, you almost never have 240V single phase as an option at all. The nearest typical is 480/277V: the 480V can be single (split) or three phase and the 277V is single phase to ground (or neutral). For low voltage in commercial or large residential systems, you have 208V single (split)/three phase with 120V single phase. In small residential, you have the split phase I brought-up. In both of the low voltage situations, the higher voltage is a phase-to-phase split and is available from the same panel/transformer as the 120V single phase. That's why I compared them as otherwise equals. If that change confused things, I apologize.

But the switching of voltage constraints wasn't the initial objection, the number of wires was. Ironically:

Reminds me of this thread. https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/total-amperage-in-a-service-panel.705961/

Yeah. That's the thread/diagram anorlunda cited in post #53 and in post #5 of that thread, Nugatory pointed out the same issue I did:

The diagram also has a small mistake in the 240v receptacle - that's supposed to be a green grounding wire, not a white one, out of the ground plug. The white wire would only be present if this were a receptacle for a combined 120/240 appliance, and then would be four prongs and four wires: hot 1, hot 2, white grounded and green grounding.

I'll be more charitable and call it a truncation or oversimplification: If they are going to show the ground wire on the 120V circuit, they should show the ground (green) wire on the 240V circuit. So either one of those wires is the wrong color or they glossed-over the fact that that isn't just a 240V circuit, it is a dual-voltage 120/240V circuit.

 

[Averagesupernova]

I'll get back to you russ. I can now see why you think I am being contradictory. There are some things I need to clarify but don't have the time at the moment. Already took too much time. LOL

 

[russ_watters]

I now understand those formulae about three phase currents and voltages. But I still don't see why people are making out that there's a magic 'profit' to be made by using three phase, because the amount of current is reduced.

Generally, the current drives the wire size, not the voltage. So you save on copper in the wires: less current means you can run smaller wires.

Using three phases requires higher voltage specification, afaics.

Actually, no. If anything it would require less because while the phase to phase voltages can be made equal (in the calculation example I gave), the phase to ground is lower.

I run into situations at work occasionally where I have to work with the electrical department to pick the specs of a device such as an electric heater or motor. The cost may not be much different for different voltages/phasings. I might have 120V and 208V single phase and 208V three phase available from the same transformer (very common). The one requiring the least amount of wire is 208V three phase.

 

[russ_watters]

I'll get back to you russ. I can now see why you think I am being contradictory. There are some things I need to clarify but don't have the time at the moment. Already took too much time. LOL

Understood -- I'm sure we're just talking past each other and can see why my changing constraints in the middle of the discussion confused things.

I recognize that you know what you are talking about. And frankly, this all came from trying to help Sophiecentaur, and since we haven't yet, that should be the main focus!

 

[Salvador]

i wonder why all the fuss , after all , all this phase this phase that talk is simply a matter of how one wires the secondary of the last step down transformer in the line to residental buildings and/or factories.
I think I totally get the US split phase system , the secondary of this system is basically wired like almoust all audio power amplifier transformer secondaries , where you have one secondary winding with a given voltage value but you simply have an extra pinout made at the exact middle of this winding, so if the winding itself is wound to be 240 volts then connecting at each side and the middle you get half of that while when connecting across the wholw winding you get the whole voltage across it.
and it needs only two wires I don't see why would it need an extra third wire , after all its only a single phase winding , after all a single winding can only be single phase since it hs only one wire aka two wires comming out at each end.simply connect the load across those wires and voula, you get the full winding voltage.
I do realize that its not just a single secondary winding even in the US split phase, its a three phase comming in but for simplicity I analyzed only one ot the three secondary (main 240 V) windings from which each has a center tap and each supplies two split phase 120v outputs.

I personally don't see why this split phase arrangement would be more efficient ? after all you have the same single phase winding with basically the same " european" 240 V across it , the only difference is that instead of simply using that whole winding with its whole 240 V you split it in half and then use one half and the other half , but in theory I think this means that there can be situations were one half od the winding is more loaded than the other and doesn't this cause unequal loading in the winding whic then causes unequal heating in the coil and currets and whatnot?
But anyway I think using the whole 240v across the winding is more efficient than using eac half of the winding , because due to lower voltage from that each half you have more loss in the circuits attached, also you need thicker wire for 120v to get the same power than for 240.As for the three phase system argument , having higher voltage hence need for better insulation , well pardon me if I say something wrong here as I'm no 50 years experienced expert but I tend to agree with sophie on this as I have heard and read many times that three phase has higher overall voltage.Yes each pahse is still only 220 or 230 or whatever the value (differs from country to country) but as I read on the internet (please correct me if this is wrong) the vectors from the phases add up and the total sum is larger than the individual 240 volts from a single phase.

also while on this , I guess every single secondary winding single phase system has both wires hot with no neutral, the only times we get the so neutral is when as in the US system they have the center tap into the single secondary coil , or in other places in the world like in all of eastern Europe and Russia and probably many other places in europe , you get three phase power as the lowest power coming from the last step down transformer along the line , but in the buildings these three phases are split evenly , and then they use for example phase 1 and neutral, phase 2 and neutral and phase 3 and neutral, so the neutral is the same in all building but the phases are not.
for many industrial applications the three phase system doesn't have that neutral.

 

[jim hardy]

i think the higher voltage question becomes moot
i don't rightly recall seeing any wire rated less than 600 volts
and in the plant we tested insulation at twice rated plus a thousand voltsjust looked at a piece of NM-B Romex bought at local lumberyard for household wiring
it's stamped12AWG 600 V and wrapper says 600 volt

 

[sophiecentaur]

I disagree. And as someone who lives in the US and is very familiar with the split-phase system I feel that my opinion that there are enough similarities between the systems to warrant its inclusion at this point in this thread should carry some weight.

Split phase system (two extremes):
1. Totally balanced = 240V into a 1kW load (= 4.166A)
2. Totally unbalanced = 120V into 1kW load ( = 8.33A)
Doubling the volts uses half the current. I really can't see that's very relevant. I'm sure you know and love the split phase system - as do most US consumers but that doesn't make it a good model for proving the relationships in the 3 Phase system. I must say whilst we are on the split phase topic, I have read more confused statements about it on PF than I have about the much simpler single phase with neutral system, used in Europe. Perhaps the statistics are biased there, though (not a proper controlled test)

Are you familiar with the UK 3 phase distribution system? There is 415V between the phases of the '240V' system. "My case" was the WYE system and you were quoting the delta system. That's why I said your comment was not relevant.

It doesn't matter what the arrangement is. The voltage is what it is.

Which voltage, though? 'Phase voltage' or 'inter-phase voltage'? This is my point and they are not always the same.

 

[sophiecentaur]

Do this with 3 separate sets of feeders for 3 different loads which means a total of 6 current carrying conductors and you have just doubled the power loss in the conductors. 3 phase makes sense no matter how you look at it. The wire insulation is the same

That is the nearest thing to a good argument - apart from the last bit. There is 415V voltage difference between pairs of 240V phases in the same piece of equipment. Whether or not that is as relevant as I think it is, may be arguable but it has to mean that the insulation needs to be thicker.

 

[sophiecentaur]

nice link there sophie

I nearly spilled my Christmas drinks when I saw the "Wild Leg" system. You'd need to be very careful to make sure no one else was trying to connect another Wild Leg to the system. Talk about the Wild West! There seem to be more different standards over there than I've had hot dinners. All we have is 240V single phase or 415V 3 phase and everything we have will use one or the other - except for railway traction (afaik).

 

[sophiecentaur]

this all came from trying to help Sophiecentaur, and since we haven't yet, that should be the main focus!

Thanks for your indulgence. I am getting there but, on the way, I have turned up new issues which seem to be unresolved in the minds of many (non expert) people. I think I will just have to turn it over in my head a bit more and let you guys get on with your lives. I guess that, in my worry about getting something for nothing, I had forgotten that efficiency can often be improved. You can often get something from being smart.

 

[Averagesupernova]

Ok russ, I will try to explain myself. Starting with 120 volts in either split phase system or the 208 volt system where there is 120 volts from each hot wire to ground. For the sake of my argument the voltage we stick with, for apples to apples comparisons, is 120 volts. As I explained, sharing the neutral in the split phase system eliminates current in one conductor. Actually it eliminates the current in 2 conductors if we split the neutral up and had 2 separate 120 volt feeds. You and I will certainly agree with this am I correct? Some folks will say screw the neutral and just use 240 volts for everything. Yes this is an option and as I have pointed out in another thread which is linked to in this thread doing that has its disadvantages. So, sticking with 120 volts, you cannot eliminate the neutral. In my water heater example I said you can and of course we both agree that is the case. But simply using the phrase split phase it implies 120 volt loads will exist. Otherwise there is no reason for the center tap on the transformer. So, that is my position and I think we can put that part of the discussion to bed.
-
Sophie, I will try to address your points.

Split phase system (two extremes):
1. Totally balanced = 240V into a 1kW load (= 4.166A)
2. Totally unbalanced = 120V into 1kW load ( = 8.33A)
Doubling the volts uses half the current. I really can't see that's very relevant.

So it is your position that halving the current going to 240 volts is not relevant? I don't recall that being your position in other threads here on PF. 1000 watts may not be much going from one voltage to the other but what about a central air or heat pump unit? Last one I wired was a in small house for what is typically built nowadays and the breaker size spec'd was 25 amp 240 volt double pole breaker. Want to run that on 120 volts? Now you have a 50 amp breaker with much heavier wire.
-
Concerning what you call 3 phase 240 volt wye system in the UK. I assume that it is 240 volts between neutral and each hot conductor with 415 volts between each hot conductor. We have the same thing in the US except the voltage is halved and we DON'T SPEC THE LOW VOLTAGE. Doing so seems insane to me from a safety perspective. We call it 208 volt wye. I don't think it is possible to get wire in this country rated for less than 600 volts that is used in construction so as jim hardy said it is a moot point.
-
It boils down to this: 3 phase in any configuration and split phase take advantage of using currents that cancel and reduce the loss and wire size in some neutral wires. If you don't see this as an advantage over single phase then at this point I am not sure I can get the point across, although I am sure I will try. :)

 

[Averagesupernova]

This explains it very well.
http://www.allaboutcircuits.com/textbook/alternating-current/chpt-10/three-phase-y-delta-configurations/#02197.png
Want to take this opportunity to make a correction on one thing I have said. I implied, or outright said that
switching from 3 single phase feeders to one 3 phase set of feeders halves the loss in the conductors. This is not completely true. The link shows this pretty well. Probably the best link I have seen for explaining differences in various terminology. Jim, I'm not sure about the following:

One can have 240 or 120 3 phase let's take a look

three 240 volt 15 amp single phase circuits could move 240 X 15 X 3 = 10,800 VA over six conductors = 1800 VA per conductor

a single three phase circuit could move 240 X 15 X √3 = 6235 VA over three conductors = 2078 VA per conductor,

half as many conductors carrying 6235/10800 = 58% the power seems modest gain indeed

old jim

The single phase part is right on. 3600 watts per feeder pair. No argument there. Take a 240 volt delta system. It would be 240 X 15 / √3 since line current (current in the wire) is 1.73 times each load that is connected line to line. And then this would be multiplied by 3 since there are three loads. So, we have: 240 X 15 / √3 = 2078 watts per phase. Three phases gets you 6235 watts total just like you said. There is a reason I did the math that way. BUT take a 208 volt wye system. We will use a neutral conductor to easier illustrate current paths even though with a balanced load it is not needed. Line current is the SAME as load current in this configuration so we have gained here. 120 volts x 15 amps 3 times gets us 5400 watts on 4 wires. And if we have a situation where it is guaranteed to have a balanced load we can eliminate the neutral conductor. In that case we have cut the number of conductors in half as compared with 3 separate single phase circuits.

 

[sophiecentaur]

So it is your position that halving the current going to 240 volts is not relevant?

It is "not relevant" to the 3 Phase advantage argument because the angles are different. It merely shows that doubling the volts will halve the current.
Also, The "throwing away three conductors" argument is only a qualititive argument and it doesn't imply halving the resistive loss. But numerical examples will always lose details of relationships; each of the three remaining conductors will have current flowing through it that is different from from the three pairs situation.

we DON'T SPEC THE LOW VOLTAGE. Doing so seems insane to me from a safety perspective.

We spec it that way because it refers to the voltage of pretty well all domestic and industrial appliances, You measure 240V on a device and you know it's being supplied correctly. I can see that the US Mix n Match situation makes things much more complicated and that any installation you come across could have a range of system voltages. Actually, that seems much mre risky because there must be a greater chance of connecting equipment to the wrong supply volts.

i think the higher voltage question becomes moot

The specification for insulation is less easy than that for current, I guess. But even for current, the capacity of a cable is arrived at by considering an almost worst case thermal environment. It is more conservative than necessary if the installation is done well. (I am not recommending bad practice here!). Insulation is spec'd with loads of headroom but it isn't arbitrary. Your formula (twice plus a thousand) is based on statistics of fault incidents and also on a cost factor. Insulation is cheap, certainly for underground cables. How does it compare for HV overhead, though. I would imagine the cost of towers and insulating suspension must be more relevant. The choice of system voltage really is important though and I get the feeling that it's being dismissed in this thread. The fact that there's 415V between phases is negligible, perhaps, but it still accounts for a chunk of the increased power handling capacity of three phase, imo.

This thread about electrical supply is a good parallel with the recent thread about broadcast TV reception. The environments in UK and US are so so different that we often find ourselves at cross purposes. Looking in on the UK, it must appear that we are regulated to an absurd level whilst looking in on the US, it just looks like a free for all. We are separated by more than a 'common language', as the man said.
All the world's strange save thee and me and even thou are a little strange!

 

[Salvador]

Even though I found the link myself , it's a nice link about the phase explanations.but still maybe I'm getting it wrong but the three phase no neutral connection only goes for balanced loads , with unbalanced inductive/capacitive loads there should be unequal currents flowing so in all practical cases like residental areas there must be a neutral used.I mean it's not like all the neighbours down the street will come out to calculate their loads and then agree which one will plug in what.
So if you must use the neutral and it is being used , you gain what? a bit smaller neutral wire because the neutral currents are not so high as in single phase VS split phase?
but you then get larger live conductors because you have only 120V instead of 240V.Maybe if the split phase would have been made such that it has 240V on each side hot and neutral, maybe then the smaller neutral could benefit the same hot wire diameter beacuse of the higher voltage.

Also If I am getting this correctly , apart from the single split phase thinner neutral there are no other actual benefits of it?All the same things apply, like a certain amount of voltage can push a certain amount of current through a given resistance/impedance load, so who can say whether the thinner neutral actually outgunns the thicker wire needed because of lower voltage or vice versa?

Also to me the split phase seems like its just each of the three phase coils split in half and since current only flows through a closed loop , it kinda seems that the split phase is basically just a single phase with a lower voltage and the ability to double the voltage by connecting it to the full length of the coil of each phase but then it becomes essentially a european single phase except instead of having one hot from each phase and a common neutral it has both ends hot but since the voltage is the same it doesn't do anything in terms of wire diameters etc.

 

[jim hardy]

Insulation is cheap, certainly for underground cables. How does it compare for HV overhead, though. I would imagine the cost of towers and insulating suspension must be more relevant.

I don't know enough to give you a number
but from my friends in T&D i did learn that for those big overhead transmission lines the cost of oversize towers to keep separation when conductors are swaying in high wind, and the cost of the insulators themselves was a significant part of line cost. So when my utility built lines they insulated for twice intended voltage because it both gave better reliability and allowed future doubling of a line's capacity by just replacing the transformers at both ends.
Not bad ideas in a region with both hurricanes and rapid population growth.

old jim

 

[jim hardy]

all practical cases like residental areas there must be a neutral used.I mean it's not like all the neighbours down the street will come out to calculate their loads and then agree which one will plug in what.
So if you must use the neutral and it is being used , you gain what? a bit smaller neutral wire because the neutral currents are not so high as in single phase VS split phase?

One must distinguish between neutrals on high side and low side of the distribution transformer and keep his thinking straight

I walked around several blocks in the neighborhood where i grew up.
They carry three phases into the neighborhood at probably 7 or 14 kv

at each block they tap just one phase and feed it down the side street with a neutral wire

all the "Pole Pig" transformers for tha block come from that phase to neutral, which in this picture they called 'ground'

they divvy up the blocks among the three phases at the higher voltage level so the system will be fairly balanced by statistics.

In those photos the high voltage side neutral is low on the pole
where i grew up it's at top of pole to act as lightning rod

observe the high side neutral conductor uses a smaller insulator than the phase conductor , one that's there mainly for mechanical support.

those photos all from this link
http://www.science.smith.edu/~jcardell/Courses/EGR220/ElecPwr_HSW.html
which is a nice introduction to distributionOn the low voltage side the neutral is sized same as 'hot' conductors, in fact it's the bare cable that supports them. Lower left of bottom photo.
What do we get by using our split dual voltage 120/240 system ?
We evolved from Edison's DC system which was around 100 volts.
So - i'd answer your question "We got to keep the same light bulbs." Until EPA and CFL's came along.
I grew up with the split syatem. . I like it because no receptacle in my house has any voltage higher than 120 volts to earth. When i was about two, like so many kids, i stuck a bobby pin in an outlet and still remember how it burnt my fingers and glowed red before the fuse blew. I'm glad it was 110 not 230 volts.
So i will tease Sophie - his 230 volt system is 'unsafe at any speed.'
In my lifetime I've seen our nominal voltage grow from 110 to 115 to today's 120 volts.

Here's a tabulation of several distribution schemes.
http://www.ccontrolsys.com/w/Electrical_Service_Types_and_Voltages
note it includes that delta with "wild leg" .

And a more detailed introduction by a major manufacturer.
http://static.schneider-electric.us/docs/Circuit Protection/SD183.pdf

my two cents, hope it helps.

old jim

 

[anorlunda]

Jim Hardy is my all time favorite Internet surfer. Time and again, he digs up these golden nuggets of clarifying documents or diagrams. Thanks Jim.

But this thread is a hopeless mess. It started with the OP; I don't even remember what he asked. But then Sophie brought in low voltage DC distribution. Then it jumped to the bulk transmission system and HVDC where we deal with millions of volts and thousands of miles. Then it somehow shifted to household wiring. If I wanted to offer a reply comment now, I would have no idea what subject I'm commenting on.

 

[Salvador]

I don't know any HVDC system that would use " millions of volts" the highest one I have heard uses a bit over 800KV, if maybe you were reffering to lightning even though I doubt one would call that HVDC system.

As for what you said Jim , a good reply , fair assumptions and opinion but I still would love to hear whether the overall single split phase supply wins with less copper or whether it's the other way round that it actually needs more copper due to the lower voltage, and the same need for the neutral wire in most of it's application cases.

as for safety I have zapped myself with 230V from a live conductor some times , and a few of them were when I was a kid and the electricity ran through my body because i was standing on conducting pavement, i still remember my legs being unable to get me up from ground for a few minutes.
but as for the safety I think simply using less voltage with all the drawbacks it causes simply because someone might stick some hairpins into the socket is not exactly a wise idea.rather make wall sockets with some safety features or locate them on a height that children can't reach etc etc.
otherwise if we would think like this we should stop using a lot of modern things simply because if they are used wrongly they cause death.like cars airbags won't save you if a drunk truck driver decides to crash into you and the steering wheel is being pushed through your body, or the good old example of someone stabbing a person with a kitchen knife , i mean should we now use our fingers to cut bread instead...

P.S. I know in the former USSR and also in probably other parts of europe highrise appartment buildings all had mandatory wooden floors in the flats , like you finish the reinforced concrete floor which is the structural support with a wooden finish , typically pasteboard since its cheap.if the floor is dry you get isolation atleast at residental voltage levels aka 230V, so if some apparatus develops a chassis fault and has some voltage on chassis you won't be injured by that voltage (atleast in theory) beacuse your body doesn't complete a circuit, ofcourse unless you don't touch some conducting elements with your body at the same time, like the heating pipes or else.

 

[Averagesupernova]

Ok so is this thread ready to turn into split phase is better than 240 volt single phase used in the UK? If so I am totally on board!

 

[Jeff Rosenbury]

I think engineers usually try to keep voltage below the formation of positrons at about 1.2MeV. (They form as part of electron-positron pairs each with a rest mass of about 0.51 MeV.) Given phase and RMS calculations, 800KV is about the maximum.

However, under normal operations I don't think they would form since electrons would slow in the air long before they got the energy they needed. Under normal operations.

Russia had a long line (2000+ kM) at 1.1MV and China has several at 1MV. (According to Dr. Wikipedia anyway) I'm not sure how much radiation they would leak in an unexpected short though. Hopefully they have safety equipment to prevent that. Anti-matter is so cool though.

 

[sophiecentaur]

So i will tease Sophie - his 230 volt system is 'unsafe at any speed.'

You have a point there but the statistics of electric shock are pretty good in the UK because the spec for the equipment is very high and, for the past many years, there has been a requirement for RCD protection. You need to have a certificate for any domestic electrical installations if you want a prospective buyer to get a mortgage so there is very little that your average tinkerer can get away with. I couldn't get like for like comparison on relative number of fatal shocks in UK and US but http://rjqelectrical.co.uk/2013/04/electrical-safety-statistics/ suggests 28 fatalities per year (0.05 per 100,000 total) in UK and this link suggests about 0.2 per 100,000 (industrial) in the US. That doesn't lead one to think that the 240V issue is particularlyrelevant.

Ok so is this thread ready to turn into split phase is better than 240 volt single phase used in the UK? If so I am totally on board!

Better? 240V house wiring is cheaper and appliance leads are thinner. Afaik, the only reason for going away from a simple 120V (=100V) standard in the US was that it wasn't suitable for heating appliances (thick wire etc) and they thought quickly and came up with this dual voltage system which is compatible with both requirements. The split phase feature was a reasonable enough strategy which makes best use of the available copper. I would imagine that people in the UK are actually more scared of 240V and tend to treat it more carefully. 120V is just not scary enough; you can usually cope with a 120V contact without ruffling your feathers but 240V does make you jump. UK plugs and sockets are bulky and expensive but, at the same time, comforting. The fuse in every 13A plug is (should be) tailored to the lead / cord to each device to provide good protection against thin leads catching fire when abused.

 

[jim hardy]

The fuse in every 13A plug

your plugs have fuses in them ?

http://www.electricalsafetyfirst.org.uk/guides-and-advice/electrical-items/plugs/

 

[meBigGuy]

I wonder if the reduced current results in fewer fires from bad electrical connections. I hate it when I find hot plugs or sockets.
I've been hooked across 220 though, and that was a bad experience (I was pulled off).

 

[Averagesupernova]

Afaik, the only reason for going away from a simple 120V (=100V) standard in the US was that it wasn't suitable for heating appliances (thick wire etc) and they thought quickly and came up with this dual voltage system which is compatible with both requirements.

Seriously sophie, I am not sure I am going to put much effort into replying to you in the future. For someone who has such strong feelings about the differences between the split phase system and the single phase 240 volt system in the UK I would think you would remember how the split phase system evolved since I once explained it to you. https://www.physicsforums.com/threa...eutral-and-ground-needed.719066/#post-4554015

 

[sophiecentaur]

your plugs have fuses in them ?

http://www.electricalsafetyfirst.org.uk/guides-and-advice/electrical-items/plugs/

Oh yes. The Ring Main system is a very serviceable and cheap system for providing a lot of sockets in a house without a Star system. The ring is better than the Daisy Chain as there is no 'end of the line' voltage drop. Having the protection associated with each appliance by a fused plug is very good. A low powered lamp, supplied from a high current outlet is a fire hazard without something to protect the thin cord - I think you would agree. But those UK plugs are very chunky (good and bad thing) and are pretty expensive if you don't buy poor quality far-Eastern sourced ones.
There is one thing that amazes me about the fused plug system though and it's that all new plugs are supplied with a 13A FUSE IN THEM! Not a fail safe situation. I should have thought they should, by default, have a 3A fuse and then, when the user connected a new plug to a Kettle, the default fuse would blow - unless they had the sense to use the appropriate fuse value. (You can buy plug fuses in pretty much every shop in the high street except a fishmonger's.
I have read several objections (US origin) on PF to the ring main system but it is well tried and tested and those scenarios that the nay-sayers suggest, just don't seem to arise.