[OZAPRS] Mains voltage (was Re: hardware suggestions)

[vk2tv]

Gavin,

Your graph fits well with Essential Energy's 230V, +10%, -2% figures, 
but it also fits the old 240V, ±6% standard. Shuffle the numbers and get 
the same results!

Ray vk2tv



On 18/02/16 09:26, Gavin Rogers wrote:
> For some reason, in Perth the nominal voltage is still 240v. And while 
> on that topic, here's the APRS telemetry graphing the voltage at my 
> house :-)
>
> http://aprs.fi/telemetry/a/VK6HGR-1
>
>
> On 18 February 2016 5:01:59 am AWST, vk2tv <vk2tv at exemail.com.au> wrote:
>
>     Matthew, all,
>
>     AS60038, was published in Australia on 23rd January 2000 toreplace
>     the previous 240V standard. This requires, under normal service
>     conditions, that thevoltage at the point of supply should not
>     differ from the nominal voltage of 230/400V by more than +10%,-6%.
>     Voltage drop within a customer's premises may reduce this by
>     another 5%, the maximum permissible under AS/NZS 3000, known as
>     the Wiring Rules.
>     Essential Energy therefore say that the total variation can be as
>     wide as +10%, -11%. Essential Energy realises that this voltage
>     range may cause issues with 240V equipment and they, therefore,
>     have adopted the range of 230V, +10%, -2%, which aligns very
>     closely with the old 240V standard. When I was the Supply
>     Irregularity Officer with a County Council (not Essential Energy)
>     the standard was 240V, ±6%, or 226V-254V. I know that other states
>     had different standards at the time, and maybe they still do.
>
>     The current Essential Energy "standard" of 230V, +10%, -2%, is
>     within AS60038 requirements, and returns a voltage range of
>     253V-225V. The AS60038 percentages return 253V-216V.
>
>     During my time in the position of SIO the nominal HV supply was
>     11,000V, and that tap setting was chosen on distribution
>     transformers. Under unloaded network conditions the LV would be at
>     near the top allowable figure of 254V, and network load would
>     reduce that figure.
>
>     Whilst the "nominal" voltage may be 230V according to AS60038, in
>     practice, it appears little (nothing?) has changed since the 240V
>     standard.
>
>     Ray vk2tv
>
>
>
>
>     On 17/02/16 21:30, Malcolm Larkin wrote:
>
>     We haven't had 240V AC in Australia since the 23rd of January 2000. The day we dropped to 230V
>
>     It is allowed to be +5% / -10% (241.5 to 207) Previously when 240,
>     it was ± 10% so 264 to 216
>
>
>
>>     Sent from my iPhone
>>
>>>     On 17 Feb 2016, at 18:56, Liz VK2XSE<edodd55 at gmail.com>  wrote:
>>>
>>>     QTR Wed, 17 Feb 2016 09:41:42 +1030 Matthew Cook QTC
>>>
>>>>     It's better your iGate sips and not sucks on the 240VAC regardless
>>>>     these days o_O
>>>>
>>>>     73
>>>>
>>>>     Matthew
>>>>     VK5ZM
>>>
>>>     Mine is solar powered - radio and the computer setup
>>>     The planned one is for a place where the power is provided by my son's
>>>     employer at very good rates ;)
>>>
>>>
>>>     -+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>>>     Liz
>>>     VK2XSE
>>>     _______________________________________________
>>>     OZAPRS mailing list
>>>     OZAPRS at aprs.net.au
>>>     http://lists.aprs.net.au/mailman/listinfo/ozaprs
>>     _______________________________________________
>>     OZAPRS mailing list
>>     OZAPRS at aprs.net.au
>>     http://lists.aprs.net.au/mailman/listinfo/ozaprs
>>
>
>     ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>     OZAPRS mailing list
>     OZAPRS at aprs.net.au
>     http://lists.aprs.net.au/mailman/listinfo/ozaprs
>
> -- Gavin Rogers mobile
>
> _______________________________________________
> OZAPRS mailing list
> OZAPRS at aprs.net.au
> http://lists.aprs.net.au/mailman/listinfo/ozaprs
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aprs.net.au/pipermail/ozaprs/attachments/20160218/510f3033/attachment.html>