<div dir="ltr">Old habits die hard after 27 years in the Electrical industry I still think of the nominal mains supply being 240VAC@50Hz.<div><br></div><div>I perhaps should have been more accurate with; my original statement "It's better your iGate sips and not sucks on the nominal mains supply regardless these days o_O"<div><br></div><div>Your nominal mains voltage (and frequency for that matter) will certainly not be the same as mine for the very reasons Ray has pointed out. I'm sitting here watching the nominal mains voltage at our industrial building hovering around 251.2VAC with a mains frequency of 49.557987Hz (with better a accuracy better than 1e-9 Hz). I'm sure I'll see that climb back above 50Hz in the next 15 minutes as the generators correct the loss over the remainder of the day. There's certainly been a power demand spike somewhere in the VK5 network today.</div><div><br></div><div>I agree with Ray that nothing really changed when the nominal mains voltage limits in AS60038 were updated, the limits were effectively still the same, well within a few volts of the same write that off to minor percentage differences.<br></div><div><br></div><div>Most of VK5 is still largely manual tapped transformers between the HV/LV networks. As a result our mains voltage can vary like a drunk skunk due to network load. Only made worse by the high prevalence of solar inverters and wind generation now invested within the electrical network. Our energy market can see large cloud masses drifting across our state before our Bureau of Meteorology.</div><div><br></div><div>YMMV<br></div><div><br></div><div>Now getting back to the APRS hardware Liz asked us all about.</div><div><br></div><div>73</div><div><br></div><div>Matthew</div><div>VK5ZM</div><div><br></div><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote">On 18 February 2016 at 07:31, vk2tv <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:vk2tv@exemail.com.au" target="_blank">vk2tv@exemail.com.au</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">Matthew, all,<br>
</font><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"><br>
AS60038, was published in Australia on 23rd January 2000 to</font><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"> replace the previous 240V
standard. This requires</font><font face="Times New Roman, Times,
serif">, under normal service<br>
conditions, that the</font><font face="Times New Roman, Times,
serif"> voltage at the point of supply should not differ from the
nominal voltage of 230/400V by more than +10%,-6%. <br>
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.<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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. <br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
Whilst the "nominal" voltage may be 230V according to AS60038, in
practice, it appears little (nothing?) has changed since the 240V
standard. <br>
<br>
Ray vk2tv<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</font><span class="">
<div>On 17/02/16 21:30, Malcolm Larkin
wrote:
<pre>We haven't had 240V AC in Australia since the 23rd of January 2000. The day we dropped to 230V</pre>
</div>
</span><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">It is allowed to be +5% /
-10% (241.5 to 207)
Previously when 240, it was ± 10% so 264 to 216<br>
</font><span class=""><br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre>Sent from my iPhone
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre>On 17 Feb 2016, at 18:56, Liz VK2XSE <a href="mailto:edodd55@gmail.com" target="_blank"><edodd55@gmail.com></a> wrote:
QTR Wed, 17 Feb 2016 09:41:42 +1030 Matthew Cook QTC
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre>It's better your iGate sips and not sucks on the 240VAC regardless
these days o_O
73
Matthew
VK5ZM
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre>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
<a href="mailto:OZAPRS@aprs.net.au" target="_blank">OZAPRS@aprs.net.au</a>
<a href="http://lists.aprs.net.au/mailman/listinfo/ozaprs" target="_blank">http://lists.aprs.net.au/mailman/listinfo/ozaprs</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre>_______________________________________________
OZAPRS mailing list
<a href="mailto:OZAPRS@aprs.net.au" target="_blank">OZAPRS@aprs.net.au</a>
<a href="http://lists.aprs.net.au/mailman/listinfo/ozaprs" target="_blank">http://lists.aprs.net.au/mailman/listinfo/ozaprs</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</span></div>
<br>_______________________________________________<br>
OZAPRS mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:OZAPRS@aprs.net.au">OZAPRS@aprs.net.au</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.aprs.net.au/mailman/listinfo/ozaprs" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.aprs.net.au/mailman/listinfo/ozaprs</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div></div></div>