fullsquare

joined 7 months ago
[–] fullsquare@awful.systems 2 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (3 children)

you don't have to have three phase circuit to be affected by floating neutral in three-phase substation upstream. in some places in us there are 208v interphase three-phase circuits, which give 120v phase to neutral, which is distributed as a pair of wires as single-phase circuit. this is also normal way to deliver single-phase power in europe, as it's most efficient use of conductor. (from 400v three-phase circuits) in case more power is needed than single-phase circuit can deliver, three-phase circuit is installed

if there's switch on device, it's 2p1t meaning both phase and neutral are switched. if it's permanent, non-pluggable circuit, like lightning, it's okay if only phase is switched (neutral is connected permanently)

[–] fullsquare@awful.systems 0 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (5 children)

it's a bad practice to design appliance in such a way to assume that neutral will have low voltage, because in case of neutral failure in three-phase circuit you can get full voltage there, and there can be a couple of volts difference (sometimes more) between neutral and ground even in normal circumstances

it's better to cut off both live and neutral at the same time anyway, especially if there's no standard which is which. also, as device designer you don't know if it'll be used on a circuit that has neutral and phase where you think it'll go or not. (ie british appliance used on unpolarized circuit, like type F. adapters exist)

[–] fullsquare@awful.systems 25 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Type E/F carries 16A/230V, and nowadays there are shutters included which only allow two pins to be inserted at once, not one but not the other. There's no standard as of which pin should be L1 and neutral anyway, nor it should matter, and fuses in british plugs are to accommodate ring circuits, which were introduced as a result of copper shortages (ie decades of tech debt)

[–] fullsquare@awful.systems 11 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Or you could just use thicker wires like everyone else, or drop the use of ring mains, which is the actual reason why fuses in plugs were introduced. The reason why this was done was post-WW2 copper shortage. In other countries you'll see more likely star type circuit

[–] fullsquare@awful.systems 2 points 3 months ago

I think that type A plug would be greatly improved in terms of safety and mechanically if it was put in a grounded metal shroud, in style of DIN connector https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DIN_connector it still would be compact, smaller than type F

[–] fullsquare@awful.systems 5 points 3 months ago (2 children)

UK uses type G. Type E/F plug has both contact for grounding pin like in type E and two sliding ground contacts on side like in type F. Sockets are either E or F, and i've mostly seen E

[–] fullsquare@awful.systems 21 points 3 months ago

no, because it'll just trip fuse, and stoves are wired directly anyway

[–] fullsquare@awful.systems 4 points 3 months ago

C/E/F also have shutters, probably more types do that too

[–] fullsquare@awful.systems 39 points 3 months ago (16 children)

Type E and F plugs are not really a thing anymore, today it's more common to find combined Type E/F plugs.

Fuses in british plugs are a mistake and only a requirement because of sketchy practices allowed in british electrical code immediately after WW2. Nobody else does that because nowhere else electric code is built in such a way that it is necessary. Switch seems to be mildly useful tho

[–] fullsquare@awful.systems 32 points 3 months ago (1 children)

llms allowed them to glide all the way to the point of failure without learning anything

[–] fullsquare@awful.systems 23 points 3 months ago

Live in the forest ig. Some defect to Ukrainians, there are flyers and websites and telegram channels for that, but hard to say how many choose so

[–] fullsquare@awful.systems 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

well, i see a large category of infrastructure problems (that will be 99% civilian use anyway - and not only transport, also telecomms, you can even put healthcare training in there) that is solvable by pouring money at them, and now it's politically convenient to let it rip even among pro-austerity neoliberals. if you want an example of what can this do, look at eastern eu countries and how they changed after funding went in

view more: ‹ prev next ›