Welcome Guest! The IOSH forums are a free resource to both members and non-members. Login or register to use them

Postings made by forum users are personal opinions. IOSH is not responsible for the content or accuracy of any of the information contained in forum postings. Please carefully consider any advice you receive.

Notification

Icon
Error

Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
Admin  
#1 Posted : 23 January 2002 15:19:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By John Taylor I have been told use of 240 vlt equipment in maintenance engineering departments is illegal I can,t find any reference in legislation stating this can any one help or direct me to a specific legaslative statement about 240 vlt equipment use of this nature regards John Taylor
Admin  
#2 Posted : 24 January 2002 09:34:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Ken Taylor There is a problem in the use of the term 'illegal'. Whilst 240v is less safe than a lower voltage, the issue is one of Codes of Practice, risk assessment and whether the employer is meeting the Electricity at Work Regulations and discharging a duty of care under other health and safety law. For a start, you could read the free publication INDG231 'Electrical Safety and You' (from the HSE on 01787 881165) - which contains a useful list of other publications on the subject.
Admin  
#3 Posted : 31 January 2002 08:58:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Martin Daly A Cara It is not illegal to use 240 volt power tools but you must use screened cables and be connected to an earth leakage device. Further more there is no evidence that 110 volt tools are safer. In fact because the amps are higher to make up for the lower volts there is a greater risk of fire etc. Martin Daly
Admin  
#4 Posted : 31 January 2002 15:46:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Richard Peters I can't see that the use of 240v equipment is automatically illeagal, but the Electricity at Work regs 1989 do place an absolute duty of care on the duty holder. With reference to the use of low voltage equipment, surely this must be safer to the user in the event of electic shock? 110v centre earth equipment will only have 55v to earth, less than 1/4 that of 240v equipment. This will reduce the current passing through the body by a similar factor, maybe from a fatal 100mA to an uncomfortable 23mA.
Admin  
#5 Posted : 01 February 2002 13:25:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Martin Daly There is just as much power being used by a 110 volt drill as a 240 volt drill to do this. If you reduce the volts you must increase the amps. There is no evidence of any kind that shows 110 volt is safer, the only place this urban myth is believed is the UK Martin Daly
Admin  
#6 Posted : 01 February 2002 13:38:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Richard Peters I understand the power and increased amperage requirement associated with the tools in use and I appreciate the increase in voltage drop and loadings on connections, etc. From a fire safety point of view I must agree with you. As regards the risk from electocution, however, there must be a point where a reduction in voltage makes a system safe. For a constant resistance to earth (taking like for like, a path through the body) a lower voltage will result in a lower current. There must surely be a point where the result is no injury. Taking the extreme, a 1.5v, 3v, 6v or 12v cell will not do any harm if held between the fingers. Granted, this is d.c. but I would not like to do the same with 240v. If 110v centre earth (i.e +/-55v) is not the cut off, then where does it become safe?
Admin  
#7 Posted : 01 February 2002 14:26:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Robert K Lewis The underlying philosophy of th EAW regs is that no voltage is "safe" only "safer than". The risk of injury simply reduces as the voltage decreases. It is ultimately a question of the suseptibility of the individual and I have seen some remarkable non-fatal situations which should have caused death The circumstances were just correct however and the operative survived. Equally I seem to remember a welder in a tank some years ago who was electrocuted when he broke a 110 volt bulb and it shorted on the tankside. In my telecom days even 12 and 9 volt were treated with the respect deserved only, in some peoples eyes, by 240+volts. Bob
Admin  
#8 Posted : 01 February 2002 16:22:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Jack Martin, why do you think its an “urban myth”. Richard is surely correct. Current (through the body) is proportional to the Voltage applied across it as Mr Ohm might have put it. Increase the voltage and a greater current will pass and it is this current which inflences the outcome. And for a given voltage this depends on the resistance. V=IR and all that!
Admin  
#9 Posted : 02 February 2002 00:48:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Edward H Forget the physics look at the accident history.... as far as I can ascertain there has been only one electrocution at 110v centre tapped in the last "n" years [where n is a large number!].... whereas there are several each year at 240v. What does the Low Voltage Directive have to say on the subject?
Admin  
#10 Posted : 04 February 2002 09:04:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Brian Dawson Edward, why forget the physics, especially when you seem to be singing from the same hymn sheet. Surely better than counting the dead!
Users browsing this topic
Guest
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.