60 Hertz line frequency and heart's sensitivity to fibrillation

Status
Not open for further replies.
M

martin reid

Member
Location
Gilman Hot Springs, CA 92583
Ventricular fibrillation from electroshock, and arc flash, are the two most acute dangers of the US Electrical system, with both these "built in" from the start. Particularly, 60 Hertz line frequency is universal, with the last exception of a remaining 25 Hertz system finally closed down. Studies and tests long-since done uncovered the fact that the heart is most sensitive to ventricular fibrillation at just about 60 Hertz, but not hugely better in this regard at 50 Hertz. A study also uncovered that as one drops the AC voltage from 120V down to 50V, 60 Hertz, the ventricular fibrillation risk goes away. The conclusion is the type of system regulated by Article 647 - the 60/120V "balanced power" 'sensitive electronic equipment' system affords the safest electricity-based energy conveyance system on the entire planet other than straight DC. The 60/120V system is the only alternative system affording operation of 99.9% of existing 120VAC utilization equipment however, using the same wires in the same old walls. Currently Article 647 restricts utilization of 60/120V to only "sensitive electronic equipment" supervised applications, where, if universally applied to the residence and the workplace instead, could result in the near future with residential and office general-use branch-circuits which are essentially free of electrocution risk. I am looking for anyone with expertise or knowledge of electric-shock related information, who can impart this information, which will enable me to further substantiate the fact that needless electrocutions continue to occur in residences and in some cases, office occupancies which would be utterly prevented by widespread use of the 60/120V Edison-three-wire balanced power system, and wish to develop a thread intended to explore the ramifications of such a system. An example of a ramification are lampholder screw-shells, whereby if fed by a 60/120V system, the screw shell would be "energized" with 'house current' that would expose probing fingers to a 60VAC shock if any part of the person were contacting ground or metal parts. IF we are "stuck with" the extremely undesirable line frequency of 60 Hertz, I believe it is the responsibility of the electrical industry to provide mitigation to the unfortunate hazard which has tragically cut the lives of many children and adults short over the last 100 or so years. I'd like to hear from anyone with specifics regarding any event which resulted in a fatality which involved any 120V-to-ground general-use branch circuit (whether single phase or polyphase), which could have been prevented had the branch circuit been a 60V to ground "balanced circuit" with 2-pole GFCI branch-circuit protection -- in other words, set up exactly per Article 647 but applied to residential or commercial ordinary use. I'd like to hear from anyone who has an informed opinion about how we can evolve the present dangerous system to one which will eliminate hazards to children and ordinary people who make accidental or foolishly deliberate contact with electrical energy conveyance systems and suffer the consequences. My reasoning is something CAN be done about this and that we don't have to accept it just because someone made a very bad choice 100 years ago to reduce lamp flicker.
 
It is not that simple to make this change.

Lower voltage comes with larger conductors to be able to handle same amount of power, voltage drop becomes a bigger issue meaning even larger conductors. This is why utility distribution is done in the thousands of volts ranges.

If a home with a 200 amp 120/240 service were to be fed with 60/120 it would need 400 amp conductors and devices to be capable of delivering same amount of power, branch circuits would all draw twice the current to do same work, requiring larger conductors, and voltage drop would be greater resulting.

We do have low voltage lighting systems, and they sometimes are employed where there is increased hazards if using higher voltage equipment.

There is so much 120 and 240 volt equipment out there it would be difficult to make a change, although it is relatively easy to transform to different voltages, the best way to deal with that is transformation near the load - which we actually do a lot of that with a lot of equipment these days. You can't buy too many lower power electronics driven equipment nowadays that does not have transformation right in the supply cord - this is kind of a step in that direction.

Changing frequency is probably going to be even tougher. They can change voltage easily as it will be stepped up for transmission and stepped back down to pretty much any level relatively easily. Frequency is not changed that easily, as it is based on generation and passes through all transformations. Individuals wanting different frequency need to provide their own equipment to make the changes and is not as simple or inexpensive as voltage transformation. Lower frequency also means more iron mass is needed for cores in motors and other inductive equipment. This is main reason why aircraft and watercraft often use 400Hz - so they can use less steel in motors and reduce weight.
 
martin reid said:
Ventricular fibrillation from electroshock, and arc flash, are the two most acute dangers of the US Electrical system, with both these "built in" from the start. Particularly, 60 Hertz line frequency is universal, with the last exception of a remaining 25 Hertz system finally closed down. Studies and tests long-since done uncovered the fact that the heart is most sensitive to ventricular fibrillation at just about 60 Hertz, but not hugely better in this regard at 50 Hertz. A study also uncovered that as one drops the AC voltage from 120V down to 50V, 60 Hertz, the ventricular fibrillation risk goes away. The conclusion is the type of system regulated by Article 647 - the 60/120V "balanced power" 'sensitive electronic equipment' system affords the safest electricity-based energy conveyance system on the entire planet other than straight DC. The 60/120V system is the only alternative system affording operation of 99.9% of existing 120VAC utilization equipment however, using the same wires in the same old walls. Currently Article 647 restricts utilization of 60/120V to only "sensitive electronic equipment" supervised applications, where, if universally applied to the residence and the workplace instead, could result in the near future with residential and office general-use branch-circuits which are essentially free of electrocution risk. I am looking for anyone with expertise or knowledge of electric-shock related information, who can impart this information, which will enable me to further substantiate the fact that needless electrocutions continue to occur in residences and in some cases, office occupancies which would be utterly prevented by widespread use of the 60/120V Edison-three-wire balanced power system, and wish to develop a thread intended to explore the ramifications of such a system. An example of a ramification are lampholder screw-shells, whereby if fed by a 60/120V system, the screw shell would be "energized" with 'house current' that would expose probing fingers to a 60VAC shock if any part of the person were contacting ground or metal parts. IF we are "stuck with" the extremely undesirable line frequency of 60 Hertz, I believe it is the responsibility of the electrical industry to provide mitigation to the unfortunate hazard which has tragically cut the lives of many children and adults short over the last 100 or so years. I'd like to hear from anyone with specifics regarding any event which resulted in a fatality which involved any 120V-to-ground general-use branch circuit (whether single phase or polyphase), which could have been prevented had the branch circuit been a 60V to ground "balanced circuit" with 2-pole GFCI branch-circuit protection -- in other words, set up exactly per Article 647 but applied to residential or commercial ordinary use. I'd like to hear from anyone who has an informed opinion about how we can evolve the present dangerous system to one which will eliminate hazards to children and ordinary people who make accidental or foolishly deliberate contact with electrical energy conveyance systems and suffer the consequences. My reasoning is something CAN be done about this and that we don't have to accept it just because someone made a very bad choice 100 years ago to reduce lamp flicker.
Click to expand...

You can't protect everyone from everything. First voltage, then we need to do away with cars and trucks since they kill many more children and ordinary citizens than electric shock. While we are at it, we may as well include guns, steps, knifes, etc. The list can get big quick...
 
Hv&Lv said:
You can't protect everyone from everything. First voltage, then we need to do away with cars and trucks since they kill many more children and ordinary citizens than electric shock. While we are at it, we may as well include guns, steps, knifes, etc. The list can get big quick...
Click to expand...

..and don't forget the falling sky that Chicken Little warns us about all the time.
 
Response to those who are too smart to read

Response to those who are too smart to read

I posted this for assistance, not smartass and insulting critiques.

This is the very first time I've posted anything on any forum, and already the knifes have come out. Those of you who don't already KNOW IT ALL, I'm asking for your help with case histories you know of regarding electrocutions which occurred on 120 V, and any ideas. Because, there have been electrocutions over the past few decades, some innocent people have been killed, definitely and without a doubt including children, and unless you're a screaming idiot, you would actually know that's one life too many that's been cut short. You either ACCEPT IT and make excuses for it, or you resolve to DO SOMETHING EFFECTIVE ABOUT IT. I love this justification - there are knives around and other dangerous things, so why actually HANDLE ANYTHING? Apathy, or worse, patently destructive. It's exactly THIS kind of attitude why radical hazards stay unhandled in this world until they explode. You should go work for TEPCO in Japan and do a little reactor work.

As far as the type of information "I'm spreading", if you knew your business, you'd know that 60 Hertz WAS chosen specifically to reduce lamp flicker. GREAT insult. Catalogs your IQ immediately.

So instead of some sort of "insult class" where your double-digit IQs are shown, I'm asking for intelligent people out of First Grade to answer and provide real information I can use, because I only want those to answer who CARE about the present state of electrical safety of the existing system we all inherited. If you can't withold your insulting critiques, then I'll abandon this line for asking for any constructive assistance. What can YOU do about improving the existing system radically? Well, nothing, with this sort of attitude.

The actual purpose of such insulting remarks is to try to back someone off from working to DO SOMETHING EFFECTIVE. So, why don't you "insulter types" go insult a rock, so people who care and want to improve things can discuss matters.

So insulter types with nothing better to do, can you BUTT OUT?

I know, you'll carefully scan the above for out-of-context phrases you can use to make more insulting juvenile remarks.


Asking for more constructive remarks. Saw at least one in the middle of the sicko gradeschool insults.
 
Hv&Lv said:
You can't protect everyone from everything. ...
Click to expand...

martin reid said:
... and unless you're a screaming idiot, you would actually know that's one life too many that's been cut short. ...
Click to expand...

These are both classic positions that have BOTH been refuted. As Martin points out: Just because "You can't protect everyone from everything." doesn't mean you shouldn't consider protecting them from something. However the concept of "One life is too many." fails to consider that the world has limited resources.

The change you're proposing isn't a direct replacement from the current system. It isn't 99.9% compatible with existing wiring or utilization equipment. Heating equipment such as furnaces, stoves, water heaters, and dryers are not 120v but 240v. These are the big loads in the house and not the TV, computer, or lighting.

The existing 240v system has Hot, Hot, Neutral, Ground. Hot-Hot is used for the stove elements but Hot-Neutral is used for the stove pushbuttons. Reducing the system to a 120v system requires major expenses both in replacing the heating equipment but also in daily energy usage. 240v is simply more efficient for this.
 
I think by not using grounded conductors as current carrying conductors we can eliminate a lot of hazards, but don't see any change coming anytime soon with that idea either.

Then you go to other countries, especially European countries, and just about everything outside of commercial/industrial is 230 volts 50Hz, but typically is one phase and neutral conductor of a wye system.
 
Part of the correct answer has been given to you by other posters.

You obviously have never posted on a forum, as an attack on the members, from a newbie, will never end well.

You also obviously know very little about the underlying structure of your subject.

Being a champion of a cause is a noble thing but your lack of knowledge on the subject of your crusade, puts you at an embarrassing disadvantage.

To state it, as succinctly as possible, to accomplish that which you so fervently espouse, would require the restructuring of the electrical systems and ALL systems and components deriving energy from said systems, not only here in the US, but in many other parts off the world.

More simply, junk everything that generates, distributes and utilizes electricity and start over.

I look forward to your most educated and civil reply.
 
g3guy said:
Part of the correct answer has been given to you by other posters.

You obviously have never posted on a forum, as an attack on the members, from a newbie, will never end well.

You also obviously know very little about the underlying structure of your subject.

Being a champion of a cause is a noble thing but your lack of knowledge on the subject of your crusade, puts you at an embarrassing disadvantage.

To state it, as succinctly as possible, to accomplish that which you so fervently espouse, would require the restructuring of the electrical systems and ALL systems and components deriving energy from said systems, not only here in the US, but in many other parts off the world.

More simply, junk everything that generates, distributes and utilizes electricity and start over.

I look forward to your most educated and civil reply.
Click to expand...

I think the OP brought up some very valid concerns and was by no means someone that knows nothing about what he was talking about. I claim to be an expert in the electrical field, and yet admit there is a lot I don't know, or at least can not answer any question imaginable with confidence knowing I am right without some research at times.

There are pros and cons to most of what was brought up. Eliminate one problem and you usually create at least one other problem. We have to live with some acceptable medium.
 
martin reid said:
Ventricular fibrillation from electroshock, and arc flash, are the two most acute dangers of the US Electrical system, with both these "built in" from the start. Particularly, 60 Hertz line frequency is universal, with the last exception of a remaining 25 Hertz system finally closed down. Studies and tests long-since done uncovered the fact that the heart is most sensitive to ventricular fibrillation at just about 60 Hertz, but not hugely better in this regard at 50 Hertz. A study also uncovered that as one drops the AC voltage from 120V down to 50V, 60 Hertz, the ventricular fibrillation risk goes away. The conclusion is the type of system regulated by Article 647 - the 60/120V "balanced power" 'sensitive electronic equipment' system affords the safest electricity-based energy conveyance system on the entire planet other than straight DC.
Click to expand...
Straight DC isn't particularly safe either depending on the voltage - isn't that what was used for the electric chair?
A customer and long term friend of mine got seriously burned with DC, had to have skin grafts and was off work for months.

Back on topic, I don't think that any realistic chance that national system voltages and frequencies will get changed. I don't know how many fatalities from electrocution in USA.
Here in UK, where the domestic supply voltage is nominally 230V, 50Hz in 2007 for example, there were 28 fatalities, most of which were home or leisure related. I don't know for sure but I'd guess quite a few of those were persons working on electrical wiring with possibly a less than adequate knowledge of what they were doing. Other than faulty insulation on leads, it's actually quite difficult to make accidental contact with a live conductor. Our domestic sockets (plug ins for you?) have shutters. They are all three pin, live, neutral, and earth (ground). The earth pin on the plug is longer than the others and this operates a simple mechanism in the socket that opens the shutter. Your toddlers can't stick anything in there and get a shock.

Whilst I accept that one fatality is one too many, maybe we need a sense of proportion. UK has a relatively good record on road traffic accident fatalities. But there are still nearly 3,000 a year - 2,605 in 2009.
On average seven a day compared to one every fortnight.
A fairly high percentage of those are under 20 years of age. It would seem to me that raising the minimum driving age would reduce the death toll far more than lowering the voltage or changing the frequency.

I also accept that they don't have to be mutually exclusive options but, bearing in mind that financial resources are finite, shouldn't we concentrate on the problems that cost lives?
 
Besoeker said:
Straight DC isn't particularly safe either depending on the voltage - isn't that what was used for the electric chair?
A customer and long term friend of mine got seriously burned with DC, had to have skin grafts and was off work for months.

Back on topic, I don't think that any realistic chance that national system voltages and frequencies will get changed. I don't know how many fatalities from electrocution in USA.
Here in UK, where the domestic supply voltage is nominally 230V, 50Hz in 2007 for example, there were 28 fatalities, most of which were home or leisure related. I don't know for sure but I'd guess quite a few of those were persons working on electrical wiring with possibly a less than adequate knowledge of what they were doing. Other than faulty insulation on leads, it's actually quite difficult to make accidental contact with a live conductor. Our domestic sockets (plug ins for you?) have shutters. They are all three pin, live, neutral, and earth (ground). The earth pin on the plug is longer than the others and this operates a simple mechanism in the socket that opens the shutter. Your toddlers can't stick anything in there and get a shock.

Whilst I accept that one fatality is one too many, maybe we need a sense of proportion. UK has a relatively good record on road traffic accident fatalities. But there are still nearly 3,000 a year - 2,605 in 2009.
On average seven a day compared to one every fortnight.
A fairly high percentage of those are under 20 years of age. It would seem to me that raising the minimum driving age would reduce the death toll far more than lowering the voltage or changing the frequency.

I also accept that they don't have to be mutually exclusive options but, bearing in mind that financial resources are finite, shouldn't we concentrate on the problems that cost lives?
Click to expand...

Electric chairs are AC. Edison in his DC/AC battle with Westinghouse, wanted to call death by electrocution "Westinghousing".
 
martin reid said:
As far as the type of information "I'm spreading", if you knew your business, you'd know that 60 Hertz WAS chosen specifically to reduce lamp flicker. GREAT insult. Catalogs your IQ immediately.
Click to expand...

60Hz WAS chosen over 25Hz - besides amny other, far more important factors - as it produces NO appreciable flicker even in the case of arc-lamps and virtually none in incandescent lamps. At 60Hz there is insufficient time for the element to cool off.

No part of your propositions were or are new and have been debated over the decades and soundly refuted over and over. You don't seem to be aware of this.

I am curious what IQ number do I reach in the catalog you're refering and if you would kindly link that reference. Somehow I managed to stay in the business for over 40 years and would like to prove to my employer what a fool they are.
 
Sorry if you thought it was insulting. The nature of the post made me think it was a joke...

If you are wanting to change the world by reducing the voltages by half, you are starting off wrong. While this is a good forum, I doubt if any information gathered here is going to help in your fight. Insulting the IQ's isn't a good way to start either. If you get upset in an anonymous forum, I can only imagine what will happen when you approach those with the power to make the changes you want.

I thought our voltages were safer than those used in Europe, why not champion your cause there first?
 
weressl said:
60Hz WAS chosen over 25Hz - besides amny other, far more important factors - as it produces NO appreciable flicker even in the case of arc-lamps and virtually none in incandescent lamps. At 60Hz there is insufficient time for the element to cool...
Click to expand...

That's what the OP wrote in his first post. Maybe there was some confusion there?

Personally, I think it would be a lot more effective to put GFI protection on every 120v circuit than changing the voltage which would cost trillions of dollars.
 
IQ? I asked my wife if I had an IQ and she said yes Mike you have a single digit IQ. Is that good? :?

We must remember that Brother Tom wanted to use DC but some alien came over here and invented the revolving transformer using some sort of AC and then a rock band started calling themselves AC/DC.

I am not sure but I think that a beach bum came up with a wave that he wanted to ride his board on and he called it something like a huge sine wave and now we have these waves in our computers.

Shucks I just don?t know but now that I have an IQ I think I will take it out and play with it??????? :jawdrop:

On a serious note I give two thumbs up on the original post and wish them well in their adventure but I do not have the knowledge to aid them.
 
And just to think, the DA :dunce: that broke into a sub-station near me, to steal copper, might still be with us if it were lower voltage.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top