110 to 120 or 220 to 240 When did standard change

Reply

  #1  
Old 04-16-17, 04:42 PM
pugsl's Avatar
Forum Topic Moderator
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: United States
Posts: 8,873
Received 59 Votes on 55 Posts
110 to 120 or 220 to 240 When did standard change

Reading a book where he keeps saying 220 for 240 and drives me nuts. Want to write author to tell him but wondering when standard changed. I guess about 30 to 40 years ago.
 
Sponsored Links
  #2  
Old 04-16-17, 05:09 PM
Handyone's Avatar
Member
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: U.S.
Posts: 5,451
Received 0 Votes on 0 Posts
For me I have to stop and think not to call 240 220 when I post.
I grew up in Ohio and 220 was what it was called so I just stuck with it.
 
  #3  
Old 04-16-17, 05:22 PM
T
Member
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 391
Received 0 Votes on 0 Posts
120/240V was standardized in 1977 by ANSI C84.1 (NEC tables were updated in the 1984 cycle to reflect this). Most likely the book was first published before that time (as were most books on electrical basics). Prior to this, it had been 115/230 since the 1930's - although it was still very commonly referred to as 110/220.

Honestly its a waste of time to send the author a letter nitpicking something as dumb as that.
 
  #4  
Old 04-16-17, 06:59 PM
A
Member
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: USA
Posts: 1,561
Received 31 Votes on 27 Posts
Think of it like listening to someone with an accent. You understand what they are saying but would never say it that way yourself.

I was taught 117 so was confused for a long time.
 
  #5  
Old 04-17-17, 06:01 AM
P
Member
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: United States, Virginia
Posts: 1,331
Received 45 Votes on 38 Posts
Honestly its a waste of time to send the author a letter nitpicking something as dumb as that.

taz420
You were doing good until you ended with that comment.
 

Last edited by pattenp; 04-17-17 at 07:46 AM.
  #6  
Old 04-17-17, 08:40 AM
pcboss's Avatar
Forum Topic Moderator
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Maryland
Posts: 15,113
Received 69 Votes on 59 Posts
I feel if you are going to write a book it should contain the correct information and nomenclature. No different than posting here.
 
  #7  
Old 04-17-17, 08:56 AM
I
Forum Topic Moderator
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Near Lansing, Michigan
Posts: 10,944
Received 42 Votes on 40 Posts
I agree, especially in a technical field. Imagine if the book had joist span tables or nailing schedules from 40+ years ago presented as modern. At some point it becomes misinformation that is more likely to confuse or cause a mistake.
 
  #8  
Old 04-17-17, 12:47 PM
pugsl's Avatar
Forum Topic Moderator
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: United States
Posts: 8,873
Received 59 Votes on 55 Posts
Guy books a few years old but if he writes something again he will know right terms. Thanks for the info.
 
  #9  
Old 04-17-17, 01:02 PM
Handyone's Avatar
Member
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: U.S.
Posts: 5,451
Received 0 Votes on 0 Posts
Imagine if the book had joist span tables or nailing schedules from 40+ years ago presented as modern. At some point it becomes misinformation
Good point. I wouldn't want to be guessing on that or electrical.

Good news is we have you guys here
 
  #10  
Old 04-17-17, 01:17 PM
T
Member
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 391
Received 0 Votes on 0 Posts
I feel if you are going to write a book it should contain the correct information and nomenclature. No different than posting here.
Yeah but if you're talking about a book first published in the 70s or 80s it's obviously going to reflect the "correct" nomenclature of that time. I had the old Sunset "Basic House Wiring" published in the 70s and it mentioned 110/220. Was it "correct" then? Not really since at that point the "standard" was 115/230. However 110/220 was within the 5% delivery tolerance of that day, so technically your house COULD have had 110/220 at the service if it was far enough from a transformer. I have not seen the second edition from 1987 so I can't say for sure, but I'd assume it was updated to reflect ANSI C84.1 and NEC1984. And if it wasn't, that would be on the publisher/editor, not the author.

You were doing good until you ended with that comment.
It is dumb. I find it very hard to believe that a book written in 'modern' time would contain that egregious a faux pas. Therefore we are led to believe that it is an older book, therefore any logical human would realize that contacting the author is a pointless waste of time. It's akin to contacting an inspector who approved a 3 wire range/dryer circuit in 1988 and telling him that it is no longer acceptable in 2017.
 
  #11  
Old 04-17-17, 02:30 PM
P
Member
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: United States, Virginia
Posts: 1,331
Received 45 Votes on 38 Posts
taz420, that part of your comment took it to a personal level and added no value to your answer. There was no need to infer that the OP was nitpicking and dumb for considering writing the author.
 
  #12  
Old 04-17-17, 03:46 PM
T
Member
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 391
Received 0 Votes on 0 Posts
He is nitpicking. It's an old book. Refer to inspector analogy. That would be nitpicking and dumb too.
 
  #13  
Old 04-18-17, 03:42 AM
pugsl's Avatar
Forum Topic Moderator
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: United States
Posts: 8,873
Received 59 Votes on 55 Posts
New book copyright 2016. Not a big deal just a pet peeve.
Thanks all Don
 
Reply
Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread
 
Ask a Question
Question Title:
Description:
Your question will be posted in: