Silly question, AC power plugs

[John Fields]

On Sun, 20 May 2012 16:28:22 -0700, John Larkin
<jjSNIPlarkin@highTHISlandtechnology.com> wrote:

On Sun, 20 May 2012 18:14:44 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Sun, 20 May 2012 19:53:39 +0100, "Ian Field"
gangprobing.alien@ntlworld.com> wrote:


"Cydrome Leader" <presence@MUNGEpanix.com> wrote in message
news:jpbdhv$ngg$3@reader1.panix.com...
John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:
On Thu, 17 May 2012 16:52:33 +0000 (UTC), Cydrome Leader
presence@MUNGEpanix.com> wrote:

John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:
On Tue, 15 May 2012 21:42:24 +0100, "Ian Field"
gangprobing.alien@ntlworld.com> wrote:


"Phil Hobbs" <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote in message
news:4FB2BA60.381879AC@electrooptical.net...
news@jecarter.us wrote:

On Tue, 15 May 2012 11:22:21 -0700 (PDT), George Herold
gherold@teachspin.com> wrote:


Why do US 120 VAC power plugs have holes in the end of the blades?

George H.

To allow you to put the shackle of a small lock through the blade to
ensure the item can't be plugged in for use?

I suspect it's to mate with a small boss on the blades of the socket,
to
make it less likely to jiggle loose. The British solved that problem
by
the traditional method of "add mass until nothing breaks."


I always marvelled at how the Yanks got away with such flimsy plugs
when
half the voltage means twice the current for the same load power.

---
A blade made of brass with a width of 1/4", a thickness of 1/16" and a
length of about an inch is hardly flimsy, and serves us well when we
opt to go to 240V and eke out four times the power available from the
mains without changing plugs.

is this some sort of metric math?

---
Well, we're not dealing with feet and inches, so you figure it out:

120V mains, 120 ohm load, 120 watts

240V mains, 120 ohm load, 480 watts

480
----- = 4
120


so you're telling me if an outlet is rated and fused to supply say 15 amps
at 120 volts, that if I double the voltage across it's supply it can now
safely handle 30 amps at 240?

What sort of jenky bullshit "instruments" to you make?


He's an escaped loony who likes to pretend he's "professional people".

---
Interesting...

you have very little technical expertise, and yet you chose to rail
against us who do.


Wait a second here. YOU GOT IT WRONG. HE IS RIGHT.

---
How is stating that doubling the voltage across a fixed resistance
quadruples its [power dissipation wrong?
---

So, where is your "technical expertise" ?

---
Apparently, in almost every post I write.

--
JF

 

[John Fields]

On Sun, 20 May 2012 16:32:02 -0700, John Larkin
<jjSNIPlarkin@highTHISlandtechnology.com> wrote:

On Sun, 20 May 2012 17:39:37 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Sun, 20 May 2012 18:35:43 +0000 (UTC), Cydrome Leader
presence@MUNGEpanix.com> wrote:

John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:
On Thu, 17 May 2012 16:52:33 +0000 (UTC), Cydrome Leader
presence@MUNGEpanix.com> wrote:

John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:
On Tue, 15 May 2012 21:42:24 +0100, "Ian Field"
gangprobing.alien@ntlworld.com> wrote:


"Phil Hobbs" <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote in message
news:4FB2BA60.381879AC@electrooptical.net...
news@jecarter.us wrote:

On Tue, 15 May 2012 11:22:21 -0700 (PDT), George Herold
gherold@teachspin.com> wrote:


Why do US 120 VAC power plugs have holes in the end of the blades?

George H.

To allow you to put the shackle of a small lock through the blade to
ensure the item can't be plugged in for use?

I suspect it's to mate with a small boss on the blades of the socket, to
make it less likely to jiggle loose. The British solved that problem by
the traditional method of "add mass until nothing breaks."


I always marvelled at how the Yanks got away with such flimsy plugs when
half the voltage means twice the current for the same load power.

---
A blade made of brass with a width of 1/4", a thickness of 1/16" and a
length of about an inch is hardly flimsy, and serves us well when we
opt to go to 240V and eke out four times the power available from the
mains without changing plugs.

is this some sort of metric math?

---
Well, we're not dealing with feet and inches, so you figure it out:

120V mains, 120 ohm load, 120 watts

240V mains, 120 ohm load, 480 watts

480
----- = 4
120


so you're telling me if an outlet is rated and fused to supply say 15 amps
at 120 volts, that if I double the voltage across it's supply it can now
safely handle 30 amps at 240?

---
Not at all.

What I'm saying is that if you have an outlet which can handle 15 amps
with 240V across it, then a 16 ohm load will dissipate 3600 watts

Connect that same 16 ohm load across the same socket with 120V across
it and the dissipation drops to 900 watts, ergo

3600W
------ = 4
900W


But the 15 amp outlet could *handle* 1800 watts at 120 volts, which is
the issue here.

Weasel.

---
Weasel?

Geez, John, I answered CL's post and clarified my meaning, which was
that a fixed resistance will dissipate 4 times the power if the
voltage across it is doubled, which is the issue I was addressing.

What's weasly about that?

--
JF

 

[fungus]

On Sunday, May 20, 2012 4:37:20 PM UTC+2, Fred Abse wrote:

On Thu, 17 May 2012 04:16:01 -0700, fungus wrote:

...apart from the fact that you can plug them in either way around (ie.
live/neutral swapped) causing massive sparks when you try to connect your
printer to your PC due to the difference in ground levels.

Any printer that has a low impedance path to neutral
from ground would be illegal in just about any jurisdiction.

Yep, and this is precisely what kills them.

When you have two devices with transformers
the difference between what each device
considers "0V" can be huge depending on
which way around you plug them into the
mains.

If you have a cable with many wires in it
(eg. A 25-pin serial/parallel cable) then
when you connect it the pins with the data
lines can connect before the 0V pin. This
will kill the I/O chips if there's enough
difference between logic ground levels.

I've measured differences of 140V on devices
with Euro plugs. The difference usually goes
down near zero if you reverse the mains plug
of one of them.

Do you honestly think that VDE, T�V, DIN, etc. would have missed such an
obvious thing?

I think they were probably thinking of
white goods when they designed it, not
printer cables.

They are fused inside the plug because the UK (unlike most of the rest of
the world) allows, and uses, ring circuits with a single 30 amp breaker for
the whole ring. Illegal in many places. Ring circuits in the UK were one
reason that a standardized Euro-plug never happened.

Swings and roundabouts.

In Europe you have no idea how much power
can be drawn from any given socket. Plug
in a heater on the "wrong" side of the
room and you can be plunged into darkness
because it was on the same circuit breaker
as the lighting.

 

[John Larkin]

On Mon, 21 May 2012 06:23:48 -0500, John Fields
<jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Sun, 20 May 2012 15:13:30 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Sun, 20 May 2012 16:49:50 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Sun, 20 May 2012 09:18:07 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

You said this:


A blade made of brass with a width of 1/4", a thickness of 1/16" and a
length of about an inch is hardly flimsy, and serves us well when we
opt to go to 240V and eke out four times the power available from the
mains without changing plugs.

which is just wrong.

---
Right you are!

Changing just one word, though, would make it right.

Care to guess which one?

Easy. Change "four" to "two."

---
Wrong, but understandable since what I meant was "adding one word."

Mea culpa.

Wanna try again?

No. What you said was wrong and stupid, applying "Ohm's Law" without
thinking, as amateurs often do.

Weasel it out yourself.

---
Oh, my, Johnny's working himself up to a lather because he's missed
the point.

The word is 120V and it should be added before "mains".

Also, hardly wrong or stupid considering that, in the argument, if a
resistor is connected across 120V mains it'll dissipate a certain
power, while if connected across 240V mains the power dissipation will
quadruple.

Is that not correct, Mr Wizard?

The issue under discussion is how much power you can get from an
outlet, "eke out" in your words. You stated that a given plug, with a
rated current, can deliver 4x as much power at 240 than it can at 120.
You specifically said that's so without changing the plug. Wrong.

 

[John Larkin]

On Mon, 21 May 2012 07:08:47 -0500, John Fields
<jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Sun, 20 May 2012 16:28:22 -0700, John Larkin
jjSNIPlarkin@highTHISlandtechnology.com> wrote:

On Sun, 20 May 2012 18:14:44 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Sun, 20 May 2012 19:53:39 +0100, "Ian Field"
gangprobing.alien@ntlworld.com> wrote:


"Cydrome Leader" <presence@MUNGEpanix.com> wrote in message
news:jpbdhv$ngg$3@reader1.panix.com...
John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:
On Thu, 17 May 2012 16:52:33 +0000 (UTC), Cydrome Leader
presence@MUNGEpanix.com> wrote:

John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:
On Tue, 15 May 2012 21:42:24 +0100, "Ian Field"
gangprobing.alien@ntlworld.com> wrote:


"Phil Hobbs" <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote in message
news:4FB2BA60.381879AC@electrooptical.net...
news@jecarter.us wrote:

On Tue, 15 May 2012 11:22:21 -0700 (PDT), George Herold
gherold@teachspin.com> wrote:


Why do US 120 VAC power plugs have holes in the end of the blades?

George H.

To allow you to put the shackle of a small lock through the blade to
ensure the item can't be plugged in for use?

I suspect it's to mate with a small boss on the blades of the socket,
to
make it less likely to jiggle loose. The British solved that problem
by
the traditional method of "add mass until nothing breaks."


I always marvelled at how the Yanks got away with such flimsy plugs
when
half the voltage means twice the current for the same load power.

---
A blade made of brass with a width of 1/4", a thickness of 1/16" and a
length of about an inch is hardly flimsy, and serves us well when we
opt to go to 240V and eke out four times the power available from the
mains without changing plugs.

is this some sort of metric math?

---
Well, we're not dealing with feet and inches, so you figure it out:

120V mains, 120 ohm load, 120 watts

240V mains, 120 ohm load, 480 watts

480
----- = 4
120


so you're telling me if an outlet is rated and fused to supply say 15 amps
at 120 volts, that if I double the voltage across it's supply it can now
safely handle 30 amps at 240?

What sort of jenky bullshit "instruments" to you make?


He's an escaped loony who likes to pretend he's "professional people".

---
Interesting...

you have very little technical expertise, and yet you chose to rail
against us who do.


Wait a second here. YOU GOT IT WRONG. HE IS RIGHT.

---
How is stating that doubling the voltage across a fixed resistance
quadruples its [power dissipation wrong?

That's not what you got wrong.

 

[Ian Field]

"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:8tbkr717benuk09imp10v46ndhnug6nq8j@4ax.com...

On Sun, 20 May 2012 16:28:22 -0700, John Larkin
jjSNIPlarkin@highTHISlandtechnology.com> wrote:

On Sun, 20 May 2012 18:14:44 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Sun, 20 May 2012 19:53:39 +0100, "Ian Field"
gangprobing.alien@ntlworld.com> wrote:


"Cydrome Leader" <presence@MUNGEpanix.com> wrote in message
news:jpbdhv$ngg$3@reader1.panix.com...
John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:
On Thu, 17 May 2012 16:52:33 +0000 (UTC), Cydrome Leader
presence@MUNGEpanix.com> wrote:

John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:
On Tue, 15 May 2012 21:42:24 +0100, "Ian Field"
gangprobing.alien@ntlworld.com> wrote:


"Phil Hobbs" <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote in
message
news:4FB2BA60.381879AC@electrooptical.net...
news@jecarter.us wrote:

On Tue, 15 May 2012 11:22:21 -0700 (PDT), George Herold
gherold@teachspin.com> wrote:


Why do US 120 VAC power plugs have holes in the end of the
blades?

George H.

To allow you to put the shackle of a small lock through the
blade to
ensure the item can't be plugged in for use?

I suspect it's to mate with a small boss on the blades of the
socket,
to
make it less likely to jiggle loose. The British solved that
problem
by
the traditional method of "add mass until nothing breaks."


I always marvelled at how the Yanks got away with such flimsy plugs
when
half the voltage means twice the current for the same load power.

---
A blade made of brass with a width of 1/4", a thickness of 1/16"
and a
length of about an inch is hardly flimsy, and serves us well when
we
opt to go to 240V and eke out four times the power available from
the
mains without changing plugs.

is this some sort of metric math?

---
Well, we're not dealing with feet and inches, so you figure it out:

120V mains, 120 ohm load, 120 watts

240V mains, 120 ohm load, 480 watts

480
----- = 4
120


so you're telling me if an outlet is rated and fused to supply say 15
amps
at 120 volts, that if I double the voltage across it's supply it can
now
safely handle 30 amps at 240?

What sort of jenky bullshit "instruments" to you make?


He's an escaped loony who likes to pretend he's "professional people".

---
Interesting...

you have very little technical expertise, and yet you chose to rail
against us who do.


Wait a second here. YOU GOT IT WRONG. HE IS RIGHT.

---
How is stating that doubling the voltage across a fixed resistance
quadruples its [power dissipation wrong?
---

So, where is your "technical expertise" ?


---
Apparently, in almost every post I write.

Apparent to anyone who doesn't know any better.

 

[Ian Field]

"Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news6idnexcas3PfyTSnZ2dnUVZ_q2dnZ2d@earthlink.com...

Ian Field wrote:

"Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:dqGdnfXFl41TAyrSnZ2dnUVZ_q6dnZ2d@earthlink.com...

Roger wrote:

fungus wrote:

They also thought to put on/off switches
on all the wall sockets - incredibly useful.

No, the Australian-New Zealand system is the best. The wall sockets
are all switched.


Who needs that? Is everything you plug in so low grade that you have
to turn off the outlet between uses? All I see is that it lowers the
reliability of every outlet by adding more parts. Rube Goldberg would
be proud of those outlets.

The reliabilityy is pretty good - unlike the previous unswitched round
pin
outlets that were a disaster that frequently didn't wait to happen!


Then you went from substandard crap, to over engineered.

Our substandard crap was better than drilling brass receptacles into the
wooden skirting board and looping the bare mains wires round little glass
beads nailed to the joists in the attic.

 

[John Fields]

On Mon, 21 May 2012 07:21:35 -0700, John Larkin
<jjSNIPlarkin@highTHISlandtechnology.com> wrote:

On Mon, 21 May 2012 06:23:48 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Sun, 20 May 2012 15:13:30 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Sun, 20 May 2012 16:49:50 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Sun, 20 May 2012 09:18:07 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

You said this:


A blade made of brass with a width of 1/4", a thickness of 1/16" and a
length of about an inch is hardly flimsy, and serves us well when we
opt to go to 240V and eke out four times the power available from the
mains without changing plugs.

which is just wrong.

---
Right you are!

Changing just one word, though, would make it right.

Care to guess which one?

Easy. Change "four" to "two."

---
Wrong, but understandable since what I meant was "adding one word."

Mea culpa.

Wanna try again?

No. What you said was wrong and stupid, applying "Ohm's Law" without
thinking, as amateurs often do.

Weasel it out yourself.

---
Oh, my, Johnny's working himself up to a lather because he's missed
the point.

The word is 120V and it should be added before "mains".

Also, hardly wrong or stupid considering that, in the argument, if a
resistor is connected across 120V mains it'll dissipate a certain
power, while if connected across 240V mains the power dissipation will
quadruple.

Is that not correct, Mr Wizard?

The issue under discussion is how much power you can get from an
outlet, "eke out" in your words. You stated that a given plug, with a
rated current, can deliver 4x as much power at 240 than it can at 120.
You specifically said that's so without changing the plug. Wrong.

---
If a plug rated for 15A is plugged into 240V mains, then with a 16 ohm
resistor connected across the plug the resistor will dissipate 3600
watts.

Now unplug the plug from the 240V mains and plug it into 120V mains.
The dissipation will fall to 900 watts.

Isn't 3600 watts 4 times greater than 900 watts?

--
JF

 

[John Fields]

On Mon, 21 May 2012 15:27:11 +0100, "Ian Field"
<gangprobing.alien@ntlworld.com> wrote:

"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:8tbkr717benuk09imp10v46ndhnug6nq8j@4ax.com...
On Sun, 20 May 2012 16:28:22 -0700, John Larkin
jjSNIPlarkin@highTHISlandtechnology.com> wrote:

On Sun, 20 May 2012 18:14:44 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Sun, 20 May 2012 19:53:39 +0100, "Ian Field"
gangprobing.alien@ntlworld.com> wrote:


"Cydrome Leader" <presence@MUNGEpanix.com> wrote in message
news:jpbdhv$ngg$3@reader1.panix.com...
John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:
On Thu, 17 May 2012 16:52:33 +0000 (UTC), Cydrome Leader
presence@MUNGEpanix.com> wrote:

John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:
On Tue, 15 May 2012 21:42:24 +0100, "Ian Field"
gangprobing.alien@ntlworld.com> wrote:


"Phil Hobbs" <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote in
message
news:4FB2BA60.381879AC@electrooptical.net...
news@jecarter.us wrote:

On Tue, 15 May 2012 11:22:21 -0700 (PDT), George Herold
gherold@teachspin.com> wrote:


Why do US 120 VAC power plugs have holes in the end of the
blades?

George H.

To allow you to put the shackle of a small lock through the
blade to
ensure the item can't be plugged in for use?

I suspect it's to mate with a small boss on the blades of the
socket,
to
make it less likely to jiggle loose. The British solved that
problem
by
the traditional method of "add mass until nothing breaks."


I always marvelled at how the Yanks got away with such flimsy plugs
when
half the voltage means twice the current for the same load power.

---
A blade made of brass with a width of 1/4", a thickness of 1/16"
and a
length of about an inch is hardly flimsy, and serves us well when
we
opt to go to 240V and eke out four times the power available from
the
mains without changing plugs.

is this some sort of metric math?

---
Well, we're not dealing with feet and inches, so you figure it out:

120V mains, 120 ohm load, 120 watts

240V mains, 120 ohm load, 480 watts

480
----- = 4
120


so you're telling me if an outlet is rated and fused to supply say 15
amps
at 120 volts, that if I double the voltage across it's supply it can
now
safely handle 30 amps at 240?

What sort of jenky bullshit "instruments" to you make?


He's an escaped loony who likes to pretend he's "professional people".

---
Interesting...

you have very little technical expertise, and yet you chose to rail
against us who do.


Wait a second here. YOU GOT IT WRONG. HE IS RIGHT.

---
How is stating that doubling the voltage across a fixed resistance
quadruples its [power dissipation wrong?
---

So, where is your "technical expertise" ?


---
Apparently, in almost every post I write.



Apparent to anyone who doesn't know any better.

---
When I post something technical it's usually written to avoid
ambiguities, to present the subject matter in enough detail to be
understood at the level of the querent and, if required, to provide
the mathematical underpinnings of the design.

In addition, I often provide schematics and simulations and, on
occasion, actually build a prototype to prove, without a doubt, that
the design is sound.

You, on the other hand, seem to content yourself by sitting on the
sidelines hurling insults and posting links to off-topic nonsense and
penile references.

Hardly an individual one could take seriously...

--
JF

 

[Ian Field]

"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:3imkr7pjl1cr5c5smohnjc6db9kk097ph9@4ax.com...

On Mon, 21 May 2012 15:27:11 +0100, "Ian Field"
gangprobing.alien@ntlworld.com> wrote:


"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:8tbkr717benuk09imp10v46ndhnug6nq8j@4ax.com...
On Sun, 20 May 2012 16:28:22 -0700, John Larkin
jjSNIPlarkin@highTHISlandtechnology.com> wrote:

On Sun, 20 May 2012 18:14:44 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Sun, 20 May 2012 19:53:39 +0100, "Ian Field"
gangprobing.alien@ntlworld.com> wrote:


"Cydrome Leader" <presence@MUNGEpanix.com> wrote in message
news:jpbdhv$ngg$3@reader1.panix.com...
John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:
On Thu, 17 May 2012 16:52:33 +0000 (UTC), Cydrome Leader
presence@MUNGEpanix.com> wrote:

John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:
On Tue, 15 May 2012 21:42:24 +0100, "Ian Field"
gangprobing.alien@ntlworld.com> wrote:


"Phil Hobbs" <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote in
message
news:4FB2BA60.381879AC@electrooptical.net...
news@jecarter.us wrote:

On Tue, 15 May 2012 11:22:21 -0700 (PDT), George Herold
gherold@teachspin.com> wrote:


Why do US 120 VAC power plugs have holes in the end of the
blades?

George H.

To allow you to put the shackle of a small lock through the
blade to
ensure the item can't be plugged in for use?

I suspect it's to mate with a small boss on the blades of the
socket,
to
make it less likely to jiggle loose. The British solved that
problem
by
the traditional method of "add mass until nothing breaks."


I always marvelled at how the Yanks got away with such flimsy
plugs
when
half the voltage means twice the current for the same load power.

---
A blade made of brass with a width of 1/4", a thickness of 1/16"
and a
length of about an inch is hardly flimsy, and serves us well when
we
opt to go to 240V and eke out four times the power available from
the
mains without changing plugs.

is this some sort of metric math?

---
Well, we're not dealing with feet and inches, so you figure it out:

120V mains, 120 ohm load, 120 watts

240V mains, 120 ohm load, 480 watts

480
----- = 4
120


so you're telling me if an outlet is rated and fused to supply say
15
amps
at 120 volts, that if I double the voltage across it's supply it can
now
safely handle 30 amps at 240?

What sort of jenky bullshit "instruments" to you make?


He's an escaped loony who likes to pretend he's "professional people".

---
Interesting...

you have very little technical expertise, and yet you chose to rail
against us who do.


Wait a second here. YOU GOT IT WRONG. HE IS RIGHT.

---
How is stating that doubling the voltage across a fixed resistance
quadruples its [power dissipation wrong?
---

So, where is your "technical expertise" ?


---
Apparently, in almost every post I write.



Apparent to anyone who doesn't know any better.

---
When I post something technical it's usually written to avoid
ambiguities, to present the subject matter in enough detail to be
understood at the level of the querent and, if required, to provide
the mathematical underpinnings of the design.

In addition, I often provide schematics and simulations and, on
occasion, actually build a prototype to prove, without a doubt, that
the design is sound.

You, on the other hand, seem to content yourself by sitting on the
sidelines hurling insults

Only at tossers who deserve it.

 

[John Larkin]

On Mon, 21 May 2012 10:17:51 -0500, John Fields
<jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Mon, 21 May 2012 15:27:11 +0100, "Ian Field"
gangprobing.alien@ntlworld.com> wrote:


"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:8tbkr717benuk09imp10v46ndhnug6nq8j@4ax.com...
On Sun, 20 May 2012 16:28:22 -0700, John Larkin
jjSNIPlarkin@highTHISlandtechnology.com> wrote:

On Sun, 20 May 2012 18:14:44 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Sun, 20 May 2012 19:53:39 +0100, "Ian Field"
gangprobing.alien@ntlworld.com> wrote:


"Cydrome Leader" <presence@MUNGEpanix.com> wrote in message
news:jpbdhv$ngg$3@reader1.panix.com...
John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:
On Thu, 17 May 2012 16:52:33 +0000 (UTC), Cydrome Leader
presence@MUNGEpanix.com> wrote:

John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:
On Tue, 15 May 2012 21:42:24 +0100, "Ian Field"
gangprobing.alien@ntlworld.com> wrote:


"Phil Hobbs" <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote in
message
news:4FB2BA60.381879AC@electrooptical.net...
news@jecarter.us wrote:

On Tue, 15 May 2012 11:22:21 -0700 (PDT), George Herold
gherold@teachspin.com> wrote:


Why do US 120 VAC power plugs have holes in the end of the
blades?

George H.

To allow you to put the shackle of a small lock through the
blade to
ensure the item can't be plugged in for use?

I suspect it's to mate with a small boss on the blades of the
socket,
to
make it less likely to jiggle loose. The British solved that
problem
by
the traditional method of "add mass until nothing breaks."


I always marvelled at how the Yanks got away with such flimsy plugs
when
half the voltage means twice the current for the same load power.

---
A blade made of brass with a width of 1/4", a thickness of 1/16"
and a
length of about an inch is hardly flimsy, and serves us well when
we
opt to go to 240V and eke out four times the power available from
the
mains without changing plugs.

is this some sort of metric math?

---
Well, we're not dealing with feet and inches, so you figure it out:

120V mains, 120 ohm load, 120 watts

240V mains, 120 ohm load, 480 watts

480
----- = 4
120


so you're telling me if an outlet is rated and fused to supply say 15
amps
at 120 volts, that if I double the voltage across it's supply it can
now
safely handle 30 amps at 240?

What sort of jenky bullshit "instruments" to you make?


He's an escaped loony who likes to pretend he's "professional people".

---
Interesting...

you have very little technical expertise, and yet you chose to rail
against us who do.


Wait a second here. YOU GOT IT WRONG. HE IS RIGHT.

---
How is stating that doubling the voltage across a fixed resistance
quadruples its [power dissipation wrong?
---

So, where is your "technical expertise" ?


---
Apparently, in almost every post I write.



Apparent to anyone who doesn't know any better.

---
When I post something technical it's usually written to avoid
ambiguities, to present the subject matter in enough detail to be
understood at the level of the querent and, if required, to provide
the mathematical underpinnings of the design.

The only math I've ever seen you post is permutations of Ohm's Law.
Which is what you got wrong here.


--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

jlarkin at highlandtechnology dot com
http://www.highlandtechnology.com

Precision electronic instrumentation
Picosecond-resolution Digital Delay and Pulse generators
Custom laser drivers and controllers
Photonics and fiberoptic TTL data links
VME thermocouple, LVDT, synchro acquisition and simulation

 

[fungus]

On Monday, May 21, 2012 1:04:09 PM UTC+2, fungus wrote:

... The difference usually goes
down near zero if you reverse the mains plug
of one of them.

Another "big spark" I just remembered
(because I made one) happens when I unplug
my laptop, take it somewhere else and plug
it in again. If I get the plug the 'wrong'
way around I get a big blue flash in the
socket as it makes contact.

I'm guessing it's because of a capacitor
inside the PSU being reconnected differently
or something... Glub only knows what damage
it's doing to the PSU.

 

[John Fields]

On Mon, 21 May 2012 12:43:00 -0700, John Larkin
<jlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:

On Mon, 21 May 2012 10:17:51 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Mon, 21 May 2012 15:27:11 +0100, "Ian Field"
gangprobing.alien@ntlworld.com> wrote:


"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:8tbkr717benuk09imp10v46ndhnug6nq8j@4ax.com...
On Sun, 20 May 2012 16:28:22 -0700, John Larkin
jjSNIPlarkin@highTHISlandtechnology.com> wrote:

On Sun, 20 May 2012 18:14:44 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Sun, 20 May 2012 19:53:39 +0100, "Ian Field"
gangprobing.alien@ntlworld.com> wrote:


"Cydrome Leader" <presence@MUNGEpanix.com> wrote in message
news:jpbdhv$ngg$3@reader1.panix.com...
John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:
On Thu, 17 May 2012 16:52:33 +0000 (UTC), Cydrome Leader
presence@MUNGEpanix.com> wrote:

John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:
On Tue, 15 May 2012 21:42:24 +0100, "Ian Field"
gangprobing.alien@ntlworld.com> wrote:


"Phil Hobbs" <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote in
message
news:4FB2BA60.381879AC@electrooptical.net...
news@jecarter.us wrote:

On Tue, 15 May 2012 11:22:21 -0700 (PDT), George Herold
gherold@teachspin.com> wrote:


Why do US 120 VAC power plugs have holes in the end of the
blades?

George H.

To allow you to put the shackle of a small lock through the
blade to
ensure the item can't be plugged in for use?

I suspect it's to mate with a small boss on the blades of the
socket,
to
make it less likely to jiggle loose. The British solved that
problem
by
the traditional method of "add mass until nothing breaks."


I always marvelled at how the Yanks got away with such flimsy plugs
when
half the voltage means twice the current for the same load power.

---
A blade made of brass with a width of 1/4", a thickness of 1/16"
and a
length of about an inch is hardly flimsy, and serves us well when
we
opt to go to 240V and eke out four times the power available from
the
mains without changing plugs.

is this some sort of metric math?

---
Well, we're not dealing with feet and inches, so you figure it out:

120V mains, 120 ohm load, 120 watts

240V mains, 120 ohm load, 480 watts

480
----- = 4
120


so you're telling me if an outlet is rated and fused to supply say 15
amps
at 120 volts, that if I double the voltage across it's supply it can
now
safely handle 30 amps at 240?

What sort of jenky bullshit "instruments" to you make?


He's an escaped loony who likes to pretend he's "professional people".

---
Interesting...

you have very little technical expertise, and yet you chose to rail
against us who do.


Wait a second here. YOU GOT IT WRONG. HE IS RIGHT.

---
How is stating that doubling the voltage across a fixed resistance
quadruples its [power dissipation wrong?
---

So, where is your "technical expertise" ?


---
Apparently, in almost every post I write.



Apparent to anyone who doesn't know any better.

---
When I post something technical it's usually written to avoid
ambiguities, to present the subject matter in enough detail to be
understood at the level of the querent and, if required, to provide
the mathematical underpinnings of the design.

The only math I've ever seen you post is permutations of Ohm's Law.
Which is what you got wrong here.

---
Only "wrong" because you refuse to accept my point of view as being
valid, even though I iterate it over and over and offer the circuit
and the math to prove it right.

But no matter.

As for math I've posted, you must not have read a lot of my stuff, but
there was a post only a few days ago which showed a non-Ohms law way
to get the product of two input frequencies as an output and, of
course, the post where I proved that latching relays _don't_ have
infinite gain.

--
JF

 

[John Fields]

On Mon, 21 May 2012 16:42:01 +0100, "Ian Field"
<gangprobing.alien@ntlworld.com> wrote:

"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:3imkr7pjl1cr5c5smohnjc6db9kk097ph9@4ax.com...
On Mon, 21 May 2012 15:27:11 +0100, "Ian Field"
gangprobing.alien@ntlworld.com> wrote:


"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:8tbkr717benuk09imp10v46ndhnug6nq8j@4ax.com...
On Sun, 20 May 2012 16:28:22 -0700, John Larkin
jjSNIPlarkin@highTHISlandtechnology.com> wrote:

On Sun, 20 May 2012 18:14:44 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Sun, 20 May 2012 19:53:39 +0100, "Ian Field"
gangprobing.alien@ntlworld.com> wrote:


"Cydrome Leader" <presence@MUNGEpanix.com> wrote in message
news:jpbdhv$ngg$3@reader1.panix.com...
John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:
On Thu, 17 May 2012 16:52:33 +0000 (UTC), Cydrome Leader
presence@MUNGEpanix.com> wrote:

John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:
On Tue, 15 May 2012 21:42:24 +0100, "Ian Field"
gangprobing.alien@ntlworld.com> wrote:


"Phil Hobbs" <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote in
message
news:4FB2BA60.381879AC@electrooptical.net...
news@jecarter.us wrote:

On Tue, 15 May 2012 11:22:21 -0700 (PDT), George Herold
gherold@teachspin.com> wrote:


Why do US 120 VAC power plugs have holes in the end of the
blades?

George H.

To allow you to put the shackle of a small lock through the
blade to
ensure the item can't be plugged in for use?

I suspect it's to mate with a small boss on the blades of the
socket,
to
make it less likely to jiggle loose. The British solved that
problem
by
the traditional method of "add mass until nothing breaks."


I always marvelled at how the Yanks got away with such flimsy
plugs
when
half the voltage means twice the current for the same load power.

---
A blade made of brass with a width of 1/4", a thickness of 1/16"
and a
length of about an inch is hardly flimsy, and serves us well when
we
opt to go to 240V and eke out four times the power available from
the
mains without changing plugs.

is this some sort of metric math?

---
Well, we're not dealing with feet and inches, so you figure it out:

120V mains, 120 ohm load, 120 watts

240V mains, 120 ohm load, 480 watts

480
----- = 4
120


so you're telling me if an outlet is rated and fused to supply say
15
amps
at 120 volts, that if I double the voltage across it's supply it can
now
safely handle 30 amps at 240?

What sort of jenky bullshit "instruments" to you make?


He's an escaped loony who likes to pretend he's "professional people".

---
Interesting...

you have very little technical expertise, and yet you chose to rail
against us who do.


Wait a second here. YOU GOT IT WRONG. HE IS RIGHT.

---
How is stating that doubling the voltage across a fixed resistance
quadruples its [power dissipation wrong?
---

So, where is your "technical expertise" ?


---
Apparently, in almost every post I write.



Apparent to anyone who doesn't know any better.

---
When I post something technical it's usually written to avoid
ambiguities, to present the subject matter in enough detail to be
understood at the level of the querent and, if required, to provide
the mathematical underpinnings of the design.

In addition, I often provide schematics and simulations and, on
occasion, actually build a prototype to prove, without a doubt, that
the design is sound.

You, on the other hand, seem to content yourself by sitting on the
sidelines hurling insults

Only at tossers who deserve it.

---
And why are you a fit judge to determine who's a tosser and who isn't
and whether they "deserve" to be insulted?

--
JF

 

[Jamie]

John Fields wrote:

On Mon, 21 May 2012 12:43:00 -0700, John Larkin
jlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:


On Mon, 21 May 2012 10:17:51 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:


On Mon, 21 May 2012 15:27:11 +0100, "Ian Field"
gangprobing.alien@ntlworld.com> wrote:


"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:8tbkr717benuk09imp10v46ndhnug6nq8j@4ax.com...

On Sun, 20 May 2012 16:28:22 -0700, John Larkin
jjSNIPlarkin@highTHISlandtechnology.com> wrote:


On Sun, 20 May 2012 18:14:44 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:


On Sun, 20 May 2012 19:53:39 +0100, "Ian Field"
gangprobing.alien@ntlworld.com> wrote:


"Cydrome Leader" <presence@MUNGEpanix.com> wrote in message
news:jpbdhv$ngg$3@reader1.panix.com...

John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Thu, 17 May 2012 16:52:33 +0000 (UTC), Cydrome Leader
presence@MUNGEpanix.com> wrote:


John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Tue, 15 May 2012 21:42:24 +0100, "Ian Field"
gangprobing.alien@ntlworld.com> wrote:


"Phil Hobbs" <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote in
message
news:4FB2BA60.381879AC@electrooptical.net...

news@jecarter.us wrote:

On Tue, 15 May 2012 11:22:21 -0700 (PDT), George Herold
gherold@teachspin.com> wrote:


Why do US 120 VAC power plugs have holes in the end of the
blades?

George H.

To allow you to put the shackle of a small lock through the
blade to
ensure the item can't be plugged in for use?

I suspect it's to mate with a small boss on the blades of the
socket,
to
make it less likely to jiggle loose. The British solved that
problem
by
the traditional method of "add mass until nothing breaks."


I always marvelled at how the Yanks got away with such flimsy plugs
when
half the voltage means twice the current for the same load power.

---
A blade made of brass with a width of 1/4", a thickness of 1/16"
and a
length of about an inch is hardly flimsy, and serves us well when
we
opt to go to 240V and eke out four times the power available from
the
mains without changing plugs.

is this some sort of metric math?

---
Well, we're not dealing with feet and inches, so you figure it out:

120V mains, 120 ohm load, 120 watts

240V mains, 120 ohm load, 480 watts

480
----- = 4
120


so you're telling me if an outlet is rated and fused to supply say 15
amps
at 120 volts, that if I double the voltage across it's supply it can
now
safely handle 30 amps at 240?

What sort of jenky bullshit "instruments" to you make?


He's an escaped loony who likes to pretend he's "professional people".

---
Interesting...

you have very little technical expertise, and yet you chose to rail
against us who do.


Wait a second here. YOU GOT IT WRONG. HE IS RIGHT.

---
How is stating that doubling the voltage across a fixed resistance
quadruples its [power dissipation wrong?
---

So, where is your "technical expertise" ?


---
Apparently, in almost every post I write.



Apparent to anyone who doesn't know any better.

---
When I post something technical it's usually written to avoid
ambiguities, to present the subject matter in enough detail to be
understood at the level of the querent and, if required, to provide
the mathematical underpinnings of the design.

The only math I've ever seen you post is permutations of Ohm's Law.
Which is what you got wrong here.


---
Only "wrong" because you refuse to accept my point of view as being
valid, even though I iterate it over and over and offer the circuit
and the math to prove it right.

But no matter.

Yeah, a cattle prod normally gets any one to say and do as you please!

jamie

 

[John Fields]

On Mon, 21 May 2012 18:24:18 -0400, Jamie
<jamie_ka1lpa_not_valid_after_ka1lpa_@charter.net> wrote:

John Fields wrote:
On Mon, 21 May 2012 12:43:00 -0700, John Larkin
jlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:


On Mon, 21 May 2012 10:17:51 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

When I post something technical it's usually written to avoid
ambiguities, to present the subject matter in enough detail to be
understood at the level of the querent and, if required, to provide
the mathematical underpinnings of the design.

The only math I've ever seen you post is permutations of Ohm's Law.
Which is what you got wrong here.


---
Only "wrong" because you refuse to accept my point of view as being
valid, even though I iterate it over and over and offer the circuit
and the math to prove it right.

But no matter.

Yeah, a cattle prod normally gets any one to say and do as you please!

jamie

---
And yet you demur?

--
JF

 

[krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

On Mon, 21 May 2012 09:38:51 -0500, John Fields
<jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Mon, 21 May 2012 07:21:35 -0700, John Larkin
jjSNIPlarkin@highTHISlandtechnology.com> wrote:

On Mon, 21 May 2012 06:23:48 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Sun, 20 May 2012 15:13:30 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Sun, 20 May 2012 16:49:50 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Sun, 20 May 2012 09:18:07 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

You said this:


A blade made of brass with a width of 1/4", a thickness of 1/16" and a
length of about an inch is hardly flimsy, and serves us well when we
opt to go to 240V and eke out four times the power available from the
mains without changing plugs.

which is just wrong.

---
Right you are!

Changing just one word, though, would make it right.

Care to guess which one?

Easy. Change "four" to "two."

---
Wrong, but understandable since what I meant was "adding one word."

Mea culpa.

Wanna try again?

No. What you said was wrong and stupid, applying "Ohm's Law" without
thinking, as amateurs often do.

Weasel it out yourself.

---
Oh, my, Johnny's working himself up to a lather because he's missed
the point.

The word is 120V and it should be added before "mains".

Also, hardly wrong or stupid considering that, in the argument, if a
resistor is connected across 120V mains it'll dissipate a certain
power, while if connected across 240V mains the power dissipation will
quadruple.

Is that not correct, Mr Wizard?

The issue under discussion is how much power you can get from an
outlet, "eke out" in your words. You stated that a given plug, with a
rated current, can deliver 4x as much power at 240 than it can at 120.
You specifically said that's so without changing the plug. Wrong.

---
If a plug rated for 15A is plugged into 240V mains, then with a 16 ohm
resistor connected across the plug the resistor will dissipate 3600
watts.

Now unplug the plug from the 240V mains and plug it into 120V mains.
The dissipation will fall to 900 watts.

Isn't 3600 watts 4 times greater than 900 watts?

Which has *nothing* to do with the issue at hand, but you knew that. You're
just trying move the goal posts to hide your stupidity.

 

[Jamie]

John Fields wrote:

On Mon, 21 May 2012 18:24:18 -0400, Jamie
jamie_ka1lpa_not_valid_after_ka1lpa_@charter.net> wrote:


John Fields wrote:

On Mon, 21 May 2012 12:43:00 -0700, John Larkin
jlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:



On Mon, 21 May 2012 10:17:51 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:



When I post something technical it's usually written to avoid
ambiguities, to present the subject matter in enough detail to be
understood at the level of the querent and, if required, to provide
the mathematical underpinnings of the design.

The only math I've ever seen you post is permutations of Ohm's Law.
Which is what you got wrong here.


---
Only "wrong" because you refuse to accept my point of view as being
valid, even though I iterate it over and over and offer the circuit
and the math to prove it right.

But no matter.

Yeah, a cattle prod normally gets any one to say and do as you please!

jamie


---
And yet you demur?

Ha, really. Your use of "demur" does not impress me nor does it fit in

the context of the statement I made.

Before visiting the "WORD" buffets, you may want to know the
ingredients before ingestation.

Jamie

 

[John Larkin]

On Mon, 21 May 2012 16:46:28 -0500, John Fields
<jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Mon, 21 May 2012 12:43:00 -0700, John Larkin
jlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:

On Mon, 21 May 2012 10:17:51 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Mon, 21 May 2012 15:27:11 +0100, "Ian Field"
gangprobing.alien@ntlworld.com> wrote:


"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:8tbkr717benuk09imp10v46ndhnug6nq8j@4ax.com...
On Sun, 20 May 2012 16:28:22 -0700, John Larkin
jjSNIPlarkin@highTHISlandtechnology.com> wrote:

On Sun, 20 May 2012 18:14:44 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Sun, 20 May 2012 19:53:39 +0100, "Ian Field"
gangprobing.alien@ntlworld.com> wrote:


"Cydrome Leader" <presence@MUNGEpanix.com> wrote in message
news:jpbdhv$ngg$3@reader1.panix.com...
John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:
On Thu, 17 May 2012 16:52:33 +0000 (UTC), Cydrome Leader
presence@MUNGEpanix.com> wrote:

John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:
On Tue, 15 May 2012 21:42:24 +0100, "Ian Field"
gangprobing.alien@ntlworld.com> wrote:


"Phil Hobbs" <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote in
message
news:4FB2BA60.381879AC@electrooptical.net...
news@jecarter.us wrote:

On Tue, 15 May 2012 11:22:21 -0700 (PDT), George Herold
gherold@teachspin.com> wrote:


Why do US 120 VAC power plugs have holes in the end of the
blades?

George H.

To allow you to put the shackle of a small lock through the
blade to
ensure the item can't be plugged in for use?

I suspect it's to mate with a small boss on the blades of the
socket,
to
make it less likely to jiggle loose. The British solved that
problem
by
the traditional method of "add mass until nothing breaks."


I always marvelled at how the Yanks got away with such flimsy plugs
when
half the voltage means twice the current for the same load power.

---
A blade made of brass with a width of 1/4", a thickness of 1/16"
and a
length of about an inch is hardly flimsy, and serves us well when
we
opt to go to 240V and eke out four times the power available from
the
mains without changing plugs.

is this some sort of metric math?

---
Well, we're not dealing with feet and inches, so you figure it out:

120V mains, 120 ohm load, 120 watts

240V mains, 120 ohm load, 480 watts

480
----- = 4
120


so you're telling me if an outlet is rated and fused to supply say 15
amps
at 120 volts, that if I double the voltage across it's supply it can
now
safely handle 30 amps at 240?

What sort of jenky bullshit "instruments" to you make?


He's an escaped loony who likes to pretend he's "professional people".

---
Interesting...

you have very little technical expertise, and yet you chose to rail
against us who do.


Wait a second here. YOU GOT IT WRONG. HE IS RIGHT.

---
How is stating that doubling the voltage across a fixed resistance
quadruples its [power dissipation wrong?
---

So, where is your "technical expertise" ?


---
Apparently, in almost every post I write.



Apparent to anyone who doesn't know any better.

---
When I post something technical it's usually written to avoid
ambiguities, to present the subject matter in enough detail to be
understood at the level of the querent and, if required, to provide
the mathematical underpinnings of the design.

The only math I've ever seen you post is permutations of Ohm's Law.
Which is what you got wrong here.

---
Only "wrong" because you refuse to accept my point of view as being
valid, even though I iterate it over and over and offer the circuit
and the math to prove it right.

But no matter.

As for math I've posted, you must not have read a lot of my stuff, but
there was a post only a few days ago which showed a non-Ohms law way
to get the product of two input frequencies as an output

The one about multiplying two sine waves, where you got the math
wrong? Sure, I remember that one.


--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

jlarkin at highlandtechnology dot com
http://www.highlandtechnology.com

Precision electronic instrumentation
Picosecond-resolution Digital Delay and Pulse generators
Custom laser drivers and controllers
Photonics and fiberoptic TTL data links
VME thermocouple, LVDT, synchro acquisition and simulation

 

[John Larkin]

On Mon, 21 May 2012 20:30:54 -0400, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
<krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Mon, 21 May 2012 09:38:51 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Mon, 21 May 2012 07:21:35 -0700, John Larkin
jjSNIPlarkin@highTHISlandtechnology.com> wrote:

On Mon, 21 May 2012 06:23:48 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Sun, 20 May 2012 15:13:30 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Sun, 20 May 2012 16:49:50 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Sun, 20 May 2012 09:18:07 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

You said this:


A blade made of brass with a width of 1/4", a thickness of 1/16" and a
length of about an inch is hardly flimsy, and serves us well when we
opt to go to 240V and eke out four times the power available from the
mains without changing plugs.

which is just wrong.

---
Right you are!

Changing just one word, though, would make it right.

Care to guess which one?

Easy. Change "four" to "two."

---
Wrong, but understandable since what I meant was "adding one word."

Mea culpa.

Wanna try again?

No. What you said was wrong and stupid, applying "Ohm's Law" without
thinking, as amateurs often do.

Weasel it out yourself.

---
Oh, my, Johnny's working himself up to a lather because he's missed
the point.

The word is 120V and it should be added before "mains".

Also, hardly wrong or stupid considering that, in the argument, if a
resistor is connected across 120V mains it'll dissipate a certain
power, while if connected across 240V mains the power dissipation will
quadruple.

Is that not correct, Mr Wizard?

The issue under discussion is how much power you can get from an
outlet, "eke out" in your words. You stated that a given plug, with a
rated current, can deliver 4x as much power at 240 than it can at 120.
You specifically said that's so without changing the plug. Wrong.

---
If a plug rated for 15A is plugged into 240V mains, then with a 16 ohm
resistor connected across the plug the resistor will dissipate 3600
watts.

Now unplug the plug from the 240V mains and plug it into 120V mains.
The dissipation will fall to 900 watts.

Isn't 3600 watts 4 times greater than 900 watts?

Which has *nothing* to do with the issue at hand, but you knew that. You're
just trying move the goal posts to hide your stupidity.

That's like trying to hide a mountain.

He just keeps showing us how stupid he's determined to be. You have to
kind of admire that sort of dedication.