# 110v vs 220v



## 13AL (Dec 6, 2008)

Most of the equipment I have can be run on 110v or 220v, in a home shop environment what are the advantages/disadvantages?
For example, the air compressor runs alot
develops 5hp :big:
runs @ 2hp :
motor output is 2.25kw (per lable on motor)

Kurt

P.S. Been away from HMEM since about May, winter in New England is my slow time of year so I have been trying to catch up and read all the posts


----------



## cfellows (Dec 6, 2008)

Theoretically there shouldn't be any difference in motor performance. However, when you run the motor at 220v, you are using about 1/2 of the number of amps. It's been my experience that motors run at 220v have better startup torque than at 110v. I'm guessing this is because the higher voltage is able to overcome the resistance in the wiring better. The motor is also less likely to overheat with the reduced higher voltage and lower amps.

Chuck


----------



## kvom (Dec 6, 2008)

Compressors start against a load (unless the tank is empty), so the startup current surge with 110v motors can be pretty large. 220V is definitely superior for compressors.


----------



## kustomkb (Dec 6, 2008)

Why did we go for 110 in North America?


----------



## Brian Rupnow (Dec 6, 2008)

kvom  said:
			
		

> Compressors start against a load (unless the tank is empty), so the startup current surge with 110v motors can be pretty large. 220V is definitely superior for compressors.


Kvom--Any compressors I have ever seen have a zero pressure start valve on them. As soon as the pressure in the tank builds up to shut off, the compressor stops and you hear a hissing noise for a second or so. That hiss is the valve dumping pressure off the cylinder so that next time the compressor starts up the motor is NOT starting against a load.


----------



## stevehuckss396 (Dec 6, 2008)

kustomkb  said:
			
		

> Why did we go for 110 in North America?



The theory is, 110 is safer. The human body has a specific resistance value. The higher the voltage, the higher the current is for a set resistance. Current is the value that will stop your heart. So "in theory" 220 volts is twice as likely as 110 to kill someone.


----------



## Cedge (Dec 6, 2008)

> So "in theory" 220 volts is twice as likely as 110 to kill someone.




Quote from old USAF Radar Electronics instructor:
"In "practice", 110 volt AC likes to grab and hold on to you, while 220 volt AC is more likely to kick you hard enough to break the contact. Both hurt like hell and even at 110 volts, dead is dead. Above 440 volts there is little or nothing your safety buddy can do to help you. Never let yourself become the fuse in a circuit."

For constant start and stop or constant running equipment it's cheaper to use 220 volt.

Steve


----------



## wareagle (Dec 6, 2008)

The difference between 110 and 220... Without getting into a huge discussion on physics, the higher the voltage, the more efficient the energy delivery is. It is really about that simple.


----------



## John S (Dec 7, 2008)

kustomkb  said:
			
		

> Why did we go for 110 in North America?



Because when we left in 1776 we took all the 3 phase electricity back with us only leaving you the 110 volt which we didn't want.
Later as we colonised the rest of the world [ note the 's' and not 'z', again we left you the 'z' as one one wanted it ] we shared our new found three phase from a mine in North Yorkshire with the rest of the world.

The rest as they say is history.

All tongue in cheek lads :bow:


----------



## gunboatbay (Dec 7, 2008)

Obviously this fellow, who decided to steal a bit of copper wire, failed to read Cedge's post. (see Atch)


WARNING: Attachment is kind of graphic/disturbing. 

View attachment HiVoltageShock.pps


----------



## mklotz (Dec 7, 2008)

John Stevenson  said:
			
		

> Because when we left in 1776 we took all the 3 phase electricity back with us only leaving you the 110 volt which we didn't want.
> Later as we colonised the rest of the world [ note the 's' and not 'z', again we left you the 'z' as one one wanted it ] we shared our new found three phase from a mine in North Yorkshire with the rest of the world.



Nah, John, you old sod, you've got it wrong.

We let you have the 220 because everyone knows you have to push an Englishman twice as hard to get any useful work out of him.

We let you have the 50 Hz too so your clocks would run slower and you wouldn't realize just how far behind the times you were.

Just humor, John (please note the absence of the superfluous 'u').


----------



## raggle (Dec 7, 2008)

Boys, boys!! You'll wake my first grandson, Milo (born yesterday at 10.00 am GMT)

Of course we kill twice as many per head of population over here by electrocution. They don't let us play with guns.

And all made possible by copper wire, which was invented by two Scotsmen arguing over a penny. You'd have thought out there in the colonies they'd use aluminum. They got that spelling right, no superfluous "i", John.

Ray


----------



## mklotz (Dec 7, 2008)

Ray,

Congratulations on your new grandson. I trust you're making him a sterling (not Stirling) rattle in the shape of a micrometer to get him started off right.

Don't worry about John and me and our mutual poking and prodding. We've been at it for years and it's all in good fun. I respect John immensely and he resp thinks I'm OK. Well, OK for a colonial, that is.


----------



## John S (Dec 7, 2008)

mklotz  said:
			
		

> Nah, John, you old sod, you've got it wrong.
> 
> We let you have the 220 because everyone knows you have to push an Englishman twice as hard to get any useful work out of him.
> 
> ...



Yar but 220v, actually 240 x 50 = 12,000 against 110 x 60 = 6600 so we are working twice as hard and are nearly twice as advanced as you rednecks 

Probably why Brit humour is more colourful than Yankee humor with it having the extra 'u's :bow:

.


----------



## IanN (Dec 8, 2008)

Hi,

I hate to be really boring and add something sensible to this thread, but the advantages and disadvantages of 240 (or 220) vs 110 volts centre round safety.

240 V is quite reliable when it comes to killing you. As a result, all the old UK electrical safety specifications and equipment designs were based around preventing electric shock.

On the other hand, if you have your 110 V supply isolated via a transformer and earth the centre tap, the worst you can do is receive 55*1.4 V - this voltage will give you a surprise, but not end your life. Unfortunately the higher current required to deliver the same power means that all the cable ratings have to be higher and US safety standards (eg UL approval) focus on the fire risk due to excessive current.

As I guess you do not intend to come into contact with live potentials the shock risk is not an issue, so if you opt for 240/220 V supplies, you will require lighter (cheaper) wiring.

As for the reason that you still use 110 V in the colonies, I think it is just a case of you new kids on the block trying to be different - you will grow out of it once your country gets to be over a thousand years old. 

Ian.


----------



## 13AL (Dec 10, 2008)

Thanks for all the replies that contained usefull info :bow:

To the others (you know who you are) thanks for the soda out the nose! :big:

Kurt


----------

