Why do I get electricity bills? (another thought-provoking m

[Mike Silva]

Paul Burridge <pb@notthisbit.osiris1.co.uk> wrote in message news:<bre9p0t3e6vf6asvtcd9mk98of084siu4u@4ax.com>...

I use no current and they effectively supply no voltage. Why do I get
billed for electricity usage when I clearly can't have used any?

Because if you don't they'll turn off their non-voltage and
non-current and you won't like the difference (even though there isn't
any).

 

[Paul Burridge]

On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 11:25:52 -0600, John Fields
<jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

Paul's in the UK, but I think you've hit on a terrific idea in that if
he installed a digester outfitted with a toilet seat he could,
single-assedly, supply electricity (_and_ fertilizer, God knows,) for
most of Europe!^)

Hey, I was going to give the surplus hot air suggestion a try, but I
couldn't afford to run a pipeline all the way to Austin. ;->

--

"What is now proved was once only imagin'd." - William Blake, 1793.

 

[Paul Burridge]

On 14 Nov 2004 12:35:00 -0800, snarflemike@yahoo.com (Mike Silva)
wrote:

Paul Burridge <pb@notthisbit.osiris1.co.uk> wrote in message news:<bre9p0t3e6vf6asvtcd9mk98of084siu4u@4ax.com>...

I use no current and they effectively supply no voltage. Why do I get
billed for electricity usage when I clearly can't have used any?

Because if you don't they'll turn off their non-voltage and
non-current and you won't like the difference (even though there isn't
any).

You're probably right. Sigh... I still think I'm a dumbass sucker,
though. But at least no one seems to agree with me on that.

--

"What is now proved was once only imagin'd." - William Blake, 1793.

 

[Paul Burridge]

On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 05:04:59 GMT, Rich The Philosophizer
<null@example.net> wrote:

Well, yeah, except that it's so simple to "explain away" by just
saying that you're not paying for the electrons themselves that
are just passing through, but the energy required to get them
to do that passage.

Big deal. All they've got to do is pull some carbon rods out of a pile
of radio-active crap and the job's done. How hard can that be?
--

"What is now proved was once only imagin'd." - William Blake, 1793.

 

[John Fields]

On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 22:38:36 +0000, Paul Burridge
<pb@notthisbit.osiris1.co.uk> wrote:

On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 05:04:59 GMT, Rich The Philosophizer
null@example.net> wrote:

Well, yeah, except that it's so simple to "explain away" by just
saying that you're not paying for the electrons themselves that
are just passing through, but the energy required to get them
to do that passage.

Big deal. All they've got to do is pull some carbon rods out of a pile
of radio-active crap and the job's done. How hard can that be?

---
I think that's kinda what they thought at Chernobyl...

--
John Fields

 

[Active8]

On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 04:43:22 GMT, Rich The Philosophizer wrote:

On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 13:38:09 +0000, Paul Burridge wrote:
On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 04:59:46 GMT, Rich The Philosophizer
I would really believe this is a gag if you hadn't already shown that
you have the mentality of a neocon.

??
Example?

I went on a quest.

Sheesh. OK, you're showing the same mentality by your blockheadedness
about the electricity.

I came up with "neocon" because of election hangover, and probably
confused names because of the frenzy.

So, sorry if I got the wrong guy, but upon reviewing the thread,
if it ain't a gag that you're really dragging out, in which case,
either congratulations or you should be ashamed of yourself, but
if not, then you're one of the most stubborn, blockheaded people
I've ever encountered, republican _or_ democrat!

Does this clear things up a bit?

Maybe I can explain. Paul is basically a moron when it comes to
electronics - real slow on the uptake, engineering math challenged,
Jerry's kid. He probably OP'd this thread without thinking of the
work required to move those f*cking electrons - the more you move in
a given time, the more power you consume. Goes back to mechanics and
horsepower. OTOH, he *is* a f*cking troll, basically, so you might
just ignore him. I sometimes look at the responses to him because
you never know when someone's gonna blast him (like you're getting
close to doing) and sometimes (not this time) it's good for a
chuckle. 'specially after a few good Long Islands

--
Best Regards,
Mike

 

[Active8]

On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 22:37:27 +0000, Paul Burridge wrote:

On 14 Nov 2004 12:35:00 -0800, snarflemike@yahoo.com (Mike Silva)
wrote:

Paul Burridge <pb@notthisbit.osiris1.co.uk> wrote in message news:<bre9p0t3e6vf6asvtcd9mk98of084siu4u@4ax.com>...

I use no current and they effectively supply no voltage. Why do I get
billed for electricity usage when I clearly can't have used any?

Because if you don't they'll turn off their non-voltage and
non-current and you won't like the difference (even though there isn't
any).

You're probably right. Sigh... I still think I'm a dumbass sucker,
though. But at least no one seems to agree with me on that.

They do on the dumbass part.
--
Best Regards,
Mike

 

[Rich The Philosophizer]

On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 12:30:13 -0600, John Fields wrote:

On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 04:43:22 GMT, Rich The Philosophizer
null@example.net> wrote:


I came up with "neocon" because of election hangover, and probably
confused names because of the frenzy.

---
"Neocon" as a cuntraction for "neoconservative", or what?

No, a contraction.

Thanks,
Rich

 

[Rich The Philosophizer]

On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 07:39:50 +0000, Kevin Aylward wrote:

Rich The Philosophizer wrote:
On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 12:30:13 -0600, John Fields wrote:

On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 04:43:22 GMT, Rich The Philosophizer
null@example.net> wrote:


I came up with "neocon" because of election hangover, and probably
confused names because of the frenzy.

---
"Neocon" as a cuntraction for "neoconservative", or what?

No, a contraction.

I think he meant the cuntraction, just as in "Good evening, Cuntstable,
I was not speeding at all."

I know that's what he meant, and I was making a point.

Thanks again, Kevin.

?:^|
Rich

 

[John Fields]

On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 07:39:50 GMT, "Kevin Aylward"
<salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> wrote:

Rich The Philosophizer wrote:
On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 12:30:13 -0600, John Fields wrote:

On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 04:43:22 GMT, Rich The Philosophizer
null@example.net> wrote:


I came up with "neocon" because of election hangover, and probably
confused names because of the frenzy.

---
"Neocon" as a cuntraction for "neoconservative", or what?

No, a contraction.

I think he meant the cuntraction, just as in "Good evening, Cuntstable,
I was not speeding at all."

---
BINGO! Give that man a see-gar!

--
John Fields

 

[Bob W.]

There is no cancellation because the postive and negative peaks do not
occur at the same time.


Paul Burridge <pb@notthisbit.osiris1.co.uk> wrote in message news:<9s7cp0luo989ildta0bienppgr38ieh4dn@4ax.com>...

On Sat, 13 Nov 2004 11:42:11 +0000, Scott <acepilot@bloomer.net
wrote:

Huh? It's only 5:30AM here and I just got up but, the ONLY time you
aren't consuming power is at the zero crossing of the voltage and
current sine waves (assuming a purely resistive load where I and E are
in phase). Since you are paying for power, which is P=I X E, during the
negative half cycle, you have, for example, -168 Volts X -1 Amp = +168
Watts...try it on a calculator...negative times a negative is positive.

Thanks, Scott. So you're basically agreeing with me. I owe the power
co. for the positive cycles they send me; they owe *me* for the
negative ones. Since they are equal and opposite, they cancel each
other out. Overall, then, zero billing justified.
We are being conned!!!

 

[John Fields]

On Sat, 13 Nov 2004 12:15:44 -0600, John Fields
<jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Sat, 13 Nov 2004 14:54:55 +0000, Paul Burridge
pb@notthisbit.osiris1.co.uk> wrote:

On Sat, 13 Nov 2004 11:42:11 +0000, Scott <acepilot@bloomer.net
wrote:

Huh? It's only 5:30AM here and I just got up but, the ONLY time you
aren't consuming power is at the zero crossing of the voltage and
current sine waves (assuming a purely resistive load where I and E are
in phase). Since you are paying for power, which is P=I X E, during the
negative half cycle, you have, for example, -168 Volts X -1 Amp = +168
Watts...try it on a calculator...negative times a negative is positive.

Thanks, Scott. So you're basically agreeing with me. I owe the power
co. for the positive cycles they send me; they owe *me* for the
negative ones. Since they are equal and opposite, they cancel each
other out. Overall, then, zero billing justified.
We are being conned!!!

---
EUREKA!!!

The fallacy lies in your thinking that the power company bills you for
what they send you, when in actuality what you're getting billed for
is what you send back to them!

Consider: they send you a bunch of positive and negative cycles, but
as long as you don't turn a switch on anywhere, those cycles can't
travel back to the power company, so you don't get billed for them.

However, when you do turn on a switch you're providing a way for
_their_ electricity to get back to _them_ and stop beating it's head
^^^^

Tsk, tsk, tsk... hangs head in shame _______/

against an open switch, so it seems to me that they should pay _you_
for doing them the courtesy of returning their electricity.

--
John Fields

 

[Rich The Philosophizer]

On Sat, 13 Nov 2004 14:54:55 +0000, Paul Burridge wrote:

On Sat, 13 Nov 2004 11:42:11 +0000, Scott <acepilot@bloomer.net
wrote:

Huh? It's only 5:30AM here and I just got up but, the ONLY time you
aren't consuming power is at the zero crossing of the voltage and
current sine waves (assuming a purely resistive load where I and E are
in phase). Since you are paying for power, which is P=I X E, during the
negative half cycle, you have, for example, -168 Volts X -1 Amp = +168
Watts...try it on a calculator...negative times a negative is positive.

Thanks, Scott. So you're basically agreeing with me. I owe the power
co. for the positive cycles they send me; they owe *me* for the
negative ones. Since they are equal and opposite, they cancel each
other out. Overall, then, zero billing justified.
We are being conned!!!

I would really believe this is a gag if you hadn't already shown that
you have the mentality of a neocon.

Thanks,
Rich

 

[Rich Grise]

On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 08:26:54 -0500, Dave VanHorn wrote:

Huh? It's only 5:30AM here and I just got up but, the ONLY time you
aren't consuming power is at the zero crossing of the voltage and
current sine waves (assuming a purely resistive load where I and E are
in phase). Since you are paying for power, which is P=I X E, during the
negative half cycle, you have, for example, -168 Volts X -1 Amp = +168
Watts...try it on a calculator...negative times a negative is positive.

P=I^2R, so which direction the current is flowing is irrelevant, as the
squaring removes any negatives, and R is always positive.

Would be interesting if you could get a true -R though! (not like a tunnel
diode, which just has a small region where increasing V decreases I, but
it's still positive)

Instead of wires, use glass tubes full of plasma. ;-)

Cheers!
Rich

 

[John Fields]

On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 04:43:22 GMT, Rich The Philosophizer
<null@example.net> wrote:

I came up with "neocon" because of election hangover, and probably
confused names because of the frenzy.

---
"Neocon" as a cuntraction for "neoconservative", or what?
---

So, sorry if I got the wrong guy, but upon reviewing the thread,
if it ain't a gag that you're really dragging out, in which case,
either congratulations or you should be ashamed of yourself, but
if not, then you're one of the most stubborn, blockheaded people
I've ever encountered, republican _or_ democrat!

---
Bwahahahahaha!!! IKYABWAI if I ever heard one!! Thanks for the larf!
---

Does this clear things up a bit?

---
A bunch!

--
John Fields

 

[Kevin Aylward]

Terry wrote:

Was anybody keeping count of the number of postings to this thread
BEFORE it became personal and acrimonious?
Seems like some posters lack the necessary sense of humour? They seem
to hate anythingthey say be challenged?
Then, as a reaction they descend in childish name calling and
attempts at derision. Shame!

Sticking to the subject. "Why electricity (for our antique radios of
course) is/is not free". Well, hmm! The tube heaters use full wave,
but what about those pulses of one way rectified half wave AC for the
B+? (Primarily in non transformer radios!). Intended pun; non power
transformer radios don't have a primary!

Personally I'd like to 'rectify'? my high electricity cost!
Our consumption is recorded by a 60 cycle analog AC meter on the
outside of my house, which is owned by the power company and read and
billed monthly. Maybe I could get those positive half cycles and then
not 'return' the negative ones, as someone has already suggested, and
reduce electricity consumption that way? Joking of course What
good would half cycles be to respectable AC operated equipment?

So anybody got any other 'practical' ideas, in addition to burning my
non electric wood stove during the winter, to reducing my electrical
heating cost?

Our domestic electricity presently costs about 9 cents Canadian per
kilowatt hour. That's roughly 7 cents US and roughly 4 UK New Pence,
per unit/kilowatt hour.

Which means running ones 1MW anti-gravity machine only costs a trivial
$70 per hour. Cheap at twice the price.

Kevin Aylward
salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.

 

[Terry]

"Jim L." <jfladd@flash.net> wrote in message
news:AFTmd.19330$8%2.3421@newssvr15.news.prodigy.com...

Hi- If you are not using any "electricity" then turn off your main circuit
breaker. You should not notice any difference. Jim

Still wondering if there is a way to 'rectify' this thread misunderstanding?

 

[Ken Taylor]

"Terry" <tsanford@nf.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:M27od.4558$Ro.211768@news20.bellglobal.com...

"Jim L." <jfladd@flash.net> wrote in message
news:AFTmd.19330$8%2.3421@newssvr15.news.prodigy.com...
Hi- If you are not using any "electricity" then turn off your main
circuit
breaker. You should not notice any difference. Jim


Still wondering if there is a way to 'rectify' this thread
misunderstanding?


I've got bucket loads of half-waves I rectified and don't need if anyone

wants to make an offer.....

 

[Rich The Philosophizer]

On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 13:38:09 +0000, Paul Burridge wrote:

On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 04:59:46 GMT, Rich The Philosophizer
I would really believe this is a gag if you hadn't already shown that
you have the mentality of a neocon.

??
Example?

I went on a quest.

Sheesh. OK, you're showing the same mentality by your blockheadedness
about the electricity.

I came up with "neocon" because of election hangover, and probably
confused names because of the frenzy.

So, sorry if I got the wrong guy, but upon reviewing the thread,
if it ain't a gag that you're really dragging out, in which case,
either congratulations or you should be ashamed of yourself, but
if not, then you're one of the most stubborn, blockheaded people
I've ever encountered, republican _or_ democrat!

Does this clear things up a bit?

Thanks,
Rich

 

[Ken Taylor]

"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:nsc2q0d89boei265ci1nng31iks6nbbc5u@4ax.com...

On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 11:48:19 +1300, "Ken Taylor" <ken123@xtra.co.nz
wrote:

"Terry" <tsanford@nf.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:M27od.4558$Ro.211768@news20.bellglobal.com...

"Jim L." <jfladd@flash.net> wrote in message
news:AFTmd.19330$8%2.3421@newssvr15.news.prodigy.com...
Hi- If you are not using any "electricity" then turn off your main
circuit
breaker. You should not notice any difference. Jim


Still wondering if there is a way to 'rectify' this thread
misunderstanding?


I've got bucket loads of half-waves I rectified and don't need if anyone
wants to make an offer.....

---
Positive or negative-going?

--
John Fields

Sorry, I don't sort them - they're a job lot.

Ken