Guest
On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 13:06:05 -0700 (PDT), Bret Cahill
<BretCahill@aol.com> wrote:
Why?
jack
<BretCahill@aol.com> wrote:
Why?
jack
Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
B
Benj
Guest
On Apr 23, 7:32 pm, "Phil Allison" <philalli...@tpg.com.au> wrote:
GREAT NEWS PHIL!!!!
Google Groups now can be rigged with a killfile!
Bye Bye, fuckwit!
"Benj"
( snip nauseating verbal diarrhoea)
** Fuck OFF - you asinine, illiterate cretin !!!
.... Phil
GREAT NEWS PHIL!!!!
Google Groups now can be rigged with a killfile!
Bye Bye, fuckwit!
Y
Y.Porat
Guest
On Apr 23, 1:17 am, John Larkin
<jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
i dont know what you mean by inverters
AFAIK
DC cannot be transform to very high volages-
OTHOA
AC can be transformed to huge voltages by trasformers
yet transformers can work only on AC
and hight voltage AC is much more efficient than
any low voltage current
do i remember correctly ??
ATB
Y.Porat
---------------------------
<jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
----------------On Tue, 22 Apr 2008 12:13:06 -0700 (PDT), Bret Cahill
BretCah...@aol.com> wrote:
Is there some low frequency radiation or hysterisis loss or what?
Bret Cahill
If you mean long-distance transmission lines, DC can be run at higher
average voltages (less corona losses, relatively) and has no skin loss
or inductive coupling to the world. I don't know about 10:1.
DC systems do need inverters and rectifiers on the ends, which have
losses.
John
i dont know what you mean by inverters
AFAIK
DC cannot be transform to very high volages-
OTHOA
AC can be transformed to huge voltages by trasformers
yet transformers can work only on AC
and hight voltage AC is much more efficient than
any low voltage current
do i remember correctly ??
ATB
Y.Porat
---------------------------
B
Benj
Guest
On Apr 23, 8:02 pm, tadchem <tadc...@comcast.net> wrote:
debate"? It is only in MATHEMATICS that they are unquestioned
(assuming they were done "correctly" which means according to the
arbitrary rules the original mathematician who defined the given
system invented.) In science and engineering (contrary to popular
belief) mathematical models are determined to be "correct" by their
agreement with reality. mathematical definitions play NO role!
simply does not apply!
thrown out without regrets.
much loss as another the one with the greater loss is twice as
inefficient. Hence it logically follows from the data that one is
twice as efficient as the other. If you want to play English word
games have at it, but language doesn't have to make sense either,
ESPECIALLY "muttish" English! If you wish to make up equations that
have no basis in reality and then claim that somehow it shows you are
"correct" because the laws of arithmetic are being followed, you can
say that, but you make no sense in a practical world. Say, how is
life up there in the Ivory Tower?
So the REAL question is what is going on in the system? Trying to
press mathematical dogma or the rules of English grammar upon any
situation in no way impresses the power transmission systems. They
don't listen to either mathematics OR English. If what is going on is
understood and described, that is sufficient for those people who deal
with these things. Goofy arguments by you don't make you look any
smarter.
If you want to look smart then tell us what the best efficiency of
AC<>DC HV converters are these days... (only values under 100% will be
considered valid)
Since when are equations in science and engineering "not open toIsn't it great when a so-called "scientist" can simply quote
mathematical equations as if they were making sense
...and they do make sense, especially when you consider that these
equations are definitions and not open to debate.
debate"? It is only in MATHEMATICS that they are unquestioned
(assuming they were done "correctly" which means according to the
arbitrary rules the original mathematician who defined the given
system invented.) In science and engineering (contrary to popular
belief) mathematical models are determined to be "correct" by their
agreement with reality. mathematical definitions play NO role!
Because simple arithmetic leads to an absurd answer and thereforeand pretend to win
arguments by doing so?
I pretend nothing. Why do you pretend to understand when your
argument violates simple arithmetic?
simply does not apply!
Correct. Absurd answer so the calculation is simply untenable and2 x 92% is 184%, and 184% efficiency is impossible as efficiency is
defined.
thrown out without regrets.
By looking at the data. It's clear that if one system has half asCan you show me *HOW* 2 x 92% = 96%? I don't think so.
much loss as another the one with the greater loss is twice as
inefficient. Hence it logically follows from the data that one is
twice as efficient as the other. If you want to play English word
games have at it, but language doesn't have to make sense either,
ESPECIALLY "muttish" English! If you wish to make up equations that
have no basis in reality and then claim that somehow it shows you are
"correct" because the laws of arithmetic are being followed, you can
say that, but you make no sense in a practical world. Say, how is
life up there in the Ivory Tower?
So the REAL question is what is going on in the system? Trying to
press mathematical dogma or the rules of English grammar upon any
situation in no way impresses the power transmission systems. They
don't listen to either mathematics OR English. If what is going on is
understood and described, that is sufficient for those people who deal
with these things. Goofy arguments by you don't make you look any
smarter.
If you want to look smart then tell us what the best efficiency of
AC<>DC HV converters are these days... (only values under 100% will be
considered valid)
Guest
On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 15:49:20 +1000, "Phil Allison"
<philallison@tpg.com.au> wrote:
Sez who?
jack
<philallison@tpg.com.au> wrote:
spamfree@spam.heaven
Bret Cahill = TROLL
you came up with.
Never end sentences with prepositions.
Why?
** Cos it is a preposterous thing to do.....
Sez who?
jack
B
Bret Cahill
Guest
Supposing you wanted a catchy title to your thread?Are modern "scientists" really this dense? �Ten times efficient isn't
920%! �What you must have just graduated from a "modern" high school?
Dig. �If standard transmission is 92% efficient, then that means there
is 8% of the energy lost. TWICE as efficient would only have 4% of the
energy lost or would be 96%.
Your terminology seems pointlessly confusing. �Presumably you think
a 100% efficient system is 20 times as efficient as another 100%
system.
The simple answer is that if something is 92% efficient, you can't
make it 10 times more efficient.
Bret Cahill
J
Judge Mental
Guest
On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 16:11:47 -0400, Paul E. Schoen wrote:
Cheers!
Rich
A googlie netcop! ROFLMAOPIMP!!!!"Bret Cahill" <BretCahill@aol.com> wrote in message
news:155f31ec-16a8-4bf3-a872-36772b553f99@i76g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
you came up
with.
Never end sentences with prepositions.
But it sounds funny to say, "up with which you came."
Cheers!
Rich
T
tadchem
Guest
On Apr 24, 2:44 am, Benj <bjac...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
pleasure, but be advised that as soon as you do, you no longer have
any common ground for using the term in a discussion with others using
the definition you have chosen to disregard. The logical term for
this process is "equivocation."
while pretending not to have changed anything. The phrase "it is
clear" is a standard pedagogical cop-out. It usually means "I haven't
bothered to work out the details, but I'm pretty sure this is the way
it is."
"loss," either.
To support clear communications, rigorous definitions are established
and all parties agree to adhere to them. These definitions establish
the "playing field" for scientific discussions. If you wish to
discuss a subtly different concept with scientists, you must give your
concept a unique name and definition.
agreed upon by physicists for the study of physics.
an ivory tower. I work in the real world.
It isn't all that complicated.
Electrical power is typically transmitted at 110KV+. At one-thousand
times the voltage of household current, the current of a HV
transmission line is kept low, so the losses are kept low. I could do
the math for you, but by now I'm sure you could not follow it, or if
you could, you would not trust it simply because it is math.
their efficiency depends on their operating voltage, frequency, and
other characteristics of the individual circuit (including the load!).
I have seen a claim (admittedly by 'marketing' types) for >= 97.7%:
http://www.chlorideups.com/Data%20Sheets/40%20kVA.pdf
although elsewhere they state "87% efficiency minimum."
....but here is a peer-reviewed article:
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/Xplore/login.jsp?url=/iel3/4202/12369/00573386.pdf?temp=x
claiming "92% for a 12 kW rectifier for telecom applications ... for
a 380/480 V three phase AC input utilizing semiconductor devices with
commonly available breakdown voltages ... including predicted and
laboratory measurements of power train efficiency."
Perhaps you will find data in the links on this page informative:
http://category.alldatasheet.com/datasheet-pdf/category/rectifier/efficiency,.html
Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA
You are welcome to change the *DEFINITIONS* of the terms at your ownOn Apr 23, 8:02 pm, tadchem <tadc...@comcast.net> wrote:
Isn't it great when a so-called "scientist" can simply quote
mathematical equations as if they were making sense
...and they do make sense, especially when you consider that these
equations are definitions and not open to debate.
Since when are equations in science and engineering "not open to
debate"?
pleasure, but be advised that as soon as you do, you no longer have
any common ground for using the term in a discussion with others using
the definition you have chosen to disregard. The logical term for
this process is "equivocation."
....not if simple arithmetic has been misapplied, as in your argument.Because simple arithmetic leads to an absurd answer and therefore
simply does not apply!
So, you turn the discussion from one of "efficiency" to one of "loss"Can you show me *HOW* 2 x 92% = 96%? I don't think so.
By looking at the data. It's clear that if one system has half as
much loss as another the one with the greater loss is twice as
inefficient.
while pretending not to have changed anything. The phrase "it is
clear" is a standard pedagogical cop-out. It usually means "I haven't
bothered to work out the details, but I'm pretty sure this is the way
it is."
You apparently are not clear on the relationship of "efficiency" toHence it logically follows from the data that one is
twice as efficient as the other.
"loss," either.
But "science" requires unambiguous communication wherever possible.If you want to play English word
games have at it, but language doesn't have to make sense either,
ESPECIALLY "muttish" English!
To support clear communications, rigorous definitions are established
and all parties agree to adhere to them. These definitions establish
the "playing field" for scientific discussions. If you wish to
discuss a subtly different concept with scientists, you must give your
concept a unique name and definition.
They are not my "equations," but rather mathematical *definitions*If you wish to make up equations that
have no basis in reality
agreed upon by physicists for the study of physics.
I imagine from your perspective a white fire hydrant would seem likeand then claim that somehow it shows you are
"correct" because the laws of arithmetic are being followed, you can
say that, but you make no sense in a practical world. Say, how is
life up there in the Ivory Tower?
an ivory tower. I work in the real world.
This was answered in the Wiki articles which I have previously cited.So the REAL question is what is going on in the system?
It isn't all that complicated.
Electrical power is typically transmitted at 110KV+. At one-thousand
times the voltage of household current, the current of a HV
transmission line is kept low, so the losses are kept low. I could do
the math for you, but by now I'm sure you could not follow it, or if
you could, you would not trust it simply because it is math.
Excellent words. You should heed them.Trying to
press mathematical dogma or the rules of English grammar upon any
situation in no way impresses the power transmission systems. They
don't listen to either mathematics OR English. If what is going on is
understood and described, that is sufficient for those people who deal
with these things. Goofy arguments by you don't make you look any
smarter.
In the real world, AC to DC 'converters' are called "rectifiers," andIf you want to look smart then tell us what the best efficiency of
AC<>DC HV converters are these days... (only values under 100% will be
considered valid)
their efficiency depends on their operating voltage, frequency, and
other characteristics of the individual circuit (including the load!).
I have seen a claim (admittedly by 'marketing' types) for >= 97.7%:
http://www.chlorideups.com/Data%20Sheets/40%20kVA.pdf
although elsewhere they state "87% efficiency minimum."
....but here is a peer-reviewed article:
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/Xplore/login.jsp?url=/iel3/4202/12369/00573386.pdf?temp=x
claiming "92% for a 12 kW rectifier for telecom applications ... for
a 380/480 V three phase AC input utilizing semiconductor devices with
commonly available breakdown voltages ... including predicted and
laboratory measurements of power train efficiency."
Perhaps you will find data in the links on this page informative:
http://category.alldatasheet.com/datasheet-pdf/category/rectifier/efficiency,.html
Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA
T
tadchem
Guest
On Apr 24, 2:37 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
inefficient ("lossy"), but via the sequence "inverter -> transformer -
Richmond, VA
"Inverters" convert DC to AC.On Apr 23, 1:17 am, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Tue, 22 Apr 2008 12:13:06 -0700 (PDT), Bret Cahill
BretCah...@aol.com> wrote:
Is there some low frequency radiation or hysterisis loss or what?
Bret Cahill
If you mean long-distance transmission lines, DC can be run at higher
average voltages (less corona losses, relatively) and has no skin loss
or inductive coupling to the world. I don't know about 10:1.
DC systems do need inverters and rectifiers on the ends, which have
losses.
John
----------------
i dont know what you mean by inverters
Not directly. Voltage dividers/multipliers are notoriouslyAFAIK
DC cannot be transform to very high volages-
inefficient ("lossy"), but via the sequence "inverter -> transformer -
Tom Davidsonrectifier" it can be done.
OTHOA
AC can be transformed to huge voltages by trasformers
yet transformers can work only on AC
and hight voltage AC is much more efficient than
any low voltage current
do i remember correctly ??
ATB
Y.Porat
---------------------------
Richmond, VA
M
Michael A. Terrell
Guest
Bret Cahill wrote:
Don't worry. They don't you, alive. In fact, most people have already
dropped 'all' traffic from the Google Groups portal.
--
http://improve-usenet.org/index.html
Use any search engine other than Google till they stop polluting USENET
with porn and junk commercial SPAM
If you have broadband, your ISP may have a NNTP news server included in
your account: http://www.usenettools.net/ISP.htm
The trifling daffynition hair splitting bean counting nerds here will
never take me alive!
Don't worry. They don't you, alive. In fact, most people have already
dropped 'all' traffic from the Google Groups portal.
--
http://improve-usenet.org/index.html
Use any search engine other than Google till they stop polluting USENET
with porn and junk commercial SPAM
If you have broadband, your ISP may have a NNTP news server included in
your account: http://www.usenettools.net/ISP.htm
B
Bret Cahill
Guest
The trifling daffynition hair splitting bean counting nerds here will
never take me alive!
Bret Cahill
never take me alive!
Bret Cahill
J
John Larkin
Guest
On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 23:37:19 -0700 (PDT), "Y.Porat"
<y.y.porat@gmail.com> wrote:
At the source end of DC transmission lines, polyphase
transformer-rectifier circuits convert the AC to high-voltage DC.
At the load end, the DC must be converted back to AC, using
"inverters".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HVDC#Rectifying_and_inverting_components
memories.
John
<y.y.porat@gmail.com> wrote:
On Apr 23, 1:17 am, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Tue, 22 Apr 2008 12:13:06 -0700 (PDT), Bret Cahill
BretCah...@aol.com> wrote:
Is there some low frequency radiation or hysterisis loss or what?
Bret Cahill
If you mean long-distance transmission lines, DC can be run at higher
average voltages (less corona losses, relatively) and has no skin loss
or inductive coupling to the world. I don't know about 10:1.
DC systems do need inverters and rectifiers on the ends, which have
losses.
John
----------------
i dont know what you mean by inverters
At the source end of DC transmission lines, polyphase
transformer-rectifier circuits convert the AC to high-voltage DC.
At the load end, the DC must be converted back to AC, using
"inverters".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HVDC#Rectifying_and_inverting_components
It's easy to google stuff like this, instead of relying on oldAFAIK
DC cannot be transform to very high volages-
OTHOA
AC can be transformed to huge voltages by trasformers
yet transformers can work only on AC
and hight voltage AC is much more efficient than
any low voltage current
do i remember correctly ??
memories.
John
E
Eeyore
Guest
Bret Cahill wrote:
Graham
Solar thermal isn't electricity, it's heat. I assume you mean PV solar.Presumably, 99.2%. �The loss for 92% efficiency
is 8%; reducing that loss by a factor of 10
generates 0.8%.
The 8% figure is an average and an arbitrary one at that.
The only reason the 92% efficiency figure appeared is because electric
power just isn't shipped thousands of miles when it is cheaper to
build plants in every town and ship the fuel instead.
The situation changes if a power plant needs to be in a very remote
location like the Sahara. To ship the solar thermal
Why do you think that ? Is there any scientific rationale for it ?back to N. Europe would waste 1/2 the energy using HVAC.
Graham
B
Bret Cahill
Guest
The 8% figure is an average and an arbitrary one at that.Presumably, 99.2%. �The loss for 92% efficiency
is 8%; reducing that loss by a factor of 10
generates 0.8%.
The only reason the 92% efficiency figure appeared is because electric
power just isn't shipped thousands of miles when it is cheaper to
build plants in every town and ship the fuel instead.
The situation changes if a power plant needs to be in a very remote
location like the Sahara. To ship the solar thermal back to N. Europe
would waste 1/2 the energy using HVAC.
This is no thread for bean counters. If it isn't a significant
improvement then you can be sure I'm not interested in it.
Even HVDC transmission requires AC at the terminals.ďż˝ The OP's question is an absurd troll.
ďż˝ Like you.
I do wonder. �We were born about a century too late;
Tesla and Edison produced various papers and/or actions
(including electrocutions!) based on AC (Tesla) and DC
(Edison).
Tesla won, as it turns out.
Supposedly Edison, not the greatest theortical physicist, thought that
AC wouldn't work or work as well with his incandescent light bulbs.
Supposedly Edison once asked the Serb if he ever ate human flesh but
that might have been a joke.
They hated each other.
Bret Cahill
B
Bret Cahill
Guest
I think it's a solar trough vapor cycle. Anyway a turbine drives anPresumably, 99.2%. �The loss for 92% efficiency
is 8%; reducing that loss by a factor of 10
generates 0.8%.
The 8% figure is an average and an arbitrary one at that.
The only reason the 92% efficiency figure appeared is because electric
power just isn't shipped thousands of miles when it is cheaper to
build plants in every town and ship the fuel instead.
The situation changes if a power plant needs to be in a very remote
location like the Sahara. Â To ship the solar thermal
Solar thermal isn't electricity, it's heat. I assume you mean PV solar.
alternator in the desert. The voltage is stepped up, rectified,
probably filtered and transmitted to Finland by HVDC where it is
inverted back to ac.
Do the math. If 8% is lost every 200 km using HVAC, then 0.92^8 isback to N. Europe would waste 1/2 the energy using HVAC.
Why do you think that ? Is there any scientific rationale for it ?
lost going 1600 km.
Bret Cahill
S
Stephen J. Rush
Guest
On Sat, 26 Apr 2008 11:42:11 -0700, Bret Cahill wrote:
AC. Edison's real problem with AC was a monumental case of "Not Invented
Here!"
Note that high-voltage DC transmission had to wait for the development of
efficient gas-tube and then solid-state inverters. It just wasn't
practical on a large scale when the only way to make AC from DC was a
motor-generator set.
I'm sure Edison, or one of his employees, tested incandescent lamps onSupposedly Edison, not the greatest theortical physicist, thought that
AC wouldn't work or work as well with his incandescent light bulbs.
AC. Edison's real problem with AC was a monumental case of "Not Invented
Here!"
Note that high-voltage DC transmission had to wait for the development of
efficient gas-tube and then solid-state inverters. It just wasn't
practical on a large scale when the only way to make AC from DC was a
motor-generator set.
Z
zzbunker@netscape.net
Guest
On Apr 22, 3:13 pm, Bret Cahill <BretCah...@aol.com> wrote:
not power losses. Which is why the people who
understand the problem invented digital computers, artifical
intelligence,
fiber optics, lasers, laser disks and robots to solve the problem,
rather than more jerks like science light bulb crtics.
It's not. Since what your talking about circulating current losses,Is there some low frequency radiation or hysterisis loss or what?
not power losses. Which is why the people who
understand the problem invented digital computers, artifical
intelligence,
fiber optics, lasers, laser disks and robots to solve the problem,
rather than more jerks like science light bulb crtics.
Bret Cahill
Z
zzbunker@netscape.net
Guest
On Apr 26, 8:42 pm, "Paul E. Schoen" <pst...@smart.net> wrote:
is just self-fullfilling prophecy, and the only reason it's
even still persued, is because power scientists
are nothing historic asswipes. Which is mostly
why GPS and Cruise Missiles were invented to
solve their idiot Telsa ve Edison problem.
Well, in he already is in that sense. Since earth resonance"Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics> wrote in message
news:9aLQj.13882$Yy6.9158@newsfe11.ams2...
--
This message is brought to you by Androcles
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/
"The Ghost In The Machine" <ew...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in
message
news:7bsbe5-s07.ln1@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...
|
| I do wonder. We were born about a century too late;
| Tesla and Edison produced various papers and/or actions
| (including electrocutions!) based on AC (Tesla) and DC
| (Edison).
|
| Tesla won, as it turns out.
If you have a high voltage then you can use less current and
you only need a small conductor ... but then you need to
step it down again for safety in domestic applications.
The transformer and AC makes it all possible. Edison's DC
was not a option, there are no DC transformers (or AC
batteries) - besides which a DC generator needs an expensive
commutator.
DC generators with commutators are 19th century technology. Solid state
converters and inverters are essentially DC transformers, but would have
been only wet dreams to Edison and Tesla. It may be that Tesla was the
winner (although not financially and emotionally), but Edison may prove to
be the winner by a few percentage points as solid state technology becomes
cheaper and more efficient.
High voltage is more efficient and practical because insulation is much
cheaper and lighter weight than copper, silver, aluminum, or other good
conductors. And superconductors are not practical for really long
transmission. AC at high voltage will have some losses due to radiation,
inductance, capacitance, and phase shift, as well as resistance, corona and
insulator leakage, which affect both AC and DC. A balanced three phase, 3
wire system transfers 50% more power than a two wire DC system with the
same size wires, and the same voltage to ground, but the AC system will
have inductive and capacitive losses, requires 40% better insulation to
handle peaks, and may have shorter insulator life due to capacitive
current. Also, the AC system is often not well balanced, which puts extra
load on one of the conductors and consequently higher losses.
A DC system can also use the earth (possibly with a smaller buried
conductor) for a return path, which shifts efficiency in its favor as
compared to AC.
But maybe Tesla will prove to be the ultimate winner if his methods of
transmitting power by means of atmospheric and earth resonance ever prove
to be practical and safe.
is just self-fullfilling prophecy, and the only reason it's
even still persued, is because power scientists
are nothing historic asswipes. Which is mostly
why GPS and Cruise Missiles were invented to
solve their idiot Telsa ve Edison problem.
Paul- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
M
Michael A. Terrell
Guest
"Paul E. Schoen" wrote:
I've never seen an insulting bushing. ;-)
--
http://improve-usenet.org/index.html
Use any search engine other than Google till they stop polluting USENET
with porn and junk commercial SPAM
If you have broadband, your ISP may have a NNTP news server included in
your account: http://www.usenettools.net/ISP.htm
The lines themselves are not insulated, but they are suspended on insulting
bushings, and of course air itself is an insulator.
I've never seen an insulting bushing. ;-)
--
http://improve-usenet.org/index.html
Use any search engine other than Google till they stop polluting USENET
with porn and junk commercial SPAM
If you have broadband, your ISP may have a NNTP news server included in
your account: http://www.usenettools.net/ISP.htm
Y
Y.Porat
Guest
On Apr 27, 6:53 am, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics> wrote:
it is worth to listen to Androcless
about thinges he makes sense !!
ATB
Y.Porat
-----------------------------------------
----------------------
This message is brought to you by Androcles
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/
"Paul E. Schoen" <pst...@smart.net> wrote in messagenews:4813cc89$0$19806$ecde5a14@news.coretel.net...
|| "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics> wrote in message
|news:9aLQj.13882$Yy6.9158@newsfe11.ams2...
|
|
| > --
| > This message is brought to you by Androcles
| > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/
|
| > "The Ghost In The Machine" <ew...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in
| > message
| >news:7bsbe5-s07.ln1@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...
| > |
| > | I do wonder. We were born about a century too late;
| > | Tesla and Edison produced various papers and/or actions
| > | (including electrocutions!) based on AC (Tesla) and DC
| > | (Edison).
| > |
| > | Tesla won, as it turns out.
|
|
| > If you have a high voltage then you can use less current and
| > you only need a small conductor ... but then you need to
| > step it down again for safety in domestic applications.
| > The transformer and AC makes it all possible. Edison's DC
| > was not a option, there are no DC transformers (or AC
| > batteries) - besides which a DC generator needs an expensive
| > commutator.
|
| DC generators with commutators are 19th century technology.
My goodness... you are right, how could I have missed that?
And Edison lived when?
| Solid state
| converters and inverters are essentially DC transformers, but would have
| been only wet dreams to Edison and Tesla. It may be that Tesla was the
| winner (although not financially and emotionally), but Edison may prove to
| be the winner by a few percentage points as solid state technology becomes
| cheaper and more efficient.
Take down the wires between the pylons and beam the energy across country
using masers, huh?
And for the next wet dream we'll have big mirrors in space focussing
sunlight
on Antarctica to terra-form it, melt that damned ice and show those tree
huggers
some new trees to cuddle up to while we get on with a bit of rape and
plunder
of the mineral wealth there. All the crap about global warming and we've
a whole continent to explore. Too much water? Syphon some off and
leave it on the Moon. All it takes is energy and the Sun has more than
enough.
|
| High voltage is more efficient and practical because insulation is much
| cheaper and lighter weight than copper, silver, aluminum, or other good
| conductors.
Oh, I didn't know HV power lines were insulated...
| And superconductors are not practical for really long
| transmission.
Superconductors are only a wet dream to Edison and Tesla.
| AC at high voltage will have some losses due to radiation,
| inductance, capacitance, and phase shift, as well as resistance, corona
and
| insulator leakage, which affect both AC and DC.
Losses due to phase shift, huh? Power factor correction wasn't
an Edison and Tesla wet dream, was it?
| A balanced three phase, 3
| wire system transfers 50% more power than a two wire DC system with the
| same size wires, and the same voltage to ground, but the AC system will
| have inductive and capacitive losses, requires 40% better insulation to
| handle peaks, and may have shorter insulator life due to capacitive
| current.
Capacitive losses? They get hot, those nasty capacitors...
| Also, the AC system is often not well balanced, which puts extra
| load on one of the conductors and consequently higher losses.
| A DC system can also use the earth (possibly with a smaller buried
| conductor) for a return path, which shifts efficiency in its favor as
| compared to AC.
That sounds like an Edison wet dream to me. Just connect to the steel
frame of the building and the copper pipes from the bathtub. Very useful
for fluorescent lights, I'm sure.
| But maybe Tesla will prove to be the ultimate winner if his methods of
| transmitting power by means of atmospheric and earth resonance ever prove
| to be practical and safe.
|
Got any more wet dreams for us?
There is no "ultimate", we go with what we have... NOW. And the process
will continue to evolve until it blows up in all our faces.
Man, as a species, has survived without technology for 2-3 million years.
What science and technology have done is caused massive overpopulation.
That CANNOT continue. We live in the Golden Age preceding the mighty
crash that will be as dark an age as the demise of the dinosaur, and we are
doing it to ourselves.
it is worth to listen to Androcless
about thinges he makes sense !!
ATB
Y.Porat
-----------------------------------------