The trifling daffynition hair splitting bean counting nerds here will
never take me alive!

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

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 ??

Presumably, 99.2%. �The loss for 92% efficiency
is 8%; reducing that loss by a factor of 10
generates 0.8%.

� The OP's question is an absurd troll.

� 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.

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

Solar thermal isn't electricity, it's heat. I assume you mean PV solar.

back to N. Europe would waste 1/2 the energy using HVAC.

Why do you think that ? Is there any scientific rationale for it ?

"Dope Bowey"

"JeffM"

Bret Cahill wrote:
:10X More Efficient

Cite your sources for 920% efficiency.

Cite where you think he said that. It's not in this thread.


** What is 10 times more efficient than 92 % ??

920% ?

The OP's question is an absurd troll.

Like you.

...... Phil

Is there some low frequency radiation or hysterisis loss or what?

Bret Cahill

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

back to N. Europe would waste 1/2 the energy using HVAC.

"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.

Paul- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

** What is 10 times more efficient than 92 % ??

920% ?

Presumably, 99.2%. The loss for 92% efficiency
is 8%; reducing that loss by a factor of 10
generates 0.8%.

Supposedly Edison, not the greatest theortical physicist, thought that
AC wouldn't work or work as well with his incandescent light bulbs.

--
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.

--
This message is brought to you by Androcles
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/

"The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@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.

--
This message is brought to you by Androcles
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/

"Paul E. Schoen" <pstech@smart.net> wrote in message
news:4813cc89$0$19806$ecde5a14@news.coretel.net...
|
| 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...

| 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.