Author: Bret CahillDate: 15:13 22-04-08
|
|
Is there some low frequency radiation or hysterisis loss or what?
Bret Cahill
|
|
|
|
Author: Jan PanteltjeDate: 15:22 22-04-08
|
|
|
|
|
|
Author: JeffMDate: 15:44 22-04-08
|
|
Bret Cahill wrote:
:10X More Efficient
Cite your sources for 920% efficiency.
|
|
|
|
Author: Don BoweyDate: 16:00 22-04-08
|
|
|
|
|
|
Author: EeyoreDate: 16:18 22-04-08
|
|
Bret Cahill wrote:
> Is there some low frequency radiation or hysterisis loss or what?
Where do you get your inital incorrect idea from ?
Graham
|
|
|
|
Author: Phil AllisonDate: 17:32 22-04-08
|
|
"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
|
|
|
|
Author: BenjDate: 18:05 22-04-08
|
|
On Apr 22, 5:32 pm, "Phil Allison" <philalli...@tpg.com.au> wrote:
> "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
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%. The interested student can take it from
there...
Since 10X would be more than 99% efficient I am somewhat skeptical
that even modern converters can produce so little loss.
|
|
|
|
Author: Don BoweyDate: 18:07 22-04-08
|
|
On 4/22/08 2:32 PM, in article 6773rgF2n665eU1@mid.individual.net, "Phil
Allison" <philallison@tpg.com.au> wrote:
>
> "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
>
>
Gee, thanks phil.
|
|
|
|
Author: Bret CahillDate: 18:13 22-04-08
|
|
> >> :10X More Efficient
>
> >> Cite your sources for 920% efficiency.
>
> > Cite where you think he said that. =EF=BF=BDIt's not in this thread.
>
> ** What is 10 times more efficient than 92 % ??
Going 10X further with the same 8% loss?
One tenth as lossy for the same distance?
And who mentioned 8%?
Bret Cahill
|
|
|
|
Author: Bret CahillDate: 18:16 22-04-08
|
|
> > Is there some low frequency radiation or hysterisis loss or what?
>
> Where do you get your inital incorrect idea from ?
Europeans claim they can run a DC power line from solar thermal fields
in the Sahara thousands of kms to N. Europe.
Bret Cahill
|
|
|
|
Author: John LarkinDate: 18:17 22-04-08
|
|
On Tue, 22 Apr 2008 12:13:06 -0700 (PDT), Bret Cahill
<BretCahill@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
|
|
|
|
Author: Paul E. SchoenDate: 18:21 22-04-08
|
|
"Bret Cahill" <BretCahill@aol.com> wrote in message
news:98d0c415-606a-4d10-8158-1ee67568e4e6@26g2000hsk.googlegroups.com...
> Is there some low frequency radiation or hysterisis loss or what?
The losses in electrical transmission have increased from about 5% to 9.5%
in recent years, so efficiency is 90.5% to 95%.
http://www.energetics.com/gridworks/grid.html. There is a nice overview at:
http://www.energetics.com/gridworks/pdfs/factsheet.pdf
According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_power_transmission,
power losses were about 7.2% in 1995. And according to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-voltage_direct_current, HVDC transmission
losses are about 3%. So a tenfold increase in efficiency seems
unreasonable.
I would assume that a tenfold increase in efficiency would be a tenfold
reduction in losses, so the present 7.2% would be 0.72%, for 99.3%
efficiency. That is very likely impossible outside of laboratory
conditions, and would probably require impractical amounts of copper, or
cryogenic means to achieve superconductivity, which would itself require
power and reduce overall efficiency.
But in direct answer to your question, there is a substantial amount of
radiated energy loss with AC that does not occur with DC. But open air DC
transmission lines do have losses in the form of a flow of ions, and both
AC and DC have losses due to corona.
Paul
|
|
|
|
Author: EeyoreDate: 18:40 22-04-08
|
|
Bret Cahill wrote:
> > > Is there some low frequency radiation or hysterisis loss or what?
> >
> > Where do you get your inital incorrect idea from ?
>
> Europeans claim they can run a DC power line from solar thermal fields
> in the Sahara thousands of kms to N. Europe.
No they don't.
Graham
|
|
|
|
Author: Phil AllisonDate: 19:53 22-04-08
|
|
"Benj"
>
>> The OP's question is an absurd troll.
>>
>> Like you.
>>
>
> 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%. The interested student can take it from
> there...
** WHAT COMPLETE BOLLOCKS !!
...... Phil
|
|
|
|
Author: Phil AllisonDate: 19:55 22-04-08
|
|
"Bret Cahill = TROLL "
>
> ** What is 10 times more efficient than 92 % ??
Going 10X further with the same 8% loss?
One tenth as lossy for the same distance?
** No way either of those things is expressed the fuckwit way you came up
with.
........ Phil
|
|
|
|
Author: tadchemDate: 20:11 22-04-08
|
|
On Apr 22, 6:05 pm, Benj <bjac...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
> On Apr 22, 5:32 pm, "Phil Allison" <philalli...@tpg.com.au> wrote:
>
>
>
> > "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
>
> 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.
That's 8% INefficiency
> TWICE as efficient would only have 4% of the
> energy lost or would be 96%.
Your 4% would be HALF as INefficient; not at all the same thing.
10 x 92% is still 920%.
> The interested student can take it from
> there...
>
> Since 10X would be more than 99% efficient I am somewhat skeptical
> that even modern converters can produce so little loss.
Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA
|
|
|
|
Author: Phil AllisonDate: 20:11 22-04-08
|
|
"Paul E. Schoen"
> The losses in electrical transmission have increased from about 5% to 9.5%
> in recent years, so efficiency is 90.5% to 95%.
** Transmission * loss percentage * increases with the amount of load -
plus the overall energy lost depends on load levels and time.
The operating efficiency percentage of a transmission link cannot be known
stated unless the load is too.
> According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_power_transmission,
> power losses were about 7.2% in 1995. And according to
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-voltage_direct_current, HVDC
> transmission losses are about 3%. So a tenfold increase in efficiency
> seems unreasonable.
** Total BOLLOCKS !
> I would assume that a tenfold increase in efficiency would be a tenfold
> reduction in losses,
** Why ?????
It makes nonsense of the English language.
One can increase the efficiency percentage OR reduce the loss percentage
by a number.
When the efficiency percentage is low, you use the former and when it is
high, the latter.
..... Phil
|
|
|
|
Author: Paul E. SchoenDate: 02:03 23-04-08
|
|
"Phil Allison" <philallison@tpg.com.au> wrote in message
news:677d5oF2nj34rU1@mid.individual.net...
>
> "Paul E. Schoen"
>
>> The losses in electrical transmission have increased from about 5% to
>> 9.5% in recent years, so efficiency is 90.5% to 95%.
>
> ** Transmission * loss percentage * increases with the amount of
> oad - plus the overall energy lost depends on load levels and time.
>
> The operating efficiency percentage of a transmission link cannot be
> known stated unless the load is too.
Of course. There has been an increase in demand without a corresponding
increase in the infrastructure, so the power grid is more heavily loaded.
Being largely dependent on I^2R losses, a 50% increase in demand (current)
results in a doubling of losses.
>
>> According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_power_transmission,
>> power losses were about 7.2% in 1995. And according to
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-voltage_direct_current, HVDC
>> transmission losses are about 3%. So a tenfold increase in efficiency
>> seems unreasonable.
>
>
> ** Total BOLLOCKS !
>
>
>> I would assume that a tenfold increase in efficiency would be a tenfold
>> reduction in losses,
>
>
> ** Why ?????
>
> It makes nonsense of the English language.
>
> One can increase the efficiency percentage OR reduce the loss
> percentage by a number.
>
> When the efficiency percentage is low, you use the former and when it is
> high, the latter.
A tenfold increase means ten times better. 99% is twice as good as 98%,
because it costs me half as much in losses. So it is a 100% increase in
efficiency, or a 50% reduction of losses.
A similar situation exists with accuracy, but it is reversed in meaning. A
1% instrument is really 99% accurate, so an instrument that is twice as
good is 0.5%. A 100% increase in accuracy, but the accuracy figure is
really a statement of inaccuracy.
So, when one tries to develop a more accurate instrument, the goal would
more reasonably be to make it like 10% more accurate or 50% more accurate,
which are easy to comprehend. To say one wanted to increase the accuracy of
an instrument by 1% would be reasonable if one knew it to be 2%, but would
be impossible if it were already 1% or better.
The same with efficiency, but it is better understood in terms of reducing
losses.
But you are right that it does put strains on English language usage.
Paul
|
|
|
|
Author: Phil AllisonDate: 02:31 23-04-08
|
|
"Paul E. Schoen"
> "Phil Allison"
>>
>>> The losses in electrical transmission have increased from about 5% to
>>> 9.5% in recent years, so efficiency is 90.5% to 95%.
>>
>> ** Transmission * loss percentage * increases with the amount of
>> oad - plus the overall energy lost depends on load levels and time.
>>
>> The operating efficiency percentage of a transmission link cannot be
>> known or stated unless the load is too.
>
> Of course. There has been an increase in demand without a corresponding
> increase in the infrastructure, so the power grid is more heavily loaded.
> Being largely dependent on I^2R losses, a 50% increase in demand (current)
> results in a doubling of losses.
** Try learning to bloody READ - you imbecile !!!!
The PERCENTAGE loss of the transmission line is a *varying quantity* with
load.
The numbers you quoted are NOT measures of the energy efficiency of the
transmission lines.
>>> I would assume that a tenfold increase in efficiency would be a tenfold
>>> reduction in losses,
>>
>>
>> ** Why ?????
>>
>> It makes nonsense of the English language.
>>
>> One can increase the efficiency percentage OR reduce the loss
>> percentage by a number.
>>
>> When the efficiency percentage is low, you use the former and when it is
>> high, the latter.
>
> A tenfold increase means ten times better.
** Asinine, idiotic shite.
A " tenfold increase " can only mean a 10 times increase in a quantity.
LEARN to READ !!
> 99% is twice as good as 98%, because it costs me half as much in losses.
** So must be stated as 50% reduction in losses.
( snip more reams of mind numbing, fuckwit drivel )
> But you are right that it does put strains on English language usage.
** It is purest fuckwittery and a misuse of meaning.
...... Phil
|
|
|
|
Author: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?=22Blattus_Slafaly_=3F_=283=29_=BC_=3A=29=22?=Date: 08:40 23-04-08
|
|
Bret Cahill wrote:
> Is there some low frequency radiation or hysterisis loss or what?
>
>
> Bret Cahill
>
>
>
>
It's not more efficient. That's why Edison's DC power idea failed and
Westinghouse's AC prevailed.
--
Blattus Slafaly ? 3 :) 7/8
|
|
|
|
|
