On Sat, 13 Nov 2004 12:15:44 -0600, John Fields
wrote:

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

On Sat, 13 Nov 2004 11:42:11 +0000, Scott
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