|
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 wrote: I came up with "neocon" because of election hangover, and probably confused names because of the frenzy. --- "Neocon" as a ****raction for "neoconservative", or what? No, a contraction. I think he meant the ****raction, just as in "Good evening, ****stable, I was not speeding at all." I know that's what he meant, and I was making a point. Thanks again, Kevin. ?:^| Rich |
On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 07:39:50 GMT, "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 wrote: I came up with "neocon" because of election hangover, and probably confused names because of the frenzy. --- "Neocon" as a ****raction for "neoconservative", or what? No, a contraction. I think he meant the ****raction, just as in "Good evening, ****stable, I was not speeding at all." --- BINGO! Give that man a see-gar! :-) -- John Fields |
On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 08:04:27 GMT, Rich The Philosophizer
wrote: 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 wrote: I came up with "neocon" because of election hangover, and probably confused names because of the frenzy. --- "Neocon" as a ****raction for "neoconservative", or what? No, a contraction. I think he meant the ****raction, just as in "Good evening, ****stable, I was not speeding at all." I know that's what he meant, and I was making a point. --- Hmm... and what was your point then? I thought you were just being your ****rary little self. -- John Fields |
Hi- If you are not using any "electricity" then turn off your main circuit
breaker. You should not notice any difference. Jim Paul Burridge wrote in message ... The power company run a line to my house. They supply me with electricity. This amounts to a 230V, 65A facility at the distribution board in a cupboard under the stairs. I run all my stuff from that board. The board contains several RCBOs that trip-out in the event of any leakage current being sensed. If current in = current out; they're happy and won't trip. Because they don't trip out, I conclude I don't use any current. The voltage supplied is 230VAC RMS. Since this is alternating between equal positive and negative half-cycles, the average level of this voltage supply is zero. 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? -- "What is now proved was once only imagin'd." - William Blake, 1793. |
There is no cancellation because the postive and negative peaks do not
occur at the same time. Paul Burridge wrote in message . .. 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!!! |
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) |
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) --- Overunity?! -- John Fields |
Would be interesting if you could get a true -R though! I spent years perfecting a bar magnet with only a North pole. (Monopolar) I set it down on a table for a moment and it promptly took off for Antarctica. I haven't seen it since. I've been making them with only South poles for the last year, but have them all tied down. I'm going to release them on December 24 and give Santa a big surprise. |
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 |
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. This part of Canada is a pretty small and somewhat widespread market. I believe that in Ontario in central Canada, a much larger population and population density, it is, or has been, due to political pressure following a botched attempt to privatize the electrical system? substantially less than that at around 5 cents; even though much of the energy is generated, by hydro power, in Labrador in this particular part of Canada! Thinking about it. |
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 http://www.anasoft.co.uk SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture, Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design. |
"Jim L." wrote in message om... 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? |
"Terry" wrote in message
... "Jim L." wrote in message om... 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..... |
On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 11:48:19 +1300, "Ken Taylor"
wrote: "Terry" wrote in message .. . "Jim L." wrote in message om... 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 |
"John Fields" wrote in message
... On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 11:48:19 +1300, "Ken Taylor" wrote: "Terry" wrote in message .. . "Jim L." wrote in message om... 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 |
On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 13:42:19 +0000 Paul Burridge
wrote: The power company run a line to my house. They supply me with electricity. This amounts to a 230V, 65A facility at the distribution board in a cupboard under the stairs. I run all my stuff from that board. The board contains several RCBOs that trip-out in the event of any leakage current being sensed. If current in = current out; they're happy and won't trip. Because they don't trip out, I conclude I don't use any current. The voltage supplied is 230VAC RMS. Since this is alternating between equal positive and negative half-cycles, the average level of this voltage supply is zero. 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? I've been watching this thread for a couple of days, and I gotta believe it's just a troll. But while we're at it, why not ask the same question about your water bill. After all, they're just charging you for water, most of which just gets returned, with "interest." ;-) - ----------------------------------------------- Jim Adney Madison, WI 53711 USA ----------------------------------------------- |
On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 18:15:39 +0000, Kevin Aylward wrote:
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. I don't know where you buy your antigravity machines, but that's way out of line. Whadday lifting, the Great Pyramids? ;-) Rich |
On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 22:19:45 -0600, Jim Adney wrote:
On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 13:42:19 +0000 Paul Burridge wrote: The power company run a line to my house. They supply me with electricity. This amounts to a 230V, 65A facility at the distribution board in a cupboard under the stairs. I run all my stuff from that board. The board contains several RCBOs that trip-out in the event of any leakage current being sensed. If current in = current out; they're happy and won't trip. Because they don't trip out, I conclude I don't use any current. The voltage supplied is 230VAC RMS. Since this is alternating between equal positive and negative half-cycles, the average level of this voltage supply is zero. 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? I've been watching this thread for a couple of days, and I gotta believe it's just a troll. But while we're at it, why not ask the same question about your water bill. After all, they're just charging you for water, most of which just gets returned, with "interest." ;-) This isn't as funny as it sounds. I was renting a room from a guy once, and he was complaining that when he waters his lawn, they add the gallonage (or whatever the word is) to his sewer bill, the theory being that most of the water to a house goes out the city sewer. I suggested rain barrels, but he didn't think that was very funny, either. Cheers! Rich |
On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 19:59:29 GMT, Rich Grise wrote:
This isn't as funny as it sounds. I was renting a room from a guy once, and he was complaining that when he waters his lawn, they add the gallonage (or whatever the word is) to his sewer bill, the theory being that most of the water to a house goes out the city sewer. My wastewater charge is directly tied to my incoming water consumption metering. I get a slight advantage, however, in that I go to the pub every night, drink 10 pints of beer and don't need the lavatory until I get home. :P -- "What is now proved was once only imagin'd." - William Blake, 1793. |
On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 00:27:09 +0000, Paul Burridge wrote:
On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 19:59:29 GMT, Rich Grise wrote: This isn't as funny as it sounds. I was renting a room from a guy once, and he was complaining that when he waters his lawn, they add the gallonage (or whatever the word is) to his sewer bill, the theory being that most of the water to a house goes out the city sewer. My wastewater charge is directly tied to my incoming water consumption metering. I get a slight advantage, however, in that I go to the pub every night, drink 10 pints of beer and don't need the lavatory until I get home. :P I've heard that that can also keep little critters out of your vegetables. :-) Cheers! Rich |
"Rich Grise" wrote in message ... This isn't as funny as it sounds. I was renting a room from a guy once, and he was complaining that when he waters his lawn, they add the gallonage (or whatever the word is) to his sewer bill, the theory being that most of the water to a house goes out the city sewer. We have a similar system here (San Diego County), but they compute the "sewer" charge by using the lowest three winter billing periods over the last four years. I guess it is an attempt to measure water consumption at a time of year when there is less lawn sprinkling. |
Multiply your voltage by your
current instant by instant, take the average (gives you power) and multiply that by the duration in hours and you have your consumption. They don't bill me instant-by-instant; they bill me for the power they claim I've used over the course of a three-monthly period. Since power is the product of voltage and current (and I've proved earlier that both are zero) ============= As commented before in this thread you are billed for 'energy' NOT power. Frank GM0CSZ / KN6WH |
You must have paid one of them at one time--so they keep sending them!
|
"Highland Ham" wrote in
: Multiply your voltage by your current instant by instant, take the average (gives you power) and multiply that by the duration in hours and you have your consumption. They don't bill me instant-by-instant; they bill me for the power they claim I've used over the course of a three-monthly period. Since power is the product of voltage and current (and I've proved earlier that both are zero) ============= As commented before in this thread you are billed for 'energy' NOT power. Frank GM0CSZ / KN6WH I get billed by the KWH (kilowatthour) r -- Nothing beats the bandwidth of a station wagon filled with DLT tapes. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:52 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com