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
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

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

Paul Burridge wrote:
On Sat, 13 Nov 2004 16:27:45 +0000, Pooh Bear
wrote:

No European countries run on 230V to the best of my knowledge.

British mains electricity used to be 240V, until the EU spit!
'harmonised' the level across EUrope to 230V. Unless of course, you
know better....

I do. The UK is still 240. They didn't change the voltage, only what
they said the voltage was. Its a Yes-Minister one.

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.

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!!!

Polarity is no more than direction of flow. They send you electrons on
one lead, then electrons on the other lead, making twice the number of
electrons, so you gvetting them for 1/2 price as they only count them
the once:-)

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.

Paul Burridge wrote:

On Sat, 13 Nov 2004 16:27:45 +0000, Pooh Bear
wrote:

No European countries run on 230V to the best of my knowledge.

British mains electricity used to be 240V, until the EU spit!
'harmonised' the level across EUrope to 230V. Unless of course, you
know better....

The only thing that actually *changed* was a bit of paper.


Graham

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.

No, you're simply not permitting it to go to ground.
Neatness counts.

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.

Yup. It better be 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?

Except you slowed down the electrons on their way through
your appliances (made them do work). Speed them back up (do
work on them) and you'll see a zero bill except for the
minimum line-maintenance fees, of course.

Mark L. Fergerson

"Kevin Aylward" wrote in message
. ..
Paul Burridge wrote:
On Sat, 13 Nov 2004 16:27:45 +0000, Pooh Bear
wrote:

No European countries run on 230V to the best of my knowledge.

British mains electricity used to be 240V, until the EU spit!
'harmonised' the level across EUrope to 230V. Unless of course, you
know better....

I do. The UK is still 240. They didn't change the voltage, only what
they said the voltage was. Its a Yes-Minister one.
It has changed a _little_ in some places. The switch was from 240v, with
tighter +/- margins, to 230v, with larger margins. The margin allowed, was
large enough, to include a normally set up 240v, or 220v system in a
country. However some areas of the network were outside these margins, and
have gradually been replaced, and on new areas, the tap change voltages,
are now designed to be closer to 230v, than 240v.
If you have incoming power monitoring equipment, you will find that
typically the voltage has fallen by a couple of volts over the last few
years.

Best Wishes

"Paul Burridge" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 23:18:28 GMT, Rich The Philosophizer
wrote:

Please forgive my naivete, but this is a joke, right?

It's a "thought-provoking metaphysical discussion."

No, it's not.

On Sat, 13 Nov 2004 19:29:08 GMT, Kevin Aylward wrote:

Paul Burridge wrote:
On Sat, 13 Nov 2004 16:27:45 +0000, Pooh Bear
wrote:

No European countries run on 230V to the best of my knowledge.

British mains electricity used to be 240V, until the EU spit!
'harmonised' the level across EUrope to 230V. Unless of course, you
know better....

I do. The UK is still 240. They didn't change the voltage, only what
they said the voltage was. Its a Yes-Minister one.

The mains here has come down a little, it used to average around 247 before
"harmonisation", it's now averages 243. During sh**/shave/shower time it
drops marginally under 240, and again during evening meal time.

--
Duncan Munro
http://www.duncanamps.com/

On Sat, 13 Nov 2004 12:52:59 -0600, John Fields
wrote:

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 _______/


Yes, unusual for you. Watch out for Rich.. ;-)

against an open switch, so it seems to me that they should pay _you_
for doing them the courtesy of returning their electricity.

That's a pretty solid legal argument. I'll probably incorporate it
somewhere into my Writ.

--

"What is now proved was once only imagin'd." - William Blake, 1793.