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.

Scott

Paul Burridge wrote:
On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 13:56:34 GMT, (Don
Pearce) wrote:


You don't get billed for current, you get billed for energy - in the
UK the measure is the kilowatt hour.


Hey, whose side are you on? ;-)


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) I'm being charged for electricity that I've not
actually used. The current goes in and out of the house unchanged.
It's all returned to the power company. All I've done is borrow it.
And you can bet that when they get their current back they don't just
dump it to ground; oh no. They re-sell it again and again and again to
other suckers like me. We're all paying multiple sums for the *same*
lousy current that's probably been circulating for years.
The power companies have been scamming us for decades! I can't believe
I've only just woken up to it.

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!!!
--

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

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!!!

You might have a case if the ac feed was a single line- but the
so-called negative cycle is a relative polarity- they draw current out
of your hot connection by supplying it to the neutral. They vector sum
of the two currents they deliver is zero at all times- so you pay for
them to maintain an undulating line voltage with constant RMS magnitude
across your house.

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

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.

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.


AH, BUT, how do _they_ know for sure _they_ are getting back the same
electrons _they_ sent out?
Do the little suckers have tatoos?
Maybe I have a generator (such as my $500 combination treadmill/generator. I
run damn fast) that's feeding back MY OWN homemade electrons.
As soon as I think of a way to identify my personal electrons I'm going to
send them a bill. And since my electrons are of higher quality (not to
mention organic) I'll charge more for them.

On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 02:30:47 GMT, "Joel" 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
against an open switch, so it seems to me that they should pay _you_
for doing them the courtesy of returning their electricity.


AH, BUT, how do _they_ know for sure _they_ are getting back the same
electrons _they_ sent out?

---
They read the meter, which only lets out (with one exception, see
below) the electrons they send it when you turn on a switch and turn
them loose.
---

Do the little suckers have tatoos?

---
"Tattoos". No, but they don't have to, since the power company knows
that since they were the only ones sending out the electrons, the ones
they get back must have been theirs in the first place. (Note the
exception below.)
---

Maybe I have a generator (such as my $500 combination treadmill/generator. I
run damn fast) that's feeding back MY OWN homemade electrons.
As soon as I think of a way to identify my personal electrons I'm going to
send them a bill. And since my electrons are of higher quality (not to
mention organic) I'll charge more for them.

---
That's already being done in lots of places, but the buying price for
imported electrons is fixed by law (usually) so you don't get to
arbitrarily determine how much you charge for your electrons if you
want to sell them to the electric company. What you do is to run your
electrons through the meter backwards, and then when the electric
company reads your meter they'll know where the surplus of electrons
(or fuel) at their facility came from and they'll pay you for them and
then sell them to someone else.

--
John Fields

Sounds like Einstein's theory of relativity. It all depends on the
point of reference.

The power company could be providing YOU the courtesy of having
electrons piled up at your open switch and your appliances are just
waiting for you to close the switch so that they can do some kind of
work to give meaning to their lives.

Scott



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

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.