On Sat, 13 Nov 2004 14:38:44 -0800, "Richard Henry"
wrote:


"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.

Audience: "Oh yes it is!"

--

"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 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?


Well, if this isn't a gag, then you have to pay because of the
effort required to shove all those electrons down the electron tube
to your house, and scoop them all up from the ground when they
come back.

The guy that operates the crank refuses to work for free.

Cheers!
Rich

On Sat, 13 Nov 2004 08:21:49 +0000, Ian Jackson wrote:


On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 17:09:35 +0000, Paul Burridge
wrote:


What you are charged for is the use of the current as it flows through
your appliances etc.

You are not charged for using it. You are charged for BORROWING it.

This is not true either. You are charged for THE ENERGY REQUIRED TO
SHOVE THEM THROUGH YOUR SYSTEM.

The electrons are incidental, very much like the push rod that connects
the piston to the crankshaft.

Cheers!
Rich

On Sat, 13 Nov 2004 11:39:56 +0000, Alf Beta wrote:

In rec.radio.amateur.homebrew Roy Lewallen wrote:
Ian Jackson wrote:

On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 17:09:35 +0000, Paul Burridge
wrote:


What you are charged for is the use of the current as it flows through
your appliances etc.


You are not charged for using it. You are charged for BORROWING it.
Ian.

Yes, there's an extra fee if you keep any half cycles without returning
them on the following half cycles. It's called the Semi-Unused Cycle
Kinetic Electricity Return fee.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

Be thankful that you have ac power coming to your home. Back in my days in
the old country, I used to walk 5 miles through snow and sludge in the
middle of winter to go to the next village to buy a couple of batteries so
that my father can listen to his nightly stories on our wireless. :P

They should have tied a string to you, that was looped around a spool,
that turned a generator while you were walking. Dad could have listened
while you walked!

Cheers!
RIch

On Sat, 13 Nov 2004 11:51:48 +0000, Scott wrote:

Well, you can look at it this way...It's basically a series circuit,
from generator, through all customer houses, and back to the generator.
You may be returning ALMOST all of the current coming into your house,
minus resistive losses, but if you divert that voltage and current
through one of your appliances, the voltage and current (hence power)
will actually be doing some work. Electricity, while being USED in your
house, is like an employee of YOURS...it is doing WORK, so legally you
must pay the worker's wages for work performed. Just be glad you don't
have to pay it's social security taxes, fed and state taxes, health
insurance, worker's comp insurance premiums, 401K contributions, etc.
Starts to make electricity (employee) sound cheap.

Oh, you do, you can be quite assured of that! That's why electricity
is so exorbitant! ;-)

Cheers!
Rich

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!!!

I would really believe this is a gag if you hadn't already shown that
you have the mentality of a neocon.

Thanks,
Rich

On Sat, 13 Nov 2004 16:44:26 +0000, Paul Burridge wrote:

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." Care to
participate? ;-)

Well, yeah, except that it's so simple to "explain away" by just
saying that you're not paying for the electrons themselves that
are just passing through, but the energy required to get them
to do that passage.

They've got the motor, you've got the wagon. The electrons
are just a medium, conceptually indistinguishable from the
way a V-belt transfers energy.

I've said this in other FUs kinda ad nauseam, tonight. :-)

Thanks,
Rich

Paul Burridge wrote:

On Sat, 13 Nov 2004 14:38:44 -0800, "Richard Henry"
wrote:


"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.


Audience: "Oh yes it is!"


Audience: Oh no its not, you're either playing silly buggers or
demonstrating a deep lack of understanding.

Cheers
Terry

On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 04:50:48 GMT, Rich The Philosophizer
wrote:

The electrons are incidental, very much like the push rod that connects
the piston to the crankshaft.

Thanks for the tip, Rich. I'll remove the push rods from my car engine
and save a bit of weight.
--

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