Electrical Engineering - Re: Percentage of SA electricity stolen ?

Author

Re: Percentage of SA electricity stolen ?

problems@gmail

2008-02-10, 9:25 pm

problems@gmail wrote:

Bob Dubery wrote:[color=darkred]
> Neither. It's not disregarded, and there are government-paid
> advertising campaigns to discourage the practice.
>
I mean in the context of the current crisis: as a factor/excuse NOW.
The theft of CABLES was advertised-against. And the illegal connections
were condemned mostly in the context of DANGER - continuing the
idea that electricity like water is god-given and not a commodity
subject to economic laws - part of the leftist's human-rights myth.

> It would be hard to quantify. I wonder how they quantify the
> percentage of illegal connections in India - or any other country. By
> definition it can't be metered. They might come up with a reasonable
> ball park number of connections, but that's not usage. It's always in
> the nature of these things that users do not consume proportionally.
>
The quote marks mean THINK beyond the abreviated [inet-style] text.
In long-hand: "30% of generated electricy power [less transmission
losses] is estimated to be diverted to illegal connections".
Besides the 'Subject:' refers to percentage electricity stolen, NOT
percentage illegal connections.

> Oh.. and what is a "goog-phrase"?
>
Google is the name of a [currently] very effective search engine.
In order to use google, one needs to supply parameters: typically
word[s] or phrases.
In the case that an applicable but uncommon word is on hand,
this may be effectively used as a search parameter.
When no suitable word[s] are on hand, a phrase might succeed
to locate the required material, at the same time omitting
irrelevant material.
Since Google is an uncommon word and has become familiar with
inet/newsGroup users, I assume the word "goog" will be recognised
as an abreviated for "Google" ..................

>
>
> I say that's bollocks. Because traffic lights CHANGE, they don't
> switch off. You know... green goes out, red comes on. It's not a
> difficult thing to grasp.
>
"green goes out" sounds like "switch off" to me ?

Perhaps you think the switching mechanism is in each pole with the
lights. Technology would make this possible/and-cheaper today.
But the indusrty is very conservative.

Since there is typically more than one 'pole' bearing lights at an
intersection, this 'system of poles' needs to be mutually syncronised.
Which means one controlling master and one or more controlled
slaves. Which means that at least one light-pole is remote from the
switching mechanism. Which means that any wire feeding a slave
pole which is live at some time can be expected to be non-live at
a different time of the cycle. Which would switch of Phinias' TV.

Technically a control signal, plus a constantly live single pair to power,
a pole is possible, and is more economical with the price ratio of
copper to electronic circuitry. But many/most existing systems
don't do this yet AFAIK.

> I'm sure you can make recommendations. I'd wager that you have to have
> things explained to you quite frequently.
>
> Well first you have to assume that a "traffic-light cycle" is a
> uniform measure of time. Or you have to be trying to impress people
> with your ready wit. And failing.

There's a thing which I need to have explained to me:
how/why: 'you have to assume that a "traffic-light cycle" is a
uniform measure of time' ??

BTW "do new TV's 'show' " translates/expands to:
* the new technology [possibly faster],
* stabilise electrically/optically sufficient to show the image.

Older CRTs [cathode ray tubes] would not have sufficient time to
heat up the cathode element in a normal [take your pick: red,
green, amber on cycle ...]. Oh shit I can't continue these
kindergarten explanations !

problems@gmail wrote:

Moira de Swardt wrote:-[color=darkred]
> Well, at least one of "the people" appears to be "stooopid".
>
> Here, let me explain it to you.
>
> The power supply to traffic lights is constant.
Perhaps you mean that if the green light 'goes off' this is compensated
for by the corresponding red light 'going on', which tend to make the
electricity consumption constant. Which seems to me an interesting
observation but not relevant to the discussion ?

> The different
> coloured lights are controlled by switches. So it's not a case of the
> green light power supply going off and the red light power supply
> coming on.

I believe it is, but please elaborate.
>
> In fact the traffic light switches are even cleverer than
> simple switches. They have synchronised switches! When the lights in
> one direction change the lights in the other direction also change,
> but to the opposite pattern. And then there are yellow lights,
> flashing arrows etc. But it's all too complex to explain to someone
> who can't even work out how to steal electricity from the nearest sub-
> station, something Phinias mastered years ago.

The nearest street light would be nearer [on average] than the nearest
traffic-light-pole, which would be nearer than the nearest substation.

Based on observations in Joburg, many light-pole cover plates are
missing, exposing the wires since the ANC was given political control.
I guess the street light poles are mostly centrally controlled, although
I've heard of one's which switch individually via their own day-light
detectors.

So ! If Phinias wants electricy supply during the day, he has problems
to locate a mostly live line. Perhaps he's at a low traffic location,
where the default is steady and cycling is initiatied by [rare] traffic.

I'm cross-posting this to to some tech-groups to spread the laughter.

== Chris Glur. .....be happy, don't worry.

Beachcomber

2008-02-11, 3:25 am

>

An interesting story concerning electricity theft was posted in the
New York Times today (2/10).

A spokesman for Consolidated Edison said... "Of those 88942 cases,
11371 were confirmed as thefts, including 104 referred for
prosecution. There were 83 arrests and convictions."

11371 cases of confirmed electricity thefts in just one company
service area?! My God! There must be electrical thieves in every
neighborhood. Is it really that easy to do?

I could see this happening in 3rd world places like parts of Mexico or
India where sometimes the utility wiring is slipshod, even on the
primary side, but why is this happening in places like New York City
and Long Island?

Also, it sounds like a pretty stupid thing to do. If you are a renter
or an owner who does something illegal like this on your property, the
evidence is going to be left there for the investigators. It's not
like you can run away and abandon your property...

Beachcomber

Bob Dubery

2008-02-11, 3:25 am

On Feb 11, 6:52 am, inva...@notreal.none (Beachcomber) wrote:

> Also, it sounds like a pretty stupid thing to do. If you are a renter
> or an owner who does something illegal like this on your property, the
> evidence is going to be left there for the investigators. It's not
> like you can run away and abandon your property...

I should think that depends on the legal definitions. Who is
responsible if a tenant makes an illegal connection?

And it might not be that visible. It's not necessarily going straight
to the main supply. Say some tenant, let's call him "Glur", hasn't
paid and the feed to his apartment is cut off by dint of throwing and
then padlocking some circuit breaker. All that's required is about a
foot of flex, in the meter room, bypassing that switch. Or a
connection to somebody else's switch so that some other person is
being billed for the power.

And what would spark an investigation? When the amount collected from
a building doesn't correlate with the usage. So what if the landlord
is one of these exploitive types who sticks a family in each room and
childless couples in the broom closets? He's probably charging them an
exorbitant rent anyway, and just pays one bill for the whole
apartment. He's probably factored in electricity consumption already,
and if some sucker wants to be honest and pay twice then why complain?

phil-news-nospam@ipal.net

2008-02-11, 9:25 am

In alt.engineering.electrical Beachcomber <invalid@notreal.none> wrote:

| 11371 cases of confirmed electricity thefts in just one company
| service area?! My God! There must be electrical thieves in every
| neighborhood. Is it really that easy to do?
|
| I could see this happening in 3rd world places like parts of Mexico or
| India where sometimes the utility wiring is slipshod, even on the
| primary side, but why is this happening in places like New York City
| and Long Island?

It's not necessarily just running your own wires up the pole. It can be
simply bypassing the meter, or rigging it for reduced billing in the hope
that the computer doesn't kick out a zero billing.

| Also, it sounds like a pretty stupid thing to do. If you are a renter
| or an owner who does something illegal like this on your property, the
| evidence is going to be left there for the investigators. It's not
| like you can run away and abandon your property...

In some cases it can be rent squatters. People break into a unit that is
unoccupied. Then they connect up the electricity, too.

--
|---------------------------------------/----------------------------------|
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (ka9wgn.ham.org) / Do not send to the address below |
| first name lower case at ipal.net / spamtrap-2008-02-11-0841@ipal.net |
|------------------------------------/-------------------------------------|

krw

2008-02-11, 8:25 pm

In article <47afd14f.1626203@news.verizon.net>, invalid@notreal.none
says...
>
>
> An interesting story concerning electricity theft was posted in the
> New York Times today (2/10).
>
> A spokesman for Consolidated Edison said... "Of those 88942 cases,
> 11371 were confirmed as thefts, including 104 referred for
> prosecution. There were 83 arrests and convictions."
>
> 11371 cases of confirmed electricity thefts in just one company
> service area?! My God! There must be electrical thieves in every
> neighborhood. Is it really that easy to do?

Sure. Give me an hour in the basement of a tenement building... I
might even do it safely.

> I could see this happening in 3rd world places like parts of Mexico or
> India where sometimes the utility wiring is slipshod, even on the
> primary side, but why is this happening in places like New York City
> and Long Island?

Because free is "good"?

> Also, it sounds like a pretty stupid thing to do. If you are a renter
> or an owner who does something illegal like this on your property, the
> evidence is going to be left there for the investigators. It's not
> like you can run away and abandon your property...

Run the odds from the above numbers. 83 prosecutions out of 88,000
cases means there is less than a .1% chance of being prosecuted.
Sure beats holding up a gas station for $40, or even a bank for
$4000.

--
Keith

LinkBot