|
Home > Archive > Electrical code Compliance > November 2005 > CON Ed - CONNING US with HIGH VOLTAGE!
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
CON Ed - CONNING US with HIGH VOLTAGE!
|
|
| Freedom Fighter 2005-06-28, 11:25 pm |
| CON Edison - CONNING US with HIGH VOLTAGE!
Shocking (literally) how this greedy utility monopoly and others like it get
away with their screw-the-public practices. I've noticed that my light bulbs
burn out faster than they should. I am an electronics engineer and have test
equipment, so I measured the line voltage and found it to be high, 126
volts. When I enquired, CON Ed told me that up to 128 volts is acceptable.
NO, IT ISN'T!
This is 6.7% OVER the rated voltage (120 volts) for most light bulbs and
appliances. As power is proportional to the voltage squared, this means that
all our appliances are being force-fed about 14% more power than they were
designed for. CON Ed of course does this to increase your monthly bill by up
to 14% over what it would be at the optimum 120 volts.
But it costs us far more than this. With a 6.7% overvoltage a light bulb
burns brighter but burns out much faster, lasting only half as long as it
would at the rated voltage. Excessive voltage is harmful to and reduces the
life of all appliances without regulated power supplies, which means most of
them. Do you think CON Ed will take any responsibility when your expensive
air conditioner fails prematurely? And of course all that unnecessary power
generation is doing wonders with our resources and environment.
So we pay for this corpseration's arrogant greed not only with higher bills,
but with reduced appliance life and even with reduced lifespans due to their
pollution - or from the fact that a shock from 128 volts is more likely to
kill you than one from 120 volts.
Don't look to government for help. The present administration couldn't care
less about protecting consumers and the environment, and encourages
corpserate monopolies like CON Ed to soak us for all they can and poison our
air and water in the process.
By the way, have you noticed the price of gasoline, despite the record oil
company profits?
Aren't you glad now that you voted RepubliKKKan-KKKon$ervative?
| |
| TokaMundo 2005-06-28, 11:25 pm |
| On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 22:17:00 GMT, "Freedom Fighter" <liberty@once.net>
Gave us:
quote:
>
>But it costs us far more than this. With a 6.7% overvoltage a light bulb
>burns brighter but burns out much faster, lasting only half as long as it
>would at the rated voltage.
You mean to tell us that you are NOT using the fluorescent
replacements for standard incandescent bulbs yet?
They are about one fifth the power for the same light output.
You have no complaint. Your consumption is all your fault.
When was the last time your meter was calibrated?
What brand is it? Do you really know how to use it?
quote:
>Aren't you glad now that you voted RepubliKKKan-KKKon$ervative?
You expect us to believe your claim that you are an engineer?
How do you spell "microsoft" you gang boy idiot?
| |
| Dr. Rastis Fafoofnik 2005-06-28, 11:25 pm |
|
"Freedom Fighter" <liberty@once.net> wrote in message
news:w%jwe.367889$cg1.90483@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
quote:
> CON Edison - CONNING US with HIGH VOLTAGE!
>
> Shocking (literally) how this greedy utility monopoly and others like it
get
quote:
> away with their screw-the-public practices. I've noticed that my light
bulbs
quote:
> burn out faster than they should. I am an electronics engineer and have
test
quote:
> equipment, so I measured the line voltage and found it to be high, 126
> volts. When I enquired, CON Ed told me that up to 128 volts is acceptable.
>
> NO, IT ISN'T! (Bullshit......RMS voltage is usually 125 Volts)
>
> This is 6.7% OVER the rated voltage (120 volts) for most light bulbs and
> appliances. As power is proportional to the voltage squared, this means
that
quote:
> all our appliances are being force-fed about 14% more power than they were
> designed for. CON Ed of course does this to increase your monthly bill by
up
quote:
> to 14% over what it would be at the optimum 120 volts.
>
> But it costs us far more than this. With a 6.7% overvoltage a light
bulb(yes for incadescent, no for CFL)
quote:
> burns brighter but burns out much faster, lasting only half as long as it
> would at the rated voltage. Excessive voltage is harmful to and reduces
the
quote:
> life of all appliances without regulated power supplies, which means most
of
quote:
> them. Do you think CON Ed will take any responsibility when your expensive
> air conditioner fails prematurely(Motors run more efficiently at higher
voltages, Sagging will destroy them)? And of course all that unnecessary
power
quote:
> generation is doing wonders with our resources and environment(AGAIN
BULLSHIT...8 volts is not going to cause that much morefuel consumption and
generation is more than 38KV, regulated down at substations.).
quote:
>
> So we pay for this corpseration's arrogant greed not only with higher
bills,
quote:
> but with reduced appliance life and even with reduced lifespans due to
their
quote:
> pollution - or from the fact that a shock from 128 volts is more likely to
> kill you than one from 120 volts(again pure HORSE-SHIT...Fatal current is
about .020Amps or 20 mils....8 volts wont make that big a differance).
quote:
>
> Don't look to government for help. The present administration couldn't
care
quote:
> less about protecting consumers and the environment, and encourages
> corpserate monopolies like CON Ed to soak us for all they can and poison
our
quote:
> air and water in the process.
>
> By the way, have you noticed the price of gasoline, despite the record oil
> company profits?
>
> Aren't you glad now that you voted RepubliKKKan-KKKon$ervative?
>
>
I think you actually LIKE getting your panties in a wad.....gives you
something to XXXXX about.
| |
| John P Bengi 2005-06-28, 11:25 pm |
| Your power logic is all washed up.
Resistance in incandescent lightbulbs is not constant and therefore you E^2
logic is crap.
Motors draw less current when the voltage is raised and run cooler but with
worse power factor.
As far as shock is concerned 120v kills more people than any other higher
voltage. The 128v danger is ridiculous.
"Freedom Fighter" <liberty@once.net> wrote in message
news:w%jwe.367889$cg1.90483@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
quote:
> CON Edison - CONNING US with HIGH VOLTAGE!
>
> Shocking (literally) how this greedy utility monopoly and others like it
get
quote:
> away with their screw-the-public practices. I've noticed that my light
bulbs
quote:
> burn out faster than they should. I am an electronics engineer and have
test
quote:
> equipment, so I measured the line voltage and found it to be high, 126
> volts. When I enquired, CON Ed told me that up to 128 volts is acceptable.
>
> NO, IT ISN'T!
>
> This is 6.7% OVER the rated voltage (120 volts) for most light bulbs and
> appliances. As power is proportional to the voltage squared, this means
that
quote:
> all our appliances are being force-fed about 14% more power than they were
> designed for. CON Ed of course does this to increase your monthly bill by
up
quote:
> to 14% over what it would be at the optimum 120 volts.
>
> But it costs us far more than this. With a 6.7% overvoltage a light bulb
> burns brighter but burns out much faster, lasting only half as long as it
> would at the rated voltage. Excessive voltage is harmful to and reduces
the
quote:
> life of all appliances without regulated power supplies, which means most
of
quote:
> them. Do you think CON Ed will take any responsibility when your expensive
> air conditioner fails prematurely? And of course all that unnecessary
power
quote:
> generation is doing wonders with our resources and environment.
>
> So we pay for this corpseration's arrogant greed not only with higher
bills,
quote:
> but with reduced appliance life and even with reduced lifespans due to
their
quote:
> pollution - or from the fact that a shock from 128 volts is more likely to
> kill you than one from 120 volts.
>
| |
| Matthew Beasley 2005-06-28, 11:25 pm |
|
"Freedom Fighter" <liberty@once.net> wrote in message
news:w%jwe.367889$cg1.90483@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
quote:
> CON Edison - CONNING US with HIGH VOLTAGE!
>
> Shocking (literally) how this greedy utility monopoly and others like it
> get away with their screw-the-public practices. I've noticed that my light
> bulbs burn out faster than they should. I am an electronics engineer and
> have test equipment, so I measured the line voltage and found it to be
> high, 126 volts. When I enquired, CON Ed told me that up to 128 volts is
> acceptable.
>
> NO, IT ISN'T!
Refering to ANSI C84.1, the standard for North American voltages, 114V to
126V under normal conditions is the acceptable range at the service. Under
abnormal conditions, the range is 108V to 127V. By this standard, 126 is OK
but 128 isn't.
quote:
>
> This is 6.7% OVER the rated voltage (120 volts) for most light bulbs and
> appliances. As power is proportional to the voltage squared,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Only for resistive loads operated continuously.
Any type of resistive load switched off once a temperature is reached will
operate at a lower duty cycle. This includes water heaters, ovens and
dryers. The stove top will also heat faster and get (manually) turned down
sooner in most cases.
Motors are essentially constant power and the higher voltage doesn't
materially change the POWER draw untill they reach saturation, somewhere in
excess of 135V. (Higher voltage means lower current draw to meet the load
requirement, resulting in lower loss. This is offset by higher iron losses
at increasing voltage.) If you were a real engineer, you would know this.
Or are you are knowingly lying?
Many electronic loads are constant power and will draw a lower current due
to the higher voltage. As another poster already mentioned, this will
include compact fluorescents with electronic ballasts. The CF's will give
you both constant light regardless of line votlage PLUS much more efficient
light production.
quote:
>this means that all our appliances are being force-fed about 14% more power
>than they were designed for. CON Ed of course does this to increase your
>monthly bill by up to 14% over what it would be at the optimum 120 volts.
Incandescent light bulbs are actually much more efficient when run at higher
power. You are getting more than 14% more light for your 14% increase in
power. If you don't want the additional light, go to 130V bulbs and have
lower light output plus longer lamp life. (Or better, go fluorescent.)
quote:
>
> But it costs us far more than this. With a 6.7% overvoltage a light bulb
> burns brighter but burns out much faster, lasting only half as long as it
> would at the rated voltage. Excessive voltage is harmful to and reduces
> the life of all appliances without regulated power supplies, which means
> most of them. Do you think CON Ed will take any responsibility when your
> expensive air conditioner fails prematurely? And of course all that
> unnecessary power generation is doing wonders with our resources and
> environment.
This just isn't an issue for your air conditioner. It actually should last
longer due to the motor running cooler with the higher line voltage (of
course with a reasonable limit, but 128V isn't there).
If you are using an air conditioner, you obviously don't give a rip about
resources or the environment, do you? Get a fan, open the window and stop
being a hypocrite.
quote:
>
> So we pay for this corpseration's arrogant greed not only with higher
> bills, but with reduced appliance life and even with reduced lifespans due
> to their pollution - or from the fact that a shock from 128 volts is more
> likely to kill you than one from 120 volts.
Oh my, I am glad that I survived Europe where the line voltage is 230V AC.
You better go warn all of them just how much danger they are in and convince
them to lower the voltage. Once that is done, you better go to work on
China where the votlage is 250V!
quote:
>
> Don't look to government for help. The present administration couldn't
> care less about protecting consumers and the environment, and encourages
> corpserate monopolies like CON Ed to soak us for all they can and poison
> our air and water in the process.
Just curious, did your line voltage jump up on January 20th, 2000?
quote:
>
> By the way, have you noticed the price of gasoline, despite the record oil
> company profits?
And this has what to do with Con Ed?
quote:
>
> Aren't you glad now that you voted RepubliKKKan-KKKon$ervative?
Yes, that way I am not associated with the only Klansman in the senate,
Robert Byrd ;-)
Just curious, why are you turning this into a political post. Are you a
troll, or are you foaming about the mouth so much about Bush that you can't
help yourself from including it in every conversation you have?
Matthew
| |
| Beachcomber 2005-06-28, 11:25 pm |
| On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 22:17:00 GMT, "Freedom Fighter" <liberty@once.net>
wrote:
quote:
>CON Edison - CONNING US with HIGH VOLTAGE!
>
>Shocking (literally) how this greedy utility monopoly and others like it get
>away with their screw-the-public practices. I've noticed that my light bulbs
>burn out faster than they should. I am an electronics engineer and have test
>equipment, so I measured the line voltage and found it to be high, 126
>volts. When I enquired, CON Ed told me that up to 128 volts is acceptable.
>
>NO, IT ISN'T!
>
>This is 6.7% OVER the rated voltage (120 volts) for most light bulbs and
>appliances. As power is proportional to the voltage squared, this means that
>all our appliances are being force-fed about 14% more power than they were
>designed for. CON Ed of course does this to increase your monthly bill by up
>to 14% over what it would be at the optimum 120 volts.
>
If your line voltage is high, the chances are that it can be easily
corrected by your power company changing a tap on your transformer.
You need to do more than just talk to them on the phone though.
Someone from the utility needs to come out and put a 24 hour voltage
logger on your lines. You might have to pay something, but if you can
prove your point, they will fix it for you.
Beachcomber
| |
| TokaMundo 2005-06-28, 11:25 pm |
| On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 19:15:13 -0400, "John P Bengi" <JBengi
(spamm)@(spamm) yahoo,com> Gave us:
quote:
>Your power logic is all washed up.
Your posting logic is all washed up.
quote:
>
>Resistance in incandescent lightbulbs is not constant and therefore you E^2
>logic is crap.
Once up to temp, the resistance isn't that mutable. It ain't 14%,
but it IS higher consumption. Are you saying that it is negligible?
quote:
>
>Motors draw less current when the voltage is raised and run cooler but with
>worse power factor.
Are you trying to say that my fridge will cost less to operate? I
mean, I see what was said, I just want YOU to clarify your stance, not
just declare the metrics.
quote:
>
>As far as shock is concerned 120v kills more people than any other higher
>voltage. The 128v danger is ridiculous.
Ridiculous... no. More dangerous than 120 volts? Not likely, but I
would never turn my nose up at either voltage.
Higher voltage, however, is dangerous. It's just that a 6.6% change
isn't likely to send "a line" into the next hazard range.
Q:
Why do top posters even bother quoting the entire message after
their post?
A:
Top posting is LAZY, at best. Using "that's the way outlook express
formats it" doesn't change anything.
Conclusion: Granted, the guy is off on a rant, but then do your
responses really debunk anything he said?
| |
| TokaMundo 2005-06-28, 11:25 pm |
| On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 23:33:33 GMT, not_real@xxx.yyy (Beachcomber) Gave
us:
quote:
>On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 22:17:00 GMT, "Freedom Fighter" <liberty@once.net>
>wrote:
>
>
>If your line voltage is high, the chances are that it can be easily
>corrected by your power company changing a tap on your transformer.
If he is at the lead end of a long run, the tap set is so they the
guys at the end of the line have sufficient voltage. Not out of spec.
quote:
>
>You need to do more than just talk to them on the phone though.
>Someone from the utility needs to come out and put a 24 hour voltage
>logger on your lines. You might have to pay something, but if you can
>prove your point, they will fix it for you.
In some instances.
Lack of diplomacy will get one ignored. Trust me, I know.
| |
| Charles Perry 2005-06-28, 11:25 pm |
|
"Matthew Beasley" <null@msn.com> wrote in message
news:J7lwe.7775$8S4.6928@news.cpqcorp.net...
<snip>
quote:
>
> Refering to ANSI C84.1, the standard for North American voltages, 114V to
> 126V under normal conditions is the acceptable range at the service.
> Under abnormal conditions, the range is 108V to 127V. By this standard,
> 126 is OK but 128 isn't.
>
There are many standards at play here. State regulators set the limits and
it varies from state to state. Some states use +/-5%, some use +/-10%, some
use +10/-5%, and then others +5/-10%.
Most equipment standards require that the equipment operate at +/-10%.
Charles Perry P.E.
| |
| John P Bengi 2005-06-28, 11:25 pm |
| Sorry. Your trolling exceeds your intelligence on this one.
"TokaMundo" <TokaMundo@weedizgood.org> wrote in message
news:pen3c1p0i45inuia5br1p96eck1v5iaknu@4ax.com...
quote:
> On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 19:15:13 -0400, "John P Bengi" <JBengi
> (spamm)@(spamm) yahoo,com> Gave us:
>
>
> Your posting logic is all washed up.
>
E^2[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> Once up to temp, the resistance isn't that mutable. It ain't 14%,
> but it IS higher consumption. Are you saying that it is negligible?
with[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> Are you trying to say that my fridge will cost less to operate? I
> mean, I see what was said, I just want YOU to clarify your stance, not
> just declare the metrics.
>
> Ridiculous... no. More dangerous than 120 volts? Not likely, but I
> would never turn my nose up at either voltage.
>
> Higher voltage, however, is dangerous. It's just that a 6.6% change
> isn't likely to send "a line" into the next hazard range.
>
> Q:
> Why do top posters even bother quoting the entire message after
> their post?
>
> A:
> Top posting is LAZY, at best. Using "that's the way outlook express
> formats it" doesn't change anything.
>
> Conclusion: Granted, the guy is off on a rant, but then do your
> responses really debunk anything he said?
| |
| Roy Q.T. 2005-06-28, 11:25 pm |
| RODENT DROPPING !!!!
Quit Compaining & Get an ESCO
The Charter here is Compliance not Complaining.
=AEoy
| |
| RF Dude 2005-06-29, 4:25 am |
| So why do many, many people, including electricians still refer to line
voltage as 110V??? No I'm not defending it. It is 120V and thats what I've
been calling it for years. But it is mind boggling how much of a habit it
is for people to call it 110! Years ago we also had 25 Hz... but along with
110V, it is history.
AND I'm a TOP POSTER so you don't have to scroll down constantly message
after message!!!! I wish others would figure this out too. <end rant>
quote:
>Refering to ANSI C84.1, the standard for North American voltages, 114V to
>126V under normal conditions is the acceptable range at the service. Under
>abnormal conditions, the range is 108V to 127V. By this standard, 126 is
>OK but 128 isn't.
| |
| TokaMundo 2005-06-29, 4:25 am |
| On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 20:46:40 -0400, "John P Bengi" <JBengi
(spamm)@(spamm) yahoo,com> Gave us:
quote:
>Sorry. Your trolling exceeds your intelligence on this one.
Said the top posting, Usenet idiot.
| |
| Michael A. Terrell 2005-06-29, 4:25 am |
| Freedom Fighter wrote:
quote:
>
> CON Edison - CONNING US with HIGH VOLTAGE!
>
> Shocking (literally) how this greedy utility monopoly and others like it get
> away with their screw-the-public practices. I've noticed that my light bulbs
> burn out faster than they should. I am an electronics engineer and have test
> equipment, so I measured the line voltage and found it to be high, 126
> volts. When I enquired, CON Ed told me that up to 128 volts is acceptable.
Why don't you just go buy 130 volt light bulbs, and get a life?
--
Former professional electron wrangler.
Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida
| |
| phil-news-nospam@ipal.net 2005-06-29, 4:25 am |
| In sci.engr.electrical.compliance TokaMundo <TokaMundo@weedizgood.org> wrote:
| You mean to tell us that you are NOT using the fluorescent
| replacements for standard incandescent bulbs yet?
Not everyone wants that crap.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Phil Howard KA9WGN | http://linuxhomepage.com/ http://ham.org/ |
| (first name) at ipal.net | http://phil.ipal.org/ http://ka9wgn.ham.org/ |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |
| the seventh sign 2005-06-29, 12:25 pm |
| Freedom Fighter wrote:
quote:
> CON Edison - CONNING US with HIGH VOLTAGE!
>
> Shocking (literally) how this greedy utility monopoly and others like it get
> away with their screw-the-public practices. I've noticed that my light bulbs
> burn out faster than they should. I am an electronics engineer and have test
> equipment, so I measured the line voltage and found it to be high, 126
> volts. When I enquired, CON Ed told me that up to 128 volts is acceptable.
>
> NO, IT ISN'T!
>
> This is 6.7% OVER the rated voltage (120 volts) for most light bulbs and
> appliances. As power is proportional to the voltage squared, this means that
> all our appliances are being force-fed about 14% more power than they were
> designed for. CON Ed of course does this to increase your monthly bill by up
> to 14% over what it would be at the optimum 120 volts.
>
> But it costs us far more than this. With a 6.7% overvoltage a light bulb
> burns brighter but burns out much faster, lasting only half as long as it
> would at the rated voltage. Excessive voltage is harmful to and reduces the
> life of all appliances without regulated power supplies, which means most of
> them. Do you think CON Ed will take any responsibility when your expensive
> air conditioner fails prematurely? And of course all that unnecessary power
> generation is doing wonders with our resources and environment.
>
> So we pay for this corpseration's arrogant greed not only with higher bills,
> but with reduced appliance life and even with reduced lifespans due to their
> pollution - or from the fact that a shock from 128 volts is more likely to
> kill you than one from 120 volts.
>
> Don't look to government for help. The present administration couldn't care
> less about protecting consumers and the environment, and encourages
> corpserate monopolies like CON Ed to soak us for all they can and poison our
> air and water in the process.
>
> By the way, have you noticed the price of gasoline, despite the record oil
> company profits?
>
> Aren't you glad now that you voted RepubliKKKan-KKKon$ervative?
Actually if you go by ohm's law your drawing more amps for every volt
over 120 you go.
but as far as the wattage humm what is the wattage of the device your using?
average computer power supply 480 watts
your voltage = 128 V
Your amps would be 3.75
Your resistance increases to 34.13333333333333
If it was true 110
amps would be 4.363636363636363
resistance would be 25.208333333333332
If the voltage was 120
amps would be 4
resistance would be 30
of course i know the watts change with the voltage applied but the basic
amp draw would too kind of hard to measure it with a volt meter only but
if you have an household amp meter and can connect it perhaps you
could prove the numbers to the power companies.
to low of voltage can kick the watts up too much too.
TSS
| |
| TokaMundo 2005-06-29, 12:25 pm |
| On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 21:29:22 -0400, "RF Dude" <post@thisnewsgroup.com>
Gave us:
quote:
>
>AND I'm a TOP POSTER so you don't have to scroll down constantly message
>after message!!!! I wish others would figure this out too. <end rant>
Did you read your epitaph before you read your birth announcement?
Get a clue, lazy boy. Is it really that difficult to use the scroll
function of this hugely advanced desktop we have? NO! Stop making
excuses, and learn to follow the norm. You do know what a norm is,
don't you? YOU figure it out. IT being the way IT has been done for
ages... likely longer than you have been around!
| |
| TokaMundo 2005-06-29, 12:25 pm |
| On 29 Jun 2005 03:31:48 GMT, phil-news-nospam@ipal.net Gave us:
quote:
>
>Not everyone wants that crap.
Not anyone wants to hear your piss and moan crap either!
Jump on the modern, conservative bandwagon, or quit crying.
| |
| TokaMundo 2005-06-29, 12:25 pm |
| On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 02:14:44 -0500, the seventh sign
<die.now.spammers@internet.now> Gave us:
quote:
>
>Actually if you go by ohm's law your drawing more amps for every volt
>over 120 you go.
No shit?
| |
| TokaMundo 2005-06-29, 12:25 pm |
| On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 02:14:44 -0500, the seventh sign
<die.now.spammers@internet.now> Gave us:
quote:
>
>average computer power supply 480 watts
Dumbass. Power supply ratings are for their total useable capacity
within a specified ripple spec, it does NOT designate how much they
consume, EVER!
The consumption is related to your system utilization, PERIOD.
If your mobo usage, your HDD usage, and your video card usage are
added together, you will get the total requisite power required to
operate the system. Placing a 500 Watt PS on your computer does NOT
mean that your computer suddenly jumps up to the new wattage of 500
Watts!
quote:
>your voltage = 128 V
>Your amps would be 3.75
>Your resistance increases to 34.13333333333333
Go back to school, or ask someone that DOES know, because you do
not.
| |
| Robert Morien 2005-06-29, 12:25 pm |
|
In article <rki4c11mrigu0snalr53t064acu22qfadn@4ax.com>,
TokaMundo <TokaMundo@weedizgood.org> wrote:
A > On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 21:29:22 -0400, "RF Dude"
g <post@thisnewsgroup.com>
e > Gave us:
' >
s > >
? > >AND I'm a TOP POSTER so you don't have to scroll down constantly
quote:
> message
> rant>
>
> Did you read your epitaph before you read your birth announcement?
>
> Get a clue, lazy boy. Is it really that difficult to use the scroll
> function of this hugely advanced desktop we have? NO! Stop making
> excuses, and learn to follow the norm. You do know what a norm is,
> don't you? YOU figure it out. IT being the way IT has been done for
> ages... likely longer than you have been around!
| |
| Michael A. Terrell 2005-06-29, 12:25 pm |
| the seventh sign wrote:
quote:
>
> Actually if you go by ohm's law your drawing more amps for every volt
> over 120 you go.
You can't really apply Ohm's law to a non linear, switched load. The
current flow is the same, but the on time is adjusted to regulate the
output voltages of the power supply. The lower the voltage, the longer
the "ON" time. Unless the power supply has the proper power factor
correction, you can't get an accurate current reading without special
test equipment.
quote:
> but as far as the wattage humm what is the wattage of the device your using?
>
> average computer power supply 480 watts
> your voltage = 128 V
> Your amps would be 3.75
> Your resistance increases to 34.13333333333333
>
> If it was true 110
> amps would be 4.363636363636363
> resistance would be 25.208333333333332
>
> If the voltage was 120
> amps would be 4
> resistance would be 30
This could be called "Equivalent Resistance" but not resistance.
quote:
> of course i know the watts change with the voltage applied but the basic
> amp draw would too kind of hard to measure it with a volt meter only but
> if you have an household amp meter and can connect it perhaps you
> could prove the numbers to the power companies.
>
> to low of voltage can kick the watts up too much too.
>
> TSS
--
Former professional electron wrangler.
Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida
| |
| phil-news-nospam@ipal.net 2005-06-29, 12:25 pm |
| In sci.engr.electrical.compliance TokaMundo <TokaMundo@weedizgood.org> wrote:
| On 29 Jun 2005 03:31:48 GMT, phil-news-nospam@ipal.net Gave us:
|
|>
|>Not everyone wants that crap.
|
| Not anyone wants to hear your piss and moan crap either!
|
| Jump on the modern, conservative bandwagon, or quit crying.
As long as someone is willing to manufacture decent lighting products,
I will continue to use them. Once LEDs become truly viable (including
solving some remaining spectrum issues), I will migrate to that. But,
until then, it will be incandescent for me. All mercury based products
will not be permitted in my house, anyway.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Phil Howard KA9WGN | http://linuxhomepage.com/ http://ham.org/ |
| (first name) at ipal.net | http://phil.ipal.org/ http://ka9wgn.ham.org/ |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |
| Dimitrios Tzortzakakis 2005-06-29, 6:25 pm |
| Quote:"But,
until then, it will be incandescent for me."
I agree with you.For heavily used light fixtures there are 220 V halogen
bulbs in Europe which I think are excellent.Are there any for US 110 volts?
--
Tzortzakakis Dimitrios
major in electrical engineering, freelance electrician
FH von Iraklion-Kreta, freiberuflicher Elektriker
dimtzort AT otenet DOT gr
Ο <phil-news-nospam@ipal.net> έγραψε στο μήνυμα
news:d9u8op020jk@news3.newsguy.com...
quote:
> In sci.engr.electrical.compliance TokaMundo <TokaMundo@weedizgood.org>
wrote:
quote:
> | On 29 Jun 2005 03:31:48 GMT, phil-news-nospam@ipal.net Gave us:
> |
> |>
> |>Not everyone wants that crap.
> |
> | Not anyone wants to hear your piss and moan crap either!
> |
> | Jump on the modern, conservative bandwagon, or quit crying.
>
> As long as someone is willing to manufacture decent lighting products,
> I will continue to use them. Once LEDs become truly viable (including
> solving some remaining spectrum issues), I will migrate to that. But,
> until then, it will be incandescent for me. All mercury based products
> will not be permitted in my house, anyway.
>
> --
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
quote:
> | Phil Howard KA9WGN | http://linuxhomepage.com/
http://ham.org/ |
quote:
> | (first name) at ipal.net | http://phil.ipal.org/
http://ka9wgn.ham.org/ |
quote:
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
| |
| Dimitrios Tzortzakakis 2005-06-29, 6:25 pm |
| The voltage varies with the load, you moron.At noon, when everyone is
cooking, it is lower than at 2.00 am when there's nothing running except
some refrigerators in the neighborhood.Get a life!(P.S.as one learns in
basic subjects, line voltage in LV varies 220 V +- 5%-or 110 V +- 5 % in
USA, of course)and in MV and HV it is +- 10%).
--
Tzortzakakis Dimitrios
major in electrical engineering, freelance electrician
FH von Iraklion-Kreta, freiberuflicher Elektriker
dimtzort AT otenet DOT gr
Ο "Freedom Fighter" <liberty@once.net> έγραψε στο μήνυμα
news:w%jwe.367889$cg1.90483@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
quote:
> CON Edison - CONNING US with HIGH VOLTAGE!
>
> Shocking (literally) how this greedy utility monopoly and others like it
get
quote:
> away with their screw-the-public practices. I've noticed that my light
bulbs
quote:
> burn out faster than they should. I am an electronics engineer and have
test
quote:
> equipment, so I measured the line voltage and found it to be high, 126
> volts. When I enquired, CON Ed told me that up to 128 volts is acceptable.
>
> NO, IT ISN'T!
>
> This is 6.7% OVER the rated voltage (120 volts) for most light bulbs and
> appliances. As power is proportional to the voltage squared, this means
that
quote:
> all our appliances are being force-fed about 14% more power than they were
> designed for. CON Ed of course does this to increase your monthly bill by
up
quote:
> to 14% over what it would be at the optimum 120 volts.
>
> But it costs us far more than this. With a 6.7% overvoltage a light bulb
> burns brighter but burns out much faster, lasting only half as long as it
> would at the rated voltage. Excessive voltage is harmful to and reduces
the
quote:
> life of all appliances without regulated power supplies, which means most
of
quote:
> them. Do you think CON Ed will take any responsibility when your expensive
> air conditioner fails prematurely? And of course all that unnecessary
power
quote:
> generation is doing wonders with our resources and environment.
>
> So we pay for this corpseration's arrogant greed not only with higher
bills,
quote:
> but with reduced appliance life and even with reduced lifespans due to
their
quote:
> pollution - or from the fact that a shock from 128 volts is more likely to
> kill you than one from 120 volts.
>
> Don't look to government for help. The present administration couldn't
care
quote:
> less about protecting consumers and the environment, and encourages
> corpserate monopolies like CON Ed to soak us for all they can and poison
our
quote:
> air and water in the process.
>
> By the way, have you noticed the price of gasoline, despite the record oil
> company profits?
>
> Aren't you glad now that you voted RepubliKKKan-KKKon$ervative?
>
>
| |
| Derek Broughton 2005-06-29, 6:25 pm |
| TokaMundo wrote:
quote:
> On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 02:14:44 -0500, the seventh sign
> <die.now.spammers@internet.now> Gave us:
>
>
> No shit?
He did seem to get it right when he did the actual calculations...
--
derek
| |
| phil-news-nospam@ipal.net 2005-06-29, 6:25 pm |
| In alt.engineering.electrical Dimitrios Tzortzakakis <dimtzort@otenet.gr> wrote:
| Quote:"But,
| until then, it will be incandescent for me."
| I agree with you.For heavily used light fixtures there are 220 V halogen
| bulbs in Europe which I think are excellent.Are there any for US 110 volts?
There are. I've seen available for purchase online halogen bulbs in a wide
range of voltages including: 110, 115, 120, 127, 130, 208, 220, 230, 240,
and even 277. But I favor low voltage halogen because that allows the use
of a thicker/shorter filament for a given wattage. Based on some general
observations (no scientific study), choosing wattage/voltage combinations
to get between 1 and 5 amps of current flowing in the filament is about the
right conditions for high temperature, long life, and better focusing of
light, given current metallurgy. I would probably want to make most lights
about 12 or 18 watts, and simply use more of them where more illumination
is needed. I will probably use 12 volts for most things indoors, and a mix
of 12 volt for small ground level mood lighting outdoors, and 240 or 277
volts for safety/security/flood lighting outdoors (a mix of HPS and MH).
In addition to NOT using fluorescent lighting indoors, I will also avoid
the use of the common Edison screw base, or any other kind of base where
it is possible to touch metal connected to one of the current carrying
conductors. I understand in Europe, these kinds of light sockets are on
the way out, anyway, especially in places like Germany where the plug-in
receptacles are non-polarized (and thus you cannot be sure which wire is
getting the grounded side).
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Phil Howard KA9WGN | http://linuxhomepage.com/ http://ham.org/ |
| (first name) at ipal.net | http://phil.ipal.org/ http://ka9wgn.ham.org/ |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |
| Beachcomber 2005-06-29, 6:25 pm |
|
quote:
>
>As long as someone is willing to manufacture decent lighting products,
>I will continue to use them. Once LEDs become truly viable (including
>solving some remaining spectrum issues), I will migrate to that. But,
>until then, it will be incandescent for me. All mercury based products
>will not be permitted in my house, anyway.
>
No mercury products? Why... out of curiousity? The mercury in
fluorescents is small and sealed into the tube. It can't harm you
unless you break it. You can buy CF's in just about any color
temperature and they do save money on energy. Here in the US, there
are organizations that will recycle your expired fluoresent tubes in
case you are worried about contaminating the environment.
Do you have any coal-fired plants supplying your electricity? Chances
are the extra energy that you are burning with incandescents is
dumping that extra mercury into the air that need not be...
Lots of nasty substances are used to make LED's also, like Arsenic,
for example, although the amount is small and it is sealed up in the
case coating.
Beachcomber
| |
| Michael A. Terrell 2005-06-29, 6:25 pm |
| Dimitrios Tzortzakakis wrote:
quote:
>
> Quote:"But,
> until then, it will be incandescent for me."
> I agree with you.For heavily used light fixtures there are 220 V halogen
> bulbs in Europe which I think are excellent.Are there any for US 110 volts?
No, just 120 and 130 volt.
--
Former professional electron wrangler.
Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida
| |
| Anthony Matonak 2005-06-29, 6:25 pm |
| phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote:
....
quote:
> As long as someone is willing to manufacture decent lighting products,
> I will continue to use them. Once LEDs become truly viable (including
> solving some remaining spectrum issues), I will migrate to that. But,
> until then, it will be incandescent for me. All mercury based products
> will not be permitted in my house, anyway.
As I understand it, white LED's are not more efficient than
incandescents although they might be a bit more rugged and
last longer. The only way to get more efficiency is to go
with monochrome LED's and try to use a number of different
colors to add up to a white light. I don't know how effective
that method is.
Anthony
| |
| Michael A. Terrell 2005-06-29, 6:25 pm |
| Anthony Matonak wrote:
quote:
>
> phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote:
> ...
>
> As I understand it, white LED's are not more efficient than
> incandescents although they might be a bit more rugged and
> last longer. The only way to get more efficiency is to go
> with monochrome LED's and try to use a number of different
> colors to add up to a white light. I don't know how effective
> that method is.
>
> Anthony
White LEDs are really blue, with a phospor to convert it to white
light.
--
Former professional electron wrangler.
Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida
| |
| the seventh sign 2005-06-29, 6:25 pm |
| Michael A. Terrell wrote:[vbcol=seagreen]
> the seventh sign wrote:
>
>
>
> You can't really apply Ohm's law to a non linear, switched load. The
> current flow is the same, but the on time is adjusted to regulate the
> output voltages of the power supply. The lower the voltage, the longer
> the "ON" time. Unless the power supply has the proper power factor
> correction, you can't get an accurate current reading without special
> test equipment.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> This could be called "Equivalent Resistance" but not resistance.
>
>
>
Well yeah i know you need an oscilloscope to accurately measure the load
.. The people who say i have it wrong except for the calculations are in
the wrong increase the voltage and there is no way the wattage load
remains constant even though i use a computer power supply rating as a
constant it isn't. Same with the resistance as well.
Probably for the morons i should have used a 550 watt heater it is
actually draws 550 watts at the rated voltage.
The calculations are still skewed though more voltage more wattage less
amps more resistance. Is the basic idea that was taught in college and
high school. You be the judge about this idea and think about it for
your self. granted the peak loads maskes the world of voltage difference
if the man who originally posted this comment were to measure the days
total output from the power lines and he said it was a constant 128
Volts i would be thinking the same as him but I bet he would not find it
to be a constant 128 volts and i equally believe he would not find a
60 Hz sine wave on his power line either i would think it would vary too.
The only true way for this person to measure the voltage and usage is
for him/her to get oscilloscope and i would make it so it hooks up to a
PC and measures the sine wave and RMS through out the day. then see if
there is a reason to gripe.
Other than that not much can be done.
tss
| |
|
| > | > As long as someone is willing to manufacture decent lighting products,
quote:
> | > I will continue to use them. Once LEDs become truly viable (including
> | > solving some remaining spectrum issues), I will migrate to that. But,
> | > until then, it will be incandescent for me. All mercury based
> products
> | > will not be permitted in my house, anyway.
A little information can be a dangerous thing.
LED's are less efficient than all but the smallest incandescent or halogen
lights. And they are far more inefficient than any fluorescent, mercury
vapor, metal halide, or sodium lamps. All the extra energy you waste will
put more mercury into the environment (from power generation) than you could
of ever obtained from all the mercury containing lights you could of ever
bought.
quote:
> | I agree with you.For heavily used light fixtures there are 220 V halogen
> | bulbs in Europe which I think are excellent.Are there any for US 110
> volts?
>
> There are. I've seen available for purchase online halogen bulbs in a
> wide
> range of voltages including: 110, 115, 120, 127, 130, 208, 220, 230, 240,
> and even 277. But I favor low voltage halogen because that allows the use
> of a thicker/shorter filament for a given wattage. Based on some general
> observations (no scientific study), choosing wattage/voltage combinations
> to get between 1 and 5 amps of current flowing in the filament is about
> the
> right conditions for high temperature, long life, and better focusing of
> light, given current metallurgy. I would probably want to make most
> lights
> about 12 or 18 watts, and simply use more of them where more illumination
> is needed.
Smaller wattage incandescent lighting like vacuum/halogen lights are far
more inefficient than their larger wattage counterparts. Generally, the
lower the wattage, the lower the overall efficiency. So you will just end up
with a very inefficient lighting system that causes more power to be wasted,
and more mercury to be dumped into the environment.
quote:
> I will probably use 12 volts for most things indoors, and a mix
> of 12 volt for small ground level mood lighting outdoors, and 240 or 277
> volts for safety/security/flood lighting outdoors (a mix of HPS and MH).
If you don't want mercury, why are you talking about using metal halide, and
high pressure sodium lighting? MH, and HPS light bulbs have as much mercury
in them as mercury vapor lights. They just have other things added with the
mercury charge to change it's operating characteristics. (ie) halides and
sodium. And, in actuality, you will be dumping more mercury into the
environment with MH lights, than you would be with mercury vapor lights. MV
bulbs last five times as long, so there is one fifth the mercury entering
the waste stream. And you won't notice any mercury savings from power usage
reduction. Because more power is wasted in making the additional MH
replacement bulbs, than is saved over the bulbs life from the increased
efficiency of the MH bulb over the MV one.
If you want mercury free outdoor lighting, then you have to go to low
pressure sodium.
quote:
> In addition to NOT using fluorescent lighting indoors, I will also avoid
> the use of the common Edison screw base, or any other kind of base where
> it is possible to touch metal connected to one of the current carrying
> conductors. I understand in Europe, these kinds of light sockets are on
> the way out, anyway, especially in places like Germany where the plug-in
> receptacles are non-polarized (and thus you cannot be sure which wire is
> getting the grounded side).
Here is a simple lesson in life, if it hurts when you do something, then don't
do it!!!!!
If you get shocked when you touch the metal in a light socket, and it
hurts. ...
Then don't touch it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
| |
|
| > | > As long as someone is willing to manufacture decent lighting products,
quote:
> | > I will continue to use them. Once LEDs become truly viable (including
> | > solving some remaining spectrum issues), I will migrate to that. But,
> | > until then, it will be incandescent for me. All mercury based
> products
> | > will not be permitted in my house, anyway.
A little information can be a dangerous thing.
LED's are less efficient than all but the smallest incandescent or halogen
lights. And they are far more inefficient than any fluorescent, mercury
vapor, metal halide, or sodium lamps. All the extra energy you waste will
put more mercury into the environment (from power generation) than you could
of ever obtained from all the mercury containing lights you could of ever
bought.
quote:
> | I agree with you.For heavily used light fixtures there are 220 V halogen
> | bulbs in Europe which I think are excellent.Are there any for US 110
> volts?
>
> There are. I've seen available for purchase online halogen bulbs in a
> wide
> range of voltages including: 110, 115, 120, 127, 130, 208, 220, 230, 240,
> and even 277. But I favor low voltage halogen because that allows the use
> of a thicker/shorter filament for a given wattage. Based on some general
> observations (no scientific study), choosing wattage/voltage combinations
> to get between 1 and 5 amps of current flowing in the filament is about
> the
> right conditions for high temperature, long life, and better focusing of
> light, given current metallurgy. I would probably want to make most
> lights
> about 12 or 18 watts, and simply use more of them where more illumination
> is needed.
Smaller wattage incandescent lighting like vacuum/halogen lights are far
more inefficient than their larger wattage counterparts. Generally, the
lower the wattage, the lower the overall efficiency. So you will just end up
with a very inefficient lighting system that causes more power to be wasted,
and more mercury to be dumped into the environment.
quote:
> I will probably use 12 volts for most things indoors, and a mix
> of 12 volt for small ground level mood lighting outdoors, and 240 or 277
> volts for safety/security/flood lighting outdoors (a mix of HPS and MH).
If you don't want mercury, why are you talking about using metal halide, and
high pressure sodium lighting? MH, and HPS light bulbs have as much mercury
in them as mercury vapor lights. They just have other things added with the
mercury charge to change it's operating characteristics. (ie) halides and
sodium. And, in actuality, you will be dumping more mercury into the
environment with MH lights, than you would be with mercury vapor lights. MV
bulbs last five times as long, so there is one fifth the mercury entering
the waste stream. And you won't notice any mercury savings from power usage
reduction. Because more power is wasted in making the additional MH
replacement bulbs, than is saved over the bulbs life from the increased
efficiency of the MH bulb over the MV one.
If you want mercury free outdoor lighting, then you have to go to low
pressure sodium.
quote:
> In addition to NOT using fluorescent lighting indoors, I will also avoid
> the use of the common Edison screw base, or any other kind of base where
> it is possible to touch metal connected to one of the current carrying
> conductors. I understand in Europe, these kinds of light sockets are on
> the way out, anyway, especially in places like Germany where the plug-in
> receptacles are non-polarized (and thus you cannot be sure which wire is
> getting the grounded side).
Here is a simple lesson in life, if it hurts when you do something, then
don't
do it!!!!!
If you get shocked when you touch the metal in a light socket, and it
hurts. ...
Then don't touch it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
| |
|
|
"SATAN" <satan@hell.org> wrote in message
Ignore previous post.
Posted under the wrong identity.
Stupid me.
| |
| TokaMundo 2005-06-29, 11:25 pm |
| On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 14:45:04 +0000, Derek Broughton
<news@pointerstop.ca> Gave us:
quote:
>TokaMundo wrote:
>
>
>He did seem to get it right when he did the actual calculations...
Except for not considering all of the parameters, yes.
| |
|
| >> As I understand it, white LED's are not more efficient than
quote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> White LEDs are really blue, with a phospor to convert it
> to white light.
There are two types of "white" LEDs.
1. A blue LED that causes a phosphor to glow white.
(less efficient, but cheaper to make)
2 A combined red/green/blue LED that mixes 3 colors to get white.
(more efficient, and more expensive)
The "Tricolor" white LED can perform a neat trick - by varying the
brightness of the 3 LEDs, it can produce almost any color desired!
CM
| |
| John P Bengi 2005-06-30, 4:25 am |
|
How is this moron?
"TokaMundo" <TokaMundo@weedizgood.org> wrote in message
news:rki4c11mrigu0snalr53t064acu22qfadn@4ax.com...
quote:
> On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 21:29:22 -0400, "RF Dude" <post@thisnewsgroup.com>
> Gave us:
>
>
> Did you read your epitaph before you read your birth announcement?
>
> Get a clue, lazy boy. Is it really that difficult to use the scroll
> function of this hugely advanced desktop we have? NO! Stop making
> excuses, and learn to follow the norm. You do know what a norm is,
> don't you? YOU figure it out. IT being the way IT has been done for
> ages... likely longer than you have been around!
| |
| John P Bengi 2005-06-30, 4:25 am |
| Bottom posters will never understand that principle if they don't understand
top posting logic.
"Dimitrios Tzortzakakis" <dimtzort@otenet.gr> wrote in message
news:d9ucbq$qhd$1@usenet.otenet.gr...
quote:
> The voltage varies with the load, you moron.At noon, when everyone is
> cooking, it is lower than at 2.00 am when there's nothing running except
> some refrigerators in the neighborhood.Get a life!(P.S.as one learns in
> basic subjects, line voltage in LV varies 220 V +- 5%-or 110 V +- 5 % in
> USA, of course)and in MV and HV it is +- 10%).
>
> --
> Tzortzakakis Dimitrios
> major in electrical engineering, freelance electrician
> FH von Iraklion-Kreta, freiberuflicher Elektriker
> dimtzort AT otenet DOT gr
> O "Freedom Fighter" <liberty@once.net> ]cqaxe sto l^mula
> news:w%jwe.367889$cg1.90483@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> get
> bulbs
> test
acceptable.[vbcol=seagreen]
> that
were[vbcol=seagreen]
by[vbcol=seagreen]
> up
it[vbcol=seagreen]
> the
most[vbcol=seagreen]
> of
expensive[vbcol=seagreen]
> power
> bills,
> their
to[vbcol=seagreen]
> care
> our
oil[vbcol=seagreen]
>
>
| |
| Bob Adkins 2005-06-30, 4:25 am |
| On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 19:15:13 -0400, "John P Bengi" <JBengi (spamm)@(spamm)
yahoo,com> wrote:
quote:
>As far as shock is concerned 120v kills more people than any other higher
>voltage. The 128v danger is ridiculous.
OK, you give me a 128v shocker and I'll give you a 120v shocker and we'll
see which one of us loses control of his bowels first. :D
Or, we could just forget the shockers and play rochambeau instead. I'll go
first...
-- Bob
| |
| TokaMundo 2005-06-30, 4:25 am |
| On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 22:20:04 -0400, "John P Bengi" <JBengi
(spamm)@(spamm) yahoo,com> Gave us:
quote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>How is this moron?
To think that this retarded bastard wants to call *me* a troll.
| |
| TokaMundo 2005-06-30, 4:25 am |
| On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 22:22:52 -0400, "John P Bengi" <JBengi
(spamm)@(spamm) yahoo,com> Gave us:
quote:
>Bottom posters will never understand that principle if they don't understand
>top posting logic.
>
You're a lazy, seven year old mentality (could be a redneck) blatant
fucking idiot as far as Usenet is concerned.
| |
| Derek Broughton 2005-06-30, 12:25 pm |
| SATAN wrote:
quote:
> A little information can be a dangerous thing.
> LED's are less efficient than all but the smallest incandescent or halogen
> lights. And they are far more inefficient than any fluorescent, mercury
> vapor, metal halide, or sodium lamps. All the extra energy you waste will
> put more mercury into the environment (from power generation) than you
> could of ever obtained from all the mercury containing lights you could of
> ever bought.
I can't let this pass without comment. You may well be right about the
efficiency of LED's, at least with regard to the amount of light output for
the input current. However, it depends what you want to do with the light.
Why use a string of 5W bulbs on a Christmas tree, when you can get the
effect with a 5W string of LEDs. A 1W LED can provide enough light to read
a book - so why use even a 4W CF? When I walk my dogs at night, I carry an
LED flashlight. It doesn't put out enough light to distinguish between a
skunk and a cat - but it puts out plenty of light to see "an animal" and
where to stoop-and-scoop, and I've been using it for six months so far
without changing batteries. My 6V incandescent flashlight probably emits
10 times the amount of light - but I changed batteries (much more expensive
than the ones in the LED light) every couple of months.
--
derek
| |
| phil-news-nospam@ipal.net 2005-06-30, 6:25 pm |
| In sci.engr.electrical.compliance CM <cm@cm.not.really> wrote:
|>> As I understand it, white LED's are not more efficient than
|>> incandescents although they might be a bit more rugged and
|>> last longer. The only way to get more efficiency is to go
|>> with monochrome LED's and try to use a number of different
|>> colors to add up to a white light. I don't know how effective
|>> that method is.
|
|> White LEDs are really blue, with a phospor to convert it
|> to white light.
|
| There are two types of "white" LEDs.
| 1. A blue LED that causes a phosphor to glow white.
| (less efficient, but cheaper to make)
| 2 A combined red/green/blue LED that mixes 3 colors to get white.
| (more efficient, and more expensive)
|
| The "Tricolor" white LED can perform a neat trick - by varying the
| brightness of the 3 LEDs, it can produce almost any color desired!
My plan is to use a wide variety of different discrete colors instead
of depending on just three. The spectral issue for me is that the
spectrum emitted is not continuous. I'm hoping enough different points
in the spectrum will be adequate to appear as a continuous spectrum.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Phil Howard KA9WGN | http://linuxhomepage.com/ http://ham.org/ |
| (first name) at ipal.net | http://phil.ipal.org/ http://ka9wgn.ham.org/ |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |
| phil-news-nospam@ipal.net 2005-06-30, 6:25 pm |
| In sci.engr.electrical.compliance Beachcomber <not_real@xxx.yyy> wrote:
|
|>
|>As long as someone is willing to manufacture decent lighting products,
|>I will continue to use them. Once LEDs become truly viable (including
|>solving some remaining spectrum issues), I will migrate to that. But,
|>until then, it will be incandescent for me. All mercury based products
|>will not be permitted in my house, anyway.
|>
|
| No mercury products? Why... out of curiousity? The mercury in
| fluorescents is small and sealed into the tube. It can't harm you
| unless you break it. You can buy CF's in just about any color
| temperature and they do save money on energy. Here in the US, there
| are organizations that will recycle your expired fluoresent tubes in
| case you are worried about contaminating the environment.
I've seen how much is in there. It's enough to worry me. Part of the
problem is when mercury comes in contact with wood, which is what my
house will be made of, it gets in and cannot be cleaned out, but does
slowly leach out over years.
There is also the spectral issue which is poetntially solvable, but
the industry has shown no attempt to do so (probably because there is
not enough market for that). LED spectrum is potentially solvable by
the end user in home constructed LED lighting systems.
| Do you have any coal-fired plants supplying your electricity? Chances
| are the extra energy that you are burning with incandescents is
| dumping that extra mercury into the air that need not be...
I will eventually be adding solar power sources.
| Lots of nasty substances are used to make LED's also, like Arsenic,
| for example, although the amount is small and it is sealed up in the
| case coating.
LEDs are nowhere near as easy to break open.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Phil Howard KA9WGN | http://linuxhomepage.com/ http://ham.org/ |
| (first name) at ipal.net | http://phil.ipal.org/ http://ka9wgn.ham.org/ |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |
| phil-news-nospam@ipal.net 2005-06-30, 6:25 pm |
| In sci.engr.electrical.compliance Michael A. Terrell <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:
| Dimitrios Tzortzakakis wrote:
|>
|> Quote:"But,
|> until then, it will be incandescent for me."
|> I agree with you.For heavily used light fixtures there are 220 V halogen
|> bulbs in Europe which I think are excellent.Are there any for US 110 volts?
|
|
| No, just 120 and 130 volt.
I guess you experience level in light bulb hunting and buying is limited.
There are lots more voltages available. They are usually not in your
neighborhood grocery store other than 110 to 130, but several online
places have many more, and a couple even had 277 volt incandescent bulbs
(a more limited range of wattages for these).
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Phil Howard KA9WGN | http://linuxhomepage.com/ http://ham.org/ |
| (first name) at ipal.net | http://phil.ipal.org/ http://ka9wgn.ham.org/ |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |
| phil-news-nospam@ipal.net 2005-06-30, 6:25 pm |
| In sci.engr.electrical.compliance John P Bengi <JBengi (spamm)@(spamm) yahoo,com> wrote:
| Bottom posters will never understand that principle if they don't understand
| top posting logic.
Top posting logic is nothing more than making a comment, then sending another
copy of the whole previous comment which can be seen by going up by one. It
is just a waste of bandwidth. It is better to just not include anything at
all but just your comment. Only morons can't go back and read the comment
you are referring to.
Bottom posting logic is about isolating specific points in a previous comment
that are particularly being commented on. Then it makes sense to include some
..... but generally not all of ... the previous posting.
If you have a specific _part_ of someone else's posted comment that you
want to comment on, copy in THAT PART alone, and then give your comment.
Don't forget to include naming who said the included part. Otherwise
just followingup with your comments by themselves. SMALLER postings are
easier to read. Keeping the amount included from previous to an absolute
minimum is the best way.
YOUR words need to begin within the screen size. And screen sizes do vary
between different people (mine leaves 55 lines at 120 columns for viewing
the content). If you can't get the start of your words within the first
screen, it is likely to be skipped.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Phil Howard KA9WGN | http://linuxhomepage.com/ http://ham.org/ |
| (first name) at ipal.net | http://phil.ipal.org/ http://ka9wgn.ham.org/ |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |
| Bob Adkins 2005-06-30, 6:25 pm |
| On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 09:30:42 -0700, Anthony Matonak
<anthonym40@nothing.like.comcast.net> wrote:
quote:
>As I understand it, white LED's are not more efficient than
>incandescents although they might be a bit more rugged and
>last longer. The only way to get more efficiency is to go
>with monochrome LED's and try to use a number of different
>colors to add up to a white light. I don't know how effective
>that method is.
Efficiency isn't everything.
LED's lend themselves to use anywhere and everywhere. When the interior
decorators and architects discover them, we will see some very creative uses
for them. Instead of large lights that light up 800 cubic feet of space, we
may see little clusters of LED's in places we never would have thought of.
CF and incandescent bulbs waste a large percentage of their lumens right
around ground zero. Even a 25w CF light is way too bright for human use
within 3 feet or more of the tube. That's ~50 cubic feet of the most
intensely lit area just wasted. Cleverly utilized LED's may eliminate most
of the bright spots some day, and bring bottom line cost close to CF's. Then
too, LED's are in their infancy. There will probably be a couple of major
improvements in LED technology in the coming 5 years that we can't even
imagine today.
Don't pay any attention to me. I think we can do better than 30-120 year-old
light bulb technology, and I'm probably too optimistic about LED's. 
-- Bob
| |
| Dimitrios Tzortzakakis 2005-06-30, 6:25 pm |
| In my bedroom I have a 220 V 60 W halogen light that I use for more than a
year.The 220 V halogen lamps are a recent discovery, and I think are a good
alternative to normal incadescent lamps, which I think are excellent for
most lighting conditions.We have here this german sockets, they are called
Schuko (from Schutz Kontakt, protected contact, which unlike the three
pronged ones are unlikely for someone to touch a live contact) but generally
in Europe there are no polarized sockets with the exception of industrial
applications, for 4-pole or 5-pole three-phase polarized receptacles and
plugs.In my garden I use a 42 volt transformer and special GE lamps,
incadescent of course.
--
Tzortzakakis Dimitrios
major in electrical engineering, freelance electrician
FH von Iraklion-Kreta, freiberuflicher Elektriker
dimtzort AT otenet DOT gr
Ο <phil-news-nospam@ipal.net> έγραψε στο μήνυμα
news:d9ud12023db@news3.newsguy.com...
quote:
> In alt.engineering.electrical Dimitrios Tzortzakakis <dimtzort@otenet.gr>
wrote:
quote:
>
> | Quote:"But,
> | until then, it will be incandescent for me."
> | I agree with you.For heavily used light fixtures there are 220 V halogen
> | bulbs in Europe which I think are excellent.Are there any for US 110
volts?
quote:
>
> There are. I've seen available for purchase online halogen bulbs in a
wide
quote:
> range of voltages including: 110, 115, 120, 127, 130, 208, 220, 230, 240,
> and even 277. But I favor low voltage halogen because that allows the use
> of a thicker/shorter filament for a given wattage. Based on some general
> observations (no scientific study), choosing wattage/voltage combinations
> to get between 1 and 5 amps of current flowing in the filament is about
the
quote:
> right conditions for high temperature, long life, and better focusing of
> light, given current metallurgy. I would probably want to make most
lights
quote:
> about 12 or 18 watts, and simply use more of them where more illumination
> is needed. I will probably use 12 volts for most things indoors, and a
mix
quote:
> of 12 volt for small ground level mood lighting outdoors, and 240 or 277
> volts for safety/security/flood lighting outdoors (a mix of HPS and MH).
> In addition to NOT using fluorescent lighting indoors, I will also avoid
> the use of the common Edison screw base, or any other kind of base where
> it is possible to touch metal connected to one of the current carrying
> conductors. I understand in Europe, these kinds of light sockets are on
> the way out, anyway, especially in places like Germany where the plug-in
> receptacles are non-polarized (and thus you cannot be sure which wire is
> getting the grounded side).
>
> --
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
quote:
> | Phil Howard KA9WGN | http://linuxhomepage.com/
http://ham.org/ |
quote:
> | (first name) at ipal.net | http://phil.ipal.org/
http://ka9wgn.ham.org/ |
quote:
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
| |
| Dimitrios Tzortzakakis 2005-06-30, 6:25 pm |
|
--
Tzortzakakis Dimitrios
major in electrical engineering, freelance electrician
FH von Iraklion-Kreta, freiberuflicher Elektriker
dimtzort AT otenet DOT gr
Ο "SATAN" <satan@hell.org> έγραψε στο μήνυμα
news:K4Dwe.1049922$w62.179315@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
quote:
products,[vbcol=seagreen]
(including[vbcol=seagreen]
But,[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> A little information can be a dangerous thing.
> LED's are less efficient than all but the smallest incandescent or halogen
> lights. And they are far more inefficient than any fluorescent, mercury
> vapor, metal halide, or sodium lamps. All the extra energy you waste will
> put more mercury into the environment (from power generation) than you
could
quote:
> of ever obtained from all the mercury containing lights you could of ever
> bought.
Air condition is far more inefficient than all the globe's incadescent
lights put together.If you want to save, use a fan instead.I do, even when
temperature exceeds 95 degrees.LEDs are semiconductors, are very efficient
since they don't emit heat and have a very long life.
quote:
>
halogen[vbcol=seagreen]
240,[vbcol=seagreen]
use[vbcol=seagreen]
general[vbcol=seagreen]
combinations[vbcol=seagreen]
illumination[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> Smaller wattage incandescent lighting like vacuum/halogen lights are far
> more inefficient than their larger wattage counterparts. Generally, the
> lower the wattage, the lower the overall efficiency. So you will just end
up
quote:
> with a very inefficient lighting system that causes more power to be
wasted,
quote:
> and more mercury to be dumped into the environment.
>
Why are lower wattage bulbs inefficient?Here, the lowest wattage incadescent
bulbs are 25 W, and are moderately warm even after hours.So, I should use an
150 W bulb, when a 60 W is bright enough?That doesn't make any sense.
robably use 12 volts for most things indoors, and a mix
quote:
>
> If you don't want mercury, why are you talking about using metal halide,
and
quote:
> high pressure sodium lighting? MH, and HPS light bulbs have as much
mercury
quote:
> in them as mercury vapor lights. They just have other things added with
the
quote:
> mercury charge to change it's operating characteristics. (ie) halides and
> sodium.
Metal halide lamps use a high voltage of 3.5 kV which is very dangerous to
non-qualified persons and are a real energy catastrophe since their lowest
wattage is 150 W.
And, in actuality, you will be dumping more mercury into the
quote:
> environment with MH lights, than you would be with mercury vapor lights.
The MH lights have an outer tube of quartz which is almost diamond hard and
impossible to break with e.g. a hammer.
MV
quote:
> bulbs last five times as long, so there is one fifth the mercury entering
> the waste stream. And you won't notice any mercury savings from power
usage
quote:
> reduction. Because more power is wasted in making the additional MH
> replacement bulbs, than is saved over the bulbs life from the increased
> efficiency of the MH bulb over the MV one.
>
> If you want mercury free outdoor lighting, then you have to go to low
> pressure sodium.
>
This makes yellow light which is unsuitable for use other than street
lighting.
quote:
>
> Here is a simple lesson in life, if it hurts when you do something, then
don't
quote:
> do it!!!!!
> If you get shocked when you touch the metal in a light socket, and it
> hurts. ...
> Then don't touch it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
>
| |
| Roy Q.T. 2005-06-30, 6:25 pm |
|
Re: CON Ed - CONNING US with HIGH VOLTAGE!
Group: sci.engr.electrical.compliance Date: Thu, Jun 30, 2005, 12:31pm
(EDT+4) From: news@pointerstop.ca (Derek=A0Broughton)
SATAN wrote:
A little information can be a dangerous thing. LED's are less efficient
than all but the smallest incandescent or halogen lights. And they are
far more inefficient than any fluorescent, mercury vapor, metal halide,
or sodium lamps. All the extra energy you waste will put more mercury
into the environment (from power generation) than you could of ever
obtained from all the mercury containing lights you could of ever
bought.
I can't let this pass without comment. You may well be right about the
efficiency of LED's, at least with regard to the amount of light output
for the input current. However, it depends what you want to do with the
light. Why use a string of 5W bulbs on a Christmas tree, when you can
get the effect with a 5W string of LEDs. A 1W LED can provide enough
light to read a book - so why use even a 4W CF? When I walk my dogs at
night, I carry an LED flashlight. It doesn't put out enough light to
distinguish between a skunk and a cat - but it puts out plenty of light
to see "an animal" and where to stoop-and-scoop, and I've been using it
for six months so far without changing batteries. My 6V incandescent
flashlight probably emits 10 times the amount of light - but I changed
batteries (much more expensive than the ones in the LED light) every
couple of months.
--
derek
----------------------
I don't think Satan has to worry about this Issue for long, i hear after
the current billing lifecycle he will be getting free heating and
illumination };-)
Roy Q.T.
Urban Technician
[I don't make em, I just fix em]
| |
| phil-news-nospam@ipal.net 2005-06-30, 6:25 pm |
| In sci.engr.electrical.compliance Dimitrios Tzortzakakis <dimtzort@otenet.gr> wrote:
| This makes yellow light which is unsuitable for use other than street
| lighting.
Actually, it works quite well for reading. The single spectral component
allows for sharp focus even with chromatic distortions.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Phil Howard KA9WGN | http://linuxhomepage.com/ http://ham.org/ |
| (first name) at ipal.net | http://phil.ipal.org/ http://ka9wgn.ham.org/ |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |
|
|
quote:
> Air condition is far more inefficient than all the globe's incadescent
> lights put together.If you want to save, use a fan instead.I do, even when
> temperature exceeds 95 degrees.LEDs are semiconductors, are very efficient
> since they don't emit heat and have a very long life.
You haven't seen a LED of any size.
A luxeon star requires a good heat sink or it will fry it's self.
They have the best efficiency of any white LED, but they still don't match
fluorescents lights..
LED lights usually run 5 lumen/watt, for the normal ones to 25 lumen/watt
for the big $$$ ones.
(Some of the newest $$$$ white LED's are close to 35 lumen watt.)
Most incandescent lights runs about 10 to 25 lumen/watt. (10W vacuum to 400W
halogen )
So, unless you are using the most modern, and expensive LED, your light will
produce about the same amount of heat, for the same amount of light that an
incandescent will produce. The only type of incandescent a LED can replace
with good savings is a flashlight bulb. They usually run 0.5 to 5 lumen/watt
Mercury vapor lights run from 35 lumen per watt for 50W lights, up to 60
lumens per watt for 1000W lights.
It's low end is the top end of an LED's range.
Metal halide runs from 50 lumens-watt for 50W slow start to 125 lumen/watt
for instant start 1000W+ lights
Fluorescent lights usually runs around 60 to 100 lumen/watt.
(Some high output fluorescent lights are up to 150+ lumen watt.)
More than four times the light than LED's make per watt.
High pressure sodium runs about 76 lumens/watt for 50W to 150 lumens per
watt for 1000W.
Low pressure sodium runs about 100 lumens per watt to 175 lumens per watt.
quote:
>But I favor low voltage halogen because that allows the
> use
> general
> combinations
> illumination
> up
> wasted,
> Why are lower wattage bulbs inefficient?Here, the lowest wattage
> incadescent
> bulbs are 25 W, and are moderately warm even after hours.So, I should use
> an
> 150 W bulb, when a 60 W is bright enough?That doesn't make any sense.
You are twisting my words.
He mentioned using multiple low wattage lights instead of one big light.
If you don't need the light produced by that one big light, then you should
use a smaller light.
But you shouldn't use multiple smaller lights to replace the brightness of
one big one.
quote:
> Metal halide lamps use a high voltage of 3.5 kV which is very dangerous to
> non-qualified persons and are a real energy catastrophe since their lowest
> wattage is 150 W.
Standard halide light sizes 50,70,100,150,175,250,400,1000
The local home depot, menards, and lowes stocks all sizes. From 50W, to
1000W
If your local hardware store doesn't have them, find a store that does.
There is two types of Metal halide lights. The slow start, which has a
starting system basically identical to mercury vapor lights, with same
voltages and everything. That is the original type of metal halide light. It
is basically identical in construction to a mercury vapor light, but with
the added halides in the arc tube. Starting voltages are around 200V to 300V
and running voltage is around 100V. They are so close than you can sometimes
put a metal halide bulb in a mercury vapor fixture and it will work. Bulb
life may suck though.
The second type is the instant start with no starting electrodes in the arc
tube. It basically relies on an electronic starter to produce a 1 to 4KV
voltage spike to initiate the ark, and then the ark voltage drops down to
100 or so volts.
The only downside of metal halide light is their life span. A mercury vapor
bulb usually has a reliable life span of 10+ years. Metal halide lights,
even though they are basically the same construction, have a usable life of
only about 2 years. The added halides deteriorate the arc tube quicker. If
you look at an old metal halide light, the ark tube will be solid black. And
that blackening blocks so much light, that the bulb basically has to be
replaced.
quote:
> The MH lights have an outer tube of quartz which is almost diamond hard
> and
> impossible to break with e.g. a hammer.
Metal halide lights have the same quartz glass ark tube that mercury vapor
lights have.
If you are thinking of solid crystal quartz ark tubes, then you are thinking
of high/low pressure sodium lights. They are the types of high energy
discharge
light that uses solid quartz ark tubes.
| |
| N9WOS 2005-07-01, 12:25 pm |
| > arc tube. arc
quote:
> ark, ark arc tube ark tube ark.
>
> ark tubes,
> ark tubes.
I did it again didn't I.
My dyslexic tendencies showing through again.
Once in a while, I switch a letter in a common word, with another like
sounding one, or leave a few out..
I can look right at it, and I don't even see the difference until after a
few minutes..
The first part of a paragraph has arc, then I transition to ark.
| |
| TokaMundo 2005-07-01, 12:25 pm |
| On Fri, 01 Jul 2005 06:59:11 GMT, "N9WOS" <n9wos@nobugatt.net> Gave
us:
quote:
>
>I did it again didn't I.
>My dyslexic tendencies showing through again.
But... but... that is only *mild* dyslexia.. Instead of switching
the placement of two letters within the same word, you switched the
entire word by replacing a single letter. :-]
quote:
>
>Once in a while, I switch a letter in a common word, with another like
>sounding one, or leave a few out..
>I can look right at it, and I don't even see the difference until after a
>few minutes..
>The first part of a paragraph has arc, then I transition to ark.
>
Well, one of our ancestors was on the ARK because of this guy, if he
wasn't careful he may have received an ARC because of the sky...
Excuse me... While I...
| |
| Dimitrios Tzortzakakis 2005-07-01, 12:25 pm |
| Old greek proverb:no talking about appetite.If you like it, you can have it!
--
Tzortzakakis Dimitrios
major in electrical engineering, freelance electrician
FH von Iraklion-Kreta, freiberuflicher Elektriker
dimtzort AT otenet DOT gr
Ο <phil-news-nospam@ipal.net> έγραψε στο μήνυμα
news:da1j4b11j8r@news3.newsguy.com...
quote:
> In sci.engr.electrical.compliance Dimitrios Tzortzakakis
<dimtzort@otenet.gr> wrote:
quote:
>
> | This makes yellow light which is unsuitable for use other than street
> | lighting.
>
> Actually, it works quite well for reading. The single spectral component
> allows for sharp focus even with chromatic distortions.
>
> --
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
quote:
> | Phil Howard KA9WGN | http://linuxhomepage.com/
http://ham.org/ |
quote:
> | (first name) at ipal.net | http://phil.ipal.org/
http://ka9wgn.ham.org/ |
quote:
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
| |
|
| > But... but... that is only *mild* dyslexia.. Instead of switching
quote:
> the placement of two letters within the same word, you switched the
> entire word by replacing a single letter. :-]
It seems, that for me, for a certain amount of time, a word or set of words
will change spelling. I can type a paragraph, read it, and everything looks
fine. Then a few minutes later, I look at it and go, "How the hell did I
make that typo?" Then I look on through the paragraph and find the typo
repeated over and over again!!!!!!!!
I have made it a habit to look for mix-ups like that, but I can go over the
sentence with a fine tooth comb, and nothing will look out of place, until a
little time has passed, and my brain stops crossing, mixing up, or changing
the spelling of a few words. Then I can just look at the sentence in
passing, and go "Crap, that's not right."
I will see "peace" and "piece" interchanged.
I will see "write" and "right" interchanged.
I will see "know" and "no" interchanged.
It is always just a couple letters at maximum, and the words always sound
the same.
Think of posting a large post for thousands to read, and then finding out
that I use "no" every time I should have used "know". "I no it will not
work"
Like the reply I posted. I used "ark" instead of "arc". I would say that if
I was talking about Noah's ark about that time, I would have probably been
talking about "Noah's arc"
A little while ago I posted something about satellites, and I used "arch"
every time I mentioned the satellite "arc". I found that kinda odd..
Normally I will leave stuff out, or mix stuff, not put letters in.
When I am mixing up a word, it doesn't affect my reading ability at all. I
have read thousands of books, and I have never had any problem with reading.
It only affects any word I type, or write down. I can read the normal
spelling of a word right beside my crossed spelling and I don't notice the
difference. I can be copying something verbatim, and everywhere I see "piece",
I will type or write "peace" and every thing looks perfectly fine!!!!!!!
I can look at page after page of schematics, or computer code, and draw out
page after page of schematics, and computer code, and I never make any
mistakes. Anything that doesn't involve words in a spoken sentence, and I am
fine. But if I have a simple sentence, I can't see the obvious fact that I
used "no" instead of "know". I even make mix-ups in the in line comments in
the computer code, but I never mix up the code that the comment is referring
to.
Like this post here. I caught myself trying to use the word "reed" instead
of "read" repeatedly. I know perfectly well that a "reed" is a wooden device
used in wood wind instruments. But when i wanted to write "I can type a
paragraph, read it, and everything looks fine" I wrote "reed it" It became
obvious though, when the spell checker kept complaining about the fact that
"reeding" was not a real word. "it doesn't affect my reeding ability."
I often cuss at myself, but it doesn't help much.
| |
|
| > Fluorescent lights usually runs around 60 to 100 lumen/watt.
quote:
> (Some high output fluorescent lights are up to 150+ lumen watt.)
> More than four times the light than LED's make per watt.
Correction.
Fluorescent lights usually runs around 60 to 100 lumen/watt.
(Some high output fluorescent lights are up to 105+ lumen watt.)
Three times the light that LED's make per watt.
| |
|
| "Matthew Beasley" <null@msn.com> wrote in message
news:J7lwe.7775$8S4.6928@news.cpqcorp.net...
quote:
>
> "Freedom Fighter" <liberty@once.net> wrote in message
> news:w%jwe.367889$cg1.90483@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
light[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> Refering to ANSI C84.1, the standard for North American voltages, 114V to
> 126V under normal conditions is the acceptable range at the service.
Under
quote:
> abnormal conditions, the range is 108V to 127V. By this standard, 126 is
OK
quote:
> but 128 isn't.
The reason for having a range is to allow for voltage drop over the primary
and secondary lines that eventually feed your home or business.
If you live close to a substation or voltage regulator, your voltage will be
higher. If you live at the end of the line, your voltage will be lower.
Utilities try to insure that the last person on the line doesn't fall below
114 volts at the meter. During periods of high usage, that means that the
"automatic line compensation" equipment may be pumping out the high-voltage
equivalent of 126 volts in order to meet that end-of-line requirement. In
Southern California, periods of heavy A/C usage may even cause the 126 volt
limit to be exceeded at times - especially on 4kV feeders or long rural
circuits.
However, if the original poster is getting 128 volts day and night, summer
and winter, then something IS wrong. Many utilities will install a temporary
chart recorder at a meter to monitor the voltage if they can be convinced
it's not just a one-time occurance.
W²
| |
|
| |