phil-news-nospam@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote in news:fv2fcv211fm@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Sun, 27 Apr 2008 08:30:20 -0500 Jer <gdunn@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>| phil-news-nospam@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
>|> On Sun, 27 Apr 2008 01:30:53 -0400 Bishoop <none@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>|> wrote:
>|>
>|> | "Lee" <lbray5032@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>|> | news:F3MQj.33895$tG6.12630@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>|> |> Rog' wrote:
>|> |>> Is there any reason for those of us who rely on cable or
>|> |>> satellite, and expect that we always will, to buy a subsidized
>|> |>> converter for our analog-TV's? Maybe just in case someone blows
>|> |>> up our cable-headquarters and takes out the satellites?
>|> |>
>|> |> How about losing your power and you drag out your battery TV that
>|> |> you plugged into the car to check on the storm? I keep one just
>|> |> for that reason as I live in Florida.
>|> |>
>|> |> L e e
>|> |
>|> | Doesn't the converter box require AC power?
>|>
>|> The one I saw in Walmart requires DC. I presume they provide an
>|> adaptor to convert the AC to DC.
>|>
>|> Or you could wait until the government changes AC over to DC.
>|>
>|
>|
>| Kewl! I've been waiting for the op****tunity to use my new v2.0
>| jumper cables from the car to power the house. It may sound kinda
>| kludgey, but I'm ready for an upgrade.
>
> Those jumper cables may not be UL listed for the voltages involved :-)
>
> There are a lot of things that could be better about the way
> electricity is delivered to homes (maybe changing to DC is one of
> them). But it is simply not practical to make the change because so
> many things are not ready. One such change I propose is increasing
> the voltage. It would be more efficient in most cir***stances. We
> know how to keep it safe, now. And for a great many things, it's not
> hard to make them "240 ready". Virtually every computer already is,
> for example. DC, OTOH, would be a lot harder, even though we do have
> the technology to step DC down from distribution voltages (2kV to
> 35kV) to delivery voltages (100V to 600V).
conversion losses would be too high.
BTW,distribution voltages run as high as 100s of thousands of volts.
I believe there are a few megavolt lines,too.
> Still, had Edison
> prevailed in having DC everywhere, while we might have had many
> difficulties through the 1900's, we might well be better off now (for
> example an electronic ballast can run a fluorescent light using DC
> when designed for that purpose).
>
every small appliance in your house would need replacing.
Anything with a small motor;they generally cannot be rewired for 240v.
you would need new wall-warts for other items.
Transmission of DC power is far more difficult.
BTW,I took apart a failed compact fluorsecent and the electronic ballast
first rectifies the incoming AC to DC.(using a voltage doubler,too.)
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net
|
