I would just like to point out that I do know what I'm talking about. I studied under the 15th edition of the regs. I maybe a bit rusty but who isn't after 20 odd years.

Also, do you know who it was that wrote to the IEE and pointed out that all electrical and electronic suppliers and manufacturers', in the UK at the time, where in fact in breach of the regulations. In that the regs stated that the manufacturer's plate on any electrical or electronic device must state the true RMS value of the required supply voltage.

Go on. Guess.

Larry

__________________
Confucius says: "One in three is a teacher."

 

That's true although an arc will form at 70.7% of the DC voltage with AC because the peak voltage is 1.414 times higher.

__________________
I also post at the following sites:
http://www.stop-microsoft.org http://www.heated-debates.com
Screen name: Aloone_Jonez

 

Sorry Chumly but DC transmission loss is greater than AC. If what you say is true, Edison would have won his spout with Westinghouse. But that didn't happen because of the poor transmission efficiency of DC. Heavier cables were needed, as well as more stations to boost the power back up to exceptable levels (about every mile). ACs effieciency is far superior to DC. That's why it is used.

__________________
"Remember, you're special.....just like everyone else."

 

Sadly you are sorely confused on a number of issues, some of which are:

Edison so-called "lost" because (among other reasons) DC (at that time) could not be stepped up and down easily, and DC machines were more complex and expensive than AC machines.

You are way off track when you talk about AC being more "efficient" than DC, neither is the case per se, it's application specific.

Total nonsense as per "heavier cables", wire size is a function of ampacity and the insulation's thermal rating.

You do not understand AC Effective Resistance as it pertains to line loss.

 

Chumly,

I agree that AC is easier to step-up/down than DC. I never disputed that. I agree that it is the primary advantage.

As far as the rest of the points you made...I have some research to do.

__________________
"Remember, you're special.....just like everyone else."

 

My Waffle Ommeter has just gone off the scale.!

__________________
Eric
"Good enough is Perfect"

PIC tutorials:
Gramo's: www.digital-diy.net/
Bill's: www.blueroomelectronics.com/

 

Morning Eric!

I have to agree with you. As I understand it (and this is just from what I've read), magnetic amplifiers are still around, but semiconductor amps have taken over for most uses just because they are smaller and cheaper. If magnetic amps can be made smaller and cheaper than transistor amps then of course they will step into the limelight, but the issue has swayed from that point (and it doesn't seem an immediate concern).

As for the defense of semantics: http://xkcd.com/169/


Torben

__________________
Curiosity was framed. Ignorance killed the cat.

 

You are way off topic. My statement was simply that transformers were examined long ago, and the benefits of AC over DC, the transmission at high voltage etc. is well known. I didn't say that magnetics in general is finished. Don't read things into my statements. Mag amplifiers are not even under discussion. Do you look for reasons to rebuke others? If I say anything that can be taken out of context and twisted, you're right there to correct me in front of everyone. This thread was moving smoothly and you jump in and start a rutkus by raising an issue not even relevant to the OP question. BR.

__________________
Claude

 

Well put Claude.

Chumly,

Stay on track with the discussion at hand and stop arguing semantics. If I am wrong, and on occasion I may be, it's fine to dispute that, but don't twist words to cause discourse.

__________________
"Remember, you're special.....just like everyone else."