Subject:
|
Re: Metroliner question
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.trains
|
Date:
|
Fri, 22 Feb 2002 11:41:52 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
855 times
|
| |
|
|
> AC power is more efficient and can travel longer
> distances, therefore requiring less voltage. (or something like that.)
High School Physics:
To get the same efficiency from DC, we'd literally need a power station in
every district of a city/town.
Despite that, AC power distribution is High Voltage/Low Current (was DC the
same?) as this ensures low power losses (can’t remember the relationship).
Supply AC voltage is lowered (and current raised) at what we call
"sub-stations" in the UK (big transformers?). Key to this is that power (exc
losses) is the same for both supply & distribution: Power = Volts * Amps. In
the UK, most supply points (exc hobs, showers etc ) are 13A / 240v. That
gives us 3.1kw. I assume supplies with 110v have higher current?
What I keep meaning to understand is 3-phase AC... but not today!
Scott A
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Metroliner question
|
| (...) in part true. Mostly because of transformers rasing voltage/reducing amps for same HP/wattage. (that's why long distance power cables are at 500 KV or even 750 KV, because it allows low amp power supply of massive amounts of power-the amps (...) (22 years ago, 23-Feb-02, to lugnet.trains)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Metroliner question
|
| You may be correct, as I really have never seen or studied the systems of which we are referring. My aspects were only mere assumption. I base my hypothesis on a bit of history from the Edison era. In his thriving days of supplying power to the (...) (22 years ago, 22-Feb-02, to lugnet.trains)
|
21 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
