[4127] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: MAE-East still no generator
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Alan Hannan)
Sun Sep 8 01:28:49 1996
From: Alan Hannan <alan@gi.net>
To: nanog@merit.edu
Date: Sun, 8 Sep 1996 00:23:33 -0500 (CDT)
In-Reply-To: <199609080444.VAA25200@scruz.net> from "Matthew Kaufman" at Sep 7, 96 09:44:31 pm
Howdy,
As a few folks have pointed out, my less than eloquent
explanation of why AC is more economic than DC over distance is
not as accurate as it could be. I could argue what I meant as
opposed to what I wrote, but I'd still be a bit off :)
Regardless, the point still stands that there's nothing inherently
"modern" about AC as opposed to DC.
The larger issue is having the appropriate pieces of
telephony/routing/switching backed up w/ a reliable supply.
Or mischievous hands moving power cables around :)
-alan
......... Matthew Kaufman is rumored to have said:
]
] Original message <199609080429.XAA10713@westie.gi.net>
] From: Alan Hannan <alan@gi.net>
] Date: Sep 7, 23:28
] Subject: Re: MAE-East still no generator
] >
] >
] > Howdy,
] >
] > To stay in the tradition of the NANOG mailing list, I will take
] > this subject a bit off topic. :-)
] >
] > The common American household and business operates on Alternating
] > Current mainly because of distance.
] >
] > Over long distances, Alternating Current loses less energy in
] > transferring energy than Direct Current. For proof, imagine the
] > energy actually moving from point a -> point b (as in DC) or
] > moving back and forth in millions of sets between points a and b.
] > (and not moving as far) (as in AC).
]
] The real reason that AC is more efficient to transmit is that transformers
] work on AC, and that means you can, with little effort, trade amps for volts.
] Then you get to transmit the power at high voltage, but low current draw.
] That means thin wires (saves copper) and less resistive loss (saves energy).
]
] Are we far enough off topic yet?
]
] -matthew kaufman
] matthew@scruz.net
]
]
]
