Re: Why not 400 Hz AC?

On Mon, 30 Apr 2007 18:00:39 GMT, "Homer J Simpson" <nobody@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

Reading the post about square wave AC I see that higher frequency AC
makes for noisy motors and transformers. Is this the only reason not
to use higher frequency power?

The losses are higher. 16? Hz power was used for some European rail systems.

Yes, exactly one third of 50Hz we use in scandinavia
for our rail systems (16000 Volts).


The use of lower frequencies also provided the advantage of lower impedance
losses, which are proportional to frequency. It was this argument that
resulted in the use of 25 Hz in the initial generation installations at
Niagara Falls, in anticipation of long-distance transmission to Toronto.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternating_current

For long lines low frequency is better. DC is best.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Why not 400 Hz AC?
    ... Is this the only reason not ... to use higher frequency power? ... The losses are higher. ... The use of lower frequencies also provided the advantage of lower impedance ...
    (sci.electronics.basics)
  • Re: Why not 400 Hz AC?
    ... for our rail systems. ... losses, ... in anticipation of long-distance transmission to Toronto. ...
    (sci.electronics.basics)
Loading