Re: Why not 400 Hz AC?


"Ken" <_ken_3_@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:elic33t3iorodiuqn869i5i44np3948sjv@xxxxxxxxxx

The losses are higher. 16 2/3 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.

Essential for undersea transmission.





.