Re: 50hz vs 60hz for generation and transmission
- From: "Blue Cat" <bluecat22@xxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2005 21:36:51 -0500
"Damon Hill" <damonunoseisuno@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:Xns971093D18EF9Bdamon161attbicom@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Steve Spence <sspence@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in news:437b7083$1_5
> @newsfeed.slurp.net:
>
> > sandeep.chittora@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
> >> Hey all,
> >>
> >> Its almost proven that 60 Hz is better than 50 Hz then why countries
> >> still running 50 Hz. I mean there should be some advantages in 50 Hz
> >> too. Can someone throw a light on it.
> >>
> >> Sandeep
> >>
> >
> > There is virtually no efficiency difference between 50hz and 60 hz for
> > equipment designed to work on each particular level.
> >
> > running a 50hz motor at 60hz or a 60hz motor at 50hz can cause
> > efficiency loss and other issues.
> >
> > It was a local choice, and not one that should necessarily need to be
> > changed.
>
> Up until recently, there were major electrical systems in some
> areas of the country running at 16 Hz, or thereabouts. Even lower
> frequency systems existed at one time. Those systems were
> built around a century (or more) ago, and reflect various engineering
> compromises of the time that weren't inefficient enough to justify
> redesign/replacement to 60 Hz.
>
> I don't know of >any< systems running higher than 60 Hz, but three
> phase distribution could be said to run at 180 Hz, depending on how
> you look at the issue. One might think that an arbitrary choice
> of say, 1000 Hz, might simplify some things, but other issues arise
> that I have difficulty understanding myself, let alone try to explain.
>
> If anything, modern technnology might allow an increase in the use
> of DC for power transmission, rather than a change in frequency. Getting
> everyone synched up in phase for a large power distribution system
> being fed by multiple generations in wide-spread physical locations is
> no small trick.
>
> --Damon
There was a program on the History Channel concerning the "power wars"
between Thomas Edison (who favored dc) and Nikola Tesla (who favored ac). AC
won out because transformers could step up the voltage to a high level for
transmission at low losses. North America settled on 60 Hz, while Europe
went to 50 Hz. In most cases the frequency difference is trivial. However, a
clock designed to run on 60 Hz ac would operate slow on 50 Hz and not keep
accurate time (vice versa also). This has ceased to be a problem in modern
times, because most clocks are run by a battery operated quartz oscillator.
AC at 400 Hz was used on aircraft during the Second World War, because
radios and other electronic equipment used motors and transformers, which
would need much less iron to operate, allowing the equipment to have lighter
weight.
.
- References:
- 50hz vs 60hz for generation and transmission
- From: nil_einne1
- Re: 50hz vs 60hz for generation and transmission
- From: sandeep.chittora@xxxxxxxxx
- Re: 50hz vs 60hz for generation and transmission
- From: Steve Spence
- Re: 50hz vs 60hz for generation and transmission
- From: Damon Hill
- 50hz vs 60hz for generation and transmission
- Prev by Date: Re: exergy - obtain pressure from temperature.
- Next by Date: Most Efficient Light Source??
- Previous by thread: Re: 50hz vs 60hz for generation and transmission
- Next by thread: Convection for Solar Ovens
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|