SkyscraperCity banner
1 - 9 of 9 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
259 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
To continue the theme. I just read this article. Apparently running electricity at 60Hz is 10-15% more efficient. Thats huge. I don't know how much it would cost but its got to be worth it. The government needs to cut 20%(?) of its pollution this would take care of a large chunck of it and it would save you money. The only downside is that it would cause clocks to speed up (except for those on advanced electronics such as computers and videos). A small price to pay in my opinion.
 

·
Gotta lite?
Joined
·
6,045 Posts
How many analogue clocks do we have that run from mains power?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
259 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
Mainly cheap ones. The only problem I can see is ovens and microwaves won't give the correct cooking time. So I guess it would be back to the good ol' egg timer.
 

·
Gotta lite?
Joined
·
6,045 Posts
I havn't seen an oven with an analogue clock since my childhood, do they really still sell these today? And the timers on analogue microwaves are spring loaded, so it shouldn't make any difference on them.

I think it's a good idea if it saves money.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
259 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
I think it will affect simple electronic clocks as well. They probably calculate time using the oscillations of the suppy.
 

·
ISAO OKANO
Joined
·
4,584 Posts
Vertighost said:
. The government needs to cut 20%(?) of its pollution this would take care of a large chunck of it a.
No it wouldn't otherwise they really would have done this already.

60Hz produces 10-15% less losses not 10-15% more "unlossed" electricity. Since losses typically run at around 7-9% that would seem to cut the amount need to be generated by about 1%. Its maybe worth doing but its hardly a huge chunk of the 20%.


Interestingly the UK seems to be heading in the wrong direction whilst Finland and the US have improved.

See page 11

http://66.249.93.104/search?q=cache...to+60hz+save+energy&hl=en&gl=uk&ct=clnk&cd=15
 

·
Gotta lite?
Joined
·
6,045 Posts
Vertighost said:
I think it will affect simple electronic clocks as well. They probably calculate time using the oscillations of the suppy.
I'm no electronic engineer, but I would have thought this to be resolved once the power passes through the rectifier and becomes DC current. Most timings on simple electronic circuitry used to be done via a 555 Timer IC, I'm not sure what is the most common these days.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
131 Posts
Vertighost said:
To continue the theme. I just read this article. Apparently running electricity at 60Hz is 10-15% more efficient. Thats huge. I don't know how much it would cost but its got to be worth it. The government needs to cut 20%(?) of its pollution this would take care of a large chunck of it and it would save you money. The only downside is that it would cause clocks to speed up (except for those on advanced electronics such as computers and videos). A small price to pay in my opinion.
It's a grossly misleading article. Transformer iron-core sizes (volumes) are smaller in principle it's true, but the eddy-current and hysteresis losses (per unit volume) are lower for 50 Hz compared with 60 Hz. The winding losses (per unit volume) are also reduced at 50 Hz due to skin effect. BUT in practice it's a very complicated techno-economic argument. Essentially if you spend more money on copper and iron (steel) you can minimise losses in transformers and other T&D plant as much as you like, whatever the frequency - it all depends on the cost-of-losses figure you apply at the design stage.

Older clocks, it's true, would run 20% faster as they "count" zero crossings of the supply, but more modern clocks use quartz-based timers or the radio signal from Rugby or (nowadays) GPS signals.
 
1 - 9 of 9 Posts
Top