Transition to DC

[Rematog]

Hmm….

So, the HVDC systems us AC transformers to change the voltage at each end, rectify/invert to/from DC at that voltage, etc.

SO, if you want a DC tranmission/distribution/household use system, at each step you invert to AC, use a conventional transformer to change the voltage up or down, then rectify back to DC…

Why would this be better???

[Aeronaut]

Rematog wrote: Hmm….

So, the HVDC systems us AC transformers to change the voltage at each end, rectify/invert to/from DC at that voltage, etc.

SO, if you want a DC tranmission/distribution/household use system, at each step you invert to AC, use a conventional transformer to change the voltage up or down, then rectify back to DC…

Why would this be better???

If somebody (say a Peer) really wanted to do HVDC, we could generate the DC by re-fitting the Hoover Dam’s powerhouse with Faraday Disks. I suppose said Peer would have a strong position in copper futures, of course…

[Brian H]

Aeronaut wrote:

Hmm….

So, the HVDC systems us AC transformers to change the voltage at each end, rectify/invert to/from DC at that voltage, etc.

SO, if you want a DC tranmission/distribution/household use system, at each step you invert to AC, use a conventional transformer to change the voltage up or down, then rectify back to DC…

Why would this be better???

If somebody (say a Peer) really wanted to do HVDC, we could generate the DC by re-fitting the Hoover Dam’s powerhouse with Faraday Disks. I suppose said Peer would have a strong position in copper futures, of course…

Aero;
Peer? No Peers in America. Moguls, senators, and Pork Kings, yes, but no Peers.

Rematog;
Each of those “steps” is lossy, of course. I suppose if the power is cheap enough, you don’t care, though.

[Aeronaut]

Brian H wrote:

Hmm….

So, the HVDC systems us AC transformers to change the voltage at each end, rectify/invert to/from DC at that voltage, etc.

SO, if you want a DC tranmission/distribution/household use system, at each step you invert to AC, use a conventional transformer to change the voltage up or down, then rectify back to DC…

Why would this be better???

If somebody (say a Peer) really wanted to do HVDC, we could generate the DC by re-fitting the Hoover Dam’s powerhouse with Faraday Disks. I suppose said Peer would have a strong position in copper futures, of course…

Aero;
Peer? No Peers in America. Moguls, senators, and Pork Kings, yes, but no Peers.

Rematog;
Each of those “steps” is lossy, of course. I suppose if the power is cheap enough, you don’t care, though.

Peers do officially sanctioned science. The Faraday Disk is the world’s oldest DC generator design and is still used when lots of DC amps are needed at a really low voltage and the price of the input power can be ignored. Scale this up to the pork level, and I suppose you could get any DC volt/amp output you wanted. Good job for a big computer- I’d guess around 80 disks, with diameters of at least twenty feet.

And all that still might be cheaper to build and operate than the readily apparent ways.

[Rematog]

Regarding loss, HVDC is only lower loss if lines are long enough that the line loss is greater the the inverter/rectifier loss.

ALSO… note that HVDC is harder to connect into a complicated system (network). Is is generally used to take power from point A to point B….No C’s allowed.

[Brian H]

Aeronaut wrote:

Hmm….

So, the HVDC systems us AC transformers to change the voltage at each end, rectify/invert to/from DC at that voltage, etc.

SO, if you want a DC tranmission/distribution/household use system, at each step you invert to AC, use a conventional transformer to change the voltage up or down, then rectify back to DC…

Why would this be better???

If somebody (say a Peer) really wanted to do HVDC, we could generate the DC by re-fitting the Hoover Dam’s powerhouse with Faraday Disks. I suppose said Peer would have a strong position in copper futures, of course…

Aero;
Peer? No Peers in America. Moguls, senators, and Pork Kings, yes, but no Peers.

Rematog;
Each of those “steps” is lossy, of course. I suppose if the power is cheap enough, you don’t care, though.

Peers do officially sanctioned science. …
Actually, in the context of “peer review” the original intent was to do mutually sanctioned science, excluding kooks without submitting to fossilized authority, by using co-specialists and other “equals”.
It’s very interesting (link not to hand just now) that it now seems peer-reviewers get worse with experience, and counselling, using metrics, or other efforts to stop or reverse the process are useless. Such is the force of intellectual arrogance and group-think in concert!

[Author]

Posts