What REC said: was "lost electricity"

Page 2 of 2  
On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 09:31:36 -0500, "Stormin Mormon"

You're welcome. Looks like Floyd the cyberstalker is still nippin' at your heals though. Sad and funny at the same time.
John -- John De Armond See my website for my current email address http://www.neon-john.com http://www.johndearmond.com <-- best little blog on the net! Tellico Plains, Occupied TN Okay, okay, I'll take it back ... UNfuck you!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
The one time I saw this, the electrician pulled the lead in wire, that had been from the meter to the panel box. He set the wire on the ground, and used his Simpson VOM to read from hot to hot -- there was less than infinity resistance. I didn't see on his meter how many tens or hundreds of K-ohms, but there would have been current flow, with 220 VAC applied.
--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

That may be, but you haven't specified anything significant. How much resistance makes all the difference in the world.
But the original point was that a single *connection* that is corroded and offers a high resistance is a fire hazard, but will *not* cause a higher power bill. That's how it works.
For a given run of wire, as you are describing, if there is enough power lost to leakage between the conductors to raise the power bill significantly, the insulation is going to suffer serious damage and soon result in a direct short. But, until there is a short, it will not reduce the power available to other loads.
Another issue, which obnoxious John wants to discuss, is a high resistance cable loop. That's a whole different beastie, and is a very common problem. It *will* increase the power bill, and might cause damage to electric motors that require high torque for starting (motors driving compressors in refrigeration units are good example).
These are all significantly distinct problems and should not be confused with each other. The OP's is correct in saying that his investigation of high power usage lead him to discover potentially dangerous problems. His description did not make it clear enough that he knew the discovered problems were not the cause of the high power usage, and that lead to some ornery comments by Mike, who was technically correct but had misread what the OP meant.

--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) snipped-for-privacy@apaflo.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 09:30:41 -0500, "Stormin Mormon"

That wouldn't be unusual if the wire were wet, for example. PVC insulated wire that has overheated breaks down and one of the breakdown products is hygroscopic. Thus, moisture in the conduit would not be unusual.
That resistance wouldn't be dissipating any significant power, however. Consider 10kohms and 240 volts. (10kohms would be a very low resistance for such a circumstance so consider it an extreme example) P = Vsquared/R or about 6 watts. The bulk of the heating was simple I^2R losses from the current passing through the conductors and perhaps some conducted heat from the hot joint.
John -- John De Armond See my website for my current email address http://www.neon-john.com http://www.johndearmond.com <-- best little blog on the net! Tellico Plains, Occupied TN If stupidity hurt then they'd be putting morphine in the water supply.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Bob F wrote: ...

Proportionately longer time at lower voltage is still same power...
--
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Except for the losses where the problem is. Which don't heat the house if they're outside. Sorry.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Bob F wrote:

But that loss is independent of downstream load...
--
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
dpb wrote:

??? Loss at a series connection resistance ("problem") depends on the downstream load.
The original statement (Mike) was "If you have a high resistance joint anywhere in your supply then total power consumption will always fall."
A thermostatically controlled resistance heater will use the same power at the heater. I agree with Bob that the power consumption will go up because the power loss at the "problem" adds to the power used at the heater.
--
bud--




Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
bud-- wrote:

...
That's true--I knew this was going to come back when I sent it--just _after_ "Send". :(
If that really was the claim rather than a resistance heater was going to use more power at the lower voltage simply by running longer at the lower input to output the same heating...
--
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

You got it.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Or someone in the house was using a portable heater.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.