If things run more efficient on higher voltage, then why do we even step down the voltage from the power company?

If things run more efficient on higher voltage, then why do we even step down the voltage from the power company?

Could we not just design our appliances to run on 500 kV?

No you couldn't.

Because we would be killed?

Even attempting to prevent shocks with more insulation would be insanely expensive. You could only really use specialist ceramics to insulate anything.

Also we would need to step down voltage at some point, digital components cannot handle either AC or high voltage.

There... I took the bait

Higher voltages are more dangerous.

If you want to increase efficiency, switch from HVAC to HVDC. It wastes less power and doesn't sag the power lines as much. It also eliminates the need for transformer wall-warts, all you need is a voltage stepdown.

220V DC would be a good way to deliver power to wall sockets. Datacenters and other places that care about efficiency use 220V because it saves money, and all modern electronics are built for both 110 and 240. The main reason nobody switches to full DC is because all the infrastructure is AC

Spark gap is the issue, over 1KV it starts becoming a problem. That said I'm a sparky and would love to see a 1KV / 50Hz global standard.

Can you imagine a short circuit with 500kv?

>he main reason nobody switches to full DC is because all the infrastructure is AC
And becasue AC is easier to generate, right?

Data centers use HVDC for wall sockets?

That guy has no idea what he's talking about, we use AC because it's much more efficient to generate and to step the voltage up and down for long distance transmission. It also allows cheap universal motors that drive 90% of your electrical tools and appliances.

Yes, also safety.

AC switches polarity therefore if you become part of the circuit you are neither attracted or repelled (well you are both atracteed and repelled 50/60 times a second and it cancels out)

Dc can "pull" you into the circuit under certain circumstances, a 110v dc wall socket would be a hell of a lot more dangerous than a 110v AC socket

Generation is DC, AC is transport and most modern devices covert it back to DC before they use it

Generation is 3 phase AC in almost all applications, except for solar. Maybe there are others...

Hydroelectric generators were originally DC, everything was originally DC

Electric shock doesn't "pull" or "push" it makes your muscles flex and that can make you close you hand on a live conductor. Even fast twitch muscle can't react in 20ms so 50Hz AC never "lets go" contrary to popular belief.
AC is actually more dangerous as the peak voltage is higher leading to breakdown of the skin and better conductivity.

Why do I get the feeling I'm the only sparky ITT?

wireless electricity transfer is the answer

until Westinghouse and Tesla made more efficient AC generators

Immediately dislike you for using a picture of edison instead of tesla, you faggot fuck

AC was for transport, not efficiency. Getting it into homes was their main goal at that point

Why does the neutral wire see almost no voltage in an AC circuit?

I know that it is grounded but i also know electricity wants to flow from negative to positive terminals (not the earth)

So when the current is switching back and forth from - to + why does the neutral not see any voltage when the electrons would prefer to flow back to power station?

...

you forgot to add that AC cables demand a higher thickness/ampere ratio cables

Well you pay kilowatt•hour so it might not be a good idea.

50hz is an old standard.
many military planes use a more efficient 400hz AC

just when i thought Sup Forums couldnt get anymore retarded i see this post..

Neutral is center tapped at the transformer on the pole making it a natural "floating zero", we use main earth neutral (MEN) links to ground it and stop it floating under certain conditions.
Basically the active wire goes positive and negative with the AC while neutral is always zero.

I don't think I explained that very well.

If I grab a wire like I'm grabbing my dick, dc will contract my hand muscles round it with greater force because it is constant.

Not saying there is more energy in it than AC but it's effect over muscles is greater.

Also, not a sparky. Mechanical engineer with experience in shocking myself!

What's the worst shock you've had?

Gotta say the most painful for me was a 200 ISH volt electrolytic cap. That stung

nope, most of them use the 3-phase 380V because cheaper power delivery

you'll have to fight with physics quite a bit.

you can actually deliver wireless power... wasting 99.9% of it.

Higher frequency is more efficient over short distance but less efficient over long distances due to impedance. If I had a generator in the back yard powering my house I would want 400Hz but as the power station is ~150km away I prefer 50Hz.

>What's the worst shock you've had?
Most painful was an old magneto, most dangerous was 415 VAC.

then why not 5 Hz over 150 km?

I'm from the UK, so 380v is weird voltage for me. Is that normal in industry?

We have 110v for outdoor/wet/construction environments

240v single phase in pretty much every building

240v 3p and 415v 3p in industry

There maybe more common ones but I ain't no sparky

would you like your lights it flicker at 50hz or 5?

You're lightbulbs would really piss you off!

You can't see it but you light bulbs are turning on/off with each cycle

Since when was everyone on Sup Forums an electrical engineer

Because frequency determines universal motor speed and a 2 pole motor running at 3,000 RPM is useful while a 2 pole motor running at 300 RPM is going to slip like a bitch and have a power factor around 0.2.

c'mon, LED lights run on DC

they all post "tfw khv no gf depression autism suicide thoughts", then as soon as someone says 50Hz is better than 60Hz, you see electrical engineers everywhere

They have rectifiers in the bulb

Hahaha, hit the nail on the head.
P.S. 50Hz is best Hz.

I would guess that these are two groups of people with little overlap

Why is everyone accepting the statement that higher voltage equals better effiency?
If you took a 100w 120v light bulb and stuck it aside a 100w 480v light bulb, which uses less energy?

Neither! They both consume 100w. At least in America, we aren’t charged my the amperage; it’s all about the wattage...

>posting on a chinese cartoon board

Less transmission losses, less copper required, lighter switch gear.
Handing double the voltage is very easy, handing double the current is very expensive.

>Touches toaster
>Dies

Neutral doesnt always carry zero.in a 3 phase distribution circuit it carries the unbalanced load.the 3 main lines can be off as much as 10 volts from the other ones.

So the live wire comes in with enough voltage to overcome the resistance of the appliance to get back to the source along the neutral after the voltage dropped across the resitor and when the polarity is reversed the current tries to overcome the resistance of the appliance but since it is grounded it is easier for it to go to ground (less resistance than the appliance resistance) before getting to the appliance?

lol'd

It's not that it's more efficient, it's just that it translates to a cleaner DC voltage when rectified.