On 02/05/13 06:32, harry wrote:
On May 1, 8:35 pm, Ian Jackson
wrote:
In message , Andy Champ
writesOn 30/04/2013 20:51, Ian Jackson wrote:
In message , Andy Champ
writes
Yes. And?
If you get an increased load, surely you can maintain speed by
reducing the excitation current - can't you?
This will result in a reduction of generator output voltage.
That's the idea. To reduce power consumption by reducing voltage, but
_without_ changing the frequency. Apparently the UK grid can't do it.
If you lower the voltage at the power station (instead of allowing the
frequency to drop), and somewhere down the line there are automatic
re-adjustments to try to maintain the correct voltage, more current will
be drawn from the power station. If the power station again reduces its
voltage, the same thing will happen again. Presumably it's all a careful
balancing act involving both voltage and frequency.
--
Ian
The object of the exercise is to maintain frequency and voltage at a
constant level. Ideally only current varies.

The problem is local voltage fluctuations.

Frequency is less important now than it was as there are fewer timing
devices rely on it.
Tell that to the German factories running synchronous motors that are
having f to intsall massive UPS/inverters because sudden fluctuations in
the mains frequency due to sun coming out/wind gust coming along are
destroying the machines the motors drive.

Some times I wonder if you actually believe all this ******** harry, or
whether its just you way of amusing yourself by pretending that you do,
or whether you actually are a SPIV and make a living out of selling
useless irrelevant technology to gullible people.



--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.