🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <787@larry.sal.wisc.edu> sde@larry.sal.wisc.edu.UUCP (Scott Ellington) writes:
> I don't know about the history or politics of the choice of 50 Hz for
> power distribution in Europe, but it may have been a simple engineering
> trade-off.  At 50 Hz, transmission losses are a little lower that at 
> 60 Hz, but motors and transformers are larger and more expensive.

Actually, If I remember all this sillyness, for power equipment including
motors and transformers lower frequencies are still cheaper because AC core
losses (eddy current, hysteresis, etc), are lower allowing less complicated
construction (thicker/few lamination) and less cooling. 

Some of the major U.S. railroad electrification projects used 25 Hz for
just this reason and were still using 25 Hz up to a few years ago, though
the economies of custom power generation/converison had vanished with the
advent of major power nets.

Don't ask me why they didn't use 30 Hz...


-- 
George Robbins - now working for,	uucp: {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!grr
but no way officially representing	arpa: cbmvax!grr@uunet.uu.net
Commodore, Engineering Department	fone: 215-431-9255 (only by moonlite)