| Chronology | Current Month | Current Thread | Current Date |
| [Year List] [Month List (current year)] | [Date Index] [Thread Index] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] | [Date Prev] [Date Next] |
The "loss fraction" on the page you mention is the ratio of
(power lost) / (power delivered)
It was not
(power lost) / (power generated).
So if you generate 1 kWh and 0.1 kWh is delivered and 0.9 kWh are lost, you could either say that 90% of the original power is lost (always between 0-1), or that 9 times as much power is lost as delivered (between 0 and infinity). These are two ways of saying the same thing.
Tim
________________________________________
From: Phys-l [phys-l-bounces@phys-l.org] on behalf of Savinainen Antti [antti.savinainen@kuopio.fi]
Sent: Friday, May 23, 2014 3:38 AM
To: phys-l@phys-l.org
Subject: [Phys-L] Power loss in transmission lines
Hi,
I suppose that the power loss in transmission lines is part of most intro courses on E&M. The basic idea is quite clear: given a certain produced power, the greater the voltage the smaller the current is, which means the smaller power loss in the transmission lines. So far so good. We had a simple quantitative calculation on the power loss and I casually asked my students check the case when the voltage is pretty low. This gave a nonsensical answer. I looked at the situation,and quickly derived a formula of the loss fraction. The same formula can be found here: <http://www.bsharp.org/physics/transmission> (Scroll down to the section "High-Voltage Transmission Lines").
What bothers me is that the loss fraction can conceivably be one or even more, which is clearly not physical. Perhaps I am missing something?
Regards,
Antti
--
*************************************************************************
Viesti on tarkastettu roskapostinsuodatus- ja virustorjuntaohjelmistolla.
*************************************************************************