My understanding is that 60 Hz was the best "compromise"
between the amount tolerable losses and the amount of required
iron.
Mark WB8JKR
On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 07:29:46 -0800 Bill Turner <wrt@dslextreme.com>
writes:
> On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 23:50:33 -0500, <kayser@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> >There is in some ways a genius in the 110/220 decision so many
> years ago.
>
> _________________________________________________________
>
> Too bad they went with a relatively low frequency. 400 Hz is widely
> used in aircraft and has numerous advantages. In fact, if they
> would
> go to ~1000 Hz, electrocution would become a thing of the past. The
> human nervous system can not sense an electric shock when the
> frequency is higher than 600-700 Hz or so. One could still get a
> nasty burn, but think how many lives would be saved.
>
> OT, to be sure.
>
> --
> Bill, W6WRT
>
> _______________________________________________
> Amps mailing list
> Amps@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/amps
>
________________________________________________________________
The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!
_______________________________________________
Amps mailing list
Amps@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/amps
|