Howdy, As a few folks have pointed out, my less than eloquent explanation of why AC is more economic than DC over distance is not as accurate as it could be. I could argue what I meant as opposed to what I wrote, but I'd still be a bit off :) Regardless, the point still stands that there's nothing inherently "modern" about AC as opposed to DC. The larger issue is having the appropriate pieces of telephony/routing/switching backed up w/ a reliable supply. Or mischievous hands moving power cables around :) -alan ......... Matthew Kaufman is rumored to have said: ] ] Original message <199609080429.XAA10713@westie.gi.net> ] From: Alan Hannan <alan@gi.net> ] Date: Sep 7, 23:28 ] Subject: Re: MAE-East still no generator ] > ] > ] > Howdy, ] > ] > To stay in the tradition of the NANOG mailing list, I will take ] > this subject a bit off topic. :-) ] > ] > The common American household and business operates on Alternating ] > Current mainly because of distance. ] > ] > Over long distances, Alternating Current loses less energy in ] > transferring energy than Direct Current. For proof, imagine the ] > energy actually moving from point a -> point b (as in DC) or ] > moving back and forth in millions of sets between points a and b. ] > (and not moving as far) (as in AC). ] ] The real reason that AC is more efficient to transmit is that transformers ] work on AC, and that means you can, with little effort, trade amps for volts. ] Then you get to transmit the power at high voltage, but low current draw. ] That means thin wires (saves copper) and less resistive loss (saves energy). ] ] Are we far enough off topic yet? ] ] -matthew kaufman ] matthew@scruz.net ] ] ]