- #1
Blank_Stare
- 111
- 66
(I Live in Michigan - no power at home since yesterday, and likely not until Sunday - 4 days, because of high winds.)
My software genius boss (really, he's very smart,) is trying to tell me that the reason that the power companies do not bury power lines, is because it costs money to push it back uphill into the homes and businesses. He insists that gravity is such a big factor that it's cheaper for the power companies to repair lines every couple years around here, than bite the bullet, and bury them - one and done.
Assuming, as he contends, that the power plants are situated in locations that allow a minimal "push" to get the power into the big high tension towers, and therefore have a leg up on the gravity part of the equation, I still think he's wrong.
I have been "playing with" electricty, AC and DC for over 40 years, residential, commercial, even some factory work, and I have never heard this (what sounds like an) outrageous assertion, before.
The fact that a cursory search of this forums doesn't even bring up a single result tends to make me even more "resistant" to accepting the idea.
Still, I am humble enough to know that: "There are more things in heaven and earth, than are dreamt of in my philosophy..." (apologies to Shakespeare...)
So can any of you real scholarly types boil this down to a 30 second irrefutable case for me - either way? I will accept being wrong, if I can understand why. Of course, I'll be thrilled if I'm right, because I'm really hoping it's just more "Junk Science".
I'm just not buying that electricity is more than marginally affected by an altitude shift of even a few hundred feet, if at all.
Thanks a "watt"...
My software genius boss (really, he's very smart,) is trying to tell me that the reason that the power companies do not bury power lines, is because it costs money to push it back uphill into the homes and businesses. He insists that gravity is such a big factor that it's cheaper for the power companies to repair lines every couple years around here, than bite the bullet, and bury them - one and done.
Assuming, as he contends, that the power plants are situated in locations that allow a minimal "push" to get the power into the big high tension towers, and therefore have a leg up on the gravity part of the equation, I still think he's wrong.
I have been "playing with" electricty, AC and DC for over 40 years, residential, commercial, even some factory work, and I have never heard this (what sounds like an) outrageous assertion, before.
The fact that a cursory search of this forums doesn't even bring up a single result tends to make me even more "resistant" to accepting the idea.
Still, I am humble enough to know that: "There are more things in heaven and earth, than are dreamt of in my philosophy..." (apologies to Shakespeare...)
So can any of you real scholarly types boil this down to a 30 second irrefutable case for me - either way? I will accept being wrong, if I can understand why. Of course, I'll be thrilled if I'm right, because I'm really hoping it's just more "Junk Science".
I'm just not buying that electricity is more than marginally affected by an altitude shift of even a few hundred feet, if at all.
Thanks a "watt"...