General > General Technical Chat

The "All American Five", & more dangers!!

<< < (7/14) > >>

TimFox:

--- Quote from: Tom45 on April 30, 2020, 04:46:18 am ---
--- Quote from: TimFox on April 29, 2020, 04:03:42 pm ---... Consolidated Edison in New York finally ceased DC distribution totally in 2007. ...

--- End quote ---
To be fair to Con Ed, I think they carried on with DC service for such a long time because there were a few elevators in NYC that used DC motors.  Substituting AC motors and controls was apparently deemed to be a bigger problem than just continuing DC service to the few ancient DC installations.
A search brought this article:
https://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/11/14/off-goes-the-power-current-started-by-thomas-edison/

Apparently the hold outs haven't converted to AC. They just installed AC to DC converters on site.

--- End quote ---


Yes, the very late dropping of DC service in New York was related to elevators.  However, before the War, there was a lot of DC distribution in New York and Boston, a big problem for transformer-operated equipment and the origin of AC-DC jokes (another topic). 
Around 1965, I visited the roundhouse of the Duluth, Missabe, and Iron Range Railroad in Proctor, MN, which still had one or two Yellowstone 2-8-8-4 simple articulated steam locomotives (the most powerful ever built, slightly more tractive effort than the more famous Big Boys of the Union Pacific).  The big electric motors ran on 25 Hz power for historical reasons, which they could still obtain from Minnesota Power and Light Co., although the rest of us enjoyed modern 60 Hz power.

andy2000:

--- Quote from: nfmax on April 30, 2020, 08:55:55 am ---Transformerless TV sets - known and marketed as AC/DC designs - were very common in the UK. More valves makes series heater strings feasible with 240V mains. Surely the AC/DC TV set must have been a thing in Australia, of all places?  :)

--- End quote ---

Transformerless TVs were common in the US well into the 90's.  They did have a polarized plug in the later years, but the chassis was hot regardless of which way the plug was inserted (the negative side of a full wave rectifier was tied to the chassis).  They used an isolation capacitor on the antenna inputs, and made sure there were no exposed metal parts.  Higher end sets with A/V inputs often used optoisolators, or transformers to isolate the inputs.  Occasionally, they installed an isolation transformer, or even added a SMPS to higher end models rather than redesigning the whole set.   

It wasn't an issue other than having to remember to use an isolation transformer while servicing them. 

james_s:

--- Quote from: 16bitanalogue on April 30, 2020, 01:18:23 pm ---I'll quickly summarize your position:

"It is owner's responsibility to understand our cheap, flawed, mass market design."

Be honest, did you even watch the video you posted?

--- End quote ---


Absolutely it is, and yes of course I did. I've been a car enthusiast all my life, I've not yet had an opportunity to drive a Corvair but I'd love to do that. I've driven lots of other interesting and unusual cars, vintage stuff is a lot cooler than anything you can buy today, it's a whole different experience.

Everything is flawed, it's called compromise, can optimize for a number of factors, you can't have it all. You must be very young, cars are a lot different today than they were even 20-30 years ago. Also you seem to have fixated on the Corvair, what about the SUVs that are prone to rolling due to the high center of gravity? Is it not the owner's responsibility to understand this "flawed" design and not drive a big tall truck the same way they'd drive a low slung sports car?

My point is not that the Corvair was a particularly good car, but it was nowhere near as bad as the hype you have bought into. Like the enormously popular VW Beetle it was engineered to be cheap and fuel efficient, and with that came some compromises. I'm going to assume you've never driven a Corvair, or even Beetle or any other cars of that era, you're simply parroting what you've heard without any experience to back it up.

Sal Ammoniac:

--- Quote from: GlennSprigg on April 27, 2020, 01:16:40 pm ---So many times, I've seen ccts where a 'power' switch, if any, actually switches the Neutral!  The VAST majority of power plugs I've seen in America have only 2 pins, and no 'Earth' pin. Now I know that most 'modern' plugs/sockets there now are 'polarized' by way of a slightly wider pin, but still with no Earth??  I understand too that this is 'just' 110v, not 240v like in Australia, but I don't understand the attitude.
--- End quote ---

We have 330 million people here in 'Murica, so we have a lot more spares than you do in Australia in case someone gets fried.  :-+

16bitanalogue:

--- Quote from: james_s on April 30, 2020, 04:57:29 pm ---
--- Quote from: 16bitanalogue on April 30, 2020, 01:18:23 pm ---I'll quickly summarize your position:

"It is owner's responsibility to understand our cheap, flawed, mass market design."

Be honest, did you even watch the video you posted?
--- End quote ---

Absolutely it is, and yes of course I did.
--- End quote ---

...and that the manufacture also has responsibility to make sure their product is safe. Which leads one to...


--- Quote ---Everything is flawed, it's called compromise
--- End quote ---

This. Duh.


--- Quote ---what about the SUVs that are prone to rolling due to the high center of gravity? Is it not the owner's responsibility to understand this "flawed" design and not drive a big tall truck the same way they'd drive a low slung sports car?
--- End quote ---

There is as fundamental difference between "flaws" which appear when the vehicle is pushed to its limit and real flaws that arise from everyday driving. ESC and other electronic nannies, side skirt air bags, crumple zones certainly have made SUVs safer. That's is the fundamental point that automobile safety was an issue even before Nader's book, although hyperbole for some, highlighted the indifference of car manufactures toward safety during that time.


--- Quote ---My point is not that the Corvair was a particularly good car
--- End quote ---

Exactly.


--- Quote ---but it was nowhere near as bad as the hype you have bought into
--- End quote ---

Nope. Per the conclusion in the video that you posted, it was not as bad as it was made out to be, but it did have its problems that lead to loss of control - directly from head GM engineer at the time.


--- Quote ---Like the enormously popular VW Beetle it was engineered to be cheap and fuel efficient, and with that came some compromises. I'm going to assume you've never driven a Corvair, or even Beetle or any other cars of that era, you're simply parroting what you've heard without any experience to back it up.
--- End quote ---

Different cars with the same suspension, yet not the same problem. Per the video that you posted, from the head GM engineer stated the excess weight (due to the rear engine) also played a role.

I never argued that the Corvair was a horrendous death trap. In fact, I stated that it certainly has its flaws (you finally admit to that), the video you posted concluded with that, and that Nader's book (among other articles and studies) highlighted automobile safety concerns. The Corvair was an (exaggerated) example used, but certainly flawed as, again, admitted by you and the video you posted, to propel the industry toward safety.

Please do not continue to dig into this hill you are hell bent on dying on, because now I am just arguing with a stone wall.

Cheers.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

There was an error while thanking
Thanking...
Go to full version
Powered by SMFPacks Advanced Attachments Uploader Mod