> > Are the people stooopid or is it just too un-PC ?
> advertising campaigns to discourage the practice.
The theft of CABLES was advertised-against. And the illegal connections
were condemned mostly in the context of DANGER - continuing the
idea that electricity like water is god-given and not a commodity
subject to economic laws - part of the leftist's human-rights myth.
> > illegally'. What's a good goog-phrase, since it's obviously well
> > documented in/about India - they don't suffer from
> > PC-inhibitions.
> It would be hard to quantify. I wonder how they quantify the
> percentage of illegal connections in India - or any other country. By
> definition it can't be metered. They might come up with a reasonable
> ball park number of connections, but that's not usage. It's always in
> the nature of these things that users do not consume proportionally. >
In long-hand: "30% of generated electricy power [less transmission
losses] is estimated to be diverted to illegal connections".
Besides the 'Subject:' refers to percentage electricity stolen, NOT
percentage illegal connections.
In order to use google, one needs to supply parameters: typically
word[s] or phrases.
In the case that an applicable but uncommon word is on hand,
this may be effectively used as a search parameter.
When no suitable word[s] are on hand, a phrase might succeed
to locate the required material, at the same time omitting
Since Google is an uncommon word and has become familiar with
inet/newsGroup users, I assume the word "goog" will be recognised
as an abreviated for "Google" ..................
> > Phinias Chipekwe took his new TV back to the supplier for
> > repair, telling that it went on & off by itself.
> > When Phinias returned to collect the repaired set, he was told
> > that a thorough long time test has found nothing wrong.
> > When Phinias got his TV home it still was defective.
> > He managed to get some one from the repair-shop
> > to witness the problem: it was switching off according to
> > the nearby traffic lights.
> I say that's bollocks. Because traffic lights CHANGE, they don't
> switch off. You know... green goes out, red comes on. It's not a
> difficult thing to grasp.
Perhaps you think the switching mechanism is in each pole with the
lights. Technology would make this possible/and-cheaper today.
But the indusrty is very conservative.
Since there is typically more than one 'pole' bearing lights at an
intersection, this 'system of poles' needs to be mutually syncronised.
Which means one controlling master and one or more controlled
slaves. Which means that at least one light-pole is remote from the
switching mechanism. Which means that any wire feeding a slave
pole which is live at some time can be expected to be non-live at
a different time of the cycle. Which would switch of Phinias' TV.
Technically a control signal, plus a constantly live single pair to power,
a pole is possible, and is more economical with the price ratio of
copper to electronic circuitry. But many/most existing systems
don't do this yet AFAIK.
> > Ask some one to explain it to you.
> I'm sure you can make recommendations. I'd wager that you have to have
> things explained to you quite frequently.
> > BTW do new TV's 'show' in less time than a traffic-light-cycle ?
> Well first you have to assume that a "traffic-light cycle" is a
> uniform measure of time. Or you have to be trying to impress people
> with your ready wit. And failing.
how/why: 'you have to assume that a "traffic-light cycle" is a
uniform measure of time' ??
BTW "do new TV's 'show' " translates/expands to:
* the new technology [possibly faster],
* stabilise electrically/optically sufficient to show the image.
Older CRTs [cathode ray tubes] would not have sufficient time to
heat up the cathode element in a normal [take your pick: red,
green, amber on cycle ...]. Oh shit I can't continue these
kindergarten explanations !
> > Are the people stooopid or is it just too un-PC ?
> Here, let me explain it to you.
> The power supply to traffic lights is constant.
for by the corresponding red light 'going on', which tend to make the
electricity consumption constant. Which seems to me an interesting
observation but not relevant to the discussion ?
> coloured lights are controlled by switches. So it's not a case of the
> green light power supply going off and the red light power supply > coming on.
> In fact the traffic light switches are even cleverer than
> simple switches. They have synchronised switches! When the lights in
> one direction change the lights in the other direction also change,
> but to the opposite pattern. And then there are yellow lights,
> flashing arrows etc. But it's all too complex to explain to someone
> who can't even work out how to steal electricity from the nearest sub-
> station, something Phinias mastered years ago.
traffic-light-pole, which would be nearer than the nearest substation.
Based on observations in Joburg, many light-pole cover plates are
missing, exposing the wires since the ANC was given political control.
I guess the street light poles are mostly centrally controlled, although
I've heard of one's which switch individually via their own day-light
So ! If Phinias wants electricy supply during the day, he has problems
to locate a mostly live line. Perhaps he's at a low traffic location,
where the default is steady and cycling is initiatied by [rare] traffic.
I'm cross-posting this to to some tech-groups to spread the laughter.
== Chris Glur. .....be happy, don't worry.