I mean in the context of the current crisis: as a factor/excuse NOW. 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.
The quote marks mean THINK beyond the abreviated [inet-style] text. 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.
Google is the name of a [currently] very effective search engine. 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 irrelevant material. 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" ..................
"green goes out" sounds like "switch off" to me ?
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.
There's a thing which I need to have explained to me: 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 !
problems@gmail wrote:
Moira de Swardt wrote:-
Perhaps you mean that if the green light 'goes off' this is compensated 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 ?
I believe it is, but please elaborate.
The nearest street light would be nearer [on average] than the nearest 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 detectors.
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.