On Thu, 04 Oct 2007 16:47:02 -0400 kony <spam@spam.com> wrote:

|>Maybe if you work out the math for all the other parts in the PSU,
|>maybe we can see where the other 99% of the power is lost.
|
| There isn't 100% power lost, if there were there wouldn't be
| any output to the system.

I think I figured out where the difference is. We were not talking
about the same thing. You were giving the percentage of the overall
power UTILIZATION that the rectifier represented as a loss, whereas
I was giving the percentage OF THE LOSS that the rectifier contributed.


|>That's _why_ I suggested solar ... because it does not need a rectifier.
|
| But it needs the cells, battery, wiring for it, when there
| is an existing AC grid ready for the purpose. These parts
| also have loss in manufacturing, minor loss in use. If it
| were a better general way to power a computer, that's what
| we'd be using.

I'm not saying solar is a better way to power a computer. But it might
get uused in some cercumstance "because it is there". If I were doing
it, I'd rather have the solar charge a bank of batteries that drive a
set of paralleled inverters to produce AC and run the AC through the
whole house. Other power source (utility, generator, windmill, etc)
would also be driving the battery charging, if I had a system like that
(I'd like to, but I don't right now).

--
|---------------------------------------/----------------------------------|
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (ka9wgn.ham.org) / Do not send to the address below |
| first name lower case at ipal.net / spamtrap-2007-10-04-2326@ipal.net |
|------------------------------------/-------------------------------------|