Another Zenith bites the dust because of a bad 6X5GT
TwoMuttHeads
marked 312 5052 meaning it's a Sylvania tube made in week 52 of 1950
(or is it week 50 of 1952?). It is shorted across pins 2, 7, 8, 5.
Just about blew up my tube tester. Appears to have fried the PT. I
checked the caps and there does not appear to be any dead shorts
there. The chassis is completely original underneath. I once thought
the problem might have been 1st generation 6X5G, but maybe I'm wrong.
I'll check the PT and see if the wax melted out and caused some wires
to short. When I power up the chassis without any tubes it pegs the
wattage meter on my Powerite. The resistance values appear OK except
for the 6v filament leads that show grounded even after disconnecting
the leads from the chassis.
Engineer
Sorry to hear this. I've never been a fan of rectifiers that share the
6.3 VAC heater supply, even when rated 450 volts h to k.
I've experienced h-k shorts on these types but not heater-to-plate,
nor direct heater short. Hope your tube tester PT is not fried - on
my cheap Heathkit TC-2 the pilot lamp dims if there is heater supply
overload so you get a warning as you try to balance the tester.
Is the radio itself now toast? If not, take to 1N4007 route!
Cheers,
Roger
nesesu
A filament short is fairly rare [pins 2-7] while the more common
failing is either cathode to filament [pins 2,7 - 8] or a plate to
cathode short [pins 5-8]. This one has all three.
Unfortunately, it sounds like your transformer is thoroughly fried. It
seems that the filament winding took the brunt of the overload and
shorted out to itself [the large input current on the powerite] and to
the core [winding grounded when disconnected]. The winding stack is
usually core-primary-filaments-B+, so access to the filament is not
possible without stripping the B+ winding. However, some transformers
have the filament winding on top, so it MIGHT be accessable. On the
other hand, once a transformer has been overloaded enough to fry a
winding, the primary is usually damaged, too.
Neil S.
Bill Noble
is the case, you may be able to cut it off, leaving no filament winding,
then add a new 6.3V Xformer under the chassis to supply the now missing
filament voltage.
if it's not on top, you may still be able to make the short go away if you
work at it a bit pull out some of the filament winding, test, repeat - if
you get it fixed, fill with epoxy and add new fil xformer - and use diodes
not a tube rectifier - put bad tube in socket and just leave socket not
connected
"TwoMuttHeads" <menw...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:e9a110dc-0dc9-482f...@d10g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
TwoMuttHeads
a junker 1941 8 tube console which has the same transformer. I'm going
to pull out the old PT since it needs to come out and check it. I may
put in a fuse and keep the 6X5.
Kenneth Scharf
side. Pull out all the iron leaving the core. unwind the top paper to
gain access to the filament windings. Then see if you can pull the wire
out of the core from the side. This will leave a hollow between the pri
and the hv which you can fill with hot melt glue. Then reassemble the
tranny. You now can use an external filament transformer to replace the
missing winding. If you want to keep the 6X5, get TWO external filament
transformers!
Keith Park
I fuse the HV AC output when I restore these, should I also fuse the
filiment?
Keith
"TwoMuttHeads" <menw...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:e9a110dc-0dc9-482f...@d10g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
Bill Noble
"Kenneth Scharf" <wa2...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:hblklq$bvj$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> nesesu wrote:
> Actually you might be able to pull the filament winding out from the side.
> Pull out all the iron leaving the core. unwind the top paper to gain
> access to the filament windings. Then see if you can pull the wire out of
> the core from the side. This will leave a hollow between the pri and the
> hv which you can fill with hot melt glue. Then reassemble the tranny.
> You now can use an external filament transformer to replace the missing
> winding. If you want to keep the 6X5, get TWO external filament
> transformers!
hey, isn't that what I said? and you don't have to pull it all out, only
until it isn't shorted any more
John Goller, k9uwa
<bbc4383f-f5bc-43db...@e34g2000vbm.googlegroups.com>,
menw...@msn.com says...
shorts killing it... its maybe possible to put fuses in the high voltage
but they would have to be sized exactly correct of just a few mA's above
the actual current draw of the radio in operation. Best is diodes
stuffed inside that base from the now shorted out 6x5 tube requiring no
mods to the radio... or diodes under the chassis and a junk tube not
wired in the socket.
John k9uwa
nesesu
For the record, I DID NOT write that.
Neil S. [nesesu]
Bill Turner
OF 1000 VOLT, I AMPERE DIODES.
CHECK MY WEBSITE: www.dialcover.com
Bill Turner, excuse caps, short answers, stroke.
Bill M
>
> A fuse in the primary will NOT protect the transformer from H-K 6x5
> shorts killing it...
I remember you mentioning this before, John, so I tried it for myself.
I threw a dead short on the output of the 6X5 and poof went the AC fuse.
But I understand thats somewhat different than the h-k situation. I
understand there's some saturation or current collapse going on when the
6X5 shorts...and possibly some differences in xfmrs too. From what I've
seen the xfmrs seem to cook themselves to death over some period of time.
-Bill
John Goller, k9uwa
says...
>
>
>I remember you mentioning this before, John, so I tried it for myself.
>I threw a dead short on the output of the 6X5 and poof went the AC fuse.
>
>But I understand thats somewhat different than the h-k situation. I
>understand there's some saturation or current collapse going on when the
>6X5 shorts...and possibly some differences in xfmrs too. From what I've
>seen the xfmrs seem to cook themselves to death over some period of time.
>
>-Bill
I think sometimes... the over time cooking is due to the in USA line
voltages we get today... normal around here and many places is 125 and
at that level a good Zenith chassis with good transformer and 6x5 runs
way too hot..
How tight Bill did you have the radio fused? Normal start up and run
current on the radio was xxx mA... and it blew what size fuse?
John k9uwa
Bill M
> How tight Bill did you have the radio fused? Normal start up and run
> current on the radio was xxx mA... and it blew what size fuse?
>
> John k9uwa
Probably 1A fast blow. I think it was a 6-tuber.
-Bill
mark
Bill Turner
John Goller, k9uwa
Maybe 20 volts or so unless as Bill Said... you put in a resistor. All of
these Z chassis need to have the input voltage dropped anyway... other wise
your pushing your luck stuffing the plug into todays 125 volt wall sockets.
If you think I am wrong just try a couple of them.. get out your handy dandy
infrared Harbor Frieght temp sensor and see if you don't hit 140 degrees
on the transformer and still climbing.... yeah maybe a new transformer
will survive at that temperature... but think about one with 80 year old
insulation in it..
John k9uwa
Scott W. Harvey
Under normal conditions, the ratings of the original Zenith power
transformers were pushed to their limits. They get very hot under normal
load.....I imagine a wee bit more draw caused by a flaky 6X5 probably
does a pretty good job of slow-roasting the transformer even if the tube
has not yet experienced total failure.
-Scott
Bill M
New question...as the 6x5 begins to crap out is there any noticeable h-k
leakage before they go to full short? I wonder about that because I
have seen some where the xfmr clearly drained all its tar before
complete failure. I don't think they would evacuate themselves like
that if it were a sudden short fault.
-Bill
John Goller, k9uwa
>
>
>New question...as the 6x5 begins to crap out is there any noticeable h-k
>leakage before they go to full short? I wonder about that because I
>have seen some where the xfmr clearly drained all its tar before
>complete failure. I don't think they would evacuate themselves like
>that if it were a sudden short fault.
>
>-Bill
Guess I am not sure on this one Bill. I have had them here where you pull
the chassis and there is a pile of wax on the wooden board under the
transformer. Still a working one that wasn't totally hosed. Whether it came
from 6x5 getting bad slowly ... or if it was just over heat from line
voltage increase?
Most of these I set them at around 105 volts to the transformer and then run
for at least 8 hours observing the transformer temperature. I try to keep
them at 135 degrees F or less.
John k9uwa
Bill M
Ok, next scenario. Lets say the Zenith is chugging along at 125 vac and
drains its wax/tar because of overheating. Transformer then
shorts/leaks and THAT contributes to the 6X5 going south resulting in a
fatality?
radio guy
I think some of these might have got a bad rap when other problems
like bad caps would overload the power supply causing transformer
heating and rectifier shorting. You have people trying a set with no
way of monitoring the wattage draw and puul the plug only when the
smoke comes pouring out. Even those with variacs think they are going
to save something by a slow start. With no monitor such as a wattmeter
or amp meter on the output it does little good.
Bill M
>
> I think some of these might have got a bad rap when other problems
> like bad caps would overload the power supply causing transformer
> heating and rectifier shorting. You have people trying a set with no
> way of monitoring the wattage draw and puul the plug only when the
> smoke comes pouring out. Even those with variacs think they are going
> to save something by a slow start. With no monitor such as a wattmeter
> or amp meter on the output it does little good.
Thats also my thought. I think some of these radios have simply been
run into the ground until they started to stink or smoke and then they
wind up on the 'untested/cut cord' market on ebay.
The weenie-sized transformers in the Zeniths don't offer much wiggle
room. Its not only Zeniths that are like this...but the 6X5 fights hard
to be a weak link in the chain.
I'm an apostle of John and others. Crank down the incoming AC voltage.
Of course we mostly don't have that opportunity until after the fact
and it winds up on the bench.
nesesu
>
> - Show quoted text -
As others suggest, I think that leaking paper caps, especially the
grid capacitor for the output tube will slowly increase the load on
the power supply, overheaing the transformer, and eventiually
destroying the rectifier. I cannot think of any mechanism where a
fault in this type of transformer will take out the rectifier. A 5Y3
type, yes.125V on the primary naturally increases the load current
drawn by the set and thus the heating of the transformer.
I am just finishing up a Philco [19-121 (Canadian)] and it uses an
84/6Z4 which is a large pin version of the 6X5. It has a miniscule
power transformer and the B+ current is near the current limit for the
84/6Z4 normally, and well above when it went on the bench, due to
leaking paper caps, so it is quite easy to overload that tube.
A 6X5 h-k short is usually a catastrophic event where once it starts
to go, the locallized heating just melts the insulator and sets up a
dead short. I did have one unit where there was some odd crackling in
the audio and I saw the sparking of cathode material between the
plates and plate and cathode, but it soon burned off and all was
normal again. Needless to say the tube was promptly replaced.
Neil S.
Scott W. Harvey
> In article <hbvjd...@news6.newsguy.com>, radio...@geeemail.com says...
>>
>> New question...as the 6x5 begins to crap out is there any noticeable h-k
>> leakage before they go to full short? I wonder about that because I
>> have seen some where the xfmr clearly drained all its tar before
>> complete failure. I don't think they would evacuate themselves like
>> that if it were a sudden short fault.
>>
>> -Bill
>
> Guess I am not sure on this one Bill. I have had them here where you pull
> the chassis and there is a pile of wax on the wooden board under the
> transformer. Still a working one that wasn't totally hosed. Whether it came
> from 6x5 getting bad slowly ... or if it was just over heat from line
> voltage increase?
>
I have found that the condition of the melted wax can be used as an
indication of the type of stress experienced by the transformer. A
smooth puddle of wax points to a transformer that has been modestly
overstressed over a fairly long period. If the melted wax is blobby and
looks like discolored rabbit turds, then the transformer has experienced
a sudden extreme stress condition, like a direct short across the output.
Often, transformers that have the "puddle" wax condition continue to
operate perfectly fine, but may have greater mechanical hum than a
virgin transformer. If they have the "rabbit turd" pattern, they are
more likely than not to be bad and thus unusable.
-Scott
John Byrns
k9uwa...@THISarrl.netSTUFF (John Goller, k9uwa) wrote:
> In article <hbrj05$rd1$1...@zook.lafn.org>, bk...@lafn.org says...
> >
> > How much will the voltage rise buy using diodes instead of a tube.
>
> Maybe 20 volts or so unless as Bill Said... you put in a resistor. All of
> these Z chassis need to have the input voltage dropped anyway... other wise
> your pushing your luck stuffing the plug into todays 125 volt wall sockets.
So why is it mostly Zenith sets that people mention as not tolerating
high line voltage well? Did Zenith for some reason specifically design
their radios for low line voltages? I've never owned a Zenith
transformer set although I have owned a few Zenith sets with series
heater strings. In the prototypical AA5 the heaters total 123 volts.
Zenith built some series string sets where the total heater string
totaled only 112 volts, and there was no series resistor to absorb the
excess, at the opposite extreme is a Motorola set I would like to own
where the heater string adds up to 133 volts. It almost looks like
Zenith had a policy to purposely design for a lower than standard line
voltage.
--
Regards,
John Byrns
Surf my web pages at, http://fmamradios.com/
John Goller, k9uwa
byr...@sbcglobal.net says...
John you need to understand that the "Standard Line Voltage" when these
radios were built was 110 volts... thats One Ten ... and most home were
lucky if they actually had 105 volts. Then in later years the standard was
raised to 115 volts and then 120 volts... today its 125 volts... finally
most stores are stocking light bulbs designed for 125 volts.
So way way back when Zenith designed this stuff... yes the cheaped out on
power transformers just a little bit... barely big enough for 110 volts...
when Zenith built the series string radio that added up to 112 volts.. it
didn't need any additional series resistor cause that was what the line was
supposed to read.
Zenith also cheaped out by having transformers with only two secondaries using
that blasted 6x5 tube instead of a 5Y3 and three secondaries. Then of course
enter all the people that kept on running the radios that needed a few new
capacitors plus the higher line voltage and as Scott Harvey said .. you find
a smooth pile of wax on the deck under the transformer from overheating.
There are other makes that are at least as bad but not the real common stuff
we usually see... Farnsworth I run into more than most guys due to the stuff
being built here.. their 40's radios are horribly under transformered.
Anyway hope this answers some of your questions.
John k9uwa
TwoMuttHeads
> John you need to understand that the "Standard Line Voltage" when these
> radios were built was 110 volts... thats One Ten ... and most home were
> lucky if they actually had 105 volts. Then in later years the standard was
> raised to 115 volts and then 120 volts... today its 125 volts... finally
> most stores are stocking light bulbs designed for 125 volts.
>
> So way way back when Zenith designed this stuff... yes the cheaped out on
> power transformers just a little bit... barely big enough for 110 volts...
FWIW: The clamshell on my now-fried PT says this: 95-627N 117 volts
50-60~ 65 watts.
The schematic says the line voltage for checking socket voltages
should be 112 AC.
It's not as burned-up as I expected. Out of the case, the 6v windings
appear normal but the HV test 40 ohms instead of the 330 ohms shown on
the schematic. Since I located another 8 tube junker, I'm going to
swap PT and maybe use a pair of ss rectifers SK 3081 (overkill, but I
have 10 on hand) with 100 ohm 5W resistor.
John Byrns
k9uwa...@THISarrl.netSTUFF (John Goller, k9uwa) wrote:
> In article <byrnsj-8877D5....@news.giganews.com>,
> byr...@sbcglobal.net says...
> >
> >In article <PEoEm.104743$la3.97789@attbi_s22>,
> > k9uwa...@THISarrl.netSTUFF (John Goller, k9uwa) wrote:
> >
> >> In article <hbrj05$rd1$1...@zook.lafn.org>, bk...@lafn.org says...
> >> >
> >> > How much will the voltage rise buy using diodes instead of a tube.
> >>
> >> Maybe 20 volts or so unless as Bill Said... you put in a resistor. All of
> >> these Z chassis need to have the input voltage dropped anyway... other
> >> wise
> >> your pushing your luck stuffing the plug into todays 125 volt wall
> >> sockets.
> >
> >So why is it mostly Zenith sets that people mention as not tolerating
> >high line voltage well? Did Zenith for some reason specifically design
> >their radios for low line voltages? I've never owned a Zenith
> >transformer set although I have owned a few Zenith sets with series
> >heater strings. In the prototypical AA5 the heaters total 123 volts.
> >Zenith built some series string sets where the total heater string
> >totaled only 112 volts, and there was no series resistor to absorb the
> >excess, at the opposite extreme is a Motorola set I would like to own
> >where the heater string adds up to 133 volts. It almost looks like
> >Zenith had a policy to purposely design for a lower than standard line
> >voltage.
>
> John you need to understand that the "Standard Line Voltage" when these
> radios were built was 110 volts... thats One Ten ... and most home were
> lucky if they actually had 105 volts. Then in later years the standard was
> raised to 115 volts and then 120 volts... today its 125 volts... finally
> most stores are stocking light bulbs designed for 125 volts.
John, this is precisely the part that I don't understand, what the real
history of the US line voltage standards is? Starting right at the top
I find it hard to believe that the line voltage standard is 125 volts
today, but I suppose it is remotely possible. I do know that the
standard was 120 volts back in the 1980s when the government forced a
change in the voltage tolerance to improve energy efficiency by
tightening up the tolerance band, I have documentation on that change
buried somewhere around here, the change was not to the nominal voltage,
only to the tolerance. I can also easily believe that the tolerance has
been further tightened since the 1980s. The important question is when
was the 120 volt standard introduced, was it subsequent to the 1930s
when the radios we are talking about were designed? It has been argued
in this group, chiefly by vigorous assertion, that the 120 volt standard
is a recent development, but no one has ever provided any citations to
reasonably reliable references. Can anyone cite a reasonable source
indicating what the US line voltage standard was in the 1930s, and or
when the 120 volt standard went into effect.
Irrespective of what the voltage standard may have been, one thing that
I have noticed is that the utilities voltage regulation has been
tightened considerably over the years. When I was a teenager in the
1950s the voltage at my workbench rarely if ever went as high as 110
volts, and would sometimes drop into the double digits, mainly at dinner
time when all the electric stoves in the neighborhood were in use. The
entire block we lived on was served by a single pole transformer which
was at the far end of the block while we were at the opposite end,
maximizing the amount of copper between the transformer and us.
Interestingly about the time I was in college the power company added a
second transformer at our end of the block and split the line at the
center of the block, at that time the voltage jumped to a consistent 120
volts that was very solid. These were the days before central air
conditioning, and I suspect that the reason for the second transformer
was that people were beginning to install room air conditioners,
overstressing the single transformer in the summer.
At the other extreme was the radio/television transmitter building of
the station I worked at while I was in college where the line voltage
was a consistent 135 volts. Light bulbs burned out very quickly, the
chief engineer had to buy special 135 volt light bulbs from an
electrical supply house. I have always wondered whey the line voltage
was so high there?
Later when I bought my first house in the early 1970s the voltage was a
fairly consistent 130 volts, assuming the substation voltage regulator
hadn't gone berserk, which it did from time to time, oscillating from
maximum to minimum voltage and back again, before finally setting down
again. After the 1980s government inspired changes the voltage dropped
to a nominal 120 volts where it has remained since.
When I worked for the radio design factory in the 1960s we designed to a
nominal 117 volts, although I don't know why and never asked. I have
noticed that the name plate voltage rating of a lot of 1930s radios is
117 volts with a specified range of 110-125 volts. Interestingly 117
volts is the geometric mean of 110 volts and 125 volts, perhaps that is
where 117 comes from.
Alan Douglas
> Interestingly 117
>volts is the geometric mean of 110 volts and 125 volts, perhaps that is
>where 117 comes from.
I believe it is. The standard was 117.5 +/- 7.5V which covered
everything from 110 to 125. Presently it's 120 +/- 5% or +/-6V. I've
re-posted an old post of mine with some information gleaned from the
1927 AIEE Transactions, in another thread.
Alan
John Goller, k9uwa
adoug...@gis.net says...
>
>
> I believe it is. The standard was 117.5 +/- 7.5V which covered
>everything from 110 to 125. Presently it's 120 +/- 5% or +/-6V. I've
>re-posted an old post of mine with some information gleaned from the
>1927 AIEE Transactions, in another thread.
>
>Alan
As Alan said today its 120 +/- 5%.
So ... Stick your wall and tell us what you have?
Mine this evening is 124.6 volts Fluke Mtr. I haven't seen if above
125 or below 123 for a Very Long Time.
K9UWA John
Brenda Ann
"John Goller, k9uwa" <k9uwa...@THISarrl.netSTUFF> wrote in message
news:v6rFm.102843$5n1.19332@attbi_s21...
My place is 118 volts nominal. 116 when both refrigerators kick in.
My electrical system is derived from the Korean 220V ungrounded system (with
no neutral). We use two specially built 5KW isolation step down transformers
(most transformers sold here are autotransformers) with the outputs set up
with a common neutral and ground, so that the apartments have a safe 118V
system. A third such transformer services my shop and the CATV/SMATV
headend room.
Brenda Ann
"Chester Copperpot" <Chester....@Astoria.OR.edu> wrote in message
news:ucqce51ii40mfvfvg...@4ax.com...
> >
>>As Alan said today its 120 +/- 5%.
>>
>>So ... Stick your wall and tell us what you have?
>>
>>Mine this evening is 124.6 volts Fluke Mtr. I haven't seen if above
>>125 or below 123 for a Very Long Time.
>>K9UWA John
>>
>>
>
Thought you lived in Gotham City (where they think Willamette is pronounced
Will-a-met-tee, and Oregon is pronounced Oh-ree-gone)
:)
Scott W. Harvey
>
> So ... Stick your wall and tell us what you have?
>
> Mine this evening is 124.6 volts Fluke Mtr. I haven't seen if above
> 125 or below 123 for a Very Long Time.
> K9UWA John
>
>
>
It's been 124V here in Northern California for several years now. It
used to be 127V until the "California energy crisis" of the early 2000s.
They lowered the voltage slightly to reduce current draw a bit and
relieve a little stress on the "overburdened energy grid" that caused
major portions of our power generation infrastructure to go "offline for
emergency maintenance.*
-Scott
* astute readers will note that I have sarcastically posted key phrases
of the above paragraph in quotes. The reality is that there was no
"energy crisis", "overburdened grid" or "emergency maintenance". It was
all an enormous scam orchestrated by the fine folks of Enron to jack up
the wholesale price of energy to outlandish heights. The consequences
were catastrophic and continue to haunt the entire west coast to this
very day. The local utility, PG&E, went bankrupt. California's $55
billion surplus went to zero as the governor made huge energy purchases
at inflated prices in an attempt to stabilize the west coast's energy
supply, leading later to an enormous deficit which has never been fully
paid off to this day. In order to get PG&E back into solvency as quickly
as possible an emergency rate hike was approved, which overnight made
California energy costs among the most expensive in the world.
Enron went bankrupt a couple of years later, leaving no way to recoup
the losses once the scheme came to light.
All this for a price-fixing scheme that only lasted a few weeks.
Brenda Ann
>>> 122.3 volts in Oregon (Willamette Valley)
>>
>>Thought you lived in Gotham City (where they think Willamette is
>>pronounced
>>Will-a-met-tee, and Oregon is pronounced Oh-ree-gone)
>>
>>:)
>>
>>
>
<--- Hails from the Willamette Valley. Most recently Portland, but in the
past lived in Salem (near the speedway) and once lived Chemekata Community
College. Also for a while in Oregon City. Nice area. When I first moved out
there, Hwy. 99 was mostly trees from the Portland city limits to Salem. I
really miss the place.
Carter
> * astute readers will note that I have sarcastically posted key phrases
> of the above paragraph in quotes. The reality is that there was no
> "energy crisis", "overburdened grid" or "emergency maintenance". It was
> all an enormous scam orchestrated by the fine folks of Enron to jack up
> the wholesale price of energy to outlandish heights. The consequences
> were catastrophic and continue to haunt the entire west coast to this
> very day. The local utility, PG&E, went bankrupt. California's $55
> billion surplus went to zero as the governor made huge energy purchases
> at inflated prices in an attempt to stabilize the west coast's energy
> supply, leading later to an enormous deficit which has never been fully
> paid off to this day. In order to get PG&E back into solvency as quickly
> as possible an emergency rate hike was approved, which overnight made
> California energy costs among the most expensive in the world.
>
> Enron went bankrupt a couple of years later, leaving no way to recoup
> the losses once the scheme came to light.
>
> All this for a price-fixing scheme that only lasted a few weeks.
Enron comments:
Too bad that weasel Kenny Lay died. I was looking forward to him rotting
in jail for a long time.
FYI, his partner in crime Jeff Skilling, who is currently in jail, is
appealing his conviction to the Supreme Court -- and they agreed to hear it.
Stay tuned.
Bill M
> "John Goller, k9uwa" <k9uwa...@THISarrl.netSTUFF> wrote in message
>> In article <hc5sp...@news1.newsguy.com>, NOT_M...@email.com says...
>>>
>>> California energy costs among the most expensive in the world.
>>>
>> Nuke Plants they wouldn't be buying juice from other places.
>
> How does one figure "among"?
>
> I can tell you that our electricity here costs 3-4x what it does in CA.
>
>
How much are you paying there, Bren. I thought it was high here but no
doubt we have some competition. Here lately it has been in the 20-22
cent/kwh on my ~500kwh/month residential acct. We were in the 30s
during the most recent gas hike.
-Bill
Brenda Ann
"Bill M" <radio...@geeeemail.com> wrote in message
news:hc7ml...@news1.newsguy.com...
Ours is a tiered system, so it's difficult (for me) to compute the mean, but
I can give these examples:
100 KWh = ~$6.25
200 KWh = ~$19.00
300 KWh = ~$39.50
400 KWh = ~$70.00
500 KWh = ~$114.00
600 KWh = ~$190.00
Our average during the summer is about 550 KWh per each of our three meters.
Imagine if we had this all on one meter? The highest example on the list on
the back of our electric bill is 1000 KWh = $485. Now try and imagine what
a typical US household that routinely uses over 1500 KWh per month would
have to pay here... CA can quit griping about a mere $.17/KWh..
Scott W. Harvey
>
> Our average during the summer is about 550 KWh per each of our three meters.
> Imagine if we had this all on one meter? The highest example on the list on
> the back of our electric bill is 1000 KWh = $485. Now try and imagine what
> a typical US household that routinely uses over 1500 KWh per month would
> have to pay here... CA can quit griping about a mere $.17/KWh..
$.17 is a baseline rate, and no mere mortal can actually use less than
the baseline amount of energy......You will always go over the threshold
into a higher pricing tier per kWh which is well into the twenties and
possibly thirties.
When we were remodeling our house, there was a couple of months when
every room in the house except for one bathroom was gutted and there
were two outlets to plug things in that were live in the whole house. We
still went over the baseline threshold even with these built-in limitations.
So yeah, for all practical purposes we are paying some of the highest
prices in the world for electricity. Asia really doesn't count because
practically EVERYTHING is outlandishly expensive there.
-Scott
Brenda Ann
"Scott W. Harvey" <NOT_M...@email.com> wrote in message
news:hc8p5...@news6.newsguy.com...
Our rate for >500 KWh is ~$.65/KWh
Michael A. Terrell
Brenda Ann wrote:
>
> "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.t...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:NJCdnQS5S_l0oHXX...@earthlink.com...
> >
> > Brenda Ann wrote:
> >>
> >> "John Goller, k9uwa" <k9uwa...@THISarrl.netSTUFF> wrote in message
> >> news:Y6EFm.103734$5n1.35154@attbi_s21...
> >> > In article <hc5sp...@news1.newsguy.com>, NOT_M...@email.com
> >> > says...
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > Nuke Plants they wouldn't be buying juice from other places.
> >>
> >> How does one figure "among"?
> >>
> >> I can tell you that our electricity here costs 3-4x what it does in CA.
> >
> >
> > 11.169 cents per KWH under 1000 KWH
> >
> > and
> >
> >
> > 13.169 cents per KWH above 1000 KWH
> >
>
> 1-100 KWh = .05/KWh
> 101-200 = .11
> 201-300 = .15
> 301-400 = .23
> 401-500 = .35
> 500> = .63
>
> These are based approximately on the current exchange rate of ~1120 KWN per
> US Dollar.
>
> All power generation here is either coal or nukes. The grid bytes. At least
> it's up 99.9% of the time now, but just TRY to listen to AM radio when not
> in a car..
That is a lot better than here. I had three outages of over three
hours each, this month. During hurricane seasons a few years, I have
had almost full month long outages.
--
The movie 'Deliverance' isn't a documentary!
Bill M
>>
>
> I've heard about some of those hideously long outages. Guess there is some
> advantage to having the government own the distribution system.
Speaking of war stories, in the Dominican Republic the government
contracted most of the power generation to Enron. Actually Enron was
only responsible for about 60% of the generation but that evolved into
90-95% over a few years as the government-owned stations fell into
disrepair.
Worked well but the government should have PAID Enron. They finally
pulled the plug during their hard times and essentially left the country
in the dark.
Michael A. Terrell
Brenda Ann wrote:
>
> I've heard about some of those hideously long outages. Guess there is some
> this when I first got here in 2000, though. Somewhere I have pics of the
> "distribution system" they used to use here in Anjeong-ri. Most power was
> run off the main pole for several blocks, then tied off to a 1" OD pipe and
> run into the building through the wall and connected to a two pole (no
> neutral, remember) 20 amp breaker, usually just attached directly to the
> wall with no covering, then surface run to various lights and outlets (emt?
> What's that?). Our apartment building (3 apartments plus the basement/shop
> circuit) is all run off a drop consisting of whatever Korean wire guage that
> lies somewhere between AWG 8 and AWG 6. Our old place was worse. There were
> 6 apartments running off a drop that looked for all the world like AWG 10.
>
> They've upgraded the distribution system a lot (mostly underground now, with
> transformers every 100m or so on the surface), with nice connection blocks
> to all the downtown buildings and many of the houses and apartment buildings
> (not here, though.. still aerial wiring on this side of town), but still the
> same schlock wiring into the buildings.
Most of the wiring in this subdivision was built between '64 and '66
and has never been upgraded. The half single phase feed from the highway
is the problem. One or the other of the two wires keep snapping. The
cheap bastards will splice in a few feet of new wire, and re-hang the
fallen crap. So far it has started a couple grass fires, and there is a
lot of pedestrian traffic along that road, since it is the only way for
a lot of kids to walk home from school. It also set a wood fence on
fire.
the problem with going underground is all the tree roots they would
have to cut through. Since this is Florida, all those trees would have
to be cut down. Trees with weak or damaged roots fall in high winds and
a lot of trees that are common around here have shallow root systems to
start with. the Water oak is one of the worst. The other problem is
that the right of way along some roads is under water, year round.
Brenda Ann
"nesesu" <neil_su...@telus.net> wrote in message
news:9a516e4a-71c6-49dc...@q40g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
In British Columbia [60 day billing period] the rates are:
Delivery $0.1264/day $7.46 / 59 days
First 1300kWh $0.05910 /kWh
Above 1300kWh $0.0827 /kWh
So, my total bill for 2 months with a usage of 848kWh including taxes
and levies is $61.30
Neil S.
Niiiiiiiiiiiiiccccee....
Phil Nelson
Phil
Pete Bertini
"Phil Nelson" <http://antiqueradio.org/contact.htm> wrote in message
news:IradnfLYD9KYY5zW...@giganews.com...
> 123.1 volts here (near Seattle).
>
> Phil
No such animal as a good 6X5. I always replace
with diodes, or add a dedicated filament transformer
for the 6X5s.