Slashdot Mirror


University Switches To DC Workstations

An anonymous reader writes "Researchers at the University of Bath, UK are undertaking an in-depth study of energy consumption within the new network, with the aim of demonstrating that running a large network of devices on DC rather than AC is both more secure and more energy efficient. AC electric power from the grid is converted to DC and runs 50 specially adapted computers in the University Library. Students using the system have noticed that the new computers are more compact and much quieter than the previous systems. The immediate advantages of the new system are not only for the user but for the energy bill payer and the environment."

468 comments

  1. So... what? by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 2

    They switched to laptops?

    --

    "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    1. Re:So... what? by somersault · · Score: 5, Funny

      Tesla is giggling in his grave

      --
      which is totally what she said
    2. Re:So... what? by AndyAndyAndyAndy · · Score: 1

      Edison was a hack!

      --
      It's always confirmation bias!
    3. Re:So... what? by crank-a-doodle · · Score: 0

      Good one!:P

    4. Re:So... what? by Opportunist · · Score: 5, Funny

      Too bad, if he was rotating it would probably generate some power.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    5. Re:So... what? by ShakaUVM · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Edison: "Genius is one percent inspiration and ninety-nine percent perspiration."

      Tesla: "If Edison had a needle to find in a haystack, he would proceed at once with the diligence of the bee to examine straw after straw until he found the object of his search. I was a sorry witness of such doings, knowing that a little theory and calculation would have saved him ninety percent of his labor."

    6. Re:So... what? by danlip · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Truthfully both approaches are valuable, and we would be a poorer planet without either of these men. It's a shame they disliked each other so much.

      Edison: "Genius is one percent inspiration and ninety-nine percent perspiration."

      Edison contracted out all his perspiration. That's genius.

    7. Re:So... what? by Junior+J.+Junior+III · · Score: 5, Informative

      Tesla was the one who advocated for AC power. Edison was the one who argued for DC as the safer choice, and publicly electrocuted horses and other animals using AC to show how unsafe it was.

      --
      You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
    8. Re:So... what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If Tesla had half Edison's ability for self-promotion and half of George Westinghouse's business sense and some say, crookedness, we might have had "Telsa Electric" and the "Telsa Genius" prize.

      Whenever I think of Telsa's story, it just breaks my heart.

    9. Re:So... what? by pnewhook · · Score: 1

      Truthfully both approaches are valuable, and we would be a poorer planet without either of these men

      Without Edison there would have been a lot less tortured puppies, cats horses and elephants.. Edison arguably invented very little, instead taking the inventions of people who worked for him and claiming then as his own.

      --
      Tesla was a genius. Edison however was a overrated hack who liked to torture puppies.
    10. Re:So... what? by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      Just like a modern corporation?

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    11. Re:So... what? by GooberToo · · Score: 1

      I've always thought they were both right - sort of. Tesla is right about power distribution. Edison was very, very wrong, as he all too frequently was. But, D/C does have many uses once its at a consumption point.

      I never understood why we don't have converters in every house. Simply deliver the power as A/C and provide for A/C and D/C in every house. Keep A/C for things like laundry and dish washing and D/C for most everything else in the house. There would be many advantages to such a dual scheme. Just imagine how much more efficient everything would be.

    12. Re:So... what? by oh_my_080980980 · · Score: 1

      Ummm...no...you just added to the complexity if the wiring of the house. The advantage of A/C is that the same supply line can power all devices in a residence.

      Engergy efficiency has little to do with the device itself.

    13. Re:So... what? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      I've always thought they were both right - sort of. Tesla is right about power distribution. Edison was very, very wrong, as he all too frequently was. But, D/C does have many uses once its at a consumption point.

      Aren't we using HVDC in new long-haul links today to avoid the inductive losses of HV A/C?

      I never understood why we don't have converters in every house. Simply deliver the power as A/C and provide for A/C and D/C in every house.

      Because then you have to run bus bars around the house to deliver those low voltages efficiently, which creates a whole new class of problems. Seems to me like A/C is really useful in medium-range distribution, but that also seems to include "from the panel to your appliances." And since it makes sense to have A/C in your house for some purposes it seems to also make sense to do your own conversion at the point of use. Doing it more efficiently than we do it today on average is more expensive but there is considerable efficiency to be wrung out of current technologies.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    14. Re:So... what? by GooberToo · · Score: 2

      Ummm...no. I'm pretty sure people understand how a power receptacle works.

      Engergy efficiency has little to do with the device itself.

      Completely wrong as you're not looking in the right place. Massive amounts of power in wasted on inefficient power converters. Many are frequently in the 80%. Part of this is higher efficiencies demand higher prices. So, frequently to save money, low efficiency converters are provided with consumer goods. Even many PC's have efficiencies which which range from very high 80s to very high 90s. The difference is almost always dictated by price.

      Now then, if a house had a single converter, you would have a single, high efficiency unit which need only be purchased once rather than for every consumer purchase. This in turn, lowers the cost of consumer goods which dramatically increasing consumer household efficiency for many, many electronic goods. The vast majority of all electronic goods in the world comes with yet another converter; needlessly.

      Most studies clearly indicate as much as 20% of American's power demands could be reduced by such moves. That's massive despite your hand waving.

    15. Re:So... what? by Sonny+Yatsen · · Score: 1

      Well, more than horses and animals, right? Wasn't the first electric chair built using AC as part of Edison's campaign to prove how unsafe AC was? As I recall, the prisoner was subjected to so much current, his face literally melted onto the fabric of the hood they used to cover his face.

      --
      My postings are informational and does not constitute legal advice. Act on it at your risk.
    16. Re:So... what? by GooberToo · · Score: 1

      t seems to also make sense to do your own conversion at the point of use.

      The problem with this is it creates massive inefficiencies and waste at multiple points in almost every industrialized house around the world. Remember, these wall warts also draw power even when not charging their companion device. Having a single unit means its becomes very unlikely it won't continuously be in use which is yet another savings.

      Consistently, study after study indicates as much as 20% of America's energy use could be reduced by such intelligent moves. The amount of energy consumed via inefficiency in American is literally jaw dropping and yet you're actively advocating the status quo.

    17. Re:So... what? by toastar · · Score: 1

      If Tesla had half Edison's ability for self-promotion and half of George Westinghouse's business sense and some say, crookedness, we might have had "Telsa Electric" and the "Telsa Genius" prize.

      but, but.... Tesla motors?

    18. Re:So... what? by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 1

      Tesla is giggling in his grave

      Ah, I was trying to identify the sounds I was hearing - then the whirring sound down towards Menlo Park must be Edison spinning in his grave.

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    19. Re:So... what? by slick7 · · Score: 1

      Edison: "Genius is one percent inspiration and ninety-nine percent perspiration."

      Tesla: "If Edison had a needle to find in a haystack, he would proceed at once with the diligence of the bee to examine straw after straw until he found the object of his search. I was a sorry witness of such doings, knowing that a little theory and calculation would have saved him ninety percent of his labor."

      The genius of Idiotson was in how he and all the banksters screwed Tesla.
      Yet, if the rumors are true, HAARP will screw them all back with a vengeance.
      AC is still the prime motive force in electrical generation and always will be.

      --
      The mind conceives, the body achieves, the spirit manifests.
    20. Re:So... what? by slick7 · · Score: 1

      Truthfully both approaches are valuable, and we would be a poorer planet without either of these men

      Without Edison there would have been a lot less tortured puppies, cats horses and elephants.. Edison arguably invented very little, instead taking the inventions of people who worked for him and claiming then as his own.

      Hear, hear!

      --
      The mind conceives, the body achieves, the spirit manifests.
    21. Re:So... what? by jackbird · · Score: 1

      How safe is 12 VDC at, say, 10 Amps vs. 120 VAC if a resident completes a circuit with their body? And what are the differences in required wire gauge? I don't know the answers, it's a genuine question...

    22. Re:So... what? by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 1

      la had half Edison's ability for self-promotion and half of George Westinghouse's business sense and some say, crookedness, we might have had "Telsa Electric" and the "Telsa Genius" prize.

      And if I had half Einstein's intelligence and was born two hundred years earlier, my name would be the one in all the physics books.

      "If" being the most significant word in both my scenario and yours.

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    23. Re:So... what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Troll Physics at slashdot? Oh my...

    24. Re:So... what? by slick7 · · Score: 1

      But, D/C does have many uses once its at a consumption point.

      I never understood why we don't have converters in every house. Simply deliver the power as A/C and provide for A/C and D/C in every house. Keep A/C for things like laundry and dish washing and D/C for most everything else in the house. There would be many advantages to such a dual scheme. Just imagine how much more efficient everything would be.

      If you need different frequencies, voltages, or reversible rotation DC is the way to go. A combination of AC and DC can give you a myriad of options.

      --
      The mind conceives, the body achieves, the spirit manifests.
    25. Re:So... what? by mysidia · · Score: 1

      Tesla is giggling in his grave

      Tesla would want to know why the heck we're still using wires for long distance electric power transmission, when all this should be wireless transmission through the air by now.

    26. Re:So... what? by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      Because then you have to run bus bars around the house to deliver those low voltages efficiently

      I know it's nitpicking, but DC doesn't automatically equal 'low voltage'. There's nothing preventing us from running 120VDC lines within a house, and they'd actually be a smidge more efficient than 120VAC lines. Heck, go with the 48VDC telephone standard - plenty of volts for your LCD TV, still capable of carrying enough amps to power most things that like DC. 48VDC@20A = 960watts, after all. A quick check shows even huge plasma screens not breaking 600. Though some 'performance' computers might need more.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    27. Re:So... what? by slick7 · · Score: 1

      t seems to also make sense to do your own conversion at the point of use.

      The problem with this is it creates massive inefficiencies and waste at multiple points in almost every industrialized house around the world. Remember, these wall warts also draw power even when not charging their companion device. Having a single unit means its becomes very unlikely it won't continuously be in use which is yet another savings.

      Consistently, study after study indicates as much as 20% of America's energy use could be reduced by such intelligent moves. The amount of energy consumed via inefficiency in American is literally jaw dropping and yet you're actively advocating the status quo.

      If given the choice, 120vAC hurts a lot less than 125vDC. They both suck, however, AC voltage goes to zero during its cycle, DC doesn't.

      --
      The mind conceives, the body achieves, the spirit manifests.
    28. Re:So... what? by Soft+Cosmic+Rusk · · Score: 1

      Completely safe as long as you don't lick the wires or put them in contact with open sores (sores, not source!). But it could only provide 120 W, which is barely enough for some laptops, let alone a couple of them...

    29. Re:So... what? by Golddess · · Score: 1

      Speaking as someone who is currently rewiring their house, I fail to see how such an idea would significantly alter the wiring. Instead of everything coming off the main breaker panel, you'd probably have like a 100amp breaker feeding a single A/C-to-D/C converter, which in turn feeds a sub-panel, where it is then distributed to the few devices where it makes the most sense.

      But I'm certainly no expert, so maybe I've got the wrong idea of how the rest of the wiring would go once you've got your single D/C line.

      --
      "I'm not sure I like the fugnutish tone you used in your post!" -RogL (608926)-
    30. Re:So... what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would just burn the hay stack, then what is left is a small pile of ash and a needle...assuming the needle isn't melted.

    31. Re:So... what? by CatBandit · · Score: 1

      I can assure you 12VDC are more secure for a human body. You can touch 12VDC without any problem, just please don't touch it with your tonge and between the two poles. The voltage needed to make damage to the body it's in the 50V to 60V by my experience.

    32. Re:So... what? by solarnetone · · Score: 2

      12VDC at infinite amps will do nothing to you, as 12V in not enough pressure to overcome the resistance of human flesh. The wire needs to be a bit larger for the lower potential source, tho.

    33. Re:So... what? by hjf · · Score: 1

      yes but you still need converters at everything. you can send, say, 48VDC down the line but every electronic gadget will need to convert it to 12, 5, 3.3, 1.2, whatever voltage it needs. Net gain will be zero, and no one in their right mind would rewire a house just for that. you can't send low voltage DC for the whole house. the huge current will kill it. and if you send 48VDC, nothing keeps chinese manufacturers from making low efficiency converters. hell, at 48VDC they would probably add a resistor and a zener diode to regulate power.

      besides, things that make a difference in your electric bill are heaters, air conditioners, fridges...things that run great on AC power.

    34. Re:So... what? by hjf · · Score: 1

      go to your car, grab both battery leads. feel anything? yes, about that safe. Ohm's law says you can't have 10A 12V running through your body (resistance is too high).

      Now, for the wire gauge, again, take a look at your car battery, and now go to your house and remove the circuit breaker's box cover and take a look at the wires there. that should give you an indication

    35. Re:So... what? by jackbird · · Score: 1

      Then that's a HUGE expense. 12 gauge romex is bad enough.

    36. Re:So... what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes AC is used in the electric chair.
        It was about 2000 - 2500 VAC current limited to about 500 Ma or 1/2 amp amp to limit burring of the flesh.
      However, if this AC were rectified and filtered into DC , It would kill them just as dead
      .

    37. Re:So... what? by Destoo · · Score: 1

      Einstein's greatest "feature" was that he worked for several years in a patent office.

      --
      Nouvelles de jeux et technologies en français. TC
    38. Re:So... what? by AvitarX · · Score: 1

      Is it actually more efficient to step down DC current then to step down AC and then convert to DC?

      Also, I like to have more than one device on a circuit (though maybe not, because then i would never blow a breaker).

      I actually find spot heating with space-heaters is a very good way to save energy (keep house 3-5 degrees cooler, heat bedroom and living room with a space heater each), and they kick out a constant 1500w when in use.

      Also, at least in my house there's a lot of 15A circuits, but maybe that's due to age.

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
    39. Re:So... what? by JohannesJ · · Score: 1

      DC safer ? Looks like Edison never interrupted a large DC current flowing though an Inductive load . The Counter Emf can Weld Metals together, such as the contacts of Relays

    40. Re:So... what? by danlip · · Score: 1

      Exactly. Edison invented the modern technology development corporation.

    41. Re:So... what? by danlip · · Score: 1

      He had both AC and DC chairs built, and yes it was part of a PR campaign to prove AC was dangerous. The DC version was used to torture animals but didn't kill them. The AC version was fatal.

    42. Re:So... what? by Dachannien · · Score: 1

      Edison contracted out all his perspiration. That's genius.

      Guenter: "And that's why I've decided to transfer to business school."
      Prof. Farnsworth: "NOOOOOOOOOOOO!"

    43. Re:So... what? by Plekto · · Score: 1

      The original plan was to use AC for long distances and have it DC at the local level. But being cheap like they were, they decided to offload the cost to the consumer and do nothing at all rather than convert the power at the main local station. Of course one giant transformer works better than tens of thousands of little bricks stuck into the outlets.

      That said, there are some people who have done exactly that (usually when they put in solar power as well) and it works great since almost everything these days runs on 12V internally. I think you need AC these days for your refrigerator and washer motors, lights(easy to convert over) and that's about it. The rest of your home is DC as it's pretty much all electronic inside or controlled by electronics.

    44. Re:So... what? by netdigger · · Score: 1

      Thank you for making this comment so I didn't have to. Tesla did not advocate AC but he kinda created it. (or at least the basses of it) Please do some research before making comments. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikola_Tesla

    45. Re:So... what? by Plekto · · Score: 1

      DC to DC conversion is well into the 95%+ rate these days, though. Virtually no heat is produced as a result, and the waste is far less than even a few "bricks" add up to.

    46. Re:So... what? by Noughmad · · Score: 1

      It's a bit unfortunate that he didn't get a patent for his business method, the world could be a better place if he did.

      --
      PlusFive Slashdot reader for Android. Can post comments.
    47. Re:So... what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please do some research before making comments.

      Hi Netdigger, welcome to Slashdot! We're happy you joined us, and sincerely hope you will enjoy the quality of the articles and comments this site brings you!

      And in the fine tradition of this site, I will now make a car analogy:
      Mr. Wormwood: it was an old lady's car. Once a week 2 miles to the shop, 2 miles back. Old car, but in near-perfect condition. A steal at half this price! And just listen, just *feel*, how smooth the gearbox is!
      Netdigger: SOLD!

    48. Re:So... what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He poisoned the elephant with a lethal dose of a drug AC to ensure it would die while being shocked by AC... so his methods to prove it was unsafe should be taken with a grain of salt.

    49. Re:So... what? by slapout · · Score: 1

      "As I recall"

      You were there? Just how old are you??

      --
      Coder's Stone: The programming language quick ref for iPad
    50. Re:So... what? by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      IIRC you can run 10A down a 14 gauge wire per common US building codes. For 15A you need to use 12 gauge.

      The 'standard' wire gauges are lower for a given amperage in cars. Not sure why. The heating should be the same.

      So answering the question: 14 gauge wire to carry 10A per building codes. Thinner if using automotive standards.

      Your cars battery wires are sized for the starter motor. Much more then 10A.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    51. Re:So... what? by Amouth · · Score: 2

      i'd rather be hit with 120vac on a 15amp breaker than 120vdc on a 15amp fuse any day

      AC will throw you - DC will make you clinch to it.

      --
      '...if only "Jumping to a Conclusion" was an event in the Olympics.'
    52. Re:So... what? by rgviza · · Score: 1

      >I never understood why we don't have converters in every house. Simply deliver the power as A/C and provide for A/C and D/C in every house.

      really? every wall wart you use is a converter. As is the power "supply" in your computer. We're already doing that.

      As for DC appliances... One problem with DC motors is the brushes. They wear out. AC motors don't need them because they are inductive. As well you'd need one hell of a transformer to do the ac to dc conversion for the large motors in washers, dryers etc.

      Another thing is that enough current to run a dryer is very dangerous when it's DC. With AC, when you get hit, you spaz. It may knock your arm back, or knock you back etc. With DC, your muscles tighten in one direction. So if you get your hand on something and the current starts flowing through you, you can't let go. It's a death sentence.

      Safety is the number one reason DC motors above a few hundred milliwatts aren't used in home appliances.

      --
      Don't kid yourself. It's the size of the regexp AND how you use it that counts.
    53. Re:So... what? by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      100amp breaker (220V?) would imply about 12000 Watts at 120V. Double that if you are assuming 220. I have never seen a 100A 1 phase breaker.

      That is a buttload of DC power. At 12 V that would be 1000amps. The wire between your DC source and sub-panel will be kind of expensive.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    54. Re:So... what? by grep+-v+'.*'+* · · Score: 1

      I've never said this before, but I will now: do NOT view the movie attached to this linkif you're easily upset. Seriously.

      http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2008/01/dayintech_0104

      Article background:
      1903: Thomas Edison stages his highly publicized electrocution of an elephant in order to demonstrate the dangers of alternating current, which, if it posed any immediate danger at all, was to Edison's own direct current.

      Edison had established direct current at the standard for electricity distribution and was living large off the patent royalties, royalties he was in no mood to lose when George Westinghouse and Nicola Tesla showed up with alternating current.

      Edison's aggressive campaign to discredit the new current took the macabre form of a series of animal electrocutions using AC (a killing process he referred to snidely as getting "Westinghoused"). Stray dogs and cats were the most easily obtained, but he also zapped a few cattle and horses.

      --
      If the universe is someone's simulation -- does that mean the stars are just stuck pixels?
    55. Re:So... what? by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Almost everything?

      Perhaps 'almost everything' except the heavy electric loads. I'd be willing to be the majority of power is still used to run AC motors in most houses.

      Refrigerator, dishwasher, clothes washer, clothes dryer, heat pump etc all use AC motors. Resistive heat and lighting (excepting LEDs) would also see no benefit from DC.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    56. Re:So... what? by mkiwi · · Score: 1

      As a Power Electronics Engineer, I can confidently say that either situation is highly undesirable, as you will be dead long before the current in your body reaches 15A. (That would mean that you're being cooked like an 1800W resistor!) And remember, the AC peak to peak voltage is 160V... 120V is just the RMS voltage that we usually like to think about.

    57. Re:So... what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Including electrocuting people for execution!
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_chair

    58. Re:So... what? by guruevi · · Score: 2

      DO NOT DO THIS!!! If you have cuts and/or your hands are wet/moist you could still get a tingle. Car batteries are made to give ~120A, plenty of Amps to seriously hurt you if something goes wrong (eg. your ring/watch/other jewelry makes contact between your hand and the ground of the car).

      To see what a car battery can do, put starter cables on the battery, close the hood and then push the other two ends together with a long wooden or plastic stick. Close the hood just in case your battery explodes. It might catch fire if you weld the other ends together so have a non-water based extinguisher at the ready.

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    59. Re:So... what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      um, laptops work just like desktops. a power supply converts AC to DC and feeds the DC power to the computer and its components.

    60. Re:So... what? by f8l_0e · · Score: 1

      That's all fine and good. Call me when I can afford one.

    61. Re:So... what? by hjf · · Score: 1

      If you're delivering a "safe" DC voltage, say 48V, you need to accomodate for higher currents.

      10A 48V is "only" 480W.

    62. Re:So... what? by labnet · · Score: 2

      You yanks are pussies. In Australia we flick 240vac with the back of our hand to see if its live or not.

      --
      46137
    63. Re:So... what? by mkiwi · · Score: 1

      I should clarify that I meant "peak" voltage. Peak to peak is actually 340V in US.

    64. Re:So... what? by foobsr · · Score: 1

      Most studies clearly indicate as much as 20% of American's power demands could be reduced by such moves. ...

      Not knowing whether the figure is right and on a side note: that would be the share of 'nuclear power' in the US.

      CC.

      --
      TaijiQuan (Huang, 5 loosenings)
    65. Re:So... what? by c++0xFF · · Score: 1

      The voltage needed to make damage to the body it's in the 50V to 60V by my experience.

      That must have been a painful experience! Please, tell us more.

    66. Re:So... what? by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

      um, laptops work just like desktops. a power supply converts AC to DC and feeds the DC power to the computer and its components.

      Right. Now, assuming I knew that when I posted, can you see why I would still have made that post?

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    67. Re:So... what? by LateArthurDent · · Score: 1

      la had half Edison's ability for self-promotion and half of George Westinghouse's business sense and some say, crookedness, we might have had "Telsa Electric" and the "Telsa Genius" prize.

      And if I had half Einstein's intelligence and was born two hundred years earlier, my name would be the one in all the physics books.

      "If" being the most significant word in both my scenario and yours.

      I could be wrong, but I believe his point is that it is unfortunate that self-promotion skills and business sense are necessary qualities to guarantee success. In an ideal world, the merit of the work would be all that matters, not how well you can convince other people that your inferior product is actually better. It's not that he wishes Tesla would have those abilities, he wishes that those abilities were less important than they are.

      I know, "ideal world" is far from the one we live in...

    68. Re:So... what? by hjf · · Score: 1

      AC-DC is also pretty efficient, and yes, it can be 95% (take a look at "90 plus" computer PSUs).

      But nothing beats AC-AC. An autotransformer (like the ones on the street. In my country they're 13,2kV->220V) can yield 99% efficiency... when talking about 100kVA :P

      I also forgot to mention, GGP talked about a "BIG" ac-dc unit. This isn't efficient. You see, DC-DC converters are only efficient when running at nearly 100%. Less than that and their efficiency drops. Take a look at the "buck circuit". It's a switching transistor with a low pass filter (an inductor). If operating at almost 100% load, the transistor conducts all the time and energy is only wasted by the inductor's own resistance. At lower loads, the transistor is constantly closing and opening. FETs are really efficient (a FET's leads have more resistance than the silicon when conducting), but only when fully conducted. When they're switching - and especially at a high frequency (the higher the frequency, the smaller the inductor), they waste a lot of energy switching on and off (during the switch on/switch off times there is a resistance).

      So, there are a lot of things to consider, but in the end, the PSU is efficient ONLY at the specified rate, outside that rate it's inefficient, and without load it won't even regulate. So no, you can't have a "big" AC-DC unit unless you have 50 workstations hooked to it all the time. It works for a computer lab, but it doesn't work for a house, where load is highly variable and unpredictable.

    69. Re:So... what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And I should also clarify that I'm talking about rectified AC voltage in the 160V example

    70. Re:So... what? by JohannesJ · · Score: 1

      AC Versus DC proves little , unless we know the Current equivalents , Just because DC tortures the animals is not relevant unless the current passing though them is the same as that of AC , The current that kills with AC wilt also kill with DC , the heart is stopped relative to Current flow, , not whether the Voltage is AC or DC . DC means the AC is rectified and filtered that's all. Either AC or DC can Kill Anything Dead !

    71. Re:So... what? by youn · · Score: 1

      AC power? what's this about anonymous coward power? ;)

      --
      Never antropomorphize computers, they do not like that :p
    72. Re:So... what? by arth1 · · Score: 1

      ... and in many cases, inventions made abroad but not patented in the US.

      Arguably, one of the few thing he invented was patent trolling, suing these foreign inventors as they too late entered the US market, and discovered that Edison had beat them to patenting what they had created.

    73. Re:So... what? by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      I agree with your words but not your sentiment. He'd be arguing for wireless transmission. However, that's not able to be metered, so until the government provides power for free, we'll not see it. The technical superiorities will be trumped by simple business.

    74. Re:So... what? by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      It's worse than that. If humans were at least mostly decent and honest beings, then those who are geniuses, but don't have self-promotion skills or business sense could find others who have those skills, and partner with them, and have success that way. However, the world doesn't work that way: those who have the self-promotion skills can't be happy just partnering with the technical geniuses, and enjoying shared success, they have to take advantage of them and screw them over for their own gain instead.

    75. Re:So... what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Its harder to charge people based on usage that way.

    76. Re:So... what? by Yazdmich · · Score: 1

      Truthfully both approaches are valuable, and we would be a poorer planet without either of these men. It's a shame they disliked each other so much.

      Edison: "Genius is one percent inspiration and ninety-nine percent perspiration."

      Edison contracted out all his perspiration. That's genius.

      i thought that quote was made by Einstein?

    77. Re:So... what? by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      Well they use high voltage DC for power transmission now. So in the end they where both wrong.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    78. Re:So... what? by afex · · Score: 1

      i assume you are just making a joke, but the difference is that each laptop converts its own AC to DC in your scenario. In this story, they are essentially using one giant power brick and distributing that to each laptop.

    79. Re:So... what? by linuxpyro · · Score: 1

      The truth is, for power distribution high voltage is what you need first. Beyond that, however, DC is actually a better for going long distances - check out the Wikipedia article on HVDC, for instance. However, changing the voltage with DC is more complicated. Doing it in Tesla/Edison's time would've been done using motor-generators. Today we have switchmode electronics which are much more efficient, but it is still more difficult than using a transformer. That said, in some cases it's still the more economical option. (According to the Wiki article, they were using it for some distribution even back with the motor-generators.)

      The caveat though is that DC at higher voltages (~120VDC) is dangerous, and not exactly something you want in a residential setting. You can run lower voltages, but then you need to deal with higher amperage and thus bigger wires. So the way things are now, it doesn't really make a lot of sense to go and change the infrastructure so much.

      Of course, it depends on the situation; people who live off-grid with solar will tend to use DC a lot more. Before quality power inverters were very affordable people would do things like convert their washers to DC. Now a good inverter covers most things aside from something like cordless phone or wireless router. (Because if they're the only things you're running at some point, leaving the inverter on to run them is not very efficient.)

      --
      Saying "I'll probably get modded down for this" in a post is the best way to get it modded up.
    80. Re:So... what? by rednip · · Score: 1
      For those wondering what HAARP was (like me)http://boingboing.net/2010/01/18/haiti-haarp-and-cons.html seems to describe it well, without falling down the conspiracy hole.

      This is the kind of 'thing' those who listen to talk radio think that they 'know'. Sad really.

      --
      The force that blew the Big Bang continues to accelerate.
    81. Re:So... what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "la had half Edison's ability for self-promotion and half of George Westinghouse's business sense and some say, crookedness"
      Wait, which Ia? The Persian martyr, the Cornish evangelist, or the Swedish guitarist? It's gotta be one of the latter two---the evangelist has a feast day in her name, and the guitarist seems to be doing pretty well. The Persian, on the other hand, doesn't even have a WP entry yet...

      -os

    82. Re:So... what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Laptops are generally DC, that little brick on your power cord is where the conversion happens.

    83. Re:So... what? by somersault · · Score: 1

      Surely wires are much more efficient? Especially if we had superconducting cables..

      --
      which is totally what she said
    84. Re:So... what? by Grishnakh · · Score: 3, Interesting

      AC is still the prime motive force in electrical generation and always will be.

      No, not necessarily.

      We've already started moving away from AC for long-distance power transmission, using "HVDC" instead for things like 2MV transmission lines.

      The main advantage of AC is that, with no semiconductor technology available, you can easily step it up and down between different voltages using an iron-core transformer, nothing more than a bunch of iron and some copper wire wrapped around it. High voltage is absolutely necessary for power transmission, because I^2*R losses are too high at lower voltages, but high voltage isn't usable by end-users because of safety and other concerns.

      Nowadays, with power electronics (giant power transistors capable of handling thousands of volts and amps) and high-frequency switch-mode power conversion, that stuff is mainly obsolete, so it's fully possible to eliminate AC for power transmission, and even get better conversion efficiency than transformers. The only reason it's really still used is 1) our infrastructure already uses AC, so you can only replace it in certain places where it won't be too disruptive (like long-distance links), and 2) iron-core transformers are still much cheaper than electronic alternatives, so it's only economically feasible to switch to DC for certain large-scale projects, not for every transformer in a subdivision.

      There's no technical reason that, in the future, DC couldn't become the standard, with electronic "transformers" stepping the voltage up and down as necessary.

    85. Re:So... what? by Grishnakh · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You're missing the point. Much of our electronics run on 5V DC. If you put a big 5V converter on the side of your house, and a bus system to connect this to all your 5V gadgets, the losses would be greater than just having all those wall-warts. Even worse, your gadgets wouldn't work, because the voltage drop between your converter and your gadgets would be so great, you'd end up getting 4V at the gadget, and worse, the drop would vary depending on how much current that gadget is drawing (and other gadgets on that run).

      If you want to be more efficient, the answer is simple: throw away all those wasteful transformer-based wall-warts, and replace them with high-quality switching wall-warts instead. They're lighter and also have better efficiency, both when under load and when not loaded. The problem is that switching wall-warts cost more than the crappy Indian and Chinese-made transformer-based ones, so gadget makers don't usually bother to include them.

      Switching to DC isn't a magic bullet to solve energy efficiency problems, despite this idiotic (and just plain wrong) article.

    86. Re:So... what? by atrain728 · · Score: 1

      The 'standard' wire gauges are lower for a given amperage in cars. Not sure why. The heating should be the same.

      Cars made out of metal, houses made out of wood.

    87. Re:So... what? by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Then you'll still need DC-to-DC converters inside each electronic gadget to convert the voltage to something more useful, like 5V and 12V. So you won't have gained anything, as you'll still have conversion losses.

    88. Re:So... what? by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Not sure what you are trying to say.

      For a given power at higher voltages you obviously have a lower current.

      For a given load you will get higher currents and power with higher voltage. Power = Voltage^2/resistance.

      Wire gauge requirements are determined by only current. Current is obviously not an independent variable.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    89. Re:So... what? by amorsen · · Score: 1

      Refrigerator, dishwasher, clothes washer, clothes dryer, heat pump etc all use AC motors.

      AC yes, 50Hz or 60Hz no. Not unless they're old and should be replaced with something efficient. For motors you want variable frequency to easily and efficiently change speed, and variable frequency is easier to get from DC.

      --
      Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
    90. Re:So... what? by mysidia · · Score: 1

      I agree with your words but not your sentiment. He'd be arguing for wireless transmission. However, that's not able to be metered, so until the government provides power for free, we'll not see it.

      What do you mean not able to be metered ?

      Load can be metered at the receiver.

      Much like load is metered at the receiver today. I assume the high voltage transmissions would not be suitable for being picked up by handheld devices; so you'd need to power your cell phone from a base station you plugged into the larger high-voltage receiving station controlled by your power company.

      Or you could just use wireless transmission as a technology for transmitting the product from the power plant to regional stations. That way it would be less subject to hacking.

      Hacking electrical distribution usually doesn't get attempted, because there is a deterrant in that if you slip up, you electrocute yourself.

    91. Re:So... what? by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      The original plan was to use AC for long distances and have it DC at the local level. But being cheap like they were, they decided to offload the cost to the consumer and do nothing at all rather than convert the power at the main local station. Of course one giant transformer works better than tens of thousands of little bricks stuck into the outlets.

      Wrong.

      If you go back in time to the early 1900s or so, what did people use electricity in their homes for: only one thing: lighting. Incandescent lights can work on AC or DC.

      Not much later, they started adding more things: electric stoves and ovens, and motorized devices such as fans and washing machines. All of these things needed higher voltages, and worked quite well on AC, as AC motors are much simpler, cheaper, efficient, and reliable than the brushed DC motors of the first half of the 20th century.

      There was never a need to transform 220V/110V power to anything lower until electronics were invented and became commonplace in homes, and even then they were only a small part of the house's overall load: incandescent lights, stoves, ovens, washing machines, refrigerators, dryers, water heaters, microwave ovens, power tools, etc. all use far more power even now than all the electronics in a modern home.

      I think you need AC these days for your refrigerator and washer motors, lights(easy to convert over) and that's about it.

      Actually, my 12-year-old washing machine's motor runs on DC, as do most modern high-end washers which are brushless DC motors. Even so, it's not going to help feeding your appliances 120V DC instead of 120V AC; you'll still have conversion losses somewhere along the line (either in the device, or just before the distribution voltage is converted to your house voltage).

      But you're forgetting your oven, water heater, etc. Sure, they'll work just fine with DC, but not at 12V; they need 220V.

    92. Re:So... what? by amorsen · · Score: 1

      As well you'd need one hell of a transformer to do the ac to dc conversion for the large motors in washers, dryers etc.

      The washers and so on tend to have variable speed motors these days, and therefore frequency conversion. If you're frequency converting anyway, you are better off starting with DC.

      With DC, your muscles tighten in one direction. So if you get your hand on something and the current starts flowing through you, you can't let go. It's a death sentence.

      With AC, if the current hits your heart, your heart fibrillates. It's a death sentence.

      Either way, the number of direct deaths from electricity is insignificant. The real danger from electricity is fire.

      --
      Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
    93. Re:So... what? by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Your information is a few decades out-of-date.

      My 12-year-old washing machine has a brushless DC motor, as does every horizontal-axis washing machine these days. These don't wear out either, and they don't use transformers, as the conversion is done with power electronics.

    94. Re:So... what? by amorsen · · Score: 1

      The caveat though is that DC at higher voltages (~120VDC) is dangerous, and not exactly something you want in a residential setting.

      Whereas 120VAC is completely harmless? The reality is that both are dangerous. Still, most of the world uses AC 230V or higher, making 120VDC seem rather feeble.

      --
      Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
    95. Re:So... what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I bet you are also a doctor, a lawyer, a software developer, and a railroad conductor.

    96. Re:So... what? by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      You must be discussing a different wireless transmission technology that I read about Tesla using. How would the electricity be generated and accessed?

      For today's setup, you have wires and a meter, and those are owned by the power company. You tap into the meter and agree to pay for whatever it says. With the wireless I read about Tesla working with, someone could essentially build their own tap at their house and there would be no way for metering to be done. Much like the people who inductively tap into high voltage lines can't be metered (though they often do get detected and caught, but only because they have to be in specific areas to tap in).

    97. Re:So... what? by slick7 · · Score: 1

      No, not necessarily

      AC is developed in the rotor regardless of output, slip rings for AC, commutators for DC. As for high power rectifiers, they use AC. I have worked with both rotating elements as well as solid state devices. All the variable speed drives I have encountered have been AC derivations, both solid state and rheostat. Motor sizes from 15 hp to 65,000 hp, 120vAC to 13,800vAC.
      In the future, and the operative words are, the future, the technology I am familiar with started in the 1950's and basically remained the same except for the control systems.

      --
      The mind conceives, the body achieves, the spirit manifests.
    98. Re:So... what? by cheater512 · · Score: 1

      Yeah I learnt my lesson after the third time. 240 vac means ouch!

    99. Re:So... what? by cheater512 · · Score: 1

      But in mass distribution, say its night and energy usage is 60% of capacity. Have 10 DC-DC converters each handling a 10th of the current. Turn 4 off if the load is at 60%.

      Over simplification, but you get the idea. There is no reason to use a single converter to handle half a country's power.

      As for switching losses, lower frequencies lose less. 120khz 2mhz. Inductor size isnt much of a factor for electricity distribution.

    100. Re:So... what? by slick7 · · Score: 1

      Conspiracy or not HAARP exists.
      As to why or for what reason,who knows. A good place to begin with is Tesla's "Colorado Springs Notes".

      --
      The mind conceives, the body achieves, the spirit manifests.
    101. Re:So... what? by dakameleon · · Score: 1

      Unless you're suggesting Einstein examined a patent for a Method to Determine Energy-Mass Conversion, I'm not sure how the patent office was relevant?

      --
      Man who leaps off cliff jumps to conclusion.
    102. Re:So... what? by Teancum · · Score: 1

      The patent on Edison's invention would have expired by now. Still, an interesting thought there.

    103. Re:So... what? by dakameleon · · Score: 1

      Generally speaking, a step-down transformer has very high efficiency, while a rectifier to convert from AC to DC doesn't.

      --
      Man who leaps off cliff jumps to conclusion.
    104. Re:So... what? by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      For generation that involves rotating motion, yes, it does seem that AC is the way to go, though you never know about the future.

      However, 1) not all generation involves rotating motion. Solar power, in particular, doesn't use AC at all, as photovoltaics generate DC. And 2) Generation is only one part of an electric power system; the other parts are transmission and use. Transmission can be better served by DC, which is why people have been working on HVDC systems since the 1930s. And DC can be used just as easily as AC, sometimes more easily thanks to DC-to-DC converters. Even with electric motors, BLDC (brushless DC) motors are already taking over in many places, as they allow much better control than AC motors.

      So, in the future, we may eventually see AC phased out of most places, except perhaps some generation where it's immediately converted to DC. This is already the case in some places, such as in Canada's Nelson River Hydroelectric Project, where the generated power from the Kettle Rapids generating station is immediately converted to HVDC for transmission to far-away cities for use. From Wikipedia: "The great distance between generating sites on the Nelson River and load centers in southern Manitoba required the use of HVDC transmission lines to bring the energy to market. When these lines were commissioned, they were the longest and highest-voltage direct current lines in the world."

    105. Re:So... what? by thebigmacd · · Score: 1

      But that's the thing...these variable frequency drives you are talking about all rectify the AC mains onto a DC bus, which they then chop back into AC at varying frequencies, most of the time not the same frequency as the mains.

      That in itself is a great argument for DC distribution...AC mains are pointless.

    106. Re:So... what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As one who has experienced 120 volts AC coursing up one arm and down the other on a 15 am circuit breaker, I pick neither. AC made all the muscles in my hands, arms, and chest clinch tightly, so I don't know about the "AC will throw you" part so much. I was fortunate to have another person nearby who disconnected the circuit, or I'd be dead.

    107. Re:So... what? by Hecatonchires · · Score: 1

      I think it's funny that he references Wikipedia and considers it research.

      --

      Yay me!

    108. Re:So... what? by dwywit · · Score: 1

      That's sort of how my house operates - except I'm off-grid with PV and batteries. The house was built with dual circuits for delivery of 240VAC and 24VDC. The inverter supplies 240VAC for devices that need it, and the 24VDC is delivered direct from the batteries to the lighting and refrigeration circuits.

      The downside is that there are currently (sorry) very few (and expensive, at that) lamps suited for 24VDC - I can get 24 volt halogen bulbs, but I can't afford 24 volt CFLs or LEDs. The upside is that good 240VAC CFLs use much less energy than the 24VDC halogens - so I'm slowly replacing the halogens. Philips and Osram make 2400K CFL bulbs now, so that incandescent "warmth" can be replicated - it's not perfect, but it's getting there. The household circuits originate very close to each other, i.e. the low-voltage DC busbar is only 40cms from the high-voltage AC busbar, so if I want to cut a particular circuit from DC to AC, it's a simple job to move from one to the other. All circuits are wired with standard 3-core 10-amp 240VAC flex, I just have to be careful about loading up the DC circuits - it's easy to get more than 10 amps on a low-voltage DC circuit.

      --
      They sentenced me to twenty years of boredom
    109. Re:So... what? by dwywit · · Score: 1

      Danfoss make 24VDC compressors for refrigeration, and they're pretty tough little buggers, too.

      --
      They sentenced me to twenty years of boredom
    110. Re:So... what? by hjf · · Score: 1

      Yes, but original poster was talking about a house-level AC-DC converter. That would be quite expensive, and useless. Imagine having two runs of wires to each outlet, one for AC appliances, other for DC (because your air conditioner or space heater will always be AC). You can't expect Joe Sixpack to understand that... or keep him from replacing the power plug on a DC appliance to try to run it from the 120VAC output, because he's out of DC outlets.

      All this in the name of "efficiency"? Try harder guys. Fusion power has more future than this bullshit.

    111. Re:So... what? by linuxpyro · · Score: 1

      No, 120VAC obviously not completely harmless. However, alternating current has different characteristics to it which make dealing with it more manageable in some respects. When arcing occurs with AC it does not behave the same as with DC; for one thing, the zero crossing (every 8.3 ms at 60 Hz, for instance) makes extinguishing it easier. Thus, it's not as hard to make overcurrent protection for AC, like fuses and circuit breakers. With DC, the inductance inherent in the wiring can cause voltage spikes if the flow of current changes abruptly. So if there's a short, an arc will be a lot harder to put out. This also carries over to someone coming into contact with a high potential, as it can make it harder to "let go".

      On the other hand 120 VDC can be dealt with safely; hybrid vehicles for instance tend to use higher voltages for their battery packs (though it's obviously not as exposed to the user as it might be in a home). However, using DC voltages like this would require more precautions, and electricians with training.

      --
      Saying "I'll probably get modded down for this" in a post is the best way to get it modded up.
    112. Re:So... what? by cloudmaster · · Score: 1

      120 Amps? What kind of little girl's car do you drive? The [admittedly oversized] battery in my station wagon is rated at 1200 cold cranking amps / 1350 cranking amps, and even the smallest car batteries are in the 500-600A range. You're more in-line with the puny little battery in my motorcycle.

      But yes, with a sweaty arm leaning on the positive terminal you can get a minor tingle.

    113. Re:So... what? by RobbieThe1st · · Score: 1

      Eh, I don't know about more expensive - Most of the chargers I see on E-bay(or DX) are the crummy switching type. Probably because now a little silicon's way cheaper than the large lumps of copper needed for a transformer... And possibly some US company made a nice, cheap switching controller which got copied.

    114. Re:So... what? by RobbieThe1st · · Score: 1

      However, we are already -using- dc-dc converters inside these gadgets - They just take the input from a bridge rectifier and large smoothing capacitor.
      And I'm pretty sure that said rectification stage is fairly lossy - remove it, and your effeciency can go up quite a bit.

    115. Re:So... what? by RobbieThe1st · · Score: 1

      Well, I can say for certain it's hard to be killed with 120V(under normal conditions) - I've shocked my self quite a few times due to stupidity etc, and it tingles a bit. Annoying, but not -that- bad.
      240V, on the other hand, hurts. It also makes you feel a bit rubbery for a minute or two after getting shocked.
      I'm not sure what getting shocked with that much DC feels like, though... We all know what 9v feels like across the tongue, probably a lot stronger sensation like that.

    116. Re:So... what? by vivian · · Score: 2

      You are not quite comparing apples to apples. 12VDC at 10A would only be 120W of power - not enough to run most desktops.
      At 120VAC, this would only be 1A.

      120VAC like used in US houses is supplied at something like 15 to 20A. (I live in Australia - household power here is 240v, 10A.)

      If you needed to supply enough DC for several computers, TV's, and pretty much anything which doesn't have a high power motor or heating element in it, you would need to be able to supply a lot more than 120 Watts. My PC + monitors alone are drawing 280 Watts.

      So say you wanted a household DC supply that needed to be able to provide a 12v rail at 600 Watts - possibly just enough to run two computers and monitors.
      The current needed would be 50 Amps - and you would need wiring that's about thick as car jumper leads.

      This would make wiring very expensive. There is also an additional danger of having such large currents - it is a lot easier to have a fire due to resistive heating of a weak connection or damaged wire.

    117. Re:So... what? by thedarknite · · Score: 2

      120VAC like used in US houses is supplied at something like 15 to 20A. (I live in Australia - household power here is 240v, 10A.)

      Electrical supply in Australia is 230V/50Hz. Residential switchboards have an 80A fuse to the mains and the individual circuits have 5/10/15/20A fuses/breakers depending on the age of the house and the expected circuit usage. In my current house the lights are wired into a 5A circuit, living areas are on 10A circuits, kitchen and laundry are a 15A circuit and the garage is a 20A circuit.

      --
      A game has objectives and is competitive, anything else is just play
    118. Re:So... what? by CrazyBusError · · Score: 1

      But then it would be AC (alternating corpse)...

      --
      -Never argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level, then beat you with experience-
    119. Re:So... what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Genius? It's how human society has been working since the begining of society. A good businessman he may have been, and no doubt he was clever. But I doubt he was a genius.

    120. Re:So... what? by GooberToo · · Score: 1

      Imagine having two runs of wires to each outlet, one for AC appliances,

      You completely missed the point. Whooosh! Actually you would need two for only a number of years. Once electronics starting being build within AC/DC convertor, the need for parallel receptacles all but goes away. Unless you're arguing people need to plug OTHER appliances into their central air or home dryer. Meaning, houses built five years from now wouldn't need but a tiny few number of A/C plugs.

      You can't expect Joe Sixpack to understand that... or keep him from replacing the power plug on a DC appliance to try to run it from the 120VAC output, because he's out of DC outlets.

      Reality disproves your contrary position. Different plugs have existed for exactly these reasons and have proven to be a widely successful tool at maintaining safety. And frankly, isn't any different from the world we live in today. Thusly, reality disproves your contrary position.

      All this in the name of "efficiency"? Try harder guys. Fusion power has more future than this bullshit.

      Meanwhile, back in the real world, they continue to throw money at projects which have decades of proven failure and are completely ignoring new techniques which show real promise and are almost completely untested via experimentation. Until such time the world becomes utopian, real ideas such as the one I put forward, which can actually save vast amounts of energy, are the real solutions we have in hand.

    121. Re:So... what? by GooberToo · · Score: 1

      I also forgot to add that wall warts continue to consume power even when they are not in use; which is the vast majority of their effective lifetime. Thusly, having a centralized unit along with DC electronics in the house, in of itself means vast amounts of power are no longer being wasted for the sole purpose of wasting energy.

      Do you unplug your converters when not charging your electronics? Something like 90%+ of the industrialized world doesn't. That accounts for massive energy waste.

    122. Re:So... what? by CatBandit · · Score: 1

      I'm an EE and we are continously developing different products.

      It happens quite often to touch active parts of a circuit by accident while testing / debugging prototypes.

      I am not a (by any point of view) brave/crazy EE who likes the risk of an electric shock, but in the usual work you touch active circuits everyday. You do this because you know which are active parts that harm and which are active parts that don't harm you.

      There are circuits you always take good care to not put you naked hand onto:
      -It's quite clear that 230VAC (standard in Europe) electric shock in your hands is quite painful, to me it's not harmful but really disgusting ( YMMV )
      -On shock at 125VAC it's noticeable but it's clearly less painful than 230VAC.
      -I've never had the "pleasure" to be shocked with 400VAC, and I prefer to not experiment it. What I can assure is that a contact with a 350VDC charged capacitor is quite disgusting, it even can make minor superficial burns.

      Then there are the clear safe circuits you know you can touch without risk (and while debugging I can assure you it's quite often to do):
      -5VDC and lower voltage circuits to power supply IC's.
      -12VDC or AC or 24VDC or AC. DC is typical for relays, AC is typical for electrovalves.
      -30VDC is the legal limit for circuits surrounding a short distance in a swimming pool, so it's quite safe to touch in a dry environment.

      Then there is the middle zone where you never know:

      -48VDC circuits (some communications power supplies)
      I've recently completed a design that had this power supply and haven't noticed anything

      -75VAC circuits (ringing phone lines)
      It's easy to have a bad experience manipulating the phone line while someone rings you. Just a small shock, not very painful.

      So in my experience the zone between the 50V and 60VDC is where it begins to be noticeable. Of course 48VAC will be noticeable as the peaks will be 1.41 over 48V (67.68V peak).

      Don't take this as a guaranteed guide, but it's worth my 20 year of experience in electronic circuits design and manufacturing.

    123. Re:So... what? by CatBandit · · Score: 1

      I know you where joking, but I thought you would like the reading (although not so amazing as you could have imagined).

      Anyway sorry for my bad English.

    124. Re:So... what? by pnutjam · · Score: 1

      Come clean, are you Wozniak or Allen?

    125. Re:So... what? by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Neither, just someone who saw what happened to Tesla, Wozniak, and countless others and understands the deal.

      However, Allen, in case you haven't noticed, is mega-rich, even though he left Microsoft ages and ages ago, and I believe got rich off his stock holdings, so he doesn't really count, as he obviously has some business sense. He's also been involved in other business ventures, so he's not a simple technical genius (and probably was never one, since MS's early products were either copied, bought (QDOS), or sucked).

      To be fair, there are some cases where the technical genius finds the right partners and does quite well, but usually, the businesspeople keep the lion's share of the rewards for themselves while the technical genius who actually invented everything either gets shafted, or at the very best does OK, but not really enough to pay for all his hard work and extra hours.

      In this society, if you're a technical genius, your best bet is to either give away the fruits of your labor for free (like FOSS) and try to profit from that somehow (like Linus Torvalds did, getting a decent-paying salaried job which will never make him rich), or to learn enough business skills to start your own small company and be your own boss.

    126. Re:So... what? by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Inverters cost money. For machines that don't need speed control old school AC motors are just as efficient. Granted they are a hack, start coils and all.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    127. Re:So... what? by hjf · · Score: 1

      You know, arguments on the internet are like special olympics. Even if you win, you're still a retard.

      I'm off this discusion. You can tell yourself you won it if it makes you happy.

      Fuck you.

    128. Re:So... what? by GooberToo · · Score: 1

      It doesn't make me happy. Winning isn't the issue.

      But frankly, I KNEW I was right when I posted. Its not like the subject hasn't already been researched. The research is all pretty clear on this. The really sad thing is, stupid people like you... Yes, you are sad.

      The truth is, you know you're stupid or you wouldn't be trolling with your posts which imply you don't care...and yet the fact you did post not only means you do care, but you know I'm right.

      What a douche.

    129. Re:So... what? by treeves · · Score: 1

      It gave him the time and opportunity to sit and think about physics problems.

      --
      ...the future crusty old bastards are already drinking the Kool-Aid.
  2. No really? by scuzzbunny · · Score: 0

    They needed to do a study to figure this one out?

    1. Re:No really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You need a study to demonstrate that it a. actually works; that the various parts are available, that there aren't unforseen problems, etc., and b. the benefits are worth the effort.

    2. Re:No really? by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      They needed to do a study to figure this one out?

      I'm glad that they shared their experience with the rest of us, to save us from duplication of effort.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    3. Re:No really? by 91degrees · · Score: 1

      Yes. Of course they needed to do a study. There are all sorts of factors affecting energy efficiency. Do you want a university basing its decisions on hypotheticals?

  3. Tesla v. Edison by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Tesla and Edison fought this out 100 years ago. DC is great for short distances only. AC is great for killing dogs.

    1. Re:Tesla v. Edison by Corporate+Troll · · Score: 2

      AC is the tool for killing Elephants though. linky

    2. Re:Tesla v. Edison by jshackney · · Score: 1

      Westinghouse and Edison?

    3. Re:Tesla v. Edison by jshackney · · Score: 1

      oh, duh! disregard.

    4. Re:Tesla v. Edison by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tesla worked for Westinghouse; it was Tesla's AC system that was opposed to Edison's DC.

    5. Re:Tesla v. Edison by tomhudson · · Score: 1
      Well, it IS the University of Bath, and you don't want to be using AC-powered devices in the Bath..

      Though personally, I think the article is all wet.

    6. Re:Tesla v. Edison by Xiph1980 · · Score: 1

      You do know that DC is used a lot in intercontinental and long distance high voltage power transmissions, right?
      For more information: HVDC

      --
      Manuals are your last resort only
    7. Re:Tesla v. Edison by Corporate+Troll · · Score: 1

      Your post is overflowing with puns.

    8. Re:Tesla v. Edison by digitig · · Score: 1

      DC is actually more dangerous than AC. If you accidentally touch a high voltage AC source it will tend to throw you off. If you accidentally touch a high voltage DC source it can lock your muscles so you can't escape. In which case you'd better hope there's not much power available.

      --
      Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
    9. Re:Tesla v. Edison by LurkerXXX · · Score: 1

      Amazingly, technology has advanced in 100 years, and some things that might have been applicable then, aren't now.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-voltage_direct_current

    10. Re:Tesla v. Edison by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      DC is great for short distances only.

      The people running electric power utilities would disagree with you.

  4. secure? by Hazel+Bergeron · · Score: 3, Insightful

    There is no evidence or reason for DC to be more "secure". If some lame argument about it being harder to bring your own power source / utilise their outlets when you have a custom system is put forward, then, well... no.

    I can understand the efficiency argument to a certain extent, although if a workstation needs enough power that a fanless AC PSU is unsuitable then the more efficient AC PSUs will be enjoying enough load to reach over 80% efficiency. Are the centralised rectifiers + wires + in-computer DC-to-DC converters as efficient?

    1. Re:secure? by adonoman · · Score: 1

      I think they're referring to secure meaning less downtime - the individual computers are less likely to have power supplies die, since there aren't any moving parts. Also, part of the system involves a UPS - so less issues there than previously (although there's no reason you need DC for that to work).

      The thing that confused me was the statement that the system was "faster". Maybe they're just talking about the fact that they got new computers? The whole article reeks of badly uninformed reporting, glossing over the important parts and seizing on, and exaggerating, little trifles that the reporter happened to understand.

    2. Re:secure? by vlm · · Score: 1

      There is no evidence or reason for DC to be more "secure".

      In this modern post 9/11 post columbine world the words "secure" and "inconvenient" have merged and very few non-philosopher types can tell them apart.

      In this case it means that its inconvenient but typing the word secure is shorter and creates warm fuzzies in morons brains.

      Are the centralised rectifiers + wires + in-computer DC-to-DC converters as efficient?

      Yeah, generally the more you spend the higher quality the design. Its not that you can't design build and sell a 99% AC supply, its just you can't do so and survive in this weird confuseopoly market where the only thing that matters is price, none of the UL or FCC listings are real, and its all made by our enemies in China.

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    3. Re:secure? by g0bshiTe · · Score: 1

      I dare say in my 13 years of IT, I have replaced far more worn out UPS batteries than I have bad PSU's.

      --
      I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
    4. Re:secure? by gad_zuki! · · Score: 1

      Oh course its secure! The $300/hr "Security Consultant" we hired said so and here's his checklist from the audit!

      *DC power
      *Use Passwords, change weekly
      *Use Control-Alt-Delete
      *Blame sysadmins for everything

    5. Re:secure? by bromoseltzer · · Score: 1

      The system is arguably less secure. You have 50 systems depending on one AC-DC converter (or a small number of them), and that introduces a single point of failure.

      When our data center installed a nice shiny big UPS system to help us solve some problems about unreliable AC supply, I (correctly) predicted the next data center outage would be from the UPS.

      --
      Fiat Lux.
    6. Re:secure? by Onuma · · Score: 1

      Definitely true. Battery banks tend to need regular, and often costly, maintenance. And you can still cause lots of damage to them by tripping them or incorrectly swapping switchgears/breakers, etc. I've done my time repairing those, and concur.

      --
      What else can happen when an unstoppable force collides with an immovable object?
    7. Re:secure? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sorry, secure just does not mean less downtime.
      Oh, do you mean secure as in security blanket?
      Do the new computers come with Teddy Bears?
      That'd make people feel more secure.

    8. Re:secure? by Palpatine_li · · Score: 1

      I thought the security argument is about the grid, no? And the efficiency argument is also about the grid. It really doesn't make a big difference when you switch to DC only locally.

    9. Re:secure? by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      That would be the TSA version of the new computers. Teddy Bears for everyone's security. Oh god no, please TSA don't read this...

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    10. Re:secure? by natehoy · · Score: 1

      If you have a UPS, you're going to need to change battery packs on the same interval regardless. The point here is that the computers could use the DC battery pretty much directly in a backup power situation, as opposed to the additional complexity of an AC-to-DC to charge the battery, a DC-to-AC to power the 120VAC power plug into the computer, and an additional AC-to-DC inside the computer itself. That's a whole lot of inefficient conversions, and a whole lot of extra bits that could go wrong.

      Putting fewer bits in the system almost always increases reliability. Once you've converted to DC, you have battery charge and computer usage all on the DC side. It's not only more efficient, it's probably going to be more reliable.

      --
      "This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
    11. Re:secure? by Xiph1980 · · Score: 1

      That is only true if you use batteries for UPS systems. There are a multitude of other ways to store energy in a system, besides batteries. You could use for instance Supercaps, a flywheel or gravitational potential energy.
      Of course, it is more common to use batteries, which they also mention using in the article.

      --
      Manuals are your last resort only
    12. Re:secure? by rAiNsT0rm · · Score: 1

      Actually, the 80%+ thing is partly bullshit. You need to run the PSU at a fairly high percentage of the wattage rating for that 80%+ to kick in, almost every computer I see is not coming close to hitting this level of efficiency from their PSU. The reality is about 30-50% is being wasted.

      --
      http://teasphere.wordpress.com - A little spot of tea
    13. Re:secure? by tokul · · Score: 1

      There is no evidence or reason for DC to be more "secure".

      More than 100 years ago some guy showed the evidence. Topsy the elephant was killed with cyanide and 6600V AC.

    14. Re:secure? by LoganDzwon · · Score: 1

      you can add and remove your DC batteries in-line without taking down your systems. battery failure would not necessary take down your systems.

    15. Re:secure? by Hazel+Bergeron · · Score: 2

      Doesn't the most basic 80 PLUS rating require 80% efficiency at 20% load?

    16. Re:secure? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have found UPS's to be one more thing that can go wrong. I've had more users loose data because an old UPS failed when there was no power outage than power outages. You should replace UPS's sometimes I guess.

    17. Re:secure? by Hazel+Bergeron · · Score: 1

      But you still have one or more great big rectifiers for several machines rather than each machine having its own. Unless you have the maintenance resources and backup equipment of a commercial electricity supplier, this is where you will fuck up.

    18. Re:secure? by rAiNsT0rm · · Score: 2

      That is the claim but many fail that and don't actually get close until 50% or higher, a few sites have done real world testing and have proven it. The other thing is that people always way over estimate the draw of components or simply go for the "bigger is better" mentality. I've seen so many 1KW PSU's in systems drawing 200watts or less. The wiki page gets into it all a little bit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/80_PLUS

      --
      http://teasphere.wordpress.com - A little spot of tea
    19. Re:secure? by LordLimecat · · Score: 2

      Its not that you can't design build and sell a 99% AC supply, its just you can't do so and survive in this weird confuseopoly market where the only thing that matters is price

      Lets see if it really makes sense to get that 99% AC supply, since you think its such a brilliant idea.

      My Core2Duo system w/ graphics card chews up a whopping 225 watts under full load (measured with wattmeter), with an 80% efficiency PSU. That means the PSU is wasting an astonishing 225 * .20 = 45 watts. The kWh rate here is around $0.062 after generation and distribution. That means per month, it costs me about 8.37 cents for having such an inefficient PSU. I purchased it about 5 years ago (June 2006 I believe), and it has run for the most part 24/7-- we will assume full load and constant operation. This means over the past 5 years, I have spent 5*12 * 0.0837 = $5.02 on electricity for said PSU.

      Now for the kicker, this fine Antec PSU cost around $50. Show me your 99% efficient AC PSU for $55-- not even taking into account this was 5 years ago, or that actual average load is likely to be closer to 160watts.

      In no sense does it make sense to spend what would likely be several hundred dollars, and a boatload more emissions, on manufacturing a PSU with such high performances, to save a measly $5 and around 15kWh per year.

    20. Re:secure? by JasterBobaMereel · · Score: 1

      Batteries die

      Flywheels wear

      Gravitational PE has moving parts to ...

      SuperCaps might be the answer .... but they are expensive and can arc and burn out ...

      --
      Puteulanus fenestra mortis
    21. Re:secure? by SilverJets · · Score: 1

      All I could gather from the article is they are more "secure" in that if there is a power outage they basically have a home grown UPS to keep the systems up and running. So it is "secure" as in students won't lose their work if there is a power outage. Of course as others have pointed out you don't need to convert to DC like they did to have a UPS in place.

      To me it is a stretch of the idea of security (especially when you think computer security) but that was all that I could gather from the article.

    22. Re:secure? by Hazel+Bergeron · · Score: 1

      That is the claim but many fail that and don't actually get close until 50% or higher, a few sites have done real world testing and have proven it.

      Do you have any links? Ignoring power supplies which claim to be 80 PLUS certified but actually aren't, of course. Reviews and my own tests confirmed my Corsair PSUs doing as advertised with a fairly low desktop load.

      The other thing is that people always way over estimate the draw of components or simply go for the "bigger is better" mentality. I've seen so many 1KW PSU's in systems drawing 200watts or less.

      Yes. But I'm hoping a university IT department isn't entirely staffed by neophyte gamers.

    23. Re:secure? by Hazel+Bergeron · · Score: 3, Informative

      Erm, wasted this month: 45W * (24 * 31) hours = 33.5kWh = $2.08.

      Also, that kWh rate is fairly cheap...

    24. Re:secure? by 6ULDV8 · · Score: 1

      No, they wouldn't, but a recitfier might if you didn't have a decent bypass switch. We've had both fail and the only outage was the UPS itself.

      --
      Pull my finger for my public key.
    25. Re:secure? by misen · · Score: 1

      I think your calculations are off by a factor of ~ 24. Assuming a 4 week month, and 168 hours per week, the monthly power lost is 45*168*4 = 30240 W-hr = 30.2kW-hr. At 6.2 cents per kW-hr, that is over $1.80 per month. Over 5 years, that puts you at over $100 total.

    26. Re:secure? by Kagato · · Score: 1

      It's interesting that people think this is some new idea. Telco central offices and data centers in many parts of the world have been running 48VDC for 40 years. Lower power consumption, less heat, easier to deal with power outages. The only question in my mind is if it's worthwhile for more widely distributed installations. I.e. high density housing or office space might make sense, but single family homes? Not so sure about that.

      DC has some interesting prospects though. Some PoE + systems can deliver 50+Watts over 50v. That's enough juice to power a fanless PC and a LED back-lit monitor.

    27. Re:secure? by ebh · · Score: 1

      Then they installed it wrong. It should have gone to bypass mode if building power was still up. Also, machines with multiple power supplies should have had one connected to the UPS and one connected to building power.

    28. Re:secure? by Skapare · · Score: 1

      Closer to $122 for 5 years

      --
      now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
    29. Re:secure? by rAiNsT0rm · · Score: 1

      Your anecdotal sample of 1 (and a generally reliable brand at that) is not indicative of the wider spectrum, and also many brands use different OEMs amongst their ranges so while the mid or high end PSU from a company could be very reliable, the lower end one may not. Also, time and heat and dust buildup can alter these efficiencies to where even a decent 80 PLUS PSU can drop in efficiency. There is actually quite a lot to how PSUs are made and the components used inside and other environmental factors as well.

      And as for the average IT dept (university or not) is generally hit or miss as far as systems techs. I have worked for a private university and the entire tech team were indeed average college-age or a year or two older gamer types.

      --
      http://teasphere.wordpress.com - A little spot of tea
    30. Re:secure? by Hazel+Bergeron · · Score: 1

      Indeed - if your IT staff aren't checking the specs, reading the reviews, doing their own tests and keeping equipment clean then we won't get too far with efficiency savings... and a more complex alternative like DC power distribution is completely out of the question.

      But as long as there's a selection of reliable brands, we can let review sites do their job of identifying the potential candidates and the instant rejections.

    31. Re:secure? by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Exact opposite experience.

      I've only had to replace UPS batteries on a few machines (usually servers) that ran on UPSs.

      I've had to replace a buttload of power supplies. In my experience at least half of all PC failures are the power supply.

      Which do you keep on the shelf (or which do you keep more of). Spare power supplies or spare UPSs?

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    32. Re:secure? by fnj · · Score: 1

      Incredibly cheap. Where I come from it's more like 18 cents per kwh.

      Anyway, the OP's problem is the vastly inflated power requirement, not the modest inefficiency of the power supply. I have a fine very fast Shuttle 3 GHz dual core that takes under 50 watts in nominal desktop use. I have several smaller "desktops" (6.5x6.5x2.25" or so) that are slightly more modest dual core with 2.5" drives and are under 24 watts. (These readings do not count the monitor, and there is a lot to be gained in that department, granted.)

      My notebook uses an ultra low voltage dual core CPU and is around 15 watts even counting the display.

      How much of the time is he really using the 3D power of his no doubt honking graphics card? Playing games or doing 3D composition work? The gigantic amount of power wasted by ludicrously powerful 3D graphics that goes 99% unused is a pet peeve of mine .

    33. Re:secure? by guruevi · · Score: 1

      Now imagine you're an average University with ~30,000 computers.

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    34. Re:secure? by rAiNsT0rm · · Score: 1

      Sure, but DC power isn't that complex, if anything it is simpler. Since most places have UPS' it would be trivial to begin to offer DC ports directly from the UPS. This would be scalable from small individual units to the larger enterprise ones. Network gear already can be easily powered via DC, and it could be the same for all computers with little effort... at least data centers. It removes one more point of failure from computers, servers, and equipment. It decreases ewaste. It cuts down or out completely even 20% waste on energy. Things could be smaller, no more wall warts, etc. There are so many benefits. A 20+% energy savings on all of the computers in the world would be massive alone.

      --
      http://teasphere.wordpress.com - A little spot of tea
    35. Re:secure? by guruevi · · Score: 1

      It's actually -48VDC. Something to do with corrosion.

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    36. Re:secure? by Rick17JJ · · Score: 1

      I have never even heard of building a 99% efficient power supply, like someone mentioned. But, here are the power consumption figures for my desktop computer which has 82% - 85% 80 Plus Bronze power supply. I am not a gamer, so power consumption when idle or under light load is all that matters in my case. I have an Intel i7 950 running at 3.07 GHz. It has a quiet and not very powerful inexpensive fanless video card that probably uses very little power when idle.

      I have an 550 Watt 80 Plus Bronze power supply in my desktop computer. That power supply is supposed to be 85% efficient at 50% load and 82% efficient at 20% load. My computer and flat screen monitor are each plugged into a separate Kill-A-Watt meter. They say that my computer is using 84 Watts and the monitor is using 38 Watts. So I am using 15% of my rated power supply, right now, and probably wasting about 15 Watts.

      The display on my UPS says that is is putting out 114 Watts to my computer, monitor, the speakers and everything, which is only slightly off from the above numbers.

      I pay about 16 cents per KWH which is almost 3 times what LordLimecat pays, but am calculating power consumption under light load. Suppose I leave my computer on 24 hours per day, with the monitor turned off most of the time. If my math is correct, it would use about $118 worth of electricity per year (not counting the monitor). My power supply would be wasting about $21 per year.

      I do not know the difference in efficiency between my power supply and a less efficient one, compared to the difference in power supply prices, so I am not sure how many years the payback period would be. So, my 82% efficient power supply might or might not quite pay for itself, compared to a cheaper power supply.

      Below is how I calculated that the 15 Watts that my 82% efficient power supply wastes, adds up to 131 KWH per year and costs $21 per year. I hope my calculations are correct. So, if there were actually any 99% efficient power supplies available, they could save me about $21 per year.

      15 W x (1 KW / 1000 W) x (24 hours / 1 day) x (365 days / 1 year) = 131.4 KWH / year

      (131.4 KWH / 1 year) x $ 0.16 / 1 KWH = $21 / year

    37. Re:secure? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, I for one, did not know there was a downside to over-specifiying the wattage output of a PSU (i.e., I didn't know there was a downside to using 800 watt PSUs over 600 watts).

    38. Re:secure? by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      What brand power supplies were you using? Sounds like a problem with poor-quality power supplies to me.

      Were any of them victims of the Capacitor Plague about 10 years ago?

    39. Re:secure? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What they meant was that DC is 'safer.' AC passing thru your body scrambles all of the nerve impulses in the areas where it passes through because it's constantly switching polarity. DC doesn't do this, so it's less lethal.

    40. Re:secure? by RobbieThe1st · · Score: 1

      Now wait a second - Just like modern CPUs, GPUs -also- downclock when under light load. My Nvidia downclocks from 576/999(core/memory) to 300/100 when just doing 2d stuff, and takes a -lot- less power. Even if it's -not- underclocking, it's just running NOPs - which take a lot less power than actually calculating things.
      Sure, it's not as effecient as having an integrated gpu... but it's not nearly as bad as the values you get when running a benchmark.

    41. Re:secure? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can understand the efficiency argument to a certain extent, although if a workstation needs enough power that a fanless AC PSU is unsuitable then the more efficient AC PSUs will be enjoying enough load to reach over 80% efficiency. Are the centralised rectifiers + wires + in-computer DC-to-DC converters as efficient?

      Well it depends, but generally speaking yes it's more efficient. The major efficiency gain comes from having the AC/DC converters in a single cooling enclosure. This allows them to eliminate a LOT of cooling fans, and pipe the waste heat right out of the facility instead of recirculating it and runningg the HVAC more often.

      I'm not sure why this is even really news- we already do this in dedicated data centers. And really, a large computer lab is essentially a data center just using desktops instead of rack mount form factors.

      There are drawbacks to using DC like they have it setup. For one, you have to have specialized outlets, which means you lose a lot of flexibility in terms of re-locating or re-organizing the computers. DC is a lot more dangerous than AC as well.
      Another issue is that the power supply within a PC helps smooth out the voltage; it makes up for drops and limits surges to a limited extent. You can get some power supplies that actually contain a built-in line conditioner. Running DC all the way means that any power fluctuatinos within the local DC circuit are going to have bad effects on the longevity of the systems. A power spike could easily pop the entire lab.

      And another factor to consider is cost. The cost of the electrical work, as well as maintenance and speciality equipment is a LOT higher than just using regular AC outlets that were installed by lowest-bid contract workers fresh out of VoTech school.

    42. Re:secure? by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      Yea, my mistake, was off by a factor of 24....

      Even so, youre not going to find an ATX PSU with 99% efficiency for 5.02*24=$120 more than i spent on my 80% efficient one.

    43. Re:secure? by rjstanford · · Score: 1

      That assumes that the whole system (including GPU) is running at full load, 24 hours a day.

      --
      You're special forces then? That's great! I just love your olympics!
    44. Re:secure? by badkarmadayaccount · · Score: 1

      Flywheels on magnetic bearings wear?

      --
      I know tobacco is bad for you, so I smoke weed with crack.
    45. Re:secure? by toddestan · · Score: 1

      Well, part of the problem with power supplies is that most of them aren't really capable of providing the power they claim they can. That's why people buy a 500W power supply for a 200W computer. Because if you tried to put a 300W power supply in that computer, it would probably catch fire.

  5. DC is more secure? by snowraver1 · · Score: 1

    How is DC more secure? The only reason I can think of is because of the increased difficulty connecting a stolen computer to your home power supply.

    There is a small deterrance factor, but I think that by the time most theifs would have figured this out, the computer would already be stolen.

    --
    Copyright 2010. All rights reserved. This comment may not be copied in any way including, but not limited to caching.
    1. Re:DC is more secure? by Shisha · · Score: 1

      They meant to say it's more reliable, because there are fewer parts inside the computer that could fail.

      You could argue in the opposite direction: if the main ACDC converter fails, all the computers go down, not just one. Swings and roundabouts I guess.

    2. Re:DC is more secure? by LoganDzwon · · Score: 1

      or have multiple ACDC converters in parallel at the same time...

    3. Re:DC is more secure? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, DC is more secure if you're stupid enough to touch the wires. AC blocks all your muscles.

    4. Re:DC is more secure? by 6ULDV8 · · Score: 1

      Absolutely. Galaxy power systems can be had for a few thousand each.

      --
      Pull my finger for my public key.
    5. Re:DC is more secure? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now, what are the odds of your crappy little PSU dying vs those of the main AC/DC converter? What are the odds of the AC/DC converter vs the whole area having a blackout? Questions, questions.

    6. Re:DC is more secure? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It could be argued that have a local DC converter makes the local power in the building more secure from power surges

    7. Re:DC is more secure? by linuxpyro · · Score: 1

      You can also wire a battery bank in parallel and have a built-in UPS: if the main converter fails or the power goes out, there's still power for the computers without any interruption.

      --
      Saying "I'll probably get modded down for this" in a post is the best way to get it modded up.
  6. AC? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The only thing inside a computer that actually runs on AC is the computer's powersupply. The powersupply regulates this to DC voltages! The powersupply is also quite bulky and noisy compared to the other components.

    "Initial tests show that the system in Bath emits approximately half as much energy as heat than the previous AC powered system while running much faster."

    Yes, I'm sure it'll generate less heat when most of that heat comes from converting AC to DC, but why the hell would it run faster when everything else in the computer is still the same?

    1. Re:AC? by spidercoz · · Score: 1

      MOD PARENT UP!

      So glad someone else knows this fact.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - Evelyn Beatrice Hall, re Voltaire
    2. Re:AC? by doconnor · · Score: 1

      "why the hell would it run faster when everything else in the computer is still the same?"

      Don't modern computers slow themselves down if they are getting to hot? With the AC to DC conversion moved somewhere else, the computer are cooler and slow themselves down less.

    3. Re:AC? by tomhudson · · Score: 1

      The only thing inside a computer that actually runs on AC is the computer's powersupply. The powersupply regulates this to DC voltages! The powersupply is also quite bulky and noisy compared to the other components.

      "Initial tests show that the system in Bath emits approximately half as much energy as heat than the previous AC powered system while running much faster."

      Yes, I'm sure it'll generate less heat when most of that heat comes from converting AC to DC, but why the hell would it run faster when everything else in the computer is still the same?

      Because they're comparing it to a previous (older) system, not the same system but powered with a local ac/dc power supply. An apples and oranges comparison.

      TFA is so fact-free it could have been submitted by Florian Mueller.

    4. Re:AC? by Xacid · · Score: 1

      "but why the hell would it run faster when everything else in the computer is still the same?"

      Just a guess but it might allow for running the CPU faster as there's less external heat bringing up its temperature.

      Question tangent to that: I'd imagine SSDs run MUCH cooler than HDDs - with that said, does anyone know first hand?

    5. Re:AC? by jesseck · · Score: 1
      The speed comes from the new computers. Generally, when you purchase new computers, the hardware is better than the previous ones. Add to that you don't have the Windows bloat of years of updates and installs / uninstalls, and possibly running Windows 7 versus the old XP, and you get a faster machine.

      When people ask me if they need a new computer or would the one they have work, I respond that any new computer will seem better. After the honeymoon period, though, when something breaks or you install the same programs, that old system may seem faster. I tend to see this with more with persons who bought their last computer in line with their needs, and want to buy a new computer on the cheap.

    6. Re:AC? by evildarkdeathclicheo · · Score: 1

      This is true, however most off-the-shelf computer motherboards run at various DC voltages, and this still requires conversion (which means more power lost through heat). This is why companies like Google that run server farms that equate to nothing more then thousands of motherboards zip tied to wire racks had component manufacturers make boards that only run on 1 voltage (24VDC I believe). I think that the concept is sound, but it does require a degree of standardization that only exists in custom orders currently. -W

    7. Re:AC? by Ferzerp · · Score: 1

      a "modern computer" will only throttle due to thermal issues if it is broken. They are made to run at a 100% duty cycle. If it has to down clock due to heat, it has faulty cooling, is drawing power beyond spec, etc. All of these are situations of something is broken.

      So no. Not in the slightest. Computers are not built to dissipate less heat than they generate.

      If yours do, please take it out of the cabinet, uncover the vents, clean the dust out of the heatsinks, return it as defective etc.

    8. Re:AC? by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      It wont be noticeable.

    9. Re:AC? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Um, last time i checked, PSU's exhaust is external to the computer case, thus none of the heat from the PSU would reach the CPU or other components. So the computer would only 'slow it's self down' if the CPU or other components were getting too hot.

      This of course would not hold true if you are an idiot and keep your computer case in a air tight box.

    10. Re:AC? by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      They do. But realistically, your splitting hairs on the increase in performance. Unless your computer is clogged with mats of dust an hair obstructing air flow, the absence of a local AC/DC converter is unlikely to help as it wasn't much of a hindrance to begin with.

      In theory, if getting rid of the extra heat would help performance, the biggest benificiary would be with Intel's Turbo Boost technology.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    11. Re:AC? by gravis777 · · Score: 1

      Thank you for stating this! I was shocked no one stated it earlier! The only way that you are saving power is if you actually have a DC generator, but that is not the case. Stupid stupid experiment - as others have said, they are just moving the conversion, and heat distribution, to another place.

    12. Re:AC? by bhtooefr · · Score: 1

      Actually, nowadays, Intel's CPUs go over 100% duty cycle - they overclock themselves for limited periods of time under certain workloads, and then downclock themselves once a certain amount of time has passed, power consumption exceeds a predefined amount, or the CPU is getting too hot.

    13. Re:AC? by oldmac31310 · · Score: 1

      I really don't think they should be using their computers in the bath regardless of whether they are powered by AC or DC. It's just not safe!

      --
      http://www.acetonestudio.com
    14. Re:AC? by rgviza · · Score: 1

      "Initial tests show that the system in Bath emits approximately half as much energy as heat than the previous AC powered system while running much faster."

      This is because without a power supply, there's no transformer and rectifiers packed into a PSU within the case. Without a transformer and rectifiers generating heat in a PSU there's a lot less heat in the computer case.

      As far as being faster? no way. I guarantee you the computers run at the exact same speed, with maybe a slight edge due to the inside of the case being cooler. Clock speeds are limited by chip quality, not the last few feet of the power supply. If there were a speed difference, it wouldn't be noticeable without instrumentation.

      Most of the heat comes from the GPU and CPU, not the power supply, though the power supply heat is definitely considerable.

      --
      Don't kid yourself. It's the size of the regexp AND how you use it that counts.
    15. Re:AC? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's faster because frustrated users can use the same amount of force to propel it across the room at higher speed. F=MA! Duh!

    16. Re:AC? by c++0xFF · · Score: 1

      Consolidating and moving the conversion is the point. If you can increase efficiency by consolidating the conversion to a single large unit (or a small number of units for backup capabilities), then you've saved electrical costs already. You can also save by not buying power bricks and other converters for each device, and each time you replace it. What a waste!

      Moving the conversion (and, therefore, the heat produced) to a more convenient location means that you don't have to remove that heat from the room. Air conditioning is much more inefficient than any sort of electrical power conversion, I believe.

      Unfortunately, this is all quite an investment up front, not to mention a dramatic shift in how we think about electrical power.

    17. Re:AC? by Stray7Xi · · Score: 1

      Yes the conversion to DC is inevitable. This makes a lot of sense when you're using a UPS. When on battery power it converts from DC-AC so your PSU can convert from AC-DC. WTF?

    18. Re:AC? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > it'll generate less heat when most of that heat comes from converting AC to DC, but why the hell would it run faster when everything else in the computer is still the same

      At least in theory it would be possible to overclock processors if the extra heat can be removed. I doubt that this is the case here, but in general less heat -> faster computer.

  7. Dumb idea by Animats · · Score: 2

    There's something to be said for DC distribution within data center racks, but building a plug-in DC infrastructure seems like a PR stunt. They need a whole rack of power conversion gear to serve 50 desktop computers.

    Google at one point proposed that rackmount computers should be built to run on 12VDC only, so you could have a single 12VDC supply in the rack and get rid of the individual power supplies for the server. Whatever happened to that?

    Much industrial automation gear and military equipment runs off 24VDC. That's low enough that you don't have a shock hazard, but high enough that the wire sizes are reasonable.

    1. Re:Dumb idea by Bert64 · · Score: 1

      A lot of networking/telco gear can run on DC, but very few servers seem to have that option...

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
    2. Re:Dumb idea by Onuma · · Score: 1

      That's because the military truck batteries are 24VDC. You can run all of their equipment off a truck's alternator, if it is wired up properly. Alternator --> UPS --> Further Distribution.

      It makes sense to have the same voltages across the board, so that you can reduce the need for variants of hardware.

      --
      What else can happen when an unstoppable force collides with an immovable object?
    3. Re:Dumb idea by nschubach · · Score: 1

      Technically you could swap out power supplies for a DC input version:
      http://www.powerstream.com/DC-PC-12V.htm
      and
      http://www.mini-box.com/DC-DC (these are more for low power systems though)

      I had debated putting a 12vdc power supply in my home computer and running it to a 12v battery with a power/charging circuit on that. I never understood having UPS systems that convert AC to DC to charge the batteries then switching back to AC to power the computer which just converts it back to DC.

      --
      Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
    4. Re:Dumb idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Google makes their own server boards, and I believe that each run on their own 12V battery, and each have their own battery charge circuit. So, there is no power loss in the UPS, and there is no shared UPS. No single point of failure should take all their servers down (except an EMP? or earthquake that breaks all their fiber?)

      http://news.cnet.com/8301-1001_3-10209580-92.html

    5. Re:Dumb idea by __aaxtnf2500 · · Score: 1

      Critical military electronic loads run on DC power distribution systems in order to achieve higher reliability. Not just because it is efficient in an automobile.

    6. Re:Dumb idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A lot of networking/telco gear can run on DC, but very few servers seem to have that option...

      For what it's worth, both Iron Systems and JNCS offer -48v DC power supplies on their rack-mount servers.

    7. Re:Dumb idea by satch89450 · · Score: 1

      The telco battery buses are -52V DC, and you can find equipment that will accept that voltage and work properly. Not at your neighborhood Radio Shack or Best Buy.

    8. Re:Dumb idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Oracle's (Sun's) Netra carrier grade systems are a line of x86 and SPARC servers that can be ordered with either AC or DC power supplies.

    9. Re:Dumb idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You still need power supplies in each server (never mind the power supplies onboard the motherboard its self).

    10. Re:Dumb idea by jeffmeden · · Score: 1

      Never mind that Dell, one of the largest server manufacturers there is, offers a DC power supply option with just about any server they sell... Other than that, and almost every other server maker offering the same thing, you could say "very few have that option"... Sure.

    11. Re:Dumb idea by rgviza · · Score: 1

      The reason 24v is good is that like you said the wire sizes can be reasonable, but more importantly it won't arc easily.

      --
      Don't kid yourself. It's the size of the regexp AND how you use it that counts.
    12. Re:Dumb idea by mjwalshe · · Score: 1

      i suspect that google actually employed some real EE's or ex telco power guys and they pointed out that 48v is the standard for that and you can already buy carrier grade gear to run of 48v.

    13. Re:Dumb idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Google already has a battery on each motherboard, which is a cheap and efficient UPS solution.

      This design provides Google with UPS efficiency of 99.9 percent, compared to a top end of 92 to 95 percent for the most efficient facilities using a central UPS.

      Running the whole rack on a 12VDC power source would be the next logical step.

    14. Re:Dumb idea by evilviper · · Score: 1

      Google's didn't want all-12V servers for the sake of central power supplies, that was just one of the uses they threw out there. It's clear google wants everything at 12V so their unique UPS system (connecting a VR-SLA battery between the PSU and motherboard) will work. It's an interesting design, but one that lacks the monitoring and transparent testing that seems to work only in the most massive clustered environments.

      And more in general, the drive for DC in the datacenter died off around the time 80plus.org started up. With 90% efficient PSUs widely and inexpensively available, and 95% available for those paying more, there really isn't much improvement to be had, yet it would require major redesigns and expensive niche products that don't have the same economies of scale.

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    15. Re:Dumb idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Google at one point proposed that rackmount computers should be built to run on 12VDC only, so you could have a single 12VDC supply in the rack and get rid of the individual power supplies for the server. Whatever happened to that?

      What Google proposed was that computers in general switch from multivoltage supplies to single voltage supplies, not that they switch from single computer supplies to multicomputer supplies.

      The individual computers are still fed AC via standard IEC connectors and have individual power supplies*. It's just that those supplies are much simpler and more efficient and can run closer to capacity, since they only have to provide +12VDC instead of the +12, -12, +5, -5, +3.3, +5SB of the ATX standard, most of which are completely pointless these days.

      This has nothing to do with having a common power supply for the rack. That's not really desirable for reliability reasons -- power supplies are more complex than PDUs, and so it's easier to keep the most common failure domain sized at the server (which is full of other complicated and sensitive bits that fail frequently). It's also not desirable to have to change to power cords and connectors big enough to carry 10x the amperage.

      Anyway my guess as to why this never went anywhere is that it didn't have a big set of manufacturers to push it like ATX did. If Antec and Intel and friends wanted to push this, they could make it happen and we'd all be better for it.

      * You can see an old article with a picture of a Google server here: http://news.cnet.com/8301-1001_3-10209580-92.html

  8. More Secure? Regionalism, maybe? by rwade · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Selective quotes from TFA:

    Researchers at the University are undertaking an in-depth study of energy consumption within the new network, with the aim of demonstrating that running a large network of devices on DC rather than AC is both more secure and more energy efficient.

    The new DC network also offers greater security. DC power supply units have a simpler design, with fewer parts that could fail and need replacing. The system at the University also charges a number of batteries when usage levels are low to allow the system to run independently from the grid for up to eight hours should a cut in power be experienced.

    The above two paragraphs are the only I could find in TFA that mention security. I gotta ask -- can anyone speculate how centralizing the PSU would lead to a more secure system? Is it possible that there is a regional definition of "secure" to mean "very reliabile" or "very available." As in, we have "secured" a constant municipal water supply?

    1. Re:More Secure? Regionalism, maybe? by xs650 · · Score: 5, Funny

      "Is it possible that there is a regional definition of "secure" to mean "very reliabile" or "very available."

      Yes, it's regional, as in "The wankers will stop nicking the computers if they can't use them at home."

    2. Re:More Secure? Regionalism, maybe? by Shisha · · Score: 1

      The whole article is full of strange statements.

      Consider the following part:

      Not content with lowering power usage and reducing energy loss, the University hopes to extend the environmental credentials of the new network by installing mini wind-turbines or solar panels, both of which output a DC current and therefore don’t require inefficient conversion from AC to DC.

      My school physics may be a bit rusty but I would assume wind turbines produce either pulsating DC or AC and hence the current has to be converted before use by electronics.

    3. Re:More Secure? Regionalism, maybe? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, I think they mean 'reliable'. The article is dumbed down to the point of being nearly free of content, so I'm forced to speculate about what they left out. I suspect that they are looking at the complexity and cost of providing UPS power for each computer. If each computer had a separate stand-alone UPS, replacing them with a central battery backup would be simpler and more reliable. Converting DC battery power to AC at the output of each UPS, and then converting it back to DC at the front end of each computer power supply adds complexity. If you consider battery backup a requirement, then it makes sense to build it into the computer's power supply like a laptop, or use a centralized backup and distribute DC.

    4. Re:More Secure? Regionalism, maybe? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This, this here. By secure, they are meaning stable, reliable power. It is a rather strange phrasing that is somewhat popular here in the UK.
      Similar to the popular "how" instead of "why" confusion in a lot of younger kids.

      One of the main reasons of it being more secure is, of course, because they are converting it to DC.
      This tends to remove a lot of the noise from power lines that can seriously degrade and damage equipment.
      Power balancing equipment for power lines are usually seen as over-expensive crap, but if you run a lot of electrical stuff, you're better off getting one, it could save you a huge amount of money if something bad were to happen, like spikes, lightning, etc.
      They aren't even that expensive either. There are even ones for small-scale use that you can plug straight in to sockets that run for prices of your average surge protectors.

    5. Re:More Secure? Regionalism, maybe? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Selective quotes from TFA:

      Researchers at the University are undertaking an in-depth study of energy consumption within the new network, with the aim of demonstrating that running a large network of devices on DC rather than AC is both more secure and more energy efficient.

      The new DC network also offers greater security. DC power supply units have a simpler design, with fewer parts that could fail and need replacing. The system at the University also charges a number of batteries when usage levels are low to allow the system to run independently from the grid for up to eight hours should a cut in power be experienced.

      The above two paragraphs are the only I could find in TFA that mention security. I gotta ask -- can anyone speculate how centralizing the PSU would lead to a more secure system? Is it possible that there is a regional definition of "secure" to mean "very reliabile" or "very available." As in, we have "secured" a constant municipal water supply?

      Well, when bits are made from DC they have a firm identity of what they are. AC leads the bits to be more morally relativist, constantly changing sides. Therefore, bits made from AC are more likely to be swayed by Al Qaeda or Chinese propaganda, whereas DC bits are solidly 'merican and patriotic.

    6. Re:More Secure? Regionalism, maybe? by Going_Digital · · Score: 1

      What they really mean is that they don't need expensive phase converters so that the AC supply produced is in phase with the mains electricity. Much easier and cheaper to put the output into a rectifier.

    7. Re:More Secure? Regionalism, maybe? by couchslug · · Score: 1

      Many wankers, self included, would happily make use of DC machines at home and shop.

      Never underestimate the value of having a pron stash available during outages and disasters.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    8. Re:More Secure? Regionalism, maybe? by xs650 · · Score: 1

      I understand, but the average computer thief is going to go for a computer that he can plug into AC power at home.

    9. Re:More Secure? Regionalism, maybe? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Secure" is often used in this context, i.e. offering extra redundancy to secure a service from power failure.

    10. Re:More Secure? Regionalism, maybe? by Ginger+Unicorn · · Score: 1

      i'm curous, how long can you run a desktop pc on a car battery for?

      --
      (1.21 gigawatts) / (88 miles per hour) = 30 757 874 newtons
  9. Edison & Tesla by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Didn't Edison & Tesla argue this out a few years back? Has electricity changed so much since then?

    1. Re:Edison & Tesla by Qubit · · Score: 1

      Has electricity changed so much since then?

      It's funny that you'd bring that up. Yes, actually Physicists and noted researchers are observing subtle but significant changes in the way that electricity flows through conductive materials. Electrons used to be so-called "longer" a few decades ago (end to end, mind you), so you'd actually get a fewer number of them traveling through the wire to you per second.

      Now that the magnetic poles of the earth are shifting, and we're (slowly) approaching the geomagnetic "pole-arity" reversal (a little physics humor there...), electrons flowing through wires are shortening and approaching the shape of a sphere rather than an elongated sausage. You'll see this happen more strongly during the night, when your part of the Earth is facing away from the Sun and isn't experiencing as much solar radiation and bombardment of charged sub-atomic particles.

      So yes, it is a good time for the University and other large groups to reconsider the way that they power their computers. Note that they'll need to install an inverter once the poles actually do reverse, however usually the reversal takes over a thousand years. That being said, taking precautions isn't a bad idea, as Wikipedia does point out:

      ...geologist Scott Bogue of Occidental College and Jonathan Glen of the US Geological Survey, sampling lava flows in Battle Mountain, Nevada, found evidence for a reversal that took only four years.

      I'd be happy to consult with any University or Company that is considering a move to DC power or other "green power" initiatives.

      For more information about the latest in advanced power tech and the influence the shifting poles has on inter- and intra-electron measure, please see the wikipedia page on such topics here.

      --

      coding is life /* the rest is */
    2. Re:Edison & Tesla by ArhcAngel · · Score: 1

      Physicists and noted researchers are observing subtle but significant changes in the way that electricity flows through conductive materials. Electrons used to be so-called "longer" a few decades ago (end to end, mind you), so you'd actually get a fewer number of them traveling through the wire to you per second.

      Ah! but DO the electrons flow through the wire or just shuffle back and forth as the holes flow through the wire? I've seen these very same people get into fist fights over that question too.

      --
      "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
    3. Re:Edison & Tesla by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      Electricity hasn't but transformers have. It used to be very cheap to do voltage conversions with AC and very expensive (and lossy) with DC. That's a lot less true now.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    4. Re:Edison & Tesla by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

      Yes. DC/DC converters have gotten a lot more efficient. When Edison and Tesla were arguing, a transformer was the only way of doing voltage conversion.

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
  10. AC vs DC by prakslash · · Score: 2

    The major drawback to DC power is in the wiring. Direct current requires larger gauge wiring than AC power, which increases material costs considerably. In general, DC power is economical only if the wiring between the computers and the DC source is less than 35 feet in length. More than that, AC power becomes more economical.

    1. Re:AC vs DC by TDyl · · Score: 4, Funny

      I guess I could swing either way on this one.

      --
      Todd: I hope it proves as delicious as the farmers that grew them
    2. Re:AC vs DC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tell that to power companies,

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HVDC#Advantages_of_HVDC_over_AC_transmission
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skin_effect

      DC transmission does not require larger wires, it require smaller wires. And no, you can't compare a 12VDC with 240VAC. The point is that higher voltage DC (240VDC) can be more "dangerous" but that can be mitigated be using better circuit breakers. On the other hand, unlike AC, DC does not cause RF noise to be emitted from every single circuit in your house. When you are not using power, the circuit is energized but "quiet".

      The only problem with DC is inability to use power transformers. DC-DC conversion is more expensive, but I believe today this is mainly due to less application in DC-DC conversion especially with higher voltages than 50VDC.

    3. Re:AC vs DC by Muad'Dave · · Score: 3, Informative

      I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion. AC suffers from several effects that make it less efficient and/or more expensive over long distances.

      For DC, the power delivered is V*I. For AC, it's similar except the V is really Vrms - you must insulate for Vpeak, but you only get Vrms * I power. For sinusoidal AC, the difference is a factor of 1.414.

      With AC circuits that have non-zero reactance, you must choose a conductor that can carry Imax, but the power delivered to the load is only Vrms * Imax * cos(phi), phi being the phase angle between the voltage and current.

      AC circuits suffer from the skin effect where the power travels more on the surface of the conductor rather than equally throughout its cross-section. This requires a larger solid or stranded conductor than would be required for DC.

      AC has a few things going for it - the ease with which voltage can be transformed, the ease of generation with rotating generators, and ability to drive large, multiphase motors efficiently.

      --
      Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
    4. Re:AC vs DC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not necessarily... Most/all the computers I ever owned would run quite happily on DC with cable no thicker or shorter than AC. The secret is to feed them with approximately 310 Volts. No modification needed unless you want to remove a couple of diodes from or bypass the rectifier (don't try this at home) and make them useless on an AC supply. This is more highly recommended if the computer's power supply doesn't have power factor correction (assuming you DC supply does).

    5. Re:AC vs DC by Viol8 · · Score: 1

      "Direct current requires larger gauge wiring than AC power,"

      No it doesn't. Its the voltage that matters, not the type of current. It just so happens that most industrial DC applications - eg metro trains - use lower voltages that their AC equivalent which means higher currents for the same power delivery and hence thicker cabling.

    6. Re:AC vs DC by tomhudson · · Score: 1

      The major drawback to DC power is in the wiring. Direct current requires larger gauge wiring than AC power, which increases material costs considerably. In general, DC power is economical only if the wiring between the computers and the DC source is less than 35 feet in length. More than that, AC power becomes more economical.

      FTFA:

      the project team moved the one tonne AC converter through the University library and into the roof space, removing and rebuilding walls to transport it

      Somehow, I suspect that the cable run to the individual machines is more than 35 feet.

    7. Re:AC vs DC by bromoseltzer · · Score: 1

      Not really. It depends on the current drawn through the wire. For power P (constant for the computer, more or less) required at a voltage V, you need I=P/V amps. You're not going to distribute 3 V or 5 V, which is what your ICs want, I hope! You could distribute 120 V DC with the same size wiring you use for the usual AC connection. You could send around 1,200 V (DC or AC) and use 1/100 the copper. (Power lost to heating goes as I**2.) The high voltage limit is set by safety and cost of DC-DC converters.

      --
      Fiat Lux.
    8. Re:AC vs DC by vlm · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The major drawback to DC power is in the wiring. Direct current requires larger gauge wiring than AC power, which increases material costs considerably. In general, DC power is economical only if the wiring between the computers and the DC source is less than 35 feet in length. More than that, AC power becomes more economical.

      FTFA:

      the project team moved the one tonne AC converter through the University library and into the roof space, removing and rebuilding walls to transport it

      Somehow, I suspect that the cable run to the individual machines is more than 35 feet.

      His figure of 35 feet is of course completely made up, or at best applies only to one very specific situation. Its a rather complex non-linear solution that depends on current level, local union labor contracts, price of copper wire, UPS and battery capacity, etc.

      Obviously, if you are charging an ipod at a zillionth an amp after a 12V to 5V converter, you can run that thru thousands of feet of small gauge (cheap) speaker wire before the voltage drop will matter. And if you're doing the thousand watt gamer PC or NAS farm you'll need something approaching welding cable to keep the voltage drop low enough. In between, well, its in between. But by no means as simple as a 35 foot cutoff.

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    9. Re:AC vs DC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Posting Anonymously because I have already rated a few posts.

      The major drawback to DC power is in the wiring. Direct current requires larger gauge wiring than AC power, which increases material costs considerably. In general, DC power is economical only if the wiring between the computers and the DC source is less than 35 feet in length. More than that, AC power becomes more economical.

      The above is true only if the same level of safety in maintained. If you maintain the same voltage of about 120DC as it was 120AC the DC is more dangerous. To maintain the same safety you need to reduce the DC voltage; when you do that the amount of current goes up (needed to maintain the same amount of power). The increase in current causes the need for larger wires.

      Tim S.

    10. Re:AC vs DC by JiffyPop · · Score: 1

      You are right that the type of power doesn't matter (AC/DC), but the voltage does NOT dictate the gauge of wire needed. It can dictate the insulation used, however most wire I have seen is rated to 600V. The original post was probably correct - in this application - that the DC power distribution will need larger gauge wire. The AC/DC power supply normally in a computer is not terribly inefficient, so the DC power supplied to the computer will need to supply almost the same number of watts as the AC circuit. Unfortunately the DC power is supplied at a much lower voltage so the current must be raised to compensate for this. Of course it is possible that they are distributing high-voltage DC power (maybe ~250V?) and including a DC/DC power supply in each computer. This would let them run smaller gauge wire, but increase the cost of the components in the computers. Additionally it would eat into the efficiency of the system, which would seem to be the biggest benefit of a central AC/DC conversion. As for the trains, I would be surprised if they were running on low voltages. Copper is expensive, and thicker wire will also make a motor less efficient for a given frame size.

    11. Re:AC vs DC by vlm · · Score: 1

      The high voltage limit is set by safety and cost of DC-DC converters.

      Yeah, important, but more important limits are set by:

      1) NEC vs unregulated. The cutoff is what, 50 volts or something? Below that as long as its plenum rated you can pretty much do whatever you want, its treated like security system wiring, etc. Above the NEC cutoff you need a licensed electrician every time a screw needs to be turned or you need to use consumer grade plugs -n- sockets.

      2) wire insulation (good luck buying 1200 volt wire at home depot, you'll be lucky to find stuff good enough to do 477 volt)

      3) Circuit breakers / fuses. You're lucky when they break the arc at 120 volts AC, good luck at 1200 DC, thats gonna be some expensive commercial industrial breakers or very large fuse holders.

      4) last but not least connectors. What are you planning on using for 1200 V connectors? PL-259s? N connectors? ... its a mystery at those voltage levels.

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    12. Re:AC vs DC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      AC circuits suffer from the skin effect where the power travels more on the surface of the conductor rather than equally throughout its cross-section. This requires a larger solid or stranded conductor than would be required for DC.

      Did you READ the article you linked on this? "At 60 Hz in copper, the skin depth is about 8.5 mm." If you've got wires with 17+mm diameter solid conductors in them, you're DOING IT WRONG...

    13. Re:AC vs DC by prash_n_rao · · Score: 1
      Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_Currents

      The advantage of AC for distributing power over a distance is due to the ease of changing voltages using a transformer. Available power is the product of current × voltage at the load. For a given amount of power, a low voltage requires a higher current and a higher voltage requires a lower current. Since metal conducting wires have an almost fixed electrical resistance, some power will be wasted as heat in the wires. This power loss is given by Joule's laws and is proportional to the square of the current. Thus, if the overall transmitted power is the same, and given the constraints of practical conductor sizes, high-current, low-voltage transmissions will suffer a much greater power loss than low-current, high-voltage ones. This holds whether DC or AC is used.
      Converting DC power from one voltage to another requires a large spinning rotary converter or motor-generator set, which was difficult, expensive, inefficient, and required maintenance, whereas with AC the voltage can be changed with simple and efficient transformers that have no moving parts and require very little maintenance. This was the key to the success of the AC system. Modern transmission grids regularly use AC voltages up to 765,000 volts.[11] Power electronic devices such as the mercury arc valve and thyristor made high-voltage direct current transmission practical by improving the reliability and efficiency of conversion between alternating and direct current.
      Alternating-current transmission lines have losses that do not occur with direct current. Due to the skin effect, a conductor will have a higher resistance to alternating current than to direct current; the effect is measurable and of practical significance for large conductors carrying thousands of amperes. The increased resistance due to the skin effect can be offset by changing the shape of conductors from a solid core to a braid of many small wires. However, total losses in systems using high-voltage transmission and transformers to reduce the voltage are very much lower than DC transmission at working voltage.

      --
      This is not my sig.
    14. Re:AC vs DC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well that all nice in theory, but have you ever tried to push DC more then 30 or 40 feet at large currents? Go hook up a windmill 50 feet from your house, and try running purely dc, see what happens. Mine runs ac from the windmill and converts back to dc at the batterys for a very good reason.

    15. Re:AC vs DC by gstrickler · · Score: 1

      You mean the power companies that primarily use AC distribution, and only use HVDC for limited applications where the reactive losses of an AC circuit (e.g. a lengthy underwater cable) are high enough to offset the significantly higher costs and lower availability of an HVDC circuit? Are those the power companies to which you're referring?

      Look slightly farther down that Wikipedia page at the "disadvantages", and you'll see why it's not used much. Tesla/Westinghouse was correct about AC distribution, Edison was correct that DC is better for many local applications, but he didn't see (or ignored) it's limitations.

      --
      make imaginary.friends COUNT=100 VISIBLE=false
    16. Re:AC vs DC by sribe · · Score: 1

      ...you must insulate for Vpeak...

      I guess you never noticed that power distribution lines are not insulated?

    17. Re:AC vs DC by seanadams.com · · Score: 2

      With AC circuits that have non-zero reactance, you must choose a conductor that can carry Imax, but the power delivered to the load is only Vrms * Imax * cos(phi), phi being the phase angle between the voltage and current.

      With respect to RMS vs peak, you are thinking of the *voltage* rating (what the insulation can withstand), NOT the current rating. Economically the insulation rating is not low hanging fruit for optimization - the copper conductor is by far the bulk of the cost and this can not be downsized for DC because it is the average thermal dissipation in the wire that determines its current carrying capacity. This is the same for a given DC vs AC operating voltage and load.

      AC circuits suffer from the skin effect [wikipedia.org] where the power travels more on the surface of the conductor rather than equally throughout its cross-section. This requires a larger solid or stranded conductor than would be required for DC.

      Stranded wire is used for electrical distribution not because of the skin effect, but because it's easier to bend, pull, and terminate (except for #12 or smaller because usually you prefer it to hold its shape). At 60Hz the skin depth is 8.5 mm - it just doesn't come into play at such a low frequency for building power distribution.

    18. Re:AC vs DC by snspdaarf · · Score: 1

      ...you must insulate for Vpeak...

      I guess you never noticed that power distribution lines are not insulated?

      Sure they are, just that they are insulated at support points and not along the surface of the conductor.

      --
      Why, without your clothes, you're naked, Miss Dudley!
    19. Re:AC vs DC by zzsmirkzz · · Score: 1

      Well the way I understand it, in DC circuits the resistance of the wire increases as the distance of it increases. In AC, this is not true.

    20. Re:AC vs DC by Muad'Dave · · Score: 1

      I understand Joule heating of conductors, and I understand the historical bonuses of AC. Note that I compared apples to apples - DC V = AC Vrms, DC I = AC Irms. For a given power level, DC is the better choice. I've also had the privilege of touring the massive DC conversion/transmission station at Celilo which pushes 3,100 Amperes at +/-500 kV to SoCal, part of the Pacific Intertie.

      --
      Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
    21. Re:AC vs DC by Muad'Dave · · Score: 1

      Thank you for your reply. I wasn't talking about house wiring, rather AC transmission vs DC transmission. The cost of insulators on every support point that must withstand 1.4x the RMS voltage are going to be larger, heavier, and more costly. The skin effect is alive and well at 60 Hz, and for large conductors and large distances can be non-negligible. For very long distances or for routes that span grids, the phase of the two systems at either end can be difficult to manage for AC.

      --
      Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
    22. Re:AC vs DC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      AC circuits suffer from the skin effect

      At low frequencies as 50 or 60 Hz, skin effect is relevant only for *very* thick cables (read centimeters) as used in high voltage transmission lines.
       

    23. Re:AC vs DC by MattskEE · · Score: 1

      Well the way I understand it, in DC circuits the resistance of the wire increases as the distance of it increases. In AC, this is not true.

      That's completely incorrect. For both AC and DC the resistance is rho*L/A, where rho is the resistivity of the material in ohm-meters, L is length in meters, and A is cross-sectional area in meters^2. AC actually has it slightly worse off because there is the skin effect which causes current to bunch up on the outer edges of the conductor, but for most practical situations that would be encountered in building wiring the effect is negligible.

    24. Re:AC vs DC by blueg3 · · Score: 1

      What do you think the air around the power distribution line is *for*?

    25. Re:AC vs DC by TDyl · · Score: 1

      What has "virtual richard m stallman" got to do with this? Are the Bath Uni boxen running Debian?

      --
      Todd: I hope it proves as delicious as the farmers that grew them
    26. Re:AC vs DC by smellsofbikes · · Score: 1

      AC has a few things going for it - the ease with which voltage can be transformed

      That's the kicker, right there. It's trivial to make a transformer that can step up to 22kV, or 220kV. It has historically been very difficult to step DC up to those voltages, and not much easier to step it back down efficiently. I think the parent's point is that at any distance, you go ahead and install cheap step-up and step-down transformers and transmit power at high voltage. Since the current required drops as the voltage increases, and the cross-sectional area of wire is a function of current, you get to use cheap thin wire. Modern advances in solid-state power conversion have helped improve the efficiency of dc-dc conversion, but modern transformers are still more efficient.

      --
      Nostalgia's not what it used to be.
    27. Re:AC vs DC by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      I'd rate his statement as more incomplete than incorrect. No, voltage doesn't dictate necessary wire thickness, but the combination of amps, wire resistance, and heat dissipation/efficiency DOES. Thing is, the easiest way to decrease the required thickness of wire when you have a given wattage requirement for the equipment is to increase the voltage. So, from a layman's standpoint, voltage DOES matter for the required thickness when you're looking at a circuit to power a given piece of equipment, whether it's a metro train or a computer. If you need 12 gauge wire @ 120V for an application, you might only need 14 gauge@240V.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    28. Re:AC vs DC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      If you look at your own wikipedia reference you will see the skin depth at 60Hz is 8.5mm (or about a 1/3 inch) so its not really much of an issue for what we are discussing here. Enough to allow for a couple hundred amps.

      You are also failing to consider power loss. Power = I^2 * R with R dictated by the wires (and very long distribution lengths) so you must keep I low to keep the power loss due to distribution low. AC allows for easy upconversion to very high voltages (allowing very low current) and easy conversion back to lower, more usable voltages.

    29. Re:AC vs DC by djmurdoch · · Score: 1

      If you've got wires with 17+mm diameter solid conductors in them, you're DOING IT WRONG...

      Right, those are for high end audio, not for power distribution.

    30. Re:AC vs DC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      AC not good?
      Interesting, But what happen on long Cable runs ?
      Today we use 138 KV AC and 450 KV AC to run AC many Miles..The Generators are a mere 20 - 40 KV AC
      What Voltage do I need to do the same for DC ?

      In Practice can we generate say Mega-volts of DC ?
      We must The generator will arc over if it isn't the size of a small town

      Remember now, DC cant use transformers ,So we must have Mega-volts to begin with at the generator!
      You realize the size & cost to manufacture that generator? Such a high voltage generator would arc over if would be enormous and down more than it worked
      Then
      How do you overcome the wire resistance over long distances ?
      If DC were that great, there would be countries doing it
        One would think?

    31. Re:AC vs DC by Kumiorava · · Score: 1

      I bet your conversion to AC also changes the voltage to allow higher throughput. You could use DC same way as you use AC. DC to DC converters might just be more expensive or not so widely available compared to AC to DC converters.

    32. Re:AC vs DC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This requires a larger solid or stranded conductor than would be required for DC.

      I'm sorry, but I'm calling bullshit on this one. You're not considering the voltages and frequencies that are actually in use. At 50Hz, the chart in the your own reference says that the penetration is 10mm of copper, much more that any wire that's going to be used, so it can be discounted. Let's say I need to deliver 150 Watts. If I start at 240V at 50Hz (standard for the UK), the RMS voltage is 170V, so by your equation 150W / 170V = I * cos(phi), so you can be 30 degrees out of phase and still have a required maximum current under 1 amp. If you use 12V DC, 150W/12V = 12.5 amp. That's a difference of 21 gauge v. 10 gauge (0.0285" v. 0.1019" diameter). Unless you're going to have an AC to DC converter with an efficiency of less than 10%, the current used is going to be higher for DC. If you had 240V DC, you would have a lower current, but you'd have to find a 240V to 12V DC to DC converter with a decent efficiency. With small wires or big currents, you also need to consider voltage drops. The AC would have 1/12 the current, and 1/12 the voltage drop for the same size conductor. Since the AC voltage would be 20x the DC voltage, the percentage of voltage drop could be orders of magnitudes less, depending on the distance run.

    33. Re:AC vs DC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For AC and DC at the same voltage, the voltage drop on DC is less. For AC, there is voltage drop due to resistance and inductance. For DC, there is voltage drop for only resistance. Since there is less voltage at the utilization equipment, there must be greater current for the same amount of power. More current, more I^2*R losses.

      The AC power is more efficient if the AC voltage is 120 VAC, compared to 12 VDC

    34. Re:AC vs DC by Viol8 · · Score: 1

      "As for the trains, I would be surprised if they were running on low voltages"

      Prepare to be surprised - most metro systems use 750V DC or thereabouts. Google it.

    35. Re:AC vs DC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're right that the voltage doesn't directly affect the gauge of wire needed. However, because W=V*A to get the same amount of power, a lower voltage means you need more amps, and more amps do need a thicker cable to carry.

    36. Re:AC vs DC by NerveGas · · Score: 1

      "AC suffers from several effects that make it less efficient and/or more expensive over long distances"

      The article isn't talking about long distances. It's talking about a computer lab.

      "AC circuits suffer from the skin effect where the power travels more on the surface of the conductor"

      At the 50Hz and 220V of the mains in the UK, skin effect is not a factor in this type of setting, assuming you didn't contrive an exaggerated, insane way of installing the wiring to MAKE it a problem.

      "but the power delivered to the load is only Vrms * Imax * cos(phi), phi being the phase angle between the voltage and current."

      Most modern PSUs have active PFC, and keep the angle between V and I extremely close to zero, so that's not a factor either.

      "you must insulate for Vpeak, but you only get Vrms * I power"

      Insulation is cheap. Wire for use in 120V installations (170V peak) is insulated to 600V. If you're worried about cost, copper is by FAR the largest expense in making wire. And since high-voltage DC is more dangerous than high-voltage AC, presumably this system is at a lower voltage than the mains. That means... vastly greater wire cost than any triviality with insulation.

      This topic comes up every few years, when someone thinks they've discovered something new, and it never sticks. People have tried it over and over, and it almost never works out economically.

      --
      Oh, you're not stuck, you're just unable to let go of the onion rings.
    37. Re:AC vs DC by Muad'Dave · · Score: 1

      I agree that the OP was talking about wiring in the lab and I pulled in transmission. His assertion that "Direct current requires larger gauge wiring than AC power, which increases material costs considerably. In general, DC power is economical only if the wiring between the computers and the DC source is less than 35 feet in length. More than that, AC power becomes more economical" is not true for distances over 35 feet (assuming the same voltage) - that was the case I was addressing. Transmission distances are waaaay over 35 feet, and DC wins. The insulation I spoke of wasn't on the conductor, rather on each and every transmission tower. Also, it seems that he assumes that (as you said) the DC voltages would be lower than the mains. I don't see why that must or should be the case, since as you pointed out current (and therefore wire size) must increase if you decrease the voltage for a given power level.

      For a massive scale HVDC installation, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_DC_Intertie and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celilo_Converter_Station . 3,100 Megawatts (3,100 Amperes at +/-500 kV). Impressive!

      --
      Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
    38. Re:AC vs DC by NerveGas · · Score: 1

      The first reason why DC voltages are usually limited, in small-scale installations, to less than the mains is that of safety. Touch an AC wire, you do a short dance. Touch a high-voltage DC wire, you can stick and sizzle. There's a world of difference between an undersea cable and a wire underneath someone's desk.

      If I'm not mistaken, both of the DC stations you mention are for trans-oceanic transmission, because those are some of the situations where it DOES make sense. But wiring in a computer lab isn't one of those.

      The other problem is that even in cases where the conversion to DC actually does result in some economical savings, in most situations, you can get larger savings for less cost with other means. It's only when you get to really big, obscene cases where DC really starts to pull ahead.

      --
      Oh, you're not stuck, you're just unable to let go of the onion rings.
    39. Re:AC vs DC by Muad'Dave · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the reply. The stations I mentioned are not trans-oceanic - they go from the Washington/Oregon border to southern California, a distance of 1,362-kilometers or 846 miles over dry land. There seem to be lots of DC interties in the works around the world, including those that are strung on poles. Have a look at the last entries in this table - there seem to be an awful lot of them under construction. These enormous installations fall into your "...really big, obscene cases where DC really starts to pull ahead."

      I agree wrt the safety aspects of AC vs DC and that under the desk isn't a good place for HVDC. In an enclosed rack, however...?

      --
      Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
  11. Con Edison by The+Grim+Reefer2 · · Score: 3, Informative

    I guess Con Edison should have waited just a few more years. Apparently 125 was not quite enough.

    1. Re:Con Edison by kiehlster · · Score: 1

      It was before its time, I guess. This article reminded me of the same thing. Con Edison offered reliable, safe and efficient power. It won't kill you like AC power when you accidentally touch the wire.

  12. Silence is golden... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'd imagine there would be certain efficiencies gained by off-loading the work of the switching power supply to one central location, then just powering the workstations like you would normally power internal computer components. You'd still need to cool internal components, but if you were looking for really silent operation, you could offload this to liquid cooling, and cool the power supply and components at the same time - leaving the lab nearly silent. Of course, if the main power supply futzes - your entire lab is down, versus just one workstation.

  13. DC-DC conversion? by cdrguru · · Score: 1

    In a single room or even perhaps a floor of an office building I guess I could see DC distribution. It would tend to reduce the power supply losses. Laptops are already doing total DC-DC conversion for the different voltages they need and there probably isn't much of a reason you couldn't run 12 volts to each computer and have it convert it over to 5 and 3.3. I would think your benefits would be significantly less if you were running 100 volts DC and requiring it all to be downconverted as DC-DC conversion isn't anywhere near as efficient as AC-DC conversion.

    The big question is when do the wiring costs exceed the power supply losses. If nothing else you need to have a completely different parallel distribution network run with very, very incompatible outlets. You would NOT want to plug just anything into a DC supply, even if it was 12V. DC at 100V would destroy a lot of things and the load something like a shredder or even a desk lamp would be damaging.

    Another factor I would think is redundancy. Today if you blow a power supply (one of the most common computer failures) you lose one computer. If you blow the power supply for the office floor you might lose 100 or 200 computers.

    1. Re:DC-DC conversion? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Another factor I would think is redundancy. Today if you blow a power supply (one of the most common computer failures) you lose one computer. If you blow the power supply for the office floor you might lose 100 or 200 computers.

      That seems to be an argument for the opposite position: you only need x power supplies to provide x redundancy, instead of 100 or 200 times x power supplies?

    2. Re:DC-DC conversion? by vlm · · Score: 4, Informative

      Today if you blow a power supply (one of the most common computer failures) you lose one computer. If you blow the power supply for the office floor you might lose 100 or 200 computers.

      For reasons which are a long story, I have had several servers up and running on 12V for many years now. The powerstream guys are pretty much the gold standard of ATX 12 volt power supplies, as far as I know:

      http://www.powerstream.com/DC-PC-12V.htm

      Note that these are "honest wattages" not the "marketing wattages" seen in the AC power industry. The price of a 300 watt DC supply seems high compared to a 100 watt AC supply from China that has a sticker claiming 300 watts. However its not too bad compared to a AC supply that actually only provides 300 watts despite having a sticker labeled 800 watts or a million watts or whatever marketing felt necessary. Also the powerstream supplies, to the best of my knowledge, are some of the few computer power supplies you can buy that do not have forged FCC and UL registries, which is worth something to me. In summary, expensive, but strongly recommend based on years of experience.

      Anyway, what happens when the primary rectifier goes down, is my battery bank will run the asterisk PBX and friends for something like half a day, during which time I can source a generator and charger, or perhaps casually purchase a new supply, etc. Also I have multiple supplies any of which could theoretically power the whole works (at a cost of high heat and much shorter capacitor lifetimes, etc). So you Y-cable them to run multiple plants off one supply. Guess what, the same Y cable can be used to run multiple plants off one battery, if one fails. Etc.

      Theoretically, I could run the entire phone system off an idling car, assuming you have enough gas in the tank. Unfortunately my entire plant draws just a little too much for the cigarette lighter plug, probably 15 amps total. If I could invest in new phones / new servers / etc and get total plant draw down to 5 amps, not only would my batteries be 1/3 cheaper or last 3 times longer in an outage, but I could also run the works conveniently off a car cig lighter port.

      Obviously if you have zero battery capacity then you are instantly in deep doo doo, but given three or so figures of amp-hours you're good to go for a very long time.

      Wire everything in Amphenol power poles, exactly like the ham radio guys so you can use their DC products, and keep a stock of extension cords and Y cables and other gadgets. Use fuses, and as a subset of that rule, only use automotive fuses because they are infinitely available. Use 12 volts as your standard because you probably own a mobile 12 volt generator (aka your car). Perhaps if you're in the .mil and have a 24 volt humvee, do 24v instead, whatever.

      A DC powered system is frankly pretty straightforward and simple.

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    3. Re:DC-DC conversion? by CoderJoe · · Score: 1

      PowerPole is a product of Anderson Power Products, not Amphenol.

    4. Re:DC-DC conversion? by vlm · · Score: 1

      PowerPole is a product of Anderson Power Products, not Amphenol.

      You are 100% correct. Amphenol makes some nice RF connectors, and a lot of my work involves Anderson PP DC connectors on one side of the box and Amphenol RF connectors on the other side of the box.

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    5. Re:DC-DC conversion? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For reasons which are a long story, I have had several servers up and running on 12V for many years now. The powerstream guys are pretty much the gold standard of ATX 12 volt power supplies, as far as I know:

      http://www.powerstream.com/DC-PC-12V.htm

      [...]Wire everything in Amphenol power poles, exactly like the ham radio guys so you can use their DC products, and keep a stock of extension cords and Y cables and other gadgets. Use fuses, and as a subset of that rule, only use automotive fuses because they are infinitely available. Use 12 volts as your standard because you probably own a mobile 12 volt generator (aka your car). Perhaps if you're in the .mil and have a 24 volt humvee, do 24v instead, whatever.

      A DC powered system is frankly pretty straightforward and simple.

      A lot of telco equipment runs on -48VDC, as that's what is sent down the phone line to power your landline handset. They also often require NEBS-rated equipment.

      Sun had/has a large line of these types of systems (NEBS, DC) as they are/were fairly big in the telco space. DC is nothing new to a lot of server manufacturers.

    6. Re:DC-DC conversion? by Big_Mamma · · Score: 2

      Huh? The linked products are beyond horrible compared to any decent and MUCH cheaper AC PSU. Just look at any half decent review site, like the awarded products @ hardwaresecrets.

      I won't be paying $280 for a 400W DC PSU with 65% efficiency when I can get a whisper silent 500W PSU at 87%+ efficiency for $99 (Enermax Pro87+), or a fanless Seasonic X-400 for $134. The numbers just don't make sense. And yes, these are "honest" wattages, the 400W one actually delivered 600 in overload testing. You do have to do your homework when it comes to buying a PSU, but it really isn't that hard nowadays - aim for 80+ Gold and it's usually safe.

      I don't really care how simple and straight forward a DC system is, but if it's costing me 2-3x in purchase and wastes 30% of the input power as heat, count me out.

    7. Re:DC-DC conversion? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I live off-grid so I was interested to learn about the powerstream supplies. The powerstream solution doesn't look so good.

      The specs from powerstream say their supplies are 65% efficient. That's awful.

      I currently get 80% efficiency from 12 volts by using a high-efficiency 120v power supply (90% efficiency) and a high-efficiency inverter (90% efficiency).

      The above assumes you are running off solar panels or some other 12 volt supply. If you are running off line power then the powerstream efficiency is even worse. You need a battery charger to keep the 12v batteries charged. If you are running of of line power and using 12v supplies then the battery charger has to carry the full computer power load. Assuming a high-efficiency charger (90%), you are now down to 58% efficiency (.9*.65) ALL THE TIME. By contrast, if you use good 120 v power supplies, then you can bypass the batteries when you have power and you get 90% efficiency almost all of the time (except when the power is down).

    8. Re:DC-DC conversion? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why not just use a fuel cell and avoid having to convert from AC to DC at all?

    9. Re:DC-DC conversion? by sjames · · Score: 1

      If you blow a power supply for the whole floor in an N+1 configuration, a red light comes on and someone perhaps gets an email.

    10. Re:DC-DC conversion? by hcdejong · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately my entire plant draws just a little too much for the cigarette lighter plug, probably 15 amps total. If I could invest in new phones / new servers / etc and ...

      Your car can easily supply 15A. It's just the crappy cigarette lighter plug that can't handle that load. It's pretty simple to add a custom power socket to your car though.

      If you do this, do get some heavy-gauge wiring to run from the car to your servers. At 12V, wiring losses add up, and cabling can get pretty warm if it's not thick enough. .

    11. Re:DC-DC conversion? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's non standard equipment and they don't seem to have much competition, hence the price.

      many instances - the user only has DC power available - a nuke bunker powered by solar for example, or some remote location. Your AC supply would need to be fed AC, the supply would have to rectify internally to DC for your computer board. Do the energy efficiency ratings take the heat loss from rectification into account? Perhaps they just measure the AC part of the PSU circuit. Typical figures I've read for AC/DC conversion at low voltages are 15 - 20%, and the less voltage, the more inefficient. Also the conversion is temperature sensitive.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rectifier#Peak_loss

    12. Re:DC-DC conversion? by couchslug · · Score: 1

      "Your car can easily supply 15A. It's just the crappy cigarette lighter plug that can't handle that load. It's pretty simple to add a custom power socket to your car though."

      Yep. Run a forklift battery connector off a short run of cable from your battery, hang the matching connector off a set of quality jumper cables, and have at it. This is also a very good way to jump your car or someone else's.

      Example commercial outfit for wreckers:

      http://www.awdirect.com/lexan-plug-jump-start-set-safe-t-connect-500-amp-clamps-25-superior-signals-stc254/jump-start-sets-accessories/

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    13. Re:DC-DC conversion? by hcdejong · · Score: 1

      The only drawback of that set is that it's unfused. That's necessary for jumpstarting, but for powering something else it's better to have a fuse in there, preferably as near the battery as possible.

    14. Re:DC-DC conversion? by vlm · · Score: 1

      Your car can easily supply 15A. It's just the crappy cigarette lighter plug that can't handle that load. It's pretty simple to add a custom power socket to your car though.

      Agreed but that implodes the set of possible backup generators from pretty much any vehicle with a cig plug and some gas in the tank, down to ... my modified car.

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    15. Re:DC-DC conversion? by hcdejong · · Score: 1

      Agreed. If that's your goal, you could prepare an extension cord with appropriately-sized alligator clips [1], so you could hook it up to any car battery directly. You'll need to keep a roll of duct tape around so you can insulate the clips once you've attached them.

      1: e.g. the ones found on jump leads.

    16. Re:DC-DC conversion? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good info.
      But you probably mean Anderson Power Poles (not amphenol), right?
      And another source of ATX12V power supplies is mini-box.com --- I've used them and they seem like good stuff, but only a few and for a year or so, so the long term results aren't in.

    17. Re:DC-DC conversion? by couchslug · · Score: 1

      150A resettable breakers are available. My Tommy Gate liftgate uses one and they are available as spares.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
  14. Telecom has known this for a while by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I believe the telecom industry has known this for years. Since telecom equipment in COs can be run on both DC based and AC based power, consumption levels can be monitored between the AC and DC based offices. AC/DC - Rock on.

    1. Re:Telecom has known this for a while by tomhudson · · Score: 1

      I believe the telecom industry has known this for years. Since telecom equipment in COs can be run on both DC based and AC based power, consumption levels can be monitored between the AC and DC based offices. AC/DC - Rock on.

      Not exactly - it's because of the requirement that equipment operate during power failures. Hence the large banks of lead-acid batteries in older switching centers.

  15. UDC anyone? by srijon · · Score: 1

    We've got USB, what I want is UDC - some kind of in-the-wall intelligent DC outlet standard so that we can get rid of all those wall-warts and reap some of the advantages this article mentions. Of course, the one-tonne AC converter is a bit of a problem...

  16. I think I speak for us all when I say "Huh???" by $RANDOMLUSER · · Score: 2

    Initial tests show that the system in Bath emits approximately half as much energy as heat than the previous AC powered system while running much faster.

    If you mean "much cooler", you already said that. If you mean "much faster", you should probably sign up for that physics (or electronics) course.

    The new DC network also offers greater security. DC power supply units have a simpler design, with fewer parts that could fail and need replacing.

    So you don't mean "security", you mean "reliability".

    Decarbonisation will increase electricity consumption by 2030 and possibly more than double it by 2050.

    I wonder how much carbon was released refining all the lead in all those batteries...

    --
    No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
    1. Re:I think I speak for us all when I say "Huh???" by pz · · Score: 1

      Initial tests show that the system in Bath emits approximately half as much energy as heat than the previous AC powered system while running much faster.

      If you mean "much cooler", you already said that. If you mean "much faster", you should probably sign up for that physics (or electronics) course.

      I'm betting the new systems were much faster because they were, well, newer than the old ones, and the fact that they ran faster is completely unrelated to the fact that the cable running into the box that provides power carries DC rather than AC. But what do you expect from a propaganda-laden puff piece released by a university PR department, scientific accuracy and truth?

      --

      Put my fist through my alarm clock with its ding-dong death inside my ear. - The Blackjacks.
    2. Re:I think I speak for us all when I say "Huh???" by adonoman · · Score: 3, Funny

      running much faster

      With DC power, the electrons get to run laps, and every time they get to your computer, they can do a little bit of work, spreading it out among all the electrons. With AC power you got those electron thingies racing back and forth and back and forth, but never getting anywhere. Only the few electrons near the computer actually do any helpful work, and they get worn down really quickly, so they stop working as efficiently, and the CPU slows down, and it's just generally bad.

    3. Re:I think I speak for us all when I say "Huh???" by maxume · · Score: 1

      They switched to new computers, so nothing terribly impossible is being described. It also isn't very amazing, imagine, newer computers being more energy efficient than older ones.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    4. Re:I think I speak for us all when I say "Huh???" by Lehk228 · · Score: 1

      I am more worried about the carbon used to fuel steam shovels for all the bullshit

      --
      Snowden and Manning are heroes.
    5. Re:I think I speak for us all when I say "Huh???" by natehoy · · Score: 1

      I wonder how much carbon was released refining all the lead in all those batteries...

      You mean the batteries they'd need if they were running the thing off an AC-based UPS, only they need fewer of them because the power stored in them can be used directly by the computers rather than running it though a DC-to-AC conversion then back through an AC-to-DC conversion in order to power the computers?

      The point here is increased efficiency, not some magical faerie dust that makes the system 100% efficient.

      --
      "This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
    6. Re:I think I speak for us all when I say "Huh???" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The electrons don't flow anywhere, the holes do. I have an external computer P/S I made with parts borrowed from a buddy that is in to audio systems. He swears his cables and power supply will make the computer run better and run more "aligned", and smoother than any other P/S. I was skeptical at first but I immediately notcied my CPU temperatures were 4c cooler (as measured with a calibrated device) and I was able to switch back to 2 GPM flow on my cooling rig and i can now run an 18% alcohol solution.

      I have not tested it on any games yet but I'm sure I will notice the huge improvement.

    7. Re:I think I speak for us all when I say "Huh???" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We have a winner. Cool story bro.

    8. Re:I think I speak for us all when I say "Huh???" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Correct me if I'm wrong (I'm sure you will) but...

      Isn't the purpose of a computers power supply to convert 120 volts of AC into low voltage DC? If so, then all the components of the computer that are electrically downstream of the power supply are already operating on DC. If this is so, then there would be no difference.

    9. Re:I think I speak for us all when I say "Huh???" by Brannoncyll · · Score: 1

      Maybe the cooler cases allows them to overclock to CPU while still retaining decent stability?

    10. Re:I think I speak for us all when I say "Huh???" by FKnight · · Score: 1

      Get a dictionary. security â"noun 1.freedom from danger, risk, etc.; safety. 2.freedom from care, anxiety, or doubt; well-founded confidence. 3.something that secures or makes safe; protection; defense. 4.freedom from financial cares or from want: The insurance policy gave the family security. 5.precautions taken to guard against crime, attack, sabotage, espionage, etc.: The senator claimed security was lax and potential enemies know our plans. Keeping crooks out of things is way down at definition number 5.

  17. Where did the heat go? by DeadCatX2 · · Score: 2

    They just move the AC/DC conversion somewhere else. All of the heat will go along with it.

    --
    :(){ :|:& };:
    1. Re:Where did the heat go? by tomhudson · · Score: 2
      From TFA:

      Also:

      the project team moved the one tonne AC converter through the University library and into the roof space, removing and rebuilding walls to transport it

      It would have been cheaper to just use 50 energy-efficient laptops. You'd get even more power savings, and if you wanted to completely remove the heat from the transformers, just put them all in a cabinet that vents outdoors, and extend the DC power plugs.

      And you wouldn't have to also invest in another ton of batteries.

    2. Re:Where did the heat go? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They just move the AC/DC conversion somewhere else. All of the heat will go along with it.

      But isn't one big transformer better than a bunch of little transformers?

      Also, you can move the one transformer away from air conditioning, and (theoretically) back during winter.

    3. Re:Where did the heat go? by bieber · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't using one large transformer vs. 50 smaller ones reduce the energy lost to heat and noise significantly? Not to mention moving the heat of that process to somewhere it can easily be vented rather than the inside of a computer.

      Any device that converts energy from one form to another inevitably loses energy along the way, and combining the function of multiple such devices into one should generally yield less waste overall, because there must be some fixed cost for each device, in addition to the variable cost relative to the amount of power you run through. For instance, why do we invest billions in power infrastructure and massive power plants rather than just all running our own generators at home? Presumably because one massive generator is more efficient, even after accounting for the energy lost in transit, than thousands of smaller generators.

    4. Re:Where did the heat go? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't have any facts to back this up, but I have a feeling that using fewer converters (i.e. larger) instead of having individual converters in each PC to convert AC to DC leads to a more efficient environment. In addition I believe they are using a higher voltage supplied to their transformers than the 120 VAC your PC normally gets. Every time the voltage is stepped down from its original voltage (whether on the transmission lines or at your site) you incur an energy loss. So if you convert say 240 VAC or 480 VAC to a low DC voltage, it will be more efficient than converting first to 120 VAC then to the low DC voltage

    5. Re:Where did the heat go? by 6ULDV8 · · Score: 1

      Low voltage DC supplies don't work well over distance and laptop supplies are not very robust to start with.

      --
      Pull my finger for my public key.
    6. Re:Where did the heat go? by blair1q · · Score: 1

      And probably more, since when you turn the computers off the common power supply is still on and leaking.

    7. Re:Where did the heat go? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Probably it's more efficient to have one big one than lots of little ones

    8. Re:Where did the heat go? by satch89450 · · Score: 1

      Actually, you would be talking about three transformers, not one. All larger buildings have three-phase power, for the large motors and other high-drain equipment. To keep the load balanced, you would have three separate transformers and recifiers, the outputs brought together at a summing junction, so you end up with 180-Hz power (three time 60 Hz) or 150-Hz power (three times 50 Hz). You then have multiple battery banks, hooked in series/parallel so that one bank of batteries can be isolated for maintenance. The batteries provide some ripple filtering; the rest can be handled by coils, capacitors, and voltage regulators within the computer device itself, so that any sag in the DC won't shut down the attached equipment. So the main heat components are the transformer, rectifier, and batteries. By placing them "outside" (well-ventilated room) you don't have any heat build-up caused by the conversion. The in-computer interface would take the battery voltage and generate the 3.3V, 5V, and 12V DC voltages for the computer. Telcos have been doing this for years.

    9. Re:Where did the heat go? by tyrione · · Score: 1

      Lets see how many people try to disprove your observation of Heat Dissipation and Energy Transfer.

    10. Re:Where did the heat go? by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      In my experience, laptops are less power efficient than a similarly powered desktop, and more expensive. You can get motherboards that use laptop processors, put them in a desktop, and put in a couple low-sped fans (less power and less noise) and get something that will run better than taking the same thing and shoehorning it into the smallest possible package. Not to mention that the constant conversion of just using laptops plugged into AC is inefficient. My laptop, while off (completely off, not a standby state of any kind) uses more power from the wall than my desktop in standby (not hibernate, but powered RAM standby).

    11. Re:Where did the heat go? by tomhudson · · Score: 1
      Did you run those standby power tests with the battery removed from the laptop, and with the power drain for the lcd monitor for the desktop included? After all, the laptop will be "topping up" the battery from time to time, and for the desktop you also have to include the screen, same as the laptop.

      Also, the "constant conversion" is going on with the 1-tonne rectifier they're using, and that's not going to be all that efficient when most of the desktops are not running.

    12. Re:Where did the heat go? by mobby_6kl · · Score: 1

      If they remove AC/DC from my computer, I'll just have to use my stand-alone mp3 player, thus reverting whatever they were trying to accomplish.

    13. Re:Where did the heat go? by tomhudson · · Score: 1

      Low voltage DC supplies don't work well over distance and laptop supplies are not very robust to start with.

      My way, the distances would be less than running the same voltage from the rooftop, down walls, etc.

      I would disagree about laptop power supplies ... the one I'm typing on gets at least 12 hours a day, often 24/7 ...

      Then again, I didn't buy a dell.

    14. Re:Where did the heat go? by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Considering how it's not common practice to remove the battery immediately after powering down, I would consider such an action to make the test less valid, not more. The battery was fully charged, reported by the LEDs to not be charging and reported by the OS to not be charging. The measurements were taken after power off, and then again before power up the next day, with the same readings.

      I did not include the monitor in standby. This wasn't a test of laptop vs desktop while off. It was part of a power audit of mine where I measured draw under use and under "off" conditions as I'd normally leave them. The computer was measured independently for the draw, so it was measured independently for the "off" condition as well (which was stand-by for it because that is how I leave it when not in use). The monitor was counted on the power strip with the router and WAP. I did note that the desktop (more powerful that the laptop) also used less power than the laptop, but a main factor in that would be monitor power usage. Though if I did downgrade the desktop monitor to something the size of the laptop monitor, the desktop would have fared even better.

      Their constant conversion could be used for other items, or just computers. And the labs at my uni were timed. When they were open, everything was on. When they were closed, everything was off. There was no "idle" time where you'd have 50% of the computers on. As such, if they powered off the rectifier when the lab was closed, and powered it up when the lab was open, they'd come out even more ahead. Modern computers generally power the Ethernet port and some other parts and pieces even when "off" such that a hard switch in the rectifier will save them more power. And I measured in my computer and found that disabling wake-on-LAN and such did not affect the trickle while off, so I'd guess that, at least in the implementation I owned, the WoL feature draws power regardless of whether it's enabled, and simply doesn't respond if the feature is disabled.

    15. Re:Where did the heat go? by tomhudson · · Score: 1
      Just a few more points.

      1 Monitors with soft-touch buttons are always on. Same with the battery charging circuit, whenever the power supply is plugged in - the battery has electronics that monitor the battery's state, even when it's not "charging.
      2. You have to either remove the battery from the laptop during all the tests, or include an equivalent-rated UPS for the desktop, for a true "apples to apples" comparison.

      Also, a system that insists on powering all the computers in a lab, whether everyone is there or not, if obviously not very efficient.

    16. Re:Where did the heat go? by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 1

      They just move the AC/DC conversion somewhere else. All of the heat will go along with it.

      *Some* of the heat will go along with it. Since they're now doing the AC/DC conversion wholesale, they should be doing it a lot more efficiently.

    17. Re:Where did the heat go? by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      You have to either remove the battery from the laptop during all the tests, or include an equivalent-rated UPS for the desktop, for a true "apples to apples" comparison.

      No, I don't. Apples to apples is how you walk away from the unit. If the laptop remains plugged in and powered off most of the time, then that's the best way to measure it because that's your actual usage. I wasn't measuring it to find out how much power it takes when you unplug it, pull the battery, take out the RAM, hit it with a hammer or whatever. I measured the devices in my house based on my regular usage of them. I don't pull the battery out of my laptop when I turn it off, so doing that for a measurement of how much power it takes would make it an invalid test. I don't have my desktop hooked up to a UPS, so I didn't buy one just to hook up to see how much my usage is when I don't want or need a UPS on my desktop.

      I compared my desktop and laptop power usage when in use and when "off" (for the definition of off being how I leave the unit overnight or other times when I want it in a low power state unused for a longer period). And that showed my laptop uses more power when in a full powered down off state than my desktop when in semi-powered standby. And it showed that my laptop under heavy use used more power than my desktop under heavy use. Though, as pointed out before, that was without the monitor added in to the desktop. But even if I had, that wouldn't have been apples to apples, as my 24" desktop screen would likely draw a different amount of power than my 15" laptop screen. So even if I'd put the monitor on the same circuit as the desktop and measured it, it wouldn't have been "fair" when comparing similar devices as you are demanding with specifically modifying the laptop with the specific goal of changing the results.

      Also, a system that insists on powering all the computers in a lab, whether everyone is there or not, if obviously not very efficient.

      Obviously you've never gone to college.

    18. Re:Where did the heat go? by tomhudson · · Score: 1

      The real question: Since most students have laptops, why bother with a "computer lab" with individual workstations when all you need is a power bar and an ethernet cable?

    19. Re:Where did the heat go? by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      It has been a while since I was in college. But I'm curious whether most really do have laptops, and of those with laptops, how many carry them on a daily basis. Storing things in web email or such with physical backup (USB keys or such) is what I did (easier than hauling around hardware when there were computers all over the place).

      If the uni requires work be done that requires a computer, then they should either provide a computer for exclusive use (as some do) or provide shared computers (as everyone does). Since the shared model is cheaper and the most widely accepted, I don't see it going away any time soon. I'd have to check into the ones that provide individual computers, but I'd bet they still have some manner of shared computing facility, even if just something that isn't equal to what they provided (such as a mainframe for the CS department for legacy, more powerful workstations in the architecture department, a supercomputer of some kind that is either the CS computer or additional one for research computations, computers in a printing lab, computers for the humanities department that are more likely MAcs rather than Windows). I remember there being a few large "public" labs, and just about every department in the university having their own computers for their students, often with things loaded on them which would be cost prohibitive for students to get.

      And my comment about you never having gone to college should be given again, since you are presuming that a university would have efficiency anywhere on its list of priorities. Having gone through one of the largest universities on the planet (in the top 51 list on Wikipedia, though that list is mostly useless because it counts "systems" and "open" so that the numbers aren't tied to a single university), I can tell you that efficiency doesn't seem to be on the minds of any of the administrators. Though it doesn't help that the administration in US universities is headed by professors. I can't think of a worse system for trying to get operational efficiency than putting tenured professors in charge of their own administration...

    20. Re:Where did the heat go? by $pace6host · · Score: 1

      For those about to rock, we salute you.

    21. Re:Where did the heat go? by tomhudson · · Score: 1

      If the uni requires work be done that requires a computer, then they should either provide a computer for exclusive use (as some do)

      Do you really believe any student is going to type out assignments on a manual typewriter? I can understand the concept of a "lab" back when they were banks of green-screen terminals (bad memories) but nowadays everyone has a laptop. Lots of schools make it a requirement.

      This "lab" was ordinary desktops; leaving them on all the time is simply wasteful. As for the software question, students with their own laptops can always run software in a vm, or through a remote client. It's not rocket science any more. And if we're talking ordinary software like an office suite, unis get really good discounts, and there's always open source.

      This "experiment" was poorly done, because there was no comparison between the same hardware powered by a regular power supply and the DC power supply.

      Also, one good way to reduce laptop noise is to slightly elevate the laptop (or incline it) so that the air circulates better. That's good for 10 degrees on mine, which means the fan hardly ever comes on (the exception being when firefox goes into its "eternal I must scroll by one line" loop or some other firefox bug (it's always firefox). Or when another program starts up and insists on checking for updates, etc. Or the odd time I boot into Windows, which keeps the fan on all the time.

      REAL power savings would be for the world to dump Windows.

      But yes, there's so much office politics in university that it's amazing anything gets done (though unfortunately, the same can be said about so many workplaces, etc.) What can you do?

  18. Edison will triumph in the end! by John+Hasler · · Score: 1

    He tried to tell you AC would fail. Take that, Tesla.

    --
    Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
  19. why not just spec a decent normal power supply? by Chirs · · Score: 1

    It's not clear to me how this is any better than specing normal machines with a decent power supply. Anything rated at "Gold 80 Plus" will convert to DC with 80-90% efficiency depending on the power draw.

    Is this just a matter of replacing old inefficient noisy machines with newer efficient (and thus quieter) ones?

    1. Re:why not just spec a decent normal power supply? by zill · · Score: 1

      My W510 draws only around 50 watts, but its power brick is rated for 120 watts. My desktop is likewise over-provisioned as well to account for power consumption spikes.

      However by combining the AC to DC conversion of 100 computers, the over-provisioning factor can be much much less, because it's very unlikely that the computer enter into power spikes at the exact same time.

    2. Re:why not just spec a decent normal power supply? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are other advantages though. Firstly, noise - there is less heat dissappation would be less because the power supplies are doing less work; and thus less need for fans on the computers themselves (assuming they're temprature sensitive). How much of this is due to simply replacing the computers is a good question though (newer computers haven't accmulated as much dust, for example!)

      Secondly, this is a battery backed installation. A conventional system with an online UPS would be "Mains -> Transformer -> Recitifier -> Batteries -> Inverter -> transformer back to AC -> cable to computer -> transformer / rectifier (typically switchmode) -> DC inside the computer", but this is more like "mains -> Transformer -> rectifier -> batteries -> cable to computer -> DC-DC inside."

      More efficent overall because there is less conversions (skipping the othewise wasteful DC to AC Mains and back to DC steps). It's not uncommon in telecommunications areas to do something similar and run everything off -48 VDC.

  20. makes sense in a library by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fewer fans means less noise, if you put some batteries in between you can use a power source designed for the *average* power required instead of designing it for the *maximum*, plus provide 30 seconds "save your documents right NOW" UPS functionality. The power conversion can be done ventilated with outside air so you save on airco. Good idea for concentrated PC groups like libraries and offices, bad idea at home...

  21. McCumber cube? by oneiros27 · · Score: 1

    If you're looking at the McCumber cube, then yes, availability is one of the three aspects we're trying to protect in security (along with confidentiality and integrity).

    Most "security" obsessed people these days come from the "keep the bad people out" mentality, even if it's at the expense of making it so obnoxious for the authorized users to actually be able to do their job, but a complete model of security is that people who are supposed to be able to use the system are able to use it when they want.

    (but I wouldn't have said 'secure' ... I'd have said 'reliable', as 'secure' has connotations of restrictiveness and secracy)

    --
    Build it, and they will come^Hplain.
  22. wow, newer = faster and smaller, big deal by alta · · Score: 2

    Ok, so people have 'noticed' that these NEW computers are faster, quieter, smaller and just magically better than the old system.

    This is obviously not very scientific, I'd venture to say if they replaced the entire old system with a new AC system, it would still be faster, quieter, smaller, etc...

    Yes, DC may be great, but these observations can be said about any new vs old setup.

    --
    Do not meddle in the affairs of sysadmins, for they are subtle, and quick to anger.
  23. I would love to make the conversion by erroneus · · Score: 1

    My server at home is begging for a DC conversion, for example, as are my switches and other gear.

    The idea is great, but like so many things, we are entrenched in our AC power systems. So until we come up with a common implementation of the "AC to DC" power supply for everything and everything comes with an option to plug in "DC" I will have to wait.

    There are DC power systems for servers and such today, but such things are pretty much special order and expensive. I hope that it catches on at a level which enables me to run my stuff on DC sooner rather than later.

    1. Re:I would love to make the conversion by jomegat · · Score: 1
      I would like to put some PV cells on the roof, but it really bugs me that even though they produce DC (which I need), I'd have to convert it to AC, deliver it to my equipment, and then convert back to DC again inside the device's power supply. These cascaded conversions take their toll - if 80% each, I have a total conversion efficiency of only 64%. Ouch. That really hurts if you're trying to squeeze all you can out of a PV setup.

      I thought of a possibly viable path the industry could offer for converting to DC. What if a computer manufacturer started offering desktop machines with an UPS integrated into the power supply? The marketing reasons for this are somewhat compelling - it makes the desktop behave more like a laptop. No need for a separate UPS, etc.

      They could at the same time take the further step of providing UPS-backed DC outlets on the PS itself, and then sell other equipment that would plug into these DC outlets - routers, cable modems, printers, monitors, etc. One advantage gained by the manufacturer here is that they would no longer need to provide region-specific wall-warts for small equipment.

      Alternatively, a manufacturer could make an UPS with DC outlets as well, so this wouldn't be limited to desktop systems. Third parties would spring up to provide cables to connect the router you already have to this DC outlet in place of the wall-wart. Why buy a $60 router when you could get the same effect for a $5.00 replacement cable?

      Once those devices become widely deployed, it's a short jump to DC outlets in the walls. Once that happens, the desktop no longer needs an UPS-backed AC supply - it could just have a DC cable like all the other gear. From there it's a short hop to in-home, battery-backed, off-grid (or aux-grid) power, be it PV or wind, or whatever. Then my innernets would stay up even when an ice storm takes out the grid.

      --

      In theory, practice and theory are the same. In practice, they're not.

    2. Re:I would love to make the conversion by erroneus · · Score: 1

      You suffer from the same problem I often do -- I think if "great ideas" only to find that someone thought of it more than 10 years ago.

      The problem I run into is not the DC devices (UPSes and such) but the equipment that can make use of the DC power. In the case of standard PC power, there are such power supplies. But in the case of my server, for example, that might be more challenging. Further challenging is the peripheral devices such as displays, KVMs, network switches, routers, etc. They are all geared to run with AC or DC through AC transformers.

      I think that once the idea fully catches on, this will all become no problem. The main problem is at the end point.

    3. Re:I would love to make the conversion by Draknor · · Score: 2

      Third parties would spring up to provide cables to connect the router you already have to this DC outlet in place of the wall-wart.

      I sort of did something like this once; for some reason or another I had an ethernet switch without a working transformer. I simply chopped off the DC power plug, soldered it onto the 12v pins on a 4-pin molex, and plugged it into my PC power supply. As long as the PC was up, so was the network! I might even have run a small LAN party this way for a weekend.

      The truth is, all those wall warts could be our saviors -- many electronic devices already accept DC direct, you just need a supply for them. You just need something like a "power hub" (analogous to a USB hub) -- a single AC/DC transformer with 4-8 12v DC outputs on it, and a pile of cables (maybe with interchangeable tips), to fit the devices you have.

  24. How was the "emission" tested? by MrKevvy · · Score: 1

    TFA: Initial tests show that the system in Bath emits approximately half as much energy as heat

    Switched mode power supplies are on average about 94-95% efficient, so why half as much energy as heat? It should have been a mere 10% reduction.

    Simple answer: without a fan, the heat is trapped in the case. Not much of an improvement.

    --
    -- Insert witty one-liner here. --
    1. Re:How was the "emission" tested? by maxume · · Score: 1

      More complicated answer: They completely replaced the systems, so the heat levels should not necessarily be expected to match up.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    2. Re:How was the "emission" tested? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      TFA: Initial tests show that the system in Bath emits approximately half as much energy as heat

      Switched mode power supplies are on average about 94-95% efficient, so why half as much energy as heat? It should have been a mere 10% reduction.

      Simple answer: without a fan, the heat is trapped in the case. Not much of an improvement.

      Not True. run of the mill (read cheap mass produced) switching computer power supplies are around 85% efficient unless you pay a premium to get a bronze silver or gold "certified" (in us and canada anyway) efficient power supply which can get overall efficiencies of 88-92% or slightly better. Assuming the AC computer supplies were 90% efficient (doubtful). That would mean 10% lost to heat, sound etc. if the DC supplies were 95% efficient, 5% would be assumed lost to heat etc. Therefore the article is correct that HALF (ie5watts vs 10watts) of heat is generated.

    3. Re:How was the "emission" tested? by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      Half as much of the energy that was emitted as heat before, is now emitted as heat. That is, if there was 20% waste before, it is now 10%.

    4. Re:How was the "emission" tested? by blair1q · · Score: 1

      Heat is never trapped. Temperature increases until it reaches thermal equilibrium and is leaking out as fast as it's generated. With a fan, that's a lower temperature. The difference here is the fan is in the attic, since the thing the fan cools is in the attic instead of in the computer. The new computers probably have new low-power CPUs that don't need fans of any kind. So the quiet is a canard in multiple ways.

    5. Re:How was the "emission" tested? by sjames · · Score: 1

      Huh? The half was as compared to the old AC systems, and I'm sure they were referring to power supply losses (since 100% of the energy ends up as heat). In other words, if the old supply wasted 6%, the new one wastes 3%. The other 3 is likely in the big rectifiers, but it's probably cheaper to get rid of that heat.

      If the heat energy was actually trapped in the case rather than being emitted, wouldn't the hydrogen in the PC eventually start fusing?

  25. Poor Nicola by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Tesla must be rolling in his grave - at 60Hz

    1. Re:Poor Nicola by $RANDOMLUSER · · Score: 1

      Tesla must be rolling in his grave - at 60Hz

      Too bad they didn't think to bury him in a stator.

      --
      No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
  26. Back in (the) Black by demonbug · · Score: 2

    So they went AC-DC to try and get back in (the) black?
    My concern is that the initial conversion would cost a touch too much, and it ain't no fun waiting for the energy savings to cover the investment - the down payment blues.
    Still, in my experience the power supply is often the point of failure that finally kills the whole computer, so goodbye & good riddance to bad luck.

    1. Re:Back in (the) Black by John+Hasler · · Score: 1

      This does not get rid of the power supply. Each machine still must convert the DC bus voltage to the various voltages it needs internally.

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    2. Re:Back in (the) Black by KozmoStevnNaut · · Score: 1

      Slick, my good man.

      Very very slick. Slick enough to have eluded everyone so far.

      --
      Eat the rich.
    3. Re:Back in (the) Black by aekafan · · Score: 1

      But what if it was Thunderstruck? I guess it would just be a flip of the switch. Or would that be too High Voltage (rock 'n' roll)?

      God I feel Old

      Hmm.. Mullet often?

    4. Re:Back in (the) Black by awshidahak · · Score: 1

      Yes, instead of one power supply taking down one computer with it when it dies, it gets to take down 50.

  27. This is interesting by kamakazi · · Score: 1

    It has taken a while for the economical advantage of this to trickle into user space. Electronic devices are almost all DC in nature, and the efficiency improvements here are not actually the computers, they are the lack of individual power supplies. Other poster have made comments about laptops, but normal laptops are actually no more efficient than desktops. They use less power, but that power brick is not any more efficient than a good desktop power supply.

    What they get to do here is run one big, presumably very efficient power supply, and run it outside of populated space, moving the noise and heat generation to where it can be more efficiently controlled.

    Of course telco types will say "Umm, yeah?" because a lot of telco heavy iron has been DC forever, for the same reasons TFA is bragging up this system.

    This doesn't apply very well to consumerland, because houses don't lend themselves well to special DC wiring that doesn't easily move when you rearrange the room.

    And before people start asking "Why don't the power companies just use DC?" Electricity transmission over distance is much more efficient as a high voltage/low current AC than DC current, especially since you can't use transformers on DC.

    But I can very easily imagine datacenters utilizing a rack sized high efficiency DC power supply to run row(s) of server racks. This would tie in very nicely to Googles battery-in-every-server method.

    --
    "Proximity to wonder has blunted our perception and appreciation of it" --Tim Hartnell in 'Exploring ARTIFICIAL INTELLI
    1. Re:This is interesting by Elder+Entropist · · Score: 1

      Electricity transmission over distance is much more efficient as a high voltage/low current AC than DC current, especially since you can't use transformers on DC.

      Not entirely true. High voltage DC (HVDC) is more efficient for long distance transmission. It's more that AC is most economical for medium distance with lots of tap-in points. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-voltage_direct_current

    2. Re:This is interesting by kamakazi · · Score: 1

      I guess I was referring to a transmission system, not a single long distance link. In a transmission system which includes the voltage reduction mechanism at the various tap-in points the fact that you can use simple transformers adds significant simplicity and reliability to the system, which actually matters as much if not more than the actual transmission losses in the wire. In fact, I understand that resistance losses in the wire are a good thing in climates that have icing problems in winter, since the HV lines are self heating. In fact, in the wikipedia article you mentioned it appears the only place HVDC has real transmission advantage over AC is in constrained wire cables, such as undersea links, where capacitance kills the AC. The phase decoupling when using a DC link between AC grids would also be extremely beneficial, but for other uses the inherent difficulties of switching and converting high power DC lines seem to outweigh the benefits

      --
      "Proximity to wonder has blunted our perception and appreciation of it" --Tim Hartnell in 'Exploring ARTIFICIAL INTELLI
  28. Actually DC is great for long distances too by Viol8 · · Score: 2

    Its the voltage that matters when transmitting over long distances, not the type of current. In fact DC is slightly more efficient for a given voltage though you'd have to ask a physicist why.

    1. Re:Actually DC is great for long distances too by MarkRose · · Score: 1

      IANAP, but it's quite simple. Every time alternating current changes direction, some energy is lost to overcome the capacitance in the wires.

      But when it comes to cost, the equipment to change AC voltage is much simpler/cheaper than the equipment for DC. So it's a trade off of the money saved through increased efficiency and additional equipment costs.

      --
      Be relentless!
    2. Re:Actually DC is great for long distances too by Ruke · · Score: 1

      Or you could check Wikipedia. (High Voltage Direct Current). It's as simple as "higher voltage means less power lost to resistance." Since Power = Voltage * Current, and Power Loss to Resistance = (Current)^2 * Resistance, you can ramp up your power transmitted without affecting power loss by increasing voltage while leaving current constant.

    3. Re:Actually DC is great for long distances too by _0xd0ad · · Score: 1

      Every time alternating current changes direction, some energy is lost to overcome the capacitance in the wires.

      I think you mean inductance.

    4. Re:Actually DC is great for long distances too by satch89450 · · Score: 1

      Actually, a piece of wire can be modeled by an inductor, a capacitor, and a resistor. Small values, but telecommunications companies have built such models so they can test telecom gear in "realistic" conditions without having a warehouse of wire. Indeed, in the analog modem days, modem companies went to great lengths to build distributed RLC models, then checked them against the above-mentioned warehouse-of-wire plant. That's why modem testers could fit in your car, instead of a large semi. Electric companies have similar models for transmission lines, but they are more complex to better model things like the "skin effect" in high-tension A/C lines.

    5. Re:Actually DC is great for long distances too by MarkRose · · Score: 1

      Ahh, thanks!

      --
      Be relentless!
    6. Re:Actually DC is great for long distances too by _0xd0ad · · Score: 1

      That is true, but as most loads are generally either inductive or resistive, whatever minuscule amount of capacitance there is in the wire would actually help improve the power factor, not lower it.

    7. Re:Actually DC is great for long distances too by _0xd0ad · · Score: 1

      It's power factor. Basically if your load is more inductive or more capacitive (the two balance each other out), you're wasting energy. A purely resistive load (neither inductive nor capacitive) is the most efficient.

      Most loads are either inductive or resistive. Some places with very large inductive loads (e.g. large motors) have capacitor banks to help balance out their inductive loads, which improves their power factor.

    8. Re:Actually DC is great for long distances too by blueg3 · · Score: 1

      He means you'd have to ask a physicist why, at the same voltage, DC is slightly more efficient than AC.

    9. Re:Actually DC is great for long distances too by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      IAAEE.

      It's the root mean squared factor. You have to insulate and separate conductors for peak voltage. With AC your peak is sqrt(2)*rms.

      Regarding alternate explanations: transmission lines are tuned to balance capacitance and inductance. Power factor at the load is still an issue.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  29. OLD NEWS by LOTHAR,+of+the+Hill · · Score: 1

    DC datacenters have been around longer than AC. All major telco's globally use DC distribution for their networking and communications equipment. They always have, and likely always will. The newer datacenter companies are just having to learn for themselves why it makes sense.

  30. Bad reporting. by gstrickler · · Score: 1

    Initial tests show that the system in Bath emits approximately half as much energy as heat than the previous AC powered system while running much faster.

    So, they run faster and produce much less heat, which means they're not running the same CPUs, etc. as before. Therefore, it's an apples-to-oranges comparison.

    I have no doubt that a single large DC power supply can power multiple systems with better efficiency, especially if the AC/DC power supply is located in a separate room or outdoors where it can be cooled without contributing heat to the room containing the computers. Of course, that's not necessarily desirable in cold environments, but that's a separate issue.

    AC is used for power distribution because it's far more efficient for distributing power over a distance. Even a few mi/km, DC loses are significantly worse than high voltage AC. AC is far easier and more efficient to transform to/from high voltages, making high-voltage AC far more efficient than high voltage DC for distribution. DC isn't practical until you get to the final few hundred feet.

    --
    make imaginary.friends COUNT=100 VISIBLE=false
  31. My University... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's kind of strange reading about this on Slashdot, seeing as I am an undergraduate in the CS department at Bath. I don't think I've even seen these PCs - possibly because they put them on the 5th level of the Library, and I am too lazy to walk up that many stairs.

  32. Not a panacea by StikyPad · · Score: 1

    ...running a large network of devices on DC rather than AC is both more secure and more energy efficient. AC electric power from the grid is converted to DC and runs 50 specially adapted computers in the University Library.

    Computers already run on DC -- the only question is where the conversion takes place. The downside to having a single converter (rectifier) is that you have a single point of failure, but obviously you can place it away from the actual computers to reduce noise and such.

    As for efficiency, it all depends how efficient the individual power supplies are/were for each PC. There's nothing inherently more efficient about converting once for all PCs vice converting once for each PC. In fact, your losses might even be higher depending on your distribution network. Additionally, there's the not-insignificant monetary and environmental cost of installing DC-DC power supplies for each PC, upgrading the transmission lines, etc. Depending on how long the network is used and the actual efficiency gains, if any, those investments may or may not pay off over time.

    1. Re:Not a panacea by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

      I'm gonna make a wild assumption and assume they have hot-swappable redundant DC power supplies, in which case reliability goes up, not down. As far as the energy savings not covering the conversion costs, you're probably right, but this is an experiment to gather data.

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    2. Re:Not a panacea by sjames · · Score: 1

      Unless, of course you go with an N+1 design. In that case you improve reliability overall since you can lose one and no PCs go down.

  33. OT by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    Update your sig. It's outdated by like 3 months.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    1. Re:OT by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

      Actually, no. Copyright gives the date the content was written, not the current date. As long as he doesn't change the sig, he doesn't need to change the date.

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    2. Re:OT by sorak · · Score: 1

      Update your sig. It's outdated by like 3 months.

      Too late! Copyright troll wins again!

      ----
      Copyright 2011. All rights reserved. This comment may not be copied in any way including, but not limited to caching. (Take that snowraver1)

    3. Re:OT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Update your sig. It's outdated by like 3 months.

      --
      In Soviet Russia, the government controls the commerce.

      Your sig is outdated by about 20 years.

  34. Why Isn't This Done More Often? by organgtool · · Score: 1

    Just a couple of days ago I was talking with a friend about how my company already does this with some of its servers.

    I know that we use AC for transmission because it loses less power over long distances than DC, but is there any reason why we don't have DC converters installed in the electrical panels of homes other than the fact that many appliances currently require AC? More and more appliances seem to be using DC lately, requiring wall warts. If we could convince more manufacturers to produce DC appliances, it would assist people transition their homes to DC power. This would be great because it is safer than AC and it would be more efficient to convert it in one place rather than through the use of the many wall warts and computer power supplies we currently have.

    1. Re:Why Isn't This Done More Often? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That has always been my take on it A/C external Power grid to DC converter at home of building. Less energy waste and more efficient. Also a hell of a lot safer.

      The rewiring would be a pain though. So I guess the cost of the converter and the requirement of more wires would be a huge cost hurdle.

    2. Re:Why Isn't This Done More Often? by maxume · · Score: 1

      Much of the use of AC over long distances is inertia from before the development of high efficiency power electronics that can step DC up to high voltages.

      So when Edison and Tesla were arguing, Tesla was really right. These days he is less right (because the equipment for messing with AC is generally cheaper).

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    3. Re:Why Isn't This Done More Often? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This would be great because it is safer than AC...

      What makes you think DC is safer than AC?

    4. Re:Why Isn't This Done More Often? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is not true, back in the days DC did run through houses DC would constantly cause fires. This article is just plain stupid and goes to show you people are getting dumber each day to the point they can barley understand modern technology.

  35. Quieter and cooler? I'll volt for that! by sehlat · · Score: 1

    (just sayin)

  36. universe being damaged from workstation in DC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    that's crazy? we can only goof things up here at home, so far?

  37. Possible "security" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If these computers run on DC only, they won't work in most homes when a student inevitably tries to steal it.

  38. can a dell take a plug in DC to DC psu in the AC t by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    can a dell or others take a plug in DC to DC psu in the AC to DC slot?

  39. The Prius Effect by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Only Gasoline goes in but somehow it's a hybrid. Here we have an extra conversion loss but somehow it's better. From the Superman alternate universe?

    1. Re:The Prius Effect by natehoy · · Score: 1

      Here we have an extra conversion loss but somehow it's better.

      What?

      The systems are on a UPS. UPSes use batteries. Batteries are DC. So, if you want to use a UPS, you have AC coming in that has to be converted to DC (to charge the batteries) and the AC power goes through the UPS to the computer, which converts it to DC. When the power goes out, the DC is taken from the battery, converted to AC, sent to the computer, then the power supply converts it to DC to run the computer.

      With a DC computer, you need one conversion, AC to DC. The same DC can be used to charge the batteries and run the computer, and when the power goes out the battery can run the computer directly with no additional conversion.

      So if anything the exact opposite of your assertion is true. There are either the same number of conversions (done through a central converter so you can afford a really efficient one) if you're on street power, or there are two fewer conversions and almost no loss when you're running on battery.

      As for a Prius, the efficiency in those is in the fact that you can have a much smaller engine (since the electric motor and the gasoline engine can "team up" when you need a lot of acceleration) and the gasoline motor doesn't need to run when the car is moving slowly or sitting still (the battery can drive the car most of the time, and regenerative braking can reclaim a good percentage of momentum and turn it back into battery charge, so the gas motor only comes on when the battery gets low or when more acceleration than the battery can provide is needed). It's more complicated, certainly, but the whole point is to use what power the gasoline engine is generating more efficiently by storing what's not immediately used and using it later.

      --
      "This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
  40. The systems also come with a Teddy Bear by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Which makes people feel more secure. This has nothing to do with secure as in SSH, this is secure as in Linus' blanket.

  41. WTF? by zoomshorts · · Score: 0

    "both more secure and more energy efficient"

    MORE SECURE!!!! What a crock of shit.

  42. I've been saying this for years... by rAiNsT0rm · · Score: 1

    We all have houses full of DC powered devices but no DC power. How many wasted AC/DC converters is that per year? Computer power supplies, etc. wasting 30-50%+ of the input AC due to inefficiencies and poor sizing for the task. Office buildings full of DC powered computers and gear and yet we still just keep on going with pure AC power.

    --
    http://teasphere.wordpress.com - A little spot of tea
    1. Re:I've been saying this for years... by nowen2dot · · Score: 1

      I've always wondered why UPS's don't come with PSU output to replace the pwr supply in the computers. Is it just an economy of scale thing? I figure that if a home user wants a UPS to protect and power the computer during power outage, why not also get rid of that noisy PSU fan?

      --
      I've had a perfectly wonderful evening. But this wasn't it. -- Groucho Marx
    2. Re:I've been saying this for years... by rAiNsT0rm · · Score: 1

      I've said the same thing... it makes perfect sense vs converting AC to DC (battery) and then back to AC to supply the device. Half could be DC ports half could be AC and the AC/DC/AC conversion could be halved. Delivery is still AC if that is the concern.

      --
      http://teasphere.wordpress.com - A little spot of tea
  43. What's the spec on the computer? by hawguy · · Score: 1

    On my Atom based fileserver, with a variable speed power supply fan the only noise I could hear was the tiny fan that cools the chipset (the CPU is fanless but the chipset has its own dedicated fan). It got so annoying that I unplugged it and set up a quiet 80mm fan in the case to blow on the chipset heatsink.

    There are plenty of silent PC options that don't require running special wiring just for DC power. In fact, some thin clients will power themselves over PoE (which I guess is technically a form of DC power). There's nothing magic about DC power that will make a PC silent.

    Unless they are running all of the voltages required by a modern computer (12V, 5V, 3.3V, etc), then there are DC-DC converters in each computer doing the work that the power supply used to do, so it's unclear how this will dramatically reduce power usage over having an efficient fanless AC power supply.

  44. Comm industry has been running off of -48V since, like, forever.

  45. Screw that! by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 1

    I want to retain the ability to arc-weld with my computer if need be!

    1. Re:Screw that! by couchslug · · Score: 1

      "I want to retain the ability to arc-weld with my computer if need be!"

      That just requires MORE DC, which is preferred for most electric welding processes, the exception being AC TIG welding on aluminum. Inverter welders handle that nicely and weigh much less than transformer machines.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
  46. I always use DC by slaad · · Score: 1

    All of my devices use DC already. They always have. AC electric power from the grid is converted to DC right after it comes out of the wall. That's how we do it in the US anyways, maybe it's different in the UK.

    --


    ~Warning!~ The above is encrypted using rot676!
  47. And thin clients would have done the same thing... by Lumpy · · Score: 1

    If you are not browsing flash websites good old thin clients do the exact same thing. the Old HP thin clients we have here that are 3 years old only draw 50 watts each WITH the 17" monitors on them.

    --
    Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
  48. devices on DC is more energy efficient by doperative · · Score: 1

    > Researchers .. are undertaking an in-depth study of energy consumption .. with the aim of demonstrating that running a large network of devices on DC rather than AC is .. more energy efficient ..

    Well, it would be as , instead of doing the conversion individually in each switch-mode power supply the conversion is done in one single unit. Of course you then need to factor in the losses in transferring DC over distances, something high-tension distribution AC was designed to overcome.

  49. Power over Ethernet Computers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I suspect they used PoE to provide 12.9 W to computers designed (or modded) for PoE power. SkinnyBytes has prebuilt Atom based laptops and desktops, but the library might have custom built ARM based systems.

    1. Re:Power over Ethernet Computers? by hawguy · · Score: 1

      I suspect they used PoE to provide 12.9 W to computers designed (or modded) for PoE power. SkinnyBytes has prebuilt Atom based laptops and desktops, but the library might have custom built ARM based systems.

      They mention a one ton AC converter (and they had to remove walls to get it into place!), so it doesn't sound like they are using traditional PoE.

    2. Re:Power over Ethernet Computers? by Florian+Weimer · · Score: 1

      But they could, especially with PoE+. Essentially, they're just rebuilding technology which is already available commercially.

    3. Re:Power over Ethernet Computers? by hawguy · · Score: 1

      But they could, especially with PoE+. Essentially, they're just rebuilding technology which is already available commercially.

      There's only so much low voltage power you can send over CAT-5/6 cabling, and even the 25 watt of PoE plus isn't enough to run many laptops, let alone a full powered desktop. Granted there are some very low-powered computers and thin clients that can run on PoE, but it doesn't sound like they are using them here. This fanless Atom based nettop has a 40 watt power supply: http://www.provantage.com/shuttle-computer-xs35-701~7SHCO08P.htm

      I think it's safe to say that if they installed a 2000 lb AC-DC converter to run 60 desktops (and went through all of the trouble to widen doorways and cut through walls to get it installed), they aren't using PoE since a few PoE ethernet switches would weigh around 20 lbs -- 99% lighter than the huge power supply they used.

    4. Re:Power over Ethernet Computers? by hawguy · · Score: 1

      Essentially, they're just rebuilding technology which is already available commercially.

      They don't say what voltage they are using, but I suspect they are using off-the-shelf 48VDC, so they aren't really rebuilding any technology, just reusing the same 48VDC technology that's been in the data center for decades.

  50. Data Centers by headhot · · Score: 1

    A very large cable operator has been making progress converting all its systems to DC. Right now its kinda ugly, with AC main power, AC generators, AC UPSes, lots of AC computers and network gear. Then there is the DC plant with the DC battery stack, and more and more DC computers and network gear.

    DC in the data center makes sense, as if your AC, every system needs a power supply. Every power supply is inefficient. The generate heat, and use up more power then the computer needs.

    1. Re:Data Centers by hawguy · · Score: 1

      A very large cable operator has been making progress converting all its systems to DC. Right now its kinda ugly, with AC main power, AC generators, AC UPSes, lots of AC computers and network gear. Then there is the DC plant with the DC battery stack, and more and more DC computers and network gear.

      DC in the data center makes sense, as if your AC, every system needs a power supply. Every power supply is inefficient. The generate heat, and use up more power then the computer needs.

      Is DC really that much more efficient? I thought Telcos used 48VDC because it was easy to supply with batteries, not because it was more efficient. Many modern DC-DC converters are just mini switching power supplies, so you're trading a 120VAC switching power supply with a 48VDC switching power supply to generate the needed voltages (12V, 5V, 3.3V, etc).

      And supplying 350A @ 48V to a cabinet full of servers will take a lot more copper than 70 amps @ 220VAC.

      I guess they gain something by using battery strings as a UPS instead of a big inverter, but I'd be surprised if a big 48VDC power system costs significantly less than a big UPS given the much larger wiring required for 48VDC.

  51. Why we have AC by headhot · · Score: 2

    AC is much easier to transport. DC resistance in the AC world is impedance. As impedance is complex, If you choose the correct frequency and voltage, you can move power very very far distances with extremely little loss. You cant do that with DC.

    Also, when houses were getting power, all they had was lights, and motors, all of which run fine on AC.

    When electronics started to come out, a house only had a handful, TV, Radio, that was it.

    Now, I would say that a significant part of consumption is DC at a home, but there is no standard in the house for a parallel DC infrastructure. Would you do -48V like the phone companies? 12V? How would the in wall wiring work?

    1. Re:Why we have AC by pclminion · · Score: 1

      AC is much easier to transport. DC resistance in the AC world is impedance. As impedance is complex, If you choose the correct frequency and voltage, you can move power very very far distances with extremely little loss. You cant do that with DC.

      Impedance is resistance plus reactance. You don't magically get rid of good old Ohmic loss by using AC.

    2. Re:Why we have AC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But the same resistance losses would still be there not matter if it was DC or AC. However, the GP is right in that you could "match" the reactive part out of equation so that both DC and AC would see only the resistive part. This is done in RF applications all the time.

    3. Re:Why we have AC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      24V would be ideal for the home, in terms of the tradeoffs on shock safety and wiring diameter to carry useful watts. We need a widespread standard for 24V plugs for home devices though (for computers, flat panel displays, clocks, cordless phones, portable device chargers, and LED-based lamps). As long as you're at it, you could also run 24VDC to light sockets and power LED-based main lights that way efficiently too.

      One concern is you don't want the paths in your in-house 24VDC network to get too long either, or you get robbed on resistance. For a typical 3 bedroom single family home you can probably get away with a single conversion at the main AC breaker panel, but larger houses would probably need multiple "zones" with independent DC converters.

    4. Re:Why we have AC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Entirely polite quibbles:

      When houses started to get power, they used batteries -- often the radio was the first item. And throughout the American West, many homes used DC from windmills, many of whom were not pleased at all when they were forced by government to pay for & hitch up to the grid.

      Once and where the AC grid got installed, people got lights. This was the 'killer app' that made it worthwhile. It was immediately followed by electric accessories like fans and toasters and portable heaters.

      "When electronics started to come out", it was radios for decades. TV was not common at all before about 1950.

      Now, I would say that a significant part of consumption is DC at a home

      How do you figure? Your computer, game console, & iPod use the equivalent of a few light bulbs. This is quite small compared to the high load of the rest of your lights, and all the motors and element for hair dryers, kitchen appliances, heaters, stoves.

      Certainly the amount of power you convert to DC within the home is not negligible, but I can't see how it's worth wiring a house for it rather than having a few wall warts.

      FWIW I'm not against DC. I lived with 12v when I was a psuedo-hippie living off the grid in the 80s.

      [suitably, captcha is "reckons"]

    5. Re:Why we have AC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      AC is not easier to transport.

      AC is only easier to convert to a different voltage (efficient inductive transformers) and also easy to generate in the first place. That is why power grids use it. Another advantage is that synchronous, inductive electric motors run directly on AC. The simplicity and ease of conversion means that AC delivery is reliable.

      In other regards, such as transmission efficiency, AC sucks compared to DC, even for high power, long-distance transmission lines!

      Impedance isn't complex in the DC realm; it is just resistance.

      DC does not leak through capacitances.

      AC leaks through capacitances, which is why frequency matters. The frequency of AC is low, but the capacitances in some long-distance lines are high enough that there are non-negligible capacitance losses.

    6. Re:Why we have AC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The advantages of ac power are the ability to easily change the voltage and drive cheap motors.

      A disadvantage of ac power is additional losses on transmission due to inductance.

      DC transmission does not have inductive losses. So it is just the opposite of what you said. If you want to move large amounts of power over vast distances you use extra high voltage dc, not ac. It is rarely done, since the conversion equipment is quite expensive.

      Google hvdc.

    7. Re:Why we have AC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > As impedance is complex, If you choose the correct frequency and voltage, you can move power very very far distances with extremely little loss. You cant do that with DC.

      You better inform the power companies building the north africa to europe power links about your discovery. Thats thousands of kilometers high voltage DC wiring completely useless according to you.

      Yes, you can't adjust frequency of your DC power (what makes a DC grid very hard to do right), what you can do is just transform to higher voltage. (DC energy lost ~ resistance * current^2)

    8. Re:Why we have AC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      AC is much easier to transport. DC resistance in the AC world is impedance. As impedance is complex, If you choose the correct frequency and voltage, you can move power very very far distances with extremely little loss. You cant do that with DC.

      [..]

      This confuses me. I thought for efficient transport one uses high-voltage DC and AC's main advantage is that it can be easier transformed.

      Remeber: The higher the voltage the more efficient the transmission. The higher the frequency the more you loose from the electrmagentic field you generate. And AC transfers only a part of the energy on high voltage (efficient) and the rest on low voltage (high loss).

    9. Re:Why we have AC by headhot · · Score: 1

      Here is the things in my house that use AC with no DC conversion: Fridge, Oven, Toaster Oven, Oil Heater (fan and such), Light bulbs, Hot water heater, Air Compresser, Mini Milling Machine.

      Here are the things in my house that use DC internally. Stereos (x5), Printers (x2), Computers (x8), Cell Phones (x3), Cordless Phones (x3), NAS, PS3, PS2, PSP, Wii, Wii remote chargers, PS3 controller chargers, HD DVD, Camera chargers (x4), Rechargeable battery charger, alarm clock, network switches (x2), wireless access points (x3), AP UPSes (x3).

  52. Have they considered three phase AC? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Three phase AC would get all the benefits of a DC system with the added bonus that it is probably available (at least it is in our library).

    You could supply low voltage DC but you would go broke buying the wire to meet the additional ampacity requirement. I had a 12v DC computer and had to run 6 ga. wire from the backup battery to avoid an unacceptable voltage drop. So, you will distribute the DC at a higher voltage. That means you still have to down-convert the voltage. The power supply is still pretty complex.

    Three phase power gives you all the advantages claimed for DC but costs less to install. The costs for modifying the computer would be about the same.

  53. Interesting by jkeelsnc · · Score: 1

    Well, this is interesting. On the workstations level it might be true that they are "quieter" but somewhere the AC is being converted to DC. Seriously, that would require a huge power supply of some kind and there will always be some inefficiency in that conversion process. So really, I don't buy that it is more efficient as a whole load on the power system. Seriously, unless they have a power supply with rectifiers that are VERY efficient (over 90% or more) then I don't see how this is an advantage. I have heard people ask me why we aren't using DC for everything. And they are people that don't know anything about electricity. Such as the fact that AC was chosen because it can be transmitted across great distances at high voltage levels with far lower losses than DC. More secure? What moron thought this up? It is a electric current. One is not more "secure" than the other. :)

  54. This is NOT safe. by Combatso · · Score: 1

    Do not use any computer, AC or DC in the bath.

  55. Article is very short on details by Moof123 · · Score: 1

    DC vs. AC is a vast over simplification. At one point they talk about tying in solar cells and wind turbines that output DC. But what voltage? AC handles voltage conversion easily and efficiently with transformers. DC usually loses 10-20% going from one voltage to another (or one polarity to another), and in the middle it is converted to an AC signal then back. So while it makes a good sound bite, such stunts are a mere distraction, and reek of ignorance on the universities part.

  56. Watch out! by Charliemopps · · Score: 1

    As someone that's been an electronics hobbies for several decades (I've built radios, guitar amplifiers, clocks, you name it) I have been electrocuted numerous times. As such I can attest to the fact that getting hit with your standard outlets 120 volt AC is not that big of a deal. It hurts... somewhat like someone grabbing you in a not-very-nice way with a pair of pliers. But getting hit with DC... that's an emergency room vist level of pain. When you get hit with AC, you yell "OUCH!" and yank your hand away. When you get hit with DC, you can't yell because your mouth is clenched shut and when you yank your hand away the circuit board comes with it. Thank God for buddies near the off switch.

    And before any of you get all preachy about safety, when you've been doing it for 25 years, shit happens. It's amazing how much pain a cat jumping off a shelf into your lap for petting and just the wrong time can cause.

  57. April 1st came sooner than expected. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This isn't a real experiment, this is a lot of hype. If they wanted to do a real experiment, where is the lab that uses the same systems on the AC network? They are comparing the old systems with new systems, so right there their data isn't worth much as far as a comparison study. So they upgraded their systems with new shiny hardware, and then trying to make comparisons to an old slower network, which will be less efficient, how is this helping anyone? Also, what is he real cost being spent in converting AC to DC? Also, you know that the problem with DC you have to have repeaters to expand, so are they using converters somewhere else, and if so, aren't they just displacing it away from the power supply of the workstations and moving it someplace in the basement? They mention that the power network is unique, but doesn't go into any details. Perhaps waiting for it to be patented, or waiting for interesting venture capitalist to come in and pay the university big for exclusivity?

    Anyway, not really interested, seems more like a pain in the ass than anything else.

  58. "The new DC network also offers greater security." by QuietLagoon · · Score: 1

    The reason for the assertion of "additional security" is not given in the article. It looks like the writer was trying to use all the current, hot buzzwords....

  59. Re:And thin clients would have done the same thing by Jon+Stone · · Score: 1

    The Uni of Bath library used to have a small number of Sun X Terminals for checking email. They were great for when all the PCs were in use during the day, as only a small number of us knew how to use them and how to break out of Pine and run Mozilla.

  60. What voltage? by toejam13 · · Score: 1

    I'm curious what voltage they run their DC circuits at.

    When distributing power throughout your home or office, the AC vs DC argument isn't nearly as important as the voltage. The lower your voltage, the more current you need to transfer a watt of power. That means thicker gauge cabling to prevent overheating.

    Obviously, the world has standardized on 110-120 and 220-240 for AC. However, medium distance DC is a mess of voltage standards, including 12VDC, 48VDC and others.

    The best solution would be to run 240VDC to the wall and then have a step-down transformer in the form of a power brick or the like for your end devices. Since the brick no longer needs to be a rectifier, its construction is a lot simpler.

    1. Re:What voltage? by Moof123 · · Score: 1

      "The best solution would be to run 240VDC to the wall and then have a step-down transformer in the form of a power brick or the like for your end devices. Since the brick no longer needs to be a rectifier, its construction is a lot simpler."

      Ummm, what?

      AC voltage conversion: Copper windings on a ferrous core. Easily made 95-99% efficient depending on guage of copper used, core materials, etc. Lifespans of 50-100 years are common thanks to simplicity, lower current densities, etc. At the final stage of used you take a modest voltage (120V AC) and convert down to DC if needed, or just use it as AC for driving things like induction motors (which have no brushes to wear out life DC motors do).

      DC voltage conversion: DC-DC converters REQUIRE rectifiers. You must initially chop the DC input into an AC waveform, which is fed through a rectifier, followed by an LC filter (vast oversimplification). There are about as many voltages needed for electronics as you have fingers on your hands and toes on your feet, and most products internally run on MANY voltages, so you have multiple DC-DC converters to spew out all of these.

    2. Re:What voltage? by toejam13 · · Score: 1

      Why would a DC-DC converter require rectification? You're using either pure DC or pulsed DC at that point. From your high voltage DC, wouldn't you just use a switching transistor to generate pulsed DC (which you smooth using caps) for the big-step down and then a linear regulator for smaller step-downs? Or is it just more efficient to convert back to AC and use a standard transformer coil?

  61. So they're converting from Angus to Malcolm? by enaso1970 · · Score: 1

    Could never tell which one is AC and which one DC

  62. I vote for -48 Volts DC by KenSeymour · · Score: 3, Interesting

    When I first had to deal with telephone equipment, I came across the -48 VDC power standard for things like SONET nodes, digital cross connects, channel banks, and telephone switches. I believe this is due to cathodic protection of buried copper cables.

    You can find -48 VDC rectifiers, AB fuse panels (think redundant DC power supplies) and lots of telecom gear in racks that is powered with -48 VDC.

    --
    "We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them." -- Albert Einstein
    1. Re:I vote for -48 Volts DC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All ATCA rackmount systems, including blade servers and DSP blades, run at 48 volts.

  63. In Britain by Skapare · · Score: 1

    They can get away with this in Britain since they use funny electrical plugs.

    --
    now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
  64. electric Jesus by sammy+baby · · Score: 1

    So, does Edison finally get his final victory over Nikola "The Electric Jesus" Tesla?

  65. really AC powered Computers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm not claiming to be a genius by any means, but don't computers already run on DC. The power supply converts the AC energy to DC or at least it does on every machine I have ever worked on. Oh yeah, could someone please explain to me how the type of power (ac/dc) supplied to my computer has anything to do with how secure it is?

  66. Say what? by WaffleMonster · · Score: 1

    The problem is voltage not DC vs AC. You can only do short runs effeciently via DC as line losses increase as you lower voltage while the amount of copper required skyrockets.

    High voltage DC is exceedingly dangerous.

    What about power over ethernet?

  67. DC is converted to AC by every digital computer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In order to do useful work a digital computer has to convert DC power into a large number of of wide band AC signals (a.k.a. square waves). It's that conversion to AC that's responsible for almost all the power dissipation in modern (CMOS) digital circuits. When a CPU is placed in a deep sleep mode what's happening is that the digital circuits are prevented from converting DC to AC, and that makes the CPU power dissipation drop to almost nothing.

    Aside from that, modern CPUs run at fairly low voltages. That requires modern computers to include a number of DC to DC converters in the motherboard to convert the relatively high DC voltages from the power supply (5VDC. 3.3VDC) to the actual levels used by the CPU and memory (in the 1 to 2 VDC range). Those DC-DC converters work by converting DC to AC at a lower voltage, then rectifying and filtering the AC.

  68. Re:80%+ reviews by DocSavage64109 · · Score: 1

    Hardocp.com has very in-depth power supply reviews where they not only test efficiency at ideal temps, but they also test efficiency in a heated environment -- which may be the case if your PSU is running at high loads. I'm not sure about the 20% usage efficiencies though.

  69. 48V Powered Servers by MarkMurrill · · Score: 1

    Actually, we've found that there are quite a few servers and storage devices available from HP, IBM and others that offer -48V DC input option. As others have mentioned here, using 48V DC in racks can lead to increased availability and power efficiency by reducing overall conversion stages. Combining 48V input IT equipment with a row-based DC UPS make a 48V DC critical bus a practical alternative for future datacenter builds.

  70. you don't know jack, stop spreading ignorance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    You have no idea what you are talking about.

    1) The breakers do nothing in electrocution scenarios, as the current required to incapacitate you is on the order of milliamps and you don't have nearly enough resistance in your body to trip a 15A breaker. Ground-fault circuit interrupters will help if you touch just one line, and they disconnect at 5mA difference.

    2) AC and DC excite the muscles indiscriminately and play no favorites. You'll grab or throw depending on what part of you makes contact, because the muscles will spasm.

  71. Long overdue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What is the first thing your power supply does with the mains juice? Convert it to 12V and 5V DC.
    I am actually surprised it took people this long to realize that you can cut out the heavy mains supply and feed the computer 12V which it can then modify to lower voltages as needed internally. Scary to think that for several years now you obtain and install 12V lighting for your home, but until now your computer has demanded mains. Even the laptops - may be 19V into the back, but you need a mains brick. How long before this goes mainstream? Could houses come wired for regular AC mains and 24V or 12V?

  72. low voltage or not? by mirix · · Score: 1

    The actual AC to DC conversion in a computer's PS is ridiculously efficient, almost 100%.

    Where the ~20% loss comes in is the DC-DC conversion, converting 170...350V DC down to 5, 12, 3.3V.

    So - if their distribution network is several hundred volts DC, each computer still has all this loss. If on the other hand, the central PS puts out 12V, 5V, etc, multiple computers are going to run insane amounts of current, which means we have very high I2R losses in the distribution network, and need a fuckton of $3/lb copper to distribute it. Even then I don't think they've be able to get it uniform enough across the network, and the PCs will need some board level regulation. (say transmit 7V, which is 7V in some areas, 6V in others, and have a regulator drop it to 5V on the board - which is going to be inefficient, again, even with a switching reg, 10% loss best case...)

    --
    Sent from my PDP-11
  73. DC to DC conversion by Firethorn · · Score: 1

    From my understanding, it's mostly a 'crap-shoot' at this point, but there's a distinct possibility that it would indeed be more efficient to do DC to DC. While you can use a plain old transformer to alter the voltage of AC, their sizing and efficiency depends on the frequency of the AC. 50/60HZ AC doesn't lead to very efficient or compact voltage converters, so they often use a switchmode power supply. The trick? The first thing most switchmode powersupplies do is rectify the AC to DC before using a 'chopper' to turn it back into a sort of high frequency AC - often with a frequency in the Mhz. Given that a rectifier circuit might take ~1-2% of the power going over it, DC to DC might indeed be more efficient.

    --
    I don't read AC A human right
  74. Rewiring for DC is not necessarily required by perpenso · · Score: 1

    In general, DC power is economical only if the wiring between the computers and the DC source is less than 35 feet in length.

    Rewiring an office for DC is not necessarily required. Consider our current desks with their power strips and multiple AC converters (built-in or bricks) for the various devices. Now imaging a power strip that has an AC converter and multiple DC outlets where DC powered devices (computer, monitor, printer, 2.1/5.1 speakers, router, external HD, etc) plug in. I think that would be a practical and easily attainable configuration if we could have a standard (like USB smartphone charging).

  75. I live in DC. by Oxford_Comma_Lover · · Score: 1

    I live in DC. Trust me, it is neither safer nor more efficient. The road system is a mess, and there are Segways everywhere.

    --
    -- IANAL, this isn't legal advice, and definitely isn't legal advice for you. Also, Squee!
  76. It's an Experiment Re:Where did the heat go? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    From TFA:

    Also:

    the project team moved the one tonne AC converter through the University library and into the roof space, removing and rebuilding walls to transport it

    It would have been cheaper to just use 50 energy-efficient laptops. You'd get even more power savings, and if you wanted to completely remove the heat from the transformers, just put them all in a cabinet that vents outdoors, and extend the DC power plugs.

    And you wouldn't have to also invest in another ton of batteries.

    In the scientific community this practice of how does this work is called an experiment. Was it done well, possibly not, but did it prove the idea is viable? Absolutely!

  77. Standardized DC power bus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm only a software nerd/educator, but I've thought for a long time that it would be good if the world could standardize on some DC power infrastructure like we have standard AC infrastructure. Uses could go from single AC-DC adapters, much like current wall-warts but with standard DC ports (which would make laptop AC power adapters standard!) to workspace units with 5 or 10 outlets for all the devices in a workspace, to an equipment rack a la the Google DC powered rack, to a whole-house unit providing DC in the walls, to DC power distribution throughout an office building.

    We sort of have something like that for low-powered devices with USB power, but that's pretty limited. We also have the auto 12-volt cigarette lighter adapter, but that's clunky and the specs are probably not tight enough.

    It seems crazy that so many electronic devices have their own AC-DC power supplies, making them less efficient, noisier, bigger, and more expensive.

  78. AC/DC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My PC runs on DC voltage as well. At the top of the enclosure is a box that tacks the AC line voltage I apply to it and outputs DC voltage to power the PC.