Confusion with regards to power lines and the power lost

AI Thread Summary
Power loss in transmission lines is calculated using P=I²R, where increasing voltage reduces current and thus decreases power loss. The confusion arises from the relationship between voltage and power loss; while P=V²/R suggests higher voltage could increase power loss, this only applies to the load, not the transmission lines. The relevant voltage for calculating power loss is across the transmission cables, not the load. It's important to distinguish between ohmic and non-ohmic conductors, as this affects the validity of the calculations. Understanding these concepts clarifies how power is dissipated in transmission systems.
Coolamebe
Messages
13
Reaction score
1
Ok, so the title was pretty vague, I'm not sure how to succinctly describe the confusion. Anyway, so I've learned that the power lost is P=I2R, and so by increasing the voltage, as P=VI and is constant, the current will be lowered, and thus the power lost will decrease.
I'm confused about a couple things. While my physics teacher was specifically talking about P=I2R, should not P=V2/R also give the value, and so by increasing the voltage we increase the power lost? Is this not a contradiction?
I feel like it could be remedied if the wires in power lines are not ohmic conductors and so half the math I did above is invalid.
Anyway, any help would be greatly appreciated, thank you!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The calculation relates to the power dissipated (lost) in the transmission cables so the voltage you need is the voltage across the cables. I think you are confusing this with the voltage across the load (at the end of the cables)
 
lychette said:
The calculation relates to the power dissipated (lost) in the transmission cables so the voltage you need is the voltage across the cables. I think you are confusing this with the voltage across the load (at the end of the cables)
Can you explain this a little more in depth? My teacher explained this very superficially so I'm not too sure on this.
 
Hi there, im studying nanoscience at the university in Basel. Today I looked at the topic of intertial and non-inertial reference frames and the existence of fictitious forces. I understand that you call forces real in physics if they appear in interplay. Meaning that a force is real when there is the "actio" partner to the "reactio" partner. If this condition is not satisfied the force is not real. I also understand that if you specifically look at non-inertial reference frames you can...
This has been discussed many times on PF, and will likely come up again, so the video might come handy. Previous threads: https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/is-a-treadmill-incline-just-a-marketing-gimmick.937725/ https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/work-done-running-on-an-inclined-treadmill.927825/ https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/how-do-we-calculate-the-energy-we-used-to-do-something.1052162/
I have recently been really interested in the derivation of Hamiltons Principle. On my research I found that with the term ##m \cdot \frac{d}{dt} (\frac{dr}{dt} \cdot \delta r) = 0## (1) one may derivate ##\delta \int (T - V) dt = 0## (2). The derivation itself I understood quiet good, but what I don't understand is where the equation (1) came from, because in my research it was just given and not derived from anywhere. Does anybody know where (1) comes from or why from it the...

Similar threads

Back
Top