Re: US Power Outages
At 18:15 8/11/96, Dave Farber wrote:
The avalanche behavior of power systems is still not well understood and techniques to prevent such failures are not obvious. Same can be said of telephone and computer networks at different levels.
Does somebody here have a pointer to literature on this topic? A system in which small localized disturbances can amplify, propagate through the system, leading to catastrophic failure is the worst of all possible designs. I fail to understand why a system as important as the power grid would display this type of behavior. Why is the grid negatively dampened? TIA, -- Lucky Green <mailto:shamrock@netcom.com> PGP encrypted mail preferred. Defeat the Demopublican Unity Party. Vote no on Clinton/Dole in November. Vote Harry Browne for President.
From what I read, this wasn't a "small localized disturbance". Apparently, a fire underneath one of the main towers on the CA-OR border was the cause of the problem. Now that may not sound like too much, but
the lines were carrying at least 3000Mw of electricity, enough "to power 3-1/2 Seattles for a day" (quote from local newspaper). My guess is that when there is a problem involving that much power with no place to go, the safety systems shut everything down to prevent damage. Zach Babayco zachb@netcom.com <----- finger for PGP public key http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Park/4127 On Sun, 11 Aug 1996, Lucky Green wrote:
At 18:15 8/11/96, Dave Farber wrote:
The avalanche behavior of power systems is still not well understood and techniques to prevent such failures are not obvious. Same can be said of telephone and computer networks at different levels.
Does somebody here have a pointer to literature on this topic? A system in which small localized disturbances can amplify, propagate through the system, leading to catastrophic failure is the worst of all possible designs. I fail to understand why a system as important as the power grid would display this type of behavior. Why is the grid negatively dampened?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- In article <Pine.3.89.9608112235.A16390-0100000@netcom3>, Z.B. <zachb@netcom.com> wrote:
Now that may not sound like too much, but the lines were carrying at least 3000Mw of electricity, enough "to power 3-1/2 Seattles for a day" (quote from local newspaper).
<GRUMBLE> Watts are a measure of energy per unit time; it makes sense to say "60 W powers a light bulb", not "60 W powers a light bulb for one hour". </GRUMBLE> But my _favourite_ example of this was a newspaper clipping I used to have that said that in the previous month, the city had received "160 square pounds of rain". That just defied common sense. - Ian "closely followed by temperatures 'doubling' (which happens more often when they use Celcius)" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBMg+llkZRiTErSPb1AQHvDwQAqdxKaHm4PewE6e78gAGNTs/bBsbnXbKt +kIpplEjU70eK+zREpbvemc2//dEkH4ilW1FKvkWef7Tc06kPghEHp5HfWGCq/oq Je85MyEOrqrnoADO0ehS5iqnyLFb5lRX5ksciv+GtV4GcS8vnRF3m0ulQZONKBSG 9/wqC6Pmbgc= =ozoT -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Well, all I remember is the 3-1/2 Seattles part - I put the"for a day" part in because I wasn't sure about it. Zach Babayco zachb@netcom.com <----- finger for PGP public key http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Park/4127 On 12 Aug 1996, Ian Goldberg wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
<GRUMBLE> Watts are a measure of energy per unit time; it makes sense to say "60 W powers a light bulb", not "60 W powers a light bulb for one hour". </GRUMBLE>
But my _favourite_ example of this was a newspaper clipping I used to have that said that in the previous month, the city had received "160 square pounds of rain". That just defied common sense.
participants (3)
-
iang＠cs.berkeley.edu -
shamrock＠netcom.com -
Z.B.