[PRCo] Re: The "Light Rail ex-1600 1700s"

[Fred Schneider]

I don't doubt your point Boris.   I was sending the message out to  
other places to see if anyone knew if the MG was replaced.

On Jan 5, 2007, at 1:42 PM, Boris Cefer wrote:

> If I understand correctly what you say, it is exactly what I meant.  
> With
> additional circuits, that means roughly 30 +/- 25 Watt lighting  
> bulbs (that
> is roughly 800 Watts), the energy consumption is considerably  
> higher. Try to
> follow me: 800 Watts, ca 37.5 Volts generator voltage, current (I)  
> = output
> (P) / voltage (U) = 800 / 37.5 = 21 A.
>
> Now, the air-electric MG set is rated for 1,200 W, 37.5 V and 32 A
> permanently. It is obvious that additional 21 Amps must cause  
> trouble when
> you start the car with all lights on, some control circuits on and  
> a battery
> which is not fully charged or has insufficient capacity. Also,  
> additional
> 800 W for a 1,200 W engine, isn't it much?
>
> B
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Fred Schneider" <fwschneider at comcast.net>
> To: <pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org>
> Sent: Friday, January 05, 2007 3:18 AM
> Subject: [PRCo] Re: The "Light Rail ex-1600 1700s"
>
>
>> Blind carbon sent to two friends for comment back to
>> fwschneider at comcast.net.   If they comment I will share the comments
>> without their addresses.
>>
>> Are you suggesting, Boris, that the MG or MA set did not have a
>> charging rate sufficient to cover the car's full load when in
>> operation at night with all lights turned on?   That perhaps they
>> simply used the original MG and superimposed all the additional load
>> on the battery?
>>
>
>