Your logic has some merit, Will, but try not to take it so seriously. This article isn’t meant to be taken as cold-hard fact. It’s the author’s opinion. A lot of the naysayers here obviously read it, took offense to the distinctions they think the author is making, and then felt upset because they probably fit into one of the areas they think wasn’t glorified in the article. Also, I personally wouldn’t feel comfortable calling anyone a computer scientist unless they studied and/or have a degree in CS. Just feels icky and wrong. *shiver*
hi Jignesh I was following through ur various posts on meter bypass. I have a scenario on which I would like ur valuable expert comments. I live in a multi storied government quarter. I would like to know how to bypass the single phase electronic meter. It is giving me sleepless nights. Presently both the live and the neutral from the meter goes to a MCCB which then terminates in our flats option I am considering is like using 2 wires from one live phase from main connection. One goes through the meter and other directly to the house. Since distance from the meter to our house is considerable I cannot discreetly lay a new line to the flat I plan to disconnect the neutral in the MCCB and connect the unmetered live wire to the neutral port of the MCCB. In this way 2 wires both having the same phase would be coming to my flat from a single MCCB. We have 2 separate earth connections to the flat. For neutral I plan to use the earth wire. The second earth will be used for the three pin connections so that they are secured. The metered live phase could be used for some very low load to ensure meter running for atleast the minimum units. The unmetered phase will be used for rest of the loads. My query is-
1) Will the MCCB allow 2 live connections through it (both would of same phase so no 440 volts chance)?
2) Can I install a MCB with the earth which I would using as neutral. IF so, of how much rating.
3) What safety precautions should I take for preventing electrical shocks and equipment safety.
Recall that in a single processor system, parallel execution is an illusion. One instruction from one process at a time can be executed by the CPU even though multiple processes reside in main memory. Imagine a restaurant with only one waiter and few customers. There is no way for the waiter to serve more than one customer at a time but if it happens that the waiter is fast enough to rotate on the tables and provide food quickly then you get the feeling that all customers are being served at the same time. This is the example of time sharing when CPU time (or waiter time) is being shared between processes (customers). Multi programming and multitasking operating systems are nothing but time sharing systems. In multi programming though the CPU is shared between programs it is not the perfect example on CPU time sharing because one program keeps running until it blocks however in a multitasking (modern operating system) time sharing is best manifested because each running process takes only a fair amount of the CPU time called quantum time. Even in a multiprocessing system when we have more than one processor still each processor time is shared between running processes. As you can see all terms are somehow related in one way or another however not using the right term in the right context is what makes the confusion so keep that in mind.