himfr

Three-in-One Bank Account Checking Terminal ,



The Best Polish Songs… Ever!

Compilation album by Various Artists

Released

November 30, 2007

Genre

Pop, Rock

Length

more than 240 min

Label

EMI

Various Artists chronology

The Best Classics… Ever! vol. 2(2007)

The Best Polish Songs… Ever!(2007)

The Best Love… Ever!(2008)

The Best Polish Songs… Ever!- is a compilation released by EMI in late 2007. Generally, it has been released for Poles, who live abroad (in other country than Poland) and for polish music’s fans.

Contents

1 Track listing

1.1 CD 1

1.2 CD 2

1.3 CD 3

1.4 CD 4

2 External links

//


Track listing

CD 1

Wilki- “Ba?ka”

Myslovitz- “Ch?opcy”

Virgin- “Znak pokoju”

Bajm- “Szklanka wody”

O.N.A.- “Kiedy powiem sobie do??”

Edyta Bartosiewicz- “Sen”

Brathanki- “Czerwone korale”

Kayah & Goran Bregovic - “Prawy do lewego”

Maanam- “Boskie Buenos”

Kasia Kowalska- “Jak rzecz”

Hey- “Teksa?ski”

Andrzej Piaseczny- “Szcz??cie jest blisko”

De Mono- “Statki na niebie”

Kombii- “S?odkiego mi?ego ?ycia”

Formacja Niw?ywych Schabuff- “Lato”

Ch?opcy z Placu Broni- “Kocham Ci?”

Kukiz i Piersi- “Ca?uj mnie”

Lady Pank- “Mniej ni? zero”

Rezerwat- “Zaopiekuj si? mn?”

CD 2

Krzysztof Kilja?ski feat. Kayah- “Prz Ciebie nic”

Ryszard Rynkowski- “Dziewczyny lubi? br?z”

Blue Caf- “Do nieba, do piek?a”

Kasia Cerekwicka- “Na kolana”

Ewelina Flinta- “?a?uj?”

Feel- “A gdy jest ju? ciemno”

Chyli?ska- “Winna”

Patrycja Markowska- “?wiat si? pomyli?”

Marcin Rozynek- “Si?acz”

Beata- “Siedz? i my?l?”

Goya- “Tylko mnie kochaj”

Sidney Polak feat. Pezet- “Otwieram wino”

Reni Jusis- “Kiedy? Ci? znajd?”

Kayah- “Supermanka”

Anita Lipnicka- “I wszystko si? mo?e zdarzy?”

Justyna Steczkowska- “Dziewczyna szamana”

Edyta Gniak- “Jestem kobiet?”

Varius Manx- “Zanim zrozumiesz”

Natalia Kukulska- “Im wi?cej Ciebie tym mniej”

Olga Szyam?ska, Przmys?aw Brenny- “Niech mi?, ?e to nie jest mi?o??”

CD 3

Raz Dwa Trzy- “Nikt nikogo (i tak warto ?y?)”

Republika- “Zapytaj mnie czy ci? kocham”

Grzegorz Turnau- “Mi?dzy cisz? a cisz?”

Strachy na Lachy- “Dzie? Dobry Kocham Ci?”

Szwagierkolaska- “U cioci na imieninach”

Kult- “Gdy nie ma dzieci”

Elektryczne Gitary- “W?osy”

Stanis?aw Soyka- “Tolerancja (Na mi?y B)”

Coma- “Spadam”

R?e Europy- “Jedwab”

T.Love- “King”

Kluas Mitffoch - “Jezu, jak si? ciesz?”

Perfect- “Autobiografia”

Aya RL- “Ska”

Tilt- “Mi? Ci, ?e”

Breakout- “Kiedy by?em ma?ym ch?opcem”

Daab- “W moim ogrodzie”

Sztywny Pal Azji- “?o?e w kolorze czerwonym”

Kobranocka- “Kocham Ci? jak Irlandi?”

Kazik- “Maciek, ja tylko ?artowa?em”

CD 4

Anita Lipnicka & John Porter- “Bones Of Love”

Myslovitz- “Sound Of Solitude”

Wilki- “Son Of The Blue Sky”

T.Love- “He Was Born To Be Taxi Driver”

Maanam- “Lipstick On The Glass’

The Car Is On Fire- “Cranks”

Stanis?aw Soyka- “You Are So Beautiful”

Edyta Gniak- “When You Come Back To Me”

Tatiana Okupnik- “Don’t Hold Back”

Natalia Kukulska- “Sexi Flexi”

Reni Jusis- “It’s Not Enough”

Edyta Bartosiewicz- “Good Bye To The Roman Candles”

Makowiecki Band- “Can’t Get You Out Of My Head”

Blue Caf- “You May Be In Love”

Goya- “Smells Like Teen Spirit”

Pati Yang- “All This Is Thirst”

Agressiva 69- “Situations”

External links

album description



v?d?eThe Best… Ever!

The Best Smooth Jazz

The Best Smooth Jazz… Ever! ? The Best Smooth Jazz… Ever! vol. 2 ? The Best Smooth Jazz… Ever! vol. 3

The Best Classics

The Best Classics… Ever! ? The Best Classics… Ever! vol. 2

The Best Polish Songs

The Best Polish Songs… Ever! ? The Best Polish Love Songs… Ever!

Other

The Best Samba… Ever! ? The Best Christmas… Ever! ? The Best Rock Ballads… Ever! ? The Best Disco… Ever! ? The Best Love… Ever! ? The Best Kids… Ever! ? The Best Film… Ever!

Retrieved from “http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Best_Polish_Songs…_Ever!”
To get More information , you can visit some products about
pvc tree,
musical christmas tree,
x mas trees,
wholesale chain link fence,
.
The Three-in-One Bank Account Checking Terminal products should be show more here!

Tombstone,Monument,Memorial,Headstone,Vase,Urn ,



(Redirected from Single wire earth return)



Canadian SWER line

Single wire earth return (SWER ) or single wire ground return is a single-wire transmission line for supplying single-phase electrical power from an electrical grid to remote areas at low cost. It is principally used for rural electrification, but also finds use for larger isolated loads such as water pumps, and light rail. Single wire earth return is also used for HVDC over submarine power cables.

Contents

1 Description

2 History

3 Characteristics

3.1 Safety

3.2 Cost advantage

3.3 Reliability strengths

3.4 Power quality weakness

4 Networks and circuits

5 Regulatory issues

6 Use in interties

7 Use by developing nations

8 Use for HVDC systems

8.1 Examples of HVDC systems with single wire earth return

9 References

10 External articles and links

//


Description

SWER is a choice for a distribution system when conventional return current wiring would cost more than SWER isolation transformers and small power losses. Power engineers experienced with both SWER and conventional power lines rate SWER as equally safe, more reliable, less costly, but with slightly lower efficiency than conventional lines.

Power is supplied to the SWER line by an isolating transformer of up to 300 kVA. This isolates the grid from ground or earth, and changes the grid voltage (typically 22 kilovolts line to line) to the SWER voltage (typically 12.7 or 19.1 kilovolts line to earth).

The SWER line is a single conductor that may stretch for tens or even hundreds of kilometres, visiting a number of termination points. At each termination point, such as a customer’s premises, current flows from the line, through the primary coil of a step-down transformer, to earth through an earth stake. From the earth stake, the current eventually finds its way back to the main step-down transformer at the head of the line, completing the circuit.[citation needed] SWER is therefore a practical example of a phantom loop.

The secondary winding of the local transformer will supply the customer with either single ended single phase (N-0) or split phase (N-0-N) power in the region standard appliance voltages, with the 0 volt line connected to a safety earth that does not normally carry an operating current.

A large SWER line may feed as many as 80 distribution transformers. The transformers are usually rated at 5kVA, 10kVA and 25kVA. The load densities are usually below 0.5kVA per kilometer (0.8kVA per mile) of line. Any single customer maximum demand will typically be less than 3.5kVA, but larger loads up to the capacity of the distribution transformer can also be supplied.

Some SWER systems in the USA are conventional distribution feeders that were built without a continuous neutral (most likely obsoleted transmission lines that were refitted for rural distribution service). The substation feeding such lines has a grounding rod on each pole within the substation; then on each branch from the line, the span between the pole next to and the pole carrying the transformer would have a grounded conductor (giving each transformer two grounding points for safety reasons).

History

At the end of the 19th century, Nikola Tesla demonstrated that only a single wire was necessary for power systems, with no need for a wired return conductor (using the Earth instead). Lloyd Mandeno fully developed SWER in New Zealand around 1925 for rural electrification. Although he termed it arth Working Single Wire Line it was often called andeno Clothesline. More than 200,000 kilometres have now been installed in Australia and New Zealand. It is considered safe, reliable and low cost, provided that safety features and earthing are correctly installed. The Australian standards are widely used and cited. It has been applied in Saskatchewan, Brazil, Africa, portions of the United States’ Upper Midwest, and SWER interties have been proposed for Alaska and prototyped.

Characteristics

Safety

SWER violates common wisdom about electrical safety, because it lacks a traditional metallic return to a neutral shared by the generator. SWER safety is instead assured because transformers isolate the ground from both the generator and user. However, certain groups claim that stray voltages from SWER can injure livestock.

Grounding is critical because of the significant currents on the order of 8amperes that flow through the ground near the earth points, so a good-quality earth connection is needed to prevent risk of electric shock due to earth potential rise near this point. Separate grounds for power and safety are also used. Duplication of the ground points assures that the system is still safe if either of the grounds is damaged.

A good earth connection is normally a 6m stake of copper-clad steel driven vertically into the ground, and bonded to the transformer earth and tank. A good ground resistance is 510 ohms. SWER systems are designed to limit the voltage in the earth to 20 volts per meter to avoid shocking people and animals that might be in the area.

Other standard features include automatic reclosing circuit breakers (reclosers). Most faults (overcurrent) are transient. Since the network is rural, most of these faults will be cleared by the recloser. Each service site needs a rewirable drop out fuse for protection and switching of the transformer. The transformer secondary should also be protected by a standard high-rupture capacity (HRC) fuse or low voltage circuit breaker. A surge arrestor (spark gap) on the high voltage side is common, especially in lightning-prone areas.

Bare-wire or ground-return telecommunications can be compromised by the ground-return current if the grounding area is closer than 100m or sinks more than 10A of current. Modern radio, optic fibre channels and cell phone systems are unaffected.

Cost advantage

SWER main advantage is its low cost. It is often used in sparsely populated areas where the cost of building an isolated distribution line cannot be justified. Capital costs are roughly 50% of an equivalent two-wire single-phase line. They can be 70% less than 3-wire three-phase systems. Maintenance costs are roughly 50% of an equivalent line.

SWER also reduces the largest cost of a distribution network, the number of poles. Conventional 2-wire or 3-wire distribution lines have a higher power transfer capacity, but can require seven poles per kilometre, with spans of 100m to 150m. SWER high line voltage and low current permits the use of low-cost galvanized steel wire. Steel greater strength permits spans of 400m or more, reducing the number of poles to 2.5/km.

Reinforced concrete poles have been traditionally used in SWER lines because of their low cost, low maintenance, and resistance to water damage, termites and fungus. Local labor can produce them in most areas, further lowering costs.

If the cable contains optic fibre, or carries telephone service, this can further amortize the capital costs.

Reliability strengths

SWER can be used in a grid or loop, but is usually arranged in a linear or radial layout to save costs. In the customary linear form, a single-point failure in a SWER line causes all customers further down the line to lose power. However, since it has fewer components in the field, SWER has less to fail. For example, since there is only one line, winds can cause lines to clash, removing a source of damage, as well as a source of rural brush fires.

Since the line can’t clash in the wind, and the bulk of the transmission line has low resistance attachments to earth, excessive ground currents from shorts and geomagnetic storms are far more rare than in conventional metallic-return systems. So, SWER has fewer ground-fault circuit-breaker…
To get More information , you can visit some products about
black opal rings,
keychain necklace,
tourmaline rings,
costume necklaces,
.
The Tombstone,Monument,Memorial,Headstone,Vase,Urn products should be show more here!

Dry Lotus ,



Blake v. City and County of San Francisco

Supreme Court of the United States

Argued January 30, 1885Decided March 2, 1885

Full case name

Flagg v. Walker

Holding

Court membership

Chief JusticeMorrison Waite

Associate JusticesSamuel F. Miller Stephen J. FieldJoseph P. Bradley John M. HarlanWilliam B. Woods T. Stanley MatthewsHorace Gray Samuel Blatchford

Case opinions

This box: view?talk

Blake v. City and County of San Francisco, 113 U.S. 679 (1885), was an appeal from a decree that dismissed a bill filed by the appellant to restrain the infringement by the appellees of reissued letters patent granted to the appellant as the assignee of original letters patent issued to Thomas H. Bailey. The original patent was dated February 9, 1864, and the reissue September 18, 1877. They were for “a new and improved valve for water cylinders of steam fire engines and other pump cylinders.” The specification, which was substantially the same in both patents, stated that previous to the invention therein described, the only valve used to relieve the pressure upon fire hose to prevent them from bursting was one operated by hand. To obviate the defects of such a valve, the inventor applied at some point between the engine or pump and the hose nozzle a valve which opened automatically by the pressure in the hose or the pump cylinder, so as to discharge an additional stream and thereby relieve the pressure.

The reissued patent contains two claims, the second of which only is found in the original. They were as follows:

The combination, with a pump cylinder and hose of a fire engine, of an automatic relief valve arranged relatively thereto substantially as specified.

The combination of the value C, stem d’, spring E, adjustable cap D, and pin-hole d whereby the valve may be either held upon its seat with a variable yielding pressure or may be elevated therefrom or held immovably thereon, as an ordinary screw plug.

The answer of the defendants denied infringement, denied that Bailey was the original inventor of the devices described in his patent, and averred that his alleged invention had been in notorious public use many years before the application of a patent therefor by Bailey.

The appellant did not contend that the appellees infringe the first claim of the reissued patent. He based his demand for relief on the alleged infringement of the second claim only.

The proper construction of this claim was that it covered an automatic valve in combination with a contrivance consisting of a pinhole and pin, by which the valve may be raised from its seat, so as to leave the valve hole permanently open, or by which the valve may be rigidly closed upon its seat, making a closed or plug valve.

The evidence showed that Bailey was not the first to conceive the idea of a device for opening or closing rigidly an automatic valve. The same thing had been done by means of wedges and screws and other devices. He cannot therefore cover by his patent all the devices for producing this result, no matter what their form or mode of operation. The claim must be confined to the specific device described in the specification and claim — namely a pinhole and pin. If this construction of the claim be adopted, it is clear that no infringement is shown, for the appellees do not use a pinhole and pin for holding their valve open or closed, but a screw, sleeve, or cap, and therefore one of the elements of the combination, covered by the second claim of appellant’s patent, is wanting in the device used by the appellees.

But if it be contended that the device covered by the second claim of the appellant’s patent is infringed simply by the use of an automatic relief valve which can be converted at will into an open or closed valve, the evidence in the record is abundant.

Upon this state of facts, it was plain that the mere employment by the defendants of the old and well known automatic safety valve afforded no ground upon which to base the relief prayed for in the appellant’s bill. Appellant’s counsel therefore disclaimed any right to the exclusive use of an automatic safety valve, and said: “We do not claim the valve any further than in this combination with a steam fire engine.”

If it be conceded, therefore, that the second claim of appellant’s patent covered the use of an automatic relief valve applied to a steam fire engine and hose, the question is presented whether the appellant’s patent thus construed is valid.

Justice Horace Gray speaking for the court;

“It is settled by many decisions of this Court . . . that the application of an old process or machine to a similar or analogous subject, with no change in the manner of application, and no result substantially distinct in its nature, will not sustain a patent, even if the new form of result has not before been contemplated.”

It follows from this principle that where the public has acquired in any way the right to use a machine or device for a particular purpose, it has the right to use it for all the like purposes to which it can be applied, and no one can take out a patent to cover the application of the device to a similar purpose.

If there is any qualification of this rule, it is that if a new and different result is obtained by a new application of an invention, such new application may be patented as an improvement on the original invention, but if the result claimed as new is the same in character as the original result, it will not be deemed a new result for this purpose. For instance, an automatic relief valve, used to relieve the pressure of steam, produces no new result in character when used to relieve the pressure of water unless some further effect besides the mere relief of pressure is obtained. This qualification therefore will not affect the present case, because no new result in character is accomplished by the supposed invention of the plaintiff. Besides, it appears from the evidence that before Bailey’s patent was applied for, relief valves were in common use, both on land and at sea. They were commonly used on the steam feed pumps of steamships. These pumps were usually fitted with nozzles for the attachment of hose, so that the feed pump could, in case of need, be used as a steam fire engine. It is therefore plain that in this state of the art, Bailey could not obtain a valid patent for applying a similar valve to a portable steam fire engine. He could not do this for two reasons: first, because the public had the right to use the valve for all similar purposes for which it was adapted, and second because the application of a valve, which had been used on a stationary steam fire engine on ships, to a portable steam fire engine on land, did not require any ingenuity, or involve invention.

It is no answer to this to assert that the application of a relief valve to a portable steam fire engine is the invention of a new combination. There was no invention. The combination was already in public use on steamships. The application of the valve to a similar use on land was not a new combination or a new invention.

We are of opinion, therefore, that, construing his patent as the appellant has been compelled by the testimony to do, Bailey invented nothing but the pinhole and pin mentioned in his specification, and this is not used by the appellees.

The decree of the circuit court was affirmed.

See also

List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 113

References

^ Blake v. City and County of San Francisco, 113 U.S. 679 (1885) Justia.com

External links

113 679 Justia.com (full case)

Categories: United States intellectual property case law | History of San Francisco, California | United States Supreme Court cases | 1885 in law
To get More information , you can visit some products about
plastic nut,
lawn and garden edging,
vase with flower,
iron christmas tree,
.
The Dry Lotus products should be show more here!