How Electricity Actually Works

Yes about all of the above.  i was referring, in the future, not needing anything but a local household distribution system - Solar and adequate battery storage and skip the inverter.  No high amperage electric resistance appliances in the house. Conduction stove, gas or heat pump for heating, hot water, dryer,  I wasn't proposing DC on the grid.  yes that's why i mentioned safety issues. Yes DC kind of grabs on and won't let go. LOL.  I wasn't speaking technically about 3 phase DC.  Controller using PWM simulates alternating current three phase using DC.  Change the HZ changes the speed and maintains good torque curve.  Very Efficient - especially if you can skip the first step and don't need the inverter.   

@deludedaudiophile-

     Thank you for establishing the point I made, in my first post to this thread.

     ie: Physicists have been debating how electromagnetism (one of the four known forces), atomic structure/electrons, Particle/Wave Theory, etc, work for numerous decades (ie: most notably, since 1927 Solvay). 

     Particularly interesting was the constant arguing, between Bohr and Einstein*  at that conference.    *(Who actually were and always remained friends/mutual admirers)

     Since then: many of the theories Bohr (et al) put forth, contrary to Einstein's criticisms, have been proven correct, regarding Quantum Mechanics/atomic structure, Quantum Entanglement, photons, etc.   Thankfully, a multitude of SS electronic devices have resulted, from the furtherance of those studies.

     It's those studies, and the truths/measurements gleaned, on which I base my opinions/hypotheses, far as the differences many of us hear in our systems, when making various changes/upgrades/tweaks.    

     Much of Einstein's (Special & General) Relativity has also been proven correct, on the macro scale.     Probably: more to come as our abilities to observe and measure evolve.

     Einstein spend the better part of his latter years, in an effort to reconcile Quantum mechanics and Relativity, (a Grand Unification Theory) to no avail.

     An interesting side note: Einstein scoffed at the possibility of Black Holes, though it was his own theory on gravity, that led to their prediction.   Even the Great One, himself, wasn't immune to the tendency.

     Telsa, as mentioned: I regard as an innovator and regardless of his views on Einstein's theories, he gave the planet a plethora of inventions, that that made the every-day much easier.    A number, for which others were given the credit.

                      Too bad he didn't have better business acumen.

Tesla said the following on the theory of relativity in a 1935 New York Times interview: "The theory, wraps all these errors and fallacies and clothes them in magnificent mathematical garb which fascinates, dazzles and makes people blind to the underlying errors.

Someone got the last laugh, and it was not Tesla. Einstein was both confident and humble. Tesla not so much.

 

It’s those studies, and the truths/measurements gleaned, on which I base my opinions/hypotheses, far as the differences many of us hear in our systems, when making various changes/upgrades/tweaks.

Any measurements or truths would clearly indicate that your opinions and hypothesis have no foundational basis and are just that, opinions and hypothesis with no theoretical or experimental validity. It is laudable that you are reading material and seeking out information that perhaps is outside the comfort zone of previous experience, however, from my view, you are not doing this to gain overall knowledge, but in the hopes of finding tidbits that support your preconceived ideas as opposed to understanding the totality of what you are reading and then seeking out further knowledge that will help you understand better what you are reading.

                                                                    n.w.o.r.:

     Any measurements or truths would clearly indicate that your opinions and hypothesis have no foundational basis and are just that, opinions and hypothesis with no theoretical or experimental validity. It is laudable that you are reading material and seeking out information that perhaps is outside the comfort zone of previous experience, however, from my view, you are not doing this to gain overall knowledge, but in the hopes of finding tidbits that support your preconceived ideas as opposed to understanding the totality of what you are reading and then seeking out further knowledge that will help you understand better what you are reading.

Einstein, like all big brains was confident perhaps to the point of arrogance (at times). However, he was also humble enough to admit he was wrong and did that when he was proven wrong.

When Einstein submitted a paper arguing that gravitational waves don't exist to Physical Review, the journal’s editor sent it back to for revisions. Outraged, Einstein withdrew it. By the time he submitted it to another journal, he had corrected his mistake. The revised paper argued that gravitational waves do, in fact, exist.

Almost every "great" physicist and engineer I have worked with will argue to the death that they are right. When you are in their field, they are not humble. However, what separates them from the not great ones is while they are arguing to the death, there is a little voice in their head going "maybe I am wrong". Arguing to the death is part of their process, even if unconsciously, for testing and refining their ideas. The not great ones don't have that voice. Their arguments become emotional, perhaps personal, and they won't go back and look for errors and test their hypothesis, but will look for reasons they are right. Even when it becomes obvious, even to them, that they are wrong, they look for ways to make it seem like something extraneous was responsible for their failing.