alt.energy.renewable

On Tue, 31 Jul 2007 23:09:31 -0000, bealiba@ wrote:

>On Aug 1, 1:49 am, wmbjkREM...@ wrote:
>
>
>> >> >Computer 150 5 750
>>
>> >> D'oh, guess you forgot that you previously wrote that your computer
>> >> used 59W. Must be some kind of big monitor attached... /group/ /msg/9d92fe840802b541
>> >> "The computer, well, used for word processing it uses 59 Watts
>> >> (measured)."
>>
>> >It also dwaws 150W when burning DVDs
>>
>> LOL So a "power consultant/editor's" professional "audit" multiplies
>> the *peak* power by the total hours of use, even though most of the
>> time the "dwaw" is far less? Or are you trying to claim that you burn
>> DVDs 5 hours per day? No wonder you refuse to recommend Kill-a-Watts,
>> since any amateur can use one to measure a computer's consumption
>> properly, instead of making a faulty estimate like an idiot
>> "consultant".
>
>Lying about the numbers, Again
>
>The iMac uses 59 watts while being used for word processing.
>
>It uses 150 watts for burning DVDs.
>
>It uses varying amount of energy in between these to depending on what
>is being done.
>
>According to your argument I should use the watts used while the
>computer is asleep.

No, according to my argument you're incompetent, because using peak
power to measure a computer's energy consumption doesn't make a lick
of sense. And according to my argument, you're a BS artist for making
up numbers to suit your position. For example, when the discussion was
about low-energy computers, yours was only 59W. Now it's 150W "when
burning DVDs", which apparently makes your 5V optical drive 18A.

>I used the max load the computer is capable of.

As any one could have guessed, you read the label on the power supply,
a classic beginner's error. Intelligent folks measure the *energy*
consumption over a week or whatever, and use those results to plan
their setup. But that strategy isn't available to a Ghinius who can't
afford a Whr meter. Aren't you embarrassed to read day in and day out
about novices using $20 KillAWatts, making them better equipped than a
"power consultant"?

>> >> >I used a 600W inverter a bit larger than really needed but allows for
>> >> >some leeway when required.
>>
>> >> It's too *large*!? Well, sure, so long as you don't mind starting a
>> >> generator for everything above 600W. Which leads to the obvious
>> >> question - which of these previous claims of yours is correct?
>>
>> >It runs what I need it to run.
>>
>> Who do you expect to believe that your only AC load is a computer?
>
>No there is a printer as well.

LOL The more you write, the more readers will realize how much you do
without. Do you even have any AC outlets in this "work of art" house?
Or do you plug the computer into the inverter or an extension cord as
someone on a camping trip might?

>> You've already mentioned that you have a washing machine, and that you
>> use a generator to run it, despite also claiming that your batteries
>> are full most days before noon. If you had a larger inverter, you
>> could use that wasted energy for laundry, and could run other normal
>> loads without starting a generator.
>
>Ah, the lizard principle.
>
>Yes I have a washing machine. No it is not run from the solar power
>system.

No kidding? Why do your "audits" frequently mention irrelevant details
like chainsaw and motorcycle fuel consumption, but neglect to include
normal household appliances, and the generator time and fuel it takes
to power them?

>> No, you already admitted the obvious here /group/ /msg/a6eef1ff9d2015b5
>> - that 20 liters per fortnight, which is apparently your idea of ISO
>> units wasn't even enough for the motorcycle much less anything
>> else, and that the total didn't include the fuel you were adding at
>> the gas station. What's the point of trying to deceive people, but
>> bungling it so badly that the prevarication is undeniable?
>>
>
>Drivel. I said that most of that 20 litres went into the bike. At no
>time have I ever claimed that the 20 liters was my total fuel use

I've always known that 20 liters wasn't the total of your fuel use,
that you've been making up those numbers, and that one hour of
generator time and one gallon of fuel would make more energy in a week
than your "design".

>Telling lies often and loudly does not make truth. There are no loads
>in the house that exceed 600Watts.
>
>Therefore the system is correctly designed.

Yes, I remember the washing machine and power tools are in the 20 year
old "temporary" shed/workshop, yada yada. Dissemble all you like, but
most of us consider *all* of our electrical loads when planning a
power setup, and wouldn't be bragging on a "design" that shifts
easily-powered loads onto a generator.

>> No, you claimed that the batteries were so low that you ran the
>> generator in order to watch some TV, and that after adding a charge of
>> <10%, and resting overnight, the batteries were at V. /group/ /msg/b86dd954d030eb32
>> Considering your oft-mentioned 5 days autonomy, a reasonable reader
>> might assume that you wouldn't start the generator unless the
>> batteries were down to say, 35%. Which means that achieving the full
>> charge you described would take about 18 hours at 30A, not 3 hours.
>> It's painfully obvious that you exaggerate your stories by adding
>> undeniably phony details like the rested voltage.
>
>I consider 12Volts to be low. My system will run for five days with no
>input. There is seldom a day with no input at all.

Non-responsive as always. What a weasel.

>> No, the maker built a 3-stage unit, and charged you for that
>> functionality. It would have been a lot simpler and cheaper to make it
>> single-stage if they thought that would be as good or better. But your
>> battery maker doesn't want you to use a single-stage unit,
>> particularly if you "float" at per cell, and especially if you do
>> that for several hours most days as you've claimed.
>
>Sorry wayne, the maker built a programmable regulator. I have used it
>within the makers parameters.

If it's "within" parameters, then why did you say that you'd
"subverted" it, Mr. Riter?
/group/ /msg/f04f7370573c583f
Show us in the manual where it recommends "subverting" the multi-stage
process. Show us where the battery maker advises a single stage
process and a per cell float voltage.

>My system does not sit on float for days on end. It is either being
>charged or discharged during normal daily use.

You claimed that your batteries are fully charged most days before
noon. If that were true (not that I believe it for a second), then
you're "floating" (more like equalizing) your batteries for hours each
day. I expect you're actually running short most days, that you've set
the voltage high to avoid losing energy when the controller would
normally be regulating during absorption, and that the high float
setting therefore doesn't hurt much except to reveal your helplessness
on Usenet.

>The generator is not included in the audit because it is not part of
>the house system

Most people consider their clothes washing part of their house load.
Only a "power consultant" would think to leave routine loads out of
his "audit".

>Nor do I want it to be part of the house system.

What you want, and what would generally be considered proper planning,
are apparently mutually exclusive at Casa Nitwit.

Wayne