Posted by bealiba on August 4, 2007, 7:30 am
The Killawatt Myths
First of all, the Killawatt (and its brothers) is a handy tool. Like
all tools it must be used correctly.
For many people though it is a party trick used to impress others.
This is not a correct use.
Myth 1
You need to use a watt metre to do an energy audit.
This is false.
In most instances the loads (appliances) are not available to be
measured. You are perfectly safe to use the appliances rated energy
use as provided on the compliance plate of the appliance you are
considering using.
Myth 2
All loads in the energy audit should be measured at the setting you
think you will use.
This is false.
Sizing a system to the energy use less than an appliances full rating
leaves no leeway for changes in use patterns. Such a system may suit
your needs today but fail in the near future. A baby, a sudden illness
or a new appliance can bankrupt a system. You can not add a load to a
system that is only just meeting the demand.
Posted by Chris Hill on August 4, 2007, 10:27 am
On Sat, 04 Aug 2007 11:30:06 -0000, bealiba@gmail.com wrote:
>The Killawatt Myths
>First of all, the Killawatt (and its brothers) is a handy tool. Like
>all tools it must be used correctly.
>For many people though it is a party trick used to impress others.
>This is not a correct use.
>Myth 1
>You need to use a watt metre to do an energy audit.
>This is false.
>In most instances the loads (appliances) are not available to be
>measured. You are perfectly safe to use the appliances rated energy
>use as provided on the compliance plate of the appliance you are
>considering using.
>Myth 2
>All loads in the energy audit should be measured at the setting you
>think you will use.
>This is false.
>Sizing a system to the energy use less than an appliances full rating
>leaves no leeway for changes in use patterns. Such a system may suit
>your needs today but fail in the near future. A baby, a sudden illness
>or a new appliance can bankrupt a system. You can not add a load to a
>system that is only just meeting the demand.
Well Duhhh! Anybody should realize that a bit of over capacity to
handle the unexpected might be necessary. As far as using the rating
plate, you might want to do so if you wish to plan for the worst case
scenario, but you might go bankrupt trying to build for such. A
clothes dryer, for example, probably doesn't use its full rated
current draw most of the time. I had one that messed up and started
doing that. It got very warm on top and I realized that It was time
to either fix it or replace it before something became way too
exciting.
Posted by bealiba on August 4, 2007, 7:17 pm
> On Sat, 04 Aug 2007 11:30:06 -0000, beal...@gmail.com wrote:
> >The Killawatt Myths
> >First of all, the Killawatt (and its brothers) is a handy tool. Like
> >all tools it must be used correctly.
> >For many people though it is a party trick used to impress others.
> >This is not a correct use.
> >Myth 1
> >You need to use a watt metre to do an energy audit.
> >This is false.
> >In most instances the loads (appliances) are not available to be
> >measured. You are perfectly safe to use the appliances rated energy
> >use as provided on the compliance plate of the appliance you are
> >considering using.
> >Myth 2
> >All loads in the energy audit should be measured at the setting you
> >think you will use.
> >This is false.
> >Sizing a system to the energy use less than an appliances full rating
> >leaves no leeway for changes in use patterns. Such a system may suit
> >your needs today but fail in the near future. A baby, a sudden illness
> >or a new appliance can bankrupt a system. You can not add a load to a
> >system that is only just meeting the demand.
> Well Duhhh! Anybody should realize that a bit of over capacity to
> handle the unexpected might be necessary. As far as using the rating
> plate, you might want to do so if you wish to plan for the worst case
> scenario, but you might go bankrupt trying to build for such. A
> clothes dryer, for example, probably doesn't use its full rated
> current draw most of the time. I had one that messed up and started
> doing that. It got very warm on top and I realized that It was time
> to either fix it or replace it before something became way too
> exciting.
Well, first off the worst case is always the best choice for design.
If you have a heart attack or other serious illness the last thing you
want is to run low on energy. And I can attest to the amount of energy
use when it happens. My system was stretched to the limit for up to 12
months. If it had been just the right size it would have failed in
short order with me to ill to be able to do anything about it.
Adding a baby to a house can double your energy use over night.
Designing for the worst case adds to the cost of a system, yes. It is
not likely to bankrupt any body.
"Just in time" manufacturing is a wonderful system, until one truck
fails to arrive "Just in time".
But then you are not going to have a heart attack are you? You will
never get sick or have an accident. You will never have relatives drop
in and stay for two weeks.
Now before we get into the argument about where do you stop with
designing for the worst case, my position is as stated, you use the
max rating for the appliance.
No more is needed for the job, the system will have enough capacity to
handle most of life's little surprises and not send any one bankrupt.
Posted by wmbjkREMOVE on August 4, 2007, 8:55 pm
On Sat, 04 Aug 2007 23:17:50 -0000, bealiba@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Sat, 04 Aug 2007 11:30:06 -0000, beal...@gmail.com wrote:
>> >The Killawatt Myths
>> >Sizing a system to the energy use less than an appliances full rating
>> >leaves no leeway for changes in use patterns. Such a system may suit
>> >your needs today but fail in the near future. A baby, a sudden illness
>> >or a new appliance can bankrupt a system. You can not add a load to a
>> >system that is only just meeting the demand.
>>
>> Well Duhhh! Anybody should realize that a bit of over capacity to
>> handle the unexpected might be necessary. As far as using the rating
>> plate, you might want to do so if you wish to plan for the worst case
>> scenario, but you might go bankrupt trying to build for such. A
>> clothes dryer, for example, probably doesn't use its full rated
>> current draw most of the time. I had one that messed up and started
>> doing that. It got very warm on top and I realized that It was time
>> to either fix it or replace it before something became way too
>> exciting.
>Well, first off the worst case is always the best choice for design.
>If you have a heart attack or other serious illness the last thing you
>want is to run low on energy.
OHMYGAWD! So KaWs prevent over-estimating and over-building, which
leads to not having enough energy to run what, our defibrillators?
> And I can attest to the amount of energy
>use when it happens. My system was stretched to the limit for up to 12
>months. If it had been just the right size
The *right* size? Yes, much better to have the wrong size.
> it would have failed in
>short order with me to ill to be able to do anything about it.
LOL OK everybody, let that be a lesson - always keep in mind a
potential future illness. For example, when you're driving, tie a
bungee cord to the steering wheel. In case of illness you can keep
right on going.
>Adding a baby to a house can double your energy use over night.
Would it be OK with you George, if those of us too old to make new
babies size our solar power setups for our actual needs? Oh sure,
you'll say "somebody else's baby may come". So I've taken action! I'm
going to mount all my door handles high enough that babies won't be
able to reach. I'm also going to plug all the outside outlets so that
if I'm under siege by babies, there won't be anywhere for them to plug
in their appliances.
>Designing for the worst case adds to the cost of a system, yes. It is
>not likely to bankrupt any body.
>"Just in time" manufacturing is a wonderful system, until one truck
>fails to arrive "Just in time".
>But then you are not going to have a heart attack are you? You will
>never get sick or have an accident. You will never have relatives drop
>in and stay for two weeks.
>Now before we get into the argument about where do you stop with
>designing for the worst case, my position is as stated, you use the
>max rating for the appliance.
Why not just add say, 20% for contingency, instead of inflating
individual appliance use? Could your bizarre recommendation have
anything to do with being busted for posting faulty and contradictory
"audit" numbers? Nah....
>No more is needed for the job, the system will have enough capacity to
>handle most of life's little surprises and not send any one bankrupt.
Your financial advice might need auditing....
Wayne
Posted by bealiba on August 4, 2007, 9:40 pm
On Aug 5, 10:55 am, wmbjkREM...@citlink.net wrote:
> On Sat, 04 Aug 2007 23:17:50 -0000, beal...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> On Sat, 04 Aug 2007 11:30:06 -0000, beal...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> >The Killawatt Myths
> >> >Sizing a system to the energy use less than an appliances full rating
> >> >leaves no leeway for changes in use patterns. Such a system may suit
> >> >your needs today but fail in the near future. A baby, a sudden illness
> >> >or a new appliance can bankrupt a system. You can not add a load to a
> >> >system that is only just meeting the demand.
> >> Well Duhhh! Anybody should realize that a bit of over capacity to
> >> handle the unexpected might be necessary. As far as using the rating
> >> plate, you might want to do so if you wish to plan for the worst case
> >> scenario, but you might go bankrupt trying to build for such. A
> >> clothes dryer, for example, probably doesn't use its full rated
> >> current draw most of the time. I had one that messed up and started
> >> doing that. It got very warm on top and I realized that It was time
> >> to either fix it or replace it before something became way too
> >> exciting.
> >Well, first off the worst case is always the best choice for design.
> >If you have a heart attack or other serious illness the last thing you
> >want is to run low on energy.
> OHMYGAWD! So KaWs prevent over-estimating and over-building, which
> leads to not having enough energy to run what, our defibrillators?
> > And I can attest to the amount of energy
> >use when it happens. My system was stretched to the limit for up to 12
> >months. If it had been just the right size
> The *right* size? Yes, much better to have the wrong size.
> > it would have failed in
> >short order with me to ill to be able to do anything about it.
> LOL OK everybody, let that be a lesson - always keep in mind a
> potential future illness. For example, when you're driving, tie a
> bungee cord to the steering wheel. In case of illness you can keep
> right on going.
> >Adding a baby to a house can double your energy use over night.
> Would it be OK with you George, if those of us too old to make new
> babies size our solar power setups for our actual needs? Oh sure,
> you'll say "somebody else's baby may come". So I've taken action! I'm
> going to mount all my door handles high enough that babies won't be
> able to reach. I'm also going to plug all the outside outlets so that
> if I'm under siege by babies, there won't be anywhere for them to plug
> in their appliances.
> >Designing for the worst case adds to the cost of a system, yes. It is
> >not likely to bankrupt any body.
> >"Just in time" manufacturing is a wonderful system, until one truck
> >fails to arrive "Just in time".
> >But then you are not going to have a heart attack are you? You will
> >never get sick or have an accident. You will never have relatives drop
> >in and stay for two weeks.
> >Now before we get into the argument about where do you stop with
> >designing for the worst case, my position is as stated, you use the
> >max rating for the appliance.
> Why not just add say, 20% for contingency, instead of inflating
> individual appliance use? Could your bizarre recommendation have
> anything to do with being busted for posting faulty and contradictory
> "audit" numbers? Nah....
> >No more is needed for the job, the system will have enough capacity to
> >handle most of life's little surprises and not send any one bankrupt.
> Your financial advice might need auditing....
> Wayne
All that writing and not a single useful number mentioned. Why do you
bother wayne, the design of your system only exists in your fevered
imagination.
>First of all, the Killawatt (and its brothers) is a handy tool. Like
>all tools it must be used correctly.
>For many people though it is a party trick used to impress others.
>This is not a correct use.
>Myth 1
>You need to use a watt metre to do an energy audit.
>This is false.
>In most instances the loads (appliances) are not available to be
>measured. You are perfectly safe to use the appliances rated energy
>use as provided on the compliance plate of the appliance you are
>considering using.
>Myth 2
>All loads in the energy audit should be measured at the setting you
>think you will use.
>This is false.
>Sizing a system to the energy use less than an appliances full rating
>leaves no leeway for changes in use patterns. Such a system may suit
>your needs today but fail in the near future. A baby, a sudden illness
>or a new appliance can bankrupt a system. You can not add a load to a
>system that is only just meeting the demand.