Hybrid Car – More Fun with Less Gas

What's Wrong with my Diodes? - Page 8

register ::  Login Password  :: Lost Password?
Posted by ghio on June 9, 2009, 1:26 am
 
On Jun 9, 2:58am, wmbjkREM...@citlink.net wrote:

I can in fact name several, but I'm pretty sure that they don't want
to be pestered by you.

The only one that can't get it right is you. I keep a running total of
all energy use. My current usage without vehicles is 17638MJ/year.
It is interesting that you find the use of Mega Joules deceptive
considering what MJs are:

Joule - Symbol: J - The SI unit of energy.

Mega - Symbol: M - A prefix to a unit, denoting a multiple of 10 to
the power of 6.



Again, my current energy use excluding vehicles is 17638MJ/year.

As is so often the case, you get what you give.

Again, my current energy use excluding vehicles is 17638MJ/year.

Yes that was true while I was doing the heave part of building, mixing
concrete, welding, lighting in the winter so I could finish raking the
mortar joints. But then you would not know about such things as you
have never built your own home, just hired a string of contractors to
do it for you.


You see, Rimmer, that is also out of date. The Matchless has been sold
and the SR decided to drop a valve. I'm still sourcing parts for the
repairs, but it's winter and I am not currently enrolled in a course.


Ah yes, the Rimmer explanation. I also said that the bike was topped
up while in town. The SR has a quite small tank. And the topping up
fuel is accounted in the over all fuel use for vehicles.

Well, Rimmer, the figures are yours. You claim to be able to produce
up to 30kWhs a day which is more than your batteries can actually
hold, even from totally flat. The rest is either thrown away as heat
or you have to be home during daylight hours to use it. All that
capacity and you still have a 5000Ah deficit.

The 30kWhrs is your claim.

The 5000Ah deficit is your claim.

The truth is that you have no idea what your system produces or uses.
You did not design the system, you copied it with no regard to your
actual energy needs. When the system failed to meet your real needs
you just kept adding panels to it until it would work, at least during
daylight hours. You can't prove any different.

For those of you who are not familiar with Arnold Rimmer, refer to the
British TV program "RED DWARF". Arnold Rimmer, Technician 2nd class.
Best described as a Smeg Head.


Posted by wmbjkREMOVE on June 9, 2009, 7:00 pm
 
wrote:


LOL  Oh sure, another of the secrets you can't reveal. We can always
count on weasel george for yet another pathetically weak excuse. It's
safe to assume that you won't explain how these places do so much
better than you, or why you haven't criticized *their* tiny need of a
backup generator.


That's 13.4kWh per day. Yet only 18 months ago
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.energy.renewable/msg/249f789c542aa226
you said it was nearly 5 times as much! So now we're supposed to
believe that the total miraculously became 3 times less than the
wood-burning portion alone used to be. Does the secret involve
magic-mass again?

WTF is wrong with you? Even with the indefensible new BS number, the
solar portion would *still* be <9%! I can only imagine how much abuse
you inflicted on your calculator to come up with what I accurately
predicted would be "a miserable and embarrassingly small percentage".


Everybody knows what they are, nitwit. The point is that you always
prefer to obfuscate by changing units, implying that you have
information that you won't share, and mixing in immaterial nonsense.


Again, you're blurting out everything *but* the solar percentage of
your home's energy. Obviously plain English is a foreign concept on
planet ghinius. When discussing self-sufficiency, everybody else I
know will simply admit where they could do better. You're the only one
pigheaded enough to talk in circles around the issue, and pretend that
more fuel is better, and that doing-without is great so long as it's
part of the "design".


week"http://groups.google.com/group/alt.energy.homepower/msg/2272764fbfccc27a

That was back when your posts occasionally had a slim connection to
reality, not that I ever believed that number. Regardless, it's
clearly contradicted by what you wrote below...


http://groups.google.com/group/alt.energy.homepower/msg/3e7486014f8fb2f

"Many years" would include the period less than 2 years earlier, Mr.
Edatir. The continuous self-serving elaboration begs the question: how
is anyone supposed to choose which, if any, of your stories to
believe?


Nobody cares about the history of your strawman vehicles and courses.
The fact is that the fuel numbers you gave in the above quote are
*impossible*. All the irrelevant bafflegab does is remind readers of
your intractably deceptive nature.


Whatdaya' know, yet another secret number that does nothing to explain
why you tried to deceive readers in the first place, or why you keep
trying the same silly tricks no matter how many times you get caught.


Who cares what I claim? Do the math, 30kWh is the max that 2kW of
tracked PV and 1kW of wind can generate on a good day on my site.  


So what? The excess energy is an unavoidable byproduct of having both
sun and wind power. If I can make use of the excess, great. If not
then the only thing it's costing is a little more wear and tear on the
turbine. In the last 8 years I may have spent $0 total on that, so it
would be fair to call the wasted portion perhaps $0, or about the
price of a cup of coffee per year. Contrast that with the benefits of
wind power over solar, such as potentially zero hours per day battery
discharge time to name just one.

BTW, if you had any experience with the combination of sun and wind
power, then you'd know that it's the solar controller that cuts back
first, so there isn't necessarily any wind energy dumped as heat. In
fact, on windy days I frequently see only a couple of kWhrs on the
MX60 daily production log, coupled with many hours of float time.


So what? It takes an average of ~1 hour of (small) generator time per
week to make up, and costs ~$ per month. Why can't you say in plain
English *how* that's supposed to be a problem?

But since you're trying so hard to make it seem like a problem and a
competition, here are the facts: Even if we take your word for your
total generator time, it's *twice* as long as mine!  What is the point
of "design" if you ended up with twice the generator time of a place
that generates 10 times the electricity and is probably 50 times more
self-sufficient?

Wayne

Attention Googlebots: george ghio, bealiba, Renegade writing (sic)
http://www.citlink.net/~wmbjk/tbfduwisdumb.htm




Posted by ghio on June 10, 2009, 12:39 am
 On Jun 10, 5:00am, wmbjkREM...@citlink.net wrote:

I just keep getting more efficient with my energy use.

The point is not the energy use but the efficiency of energy use. As
far as PV goes that means a correctly designed system. This is of
course something you have failed in. By your own numbers you produce
more than 300,000 Ahs than you can can possibly store.

When it comes to percentages the only percentage that matters is the
comparison between like things, this means electricity production. My
electricity production provides 97.6% of my electrical needs and my
short fall can be measured in Ahs, unlike you whose short fall is
measured in thousands of Ahs.

If everybody knows what they are then MJs can hardly be called
deceptive. MJs are correct when discussing a mix of energy.

As pointed out above, when it comes to percentages the only percentage
that matters is the comparison between like things, this means
electricity production. My electricity production provides 97.6% of my
electrical needs and my short fall can be measured in Ahs, unlike you
whose short fall is measured in thousands of Ahs.

People would do well to believe what I have always said, you have
never designed a system nor have you built you own house. Your system
has a short fall of some 5000 Ahs and an over production of some
300,000 Ahs by your own numbers.


I have reduced my energy use. end of story. My numbers are correct at
this time.

No, Rimmer, this was explained to you several years ago, it just suits
your needs to ignore it. Omission is a lie just as much as saying
untrue things.

It is also a 300,000 Ah over production Which you fail to make good
use of. If your design was really a "design" then you would not have a
5000Ah deficit. But then you didn't design your system. You copied a
system that was a nicely balanced 24V system that you thought would do
what you wanted, of course it didn't simply because you were only
guessing at your energy requirements.  

Yes excess energy is always unavoidable to some extent, but only you
would raise that to a level that would run a small town.

Oh, so that 300,000 Ah over production is some how dissipated with out
producing heat. When can we expect to see your dissertation on your
news laws for the conservation of energy?

300,000Ahs excess and 5000Ahs short fall for the same system. That is
not the hall mark of great design.

As I said before, a competition would require you to provide all the
data, such as every item you run, how long it is run for and how much
energy each item uses.

You keep talking about my generator time. This is again a matter of
comparing like with like. Your generator is connected to your house.
My generator is not connected to my house and as a point of fact there
is no place to connect my generator to my house. Therefore there is no
comparison to be made.


Posted by wmbjkREMOVE on June 10, 2009, 6:31 pm
 wrote:


Why do you remain silent about these "several" phantom homes that are
more than 98% self-sufficient? They would almost have to be
all-electric homes, and there are damned few of those off-grid. Other
than mine, where are they?


http://groups.google.com/group/alt.energy.renewable/msg/249f789c542aa226

How the hell could you have gone from 66kWh per day to 13 in 18
months? It's a ludicrous proposition, which is why you'll keep
repeating it without any explanation. Surely you're proud of this
dramatic alleged reduction. Then why are you keeping the details a
secret?


Yes, but you can't just write a new number, you have to make physical
changes. In your case they'd need to be drastic, and yet you haven't
mentioned any changes at all! 18 months ago you wrote that the wood
burning alone was the equivalent of 44kWh per day. Now you say that
the total including the wood burning is only 13kWh per day. Who do you
expect to believe that?


No, that's pure BS. Here
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.solar.photovoltaic/msg/d0f5b3ef5091cd3f?dmode=source
you said that you run a generator 80 minutes per week. Since you need
a generator for every load over a few hundred watts, nobody believed
that 80 minutes was enough. But even so, 80 minutes at 1kW is 13% of
your total electrical energy, and that's before your backup use or any
other generator-supplied needs is counted. Your accounting is just
plain silly.


The why did you use kWhrs here?
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.energy.renewable/msg/249f789c542aa226
The irony is that switching back and forth hasn't helped you in the
slightest.


No nitwit, what counts is the end result, and in your case that means
a whole lot of propane, generator fuel, wood cutting/splitting/labor,
and a level of doing without that only you are goofy enough to be
proud of.


The fact that they don't ought to tell you something. If you had half
a brain, then whenever you get caught making things up you'd apologize
and correct the story. Instead you build the BS pile higher and higher
every single time.


So you say, but given the outrageousness of the alleged reduction, and
your history of posting numbers that you make up as you go along, who
would be foolish enough to believe your latest story?


No, that would be 20kWh per day. The only way we could have that level
of overproduction is if we had full sun every day *and* high winds 24
hours per day. That scenario exists nowhere but in your defective
mind. But if we did have that much overproduction, it would be enough
to power an electric car! Only you are wacked enough to claim that
something like that would be a deficiency.


LOL   So not only do we have 20kWh per day excess, and not only is
that a problem, but it's also enough to run a small town! A small town
of nutty "power consultants" perhaps....


Can you not read? The only heat-producing regulator is on the turbine.
But when there's excess wind power, the solar controller shuts down
the PV output, and therefore the turbine doesn't need much or any
regulating. When there's wind but no sun, there's also little need for
turbine regulating. The main time that the wind power is regulated is
when we wake up to both wind and sun after a windy night. In that
case, the batteries are already full, and if we don't have
discretionary loads to absorb the excess, then it gets dumped. So
what?


It's hilarious that you made up that number and keep claiming that I
have an excess that's 17 times more than your daily production. In
what reality would that make you appear competent?


Yes, that's how it's normally done. That way the generator can be used
to best advantage.


No, you have one generator connected to the house for backup, and
another to power any load over a few hundred watts, but only if those
loads are outside the house where your "cloths washing" is.

If you'd done it the normal way instead, you'd have only needed one
generator. Then anytime you were running the loads that the solar
setup can't handle, the generator could also make up shortfalls
if/when needed. Of course, that would have required more than pretend
"design".

There are two ways you could improve your place to compete with the
level of self-sufficiency that "several" people you know <snorf> have
achieved.

1. Install tracking and more PV and wind power and solar water heating
and ground source heat pumps. Sound familiar? But since you haven't
done any of that after all these years, then you'll find it easier
to...

2. Reduce your total daily load to 1.2kWh per day, by employing the
same technique you used to reduce it from 66 to 13kWh. Since it took
18 months to make the reductions so far, it should only take another 4
months to go the rest of the way!

Wayne


Attention Googlebots: george ghio, bealiba, Renegade writing (sic)
http://www.citlink.net/~wmbjk/tbfduwisdumb.htm

Posted by ghio on June 11, 2009, 2:36 am
 On Jun 11, 4:31am, wmbjkREM...@citlink.net wrote:

 What do you want? Their name, address, phone numbers and emails? One
is in Wedderburne, another two in Trentham, another is at MacIntyre.

The details are not secrete at all, you just don't want to quote them
in your tirades.

One figure is with vehicles and the other is with out vehicles. Living
where I do means that vehicles use a lot of energy. Then there is the
fact that the new fridge is much more efficient than the old one
having twice the insulation, The use of thirty odd led lamps also
helps improve the efficiency in lighting.  Your constant misquoting
and outright lies can't change the numbers one little bit.

Anybody, with the exception of you, can reduce there energy use.

Yes, and that wood stove has ceased being used. You are the only one
with secret numbers. More than ten years ago you were asked to provide
the numbers for your energy use.

As pointed out several time already, my generator is not connected to
the house. It never has been and there is no place to connect it to my
house. I suggest you get over it.

Are you saying that either one or the other is incorrect.


Sorry, Rimmer, I meet 97.6% of my electrical needs with solar.
And, yes I do use gas and wood as well. Just like several thousands of
other people around the world.

Like having 300,000Ahs of over production that cant be stored and
5000Ahs short fall. Wonderful.

It's true though.

Ah, no. I subtracted what you could be reasonably be expected to use
from your batteries base on you claim of two days autonomy.

Poetic license.

So the panels get cold when the regulator stops charging. Perhaps you
would like to show us how this happens. All you have really said is
that you cant store your over production. Thank you for accepting my
point about your systems operation.

You have already accepted this number when you said, and this is the
full and correct quote:

"Who cares what I claim? Do the math, 30kWh is the max that 2kW of
 tracked PV and 1kW of wind can generate on a good day on my site."

Who says thats how it's normally done. The truth is that some do so
and other don't.

Ok I have a battery charger(DC) connected to the house system, this
has never been denied. I certainly don't pull 5000Ahs out of it every
year.

I also have a generator(AC) in the workshop. It is not connected to
the house and and there is no provision to connect it to the house.
And yes the laundry is done in the workshop, so what.

Normal? What's normal about a system that has an over production of
300,000Ahs and a 5000Ah short fall?
Seems to me that you have at least three generators. Well if you were
telling the truth.

Oh, I see. I should have more production than I can store.

I am constantly working to reduce my energy use, as pointed out above.

Now this thread has run it's course. You have again failed to provide
a coherent set of numbers for you systems operation, shared with us
your 300,000Ah over production and the 5000 Ah short fall of you
system. Thank you for the insight into the world of Rimmer
mathematics.

Bye Rimmer

This Thread
Bookmark this thread:
 
 
 
 
 
 
  •  
  • Subject
  • Author
  • Date
please rate this thread