Hybrid Car – More Fun with Less Gas

What's Wrong with my Diodes? - Page 9

register ::  Login Password  :: Lost Password?
Posted by wmbjkREMOVE on June 11, 2009, 8:09 pm

Now we're finally getting somewhere! <snorf> Please describe these
setups. I've never heard of a single off-grid place that didn't have
some backup power, so I'd like to know how much they use, and why you
haven't been critical of them for needing it. And considering who's
telling us about them, I would like to see some proof that they even
exist. All-electric off-grid homes are very rare and notable. Surely
at least one of them is described on its own web site, or the
installer's web site, or in a news story. And I'd like to know why you
believe that the owners made the effort to be truly self-sufficient,
given that you claim to be able to accomplish the same thing by using
accounting alone.


Huh? You wrote: "My current usage >without vehicles< is 17638MJ/year".
That is quite clear, and I don't see you admitting that it's wrong. So
the new number *without vehicles* is 13.4kWh per day, versus 66kWhr
per day 18 months ago
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.energy.renewable/msg/249f789c542aa226 .
I ask again, how could the total have possibly become 3 times less
than the wood burning used to be?

I removed the vehicle consumption from the old numbers already, and
you said that the new number also doesn't include the vehicles. Why
must you keep trying to confuse the issue by mentioning vehicles

A small fridge's total use is ~1kWh per day. Your lighting is part of
your solar production, which is also ~1kWh per day. If you eliminated
both of those *entirely*, then the reduction would be ~2 kWh per day.
So where did the other 52kWh per day reduction come from?

BTW, you should be including the cost of the new fridge in any energy
calculations, since propane-fueled fridges are famous for being
expensive to buy, run, and repair. I tell people in my area to switch
to electric ones as soon as they can manage it. And I use examples
like yours to demonstrate how some choices are a predictable false

My energy use goes up and down as technology and our use of it
changes. For example, recently I rewired the arrays to a higher
voltage for a minor production increase. At about the same I changed
the HTPC setup to slightly reduce its consumption. Such things are
routine and hardly worth mentioning, but the level of reduction you've
announced here is truly astonishing by comparison. It's also
impossible without a dramatic lifestyle change.

18 months ago you wrote that wood burning accounted for an average of
44kwh per day of your consumption. As I recall, you have both a
wood-burning stove and a wood-burning fireplace. If you quit using the
stove, then it's fair to assume that you're using more propane for
cooking. Regardless, the lion's share of the wood burning must still
remain for space heating with the fireplace. So how can the total now
be 13 when the wood burning alone must still be, say, 35, and the
propane increased to compensate? Or were you trying to fool readers
into believing that the wood-burning had been eliminated entirely?


No, you have one generator connected to the house, and another that's
in the "workshop" "cloths washing" room. <chuckle> *Both* are required
for routine operation of your home. What is the point of using
semantics and phony accounting to pretend that the fuel for one
generator, plus all the other fuel, should be ignored? If you have $0
divided between 2 pockets, and you spend $, do you still have $0 on
planet ghio?

Have you heard of *wire*? My backup generator is also outside my
house. It's connected to the batteries using, wait for it... wire!
Almost all the loads are powered by the inverters, so when the
generator is running it's either charging batteries or powering the
inverters/loads. Other than extreme pigheadedness and poverty, there's
no reason you couldn't do the same thing. That way you'd reap an
improvement in both efficiency and convenience.

That's just your cockamamie accounting. Your electrical needs are only
a tiny percentage of your total needs, and 97% of very little turns
out to be <2% of the total, or <9% if anyone reading believes Baghdad
Bob or George Ghio.

So what? Fuel burning is *not* what got you into trouble here. It was
your brain dead and hypocritical assertion that a 98% self-sufficient
percentage and a very small amount of backup fuel burning
occasionally, is somehow worse than a 1.8% self-sufficiency percentage
and a lot of fuel burning every day.

Then show us how. Post the updated version of what you posted here
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.energy.renewable/msg/249f789c542aa226 .
That way we can see the exact details of how you went from 66kWh down
to 13.

Batteries have nothing to do with your BS. Before one can have an
average of 20kWh of excess, they need 20kWh to start with. Here's your
chance to show us your deeziner scils - use a location of Kingman AZ
for the insolation and wind number, with 2kW of single-axis tracked PV
and 1kW of wind power. Should only take you a few minutes. I'd enjoy
seeing you use your usual weasel techniques to exaggerate my
production.   LOL

OK then, you are to writing what dogshit is to fine wine.

What the hell are you talking about? "Cold" panels? "The" regulator?
Great writing there, Shakespeare! Try re-reading my description above.
It's quite clear. Better yet, why don't you go out and visit some
places that have both solar and wind power, so that you don't have to
get schooled on the basics in public.

No, that clearly says "max", and "on a good day". A good day is full
sun and continuous high wind. No sensible person with alternative
energy experience would imagine that such conditions exist every day,
or even a majority of days.

We're not talking about your dopey camping-level "deezines". These
days most home-sized off-grid setups use inverter-chargers. When are
you going to get out and lay your hands on one of those for the first
time, so that you can relate to and understand what others discuss


As I said, if your deezine had been better, then the backup generator
and the aux generator would be one and the same as so many others are.
That would generally also require an inverter (or an inverter-charger)
large enough to power all major loads. Which in turn would have
provided a way to make use of normal excess energy that you're now
allegedly throwing away. Why would you burn fuel for a fire to cook a
piece of toast, or start a generator to do laundry, if there's already
sufficient energy untapped? How were you able to run a water line to
the "cloths washing" room, yet pretend that running a wire is somehow
impossible? If you need to run say, a side grinder in the workshop,
then why start a generator to do that when the home's inverter could
power it?

I could have a hundred generators, none of them will help your case.

I have one (1) fixed 2kW generator for home power backup. It's
outdoors in an enclosure
http://www.citlink.net/~wmbjk/images/genny.jpg , and the controls are

I also have a 6.5kW portable generator used mostly for mobile welding.
It's mounted on a custom cart
which allow me to load it into a car or truck easily by myself. That
cart lives indoors, but I can quickly plumb the exhaust outdoors, and
connect the generator to both inverter-chargers in case of backup
generator failure. Which would turn the portable generator into a
backup to the backup.

And I have a light-weight portable generator
http://www.citlink.net/~wmbjk/images/generator/colemannormal.jpg  for
remote operation of small loads. In a pinch that generator can also be
hooked to an external exhaust, or can be rolled outdoors and connected
to an exterior input to a single inverter-charger. Either way it can
serve as a backup to the backup to the backup if needed.

Here, let me save you some time...

Weasel ghio's next post: "So you admit to needing three generators to
power your home!"   Too funny.

No, you should strive for solar and wind production that comes as
close to 100% of your needs as possible. That's what I do, and that's
what you say that "several" people you know do as well. So how is it
that you've gone over 2 decades without doing the same, or even

If <snorf> we believe what you've written, then you had a 350Wh per
day system for a dozen or more years, which you upgraded to 1.2kWh a
few years ago to accommodate consumption of  66kWh per day. Then you
dropped to a fifth of that consumption only recently. That's hardly a
"constant reduction". Good for you if you ever improve your production
enough to match your consumption. Until then, you have a loooooong way
to go, and a lot more fuel to buy. I trust that it's becoming an ever
larger part of your budget, and I hope that you think of me every time
you pay for it, and every time you think about how much better off
you'd be now if you'd made changes a long time ago.

Why has it run "it's" course Mr. Edatir? Because you realized that the
more you rite, the more obvious your hypocrisy becomes? Or because you
hate compulsively contributing fresh wisdumb to
http://www.citlink.net/~wmbjk/solar100.htm?  Or is it because you're
too busy earning $50 an hour <guffaw> to talk about the fabulous 1kWh
per day "solar powered" home?

If only. Unfortunately, you'll be back with more wisdumb and riteeng
"expertise" again and again.


googlebots see here ---> george ghio, bealiba, Renegade writing (sic)

Posted by ghio on June 12, 2009, 1:27 am
On Jun 12, 6:09am, wmbjkREM...@citlink.net wrote:

Well, Rimmer, it's like this, I will tell you about one of these
systems when you post all the numbers for your system.

Every item you run, how many watts it uses, how long it is run for,
the number of panels and batteries.

Each item listed separately showing Item - Watts - Hours run - Total
watt hours . Multiple lights can be lumped together as long as they
are operated from a single switch.

Now, just so you understand, I am not even going to look up my records
for any of these systems because hell will freeze over before you can
provide the requested information.

You are totally incapable of providing the information.

The systems in question were designed and installed by me. They were
designed to the parameters set by the customers. They meet these
parameters by design.

On the other hand you have never designed a system in your life.

If your next post does not provide the requested information about
your system it will simply be an admission that you are an incompetent
fool. A fact that has been self-evident for more than 10 years.

The smart money says you will not be able to provide the numbers.

Bye Rimmer

Posted by wmbjkREMOVE on June 12, 2009, 2:32 pm

Gosh, what a shock that you need to make up yet another excuse to keep
even the most basic details about "one" of these places a secret.
Whatever could it mean?

You have made it clear time and time again that the concept of true
energy self-sufficiency is entirely foreign to you. Your idea of
"design" is to use as little PV as possible, even if that means a
false economy of endlessly paying for constantly-rising fuel prices,
and even if it requires a camping-level lifestyle. So I'm going to go
out on a limb here <snorf> and declare that you have *never* installed
a >98% self-sufficient home power setup, or anything even close. "Meet
parameters by design" in ghinius parlance translates to "big ol'
propane tank in the backyard" that you pigheadedly refuse to count as
being part of the deeezine. If you really had anything to do with even
a single self-sufficient off-grid home, you'd be crowing like a
rooster, not making silly excuses that nobody in their right mind
would believe.

LOL   Every day it's "bye", and every next day it's more BS.


Posted by ghio on June 12, 2009, 9:57 pm
 On Jun 13, 12:32am, wmbjkREM...@citlink.net wrote:

And the smart money wins again

Posted by wmbjkREMOVE on June 12, 2009, 11:24 pm

Nobody smart believes that you have any money, nitwit. People who need
to pretend to be something that they're not tend stay stuck down
pretty good. There's always the chance that you'll find something you
can do better at, but most likely the Australian taxpayers have
learned that trying to retrain an imbecile for yet another spectacular
career failure is a waste of money. The most cost-effective solution
is to keep you on a small enough pension that you'll stay out of


Attention googlebots ----> george ghio bealiba Renegade writing (sic)

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