Book review for Wayne
George Ghio
the basics of solar power.
My lament is of course that I heard about, and read about, your advice
after. Rather than before, my solar system was installed.
Your writing has two great--and uncommon--virtues.You keep it simple,
but where technical terms are unavoidable, have the gift of explaining
new concepts and technical terms in plain language, without dumbing
down into oversimplification. My experience as a talented bungler and
amateur handyman coming to terms with a bush block, is that so many "How
to" books, and manufacturers manuals,are are written --or
translated--by technical experts whose written english is turgid, and
seem unaware their everyday professional language and terms are just
foreign to Joe Average. My chainsaw came with a manual which could as
usefully have been written in Sanskrit, and diagrams which I think
illustrated a motor mower.
But you use short clean anglo-saxon words to make short clear sentences
and diagrams which are apposite, humorous, and don't' need re-reading
several times to get the point.I skimmed through once, got the general
picture, and did a more thorough re-read, and that was that.I have a
life's store of "if onlys" but if only I had read your book beforehand,
dare I say my life would have been sunnier......
Now, having got to the last page of your little book, I wasn't able to
install a solar system. But if I had had that knowledge under my belt
earlier, I would have been able to ask a lot more pertinent questions,
and that can be vital.
Thanks again, Paul Maher
Steve Spence
knowledgable, really I am. Please believe me". Of course, Paul Maher
could very well be a pseudonym or alter ego ....
Steve Spence
Dir., Green Trust
http://www.green-trust.org
wmbjk
<gh...@netconnect.com.au> wrote:
>George, just a note of thanks and appreciation for your booklet/CD on
>the basics of solar power.
>
>Now, having got to the last page of your little book, I wasn't able to
>install a solar system. But if I had had that knowledge under my belt
>earlier, I would have been able to ask a lot more pertinent questions,
>and that can be vital.
So after paying $25 to read your "little book", he's all set to ask
more pertinent questions. But you haven't presented your "book" as
something that will lead to further reading, you've instead claimed
that there is "none better". So it seems to me that if "none better"
isn't just another of your typical outrageous exaggerations, then you
wouldn't settle for a thank-you note from a "talented bungler", who
compares your effort to the manual for his chain saw. Instead you'd
ask for a review from a knowledgeable outfit like Home Power Magazine,
which has the staff and background to actually compare your work to
all of those "none better" offerings. Is that too obvious for you?
What possible reason could you have for *not* asking for a review by
the experts?
Wayne (pretending not to know the answer to both questions)
Anthony Matonak
...
> Now, having got to the last page of your little book, I wasn't able to
> install a solar system. But if I had had that knowledge under my belt
> earlier, I would have been able to ask a lot more pertinent questions,
> and that can be vital.
>
> Thanks again, Paul Maher
Ok, now the question is... Who is Paul Maher? What makes him someone
that others should pay attention to his reviews? I did a quick google
search on the name and came up with lots of Paul Mahers. So, it's
not just a question of who but which one as well.
There is this one, for example:
http://www.beatrice.com/archives/cat_bad_bad_writers_paul_maher.html
If this was the fellow and he wrote a good review of MY book, I'd be
ashamed and would do my best that no one ever found out. Maybe that's
just me.
Anthony
George Ghio
Steve Spence <ssp...@green-trust.org> wrote:
1 He is a real person who lives in central Victoria. He is new to solar
power. He liked the book.
2 None of his other details are your business.
3 Wayne did ask.
4 Galls you lot doesn't it.
5 The three stooges ride again.
Anthony Matonak
...<Snip Positive Review Posted By George Ghio>...
>>>Thanks again, Paul Maher
> Steve Spence <ssp...@green-trust.org> wrote:
>
>>A new low in self promotion. Good work, George. "I'm really
>>knowledgable, really I am. Please believe me". Of course, Paul Maher
>>could very well be a pseudonym or alter ego ....
George Ghio wrote:
>
> 1 He is a real person who lives in central Victoria. He is new to solar
> power. He liked the book.
>
> 2 None of his other details are your business.
Sorry, his other details ARE public business as long as you hold
him up as a person qualified to review your book and someone other
people should listen to. It's not like he's a known person with
known qualifications for reviewing books, is it?
Anthony
George Ghio
Anthony Matonak <res0...@gte.net> wrote:
No he is a customer. He bought the book and liked it so much he wrote a
testimonial. Customers are entitled to privacy. What details do you
think you are intitled to. You want his phone number? Should I post his
email address.
I don't think so.
Or perhaps you feel that Wayne is qualified to write a review, you
remember him he posted;
Oh for cryin' out loud! OK, let's say it's a 4" side grinder, and
> > it's hanging from the ceiling with its switch taped in the "on"
> > position, and spinning a 5/8" hole, 80 grit flexible disc on a rubber
> > backing pad. It's a vacant home, the owners are waiting for their
> > place in Romania to sell before they can move in, and the purpose of
> > the grinder is to make burglars think that somebody is hard at work in
> > the garage. Does that help you?
If you feel that this drivel qualifies anyone to write anything at all
about renewable energy then defend this example and tell us how the
angle grinder was started if it runs at 458.33 watts and the supply is
500 watts and no storage reserve as Wayne asserts is the correct answer.
No, sorry but this is the truth of Waynes ability. Sort of raises
questions about your position in the matter of ability.
Of course you can still have the first ten pages to see how the book is
formatted, as can anybody else who is interested.
Staring at the Sun is a good book for people who are new to Solar Power.
It's as simple as that.
Paul has read the book.
Not Wayne , Steve or yourself have. On the other hand I have read Waynes
site. It lacks the information to be of any more use than a site with
pretty pictures.
Bye
wmbjk
<gh...@netconnect.com.au> wrote:
>In article <JpiQd.31282$uc.1897@trnddc03>,
> Anthony Matonak <res0...@gte.net> wrote:
>
>> >>George Ghio wrote:
>> ...<Snip Positive Review Posted By George Ghio>...
No, you posted a thank-you letter. That is quite different from a
review.
>> Sorry, his other details ARE public business as long as you hold
>> him up as a person qualified to review your book and someone other
>> people should listen to. It's not like he's a known person with
>> known qualifications for reviewing books, is it?
>>
>> Anthony
>No he is a customer. He bought the book and liked it so much he wrote a
>testimonial. Customers are entitled to privacy.
Yes, *customers* are entitled to privacy, and my dogs like to roll in
coyote poop. Neither fact has a damned thing to do with book reviews.
The idea of a review (in this case) is to show that a knowledgeable,
independent person thinks that the book was worth the money. Ideally
the "knowledgeable" part is accepted by readers, and doesn't need
further explanation. Here a *lack* of knowledge is actually a feature
of the alleged review, and you are in the position once again of
responding to fair comments and questions with asinine diversion.
Here are the key questions that you're afraid to answer - *WHY* don't
you submit the book to Home Power Magazine for a real review, since
they're the obvious choice? If you have something against Home Power
Magazine, then *WHY* don't you at least submit the book to any of the
hundred of people who are knowledgeable enough to judge its worth?
Wayne
wmbjk
<gh...@netconnect.com.au> wrote:
>5 The three stooges ride again.
Another regular gets Ghioed. Welcome to the club Anthony!
But wrong on the numbers again George. Let's see, in order - Pine,
Rosenfeld, me, Spence, Smith, Daestrom, Matonak.... To the dozens I
left out, sorry for not "documenting" you (CRS). To all those who
aspire - DJ, landline, windsun and many others... good efforts, keep
trying. ;-)
Wayne
Anthony Matonak
> Anthony Matonak <res0...@gte.net> wrote:
>>George Ghio wrote:
>>
>>>1 He is a real person who lives in central Victoria. He is new to solar
>>>power. He liked the book.
>>>
>>>2 None of his other details are your business.
>>
>>Sorry, his other details ARE public business as long as you hold
>>him up as a person qualified to review your book and someone other
>>people should listen to. It's not like he's a known person with
>>known qualifications for reviewing books, is it?
>
> testimonial. Customers are entitled to privacy. What details do you
> think you are intitled to. You want his phone number? Should I post his
> email address.
Well, then it's not a "Book Review for Wayne", is it? It's a
Testimonial for Wayne.
> Or perhaps you feel that Wayne is qualified to write a review, you
> remember him he posted;
I didn't comment on Wayne or his qualifications to write a review.
You are the only one who thinks Wayne has anything to do with this.
> Staring at the Sun is a good book for people who are new to Solar Power.
> It's as simple as that.
So far, we have you word on that. The word of the author, publisher,
distributor, salesman and book reviewer. You could look up the
definition of "Conflict of Interest" on the web. Oh, heck, I'll do it
for you since, as I recall, you didn't understand me the first time I
used the phrase.
From www.m-w.com
: a conflict between the private interests and the official
: responsibilities of a person in a position of trust
You could, for instance, consider that your position as someone
who recommends books is an "official responsibility" and that
you expect people to trust you when you say it's a good book for
people who are new to Solar power. You also have a private interest
in selling as many copies of your book as you can, regardless of
it's merits. Your own interests are in conflict.
> Paul has read the book.
Yes, but we don't know Paul, his qualifications or even if he exists.
We only have your word on any of that and, once again, this goes back
to a conflict of interest. Your interest in selling the book is in
conflict with your interest in being honest with us. The fact that
there is a conflict of interest is enough to make one doubt.
> Not Wayne , Steve or yourself have. On the other hand I have read Waynes
> site. It lacks the information to be of any more use than a site with
> pretty pictures.
Wayne, Steve and Myself have not reviewed your book. Our qualifications
to review it are not in question because we haven't done so. I'm not
particularly motivated to review it even if I were qualified.
Waynes site is not at issue here. For all public purposes, it does not
exist. Since it does not exist, it can not have any bearing.
Anthony
George Ghio
Anthony Matonak <res0...@gte.net> wrote:
> George Ghio wrote:
> > Anthony Matonak <res0...@gte.net> wrote:
> >>George Ghio wrote:
> >>
> >>>1 He is a real person who lives in central Victoria. He is new to solar
> >>>power. He liked the book.
> >>>
> >>>2 None of his other details are your business.
> >>
> >>Sorry, his other details ARE public business as long as you hold
> >>him up as a person qualified to review your book and someone other
> >>people should listen to. It's not like he's a known person with
> >>known qualifications for reviewing books, is it?
> >
> > No he is a customer. He bought the book and liked it so much he wrote a
> > testimonial. Customers are entitled to privacy. What details do you
> > think you are intitled to. You want his phone number? Should I post his
> > email address.
>
> Well, then it's not a "Book Review for Wayne", is it? It's a
> Testimonial for Wayne.
>
First, I don't care whether people buy the book or not. That is a choice
they have to make. I offer it. That is all. Paul liked it so much that
he wrote a fairly good "Review"
Review - noun: An essay or article that gives a critical evaluation (as
of a book or play)
Critical Evaluation
"Your writing has two great--and uncommon--virtues. You keep it simple,
but where technical terms are unavoidable, have the gift of explaining
new concepts and technical terms in plain language, without dumbing
down into oversimplification.
But you use short clean anglo-saxon words to make short clear sentences
and diagrams which are apposite, humorous, and don't' need re-reading
several times to get the point."
These two paragraphs seem to do the job.
You are of course allowed to disagree if you wish.
Landline
quote/article/letter/terms of reference in advertising you are required when
asked to give full details and/or a copy of the quote/article/letter/terms
of reference when requested.
George are you saying your post is not advertising?
"Anthony Matonak" <res0...@gte.net> wrote in message
news:0%dQd.31174$uc.20430@trnddc03...
George Ghio
"Landline" <no_e...@here.com> wrote:
Yes.
The post is not an advertisement. It was in answer to Waynes request for
a review.
If you want to see an ad for my book it is in the Owner Builder Magazine.
wmbjk
<gh...@netconnect.com.au> wrote:
>In article <wquRd.166348$K7.1...@news-server.bigpond.net.au>,
> "Landline" <no_e...@here.com> wrote:
>
>> George you are required under Australian Law - all states, that if you use a
>> quote/article/letter/terms of reference in advertising you are required when
>> asked to give full details and/or a copy of the quote/article/letter/terms
>> of reference when requested.
>> George are you saying your post is not advertising?
>The post is not an advertisement. It was in answer to Waynes request for
>a review.
Given that all of your efforts here seem designed to discourage
purchase of your product, I'm not sure that they legally qualify as
advertising. Let's try a dictionary for the answer, since that's what
you used recently when attempting to weasel out of a related argument.
Advertise: "To make public announcement of, especially to proclaim the
qualities or advantages of (a product or business) so as to increase
sales."
Perhaps the last part of that definition provides an exception for
your case. If not, for a mere $10 your salvation may be found here -
http://tinyurl.com/6nlqn
Wayne
George Ghio
wmbjk <wmbjk@remove_this citlink.net> wrote:
Ah! Wayne is back to try again.
First you will have to catch up a bit.
How did you arive at two days autonomy for your system?
How did the grinder start in your example of a 500W supply and a 458.33W
grinder(which will certainly require mor than the supply can provide to
start)?:
wmbjk
<gh...@netconnect.com.au> wrote:
same-old same-old
Just another reality-optional day for you eh George?
Wayne
Landline
start)?:
Anthony Matonak
posed a while back. George was going on about how much "reserve" Wayne
has, or does not have (a topic which only he seems to find interesting).
Wayne posed, as a theoretical question, a hydro system that generates
500W continuous that also has a load totaling 11 kWh a day. The
questions essence being, "How many days reserve would George recommend".
George responded that he would need to know exactly what the load was
even though Wayne subsequently specified it was a steady 458.33 Watt
load.
George wrote (and I'll quote)...
: answer is;
: that the storage is equal to load divided by 24
: times the number of hours required to effect repairs.
If one was expert at reading between the lines and know what they
were talking about, they could translate that into something that
people would understand.
I.e. That you need as much storage as you want. If you want the
angle grinder to keep running when the hydro breaks down then you
need enough storage to keep it running until you fix the hydro.
Of course, he doesn't mention that you don't need any storage at
all if you aren't concerned with hydro failures and he leaves out
all of the units in the formula, except hours, which are wrong.
After George responded that these were just numbers and he would
need to know the actually load involved, Wayne suggested it was a 4"
angle grinder with the switch taped on. George response was that this
was silly (paraphrasing) and that the grinder wouldn't start.
I don't know if George is correct or not but my gut feeling is that
a motor under zero load will start (although perhaps slowly at first)
under these conditions. I know I've run portable power drills down 'till
their batteries were flat and at the end, when there is much less power
available from the cells, they still run, just more slowly. Of course,
you could fix this by simply adding a tiny battery with enough juice to
provide that startup surge or by having someone manually spin the disk
on the grinder a few times to get it going.
Anthony
Landline wrote:
> George can you please explain in simple basic English what you mean or
> should say inferring by this:
> /How did the grinder start in your example of a 500W supply and a 458.33W
> grinder(which will certainly require more than the supply can provide to
> start)?:/
>
> I have a 500w grinder with a universal motor that I run from a 500w
> inverter without any problems.
> Probably not ideal, but never given a moments problem.
>
> "George Ghio" <gh...@netconnect.com.au <mailto:gh...@netconnect.com.au>>
> wrote in message news:ghio-7E4393.0...@news.chariot.net.au...
> >
Landline
I had to ask.
The motors in drills, small angle grinders etc are universal motors and will
start no load without to much trouble
Once you get up to 7"/180mm and especially 9"/230mm angle grinders they are
inclined to give problems purely due to the momentum to get the grinding
wheel moving and up to speed. Then again, that is really not a 'no-load'
situation.
Life is far to short to split-hairs.
We are here for a short time, make it a good time.
"Anthony Matonak" <res0...@gte.net> wrote in message
news:k9URd.38463$uc.27175@trnddc03...
George Ghio
"Landline" <no_e...@here.com> wrote:
What is the surge rating?
George Ghio
Anthony Matonak <res0...@gte.net> wrote:
I also have run a battery drill down. Its a funny thing though that
every battery drill I have pulled apart has the same motor in it. I also
bought the same motor from a hobby & model shop. The spec sheet gave its
voltage requirement s a range between 2 and 20 volts.
The second assumtion that a motor under zero load at start up is false
unless the windings and armature also have zero mass. It is also
possible to start a motor by wrapping a cord around the shaft and
spinning it then turning on the power. Indeed this trick can even be
used to reverse the direction of the motor.
Addind a small battery or spinning the shaft is just another form of
added capacity to the system.
This only proves my argument and shows Waynes to be incorrect.
George Ghio
wmbjk <wmbjk@remove_this citlink.net> wrote:
Yep just the same old same old no numbers from Wayne
daestrom
"George Ghio" <gh...@netconnect.com.au> wrote in message
news:ghio-0256AE.0...@news.chariot.net.au...<snip>
>
> The second assumtion that a motor under zero load at start up is false
> unless the windings and armature also have zero mass.
Only some arm-chair engineer that has never worked seriously with electrical
machinery would make such a silly statement. Look up the definition of 'no
load' in any electrical engineering text for rotating machinery and you will
find that 'no load' refers to the state of having the motor running at rated
speed with no *external* load on the shaft. It still includes bearing
friction and windage losses.
> It is also
> possible to start a motor by wrapping a cord around the shaft and
> spinning it then turning on the power. Indeed this trick can even be
> used to reverse the direction of the motor.
This 'trick' to reverse the direction of the motor will only work with small
single-phase induction motors. Spinning a universal motor backwards will
only *increase* the starting surge as the applied power will now quickly
drop the rpm to zero and then reverse the rotation to go in the 'forward'
direction, accelerating to full speed. Most power tools are universal until
you get up to non-portable equipment such as drill presses and table saws.
Certainly a hand-held grinder uses a universal motor.
The interesting thing about starting motors directly across the line in an
unloaded condition is that it doesn't really change the instantaneous power
drawn the moment the switch is closed. It changes the *time* it takes the
motor to accelerate up to speed. The unloaded motor can reach full speed in
less than a second, while the fully loaded motor may take several seconds.
The integral of the power over the time needed determines the amount of
energy that must be supplied from the inverter's internal storage. If the
energy needed is small compared to the inverter's internal storage, then
things work fine. If too much, the inverter may 'trip'.
And of course, there are variable speed power tools. These can have no
starting surge above their rating at all, depending on how the operator
'pulls the trigger'. So if the 'grinder' in question is variable speed
unit, it may not have any trouble at all starting on an inverter of the same
rating as the grinder.
daestrom
wmbjk
wrote:
>Anthony thanks so much, I have seen George post that so many times I thought
>I had to ask.
>The motors in drills, small angle grinders etc are universal motors and will
>start no load without to much trouble
Motor starting was never the point. I tried to get George to provide a
one-word answer to a one-sentence question about necessary autonomy.
He refused unless I provided "details". I shouldn't have bothered
providing any, since getting a forthright answer from George is about
as easy as making water run uphill.
Wayne
George Ghio
wmbjk <wmbjk@remove_this citlink.net> wrote:
I'm still laughing.
George Ghio
"daestrom" <daestrom@NO_SPAM_HEREtwcny.rr.com> wrote:
> "George Ghio" <gh...@netconnect.com.au> wrote in message
> news:ghio-0256AE.0...@news.chariot.net.au...
> > In article <k9URd.38463$uc.27175@trnddc03>,
> > Anthony Matonak <res0...@gte.net> wrote:
> <snip>
> >
> > The second assumtion that a motor under zero load at start up is false
> > unless the windings and armature also have zero mass.
>
> Only some arm-chair engineer that has never worked seriously with electrical
> machinery would make such a silly statement. Look up the definition of 'no
> load' in any electrical engineering text for rotating machinery and you will
> find that 'no load' refers to the state of having the motor running at rated
> speed with no *external* load on the shaft. It still includes bearing
> friction and windage losses.
Ok. We have now heard from the arm chair
This is the problem:
> > Oh for cryin' out loud! OK, let's say it's a 4" side grinder, and
> > it's hanging from the ceiling with its switch taped in the "on"
> > position, and spinning a 5/8" hole, 80 grit flexible disc on a rubber
> > backing pad. It's a vacant home, the owners are waiting for their
> > place in Romania to sell before they can move in, and the purpose of
> > the grinder is to make burglars think that somebody is hard at work in
> > the garage. Does that help you?
Also;
> > No temporary loads. A *steady* 11kWhr per day. Call it a constant
> > 458.3333 Watts if that helps you.
Now what we know is that the grinder must be started for this example to
work. Therefore there IS a startup load on top of the 458.33 watts the
grinder needs to run.
Landline says:
>I have a 500w grinder with a universal motor that I run from a 500w
>inverter without any problems.
>Probably not ideal, but never given a moments problem.
Sounds good doesn't it. Except for the fact that he has ignored the
stated example. His 500 W inverter may indeed start and run his grinder
as the inverter will have a surge capacity and his supply is more than
500W. The problem with this though is that combination of the source
(this being 500 W) and the inverter (this also being 500 W with perhaps
as much as a 15%+ loss at the stated load) won't start the grinder.
And Anthony says:
Of course,
you could fix this by simply adding a tiny battery with enough juice to
provide that startup surge or by having someone manually spin the disk
on the grinder a few times to get it going.
This of course is my point. Added capacity required to provide the
startup needs of the grinder.
The rest of this post does not address the problem of there only being
500 W from the source and 458.33 watts required to run the grinder.
These people make claims about nitpicking. The point is, and has always
been, a question of design.
Point. If you have a five hundred Watt source to feed a five hundred
Watt inverter you WILL NOT get five hundred watts out of the inverter.
IF you design a system without taking into account the available energy
(your source), the load (which includes things such as the inverter
inefficiencies) you will be disappointed.
There are other problems with Wayne's example.
One of which is that the grinder is unlikley to have a 100% duty cycle.
Good design requires good information.
Supply, Load, Losses - these must be correctly defined.
>
> > It is also
> > possible to start a motor by wrapping a cord around the shaft and
> > spinning it then turning on the power. Indeed this trick can even be
> > used to reverse the direction of the motor.
>
> This 'trick' to reverse the direction of the motor will only work with small
> single-phase induction motors. Spinning a universal motor backwards will
> only *increase* the starting surge as the applied power will now quickly
> drop the rpm to zero and then reverse the rotation to go in the 'forward'
> direction, accelerating to full speed. Most power tools are universal until
> you get up to non-portable equipment such as drill presses and table saws.
> Certainly a hand-held grinder uses a universal motor.
>
> The interesting thing about starting motors directly across the line in an
> unloaded condition is that it doesn't really change the instantaneous power
> drawn the moment the switch is closed. It changes the *time* it takes the
> motor to accelerate up to speed. The unloaded motor can reach full speed in
> less than a second, while the fully loaded motor may take several seconds.
> The integral of the power over the time needed determines the amount of
> energy that must be supplied from the inverter's internal storage. If the
> energy needed is small compared to the inverter's internal storage, then
> things work fine. If too much, the inverter may 'trip'.
Please note "If too much, the inverter may 'trip'> If too much, the
inverter may 'trip'"
My point exactly. 500 W supply - 500 W inverter. What are the chances.
>
> And of course, there are variable speed power tools. These can have no
> starting surge above their rating at all, depending on how the operator
> 'pulls the trigger'. So if the 'grinder' in question is variable speed
> unit, it may not have any trouble at all starting on an inverter of the same
> rating as the grinder.
This is also my point. Correct information is required for correct
design.
daestrom
> In article <7_1Sd.27166$H05....@twister.nyroc.rr.com>,
> "daestrom" <daestrom@NO_SPAM_HEREtwcny.rr.com> wrote:
>
>> "George Ghio" <gh...@netconnect.com.au> wrote in message
>> news:ghio-0256AE.0...@news.chariot.net.au...
>> > In article <k9URd.38463$uc.27175@trnddc03>,
>> > Anthony Matonak <res0...@gte.net> wrote:
>> <snip>
>> >
>> > The second assumtion that a motor under zero load at start up is false
>> > unless the windings and armature also have zero mass.
>>
>> Only some arm-chair engineer that has never worked seriously with
>> electrical
>> machinery would make such a silly statement. Look up the definition of
>> 'no
>> load' in any electrical engineering text for rotating machinery and you
>> will
>> find that 'no load' refers to the state of having the motor running at
>> rated
>> speed with no *external* load on the shaft. It still includes bearing
>> friction and windage losses.
>
> Ok. We have now heard from the arm chair
Right, sure, uh-huh. I've worked with rotating electrical machinery for 30
years. Including experience from the shop floor of a motor rewind shop. I
probably know quite a bit more about motors than you ever will. How many
motors and generators have you re-wound?? How many have you run on a
dynomometer? Ever balance a 150 hp motor and close-coupled pump assembly?
Funny how all those motor manufacturers list the no-load running current of
motors, but according to George, 'no-load' isn't possible without zero mass
armature and windings. What a joke.
>
> This is the problem:
>
>> > Oh for cryin' out loud! OK, let's say it's a 4" side grinder, and
>> > it's hanging from the ceiling with its switch taped in the "on"
>> > position, and spinning a 5/8" hole, 80 grit flexible disc on a rubber
>> > backing pad. It's a vacant home, the owners are waiting for their
>> > place in Romania to sell before they can move in, and the purpose of
>> > the grinder is to make burglars think that somebody is hard at work in
>> > the garage. Does that help you?
>
> Also;
>> > No temporary loads. A *steady* 11kWhr per day. Call it a constant
>> > 458.3333 Watts if that helps you.
>
>
> Now what we know is that the grinder must be started for this example to
> work. Therefore there IS a startup load on top of the 458.33 watts the
> grinder needs to run.
>
Go back to the original argument and put this all in context. You were
arguing with wayne (a common occurance) and stated that you needed more
information about the exact load for the hypothetical example that you two
were bickering about. So wayne made up a frivolous example load for your
hypothetical system design questions. In wayne's 'example' the grinder is
running continuously, so he may have intended there to *not* be a startup
surge. Starting a variable speed grinder by accelerating it slowly would
result in *no* "...startup load on top of the 458.33 watts". So the 'surge'
you keep going on about is not necessarily a definite factor in the problem.
It's obvious to everyone (except you apparently) that his 'example' was just
a frivolous retort to your incessant demands for more and more information
(why else would he include the bit about "...waiting for their place in
Romania to sell..." ). Since you wouldn't go any further without some
extraordinary details, wayne decided to give you some. But his satiric
remarks went completely over your head and you are now stumping wayne's
retort as some new 'proof' about your methods. It only proves you can't
tell when someone is making a snide comment.
Wayne only said the grinder was running constantly. You seemed to have
jumped to some conclusion about needing extra capacity to start it. Do you
have some reason to believe it is *not* started with a variable speed
drive???? You just jumped to the conclusion that it starts like some other
types of motors?? Shame, shame, you could have used this opportunity to
'annoy the homeowner' for more information before 'designing' the system
(your hallmark).
Oh, by the way, a universal motor such as in this hypothetical grinder
doesn't even *need* an inverter. Such motors run on DC of the proper
voltage just fine. Hence the term 'universal'.
Of course, if you run it on DC, the variable speed feature may be lost
because the usual method, a phase-triggered triac, won't have any
zero-crossing to turn the thyristor off.
daestrom
George Ghio
"daestrom" <daestrom@NO_SPAM_HEREtwcny.rr.com> wrote:
Yes by all means let's go back.
My first answer was a correct answer.
Then it became a grinder and my second answer was correct as well.
Now you want a variable speed grinder and landline wants a 500W inverter
OK we now have a 500W supply running a 500W inverter running a 458.33W
variable speed grinder.
Fine. The inverter is likely to have an efficiency of around 60% at full
load. = 300W
But even if the efficiency is by some miracle 80% (very unlikely) it
still will not run the grinder.
65% at full load. = 325W
70% at full load. = 350W
75% at full load. = 375W
80% at full load. = 400W
Ya all have a nice day now.
Landline
whatsoever.
"George Ghio" <gh...@netconnect.com.au> wrote in message
news:ghio-E4570D.1...@news.chariot.net.au...
George Ghio
"Landline" <no_e...@here.com> wrote:
In article <TO9Sd.27810$H05....@twister.nyroc.rr.com>,
"daestrom" <daestrom@NO_SPAM_HEREtwcny.rr.com> wrote:
> "George Ghio" <gh...@netconnect.com.au> wrote in message
> news:ghio-C04076.0...@news.chariot.net.au...
> > In article <7_1Sd.27166$H05....@twister.nyroc.rr.com>,
> > "daestrom" <daestrom@NO_SPAM_HEREtwcny.rr.com> wrote:
> >
> >> "George Ghio" <gh...@netconnect.com.au> wrote in message
Yes by all means let's go back.
George Ghio
> Hey George, I only brought this up by your chopped post which made no sense
> whatsoever.
>
I notice, that like your brother Wayne, that you like to avoid hard
questions about your system in the hope that people won't notice you
skipped over them.
What is the surge rating for your 500W inverter?
And while we are on the subject;
How much surge do you think your inverter will supply if it is connected
to a 500W supply?
You might also tell us how much continious output the inverter will have
on the same 500W supply?
Landline
Me
George Ghio <gh...@netconnect.com.au> wrote:
> Fine. The inverter is likely to have an efficiency of around 60% at full
> load. = 300W
>
> But even if the efficiency is by some miracle 80% (very unlikely) it
> still will not run the grinder.
>
> 65% at full load. = 325W
>
> 70% at full load. = 350W
>
> 75% at full load. = 375W
>
> 80% at full load. = 400W
>
> Ya all have a nice day now.
Bzzzzt Wrong gain, Would you like to hit over the head by Door No.1???
What gives you the idea that "Cheap" or any other type of Inverters
ratings are for "Input Power" rather than Output Power?????
So you efficency methodology is BOGAS from the getgo.....
Me
George Ghio
Me <M...@shadow.orgs> wrote:
I thought this was going to be a dull day, then you show up. Bizz
So you have an inverter that will produce more than is put in.
Thank you. I will be laughing all day now, you little ray of sunshine,
you.
George Ghio
George Ghio <gh...@netconnect.com.au> wrote:
> In article <Me-AA59CB.10...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>,
> Me <M...@shadow.orgs> wrote:
>
> > In article <ghio-E4570D.1...@news.chariot.net.au>,
> > George Ghio <gh...@netconnect.com.au> wrote:
> >
> > > Fine. The inverter is likely to have an efficiency of around 60% at full
> > > load. = 300W
> > >
> > > But even if the efficiency is by some miracle 80% (very unlikely) it
> > > still will not run the grinder.
> > >
> > > 65% at full load. = 325W
> > >
> > > 70% at full load. = 350W
> > >
> > > 75% at full load. = 375W
> > >
> > > 80% at full load. = 400W
> > >
> > > Ya all have a nice day now.
> >
> >
> >
> > Bzzzzt Wrong gain, Would you like to hit over the head by Door No.1???
> >
> > What gives you the idea that "Cheap" or any other type of Inverters
> > ratings are for "Input Power" rather than Output Power?????
> >
> > So you efficency methodology is BOGAS from the getgo.....
> >
> >
> > Me
>
> I thought this was going to be a dull day, then you show up. Bizz
>
>
> So you have an inverter that will produce more than is put in.
>
>
> Thank you. I will be laughing all day now, you little ray of sunshine,
> you.
Just a couple of quick questions my little cherub.
1) Where does my post mention cheap inverters?
2) Where does my post mention that input has anything to do with an
inverters efficiency under load?
George Ghio
"Landline" <no_e...@here.com> wrote:
> George, firstly, I don't have a brother, secondly I never duck and weave from
> anything.
>
> Well I don't have a 500w supply and never tried it.
> The 500w inverter I use is a Powertech MI5085
Can't get more out of an inverter than you can put into. Fact of life.
>
> George you may be interested in these MP3129 solar regulators $AU169.95 -
> $US133.92 now they will be available in approximately a week.
> I have had some pre-production samples for six months testing them and found
> them great with excellent PWM charging program.
> About time something decent came into the market place at a good price with
> metering.
Where can I get a spec sheet for the reg. I am about to buy a PL and
would be interested if there is a viable option.
URL for Powertech
Me
George Ghio <gh...@netconnect.com.au> wrote:
Well now, why does it take you TWO (2) sperate posts to reply to a
single post from "Me"???
Hmmmm, You were tallking about how a 500 Watt inverter could not power
a 500 watt motor, Right? You stated that this would never work because
the efficency of the 500 watt inverter would reduce the output to below
wnat the 500 watt load would need to operate, Right? Now if the inverter
was 500 Watt Rated on the "Output", the effeiceny would have no bearing
on the operation, because the inverter would be RATED at 500 watts OUTPUT
all the time no matter what the load was, up untill it exceeded the
RATED OUTPUT. Any Dufus, should be able to uderstand that, Right?
So, where do you fit in??????
Me
Landline
takes them two or three days.
I left my laptop with the spec sheet up at Maud and will not be back there
for another 14 days as the concrete crew is behind.
"George Ghio" <gh...@netconnect.com.au> wrote in message
news:ghio-C3F1E4.0...@news.chariot.net.au...
George Ghio
"Landline" <no_e...@here.com> wrote:
I am sorry but there was no url.
George Ghio
Me <M...@shadow.orgs> wrote:
Look it is very simple.
The question centers on the supply. Which is 500 Watts feeding the
inverter.
500 Watts going in. With me so far.
An inverter running at its max continous rateing will loose X number of
watts as heat. Right? This is the inefficiency.
So 500 Watts going in less say 50 Watts lost as heat leaves only 450
Watts.
You can not get more out than you put in.
So the total output of the inverter can only be 500 Watts.
The output would consist of:
50 Watts heat
450 Watts power
Total output 500 Watts
Total electrical output 450 Watts
Total heat output 50 Watts
George
Landline
"George Ghio" <gh...@netconnect.com.au> wrote in message
news:ghio-515177.0...@news.chariot.net.au...