|
Home > Archive > Alternative Power sources > November 2005 > Re: DC generator vs DC Converter The detail
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Re: DC generator vs DC Converter The detail
|
|
| George Ghio 2005-10-18, 9:21 am |
|
George Ghio wrote:
>
>
> JoeSixPack wrote:
>
>
> The danger here is just too much bad advice. Now from your post:
>
> "None of those concerns are mine for this application. My intention is
> to supplement the charging of the photovoltaics when they can't keep up."
>
> You can do this. You will need a regulator to control the charge.
>
> You have three choices:
>
> 1) The reg built into the alt. Only if you are desperate.
>
> 2) A purpose built reg. Better control, better charging.
>
> 3) The reg you have between your ears. Works well, runs on full logic
> but requires you to stay awake.
>
> I believe you said 4 225Ah batteries. If that is in fact 500Ah all up (4
> T105s series/parallel) then a 30 amp alt will be fine, 60A would be
> pushing the friendship a bit. C10 would be 50A. But you want to bring
> your batteries up faster than ten hours.This means you need a charging
> regime to suit your needs.
>
> My charger:
>
> 5hp motor, 35A Bosch alt(external reg type, reg not used) Rheostat for
> field control. This is the famous 150A rated ceramic Rheostat scrounged
> from a spot welder.
>
> Take the state of charge in your batteries. Yes it is important that you
> not let them remain at a low state of charge for long periods, on the
> other hand they do not need to reach 100% charge every single day
> either. I will run the little generator to charge my batteries if they
> drop to 12 Volts (but like the fine print says ”Conditions Apply”)
>
> Condition: Batteries read 12 volts at four o’clock in the afternoon
>
> Condition: I know the sun won’t be out tomorrow.
>
> Condition: I need to use the computer for several hours that night.
> (This condition has been negated due to better computer.)
>
> Condition: There will be three hours of Red Dwarf on TV that night.
>
> It takes at least two of these conditions to warrant the running of the
> generator. It may be that your "required" conditions will be different.
>
> And when it comes to charging the batteries I am not trying to bring
> them up to 100%. I am doing what I call ”Maintenance Charging” which is
> to say that I only require that they be in the top twenty per cent of
> their capacity. The sun usually does the rest.
>
> When required I run the gen for less three hours. This is for a battery
> set of 840Ah. During winter this may be as much as 3 hours a week or as
> little as 1-2 hours/month.
>
> Will this harm your batteries, only if you're stupid and don't pay
> attention to what you are doing.
>
> Oh, I also run a logger on my system so I know what is going on, at all
> times.
>
> George
>
First the gen is made of found objects. The motor, alternator, rheostat,
pullies and steel frame were scrounged from, Well, from all over. The
rheostat has been in my possession for around 20 years. It finally found
a use.
Motor - 5HP Bogged and Stricken - Vanguard. Why? Because it was
available. 3 - 3.5HP works just as well.
Alt - 35A Bosch, external reg type. Reg not used. Why the 35A Bosch?
Because I have around twenty of them.
Rheo - 8.5 ohm ceramic.
Pulley on motor 4 inch. Why 4"? Because I had one.
Pulley on alt 2 inch. Why 2"? Because it was on the alt.
The use of this setup requires that you stay awake and pay attention to
what is going on. This is how I run it:
Start the motor.
Plug in the field to the rheostat. The other side is connected to Batt
positive.
Set rheostat to the minimum resistance.
Check volt meter for volts, this is actually my digital solar regulator
which has data logging and can read what is going in from the alt.
So, as I have stated my batteries will be at 12 volts more or less at 4
o'clock in the afternoon and at least one other condition is met.
I watch the voltage rise, when it hits 15 volts I raise the resistance
on the rheo, the voltage drops, then starts to rise again, when it hits
15 volts I adjust the rheo up again, the voltage drops, then starts to
rise again, when it hits 15 volts I adjust the rheo up again the voltage
drops, then starts to rise again, when it hits 15 volts I adjust the
rheo up again, when the voltage can no longer be affected by increasing
the resistance on the rheo I shut the gen off. The batteries voltage
will then typically drop to around 13.5 volts. If left overnight the
batteries will be 12.8 volts in the morning.
Keep in mind that I am running 30Amps into a 840Ah set of batteries.
Well under the C10 rate for this set of batteries.
This system works very well. The batteries only ever bubble gently
during charge. I top up my batteries with water once a year, three
litres. No discernible heating occurs. No corrosion on the terminals in
the last 4.5 years. In short happy batteries.
Should you do this? I have no idea. It all depends on your ability to
design for your needs. It works for me and many others around here and
beats the shit out of any electric battery charger in use.
You have to drive this type of charger. You have to monitor the
batteries during charging. If you don't you will kill your batteries in
a short time.
Can't find a rheostat? I can send you a drawing for a cheap and nasty
rheo that will work. Just ask.
George L Ghio
Solar Power Consultant
| |
|
| On Tue, 18 Oct 2005 21:32:14 +1000, George Ghio <AKA@nomailhere.com>
wrote:
>Motor - 5HP Bogged and Stricken - Vanguard. Why? Because it was
>available. 3 - 3.5HP works just as well.
Use of your generator as described below indicates an output of
perhaps 100W during finish charging, or about 20W per hp. Why then
have you criticized a 140W per hp generator for being overpowered?
>Rheo - 8.5 ohm ceramic
That's much better than your strange habit of calling it "150 Amp",
although "ceramic" isn't very informative, and you still seem
reluctant to give the total range or say what portion of it is used.
>The use of this setup requires that you stay awake and pay attention to
>what is going on. This is how I run it:
>
>Start the motor.
>
>Plug in the field to the rheostat.
Are switches expensive in your area?
> The other side is connected to Batt
>positive.
>
>Set rheostat to the minimum resistance.
>
>Check volt meter for volts, this is actually my digital solar regulator
>which has data logging and can read what is going in from the alt.
>
>So, as I have stated my batteries will be at 12 volts more or less at 4
>o'clock in the afternoon and at least one other condition is met.
>
>I watch the voltage rise, when it hits 15 volts I raise the resistance
>on the rheo, the voltage drops, then starts to rise again, when it hits
>15 volts I adjust the rheo up again, the voltage drops, then starts to
>rise again, when it hits 15 volts I adjust the rheo up again the voltage
>drops, then starts to rise again, when it hits 15 volts I adjust the
>rheo up again, when the voltage can no longer be affected by increasing
>the resistance on the rheo I shut the gen off. The batteries voltage
>will then typically drop to around 13.5 volts. If left overnight the
>batteries will be 12.8 volts in the morning.
Good grief! Why would anyone want to diddle like that? Previously
you've written that PV fully charges your batteries by noon most days.
So if the generator is only for occasional backup, then why bother
with anything other than a simple single-rate bulk charge to 80% or
so? BTW, isn't your charge controller (with the voltmeter) in a
different location than the generator? Tell me you're not running back
and forth between the two locations in order to save the cost of a
second voltmeter!
Anyway, your descriptions are confusing. Regarding battery charging
goals, previously you wrote: "I only require that they be in the top
twenty per cent of their capacity". Yet above you describe a full
charge. Perhaps you consider your "maintenance charge" to be a
combination backup/equalization?
>Keep in mind that I am running 30Amps into a 840Ah set of batteries.
>Well under the C10 rate for this set of batteries.
>
>This system works very well. The batteries only ever bubble gently
>during charge.
Ah, so it isn't for equalization.
> I top up my batteries with water once a year, three
>litres. No discernible heating occurs. No corrosion on the terminals in
>the last 4.5 years. In short happy batteries.
You may be deceiving yourself. Five years use from twenty-year
batteries is hardly proof of success. If you're not equalizing them
properly then they're likely sulfating. Were you using the same
routine on all the previous batteries that failed?
>Should you do this? I have no idea.
I do... unless one prefers unnecessary difficulty and risk, NO! A
proper battery monitor like an Emeter takes input, output, and
Peukert's equation into account, and displays the results conveniently
full-time. Which makes it painless to decide manual bulk backup
charging time. If normal charging sources alone are insufficient for
equalization, then that process can be started or supplemented with
bulk charging by generator. But generally, low-output engine-driven
charging should be avoided as it's horribly inefficient.
> It all depends on your ability to
>design for your needs.
Exactly what "ability to design" is required for manual charging? As
you've described it, it sounds more like an inability to afford better
equipment, or an unwillingness to adopt a more convenient technique.
> It works for me and many others around here
Fair enough, I've certainly seen worse ideas that work well for their
owners.
>beats the shit out of any electric battery charger in use.
Nonsense. There are some nice stand-alone chargers out there, and at
least a few free control designs available for DIYers. And the
charging systems already built into many inverter/chargers are
automatic and customizable.
>You have to drive this type of charger. You have to monitor the
>batteries during charging. If you don't you will kill your batteries in
>a short time.
Then exactly how does it "beat the shit" out of alternatives that
taper down or shut off automatically to avoid the risk?
>Can't find a rheostat? I can send you a drawing for a cheap and nasty
>rheo that will work. Just ask.
Those who don't want you to have their email address could use this
method instead -
"a nichrome wire heating element from an old electric stove. We
selected more or less wire (hence more or less resistance) with an
alligator clip lead. It worked fine."
http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-a...l?msg_id=001BAG
Wayne
| |
| George Ghio 2005-10-18, 8:21 pm |
| Poor Wayne, clutching at straws as usual. Want to be taken seriously?
What about a system outline that has real numbers including all loads,
two days autonomy, with the mythical reduced load.
No, you don't have a clue. I will not discuss this topic with you simply
because you have not exhibited any ability in the so called design of
your own system.
wmbjk wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Oct 2005 21:32:14 +1000, George Ghio <AKA@nomailhere.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Use of your generator as described below indicates an output of
> perhaps 100W during finish charging, or about 20W per hp. Why then
> have you criticized a 140W per hp generator for being overpowered?
>
>
>
>
> That's much better than your strange habit of calling it "150 Amp",
> although "ceramic" isn't very informative, and you still seem
> reluctant to give the total range or say what portion of it is used.
>
>
>
>
> Are switches expensive in your area?
>
>
>
>
> Good grief! Why would anyone want to diddle like that? Previously
> you've written that PV fully charges your batteries by noon most days.
> So if the generator is only for occasional backup, then why bother
> with anything other than a simple single-rate bulk charge to 80% or
> so? BTW, isn't your charge controller (with the voltmeter) in a
> different location than the generator? Tell me you're not running back
> and forth between the two locations in order to save the cost of a
> second voltmeter!
>
> Anyway, your descriptions are confusing. Regarding battery charging
> goals, previously you wrote: "I only require that they be in the top
> twenty per cent of their capacity". Yet above you describe a full
> charge. Perhaps you consider your "maintenance charge" to be a
> combination backup/equalization?
>
>
>
>
> Ah, so it isn't for equalization.
>
>
>
>
> You may be deceiving yourself. Five years use from twenty-year
> batteries is hardly proof of success. If you're not equalizing them
> properly then they're likely sulfating. Were you using the same
> routine on all the previous batteries that failed?
>
>
>
>
> I do... unless one prefers unnecessary difficulty and risk, NO! A
> proper battery monitor like an Emeter takes input, output, and
> Peukert's equation into account, and displays the results conveniently
> full-time. Which makes it painless to decide manual bulk backup
> charging time. If normal charging sources alone are insufficient for
> equalization, then that process can be started or supplemented with
> bulk charging by generator. But generally, low-output engine-driven
> charging should be avoided as it's horribly inefficient.
>
>
>
>
> Exactly what "ability to design" is required for manual charging? As
> you've described it, it sounds more like an inability to afford better
> equipment, or an unwillingness to adopt a more convenient technique.
>
>
>
>
> Fair enough, I've certainly seen worse ideas that work well for their
> owners.
>
>
>
>
> Nonsense. There are some nice stand-alone chargers out there, and at
> least a few free control designs available for DIYers. And the
> charging systems already built into many inverter/chargers are
> automatic and customizable.
>
>
>
>
> Then exactly how does it "beat the shit" out of alternatives that
> taper down or shut off automatically to avoid the risk?
>
>
>
>
> Those who don't want you to have their email address could use this
> method instead -
>
> "a nichrome wire heating element from an old electric stove. We
> selected more or less wire (hence more or less resistance) with an
> alligator clip lead. It worked fine."
> http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-a...l?msg_id=001BAG
>
> Wayne
| |
| wmbjk 2005-10-18, 10:21 pm |
| On Wed, 19 Oct 2005 09:10:43 +1000, George Ghio <AKA@nomailhere.com>
wrote:
> I will not discuss this topic with you simply
>because you have not exhibited any ability in the so called design of
>your own system.
Darn, I guess I made the questions too hard. And I was so looking
forward to further curious tales of your scuttling between voltmeter
and rheostat. Anyway, it was entertaining to read about the effort
required when foregoing, er, "designing" away the need for a $150
battery monitor, in the same post where you claimed to "know what is
going on, at all times". Still, you're a grinch for withholding from
other readers the inevitable segue between conflicting charge levels
and championship bread kneading. Oh well, perhaps they'll at least
learn from your ah, thriftiness.
Wayne
[color=darkred]
>wmbjk wrote:
| |
| wmbjk 2005-10-18, 10:21 pm |
| On 18 Oct 2005 17:45:46 -0700, "Tony Wesley" <tonywesley@gmail.com>
wrote:
>George Ghio wrote:
>
>For some reason, Monty Python and The Search for the Holy Grail come to
>mind.
>
>Sir Robin, to be specific. "...and bravely he did run away..."
You're on the right track, George was the inspiration for the Black
Knight skit. :-) http://www.mwscomp.com/movies/grail/grail-04.htm
Wayne
| |
| George Ghio 2005-10-19, 1:21 am |
| Yep that's Wayne. When the going gets tough Runaway Wayne can't be seen
for dust.
He started running when I asked him to explain the numbers on his web
site and hasn't stopped running when ever he gets out of his depth.
Tony Wesley wrote:
> George Ghio wrote:
>
>
>
> For some reason, Monty Python and The Search for the Holy Grail come to
> mind.
>
> Sir Robin, to be specific. "...and bravely he did run away..."
>
| |
|
| On Wed, 19 Oct 2005 13:38:06 +1000, George Ghio <AKA@nomailhere.com>
wrote:
>Tony Wesley wrote:
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
>Yep that's Wayne. When the going gets tough Runaway Wayne can't be seen
>for dust.
>
>He started running when I asked him to explain the numbers on his web
>site and hasn't stopped running when ever he gets out of his depth.
Dear Mr. Ghio
Please forgive my English as I have not the writer command or book of
yourself. I also have suffered bruises of American Satans stones. I
am very most impressed with your waits in thinking! I seek
illumination on driving of the generators may the range be expected
how far? I will of course generous reward you for more valued
asights. I am the Reality Information Consultant with superior
knowledge in my country. My humble service is at your disposal. My
fans club link is beneath may I expect yours also?
Mohammed Saeed al-Sahaf (you can call me Bob)
ComAliREMOVE@RIC.com
http://croqueweb.com/fan/ photos of me (I use older ones yahoodating
ha ha)
| |
| daestrom 2005-10-19, 7:21 pm |
|
"George Ghio" <AKA@nomailhere.com> wrote in message
news:4355bf6e_4@news.chariot.net.au...
> Yep that's Wayne. When the going gets tough Runaway Wayne can't be seen
> for dust.
>
> He started running when I asked him to explain the numbers on his web site
> and hasn't stopped running when ever he gets out of his depth.
>
>
Uh, since you apparently didn't figure it out, Tony was referring to you
George.
Wayne asked some straight-forward questions about your generator/rheostat
set up and you 'bravely ran away' by changing the topic to your usual rant
about Wayne and his system.
Why don't you just answer the questions?? Or are you too busy 'bravely
running away, and buggering off and skipping town and ......'
You seem to be using about 100W during finishing charge. This is
underutilizing your 5HP engine by much more than what you yourself have
criticized others about. How come??
You 'plug in the field to the rheostat'? Why don't you just permanently
wire it up to a switch?
If you only use the generator for occasional backups (after all, you've
bragged often that PV charges your batteries to 100% most days before noon,
it's so well designed); then why do you perform a full charge with the
generator? This conflicts with your other statements about, "I only
require that they be in the top twenty per cent of their capacity." Which
is it, charge them up full most days with PV, or use generator to fully
charge them, or both??
How does manually connecting ('plug in'), frequently manually adjusting a
rheostat, frequently monitoring for 'bubbling' and excess voltage, "beat
the s___ out of any electric battery charger"? Or are you just comparing
your method with $12 auto-parts store types of chargers, and not considering
*real*, well-designed, chargers? If so, why?
daestrom
| |
| George Ghio 2005-10-20, 10:21 am |
|
daestrom wrote:
> "George Ghio" <AKA@nomailhere.com> wrote in message
> news:4355bf6e_4@news.chariot.net.au...
>
>
>
> Uh, since you apparently didn't figure it out, Tony was referring to you
> George.
>
> Wayne asked some straight-forward questions about your generator/rheostat
> set up and you 'bravely ran away' by changing the topic to your usual rant
> about Wayne and his system.
>
> Why don't you just answer the questions?? Or are you too busy 'bravely
> running away, and buggering off and skipping town and ......'
>
> You seem to be using about 100W during finishing charge. This is
> underutilizing your 5HP engine by much more than what you yourself have
> criticized others about. How come??
>
> You 'plug in the field to the rheostat'? Why don't you just permanently
> wire it up to a switch?
>
> If you only use the generator for occasional backups (after all, you've
> bragged often that PV charges your batteries to 100% most days before noon,
> it's so well designed); then why do you perform a full charge with the
> generator? This conflicts with your other statements about, "I only
> require that they be in the top twenty per cent of their capacity." Which
> is it, charge them up full most days with PV, or use generator to fully
> charge them, or both??
>
> How does manually connecting ('plug in'), frequently manually adjusting a
> rheostat, frequently monitoring for 'bubbling' and excess voltage, "beat
> the s___ out of any electric battery charger"? Or are you just comparing
> your method with $12 auto-parts store types of chargers, and not considering
> *real*, well-designed, chargers? If so, why?
>
> daestrom
>
>
First of all I'm not Runaway Wayne. Tony described him to a tee.
Now are you asking for yourself? Or just as a proxy for Runaway Wayne.
If you are asking for yourself, I just might answer your questions.
While you ponder you answer think of this before you start saying I ran
away.
Wayne, AKA, Wanker Wayne, AKA, Runaway Wayne, AKA BB Perhaps you should
be aware of his history. He had a Web site, you know, the kind of site
that says “Hey look at what I’ve done”.
Well, as you might expect it was only a matter of time before someone
came along and said “OK, What have you in fact done?”
The upshot being that Wayne pulled on his running shoes and … Well,
history speaks for itself. Wayne’s first long distance run started with
the question and ended when he pulled his web site, quite simply because
he could not work out what he had done.
The truth is he is still running, oh, he turns around now and again to
hurl abuse or issue some childish challenge. But over all he is in line
for sponsorship from Nike.
Still, to date, he is totally unable to tell us how he arrived at his
two days autonomy or even what the magical “reduced load” is that makes
his two days autonomy possible.
I know it’s sad, but there you have it. How could you take Wayne
seriously when even a simple two days autonomy is beyond his ability.
And dare I mention his little "Grinder in the house" fiasco. Shit, if he
can't work out his own system what makes any one think he could make up
a scenario that is believable. It was a farce. Pure and simple. Rather
than sitting down with a calculator and crunching some numbers to get it
right he turned tail and ran.
And all the time hiding behind his "I don't have to tell you" attitude,
supported by a lot of people who know even less than Wayne.
So why should I waste my and everybody else's time and band width
explaining to a moron what he should be able to see for himself.
Now he challenges what is a basic and simple battery charger anyone can
build, on the basis of it being too hard to operate.
As far as my battery charger is concerned it cost me almost nothing to
build. It does a better job than the $1200 electric charger that fails
so often that I have a collection of them as scrap collected from very
dissatisfied people who want one like mine.
So, have you had time to think about it? Who's asking, you or the
pitiful long distance runner?
| |
| JoeSixPack 2005-10-20, 1:21 pm |
| Did you ever help that Islamic fellow who was suffering from american
satanic stones?
| |
| George Ghio 2005-10-20, 1:21 pm |
| In-Reply-To: <SQO5f.47197$ir4.20441@edtnps90>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <4357c02d$1_1@news.chariot.net.au>
X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: 127.0.0.1
Lines: 7
NNTP-Posting-Host: 203.87.95.150
X-Trace: 1129824303 lon-reader.news.telstra.net 26932 203.87.95.150
Xref: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com alt.energy.homepower:118773
You mean Ali bin Wayne. Nah.
JoeSixPack wrote:
> Did you ever help that Islamic fellow who was suffering from american
> satanic stones?
>
>
| |
| Ulysses 2005-10-20, 2:21 pm |
|
"BB" <ComAliREMOVE@RIC.com> wrote in message I am the Reality Information
Consultant with superior
> knowledge in my country. My humble service is at your disposal. My
> fans club link is beneath may I expect yours also?
>
> Mohammed Saeed al-Sahaf (you can call me Bob)
> ComAliREMOVE@RIC.com
> http://croqueweb.com/fan/ photos of me (I use older ones yahoodating
> ha ha)
Wow. Superior knowledge, a fan club, AND humble!
BTW I'm looking for my Gavalia coffee maker.
Do you know where it is or how many watts it uses? I fugure I can either
buy a 1500 watt inverter or get a coffee maker that will run off my 800 watt
inverter. Which coffee makers use less than 800 watts?
| |
|
| On Thu, 20 Oct 2005 22:55:05 +1000, George Ghio <AKA@nomailhere.com>
wrote:
>daestrom wrote:
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
>So why should I waste my and everybody else's time and band width
>explaining to a moron what he should be able to see for himself.
>
>Now he challenges what is a basic and simple battery charger anyone can
>build, on the basis of it being too hard to operate.
I wouldn't call it "hard" to operate. More like "unnecessarily
inconvenient and inefficient". But as you've described its features,
it does have one that David Copperfield might be interested in:
exactly how at only 35 Amps and tapering down, it's nevertheless able
to produce over 600 Ahrs in 3 hours. That's what we might call a
six-fold magic trick. Put another way, even though 3 hour's running
would normally about cover a single day's consumption, in loaves and
fishes fashion it's apparently able to replace 6 days of discharge.
Here are 3 possible explanations:
1. That your "I know what's going on at all times" battery voltage
readings *aren't* at-rest. Instead, 12 Volts is a battery-discharging
reading, 12.8 Volts is a battery-charging reading, and neither reflect
a true state of charge. That's a common mistake made by rookies, who
usually learn to either work around the limitations or buy a proper
battery monitor. But someone claiming 20 years of experience would
have to be one hell of slow learner to keep making the same mistake.
And if we believe that's why your descriptions don't make sense, it
means that you're firing up the generator well in advance of your
frequently bragged-on 5 days autonomy being exhausted. So why "design"
for so much battery capacity if you prefer not to use it, but to run a
generator instead?
2. That the readings *are* at-rest, and represent the true state of
charge. That's the only way a knowledgeable person would quote battery
voltage without qualification. In which case the 3 hour charge routine
you described would take perhaps 21 hours. That tall of a tale makes
perfect sense considering your history of reality-optional posts.
3. That your battery capacity has deteriorated to a fraction of
nameplate. Being on your fourth set of tired batteries would explain
why you mentioned replacing the current set quite a while ago, and why
you're reluctant to talk about equalizing. With a small enough
capacity and a dollop of number fudging, your charging descriptions
could actually make some sense. But that would mean that your recent
claim of "happy" batteries is either BS or ignorance. Or most likely,
a bunch of both.
>As far as my battery charger is concerned it cost me almost nothing to
>build.
Reasonable readers would expect that your endlessly self-proclaimed
"design" ability wouldn't allow you to intentionally set a new
benchmark of inefficiency by marrying a 5hp engine to an oft-times
100W output. Is there any valid reason you didn't use a $5, 65A
alternator like most other people do? Or go on a mad spending spree
and buy a shiny new one for $50?
> It does a better job than the $1200 electric charger that fails
>so often that I have a collection of them as scrap collected from very
>dissatisfied people who want one like mine.
These narrow-minded recommendations and phony choices you offer are a
reflection of your lack of experience. Why would the choice have to be
between a particular type of electric charger, and features <snorf>
such as "plugging in the field"? Why not a better-matched alternator
with <gasp> switches? Why not an inverter-charger?
>So, have you had time to think about it? Who's asking, you or the
>pitiful long distance runner?
Daestrom asked you fairly and directly, in public, to answer "straight
forward" questions. Weasel and dissemble all you like, but it will
only prolong your time in the hot seat.
Wayne
| |
|
| On Thu, 20 Oct 2005 15:37:22 GMT, "JoeSixPack" <olegp@telus.net>
wrote:
>Did you ever help that Islamic fellow who was suffering from american
>satanic stones?
I tried to imagine who might be interested in George's book after
reading his posts. I figured it would have to be one of George's
fellow awful...I mean artful dodgers. I'm thinking that George was
already spending the $25 in his mind, right up until the time he
clicked on the URL and found out he'd been had. :-)
Wayne
| |
| JoeSixPack 2005-10-20, 4:21 pm |
|
"Ulysses" <therealulysses@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:11lfifko54d5dcf@corp.supernews.com...
>
> BTW I'm looking for my Gavalia coffee maker.
> Do you know where it is or how many watts it uses? I fugure I can either
> buy a 1500 watt inverter or get a coffee maker that will run off my 800
> watt
> inverter. Which coffee makers use less than 800 watts?
>
>
No offense, but that's about the least efficient way to make coffee that
exists. What's wrong with with a stovetop percolator pot, or pouring
boiling water through a filter basket, or a Bodum? If you must use an
automatic drip coffeemaker, truckstops sell a number of 12V models.
| |
| Ulysses 2005-10-20, 5:21 pm |
|
"JoeSixPack" <olegp@telus.net> wrote in message
news:kDR5f.47258$ir4.31725@edtnps90...
>
> "Ulysses" <therealulysses@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:11lfifko54d5dcf@corp.supernews.com...
>
either[color=darkred]
>
> No offense, but that's about the least efficient way to make coffee that
> exists. What's wrong with with a stovetop percolator pot, or pouring
> boiling water through a filter basket, or a Bodum? If you must use an
> automatic drip coffeemaker, truckstops sell a number of 12V models.
>
>
I absolutely agree, but heck, if I have my little Honda or
engine/alternator/invertor going I like the convenience. Besides it only
takes about 6 or 7 minutes to make a pot of coffee so it's not really that
big of a deal.
I have two stovetop drip coffee makers, one that makes 7 cups and one that
makes 18 (we refer to it as the 18 wheeler ;). It takes longer to heat up
the water and pour it in and wait for it to run through than to use
electric. But propane is cheaper than gasoline so I'm sure that it costs
less to use the stovetop. I looked into 12 volt coffee makers and decided
against them mainly because they take 15-20 minutes to make a pot.
I just bought a 650 watt coffee maker on eBay this morning so we'll see how
it works on my 700 or 800 watt inverter. Part of my goal is to be able to
run some *essential* appliances from the engine/alternator/inverter setup
(can well call it EAI for short?) such as a small microwave and coffee maker
(highest power loads) in addition to TVs, DVD players and VCRs, computers
etc, most of which run from batteries and another inverter. Once I
accomplish my goal of being able to run all this stuff from the EAI then my
next step will be to build a woodgas unit and run it all from wood chips in
which case I won't care about fuel consumption. I have a small microwave
that only draws about 520 watts and managed to make a pot of coffee with my
700 watt Wagan inverter (coffee maker is rated at 900 watts) but it shut
down from overheating about 2/3 of the way through, cooled off, and then
finished the job. Kinda hard on it though.
| |
| nicksanspam@ece.villanova.edu 2005-10-20, 7:21 pm |
| Ulysses <therealulysses@yahoo.com> wrote:
>...I fugure I can either buy a 1500 watt inverter or get a coffee maker
>that will run off my 800 watt inverter. Which coffee makers use less
>than 800 watts?
You may be going in the wrong direction.
I just installed a 3 kW 240 V UK Swan teakettle in my kitchen, removing
the 13 A fused plug and wiring the line cord into my 3-wire range with
spade disconnects. (How many NEC violations is that? :-)
It boils water in less than a minute with five times the microwave's power
and twice the efficiency, then instantly turns itself off.
GE makes a wimpy 1500 watt 120 V version, $30 at Wal-Mart. At 6 kW on 240 V,
(the grid is 249 V at my house), its 6548 watts might boil a cup of 60 F water
in 3600x0.5(212-60)/(6548x3.142) = 12.4 seconds, within the dual 40 amp range
breaker capacity, altho that might fill the kitchen with huge clouds of steam
and shorten the life of the heating element and burn out the pilot light.
And... a Halloween "Crash-a-Witch" hugging a bundle of burned-out flourescent
tubes would look cool hanging from a nylon rope over the 25 kV transmission
line on the telephone pole above my mailbox, close enough to the line to glow.
Nick, EE gone wrong.
| |
|
| On 20 Oct 2005 18:08:35 -0400, nicksanspam@ece.villanova.edu wrote:
>GE makes a wimpy 1500 watt 120 V version, $30 at Wal-Mart. At 6 kW on 240 V,
>(the grid is 249 V at my house), its 6548 watts might boil a cup of 60 F water
>in 3600x0.5(212-60)/(6548x3.142) = 12.4 seconds,
Reminds me of a comedy bit, Cathy Ladman I think... standing in front
of the microwave, irritated, growling "come on!!". :-)
Wayne
| |
| George Ghio 2005-10-20, 9:21 pm |
| Two days autonomy, How hard is it? Impossible for Runaway Wayne.
Nothing he has said below is worth reading. He jumps to conclusions
based on the sludge between his ears.
You can start with his comment about replacing 600 Ah. This is just a
figment of his mad dash to prove me wrong. At no time did I ever use the
figure 600 Ah.
Wanker Wayne is wrong. Again. No surprise.
wmbjk wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Oct 2005 22:55:05 +1000, George Ghio <AKA@nomailhere.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I wouldn't call it "hard" to operate. More like "unnecessarily
> inconvenient and inefficient". But as you've described its features,
> it does have one that David Copperfield might be interested in:
> exactly how at only 35 Amps and tapering down, it's nevertheless able
> to produce over 600 Ahrs in 3 hours. That's what we might call a
> six-fold magic trick. Put another way, even though 3 hour's running
> would normally about cover a single day's consumption, in loaves and
> fishes fashion it's apparently able to replace 6 days of discharge.
>
> Here are 3 possible explanations:
>
> 1. That your "I know what's going on at all times" battery voltage
> readings *aren't* at-rest. Instead, 12 Volts is a battery-discharging
> reading, 12.8 Volts is a battery-charging reading, and neither reflect
> a true state of charge. That's a common mistake made by rookies, who
> usually learn to either work around the limitations or buy a proper
> battery monitor. But someone claiming 20 years of experience would
> have to be one hell of slow learner to keep making the same mistake.
> And if we believe that's why your descriptions don't make sense, it
> means that you're firing up the generator well in advance of your
> frequently bragged-on 5 days autonomy being exhausted. So why "design"
> for so much battery capacity if you prefer not to use it, but to run a
> generator instead?
>
> 2. That the readings *are* at-rest, and represent the true state of
> charge. That's the only way a knowledgeable person would quote battery
> voltage without qualification. In which case the 3 hour charge routine
> you described would take perhaps 21 hours. That tall of a tale makes
> perfect sense considering your history of reality-optional posts.
>
> 3. That your battery capacity has deteriorated to a fraction of
> nameplate. Being on your fourth set of tired batteries would explain
> why you mentioned replacing the current set quite a while ago, and why
> you're reluctant to talk about equalizing. With a small enough
> capacity and a dollop of number fudging, your charging descriptions
> could actually make some sense. But that would mean that your recent
> claim of "happy" batteries is either BS or ignorance. Or most likely,
> a bunch of both.
>
>
>
>
> Reasonable readers would expect that your endlessly self-proclaimed
> "design" ability wouldn't allow you to intentionally set a new
> benchmark of inefficiency by marrying a 5hp engine to an oft-times
> 100W output. Is there any valid reason you didn't use a $5, 65A
> alternator like most other people do? Or go on a mad spending spree
> and buy a shiny new one for $50?
>
>
>
>
> These narrow-minded recommendations and phony choices you offer are a
> reflection of your lack of experience. Why would the choice have to be
> between a particular type of electric charger, and features <snorf>
> such as "plugging in the field"? Why not a better-matched alternator
> with <gasp> switches? Why not an inverter-charger?
>
>
>
>
> Daestrom asked you fairly and directly, in public, to answer "straight
> forward" questions. Weasel and dissemble all you like, but it will
> only prolong your time in the hot seat.
>
> Wayne
| |
| wmbjk 2005-10-20, 10:21 pm |
| On Fri, 21 Oct 2005 09:26:25 +1000, George Ghio <AKA@nomailhere.com>
wrote:
>At no time did I ever use the
>figure 600 Ah.
You didn't need to George. You gave your before and after battery
voltages of 12 and 12.8. That's a difference of about 75% of charge,
which on your 840Ah rated battery is 630Ah. Care to elaborate on your
story of replacing 630Ah in only 3 hours using a 35A tapered charge?
Put another way (while being generous and leaving out the short
strokes), if 90Ah of supply from 3 hours of tapered-charging generator
time takes an at-rest battery from 12V to 12.8V, then that battery's
capacity is about 120Ah, not 840. You may never understand, but
everybody else does...
I really like these posts where you pretend you haven't blundered. If
rational stories were ball parks and numbers were players, then your
team is stuck in traffic 10 miles from the field while singing "99
bottles of beer on the wall, 99 bottles of beer..."
Wayne
| |
| George Ghio 2005-10-21, 7:21 am |
| Wrong again Wayne
wmbjk wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Oct 2005 09:26:25 +1000, George Ghio <AKA@nomailhere.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> You didn't need to George. You gave your before and after battery
> voltages of 12 and 12.8. That's a difference of about 75% of charge,
> which on your 840Ah rated battery is 630Ah. Care to elaborate on your
> story of replacing 630Ah in only 3 hours using a 35A tapered charge?
>
> Put another way (while being generous and leaving out the short
> strokes), if 90Ah of supply from 3 hours of tapered-charging generator
> time takes an at-rest battery from 12V to 12.8V, then that battery's
> capacity is about 120Ah, not 840. You may never understand, but
> everybody else does...
>
> I really like these posts where you pretend you haven't blundered. If
> rational stories were ball parks and numbers were players, then your
> team is stuck in traffic 10 miles from the field while singing "99
> bottles of beer on the wall, 99 bottles of beer..."
>
> Wayne
| |
| wmbjk 2005-10-21, 12:21 pm |
| On Fri, 21 Oct 2005 19:55:57 +1000, George Ghio <AKA@nomailhere.com>
wrote:
>wmbjk wrote:
[color=darkred]
>Wrong again Wayne
If you believed that, then you'd have dumped another explanatory opus
of blunders on us by now. Perhaps you've finally learned your lesson,
and perhaps the sun will rise in the West tomorrow.
One has to wonder if your "book" contains a battery capacity/voltage
chart, and if you've ever bothered to read it.
Wayne
| |
| Ulysses 2005-10-21, 1:21 pm |
|
"Derek Broughton" <news@pointerstop.ca> wrote in message
news:8i2n23-838.ln1@news.pointerstop.ca...
> Ulysses wrote:
>
800[color=darkred]
that[color=darkred]
only[color=darkred]
that[color=darkred]
>
> Except that if you have to invest in new generators or coffee makers just
to
> get a good cup of coffee, mightn't it make more sense just to use the
> stove-top perc you already have?
>
to[color=darkred]
setup[color=darkred]
>
> I guess we all have our own definitions of essential :-)
>
> My wife was just asking what I miss in our current off-grid lifestyle, and
> the only thing I really miss is the microwave - and that only in summer.
I use the microwave to pre-cook potatoes and then stick them on the BBQ to
finish them off while cooking meat. I plan to make a solar cooker which I
*think* will precook them but I can't seem to get around to making it (I'm a
very busy guy). If I'm roasting something in the oven then the potatoes go
in there too. But, no matter what, I can't make "Butter Lovers" microwave
popcorn without a microwave ;-) I've used hot air poppers, reusable
microwave poppers, a large pan on the stove, and even Jiffy Pop, but I have
never been able to make popcorn as good as "Butter Lovers."
> Once the heating season starts, things sit on the oil stove to warm up or
> stay warm. Also - and this is relevant to your situation - a full kettle
> sits on that oil stove whenever the stove is on, so it usually takes less
> than 30 seconds to get boiling water for tea or coffee.
I live in Southern California and I don't even know what an oil stove is.
I'm thinking of getting a woodburning stove which might do some of the same
things. I'd also thought of keeping some water in the solar cooker (once I
make it) to keep it hot.
>
> (Actually we still have the microwave - unpacked since we moved in - and I
> couldn't convince _her_ to put it in the yard sale last month).
>
>
> I just call it "inverter" for short - there always needs to be assumed
some
> way to power the inverter, be it engine/alternator, batteries, solar
panels
> or wind generator (all of which I use).
I live in a Zone 3 wind area so as much as I would like to get a wind
generator I don't think I would work very well. Besides that I've heard
numbers such as $20,000 for a permit where I live. Dollar for dollar I
would probably be better off with solar panels but they are so expensive.
For now I get along fine with generators and batteries and inverters. Gas
is expensive and generators need repairs, maintenance, and sometimes
replacement but I can buy a lot of gasoline and generators for the $20,000-
$30,000 it seems like it would take to buy a complete solar system. I use a
small generator to recharge my batteries (and make coffee and run the
microwave) and a bigger 240VAC generator to run the well pump and fill the
water tank. I also use it to run high load power tools. I manage my tool
usage and only run the bigger generator for only about 20-30 minutes a day.
Sooner or later I will get a least a couple of solar panels to get started
but it costs about $900 just to get about 14 or 15 amps and there would
probably not be enough power there to allow for my microwave and coffee
maker ;-)
| |
| Derek Broughton 2005-10-21, 2:21 pm |
| Ulysses wrote:
> Sooner or later I will get a least a couple of solar panels to get
> started but it costs about $900 just to get about 14 or 15 amps and there
> would probably not be enough power there to allow for my microwave and
> coffee maker ;-)
Don't you still have rebates for solar panels?
--
derek
| |
| Ulysses 2005-10-21, 6:21 pm |
|
"Derek Broughton" <news@pointerstop.ca> wrote in message
news:bvgn23-tv8.ln1@news.pointerstop.ca...
> Ulysses wrote:
>
there[color=darkred]
>
> Don't you still have rebates for solar panels?
> --
> derek
Yes, but only if they are connected to the grid.
| |
|
|
| George Ghio 2005-10-21, 8:21 pm |
|
wmbjk wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Oct 2005 19:55:57 +1000, George Ghio <AKA@nomailhere.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
> If you believed that, then you'd have dumped another explanatory opus
> of blunders on us by now. Perhaps you've finally learned your lesson,
> and perhaps the sun will rise in the West tomorrow.
>
> One has to wonder if your "book" contains a battery capacity/voltage
> chart, and if you've ever bothered to read it.
>
> Wayne
Logged data says you are wrong.
And logged data is worth far more than the sad advice from someone who
can't even work out two days autonomy.
| |
| wmbjk 2005-10-21, 10:21 pm |
| On Fri, 21 Oct 2005 19:55:57 +1000, George Ghio <AKA@nomailhere.com>
wrote:
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
>wmbjk wrote:
> If you believed that, then you'd have dumped another explanatory opus
> of blunders on us by now. Perhaps you've finally learned your lesson,
> and perhaps the sun will rise in the West tomorrow.
> One has to wonder if your "book" contains a battery capacity/voltage
> chart, and if you've ever bothered to read it.
> Wayne
[color=darkred]
Cool! <I heart Ghioisms> So by logging data when charging batteries,
one can take 840Ah of batteries from 12V to 12.8V with less than 90Ah
of charging! I can almost hear the infomercial.... "Amazing!". And
yet... I can't help but notice that you're not posting any of that
data. It seems heartless of you to withhold an opportunity for the
rest of us to see battery charging COP numbers for the first time.
You know George, considering how you embellished your charging story
with irreconcilable details, there wasn't ever any face-saving way to
write your way out of it. But you'd be better off claiming brain-fade
due to kangaroo fumes than continuing to weasel. You may as well be
wearing a sandwich board advertising your own willful ignorance.
Wayne
| |
| George Ghio 2005-10-22, 5:21 am |
| So, oh master of numbers. Tell us about your two days autonomy and the
magical reduced load. Then someone just might believe you.
You are still wrong. Now all the clues are there work it out. I have the
logged data and it is much more reliable than your ranting.
wmbjk wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Oct 2005 19:55:57 +1000, George Ghio <AKA@nomailhere.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Cool! <I heart Ghioisms> So by logging data when charging batteries,
> one can take 840Ah of batteries from 12V to 12.8V with less than 90Ah
> of charging! I can almost hear the infomercial.... "Amazing!". And
> yet... I can't help but notice that you're not posting any of that
> data. It seems heartless of you to withhold an opportunity for the
> rest of us to see battery charging COP numbers for the first time.
>
> You know George, considering how you embellished your charging story
> with irreconcilable details, there wasn't ever any face-saving way to
> write your way out of it. But you'd be better off claiming brain-fade
> due to kangaroo fumes than continuing to weasel. You may as well be
> wearing a sandwich board advertising your own willful ignorance.
>
> Wayne
| |
| Derek Broughton 2005-10-22, 9:21 am |
| Steve Spence wrote:
> Derek Broughton wrote:
>
> Hey, that's a good idea, make your neighbors pay for your solar panels
What? You recommend that people _not_ take advantage of existing rebates?
Thus encouraging the people who _don't_ to pay for others panels.
We don't have any rebates here, but I would never suggest to anyone that
they not apply for any that were offered. I'm already paying enough to
subsidize the oil & gas industry - I should be able to take advantage of
the subsidies that apply to _me_.
In this case, Ulysses was quoting figures that look normal to me, but seemed
high for what I knew of California. It hadn't occurred to me that CA
rebates only applied to grid-connected homes.
--
derek
| |
| Steve Spence 2005-10-22, 10:21 am |
| Derek Broughton wrote:
> Steve Spence wrote:
>
>
>
>
> What? You recommend that people _not_ take advantage of existing rebates?
> Thus encouraging the people who _don't_ to pay for others panels.
>
> We don't have any rebates here, but I would never suggest to anyone that
> they not apply for any that were offered. I'm already paying enough to
> subsidize the oil & gas industry - I should be able to take advantage of
> the subsidies that apply to _me_.
>
> In this case, Ulysses was quoting figures that look normal to me, but seemed
> high for what I knew of California. It hadn't occurred to me that CA
> rebates only applied to grid-connected homes.
I didn't use any rebates for my stuff, I bought it myself. Folks have to
realize that the fantastic $40k discount they get on their $80k system
was paid for by taxpayers in general, it isn't free money. You want to
go solar? Fine. But pay for it yourself, and base your payback on your
money, not your neighbors. They didn't have a choice in your purchase
decision.
--
Steve Spence
Dir., Green Trust, http://www.green-trust.org
Contributing Editor, http://www.off-grid.net
http://www.rebelwolf.com/essn.html
| |
| wmbjk 2005-10-22, 11:21 am |
| On Sat, 22 Oct 2005 17:44:03 +1000, George Ghio <AKA@nomailhere.com>
wrote:
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
>You are still wrong. Now all the clues are there work it out. I have the
>logged data and it is much more reliable than your ranting.
Silly me, the voltages you quoted were only "clues", and the point of
your story was to begin a guessing game! How thoughtful of you!
Perhaps saying what you mean was just too pedestrian. Well, apparently
we're all out of guesses, which makes you the winner! Could it be that
the only reason you're still weaseling instead of posting the logged
data is because that would be an even worse violation of the First
Rule of Holes? Nah...
Wayne
| |
| George Ghio 2005-10-22, 12:21 pm |
|
Steve Spence wrote:
> Derek Broughton wrote:
>
>
>
> I didn't use any rebates for my stuff, I bought it myself. Folks have to
> realize that the fantastic $40k discount they get on their $80k system
> was paid for by taxpayers in general, it isn't free money. You want to
> go solar? Fine. But pay for it yourself, and base your payback on your
> money, not your neighbors. They didn't have a choice in your purchase
> decision.
>
>
Yep, he bought it himself, why don't you help him buy some more himself
by making a donation at http://www.green-trust.org/. This is a guy who
is so self reliant that when things get a bit hard he just whips out his
trusty begging bowl. No, he doesn't need a rebate scheme. He has his own.
| |
| Steve Spence 2005-10-22, 12:21 pm |
| George Ghio wrote:
>
>
> Steve Spence wrote:
>
> Yep, he bought it himself, why don't you help him buy some more himself
> by making a donation at http://www.green-trust.org/. This is a guy who
> is so self reliant that when things get a bit hard he just whips out his
> trusty begging bowl. No, he doesn't need a rebate scheme. He has his own.
ah, but when folks donate to us (we are a non-profit, remember, george),
it's by choice. When you use a rebate, your neighbors are not being
given the choice of "donating" to your solar array, you are taking it
from them, through government taxes. Do you have non-profit
organizations where you live , George. How do you think they provide the
services they do? From donations. Folks who donate to us are indicating
that they appreciate the services we have provided, at no charge, to the
community.
--
Steve Spence
Dir., Green Trust, http://www.green-trust.org
Contributing Editor, http://www.off-grid.net
http://www.rebelwolf.com/essn.html
| |
| Derek Broughton 2005-10-22, 12:21 pm |
| Steve Spence wrote:
> I didn't use any rebates for my stuff, I bought it myself. Folks have to
> realize that the fantastic $40k discount they get on their $80k system
> was paid for by taxpayers in general, it isn't free money. You want to
> go solar? Fine. But pay for it yourself, and base your payback on your
> money, not your neighbors. They didn't have a choice in your purchase
> decision.
I'm sorry Steve, but that just seems nuts to me. Of course it's not free
money, but _you_ are the one who's paying for those rebates. Everyone else
is taking advantage of them, and it doesn't make any sense at all to take
the moral high ground and refuse to take your tax dollars back. Campaign
against rebates if you want - but don't forget to campaign against the
subsidies to the oil industry, while you're at it.
Looked at from another pov, you're subsidizing your neighbors use of fossil
fuels and not letting them help pay for your alternatives.
--
derek
| |
| Anthony Matonak 2005-10-22, 4:21 pm |
| Derek Broughton wrote:
....
> In this case, Ulysses was quoting figures that look normal to me, but seemed
> high for what I knew of California. It hadn't occurred to me that CA
> rebates only applied to grid-connected homes.
I'm no lawyer, nor do I play one on the internet, but I believe if you
read the language of the CA rebates closely enough that the term "grid"
can be interpreted to apply to any system of wires that supplies power
to your home. This means you might be able to get the rebates even if
you consider your home "off-grid".
Anthony
| |
| Steve Spence 2005-10-22, 5:21 pm |
| Anthony Matonak wrote:
> Derek Broughton wrote:
> ...
>
>
>
> I'm no lawyer, nor do I play one on the internet, but I believe if you
> read the language of the CA rebates closely enough that the term "grid"
> can be interpreted to apply to any system of wires that supplies power
> to your home. This means you might be able to get the rebates even if
> you consider your home "off-grid".
>
> Anthony
Not in NY. Only a connection to Niagara Mohawk with a netmetering
contract would entitle me to a rebate. No thanks.
--
Steve Spence
Dir., Green Trust, http://www.green-trust.org
Contributing Editor, http://www.off-grid.net
http://www.rebelwolf.com/essn.html
| |
| nicksanspam@ece.villanova.edu 2005-10-22, 7:21 pm |
| The Phila Sustainable Development Fund PV rebate covers everyone in
the PECO service territory, whether grid-connected or not.
Nick
| |
| George Ghio 2005-10-22, 9:21 pm |
|
Steve Spence wrote:
SNIP
> ah, but when folks donate to us (we are a non-profit, remember, george),
> it's by choice. When you use a rebate, your neighbors are not being
> given the choice of "donating" to your solar array, you are taking it
> from them, through government taxes. Do you have non-profit
> organizations where you live , George. How do you think they provide the
> services they do? From donations. Folks who donate to us are indicating
> that they appreciate the services we have provided, at no charge, to the
> community.
>
So democracy is dead and those people the government is stealing the
rebate money from did not have a say in choosing the government.
It also seems a bit odd that the "Donated Money" seems to be being spent
on your property. Oh thats right all the surplus generated energy is
being given to the poor who live in the area.
No, you are a stammer. Right down to the "My wife is sick, I've lost my
job, send me money. My pastor says I deserve it story"
Visit <http://greendodgytrust.com/ihopethetaxmanisblind> today and give
poor Steve some of your money so he can maintain his lifestyle.
And on the topic of dodgy things the spreadsheet offered on your site is
worthless. I suggest you either fix it or remove it. Funny how your site
seems to have so many dodgy points.
Why is that?
| |
| JoeSixPack 2005-10-23, 4:21 am |
|
"Steve Spence" <sspence@green-trust.org> wrote in message
news:g3s6f.3278$fn.1483@fe08.lga...
>
> ah, but when folks donate to us (we are a non-profit, remember, george),
> it's by choice. When you use a rebate, your neighbors are not being given
> the choice of "donating" to your solar array, you are taking it from them,
> through government taxes. Do you have non-profit organizations where you
> live , George. How do you think they provide the services they do? From
> donations. Folks who donate to us are indicating that they appreciate the
> services we have provided, at no charge, to the community.
>
I examined your website and didn't see any evidence that you are a
registered not-for-profit corporation. If you are collecting money under
the guise of such, you could be in a good deal of legal jeopardy.
| |
| wmbjk 2005-10-23, 12:21 pm |
| On Sat, 22 Oct 2005 10:31:42 -0400, Steve Spence
<sspence@green-trust.org> wrote:
[color=darkred]
>George Ghio wrote:
[color=darkred]
George, even though I don't agree with Steve's rebates-are-bad
position, you're the last guy who should be accusing anyone else of
hypocrisy. Elsewhere in this very thread you've refused to explain why
you criticized a generator for being underpowered when your own is 7
times worse. If we're allowed to make selective judgments, then aren't
you the guy who previously bragged that he got a bag of Ozzie cash in
exchange for emigrating? How many of those taxpayers were asked if
they wanted to fund a quack whose destiny was to spend his days taking
(probably subsidized) courses, and his nights as Usenet's Judge
Nitwit? The least you could do now is offer them a refund.
Wayne
| |
| Steve Spence 2005-10-23, 3:21 pm |
| JoeSixPack wrote:
> "Steve Spence" <sspence@green-trust.org> wrote in message
> news:g3s6f.3278$fn.1483@fe08.lga...
>
>
>
>
> I examined your website and didn't see any evidence that you are a
> registered not-for-profit corporation. If you are collecting money under
> the guise of such, you could be in a good deal of legal jeopardy.
>
>
We are not yet a 501(c)3 charitable organization, if that is what your
are asking. It would be terrible if I had to give back the whole $150 we
were given in "thank you's" this year. Fortunately, there is no
requirement in NY to be registered as a charitable organization in order
for folks to donate a few bucks if they feel they have been given
valuable information. The 501(c)3 status is for giving tax deductions
for charitable contributions.
--
Steve Spence
Dir., Green Trust, http://www.green-trust.org
Contributing Editor, http://www.off-grid.net
http://www.rebelwolf.com/essn.html
| |
| daestrom 2005-10-23, 5:21 pm |
|
"Steve Spence" <sspence@green-trust.org> wrote in message
news:rww6f.4141$fn.2886@fe08.lga...
> Anthony Matonak wrote:
>
> Not in NY. Only a connection to Niagara Mohawk with a netmetering contract
> would entitle me to a rebate. No thanks.
>
Of course, now you mean 'National Grid' ;-)
daestrom
| |
| Ulysses 2005-10-23, 6:21 pm |
|
"Steve Spence" <sspence@green-trust.org> wrote in message
news:0Vc6f.17015$Hm3.1895@fe09.lga...
> Derek Broughton wrote:
there[color=darkred]
>
> Hey, that's a good idea, make your neighbors pay for your solar panels
......
Yea, they figured out a way to tax the sun. Next they'll be taxing air.
>
>
> --
> Steve Spence
> Dir., Green Trust, http://www.green-trust.org
> Contributing Editor, http://www.off-grid.net
> http://www.rebelwolf.com/essn.html
| |
| Ulysses 2005-10-23, 6:21 pm |
|
"Anthony Matonak" <anthonym40@nothing.like.comcast.net> wrote in message
news:c9ydndrOv7Z1E8fenZ2dnUVZ_tOdnZ2d@comcast.com...
> Derek Broughton wrote:
> ...
seemed[color=darkred]
>
> I'm no lawyer, nor do I play one on the internet, but I believe if you
> read the language of the CA rebates closely enough that the term "grid"
> can be interpreted to apply to any system of wires that supplies power
> to your home. This means you might be able to get the rebates even if
> you consider your home "off-grid".
>
> Anthony
Perhaps my choice of words was poor concerning the term "connected to the
grid" but they made it very clear to me that I would not qualify for the
rebates unless I was an electricity customer with wires going to my house
through a meter that came from whatever power generating station they come
from owned by a major supplier of electricity and my solar panels (I think
wind qualifies too) would be supplying electricity to someone else who was
also connected to the same wires. I thought that's what "the grid" was. If
you know of some way to twist the definition of grid so that I can get some
solar panel rebates them I'll all ears :-D I argued that I paid utility
taxes for many years so I didn't see why I didn't qualify. The bottom line,
from what I could tell, is that they cannot TAX anyone's use of the
electricity I would be producing so they ain't interested.
| |
|
|
| JoeSixPack 2005-10-23, 10:21 pm |
|
"Steve Spence" <sspence@green-trust.org> wrote in message
news:FPP6f.36845$Ge5.26980@fe10.lga...
> JoeSixPack wrote:
> We are not yet a 501(c)3 charitable organization, if that is what your are
> asking. It would be terrible if I had to give back the whole $150 we were
> given in "thank you's" this year. Fortunately, there is no requirement in
> NY to be registered as a charitable organization in order for folks to
> donate a few bucks if they feel they have been given valuable information.
> The 501(c)3 status is for giving tax deductions for charitable
> contributions.
I guess that's between you and Uncle Sam to hash out.
Thank me later if I saved you any jail time.
| |
| George Ghio 2005-10-24, 1:21 am |
| Wow.
wmbjk wrote:
> On Sat, 22 Oct 2005 10:31:42 -0400, Steve Spence
> <sspence@green-trust.org> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
> George, even though I don't agree with Steve's rebates-are-bad
> position, you're the last guy who should be accusing anyone else of
> hypocrisy. Elsewhere in this very thread you've refused to explain why
> you criticized a generator for being underpowered when your own is 7
> times worse. If we're allowed to make selective judgments, then aren't
> you the guy who previously bragged that he got a bag of Ozzie cash in
> exchange for emigrating? How many of those taxpayers were asked if
> they wanted to fund a quack whose destiny was to spend his days taking
> (probably subsidized) courses, and his nights as Usenet's Judge
> Nitwit? The least you could do now is offer them a refund.
>
> Wayne
| |
| Anthony Matonak 2005-10-24, 3:21 am |
| Ulysses wrote:
> "Anthony Matonak" <anthonym40@nothing.like.comcast.net> wrote in message
>
> Perhaps my choice of words was poor concerning the term "connected to the
> grid" but they made it very clear to me that I would not qualify for the
> rebates unless I was an electricity customer with wires going to my house
> through a meter that came from whatever power generating station they come
> from owned by a major supplier of electricity and my solar panels (I think
> wind qualifies too) would be supplying electricity to someone else who was
> also connected to the same wires.
....
Sorry, I guess my information is both wrong and out of date.
http://www.energy.ca.gov/2005public...05-001-ED5F.PDF
Anthony
| |
| Ulysses 2005-10-24, 1:21 pm |
| I WISH you were right.
The good news is that electricity (the "grid") is getting closer to my
property and it may now become practical to get connected. A few years ago
Southern California Edison told me it would cost about $65,000 to get
connected (including the cost of actually getting to my house). Now it's
down to about $20,000. I need to read it all again but it used to be that
the requirement was that you had to stay connected for something like 2 or 3
years after they gave you the rebate. So, it might be a consideration to
get a system installed then then tell them to go take a flying leap ;-)
"Anthony Matonak" <anthonym40@nothing.like.comcast.net> wrote in message
news:OemdnY-Zx_-Q7cHeRVn-vQ@comcast.com...
> Ulysses wrote:
the[color=darkred]
house[color=darkred]
come[color=darkred]
think[color=darkred]
was[color=darkred]
> ...
>
> Sorry, I guess my information is both wrong and out of date.
>
http://www.energy.ca.gov/2005public...C-300-2005-001-
ED5F.PDF
>
> Anthony
| |
|
| On Mon, 24 Oct 2005 13:54:34 +1000, George Ghio <AKA@nomailhere.com>
wrote:
>wmbjk wrote:
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
>Wow.
Weaselman strikes again! Has your "story" generator capacity finally
fallen behind your blunder production rate George? Perhaps you need to
log it in order to restore a "balanced system".
Wayne
| |
| Jim Baber 2005-11-01, 3:21 pm |
|
Steve Spence wrote:
> Derek Broughton wrote:
>
>
>
> I didn't use any rebates for my stuff, I bought it myself. Folks have
> to realize that the fantastic $40k discount they get on their $80k
> system was paid for by taxpayers in general, it isn't free money.
Jim Baber's comment to Steve:
The CA rebate program is NOT general tax money. It is funded
as a percentage tax collected from moneys paid by users of specific
utility companies power into the rebate fund as a part of their electric
rates. These refunds are restricted to the classes of customers that
contributed into that fund to begin with: (the customers of those same
utilities: So. Calif. Edison, Pacific Gas & Electric and San Diego Gas &
Electric). This is why it is commonly believed to be restricted to the
grid. It is not just for residential users, commercial and governmental
agencies can also claim money from the rebate program for solar and wind
generation facilities.
> You want to go solar? Fine. But pay for it yourself, and base your
> payback on your money, not your neighbors. They didn't have a choice
> in your purchase decision.
No, but they could also have partaken. I just chose to put a cap on my
own future power costs in the most economical manner I could. I figure
that the 40 or 50 kWh of power I put onto the grid during the peak hours
in an average day, helps a great deal in keeping other grid users power
bills lower than they would be if PG&E had to buy that same peaking
power elsewhere. This is even truer today as the cost of the gas used
for most power peaking plants is going up as fast as it is.
>
>
|
|
|
|
|