Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.arch.embedded > #30035 > unrolled thread

Good Hardware Tools

Back to article view | Back to comp.arch.embedded

Contents

  Good Hardware Tools Rick C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> - 2020-10-29 20:17 -0700
    Re: Good Hardware Tools Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2020-10-29 23:52 -0700
      Re: Good Hardware Tools Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2020-10-30 10:19 +0000
    Re: Good Hardware Tools Chris <xxx.syseng.yyy@gfsys.co.uk> - 2020-10-31 00:21 +0000
    Re: Good Hardware Tools Dave Nadler <drn@nadler.com> - 2020-10-30 17:56 -0700
      Re: Good Hardware Tools Rick C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> - 2020-10-30 20:40 -0700
    Re: Good Hardware Tools Philip Martel <pmartel@alum.mit.edu> - 2020-10-31 14:54 -0400
      Re: Good Hardware Tools Rick C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> - 2020-11-04 20:13 -0800
        Re: Good Hardware Tools kegs@provalid.com (Kent Dickey) - 2020-11-13 17:10 -0600
          Re: Good Hardware Tools Rick C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> - 2020-11-15 19:43 -0800
            Re: Good Hardware Tools Brett <ggtgp@yahoo.com> - 2020-11-16 19:31 +0000
              Re: Good Hardware Tools Rick C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> - 2020-11-17 01:50 -0800
                Re: Good Hardware Tools Stef <stef33d@yahooI-N-V-A-L-I-D.com.invalid> - 2020-11-17 11:14 +0100
                  Re: Good Hardware Tools Brett <ggtgp@yahoo.com> - 2020-11-18 04:14 +0000
                Re: Good Hardware Tools George Neuner <gneuner2@comcast.net> - 2020-11-17 12:05 -0500
                  Re: Good Hardware Tools Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2020-11-17 10:06 -0800
                    Re: Good Hardware Tools George Neuner <gneuner2@comcast.net> - 2020-11-17 16:02 -0500
                      Re: Good Hardware Tools Jim Jackson <jj@franjam.org.uk> - 2020-11-17 22:28 +0000
                        Re: Good Hardware Tools David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2020-11-18 11:11 +0100
                          Re: Good Hardware Tools Tauno Voipio <tauno.voipio@notused.fi.invalid> - 2020-11-18 12:40 +0200
                            Re: Good Hardware Tools Niklas Holsti <niklas.holsti@tidorum.invalid> - 2020-11-18 14:51 +0200
                              Re: Good Hardware Tools Hans-Bernhard Bröker <HBBroeker@t-online.de> - 2020-11-18 21:46 +0100
                                Re: Good Hardware Tools David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2020-11-18 22:29 +0100
                          Re: Good Hardware Tools Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2020-11-18 12:45 -0800
                            Re: Good Hardware Tools Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2020-11-18 21:08 +0000
                              Re: Good Hardware Tools Hans-Bernhard Bröker <HBBroeker@t-online.de> - 2020-11-19 00:35 +0100
                            Re: Good Hardware Tools Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> - 2020-11-18 16:12 -0500
                            Re: Good Hardware Tools Rick C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> - 2020-11-18 17:30 -0800
                              Re: Good Hardware Tools Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2020-11-18 23:36 -0800
                            Re: Good Hardware Tools Jim Jackson <jj@franjam.org.uk> - 2020-11-19 22:31 +0000
                              Re: Good Hardware Tools Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2020-11-19 14:43 -0800
                                Re: Good Hardware Tools Jim Jackson <jj@franjam.org.uk> - 2020-11-20 22:13 +0000
                                  Re: Good Hardware Tools Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2020-11-20 18:01 -0800
                                    Re: Good Hardware Tools James Brakefield <jim.brakefield@ieee.org> - 2020-11-21 11:39 -0800
                        Re: Good Hardware Tools Rick C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> - 2020-11-18 03:15 -0800
                    Re: Good Hardware Tools David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2020-11-17 22:25 +0100
                      Re: Good Hardware Tools Dave Nadler <drn@nadler.com> - 2020-11-17 16:30 -0500
                      Re: Good Hardware Tools Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2020-11-17 14:18 -0800
              Re: Good Hardware Tools "Mat Nieuwenhoven" <mnieuw@zap.a2000.nl> - 2020-11-23 13:39 +0100
                Re: Good Hardware Tools Rick C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> - 2020-11-23 07:49 -0800
                  Re: Good Hardware Tools "Mat Nieuwenhoven" <mnieuw@zap.a2000.nl> - 2020-11-24 08:53 +0100
                    Re: Good Hardware Tools Rick C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> - 2020-11-24 10:46 -0800
                      Re: Good Hardware Tools Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2020-11-24 13:46 -0800
                      Re: Good Hardware Tools "Mat Nieuwenhoven" <mnieuw@zap.a2000.nl> - 2020-11-27 08:11 +0100
                        Re: Good Hardware Tools Rick C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> - 2020-11-27 06:58 -0800
                          Re: Good Hardware Tools Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2020-11-27 10:17 -0500
                            Re: Good Hardware Tools Rick C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> - 2020-11-27 08:04 -0800
                          Re: Good Hardware Tools "Mat Nieuwenhoven" <mnieuw@zap.a2000.nl> - 2020-11-28 17:04 +0100
                            Re: Good Hardware Tools Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2020-11-28 09:54 -0700
                            Re: Good Hardware Tools Rick C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> - 2020-11-28 09:05 -0800
                              Re: Good Hardware Tools "Mat Nieuwenhoven" <mnieuw@zap.a2000.nl> - 2020-11-29 17:30 +0100
                                Re: Good Hardware Tools Rick C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> - 2020-11-29 11:10 -0800
                                  Re: Good Hardware Tools "Mat Nieuwenhoven" <mnieuw@zap.a2000.nl> - 2020-11-30 08:19 +0100
                                    Re: Good Hardware Tools Rick C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> - 2020-11-30 07:46 -0800
                                      Re: Good Hardware Tools "Mat Nieuwenhoven" <mnieuw@zap.a2000.nl> - 2020-12-06 17:55 +0100
                                        Re: Good Hardware Tools Rick C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> - 2020-12-06 15:04 -0800
                                          Re: Good Hardware Tools Mat Nieuwenhoven <mnieuw@zap.a2000.nl> - 2021-01-03 11:03 +0000
                                            Re: Good Hardware Tools Brett <ggtgp@yahoo.com> - 2021-01-04 09:03 +0000
                                              Re: Good Hardware Tools Rick C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> - 2021-01-04 04:09 -0800
                                                Re: Good Hardware Tools Mat Nieuwenhoven <mnieuw@zap.a2000.nl> - 2021-01-04 21:57 +0000
                                            Re: Good Hardware Tools Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2021-01-04 02:55 -0700
                            Re: Good Hardware Tools Grant Edwards <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2020-11-28 20:53 +0000
                              Re: Good Hardware Tools Rick C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> - 2020-11-28 15:16 -0800
                                Re: Good Hardware Tools Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2020-11-28 20:57 -0500
                                  Re: Good Hardware Tools Rick C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> - 2020-11-28 18:07 -0800
                                    Re: Good Hardware Tools Tauno Voipio <tauno.voipio@notused.fi.invalid> - 2020-11-29 10:43 +0200
                                      Re: Good Hardware Tools Rick C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> - 2020-11-29 11:00 -0800
                                        Re: Good Hardware Tools "Mat Nieuwenhoven" <mnieuw@zap.a2000.nl> - 2020-11-30 08:01 +0100
                                          Re: Good Hardware Tools Rick C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> - 2020-11-30 07:40 -0800
                                          Re: Good Hardware Tools Chris <xxx.syseng.yyy@gfsys.co.uk> - 2020-11-30 15:41 +0000
                                Re: Good Hardware Tools "Mat Nieuwenhoven" <mnieuw@zap.a2000.nl> - 2020-11-29 15:22 +0100
                                  Re: Good Hardware Tools Rick C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> - 2020-11-29 11:04 -0800
                                  Re: Good Hardware Tools Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2020-11-29 14:46 -0700
                              Re: Good Hardware Tools "Mat Nieuwenhoven" <mnieuw@zap.a2000.nl> - 2020-11-29 15:11 +0100
                                Re: Good Hardware Tools Grant Edwards <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2020-11-29 23:24 +0000
                                  Re: Good Hardware Tools Rick C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> - 2020-11-29 17:57 -0800
                                    Re: Good Hardware Tools "Mat Nieuwenhoven" <mnieuw@zap.a2000.nl> - 2020-11-30 08:32 +0100
                                      Re: Good Hardware Tools Rick C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> - 2020-11-30 08:03 -0800
            Re: Good Hardware Tools Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2020-11-16 13:13 -0800
            Re: Good Hardware Tools kegs@provalid.com (Kent Dickey) - 2020-11-17 22:56 -0600
              Re: Good Hardware Tools Rick C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> - 2020-11-18 03:20 -0800

Page 2 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5  Next page →

#30088

On 2020-11-18 12:40, Tauno Voipio wrote:
> On 18.11.20 12.11, David Brown wrote:
    ...
>>
>> But AFAIK only the USA has Fahrenheit (and other non-metric units) as
>> standard.
> 
> 
> The US Congress decided in 1866 to go metric - a little
> sluggish implementation.


Sometimes described by saying that the "US is inching its way towards 
the metric system."

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#30090

Am 18.11.2020 um 13:51 schrieb Niklas Holsti:

> Sometimes described by saying that the "US is inching its way towards 
> the metric system."

The term "inching" may no longer really doing it justice.  Let's do some 
(metric) math on this.  The total of the borders and coastlines of the 
mainland USA is roughly twenty thousand miles, or 32 thousand 
kilometers.  And it has been 154 years since that decision.

So to travel around the entire mainland US since then, the average speed 
would have been, roughly:

	208 km per year,
	570 meters per day, or
	24 meters per hour

For comparison a turtle is reported to be going 330 m/h.  It could thus 
have run circles around the mainland U.S.  Like: literally 15 times around.

Or, speaking of "sluggish": an actual slug (i.e. a garden-variety snail) 
can clock in at around 3 m/h.  That's fast enough for it to have "run" 
the entire U.S.-Mexico border in that time faster than the U.S.A. took 
to cross from the silly to the sane side of same.

It's a paradox: a country that was founded on the very principle of 
abolishing, with prejudice, everything British is now just about the 
last one on earth still sticking to these fundamentally British 
Imperial(!) units --- except Great Britain itself.  Who in turn just 
won't agree with the French on anything if they can possibly help it.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#30093

On 18/11/2020 21:46, Hans-Bernhard Bröker wrote:
> Am 18.11.2020 um 13:51 schrieb Niklas Holsti:
> 
>> Sometimes described by saying that the "US is inching its way towards
>> the metric system."
> 
> The term "inching" may no longer really doing it justice.  Let's do some
> (metric) math on this.  The total of the borders and coastlines of the
> mainland USA is roughly twenty thousand miles, or 32 thousand
> kilometers.  And it has been 154 years since that decision.
> 
> So to travel around the entire mainland US since then, the average speed
> would have been, roughly:
> 
>     208 km per year,
>     570 meters per day, or
>     24 meters per hour
> 
> For comparison a turtle is reported to be going 330 m/h.  It could thus
> have run circles around the mainland U.S.  Like: literally 15 times around.
> 
> Or, speaking of "sluggish": an actual slug (i.e. a garden-variety snail)
> can clock in at around 3 m/h.  That's fast enough for it to have "run"
> the entire U.S.-Mexico border in that time faster than the U.S.A. took
> to cross from the silly to the sane side of same.
> 
> It's a paradox: a country that was founded on the very principle of
> abolishing, with prejudice, everything British is now just about the
> last one on earth still sticking to these fundamentally British
> Imperial(!) units --- except Great Britain itself.  Who in turn just
> won't agree with the French on anything if they can possibly help it.

That's not /quite/ accurate.  Amongst the things that the Americans
disagreed on was spelling - but it wasn't the Americans that changed
words like "colour" and "neighbour".  It was the British who changed
them - by adding some unnecessary extra vowels to make the words look
more French-like.

And the UK has long ago given up on imperial units for anything where
accuracy is relevant.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#30089

David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes:
> But AFAIK only the USA has Fahrenheit (and other non-metric units) as
> standard.

Automotive speed limits in every country I've visited are posted in
miles per hour or kilometers per hour.  Metric units would of course be
meters per second (100 km/hour is about 28 m/sec).

Me, I support switching to the FFF (Furlong-Firkin-Fortnight) system.
For example, the speed of light is about 1.8e12 furlongs per fortnight.

;-)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#30091

On 18/11/20 20:45, Paul Rubin wrote:
> David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes:
>> But AFAIK only the USA has Fahrenheit (and other non-metric units) as
>> standard.
> 
> Automotive speed limits in every country I've visited are posted in
> miles per hour or kilometers per hour.  Metric units would of course be
> meters per second (100 km/hour is about 28 m/sec).
> 
> Me, I support switching to the FFF (Furlong-Firkin-Fortnight) system.
> For example, the speed of light is about 1.8e12 furlongs per fortnight.
> 
> ;-)
> 

I rather like pi seconds = 1 nanocentury, to about 0.4%.

"I'll just be a few nanocenturies, dear".

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#30094

Am 18.11.2020 um 22:08 schrieb Tom Gardner:
> I rather like pi seconds = 1 nanocentury, to about 0.4%.

And the speed of about one nano-lightyear per month is what you need to 
complete a 3-hour Marathon.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#30092

On 11/18/20 3:45 PM, Paul Rubin wrote:
> David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes:
>> But AFAIK only the USA has Fahrenheit (and other non-metric units) as
>> standard.
> 
> Automotive speed limits in every country I've visited are posted in
> miles per hour or kilometers per hour.  Metric units would of course be
> meters per second (100 km/hour is about 28 m/sec).
> 
> Me, I support switching to the FFF (Furlong-Firkin-Fortnight) system.
> For example, the speed of light is about 1.8e12 furlongs per fortnight.
> 
> ;-)
> 

And one attoparsec equals one decifoot to engineering accuracy, proving 
once again (if any more were needed) that God is an Englishman.

The original definition of the metre was 10**-7 of the distance from the 
Equator to North Pole measured along the meridian of Paris.  Both ends 
of that line are at sea, of course, like so many other French 
initiatives. ;)

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

-- 
Dr Philip C D Hobbs
Principal Consultant
ElectroOptical Innovations LLC / Hobbs ElectroOptics
Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics
Briarcliff Manor NY 10510

http://electrooptical.net
http://hobbs-eo.com

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#30095

On Wednesday, November 18, 2020 at 3:45:52 PM UTC-5, Paul Rubin wrote:
> David Brown <david...@hesbynett.no> writes: 
> > But AFAIK only the USA has Fahrenheit (and other non-metric units) as 
> > standard.
> Automotive speed limits in every country I've visited are posted in 
> miles per hour or kilometers per hour. Metric units would of course be 
> meters per second (100 km/hour is about 28 m/sec). 
> 
> Me, I support switching to the FFF (Furlong-Firkin-Fortnight) system. 
> For example, the speed of light is about 1.8e12 furlongs per fortnight. 

I c. 

-- 

Rick C.

--+ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
--+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#30096

Rick C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> writes:
> I c. 

I'm sorry, the number you have dialed is an imaginary number.  If you
think you have received this recording in error, please rotate your
phone by 90 degrees and try your call again.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#30097

On 2020-11-18, Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes:
>> But AFAIK only the USA has Fahrenheit (and other non-metric units) as
>> standard.
>
> Automotive speed limits in every country I've visited are posted in
> miles per hour or kilometers per hour.  Metric units would of course be
> meters per second (100 km/hour is about 28 m/sec).
>

Actually not true. Kilometres are metric. Perhaps you are getting 
confused with the measurements in MKS system?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#30098

Jim Jackson <jj@franjam.org.uk> writes:
> Actually not true. Kilometres are metric. Perhaps you are getting 
> confused with the measurements in MKS system?

Hours are not metric, or at least are not SI.  I can go with kilometers
per second but those numbers would inconveniently small.  MKS and CGS
have been obsolete for decades.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#30111

On 2020-11-19, Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> Jim Jackson <jj@franjam.org.uk> writes:
>> Actually not true. Kilometres are metric. Perhaps you are getting 
>> confused with the measurements in MKS system?
>
> Hours are not metric, or at least are not SI.

As we do not use Kiloseconds or Megaseconds, Hours as the accepted and 
understood multiple of seconds is a suitable standin, if not SI. 
Kilometres / Hour is the metric equivalent of Miles / Hour.
Or are just being a pretty boring pedant, and probably wrong at that?
Or am I missing a joke?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#30113

Jim Jackson <jj@franjam.org.uk> writes:
> As we do not use Kiloseconds or Megaseconds, Hours as the accepted and 
> understood multiple of seconds is a suitable standin, if not SI. 
> Kilometres / Hour is the metric equivalent of Miles / Hour.
> Or are just being a pretty boring pedant, and probably wrong at that?
> Or am I missing a joke?

It's partly a joke and partly pointing out the silliness of those who
ridicule the US for not using metric.  Kiloseconds and megaseconds are
metric units of time, hours are not.  Yet people (even in supposedly
metric countries) use hours because they are comfortable human units.
Those countries use meters and hours, so they are only partially metric.

In the US we do the same thing, but even further.  We also use hours
(3.6 kiloseconds), but it also uses feet and inches (inch = 2.54
centimeters).  People from other countries who act superior about this
should get their own house in order (i.e. switch from hours, days, years
to kiloseconds, megaseconds, etc.) before complaining about ours.  1
year = 31.5 megaseconds, 1 century = 3.15 gigaseconds.  Let me know when
you have updated all your history books to use those units.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#30118

On Friday, November 20, 2020 at 8:01:07 PM UTC-6, Paul Rubin wrote:
> Jim Jackson <j...@franjam.org.uk> writes: 
> > As we do not use Kiloseconds or Megaseconds, Hours as the accepted and 
> > understood multiple of seconds is a suitable standin, if not SI. 
> > Kilometres / Hour is the metric equivalent of Miles / Hour. 
> > Or are just being a pretty boring pedant, and probably wrong at that? 
> > Or am I missing a joke?
> It's partly a joke and partly pointing out the silliness of those who 
> ridicule the US for not using metric. Kiloseconds and megaseconds are 
> metric units of time, hours are not. Yet people (even in supposedly 
> metric countries) use hours because they are comfortable human units. 
> Those countries use meters and hours, so they are only partially metric. 
> 
> In the US we do the same thing, but even further. We also use hours 
> (3.6 kiloseconds), but it also uses feet and inches (inch = 2.54 
> centimeters). People from other countries who act superior about this 
> should get their own house in order (i.e. switch from hours, days, years 
> to kiloseconds, megaseconds, etc.) before complaining about ours. 1 
> year = 31.5 megaseconds, 1 century = 3.15 gigaseconds. Let me know when 
> you have updated all your history books to use those units.

Given that the computers which operate our banks, do GPS positioning and coordinate time zones all use binary, expect some day for AI to impose:
2**20 meters between the north pole and the equator, 32 inches per meter, 32 millimetres per per inch.  2**16 seconds per day with 64 seconds/minute and 64 minutes per hour  ...
E.g. the English got it somewhat right: pints, quarts, gallons.  The French went decimal and now decimal is not cool.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#30086

On Tuesday, November 17, 2020 at 5:28:23 PM UTC-5, Jim Jackson wrote:
> > And they maintain -5..+5 degrees Fahrenheit - not exactly "sub zero" 
> > as the name implies, but way below freezing.
> Funny, to me "sub-zero" just means below freezing. I have to really 
> try and remember what temperature, Fahrenheit, water freezes at! 
> 
> Anybody know of any other countries than the USA that habitually use 
> Fahrenheit? I'm just curious. The UK used to, and no doubt there are 
> many "older" UK people who still use it - but all weather reports etc 
> give temp. in centigrade.

We don't use Fahrenheit in the US, we abuse it. 

-- 

  Rick C.

  ++ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
  ++ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#30078

On 17/11/2020 19:06, Paul Rubin wrote:
> George Neuner <gneuner2@comcast.net> writes:
>> That's the scam: energy efficient appliances often have critical
>> components that are under specified for the load ...
> 
> That's an interesting point.  However, regarding fridges and
> particularly freezers, there's another avenue to energy efficiency:
> apparently the chest type units are way more efficient than the type
> with a front door, even if the door stays closed most of the time.  They
> do a better job of keeping heat out, so the motor doesn't have to run
> nearly as much.  I don't know whether more insulation could do the same
> thing for a front loading design.
> 

I believe it's basically a case of hot air rising, cold air falling - it
means the cold air stays in better.  And this is particularly true when
the door is opened - with a standard fridge, cold air starts falling out
rather quickly.

I read somewhere that a Japanese manufacturer had invented a fridge
(with standard door and size) used about a quarter of the energy on
average, measured in real use in a home over a period of time.  The
breakthrough was to have a transparent door, so that people don't open
the fridge to see what is inside.  I thought that was a fine example of
thinking outside the box!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#30079

On 11/17/2020 4:25 PM, David Brown wrote:
> I thought that was a fine example of thinking outside the box!

Nah, inside the box was just too cold.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#30080

David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes:
> I believe it's basically a case of hot air rising, cold air falling - it
> means the cold air stays in better.  And this is particularly true when
> the door is opened - with a standard fridge, cold air starts falling out
> rather quickly.

The interior volume of the freezer part of a standard fridge might be
around 50L, which would make the air mass inside around 60 grams.  So
even if all the cold air escapes instantly, that's fairly little heat
getting in, compared to the heat capacity of the other stuff in the
freezer, i.e. around 4 kg of ice in the case of my experiment with the
pot full of water.  The fridge part might be more like 200L so I'd agree
that the heat entering from opening the door several times a day could
be substantial.

It still seems to me that better insulation around the freezer would
help.  When I did the thing with the pot of water, I checked on it maybe
1x-2x day, not so much in the scheme of things.  The heat was getting in
through the insulation, not from opening the door.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#30127

On Mon, 16 Nov 2020 19:31:28 -0000 (UTC), Brett wrote:

<snip>
>> In the winter I might have to turn off the HP during my electricity peak
>> billing time and in the summer I'd have to chill the house in the AM to
>> keep the temperatures down in the afternoon.  lol, just kidding of
>> course, but they do use a lot of power which gets turned into heat.  At
>> this moment, the laptop is the highest power drain that's running.  I'd
>> like to keep it that way.  Heck, I'm considering replacing my fridge
>> because the web says buying a new one will save enough electricity to pay
>> for itself in five years or less.  It's 30 years old too.  
>> 
>
>The new fridge will fail in 5 years, planned obsolescence.
>And the cost to run for your old fridge is a lie to get you to buy a new
>one.

It can really save money. My 21 year old 210/85L cool/freeze Bosch
fridge failed, and it used 270 kWh/a (measured with an energy meter).
And that one was for its time very efficient, 6 cm think walls of the
cooling section. It needed one electronic repair on those 21 years.
The replacement Liebherr, slightly larger inside, saves about 130
kWh/a . I fully expect it to last 20 years.

Depending on your electricity price, it might not be a good idea to
keep an old fridge running.

Mat Nieuwenhoven

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#30128

On Monday, November 23, 2020 at 7:39:35 AM UTC-5, Mat Nieuwenhoven wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Nov 2020 19:31:28 -0000 (UTC), Brett wrote: 
> 
> <snip> 
> >> In the winter I might have to turn off the HP during my electricity peak 
> >> billing time and in the summer I'd have to chill the house in the AM to 
> >> keep the temperatures down in the afternoon. lol, just kidding of 
> >> course, but they do use a lot of power which gets turned into heat. At 
> >> this moment, the laptop is the highest power drain that's running. I'd 
> >> like to keep it that way. Heck, I'm considering replacing my fridge 
> >> because the web says buying a new one will save enough electricity to pay 
> >> for itself in five years or less. It's 30 years old too. 
> >> 
> > 
> >The new fridge will fail in 5 years, planned obsolescence. 
> >And the cost to run for your old fridge is a lie to get you to buy a new 
> >one. 
> 
> It can really save money. My 21 year old 210/85L cool/freeze Bosch 
> fridge failed, and it used 270 kWh/a (measured with an energy meter). 
> And that one was for its time very efficient, 6 cm think walls of the 
> cooling section. It needed one electronic repair on those 21 years. 
> The replacement Liebherr, slightly larger inside, saves about 130 
> kWh/a . I fully expect it to last 20 years. 
> 
> Depending on your electricity price, it might not be a good idea to 
> keep an old fridge running. 
> 
> Mat Nieuwenhoven

What is kWh/a?  Is that per year?  The marginal cost of 130 kWh to me is hard to estimate as I'm on ToU metering so it varies from $0.08 per kWh to $0.33 per kWh.  The lower bound for the electricity savings would be $10.40 per year.  That's not very much.  An average cost considering the time duration of the peak charges would be about twice that amount.  

If I could find a reliable timing device I would have the fridge not run during the expensive peak times.  The longest peak time is 4 hours and I fully expect the temperature to not increase significantly in that time.  When the AC turns off the house warms up by 2-3°F.  I expect the fridge would rise a lesser amount given the very good insulation they now have. 

-- 

Rick C.

-+- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
-+- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.arch.embedded

csiph-web