Jump to content

buoy

Moderator
  • Content count

    2,806
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Posts posted by buoy


  1. Here it is. It's very simple to cross reference and corroborate what this video says both with your own experience. An important aspect is joint preservation. Think about the years ahead and how your joints will wear over time.

    I thought about my own father having hip replacement at age 82 - now he's 85 and the last 3 years haven't been fun for him at all. I thought about Ronnie Coleman and how even after $2m of surgery he now can't walk. Of course I'm cherry picking and I'm building a case to justify training with light weights - however there have been periods where I have accidentally done this type of training and it had been very successful. I also did a lot of german muscle training for a while which, in fact, mimicks the lighter weight scenario talked about in this video.

    Knowledge is the key. They provide the tools for you to create something for yourself. This video contains some gold. I hope you all profit from it.

    Cheers,

    Buoy

     


  2. Hi all,

     

    I started trying out volume trainig for about a month now and I must say it is amazing! I thought all my easy gains had gone years ago but this just felt like lifting weights from the beginning again - huge pumps, a huge high afterwards, doms a day later and the day after that and a spike in appetite.

     

    It really took me by surprise. I'm wondering if anyone else has tried this sort of training and if it worked for them?

     

    All I have been going on is an article on bodybuilding.com in regards to german volume training - basically doing 10 sets of 10 reps at 60% max with no more than 90 seconds rest in-between sets. I must say, I could barely get to set 6 or 7 before being unable to hit 10 reps on some of the exercises I tried - eg: bench press. Results were incredible though.

     

    Cheers,

     

    buoy


  3. You might be right. It would be exceedingly expensive to send work crews up there to manually construct base after base. I'd say perhaps the first one will be done the old fashioned way with manual labour. But, once they have established a very small human base, those humans would be there not as direct workers but technicians to fix the machines that perform the construction. That way you could have a myriad of machinery and a small skeleton crew fixing issues as they arise.

     

    Personally if they ever construct a kilometer wide dome and fill it with a decent amount of air, I'd like to go rallying with a go-cart. Can you imagine the air on the bumps you'd get with that much gravity?


  4. Thought I'd resurrect this thread since the Chinese lander 3 and rover put tracks on the lunar surface this month and it appears that China's new stance is to put a base on the moon by the end of the decade. A permanent base.

     

    Now the EU and the US are rethinking their plans to go back to the moon as I'm not sure they would be very happy giving China "full reign" over lunar resources.

     

    The moon has a land area equal approximately to the land area of all of Africa and Australia. It is geologically stable. Moon rock is comprised of 43% oxygen, held in a stable form as various types of oxides (Magnesium oxide etc) which could be converted into oxygen via sublimation (heat it with a fresnel lens - magnifying glass) or electrolosys. It leaves behind a glass-like residue that can be used as a building material.

    • Upvote 1

  5. Not sure sr180... but I have an update for the masses:

     

    Forget all the other Android Mini PC versions out there. If you are after something for xmas, it's pretty much too late to buy anything now since the postal service is overloaded as it is and you'd be lucky to get it by the end of the year.

     

    BUT... if you are after an Android Mini PC for some new year present or gift idea either to yourself or to someone else and you want the best -absolute- best of the best, there is one model that stands head and shoulders above the rest:

     

    The Tronsmart CX-919

     

    Why is it the best?

     

    1. It has 2 Gigabytes of RAM. If you don't know why this is good... just trust people in the know. This is good.

     

    2. It runs the top of the line Mali-400 GPU at the highest clocked settings. This is good also.

     

    3. The CPU is a Rockchip RK3188 1.65GHz Quad-Core ARM Cortex A9. Undoubtedly, one of the best (if not the best) processor that can be currently found on a Android TV dongle.

     

    4. It supports DLNA (Airplay), XBMC, lots of audio, image and video formats (MKV, AVI, RMVB…) and, of course, it can decode Full-HD 1080p videos wonderfully. Users who watch HD videos often will probably run out of its 8GB internal storage though. Fortunately, memory is expandable via Micro SD (up to 32GB). It scores high in connectivity thanks to Bluetooth 4.0support, WiFi 802.11 b/g/n, HDMI port, USB (OTG) and Mini USB (power supply)

     

    5. It runs Jelly Bean 4.2.2.

     

    6. It's NO MORE expensive than all the rest. It can be had for $80 bucks.

     

    So... why by a crappier p.o.s when you can just buy that thing?!

     

    tronsmart-cx919.jpg

    PS: Before buying MAKE SURE it is the 2GB model. There are quite a few sporting only 1GB of RAM.


  6. TMZ has reported that Paul Walker's childhood best friend was the first to arrive on the scene. According to his story, Walker and the driver Roger Rodas appeared to be dead in the vehicle. TMZ writes:

     

    Paul's best friend from childhood, Nute, grabbed a fire extinguisher and was among the first to arrive on scene. We're told Nute frantically tried to extinguish the flames ... even though it appeared to him both men were already dead.

     

    Apparently, when the proper officials arrived on the scene, things got even worse.

     

    When the fire dept arrived they tried to pull Nute away, but he was overwrought and punched a firefighter. We're told Sheriff's deputies put Nute -- and several other of Paul and Roger's friends -- in custody, but let them go when they realized the circumstances.

     

    All I can say is that our hearts go out to everyone who Walker touched in his life and to those who witnessed the horrific crash.

     

    Read more at: http://www.heavy.com/entertainment/2013/12/paul-walker-died-on-impact-burned-alive/


  7. Government was originally designed to serve the people but just like everything else out there a lot of people are big businessman cutting deals here and there. It's no big secret but perhaps the incumbent nature of business and government and government contracts means that the companies that are "used" to doing business with government do a lot to keep those business lines "open". The biggest example of this in my line of work (but in the united states, not here) is healthcare.gov. Almost 100 million dollars to build. Almost 500 million in lost service to the American people. The whole site was done using existing contractors at sorely inflated prices and lax deliverables. Also, not the best programming houses were employed simply because it was the government and you had to have certain security level to access people's "sensitive" information - which was red tape to keep the existing incumbent developers without external competition. The result? Botched launch. A total of 6 (yes, SIX) people were able to register on healthcare.gov in the first day of launch. You can google it to get the full story.

     

    The point of mentioning this is.... yes there are a lot of things done in this country that's inefficient and it's grossly mismanaged. One of my friends works for State Rail. The amount of stuff he gets paid to do for... pretty much just sitting in a room cos he's "on standby" is ridiculous. Another few people I know are in the hospital system. It's just amazing how resources get thrown around.

     

    Finally, if you look at NASA (yes, the american space agency) and see the 60-80 million dollar cost of sending up something into space.... coupled with the (now defunct) Space Shuttle program of the last few decades which was initially described as a "reusable" reentry vehicle.... ended up being a 1.6 billion dollar a year waste of f**king time. SpaceX (privately funded company by Elon Musk to cover ISS duties) is making rockets to replace those of NASA..... expenses per flight? Less than 2 million - $200k worth of fuel. COMPARED WITH 80 MILLION. Are you f**king kidding me?

     

    Governemnt is NEVER a good way to manage resources. Here's another one: Telstra.

     

    What you need is the private sector and you need competition, competition, competition. Check out the United Kingdom's cellular and broadband network. You get 500 gigs ADSL for 8 pounds per month.


  8. yes I got condensation on the tubing :( and thermal wrap just buys you time... until you get condensation over that.

     

    It was for that reason that I thought a top-mounted radiator over the esky would solve all those problems. The water would just accumulate inside the top compartment of the esky and fall down to where the ice cold water is. Eventually you'll have an excess of water but by that time you would have exhausted the cooling capacity of the thing anyway.


  9. Hey... sorry had some work deadlines. Thought this thread died.

     

    Well I used a bilge pump from an aquarium shop. I still have it setup - esky, radiator and hoses. The past few weeks have been quite cold and rainy so I wasn't even inclined to look at that stuff - it just sat quietly in the corner of the room. When it gets hot again I'll take it out and do more work on it. It's good for knocking off a good few hours of air-con use during peak the way it is now.


  10. That looks brilliant but there is 1 thing which we'd have to somehow "get around" and that is that submerged cooler will get condensation inside itself and start to fill up with water.

     

    As for the cold air over the ice-cold water bit - I've got a feeling that this will introduce more moisture into the air... so everything around will start to feel damp after a while. Using just the submerged cooler actually extracts water out of the air (a dehimidifier if you will) which is why we get condensation in the first place. Perhaps you could have a third pipe out of the submerged cooler that extracts the moisture every now and then... wouldn't have to be very large... maybe once every 10 minutes it turns on for a few seconds and siphons the water out and into the esky.


  11. I am not too fond of the swamp cooler. I had an evap cooler a long time ago and it hardly worked and rusted my PC and chair. hinges. Here in the inner west of Sydney the humidity sometimes doesn't leave much room for evaps to work very well.

     

    I've pushed on with the freezer and since tonight was (well "is" still outisde) especially hot, I'm in the room with a cool breeze blowing around and have been since 10pm, the thing still going strong. All I did was buy 2 bags of 5kg Ice from the 7/11 at $4 a bag (so $8 total... of course it's just for testing. I'd have to provision for making ice at home) and a 25L Esky we had lying around.

     

    I had to put around another 5L of tap water to create a liquid base so I could submerge the water pump... then I just set it up on my desk and turned it on with the room fan behind it.

     

    Results were nothing short of spectacular. It cooled parts of the bed so well that it was cold cold COLD to touch. Condensation became an issue so I got a pan from the kitchen to stand the cpu cooler in.

     

    From these preliminary tests, even 10kg of ICE aka frozen water at 0 degrees celsius... which has approximately the equivalent cooling potential as 45L of liquid water at 0 degrees celsius, has cooled down a pretty hot room for at least 2 hours as of typing this message - it's now a little past midnight and it's still going strong - perhaps another hour or so. Of course, the cpu cooler is a "bottleneck" in that its only allowing the ice to cool the room at a lowish rate - nothing like full blast of an air-con. Localised cooling (as I mentioned with parts of the bed) is great. It did take a while to cool down the entire "ambient" feel of the room. It became noticeable when I left the room a few times and came back. That door opening and that whoosh of cold air, that kinda "signature" air-con blast was definitely there.

     

    I now realise that getting a 200L chest freezer would in fact be more than ample to cool down the room all night and even all day - but the main issue is that ice expands and if I pursue it I'm going to have to work out a way to freeze the water without busting the freezer itself. Perhaps a huge plastic stretchy container... but I'm more impressed with the esky conversion now.

     

    What I'll probably do is create a little lid for the esky and put the cpu cooler in there along with a fan. I'll also put an internal lid slightly lower than the lid with the cpu cooler and fan which will have some styrofoam insulation (perhaps... not sure) to keep the ice compartment separated. There will be 2 holes in this interior lid for the 2 hoses and the power chord for the water pump. That way I can just carry the esky into a room, plug in 2 power sockets and away it goes. Any condensation on the cpu cooler will just simply drip down onto the interior lid and perhaps if I put 1 or 2 small holes it will just drip back down into the ice / water reservoir.

     

    Since the pump is submerged its whisper quiet. The only thing to hear is the fan. It's as quiet as, well, an aquarium.

     

    Every now and then the ice shifts around as it slowly continues to melt... and as long as both hoses are submerged there is no sound of water at all.

     

    All in all I am really impressed with the results. I may perform this on a larger Esky. This one is pretty small as I could only fit 2 bags of ice (5kg ea) in there. I'd probably go for an Esky 1.5 or 2x bigger so I could fit at least 15kg of ICE in there. That should extend the useful cooling time to somewhere around the 3-5 hour mark (guesstimate since I don't even know how far the current 10kg test esky is going to go).

     

    I've taken a pic.

     

    PS: Also, since this is simply a heat exchanger setup, in winter time I'm guessing that it could be used in a similar way with hot water... although I don't think the water pump is rated for very hot liquids (probably maxes out at 65 degrees or so)... the cpu cooler and piping was designed for this sort of heat exchange anyway so I'm sure those parts are up to the task. But in any case, for summer I'll be using this.

    cooler-2-adj.jpg


  12. UPDATE: I ran my first tests with the unit tonight. They were promising. I also did a lot of googling and I discovered something amazing (for me at least).

     

    When water converts to Ice, it takes a lot of energy to extract all the heat ( http://en.wikipedia....halpy_of_fusion ) whlist the hydrogen bonds are formed to create the ice crystals. In fact, to heat 1L of water from 10 degrees to 30 degrees takes 84 kilojoules of energy........... but to thaw 1L of ice from 0 degrees to 20 degrees (same temperature difference but from the freezing point of water) it takes 415 kilojoules... or about 4 times as much. Another way of looking at it is, if you can cope with the expansion of water into ICE in at least some portion of the your coolant storage then you can have 4 times the effective cooling or have the same amount of cooling in a quarter of the space.

     

    Using ICE would in fact result in more cooling than water + antifreeze since antifreeze is effective until around -35 degrees celsius.... yet if you wanted to compete with the thermal efficiency of ICE you'd have to keep going way way way down to almost -90 degrees as a liquid. O_o geebus. Don't misunderstand this point. Anti-freeze at -35 will give you frost-bite, but the total amount of cooling is less than ice. The ice will take longer to melt over the entire duration going back to room temperature than the anti-freeze.

     

    I was thinking then that I could run a double-container design. The interior "bin" with an open lid contains water that gets frozen. The bin itself is not rigid... it's bendy like plastic or thin metal to cope with the deformation pressures exerted when ice forms - and the lid open of course and not filled to the top. The outer bin is slightly larger, contains water + some anti-freeze. Even though plastic is not a good conductor of heat, the transfer process need not be very fast as the cold storage is just going to be siphoned slowly over many hours. For the freezing temperature, I'm hoping that I can get everything maintained at -2 degrees which freezes the internal chamber but leaves the external chamber as a liquid, which then goes through the radiator.

     

    I'm now looking at a 100L tiny chest freezer to do the whole thing. Also..... I found this interesting entry in Wikipedia on Ice Thermal Storage:

     

    Ice-based technology[edit]

     

    Main article: Ice storage air conditioning

    Air conditioning can be provided more efficiently by using cheaper electricity at night to freeze water into ice, then using the cool of the ice in the afternoon to reduce the electricity needed to handle air conditioning demands. Thermal energy storage using ice makes use of the large heat of fusion of water. One metric ton of water, one cubic meter, can store 334 million joules (MJ) or 317,000 BTUs (93kWh or 26.4 ton-hours). In fact, ice was originally transported from mountains to cities for use as a coolant, and the original definition of a "ton" of cooling capacity (heat flow) was the heat to melt one ton of ice every 24 hours. This is the heat flow one would expect in a 3,000-square-foot (280 m2) house in Boston in the summer. This definition has since been replaced by less archaic units: one ton HVAC capacity = 12,000 BTU/hour (~3.5 kW). Either way, an agreeably small storage facility can hold enough ice to cool a large building for a day or a week, whether that ice is produced byanhydrous ammonia chillers or hauled in by horse-drawn carts.

    As such there are developing and developed applications where ice is produced during off peak periods and used for cooling at later time.

    taken from http://en.wikipedia....ased_technology


  13. Hi Ghosty - that is a good goal - kinda like (in my opinion) the race to get a PC in every home back in the 90s... or a TV in each house in the 70s... or a Radio in each household back in the 30s and 40s... or a Fridge/Freezer in a household back at the turn of the century. These were all lofty goals at those times but if we look at the most recent "PC in each home" goal - Not only was that goal met but we superseded it several times over.

     

    The issues we have today are that battery power is expensive. I actually looked into getting a large UPS or DIY-car-battery-hack instead of the whole chest freezer project..... so I could run the air-con via the UPS and charge the thing during off-peak, effectively shifting the air-con electricity usage to off-peak rates only --- but the UPS solutions cost upwards of $5,000 for an off-the-shelf solution and the DIY gang via marine power components and chargers will still set you back a few thousand. Doing it complete DIY getting car batteries and some inverters / battery chargers creates hydrogen gas and leaking issues since these battery packs don't have the sophisticated recharge curves the marine chargers have - and - you really need to get deep cycle AGM batteries otherwise the car batteries just won't last that long under these conditions. AGM batteries are expensive per unit - like $400 per battery.

     

    The second issue with battery power is the conversion loss. You get hit hard. For every 10 joules of energy you put in to the battery you would be lucky to get back 3 or 4 joules. Thus, using electricity as a storage medium.... and THEN running a freezer which already carries an efficiency penalty, then there is the heat/cold sink temperature dissipation leakage you factor in and you end up almost wasting your time for very little gain. If your off-peak rate was 1/10th your peak rate it may still be worth it but with a 1/5th rate I couldn't waste too much on conversion after conversion of energy. You just lose too much each time you convert.

     

    The third and final blow to the UPS idea was unfortunately that UPS systems weren't designed for running air-cons (but marine power systems were... so there was still hope with that method). It was at about this point I decided battery power wasn't the solution I'd go for in this situation at this point in time.

     

     

    =====================

     

    More information on the cooling potential of a 200L freezer:

     

    A standard "TR" (Can't find what it stands for) is the energy required to freeze 1 short ton of water from "room temperature" (whatever that is... perhaps they are talking about T in textbook "STP") down to zero degrees Celsius. This works out to be 12000 BTUs/hr. That is the cooling level of an entry level air-conditioning unit that has a power draw of 3.5kW.

     

    In other words, if you ran a 12000 BTU Air-Con at full power for 24 hours, you would freeze 1 ton of water into ice.

     

    So now we have a solid metric to make some guesstimates as to what we could expect with a 200L (read: 1/5th of 1 ton) freezer.

     

    200L - being 1/5th would mean if it were in fact frozen at 0 celsius, we'd be able to "extract" approximately 12000 BTUs of cooling from this cold-reservoir for 1/5th of 24hours.... in other words, we'd be able to run it for a shade under 5 hours straight. Firstly, the water isn't at zero, it's at around 3 degrees celsius... so we'd have to shave off say 10 or 20 minutes from the top end of that right off the bat. Also, unfortunately due to Carnots thermodynamics 2nd law, as the temperature of the water in the freezer compartment gets closer to the temperature of the room, the efficiency of the cooling cycle drops. So lets say you'd get a "strong" 12000 BTU cooling for 2.5 hours and then you'd see less and less BTUs for the remaining few hours.

     

    That may seem quite miserable but this is in comparison to a 12000 BTU air-con AT FULL BLAST. If you've run an air-con at full blast you know how incredibly cold it could make a room very quickly and thus many air-cons have inverters or at least thermostats fitted to switch the power on/off or at partial power to prevent the room from diving right down. So--- ok, it can't do 12000 BTUs for very long, granted.... but reality says you wouldn't want it to anyway. Realistically you may use 12000 BTUs for the first 20 or 30 minutes then after the room is nice and cool you'd run it at a partial load of that... perhaps 3000-6000BTUs to maintain the lower temperature. If that is a realistic assumption then we've just pulled another 2-3 hours of "strong" cooling out of our asses.

     

    Another note is that this is just 200L at 3 degrees celsius. If you want to increase the longevity and power of the system, you could opt to dive under 0 degrees for your cooling reservoir... by several methods:

     

    1. You could run a mineral oil like sunflower oil which has a freezing temperature of -17 degrees celsius and hover at around -14. This would give you a lower cold-sink starting temperature so your heat exchanger would run more efficiently for the first few hours. You'd have extended the useful range of everything- the cooling capacity, the cooling rate and all without changing the number of liters of the system.

     

    2. You could run a 1:1 mixture of water and anti-freeze. Anti-freeze freezes at around -37 degrees Celsius. Thus you've increased your cold-sink reservoir's efficiency yet again over oil... you'd get even more hours of useful cooling out of it. But obviously to do this day-in-day-out you may have to reconsider your heat exchanger components, especially the pump, which may not be able to operate at those extremely low temperatures. You may have to purchase equipment designed for extreme temperatures. They are definitely out there... but I haven't done any internet research on them yet.

     

    3. You could simply buy a larger freezer.

     

    So there you go. On paper at least, given these assumptions, you could conceivably build a hypothetical 200L-driven system with anti-freeze that would run "strong" cooling for 8-10 hours straight. Or you could get a 300 or 400L freezer and have an entire full days worth of "strong" cooling on tap. By only allowing the freezer to run during off-peak times you limit your power bill yet receive the benefits of cooling at any time of the day or night.

     

     

     

    ======

     

    This guy has done a great mod for $20 that is literally what I'm trying to do... but his goals were much more modest than what I'm planning. Still, the method looks quite sound. PS: 1 "gallon" = 4 Litres.


  14. Just found this video on YT which shows a similar idea implemented.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MabPJ7C_DhU

     

    Basic points: It works....... but as I had guessed earlier, a small radiator and small pump is going to get you a thousand or so BTUs of cooling (compared to the aircons that regularly push out 10,000 - 20,000 BTUs) so we are at 1/10th the cooling capacity of an air-con with 1 small radiator and 1 pump and with an esky full of ice, say 40L capacity we are pushing 2 hours of cooling.

     

    He also gets crazy condensation on the radiator itself due to moisture in the air reaching due level... so perhaps that extra water can make its way back into the tank in our design somehow... or out the window.

     

    BUILD TO SCALE - 200L and -20 DEGREES IS THE GOAL:

    Thus to make this system work for many hours and cool significantly more, you'd need to run anti-freeze and put the coolant down to -20 or so. You'd need a much larger cold-sink reservoir - not 40L but say 200L capacity. At 200L an entry level chest freezer usually starts at around 150L - 200L capacity for a "small" unit. So that being said, a decent sized cooling unit with freezer and heat exchanger would have a cooling output many times greater than this youtube unit and could last several hours longer... so we should be looking at 6-8 degrees cooling for 5 hours as a reasonable expectation of such a system. This video is obviously only attempting a proof-of-concept - and at that it is very successful.


  15. I think we are getting there. J.L.I your idea is spot on.

     

    Chest Freezer connected to wall outlet with a timer that only activates during off-peak loading.

    I am sourcing a 2nd hand CPU Radiator + fan and I just purchased a USB water pump from eBay for $5. To test this I'm first just going to put a bucket in the fridge and make sure there is decent cooling coming from the CPU radiator.

     

    BTU HEATING / COOLING CAPACITY OF PROTOTYPE:

    From a few Google searches a typical high-end computer puts out around 1400 BTUs an hour.... and by comparison an air-conditioner puts out anywhere from around 12000 BTUs for a smallish one all the way up to 20000+ BTUs for a medium sized home A/C. The CPU heat exchanger is technically only a fraction of the PCs total output - but on full load the CPU (apart from the GPU) can dominate the power draw - hence the huge cooler on it on the big PC builds. Thus a 1400 BTU heat exchanger isn't going to do the job of one air-con by itself....................... so maybe I'll have to either buy several used CPU-coolers (very very cheap on ebay and I have a few friends who have "old" CPU water cooling kits that, for their use cooling a CPU - is already surpassed in usefulness so instead of throwing it I ask for the radiator and fan bits). Or I go for a used oil cooler for a car and whack on some fans. The car fans tend to be quite loud and anything "brand new" is ridiculous in price.... but 2nd hand is dirt cheap. Probably a goal would be several thousand BTUs and we will "see how it goes". Will cool sufficiently until 10pm? Will we need more cooling than that? Is it only good for mildly warm days? For super-hot days is it worth running + the air-con to off-set the air-con's job so it doesn't run too hard?

     

    We'll the prototype is going to cost me less than $20 to build anyway. Just a USB pump from china ($5), an old CPU water cooling kit (free), some hoses from an aquarium place and a bucket of cold water to "test".

     

    If the design seems promising maybe I might decide on getting a larger freezer with a larger compressor...... that way it can draw more power during off-peak and store a larger amount of cold water.

     

    I also am probably going to try "chilled water" at 3 degrees celsius instead of going for the anti-freeze. If I go sub-zero, I may have to purchase sturdier hosing, pumps and radiators that have been built to withstand that amount of temperature day-in-day-out. There is also the issue of not just condensation on the radiator housing and hosing but ice crystals forming. Not sure if it will be problematic but we'll see if 3 degrees is sufficient. If not, according to the Carnot efficiency scale we will gain more efficient operation by driving the temperature down even further. If I use antifreeze we can dive down to easily -20 degrees celsius no problems. That effectively doubles the cooling capacity of the whole system and makes it twice as efficient according to the Carnot efficiency law (2nd law? whatever... something like that) the point is, the bigger the difference between the hottest and coldest parts of your system, the better.

     

    Just like your car, it follows the same efficiency law. The hotter the temp in the combustion chamber after the burn with the coldest air... you produce more horsepower OMG WOW! Really? :P So you build stuff that pushes these 2 points farther and farther apart. Colder intake air. Intercoolers after the turbo etc.... and of course the highest compression you can muster without predetonation.

     

    Anyway, back to our cooling reservoir / radiator: I'll get it done over the next few weeks and chime back in here with photos and perhaps a video.


  16. Hi all,

     

    -INTRODUCTION- (only read if interested... otherwise proceed to topic question below)

    We had at our new place a reasonably sized air conditioning unit installed. The unit is great, it cools, it's reverse cycle so it heats in the winter etc. We have our 1 year old son so during the recent winter months we were quite liberal with using the air-con as a heater, heating the lounge room so he could play etc.

     

    Then came the electric bill..... and boy oh boy. Just a shade under $2000...... and the usage was off the chart, especially during the peak times. I really thought we could bring the bill down so I made several adjustments to the house - and for this summer coming up I did a bit of stuff to the house: energy saver blubs, external shades on the windows getting lots of sun..... am selling our huge plasma for a much cheaper LED TV very soon.

     

    Then I started to tackle the air-conditioner problem. Looking at my energy bill, our provider gives us Peak, Off-Peak and Shoulder. So as to keep everything streamlined for discussion let's just concentrate on peak and off-peak:

    Peak usage costs around 50c per kwh. This is from 2pm - 10pm.

    Off-Peak usage costs around 11c per kwh. This is from 10pm - 7am.

    (Shoulder is around 20c and occurs at other times and even some times in-between but lets keep it simple for arguments sake).

     

     

     

    -TOPIC QUESTION-

    When you use the air-con, it uses a lot of electricity from the moment you turn it on. I want to "shift" the cooling work to the off-peak portion of the day (between 10pm and 7am) since there is a significant difference in price - peak is roughly 5 times more expensive than off-peak. So... whatever inefficiencies due to reduced operating efficiency, containment or anything else... it must not exceed 5 times the consumption of our air-con... otherwise it's not worth doing. But anything less than 5x would see some benefit.

     

    In other words, if it takes X amount of energy to use our air-con..... as long as the "shifted cooling" solution takes less than 5X, even though we are using more electricity, we are saving money due to the way the electricity bill is calculated.

     

     

     

    SCHEME: Chest freezer to freeze a liquid eg water + anti-freeze... then run some sort of piping to an air/water heat transfer radiator - since chest freezers have hose outlets at the bottom for drainage ---- and exchange the heat with a few fans, thus cooling the house. Run the freezer only during off-peak hours (10pm - 7am). Rely on the freezers insulation to preserve the work done to cool the liquid during the day until it is needed by us - most likely between the hours of 3pm until around 10pm - after which time we would either be asleep or the actual air-con could be used at off-peak rates, negating the need to use this system entirely.

     

    CAVEATS:

    The freezer is not as efficient as an air-conditioner: This is true... but the big question is: How MUCH less efficient. Even if the air-con is in the range of 50% more efficient at generating cool air, we have a 500% ceiling with which to play around with due to peak vs off-peak.

     

    The freezer will heat up the room it is in. This is correct... but we will have the freezer in the laundry and with the windows open... so it will be exchanging heat with the ambient air very slowly.

     

    The freezer will not have enough cooling to last the whole night. Perhaps not even until 10pm. While true, it still means that it is cutting into the cost of running an air-conditioning unit during peak - thus it is still reducing our electricity bill.

     

     

     

    INTERNET RESEARCH:

    I've seen a few videos on youtube which exploit this system - some quite DIY like this one:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HxSLbpAwibg

     

    and then there is this thread on another forum:

    http://cr4.globalspe...Air-Conditioner

     

    One thing that constantly appears in those threads is that the commenters hammer the point home that an air-con is much more efficient than a freezer and they talk about putting it outside, that you are wasting money, that your bill would be more. Ok. Apparently those thread posters have a point, and it still holds to this day and it is this: The freezer solution is ONLY applicable to people who have an energy Peak and Off-Peak zone in their billing system. If you do not have a peak and off peak rate then just use your air-con because there are no savings with this method. You'd actually use more power and pay more money.

     

     

    Has anyone done this before? Do you know of any off-the-shelf off-peak air conditioner units for residential households you could buy? I notice that there are none on e-bay and there seem to only be a few systems like this in the world for some strange reason :o one of which is called the "Ice Bear" and I'm not about to spend a massive amount of money. I'm looking to hopefully drop my powerbill by some moderate percentage. If I achieve say a moderate 30% reduction then... my bill would go from $2000 to $1400 so the cost must justify the means.

    • Upvote 2
    • Downvote 2

  17. Looks like these things are maturing at quite a rapid rate.

     

    If you haven't bought one yet, look out for the MK809 III. This thing actually has balls.

     

    It has 2GB of RAM

    It has an actual Quad Core processor

    It has 8GB of storage

    It has an extremely good antenna

    It runs Android 4.2

     

    The benefit of running one of these would not only be the speed but the added storage space and you can also insert a 32GB SD Card if you like.

     


  18. I think the answer is no... but let me qualify it:

     

    Firstly, from a purely biological perspective we aren't even stressing the planet. More vegetation and biomass live and die without any human ever touching it. Of all the fish in the ocean, 99% of them just die in the water or get eaten by bigger fish.......... all the vegetation of the planet is in a living / procreating / dying ecosystem. How much grass, trees, swampland, forests deal with decomposing fruit and produce that we find valuable? For every banana or apple that is picked, how many thousands of other species fruit just falls off the tree and decomposes on the ground?

     

    So, secondly, if we look at exactly why we are having such trouble it's merely in the inefficiencies of the way human beings utilise the resources around them. In other words, the only reason we are finding it hard to support 6 billion people is not because the planet can't do it - it's cos we are finding it hard. It is a combination of technological limitations, logistical limitations and unfortunatley political limitations that see us where we are.

     

    If we can control biology down to the cellular level, you'd need half of one percent of the earth's output to feed 6 billion people. We currently need to breed 100 tons worth of cattle and feed them 1,300 tons of grass before they can be used for beef. One cell cultured from a belgian blue can be converted into 100 tons of meat and no animal would be harmed in the process and the amino acid bath a tiny smidgeon of the cost of feeding thousands of cows the old fashioned way.

     

    With recent breakthroughs in the past few years of culturing cells and creating new strands of purely organic meat, vegetables etc... the way farming and breeding food may take on a future miles ahead of the old fashioned way of growing crops and rearing heards of cattle. Try large silos of cell culture with literally a thousand fold increase in output efficiency and cost of production literally a tiny fraction of what it once was.

     

    With that you won't have a shortage at 6 billion people. Perhaps with 6 trillion people... but by then I suspect there will be other issues............ like space (not the stuff outside the earth, I mean land space).


  19. Thanks for these insights boost_bus180 and they are clearly well thought out. I will want to point out, however, that this is a hypothetical situation where the United States is (for reasons undisclosed or not necessarily made clear) pitted against the rest of the world. If we follow the hypothetical nature of the question, then:

     

    - Canada won't give their oil to the US.

    - Australia, Britain, Canada, France, Germany, Japan, Italy, Korea and Russia et al will not side with the US.

    - It is the US "versus the rest of the world" so there must be something forcing these other nations to put aside their differences and work together in the greatest capacity they can muster. That means you'll have the above said countries and more: Australia, Britain, Canada, France, Germany, Japan, Italy, Korea and Russia.... and China, Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, India, Egypt et al working together against the united states.

     

    If I'm going to try and storytell a scenario where this would ever happen (you'll have to stretch your imagination to great proportions to stomach this, but...) suppose a collaboration of inside secret agents and hackers overloaded several nuclear reactors across the united states - many dozens of reactors... and they are leaking profusely radioactive material contaminating massive amounts of the populace. A presidential order is given to migrate the entire population out of the country. At the same time almost overnight Wall Street sees the largest single drop in investor confidence of the modern age. Over 5 trillion US dollars are dumped as the economy shrinks by over 50% creating the largest deepest depression overnight. 3/4ths of the country is instantly bankrupt. With continued exposure, literally millions of people are going to die of radiation poisoning. The situation becomes desperate almost immediately. Seeing the incredible situation unfold in the US and their economy completely go to shit, other countries offer to send limited foreign aid but to prevent their own economies from collapsing (and they have all taken a tremendous hit since many are tied very closely to the US economy) their offerings amount to the saving of a few percent of the total population. This scenario is deemed completely unacceptable by congress which passes a motion to institute martial law, full population draft and order the entire combined forces of the US army and navy to "find and claim, by force, civilian refuge areas for as much of the population as possible as quickly as possible even if it violates international law. For the good of the American people which we are charged to protect at all costs, we must do the unthinkable. May the rest of the world understand our position and what we are forced to do. May God forgive us." land that is not contaminated by radiation which immediately starts warfronts in the canadian and mexican borders where those countries troops have placed their entire compliment of forces to protect their soverign borders. A plea for international intervention is sent out by both Canda and Mexico and within 24 hours, projecting that this new sudden world threat could easily spill out past canada and mexico, emergency meetings with heads of the G7 and G20 arrive quickly to amass the largest ever coalition of defense forces against the United States to "prevent the advance of US forces from occupying and taking over the rest of the world in an attempt to reclaim new territory through use of arms - a move given the current situation - would undoubtedly be a permanent occupation if allowed to proceed".

     

    Cue dramatic music.

     

    The result of this peculiar and highly fantastic situation is... that nuclear weapons are clearly now off the table. The United States needs clean radio-active-free land, so nuking other contries goes against their objectives. The rest of the world can't nuke the US because the United States, although injured and bankrupt, still retains the ability to respond to any nuclear strike with a nuclear strike of its own... and quickly makes this policy known to the world: "Any nuclear strike against the United States will automatically result in a full-scale retalitory strike" - which basically means that any aggressor wanting to use even one or two nuclear strikes for a strategic advantage threatens a full scale response - a tactic of mutually assured destruction - which discourages (as we've seen in the cold war) any nuclear strikes at all.

     

    So now with this crazy scenario we have a situation where the United States 1- Is against the rest of the world and 2- will not use nukes (on either side).

     

    In any case, it's just a hypothetical situation. By thinking it through via these constraints we can dream up new Call of Duty scenarios at least :lol:

×