Questions about buying a standby electrical generator

Page 4 of 5  
On 8/19/2012 2:33 PM, snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net wrote:

Anyone who works with contracts knows about the UCC (Uniform Commercial Code) which was specifically implemented to have standard verbage for commercial transactions.

It actually means what I said. You may want to do a little research on standard verbage used in commercial contracts.
Cornell has a searchable version online:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/ucc.table.html /
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

And you better go read the UCC instead of posting links to it. Because you have this totally WRONG. The UCC says you have an implied warranty of merchantibility UNLESS THE CONTRACT SPECIFICALLY EXCLUDES IT. Which makes sense. It' saying if you sell a hammer, it should be usable as a hammer unless SPECIFICALLY EXCLUDED in the contract. And exclude merchantibility and fitness is exactly what this shyster contract does in black and white. The contractor is saying this generator installation doesn't have to even function as a generator and you can't hold me responsible.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 08/18/2012 08:29 PM, Smarty wrote:

Because people like you crosspost them to unrelated troll groups, like the two Rush Limbaugh groups and the Baptist group I had to pull from the senders list.
Jon
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Jon,
The problem is far more prevelant than you state, and happens over and over again for many questions which are posted to this newsgroup. I have posted questions myself here several times and been frustrated by replies which answered some other question or made some very tangential remarks which were partially or entirely off topic. Others have commented on this same problem.
The cross posting adds to the problem. My iPhone newsreader does not show the additional crossposting newsgroups so I may inadvertently reply to such a post without realizing it. I certainly have no way to originate such crossposts.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 8/17/2012 5:38 PM, Dean Hoffman > wrote:

In my area as well, the people who install fully automatic generators seem to get 10 to 12 K for standard installations. It does seem like a lot considering the price of the equipment itself. That being said, a thing is worth whatever someone is willing to pay for it. If I were choosing a fully automatic, I would try to find one with a 4 pole generator, which will run at 1800 RPM, as opposed to the cheaper stuff running at 3600. I would oversize my needs in KW, but not go overboard. Just because you have a 16KW generator running, doesn't mean it costs any more than a 6KW unit, if you're only pulling 6KW on it. There is a point of diminishing returns though, so you don't want to get a 30KW if you require a minimum of 5KW. Everything I read about generac, indicates that they're built to the lowest common denominator, and I have a buddy who is a generac dealer. He doesn't give me the impression that they are of particularly high quality. Another thing you could do, is buy the machine yourself, and hire an electrician and plumber to do the installation
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 8/18/2012 10:46 AM, RBM wrote:

In fact, the generator efficiency is very highly correlated to how close the load demand equals the supply capacity. A 16KW generator supplying 6KW will do so at much greater operating cost for fuel compared to the same 6KW being delivered by the 7KW model.
When I did the sizing for my own unit, in 2006, the difference between cost of a KW-Hr between the Generac 7KW unit and the 16KW unit when supplying 6KW was over 2 to 1. The difference is very substantial since a KW-Hr of electricity costs nearly a dollar at today's fuel cost with my more efficient generator, versus $2 for the same KW-Hr produced by the 16KW generator when both are asked to supply 6KW per hour to a load. The savings of $24 a day in fuel is not insignificant.
The cost of the equipment also nearly doubles also, in my case $1600 versus $3000 for the Generac itself.
So, the suggestion to get the "right-sized" generator is a good one, both considering first cost and then recurring cost.
On the flip side, the smaller engines used in the 7KW unit (versus the 16KW) apparently wear out sooner, but this data is much less available and is very hard to find / quantify.
Smarty
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 8/18/2012 11:37 PM, Smarty wrote:

Nonsense, here is a chart of two multiquip single phase generators: Note that the 20KW unit uses less fuel running at half load, than the 10KW uses at full load
10KW: Fuel Consumption: Full load    0.97 gph    3.7 lph 3/4 load    0.75 gph    2.8 lph 1/2 load    0.58 gph    2.2 lph 1/4 load    0.44 gph    1.7 lph
20KW:
Fuel Consumption: Full load    1.66 gph    6.3 lph 3/4 load    1.21 gph    4.6 lph 1/2 load    0.85 gph    3.2 lph 1/4 load    0.58 gph    2.2 lph
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Interestingly the same at 5kW
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 8/19/2012 12:09 PM, Robert Macy wrote:

Yeah, definitely an efficiency curve going on. For a person who needs 5KW minimum and occasionally wants to use higher amperage stuff like electric range, clothes dryer, etc, something like a 12KW, would probably be the most efficient choice
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 8/19/2012 12:31 PM, RBM wrote:

No doubt some other manufacturers equipments behave differently, but as the original post requested, we are now discussing Generac standby generators and the way they compare.
Is 'multiquip' the name of a manufacturer of consumer standby generators?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 8/19/2012 12:09 PM, Robert Macy wrote:

You're wrong......!!!! I have no idea what you refer to as a "multiquip" generator might be, but we are talking about Generac generators and here are the facts:
The demand for 7 KW from the smaller 6/7K unit in natural gas is 119 cubic feet of natural gas per hour. This is the full load demand of their smallest model.
The demand for 7KW from their largest home standby generator, the 16KW unit, is 173 cubic feet per four. This is half loading of their largest model.
I have linked the actual page (page 7) from the Installer's Manual from Guardian for a fairly recent model year to substantiate this data:
http://bayimg.com/gABjgaaEf
In the year I made my selection and choice, 2006, the spread was even greater, and is what I previously stated in my earlier post, approx 2 to 1.
I have no problem accepting the notion that each unit has had its engine and generator designed to deliver maximum efficiency near or at the rated size, and thus the largest unit, if used only to half its capacity, is far less efficient at that operating point than a unit designed to produce the actual demand running nearly full power.
Heat exchangers, particularly in the most modern high efficiency furnaces, are similarly narrow banded. Speaking as a retired electrical engineer and hardware designer, I would most likely have chosen the same approach.
Smarty
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

...and the same at 1/4 load (20kW) and 1/2 load(10kW). I certainly wouldn't have expected that. Seems the 10kW is junk.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 8/19/2012 12:41 PM, snipped-for-privacy@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:

It's a Kubota D1503, possibly the most widely used industrial engine in its HP range. Hardly junk
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 8/19/2012 1:54 PM, RBM wrote:

The "Multiquip" generators you are using as your reference are diesel powered job site temporary generators, and are not the type being asked about in this post.
Basing your attack / challenge of "nonsense" on such NONSENSE is classical apples versus oranges type of logic.
Yes, indeed, the Multiquip diesel powered temporary generators do have an entirely different efficiency curve which does not resemble the Generac design used in their home standby generators.............
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 8/19/2012 2:41 PM, Smarty wrote:

Sorry, but you jumped into my direct reply to the OP, my reply to where the OP asks "Anyway, has anyone in here have any opinions as to the merits of >>>>>>>> Generac vs. Kohler or some other brands of generators?
My suggestion was to look at 4 pole 1800 RPM generators, and I went on to explain my opinion. I used Multiquip as a reference because their data is easily available. There are plenty of similar fully automatic diesel units available, which have similar specs.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 8/19/2012 3:20 PM, RBM wrote:

I guess I have a real problem with dismissive replies like "Nonsense" when the original poster requested a natural gas standby generator which does not need a fuel replenishment and has a transfer switch which automatically restores utility power. Your reply, with a portable generator is entirely different from what he asks for, has none of these features, and is, if anything, NONSENSE.............
And yes, no doubt you and I can both find all sorts of generators which have all sorts of efficiency differences, including those which do not have a severe penalty for oversizing like the Generac models I cited. Those are, of course, not what the original poster was asking for.
I would ask that you
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 8/19/2012 4:25 PM, Smarty wrote:

I would ask that you dismiss the replies of others less, given that sometimes they may actually know more about a specific subject than you apparently do.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 8/19/2012 4:25 PM, Smarty wrote:

You need to learn to read, and stop setting up straw men. The OP doesn't "request" anything regarding natural gas generators, he merely mentions their ease of operation. He does however "request" opinions of Generac and Kohler and "other brands". FYI those multiquips as well as other brands of diesels can be set up for fully automatic operation, just like a propane or NG unit. I just thought the OP may want another option
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

The nearly 80 year old man who originally posted said "a natural gas operated standby does all the work itself, plus knows exactly when the power comes back on."
If you think he wanted a diesel work site Multiquip with wheels, then you are the one with a reading problem.
I think I might even call your reply "Nonsense" since you chose to erroneously bestow that term on me........
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 8/19/2012 8:59 PM, Smarty wrote:

And as I said before, you need to learn to read. I used Multiquip for data purposes only. There are plenty of fully automatic diesel units without wheels. Who knows, maybe the OP would prefer a high quality diesel, over some cheap consumer grade junk.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.