Way OT electrical question

Page 2 of 3  
Lumpy wrote:

Since I have not seen the facility I have no idea. Since you have not seen it you have no idea either.
--
--
--John
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
J. Clarke:

Lump:
J. Clarke:

So you think I'm missing something that you have no idea about?
Power consumption is power consumption. All other factors being equal, measure the consumption with the stuff shut down, vs the stuff running. The "other loads" are constant if you do the experiment correctly.
Lumpy
You were on CHiPs? Did you wear those sexy tight pants and high boots like Erik Estrada? No. Swimtrunks. www.LumpyMusic.net
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Yes, except that "correctly" means comparing long-term averages, not two individual days as you suggested originally.
Your sig is still malformed. Just thought you'd like to know.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Lump:

Doug Miller:

Again, other factors don't figure in if the only variable is the machine on or off factor.
January or August, night or day. The machines draw XX current. Do the experiment for two days or do it for 90 days and divide back to get single day figures.
Machines draw XX amps when continually running and not used. Machines draw ZZ amps when shut off then back on 59 minutes later.
Only factor at all I can see skewing the results would be if some workers came back early from lunch and turned their machines on. That would probably be mitigated by other workers returning late.
The guy is looking for a reason to suggest that they either leave them on or off during lunch. I don't think he's looking for the ability to guess within 3 cents how much they'll save. It's the general trend that counts.
Lumpy
You Played on Lawrence Welk? Yes but no blue notes. Just blue hairs.
www.LumpyGuitar.net
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Lumpy wrote:

One of the things only hinted about is the number of these presses (and "other loads") that would be restarted after lunch/break. several lifetimes ago, when I worked in a mill in the early 70's, the mill couldn't start all of it's equipment at the same time or they'd actually drop the main fuses feeding the transformers to the facility.... Sounds really odd, but the startup currents were so great in proportion to the running current it happened more than once while I worked there. Initially, they seemed to rely on the variability of the workers in solving the problem, IE, you'd find the people that worked there the longest tended to take the longest time to "get ready" and finally power up their machines, while the newbies would be hitting the switch nearly as soon as the whistle went off... Many of the big machines had manually operated starting switches, so the operator would pull the lever on the fusebox/starting switch, hold it until the motor spun up most of the way, then slam it to the operating position. Too early and the motor either failed to "catch" or it blew the fuses. It never seemed to hurt to hold it in the start position a few seconds longer, but you'd get some really strange looks from the millwrights if you did...
So, in a nutshell, there are a LOT more variables to stopping and starting larger mill/machine shop operations than you might originally think about... The cost of idling over lunch may be a small cost to pay (even if the electricity costs more than shutting the machines down) compared to the amount of lost work time (labor) if the machines don't all come up right away after the break....
Thanks --Rick
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Trouble is, you don't know what other loads might be in use elsewhere in the building -- suppose one of the two days you decide to conduct your experiment happens to be the same day that the welders are working through lunch on a major rush project. That's certainly going to skew your meter readings. Taking averages over a longer term is the only way to make sure that you've removed normal day-to-day variation from the analysis.
Your sig is still malformed. It should be preceded by two hyphens, a blank, and a newline, so that conforming newsreaders will recognize it and automatically omit it when quoting.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Doug Miller wrote:

Of course that's a potential factor. So when you do the experiment, or when you interpret the findings, you do as any good experimenter should and try to reduce or eliminate the other variables. When the figures tend to show something you ask "were the welders working on that rush project then?".

My sig is formed exactly the way I want it formed.
Lumpy
You were able to retire by doing all those voices? Yes. You don't see me punching a clock, do you?
www.LumpyVoice.com
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Which means measuring over a long enough time period to eliminate, or at least reduce to insignificance, the effect of random events on the quantity being measured.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

If those numbers are real/accurate, it would indicate that the machinery in question is actually pretty small stuff and thus an insignificant part of the overal power usage. That small a KWH usage there wont' be much difference period. So, compared to the overall usage, whatever machines those are would be insignificantly small enough to be negligible.
Twayne
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

What numbers are you talking about? All I see is the time he goes to lunch, reads the meter and returns from lunch.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
mark wrote:

My employer wants me to shut off my 4 sets of 4 bulb florescent lites in my 8' X 10' lab office whenever I leave, even if just for a few minutes to speak with my workers! I'm in and out of my office all day long, plus my workers are in and out of my office when I'm not in there, so the lites get turned on and off a hundred times a day! I comply...it's *his* electric bill.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
You could suggest your employer install a motion detecting switch (very inexpensve) in all neccesary rooms. We have them all around the shop and office. This would allow for every room in your building to be dark when no activity is going on. You could perhaps sell it to them as a savings of even more $$ on power as well as not slowing all the employees down turning on and off lights. Forget about the times the employees realize they forgot to shut the light and have to double back a few feet to hit the switch.
One of my pet peeves, not directly related to this post, is when there is resistance to increases in efficiency and moreover conservation. Everyone conveniently ignores the first "R" in the three "R's" and that is Reduce. Simple fact, global warming or not we all benefit from increased efficiency and conservation. We get cars that go farther for less $$, save money on fuel and power bills, often times get longer product life, we do more with less which has been the capitalist mantra for making money for all the ages. However now when conservation is touted as beneficial, or god forbid mandated, the same capitalists argue endlessly that we should be able to waste if we so choose as no one should be able to infringe on our individual rights (ACLU? zoikes!). I am a self employeed owner and operator of two small business and I try to bleed all the savings I can out of "Reduce" and efficiency and welcome any and all advancements in the area.
Mark

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com wrote:

Reducing energy consumption doesn't always reduce costs you know. Every time you switch a fluorescent light on you shorten its life a bit. Switching them on and off every five minutes is not cost effective, even if it does reduce your electric bill, because you end up buying more bulbs. A long time ago the conventional wisdom was that if it's going to be off for less than half an hour then leave it on, but I don't know how the numbers work out today.
Now, you're probably going to show me some link about start up power consumption being negligible, but start up power consumption is not the issue, the reduction in bulb life is.

--
--
--John
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
<snip

<snip>
Agreed, thats why most good motion switches are adjustable delay. Most data that I have read recently is calling out 15 minutes as the cutoff for shutting off flourescent lights. Incandescents and Halogens should be shutoff at all times theyre not needed. The switch waits the 15 minutes, then shuts off (or the time you set). If someone re-enters the room in that 15 minutes the cycle starts over again. Either way, its still reduction and efficiency through automation. Calculating an accurate payback for the switches and their installation is very situation specific but as in the originial posts, its no big deal to start with the rooms/machines that idle the most, monitor usage through monthly bills, and keep moving forward. Most operations have a fairly consistant ambient consumption so any significant reductions would show up readily.
Mark
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
You could suggest your employer install a motion detecting switch (very inexpensve) in all neccesary rooms. We have them all around the shop and office. This would allow for every room in your building to be dark when no activity is going on. You could perhaps sell it to them as a savings of even more $$ on power as well as not slowing all the employees down turning on and off lights. Forget about the times the employees realize they forgot to shut the light and have to double back a few feet to hit the switch.
The problem with the motion switches is that when some one walks into the room the light coming on wakes you up.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Jan 20, 12:19pm, snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com wrote:

I did this at my house.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Last time I did that for the light on the basement stairs, the motion detector blew out within a week. Cheap BORG shit, I know, but now I and everyone else have to reach behind the basement door to turn the light on and off.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

<...snipped...>
In some places I've seen (of course not MY shop :) ), this setup would leave many employees sitting in the dark!
--
There is always an easy solution to every human problem -- neat,
plausible, and wrong." (H L Mencken)
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Well i know a bit on these subjects.
Odds are you would save more making sure the bearings for the presses flywheel are in top shape. when in idle the motor is barely drawing anything its just making up for the friction losses of the flywheel.
the simplest way to explain power factor correction is that it cuts the amperage of the motor under load in exchange for a HUGE increase in the amperage draw on idle. Its a good thing to compensate for on motors under constant heavy load but not on intermittently used motors (Saws Hammers etc)
the best way to figure out the difference would be to put a Power meter (KWH meter) on a tool and sample for a time doing it one way then for a time doing it the other.
I think you'll find the difference is trivial in the power use on turning it off and on once you figure out your power billing formula.
but overall if there are friction losses in the flywheel area that you can counter those would add up in the long run. if you can drop the idel draw by having better bearings that let the flywheel lose less energy and deliver more energy to the hammer and it will let the motor spool the hammer back up to speed more efficiently.
Basically if there is any extra friction in the mechanicla workings of the tool ot will increase the current draw significantly more in all states and fixing that long term will save far more than turning off the hammer for a break.
Brent Ottawa Canada
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Some good responses here, but due to the problems associated with adding measuring equipment and/or computations, it would probably be easier to compare a billing cycle wiht idled machinery, assuming other uses remain fairly constant for the test cycle and the preceding or post cycle. As others have mentioned, with highly inductive motors and power factor compensation banks, it pretty well means you can not just measure current without knowing the relationship between it and the voltage level; they are not in phase.
Another thing to check is whether or not there is a cycling "on" procedure in use. I'm only familiar with one bldg using heavy current draws but the equipment had to be energized in sets, not all at once, to prevent large voltage drops to already running equipment.
You might do better with this question in one of the power groups, not sure.
HTH
Twayne
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.