Go Down

Topic: Reducing Excess energy consumptiom (Read 1 time) previous topic - next topic

DirtBiker


Get some perspective.


Are you just going to jump all over everything BillO writes?  How does this inane arguing help the OP?  If another user shares something you might not agree with, it's enough for you to share your 'perspective' for the rest to see without the personal attacks.

There is usually more than one way to skin every cat and the OP is best served by seeing as many of them as possible, not by seeing endless dribble about why you think some other response is not to your liking.
Dirt Biker

polymorph


There is usually more than one way to skin every cat and the OP is best served by seeing as many of them as possible, not by seeing endless dribble about why you think some other response is not to your liking.


It is starting to seem like a personal vendetta.
Steve Greenfield AE7HD
Nick Gammon on multitasking Arduinos:
http://gammon.com.au/blink
http://gammon.com.au/serial
http://gammon.com.au/interrupts

Grumpy_Mike

#17
Jul 08, 2013, 03:54 pm Last Edit: Jul 08, 2013, 03:58 pm by Grumpy_Mike Reason: 1
Quote
It is starting to seem like a personal vendetta.

Nothing personal.
But if some one says something here that is wrong he is open for correction.
That applies to me or any one else.
The fact that he keeps producing spurious arguments to try and justify what he said originally was right by playing semantics is his own choice. A simple:-
"I didn't meant to imply that the conversion was 100% efficient"
would have been all that it needed, but no he has to argue.

This thread is a perfect example of some one getting something wrong and learning from his mistakes not arguing that he was right all the time.
http://forum.arduino.cc/index.php?topic=176167.0

In all fairness, I do not think I said anything wrong.  I did not say everything I should have in order to explain myself, but that does not make it wrong, just incomplete, and yes, that is my fault.  I am not an engineer, and I think that may be part of the issue.  My background is experimental physics so I may look at things from a different perspective than those that are trained engineers and technologists.  I often forget that those with more rigorous technical training are used to, and expect, more precise descriptions.

This is not offered to be an excuse, because I am aware of the audience here and it would be my responsibility to ensure the completeness of my responses, especially if they go against accepted dogma in some way.  However, most of the physicists I know (including myself) are masters of the "hand waving" argument.  This is where we tend to assume a lot, because we all know it's there, so it's waived aside to talk about the matter at hand.  In support of that behavior, if we did not we would be mired down in endless minutia about the basic laws of the universe in every discussion we have.  So generally we'll not discuss the application of, for instance, the laws of thermodynamics every time we discuss an event where there is an energy exchange.

Sometimes it is very enticing to just skip the explanations.  Yes, I know it's wrong, but for instance, it seems daunting to try to explain a thing like the difference between the terms cost, loss and waste and how they relate to how a regulators work when the listener is not even aware of what types of regulators there are and how they work, etc...

Just so you know, and again please do not see this as an excuse, as I have already claimed my mistake and responsibility, but just by way of introducing you to where I come form, I look at the total loss of a system as having at least two components such that:

Loss = Cost + Waste

1) Where cost is that component of loss that cannot be eliminated and is a necessary expenditure of energy to perform whatever function is being performed.

2) And where waste is that component of loss that provides no benefit but must be accounted for or targeted to be eliminated.

So, you are right.  I should have said "less loss", rather than "no waste".  But if I had said that to another experimental physicist, he'd want to a full disclosure of the losses to see what could be eliminated as waste and what was absolutely necessary to sustain and I'd be accused of not doing my homework.  "losses?  What/which losses?  Let's see what we're talking about here!"

:smiley-red:
Facts just don't care if you ignore them.

polymorph

None of us are perfect. I'd rather be corrected than be wrong.

I think all the OP cares about is reducing power used to light the LED without going to great lengths to do so.
Steve Greenfield AE7HD
Nick Gammon on multitasking Arduinos:
http://gammon.com.au/blink
http://gammon.com.au/serial
http://gammon.com.au/interrupts

Go Up