Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
Electronics Repair (sci.electronics.repair) Discussion of repairing electronic equipment. Topics include requests for assistance, where to obtain servicing information and parts, techniques for diagnosis and repair, and annecdotes about success, failures and problems. |
Reply |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Will sunlight damage the electronics?
Will sunlight damage the electronics of a circuit board?
The power company installed a radio-controlled switch on my air conditioner, and mounted it on the side of my house. It has an ugly label which clashes with the natural look of my little yard. I was peeling it off when I noticed that it covered a fairly darkly tinted plastic window, and inside the window was the circuit board that included the receiver and the control that turns the AC off when the Power Company Central Command wants it to. There is a much window below the label through which one can see a green LED. In the late afternoon shaedI only knew I could see the circuit board because I could see the glowing LED. (Does anyone know if that means there is power to the AC, or only that there is power to the controller device itself?) I stopped unpeeling at that point. I don't want to cause their product to wear out sooner than normal. I Would the sunlight harm anything inside? BTW, after I signed up up for this, a man showed up at my door, handed me a brochure and then went about mounting the thing to my brick wall. I watched. He drilled two holes and then two holes for a cable clamp, all in the mortar, but when it's gone, I'll have to replace the mortar and the replacement won't match in color. After he was gone I read the brochure and it said he could mount it to the air-conditioning condensor if I wanted. I much would have preferred that, so I wouldn't have to look at the ugly thing at all, label or no label. But the guy, affable and pleasant as he was, didn't say a thing about that. The previous device had been mounted to the AC, and didn't have a label either, but it was a little narrower, and didn't come with such a long cable. Thanks. |
#2
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Will sunlight damage the electronics?
mm wrote:
Will sunlight damage the electronics of a circuit board? The power company installed a radio-controlled switch on my air conditioner, and mounted it on the side of my house. It has an ugly label which clashes with the natural look of my little yard. I was peeling it off when I noticed that it covered a fairly darkly tinted plastic window, and inside the window was the circuit board that included the receiver and the control that turns the AC off when the Power Company Central Command wants it to. There is a much window below the label through which one can see a green LED. In the late afternoon shaedI only knew I could see the circuit board because I could see the glowing LED. (Does anyone know if that means there is power to the AC, or only that there is power to the controller device itself?) I stopped unpeeling at that point. I don't want to cause their product to wear out sooner than normal. I Would the sunlight harm anything inside? BTW, after I signed up up for this, a man showed up at my door, handed me a brochure and then went about mounting the thing to my brick wall. I watched. He drilled two holes and then two holes for a cable clamp, all in the mortar, but when it's gone, I'll have to replace the mortar and the replacement won't match in color. After he was gone I read the brochure and it said he could mount it to the air-conditioning condensor if I wanted. I much would have preferred that, so I wouldn't have to look at the ugly thing at all, label or no label. But the guy, affable and pleasant as he was, didn't say a thing about that. The previous device had been mounted to the AC, and didn't have a label either, but it was a little narrower, and didn't come with such a long cable. Thanks. Starting about 25 years ago, the local power company started a program whereby they installed these boxes to home AC units and electric water heaters, supposedly to reduce peak demand on the grid in times of high demand. A few years later, they returned to remove those units and install different untis (different brand/model), saying that the originals never gave them the control of peak demand they needed. Then, about 7-8 years ago, they again returned to remove all vestiges of the control boxes, saying that they were too expensive to maintain; frequent failures caused many service calls to replace them. The end result was that the boxes never gave the power company the relief from peak demands that they hoped; in all a waste of time and money. To your question, it's unknown from your observations whether the innards would be damaged by sumlight intrusion. There could be a UV EPROM inside that could possibly be erased if sunlight got to it on a continual basis, however, most EPROMS have a label covering the window that protects the contents. Constant UV exposure from sunlight could possibly damage the markings on components, but they will likely be OK. Most plastics and glasses are fairly good blockers of UV. If you're concerned about the esthetics of the label on the box, paint it or cover it with a piece of tape. That will not harm the box. The green LED is probably on to indicate to a service guy that the unit is operational (not in an error condition). Without specific info on the unit, it's impossible to know its exact purpose. -- David masondg44 at comcast dot net |
#3
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Will sunlight damage the electronics?
Dave M wrote:
Starting about 25 years ago, the local power company started a program whereby they installed these boxes to home AC units and electric water heaters, supposedly to reduce peak demand on the grid in times of high demand. Wonderful idea. If the AC units are creating an excessive load, just turn them off remotely. Beats investing in grid infrastructure. Sylvia. |
#4
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Will sunlight damage the electronics?
Sylvia Else wrote:
Dave M wrote: Starting about 25 years ago, the local power company started a program whereby they installed these boxes to home AC units and electric water heaters, supposedly to reduce peak demand on the grid in times of high demand. Wonderful idea. If the AC units are creating an excessive load, just turn them off remotely. Beats investing in grid infrastructure. The problem is getting people to buy into this idea. It usually is under a different tariff than "normal service". And, utilities often don't price those tariffs rationally. People are hesitant to let someone else turn off a "comfort feature" if they aren't getting something "significant" for their potential inconvenience [1] The same is true of ToU tariffs. Its as if the utility *wants* the benefits that these tariffs offer *and* wants to figure out how to get more money from the subscriber at the same time! [1] Though often load shedding can be implemented as load *shifting* so you don't really feel any significant "loss". E.g., most hotels/motels have their HVAC systems arranged on a staggered schedule. So, even if you turn the "heat" (ACbrrr) on in your room *now*, you might not actually *get* that until your "timeslice" comes along. |
#5
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Will sunlight damage the electronics?
On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 10:59:12 +1100, Sylvia Else
wrote: Dave M wrote: Starting about 25 years ago, the local power company started a program whereby they installed these boxes to home AC units and electric water heaters, supposedly to reduce peak demand on the grid in times of high demand. Wonderful idea. If the AC units are creating an excessive load, just turn them off remotely. Beats investing in grid infrastructure. SDWOTN. (Sarcasm does not work on the net.) You might be serious. If so, I think you're right. The infrastrucutre would be generators. Very expensive. Most homeowners don't really need air conditioning anyhow. They should open the windows and buy some fans. My greatgrandparents didn't even have electric fans. In a way, I shouldn't take this money for putting a switch on my AC. I only use it for 2 or 3 weeks most summers anyhow, so they probably don't cut down the load when they radio me. Last summer was the least hot of my life, and I didn't use the AC at all. Sylvia. D, it was pretty easy to get me to sign on. They pay 10 or 15 dollars (I forget which) dollars a month during the summer for the AC and since I almost never use the AC, it's defitely a bargain. But I think a substantial percentage of people have signed up, 10, 20, 30 percent or more. I have one friend who uses it all summer who did. They also pay maybe 5 dollars a month during the summer for the water heater. I don't know why, but I didn't like the idea of them fiddling with that. I think I thought it woudl come out ugly looking, even though it is in the basement, sort of like the AC did the second time (I had signed up 10 years ago during the previous round. I don't know if BG&E had the first round that Dave mentioned.) I get the impression they only turn off the power for short periods two or three days a summer. Maybe 20 days at the most in a hot summer. |
#6
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Will sunlight damage the electronics?
mm wrote:
On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 10:59:12 +1100, Sylvia Else wrote: Dave M wrote: Starting about 25 years ago, the local power company started a program whereby they installed these boxes to home AC units and electric water heaters, supposedly to reduce peak demand on the grid in times of high demand. Wonderful idea. If the AC units are creating an excessive load, just turn them off remotely. Beats investing in grid infrastructure. SDWOTN. (Sarcasm does not work on the net.) You might be serious. If so, I think you're right. The infrastrucutre would be generators. Very expensive. It was intended as sarcasm, but of course it's also a true statement from the perpective of power suppliers. Most homeowners don't really need air conditioning anyhow. They should open the windows and buy some fans. My greatgrandparents didn't even have electric fans. I have AC installed. It only gets used for a dozen days a year (and a few nights) at most. But at those times, it wouldn't be much fun without it. The problem with comparing the present situation with that in the past is that people in the past didn't have a choice, just as they didn't have a choice about dying from diseases that are now either easily treatable, or easily preventable. Even fans are not so effective when the air is so warm that sitting in front of a fan feels like sitting in front of a fan heater. Would I survive if I didn't have AC? Probably. Would I like it? No. In a way, I shouldn't take this money for putting a switch on my AC. I only use it for 2 or 3 weeks most summers anyhow, so they probably don't cut down the load when they radio me. Last summer was the least hot of my life, and I didn't use the AC at all. It's fair to take the money. The infrastructure required to support extreme peak loads (which is not just generators, but transmission gear as well - lines, switches, transformers, the works) is only used infrequently. If the need for it can be obviated by persuading people not to use it, then there is a substantial cost saving. Although you may only use AC for two or three weeks in the summer, it's likely to be the same two or three weeks that other people are using it. Sylvia. D, it was pretty easy to get me to sign on. They pay 10 or 15 dollars (I forget which) dollars a month during the summer for the AC and since I almost never use the AC, it's defitely a bargain. But I think a substantial percentage of people have signed up, 10, 20, 30 percent or more. I have one friend who uses it all summer who did. They also pay maybe 5 dollars a month during the summer for the water heater. I don't know why, but I didn't like the idea of them fiddling with that. That actually makes more sense. It encourages people to have tanks with a decent capacity so that turning them off at times of high load has no impact. My own hot water is heated overnight at a lower tarif anyway. I think I thought it woudl come out ugly looking, even though it is in the basement, sort of like the AC did the second time (I had signed up 10 years ago during the previous round. I don't know if BG&E had the first round that Dave mentioned.) I get the impression they only turn off the power for short periods two or three days a summer. Maybe 20 days at the most in a hot summer. I can't even see how that would help them. ACs run on thermostats. Turn them off for a while, and they'll simply run for longer when they're turned back on. So unless they're left off until the peak load drops (ie, because the outside temperature has, or at least the sun goes down), there'll be little or no net saving. The real problem power suppliers face is that consumers are not subject to the true costs of supplying the power. Indeed, those consumers who cannot afford things that create high peaks, like airconditioning, are subsidising those who can. In Sydney, where I live, time of day metering is being introduced, which at least charges more during period where demand tends to be higher, but even they don't ramp up the cost during heat waves. As an AC owner, I'm not complaining, but it doesn't seem at all equitable. Sylvia. |
#7
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Will sunlight damage the electronics?
D Yuniskis wrote:
Sylvia Else wrote: Dave M wrote: Starting about 25 years ago, the local power company started a program whereby they installed these boxes to home AC units and electric water heaters, supposedly to reduce peak demand on the grid in times of high demand. Wonderful idea. If the AC units are creating an excessive load, just turn them off remotely. Beats investing in grid infrastructure. The problem is getting people to buy into this idea. It usually is under a different tariff than "normal service". And, utilities often don't price those tariffs rationally. People are hesitant to let someone else turn off a "comfort feature" if they aren't getting something "significant" for their potential inconvenience [1] There's not much point in having a comfort feature if it's likely to get turned off at the time of greatest need. I'd only go with it if the saving were enough to finance a petrol generator to supply the power instead. The same is true of ToU tariffs. Its as if the utility *wants* the benefits that these tariffs offer *and* wants to figure out how to get more money from the subscriber at the same time! Well, they probably do. Sylvia. |
#8
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Will sunlight damage the electronics?
On 28 oct, 22:49, mm wrote:
Will sunlight damage the electronics of a circuit board? If anything, exposure to heat, if it is in full glare of the sun all day, will damage the electronics. I'd imagine they thought about that before hand though.... -B |
#9
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Will sunlight damage the electronics?
Sylvia Else wrote:
D Yuniskis wrote: Sylvia Else wrote: Dave M wrote: Starting about 25 years ago, the local power company started a program whereby they installed these boxes to home AC units and electric water heaters, supposedly to reduce peak demand on the grid in times of high demand. Wonderful idea. If the AC units are creating an excessive load, just turn them off remotely. Beats investing in grid infrastructure. The problem is getting people to buy into this idea. It usually is under a different tariff than "normal service". And, utilities often don't price those tariffs rationally. People are hesitant to let someone else turn off a "comfort feature" if they aren't getting something "significant" for their potential inconvenience [1] There's not much point in having a comfort feature if it's likely to get turned off at the time of greatest need. It's not "turned off", per se. Rather, it is *deferred*. I.e., maybe 10 minutes later your ACbrrr will kick in instead of at the (slightly) earlier time when the thermostat called for cooling. Chances are, a normal user wouldn't really perceive the fact that the ACbrrr kicked in "late" -- the house may rise some fraction of a degree beyond the thermostat's set point? But, the *idea* of this is unnerving to many people: "Oh, I am going to be *so* uncomfortable!" OTOH, if they were to raise their thermostat's setpoint that degree (or two?) all the time, they would probably not notice the difference. I'd only go with it if the saving were enough to finance a petrol generator to supply the power instead. frown Defeats the purpose. The utility can produce electricity far cheaper/cleaner than you can. The point of ToU and load shedding is to let the utility cut back on peak loads. This lets them use things like nuclear energy (good for big, steady loads) instead of having to fire up coal/gas generators to respond to short term fluctuations in the load. The same is true of ToU tariffs. Its as if the utility *wants* the benefits that these tariffs offer *and* wants to figure out how to get more money from the subscriber at the same time! Well, they probably do. The (new?) tariff here borders on ridiculous. You'd have to shift 2/3 of your load to off-peak to break even. |
#10
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Will sunlight damage the electronics?
D Yuniskis wrote:
Sylvia Else wrote: D Yuniskis wrote: Sylvia Else wrote: Dave M wrote: Starting about 25 years ago, the local power company started a program whereby they installed these boxes to home AC units and electric water heaters, supposedly to reduce peak demand on the grid in times of high demand. Wonderful idea. If the AC units are creating an excessive load, just turn them off remotely. Beats investing in grid infrastructure. The problem is getting people to buy into this idea. It usually is under a different tariff than "normal service". And, utilities often don't price those tariffs rationally. People are hesitant to let someone else turn off a "comfort feature" if they aren't getting something "significant" for their potential inconvenience [1] There's not much point in having a comfort feature if it's likely to get turned off at the time of greatest need. It's not "turned off", per se. Rather, it is *deferred*. I.e., maybe 10 minutes later your ACbrrr will kick in instead of at the (slightly) earlier time when the thermostat called for cooling. Chances are, a normal user wouldn't really perceive the fact that the ACbrrr kicked in "late" -- the house may rise some fraction of a degree beyond the thermostat's set point? But, the *idea* of this is unnerving to many people: "Oh, I am going to be *so* uncomfortable!" OTOH, if they were to raise their thermostat's setpoint that degree (or two?) all the time, they would probably not notice the difference. But, as I've commented elsewhere, as soon as the AC is powered up it will stay on for longer to bring the temperature down again. There is an energy saving, but it's very much a second order effect, arising form the slightly higher average temperature. I'd only go with it if the saving were enough to finance a petrol generator to supply the power instead. frown Defeats the purpose. The utility can produce electricity far cheaper/cleaner than you can. I'm not so sure that's necessarily true for extreme peak loads. They not only have to generate the power, which is likely to be done using diesel or some such, but they also have to deliver it to me, which involves transmission infrastructure which is only used during these extreme peak loads, but which is there all the time. Sylvia. |
#11
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Will sunlight damage the electronics?
mm wrote:
On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 10:59:12 +1100, Sylvia Else wrote: Dave M wrote: Starting about 25 years ago, the local power company started a program whereby they installed these boxes to home AC units and electric water heaters, supposedly to reduce peak demand on the grid in times of high demand. Wonderful idea. If the AC units are creating an excessive load, just turn them off remotely. Beats investing in grid infrastructure. SDWOTN. (Sarcasm does not work on the net.) You might be serious. If so, I think you're right. The infrastrucutre would be generators. Very expensive. It's generators plus distribution facilities. Like most utilities (e.g., phone, gas, etc.) the systems are not designed for "everyONE to use everyTHING" at the same time. There is some probablistic/statistical analysis that goes into determining what sort of "typical" loads will be experienced as well as "bad cases" (not *worst* case) that are "likely". Power plants, distribution systems and even the number of "work crews" are determined by these magic numbers. Once you start moving beyond a few standard deviations from the norm, things get brittle. E.g., the ability of the power plants to respond to changes in demand, the ability of the *lines* and substations to handle those loads, the availability of crews to respond to faults, etc. Additional generating capacity can be brought on line by burning more fossil fuels. This is expensive and also bad for the environment. Most utilities are like diesel engines: they have a sweet spot where they like to run. Push them much beyond this and they get cantankerous. Most homeowners don't really need air conditioning anyhow. They Shirley you jest? We break 100F in May and that usually persists through mid October. July and August see this a *slight* reduction in temperature -- as the humidity then climbs to over 90 percent (90F at 90RH is quite uncomfortable -- I don't care how many fans you have!). And 110+ is *hot* even when the RH is only 10% (should we give up swamp coolers as well as AC?) Your comment is akin to telling folks in Chicago that they don't really need *heat* in February -- just put on another sweater! I've been outside in -26F with windchills below -80; a sweatre just ain't gonna cut it! : should open the windows and buy some fans. My greatgrandparents didn't even have electric fans. And *their* greatgrandparents didn't even have *horses*! ;-) In a way, I shouldn't take this money for putting a switch on my AC. I only use it for 2 or 3 weeks most summers anyhow, so they probably Sure seems like *you* are one of those who "don't really need air conditioners". Can't you live without it for those two weeks? : don't cut down the load when they radio me. Last summer was the least hot of my life, and I didn't use the AC at all. |
#12
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Will sunlight damage the electronics?
On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 09:00:56 -0400 Meat Plow wrote
in Message id: : On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 17:49:50 -0400, mm wrote: Will sunlight damage the electronics of a circuit board? We used to program EPROMS with UV light. I've never been able to do THAT! |
#13
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Will sunlight damage the electronics?
Sylvia Else wrote:
mm wrote: On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 10:59:12 +1100, Sylvia Else Most homeowners don't really need air conditioning anyhow. They should open the windows and buy some fans. My greatgrandparents didn't even have electric fans. I have AC installed. It only gets used for a dozen days a year (and a few nights) at most. But at those times, it wouldn't be much fun without it. The problem with comparing the present situation with that in the past is that people in the past didn't have a choice, just as they didn't have a choice about dying from diseases that are now either easily treatable, or easily preventable. Even fans are not so effective when the air is so warm that sitting in front of a fan feels like sitting in front of a fan heater. Exactly. Every year there are deaths attributed to "lack of adequate cooling". But, its usually "not anyone *you* know" so it tends to get ignored. Just like folks freezing to death. Would I survive if I didn't have AC? Probably. Would I like it? No. The problem with "excess heat" is there aren't many ways of "shedding it". And, once your body starts to overheat, *you* usually aren't qualified to think about how to fix the problem (it muddies your thinking). In a way, I shouldn't take this money for putting a switch on my AC. I only use it for 2 or 3 weeks most summers anyhow, so they probably don't cut down the load when they radio me. Last summer was the least hot of my life, and I didn't use the AC at all. It's fair to take the money. The infrastructure required to support extreme peak loads (which is not just generators, but transmission gear as well - lines, switches, transformers, the works) is only used infrequently. If the need for it can be obviated by persuading people not to use it, then there is a substantial cost saving. Although you may only use AC for two or three weeks in the summer, it's likely to be the same two or three weeks that other people are using it. Exactly. D, it was pretty easy to get me to sign on. They pay 10 or 15 dollars (I forget which) dollars a month during the summer for the AC and since I almost never use the AC, it's defitely a bargain. But I think a substantial percentage of people have signed up, 10, 20, 30 percent or more. I have one friend who uses it all summer who did. They also pay maybe 5 dollars a month during the summer for the water heater. I don't know why, but I didn't like the idea of them fiddling with that. That actually makes more sense. It encourages people to have tanks with a decent capacity so that turning them off at times of high load has no impact. My own hot water is heated overnight at a lower tarif anyway. A smarter solution is to have "on demand" water heaters. Silly to keep 40 - 80 gallons of hot water available 24/7 just in case you *might* need it. This solution is a throwback to days when heating water was a slow process and you didn't want to "inconvenience" the user. :-/ I think I thought it woudl come out ugly looking, even though it is in the basement, sort of like the AC did the second time (I had signed up 10 years ago during the previous round. I don't know if BG&E had the first round that Dave mentioned.) I get the impression they only turn off the power for short periods two or three days a summer. Maybe 20 days at the most in a hot summer. I can't even see how that would help them. ACs run on thermostats. Turn them off for a while, and they'll simply run for longer when they're turned back on. So unless they're left off until the peak load drops (ie, because the outside temperature has, or at least the sun goes down), there'll be little or no net saving. Hotels use the same approach with their in-room HVAC units: they aren't all "enabled" at the same time. In years past, a simple time sharing scheme was used: some portion of the units were enabled for N minutes; then, another portion for the next N minutes; etc. The point being that the units could bring the room to "the desired temerature" (on average) when used for only a fraction of the time (i.e., they didn't need to run at 100% duty cycle to work properly). Nowadays, technologies like ZigBee are being deployed to allow for smarter management. E.g., instead of blindly enabling some portion "now" and another group "later", just let each unit that *wants* power *request* power. And, force it to wait until that request is granted (by some centralized smarts that is tracking who it has "granted" power to at the present time). So, if you get lucky, only X% of units will *want* power at any given time. If more than X% do, then you have to decide how to limit the actual number of units to that percentage (i.e., you are back to the original solution) knowing that *eventually* each room will achieve its desired temperature. The real problem power suppliers face is that consumers are not subject to the true costs of supplying the power. Indeed, those consumers who cannot afford things that create high peaks, like airconditioning, are subsidising those who can. In Sydney, where I live, time of day metering is being introduced, which at least charges more during period where demand tends to be higher, but even they don't ramp up the cost during heat waves. As an AC owner, I'm not complaining, but it doesn't seem at all equitable. Some (US) businesses are charged based on peak demand. Stated simplisticly, if you use electricity at an X KWHr rate for 10 minutes and don't use *any* thereafter, you are charged a rate proportional to X *regardless* of your TOTAL energy consumption during that billing period (month)! Things like ToU and Peak tariffs lead to some incredibly inefficient solutions that waste energy -- but, "save money". E.g., businesses "make ice" overnight to run their air conditioning systems during the following day. The cost of making the ice is artificially cheaper than creating the same "cooling" during the day (when it is actually *needed*) shrug |
#14
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Will sunlight damage the electronics?
In article , D Yuniskis wrote:
Sylvia Else wrote: D Yuniskis wrote: Sylvia Else wrote: Dave M wrote: Starting about 25 years ago, the local power company started a program whereby they installed these boxes to home AC units and electric water heaters, supposedly to reduce peak demand on the grid in times of high demand. Wonderful idea. If the AC units are creating an excessive load, just turn them off remotely. Beats investing in grid infrastructure. The problem is getting people to buy into this idea. It usually is under a different tariff than "normal service". And, utilities often don't price those tariffs rationally. People are hesitant to let someone else turn off a "comfort feature" if they aren't getting something "significant" for their potential inconvenience [1] There's not much point in having a comfort feature if it's likely to get turned off at the time of greatest need. It's not "turned off", per se. Rather, it is *deferred*. I.e., maybe 10 minutes later your ACbrrr will kick in instead of at the (slightly) earlier time when the thermostat called for cooling. I don't know how the things work, but it could be possible in the event of complete power failure, to do progressive start ups. Starting all the refridgerators is bad enough. You might even try to control whose air is on and whos is off, so all on is not a possibility. Heat will damage electronics. UV protection will be providd by any material preferably tinted. greg |
#15
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Will sunlight damage the electronics?
JW wrote:
On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 09:00:56 -0400 Meat Plow wrote in Message id: : On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 17:49:50 -0400, mm wrote: Will sunlight damage the electronics of a circuit board? We used to program EPROMS with UV light. I've never been able to do THAT! Sure! As long as you want them "programmed" to their erased values! : Actually, I think EPROMS under normal sunlight will erase in a very short period of time (like a day?). This is not the same as "under fluorescent light"... |
#16
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Will sunlight damage the electronics?
"Dave M" wrote in message ... mm wrote: Will sunlight damage the electronics of a circuit board? I stopped unpeeling at that point. I don't want to cause their product to wear out sooner than normal. I Would the sunlight harm anything inside? To your question, it's unknown from your observations whether the innards would be damaged by sumlight intrusion. There could be a UV EPROM inside that could possibly be erased if sunlight got to it on a continual basis, however, most EPROMS have a label covering the window that protects the contents. Constant UV exposure from sunlight could possibly damage the markings on components, but they will likely be OK. Most plastics and glasses are fairly good blockers of UV. If you're concerned about the esthetics of the label on the box, paint it or cover it with a piece of tape. That will not harm the box. Let me give a real world perspective on the use of EPROM's. I was involved in a product that needed a ROM to hold some basic logic. To be sure that the code was right, EPROM's were used because of the neat ability to quickly update the device by UV erasure and reprogramming. We probably had about 100 of these for testing and debugging the product. Now we want to go into production and the required volumes ranged into the multiple thousands of pieces. Two factors come into the decision making. First, those ceramic packages with a window are not cheap. Second, EPROM's and their programming are also not inexpensive. The best economy is a mask made ROM in a plastic package. Here the problem was the start of cost of mask making and the delay in getting real chips of the line. We settled on a stopgap compromise and started production with EPROM's that were in plastic packages. The design was frozen and we knew that erasing would not be an issue. Then when hard programmed devices became available the transition was easy. You have to look at the economics of this scenario to see if the savings are there. If you want 50 to 100 thousand of these it worked well. As they always say "YMMV". Charlie |
#17
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Will sunlight damage the electronics?
Sylvia Else wrote:
[attributions elided : ] There's not much point in having a comfort feature if it's likely to get turned off at the time of greatest need. It's not "turned off", per se. Rather, it is *deferred*. I.e., maybe 10 minutes later your ACbrrr will kick in instead of at the (slightly) earlier time when the thermostat called for cooling. Chances are, a normal user wouldn't really perceive the fact that the ACbrrr kicked in "late" -- the house may rise some fraction of a degree beyond the thermostat's set point? But, the *idea* of this is unnerving to many people: "Oh, I am going to be *so* uncomfortable!" OTOH, if they were to raise their thermostat's setpoint that degree (or two?) all the time, they would probably not notice the difference. But, as I've commented elsewhere, as soon as the AC is powered up it will stay on for longer to bring the temperature down again. Yes, but not *much* longer. All you are doing is shifting (in time) when the house will be "as comfortable" again. E.g., if you had opened the front door (to carry a large piece of furniture in/out) you would similarly have disrupted the comfort level in the house for a short period of time. (if you've ever "moved" in the summer time, you'd understand : ) But, that comfort level is once again restored, ultimately -- *later*. The big (psychological) problem with load shedding is that folks don't feel like they have any control over it so they assume it will be uncomfortable, etc. OTOH, if the technology was implemented as an *auction* (I am merely trying to make a point) in which the utility could alert participants: "Hi, we need folks to shed some load. We are currently offering $X for you to shed Y load for Z minutes" and then respond to folks who have accepted this offer by adjusting their *new* "bid price" (up or down): "Due to the overwhelming acceptance of our previous offer, we are now only willing to offer $x (i.e., x X) for you to shed Y load for Z minutes" or: "Hmmm... we haven't had many takers of are offer at $X so we are now sweetiening our offer to $XX for Y load for Z minutes" Then I suspect most folks would probably complain that watching for these "offers" is too tedious: "Can't you give me a SWITCH that I can throw that says "I am willing to accept ALL offers of $X or more?" (which, in effect, is what the tariffs do -- except you have to make this commitment up front! There is an energy saving, but it's very much a second order effect, arising form the slightly higher average temperature. The goal isn't to save energy (though I think the laws of thermo say you *do* save in this case). Rather, the goal is to get you to *shift* your energy consumption (in time). I'd only go with it if the saving were enough to finance a petrol generator to supply the power instead. frown Defeats the purpose. The utility can produce electricity far cheaper/cleaner than you can. I'm not so sure that's necessarily true for extreme peak loads. They not only have to generate the power, which is likely to be done using diesel or some such, but they also have to deliver it to me, which involves transmission infrastructure which is only used during these extreme peak loads, but which is there all the time. The infrastructure is sized for some percentage above nominal. Of course, going too far *beyond* that causes things to *break* (hence the blackouts that become newsworthy). But, things like diesel/coal/gas fired plants that are there *deliberately* to respond to these short term fluctuations in demand could, theoretically, be eliminiated if the demand could be "leveled". Nuclear power plants, for example, like to put out a steady amount of power (can we *please* not let this discussion digress into the pros and cons of nuclear power? : ) which doesn't lend itself to rapid response. If you had fill-in-the-blank power source that was ecnomical to operate and had this characteristic, then you would have a big incentive to coerce users into adapting their usage patterns to match. Also, it is important to define what crteria you actually want to optimize. E.g. "efficiency" can be defined in a lot of different ways -- many of which are inconsistent with each other :-/ |
#18
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Will sunlight damage the electronics?
Sylvia Else wrote:
[attributions elided : ] There's not much point in having a comfort feature if it's likely to get turned off at the time of greatest need. It's not "turned off", per se. Rather, it is *deferred*. I.e., maybe 10 minutes later your ACbrrr will kick in instead of at the (slightly) earlier time when the thermostat called for cooling. Chances are, a normal user wouldn't really perceive the fact that the ACbrrr kicked in "late" -- the house may rise some fraction of a degree beyond the thermostat's set point? But, the *idea* of this is unnerving to many people: "Oh, I am going to be *so* uncomfortable!" OTOH, if they were to raise their thermostat's setpoint that degree (or two?) all the time, they would probably not notice the difference. But, as I've commented elsewhere, as soon as the AC is powered up it will stay on for longer to bring the temperature down again. Yes, but not *much* longer. All you are doing is shifting (in time) when the house will be "as comfortable" again. E.g., if you had opened the front door (to carry a large piece of furniture in/out) you would similarly have disrupted the comfort level in the house for a short period of time. (if you've ever "moved" in the summer time, you'd understand : ) But, that comfort level is once again restored, ultimately -- *later*. The big (psychological) problem with load shedding is that folks don't feel like they have any control over it so they assume it will be uncomfortable, etc. OTOH, if the technology was implemented as an *auction* (I am merely trying to make a point) in which the utility could alert participants: "Hi, we need folks to shed some load. We are currently offering $X for you to shed Y load for Z minutes" and then respond to folks who have accepted this offer by adjusting their *new* "bid price" (up or down): "Due to the overwhelming acceptance of our previous offer, we are now only willing to offer $x (i.e., x X) for you to shed Y load for Z minutes" or: "Hmmm... we haven't had many takers of are offer at $X so we are now sweetiening our offer to $XX for Y load for Z minutes" Then I suspect most folks would probably complain that watching for these "offers" is too tedious: "Can't you give me a SWITCH that I can throw that says "I am willing to accept ALL offers of $X or more?" (which, in effect, is what the tariffs do -- except you have to make this commitment up front! There is an energy saving, but it's very much a second order effect, arising form the slightly higher average temperature. The goal isn't to save energy (though I think the laws of thermo say you *do* save in this case). Rather, the goal is to get you to *shift* your energy consumption (in time). I'd only go with it if the saving were enough to finance a petrol generator to supply the power instead. frown Defeats the purpose. The utility can produce electricity far cheaper/cleaner than you can. I'm not so sure that's necessarily true for extreme peak loads. They not only have to generate the power, which is likely to be done using diesel or some such, but they also have to deliver it to me, which involves transmission infrastructure which is only used during these extreme peak loads, but which is there all the time. The infrastructure is sized for some percentage above nominal. Of course, going too far *beyond* that causes things to *break* (hence the blackouts that become newsworthy). But, things like diesel/coal/gas fired plants that are there *deliberately* to respond to these short term fluctuations in demand could, theoretically, be eliminiated if the demand could be "leveled". Nuclear power plants, for example, like to put out a steady amount of power (can we *please* not let this discussion digress into the pros and cons of nuclear power? : ) which doesn't lend itself to rapid response. If you had fill-in-the-blank power source that was ecnomical to operate and had this characteristic, then you would have a big incentive to coerce users into adapting their usage patterns to match. Also, it is important to define what crteria you actually want to optimize. E.g. "efficiency" can be defined in a lot of different ways -- many of which are inconsistent with each other :-/ |
#19
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Will sunlight damage the electronics?
D Yuniskis wrote:
Sylvia Else wrote: [attributions elided : ] There's not much point in having a comfort feature if it's likely to get turned off at the time of greatest need. It's not "turned off", per se. Rather, it is *deferred*. I.e., maybe 10 minutes later your ACbrrr will kick in instead of at the (slightly) earlier time when the thermostat called for cooling. Chances are, a normal user wouldn't really perceive the fact that the ACbrrr kicked in "late" -- the house may rise some fraction of a degree beyond the thermostat's set point? But, the *idea* of this is unnerving to many people: "Oh, I am going to be *so* uncomfortable!" OTOH, if they were to raise their thermostat's setpoint that degree (or two?) all the time, they would probably not notice the difference. But, as I've commented elsewhere, as soon as the AC is powered up it will stay on for longer to bring the temperature down again. Yes, but not *much* longer. The AC has to run long enough to pump out the heat that's flowed in during the time it was turned off. Heat is ariving in the building at a rate that's largely a linear function of the difference between inside and outside temperature, and the energy required to pump it back out is a slimilarly linear function. So to calculate the average energy consumption - ie power - you just look at the rate at which heat is flowing in. That rate is minimally altered by deferring the turn on of the AC. As I've observed, the rate is slightly lower because the average difference between the inside and outside temperatures is slight lower. On a very hot day, which is when this load shedding mechanism is likely to be most used, the saving will be modest, because the change in average temperature will be a small fraction of the total temperature difference. All you are doing is shifting (in time) when the house will be "as comfortable" again. E.g., if you had opened the front door (to carry a large piece of furniture in/out) you would similarly have disrupted the comfort level in the house for a short period of time. (if you've ever "moved" in the summer time, you'd understand : ) But, that comfort level is once again restored, ultimately -- *later*. The big (psychological) problem with load shedding is that folks don't feel like they have any control over it so they assume it will be uncomfortable, etc. OTOH, if the technology was implemented as an *auction* (I am merely trying to make a point) in which the utility could alert participants: "Hi, we need folks to shed some load. We are currently offering $X for you to shed Y load for Z minutes" and then respond to folks who have accepted this offer by adjusting their *new* "bid price" (up or down): "Due to the overwhelming acceptance of our previous offer, we are now only willing to offer $x (i.e., x X) for you to shed Y load for Z minutes" or: "Hmmm... we haven't had many takers of are offer at $X so we are now sweetiening our offer to $XX for Y load for Z minutes" Then I suspect most folks would probably complain that watching for these "offers" is too tedious: "Can't you give me a SWITCH that I can throw that says "I am willing to accept ALL offers of $X or more?" (which, in effect, is what the tariffs do -- except you have to make this commitment up front! There is an energy saving, but it's very much a second order effect, arising form the slightly higher average temperature. The goal isn't to save energy (though I think the laws of thermo say you *do* save in this case). Rather, the goal is to get you to *shift* your energy consumption (in time). I'd only go with it if the saving were enough to finance a petrol generator to supply the power instead. frown Defeats the purpose. The utility can produce electricity far cheaper/cleaner than you can. I'm not so sure that's necessarily true for extreme peak loads. They not only have to generate the power, which is likely to be done using diesel or some such, but they also have to deliver it to me, which involves transmission infrastructure which is only used during these extreme peak loads, but which is there all the time. The infrastructure is sized for some percentage above nominal. Of course, going too far *beyond* that causes things to *break* (hence the blackouts that become newsworthy). But, things like diesel/coal/gas fired plants that are there *deliberately* to respond to these short term fluctuations in demand could, theoretically, be eliminiated if the demand could be "leveled". But the demand cannot be levelled by short term adjustments to things like airconditioner demand. The overall demand is higher on hot days. Deferring an airconditioner load by ten minutes won't alter that. Getting people to defer their airconditioner loads until night time would be better, but of course that's not going to happen, at least not until and unless airconditioners based on a large cold sink become the norm. That might be a bit of an own goal anyway, environmentally, because the cold sink would have to be kept cool against the possibility that the day following would be hot. There would always be some leakage, so the overall energy consumption of such systems would be higher, even if they were running on cheaper power. I suppose it could be argued that some transient peaks arise from a disproportionate number of AC thermostats switching to on at the same time, but given the number of ACs around, I'd be surprised if that were really an issue - the probability of a significant deviation from the short term average due to such an effect would have to be very low. Nuclear power plants, for example, like to put out a steady amount of power (can we *please* not let this discussion digress into the pros and cons of nuclear power? : ) which doesn't lend itself to rapid response. If you had fill-in-the-blank power source that was ecnomical to operate and had this characteristic, then you would have a big incentive to coerce users into adapting their usage patterns to match. Also, it is important to define what crteria you actually want to optimize. E.g. "efficiency" can be defined in a lot of different ways -- many of which are inconsistent with each other :-/ While nuclear, and indeed coal, plants cannot respond rapidly to changes in demand, that is not the reason they are not used to handle peak loads. It's purely a question of economics. It is not cost-effective to have such plants lying idle - if that's going to happen, you don't build them, because they're too expensive to be used that way. You build less capital intensive plant for that purpose - typically gas or oil powered (though what we do when the gas/oil runs out isn't clear). Sylvia. |
#20
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Will sunlight damage the electronics?
D Yuniskis wrote:
Sylvia Else wrote: [attributions elided : ] There's not much point in having a comfort feature if it's likely to get turned off at the time of greatest need. It's not "turned off", per se. Rather, it is *deferred*. I.e., maybe 10 minutes later your ACbrrr will kick in instead of at the (slightly) earlier time when the thermostat called for cooling. Chances are, a normal user wouldn't really perceive the fact that the ACbrrr kicked in "late" -- the house may rise some fraction of a degree beyond the thermostat's set point? But, the *idea* of this is unnerving to many people: "Oh, I am going to be *so* uncomfortable!" OTOH, if they were to raise their thermostat's setpoint that degree (or two?) all the time, they would probably not notice the difference. But, as I've commented elsewhere, as soon as the AC is powered up it will stay on for longer to bring the temperature down again. Yes, but not *much* longer. The AC has to run long enough to pump out the heat that's flowed in during the time it was turned off. Heat is ariving in the building at a rate that's largely a linear function of the difference between inside and outside temperature, and the energy required to pump it back out is a slimilarly linear function. So to calculate the average energy consumption - ie power - you just look at the rate at which heat is flowing in. That rate is minimally altered by deferring the turn on of the AC. As I've observed, the rate is slightly lower because the average difference between the inside and outside temperatures is slight lower. On a very hot day, which is when this load shedding mechanism is likely to be most used, the saving will be modest, because the change in average temperature will be a small fraction of the total temperature difference. All you are doing is shifting (in time) when the house will be "as comfortable" again. E.g., if you had opened the front door (to carry a large piece of furniture in/out) you would similarly have disrupted the comfort level in the house for a short period of time. (if you've ever "moved" in the summer time, you'd understand : ) But, that comfort level is once again restored, ultimately -- *later*. The big (psychological) problem with load shedding is that folks don't feel like they have any control over it so they assume it will be uncomfortable, etc. OTOH, if the technology was implemented as an *auction* (I am merely trying to make a point) in which the utility could alert participants: "Hi, we need folks to shed some load. We are currently offering $X for you to shed Y load for Z minutes" and then respond to folks who have accepted this offer by adjusting their *new* "bid price" (up or down): "Due to the overwhelming acceptance of our previous offer, we are now only willing to offer $x (i.e., x X) for you to shed Y load for Z minutes" or: "Hmmm... we haven't had many takers of are offer at $X so we are now sweetiening our offer to $XX for Y load for Z minutes" Then I suspect most folks would probably complain that watching for these "offers" is too tedious: "Can't you give me a SWITCH that I can throw that says "I am willing to accept ALL offers of $X or more?" (which, in effect, is what the tariffs do -- except you have to make this commitment up front! There is an energy saving, but it's very much a second order effect, arising form the slightly higher average temperature. The goal isn't to save energy (though I think the laws of thermo say you *do* save in this case). Rather, the goal is to get you to *shift* your energy consumption (in time). I'd only go with it if the saving were enough to finance a petrol generator to supply the power instead. frown Defeats the purpose. The utility can produce electricity far cheaper/cleaner than you can. I'm not so sure that's necessarily true for extreme peak loads. They not only have to generate the power, which is likely to be done using diesel or some such, but they also have to deliver it to me, which involves transmission infrastructure which is only used during these extreme peak loads, but which is there all the time. The infrastructure is sized for some percentage above nominal. Of course, going too far *beyond* that causes things to *break* (hence the blackouts that become newsworthy). But, things like diesel/coal/gas fired plants that are there *deliberately* to respond to these short term fluctuations in demand could, theoretically, be eliminiated if the demand could be "leveled". But the demand cannot be levelled by short term adjustments to things like airconditioner demand. The overall demand is higher on hot days. Deferring an airconditioner load by ten minutes won't alter that. Getting people to defer their airconditioner loads until night time would be better, but of course that's not going to happen, at least not until and unless airconditioners based on a large cold sink become the norm. That might be a bit of an own goal anyway, environmentally, because the cold sink would have to be kept cool against the possibility that the day following would be hot. There would always be some leakage, so the overall energy consumption of such systems would be higher, even if they were running on cheaper power. I suppose it could be argued that some transient peaks arise from a disproportionate number of AC thermostats switching to on at the same time, but given the number of ACs around, I'd be surprised if that were really an issue - the probability of a significant deviation from the short term average due to such an effect would have to be very low. Nuclear power plants, for example, like to put out a steady amount of power (can we *please* not let this discussion digress into the pros and cons of nuclear power? : ) which doesn't lend itself to rapid response. If you had fill-in-the-blank power source that was ecnomical to operate and had this characteristic, then you would have a big incentive to coerce users into adapting their usage patterns to match. Also, it is important to define what crteria you actually want to optimize. E.g. "efficiency" can be defined in a lot of different ways -- many of which are inconsistent with each other :-/ While nuclear, and indeed coal, plants cannot respond rapidly to changes in demand, that is not the reason they are not used to handle peak loads. It's purely a question of economics. It is not cost-effective to have such plants lying idle - if that's going to happen, you don't build them, because they're too expensive to be used that way. You build less capital intensive plant for that purpose - typically gas or oil powered (though what we do when the gas/oil runs out isn't clear). Sylvia. |
#21
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Will sunlight damage the electronics?
On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 23:35:06 +1100, Sylvia Else
wrote: OTOH, if they were to raise their thermostat's setpoint that degree (or two?) all the time, they would probably not notice the difference. But, as I've commented elsewhere, as soon as the AC is powered up it will stay on for longer to bring the temperature down again. There is an energy saving, Radio-controlled AC turn-offs are not meant to be energy saving. They're meant to be peak-load lessening. It's meant to prevent brown-outs because of too much load at one time. but it's very much a second order effect, arising form the slightly higher average temperature. |
#22
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Will sunlight damage the electronics?
On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 23:35:06 +1100, Sylvia Else
wrote: OTOH, if they were to raise their thermostat's setpoint that degree (or two?) all the time, they would probably not notice the difference. But, as I've commented elsewhere, as soon as the AC is powered up it will stay on for longer to bring the temperature down again. There is an energy saving, Radio-controlled AC turn-offs are not meant to be energy saving. They're meant to be peak-load lessening. It's meant to prevent brown-outs because of too much load at one time. but it's very much a second order effect, arising form the slightly higher average temperature. |
#23
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Will sunlight damage the electronics?
mm wrote:
On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 23:35:06 +1100, Sylvia Else wrote: OTOH, if they were to raise their thermostat's setpoint that degree (or two?) all the time, they would probably not notice the difference. But, as I've commented elsewhere, as soon as the AC is powered up it will stay on for longer to bring the temperature down again. There is an energy saving, Radio-controlled AC turn-offs are not meant to be energy saving. They're meant to be peak-load lessening. It's meant to prevent brown-outs because of too much load at one time. And I'm arguing that they do not achieve that goal. Sylvia |
#24
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Will sunlight damage the electronics?
mm wrote:
On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 23:35:06 +1100, Sylvia Else wrote: OTOH, if they were to raise their thermostat's setpoint that degree (or two?) all the time, they would probably not notice the difference. But, as I've commented elsewhere, as soon as the AC is powered up it will stay on for longer to bring the temperature down again. There is an energy saving, Radio-controlled AC turn-offs are not meant to be energy saving. They're meant to be peak-load lessening. It's meant to prevent brown-outs because of too much load at one time. And I'm arguing that they do not achieve that goal. Sylvia |
#25
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Will sunlight damage the electronics?
[bits elided to trim this to manageable size]
Sylvia Else wrote: D Yuniskis wrote: Sylvia Else wrote: There's not much point in having a comfort feature if it's likely to get turned off at the time of greatest need. It's not "turned off", per se. Rather, it is *deferred*. I.e., maybe 10 minutes later your ACbrrr will kick in instead of at the (slightly) earlier time when the thermostat called for cooling. But, as I've commented elsewhere, as soon as the AC is powered up it will stay on for longer to bring the temperature down again. Yes, but not *much* longer. The AC has to run long enough to pump out the heat that's flowed in during the time it was turned off. Heat is ariving in the building at a rate that's largely a linear function of the difference between inside and outside temperature, and the energy required to pump it back out is a slimilarly linear function. So to calculate the average energy Yes. But, the ACbrr is typically sized such that it can remove heat much faster than heat infiltrates the home. E.g., in the hottest portions of the summer, our ACbrrr rarely hits a 30%(?) duty cycle. Coonsider that the amount of hysteresis on many (most?) thermostats is only a few degrees, at most, so we are essentially calling on the HVAC system to maintain a comfort region of 2 or 3 degrees. (some thermostats allow this to be adjusted but I suspect you will find most users don't know this nor do they even know why they might *want* to adjust it!). Deferring the onset of the ACbrrr just increases the hysteresis temporarily. The overall duty cycle remains largely unaffected. consumption - ie power - you just look at the rate at which heat is flowing in. That rate is minimally altered by deferring the turn on of the AC. As I've observed, the rate is slightly lower because the average difference between the inside and outside temperatures is slight lower. On a very hot day, which is when this load shedding mechanism is likely to be most used, the saving will be modest, because the change in average temperature will be a small fraction of the total temperature difference. Again, you're not trying to *save* anything. You *do* save by increasing the hysteresis that is acceptable to you (assuming you don't, at the same time, alter the setpoint lower). You save *more* by increasing the setpoint. What the utilities want is for you to shift *when* you use that electricity. I.e., if you shift your usage by 10 minutes, the utility still gets the same amount of money from you -- because you are still purchasing the same amount of electricity (essentially). *But*, they have saved money by not having to overload their distribution or production system in that 10 minute window! A "thought experiment" grin : Imagine all ACbrrrs require a 30% duty cycle to maintain their respective residences at the "right temperature" (whatever *that* is -- it may be different from one residence to the next). Now, imagine that all of these were synchronized such that they ALL turned on their compressors at the exact same instant EACH TIME. The ACbrrr is the largest single load in most homes -- it can account for up to 30% (?) of the peak power capabilities of most homes. Most homes typically don't use anywhere near their *capacity* ON AVERAGE. Yet, this pathological behavior would have the utility seeing a *huge* demand... followed by negligible demand (the load that the rest of your house represents)... followed by that same huge demand, etc. And, this would happen while businesses were (elsewhere) placing *their* huge demands on the system. As I said: The goal isn't to save energy (though I think the laws of thermo say you *do* save in this case). Rather, the goal is to get you to *shift* your energy consumption (in time). The infrastructure is sized for some percentage above nominal. Of course, going too far *beyond* that causes things to *break* (hence the blackouts that become newsworthy). But, things like diesel/coal/gas fired plants that are there *deliberately* to respond to these short term fluctuations in demand could, theoretically, be eliminiated if the demand could be "leveled". But the demand cannot be levelled by short term adjustments to things like airconditioner demand. The overall demand is higher on hot days. Sure it can! Yes, the overall demand is higher on hot days. But, letting each *huge* load (ACbrrr) operate independantly of each other (as they do currently) means that there is a high probability (certainty?) that several of them will engage concurrently. If all of them coincide, then you get a big peak! Even if that load is only present for a *minute*, the system has to handle it -- or, "shed it" (by blowing fuses). Deferring an airconditioner load by ten minutes won't alter that. Getting people to defer their airconditioner loads until night time would be better, but of course that's not going to happen, at least not As I said, that is how some businesses operate, in a perverse distortion brought about by economics. until and unless airconditioners based on a large cold sink become the norm. That might be a bit of an own goal anyway, environmentally, because the cold sink would have to be kept cool against the possibility that the day following would be hot. There would always be some leakage, so the overall energy consumption of such systems would be higher, even if they were running on cheaper power. I suppose it could be argued that some transient peaks arise from a disproportionate number of AC thermostats switching to on at the same time, but given the number of ACs around, I'd be surprised if that were really an issue - the probability of a significant deviation from the short term average due to such an effect would have to be very low. It isn't. Hence the motivation for these tariffs. See if EPRI (Electric Power Research Institute) has any publications on the subject (I know they have, I am just not sure if they are available to the public -- I'm not sufficiently motivated to go dig through my files... : ) Nuclear power plants, for example, like to put out a steady amount of power (can we *please* not let this discussion digress into the pros and cons of nuclear power? : ) which doesn't lend itself to rapid response. If you had fill-in-the-blank power source that was ecnomical to operate and had this characteristic, then you would have a big incentive to coerce users into adapting their usage patterns to match. Also, it is important to define what crteria you actually want to optimize. E.g. "efficiency" can be defined in a lot of different ways -- many of which are inconsistent with each other :-/ While nuclear, and indeed coal, plants cannot respond rapidly to changes in demand, that is not the reason they are not used to handle peak loads. It's purely a question of economics. It is not cost-effective to have such plants lying idle - if that's going to happen, you don't build them, because they're too expensive to be used that way. You build less capital intensive plant for that purpose - typically gas or oil powered (though what we do when the gas/oil runs out isn't clear). Exactly! You want to size your load to (ideally) fit your capacity. (sort of like matching source impedance to load). You don't want excess capacity (if it will never be needed) so you want to get your capacity to exactly fit your load and then you want that load to *behave* (i.e., if it is likely to increase, then you will need excess capacity -- which you don't *want*). Note that the utilities aren't doing this for *your* benefit (at least not directly). If they were, they could elect to automatically set your thermostat higher when you are away at work, etc. They want to sell you power. They just want to sell it when it costs them the least! |
#26
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Will sunlight damage the electronics?
[bits elided to trim this to manageable size]
Sylvia Else wrote: D Yuniskis wrote: Sylvia Else wrote: There's not much point in having a comfort feature if it's likely to get turned off at the time of greatest need. It's not "turned off", per se. Rather, it is *deferred*. I.e., maybe 10 minutes later your ACbrrr will kick in instead of at the (slightly) earlier time when the thermostat called for cooling. But, as I've commented elsewhere, as soon as the AC is powered up it will stay on for longer to bring the temperature down again. Yes, but not *much* longer. The AC has to run long enough to pump out the heat that's flowed in during the time it was turned off. Heat is ariving in the building at a rate that's largely a linear function of the difference between inside and outside temperature, and the energy required to pump it back out is a slimilarly linear function. So to calculate the average energy Yes. But, the ACbrr is typically sized such that it can remove heat much faster than heat infiltrates the home. E.g., in the hottest portions of the summer, our ACbrrr rarely hits a 30%(?) duty cycle. Coonsider that the amount of hysteresis on many (most?) thermostats is only a few degrees, at most, so we are essentially calling on the HVAC system to maintain a comfort region of 2 or 3 degrees. (some thermostats allow this to be adjusted but I suspect you will find most users don't know this nor do they even know why they might *want* to adjust it!). Deferring the onset of the ACbrrr just increases the hysteresis temporarily. The overall duty cycle remains largely unaffected. consumption - ie power - you just look at the rate at which heat is flowing in. That rate is minimally altered by deferring the turn on of the AC. As I've observed, the rate is slightly lower because the average difference between the inside and outside temperatures is slight lower. On a very hot day, which is when this load shedding mechanism is likely to be most used, the saving will be modest, because the change in average temperature will be a small fraction of the total temperature difference. Again, you're not trying to *save* anything. You *do* save by increasing the hysteresis that is acceptable to you (assuming you don't, at the same time, alter the setpoint lower). You save *more* by increasing the setpoint. What the utilities want is for you to shift *when* you use that electricity. I.e., if you shift your usage by 10 minutes, the utility still gets the same amount of money from you -- because you are still purchasing the same amount of electricity (essentially). *But*, they have saved money by not having to overload their distribution or production system in that 10 minute window! A "thought experiment" grin : Imagine all ACbrrrs require a 30% duty cycle to maintain their respective residences at the "right temperature" (whatever *that* is -- it may be different from one residence to the next). Now, imagine that all of these were synchronized such that they ALL turned on their compressors at the exact same instant EACH TIME. The ACbrrr is the largest single load in most homes -- it can account for up to 30% (?) of the peak power capabilities of most homes. Most homes typically don't use anywhere near their *capacity* ON AVERAGE. Yet, this pathological behavior would have the utility seeing a *huge* demand... followed by negligible demand (the load that the rest of your house represents)... followed by that same huge demand, etc. And, this would happen while businesses were (elsewhere) placing *their* huge demands on the system. As I said: The goal isn't to save energy (though I think the laws of thermo say you *do* save in this case). Rather, the goal is to get you to *shift* your energy consumption (in time). The infrastructure is sized for some percentage above nominal. Of course, going too far *beyond* that causes things to *break* (hence the blackouts that become newsworthy). But, things like diesel/coal/gas fired plants that are there *deliberately* to respond to these short term fluctuations in demand could, theoretically, be eliminiated if the demand could be "leveled". But the demand cannot be levelled by short term adjustments to things like airconditioner demand. The overall demand is higher on hot days. Sure it can! Yes, the overall demand is higher on hot days. But, letting each *huge* load (ACbrrr) operate independantly of each other (as they do currently) means that there is a high probability (certainty?) that several of them will engage concurrently. If all of them coincide, then you get a big peak! Even if that load is only present for a *minute*, the system has to handle it -- or, "shed it" (by blowing fuses). Deferring an airconditioner load by ten minutes won't alter that. Getting people to defer their airconditioner loads until night time would be better, but of course that's not going to happen, at least not As I said, that is how some businesses operate, in a perverse distortion brought about by economics. until and unless airconditioners based on a large cold sink become the norm. That might be a bit of an own goal anyway, environmentally, because the cold sink would have to be kept cool against the possibility that the day following would be hot. There would always be some leakage, so the overall energy consumption of such systems would be higher, even if they were running on cheaper power. I suppose it could be argued that some transient peaks arise from a disproportionate number of AC thermostats switching to on at the same time, but given the number of ACs around, I'd be surprised if that were really an issue - the probability of a significant deviation from the short term average due to such an effect would have to be very low. It isn't. Hence the motivation for these tariffs. See if EPRI (Electric Power Research Institute) has any publications on the subject (I know they have, I am just not sure if they are available to the public -- I'm not sufficiently motivated to go dig through my files... : ) Nuclear power plants, for example, like to put out a steady amount of power (can we *please* not let this discussion digress into the pros and cons of nuclear power? : ) which doesn't lend itself to rapid response. If you had fill-in-the-blank power source that was ecnomical to operate and had this characteristic, then you would have a big incentive to coerce users into adapting their usage patterns to match. Also, it is important to define what crteria you actually want to optimize. E.g. "efficiency" can be defined in a lot of different ways -- many of which are inconsistent with each other :-/ While nuclear, and indeed coal, plants cannot respond rapidly to changes in demand, that is not the reason they are not used to handle peak loads. It's purely a question of economics. It is not cost-effective to have such plants lying idle - if that's going to happen, you don't build them, because they're too expensive to be used that way. You build less capital intensive plant for that purpose - typically gas or oil powered (though what we do when the gas/oil runs out isn't clear). Exactly! You want to size your load to (ideally) fit your capacity. (sort of like matching source impedance to load). You don't want excess capacity (if it will never be needed) so you want to get your capacity to exactly fit your load and then you want that load to *behave* (i.e., if it is likely to increase, then you will need excess capacity -- which you don't *want*). Note that the utilities aren't doing this for *your* benefit (at least not directly). If they were, they could elect to automatically set your thermostat higher when you are away at work, etc. They want to sell you power. They just want to sell it when it costs them the least! |
#27
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Will sunlight damage the electronics?
Sylvia Else wrote:
mm wrote: On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 23:35:06 +1100, Sylvia Else wrote: OTOH, if they were to raise their thermostat's setpoint that degree (or two?) all the time, they would probably not notice the difference. But, as I've commented elsewhere, as soon as the AC is powered up it will stay on for longer to bring the temperature down again. There is an energy saving, Radio-controlled AC turn-offs are not meant to be energy saving. They're meant to be peak-load lessening. It's meant to prevent brown-outs because of too much load at one time. And I'm arguing that they do not achieve that goal. How effective they are at doing this currently is something that you would have to investigate in each particular locality where such tariffs exist. Note that the extent to which the tariff is adopted (by customers) will directly impact how effective this technology can be (i.e., if very few folks "subscribe", then the utility doesn't have much of a tool at its disposal). Air conditioners are very reactive loads. As the power system is stressed, you get voltage sag. For a resistive load, this is fine -- the decrease in voltage creates a propportional decrease in *load*. But, AC compressor motors are essentially "constant power" devices -- as the voltage decreases, the amount of current that they require goes up. And, the relationship (phase) of that current requirement is not coincident with the supplied *voltage* (i.e. reactive). Motors *starting* are even worse. (e.g., preventing ACbrrs from *starting* is more effective than turning *off* existing ACbrrs, all else being equal). Note that, to avoid a "catastrophic event", it may only be necessary to shift a load by a small time interval --just long enough for alternate supplies to come on-line. E.g., imagine a high tension line tripping and effectively resulting in a reduction of supply -- sag -- so existing load has to be carried by other -- redundant -- lines. Until additional lines can be brought into service, the system is stressed. If you can shed loads at the consumer you can avoid shedding *all* the consumers (i.e., a major outage). The system can *always* break. You are just trying to reduce the number of scenarios/criteria under which it is brittle. I think much of this is the basis for the move (in the US) to upgrade the power distribution infrastructure (aka "Smart Grid"). No idea how things are done elsewherein the world but, here, the infrastructure is really pretty outdated. [N.B. I don't know enough about the "Smart Grid" issue to comment one way or the other -- I'm just hypothesizing as to its intent] |
#28
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Will sunlight damage the electronics?
Sylvia Else wrote:
mm wrote: On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 23:35:06 +1100, Sylvia Else wrote: OTOH, if they were to raise their thermostat's setpoint that degree (or two?) all the time, they would probably not notice the difference. But, as I've commented elsewhere, as soon as the AC is powered up it will stay on for longer to bring the temperature down again. There is an energy saving, Radio-controlled AC turn-offs are not meant to be energy saving. They're meant to be peak-load lessening. It's meant to prevent brown-outs because of too much load at one time. And I'm arguing that they do not achieve that goal. How effective they are at doing this currently is something that you would have to investigate in each particular locality where such tariffs exist. Note that the extent to which the tariff is adopted (by customers) will directly impact how effective this technology can be (i.e., if very few folks "subscribe", then the utility doesn't have much of a tool at its disposal). Air conditioners are very reactive loads. As the power system is stressed, you get voltage sag. For a resistive load, this is fine -- the decrease in voltage creates a propportional decrease in *load*. But, AC compressor motors are essentially "constant power" devices -- as the voltage decreases, the amount of current that they require goes up. And, the relationship (phase) of that current requirement is not coincident with the supplied *voltage* (i.e. reactive). Motors *starting* are even worse. (e.g., preventing ACbrrs from *starting* is more effective than turning *off* existing ACbrrs, all else being equal). Note that, to avoid a "catastrophic event", it may only be necessary to shift a load by a small time interval --just long enough for alternate supplies to come on-line. E.g., imagine a high tension line tripping and effectively resulting in a reduction of supply -- sag -- so existing load has to be carried by other -- redundant -- lines. Until additional lines can be brought into service, the system is stressed. If you can shed loads at the consumer you can avoid shedding *all* the consumers (i.e., a major outage). The system can *always* break. You are just trying to reduce the number of scenarios/criteria under which it is brittle. I think much of this is the basis for the move (in the US) to upgrade the power distribution infrastructure (aka "Smart Grid"). No idea how things are done elsewherein the world but, here, the infrastructure is really pretty outdated. [N.B. I don't know enough about the "Smart Grid" issue to comment one way or the other -- I'm just hypothesizing as to its intent] |
#29
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Will sunlight damage the electronics?
On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 17:49:50 -0400, mm wrote:
Will sunlight damage the electronics of a circuit board? The power company installed a radio-controlled switch on my air conditioner, and mounted it on the side of my house. It has an ugly label which clashes with the natural look of my little yard. I was peeling it off when I noticed that it covered a fairly darkly tinted plastic window, and inside the window was the circuit board that included the receiver and the control that turns the AC off when the Power Company Central Command wants it to. There is a much window below the label through which one can see a green LED. In the late afternoon shaedI only knew I could see the circuit board because I could see the glowing LED. (Does anyone know if that means there is power to the AC, or only that there is power to the controller device itself?) I stopped unpeeling at that point. I don't want to cause their product to wear out sooner than normal. I Would the sunlight harm anything inside? Just paint the $#%^$ thing to match the side of the house. Jonesy -- Marvin L Jones | jonz | W3DHJ | linux 38.24N 104.55W | @ config.com | Jonesy | OS/2 * Killfiling google & XXXXbanter.com: jonz.net/ng.htm |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Sunlight Collection | UK diy | |||
SUNLIGHT ENGRAVER | Woodworking | |||
buy electronics, sell electronics , auction electronics new, used electronics marketplace rHnI | Electronics Repair | |||
Can cold weather damage electronics components and circuit boards? | Electronics Repair | |||
how to re-direct sunlight | UK diy |