In , Richard J Kinch wrote:
ransley writes:

That "Toy" as you call the KAW meter has quite a few reviews online
stating accuracy is very, very good. I suspect your instrument is off,
or your frige on the bum, since my tests, done on several friges
conform to my utility bill at $0.13 kwh. Even an old unit I have, came
up after a 4 day test at around $11 a month.

You claim $11 per month, so that's 11/0.13 = 84 KWH over 30*24 hours, which
would as an always-on average load rate to just over 100 watts. A big
refrigerator does not average 100 watts. It's more like 300 watts when it
runs, and typical duty cycles with an icemaker are mostly running.

My experience is that most fridges don't have icemakers, and modern ones
with icemakers don't consume power like that unless people use immense
amounts of ice.

And don't forget my little gem of wisdom that your indoor refrigeration
cost is twice as bad as your refrigerator electric cost when you are air
conditioning, because you're pumping that heat twice, not once. Once from
the refrigerator into the kitchen for $1/day, and again from the kitchen to
outdoors for $1.25/day.

Amount of electrical energy to pump a given amount of heat energy from
indoors to outdoors is about 1/3 of the heat energy. Ideally the ratio is
3.41 divided by EER of the air conditioner.
And heat energy output of a fridge is same as electrical energy
consumption of the fridge, plus only a tiny bit more for heat coming out
for items going in warmer than they are coming out - it's close enough to
equal to the electrical energy going into the fridge.

Cost to pump the heat from indoors to outdoors is zero when outdoors is
cool enough to not use an air conditioner.

So the accuracy of your outlet meter is not really
the point, because it doesn't measure the true marginal cost of the
refrigeration per BTU. This is one of the huge holes in the Energy Star
claims.

- Don Klipstein )

In article , Richard J Kinch
wrote:
ransley writes:

my tennants pay about Twenty- 22 Dollars a month for all
electric

Please. $20/month worth of electricity won't run a TV set, much less heat,
lights, or appliances.

I don't think it is even possible to get a $20 bill from our utility. The
fixed charges are more than that.

My utility has fixed charges closer to $5. The total per-KWH portion of
my bill is close to 14 cents. My most recent electric bill for my
1-bedroom apartment was $33 - including elctric stove.

- Don Klipstein )

On Apr 17, 9:01*pm, (Don Klipstein) wrote:
In article , Richard J Kinch
wrote:

ransley writes:

my tennants pay about Twenty- 22 *Dollars a month for all
electric

Please. *$20/month worth of electricity won't run a TV set, much less heat,
lights, or appliances.

I don't think it is even possible to get a $20 bill from our utility. *The
fixed charges are more than that.

* My utility has fixed charges closer to $5. *The total per-KWH portion of
my bill is close to 14 cents. *My most recent electric bill for my
1-bedroom apartment was $33 - including elctric stove.

*- Don Klipstein )

An electric stove costs alot to run just like electric heat, Our fixed
charges are zero for electric at 13.6 kwh now, Ng is 9$. 20 a month
for tv, if you watch it 8 hrs a day every day a new tv might cost
10-15 for me. Obviously few know where they use energy or how to lower
it, thats a shame, no wonder our country wastes the most energy.

dpb writes:

The same amount of heat has to be transferred to cool N grams of water
to make ice.

Public schooled?

Don Klipstein writes:

Amount of electrical energy to pump a given amount of heat energy
from
indoors to outdoors is about 1/3 of the heat energy. Ideally the
ratio is 3.41 divided by EER of the air conditioner.

That's true, at least for air conditioning serving a small delta T of
indoors to outdoors. Not so efficient when delta T is many times
larger, going from 0 deg F freezer to warm outdoors. Think about why
heat pumps for home heating aren't used when it is the mirror image of
refrigeration, with 0 deg F outside and room temp inside.

And heat energy output of a fridge is same as electrical energy
consumption of the fridge, plus only a tiny bit more for heat coming
out for items going in warmer than they are coming out - it's close
enough to equal to the electrical energy going into the fridge.

Conservation of energy of course applies. But if you consider the
multiple heat cycles that exposed water in the freezer goes through
(chill/freeze/sublimate/condense/freeze/defrost/evaporate/condense),
you'll understand why the electric energy consumed per BTU spoils the
3:1 rule of thumb. And why it's not therefore in the DOE test.

You can easily prove this to yourself with a duty cycle meter on your
refrigerator/freezer, and measuring while making and storing ice, versus
icemaker off and no exposed ice. In my experience you go from running
constantly while ice is being made to running quite intermittently when
there is no icemaking or exposed ice. A puddle of liquid water in a
freezer is like a campfire in there, pushing the temp towards 32 deg F
when the freezer wants to shut off at 0 deg F.

Richard J Kinch wrote:

... In my experience you go from running constantly while ice is being made
to running quite intermittently when there is no icemaking or exposed ice.
A puddle of liquid water in a freezer is like a campfire in there, pushing
the temp towards 32 deg F when the freezer wants to shut off at 0 deg F.

Then again...

How much energy would we save if we kept ice trays in a baggie?

My ice cube trays hold 0.796 pounds of water. Freezing one from 60 F takes
(60-32+144)0.796 = 137 Btu, ie 0.04 kWh of heat. A fridge with a COP of 3
could move that with 0.013 kWh worth 1.3 cents at 10 cents/kWh. Know anyone
who freezes 1/0.013 = 75 ice cube trays per day? :-)

The trays have about 4"x10" of ice surface. Over a month, they might lose
1/4" of depth in my frost-free freezer. How much does that cost?

That's about 0.25x4x10/12^3x62 = 0.36 pounds of ice, ie 1.7 Btu/day worth
0.002 cents per day (61 cents per year :-) at 10 cents/kWh with a COP of 3.

Polyethylene bags, by the way, are not very effective vapor barriers...

http://www.devicelink.com/mpb/archive/98/09/005.html

says 100 in^2 of "low-density polyethylene" loses about 0.4 grams of water
per day per mil (0.001") of thickness at 40 C (104 F), with 0% RH on one
side and 35% on the other. A graph shows how this decreases linearly with
inverse (1000/T(K)) temperature. How much would that cost?

EERE/DOE say a 6 mil poly film vapor barrier has 0.06 perms, ie 1 ft^2
transmits 0.06 grains of water vapor per hour (out of 7000 grains per pound)
with a 1" Hg differential pressure at 73.4 F. How much would that cost?

Nick

On Apr 18, 12:03*am, Richard J Kinch wrote:
Don Klipstein writes:
* Amount of electrical energy to pump a given amount of heat energy
* from
indoors to outdoors is about 1/3 of the heat energy. *Ideally the
ratio is 3.41 divided by EER of the air conditioner.

That's true, at least for air conditioning serving a small delta T of
indoors to outdoors. *Not so efficient when delta T is many times
larger, going from 0 deg F freezer to warm outdoors. *Think about why
heat pumps for home heating aren't used when it is the mirror image of
refrigeration, with 0 deg F outside and room temp inside.

* And heat energy output of a fridge is same as electrical energy
consumption of the fridge, plus only a tiny bit more for heat coming
out for items going in warmer than they are coming out - it's close
enough to equal to the electrical energy going into the fridge.

Conservation of energy of course applies. *But if you consider the
multiple heat cycles that exposed water in the freezer goes through
(chill/freeze/sublimate/condense/freeze/defrost/evaporate/condense),
you'll understand why the electric energy consumed per BTU spoils the
3:1 rule of thumb. *And why it's not therefore in the DOE test.

You can easily prove this to yourself with a duty cycle meter on your
refrigerator/freezer, and measuring while making and storing ice, versus
icemaker off and no exposed ice. *In my experience you go from running *
constantly while ice is being made to running quite intermittently when
there is no icemaking or exposed ice. *A puddle of liquid water in a
freezer is like a campfire in there, pushing the temp towards 32 deg F
when the freezer wants to shut off at 0 deg F.


Your experience with ice makers is totally different than mine. I
don't notice any difference in running time on mine when it's making
ice versus when it's not. It's most certainly NOT running all the
time when making ice. Good grief, the amount of water that's frozen
over a period of about an hour and a half is very modest, maybe a cup
or so. You can do the math, but clearly the heat contained in that
small qty of water should not make any decent refrigerator run
constantly.

Also, you vastly overestimate the sublimation effect. Sure, ice will
SLOWLY sublimate. If I leave the ice maker full, unused and off,
after maybe a month, the volume will diminish by 1/3. So, we're
talking about what? A quart of extra ice it has to make in a month?
Sure it uses some energy, but in the grand scheme of things, I don't
see this being a big factor. How about all the foods one puts in
the freezer that go in above room temp, like two quarts of soup?
Isn't that what the freezer is there for and supposed to do? Yet
making some ice is supposed to be a big factor?

Richard J Kinch wrote:

...

That's about ...

You're quoting and responding to someone else's post, not mine.

Your experience with ice makers is totally different than mine. I
don't notice any difference in running time on mine when it's making
ice versus when it's not.

Noticing or not noticing isn't physics. One has to appreciate
thermodynamics and the heat of fusion to understand why ice making is so
much more energy intensive than making up heat losses through a well-
insulated cabinet or warm air infiltration.

Also, you vastly overestimate the sublimation effect.

I haven't actually made any specific estimate, over or otherwise, but I
suppose you mean to say that sublimation and the other wasteful phase
changes inside a refrigerator-freezer are trivial, when if fact they are
a major factor as evidenced by the need for frequent defrosting and the
pivotal role that plays in efficiency.

The trickiness of all debate over efficiency is that you can call things
like sublimation trivial that are indeed small, but then you're
comparing them to things that have been optimized down to very near
zero, like heat gain through insulation, which is what the DOE test
measures, then the efficiency ratings based on near-zero effects are
still completely spoiled by the comparatively large sublimation type
effects that aren't in the DOE tests.

Richard J Kinch wrote:
Your experience with ice makers is totally different than mine. I
don't notice any difference in running time on mine when it's making
ice versus when it's not.

Noticing or not noticing isn't physics. One has to appreciate
thermodynamics and the heat of fusion to understand why ice making is so
much more energy intensive than making up heat losses through a well-
insulated cabinet or warm air infiltration.

But heat removal is still heat removal as has been pointed out before --
it's only the source and the amount of heat required to be removed from
the water to create an equivalent amount of ice is the same for equal
amounts of water at the same initial conditions. So again, it would
change the magnitude of the numbers, much less effect on the _relative_
results which is the point of the test.

....

On Apr 18, 6:57*pm, Richard J Kinch wrote:
Your experience with ice makers is totally different than mine. * I
don't notice any difference in running time on mine when it's making
ice versus when it's not.

Noticing or not noticing isn't physics. *One has to appreciate
thermodynamics and the heat of fusion to understand why ice making is so
much more energy intensive than making up heat losses through a well-
insulated cabinet or warm air infiltration.

Excuse me. You made the claim that in your experience refrigerators
run constantly when making ice. So, which is it? Your OPINION based
on physics calcs you haven't done, or your actual observation. I'll
say it again. In my experience, with my own refrigerator, it DOES
NOT COME EVEN CLOSE TO RUNNING ALL THE TIME WHILE MAKING ICE.




Also, you vastly overestimate the sublimation effect.

I haven't actually made any specific estimate, over or otherwise, but I
suppose you mean to say that sublimation and the other wasteful phase
changes inside a refrigerator-freezer are trivial, when if fact they are
a major factor as evidenced by the need for frequent defrosting and the
pivotal role that plays in efficiency.


Hmmm, first we have the physics defense, now you say you haven't even
made any actual calculations. So, it's pure speculation.



The trickiness of all debate over efficiency is that you can call things
like sublimation trivial that are indeed small, but then you're
comparing them to things that have been optimized down to very near
zero, like heat gain through insulation, which is what the DOE test
measures, then the efficiency ratings based on near-zero effects are
still completely spoiled by the comparatively large sublimation type
effects that aren't in the DOE tests.

That the DOE tests don't include ice makers does not equate to ice
makers result in the refrigerator running all the time. Or that
sublimation of maybe 1/3 of a container of ice during a month is a big
deal energy wise. All we have is your pure speculation. You have
any references to back any of this up?

Don Klipstein writes:

You claimed 1.25 times as much energy to move the heat from the
kitchen to the outdoors as is consumed by the fridge in article
. You claimed in that
article $1 per day for the fridge and $1.25 again per day to move the
heat from the kitchen to the outdoors.

Simply an observation that if it cost $1 to pump some quantity of heat from
inside the refrigerator to the kitchen, it is going to cost about that much
to pump it again from the kitchen to outdoors, plus the additional heat
generated by the first pump.

What does that have to do with the 3:1 rule-of-thumb which I claimed
was for an air conditioner?

The 3:1 rule applies to one hop, moving heat from one place to another.
For an air conditioner you're sinking into the outside world on one
thermodynamic path, so it's one hop. A refrigerator has multiple paths,
and ultimately sinks into the room air, so the heat from making ice has
many hops, and the 3:1 rule does not apply. It can be worse if you're air
conditioning, or better if you're heating.

All we have is your pure speculation.

Deduction is not speculation. The whole point of engineering analysis is
to predict things you haven't tried by use of mathematical laws instead of
trial and error. I assert this cup of coffee will run downhill if I spill
it. That's speculation?

You have any references to back any of this up?

Early in this thread I cited the US CFR section that specifies the DOE
testing procedure (no doors, no contents, no icemaking). Physics and
thermodynamics are textbook subjects.

On Apr 21, 7:44*pm, Richard J Kinch wrote:
All we have is your pure speculation.

Deduction is not speculation. *The whole point of engineering analysis is
to predict things you haven't tried by use of mathematical laws instead of
trial and error. *I assert this cup of coffee will run downhill if I spill
it. *That's speculation?

It's pure speculation when you claim that ice sublimation is a large
or dominant factor in how much energy a refrigerator uses. You have
NOTHING that shows how much energy this amounts to. It's also pure
speculation that making ice in the quantities a typical home would use
is a big factor in how much energy a refrigerator uses, because again
you have NOTHING to base this on.

I can tell you one thing you're dead wrong on. You claimed that a
refrigerator that is making ice runs nearly constantly. I told you
that in my experience, that is simply not true. To support that, I
did a little test yesterday. I emptied out 1/3 of my ice container
and kept an eye on the refrigerator intermittently for the next couple
of hours. It did not run anywhere near to constantly. It appeared
to run about the same as it does any other time, which is a small
fraction of the time. I encourage anyone with doubts to try it.




You have any references to back any of this up?

Early in this thread I cited the US CFR section that specifies the DOE
testing procedure (no doors, no contents, no icemaking). *Physics and
thermodynamics are textbook subjects.

That specifies the testing procedures used and was certainly good
information for everyone. However, it does nothing to support your
claim that ice sublimation is such a big factor or that a refrigerator
runs constantly when making ice. For all you know, the EPA could
have figured out that making ice in an average use situation makes
only a 5% or 10%% difference in the amount of energy used and chose
for simplicity to just ignore it.

And while physics and thermodynamics are textbook subjects, without
even any rudimentary calculations, let alone real world tests, citing
them doesn't do anything to support your case.

Now, what should I believe? My own eyes and ears seeing that my
refrigerator runs only a small fraction of the time making ice or your
obviously biased opinions, without supporting evidence?

In , Richard J Kinch wrote:
Don Klipstein writes:

You claimed 1.25 times as much energy to move the heat from the
kitchen to the outdoors as is consumed by the fridge in article
. You claimed in that
article $1 per day for the fridge and $1.25 again per day to move the
heat from the kitchen to the outdoors.

Simply an observation that if it cost $1 to pump some quantity of heat from
inside the refrigerator to the kitchen, it is going to cost about that much
to pump it again from the kitchen to outdoors, plus the additional heat
generated by the first pump.

However, essentially all of the net heat output from a fridge is from
the electrical energy consumed by the fridge. The heat being removed
the fridge is heat that went into it from the kitchen.

Hypothetically, put a fridge in a large black box. So now you have a
black box with a power cord coming out of it. The heat energy coming
out of this box will equal the electrical energy going through the power
cord. The law of conservation of energy does not care about what is
inside this black box.

What does that have to do with the 3:1 rule-of-thumb which I claimed
was for an air conditioner?

The 3:1 rule applies to one hop, moving heat from one place to another.
For an air conditioner you're sinking into the outside world on one
thermodynamic path, so it's one hop. A refrigerator has multiple paths,
and ultimately sinks into the room air, so the heat from making ice has
many hops, and the 3:1 rule does not apply. It can be worse if you're air
conditioning, or better if you're heating.

So a fridge consumes 1 KWH to pump either 3 KWH or some other quantity
of heat out - but the heat removed from the fridge is nearly entirely
heat that went into it from the kitchen.
The net heat output of the fridge during a time it has consumed 1 KWH of
electricity is going to be pretty close to 3414 BTU, which a good air
conditioner can pump from the kitchen to the outdoors with about 1/3 KWH
of electricity.

- Don Klipstein )

On Apr 21, 8:04*pm, wrote:
On Apr 21, 7:44*pm, Richard J Kinch wrote:

All we have is your pure speculation.

Deduction is not speculation. *The whole point of engineering analysis is
to predict things you haven't tried by use of mathematical laws instead of
trial and error. *I assert this cup of coffee will run downhill if I spill
it. *That's speculation?

It's pure speculation when you claim that ice sublimation is a large
or dominant factor in how much energy a refrigerator uses. * *You have
NOTHING that shows how much energy this amounts to. * *It's also pure
speculation that making ice in the quantities a typical home would use
is a big factor in how much energy a refrigerator uses, because again
you have NOTHING to base this on.

I can tell you one thing you're dead wrong on. * You claimed that a
refrigerator that is making ice runs nearly constantly. * *I told you
that in my experience, that is simply not true. * *To support that, I
did a little test yesterday. *I emptied out 1/3 of my ice container
and kept an eye on the refrigerator intermittently for the next couple
of hours. * It did not run anywhere near to constantly. * It appeared
to run about the same as it does any other time, which is a small
fraction of the time. * I encourage anyone with doubts to try it.



You have any references to back any of this up?

Early in this thread I cited the US CFR section that specifies the DOE
testing procedure (no doors, no contents, no icemaking). *Physics and
thermodynamics are textbook subjects.

That specifies the testing procedures used and was certainly good
information for everyone. * However, it does nothing to support your
claim that ice sublimation is such a big factor or that a refrigerator
runs constantly when making ice. * For all you know, the EPA could
have figured out that making ice in an average use situation makes
only a 5% or 10%% difference in the amount of energy used and chose
for simplicity to just ignore it.

And while physics and thermodynamics are textbook subjects, without
even any rudimentary calculations, let alone real world tests, citing
them doesn't do anything to support your case.

Now, what should I believe? * My own eyes and ears seeing that my
refrigerator runs only a small fraction of the time making ice or your
obviously biased opinions, without supporting evidence?

I will simplfy it, I will make it easy, I get EPA yellow tag ratings,
I tested mine, it works. I pay less than $5 a month to run my 19.5 cu.
ft frige. Kinch pays 30 a month to run whatever, he is a sucker. Let
him be a sucker or a moron, whatever. its his money, his waste, not
mine or yours.

On Apr 21, 8:43*pm, (Don Klipstein) wrote:
In , Richard J Kinch wrote:

Don Klipstein writes:

* You claimed 1.25 times as much energy to move the heat from the
kitchen to the outdoors as is consumed by the fridge in article
. *You claimed in that
article $1 per day for the fridge and $1.25 again per day to move the
heat from the kitchen to the outdoors.

Simply an observation that if it cost $1 to pump some quantity of heat from
inside the refrigerator to the kitchen, it is going to cost about that much
to pump it again from the kitchen to outdoors, plus the additional heat
generated by the first pump.

* However, essentially all of the net heat output from a fridge is from
the electrical energy consumed by the fridge. *The heat being removed
the fridge is heat that went into it from the kitchen.

* Hypothetically, put a fridge in a large black box. *So now you have a
black box with a power cord coming out of it. *The heat energy coming
out of this box will equal the electrical energy going through the power
cord. *The law of conservation of energy does not care about what is
inside this black box.

What does that have to do with the 3:1 rule-of-thumb which I claimed
was for an air conditioner?

The 3:1 rule applies to one hop, moving heat from one place to another. *
For an air conditioner you're sinking into the outside world on one
thermodynamic path, so it's one hop. *A refrigerator has multiple paths,
and ultimately sinks into the room air, so the heat from making ice has
many hops, and the 3:1 rule does not apply. *It can be worse if you're air
conditioning, or better if you're heating.

* So a fridge consumes 1 KWH to pump either 3 KWH or some other quantity
of heat out - but the heat removed from the fridge is nearly entirely
heat that went into it from the kitchen.
* The net heat output of the fridge during a time it has consumed 1 KWH of
electricity is going to be pretty close to 3414 BTU, which a good air
conditioner can pump from the kitchen to the outdoors with about 1/3 KWH
of electricity.

*- Don Klipstein )

Get a KaW meter and test a new one, instead of guessing, bs ng
discusing bs to death. I mean who cares, it works. Ive bought over 10
last year, they work. They save as advertised .

I can tell you one thing you're dead wrong on. You claimed that a
refrigerator that is making ice runs nearly constantly.

Here's an Energy Star example:

http://products.geappliances.com/App...SKU=PSB42LGRWV

They claim 606 kWh per year (8760 hours). So that's 606/8760 =
69 watts average consumption. Nowhere does GE seem to specify what
the running power is, but based on my experience I would expect it
to be 300 or 500 watts. So the duty cycle is claimed to be 69/300
or about 23 percent, actually less because we haven't counted the
high-wattage defrost periods. We have to also guess at 1000 BTU/hr
for the refrigeration unit based on its wattage. So this appliance
is pumping maybe 6000 BTUs per day. Now you tell me how much ice
you can make in one of these things running flat out, and we'll see
how much the duty cycle has to increase to compensate at about 300
BTUs per pound of ice. Just to make a pound of ice per hour will
more than double that duty cycle.

Don Klipstein writes:

The heat being removed the fridge is heat that went into it from
the kitchen.

So you claim to make ice without a sensible heat gain (which burdens
the A/C) and corresponding latent heat loss (which does not)?

In thermodynamics and refrigeration, the money is always in the phase
changes. Conduction losses are small change. Which is why the DOE
test is silly, because it deliberately excludes any phase changing.

In article ,
Richard J Kinch wrote:

I can tell you one thing you're dead wrong on. You claimed that a
refrigerator that is making ice runs nearly constantly.

Here's an Energy Star example:

http://products.geappliances.com/App...=SPECPAGE&SITE
ID=GEA&CHANNEL=CH0000&SKU=PSB42LGRWV

They claim 606 kWh per year (8760 hours). So that's 606/8760 =
69 watts average consumption. Nowhere does GE seem to specify what
the running power is, but based on my experience I would expect it
to be 300 or 500 watts. So the duty cycle is claimed to be 69/300
or about 23 percent, actually less because we haven't counted the
high-wattage defrost periods. We have to also guess at 1000 BTU/hr
for the refrigeration unit based on its wattage. So this appliance
is pumping maybe 6000 BTUs per day. Now you tell me how much ice
you can make in one of these things running flat out, and we'll see
how much the duty cycle has to increase to compensate at about 300
BTUs per pound of ice. Just to make a pound of ice per hour will
more than double that duty cycle.

A pound of ice per hour? Um, I don't use a pound of ice in a month. I
know I'm the exception, not the rule, but if we're debating real world
numbers here, let's play it straight down the line.

On Apr 22, 12:01*am, Richard J Kinch wrote:
I can tell you one thing you're dead wrong on. * You claimed that a
refrigerator that is making ice runs nearly constantly.

Here's an Energy Star example:

http://products.geappliances.com/App...r?REQUEST=SPEC...

They claim 606 kWh per year (8760 hours). *So that's 606/8760 =
69 watts average consumption. *Nowhere does GE seem to specify what
the running power is, but based on my experience I would expect it
to be 300 or 500 watts. *So the duty cycle is claimed to be 69/300
or about 23 percent, actually less because we haven't counted the
high-wattage defrost periods. *We have to also guess at 1000 BTU/hr
for the refrigeration unit based on its wattage. *So this appliance
is pumping maybe 6000 BTUs per day. *Now you tell me how much ice
you can make in one of these things running flat out, and we'll see
how much the duty cycle has to increase to compensate at about 300
BTUs per pound of ice. *Just to make a pound of ice per hour will
more than double that duty cycle.

You forgot to read , defrost cycles are included, , DID YOU TEST ONE
of just moan again

On Apr 22, 12:01*am, Richard J Kinch wrote:
I can tell you one thing you're dead wrong on. * You claimed that a
refrigerator that is making ice runs nearly constantly.

Here's an Energy Star example:

http://products.geappliances.com/App...r?REQUEST=SPEC...

They claim 606 kWh per year (8760 hours). *So that's 606/8760 =
69 watts average consumption. *Nowhere does GE seem to specify what
the running power is, but based on my experience I would expect it
to be 300 or 500 watts. *So the duty cycle is claimed to be 69/300
or about 23 percent, actually less because we haven't counted the
high-wattage defrost periods. *We have to also guess at 1000 BTU/hr
for the refrigeration unit based on its wattage. *So this appliance
is pumping maybe 6000 BTUs per day. *Now you tell me how much ice
you can make in one of these things running flat out, and we'll see
how much the duty cycle has to increase to compensate at about 300
BTUs per pound of ice. *Just to make a pound of ice per hour will
more than double that duty cycle.

Moan moan moan, But you did no comparison, instead you admit you pay a
total junker 30 a month

On Apr 22, 12:01*am, Richard J Kinch wrote:
I can tell you one thing you're dead wrong on. * You claimed that a
refrigerator that is making ice runs nearly constantly.

Here's an Energy Star example:

http://products.geappliances.com/App...r?REQUEST=SPEC...

They claim 606 kWh per year (8760 hours). *So that's 606/8760 =
69 watts average consumption. *Nowhere does GE seem to specify what
the running power is, but based on my experience I would expect it
to be 300 or 500 watts. *So the duty cycle is claimed to be 69/300
or about 23 percent, actually less because we haven't counted the
high-wattage defrost periods. *We have to also guess at 1000 BTU/hr
for the refrigeration unit based on its wattage. *So this appliance
is pumping maybe 6000 BTUs per day. *Now you tell me how much ice
you can make in one of these things running flat out, and we'll see
how much the duty cycle has to increase to compensate at about 300
BTUs per pound of ice. *Just to make a pound of ice per hour will
more than double that duty cycle.

Did you test your JUNKER against anything, no you did not

On Apr 22, 12:01*am, Richard J Kinch wrote:
I can tell you one thing you're dead wrong on. * You claimed that a
refrigerator that is making ice runs nearly constantly.

Here's an Energy Star example:

http://products.geappliances.com/App...r?REQUEST=SPEC...

They claim 606 kWh per year (8760 hours). *So that's 606/8760 =
69 watts average consumption. *Nowhere does GE seem to specify what
the running power is, but based on my experience I would expect it
to be 300 or 500 watts. *So the duty cycle is claimed to be 69/300
or about 23 percent, actually less because we haven't counted the
high-wattage defrost periods. *We have to also guess at 1000 BTU/hr
for the refrigeration unit based on its wattage. *So this appliance
is pumping maybe 6000 BTUs per day. *Now you tell me how much ice
you can make in one of these things running flat out, and we'll see
how much the duty cycle has to increase to compensate at about 300
BTUs per pound of ice. *Just to make a pound of ice per hour will
more than double that duty cycle.

Your basis on costs is not my basis , your 30 a month junker is just
that, a junk , waiting to be junked

On Apr 22, 12:01*am, Richard J Kinch wrote:
I can tell you one thing you're dead wrong on. * You claimed that a
refrigerator that is making ice runs nearly constantly.

Here's an Energy Star example:

http://products.geappliances.com/App...r?REQUEST=SPEC...

They claim 606 kWh per year (8760 hours). *So that's 606/8760 =
69 watts average consumption. *Nowhere does GE seem to specify what
the running power is, but based on my experience I would expect it
to be 300 or 500 watts. *So the duty cycle is claimed to be 69/300
or about 23 percent, actually less because we haven't counted the
high-wattage defrost periods. *We have to also guess at 1000 BTU/hr
for the refrigeration unit based on its wattage. *So this appliance
is pumping maybe 6000 BTUs per day. *Now you tell me how much ice
you can make in one of these things running flat out, and we'll see
how much the duty cycle has to increase to compensate at about 300
BTUs per pound of ice. *Just to make a pound of ice per hour will
more than double that duty cycle.

Wrong its near 80- 90 , ninety watts, mr Kincho, the problem is you
have ZERO present experiance , but you think you do, which is BS, you
never tested anything new, you test only posibly defective junk your
unit, you have no independant view, you have only a biased view. your
opinion is truely worthless. and based HOW, on what equipment , and
what new units did you test, YOU TESTED NO NEW UNITS, YOU ONLY TESTED
YOUR OLD JUNK. Your opinion is therefore BULL ****

In , Richard J Kinch wrote:
I can tell you one thing you're dead wrong on. You claimed that a
refrigerator that is making ice runs nearly constantly.

Here's an Energy Star example:

http://products.geappliances.com/ApplProducts/
Dispatcher?REQUEST=SPECPAGE&SITEID=GEA&CHANNEL=CH 0000&SKU=PSB42LGRWV

They claim 606 kWh per year (8760 hours). So that's 606/8760 =
69 watts average consumption. Nowhere does GE seem to specify what
the running power is, but based on my experience I would expect it
to be 300 or 500 watts. So the duty cycle is claimed to be 69/300
or about 23 percent, actually less because we haven't counted the
high-wattage defrost periods. We have to also guess at 1000 BTU/hr
for the refrigeration unit based on its wattage. So this appliance
is pumping maybe 6000 BTUs per day. Now you tell me how much ice
you can make in one of these things running flat out, and we'll see
how much the duty cycle has to increase to compensate at about 300
BTUs per pound of ice. Just to make a pound of ice per hour will
more than double that duty cycle.

A pound of ice per hour? 24 pounds of ice per day? How many people use
that much???

- Don Klipstein )

"Richard J Kinch" wrote in message

They claim 606 kWh per year (8760 hours). So that's 606/8760 =
69 watts average consumption. Nowhere does GE seem to specify what
the running power is, but based on my experience I would expect it
to be 300 or 500 watts.

So the duty cycle is claimed to be 69/300
or about 23 percent, actually less because we haven't counted the
high-wattage defrost periods. We have to also guess at 1000 BTU/hr
for the refrigeration unit based on its wattage. So this appliance
is pumping maybe 6000 BTUs per day.

That is a lot of guessing. I thought all your figures were based on fact.


Now you tell me how much ice
you can make in one of these things running flat out, and we'll see
how much the duty cycle has to increase to compensate at about 300
BTUs per pound of ice. Just to make a pound of ice per hour will
more than double that duty cycle.

24 pounds of ice per day = 3 gallons of water converted to ice. That is a
lot of ice per day for a typical household.

Richard J Kinch wrote:

... we'll see how much the duty cycle has to increase to compensate at
about 300 BTUs per pound of ice.

I can freeze a pound of water with 144 Btu on my planet :-)

Nick

"Richard J Kinch" wrote in message
BTUs per pound of ice. Just to make a pound of ice per hour will
more than double that duty cycle.

We just bought a new refrigerator at work. I'm looking at the manual and it
states that the ice maker can turn out 2.5 to 3 pounds of ice per day. That
won't affect the duty cycle very much.

I can freeze a pound of water with 144 Btu on my planet

More than that. Maybe another 50 to chill it first. Plus wattage for a fan
to blow air on it. And the defroster to take care of evaporation from
blowing that air on it. Plus a reevaporator fan. And maybe the air
conditioning. I would estimate more like 300 effectively.

Don Klipstein writes:

A pound of ice per hour? 24 pounds of ice per day? How many people use
that much???

You consumption is not the issue, it's the rate at which the unit produces
when it's running flat out. The issue was what happens to the duty cycle
when the thing is making ice. My claim is that making ice is a bigger BTU
load than perfect "idling" (no doors, no contents, no icemaking).

I think part of the problem is that my side-by-side refrigerator is a
recent "efficient" type and not that old, but it is a big 25 cu ft unit
with a rather large icemaker in it. The freezer side is big but the
icemaker and bin take up about 1/4 of it. At the time when I was last
buying a refrigerator, it was clear that the big ones had the same heat
pumps in them as the smaller ones, they just ran them on a higher duty
cycle. Which makes sense.

Richard J Kinch writes:

So you claim to make ice without a sensible heat gain (which burdens
the A/C) and corresponding latent heat loss (which does not)?

Freezing water does release heat which needs to be transported outside.
But how much ice do you make? How many BTUs per month is that, compared
to the heat leakage through the refrigerator walls?

Our refrigerator has ice cube trays, not an automatic ice maker, so I'm
aware of exactly how often it's freezing water. It ends up being less
than one cube tray per month. I can't believe that's a significant
fraction of the heat load for an entire month.

Dave

"Edwin Pawlowski" writes:

"Richard J Kinch" wrote in message
BTUs per pound of ice. Just to make a pound of ice per hour will
more than double that duty cycle.

We just bought a new refrigerator at work. I'm looking at the manual and it
states that the ice maker can turn out 2.5 to 3 pounds of ice per day. That
won't affect the duty cycle very much.

Yeah, and you'd have to keep removing ice from the bin to keep the
icemaker running to get even that output. Otherwise it will fill the
bin and stop.

Here, we're unlikely to use 3 pounds of ice per *month*, except for a
few months in the summer.

Dave

Richard J Kinch wrote:

You consumption is not the issue, it's the rate at which the unit produces
when it's running flat out. The issue was what happens to the duty cycle
when the thing is making ice. My claim is that making ice is a bigger BTU
load than perfect "idling" (no doors, no contents, no icemaking).

My kitchen fridge freezer compartment is 0.5 F at the moment. It contains
about 30 pounds of frozen food. Unplugged and "idling," it could easily
make a pound of ice with a 10 F temp increase (ice has half the specific
heat of water.)

Nick

On Apr 11, 6:24*pm, Ken wrote:
On Apr 8, 9:41*pm, "C & E" wrote:

I just saw an Energy Star commercial which stated that a 'fridge built ten
years ago uses twice as much electricity as a new one. *Does that sound like
a logical stat to you? *I'll have to spend some time researching that when I
get time but it sounds a bit inflated to me.

OK, here's one data point in the comparison:

We were getting a new fridge to replace an old one that was about
10-15 years old (I don't know the exact age because the previous
homeowners bought it.) *Shortly before the new fridge was to be
delivered, we plugged the old one into a kill-a-watt meter, and
recorded the usage over a 1 week period. *Result was 2.5 kWh per day
electrical usage. *After the new one was delivered, we plugged in the
same kill-a-watt meter and recorded the usage over another 1 week
period. *Usage was 1.0 kWh per day. *So the old fridge used 2.5 times
as much electrical energy to run. This was measured with a similar
load of contents in the two fridges, with similar door opening and
closing frequencies, same time of year, so the house interior temp was
about the same between the two measurements, same kill-a-watt meter
used, so any meter calibration bias would cancel out. New fridge is
somewhat smaller than the old fridge, old one was something like 21 cu
ft, new one 19 cu ft. I think, so that could explain part of the
energy use reduction.

When we bought the new fridge (this was about a year ago), we were
told by the salesman (so take this for what it's worth ;-) ), that
fridges had recently gone through a redesign to make them much more
efficient, but lower reliability. He said manufacturers had reduced
their compressor warranty periods from 5 years to 1 year.

Ken

Interesting info; thanks for publishing.

BTW the difference between the 2.5 and 1.0 kWh (1.5 kWh per day)
would, at our rates have a cost difference about 15 cents per day, or
roughly $4.50 per month.

However any 'wasted energy' (i.e. heat from the older less efficient
appliance) offsets home heating, when required. The amount is
equivalent to a 1.5 kilowatt heater running for one hour per day.
Since we use electric heating most months of the year don't think the
difference would be appreciable or noticeable here!

In article , Richard J Kinch wrote:
I can freeze a pound of water with 144 Btu on my planet

More than that. Maybe another 50 to chill it first.

That's to cool it from 82 to 32 degrees F. Most peoples' cold water is
colder than that.

Plus wattage for a fan to blow air on it. And the defroster to take care
of evaporation from blowing that air on it. Plus a reevaporator fan.

You propose any numbers for these?

And maybe the air conditioning. I would estimate more like 300
effectively.

- Don Klipstein )

On Apr 23, 12:20*am, Richard J Kinch wrote:
Don Klipstein writes:
A pound of ice per hour? *24 pounds of ice per day? *How many people use
that much???

You consumption is not the issue, it's the rate at which the unit produces
when it's running flat out. *The issue was what happens to the duty cycle
when the thing is making ice. *My claim is that making ice is a bigger BTU
load than perfect "idling" (no doors, no contents, no icemaking).

I think part of the problem is that my side-by-side refrigerator is a
recent "efficient" type and not that old, but it is a big 25 cu ft unit
with a rather large icemaker in it. *The freezer side is big but the
icemaker and bin take up about 1/4 of it. *At the time when I was last
buying a refrigerator, it was clear that the big ones had the same heat
pumps in them as the smaller ones, they just ran them on a higher duty
cycle. *Which makes sense.

Richard I have a big side by side, maybe 1982, my accurate KAW meter
put its use at 14$ a month, my tenants with new 19.5 cu ft friges pay
about 20 a month, some wifes run their tvs all day, use microwaves,
vcrs, etc. Its a shame you pay 30 a month for a frige, I feel sorry
for you, I just cant see your frige is running right or perhaps your
measuring of power is off. My neighbors pay around 100 a month at
Chicago rates of about 13.65 kwh and I pay under 40, for me its CFLs.

Try reading a review of a KAW meter, I think you will be suprised,
get one and test a frige at a store, im sure the owner will like the
idea. My 19.5 Kenmore I bought years ago at a different location came
in at maybe .50c a month more than the Yellow Tag indicated. So it can
be acheived. And 60 minutes -20/20 has had nothing on scam tests. The
frige tests were done at up to 90f, with doors open on variable
defrost models. But fact is , mine nearly matches Yellow Tag .
Hundreds of friges are tested. Mine is not an Ice maker, but I make
ice. to do as you say would add hundreds if not thousands of hours
unessecarily hooking up Ice Makers and testing Ice, but the way they
did it works, and so far you cant PROOVE it didnt work, since mine
matces Yellow tags very close. Friend I have to say you are behind
the times, and the time, oil is $117 a barrel, wake up my friend, your
30$ a month frige is suspect.

When we bought the new fridge (this was about a year ago), we were
told by the salesman (so take this for what it's worth ;-) ), that
fridges had recently gone through a redesign to make them much more
efficient, but lower reliability. He said manufacturers had reduced
their compressor warranty periods from 5 years to 1 year.

Ken

IMO, the warranty was reduced not because of the trade-offs of efficiency at
the expense of reliability, but just plain costs. Some years ago,
compressors were made in the USA by people like Copeland or Tecumseh. Now
most are imported and made by the lowest bidder. The price of a basic
refrigerator or room air conditioner has gone down in terms of real dollars
because they are made cheaper by better manufacturing processes and cheaper
materials. Consumers don't expect appliances to last as long as they used
to either.

On Apr 23, 8:47*pm, "Edwin Pawlowski" wrote:
When we bought the new fridge (this was about a year ago), we were
told by the salesman (so take this for what it's worth ;-) ), that
fridges had recently gone through a redesign to make them much more
efficient, but lower reliability. He said manufacturers had reduced
their compressor warranty periods from 5 years to 1 year.

Ken

IMO, the warranty was reduced not because of the trade-offs of efficiency at
the expense of reliability, but just plain costs. *Some years ago,
compressors were made in the USA by people like Copeland or Tecumseh. Now
most are imported and made by the lowest bidder. *The price of a basic
refrigerator or room air conditioner has gone down in terms of real dollars
because they are made cheaper by better manufacturing processes and cheaper
materials. *Consumers don't expect appliances to last as long as they used
to either.

If he is paying 30 a month , I am paying 8$ a gallon for gasolene, it
aint so. its BS

In article ,
"Edwin Pawlowski" wrote:


When we bought the new fridge (this was about a year ago), we were
told by the salesman (so take this for what it's worth ;-) ), that
fridges had recently gone through a redesign to make them much more
efficient, but lower reliability. He said manufacturers had reduced
their compressor warranty periods from 5 years to 1 year.

Ken

IMO, the warranty was reduced not because of the trade-offs of efficiency at
the expense of reliability, but just plain costs. Some years ago,
compressors were made in the USA by people like Copeland or Tecumseh. Now
most are imported and made by the lowest bidder. The price of a basic
refrigerator or room air conditioner has gone down in terms of real dollars
because they are made cheaper by better manufacturing processes and cheaper
materials. Consumers don't expect appliances to last as long as they used
to either.

I work in manufacturing, and it's evident that making things is less
time consuming and expensive than it used to be.

That means it's possible to make low quality items and sell them for a
low price. It also means that it's possible to make high quality items
for an affordable price.

I wonder whether me might be on the cusp of unprecedented material
wealth, where we can all afford quite an array of reasonably high
quality things, that ten or twenty years ago would have seemed
preposterous.