Subj : Re: Solar TV Battery Test To : Barry Martin From : Nancy Backus Date : Tue Jun 02 2020 16:59:44 -=> Quoting Barry Martin to Nancy Backus on 19-May-2020 11:10 <=- BM>>> Yes -- as for swapping the CPU Heat Sink not like I haven't done BM>>> before -- heat sink part is fine but the fan froze -- just never had BM>>> swapped in a totally different - in this case monster - heat sink. And BM>>> was suckered in by the original one being "AMD approved" -- well, that BM>>> means it should be right and do the job, right? NB>>> One would have thought.... but maybe it was approved for some other NB>>> job....? BM>> Apparently it's job was to be cooling a much lighter capacity BM>> processor! NB>> And now you know... BM> Ah! I neglected to to check _which_ one it was approved for!! BM> (Actually I had and my processor was listed.) Maybe they were being overly optimistic on your processor...? BM>>> As for the cameras, got that working. No idea why the real-time BM>>> failure with the original software, and appears for whatever reason the BM>>> new/updated software either isn't an energy efficient or because it BM>>> does more and so the processor does more work ==> heat and current BM>>> draw. Ended up putting in a metal case with extensions inside which BM>>> contact the CPU, etc., and so draw the heat of better than the original BM>>> heat sinks. (The metal case is warm to the touch!). That seems to BM>>> have been the problem. NB>>> Making it work harder and thus generating more heat, does seem to be a NB>>> possibility, even in my limited area of knowledge here... :) Finding NB>>> a way to dissipate that heat makes sense, too... BM>> Yes, those chips just don't like to be too warm! Didn't quite make BM>> sense why the original hardware wasn't liking the updated software BM>> but.... I had the metal case in stock for another project, and did my BM>> "buy two, they're cheap!" philosophy. Actually still have a spare: BM>> did buy two but the original project changed. NB>> Funny how that happens, sometimes... :) But handy to have for the NB>> project at hand.... :) BM> If cheap enough spares are handy! True. ;) NB>>>>> Dunno... one could run the experiment on a variety of variously NB>>>>> sunny days, and see if it makes much (or any) difference... ;) BM>>>> Yes, see what happens on a fully sunny day which would be running BM>>>> under ideal conditions and so find out what my maximum voltage would BM>>>> be. Lesser sunny to overcast days would have less solar output and so BM>>>> need to tweak the solar cell's positioning to make the best of what is BM>>>> available. NB>>>> All seems like workable situations and all... ;) BM>>> Yes, eventually back to that project. I haven't been down in the BM>>> basement for a while; some stuff up here in the Computer Room, some BM>>> Spring yard work..... NB>>> You'll get back to it in due time... :) BM>> Yes: when it gets to 90 and 100 outside I'l be looking for an indoor BM>> project! NB>> And a cool basement will be very inviting... BM> True. I haven't been down there for anything but putting away BM> groceries or 'going shopping'. The time will come... ;) NB>>>> Likely any price increase would be hidden.... It might be the same NB>>>> price per container, but the net weight or volume has decreased NB>>>> slightly... thinking that the customer is less likely to notice that NB>>>> sort of thing... ;) BM>>> Yes: keep the price and container the same but less contents. NB>>> Or tweak the container just a little so that it's not all that NB>>> noticeable... ;0 BM>> They've probably done that to us consumers, I'm sure! Not false BM>> advertising as long as they keep the weight display consistent. NB>> Ice cream containers are a case in point where they did do that... NB>> what used to be a half-gallon container is now just 3 pints... they NB>> raised the bottom up into the container so the inside is less, but NB>> the outside appears to be the old size... the correct weight is, of NB>> course, on the package, but people rarely really notice that anyway... BM> Right: more trained by size. Have noticed when the opposite happens BM> the manufacturers loudly proclaim "smaller packaging, same amount!". BM> They figured out how to make the box smaller so as to get more per BM> case, or make the case smaller so more cases could be packed into the BM> semi-trailer and cut their costs. Or get more boxes onto the shelf at the grocery store... ;) BM>> Probably could be made smaller in size (the font) as long as BM>> everything else was correspondingly smaller with the new packaging. NB>> Doesn't even have to have much else changed... people aren't NB>> likely to notice that unless they are routinely comparing with NB>> other products... and when they all change at once, one might not NB>> pick up on it that quickly... ;) BM>> ...Consumer beware! NB>> Absolutely... Sugar is now in 4-lb bags rather than 5-lb... cans NB>> that used to be 16 oz are now 15, or even 14.5oz... BM> And the latter has screwed up some recipes: "one small can of BM> Evaporated Milk" -- now doesn't seem to be that small can being sold. Or the small can used to be 8 oz and now is only 6.5... but the other ingredients might have likewise shrunk, and so the proportion still not too out of line... BM> As for the sugar, I remember that one. Bought the usual BM> smaller-of-the-two sizes; may have noticed something was different but BM> didn't pick up what. ...Know here it is stored in a canister set but BM> the set is unmarked and so sugar doesn't go in a canister designed for BM> five pounds of sugar. I also generally don't use sugar (not saying I BM> don't eat!) so I don't 'play' with the transfer, etc. It did take us a BM> little while before we caught on to the size difference. We use sugar very rarely... so rarely, in fact, that I still have more than half a TW container into which I put a 5lb bag of sugar decades ago (perfect fit, back then)... ;) I noticed the sugar because the size change had been discussed by others in the Cooking Echo... ;) NB>>> Wegmans is still doing the consumer reusables instead of the plastic NB>>> bags... and selling quite a few of them as well... They are easily NB>>> enough wiped down after each use, if one desires to be a little more NB>>> cautious... But yes, the other sanitizing and safety measures have got NB>>> to be costing them, and when they are out of things, they can't sell NB>>> them to get any profit there, either... BM>> A hare surprised on Wegmans allowing the use of the consumer resuables BM>> -- all purchases or just the ones packed by the consumer him or BM>> herself. Hy-Vee is or at least was allowing the reusables if the BM>> customer packed their own groceries. NB>> Richard packs ours... has been right along... I'm not surprised that NB>> Wegmans is staying with the reusables, since they've been pushing them NB>> for almost 15 years... When our state outlawed the use of plastic bags NB>> in stores, Wegmans was ecstatic, as they'd tried to get rid of them NB>> years ago, but customers weren't ready to do so.... There are still NB>> plenty of new reusable bags available throughout the store and at the NB>> checkouts, so one can have a fresh new one each week if wished for... NB>> There is a sign now at the checkout that states that if the reusable NB>> looks too dirty, the clerk can refuse to load it... but I've not seen NB>> that having to be enforced.... :) BM> Hy-Vee might have decided on an all-or-none option to avoid BM> confrontations: what is considered 'dirty', though probably more as BM> they're trying to avoid contact when handing over someone else's bag BM> -- who knows what it has been in contact with? While I prefer using BM> reusable bags for the current time it's better to go with the flow. BM> Oh, and Hy-Vee does allow reusable bags if one is packing their own, BM> so Richard being able to use might be the reason. Wegmans still has paper bags available (5 cents each, the reusables are 99 cents), but no plastic ones... And I've seen plenty of cashiers packing other people's groceries into their brought-back reusables... :) BM>>> And that reminded me: the coffee-flavourd M&Ms were a restricted-time BM>>> offering. I was on eBay for something else (ended up not buying BM>>> anywhere) and someone was selling just-expired packs (expiry April BM>>> 17th or something) and someone else had listed packs with an expiry the BM>>> end of May. Either one would have been OK but I wasn't sure of the BM>>> quantity: looked like a single pack at $9.99 - so ten dollars. Uh, BM>>> no. OK, so free shipping, but still seemed rather high for a little BM>>> packet. I'm not spending my stimulus check on candy! NB>>> Guess I was right... No, I'd not spend that sort of money for NB>>> candy, either... And it appears that maybe some people did some NB>>> hoarding there, as well, hoping to make a killing.... sigh.... BM>> Maybe not a killing but just buying up end quantities. I didn't pay BM>> attention to the vendor so don't know if it was Vinny's Odd Lots or BM>> what. NB>> Even if it was just buying up end quantities, that's an exorbitant NB>> price for a package of M&Ms.... :) BM> I thought so, so it was a no. Did try to make sure I wasn't BM> misreading -- weight was about right for a single package, definately BM> not a box. For sure a rip-off... ;) ttyl neb .... A diplomat thinks twice before saying nothing... --- EzyBlueWave V3.00 01FB001F * Origin: Tiny's BBS - http://www.tinysbbs.com (454:1/452) .