Subj : Resend Re: Solar TV Batt To : Nancy Backus From : Barry Martin Date : Sat Jun 13 2020 09:42:00 Subject: Resend Re: Solar TV Battery Test Hi Nancy! 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.) NB> Maybe they were being overly optimistic on your processor...? Or it's being run inside a freezer! Don't know if you read the comments between Ky and myself in the Linux Conference (think it was there), but the inadequate heat sinking is a known issue and sort of allowed because most people using that category of CPU are gamers and upgrade the heat sink and fan anyway. ...I can see a few large holes in that thinking, not by Ky but AMD. 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! NB> True. ;) No problems with heat since, and has been warmer because of it being Summer and so less natural heat transfer from case to the air. Over- heating of the Raspberry Pi's has been a known issue for years, but again depends on what one is doing with them. They were originally designed for kids to learn programming on, which while a hot topic doesn't get the CPU all that hot and bothered. Things took off, the Pi used for all sorts of things including industrial applications (!) and "the rest is history". 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'. NB> The time will come... ;) The time hasn't come - yet! 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. NB> Or get more boxes onto the shelf at the grocery store... ;) Maybe the opposite: the grocers seem to be cutting down spare stock (on the floor and in the back) to save costs -- what is sitting there costs money. There is also something about manufacturers buying shelf space for their product, so if the manufacturer can create a smaller package they can either get more products (more SKUs) in the same space or purchase less shelf space. 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. NB> Or the small can used to be 8 oz and now is only 6.5... but the NB> other ingredients might have likewise shrunk, and so the NB> proportion still not too out of line... In this instance specifically is a recipe for chocolate pie which has been passed down at least two generations. No size as far as ounces for the evaporated milk other than "one small can", and so the rest of the ingredients have not changed. It also appears the consistency and flavour alters with the brand, even with the correct/original amount: once years ago substituted a house brand of evaporated milk and "close but not right". And as another barely-a-tangent (that from yesterday), Schnuck's grocery store will be closing August 16th. They're pretty much always busy, just the store isn't making a profit because they're essentially out in the boonies from the rest. The chain's only store in Iowa, not sure about Illiois in general but no other store in the generaal area. So the problem is their supply trucks have to travel 100-200 miles just to get here. Hopefully another grocery chain will take over that property. Location for us was handy to "grab a few things". Also is/was the only major-sized grocery store in this part of town. 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. NB> We use sugar very rarely... so rarely, in fact, that I still have NB> more than half a TW container into which I put a 5lb bag of sugar NB> decades ago (perfect fit, back then)... ;) I noticed the sugar NB> because the size change had been discussed by others in the NB> Cooking Echo... ;) Here I tend not to use sugar: my shredded wheat cereal doesn't need sweetening, nor my tea. OK, iced coffee does need a little sugar. I will admit to getting all my sugar from cookies (cue Cookie Monster!). 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. NB> Wegmans still has paper bags available (5 cents each, the NB> reusables are 99 cents), but no plastic ones... And I've seen NB> plenty of cashiers packing other people's groceries into their NB> brought-back reusables... :) Either different corporate poliies or state regulations. Hy-Vee is still not allowing their baggers to handle the customers' reuseable bags. And they seem rather generous with the plastic bags: sometimes only a couple of items. I can see with soap -- generally don't want that smell mixed with a package of meat. Might be the floppyness of the plastic bag and bagging technique. They will also give me the occasional paper bag - guess whatever I bought 'deserves' a paper bag (is easier to bag). Was sort of funny as the other week brought down a paper bag to a shred event down the hill; next day I went shopping, got a paper bag. Got home: "here's a replacement paper bag!". (Around here paper bags are sort of a rarity.) 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. NB> For sure a rip-off... ;) IMO yes. While tasty and worth trying to find not worth 75› or whatever it would have worked out to be per M&M. ¯ ® ¯ Barry_Martin_3@ ® ¯ @Q.COM ® ¯ ® .... Writing Rules: Also, always avoid annoying alliteration. --- MultiMail/Win32 v0.47 þ wcECHO 4.2 ÷ ILink: The Safe BBS þ Bettendorf, IA --- QScan/PCB v1.20a / 01-0462 * Origin: ILink: CFBBS | cfbbs.no-ip.com | 856-933-7096 (454:1/1) .