Re: Motion Sensor Light for Front Entrance

["Robert Green" <robert_green1963@xxxxxxxxx>]

I find it pretty annoying to page down 10 times in a message to find someone
added only the words "I agree" to the thread.  (-:  Better to be able to see
that's all that's been added with a single glance.

--
Bobby G.

"Josepi" <JRM.@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:kSjqo.19603$7B3.8190@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Not to further the off-topic but...
>
> I totally agree with the reference material as an attachment (below)
>
> The advancement to threading newsreaders has obsoleted the need to bottom
> post and / or even attach reference materials, at all, except when the
> previous post being responded to contains multiple ideas that could
confuse
> the isolated response idea.
>
> Threaded response posting is even worse and can only survive a few
> generations. It usually indicates "too much to say".
>
> Top posting keeps the ID headers with the text they belong to. Note the
> bottom posting confusion here at the bottom. Multiple colours and other
> special reader techniques have been implemented in order to keep the
bottom
> posting confusion from happening over the years. Why bother?
>
>
> "Robert Green" <robert_green1963@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:i8cg27$2od$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> I'll see your top-posting and raise you one.  It's amazing how the net was
> really like Camelot.  For a little while it really did represent an
amalgam
> of viewpoints and information from across the world, a real roundtable of
> ideas.  Then came the commercial corruption. And netcopping and lots of
> other "badness."  IMHO, top posting is a very logical and "page down
palsy"
> free way of reading a thread.  Obviously not everyone agrees.  I guess
> that's human nature.
>
> Between the explanations both you and Jeff have offered, I understand
better
> what some of the issues are and why it's difficult to read the power
> consumption of X-10 modules with garden variety meters.
>
> I agree the hand method is clearly the best sanity check.  IIRC, I was
> trying to determine the amount of heat generated by a lamp module in the
> dimmed state, where they do tend to heat up quite a bit more than an
> appliance module because of heat generated by the triac. When I went to
look
> up the phrase "Why do triacs get so hot" one of the first 10 Google hits
> confirms my contention that the old WWW ain't what she used to be:
>
> How Can I Become Hot? - GirlsAskGuys.com
> I wanna be hot because then I will feel good about myself and get more
> attention. The question is: what should I do? I was kind of a tomboy
growing
> up so I ...
> www.girlsaskguys.com > Style Questions - Cached - Similar
>
> <sigh>  How does something like that come back in a search that includes
the
> word triac?
>
> I assume there's some resistance in the triac and some of the current
> passing through it is dissipated as heat, and the more current the more
> heat.   I am only curious because the lamp module I melted by running
1000W
> through it still works.  It just looks like it's part of that Dali
painting
> with the distorted clock faces.  I assume the issue is that while the
> circuit can handle the wattage, the case design can't dump the heat fast
> enough to keep it from melting.
>
> --
> Bobby G.
>
>
>
> "Dave Houston" <nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:4ca0ad4c.19629062@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Rather than further spaghetti-ize things by trying to respond inline to
> your
> inline comments, I'll just p*ss off all the anti-top-posters and try to
> respond to your major points here.
>
> Inline ammeters only work for purely resistive loads where voltage and
> current always remain in phase with each other. With reactive loads
> (inductive or capacitive), voltage and current are 90° out of phase,
> requiring multiple, simultaneous measurements. Power=Voltage*Current so
> averaging each doesn't work. You have to average the products of the many
> readings.
> Non-linear loads are usually those related to power suplies with diodes
> that
> tend to draw current only at certain points in the voltage sine wave.
> These also require multiple, simultaneous measurements.
> I'll leave it to Jeff Volt to explain why you had the problem with the
> XTB.
> CFLs have non-linear power supplies which cause (small) surges, triggering
> the X10 flashes.
>
> You really don't need the closed box. Just put your hand on the 7W
> nightlight. It should be hot enough to be quite uncomfortable. IIRC, I
> used
> 3W which was still uncomfortable. X10 modules (with no load) have to
> dissipate the heat associated with the idle load they represent. They
> never
> get too warm to touch (unless defective) so this is a quick and dirty
> sanity
> check whenever someone suggests they waste significant power.
>
>
>
> > Robert Green" <robert_green1963@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > >"Dave Houston" <nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> > >news:4c9f8b76.31830734@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > >> >The Kill-A-Watt is notorious for not measuring very low wattage
> devices
> > >> >accurately.  My electronic wizard friend theorized that it's because
> > >they've
> > >> >optimized their reading range for items people would most likely
> measure.
> > >>
> > >> Yes and no. It doesn't indicate fractional watts so you need to use
the
> > >kWh
> > >> mode and measure over a long time frame. I measured several X10
modules
> > >this
> > >> way for ~100 hour periods. See...
> > >>
> > >>      http://davehouston.org/x10-power.htm
> > >>
> > >> NOTE: The readings were under no load conditions but I doubt that the
> > >> trickle current will be that significant.
> > >
> > >Yes, senility strikes again.  But I demand half credit - I remembered
> that
> > >it happened and that you were involved and believe me, like the
> Langoliers,
> > >things out beyond a certain distance are getting all dark and hazy and
a
> > >little bit scary.
> > >
> > >I did recall the most important result of your research to me, at least
> > >concerning the Kill-a-Watt.  For low end reading to be accurate, low
> power
> > >loads needed to be measured over time and there was a reason that you
> > >couldn't just take the Kill-a-Watt's low current, instant readings as
> > >gospel.  Thanks for correcting my "holey" memory.  One hole filled
means
> > >something else just leaked out, though.
> > >
> > >The amount of trickle current - do you think it varies in some way with
> the
> > >nature of the load connected to it?  Does the current that causes CFL's
> to
> > >flash also heat a tungsten filament slightly or does the differing
nature
> of
> > >the load affect how much current is passing?
> > >
> > >I get some pretty serious flashing of two hi-eff 34W fluorescent tubes
in
> > >the workshop - enough to see by if you move very slowly (-;  It would
be
> > >easy enough to first to compare an appliance module's power consumption
> > >without such a load and then with.  In about 200 hours or about 8 days
> from
> > >now.  (-:
> > >
> > >So, 100 hours reading an appliance module, no load v. 100 hours reading
> > >appliance module with the two bulb shoplite that flashes more brightly
> than
> > >any other fluorescent in the house.  I can even supplement those with
> > >readings of an appliance module with a small CFL and another with a
100W
> > >tungsten bulb.  I also want to see what it costs to run a 7W nitelight
> with
> > >a CFL load since it's now X-10's tech support recommendation to cure
the
> > >flashing problem.  No wires monsters, no lights in boxes - it should
get
> > >safety approval.
> > >
> > >> >I've been fooled by it on a number of occasions.  An in-line
amperage
> > >> >measurement is likely to show you something different.  Also, the
X-10
> > >power
> > >> >supplies have a rather unusual design which contributes, I think, to
> the
> > >> >Kill-A-Watt's erroneous readings.
> > >>
> > >> In-line amperage measurements are worse than useless with non-linear
> loads
> > >> like these. The Kill-A-Watt takes thousands of instantaneous readings
> of
> > >> both voltage and curreny each second and then averages them to get a
> very
> > >> accurate reading. The kWh mode has 30ppm accuracy.
> > >
> > >The issue I ran into was the limit imposed on the plug in outlet on
> Jeff's
> > >XTB.  It's got a wattage limit for plug in devices, I believe it's
either
> 10
> > >or 15W, but I could be wrong. I measured the devices with a Kill-a-Watt
> (2
> > >Maxi's, 1 ControlLinc Maxi, 1 Mini controller and a Mini Timer that
uses
> a
> > >wall wart transformer and not the standard X-10 type power supply).
The
> > >Kill-a-Watt gave me a very low number that was below the limit imposed
by
> > >the XTB, and so I plugged them all into one unit and it worked. I did
not
> > >measure it using the accumulation kWh mode because waiting around for
100
> > >hours to get a reading is not very practical, but alas, seems necessary
> when
> > >dealing with low wattage items using the Kill-a-Watt.  FWIW, the
> > >ControlincMaxi's nameplate lists 100mA, the X-10 lamp and appliances
> modules
> > >list no wattage information, and the X-10 Mini lists 2 watts.
> > >
> > >The XTB operated quite well with 5 units plugged into the amplification
> > >outlet UNTIL I removed the Mini-timer with the wall wart.  Then, it
> fried.
> > >When it happened, I got into a discussion with Jeff Volp who
immediately
> > >went over my admittedly low altitude head with discussions of mixed
> reactive
> > >and inductive loads on both his circuit and the metering methods I was
> using
> > >to make sure I was within the wattage range specified on the XTB label.
> It
> > >was, as they say in the Army, above my pay grade.
> > >
> > >> >IIRC, a while back Dave Houston (has anyone heard from him?) did
some
> > >> >measurements that more accurately pegged them at five watts.
> > >>
> > >> I've neen dealing with major health issues (and have additional
surgery
> > >> scheduled).
> > >
> > >Welcome back!  Been a while since we last heard form you.  Sorry that
> you're
> > >still having health issues.  I hope all goes well with your medical
> > >procedure.
> > >
> > >> As for my measurements, I did exactly the opposite, refuting
> > >> numerous people who were claiming X10 modules used 5-10W based on
> ammeter
> > >> readings.
> > >
> > ><Sigh>  It seems I lost the decimal place in the fog of senility.  Your
> > >figures were .4 and .5 and not 4 and 5.   I hopefully still have my
notes
> > >around, but I distinctly recall a metric you used was that they were
much
> > >cooler to the touch than a 7W nightlight, giving a "rough" reading that
> said
> > >common sense dictated it had to be below 7W.  That's when I decided
that
> > >under careful enough controls, the relative amount of heat output
between
> a
> > >module and a 7W night lite could be used to verify readings with
meters,
> > >that for whatever reason, gave erroneous readings at the low end as
when
> > >used in a typical way.  (Like me!)
> > >
> > >IIRC, and it's clear I don't "Recall Correctly" anymore, they did make
> the
> > >heat in a closed, insulated box rise respectfully.  They were clearly
> > >drawing power that could be measured as heat output.  I recall they
> differed
> > >from your readings, but I also recall the experiment being shut down by
> the
> > >resident safety engineer, Ms. Swmbo.  The idea of enclosing electronic
> gear
> > >(especially lamps) in wooden boxes lined with Styrofoam did not pass
> muster,
> > >even though it was "unlikely but not impossible" to start a fire.  I
> might e
> > >ven have the readings saved in a draft message.
> > >
> > >I believe the modules I was running were running under load because I
> wanted
> > >to know the effect and size of the trickle current flow.  That was when
> > >CFL's had just gone mainstream and  I first noticed the flashing
problem.
> I
> > >began delving deeper into how to measure the trickle current flow, but
> > >someone, I think it might have been Dan L. advised against it,
charitably
> > >citing safety concerns but more likely having to do with the primitive
> > >equipment and skills I possess. (-:
> > >
> > >> >If you have an in-line ammeter (the tong meters aren't really
> suitable,
> > >> >either, you might want to revisit the study with loads plugged into
a
> > >batch
> > >> >of modules.
> > >>
> > >> Don't waste your time - this method is, as noted above, worse than
> > >useless -
> > >> worse because it is extremely misleading.
> > >
> > >Certainly when using X-10 modules and their linear power supplies.  Am
I
> > >right to assume an in-line ammeter would be much more accurate with
> > >inductive and purely resistive type loads?   I would assume by the
short
> > >time between the posts that Art took an instantaneous measure, and not
an
> > >averaged one.  But I'm Often Wrong, so only he say for sure.
> > >
> > >At least all this is what I recall when I insisted to an incredulous
Jeff
> > >that the XTB had been running with no incident with all five X-10 items
> > >listed above plugged in via power strip.  I am sure he'll be around to
> > >correct me shortly as well.  As I said, this is really outside my
bubble.
> > >The XTB problem occurred AFTER I REMOVED the sole inductive load (a
> > >wall-wart powered Mini-timer) from the powerstrip with the other four
> > >components.  It seems quite counterintuitive that reducing the overall
> load
> > >caused the XTB to burn up, but apparently the combination of inductive
> and
> > >linear loads on the XTB was preventing the load from burning up the
XTBs
> > >input circuitry.  I won't paraphrase Jeff's explanation and embarrass
> myself
> > >further.  Maybe he can reiterate for us.
> > >
> > >I should note that Jeff both offered to repair the unit free and
changed
> the
> > >labels and instructions to accommodate the unusual results I discovered
> by
> > >flagrantly disregarding the label warning.  Now, in addition to the
> wattage
> > >limit, he indicates that no more than two X-10 devices be plugged into
> the
> > >XTB's amplification outlet.  I think a lot of non-engineers and techies
> have
> > >real problems understanding the intricacies of the different types of
> > >devices as well as other concepts, like the PF (power factor), phase
> angles
> > >and so on.  I know I do!
> > >
> > >If reactive and inductive loads can interact as they apparently did
with
> the
> > >XTB, is it possible that measuring multiple modules and dividing that
> > >outcome as both you and Art did is not actually equivalent to reading a
> > >single unit?  I assume you did that because reading single units that
> draw
> > >under a watt is problematical for the KaW, even in the kWh
"accumulation"
> > >mode.
> > >
> > >Good to here from you again, Dave, even if you're still correcting the
> > >living hell out of me and shaming my Mad Cow brain - that has to be
it -
> Mad
> > >Cow.  Anyway, that's how we learn, even if the ego gets a little burned
> > >around the edges.
> > >
> > >And again, here's to a good surgical outcome.
> > >
> > >P.S. to Art.  Glad you asked this question, nothing at all's changed
but
> I
> > >feel alot better that X-10's not eating 400 watts just "being there."
I
> > >feel a lot worse though, about where all those extra watts are going.
A
> > >while back someone suggested that the older the house wiring, the more
> > >likely substantial amount of juice are going up in heat in the wires.
> That
> > >would not be good. )-:
> >
>
>
>