|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,915 Year: 4,172/9,624 Month: 1,043/974 Week: 2/368 Day: 2/11 Hour: 1/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Quick Questions, Short Answers - No Debate | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22506 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4
|
It would be nice if circuit breakers were a required rather than optional feature of power strips.
--Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5952 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7 |
Every electrician and electronics technician and electrical engineer has studied the theory behind this problem as the most basic introductory subject matter in their professions. It's almost like 1+1 is for mathematicians.
Voltage equals current times resistance (E = IR, Ohm's Law) and power (which translates to heat that has to be dissipated) equals voltage times current (P = EI, easy as pie -- though you will have to scroll down in that link). In a series circuit, all the resistances are lined up along a single path of current flow. There, the voltage (in reference to zero volts) is different at every resistance -- such a setup can be used as a voltage divider. The current is determined by the total resistance, which is the simple sum of all the resistances. That's not what we are talking about here. In a parallel circuit (which we are talking about), the voltage across every parallel circuit is the same. The current being drawn is still determined by the total resistance, but that is no longer a simple sum -- if you want to see what that is, either research it yourself or message me, but it ends up being less than the smallest resistance of any parallel branch. To make it simpler for a non-electrical type to understand, take that same voltage across all parallel branches and apply it to all the different resistances of every branch to determine how much current each and every one of them will draw, and add up all those currents to find out how much current all of them will draw. Then multiply that total current by the voltage to see how many Watts of power (AKA "heat") that will generate. Now, the more parallel circuits you have, the more current they will draw and the more power (AKA "heat") they will generate and that will need to be dissipated. So you have lots of devices plugged into your power strip and you plug another power strip into that with lots of devices plus another power strip, etc. Doing that, you could easily exceed the power rating of your house wiring or at least of the original powerstrip. Now when you plug in devices designed to draw lots of power because their purpose is to heat up a living space, then you are just asking for trouble. Edited by dwise1, : first paragraph plus mnemonic link
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Now, the more parallel circuits you have, the more current they will draw and the more power (AKA "heat") they will generate and that will need to be dissipated. So you have lots of devices plugged into your power strip and you plug another power strip into that with lots of devices plus another power strip, etc. Doing that, you could easily exceed the power rating of your house wiring or at least of the original powerstrip. ... So if you have a basement full of plants with grow lights plugged into power strips, plugged into power strips, plugged into power strips .... Even though the grow lights themselves (fluorescent) do not draw a lot of power, the accumulated demand creates a potential fire hazard. To say nothing about the damp environment... That's my thoughts. Thanks Edited by RAZD, : . Edited by RAZD, : ..by our ability to understand RebelAmericanZenDeist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Apparently I am using 93.38 MB (373.52%) of bandwidth (25.00 MB plan)
When I only have 66 MB (0.27%) Storage Used and I am not actively posting pictures? Do search etc robots cruising the forums cause this? I know of one (1) picture I have linked recently on this forum (Message 7). I don't need to use these photobucket pictures on other forums, so as far as I can see this one picture is causing 93.38 MB of bandwidth usage for the month. How can I control this? Does the [thumb] command use less bandwidth than the [img] command? Thanksby our ability to understand RebelAmericanZenDeist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
caffeine Member (Idle past 1055 days) Posts: 1800 From: Prague, Czech Republic Joined: |
Be safe. Avoid extension cords to heaters if you can. Use outdoor extensions if you need one. Better yet, just put a jumper on. Edited by caffeine, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9202 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.4 |
Bandwith and data maxes are different things.
A 25.00 MB plan would mean you can only download 25MB of data per month. Do you mean 25 Mbps? A max of 25MB of data per month would be worthless so I think you must mean Mbps. For example since I turned on my computer 45 mins ago, my computer has downloaded 113 MB of data and uploaded 9 MB. The Mbps speed is irrelevant to the total data that is downloaded. Are you on a cell plan or a satellite plan?. Those are practically the only plans that have data caps. If so what is your data cap? It can not be 25 MBs? For, example I have a 20 Mbps plan, of which real world speed is about 12 Mbps. These days, this does not even qualify as broadband. https://www.nbcnews.com/...finition-broadband-speeds-n296276 But, as it is a DSL connection, I do not have a data cap. If I was abusing the service, for example downloading movies all day every day, my service provider might throttle my speed. But we would be talking 100's of GB of data for that to happen. I think the rest of your questions are irrelevant if you are on a standard internet plan. Bandwidth is not something that accumulates. It is the speed data is moving at a particular moment. Unless your plan has a data cap you do not have to worry about the pictures you link to.Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts "God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness. If your viewpoint has merits and facts to back it up why would you have to lie?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Bandwith and data maxes are different things. A 25.00 MB plan would mean you can only download 25MB of data per month. Do you mean 25 Mbps? This is photobucket, which I have been using to store the images I post on threads here. I am currently well below that limit for stored pictures, that is not the problem.
I think the rest of your questions are irrelevant if you are on a standard internet plan. Bandwidth is not something that accumulates. It is the speed data is moving at a particular moment. Unless your plan has a data cap you do not have to worry about the pictures you link to. Except this is where the problem with photobucket is involved: they say my bandwidth use to view the pictures is way over their plan limit. I don't understand where this bandwidth usage is coming from, it's like the pictures are constantly being viewed over and over and over. and I don't have any control over it. Thanksby our ability to understand RebelAmericanZenDeist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
RAZD writes: Except this is where the problem with photobucket is involved: they say my bandwidth use to view the pictures is way over their plan limit. Ah, makes sense. Remember the limit they are talking about is the sum of every access from every viewer. So if I look at it and you look at it the use is 2x. If three others look at it the use is 5x. And if we go back to check a detail it is 10x. Edited by jar, : applain spallin
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Remember the limit they are talking about is the sum of every access from every viewer. So if I look at it and you lokk at it the use is 2x. If three others look at it the use is 5x. And if we go back to check a detail it is 10x. okay, but I am being punished (pictures blurred out) for something I have no control over. and it's probably not even the picture being looked at but the thread being loaded for people to see the latest posts with nothing to do with the picture. that's not right. This has only cropped up since I paid for their basic plan. It looks like a sucker plan imho. by our ability to understand RebelAmericanZenDeist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9202 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.4
|
Ah yes the photobucket bandwidth issue. Sorry I missed that part the first time. It is a well known problem. There is nothing you can do about it. They are just trying to monetize there service. The changed terms of service a couple years ago. I think their bandwidth cutoff is pretty low. There must be other sites that are a bit more liberal in allowing the viewing of stored images. If they are going to charge at such a low level of actual use then storing images there is cost prohibitive and not worth it.
You would have to store images of such low quality that it would not be worth the effort to store there. Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts "God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness. If your viewpoint has merits and facts to back it up why would you have to lie?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined:
|
Bandwidth vs Size
The bandwidth is in volume per time period. What you are describing is total size. So I have a 30 MB/second bandwidth cap on my internet service (for downloads) but I have hundreds (actually unlimited) capacity in total bytes movable up or down.Jar, describes accessing a photo 2 or 5 or 10x. The only thing that has to do with bandwidth is how fast a 1 meg foto will move up or down. I'd say in general that you can NOT exceed your bandwidth. It is set by the server. But you can, by moving the picture many many times exceed your allowable amount of data moved.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9202 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.4 |
Here is photobucket's bullshit explanation. It actually has nothing to do with bandwidth.
quote: Security check- Edited by Admin, : Duplicate original formatting, include link.Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts "God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness. If your viewpoint has merits and facts to back it up why would you have to lie?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
caffeine Member (Idle past 1055 days) Posts: 1800 From: Prague, Czech Republic Joined:
|
Move to imgur. No such restrictions, and at the moment there isn't even the option to pay for an account. Not quite sure what their business model is, but it's useful for now at least,
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Move to imgur. I think I tried imgur and had some issues with it. Doesn't matter at this point, I caved and upgraded to unlimited bandwidth. Also I already have most of my images on photobucket Enjoyby our ability to understand RebelAmericanZenDeist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5952 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7 |
I feel that I have known and understood most of what I should about the metric system for half a century or so. I'm very comfortable with it, find it far easier to use than the US customary units system, and would like to see the USA finish converting over to metric. I'm even working on a couple web pages on the subject.
However, I've encountered a couple things about liters and how they're used "in the wild" that have confused me. I hope that someone with real world experience (ie, "in the wild", such as in Continental Europe) could help. For example, in Germany in the 70's I found that every cup or glass had a fill-level mark and the volume when filled printed on it -- that included drinking vessels for home use and even paper cups. I saw the same thing a few years ago on a glass in a hotel bar in England. Last night my friend's brother served me some whiskey in a shot glass from a set he had been given. It had a fill line so after I finished my drink (wasn't going to fall for that old Laurel and Hardy trick) I looked on the bottle of the glass and could just barely make out "2.3 L" in which the "L" was in cursive. Knowing from my graduated shot glass at home that a shot glass holds about 30 ml, I deducted that that "L" must stand for centiliters (cl). But whenever I see a cursive capital "L", am I supposed to always interpret that as centiliters? And in which countries would that apply and not apply? (IOW, is it standard?) Then two years ago near Milan was the event that got me wondering in the first place what was going on. The menu at the pizzeria gave the size of its glass of beer as "0,9 cL". To me, that said "0.9 centiliters", which would be a rather small glass, not even a third of a shot (this was before I researched the size of shot glasses). However, it turned out to mean 0.9 liters! So when did "cL" come to mean "liters"? And how prevalent is that? Reference to a page explaining marking conventions would be helpful -- I can handle reading in English, German, French, Spanish, and Italian (even some Swedish in a pinch). BTW FYI and on a side note, one day I was buying a bottle of vitamins at the drug store and the dosage was given as "800 MCG". I hadn't encountered that before so I asked the pharmacist who told me that it meant 800 micrograms. I guess it's a pharmacist convention in the USA since very few of our typewriters have a key for the letter mu (μ) which stands for "micro". Just in case anyone else had encountered that and was wondering.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024