- Location
- Placerville, CA, USA
- Occupation
- Retired PV System Designer
Moved to post 27-- don't ask why...lol..............................................................
Last edited by a moderator:
Your link is broke so I didn't read the story but I can tell you from personal experience one of the worst customers you can work for is a school district.
Unfortunately, this assumes that all the lighting circuits came from designated lighting panels. It's possible they pulled any old circuit to whatever module was controlling the lights, since the software wouldn't care.Unless turning power off would not let the lights come back on due to software glitch, there had to be a breaker or disconnect to kill power to the lighting panel. Even if the lights wouldn't come back on, that would be the time to do something different to operate the lights instead of leaving them on for over a year!
Sounds to me like it had nothing to do with replacement parts so much as making the vehicle suitable for the intended use. being a government project though, I suspect it cost three times as much as would to just buy off the shelf and replace them more often.Ever wonder why most UPS trucks and US Post Office vehicles don't have a brand-name insignia? They found it economical to specify their own vehicles and be their own system integrator, instead of buying trucks off the showroom floor which become unmaintainable for want of replacement parts long before their useful life would otherwise elapse.
Long Life Vehicle (LLV)
The Long Life Vehicle, or LLV, marked a major change in how postal officials approached buying vehicles.postalmuseum.si.edu
I agree. There is some sort of major nincompoopery taking place there...I have a hard time believing there are no circuit breakers that someone can shut off to turn the lights off.
With old florescent fixtures, that would be true to an extent, energy restarting the arc would use substantial power on startup, so turning off and on frequently in short periods of time would use more energy than leaving the fixtures on.I agree. There is some sort of major nincompoopery taking place there...
Back when I did some energy efficiency work at a local large school district, the janitors in ALL of the schools were under the mistaken belief that leaving lights on cost less than turning them off and back on when needed. No matter how much I explained why that was and always has been an "old wives' tale", not one of them would change their way of doing things. I eventually turned that over to a company called WattStopper and they provided a "trial and test" system for one school, to where they recorded the energy for the lighting for one month without it, then installed it and if it didn't show a saving, they would rip it out and not charge them anything. It showed them that their energy use for lighting dropped by over 50% (probably their cooling costs too, but that wasn't recorded). That finally convinced the management, but the Janitors still believed it was some sort of scam.
With old florescent fixtures, that would be true to an extent, energy restarting the arc would use substantial power on startup, so turning off and on frequently in short periods of time would use more energy than leaving the fixtures on.
Exactly, that’s why I said it was true to an extent. LOL!We’re talking about switching off daily at the end of the school day, not every 3 minutes after using the toilet!![]()
Sorry, no. That was never true. The old fixtures with magnetic ballasts consumed as much energy to start up as leaving them on for about five seconds.With old florescent fixtures, that would be true to an extent, energy restarting the arc would use substantial power on startup, so turning off and on frequently in short periods of time would use more energy than leaving the fixtures on.
But you just admitted they do draw more on startup than when running. So that makes my statement true. I did not say wether it was cost effective or not, just where that idea came from. It’s just like the craze of unplugging walwart chargers when not in use, the amount of energy saved is minuscule.Sorry, no. That was never true. The old fixtures with magnetic ballasts consumed as much energy to start up as leaving them on for about five seconds.
Turning them on & off frequently did reduce lamp life, but it did not increase energy consumption.
But once voodoo messaging takes hold in somebody's mind, it's usually lodged there for life.
- "Don't store batteries directly on concrete; it will suck the charge out of them."
(half true ... batteries go dead if stored directly on concrete for two years in an unheated garage)
- "Don't leave your car's ignition key turned on for extended periods of time without running the engine; it'll burn out the ignition points."
- "The sum of all the branch breakers'/fuses' capacities can't exceed the capacity of the main. That's called 'overfusing'."
- "Corporations have to raise their prices whenever their costs increase." (When market conditions permit them to raise their prices, successful corporations raise their prices whether their costs have gone up or not. Not doing so is called "leaving money on the table", and is a cardinal sin in business that will get you fired. (not doing so is also called "an unsuccessful corporation"))
What are "ignition points"?- "Don't leave your car's ignition key turned on for extended periods of time without running the engine; it'll burn out the ignition points."
Today probably so.Sounds to me like it had nothing to do with replacement parts so much as making the vehicle suitable for the intended use. being a government project though, I suspect it cost three times as much as would to just buy off the shelf and replace them more often.