|
|
Post by birkie on Aug 30, 2017 17:41:25 GMT
Also, it looks like the Ginny #2 (the DR2) is currently over-performing.
The duty cycles look like:
Ginny #1: 31%
Ginny #2: 21%
Ginny $3: 19%
The manuals suggest that the CK has a 50% higher refrigeration capacity than a DR2-D. Right now, the duty cycles suggest the CK is is running only 10-30% higher capacity than than it, depending on whether you account for the warmer cabinet or not. So Ginny #2 is over-performing, with respect to the CK.
The manuals also suggest the DR-2-G has an almost 15% capacity boost compared to the older DRs. If we believe that, the CK should be beating Ginny 1 by about 33%. Instead, it's beating it by 63%. So Ginny #1 is under-performing, with respect to the CK.
Another way of putting it is that Ginny #1 appears to have about 18% less refrigeration capacity than it should, while Ginny #2 appears to have 20% more refrigeration capacity than it should, relative to the CK, all things being equal.
All things are not equal, though. Variations in cabinets or machine tolerances could account for these differences. Those factors won't change once refrigerant is swapped, which is why watching the trends once #2 or #3 gets changed to R124 will be so interesting.
|
|
|
|
Post by ckfan on Aug 30, 2017 18:13:38 GMT
So, birkie the number man...what do you think? To a simpleton like me it seemed to be working great. Now you are saying it might have lost some capacity. Of course this is all relative. Apparently the converted unit has a bojack control too which adds to the confusion.
|
|
|
|
Post by birkie on Aug 30, 2017 18:50:43 GMT
So, birkie the number man...what do you think? To a simpleton like me it seemed to be working great. Now you are saying it might have lost some capacity. Of course this is all relative. Apparently the converted unit has a bojack control too which adds to the confusion. Well, I think the initial numbers suggest that the individual machines and cabinets can vary a lot, so it's a very good thing we have three machines! My gut feeling (partially informed by looking at the R152a thread) is that Ginny #1 is just an underperformer. A leaky cabinet or poor insulation compared to the others (for example) will increase the duty cycle, and make the calculations I'm doing appear to show the machine has less capacity.. whereas in reality it's just that more of its capacity might just be getting wasted due to excessive heat flow through the cabinet. That's why we need to measure a baseline, then look at the changes once we start converting machines to R124. That'll make all these variations between machines/cabinets balance out. But really, Ginny #1 looks and feels fine. I'm just being a nerd by trying to quantify it. |
|
|
|
Post by ckfan on Aug 30, 2017 20:10:36 GMT
That's what I figured. I really do have high hopes for this wonder refrigerant. Think of all the units it could save! Even belt drive and other brands of hermetic units that are sick! I can think of several specific cases that this refrigerant would be a shot in the arm to.
|
|
|
|
Post by blackhorse on Aug 30, 2017 21:07:45 GMT
I think it would also be a good idea to swap the killawatt units around, see if their readings are consistent. Maybe string them all together in series on the same machine, see if the results are identical (or close to it).
|
|
|
|
Post by birkie on Aug 30, 2017 22:24:01 GMT
I think it would also be a good idea to swap the killawatt units around, see if their readings are consistent. Maybe string them all together in series on the same machine, see if the results are identical (or close to it). Probably should keep same meters on same machines for the duration of the experiment for the sake of time and simplicity; systematic errors should mostly cancel themselves out if they're not swapped. Knowing X with accuracy is less important than knowing how much it changes relative to Y when refrigerants are changed. That being said, plugging them in series during a period of downtime would be a good sanity check! |
|
|
|
Post by coldspaces on Sept 1, 2017 2:04:47 GMT
The lastest Kil A Watt readings Ginny pig #1 after 144 hrs has used 9.63 KWHR, total cost 1.23, per day .20 Ginny pig #2 after 100 hrs has used 6.9 KWHR, total cost .81, per day .19 Ginny pig #3 after 144 hrs has used 4.41 KWHR, total cost .65, per day .09 I am pretty sure that Ginny #3 has an advantage, I have been playing the red hot Cubs from my Pre 63 Panasonic transistor radio that came from my great uncles TV shop in California. I am sure it is effecting the magnetism of the windings   KIMG0190 by Gill Colwell Sr., on Flickr What is with all this nice weather, I find myself looking at the forecast looking for a windy day ahead? By the way how long do you think I should wait to to swap over the so2 Ginny pigs? |
|
|
|
Post by birkie on Sept 1, 2017 3:20:06 GMT
Wait a minute, was one of the readings for Ginny #2 be mis-typed or transcribed? So a couple days ago, Ginny #2 had "After 70 hours and 26 mins- kwhr 3.28,total cost .42, per day .19" 3.28kWh / 70.5hr = 46.5W average Today, Ginny #2 had "after 100 hrs has used 6.9 KWHR, total cost .81, per day .19" 6.9kWh / 100hr = 69W average I think the "per day .19" is correct, but that first kWh reading for Ginny #2 might have actually came from Ginny #3. Ginny #3's reading of 3.32 kWh a few hours later seems suspiciously close. Could Ginny #2's reading from couple days ago actually have been something like 4.86? Anyway, if we use today's numbers, we get refrigeration watts (neglecting heaters) and duty cycles of Ginny #1 = 44W (31% duty cycle) Ginny #2 = 53W (35% duty cycle) Ginny #3 = 31W (19% duty cycle) LOL! This makes Ginny #2 look like the slacker, about 13% less capacity than Ginny #1, 20% less efficient than Ginny #1. Ginny #1 still looks like an underperformer relative to the CK; it's blown away by the CK farther than an "on spec" DR should. However, it *could* be that the CK has superpowers bestowed by that transistor radio that we are unaware of... coldspaces could you double-check Ginny #2's numbers? Otherwise, #1 and #3's numbers are very stable, and we're not learning anything new from them. I'd say once we get #2 sorted out, it should be safe to convert another machine, reset everybody's kill-a-watt, and start another run from 0. |
|
|
|
Post by coldspaces on Sept 1, 2017 4:52:01 GMT
Wait a minute, was one of the readings for Ginny #2 be mis-typed or transcribed? So a couple days ago, Ginny #2 had "After 70 hours and 26 mins- kwhr 3.28,total cost .42, per day .19" 3.28kWh / 70.5hr = 46.5W average Today, Ginny #2 had "after 100 hrs has used 6.9 KWHR, total cost .81, per day .19" 6.9kWh / 100hr = 69W average I think the "per day .19" is correct, but that first kWh reading for Ginny #2 might have actually came from Ginny #3. Ginny #3's reading of 3.32 kWh a few hours later seems suspiciously close. Could Ginny #2's reading from couple days ago actually have been something like 4.86? Anyway, if we use today's numbers, we get refrigeration watts (neglecting heaters) and duty cycles of Ginny #1 = 44W (31% duty cycle) Ginny #2 = 53W (35% duty cycle) Ginny #3 = 31W (19% duty cycle) LOL! This makes Ginny #2 look like the slacker, about 13% less capacity than Ginny #1, 20% less efficient than Ginny #1. Ginny #1 still looks like an underperformer relative to the CK; it's blown away by the CK farther than an "on spec" DR should. However, it *could* be that the CK has superpowers bestowed by that transistor radio that we are unaware of... coldspaces could you double-check Ginny #2's numbers? Otherwise, #1 and #3's numbers are very stable, and we're not learning anything new from them. I'd say once we get #2 sorted out, it should be safe to convert another machine, reset everybody's kill-a-watt, and start another run from 0. Sorry, not sure were the 70 hours came from, my notes say 55 hours. Just edited the original post to say 55 hrs. |
|
|
|
Post by birkie on Sept 1, 2017 10:44:51 GMT
Sorry, not sure were the 70 hours came from, my notes say 55 hours. Just edited the original post to say 55 hrs. That's closer,.but not as spot on consistent as Ginny#1 and #3. How about another set of readings, then I can plot the measurements and see if we're done. |
|
|
|
Post by coldspaces on Sept 1, 2017 12:39:47 GMT
Sorry, not sure were the 70 hours came from, my notes say 55 hours. Just edited the original post to say 55 hrs. That's closer,.but not as spot on consistent as Ginny#1 and #3. How about another set of readings, then I can plot the measurements and see if we're done. I can do that, I assume you would want me to start all three over again. |
|
|
|
Post by birkie on Sept 1, 2017 14:11:29 GMT
That's closer,.but not as spot on consistent as Ginny#1 and #3. How about another set of readings, then I can plot the measurements and see if we're done. I can do that, I assume you would want me to start all three over again. Oh no,just another reading from all the meters would be fine. I just ideally want to see another data point for #2 compared to the others at some point. Today, this weekend, or whenever. |
|
|
|
Post by blackhorse on Sept 1, 2017 15:28:00 GMT
Sorry, not sure were the 70 hours came from, my notes say 55 hours. Just edited the original post to say 55 hrs. Ah. That never happens to me. Almost never. OK, frighteningly often....... |
|
|
|
Post by ckfan on Sept 1, 2017 17:51:29 GMT
Gill, don't ever change. I love your little radio.
|
|
|
|
Post by coldspaces on Sept 3, 2017 1:23:36 GMT
Sep. 2nd readings.
Ginny pig #1 after 191 hrs has used 12.57 KWH, total cost 1.62, per day .20
Ginny pig #2 after 147 hrs has used 9.08 KWH, total cost 1.32, per day .18
Ginny pig #3 after 190 hrs has used 5.67 KWH, total cost .73, per day .08
It is cooler here now and low humidity. Garage has been in the lower to mid 70s the last day or day and 1/2.
|
|
