Subject: Resend Re: Solar TV Battery Test
Hi Nancy!
Yes -- as for swapping the CPU Heat Sink not like I haven't done
before -- heat sink part is fine but the fan froze -- just never had
swapped in a totally different - in this case monster - heat sink. And
was suckered in by the original one being "AMD approved" -- well, that
means it should be right and do the job, right?
One would have thought.... but maybe it was approved for some other
job....? <G>
Apparently it's job was to be cooling a much lighter capacity
processor!
And now you know... <G>
Ah! I neglected to to check _which_ one it was approved for!!
(Actually I had and my processor was listed.)
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.
As for the cameras, got that working. No idea why the real-time
failure with the original software, and appears for whatever reason the
new/updated software either isn't an energy efficient or because it
does more and so the processor does more work ==> heat and current
draw. Ended up putting in a metal case with extensions inside which
contact the CPU, etc., and so draw the heat of better than the original
heat sinks. (The metal case is warm to the touch!). That seems to
have been the problem.
Making it work harder and thus generating more heat, does seem to be a
possibility, even in my limited area of knowledge here... :) Finding
a way to dissipate that heat makes sense, too...
Yes, those chips just don't like to be too warm! Didn't quite make
sense why the original hardware wasn't liking the updated software
but.... I had the metal case in stock for another project, and did my
"buy two, they're cheap!" philosophy. Actually still have a spare:
did buy two but the original project changed.
Funny how that happens, sometimes... :) But handy to have for the
project at hand.... :)
If cheap enough spares are handy!
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. <g> Things took off, the
Pi used for all sorts of things including industrial applications (!)
and "the rest is history".
Dunno... one could run the experiment on a variety of variously
sunny days, and see if it makes much (or any) difference... ;)
Yes, see what happens on a fully sunny day which would be running
under ideal conditions and so find out what my maximum voltage would
be. Lesser sunny to overcast days would have less solar output and so
need to tweak the solar cell's positioning to make the best of what is
available.
All seems like workable situations and all... ;)
Yes, eventually back to that project. I haven't been down in the
basement for a while; some stuff up here in the Computer Room, some
Spring yard work.....
You'll get back to it in due time... :)
Yes: when it gets to 90 and 100 outside I'l be looking for an indoor
project!
And a cool basement will be very inviting... <G>
True. I haven't been down there for anything but putting away
groceries or 'going shopping'.
The time will come... ;)
The time hasn't come - yet!
Likely any price increase would be hidden.... It might be the same
price per container, but the net weight or volume has decreased
slightly... thinking that the customer is less likely to notice that
sort of thing... ;)
Yes: keep the price and container the same but less contents.
Or tweak the container just a little so that it's not all that
noticeable... ;0
They've probably done that to us consumers, I'm sure! Not false
advertising as long as they keep the weight display consistent.
Ice cream containers are a case in point where they did do that...
what used to be a half-gallon container is now just 3 pints... they
raised the bottom up into the container so the inside is less, but
the outside appears to be the old size... the correct weight is, of
course, on the package, but people rarely really notice that anyway...
Right: more trained by size. Have noticed when the opposite happens
the manufacturers loudly proclaim "smaller packaging, same amount!".
They figured out how to make the box smaller so as to get more per
case, or make the case smaller so more cases could be packed into the semi-trailer and cut their costs.
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.
Probably could be made smaller in size (the font) as long as
everything else was correspondingly smaller with the new packaging.
Doesn't even have to have much else changed... people aren't
likely to notice that unless they are routinely comparing with
other products... and when they all change at once, one might not
pick up on it that quickly... ;)
...Consumer beware!
Absolutely... Sugar is now in 4-lb bags rather than 5-lb... cans
that used to be 16 oz are now 15, or even 14.5oz...
And the latter has screwed up some recipes: "one small can of
Evaporated Milk" -- now doesn't seem to be that small can being sold.
Or the small can used to be 8 oz and now is only 6.5... but the
other ingredients might have likewise shrunk, and so the
proportion still not too out of line... <G>
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.
As for the sugar, I remember that one. Bought the usual smaller-of-the-two sizes; may have noticed something was different but didn't pick up what. ...Know here it is stored in a canister set but
the set is unmarked and so sugar doesn't go in a canister designed for five pounds of sugar. I also generally don't use sugar (not saying I don't eat!) so I don't 'play' with the transfer, etc. It did take us a little while before we caught on to the size difference.
We use sugar very rarely... so rarely, in fact, that I still have
more than half a TW container into which I put a 5lb bag of sugar
decades ago (perfect fit, back then)... ;) I noticed the sugar
because the size change had been discussed by others in the
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!).
<COVID-19 and reusable bags at grocery stores>
Hy-Vee might have decided on an all-or-none option to avoid confrontations: what is considered 'dirty', though probably more as they're trying to avoid contact when handing over someone else's bag
-- who knows what it has been in contact with? While I prefer using reusable bags for the current time it's better to go with the flow.
Oh, and Hy-Vee does allow reusable bags if one is packing their own,
so Richard being able to use might be the reason.
Wegmans still has paper bags available (5 cents each, the
reusables are 99 cents), but no plastic ones... And I've seen
plenty of cashiers packing other people's groceries into their 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.)
And that reminded me: the coffee-flavourd M&Ms were a restricted-time
offering. I was on eBay for something else (ended up not buying
anywhere) and someone was selling just-expired packs (expiry April
17th or something) and someone else had listed packs with an expiry the
end of May. Either one would have been OK but I wasn't sure of the
quantity: looked like a single pack at $9.99 - so ten dollars. Uh,
no. OK, so free shipping, but still seemed rather high for a little
packet. I'm not spending my stimulus check on candy!
Guess I was right... <G> No, I'd not spend that sort of money for
candy, either... And it appears that maybe some people did some
hoarding there, as well, hoping to make a killing.... sigh....
Maybe not a killing but just buying up end quantities. I didn't pay
attention to the vendor so don't know if it was Vinny's Odd Lots or
what.
Even if it was just buying up end quantities, that's an exorbitant
price for a package of M&Ms.... :)
I thought so, so it was a no. Did try to make sure I wasn't
misreading -- weight was about right for a single package, definately
not a box.
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)