Since AMT hasn't shipped, I can only assume you've never mined before, so let me explain some mining to you. Shares submitted to a pool occur based on a random distribution. If you showed a flat-line chart like the first one you drew, I'd know you had faked the chart. A true "stable" chart is going to have a good +/- 20% variance and look like the second one you drew.
Exactly... and thus, your "stability", by your own words, is erratic, just like the two 1.0THs runs they showed on the chart. They only did two runs on that account. The other runs were NOT 1.0THs. That whole chart is various boards being added and tuned, and tested. Seriously, you think that whole chart is 1.0THs running... lol... ffs Only the last two runs were all 5 boards running to full speed. (By the way, I do know how pools work. That is why I never use them anymore. You may be happy getting only 80%-85% credit for your work, but I prefer 100% credit.) |
|
|
|
Don't blame the pool. Bitmine's inability to maintain 1 TH is their problem, not the pool. By your other graph.. that person/pool also failed to maintain 1.0THs, if that even was only 1.0THs. (Which you didn't even provide proof of.) Or did you miss the fact that the 1.0THs you "claim" created that graph only shows an average estimate below 1.0Ths. (Still ignoring the erratic results at the end of that graph, where it dips to 600GHs and looks worse as it continues. If THAT is stability... then the other miner was equally as stable. Also note, they stopped mining on that account. Obviously, they moved to a better pool, or are solo-mining to tune it.) Show me that same miner (running at whatever speed it actually is), running solo. Then we can talk about stability. However, you have not shown a miner at all, just an unstable pools results of a miner running in the pool. That is like me showing you a road-sign, and saying... See how fast this car goes, the speed limit is 55MPH! But never showing the car, or the car doing that speed. If the pool graph looked like this... ----------------------------------- and not this... /\/\/\/\/\///\/\/\/\/\//\/\/\\/\/\/\/\// That would be "stable" results... (The top one) You are right... they just started shipping, knowing they are unstable... and you say I am delusional.. they are not AVALON. |
|
|
|
I see that same "stability", in the time-frame just before the last "tweak".. also the same instability... That other miner only has a better average, because it has been running for weeks, with better averages...
LOL. That's the point. Bitmine's miner is not stable, and you cannot blame that on the pool like you tried to do. Love the 600GHs dips, and the 1200GHs spikes... you sure that isn't a stable 1.1GHs or 1.2GHs miner running?
Out of 168 hours last week that miner had 2 hours poor performance. Out of those same 168 hours, the Bitmine miner had 166 hours of poor performance. No wonder Bitmine's demo video only lasted a couple minutes. No, out of 168 hours, that miner was apparently only running for a portion of 4 hours. I am sure the other runs were from individual boards, or the other unit with only 2 boards in it. Or did you not see that video? Obviously, you are not looking at the same point that I was talking about. The last wide section is two separate runs, noted by the "gap" in the middle, where they obviously stopped mining, then started again, with new settings. The prior settings produced results that were consistent with the entire other chart you use for a reference. However, you quoted my following question, and did not reply to it... Show me that the other chart is a 1.0THs miner, running at only 1.0THs in CGminer, and not the results of a 1.1THs or a 1.2THs miners results. Or, not the result of 2x 600GHs miners running... or any other combination... Surely, you got that chart from someone with that miner running, which is "confirmed" as running at only 1.0THs... or did you just pull up one that was close to 1.0THs and assume it was actually a 1.0THs miner? Not too many of those out there... None that I recall. Except the one being created now. |
|
|
|
I see that same "stability", in the time-frame just before the last "tweak".. also the same instability... That other miner only has a better average, because it has been running for weeks, with better averages... Love the 600GHs dips, and the 1200GHs spikes... you sure that isn't a stable 1.1GHs or 1.2GHs miner running? You are missing the actual CGMiner screenshots to confirm that units actual running speeds, with matching dates to the charts. Anyways, average over time is 976GHs for that long, uninterrupted average. (Well, except the obvious "network issues" and diff-shares issues.) By the looks, the section prior to the last seems more stable than those other values. Except the last values, which are all over the place, similar to the 1.0GHs miner they are tuning now. Again, that is NOT AMT's miner. Only the same chip. |
|
|
|
|
No you showed how mining in a pool that is constantly DDOS attacked, and rapes it's users, does not reward 1.2THs, it only rewards about 862GHs... (Funny that you have no idea what tuning they are doing... I see it up to 1.2THs on that 1THs miner... Obviously, something is going right.) I am sure they are constantly resetting and tuning and killing power and tuning and testing and tuning... You are missing that critical information about how long the miner has been running constantly hashing.
I can show you stats of pools that show rewards as low as 50%, because they are choking on processing Diff-shares and have too many HTTP requests to process, which are all buffered, and thus, throws your late shares out.
Pools only reward pools. (Same with cloud miners... they take all your tx-rewards for any discovered blocks, only giving you the block rewards themselves.)
I'll do solo-mining, and we can compare value/reward, in BTC.
Yes, they just updated the power estimates to 900-1200W (Which is what I have always done my estimates on.) Obviously, 1200W being the max of the unit. I assume with some turbo-room too.
Few more weeks, and all will be better.
P.S. Take this for what it is worth... IRS is delaying many income-tax returns by 21 days. (Mostly rich and middle-class people with big returns.) So, poor will actually have an advantage to buy some BTC, or other crypto, before the more wealthy can pump the market. That is my outlook. (My mother works for the IRS, so this is not like news I just read. This is essentially insider-info... lol. Try doing that on a regulated market! I love being the bank!) They must be late cashing-out all those shares from Gox... gotta wait Gox's 21 day withdraw period before they can pay us our tax-returns from the funds taken from silk-road. lol. (She thought that was funny too.)
P.P.S. I also noticed Difficulty is slowing down in growth, yet again... Adding more months of valuable mining to our hash-rates.
|
|
|
|
Nice stats... 862GHs at about 0.16554912 BTC per day... (That is not quite a 1.2THs miners results, if it is, you are getting raped by the pool.) That is roughly 4.9664736 in 30 days... (But lets assume 2-months, with the slowing network growth.) What price will you be cashing-out at? Who actually mines BTC directly? I would not be cashing-out until BTC reaches $1000+ again... Total units estimated over the life of that machine above, would be about 12.65BTC, over a 2 year period... What will BTC be then? $30,000 per BTC, or back down to $30 per BTC... Who knows... no-one... But most believe it will be higher, so assume 10% of the worst estimates from people who actually know what they are talking about. Looks like BTC is having a hard time pushing through $500 again... All those alts cashing-in for pennies on the dollar. That'll fade, until summer-time, when it returns to something around this price again. The good news is that BTC seems to be on the floor. The bad news is that the money is under the floor. (I like to point out the obvious.) You don't make money if the market doesn't move! (That requires it to go up AND down. Thus, "Motion".) BTC on sale now 60% off! |
|
|
|
lol... no... ask me about females, and I am lost... ask me about TV-shows, and I am lost... ask me about Obama-Care, and I am lost... ask me about dressing well, and I am lost... I know less than most, about most things that many know more about... Even less about what I actually know. Assume I am wrong, research it, and you will live longer, but have less useful knowledge of anything-else. Favorite color: Plaid Favorite food: McDonalds Favorite drink: Coffee Favorite past-time: Taking everything apart Biggest challenge: Putting one of those damn things back together, without spare parts left-over, and have it work. Enjoys: ... silence (Ironic isn't it) Yes, I am constantly fighting-off the ladies with all my desirable traits...  And making new friends! |
|
|
|
cgminer uses TCP for communication. Does it not... over TCP, it broadcasts HTTP, does it not... (You connection is to http://somesite/yourminer) http://www.cyberciti.biz/faq/key-differences-between-tcp-and-udp-protocols/Wiki the TCP protocol, and find the "method for broadcasting a packet". There is an "OK" in that, is there not... Wiki the HTTP protocol, and find the "method for responding to a http request". There is an "OK" in that, is there not... Now packet-sniff the data from your miner, or look at the source-code. There is an "OK" for accepting or rejecting submitted shares, is there not... Anyways, this is getting off topic... How many chips! lol. In any event, none of that happens when solo-mining. That happens more, the lower the diff-share you use, as you are submitting more shares per second, to the pool-address you are connecting to. work = time = loss P.S. I program raw sockets, TCP and UDP connections, and HTTP/FTP/SMTP protocols. I am not just speaking out my ass... all the time. xD (Fortunately, I don't do anything major in programming, except create my own tools for my own use. I am a horrible coder, and worse GUI guy.) |
|
|
|
TCP Broadcast adress waiting for pool ok
Wow, you are funny, that was a short answer, obviously. There is a "TCP broadcast", to the "address your miner is connected to", which waits for an "OK, work accepted". That is how CGminer knows to display, "Rejected shares" and how it detects "New block" so you can dump your work, to start loading and processing new work. Should I have put all that, or just said... TCP boradcast address waiting for pool OK. TCP is a slow protocol that is bloated. It makes solid connections to ensure packet data is broadcast "completely". If not, it resends it, or starts a new connection if the OK is not received. UDP would have been better for speed, but is often blocked by ISPs and those fragmented packets are never guaranteed to even be delivered. That requires you to use separate UDP tracking, or just use horrible TCP standards. HTTP, the thing broadcast over TCP, by cgminer, is even more bloated. there is an additional "OK" status for HTTP, in the bloated header, so it knows the request was a success. I guess anyone can mine. Must be why it is growing in popularity. all this OK broadcasting from your address. You are just inviting them in. |
|
|
|
You know what? Best case will be to mine at 2048 diff and pretend your miner is 2t instead of one. 1t miner is one 1t miner and it is staying 1t no matter what diff you are using. Simple as that...
Funny thing to notice... on the video, where it is running with a 8-diff to start at 780-999GHs... near the end, the pool auto-adapts to 512-diff, and the miner instantly averages 1.002THs... Let it run a little longer, it would have gone to 1024-diff and ended with an average of about 1.1THs, I am sure... (Missed that last time, it was only like a few seconds of the last frames.) http://bitmine.ch/?p=5176I am sure they cut the video off on purpose, to hide the fact that it would do even more. That average shot-up way too fast, after having to also calculate the 2 minutes of 780GHs, from the cold-boot, in the beginning of the video, where it took forever to climb to 999GHs from 998GHs average. But you are right... Even watching cgminer choke, live, in that video... While the 8-diff is there, still there once the 512-diff comes. with the bottom card stalling below average as 180GHs while the others all ran smooth as butter at 222GHs... Yet, I am wrong. lol. I can make you a video too. One that shows my miners pulling about 710KHs with diff-1 submission, another with the sane units pulling 730KHs with diff-32, another with them running 762KHs running solo, another with them running 781KHs solo and workload-64 size... then tell me again how my 700KHs miner is not a 781KHs miner. I could do some port-snooping and packet sniffing on the network, and accurately measure the output, along with all the repeating failed buffering of cgminer's horrible http/tcp protocol sorta-standard communication. In the end, for those who do mine in pools, it does matter what actually gets accepted as work, for earnings. |
|
|
|
I wrote that long-winded explanation for nothing... I am not re-writing all that with 1200W as the specs... You don't need to rewrite it. The new specs are only valid for orders placed after today. All previous orders must receive the stated specs at the time the order was placed. Hush, I was looking for an advantage to win! lol... Waiting for my 80-chip 1.2THs miner to arrive, that operates under 600w max. "At the wall". (lol) Seriously though... I don't want to have to wait a whole two weeks to find-out how many chips my miner will have. What will I do for all my days? Then have to spend the next three months eating my words, if it only delivers 1.2THs running at exactly 1200W. Though I still doubt that will be the case. I... I.. I just want a hug! Throw me some feels!  |
|
|
|
So how many chips are in the 1.2THs miners... Now that I seem to have a challenge ahead of me... (Wait, he didn't accept my bid! lol... saved by the bell!) I wrote that long-winded explanation for nothing... I am not re-writing all that with 1200W as the specs... Short version... 0.91J/GH - 1.11J/GH is the worst to expect now, from nominal... 0.72J/GH - 0.835J/GH is the best to expect now, from nominal... I am guessing that 48 chips is the design... (6 boards with 8 chips each) Lead time on the 1.2Th's is still end of march. Orders that get in soon will still ship by March 31st, just a heads up we'll take down that offer on Friday. New purchases... not existing orders... (Just wanted to have you clarify that. ) |
|
|
|
I am using the claimed efficiency of 0.75J/GH, and giving 10% on that (0.825J/GH).
If you would really like a bet where the minimum hashrate is 1.08TH/s and maximum power draw is 990W, I would entertain that, but only at 1:1 odds.
1.2THs <- Spec #1 600-900W <- Spec #2 "Product specification s may differ from (+/- 10% running variance)" Two specs... (plural) two seporate +/-10% variations. If it was just speed, it would say only "Speed +/-10%". So the range, of highs to possible lows are... (by specs) 1080Ghs lowest nominal speed you should ever get, within specs 1320Ghs highest nominal speed potential claimed, within specs Both those speeds, potentially within... 810w lowest possible max the unit may be limited to, this is the -10% 990w highest possible wattage the unit is speced to, this is the +10% So unless we have a dud PSU, that actually only delivers 990w for a minute, then 810w for an hour... That places the estimates of worst power consumption at 990w, for obtaining the "nominal" of 1080GHs, and also the maximum draw possible from the unit, to reach 1320GHs. That is 990w/1080GHs=0.92J/GH (worst case by specs max)* That is 990w/1320GHs=0.75J/GH (best case by specs max) * That would be a bum batch of chips, sucking lots of power from the PSU to stay in spec, over-volted. You would not assume that hitting 1320GHs would be achievable at the PSU's lowest rating, or the highest low-rating of 810w. However, I would go so far as to say that the 1080GHs, should still be able to hit at 810w, as that would be -10% hash and -10% max-power, which should yield "nominal"... So... That is 810w/1080GHs=0.75J/GH (worst/worst case by specs min)* Unrealistic is 810w/1320GHs=0.62J/HG (super-ideal case by specs min) * That would be a bum PSU with hungry chips, which would have to be under-volted to be 1080GHs So I believe, by the claims, that they are saying, 0.75J/GH to 0.92J/GH, as the (+/-10% to each spec, 0.835J/GH would be the average) I left-out the spec for 0.62J/GH, since that is unrealistic to specs intent, and thus, might never be possible. The lower wattage would be for power-saving operation, and is irrelevant to the 1.2THs "nominal limits". They would only apply to how low you could under-volt it, and still provide power. Which the 600w -10% should handle. So, to win the bet... The only source to beat would be 0.92J/GH to 0.835J/GH, as that would be low to average, within spec. Obviously someone may get a super-PSU and super-chips, and that would be unfair to judge with. Right? Honestly, I am more interested in the maximum potential... electric consumption is nearly irrelevant at these hash-rates and yields. 1200w is roughly about $4.61 a day at $0.16/KWh... (I pay about $0.08)... Earnings are between $500-$150 per day, at the moment, after paying electric. If I get 50% more hashing-power at twice the electric-costs... That is $750-$255 per day, at the moment, after paying 2x the electric consumption. Yes, I estimated as 1200W, just for the sake of argument. (1200GHs * 150% = 1800GHs or 1.8THs) By the time I actually cash-out, to reinvest again... that should be about $3000-$1000 per day again, as if I earned that the whole time. Since cashing-out as you earn is the worst payout idea ever. lol. (Shh, it is those peoples losses that become my gains.) |
|
|
|
I can agree with the top portion... but saying one or the other, when hash-rate and power are both +/-10%, still seems unfair to the bet.
It is fair. They claim +/- 10%, you want to have -10% on hashrate *and* +10% on power draw which is the absolute most extremely lenient way to deliver. You can have both and be fair. Wow, now that is more structured of a bet... (The post that followed this quoted one. Saw it as I tried to reply.) But it says +/- 10% on all specs... Power-consumption is one of the two specs... Power and speed. For the bet, if you accept my public humiliation as payment... I will take the power +/- 10% (At the wall), as that is what one would assume, for the device. (Since that is what we get charged for, by the power company.) In light of "friendly" betting... Since "I am not building these units", and I still assume any "estimated" specs are just that, until a unit they built is spec-ed out once it is in their hands. I have no way of knowing what path they have taken to build them. Running minimum chips, it is not possible. Running similar qty of chips (48), it is borderline possible. Running more than "my estimates", (more than 48 chips), it is absolutely possible. However, that is not mentioned anywhere. They may have done estimations with 50+ chips, and decided to build with 48. That has not been determined yet. (I think minimum I calculated would have been like 34 operating at turbo, which put wattage over 1200W, obviously.) Also, I chose the power one, because the PSU is obviously limited to those specs. Thus, that will determine, with the number of chips, what the maximum speed is. (Not the average, because it says nominal +/- 10%, for speed and also +/-10% for the other specs. That is two separate statements, not one, since both specs are mentioned. It does not say speed only +/- 10%. But I will take power.) If AMT responds with the qty of chips used... I can make a more clear/confident bet. Without that knowledge, I am left only to believe that they will try to fill the estimated obligations they outlined. Using however-many chips is needed to reach that target. I still believe they spec-ed the original estimates "by chip", and "at the boards total draw"... which was a mistake to do. (Unless that was specified as the specs specifics.) However, I do believe the updated specs are "at the wall", and "for the unit as a whole". They have not stated otherwise, so that is a reasonable assumption. Remember, they had to create estimates off what the chip-producer said were the estimates. They just failed to say, "specs may change at any time, and are just estimates". But again, we all knew this item was not even created yet, except on a test-lab board, with one chip. If I am allowed to help those two people tune the machines... then I accept random peoples submissions.. but they could purposely make it do less, or draw more power, or just not have the ability to tune it. Also, you can't pick the two people... and I changed my beer to a coffee... |
|
|
|
Voltage changes are fine, as long as they are software controllable. Having to remove and replace resistors to adjust the voltage is beyond the ability of most customers, and cannot be considered after sales tuning. Adding additional modules (which was the whole point of that) and then underclocking the boards to improve efficiency is likewise not "tuning".
I will give you the 10%, but only once. You can either have the hashrate +/- 10% (minimum 1080GH/s) at 900W, or the hashrate at 1.2TH/s and the power at 990W. I can agree with the top portion... but saying one or the other, when hash-rate and power are both +/-10%, still seems unfair to the bet. If I happen to get one with slow chips, thus the lower hash-rate... I will be forced to draw more power, and vice-versa... If I get one that hits 222GHs per board (assuming it is 8-chip boards, and 6 boards)... it would unfairly reduce load on the PSU, if I made it run the lower end of the voltage. That is like flipping a coin on production errors. Not enough play to even be within the updated estimates. How about this... If I am horribly wrong, and thus they don't come within those specs at all, by the 10%. (Which is possible that they are still under-estimating...) Then I will put a link to that public admittance of defeat in my signature, and leave it there for 3 months... (Why do I feel like I am going to be right on the edge on this bet. lol.) If I win... you just enjoy your miner. And if you are ever visiting Florida, you will owe me a beer... even though I don't drink. |
|
|
|
The 5 second average in cgminer is meaningless, as it can very greatly in a short period of time due to the way its calculated. The only thing that matters is average speed over a reasonable period of time. I am proposing a 30 minute run.
I would allow an optimization period of one week after the first units begin arriving in customers hands. However, it must be software optimization. The hardware must remain unchanged over that period. For example, the customer adding a couple extra modules and underclocking/volting them to reach 1.2TH/s would not be acceptable.
I won't wait past my deadline. Of course it is a blind bet, equally so for both parties. If we waited for it to be resolved it's hardly a bet.
As for your strange objection to "hit" vs "average", I am contesting that over a minimum 30 minute run, the average hashrate must be at least 1.2TH/s. If at some point in that 30 minutes the 5s number hits 1.2TH/s but the average over the full run is 1.1TH/s, that is not sufficient.
And no I don't lift. What a silly question.
It should be a fairly easy choice for you. Less than two months ago you seemed certain a worst case scenario would be 750W for 1.2TH/s. I'm giving you a margin of 32% over that, AND offering 3:1 odds.
Adjusting voltage is part of "tuning", and also part of the "max speed"... so that is unreasonable to say it would not be an option for consideration. Since 1.2THs is implied as a "potential" with the stated wattage. If it normally operates at 1.0THs, with a modest voltage, for stability or warranty, but peak is 1.2THs, running at the max-wattage the unit is designed for... then that has met the estimation criteria for "reaches speeds of", or "up to", or "peak"... also if it requires additional cooling, or "ideal conditions". Because running this in summer-time, near the equator would not be fair to judge against a guy in Siberia, in winter running it out in the snow. One will obviously hit the mark, while the other obviously will not. (I live in Florida, it is already getting to temps of 80F here. So I NEED to make provisions to "get ideal operating conditions". Like someone might have, running it in an air-conditioned shop or house.) Also demanding that the average has to be 1.2THs, when that is obviously an expected peak value, is a little demanding. Either I win the superbowl by 40 points, or it's a loss for my team. Though, I can find a nice 30-min block to mine... solo, that should appease any average conditions. BTW, software is used also to "tune" voltages and frequency... So that can't be ruled-out. However, throwing another PSU or swapping for a better PSU, or replacing components on the PCB would understandably be unacceptable. I'll think about the bet... As for the specs... (Right from the miners page) 1,200 GH/s nominal performance ( +/– 10%) Included accessories: 2x USB Cable 2x Network Cable 1x Power Cord Bitcoin Miner Weight: 18 lb. Dimensions: 18 x 7 x 18 high Chip: Asic 28nm Warranty: This unit’s system board has a lifetime warranty from manufacture defect or component failure. Product specifications may differ from ( +/- 10% running variance) 1.2THs +/-10% and +/-10% Product specifications (Of which, power is a spec), IS exactly what they are selling... (now) xDThus, the minimum specs is 1.2THs - 10% (Least expected hashing power) and the maximum power would be 900W + 10% (Greatest consumed power while hashing) |
|
|
|
blah blah blah
Lets refresh readers memory: Yes, I do believe the unit will produce up to 1.2THs, running around 600Watts.
...
Worst case scenario, as per specs... I can see the "boards" consuming 600Watts, with the rest consuming about 20Watts for the controller and fans, prior to the PSU. With a horrid 80% efficiency, that would put it at a 750Watts at the wall, roughly.
And.. what chip-count was that quoted with? The "..." missing context is the important other half of that whole conversation... I believe the chip count was up near the 60's for that to be delivered, now it is down to the 50's, with the updated specs, which is still "near 600w" possibility. (I still agree that 900w is more realistic, for 120v systems.) However, it is the "new miners" being quoted at those specs... I still "psychologically", hold some claim to the unit specs I purchased, at the price and time I made the purchase. (Which was around 600w. ) But, given the nature of the order and business and market, I would accept the current adjusted realistic 900W +/-10% as "acceptable". When my order gets here, that will be taken into consideration too. Just like BFL had to double-up on chips, to get the specs within estimated projections. (Though BFL fell short on power by 5x loss. AMT would actually gain power by adding chips, running below nominal voltages. BFL was just a power-hungry chip with little room for adjustment.) I would hope that they attempt to adjust for that claim. I'll dig-up that dead post when the time comes. |
|
|
|
AHH!! 1W/Ghs!!!
Unbelievable. You have been selling 0.25-0.5W/GH at the wall. When pointed out how ludicrous that claim was, you never replied, but at some point quietly updated the website to show a slightly less absurd but still completely unrealistic 0.5-0.75W/GH. Now that your supplier show its ability to deliver a hair above 1W/GH, you are over the moon ?
From coincraft website and specs... "Power usage of 0.35 W/GH in low power, 0.6 W/GH in nominal and 1 W/GH in Turbo mode" Yes, 1W/GHs is one of the specs... for the CHIPS, not the whole UNIT/miner. 0.6W/GHs Obviously requires about 0.4W/GHs from the rest of the unit, to operate. Which includes inefficiencies. PSU, fans, daughter-boards, driving components, network-card... Not to mention that demo was not optimized, in code, I am sure... Can't be optimized/tuned until it is up and running. Also, that is NOT what AMT is selling. They are obviously not the same units. You saw it run from a cold-start, for barely a few minutes. Slight premature response to claim "victory" so soon to "estimates" of a similar "pre-order". |
|
|
|
The breakers were installed in the existing breaker-box, the wires were run in conduit, by an electrician friend. (outside the walls) The outlets, that tie to the raw lines, were done by me. Anything at the "outlet-box", is allowed to be done by the home-owner, here in Florida. The rest, for insurance purposes, had to be done and also inspected by a certified electrician. Only cost about $350 for everything to be done. Friends work for beer. (As for the bet above... change that to peak, and not average, and it would be a reasonable bet. But not one I would be willing to submit to, as "shit happens". Since "out of the box", is also not specified, and "optimization" isn't specified.. I would take you up on that offer, if you allowed it to be "judged" after a suitable "optimization period". Also, once AMT says how many chips will be in my unit. Without that, it is a blind bet. You have a contradiction too... you say "hit 1.2THs", then say "average 1.2THs"... that is a big contradiction... "Hit 200MPH", and "Stay running at 200MPH average", is not the same. Do you even lift bro?) Also note: I think I am getting screwed by the power company though... we put all lines on one half/leg of the power... So it seems like I am drawing twice the amps at the meter. If you do setup new breakers, have them balance them to the two separate legs. If you draw 100a on one leg, the meter here seems to see 200a because it seems to measure the greatest draw across both legs, as amps, but charges for watts. It seems to assume if 100a is drawn on one, that 100a is also being drawn on the other. If I had that balanced, it would be 50a and 50a on each leg, and the meter would read 100a total, not 200a total. That is my next thing to fix. (That, or I need a PF-correction unit.) Electric meters are such horrible technology. (Again, this is what seems to be happening, when I measure the timing outside. It does not match my actual draw of the units. Measured directly. Chime-in if you know the solution to that one. That solution was told to me by the guy who installed the breakers. He didn't think it would be that dramatic of an offset.) Yes, I had the power company come to reset the meter and "test it", they said it was working fine. Sure... it only charges me double, it is supposed to do that! lol. So much for paying half price. (It isn't quite double, but it is more than measured draw.) |
|
|
|
Did you have to run additional circuitry to have them run in the garage?
I plan on upgrading my garage since my basement doesn't have the required wiring.
lol, edited that missing info above, but to reply directly... Yes, I had three breakers at 40a, and had to add another 5 breakers at 20a. The 40a was for power-tools with intermittent high-amp use. The 20a was for each computer, to sustain the constant amp use. Gave me room to play, but I used standard wiring... Should have upgraded the wires... Now I may have to. I used the pool-pump breaker for my porch-units. The pool is now a pond with Koi, and no running pump. Also note: Cops may visit you, thinking you just setup a grow-operation... Told them this was more lucrative. They didn't find it as funny as I did. They just did a walk-through of the house, and left. Also note: If you claim this as a business, get the business power rate. In most places, they charge half-price for power, and double for peak-draw. Since the machines stay running 24/7 you never have peak-draws. Home business and SSN is valid to register for business power rates. (Well, in the USA, in Florida) |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
