From: mung_me@att.net   
      
   On 11/27/2012 9:40 PM, mike wrote:> On 11/27/2012 4:50 PM, j wrote:   
    >>    
    >>>   
    >>> You wanna nit-pick. OK, bring it.   
    >>> We have a vaguely described setup.   
    >>> We have vaguely described numbers from the utility bill.   
    >>> The "experiment" is undocumented and uncontrolled.   
    >>>   
    >>> And the result is that it transcends conservation of energy.   
    >>   
    >> I'm inclined to take this at face value.   
    > Given that there's no definition of what you mean by "this" or "face   
    > value", that statement has little communicative value.   
    >>   
    >> So what do you know about pumps?   
    >   
    > Turns out that you don't have to know anything about pumps.   
    > Using some round numbers so as not to hurt anybody's brain.   
    > $60/month will buy about 600kWH of energy (around here anyway).   
    > Divide that by the 720 hours in a month.  That gives 833W.   
    > 1.5hp represents just over a kilowatt.  That leaves MINUS 200watts   
    > or so for the rest of the domicile.   
      
      
   I don't think the numbers make sense, but I don't doubt that he is   
   recovering some energy (it's a huge pump he is using and I'm inclined to   
   believe there is a lot of left over energy). I can't see where this is   
   more than half. So I'd believe it if it was $60 off a $300 bill, but of   
   course, he is claiming far more.   
      
   I don't have a dog in this fight, and haven't read through the whole   
   thread. But I'm still inclined to cut him some slack. It's really no   
   crazier than the guy with a bicycle generator trying to save money.   
   What's the point in beating him up?   
      
   Jeff   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)