On Fri, 23 Sep 2011 20:33:56 -0400, clare@snyder.on.ca wrote:   
      
   >On Fri, 23 Sep 2011 23:52:10 +0100, "Johny B Good"   
   > wrote:   
   >   
   >>On Fri, 23 Sep 2011 20:10:30 +0100,  wrote:   
   >>   
   >>> On Fri, 23 Sep 2011 08:06:35 -0400, "vaughn"   
   >>>  wrote:   
   >>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>> "Johny B Good"  wrote in message   
   >>>> news:op.v18u4so9kd9x7s@fred...   
   >>>> ...>especially as it was supplying a second   
   >>>>> level of UPS protection from the protected mains sockets powered by my   
   >>>>> SmartUPS 2000 (a 2KVA 1500W unit) that I keep in the basement.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> This is a good point.  I learned the hard way that feeding one UPS from   
   >>>> another   
   >>>> is a very bad idea.  Think of every UPS not only as protection, but as a   
   >>>> potential POINT OF FAILURE.  To reduce the inevitable failures, simply   
   >>>> reduce   
   >>>> the number of UPSs.  I suffered more than one unnecessary server outage   
   >>>> before   
   >>>> the lesson sunk in.  One layer of UPS "protection" is plenty!   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Vaughn   
   >>>>   
   >>> Some UPS units will complain loudly about being fed by another one too   
   >>> - some don't like squarewave input.   
   >>   
   >>  And, with good reason on account of the relatively large capacitive   
   >>loading they may present on their mains input, although it's more likely   
   >>that the cheap 'stepped' sinewave inverter driving into such a load will   
   >>be the first to succumb.   
   >>   
   >>  As long as any such cheap UPSes (such as the BackUPS 500 and the Emmerson   
   >>Accupower 30) are never used to feed another UPS and only true sine wave   
   >>output UPSes (such as the Upsonic UPS600 and the APC SmartUPS 700 and 2000   
   >>models), you'll be ok. As you may have gathered, I _was_ quite mindful of   
   >>this issue. ;-)   
   >>   
   >>>   
   >>> As for the power usage and the "kill-a-watts" units readings - I gort   
   >>> a replacement for my EM100, and  swings between about 33 and 40 watts   
   >>> with the occaisional spike to 70 - I'll run it for a period of time   
   >>> and see what the average consumption comes out to. The old unit   
   >>> indicated over 60 watts, my guess is less than 35 watts. This is a   
   >>> TRUE ONLINE dual conversion UPS, so it will draw significantly more   
   >>> than a standby unit.   
   >>   
   >>  If this is the type that uses its inverter full time to power the load   
   >> from a float charged battery, that'll be exactly right!   
   > That's the definitionof "dual conversion"   
   >The new EM 100 registers .21 KwH over a period of 5.1 hours - which   
   >translates to almost exactly 40 watts. The line reads 113 volts on the   
   >new unit, and 116 on my old one.My LAB meter reads 115.6 volts - so   
   >the new meter is going back.   
   >   
   >It also indicates 0.69 amps, which at 113 volts would be 78 watts.   
   >   
   >It is now on the "old" EM 100, which is more accurate voltage-wize,   
   >according to my meter. It registers 0.72 amps at 116 volts - which   
   >would be 83.5 watts. We will see what the KwH reading over time says.   
      
      
   Well, they both agree with 40 watts, when the KWH is devided by time.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)