Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
HomeAnnouncements
Discussion Groups
By Brand
BMWChevroletDodgeFordGMHondaLexusMercedes-BenzNissanPeugeotToyotaVolkswagenOther Brands
By Topic
4x4 CarsRVsDrivingMaintenance & RepairCar AudioCollectible Cars
Country Specific
Australian ForumsUK Forums
ArticlesAuto InsuranceBuyingCars & TechnologyMaintenanceMiscellaneousSafety
DMV Resources
Related Topics
MotorcyclesBoatsMore Topics ...

Car Forum / Driving, Maintenance, Tuning / RVs / September 2005

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Inverter considerations?

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
Bob Hardy - 24 Sep 2005 22:35 GMT
Our rig has several small inverters for various stuff - the GPS, TV,
satellite, etc. I want to replace them with a single larger unit so I can
wire it in properly. A 2 kw job would run anything onboard except the
air conditioner.

So...  Looking around, I have found beauceau units at battery shops, large
home centers, Frys, etc.  Those are several hundred dollars.  The local RV
dealer also has a couple, but for several thousand dollars - it being an
apparently well known fact that all RV owners are very wealthy.

Price aside, what bothers me is the efficiency of the models I have found.
I don't know what the percentage of a decent unit should be, but so far I
haven't found but one that is more 90 percent efficent and most are
much worse.  On a fully loaded 2k unit that is 200 watts of thrown away
power at best.

So what should be the minimum eff factor of a decent inverter?  And anyone
got any recomendations for one?

Thanks all
BH
 
Marty Bose - 25 Sep 2005 01:21 GMT
Making AC from DC isn't really efficient, so I would expect that 90% is
pretty good.  What I think you have probably failed to take into
account is that I would bet that none of your current smaller inverters
are anywhere near that efficient; you may be "throwing away" more than
that now!

Marty

> Our rig has several small inverters for various stuff - the GPS, TV,
> satellite, etc. I want to replace them with a single larger unit so I can
[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
> Thanks all
> BH
Will Sill - 25 Sep 2005 12:37 GMT
I see where Bob Hardy <bhxxxx@localhost.net> contributed:

>Price aside, what bothers me is the efficiency of the models I have found.
>I don't know what the percentage of a decent unit should be, but so far I
>haven't found but one that is more 90 percent efficent and most are
>much worse.  

90% is the best you can expect.   Hey, the batteries themselves are
not that good!

Will Sill
The Curmudgeon of Sill Hill
Andy S. - 25 Sep 2005 17:06 GMT
> Price aside, what bothers me is the efficiency of the models I have found.
> I don't know what the percentage of a decent unit should be, but so far I
> haven't found but one that is more 90 percent efficent and most are
> much worse.  On a fully loaded 2k unit that is 200 watts of thrown away
> power at best.

FYI, 90% efficiency for an inverter is pretty darn good.
Bob Hardy - 25 Sep 2005 22:18 GMT
Interesting.  Obviously the advances in energy generation have not
included inverter technology.  This explains why I haven't found shelves
of 99 percent efficent inverters.  This bodes ill for us in our coming
energy crisis since very few sources of alternate power deliver it at 110
volts AC. Since an average house has a 200 amp/220 volt service and would
require a 44000 watt inverter, you won't need a central heater since you
will automatically have one built in using the waste heat.

Maybe Edison was right and Westinghouse was wrong way back in the 19
century and we should have stuck to DC distribution:)

But seriously, since switching power supplies are getting very efficient
(the quality ones, that is - not the knockoffs made in Changching,
Slobbovia) I just assumed that the gadgets that went the other way were
improving also.

BH
Jim Redelfs - 26 Sep 2005 01:56 GMT
> Interesting.  Obviously the advances in energy generation

Advances, eh?  And what might THOSE be?   :)

> have not included inverter technology.

Oh, I dunno...  As the OP said, 90% is particularly efficient.  Heck, we
routinely replace 15-20% efficient incandescent lamps with more of the same
and think nothing of it.

> an average house has a 200 amp/220 volt service and would
> require a 44000 watt inverter, you won't need a central heater since you
> will automatically have one built in using the waste heat.

Hehehe!  Then there's air conditioning season.   <sigh>

> Maybe Edison was right and Westinghouse was wrong way back in the 19
> century and we should have stuck to DC distribution:)

Yep.  With a dynamo on every corner.  Wow.   :)

> But seriously, since switching power supplies are getting very efficient
> (the quality ones, that is - not the knockoffs made in Changching,
> Slobbovia) I just assumed that the gadgets that went the other way were
> improving also.

I knew it was going to be even longer before I could afford a solar/inverter
installation sufficient to meet my needs that are now met with a Honda EU2000i
ultra quiet generator.

http://www.hondapowerequipment.com/eu2000.htm

Equivalent ALTERNATIVE energy just CO$T$ so much!   <sigh>

           :)
JR
TheSnoMan - 26 Sep 2005 14:48 GMT
>>Interesting.  Obviously the advances in energy generation
>
[quoted text clipped - 32 lines]
>             :)
> JR

Actually power needs are not that high unless you have a all electric
home and heat with resistance strips (they are far worse than A/C's). In
the real world, you house if it has gas, oil or propane heat will likely
not see much above a 15kw load or so (less than 70 amps at 220 volts)
and a lot less most of the time and besides you could alway load shift
to limit power draw (like not run dryer when A/C is runs or other high
draw items. Also  big pary of your load is lighting (a standard bulb is
only about 5% effiecent) and if you change to the newer hiefficency
bulbs you can cut a few KW's off of your peak load too with no loss of
lighting brightness.
Signature


-----------------
www.thesnoman.com

Chris Bryant - 26 Sep 2005 23:55 GMT
> Actually power needs are not that high unless you have a all electric home
> and heat with resistance strips (they are far worse than A/C's). In the
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> effiecent) and if you change to the newer hiefficency bulbs you can cut a
> few KW's off of your peak load too with no loss of lighting brightness.

We have an all electric house- with the shop running on the same meter.
Small house (~1200 square feet), unheated/air conditioned shop
(another 1500 square feet), and a heat pump (though with heat strips), but
we do have several rigs plugged in and running at any one time. We are in
a "temperate" climate, and on our electric meter (a commercial electronic
model), the highest peak load we have ever seen is under 15kw, FWIW.

Signature

Chris Bryant
http://bryantrv.com


Rate this thread:






 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2008 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.