3 ms·

No short-circuit protection? [Also, I don't like the quality of the images. How can I take their advice seriously if the images are barely viewable. It looks l

No short-circuit protection? [Also, I don't like the quality of the images. How can I take their advice seriously if the images are barely viewable. It looks like someone actually made an effort to reduce the quality of the images. For artistic effect, probably. Don't do that.]

LooerCell 1y ago
About the quality of the images, it's on purpose: > By dithering, we can make images ten times less resource-intensive, even though they are displayed much larger than on the old website. This is needed because the website is solar-powered and self-hosted on low-tech hardware, read more here: https://solar.lowtechmagazine.com/about/the-solar-website/ https://solar.lowtechmagazine.com/about/the-solar-website/
- gblargg 1y ago
  I just took the original first image from the article and compressed it to a 37k JPEG, the same size as the dithered image, and it looks a lot better. They must be considering resources to display the image, not just file size and network bandwidth.
chuho 1y ago
Images aren't like that for artistic effect, but for lower energy consumption. > We further apply default typefaces, dithered images, off-line reading options, and other tricks to lower energy use far below that of the average website. https://solar.lowtechmagazine.com/about/the-solar-website/ https://solar.lowtechmagazine.com/about/the-solar-website/
- amelius 1y ago
  Ok, I didn't read that. But I still think it's _not_ a good idea to do that for a topic where personal safety is at stake. And besides, the quality is really too low anyway. I can barely recognize the thermocouples in those images.
  - aposm 1y ago
    How can I take your comment seriously if you didn't read the article? It looks like someone didn't actually make an effort to understand the context of the images.
    - deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]
- creer 1y ago
  At the bottom of the page: Battery status 63%, not charging Power used 2.69W Uptime 5 weeks, 11 hours, 36 minutes Traffic from HN may be a problem today...
  - polshaw 1y ago
    >Uptime 5 weeks, 1 day, 3 hours, 46 minutes Seems to have had no issue whatsoever! Even through the whole night period. Shows the depth of inefficiency of our 'advanced' systems.
    - creer 1y ago
      > Battery status 44% down from 63% yesterday but yeah, really good!
teeray 1y ago
> It looks like someome actually made an effort to reduce the quality of the images. For artistic effect, probably. They did, and it’s part of the footprint-reduction techniques used to host the site off solar full-time. https://github.com/lowtechmag/solar/wiki/Solar-Web-Design#images https://github.com/lowtechmag/solar/wiki/Solar-Web-Design#im...
- amelius 1y ago
  I don't know, they are making electric heaters. Might as well use your server to generate some of that heat ...
- mysteria 1y ago
  That's fine for the main article but I think there should be a way to get higher quality images should the reader request them. If power is a concern those can be hosted elsewhere. I think it's acceptable for the drawings to be compressed this way but the photographs are very unclear.
  - AmosLightnin 1y ago
    There is. Click the small pixely looking X at the end of the photo's caption.
    - mysteria 1y ago
      I see. They should make it more obvious.
quickthrowman 1y ago
> No short-circuit protection? That’s the first thing I noticed too. You can buy a 277VAC/60VDC 7A DIN rail miniature circuit breaker that can handle 7,500 amps of fault current for $20 [0] there’s no excuse other than ignorance for the lack of overcurrent protection. I only know how to use a calculator to figure out AC fault current but that should be enough to handle a solar panel. It does mention an optional thermal switch and optional thermal fuse, my sauna stove definitely has a thermal switch and I’d include one if I was building this thing too. [0] https://www.digikey.com/en/products/detail/phoenix-contact/1020043/9656153 https://www.digikey.com/en/products/detail/phoenix-contact/1...
- amelius 1y ago
  So glad someone responded to the main part of my comment.
  - quickthrowman 1y ago
    I’m an electrical PM so the lack of overcurrent protection jumped out at me, I have to consider overcurrent protection for every single circuit I reason about, it’s mandatory and should be included in this installation. The image part of your comment was nerd bait so everyone replied to that :P

LooerCell 1y ago

About the quality of the images, it's on purpose: > By dithering, we can make images ten times less resource-intensive, even though they are displayed much larger than on the old website. This is needed because the website is solar-powered and self-hosted on low-tech hardware, read more here: https://solar.lowtechmagazine.com/about/the-solar-website/ https://solar.lowtechmagazine.com/about/the-solar-website/

gblargg 1y ago
I just took the original first image from the article and compressed it to a 37k JPEG, the same size as the dithered image, and it looks a lot better. They must be considering resources to display the image, not just file size and network bandwidth.

chuho 1y ago

Images aren't like that for artistic effect, but for lower energy consumption. > We further apply default typefaces, dithered images, off-line reading options, and other tricks to lower energy use far below that of the average website. https://solar.lowtechmagazine.com/about/the-solar-website/ https://solar.lowtechmagazine.com/about/the-solar-website/

amelius 1y ago
Ok, I didn't read that. But I still think it's _not_ a good idea to do that for a topic where personal safety is at stake. And besides, the quality is really too low anyway. I can barely recognize the thermocouples in those images.
- aposm 1y ago
  How can I take your comment seriously if you didn't read the article? It looks like someone didn't actually make an effort to understand the context of the images.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
creer 1y ago
At the bottom of the page: Battery status 63%, not charging Power used 2.69W Uptime 5 weeks, 11 hours, 36 minutes Traffic from HN may be a problem today...
- polshaw 1y ago
  >Uptime 5 weeks, 1 day, 3 hours, 46 minutes Seems to have had no issue whatsoever! Even through the whole night period. Shows the depth of inefficiency of our 'advanced' systems.
  - creer 1y ago
    > Battery status 44% down from 63% yesterday but yeah, really good!

teeray 1y ago

> It looks like someome actually made an effort to reduce the quality of the images. For artistic effect, probably. They did, and it’s part of the footprint-reduction techniques used to host the site off solar full-time. https://github.com/lowtechmag/solar/wiki/Solar-Web-Design#images https://github.com/lowtechmag/solar/wiki/Solar-Web-Design#im...

amelius 1y ago
I don't know, they are making electric heaters. Might as well use your server to generate some of that heat ...
mysteria 1y ago
That's fine for the main article but I think there should be a way to get higher quality images should the reader request them. If power is a concern those can be hosted elsewhere. I think it's acceptable for the drawings to be compressed this way but the photographs are very unclear.
- AmosLightnin 1y ago
  There is. Click the small pixely looking X at the end of the photo's caption.
  - mysteria 1y ago
    I see. They should make it more obvious.

quickthrowman 1y ago

> No short-circuit protection? That’s the first thing I noticed too. You can buy a 277VAC/60VDC 7A DIN rail miniature circuit breaker that can handle 7,500 amps of fault current for $20 [0] there’s no excuse other than ignorance for the lack of overcurrent protection. I only know how to use a calculator to figure out AC fault current but that should be enough to handle a solar panel. It does mention an optional thermal switch and optional thermal fuse, my sauna stove definitely has a thermal switch and I’d include one if I was building this thing too. [0] https://www.digikey.com/en/products/detail/phoenix-contact/1020043/9656153 https://www.digikey.com/en/products/detail/phoenix-contact/1...

amelius 1y ago
So glad someone responded to the main part of my comment.
- quickthrowman 1y ago
  I’m an electrical PM so the lack of overcurrent protection jumped out at me, I have to consider overcurrent protection for every single circuit I reason about, it’s mandatory and should be included in this installation. The image part of your comment was nerd bait so everyone replied to that :P