TommySr
Solar Enthusiast
just my luck.
** edit
all panels still in place, also didn't lose any trees
** edit
all panels still in place, also didn't lose any trees
Last edited:
America's melting pot
- Thread starter TommySr
- Start date
TommySr
Solar Enthusiast
good thing it a long weekend. 
Follow the tech data sheets with it. Practice with gun hose attached walk around it pretending to paint. Gun around6 inches from surface 3/4 over lap. I'd try 35psi with trigger pullled open for air pressure. Never pull trigger without gun moving. The trigger is 2 stage air then paint. If get bad run can sometimes push it with just air to flatten then come back to recoat. You might have to stop and do touch up after dries sand repaint try to blend which is very difficult ssu.
Follow tech sheets for mix ratio dry times so on. They dicate the product proper use. Goes easy with thinner....it maybe thinned a lot now. Solvent is cheap like alcohol in gas cheats - cheap.
Post in thread 'America's melting pot' https://diysolarforum.com/threads/americas-melting-pot.80508/post-1083906
Look at spray pattern example watch videos on YouTube try find someone doing metallic pearl ssu. They might hopefully show drop coating. That gun uses lot of paint hvlp high volume low pressure you really needed lvlp. Low volume low pressure. I think you can do this. Mix everything right. Follow tech sheets.
You will soon hate bugs .,,,..more then ever.....they love fresh paint. The worst ones do death wiggles in the wet paint.
Follow tech sheets for mix ratio dry times so on. They dicate the product proper use. Goes easy with thinner....it maybe thinned a lot now. Solvent is cheap like alcohol in gas cheats - cheap.
Post in thread 'America's melting pot' https://diysolarforum.com/threads/americas-melting-pot.80508/post-1083906
Look at spray pattern example watch videos on YouTube try find someone doing metallic pearl ssu. They might hopefully show drop coating. That gun uses lot of paint hvlp high volume low pressure you really needed lvlp. Low volume low pressure. I think you can do this. Mix everything right. Follow tech sheets.
You will soon hate bugs .,,,..more then ever.....they love fresh paint. The worst ones do death wiggles in the wet paint.
TommySr
Solar Enthusiast
Q
so did you spray it or not?
TommySr
Solar Enthusiast
I got a couple friends from Military that live in WI.
They said storms have been rough. 1 of them almost got a tree blown over on his house. Think it was a Big Maple tree. Straight line winds. Keep your head down. These weather conditions come and go over the decades. Last thing you want is rain drops on fresh paint or high temps The paint won’t wet and flow out right. Around 70-75 is best temps to spray. You can change reducer temps ….do not left surfaces get direct sun light-heat up or will get alligator paint.
TommySr
Solar Enthusiast
D71, this weather pattern is like a 2x4 up my backside. 2 weeks of 90's+ temp which made
me run my AC from the grid, something I didn't want to do. my last grid bill was $28(164Kwh) without
AC, not looking forwards to the next bill. looks like sunday is the next day without storms, I
plan to get 6 more panels up then and get the AC on the inverter, fingers crossed.
on the plus side I got my software rewrote to record up to 100amps old software only went to 38Amps for office only
baby steps
I am considering buying a SRNE SEI-12k 120/240 split phase… then the temptation will be to buy another battery. 
if get next inverter setup will probably run my heat pump ac off of it.
I know ppl that have $600-$700 a month electric bills mine is $100 or less most times. It sucks when the grid goes down. That happens with all these ppl charging ev. Our grid system is old. Over worked and not being updated. Our ass is going to be in trouble with the transformers start popping.
if get next inverter setup will probably run my heat pump ac off of it. I know ppl that have $600-$700 a month electric bills mine is $100 or less most times. It sucks when the grid goes down. That happens with all these ppl charging ev. Our grid system is old. Over worked and not being updated. Our ass is going to be in trouble with the transformers start popping.
TommySr
Solar Enthusiast
TommySr
Solar Enthusiast
Batvette, no not here, and no HOA's either.
it seems the screws are working just fine so far, we've had 3 tornados pass by in the last month
and it's still pointing the panels at the sun.
not saying I had a warm & fuzzy thou. even before my morning coffee I had to look
to see if it was still standing.
Batvette, stick around you haven't seen the craziest part yet
the base is 3/4" ground contact plywood, with a 1/2" rubber cover, and the ballast is a couple riding lawnmowers
Last edited:
TommySr
Solar Enthusiast
this this getting retarded
city alarms
phone alarms
now google is busting my balls
this was only 10 miles from my panels
city alarms
phone alarms
now google is busting my balls
this was only 10 miles from my panels
Last edited:
TommySr
Solar Enthusiast
the shenanigans never seem to end
while I'm sure I could have used zip ties or even my kids leftover paste I went with screws again
I got room on top of my garage for 12 more panels
Last edited:
TommySr
Solar Enthusiast
***EDIT
not the right topic for here
not the right topic for here
Last edited:
It is too easy to point out that the bible contains many errors (and even evil teachings), you don't want to debate religions here because at a minimum the errors in the bible will be brought up. If people can act with kindness towards others and don't confuse religion with science, or logic, it is all good.
TommySr
Solar Enthusiast
but, but.. didn't Jesus correct some of them evil teachings(Old Testament)
IMO the older the data you use, the prone to errors or misinterpretations .
but I do get your point...I'll pass on the "confuse religion with science, or logic" topic, my bad.
Last edited:
B-ManFX4
Solar Enthusiast
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2022
- Messages
- 157
There's no need to debate religions. I said nothing about God. I said the bullshit that has been taught for years is wrong and scientists are finally starting to drop their egos and admit it. Intelligent design lines up more with what is written in the Bible than it does with Darwin, Big Bang, etc.
People who are so sure of their "science" are completely unwilling to look at ALL of the data because they immediately jump to religion if someone points out that there is basically ZERO chance that life in our known universe happened by accident.
Saying that even a short protein (which is way less complex than DNA, but I digress) happened by chance even one time is more ridiculous than saying a pocket watch could happen by accident over time. It's funny that we KNOW something like a pocket watch was created by intelligent design yet, when "scientists" look at even a single cell organism (that is TRILLIONS of times more complex than a watch), they somehow arrive at the notion it happened by accident.
Answer this - if it happened by accident, how come we can't create just one on purpose? We know how it is put together, we know the makeup, we know the structure, we know the chemicals, yet we cannot create even a single cell organism. The answer is pretty obvious but not if your ego prevents you from analyzing the facts and then deriving an answer based on the data.
I have been taught all of the "science", and I was a staunch supporter of the science around Darwin, the Big Bang, etc. However, my wife introduced me to the idea that I needed to drop my ego and think beyond what I thought I knew. It was a sobering moment when I realized what she was saying. I then started reading other sources and slowly evolved my thinking about intelligent design. Telling me a lightning bolt hits a puddle of mud and gas, add several billion years and like magic you get an amoeba and a blue whale just flies in the face of common sense.
If you truly wish to learn a little more on the probability aspects of anything to do with life happening "by accident" I suggest you get this book and read it with an open mind: Amazon Book Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design by Dr. Stephen C. Meyer. While I admit he is a Christian, you cannot dismiss all of the data and research the man has completed over his lifetime. If you do then you are doomed to live in a very myopic world that simply reinforces what you already think you know.
As an example of how threatened "scientists" are by what the real data shows us:
"Prior to the publication of Signature in the Cell and Darwin’s Doubt, the writing for which Meyer was best known was an August 2004 review essay in the Smithsonian Institution-affiliated peer-reviewed biology journal Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington. The article laid out the evidential case for intelligent design, presenting it as the best explanation for the origin of the biological information necessary to produce the new forms of animal life that arose abruptly during the Cambrian explosion.
Because the article was the first peer-reviewed publication arguing for intelligent design in a technical journal, it proved extremely controversial. The journal’s editor, evolutionary biologist Richard Sternberg, was punished by his Smithsonian supervisors for allowing Meyer’s article into print. This led to the investigation of top Smithsonian personnel by the U.S. Office of Special Counsel. The controversy was widely covered in the media with articles or news stories appearing about it in The Wall Street Journal, Science, Nature, NPR, The O’Reilly Factor and the Washington Post. The federal investigation eventually concluded that Sternberg had been wrongly disciplined and intimidated." (I added the bold emphasis.)
If your idea is for everyone to learn about other possibilities, I am certainly interested in engaging in a discussion. If your intent is to just post pictures or exception articles that are a single data point that proves essentially nothing, in an effort to prove me "wrong", I'll pass. Regardless, I will continue to read and explore and learn.
People who are so sure of their "science" are completely unwilling to look at ALL of the data because they immediately jump to religion if someone points out that there is basically ZERO chance that life in our known universe happened by accident.
Saying that even a short protein (which is way less complex than DNA, but I digress) happened by chance even one time is more ridiculous than saying a pocket watch could happen by accident over time. It's funny that we KNOW something like a pocket watch was created by intelligent design yet, when "scientists" look at even a single cell organism (that is TRILLIONS of times more complex than a watch), they somehow arrive at the notion it happened by accident.
Answer this - if it happened by accident, how come we can't create just one on purpose? We know how it is put together, we know the makeup, we know the structure, we know the chemicals, yet we cannot create even a single cell organism. The answer is pretty obvious but not if your ego prevents you from analyzing the facts and then deriving an answer based on the data.
I have been taught all of the "science", and I was a staunch supporter of the science around Darwin, the Big Bang, etc. However, my wife introduced me to the idea that I needed to drop my ego and think beyond what I thought I knew. It was a sobering moment when I realized what she was saying. I then started reading other sources and slowly evolved my thinking about intelligent design. Telling me a lightning bolt hits a puddle of mud and gas, add several billion years and like magic you get an amoeba and a blue whale just flies in the face of common sense.
If you truly wish to learn a little more on the probability aspects of anything to do with life happening "by accident" I suggest you get this book and read it with an open mind: Amazon Book Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design by Dr. Stephen C. Meyer. While I admit he is a Christian, you cannot dismiss all of the data and research the man has completed over his lifetime. If you do then you are doomed to live in a very myopic world that simply reinforces what you already think you know.
As an example of how threatened "scientists" are by what the real data shows us:
"Prior to the publication of Signature in the Cell and Darwin’s Doubt, the writing for which Meyer was best known was an August 2004 review essay in the Smithsonian Institution-affiliated peer-reviewed biology journal Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington. The article laid out the evidential case for intelligent design, presenting it as the best explanation for the origin of the biological information necessary to produce the new forms of animal life that arose abruptly during the Cambrian explosion.
Because the article was the first peer-reviewed publication arguing for intelligent design in a technical journal, it proved extremely controversial. The journal’s editor, evolutionary biologist Richard Sternberg, was punished by his Smithsonian supervisors for allowing Meyer’s article into print. This led to the investigation of top Smithsonian personnel by the U.S. Office of Special Counsel. The controversy was widely covered in the media with articles or news stories appearing about it in The Wall Street Journal, Science, Nature, NPR, The O’Reilly Factor and the Washington Post. The federal investigation eventually concluded that Sternberg had been wrongly disciplined and intimidated." (I added the bold emphasis.)
If your idea is for everyone to learn about other possibilities, I am certainly interested in engaging in a discussion. If your intent is to just post pictures or exception articles that are a single data point that proves essentially nothing, in an effort to prove me "wrong", I'll pass. Regardless, I will continue to read and explore and learn.
Last edited:
TommySr
Solar Enthusiast
B-ManFX4, you do not disappoint.
take me some time to string a rebuttal together(without pictures)
it'll be here tomorrow
B-ManFX4
Solar Enthusiast
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2022
- Messages
- 157
Awesome. I hope you find it as interesting as I did. I look forward to your insights, observations and interpretations.
TommySr
Solar Enthusiast
aenyc also as the skills to write a cogent post, would love to hear his read on Intelligent design
what makes this a spiritual topic to me is that it requires a greater leap of faith that a designer could
come before the design
so for me Intelligent design is a religions the only thing is the designer is like a dead beat parent, sticks
this package in, then bails, no child support, no birthday cards.
while we have scientific model (T92 model (Tamura 1992)) that seem to indicate that just given time DNA
can be altered to the point that it is no longer producing recognizable outcomes from it previous iterations.
if a design can change just given time what use or need for a designer.
(this is going to take on a new meaning once AI gets going IMO)
it's going to be interesting to me to see how gaining more insight changes my views.
as of right now I see Intelligent design as a agnostic way to incorporate creationist ideas.
and the failure to define the designer separates it from a scientific model. I also question
the need for a designer when we still have change happening today(birth defects) after some
5 billion years what need is there for a designer.
my current thinking on how life started allows for life elsewhere.
an early earth became bombarded with comets made up of water and other materials, and as the
earth cooled that water was able to become liquid and form oceans, here on earth some of them
other materials were rare universe elements(seed) , a type of carbon that when covered in water a then
exposed to coronal mass ejection from our sun created a chain reaction of Decomposition Reactions,
a type of cancer that become all forms of life. it's possible all birth defects we see today are caused
by our sun's coronal mass ejections.
but I'll see how that changes.
B-ManFX4, while I should wait for the book, Intelligent design at first glance seems to implies a designer.
what makes this a spiritual topic to me is that it requires a greater leap of faith that a designer could
come before the design
so for me Intelligent design is a religions the only thing is the designer is like a dead beat parent, sticks
this package in, then bails, no child support, no birthday cards.
while we have scientific model (T92 model (Tamura 1992)) that seem to indicate that just given time DNA
can be altered to the point that it is no longer producing recognizable outcomes from it previous iterations.
if a design can change just given time what use or need for a designer.
(this is going to take on a new meaning once AI gets going IMO)
it's going to be interesting to me to see how gaining more insight changes my views.
as of right now I see Intelligent design as a agnostic way to incorporate creationist ideas.
and the failure to define the designer separates it from a scientific model. I also question
the need for a designer when we still have change happening today(birth defects) after some
5 billion years what need is there for a designer.
my current thinking on how life started allows for life elsewhere.
an early earth became bombarded with comets made up of water and other materials, and as the
earth cooled that water was able to become liquid and form oceans, here on earth some of them
other materials were rare universe elements(seed
) , a type of carbon that when covered in water a thenexposed to coronal mass ejection from our sun created a chain reaction of Decomposition Reactions,
a type of cancer that become all forms of life. it's possible all birth defects we see today are caused
by our sun's coronal mass ejections.
but I'll see how that changes.
Last edited:
B-ManFX4
Solar Enthusiast
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2022
- Messages
- 157
aenyc also as the skills to write a cogent post, would love to hear his read on Intelligent design
B-ManFX4, while I should wait for the book, Intelligent design at first glance seems to implies a designer.
it's going to be interesting to me to see how gaining more insight changes my views.
as of right now I see Intelligent design as a agnostic way to incorporate creationist ideas.
and the failure to define the designer separates it from a scientific model. I also question
the need for a designer when we still have change happening today(birth defects) after some
5 billion years what need is there for a designer.
my current thinking on how life started allows for life elsewhere.
an early earth became bombarded with comets made up of water and other materials, and as the
earth cooled that water was able to become liquid and form oceans, here on earth some of them
other materials were rare universe elements, a type of carbon that when covered in water a then
exposed to coronal mass ejection from our sun created a chain reaction of Decomposition Reactions,
a type of cancer that become all forms of life. it's possible all birth defects we see today are caused
by our sun's coronal mass ejections.
but I'll see how that changes.
I'm unsure why you think a book on intelligent design would leave out the premise of a designer? If aliens showed up tomorrow and they brought with them the "blueprints" of how they created life on Earth, would they not be considered designers?
The problem with "the scientific model" is that when it comes to this discussion, scientists absolutely do not adhere to it. If they did evolution would have been thrown out a long time ago. Instead it is clung to with a fervor that should be troubling to anyone who is looking for the truth. Saying evolution is horseshit does not make me a religious zealot - it simply means I reject the idea because the data gathered to support it does not make sense. In case you haven't noticed, in the evolutionist world, the secret sauce that makes everything magically work is time. Take a bunch of chemicals, elements, electricity, energy, etc., add several billion years and POOF - you now have life !!! As thinking beings we have a duty to reject nonsense and to pursue the truth.
Part of the issue we face with the public's willingness to accept ridiculous suppositions is that, as a rule, people are completely ignorant as to how complex life really is. Take for example amino acids. Every anatomical and physiological feature of a living organism is due to the existence of amino acids. The human body requires twenty of these amino acids to live - nine come from nature and the remaining 11 are manufactured within our bodies. If you spend just a few minutes to read how our cells use amino acids you will quickly realize that the level of complexity of just this function leaves very little chance that it happened by accident. BTW - amino acids are considered "simple" and well understood by the scientific community. Start looking into RNA and DNA and things get exponentially more complex very quickly.
All of the comets and coronal activity in the universe cannot create DNA even one time. Of course, it would have to have happened BILLIONS of times but I digress. That is the issue with today's "science". When the obvious answer is staring you right in the face, and you continue to espouse "theories" that require GIGANTIC unknowns to be just accepted, that should set off warning alarms. I laugh when they point out that religions require "faith". What do you call being told to believe the Big Bang theory without any proof that it could happen? They try to confirm what they think they already know, as opposed to following the data to figure out the truth.
I read a good analogy regarding the probability of spontaneous creation of life by accident. It went something like this: Thinking life could have been created "by accident" out of the primordial Earth components is akin to having a tornado rip through a junkyard, grabbing parts from everywhere and then having a fully functional vehicle assembled and ready to run when the tornado is gone. As ridiculous as that may sound, it is important to note that a vehicle is billions of times more simple than a single cell organism, let alone a human being.
As far as birth defects being change, I do not feel that is a realistic correlation. In nature, birth defects are dealt with in a rather clinical manner. I remember having to explain to my heartbroken five year old why his beloved Rottweiler ate a deformed puppy in her litter of 11. One might think it amazing that she knew the pup was defective and then dealt with it in the only manner she could, outside of trying to move it and abandoning it. Being born with a missing limb is a far cry from an amoeba "evolving" into a human being, a sequoia tree, a grouper, a cockroach, an octopus, etc.
Last edited:
TommySr
Solar Enthusiast
B-ManFX4, what makes this works to our benefit(in the long run billions of years) is some
of them defects are a good thing, like when they increase our chances at survival/reproduction.
one of the defects that turned out to our advantage was pattern recognizing, or connecting dots
this one defect and given enough time will give you jet plains and color TV.
being born a hairless primate(defect) in Africa lets your run faster/farther, eat better (meat not leaves) , live longer
hump more girls.
B-ManFX4, intuitive only becomes science when it can be documented. we can document the changes
in DNA over time.
Last edited:
Bob B
Emperor Of Solar
- Joined
- Sep 21, 2019
- Messages
- 9,207
Is it possible that both things are true?
I don't think it's possible to explain the existence of all life forms with the theory of evolution ...... as with the junkyard / tornado example, it simply isn't possible ...... but, It seems logical that an intelligently designed organism would have the ability to evolve to some extent .... Science discovered evolution and tried to explain everything with it when it is only a small portion of things.
I don't think it's possible to explain the existence of all life forms with the theory of evolution ...... as with the junkyard / tornado example, it simply isn't possible ...... but, It seems logical that an intelligently designed organism would have the ability to evolve to some extent .... Science discovered evolution and tried to explain everything with it when it is only a small portion of things.
TommySr
Solar Enthusiast
Bob, it's possible Science's bias towards a unifying theory has led to an oversimplified explanation everything.
but making the jump to a spontaneous creation of a designer would require a much larger leap of faith IMO.
while just one simple defect(pattern recognizing, or connecting dots) has allowed humans in the span of just
150000 years go from living in trees and caves, to high-rises and even a space station.
while life on earth has had 4 million years to work it out, the universe has had 14 million years, so it's
possible a designer evaluated elsewhere in the universe then brought that tech here
B-ManFX4's aliens
Last edited:
Similar threads
