Closed GoogleCodeExporter closed 9 years ago
Scratch my last comment.
Line 475 of export.py says
return hours / kW
however we actually want "kWh" which means kW * hours.
Presumably at some point for this house there was a five minute period with
zero electricity use.
Original comment by james.br...@gmail.com
on 9 Mar 2014 at 10:22
[deleted comment]
Changed code to multiply kW * Hours
This should fix the export issue.
Original comment by DjGoldsm...@googlemail.com
on 12 Mar 2014 at 3:23
end user reports that they are getting a value of 6.5kWh for a 5 minute period.
Possibly the calculation is still incorrect?
Original comment by james.br...@gmail.com
on 12 Mar 2014 at 4:19
[deleted comment]
21/11/2013 09:55, house name 69 L road, Node: ('Node 49221: Utility Room Power
(kWh)', u'mean')
Original comment by james.br...@gmail.com
on 12 Mar 2014 at 4:27
I think that the electricity data is still in kW. I loked at the data and found
an example fairly early on, i'm sure there's more, a reading of 6.5 kWh
recorded in a 5 minute period. In order to 6.5 kwh used in 5 minutes, the
electricity needs to be used at a rate of 78kW. This is impossibly high for a
domestic house, the domestic grid dosen't go this high.
The particular reading is at 21/11/2013 09:55, house name 69 longford road,
Node: ('Node 49221: Utility Room Power (kWh)', u'mean')
Looking at the data, it looks like it’s displaying in kW (although the column
is labelled kWh); that’s ok, I’m familiar with working in both kW and kWh.
If the node is producing kW, let’s work in kW; changing to kWh can be done
but it’s easy to get it wrong. Depending on the format of the data, it’s
not a case of simply multiplying by ‘hours’. I’m happy with it remaining
as kW.
Original comment by B.i.robe...@salford.ac.uk
on 12 Mar 2014 at 4:40
a quick test on the original data proves that this is now working correctly
(0.0856 kWh for 21/11/13 9:57 at 69L)
Original comment by james.br...@gmail.com
on 28 Mar 2014 at 9:35
Original comment by james.br...@gmail.com
on 28 Mar 2014 at 9:36
Original issue reported on code.google.com by
james.br...@gmail.com
on 9 Mar 2014 at 2:21