A dull-witted sensor?

By -
I bought a new dehumidifier. Like every other one I have owned, water from the air is extracted into a bucket. If the bucket is full, the machine stops dehumidifying. And the same thing happens if you remove the bucket, say, to empty it.

But, unlike with any other dehumidifier I have owned, with this one, that doesn't happen right away. In fact, I have time to carry the bucket to the sink a few feet away, empty it, and put it back in place before the machine stops dehumidifying! I find this behavior baffling. The mechanism that detects the bucket is gone must work almost instantly, mustn't it? And then it's got to be sending a signal electronically to the "brain" of the machine. Did the manufacture intentionally build in a delay? Why in the world would one do that? Could the cost of starting up the dehumidifying process be high enough to justify a long delay like this?

Silas? Ken? Any other engineers out there?

Comments

  1. Ken B9:32 AM

    Haven't a clue. Mostly sensors like this are automatic, interrupting a circuit, so I can only assume as you suggest this is deliberate behavior from a 'brain'. Does it drip in that time?
    It is not unusual in sensing to require more than one event detection to cause an action, to prevent stray things causing problems, but then you set the sampling rate higher: the idea is more accurate sensing not less.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Ken B9:33 AM

    Here's an idea. Look at the UL plate on the back and see if it says "Inspected by Major_Freedom". That would explain it.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Bob Murphy10:44 AM

    That's ironic, Gene, my buddy rob was just telling me about a dull-witted censor.

    BOOM!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ken B11:10 AM

      Irony, thy name is Murphy.

      Delete
    2. Samson Corwell5:40 PM

      "Your joke is bad and it should make you feel bad."

      Delete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Libertarians, My Libertarians!

By -
Cruel to be kind means that I love you . Because, while I think you are mistaken, your hearts are in the right place -- yes, even you, Silas --  unlike some people . This Breitbart fellow (discussed in the link above), by all appearances, deliberately doctored a video of Shirley Sherrod to make her remarks appear virulently racist, when they had, in fact, the opposite import. I heard that at a recent Austrian conference, some folks were talking about "Callahan's conservative turn." While that description is not entirely inaccurate, I must say that a lot of these people who today call themselves conservative give me the heebie-jeebies.
Read more

"Pre-Galilean" Foolishness

By -
 I am currently reading The Master and His Emissary , which appears to be an excellent book. ("Appears" because I don't know the neuroscience literature well enough to say for sure, yet.) But then on page 186 I find: "Asking cognition, however, to give a perspective on the relationship between cognition and affect is like asking astronomer in the pre-Galilean geocentric world, whether, in his opinion, the sun moves round the earth of the earth around the sun. To ask a question alone would be enough to label one as mad." OK, this is garbage. First of all, it should be pre-Copernican, not pre-Galilean. But much worse is that people have seriously been considering heliocentrism for many centuries before Copernicus. Aristarchus had proposed a heliocentric model in the 4th-century BC. It had generally been considered wrong, but not "mad." (And wrong for scientific reasons: Why, for instance, did we not observe stellar parallax?) And when Copernicus propose
Read more