Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4 Next
allan tracy
Guest
Sun Oct 09, 2005 4:16 pm
Quote:
She sounds like the sort of TV-hater that they have in home makeover
programmes, where the TV is always banished to a corner of the room
(often behind a folding screen) or they make a cabinet with doors so
that you can "close it away out of sight". Why should it be out of
sight!
That's right, big large plasma screen, surround sound hi-fi speakers,
dvd player and Sky Plus box all connected together by what looks like
three plates of spaghetti and what furniture there is knows its place.
Bliss!
Huge
Guest
Sun Oct 09, 2005 5:04 pm
if <if_at_nospam.uk.invalid> writes:
Quote:
huge_at_ukmisc.org.uk (Huge) wrote in news:di85dl$idp$2_at_anubis.demon.co.uk:
There is also considerable doubt whether switching computers off and
on all the time is a good idea, either. If it shortens the life of the
computer and it needs replacing, you've way exceeded any saving you
may have made.
This has already been done to death in a recent thread here
It's been done to death in lots of places.
Quote:
(uk.comp.homebuilt) but in a nutshell the conclusion was that any switching
them on and off several times a day makes no difference since computers are
invariably replaced long before the adverse effects of power cycling would
be felt.
Not "invariably". Only in houses which suck Bill Gates' cock.
--
"Other people are not your property."
[email me at huge [at] huge [dot] org [dot] uk]
Mat Nieuwenhoven
Guest
Sun Oct 09, 2005 5:39 pm
On Fri, 07 Oct 2005 18:00:37 GMT, Schrodinger wrote:
<snip>
Quote:
Surely a modern TV does not use all that much power and more
substantial electrical savings could have been found easily
elsewhere?
A TV uses a relatively small amount of power.
Not necessarily. Big LCD or worse, plasma TVs use considerable amounts of
power. A CRT TV with 100 Hz refresh also, as do wide-screen CRTs. The best I
could find when shopping for a new 70cm TV two years ago was a Philips 50 Hz
with 4:3 screen , which uses 60 W active and 1 W in standby; and it has a
real "off" switch which we always use. And the next one up (50 Hz, 4:3) was
80 or 90 W, all others were (sometimes considerably) more. If a TV is on 3
hrs/day on average and uses 60 W less than another model, you save 3 * 60 *
365 = 65 kWh/year .
Quote:
A micro system will use less power than more or less anything in the house.
This is a pathetic attempt at managing someone's lifestyle under the banner
of "the environment". Part of the same logic that calls 4x4s that have
better fuel consumption than many luxury cars bad for the environment. The
government and media is choc full of ill informed dick heads like this.
Does anyone know typical consumption figures?
I've measure some of mine. A new Aiwa small audio system uses 9 W in standby,
in 'eco' mode is about 0.5 W. A Yamaha livingroom stereo takes also around 11
W in standby, and you cannot switch it off. A Sony VCR uses 12 W in standby.
A Whirlpool microwave 10W in standby. All these come from the display type,
which is not LCD but old vacuum-tube type technology which requires a
filament to be on if you want to see something. I'm sure if you have a clock
radio with this kind of display it is just as bad (I buy only LED-based clock
radios). 10 W on standby means 85 kWh/year! I find this ridiculous. I am not
interested in yet another clock on the micowave or stereo or video. I would
favor legislation that makes it mandatory to supply the standby power
consumption in kWh/year , that would get people's attention, I'm sure.
Mat Nieuwenhoven
Schrodinger
Guest
Sun Oct 09, 2005 8:47 pm
"Alex Butcher" <alex.butcher.news0505_at_assursys.co.uk> wrote in message
news:pan.2005.10.08.07.44.59.663799_at_assursys.co.uk...
Quote:
On Fri, 07 Oct 2005 23:26:02 +0000, Schrodinger wrote:
"Alex Butcher" <alex.butcher.news0505_at_assursys.co.uk> wrote in message
news:pan.2005.10.07.21.35.21.912_at_assursys.co.uk...
On Fri, 07 Oct 2005 18:57:35 +0100, John Jordan wrote:
Jon D wrote:
[snip]
She also wanted to limit the time spent by the father on listening to
his micro-system through headphones. I would guess this uses even
less power than a TV.
I'd be surprised if this used more than 30W.
...but probably significantly more than listening to a headphone system
(e.g. iPod, Discman, Walkman) through headphones, which I guess is the
point that was being made.
Dodgy at best - you surely have to factor in the carbon cost of
manufacture - even if he has one already, of LiOn batteries.
Well, only the iPod will be powered by LiOn cells out of those three
alternatives I gave. The others will probably either be powered from
NiCd/NiMH cells, or most greenly, a carefully-selected wall-wart power
supply that's actually vaguely efficient (unlike the vast majority on the
market, in other words!)
They have a limit on how many charges they accept
Actually, lifetimes of LiOn cells are more closely tied to the
chronological age from the date of manufacture, providing you don't 'deep
cycle' them (i.e. run down 'til the device turns off, then recharge).
Thus, if you don't use it, you're gonna lose it anyway.
This is an interesting point and one that I have not seen before -
everything else I have seen relating to LiIon indicates that they have a
lifetime and charge cycle limit - let us say 1000 charges or 3 years before
losing effectiveness.
The point being, if you end up charging a couple of times a day this
drastically reduces the lifetime of said battery. If just once every couple
of days, then you have a few years either way?
keith
Guest
Mon Oct 10, 2005 1:03 am
On Sat, 08 Oct 2005 18:07:28 +0100, Alex Butcher wrote:
Quote:
On Sat, 08 Oct 2005 16:05:05 +0000, **THE-RFI-EMI-GUY** wrote:
A ton of money could be saved by manufacturing items which utilize quality
materials and can be serviced readily. Too much money and resources are
spent filling landfills with appliances and goods which wear out
prematurely and cannot be repaired.
As long as purchase prices are low, repair knowledge amongst the general
public is low, and expert labour is expensive, many repairable items
probably won't be repaired anyway. A lot of people take a failure as an
excuse to go out and treat themselves to something newer and shinier. :-/
Certainly.
Quote:
Personally, I've repaired a broken PSU in a VCR (cost me about 3.50GBP and
an hour of my time) and got my parents' TV working again (required a new
internal fuse - 10 for 1.98GBP in Maplin, and about 20mins of my time).
Even though I have the expertice necessary, I wouldn't waste my time on
a $40 VCR. I have far more important things to do with my time (and that
includes tipping a beer or two). I don't waste a couple of hours (vs.
$19) on a Saturday changing the oil in my car either. I have other
"cleaner" things to do, like staining woodwork (this weekend's task, since
it was a wash-out).
--
Keith
joeh
Guest
Mon Oct 10, 2005 9:42 am
Funfly3 wrote:
Quote:
"Jon D" <jon_d_at_nomail.com> wrote in message
news:96E8B693C63D571E5D_at_66.250.146.159...
On a recent UK broadcast of "How Green Is Your House" the advisor
said she wanted to limit TV watching from 7 hours a day to 1 hour a
day.
There's never more than 1 hour's worth of watchable TV per day anyway.
Quote:
Was she just trying to impose a lifestyle rather than save a useful
amoun of energy?
And presumably the notion that criticising the amount of time/energy
consumed in watching TV via a TV programme is hypocritical never
occurred to her.
Quote:
Does anyone know typical consumption figures?
adding OT to the beginning of a post does not make it ok to post in the
wrong group ?????
Are you asking us or telling us?
Michael A. Terrell
Guest
Mon Oct 10, 2005 1:15 pm
Huge wrote:
Quote:
There is also considerable doubt whether switching computers off and
on all the time is a good idea, either. If it shortens the life of the
computer and it needs replacing, you've way exceeded any saving you
may have made.
Then you should leave your car or truck idling all the time,
Everyone knows that most of the wear and tear is done while the engine
is warming up. On the other hand, electrolytic capacitors have a
limited life and are slowly destroyed by heat. I see a lot of dead PCs
with defective electrolytics. I put in about $7 US in new caps and they
are ready for a new home.
BTW, I have dozens of PCs in, and around my house. There are three
at my computer desk right now, sometimes there are five running at once.
There is no way in hell I'll leave them all running all the time. When
I finish my home network there will be about three dozen live ports
scattered between five buildings. Not only does leaving and unused PC
on waste electricity, it makes the air conditioning work harder, so you
pay for it twice.
--
?
Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida
Michael A. Terrell
Guest
Mon Oct 10, 2005 1:24 pm
Paul Hyett wrote:
Quote:
In uk.media.tv.misc on Sun, 9 Oct 2005, Michael A. Terrell wrote :
It's not a big deal anyway - it's not like we're still using 800 bit
modems, or 50mb HD's.
800 bit modem?
Well, I don't know what speed early modems operated at - I wasn't on-
line then!
--
Paul 'US Sitcom Fan' Hyett
First of all, the speed is specified in Bits Per Second, not bits.
The width of the data is specified in Bits. 800 bits would make for a
very odd data buss.
Some of the more common speeds are:
75 baud
110 baud
300 baud
1200 baud
2400 baud
4800 baud
9600 baud
14400 baud
28800 baud
33600 baud
57600 baud
Even lower baud rates were used by current loop teletype machines.
BTW, my first hard drive was a full height 5.25" 5 MB that sounded
like a vacuum cleaner when it was first powered up.
--
?
Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida
Vidar Løkken
Guest
Mon Oct 10, 2005 2:45 pm
Michael A. Terrell <mike.terrell_at_earthlink.net> wrote this in
<434A79EC.C1F9FE0E_at_earthlink.net>:
Quote:
First of all, the speed is specified in Bits Per Second, not bits.
The width of the data is specified in Bits. 800 bits would make for a
very odd data buss.
Yes, speed is in bps, not baud. Baud is how many times pr second the
signal changes. With new modulation technology, it is feasible to
transfer 4 or more bits pr baud. While a 300bps modem likely is a
300baud modem, a 57600 bps modem is certainly not a 57600 baud modem. A
normal phone line has a bandwidth of ~3kHz.
Quote:
Some of the more common speeds are:
75 baud
110 baud
300 baud
1200 baud
[... baud listing]
--
MVH,
Vidar
www.bitsex.net
Alex Butcher
Guest
Mon Oct 10, 2005 5:57 pm
On Sun, 09 Oct 2005 22:03:30 -0400, keith wrote:
Quote:
On Sat, 08 Oct 2005 18:07:28 +0100, Alex Butcher wrote:
[snip]
Quote:
Personally, I've repaired a broken PSU in a VCR (cost me about 3.50GBP
and an hour of my time) and got my parents' TV working again (required a
new internal fuse - 10 for 1.98GBP in Maplin, and about 20mins of my
time).
Even though I have the expertice necessary, I wouldn't waste my time on a
$40 VCR.
a) I regarded it as a "learn how to repair stuff project" with no
negative consequences other than time expended, and therefore "fun" (for
certain values of "fun", I grant you...)
b) all the modern VCRs I could find were rubbish; cheaply made from lots
of plastic, dubious picture/sound quality and limited input/output
connectors.
Quote:
I have far more important things to do with my time (and that
includes tipping a beer or two). I don't waste a couple of hours (vs.
$19) on a Saturday changing the oil in my car either. I have other
"cleaner" things to do, like staining woodwork (this weekend's task, since
it was a wash-out).
Yeah, I pay someone else to do oil changes, too. That's "not fun" in my
book.
Best Regards,
Alex.
--
Alex Butcher Brainbench MVP for Internet Security:
www.brainbench.com
Bristol, UK Need reliable and secure network systems?
PGP/GnuPG ID:0x271fd950 <http://www.assursys.com/>
Bungee
Guest
Mon Oct 10, 2005 6:03 pm
"Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell_at_earthlink.net> wrote:
Quote:
Huge wrote:
There is also considerable doubt whether switching computers off and
on all the time is a good idea, either. If it shortens the life of the
computer and it needs replacing, you've way exceeded any saving you
may have made.
Then you should leave your car or truck idling all the time,
Everyone knows that most of the wear and tear is done while the engine
is warming up. On the other hand, electrolytic capacitors have a
limited life and are slowly destroyed by heat. I see a lot of dead PCs
with defective electrolytics. I put in about $7 US in new caps and they
are ready for a new home.
Conversely, electrolytics will also degrade if left for long periods unused. As
the oxide layer thins the voltage capability drops, and the capacitance
increases!
--
Bungee
Simon Cooper
Guest
Mon Oct 10, 2005 7:23 pm
"Alex Butcher" <alex.butcher.news0505_at_assursys.co.uk> wrote in message
news:pan.2005.10.10.18.57.05.365496_at_assursys.co.uk...
Quote:
I have far more important things to do with my time (and that
includes tipping a beer or two). I don't waste a couple of hours (vs.
$19) on a Saturday changing the oil in my car either. I have other
"cleaner" things to do, like staining woodwork (this weekend's task,
since
it was a wash-out).
Yeah, I pay someone else to do oil changes, too. That's "not fun" in my
book.
When I bought my car, the previous owner gave me a stack of new oil filters
and washers for the drain pug, which left me feeling obliged to do my own...
After my own personal "Exxon Valdez" incidents, I think I may skip doing
them in future...
Guest
Tue Oct 11, 2005 10:18 pm
Quote:
Even though I have the expertice necessary, I wouldn't waste my time on a
$40 VCR. I have far more important things to do with my time (and that
includes tipping a beer or two).
There are not many VCRs anymore for $40, and the few to be found, are
total junk. (USA, Utah)
In the second, more important place, I am weary of buying new VCRs, with
different remote control interfaces, different on screen features, and
other stuff that you just get real used to. I would fix it first if I
could, even tho I don't drink.......
Mark
Michael A. Terrell
Guest
Wed Oct 12, 2005 5:14 am
Bungee wrote:
Quote:
Conversely, electrolytics will also degrade if left for long periods unused. As
the oxide layer thins the voltage capability drops, and the capacitance
increases!
--
Bungee
So, how many decades are you going to go between using your
computer? I have electrolytics that are over 50 years old that still
measure the right capacitance, and have a very good ESR.
Very poorly made caps will degrade without being used, but they are
the same ones that have a short life due to poor design and materials
used in their manufacture.
--
?
Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida
Chris Jones
Guest
Fri Oct 14, 2005 9:01 pm
Michael A. Terrell wrote:
Quote:
Bungee wrote:
Conversely, electrolytics will also degrade if left for long periods
unused. As the oxide layer thins the voltage capability drops, and the
capacitance increases!
--
Bungee
So, how many decades are you going to go between using your
computer? I have electrolytics that are over 50 years old that still
measure the right capacitance, and have a very good ESR.
Very poorly made caps will degrade without being used, but they are
the same ones that have a short life due to poor design and materials
used in their manufacture.
I switch on my old test equipment for an hour or so every few months, to
remind the capacitors not to go leaky. Apart from that, I switch a device
off if it will be unused for an hour or more.
Chris
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4 Next
