DIYbanter - View Single Post - Range clock

Jeff[_7_]

wrote:
In misc.consumers.frugal-living Jeff wrote:
wrote:
I think he is seriously over estimating the power usage of a
clock chip and LCD display. 1 Watt would be more like it.
5 Watts would be about right for an old mechanical stove clock.

You are, of course, neglecting the power supply losses. Non switching
regulators typically throw away half or more of the power. The trend is
away from them.

Well, we do seem to be arguing the number of angels dancing on pinheads.
;-)

In other words, he didn't want to test to find out his "estimate" was
bogus. He probably knew it was high.

Oh blah blah blah.

For my late model GE smallish microwave, it uses 3 watts on idle. That
required winding 30 turns on an amprobe, measuring the current and
dividing by 30 and then multiplying by the line voltage. If you had the
same MW and used it 5 minutes the phantom energy is equal to the in use
energy.

That sounds believable, and since you actually measured I'll accept that.

I have never recommended removing clocks from anything, quite the
contrary. But just because they are necessary does not mean they aren't
trivial. Considering that a microwave is a high drain device while in
operation just shows the depth of the problem for all the low drain
devices that probably have higher idle drain. The old cable boxes
certainly spring to mind. So does anything run by a wall wart.

Actually, I wish they would do away with clocks in microwaves and
kitchen appliances in general.

I'm a little surprised where TVs have popped up. If you thought an
excess of clocks was bad, you'll hate seeing a TV above the icemaker
door on the fridge. I wouldn't be surprised now to see one on the microwave!

It's starting to look like the efficiency gains of appliances is being
offset by phantom losses of a plethora of low duty cycle or unnecessary
bonus devices.

I don't need or want extra clocks
in my kitchen. The only reason my coffee maker has one is that the
coffee makers with clocks have an auto-shutoff that I consider a
safety freature. I really don't like that there are 2 LEDs on there
that do nothing of value, but stay lit all the time.

Again, I'm probably not typical as I only have 1 TV and no cable box
or satellite receiver. My stereo receiver stays on 24/7 because it
has some issues with powering on after being turned off and is too
old to have any sort of standby mode or remote control, but I'll be
replacing that one of these days.

I'm not exactly sure where receiver technology is these days. Old style
receivers throw away a lot of power. The trend is toward energy
efficient because they are cheaper to manufacture, less heat sinking and
smaller overall size and a smaller power supply. With that said, there's
nothing quite like the sound from an old MacIntosh Tube or solid state amp.

Everyone needs some indulgence!

That receiver also exhibits some
elements of poor design, in my opinion. For example it has a pair
of lights which indicate a "high blend" function is either on or off.
This function is automatic and there is no user control to defeat it,
so why do I need a pair of lights to tell me about it? I see a lot
of stuff like that which I consider a waste of both materials and
power.

The disturbing trend is what is typical. There's an explosion of small
electronic devices and an explosion of electronics in all devices, like
your coffee maker. So phantom power is on the increase. Radically on the
increase.

I think good design can eliminate much of this, and I see that there
is a one watt initiative aiming at keeping phantom power per device
under one watt.

I have no problem in believing that at least 5% of the energy used in
this country is phantom losses. Probably half of that is recoverable by
better design. With the cost of copper what it is, I'd think wall warts
have a limited future.

Really, I'm pretty much in agreement with you here. 5% sounds reasonable.
Even 10% would not surprise me. I just don't like alarmist language
and exageration when real facts and reasonable arguments should be enough.
And, I will say that you, Jeff, are not who I'm talking about being
alarmist.

Thanks. I think we just got of on the wrong foot!

I'm not sure where the future lies, but it seems increasingly obvious
that some steps need to be taken. A nearly free lunch like reducing
phantom losses through design seems like a good plan.

Personally, I'm more concerned over the big ticket energy users, like
heating and air conditioning and lighting.

Jeff

Bill Ranck
Blacksburg, Va.