for those who are energy conscious, the energy consumption of these
LCD TVs appear to be not only low but reversed:

Sony Bravia 40 inch KDL-40EX401 --- 170 watts
Sony Bravia 52 inch KDL-52EX701 --- 142 watts

i recently looked at the tags on back of these sets at Sams.

"nucleus" wrote in message
...
for those who are energy conscious, the energy consumption of these
LCD TVs appear to be not only low but reversed:

Sony Bravia 40 inch KDL-40EX401 --- 170 watts
Sony Bravia 52 inch KDL-52EX701 --- 142 watts

i recently looked at the tags on back of these sets at Sams.

401: Standby mode: 0.19 W
Shop mode: 146 W
Home mode: 110 W

701: Standby mode: 0.16 W
Home mode: 142 W

Note: the 401 model is a standard LCD/Fluorescent backlight, while the 701
model is an LCD/LED backlight, which is more efficient.

"Brenda Ann" wrote in message
...


"nucleus" wrote in message
...
for those who are energy conscious, the energy consumption of these
LCD TVs appear to be not only low but reversed:

Sony Bravia 40 inch KDL-40EX401 --- 170 watts
Sony Bravia 52 inch KDL-52EX701 --- 142 watts

i recently looked at the tags on back of these sets at Sams.

401: Standby mode: 0.19 W
Shop mode: 146 W
Home mode: 110 W

701: Standby mode: 0.16 W
Home mode: 142 W

Note: the 401 model is a standard LCD/Fluorescent backlight, while the 701
model is an LCD/LED backlight, which is more efficient.



That's BS, Where do you get it from Punk?

JF

"John Fields" wrote in message
...

"Brenda Ann" wrote in message
...


"nucleus" wrote in message
...
for those who are energy conscious, the energy consumption of these
LCD TVs appear to be not only low but reversed:

Sony Bravia 40 inch KDL-40EX401 --- 170 watts
Sony Bravia 52 inch KDL-52EX701 --- 142 watts

i recently looked at the tags on back of these sets at Sams.

401: Standby mode: 0.19 W
Shop mode: 146 W
Home mode: 110 W

701: Standby mode: 0.16 W
Home mode: 142 W

Note: the 401 model is a standard LCD/Fluorescent backlight, while the
701 model is an LCD/LED backlight, which is more efficient.



That's BS, Where do you get it from Punk?


1) What is supposed to be BS? The specs come directly from the Sony website.
Also, it's a fact that LED backlights use ~40% less energy than fluorescent
backlights. Our Sharp Aquos uses only 85-100 watts depending upon scene
brightness.

2) Do you kiss your mother with that mouth?

On Sun, 24 Oct 2010 19:38:45 +0900, "Brenda Ann"
wrote:



"John Fields" wrote in message
...

"Brenda Ann" wrote in message
...


"nucleus" wrote in message
...
for those who are energy conscious, the energy consumption of these
LCD TVs appear to be not only low but reversed:

Sony Bravia 40 inch KDL-40EX401 --- 170 watts
Sony Bravia 52 inch KDL-52EX701 --- 142 watts

i recently looked at the tags on back of these sets at Sams.

401: Standby mode: 0.19 W
Shop mode: 146 W
Home mode: 110 W

701: Standby mode: 0.16 W
Home mode: 142 W

Note: the 401 model is a standard LCD/Fluorescent backlight, while the
701 model is an LCD/LED backlight, which is more efficient.



That's BS, Where do you get it from Punk?


1) What is supposed to be BS? The specs come directly from the Sony website.
Also, it's a fact that LED backlights use ~40% less energy than fluorescent
backlights. Our Sharp Aquos uses only 85-100 watts depending upon scene
brightness.

2) Do you kiss your mother with that mouth?

That response was from a person who is stalking John, not John
himself. However, now you've shown you don't have the ability to
understand that this kind of thing happens, and insulted someone who
would (if he were really replying) have given you good advice.

Learn how to inspect headers, learn that when you are insulted by
someone like that it is often the case that some nutcase is simply
impersonating him/her to get their rocks off. You succeeded in making
the jerk who's impersonating John feel good.

And just looking at numbers without carefully examining the underlying
technology won't answer your question.

Brenda Ann wrote:

"John Fields" wrote in message
...

"Brenda Ann" wrote in message
...


"nucleus" wrote in message
...
for those who are energy conscious, the energy consumption of these
LCD TVs appear to be not only low but reversed:

Sony Bravia 40 inch KDL-40EX401 --- 170 watts
Sony Bravia 52 inch KDL-52EX701 --- 142 watts

i recently looked at the tags on back of these sets at Sams.

401: Standby mode: 0.19 W
Shop mode: 146 W
Home mode: 110 W

701: Standby mode: 0.16 W
Home mode: 142 W

Note: the 401 model is a standard LCD/Fluorescent backlight, while the
701 model is an LCD/LED backlight, which is more efficient.



That's BS, Where do you get it from Punk?


1) What is supposed to be BS? The specs come directly from the Sony website.
Also, it's a fact that LED backlights use ~40% less energy than fluorescent
backlights. Our Sharp Aquos uses only 85-100 watts depending upon scene
brightness.

2) Do you kiss your mother with that mouth?


Brenda, you are being trolled, and the troll is impersonating someone
from another electronics group. The real John Fields is a little rough
around the edges, but a good guy. This group isn't like RARP. There
are a lot of trolls on the sci.electronics.* newsgroups.


--
Politicians should only get paid if the budget is balanced, and there is
enough left over to pay them.

"Michael A. Terrell" wrote in message
m...

Brenda Ann wrote:

"John Fields" wrote in message
...

"Brenda Ann" wrote in message
...


"nucleus" wrote in message
...
for those who are energy conscious, the energy consumption of these
LCD TVs appear to be not only low but reversed:

Sony Bravia 40 inch KDL-40EX401 --- 170 watts
Sony Bravia 52 inch KDL-52EX701 --- 142 watts

i recently looked at the tags on back of these sets at Sams.

401: Standby mode: 0.19 W
Shop mode: 146 W
Home mode: 110 W

701: Standby mode: 0.16 W
Home mode: 142 W

Note: the 401 model is a standard LCD/Fluorescent backlight, while the
701 model is an LCD/LED backlight, which is more efficient.



That's BS, Where do you get it from Punk?


1) What is supposed to be BS? The specs come directly from the Sony
website.
Also, it's a fact that LED backlights use ~40% less energy than
fluorescent
backlights. Our Sharp Aquos uses only 85-100 watts depending upon scene
brightness.

2) Do you kiss your mother with that mouth?


Brenda, you are being trolled, and the troll is impersonating someone
from another electronics group. The real John Fields is a little rough
around the edges, but a good guy. This group isn't like RARP. There
are a lot of trolls on the sci.electronics.* newsgroups.


Understood... and my apologies to the real John Fields.

To PeterD: the apology stands, but reading headers doesn't mean much when
you have not seen the original nym's posts before, and have no point of
reference.

"Brenda Ann" wrote in message
...


"Michael A. Terrell" wrote in message
m...

Brenda Ann wrote:

"John Fields" wrote in message
...

"Brenda Ann" wrote in message
...


"nucleus" wrote in message
...
for those who are energy conscious, the energy consumption of these
LCD TVs appear to be not only low but reversed:

Sony Bravia 40 inch KDL-40EX401 --- 170 watts
Sony Bravia 52 inch KDL-52EX701 --- 142 watts

i recently looked at the tags on back of these sets at Sams.

401: Standby mode: 0.19 W
Shop mode: 146 W
Home mode: 110 W

701: Standby mode: 0.16 W
Home mode: 142 W

Note: the 401 model is a standard LCD/Fluorescent backlight, while
the
701 model is an LCD/LED backlight, which is more efficient.



That's BS, Where do you get it from Punk?


1) What is supposed to be BS? The specs come directly from the Sony
website.
Also, it's a fact that LED backlights use ~40% less energy than
fluorescent
backlights. Our Sharp Aquos uses only 85-100 watts depending upon scene
brightness.

2) Do you kiss your mother with that mouth?


Brenda, you are being trolled, and the troll is impersonating someone
from another electronics group. The real John Fields is a little rough
around the edges, but a good guy. This group isn't like RARP. There
are a lot of trolls on the sci.electronics.* newsgroups.


Understood... and my apologies to the real John Fields.

To PeterD: the apology stands, but reading headers doesn't mean much when
you have not seen the original nym's posts before, and have no point of
reference.

I am a sub-****. No apologies needed Brenda.

---
JF

On Sun, 24 Oct 2010 20:43:14 -0700, "John Fields"
wrote:

...
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: 66.53.27.94
...
JF


The NNTP-Posting-Host is one major clue (there are many others) and
one quickly sees the differences. For example, when a known good
person starts making replies that are out of character, what we do is
compare a known valid post with the one that is suspect. We
immediately see what's what, and then can quickly eliminate the person
who is trying (poorly) to impersonate us (yes, us, as he has
impersonated me, and about 10 others here...)

But if you are an infrequent user of these groups, I can see where you
can get confused as to who is who. No problem...

An addition to my earlier reply... I'd suggest if you can, use a power
meter (say a Kill-A-Watt device) and measure each unit you are
intersted in. I tend to not trust manufacturer's claims on stuff like
that. Some tend to be way off, and some update and make more effecient
products over time but don't update documentation and labels until
well after the units are in production!