Does a clock radio use more power in the aux mode than off mode?

I listen to my phone over the stereo speakers from my clock. If I
just unplug the phone and leave the radio in aux mode will it use more
power?

On Wednesday, November 1, 2017 at 2:58:11 PM UTC-4, Seymore4Head wrote:
Does a clock radio use more power in the aux mode than off mode?

I listen to my phone over the stereo speakers from my clock. If I
just unplug the phone and leave the radio in aux mode will it use more
power?

Some small (very small) fraction more, as the amplifier section is active.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

On Wednesday, November 1, 2017 at 1:58:11 PM UTC-5, Seymore4Head wrote:
Does a clock radio use more power in the aux mode than off mode?

I listen to my phone over the stereo speakers from my clock. If I
just unplug the phone and leave the radio in aux mode will it use more
power?

Possibly, it depends on how power-conscious the designer was. The amplifier may power down with no input signal. One clue may be to put your ear to the speakers, with no input signal, and listen for amplifier white noise. Turn the volume way up.

It may not apply to your radio, but there are very strict efficiency requirements on most modern appliances. Even wall-warts (a major source of wasted energy) are now required to limit quiescent current (no load) to mere microamps.

On Wednesday, 1 November 2017 19:25:17 UTC, wrote:
On Wednesday, November 1, 2017 at 1:58:11 PM UTC-5, Seymore4Head wrote:
Does a clock radio use more power in the aux mode than off mode?

I listen to my phone over the stereo speakers from my clock. If I
just unplug the phone and leave the radio in aux mode will it use more
power?

Possibly, it depends on how power-conscious the designer was. The amplifier may power down with no input signal. One clue may be to put your ear to the speakers, with no input signal, and listen for amplifier white noise. Turn the volume way up.

It may not apply to your radio, but there are very strict efficiency requirements on most modern appliances. Even wall-warts (a major source of wasted energy) are now required to limit quiescent current (no load) to mere microamps.

Most?, Washing machines & dishwashers yes, what else?
Wallwarts & TVs have quiescent power limits, but I don't remember any efficiency requirement.


NT

wrote on 11/1/2017 3:32 PM:
On Wednesday, 1 November 2017 19:25:17 UTC, wrote:
On Wednesday, November 1, 2017 at 1:58:11 PM UTC-5, Seymore4Head wrote:
Does a clock radio use more power in the aux mode than off mode?

I listen to my phone over the stereo speakers from my clock. If I
just unplug the phone and leave the radio in aux mode will it use more
power?

Possibly, it depends on how power-conscious the designer was. The amplifier may power down with no input signal. One clue may be to put your ear to the speakers, with no input signal, and listen for amplifier white noise. Turn the volume way up.

It may not apply to your radio, but there are very strict efficiency requirements on most modern appliances. Even wall-warts (a major source of wasted energy) are now required to limit quiescent current (no load) to mere microamps.

Most?, Washing machines & dishwashers yes, what else?
Wallwarts & TVs have quiescent power limits, but I don't remember any efficiency requirement.

Wallwarts are pointless to regulate. I often see blurbs from power
companies and other sources talking about the wasted power in power
"vampires". If you can't feel them being hot, they aren't wasting enough
power to even think about. The extra heat your brain generates while
thinking about such things amounts to more power than the wall warts waste.

In comparison, a 7 watt night lite which before LEDs were often left on all
the time, would burn your fingers if you touched it. 7 watts left on 24/7
would cost $0.50 to $0.75 a month. So if your wall wart is barely warm to
the touch it likely is well under a dime a month.

--

Rick C

Viewed the eclipse at Wintercrest Farms,
on the centerline of totality since 1998

Wallwarts are pointless to regulate.

Agreed. I once, for giggles, did a full survey of "Vampire" loads in our house - a 3-story, 4,200 s.f. center-hall colonial built in 1890, with the usual assortment of items, LED clocks, wall-warts, stand-by systems and more.

Came in at 59 watts, or nearly-so.

59 x 24 x 365/1000 x 0.14 = $72.36. Annually. $6.03 per month.

For which I do not have to re-calibrate the televisions, re-program the tuners, reset any clocks, reprogram the boiler settings, reset the alarm clocks and much more (or less, as it happens, to be done). Yes, in some cases I need to do this after a sustained power failure, but we get blessedly few of those since Sandy (6 days).

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

Freezers, refrigerators, dryers, furnaces & ACs, anything with a motor... all currently have or will have efficiency goals (requirements may be the wrong term) in order to get that coveted "Energy Star" logo.. and yes they seem silly in many cases. Manufacturers feel pressured to display that "Energy Star" logo.... but it does add cost and complexity, and does not generally contribute to reliability.



Most?, Washing machines & dishwashers yes, what else?
Wallwarts & TVs have quiescent power limits, but I don't remember any efficiency requirement.


NT

On Wednesday, 1 November 2017 20:18:23 UTC, rickman wrote:
tabbypurr wrote on 11/1/2017 3:32 PM:
On Wednesday, 1 November 2017 19:25:17 UTC, wrote:
On Wednesday, November 1, 2017 at 1:58:11 PM UTC-5, Seymore4Head wrote:

Does a clock radio use more power in the aux mode than off mode?

I listen to my phone over the stereo speakers from my clock. If I
just unplug the phone and leave the radio in aux mode will it use more
power?

Possibly, it depends on how power-conscious the designer was. The amplifier may power down with no input signal. One clue may be to put your ear to the speakers, with no input signal, and listen for amplifier white noise. Turn the volume way up.

It may not apply to your radio, but there are very strict efficiency requirements on most modern appliances. Even wall-warts (a major source of wasted energy) are now required to limit quiescent current (no load) to mere microamps.

Most?, Washing machines & dishwashers yes, what else?
Wallwarts & TVs have quiescent power limits, but I don't remember any efficiency requirement.

Wallwarts are pointless to regulate. I often see blurbs from power
companies and other sources talking about the wasted power in power
"vampires". If you can't feel them being hot, they aren't wasting enough
power to even think about. The extra heat your brain generates while
thinking about such things amounts to more power than the wall warts waste.

In comparison, a 7 watt night lite which before LEDs were often left on all
the time, would burn your fingers if you touched it. 7 watts left on 24/7
would cost $0.50 to $0.75 a month. So if your wall wart is barely warm to
the touch it likely is well under a dime a month.

Oh quite. I once worked out that going round switching them off every day would save 12p per hour of labour. It's politics innit.


NT

On Wednesday, 1 November 2017 21:39:28 UTC, wrote:
NT:

Most?, Washing machines & dishwashers yes, what else?
Wallwarts & TVs have quiescent power limits, but I don't remember any efficiency requirement.

Freezers, refrigerators, dryers, furnaces & ACs, anything with a motor... all currently have or will have efficiency goals (requirements may be the wrong term) in order to get that coveted "Energy Star" logo.. and yes they seem silly in many cases. Manufacturers feel pressured to display that "Energy Star" logo.... but it does add cost and complexity, and does not generally contribute to reliability.

refrigeration & boilers yes, we don't have AC to any significant extent here. But items with motors aren't regulated afaik. Food processor, blender, soup maker, numerous power tools, vacuum cleaners, I don't see them boast any sort of energy sipping approval here. Or microwaves.


NT

In sci.electronics.repair, on Wed, 1 Nov 2017 13:54:46 -0700 (PDT),
" wrote:


Wallwarts are pointless to regulate.

Agreed. I once, for giggles, did a full survey of "Vampire" loads in our house - a 3-story, 4,200 s.f. center-hall colonial built in 1890, with the usual assortment of items, LED clocks, wall-warts, stand-by systems and more.

Came in at 59 watts, or nearly-so.

59 x 24 x 365/1000 x 0.14 = $72.36. Annually. $6.03 per month.

That you can afford to pay it does not mean it's not a waste.

If it were $1000/month but you were a billionaire, would you think that
was not waste?

Muliply it by the 2 million people who live near you, or the 300 million
people who live in the US.

For which I do not have to re-calibrate the televisions, re-program the tuners, reset any clocks, reprogram the boiler settings, reset the alarm clocks and much more (or less, as it happens, to be done). Yes, in some cases I need to do this after a sustained power failure, but we get blessedly few of those since Sandy (6 days).

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA


---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com

In sci.electronics.repair, on Wed, 1 Nov 2017 16:39:09 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

On Wednesday, 1 November 2017 20:18:23 UTC, rickman wrote:
tabbypurr wrote on 11/1/2017 3:32 PM:
On Wednesday, 1 November 2017 19:25:17 UTC, wrote:
On Wednesday, November 1, 2017 at 1:58:11 PM UTC-5, Seymore4Head wrote:

Does a clock radio use more power in the aux mode than off mode?

I listen to my phone over the stereo speakers from my clock. If I
just unplug the phone and leave the radio in aux mode will it use more
power?

Possibly, it depends on how power-conscious the designer was. The amplifier may power down with no input signal. One clue may be to put your ear to the speakers, with no input signal, and listen for amplifier white noise. Turn the volume way up.

It may not apply to your radio, but there are very strict efficiency requirements on most modern appliances. Even wall-warts (a major source of wasted energy) are now required to limit quiescent current (no load) to mere microamps.

Most?, Washing machines & dishwashers yes, what else?
Wallwarts & TVs have quiescent power limits, but I don't remember any efficiency requirement.

Wallwarts are pointless to regulate. I often see blurbs from power
companies and other sources talking about the wasted power in power
"vampires". If you can't feel them being hot, they aren't wasting enough
power to even think about. The extra heat your brain generates while
thinking about such things amounts to more power than the wall warts waste.

In comparison, a 7 watt night lite which before LEDs were often left on all
the time, would burn your fingers if you touched it. 7 watts left on 24/7
would cost $0.50 to $0.75 a month. So if your wall wart is barely warm to
the touch it likely is well under a dime a month.

Oh quite. I once worked out that going round switching them off every day

And the goal of redesigning t he devices is so that "going round
switching them off" will not be necessary.

would save 12p per hour of labour. It's politics innit.

No, it's not politics. It's a different outlook on what's important.


NT


---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com

On Thursday, 2 November 2017 15:37:32 UTC, micky wrote:
In sci.electronics.repair, on Wed, 1 Nov 2017 16:39:09 -0700 (PDT),
tabbypurr wrote:
On Wednesday, 1 November 2017 20:18:23 UTC, rickman wrote:
tabbypurr wrote on 11/1/2017 3:32 PM:
On Wednesday, 1 November 2017 19:25:17 UTC, wrote:
On Wednesday, November 1, 2017 at 1:58:11 PM UTC-5, Seymore4Head wrote:

Does a clock radio use more power in the aux mode than off mode?

I listen to my phone over the stereo speakers from my clock. If I
just unplug the phone and leave the radio in aux mode will it use more
power?

Possibly, it depends on how power-conscious the designer was. The amplifier may power down with no input signal. One clue may be to put your ear to the speakers, with no input signal, and listen for amplifier white noise. Turn the volume way up.

It may not apply to your radio, but there are very strict efficiency requirements on most modern appliances. Even wall-warts (a major source of wasted energy) are now required to limit quiescent current (no load) to mere microamps.

Most?, Washing machines & dishwashers yes, what else?
Wallwarts & TVs have quiescent power limits, but I don't remember any efficiency requirement.

Wallwarts are pointless to regulate. I often see blurbs from power
companies and other sources talking about the wasted power in power
"vampires". If you can't feel them being hot, they aren't wasting enough
power to even think about. The extra heat your brain generates while
thinking about such things amounts to more power than the wall warts waste.

In comparison, a 7 watt night lite which before LEDs were often left on all
the time, would burn your fingers if you touched it. 7 watts left on 24/7
would cost $0.50 to $0.75 a month. So if your wall wart is barely warm to
the touch it likely is well under a dime a month.

Oh quite. I once worked out that going round switching them off every day

And the goal of redesigning t he devices is so that "going round
switching them off" will not be necessary.

It isn't necessary with iron lump warts either, so that can't be the goal

would save 12p per hour of labour. It's politics innit.

No, it's not politics. It's a different outlook on what's important.

Whe someone insists everyone else works for 12p an hour in the first world, that is certainly politics.


NT

wrote on 11/2/2017 12:43 PM:
On Thursday, 2 November 2017 15:37:32 UTC, micky wrote:
In sci.electronics.repair, on Wed, 1 Nov 2017 16:39:09 -0700 (PDT),
tabbypurr wrote:
On Wednesday, 1 November 2017 20:18:23 UTC, rickman wrote:
tabbypurr wrote on 11/1/2017 3:32 PM:
On Wednesday, 1 November 2017 19:25:17 UTC, wrote:
On Wednesday, November 1, 2017 at 1:58:11 PM UTC-5, Seymore4Head wrote:

Does a clock radio use more power in the aux mode than off mode?

I listen to my phone over the stereo speakers from my clock. If I
just unplug the phone and leave the radio in aux mode will it use more
power?

Possibly, it depends on how power-conscious the designer was. The amplifier may power down with no input signal. One clue may be to put your ear to the speakers, with no input signal, and listen for amplifier white noise. Turn the volume way up.

It may not apply to your radio, but there are very strict efficiency requirements on most modern appliances. Even wall-warts (a major source of wasted energy) are now required to limit quiescent current (no load) to mere microamps.

Most?, Washing machines & dishwashers yes, what else?
Wallwarts & TVs have quiescent power limits, but I don't remember any efficiency requirement.

Wallwarts are pointless to regulate. I often see blurbs from power
companies and other sources talking about the wasted power in power
"vampires". If you can't feel them being hot, they aren't wasting enough
power to even think about. The extra heat your brain generates while
thinking about such things amounts to more power than the wall warts waste.

In comparison, a 7 watt night lite which before LEDs were often left on all
the time, would burn your fingers if you touched it. 7 watts left on 24/7
would cost $0.50 to $0.75 a month. So if your wall wart is barely warm to
the touch it likely is well under a dime a month.

Oh quite. I once worked out that going round switching them off every day

And the goal of redesigning t he devices is so that "going round
switching them off" will not be necessary.

It isn't necessary with iron lump warts either, so that can't be the goal

would save 12p per hour of labour. It's politics innit.

No, it's not politics. It's a different outlook on what's important.

Whe someone insists everyone else works for 12p an hour in the first world, that is certainly politics.

What??? How does requiring low power in appliances mandate that you run
around your house unplugging things?

--

Rick C

Viewed the eclipse at Wintercrest Farms,
on the centerline of totality since 1998

On Thursday, November 2, 2017 at 11:35:16 AM UTC-4, micky wrote:


That you can afford to pay it does not mean it's not a waste.

If it were $1000/month but you were a billionaire, would you think that
was not waste?

Muliply it by the 2 million people who live near you, or the 300 million
people who live in the US.


Lemme see - do you reset your alarm clock every day? Or do you use your cell phone? Takes about 3 minutes.
Do you recalibrate your flat-screen TV every day? Takes about 10 minutes.
Do you reset your stereo tuner memory every day? Takes about 5 minutes.
Do you reset the clocks on your stove and microwave every day? Or just not use them at all? Takes about 2 minutes.

EVERY DAY. 10 x 30 = 300 minutes. 300/60 = 5 hours. That comes to me paying myself $0.3025/hour.

I keep vintage audio equipment that leaves a very low current on the power-supply capacitors to avoid thumps on Start/Stop, and prevent deterioration. That is just the obvious. One electrolytic recapping on a vintage AR receiver will use about $48 worth of parts and about 2 hours in time.

You bet your ass it is worth it. And, quite obviously not a waste - if that is what I want. One less visit to Starbucks each month, no hardship there.

We do our part in reducing energy use overall. We keep a 4,200 s.f. house built in 1890, with 44 windows, several of them wider than five (5) feet and higher than six (6) feet. I have very nearly entirely rebuilt the heating system from the boiler out to the radiators, and between the use of thermostatic valves, a high efficiency boiler, zone sensors, and more, we keep a very comfortable house on less than $240/month average for all gas, electricity, hot water (including the water), cooking and drying (cloths line in good weather). Oh, and not to forget 30 miles per day on the plug-in hybrid. I would think that is not bad for an energy footprint, and that paying 2.5% of our total cost in convenience is not bad either.


Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

On Thursday, 2 November 2017 18:10:15 UTC, rickman wrote:
tabbypurr wrote on 11/2/2017 12:43 PM:
On Thursday, 2 November 2017 15:37:32 UTC, micky wrote:
In sci.electronics.repair, on Wed, 1 Nov 2017 16:39:09 -0700 (PDT),
tabbypurr wrote:
On Wednesday, 1 November 2017 20:18:23 UTC, rickman wrote:
tabbypurr wrote on 11/1/2017 3:32 PM:
On Wednesday, 1 November 2017 19:25:17 UTC, wrote:
On Wednesday, November 1, 2017 at 1:58:11 PM UTC-5, Seymore4Head wrote:

Does a clock radio use more power in the aux mode than off mode?

I listen to my phone over the stereo speakers from my clock. If I
just unplug the phone and leave the radio in aux mode will it use more
power?

Possibly, it depends on how power-conscious the designer was. The amplifier may power down with no input signal. One clue may be to put your ear to the speakers, with no input signal, and listen for amplifier white noise. Turn the volume way up.

It may not apply to your radio, but there are very strict efficiency requirements on most modern appliances. Even wall-warts (a major source of wasted energy) are now required to limit quiescent current (no load) to mere microamps.

Most?, Washing machines & dishwashers yes, what else?
Wallwarts & TVs have quiescent power limits, but I don't remember any efficiency requirement.

Wallwarts are pointless to regulate. I often see blurbs from power
companies and other sources talking about the wasted power in power
"vampires". If you can't feel them being hot, they aren't wasting enough
power to even think about. The extra heat your brain generates while
thinking about such things amounts to more power than the wall warts waste.

In comparison, a 7 watt night lite which before LEDs were often left on all
the time, would burn your fingers if you touched it. 7 watts left on 24/7
would cost $0.50 to $0.75 a month. So if your wall wart is barely warm to
the touch it likely is well under a dime a month.

Oh quite. I once worked out that going round switching them off every day

And the goal of redesigning t he devices is so that "going round
switching them off" will not be necessary.

It isn't necessary with iron lump warts either, so that can't be the goal

would save 12p per hour of labour. It's politics innit.

No, it's not politics. It's a different outlook on what's important.

Whe someone insists everyone else works for 12p an hour in the first world, that is certainly politics.

What??? How does requiring low power in appliances mandate that you run
around your house unplugging things?

Are you really as confused as you make out to be?

On Thursday, November 2, 2017 at 3:02:25 PM UTC-4, wrote:

Are you really as confused as you make out to be?

This may be as simple as a 'failure to communicate'. Here on this side of the pond we have the Energy Star system. Initially, any device could earn the rating if it performed the same function using less energy (some minimum-or-greater) differential than the average of all devices in its class. So, a Plasma TV was measured against only other Plasma TVs. And a clothes washer against other clothes washers of approximately the same type and size - and all these things *at the time of manufacture*. But comparing Macintosh apples (plasma TVs) to Gala apples (LCD tvs) to (back in the day) Granny Smith tvs (CRT devices) did not apply.

Stand-alone clothes dryers, by the way, cannot earn an Energy Star. Care to guess why?

Old-Style wall-warts were (are) transformers & diodes. Some have regulation and some do not. Most do not. But the transformers are substantial and pass the entire current used. Replace it with a switcher-supply and weight and cost drop, regulation is easy to achieve, and lo and behold, power consumption drops. Do that a billion times and it all adds up.

In the meantime, much as many sorts of regulations written against former times, the thoughtless propaganda mongers beat their drums on the evils of wall-warts, stand-by power-supplies and create the "legend of the vampire load" and the billions it costs *you* and *me* each day, the tons of coal burnt at their altars, mercury and so on and so forth. And they *WOULD* have us putting everything on a power-strip for full shut down after each use.

So, our flat-screens revert to "demo" settings - and so consume anywhere from 10% to as much as 30% more power thereby. Some savings! And, of course the nuisance value of resetting pre-sets, clocks, and and much more. Not to mention the energy and resources tied up in all those power-strips. Regulations in the year 2017 based on technological assumptions from 2005 or before are hardly meaningful.

If you are that worried about this energy stuff- get rid of _EVERY_ incandescent lamp in your domicile, immediately and without exception. There is a CFL or LED device that will serve very nearly every function both aesthetically and practically. It is only money, and it will pay back without creating any additional fuss or nonsense, once done. We are well on our way - the last three significant targets are the antique chandeliers (three large crystal units that came with the house) and the matching wall sconces. That That is 72 candelabra-base lamps in all. About half are 40-watt, the rest 25-watt.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

wrote on 11/2/2017 3:02 PM:
On Thursday, 2 November 2017 18:10:15 UTC, rickman wrote:
tabbypurr wrote on 11/2/2017 12:43 PM:
On Thursday, 2 November 2017 15:37:32 UTC, micky wrote:
In sci.electronics.repair, on Wed, 1 Nov 2017 16:39:09 -0700 (PDT),
tabbypurr wrote:
On Wednesday, 1 November 2017 20:18:23 UTC, rickman wrote:
tabbypurr wrote on 11/1/2017 3:32 PM:
On Wednesday, 1 November 2017 19:25:17 UTC, wrote:
On Wednesday, November 1, 2017 at 1:58:11 PM UTC-5, Seymore4Head wrote:

Does a clock radio use more power in the aux mode than off mode?

I listen to my phone over the stereo speakers from my clock. If I
just unplug the phone and leave the radio in aux mode will it use more
power?

Possibly, it depends on how power-conscious the designer was. The amplifier may power down with no input signal. One clue may be to put your ear to the speakers, with no input signal, and listen for amplifier white noise. Turn the volume way up.

It may not apply to your radio, but there are very strict efficiency requirements on most modern appliances. Even wall-warts (a major source of wasted energy) are now required to limit quiescent current (no load) to mere microamps.

Most?, Washing machines & dishwashers yes, what else?
Wallwarts & TVs have quiescent power limits, but I don't remember any efficiency requirement.

Wallwarts are pointless to regulate. I often see blurbs from power
companies and other sources talking about the wasted power in power
"vampires". If you can't feel them being hot, they aren't wasting enough
power to even think about. The extra heat your brain generates while
thinking about such things amounts to more power than the wall warts waste.

In comparison, a 7 watt night lite which before LEDs were often left on all
the time, would burn your fingers if you touched it. 7 watts left on 24/7
would cost $0.50 to $0.75 a month. So if your wall wart is barely warm to
the touch it likely is well under a dime a month.

Oh quite. I once worked out that going round switching them off every day

And the goal of redesigning t he devices is so that "going round
switching them off" will not be necessary.

It isn't necessary with iron lump warts either, so that can't be the goal

would save 12p per hour of labour. It's politics innit.

No, it's not politics. It's a different outlook on what's important.

Whe someone insists everyone else works for 12p an hour in the first world, that is certainly politics.

What??? How does requiring low power in appliances mandate that you run
around your house unplugging things?

Are you really as confused as you make out to be?

If you can't understand the question that's ok.

--

Rick C

Viewed the eclipse at Wintercrest Farms,
on the centerline of totality since 1998

In sci.electronics.repair, on Thu, 2 Nov 2017 12:02:23 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

On Thursday, 2 November 2017 18:10:15 UTC, rickman wrote:
tabbypurr wrote on 11/2/2017 12:43 PM:
On Thursday, 2 November 2017 15:37:32 UTC, micky wrote:
In sci.electronics.repair, on Wed, 1 Nov 2017 16:39:09 -0700 (PDT),
tabbypurr wrote:
On Wednesday, 1 November 2017 20:18:23 UTC, rickman wrote:
tabbypurr wrote on 11/1/2017 3:32 PM:
On Wednesday, 1 November 2017 19:25:17 UTC, wrote:
On Wednesday, November 1, 2017 at 1:58:11 PM UTC-5, Seymore4Head wrote:

Does a clock radio use more power in the aux mode than off mode?

I listen to my phone over the stereo speakers from my clock. If I
just unplug the phone and leave the radio in aux mode will it use more
power?

Possibly, it depends on how power-conscious the designer was. The amplifier may power down with no input signal. One clue may be to put your ear to the speakers, with no input signal, and listen for amplifier white noise. Turn the volume way up.

It may not apply to your radio, but there are very strict efficiency requirements on most modern appliances. Even wall-warts (a major source of wasted energy) are now required to limit quiescent current (no load) to mere microamps.

Most?, Washing machines & dishwashers yes, what else?
Wallwarts & TVs have quiescent power limits, but I don't remember any efficiency requirement.

Wallwarts are pointless to regulate. I often see blurbs from power
companies and other sources talking about the wasted power in power
"vampires". If you can't feel them being hot, they aren't wasting enough
power to even think about. The extra heat your brain generates while
thinking about such things amounts to more power than the wall warts waste.

In comparison, a 7 watt night lite which before LEDs were often left on all
the time, would burn your fingers if you touched it. 7 watts left on 24/7
would cost $0.50 to $0.75 a month. So if your wall wart is barely warm to
the touch it likely is well under a dime a month.

Oh quite. I once worked out that going round switching them off every day

And the goal of redesigning t he devices is so that "going round
switching them off" will not be necessary.

It isn't necessary with iron lump warts either, so that can't be the goal

would save 12p per hour of labour. It's politics innit.

No, it's not politics. It's a different outlook on what's important.

Whe someone insists everyone else works for 12p an hour in the first world, that is certainly politics.

What??? How does requiring low power in appliances mandate that you run
around your house unplugging things?

Are you really as confused as you make out to be?

Talk about confused, it seems to be you. What does promoting or even
requiring low power use on idle appliances have to do with paying low
wages? Nothing. So again, it's not politics to want efficient power
use and/or low power waste. It's a different outlook from yours on what
is important.

And no one is insisting anyone turn off appliances. They're trying to
make the applliances not waste power when they are still on, working or
idle.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com

On Thursday, 2 November 2017 20:20:34 UTC, wrote:
On Thursday, November 2, 2017 at 3:02:25 PM UTC-4, tabby wrote:

Are you really as confused as you make out to be?

This may be as simple as a 'failure to communicate'.

If it were a one off, sure. It's a regular thing with Mr Rickman.


NT

On Thursday, 2 November 2017 22:52:12 UTC, micky wrote:
In sci.electronics.repair, on Thu, 2 Nov 2017 12:02:23 -0700 (PDT),
tabbypurr wrote:
On Thursday, 2 November 2017 18:10:15 UTC, rickman wrote:

What??? How does requiring low power in appliances mandate that you run
around your house unplugging things?

Are you really as confused as you make out to be?

Talk about confused, it seems to be you. What does promoting or even
requiring low power use on idle appliances have to do with paying low
wages? Nothing.

whoosh

So again, it's not politics to want efficient power
use and/or low power waste.

whoosh

It's a different outlook from yours on what
is important.

And no one is insisting anyone turn off appliances. They're trying to
make the applliances not waste power when they are still on, working or
idle.

whoosh. Oh well.


NT

On 03/11/17 06:02, wrote:
On Thursday, 2 November 2017 18:10:15 UTC, rickman wrote:
[incoherent babble]

Are you really as confused as you make out to be?

I think the correct term is "congenitally baffled".

He's unable to follow even the simplest lines of
reasoning, and it's pointless to try.

mode?
On Wednesday, November 1, 2017 9:39PM, wrote:
NT:
Most?, Washing machines & dishwashers yes, what else?
Wallwarts & TVs have quiescent power limits, but I don't remember any efficiency requirement.

Freezers, refrigerators, dryers, furnaces & ACs, anything with a motor...
all currently have or will have efficiency goals (requirements may
be the wrong term) in order to get that coveted "Energy Star" logo..
and yes they seem silly in many cases. Manufacturers feel pressured
to display that "Energy Star" logo.... but it does add cost and complexity,
and does not generally contribute to reliability.

How can you tell if these logos are genuine or not?

Manufacturers feel pressured to display that "Energy Star" logo.... but it does add cost and complexity, and does not generally contribute to reliability.



and therefore costs more money and is more polluting in the long run.

m

On Monday, November 13, 2017 at 3:40:08 PM UTC-5, wrote:

and therefore costs more money and is more polluting in the long run.

Please give reliable, verifiable, independent data to support that contention. Otherwise, it is just wishful bull****.

Keep in mind how an "Energy Star" rating works.

https://www.energystar.gov/products/...rgy-star-label

Read it through, if you are willing to entertain actual facts.

RANT WARNING

We replaced our boiler when we moved into our house coming up ten years ago, in early 2008. We replaced a 50% efficient 400,000 BTUH unit with a 230,000 96% efficient unit (natural gas). So, we went from 200,000 BTU delivered to 220,800 BTU delivered. This unit also makes our hot water, typically between 45% and 50% efficient. We live in a 4,200 s.f. (Net of bathrooms, hallways and the kitchen per County standards) center-hall colonial built in 1890 and with 37 radiators and 38 windows. Our annualized gas bill is a bit under $200/month, so use that. For giggles, equalize the BTU delivered. We are using 57.5 % of the gas we would be using had we left the old system in place. Divide $2,400 by 0.575 and the annual savings are $1,774/year. In 2008, the net difference between the boiler we installed and a conventional boiler (80%) was a bit under $2,200. The entire system cost about $5,200 including the indirect storage tank. I did the labor with a certified master-plumber to inspect the results. But, comes to it, a high-efficiency, modulating, condensing boiler is actually less complex to install than a conventional boiler and vents directly to the outside (about 12' away in our case).

We have saved over $15,000 over the system-in-place, paying back almost 3 x the first cost. Over a conventional boiler, we have saved over $3,000. The "energy star" is that $3,000.

Now, our present boiler has an installed dry weight of less than 200 pounds.. A conventional boiler weighs 695 pounds, dry, installed. It has performed flawlessly since the day it was installed, needing no more than normal service - which as with most boilers is pretty basic. And, yes, it did require a quite-expensive additive on first-fill, but that was a one-time thing and part of the first-cost. Still testing good to-date.

As with many things, one gets what one pays for. No more. Often less. But the "energy star" thing is real.

One of the most basic problems of "modern times" is that the vast majority of the population in the United States does not remember thermal inversions over NYC or Los Angeles, or when rivers caught fire, or when water was unfit to drink (not uncommon now, either), or when black dust accumulated on window sills 'even in the country'. Or when entire rivers and lakes were 'dead' of all life. And how much effort, time and treasure it took to get back from that state. Just go to rural West Virginia and look at a top-cut coal mine if you need a reminder. That, together with the educational dumbing-down of the general population, increasing provincialism (the majority of Americans have never traveled voluntarily more than 200 miles from their birthplace, do not have a passport, have never visited a foreign country, do not have a college degree (even an Associate degree), and cannot read at an 8th grade level, and have a working vocabulary of less than 5,000 words (of over 300,000 words not including compounds or derivatives). And we are in a sorry state that has Lincoln spinning in his grave. In 2017, it is very nearly possible to actually fool all of the people (sheeple) most of the time.. And the present state of our government is absolute proof of that contention. _EVERYBODY_ of my parents generation understood war. Mostly everyone of my generation has a passing acquaintance with the concept - and has observed some of its effects directly. Some fewer of us were actually under 'threat' (for lack of a better word) of having to participate, and some tiny few (not me) were required to participate directly.

How soon we forget.

Getting back to Energy Star - we have but one planet, but one environment given to us. And if we F**K it up, we are done. Full stop. Take it as an ecological Paschal's Wager: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_Wager

Either we do something or we do not. If the threat is real and we do nothing, we are dead. If the threat is real and we do something, we *MAY* survive.. We know how bad it could be - Pittsburgh in 1963 was not a fun place. One could walk across the Hudson river without benefit of a bridge, and the Lehigh River ran orange and green, the Cuyahoga River regularly caught fire, and so forth.

End Rant

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA