On 6/3/2008 5:34 PM Don Klipstein spake thus:

In article , SMS wrote:

Just don't turn off a power strip that has a desktop computer plugged
into it. The power supply provides +5V Standby to the motherboard's RTC
(real time clock) and CMOS RAM (which holds configuration data). When
the computer is unplugged (or during a power failure) the small,
non-rechargeable, lithium coin cell battery, maintains the RTC and CMOS
RAM. Often these are soldered in, not in a battery holder, and difficult
to replace. These batteries are not intended to supply power to the RTC
and CMOS RAM for long periods of time (unlike computers of 15 years ago
where the power supply didn't provide any power when the system was
turned off, and they used a much higher capacity battery).

My computer has an Asus A7N8X-E "deluxe" motherboard for the AMD "Athlon
XP" processor. That is maybe 5 years old. I got it the same day I got a
"3200+" processor. The battery is removable and replaceable. I have that
computer on a power strip that I often turn off.

Similar story he I have a Tyan Trinity 400 MB w/Pentium, about 8
years old, that I turn off & on daily. It has never lost CMOS data, not
once. (And yes, it has the newfangled type of on-off switch, ACPI, all
that type crap.)


--
The best argument against democracy is a five-minute
conversation with the average voter.

- Attributed to Winston Churchill

In article ,
"Edwin Pawlowski" wrote:

Just as the microwave has a clock based timer that counts down and shuts if
off too. Makes is saver for children and seniours to use over other cooking
apliances. Why would you want to eliminate that? You could step back 20
years and put in a windup timer but I don't see any real savings there.

a 1 watt load == 8769 watts/year

--
This signature can be appended to your outgoing mesages. Many people include in
their signatures contact information, and perhaps a joke or quotation.

Don Klipstein wrote:

My computer has an Asus A7N8X-E "deluxe" motherboard for the AMD "Athlon
XP" processor. That is maybe 5 years old. I got it the same day I got a
"3200+" processor. The battery is removable and replaceable. I have that
computer on a power strip that I often turn off.

Asus is a top of the line motherboard, so you'd expect them to have a
replaceable battery. The boards sold for use in name brand computers are
decontented to save ever penny possible, literally (I used to work for a
very large Taiwanese motherboard company's U.S. office). This includes
using a very low capacity back-up battery, and soldering it in.

Remember the large rectangular Tadiran batteries with a wire and a
connector used on old AT motherboards? They used these because the
battery had to power the RTC and CMOS for long periods of time because
when the power was off there was no +5V to power the RTC. The ATX supply
changed all this. There were other reasons as well. With the ATX supply,
there is power to the PCI slots so you can do remote power-up through
the network (though with most boards these days the Ethernet chip is on
the board, and can be powered directly with standby power).

In article , CJT
wrote:

max wrote:

In article , dpb wrote:


Consider, for example, the problem of wind generation previously
mentioned. Since, as mentioned, even in one of the most advantageous
siting areas for wind, it requires from 2.5X to 4X the needed capacity
to have 50:50 probability the wind farm will provide that much (on a
monthly basis, the multipliers get even larger as time averaging goes
shorter), there has to be that backup generation somewhere, somehow to
make it up when needed. That, unfortunately, means investment in some
other generation capacity that most often now is gas turbine which
drives up demand for diminishing natural gas and does add to the CO.


This is the most bull**** pocket-picking analysis i think i've ever
seen.

Huh? I think he makes a valid point -- facilities must be designed for
peak demand, not average demand.

That analysis uses the accounting of debiting peak load deficits
against a wind generator is intellectually dishonest. The correct way
is to credit a wind generator's output against a conventional plant's
fuel consumption.

One watt-hour provided from wind is one watt-hour not required of coal.

Now, if we really really want to persist in that sort of thinking, one
might imagine a magical future where somehow the impossible happens and
we contravene the laws of thermodynamics by using our wind energy to
excite an energy storing oscillator.

But that's impossible, unfortunately, so we could never imagine B-field
storage (apropos of which results were recently published of a new
apparently b-field-quench resistant (quench-proof?) ceramic
superconductor) , nor Ke storage, nor hydrogen storage nor water
resevoir storage schema for load leveling. oh, wait.

That's why i call it dishonest. Because the limitations of windmill
technology do not require us to build more fossil fuel plants, and
because it's "relatively" trivial to built energy storage systems to
buffer their output, should we deem it helpful to do so.

--
This signature can be appended to your outgoing mesages. Many people include in
their signatures contact information, and perhaps a joke or quotation.

max wrote:

In article , CJT
wrote:


max wrote:


In article , dpb wrote:



Consider, for example, the problem of wind generation previously
mentioned. Since, as mentioned, even in one of the most advantageous
siting areas for wind, it requires from 2.5X to 4X the needed capacity
to have 50:50 probability the wind farm will provide that much (on a
monthly basis, the multipliers get even larger as time averaging goes
shorter), there has to be that backup generation somewhere, somehow to
make it up when needed. That, unfortunately, means investment in some
other generation capacity that most often now is gas turbine which
drives up demand for diminishing natural gas and does add to the CO.


This is the most bull**** pocket-picking analysis i think i've ever
seen.


Huh? I think he makes a valid point -- facilities must be designed for
peak demand, not average demand.


That analysis uses the accounting of debiting peak load deficits
against a wind generator is intellectually dishonest. The correct way
is to credit a wind generator's output against a conventional plant's
fuel consumption.

One watt-hour provided from wind is one watt-hour not required of coal.

Now, if we really really want to persist in that sort of thinking, one
might imagine a magical future where somehow the impossible happens and
we contravene the laws of thermodynamics by using our wind energy to
excite an energy storing oscillator.

But that's impossible, unfortunately, so we could never imagine B-field
storage (apropos of which results were recently published of a new
apparently b-field-quench resistant (quench-proof?) ceramic
superconductor) , nor Ke storage, nor hydrogen storage nor water
resevoir storage schema for load leveling. oh, wait.

That's why i call it dishonest. Because the limitations of windmill
technology do not require us to build more fossil fuel plants, and
because it's "relatively" trivial to built energy storage systems to
buffer their output, should we deem it helpful to do so.

Hi,
If we talk about energy saving, how about we start driving smaller
vehicles. No monster SUV like Hummer or big gas guzzler V8, V10 engines.
Why we need a Hummer going grocery shopping?

In misc.consumers.frugal-living Edwin Pawlowski wrote:

wrote in message
Actually, I wish they would do away with clocks in microwaves and
kitchen appliances in general. I don't need or want extra clocks

Just as the microwave has a clock based timer that counts down and shuts if
off too. Makes is saver for children and seniours to use over other cooking
apliances. Why would you want to eliminate that? You could step back 20
years and put in a windup timer but I don't see any real savings there.

A countdown timer doesn't require a full-fledged time-of-day clock with
a display that is on all the time. Indeed, most modern microwaves allow
you to turn the TOD clock display off by hitting stop/clear when it first
powers up and the clock isn't set. That's a good feature.

I did point out that my coffee maker has a clock because I like the safety
feature of a timed cutoff. But, a simple countdown timer could accomplish
the safety cutoff. The TOD clock part is useless to me, though
I can see how some people can use that for timed starts. Just having the
option to turn the TOD clock display off would be a good thing, in my
opinion.

Bill Ranck
Blacksburg, Va.

In article ,
Anthony Matonak wrote:

max wrote:
In article ,
"Edwin Pawlowski" wrote:

Just as the microwave has a clock based timer that counts down and shuts
if
off too. Makes is saver for children and seniours to use over other
cooking
apliances. Why would you want to eliminate that? You could step back 20
years and put in a windup timer but I don't see any real savings there.

a 1 watt load == 8769 watts/year

More exactly, there are almost 8766 hours in a year so a
1 Watt load would total 8766 Watt-hours/year or 8.766 kWh.
At my cost (Los Angeles) of about 14 cents per kWh this
amounts to $1.22.

These things can add up though. A Watt here, a half dozen
there and soon you're talking several tens of dollars per
year.

Anthony

sigh...

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html 106 million
households

that's $1.22/household/year/watt * 106e6 house =
$129,000,000 ****ed away nationally for nothing.

And, to reiterate, that's for _one_ watt of power draw.

..max

--
This signature can be appended to your outgoing mesages. Many people include in
their signatures contact information, and perhaps a joke or quotation.

SMS wrote
Don Klipstein wrote

My computer has an Asus A7N8X-E "deluxe" motherboard for the AMD "Athlon XP" processor. That is maybe 5 years old.
I got it the
same day I got a "3200+" processor. The battery is removable and
replaceable. I have that computer on a power strip that I often turn off.

Asus is a top of the line motherboard, so you'd expect them to have a replaceable battery.

There's very few motherboards from anyone that dont have a replaceable battery now.

The boards sold for use in name brand computers
are decontented to save ever penny possible, literally

None of those have soldered in batterys now.

(I used to work for a very large Taiwanese motherboard company's U.S. office).

But dont have a clue about whats happened since then.

This includes using a very low capacity back-up battery, and soldering it in.

Bet you cant list even a single example of one of those with current motherboards.

Remember the large rectangular Tadiran batteries with a wire and a
connector used on old AT motherboards? They used these because the battery had to power the RTC and CMOS for long
periods of time because when the power was off there was no +5V to power the RTC.

Nope, they didnt use coin cells because they couldnt
provide enough capacity for the older RTC and CMOS.

The ATX supply changed all this.

Wrong again. The real change was the current used by the RTC
and use of flashram that takes no battery current for the settings.

ALL modern motherboards get YEARS out of the replaceable battery
even if you unplug the system from the mains when you arent using it.
And it costs peanuts to replace when that is necessary too.

There were other reasons as well. With the ATX supply, there is power to the PCI slots so you can do remote power-up
through the network (though with most boards these days the Ethernet chip is on the board, and can be powered directly
with standby power).

How odd that that wasnt eliminated in the cost cutting too.

You've never had a clue about the basics, which is
presumably why you got the bums rush from that importer.

wrote
Rod Speed wrote
wrote
(Don Klipstein) wrote
wrote
wrote
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. ;-)

Not really. Transformers draw significant power even when there is
no demand upon them. They just turn it into heat rather than work.

Plug in a wall wart with no load on it and measure the temperature
and current draw after an hour. That's a very tiny transformer.

If you remove one tube form a two tube florescent light fixture
with an old fashioned transformer, it hardly changes power
consumption at all.

On that last point, I find that the power consumption changes a lot.

The change is less when the ballast is one of those "pseudoparallel"
electronic ones rated to power more than one quantity of tubes, and
the remaining tube(s) get increased power when one tube is removed.
But the overall power consumption still goes down when one tube is removed.

My point was that the power consumption is not cut in
half by removing one of the tubes. If you turn on a two
tube fixture with NO tubes in it, it will draw power as well.

Nope, it doesnt with the traditional ballast that fools like you dont realise isnt a transformer.

Sorry, Rod, but this discussion is about the laws of physics on
the planet Earth. We weren't including your planet, whatever it is.

Never ever could bull**** its way out of a wet paper bag.

The ballast is in series with the tube, so when there is no tube present, there is no current drawn.

wrote
Rod Speed wrote
wrote
(Don Klipstein) wrote
wrote
wrote
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. ;-)

Not really. Transformers draw significant power even when there is
no demand upon them. They just turn it into heat rather than work.

Plug in a wall wart with no load on it and measure the temperature
and current draw after an hour. That's a very tiny transformer.

If you remove one tube form a two tube florescent light fixture
with an old fashioned transformer, it hardly changes power
consumption at all.

On that last point, I find that the power consumption changes a lot.

The change is less when the ballast is one of those "pseudoparallel"
electronic ones rated to power more than one quantity of tubes, and
the remaining tube(s) get increased power when one tube is removed.
But the overall power consumption still goes down when one tube is removed.

My point was that the power consumption is not cut in
half by removing one of the tubes. If you turn on a two
tube fixture with NO tubes in it, it will draw power as well.

Nope, it doesnt with the traditional ballast that fools like you dont realise isnt a transformer.

That must be why the full name for the device is "Transformer Ballast", eh?

No it isnt.

How odd that the word transformer doesnt even get a mention in
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ballast_%28electrical%29

Keep digging, you'll be out in china any day now.

wrote
Edwin Pawlowski wrote
wrote

Actually, I wish they would do away with clocks in microwaves and
kitchen appliances in general. I don't need or want extra clocks

Just as the microwave has a clock based timer that counts down
and shuts if off too. Makes is saver for children and seniours to use
over other cooking apliances. Why would you want to eliminate that?
You could step back 20 years and put in a windup timer but I don't
see any real savings there.

A countdown timer doesn't require a full-fledged time-of-day clock with
a display that is on all the time. Indeed, most modern microwaves
allow you to turn the TOD clock display off by hitting stop/clear
when it first powers up and the clock isn't set. That's a good feature.

But it doesnt any effect on the current draw with the device idling.

I did point out that my coffee maker has a clock because
I like the safety feature of a timed cutoff. But, a simple
countdown timer could accomplish the safety cutoff.

But doing it that way wont necessarily save any power over
one that just the display off when the timed cutoff completes.

The TOD clock part is useless to me, though I can
see how some people can use that for timed starts.

I just use it as a convenient clock in the kitchen.

Just having the option to turn the TOD clock
display off would be a good thing, in my opinion.

Only if it actually saves any power.

max wrote
CJT wrote
max wrote
dpb wrote

Consider, for example, the problem of wind generation previously
mentioned. Since, as mentioned, even in one of the most
advantageous siting areas for wind, it requires from 2.5X to 4X
the needed capacity to have 50:50 probability the wind farm will
provide that much (on a monthly basis, the multipliers get even
larger as time averaging goes shorter), there has to be that
backup generation somewhere, somehow to make it up when needed.
That, unfortunately, means investment in some other generation
capacity that most often now is gas turbine which drives up demand
for diminishing natural gas and does add to the CO.

This is the most bull**** pocket-picking analysis i think i've ever seen.

You need to get out more.

Huh? I think he makes a valid point -- facilities must
be designed for peak demand, not average demand.

That analysis uses the accounting of debiting peak load
deficits against a wind generator is intellectually dishonest.

Nope.

The correct way is to credit a wind generator's output
against a conventional plant's fuel consumption.

Nope, because conventional plants cant have their load changed quickly.

One watt-hour provided from wind is one watt-hour not required of coal.

Wrong, because you cant change the coal plant's output that quickly.

Now, if we really really want to persist in that sort of thinking,
one might imagine a magical future where somehow the
impossible happens and we contravene the laws of thermodynamics
by using our wind energy to excite an energy storing oscillator.

But that's impossible, unfortunately, so we could never imagine
B-field storage (apropos of which results were recently published of
a new apparently b-field-quench resistant (quench-proof?) ceramic
superconductor) , nor Ke storage, nor hydrogen storage nor water
resevoir storage schema for load leveling. oh, wait.

That's why i call it dishonest. Because the limitations of windmill
technology do not require us to build more fossil fuel plants,

Wrong again.

and because it's "relatively" trivial to built energy storage systems
to buffer their output, should we deem it helpful to do so.

Pity about what that does to the economics of wind power thats already hopeless.

wrote
dpb wrote
wrote
Rod Speed wrote
wrote
dpb wrote
Rod Speed wrote

The vast bulk of our electricity doesnt come from oil, it comes
from coal, and even if we stop doing that because of the CO2
produced by that approach, we'll be using nukes instead, not
'various green sources'

Nuclear _is_ a "green" source...

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/R/ROCKY_FLATS_LAWSUIT?SITE=1010WINS&SECTION=HOME&TEM PLATE=DEFAULT
Thats not nuke electricity generation.

That doesn't make a BIT of difference.

It makes a HUGE difference.

No it does not.

Yes it does.

Storage and handling issues are virtually identical.

Wrong, as always.

What happened in Rocky Flats could just as easily happen any
where radioactive nuclear material is present for any purpose.

Wrong. Some countrys have enough of a clue to not allow
that sort of terminal stupidity with their nuke power systems.

wrote
Rod Speed wrote
wrote
Rod Speed wrote
wrote
dpb wrote
Rod Speed wrote

The vast bulk of our electricity doesnt come from oil, it comes
from coal, and even if we stop doing that because of the CO2
produced by that approach, we'll be using nukes instead, not
'various green sources'

Nuclear _is_ a "green" source...

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/R/ROCKY_FLATS_LAWSUIT?SITE=1010WINS&SECTION=HOME&TEM PLATE=DEFAULT

Thats not nuke electricity generation.

That doesn't make a BIT of difference.

Wrong, as always.

Is that your new sig? It's PERFECT!

Cant even manage its own lines, or even bull**** its way out of a wet paper bag either.

On 6/4/2008 12:16 PM spake thus:

On Thu, 5 Jun 2008 05:04:06 +1000, "Rod Speed"
wrote:

wrote

That must be why the full name for the device is "Transformer Ballast", eh?

No it isnt.

How odd that the word transformer doesnt even get a mention in
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ballast_%28electrical%29

Keep digging, you'll be out in china any day now.

How odd that you would rely on a homebrew writeup in Wikipedia. What
is not odd is that, even at that, you don't know what you are reading.
For openers, please tell us what an inductor is, and what a
transformer is.

I hate to admit it, but the guy's correct he a transformer is an
inductor, but one with more than one winding, so that there's an
electrical-- magnetic-- electrical transfer going on. A ballast is
just a plain inductor.

But this guy's such an asshole, why bother continuing this argument?


--
The best argument against democracy is a five-minute
conversation with the average voter.

- Attributed to Winston Churchill

On 6/4/2008 12:21 PM spake thus:

On Thu, 5 Jun 2008 05:04:06 +1000, "Rod Speed"
wrote:

How odd that the word transformer doesnt even get a mention in
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ballast_%28electrical%29

Keep digging, you'll be out in china any day now.

Guess these guys didn't believe an amateur entry in Wikipedia:

http://www.saveonlighting.com/subcat...er __ecf_.htm

That *is* a transformer (or it contains a transformer); we're talking
about the "old school" ballasts, which are just inductors.

But what I said before about not bothering arguing w/this asshole still
holds.


--
The best argument against democracy is a five-minute
conversation with the average voter.

- Attributed to Winston Churchill

wrote
Rod Speed wrote
wrote
Rod Speed wrote
wrote
(Don Klipstein) wrote
wrote
wrote
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. ;-)

Not really. Transformers draw significant power even when there is
no demand upon them. They just turn it into heat rather than work.

Plug in a wall wart with no load on it and measure the temperature
and current draw after an hour. That's a very tiny transformer.

If you remove one tube form a two tube florescent light fixture
with an old fashioned transformer, it hardly changes power
consumption at all.

On that last point, I find that the power consumption changes a lot.

The change is less when the ballast is one of those "pseudoparallel"
electronic ones rated to power more than one quantity of tubes, and
the remaining tube(s) get increased power when one tube is removed.
But the overall power consumption still goes down when one tube is removed.

My point was that the power consumption is not cut in
half by removing one of the tubes. If you turn on a two
tube fixture with NO tubes in it, it will draw power as well.

Nope, it doesnt with the traditional ballast that fools like you dont realise isnt a transformer.

That must be why the full name for the device is "Transformer Ballast", eh?

No it isnt.

How odd that the word transformer doesnt even get a mention in
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ballast_%28electrical%29

Keep digging, you'll be out in china any day now.

Guess these guys didn't believe an amateur entry in Wikipedia:

http://www.saveonlighting.com/subcat...er __ecf_.htm

They clearly dont have a clue about the difference between a ballast and a transformer.

A transformer has two separate windings, a ballast/choke/inductor has just one.

wrote:
On Wed, 04 Jun 2008 12:57:45 -0700, David Nebenzahl
wrote:

On 6/4/2008 12:21 PM spake thus:

On Thu, 5 Jun 2008 05:04:06 +1000, "Rod Speed"
wrote:

How odd that the word transformer doesnt even get a mention in
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ballast_%28electrical%29

Keep digging, you'll be out in china any day now.

Guess these guys didn't believe an amateur entry in Wikipedia:

http://www.saveonlighting.com/subcat...er __ecf_.htm

That *is* a transformer (or it contains a transformer); we're talking
about the "old school" ballasts, which are just inductors.

But what I said before about not bothering arguing w/this asshole
still holds.

Yeah, it's not really worth the trouble. He's been posting his
nonsense for many years. Some folks call him Rod Speedbump because
he's such an impediment.

Never ever could bull**** its way out of a wet paper bag.

On 6/4/2008 4:04 PM Rod Speed spake thus:

[...]

Never ever could bull**** its way out of a wet paper bag.

"Hey, honey, could you smack that record player one more time? The
needle's stuck again!"


--
The best argument against democracy is a five-minute
conversation with the average voter.

- Attributed to Winston Churchill

David Nebenzahl wrote:
On 6/4/2008 4:04 PM Rod Speed spake thus:

"Hey, honey, could you smack that record player one more time? The needle's stuck again!"

Never ever could bull**** its way out of a wet paper bag.

Rod Speed wrote:
wrote:

On Wed, 04 Jun 2008 12:57:45 -0700, David Nebenzahl
wrote:


On 6/4/2008 12:21 PM spake thus:


On Thu, 5 Jun 2008 05:04:06 +1000, "Rod Speed"
wrote:


How odd that the word transformer doesnt even get a mention in
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ballast_%28electrical%29

Keep digging, you'll be out in china any day now.

Guess these guys didn't believe an amateur entry in Wikipedia:

http://www.saveonlighting.com/subcat...er __ecf_.htm

That *is* a transformer (or it contains a transformer); we're talking
about the "old school" ballasts, which are just inductors.

But what I said before about not bothering arguing w/this asshole
still holds.

Yeah, it's not really worth the trouble. He's been posting his
nonsense for many years. Some folks call him Rod Speedbump because
he's such an impediment.


Never ever could bull**** its way out of a wet paper bag.


Good introspection there.

--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form .

Rod Speed wrote:

David Nebenzahl wrote:

On 6/4/2008 4:04 PM Rod Speed spake thus:


"Hey, honey, could you smack that record player one more time? The needle's stuck again!"


Never ever could bull**** its way out of a wet paper bag.


QED

--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form .

CJT wrote:
Rod Speed wrote:
wrote:

On Wed, 04 Jun 2008 12:57:45 -0700, David Nebenzahl
wrote:


On 6/4/2008 12:21 PM spake thus:


On Thu, 5 Jun 2008 05:04:06 +1000, "Rod Speed"
wrote:


How odd that the word transformer doesnt even get a mention in
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ballast_%28electrical%29

Keep digging, you'll be out in china any day now.

Guess these guys didn't believe an amateur entry in Wikipedia:

http://www.saveonlighting.com/subcat...er __ecf_.htm

That *is* a transformer (or it contains a transformer); we're
talking about the "old school" ballasts, which are just inductors.

But what I said before about not bothering arguing w/this asshole
still holds.

Yeah, it's not really worth the trouble. He's been posting his
nonsense for many years. Some folks call him Rod Speedbump because
he's such an impediment.


Never ever could bull**** its way out of a wet paper bag.


Good introspection there.

Pathetic.

"max" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Edwin Pawlowski" wrote:

Just as the microwave has a clock based timer that counts down and shuts
if
off too. Makes is saver for children and seniours to use over other
cooking
apliances. Why would you want to eliminate that? You could step back 20
years and put in a windup timer but I don't see any real savings there.

a 1 watt load == 8769 watts/year


= about $1.50 a year

On 6/4/2008 6:15 PM Rod Speed spake thus:

CJT wrote:
Rod Speed wrote:

Never ever could bull**** its way out of a wet paper bag.

Good introspection there.

Pathetic.

Exactly.


--
The best argument against democracy is a five-minute
conversation with the average voter.

- Attributed to Winston Churchill

Rod Speed wrote:

CJT wrote:
snip

Good introspection there.


Pathetic.


Again with the introspection ...

--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form .

David Nebenzahl wrote:
On 6/4/2008 6:15 PM Rod Speed spake thus:

CJT wrote:
Rod Speed wrote:

Never ever could bull**** its way out of a wet paper bag.

Good introspection there.

Pathetic.

Exactly.

Pathetic.

CJT wrote:
Rod Speed wrote:

CJT wrote:
snip

Good introspection there.


Pathetic.


Again with the introspection ...

Pathetic.

In article ,
"Edwin Pawlowski" wrote:

"max" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Edwin Pawlowski" wrote:

Just as the microwave has a clock based timer that counts down and shuts
if
off too. Makes is saver for children and seniours to use over other
cooking
apliances. Why would you want to eliminate that? You could step back 20
years and put in a windup timer but I don't see any real savings there.

a 1 watt load == 8769 watts/year


= about $1.50 a year

duh.

Remember, that figure is for a single, solitary, one watt load. You're
correct tha on an individual basis, it's nothing. Of course, in
reality, in an average home that value is actually on the order of
twenty to one hundred times greater than one watt. Eventually piffling
little expenses like this add up for people, some more than others.

On a national basis, in the context of national energy policy, it
becomes truly significant.


..max

--
This signature can be appended to your outgoing mesages. Many people include in
their signatures contact information, and perhaps a joke or quotation.

David Nebenzahl wrote:
On 6/4/2008 4:04 PM Rod Speed spake thus:

[...]

Never ever could bull**** its way out of a wet paper bag.

"Hey, honey, could you smack that record player one more time? The
needle's stuck again!"

Vinyl is back.

Seriously though, the "wet paper bag" response is about the best
indicator you have that he's lost the argument and given up.

In misc.consumers.frugal-living Rod Speed wrote:
wrote

A countdown timer doesn't require a full-fledged time-of-day clock with
a display that is on all the time. Indeed, most modern microwaves
allow you to turn the TOD clock display off by hitting stop/clear
when it first powers up and the clock isn't set. That's a good feature.

But it doesnt any effect on the current draw with the device idling.

If designed properly it would. A TOD clock chip needs power 24/7,
but a countdown timer chip doesn't need power when the device shuts
off.

Bill Ranck
Blacksburg, Va.

wrote
Rod Speed wrote
wrote

A countdown timer doesn't require a full-fledged time-of-day clock
with a display that is on all the time. Indeed, most modern microwaves
allow you to turn the TOD clock display off by hitting stop/clear when it
first powers up and the clock isn't set. That's a good feature.

But it doesnt any effect on the current draw with the device idling.

If designed properly it would.

Nope.

A TOD clock chip needs power 24/7,

But that can be done with a coin cell that lasts for years and is with most watches and clocks.

but a countdown timer chip doesn't need power when the device shuts off.

Sure, but the difference is completely trivial in practice,
you get the shelf life of the coin cell in both cases.

max wrote:
....
That's why i call it dishonest. Because the limitations of windmill
technology do not require us to build more fossil fuel plants, and
because it's "relatively" trivial to built energy storage systems to
buffer their output, should we deem it helpful to do so.

The key word here is "relatively"... relative to what? We as yet don't
have a single large-scale energy storage system that I'm aware of.

Also, I didn't say wind "requires" more fossil and it can replace a
fraction of peak demand.

My point was (and still is) that one cannot build a 100(say) MWe wind
farm and expect to get 100 MWe from it in the same sense one can build
an equivalent 100 MWe of conventional (fossil or nuclear) generation.
Hence, the idea many promote that simply building wind farms eliminates
the need for conventional generation is imo even more intellectually
dishonest.

--

dpb wrote
max wrote:

That's why i call it dishonest. Because the limitations of windmill
technology do not require us to build more fossil fuel plants, and
because it's "relatively" trivial to built energy storage systems to
buffer their output, should we deem it helpful to do so.

The key word here is "relatively"... relative to what? We as yet don't have a single large-scale energy storage
system that I'm aware of.

You need to get out more.

There are a number of those using hydro systems that get the storage
by pumping water up at time of excess supply from the baseload coal
generators and return that power to the system at times of excess
demand by letting the water down again. Like the Australian Snowy
system that is primarily a storage system for the entire SE Australian grid
and generates only a minor part of its output from a single fall of water.

Also, I didn't say wind "requires" more fossil and it can replace a fraction of peak demand.

My point was (and still is) that one cannot build a 100(say) MWe wind
farm and expect to get 100 MWe from it in the same sense one can build
an equivalent 100 MWe of conventional (fossil or nuclear) generation.
Hence, the idea many promote that simply building wind farms eliminates the need for conventional generation is imo
even more intellectually dishonest.

Correct.

In misc.consumers.frugal-living Rod Speed wrote:
wrote
Rod Speed wrote

A TOD clock chip needs power 24/7,

But that can be done with a coin cell that lasts for years and is with most watches and clocks.

Of course nobody builds kitchen appliances that way.

but a countdown timer chip doesn't need power when the device shuts off.

Sure, but the difference is completely trivial in practice,
you get the shelf life of the coin cell in both cases.

Again, nobody uses coin cells in kitchen appliances, they all leach
power from the mains to keep their TOD clocks going. Adding a battery
would add manufacturing cost, just changing to a countdown timer would not.

Bill Ranck
Blacksburg, Va.

wrote
Rod Speed wrote
wrote
Rod Speed wrote

A TOD clock chip needs power 24/7,

But that can be done with a coin cell that lasts for years and is with most watches and clocks.

Of course nobody builds kitchen appliances that way.

But that does show what is trivially feasible current use wise.

but a countdown timer chip doesn't need power when the device shuts off.

Sure, but the difference is completely trivial in practice,
you get the shelf life of the coin cell in both cases.

Again, nobody uses coin cells in kitchen appliances, they all
leach power from the mains to keep their TOD clocks going.

Again, since you get the shelf life from the coin cell, that shows just
how much mains power is actually wasted in that TOD clock, nothing.

Adding a battery would add manufacturing cost,

And getting that trivial current from the mains doesnt.

just changing to a countdown timer would not.

Just leaving the TOD clock with that trivial current drain doesnt either.

Rod Speed wrote:
dpb wrote
....

There are a number of those using hydro systems that get the storage
by pumping water up at time of excess supply from the baseload coal
generators and return that power to the system at times of excess
demand by letting the water down again. ...

I am fully aware of pumped hydro storage. They're of da'ed little value
for the locations of most wind farms on the High Plains where there are
(a) no hills, (b) no surface water.

--

dpb wrote
Rod Speed wrote
dpb wrote
max wrote:

That's why i call it dishonest. Because the limitations of windmill
technology do not require us to build more fossil fuel plants, and
because it's "relatively" trivial to built energy storage systems to
buffer their output, should we deem it helpful to do so.

The key word here is "relatively"... relative to what? We as yet don't have a single large-scale energy storage
system that I'm aware of.

You need to get out more.

There are a number of those using hydro systems that get the storage
by pumping water up at time of excess supply from the baseload coal
generators and return that power to the system at times of excess
demand by letting the water down again. Like the Australian Snowy
system that is primarily a storage system for the entire SE Australian grid
and generates only a minor part of its output from a single fall of water.

I am fully aware of pumped hydro storage.

If you were, you wouldnt have made that stupid claim you clearly did make.

They're of da'ed little value for the locations of most wind farms on the High Plains where there are (a) no hills,
(b) no surface water.

Pity about the SE Australian grid where the wind farms
are part of the SAME grid as the pumped hydro storage.

Your 'as yet don't have a single large-scale energy storage
system that I'm aware of' is clearly just plain wrong.

AND it aint the only one either.

Rod Speed wrote:
dpb wrote
....
There are a number of those using hydro systems that get the storage
by pumping water up at time of excess supply from the baseload coal
generators and return that power to the system at times of excess
....
I am fully aware of pumped hydro storage.

If you were, you wouldnt have made that stupid claim you clearly did make.

No, I simply don't equate pumped storage w/ electricity storage --
they're separate forms...one _uses_ the (temporarily) excess power to
refill the power supply, the other would be a storage of the electric
power itself to be used later.

They're of da'ed little value for the locations of most wind farms on the High Plains where there are (a) no hills,
(b) no surface water.

Pity about the SE Australian grid where the wind farms
are part of the SAME grid as the pumped hydro storage.

Well, SE Australia isn't the US High Plains. There would have to be
even more currently nonexistent transmission lines built to supply the
power to somewhere there is sufficient elevation difference and water to
complete the system and that ain't within anywhere close. CO has
elevation but very little excess water. KS, OK, TX, NE, etc. have
minimal elevations. Catch-22.

Again, I repeat--even if pumped storage were the pancea, that _STILL_ is
an alternative system that would have to be built as a complement to the
wind farm system which _STILL_ is an added cost burden.

Your 'as yet don't have a single large-scale energy storage
system that I'm aware of' is clearly just plain wrong.

AND it aint the only one either.

Agreed, used to live just down the road from Smith Mtn. But, it still
ain't the same thing...

--

dpb wrote
Rod Speed wrote
dpb wrote
Rod Speed wrote
dpb wrote
max wrote:

That's why i call it dishonest. Because the limitations of windmill
technology do not require us to build more fossil fuel plants, and
because it's "relatively" trivial to built energy storage systems to
buffer their output, should we deem it helpful to do so.

The key word here is "relatively"... relative to what? We as yet don't have a single large-scale energy storage
system that I'm aware of.

You need to get out more.

There are a number of those using hydro systems that get the storage
by pumping water up at time of excess supply from the baseload coal
generators and return that power to the system at times of excess
demand by letting the water down again. Like the Australian Snowy
system that is primarily a storage system for the entire SE Australian grid
and generates only a minor part of its output from a single fall of water.

I am fully aware of pumped hydro storage.

If you were, you wouldnt have made that stupid claim you clearly did make.

No,

Yep.

I simply don't equate pumped storage w/ electricity storage

Then you are just plain wrong. That is precisely what they are.

they're separate forms...

Nope.

one _uses_ the (temporarily) excess power to refill the power supply, the other would be a storage of the electric
power itself to be used later.

They are BOTH storage of electrical power to be used later.

They're of da'ed little value for the locations of most wind farms on the High Plains where there are (a) no hills,
(b) no surface water.

Pity about the SE Australian grid where the wind farms
are part of the SAME grid as the pumped hydro storage.

Well, SE Australia isn't the US High Plains.

You never said anything about the US High Plains in that stupid claim you made that
"as yet don't have a single large-scale energy storage system that I'm aware of"

There would have to be even more currently nonexistent transmission lines built to supply the power to somewhere there
is sufficient elevation difference and water to complete the system and that ain't within anywhere close. CO has
elevation but very little excess water. KS, OK, TX, NE, etc. have minimal elevations. Catch-22.

Irrelevant to that stupid claim you made that "as yet don't have
a single large-scale energy storage system that I'm aware of"

Again, I repeat--even if pumped storage were the pancea,

No one ever said it was.

that _STILL_ is an alternative system that would have to be built as a complement to the wind farm system

Not when its already in place to allow constant loads on
coal fired power stations in massive countrywide grids.

which _STILL_ is an added cost burden.

Wrong, as always when its already in place to allow constant
loads on coal fired power stations in massive countrywide grids.

Your 'as yet don't have a single large-scale energy storage
system that I'm aware of' is clearly just plain wrong.

AND it aint the only one either.

Agreed, used to live just down the road from Smith Mtn. But, it still ain't the same thing...

Corse it is.