I've gone through my home and examined *every* electrical gadget, appliance,
etc.

98% of the products I have use electricity when not being used! 98%!!!!

Things which have no reason to use power when off! Things which used to have
a regular on/off switch.

Seems to me someone wants me to be using more electricity!

So I post on the internet that I am shutting this stuff off and I get a good
number of responses NOT wanting me to do this!

Seems to me someone wants me to be using more electricity!

Now a consumer suggests manufacturers should be required to make products
which use less electricity when off. Then that person gets hit with flak!

Seems to me someone wants everyone to be using more electricity!

On Sun, 23 Nov 2008 15:18:47 -0800, "Bill"
wrote:

I've gone through my home and examined *every* electrical gadget, appliance,
etc.

98% of the products I have use electricity when not being used! 98%!!!!

Things which have no reason to use power when off! Things which used to have
a regular on/off switch.

Seems to me someone wants me to be using more electricity!

So I post on the internet that I am shutting this stuff off and I get a good
number of responses NOT wanting me to do this!

Seems to me someone wants me to be using more electricity!

Now a consumer suggests manufacturers should be required to make products
which use less electricity when off. Then that person gets hit with flak!

Seems to me someone wants everyone to be using more electricity!

Hey, not me.

Vic - VP Marketing, Commonwealth Edison

On Sun, 23 Nov 2008 15:18:47 -0800, "Bill"
you wrote:

I've gone through my home and examined *every* electrical gadget, appliance,
etc.

98% of the products I have use electricity when not being used! 98%!!!!

Things which have no reason to use power when off! Things which used to have
a regular on/off switch.

Seems to me someone wants me to be using more electricity!

So I post on the internet that I am shutting this stuff off and I get a good
number of responses NOT wanting me to do this!

Seems to me someone wants me to be using more electricity!

Now a consumer suggests manufacturers should be required to make products
which use less electricity when off. Then that person gets hit with flak!

Seems to me someone wants everyone to be using more electricity!



Seems to me that you repeat yourself .... *A LOT*.

wrote:
The thing is, there is a doorbell that does not need any electrical
power. Simply mount a nice looking brass bell on the wall next to the
door, using a bracket. Drill a small hole in the wall a couple feet
above the bell, and attach a piece of nylon string to the bell. Push
the other end of the string thru the hole in the wall and let it hang
outside. Put a nice wooden bead on the end of the string. Then place
a sign that reads "PULL STRING FOR DOORBELL".

Cost: The price of the bell, bracket, string and bead. No further
costs for life, and no electrical energy needed ever.

If:
1) you live in a climate where you don't mind a hole between the inside
and the outside (at -30F with a stiff wind you want as few holes as
possible),
2) you don't have an enclosed porch, which would put the bell on the
porch outside the main door,
3) you can hear a bell by the entry even with one floor, several closed
doors, and perhaps some other sources of audio like kids or radios in
between.

So I can't knock your solution, it is an elegant one for people who live
in mild climates (I can even go one better there, if you always keep
your windows open people can just call for you through the open window).
But it won't work for everybody.

Dave

Bill wrote:

Seems to me someone wants everyone to be using more electricity!

It's not that no problem exists. You've said that you've *saved* over
$120/mo in electricity (more than twice as much as my entire electric
bill!). Clearly somewhere in your house there are things pulling
massive amounts of power.

What most of us are saying is that things like doorbell transformers and
wall warts don't consume enough electricity to be significant in this.
Now, unplugging unused wall warts isn't a bad idea. I've got most of
the ones I use to recharge batteries plugged into an outlet strip, and
only turn it on when I'm recharging something. But I don't know if I'm
recouping enough money to pay for the (cheap) outlet strip. Where you
need to look is 1) things that make heat (esp. electric heaters,
furnaces, stoves, and water heaters, for the most part stuff like hair
driers, coffee makers, waffle irons, etc. aren't turned on for long
enough to be of major significance if you're not living in a restaurant
or hair salon), 2) things with powerful electric motors (A/C, heat
pumps, dehumidifiers, blowers, refrigerators and freezers), and 3)
incandescent (including halogen) bulbs that are on for long periods.
Pretty much in that order. Those things are where your payback can be
real, and large.

Dave

On Nov 23, 7:45�pm, Dave Garland wrote:
Bill wrote:
Seems to me someone wants everyone to be using more electricity!

It's not that no problem exists. �You've said that you've *saved* over
$120/mo in electricity (more than twice as much as my entire electric
bill!). �Clearly somewhere in your house there are things pulling
massive amounts of power.

What most of us are saying is that things like doorbell transformers and
wall warts don't consume enough electricity to be significant in this.
� Now, unplugging unused wall warts isn't a bad idea. �I've got most of
the ones I use to recharge batteries plugged into an outlet strip, and
only turn it on when I'm recharging something. �But I don't know if I'm
recouping enough money to pay for the (cheap) outlet strip. �Where you
need to look is 1) things that make heat (esp. electric heaters,
furnaces, stoves, and water heaters, for the most part stuff like hair
driers, coffee makers, waffle irons, etc. aren't turned on for long
enough to be of major significance if you're not living in a restaurant
or hair salon), 2) things with powerful electric motors (A/C, heat
pumps, dehumidifiers, blowers, refrigerators and freezers), and 3)
incandescent (including halogen) bulbs that are on for long periods.
Pretty much in that order. �Those things are where your payback can be
real, and large.

Dave

the outlet strip likely has a power on light of some sort wasting
power when its on..

individually the amount wasted is likely small, however nationwide for
everyone it must add up and waste is waste.....

given global change and energy costs the less waste the better.

and my retired engineer pointed out things can be more efficent if you
design it this way.

its governments job to encourage efficency.

On Sun, 23 Nov 2008 15:18:47 -0800, "Bill"
wrote:

I've gone through my home and examined *every* electrical gadget, appliance,
etc.

98% of the products I have use electricity when not being used! 98%!!!!
-snip-

I would be interested in seeing your list of 50 or 100 items and
especially interested in seeing how much electricity they use.

I could do without electricity completely- except that I like the
convenience. I suspect the electricity your appliances are using
is providing some sort of convenience. If you'd rather use less
electricity and don't care about the convenience, then unplug them- or
put a switch on the plugs.

Jim

In article , Jim
Redelfs wrote:

In article ,
"Bill" wrote:

Wired doorbells have a transformer which is always on and always
using electricity.

So what? I lose more money each year in coins that have fallen between
the seats in my car.

Save the planet? Hardly. If everyone on the grid turned-off their
doorbell transformer, it wouldn't make ANY difference - not ONE iota -
in climate change. None. Zippo.

Most doorbell transformers consume a couple watts. Only a few hundred
million amounts to an amount fairly typical for an electric power plant,
at least an only moderately smallish one.

This is yet one more thing in the house which does this like
TV, microwave, remote control things, things with clocks,
plug-in phones, etc.

These things add up...

So what? Hang one - ONE - load of laundry on a line to dry instead of
using the clothes dryer and you've compensated for a LIFETIME of such
minor energy usage.

3 watts for a clock radio, 2 watts for the main cordless phone, 1 watt
for the other cordless phone, 1 watt for the microwave, 1 watt for the DTV
box, 11 watts for the TV, 2 watts for a doorbell... That is 21 watts.
Over 50 years that amounts to 9 megawatt-hours, and I don't have a video
recorder pluggen most of the time, and my computer, printer and monitor
are on a power strip - and I use the switch on that. A household's idling
load from low power constant loads can somewhat easily be 30 watts or
more.

- Don Klipstein )

In article , Mark Lloyd wrote:
On Thu, 20 Nov 2008 17:14:47 -0500, wrote:

[snip]

The incandescent lamp in the lighted doorbel button is likely 80% of
the real draw.

Can you get doorbell buttons with LEDs?

The incandescent lamp probably consumes about 1/4 watt maybe less, while
the idling transformer consumes a couple watts.

I still do delivery work and I have done so for many years, and I have
only seen one transformer-powered doorbell button with an LED. The LED
was a model with efficiency similar to or less than even the models of
incandescents lamps being used in doorbell buttons, as used in
doorbell buttons, with intended life expectancy of decades. The LED
appears to me to be from the 1970's or possibly early 1980's.

- Don Klipstein )

In ,
Andy Energy wrote:

On Nov 19, 6:21=A0pm, "Bill" wrote:
Wired doorbells have a transformer which is always on and always using
electricity. This is yet one more thing in the house which does this like
TV, microwave, remote control things, things with clocks, plug-in phones,
etc.

These things add up...

I replaced/rewired my switch so the transformer is only on when the
doorbell button is pressed! Thus the transformer is off most of the
time now.

I installed a regular electrical box at my front door, ran 14 ga. romex
from this box to the doorbell transformer, then got a nice brass blank
wall plate, drilled a hole in this plate, then installed a 120V
momentary push switch in the plate. Then wired this to switch on the
transformer when the button is pressed. Then connected the two wires
which were going to the old button so the doorbell would ring as soon
as it receives power from the transformer.

It is great to see someone actually measured the watt draw then did
the math for the houses in this country. Our houses have so many
small loads in them that we need to get busy and decrease them. No
I=92m not recommending making them unsafe, just efficient.

Here is some information from the California Energy Comission

1. "Energy Use of Household Electronics: Taming the Wild Growth" is a
two-page technical brief. The phantom load (the power used by
appliances that are in standby mode) of residential appliances in 50
California homes have been measured. Contrary to what might have been
expected, findings indicate that phantom load prevention (mostly by
unplugging appliances that are not in use), while still advisable,
would not save a great deal of energy. The loads of appliances in
active mode represent the lion's share of energy consumption, and
suggestions to reduce this energy use are offered as a means to bring
about much more dramatic energy savings than phantom load reductions
might. View this document at
http://www.esource.com/esource/getpu...df/cec/CEC-TB-
32_HsholdElectronics.pdf.

Yes, many houses do have 300 watt halogen torchiere lamps. Probably
most houses have quite a few incandescents that can be replaced with CFLs,
and a few still have older fridges that may consume twice as much power as
their replacements.

Some have electric dryers and a few have electric heat. Then there are
the big-screen TVs.

Along with air conditioning - some of which is used to pump out the heat
from the electric loads.

I would battle both the active loads and the phantom loads.

- Don Klipstein )

In article , PeterD wrote:
On Sat, 22 Nov 2008 16:40:02 -0800, "Bill"
wrote:

This thread has seemed to hit a nerve!

Why are so many people getting upset that I am working to eliminate "vampire
loads" in my house and reduce my electric bill?

Anyway here are the facts about "vampire power" for those who are interested
in this (can be 5% of your electric bill and 75% of the power for electronic
things is used while the devices are turned off!)....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standby_power


Pleae do not confuse Wikipedia for facts. As to that 75% number, it is
highly suspect.

Again, a simple cost/benefit analysis would show the best path to
follow. However, simple math is beyond many people who blindly follow
whatever the current fad is (be it global warming, electric cars, or
whatever) in an attempt to appear 'on top of things', and 'all wise'.

In the end, sure you can save a few penny's of electricity, and spend
dollars doing so.
SNIP from here

Putting in a little effort can decrease idling load by maybe 20 watts,
give or take (with major variation from household to household). That
amounts to about 175 KWH per year, or roughly about $20 per year at
current average residential electricity rates.

I really ought to get a power strip for my TV. Most of the energy it
consumes is consumed while it is off. Same is true of my DTV box. If my
computer system was not on a power strip, most of the energy consumed by
my printer and cable modem (and its wallwart) would be consumed while they
are off. If not for the power strip, about 5% of the energy consumed by
my monitor and 20% of the energy consumed by the contents of my tower case
would be consumed while they were off. And over 90% of the energy
consumed by my landline phone is consumed while it is on standby.

That 75% number sounds high to me - I think more like 30%, possibly
40%, which is still a lot.

- Don Klipstein )

In ,
terry wrote:

On Nov 23, 11:40*am, PeterD wrote:
On Sat, 22 Nov 2008 16:40:02 -0800, "Bill"

wrote:
This thread has seemed to hit a nerve!

Why are so many people getting upset that I am working to eliminate "vampire
loads" in my house and reduce my electric bill?

Anyway here are the facts about "vampire power" for those who are interested
in this (can be 5% of your electric bill and 75% of the power for electronic
things is used while the devices are turned off!)....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standby_power

Please do not confuse Wikipedia for facts. As to that 75% number, it is
highly suspect.

Again, a simple cost/benefit analysis would show the best path to
follow. However, simple math is beyond many people who blindly follow
whatever the current fad is (be it global warming, electric cars, or
whatever) in an attempt to appear 'on top of things', and 'all wise'.

In the end, sure you can save a few penny's of electricity, and spend
dollars doing so. And perhaps you feel good doing it that way. Fine,
it's your house, as long as no one else gets hurt, go for it. But, if
you are really interested in saving money (or energy) then I'd
recommend thinking about what you are doing, looking at real numbers,
analyzing the various factors (including items such as startup
current) and seeing what is the real best solution.

Exactly. What interested people here I think was the the fallacy and
futility of worrying about a minuscule amount of wasted energy;
equivalent perhaps to the home heat lost during time taken to have the
front door open on a cold day to bring in a few bags of groceries!

175 KWH ballpark is what it takes to recover from letting cold air while
bringing in groceries?

It's heartening though that in this day and age of wasteful and
prodigal monster homes, jacuzzi and swimming pool styles of living,
V8 Hummers etc. (A situation possibly being currently amended by
'tightening our belts'?) is that there is awareness and interest in
WHAT IS WORTH DOING to conserve.

WHAT IS WORTH DOING includes atacking all worthwhile fronts, not just
the most worthwhile one. (And no, I don't drive a V8 anything. When I
drive a personal vehicle for personal use, it is usually the Bianchi. And
the other one has an aerodynamic body, 6-cylinder engine designed for
fuel economy more than horsepower and a tranny with a lockup torque
converter.)

What seems to escape many is that by spending many dollars to use
manufactured items one only saves a few cents worth of energy.

I think a couple power strips can fairly easily save about $20 per year.

All manufactured items require resources and energy to manufacture. For
example how much elctrcity is required say, to refine iron ore, make
galvanized sheet steel and stamp out an electrical outlet box, along
with the energy required to run the factory in which it is made,
package it, transport it to a local retail outlet, stock the shelves,
buy or have screws to mount, bring it home, etc. etc. ??????

The price to buy it has to cover the cost of the energy used to produce
and transport it, as well as taxes and overhead and labor.

A neighbour (driven by a wife with virtually zero technical
appreciation) has gone all CFLs. Even for those locations where lights
are only used occasionally. Each CFL costs around $3 compared to the
25 cent el-cheapos I use and requires several manufacturing operations
involving electronic components and a very small amount of mercury.

A decent CFL actually reduces mercury contribution to the environment by
reducing coal burning. But I do agree in using them only where
appropriate - they tend to not be appropriate for use where they have
little on-time and the on-time in short usages.

But their electricity consumption has changed little.
Why? Because they like most here they use electrcity for heating.

You think most people have resistive electric heat?

So any waste heat from 'inefficient' old fashioned incandescent light
bulbs does not contribute to warming the home; likewise an
'inefficient' fridge etc. lost heat from an electric hot water tank
etc.

What about in homes with oil or gas heat? Electric resstive heating at
usual electrical cost rates costs more than oil or gas for heating. What
about in homes with heat pumps - where electricity consumption is only
half the energy heating the home (the other half is pumped in from
outside)? What about when it is not heating season? What about when it
is air conditioning season - when energy is consumed to pump the heat out?

One item that does waste heat energy is a clothes dryer; it just
chucks warm damp air outside for some 20 to 30 minutes each time it is
run. Hey must cost that out! We run ours as little as possible and
whenver weather allows dry heavy items, blankets, towels etc. on our
two cothes lines. See item on clothe line supports.

- Don Klipstein )

On Sun, 23 Nov 2008 16:58:51 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:

On Nov 23, 7:45?pm, Dave Garland wrote:
Bill wrote:
Seems to me someone wants everyone to be using more electricity!

It's not that no problem exists. ?You've said that you've *saved* over
$120/mo in electricity (more than twice as much as my entire electric
bill!). ?Clearly somewhere in your house there are things pulling
massive amounts of power.

What most of us are saying is that things like doorbell transformers and
wall warts don't consume enough electricity to be significant in this.
? Now, unplugging unused wall warts isn't a bad idea. ?I've got most of
the ones I use to recharge batteries plugged into an outlet strip, and
only turn it on when I'm recharging something. ?But I don't know if I'm
recouping enough money to pay for the (cheap) outlet strip. ?Where you
need to look is 1) things that make heat (esp. electric heaters,
furnaces, stoves, and water heaters, for the most part stuff like hair
driers, coffee makers, waffle irons, etc. aren't turned on for long
enough to be of major significance if you're not living in a restaurant
or hair salon), 2) things with powerful electric motors (A/C, heat
pumps, dehumidifiers, blowers, refrigerators and freezers), and 3)
incandescent (including halogen) bulbs that are on for long periods.
Pretty much in that order. ?Those things are where your payback can be
real, and large.

Dave

the outlet strip likely has a power on light of some sort wasting
power when its on..

individually the amount wasted is likely small, however nationwide for
everyone it must add up and waste is waste.....

given global change and energy costs the less waste the better.

and my retired engineer pointed out things can be more efficent if you
design it this way.

its governments job to encourage efficency.


But how do you control it when 95%+ of the crap consuming the
"phantom" power is made in China? They don't play by the US's rules.

On Nov 23, 10:25�pm, (Don Klipstein) wrote:
In article , PeterD wrote:
On Sat, 22 Nov 2008 16:40:02 -0800, "Bill"
wrote:

This thread has seemed to hit a nerve!

Why are so many people getting upset that I am working to eliminate "vampire
loads" in my house and reduce my electric bill?

Anyway here are the facts about "vampire power" for those who are interested
in this (can be 5% of your electric bill and 75% of the power for electronic
things is used while the devices are turned off!)....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standby_power

Pleae do not confuse Wikipedia for facts. As to that 75% number, it is
highly suspect.

Again, a simple cost/benefit analysis would show the best path to
follow. However, simple math is beyond many people who blindly follow
whatever the current fad is (be it global warming, electric cars, or
whatever) in an attempt to appear 'on top of things', and 'all wise'.

In the end, sure you can save a few penny's of electricity, and spend
dollars doing so.

SNIP from here

� Putting in a little effort can decrease idling load by maybe 20 watts,
give or take (with major variation from household to household). �That
amounts to about 175 KWH per year, or roughly about $20 per year at
current average residential electricity rates.

� I really ought to get a power strip for my TV. �Most of the energy it
consumes is consumed while it is off. �Same is true of my DTV box.. �If my
computer system was not on a power strip, most of the energy consumed by
my printer and cable modem (and its wallwart) would be consumed while they
are off. �If not for the power strip, about 5% of the energy consumed by
my monitor and 20% of the energy consumed by the contents of my tower case
would be consumed while they were off. �And over 90% of the energy
consumed by my landline phone is consumed while it is on standby.

� That 75% number sounds high to me - I think more like 30%, possibly
40%, which is still a lot.

�- Don Klipstein )- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

tv life expectancy and othewr deevices may be less,turned off from
thermal cycle shock.

DTV boxes use idle time to download guide updates and other utilities.

its not a free lunch

In , Jim Redelfs wrote:

In ,
" wrote:

government should require energy efficency numbers on everything with
minimum standards

I respectfully disagree.

It's more than enough that the government has mandated energy efficiency
labels on MAJOR energy consuming items such as HVAC components, water
heaters, laundry equipment, refrigerators and freezers.

Mandating testing and labeling for energy efficiency on "everything"
from toasters (virtually 100% efficient, BTW)

At what? How much of the heat heats the target and how much goes
elsewhere? Especially when it is air conditioning season?

to doorbell transformers
would be too intrusive, costly and accomplish little if anything.

Given your figures in earlier articles in this thread compared to ones I
can show, I don't think it's a big deal for doorbell transformers to have
to show their power consumption. And I doubt the cost would have to be
increased more than $2 if the core material is "29M6" (or similarly good)
as opposed to something only a couple steps above recycled ship hulls, and
the primary turns count is increased enough to get peak magnetization down
to about 13.75 kilogauss or so at 125 V. Doing all that can save most
consumers about 75 cents to $1 per year per doorbell transformer.

Government rarely "gets it right" with the big and important things. I
shudder to think of it getting into such trivial things.

I think "Energy Star" has done reasonably well, except for an instance
brought to my attention earlier this year where EPA apparently did some
boneheaded turf battle move against DOE in the area of LED lighting.

- Don Klipstein )

In , Dave Garland wrote:
Bill wrote:

Seems to me someone wants everyone to be using more electricity!

It's not that no problem exists. You've said that you've *saved* over
$120/mo in electricity (more than twice as much as my entire electric
bill!). Clearly somewhere in your house there are things pulling
massive amounts of power.

What most of us are saying is that things like doorbell transformers and
wall warts don't consume enough electricity to be significant in this.
Now, unplugging unused wall warts isn't a bad idea. I've got most of
the ones I use to recharge batteries plugged into an outlet strip, and
only turn it on when I'm recharging something. But I don't know if I'm
recouping enough money to pay for the (cheap) outlet strip.

Most of those wallwarts when idling consume 1-2 watts of electricity,
..5-1 watt if they are more modern "switchmode" ones as opposed to ones
with iron core transformers. Modern cellphone chargers consume
about .5 watt unloaded. (There is a noticeable weight difference
between switchmode ones and iron core ones.)

1 watt costs close to $1 per year at average residential electric
billing rates in the USA. I think that the power strip will have a
payback rate exceeding that of a decent mutual fund experiencing a bhull
market.

Where you
need to look is

1) things that make heat (esp. electric heaters,
furnaces, stoves, and water heaters, for the most part stuff like hair
driers, coffee makers, waffle irons, etc. aren't turned on for long
enough to be of major significance if you're not living in a restaurant
or hair salon),

2) things with powerful electric motors (A/C, heat
pumps, dehumidifiers, blowers, refrigerators and freezers),

Blower motors don't consume nearly as much power as refrigeration/AC/
heatpump compressor motors. But some blowers are not nearly as efficient
as they can be now, and some refrigeration from 20 years ago still exists
now, while being something like 40-50% as efficient as the modern stuff.

and 3)
incandescent (including halogen) bulbs that are on for long periods.

Pretty much in that order.

That depends on the home. Some homes are in locations with lower
climate control needs. Some homes are occupied by occupants with
lower climate control needs. Also consider that (3) can add to load of
(2) since heat from incandescent bulbs adds to heat to be pumped out of
the home by air conditioning.

Those things are where your payback can be real, and large.

I would do everything where the payback rate exceeds that of long term
dividend-reinvested performance of the S&P 500 (and that exceeds long term
performance of value of a lot with a house on it).

- Don Klipstein )

Red Green wrote:
E Z Peaces wrote in


I used to do that with a AA cell and a transformer made to energize
two conductors of a telephone cable to light a dial. Occasionally I
found an unsuspecting person to hold the plug.

I also used to enjoy putting my tongue on the terminals of a 9 volt
battery.

That was cool wasn't it! Did you also used to eat the paper paste in
kiddie school art class?

School paste was bland. I preferred homemade paste with a lots of alum.

In ,
wrote:

SNIP in part due to stray MIME-related characters popping in)

the outlet strip likely has a power on light of some sort wasting
power when its on..

That is 1/4-1/3 watt, occaisionally less.

individually the amount wasted is likely small, however nationwide for
everyone it must add up and waste is waste.....

given global change and energy costs the less waste the better.

and my retired engineer pointed out things can be more efficent if you
design it this way.

Power strips without lights are common and easily available.

I also know how to get in a light consuming only 1/20 watt! Make it an
InGaN green LED, in series with a 150K 1/4 watt resistor and a suitable
diode. Put a second diode across the LED antiparallel with the LED
(parallel in opposite directions). This also usually works fairly well
with an InGaN blue LED despite discouraging numbers for photometrics.

And I think that manufacturing cost of adding that in at the 100,000
unit per year level should be something like roughly 30-40 cents or so
above that of using an NE-2H neon lamp and its appropriate resistor.
That can still bump up the retail price a couple bucks. Retail price
goes up $1 according to a business model selling minimum of 1/4 million
and preferably 1/2 million units per year.
Spend 1-2 bucks more for a power strip having an "on light" to consume
1/4 watt less and keeping the "on light" decently bright (save 20-25 cents
less per year) - rate of return is comparable to or somewhat more than
that of long term performance of an S&P 500 index fund, should the power
strip last at least 20-30 years.

The LED cost can be brought down maybe a dime if instead of InGaN
chemistry, the LED is the variant of GaP that is the most major one of the
ones to be known as "low current red". Peak wavelength of that one is
usually noted as 690, 697 or 700 nm - but the spectrum is a broadband red
one, so most of the photometric output is not from "borderline infrared".
It will be rather dim at average current of .34 milliamp, but still easily
visible in a dark room. It is probably a good idea with this LED to use a
120K-ohm resistor instead of a 150K one (power consumption is increased
from 1/20 watt to 1/16 watt) - and I would only do so if using such a red
LED instead of the better green one is necessary and sufficient to
decrease the retail price by a buck.

its governments job to encourage efficency.

That I agree with!

- Don Klipstein )

In article , Jim Elbrecht wrote:
On Sun, 23 Nov 2008 15:18:47 -0800, "Bill"
wrote:

I've gone through my home and examined *every* electrical gadget, appliance,
etc.

98% of the products I have use electricity when not being used! 98%!!!!
-snip-

I would be interested in seeing your list of 50 or 100 items and
especially interested in seeing how much electricity they use.
SNIP from here

If it's merely 60-70% of everything and their usage-while-off is 3-5% of
electric bill of 1/4-1/3 of people with electric bills, that is still
significant!

- Don Klipstein )

In , J Redelfs said:
In article ,
PeterD wrote:

In the end, sure you can save a few penny's of electricity,
and spend dollars doing so.

There is an old phrase for that. It predates the concept of "green" and
energy conservation by some centuries:

Penny wise and pound foolish.

And I can save pounds per year for a few pounds via a move that you
deride as penny-wise-pound-foolish. Looks like I gotta put a switchable
power strip for my TV and DTV box onto my written shopping list, since a
parttime engineer also having a delivery job and a long term lover at age
47 is subject to brain memory overloading!!!

- Don Klipstein )

On Mon, 24 Nov 2008 04:51:49 +0000 (UTC), Don Klipstein wrote:
In article , Jim Elbrecht wrote:
On Sun, 23 Nov 2008 15:18:47 -0800, "Bill"
wrote:

I've gone through my home and examined *every* electrical gadget, appliance,
etc.

98% of the products I have use electricity when not being used! 98%!!!!
-snip-

I would be interested in seeing your list of 50 or 100 items and
especially interested in seeing how much electricity they use.
SNIP from here

If it's merely 60-70% of everything and their usage-while-off is 3-5% of
electric bill of 1/4-1/3 of people with electric bills, that is still
significant!

Not really. You get far better return on your time and money by going
after the 95-97%. Turn lights off when not in use. Unclog the line
from the dryer. Go with a more efficient water heater and fridge if
they're ancient. Spending a thousand dollars worth of time and supplies
to trim off $2/month is insanity. It is the high wattage items that
matter. Not three dozen quarter watt items that don't add up to 5 watts
or to a whole ten dollars a year.

E Z Peaces wrote:
Craig M wrote:
That pulse can pack a pretty good hit, want to try something, flash a
9 volt batt on the low voltage side of a doorbell transformer, and
feel what you get on the other side.
that pulse can back feed through the house wiring, and posiblilty zap
something else.
Thats all I was worried about.

I used to do that with a AA cell and a transformer made to energize two
conductors of a telephone cable to light a dial. Occasionally I found
an unsuspecting person to hold the plug.

I also used to enjoy putting my tongue on the terminals of a 9 volt
battery.

The doorbell might absorb some of the pulse, but not as well as a
resistive load. I agree that if you didn't get shocked pressing the
button, you might get shocked releasing it.

If you are really out of your mind like me.
You can stick this battery to your tongue
or for a psychedelic effect stick it to your
forehead.

http://tinyurl.com/6hxpgr

TDD

In article ,
Bill wrote:
I've gone through my home and examined *every* electrical gadget, appliance,
etc.

98% of the products I have use electricity when not being used! 98%!!!!

Things which have no reason to use power when off! Things which used to have
a regular on/off switch.

Seems to me someone wants me to be using more electricity!

So I post on the internet that I am shutting this stuff off and I get a good
number of responses NOT wanting me to do this!

And I can easily tell you why.
Take a close look at your first article in this rather long thread.
Now using just that article, don't you see a rather nasty potential for
injuring or killing someone?

So the immediate reaction from the people reading is

"What an IDIOT! He wants to save a couple of cents per month at the risk
of potentially killing someone! I have got to stop someone else from doing
something this stupid and also potentially harming someone else"

Then later in the tread, you mention actually using a GFCI and wiring
everything to code, etc., etc., etc. But you totally ignore anything
involving return on investment. In order to save pennies, you spend 10s of
dollars. Not a rational choice, but it is your choice.

On Mon, 24 Nov 2008 00:37:48 -0500 (EST), (J.
Cochran) wrote:

In article ,
Bill wrote:
I've gone through my home and examined *every* electrical gadget, appliance,
etc.

98% of the products I have use electricity when not being used! 98%!!!!

Things which have no reason to use power when off! Things which used to have
a regular on/off switch.

Seems to me someone wants me to be using more electricity!

So I post on the internet that I am shutting this stuff off and I get a good
number of responses NOT wanting me to do this!

And I can easily tell you why.
Take a close look at your first article in this rather long thread.
Now using just that article, don't you see a rather nasty potential for
injuring or killing someone?

So the immediate reaction from the people reading is

"What an IDIOT! He wants to save a couple of cents per month at the risk
of potentially killing someone! I have got to stop someone else from doing
something this stupid and also potentially harming someone else"

Then later in the tread, you mention actually using a GFCI and wiring
everything to code, etc., etc., etc. But you totally ignore anything
involving return on investment. In order to save pennies, you spend 10s of
dollars. Not a rational choice, but it is your choice.

I take issue with your assertion that this a long thread.
We haven't even begun to put a value on "Pride of Ownership."
Forget about the 120 volt welcome to strangers.
That's a distraction from the real issue.
Which is "Pride of Ownership."
Whether it be your home or the apartment you are renting, consider
this: The first impression you make on a visitor is your door, your
doormat, and your doorbell or knocker.
Also your house/apartment numbering if you care to be found.
Take care of them and they will take care of you.
I'm giving my daughter a new door mat for Christmas.
Its color complements her home decor.
Not the usual "Welcome."
It says "Go Away."
She may not think it appropriate. I leave the decision in her hands.
Whatever she decides, a doormat is the smile your entryway presents to
the world at large. But maybe not that one.
This doormat costs 5 bucks.
Yes, for as little as 5 bucks you can present an image to the world
that says what you want it to say.
That's many years of the transformer electricity savings being
discussed. And much more valuable IN THE LONG RUN.
Return on investment?
What price "Pride of Ownership?" That's real ROI.
Until the depths are plumbed trying our best to answer the real
question - What price "Pride of Ownnership" - it is fruitless to waste
time on transformer pennies.
That's my strong belief. Others may disagree.

--Vic (VicsDiscountDoormatsDoorbellsandKnockers.com)

(CUSTOMIZED DOOR MAT WORDING AT LOW COST)

wrote:
On Sun, 23 Nov 2008 16:58:51 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:

On Nov 23, 7:45?pm, Dave Garland wrote:
Bill wrote:
Seems to me someone wants everyone to be using more electricity!
It's not that no problem exists. ?You've said that you've *saved* over
$120/mo in electricity (more than twice as much as my entire electric
bill!). ?Clearly somewhere in your house there are things pulling
massive amounts of power.

What most of us are saying is that things like doorbell transformers and
wall warts don't consume enough electricity to be significant in this.
? Now, unplugging unused wall warts isn't a bad idea. ?I've got most of
the ones I use to recharge batteries plugged into an outlet strip, and
only turn it on when I'm recharging something. ?But I don't know if I'm
recouping enough money to pay for the (cheap) outlet strip. ?Where you
need to look is 1) things that make heat (esp. electric heaters,
furnaces, stoves, and water heaters, for the most part stuff like hair
driers, coffee makers, waffle irons, etc. aren't turned on for long
enough to be of major significance if you're not living in a restaurant
or hair salon), 2) things with powerful electric motors (A/C, heat
pumps, dehumidifiers, blowers, refrigerators and freezers), and 3)
incandescent (including halogen) bulbs that are on for long periods.
Pretty much in that order. ?Those things are where your payback can be
real, and large.

Dave
the outlet strip likely has a power on light of some sort wasting
power when its on..

individually the amount wasted is likely small, however nationwide for
everyone it must add up and waste is waste.....

given global change and energy costs the less waste the better.

and my retired engineer pointed out things can be more efficent if you
design it this way.

its governments job to encourage efficency.


But how do you control it when 95%+ of the crap consuming the
"phantom" power is made in China? They don't play by the US's rules.

But the Chi Coms need to meet our requirements if it is sold here. I
can't remember the last time I saw a new walwart that wasn't a much more
efficient switcher design instead of an inefficient transformer.

Jim Redelfs wrote:
In article ,
"Bill" wrote:

Wired doorbells have a transformer which is always on and always
using electricity.

So what? I lose more money each year in coins that have fallen between
the seats in my car.

Save the planet? Hardly. If everyone on the grid turned-off their
doorbell transformer, it wouldn't make ANY difference - not ONE iota -
in climate change. None. Zippo.

Actually the small waste is what adds up the most.


This is yet one more thing in the house which does this like
TV, microwave, remote control things, things with clocks,
plug-in phones, etc.

These things add up...

So what? Hang one - ONE - load of laundry on a line to dry instead of
using the clothes dryer and you've compensated for a LIFETIME of such
minor energy usage.

I replaced/rewired my switch so the transformer is only on when the doorbell
button is pressed! Thus the transformer is off most of the time now.

You need to get a job or a life - or both.

You could have saved yourself a lot of time, effort and money by simply
turning-off the transformer and removing the doorbell button. Let 'em
KNOCK.

[Shaking my head, walking away and muttering] Unbelievable.

terry wrote:
On Nov 23, 11:40�am, PeterD wrote:
On Sat, 22 Nov 2008 16:40:02 -0800, "Bill"

wrote:

A neighbour (driven by a wife with virtually zero technical
appreciation) has gone all CFLs. Even for those locations where lights
are only used occasionally. Each CFL costs around $3 compared to the
25 cent el-cheapos I use and requires several manufacturing operations
involving electronic components and a very small amount of mercury.
But their electricity consumption has changed little.

Why? Because they like most here they use electrcity for heating. So
any waste heat from 'inefficient' old fashioned incandescent light
bulbs does not contribute to warming the home; likewise an
'inefficient' fridge etc. lost heat from an electric hot water tank
etc.

proper analysis:
http://www.wiki.diyfaq.org.uk/index.php?title=CFL_Lamps


One item that does waste heat energy is a clothes dryer; it just
chucks warm damp air outside for some 20 to 30 minutes each time it is
run. Hey must cost that out! We run ours as little as possible and
whenver weather allows dry heavy items, blankets, towels etc. on our
two cothes lines. See item on clothe line supports.

Cheers.

Way more frugal and less work too:
http://www.wiki.diyfaq.org.uk/index....=Clothes_Dryer


NT

On Nov 22, 7:40 pm, "Bill" wrote:


Why are so many people getting upset that I am working to eliminate "vampire
loads" in my house and reduce my electric bill?

Upset? NO - just amazed at your cost/benefit line of reasoning. It's
fine to try to reduce energy consumption, but not the way you attacked
that doorbell situation.

On Mon, 24 Nov 2008 08:17:33 -0500, George
wrote:

[snip]

But the Chi Coms need to meet our requirements if it is sold here. I
can't remember the last time I saw a new walwart that wasn't a much more
efficient switcher design instead of an inefficient transformer.

The new wall-warts are smaller, but it's NOT by eliminating the
transformer. These new ones begin with an AC-to-AC converter, that
operates on line voltage and raises the frequency. A higher frequency
requires a smaller transformer.

"Switcher" refers to a more efficient voltage regulator, that controls
the DC output by turning it on and off rather than by wasting power
like a linear regulator (as in older wall warts) does. This also makes
it smaller by reducing the need for a heat sink.

In article ,
(Don Klipstein) wrote:

A household's idling load from low power constant loads
can somewhat easily be 30 watts or more.

At .10/kWh, that amounts to ~$26.30/year.

I can EASILY live with that. If that figure were to triple, I might
CONSIDER eliminating "idling load". (Nice term, BTW)

I would more likely follow my own advice and hang out to dry a few loads
of laundry that would otherwise be dried in the electric clothes dryer.
--

JR

On Mon, 24 Nov 2008 08:17:33 -0500, George
wrote:

wrote:
On Sun, 23 Nov 2008 16:58:51 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:

On Nov 23, 7:45?pm, Dave Garland wrote:
Bill wrote:
Seems to me someone wants everyone to be using more electricity!
It's not that no problem exists. ?You've said that you've *saved* over
$120/mo in electricity (more than twice as much as my entire electric
bill!). ?Clearly somewhere in your house there are things pulling
massive amounts of power.

What most of us are saying is that things like doorbell transformers and
wall warts don't consume enough electricity to be significant in this.
? Now, unplugging unused wall warts isn't a bad idea. ?I've got most of
the ones I use to recharge batteries plugged into an outlet strip, and
only turn it on when I'm recharging something. ?But I don't know if I'm
recouping enough money to pay for the (cheap) outlet strip. ?Where you
need to look is 1) things that make heat (esp. electric heaters,
furnaces, stoves, and water heaters, for the most part stuff like hair
driers, coffee makers, waffle irons, etc. aren't turned on for long
enough to be of major significance if you're not living in a restaurant
or hair salon), 2) things with powerful electric motors (A/C, heat
pumps, dehumidifiers, blowers, refrigerators and freezers), and 3)
incandescent (including halogen) bulbs that are on for long periods.
Pretty much in that order. ?Those things are where your payback can be
real, and large.

Dave
the outlet strip likely has a power on light of some sort wasting
power when its on..

individually the amount wasted is likely small, however nationwide for
everyone it must add up and waste is waste.....

given global change and energy costs the less waste the better.

and my retired engineer pointed out things can be more efficent if you
design it this way.

its governments job to encourage efficency.


But how do you control it when 95%+ of the crap consuming the
"phantom" power is made in China? They don't play by the US's rules.

But the Chi Coms need to meet our requirements if it is sold here. I
can't remember the last time I saw a new walwart that wasn't a much more
efficient switcher design instead of an inefficient transformer.


You think so, eh?
How about the lead paint on toys, and Melamine in milk products and
pet food?

They meet our requirements, do they?

And how about all those switch mode power supplies with defective
electrolitic caps, that draw about 3 times the idle current they were
designed to draw?

All because some ChiCom, as you call them, decided to cut corners
(that's the only thing they are good at, by the way) on the formula
for the electrolyte.

If I NEVER had to deal with another Chinese product it would be too
soon, as far as I'm concerned. In my business (Computers) there would
be NO product if there was no Chinese crap.

Gary H wrote:
On Mon, 24 Nov 2008 08:17:33 -0500, George
wrote:

[snip]

But the Chi Coms need to meet our requirements if it is sold here. I
can't remember the last time I saw a new walwart that wasn't a much
more efficient switcher design instead of an inefficient transformer.

The new wall-warts are smaller, but it's NOT by eliminating the
transformer. These new ones begin with an AC-to-AC converter,
that operates on line voltage and raises the frequency. A higher
frequency requires a smaller transformer.

They dont have any transformer that uses power all the time.

"Switcher" refers to a more efficient voltage regulator,

Wrong. It always refers to what you listed above.

that controls the DC output by turning it on and off rather than by
wasting power like a linear regulator (as in older wall warts) does.
This also makes it smaller by reducing the need for a heat sink.

wrote:
the outlet strip likely has a power on light of some sort wasting
power when its on..

But not when it's off And that power is probably returned manyfold
by virtue of the fact that the light reminds you that the other things
plugged in are continuing to use power, so you turn it off sooner.

In any case, mostly the power-on light is a switch with something like a
built-in NE-2 (1/17 watt) bulb. No big deal.

individually the amount wasted is likely small, however nationwide for
everyone it must add up and waste is waste.....

It's true. But we need to maintain a sense of proportionality. A
single person running central air sucks as much power (3-20KW) as
150,000 outlet strip indicator lights. A single load of clothes in an
electric dryer uses as much power (6KWH) as 12 outlet strip indicator
lights do in a year. So while we don't want to completely ignore the
small stuff, the bulk of our effort needs to be reducing the use of
those power hogs.

Dave

In , letterman@inv*.* wrote:

The thing is, there is a doorbell that does not need any electrical
power. Simply mount a nice looking brass bell on the wall next to the
door, using a bracket. Drill a small hole in the wall a couple feet
above the bell, and attach a piece of nylon string to the bell. Push
the other end of the string thru the hole in the wall and let it hang
outside. Put a nice wooden bead on the end of the string. Then place
a sign that reads "PULL STRING FOR DOORBELL".

Cost: The price of the bell, bracket, string and bead. No further
costs for life, and no electrical energy needed ever.

You just reminded me of the doorbell at "Neighborhood Bike Works", AKA
"The Bike Church". That outfit uses some space at a church.

There is a sign sying, as best as I remember: "Pull brake lever to ring
doorbell".

They have a handlebar mounted onto something or other close to the
handrail for the stairway for that offbeat entrance into the church
complex. The brake lever is connected to a brake cable, that is routed
through a small diameter hole in the exterior wall. Apparently, the other
end of the brake cable pulls the lever on a bicycle bell that is suitably
mounted.

- Don Klipstein )

Raising the frequency also is easier to rectify and filter the sine wave
out, to give DC voltage.

"Gary H" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 24 Nov 2008 08:17:33 -0500, George
wrote:

[snip]

But the Chi Coms need to meet our requirements if it is sold here. I
can't remember the last time I saw a new walwart that wasn't a much more
efficient switcher design instead of an inefficient transformer.

The new wall-warts are smaller, but it's NOT by eliminating the
transformer. These new ones begin with an AC-to-AC converter, that
operates on line voltage and raises the frequency. A higher frequency
requires a smaller transformer.

"Switcher" refers to a more efficient voltage regulator, that controls
the DC output by turning it on and off rather than by wasting power
like a linear regulator (as in older wall warts) does. This also makes
it smaller by reducing the need for a heat sink.

In ,
wrote:

Jim Redelfs wrote:
SNIP what was already said

The other point worth making is that the power and cost figures for
standby power are routinely exaggerated.

The ones I mentioned in this thread are actual measurements. I have a
watt meter!

Those with political interest
in having everyone else unplug everything are either not competent in
the subject, or are happy to be lses than honest to try to motivate
others to unplug.

And of course, biggest of all... youve only got one life, try to spend
the time doing something useful. Speaking of which.... later.

- Don Klipstein )

Don Klipstein wrote:
In , letterman@inv*.* wrote:

The thing is, there is a doorbell that does not need any electrical
power. Simply mount a nice looking brass bell on the wall next to the
door, using a bracket. Drill a small hole in the wall a couple feet
above the bell, and attach a piece of nylon string to the bell. Push
the other end of the string thru the hole in the wall and let it hang
outside. Put a nice wooden bead on the end of the string. Then place
a sign that reads "PULL STRING FOR DOORBELL".

Cost: The price of the bell, bracket, string and bead. No further
costs for life, and no electrical energy needed ever.

You just reminded me of the doorbell at "Neighborhood Bike Works", AKA
"The Bike Church". That outfit uses some space at a church.

There is a sign sying, as best as I remember: "Pull brake lever to ring
doorbell".

They have a handlebar mounted onto something or other close to the
handrail for the stairway for that offbeat entrance into the church
complex. The brake lever is connected to a brake cable, that is routed
through a small diameter hole in the exterior wall. Apparently, the other
end of the brake cable pulls the lever on a bicycle bell that is suitably
mounted.

- Don Klipstein )

My favorite doorbell buttons:

http://tinyurl.com/yr7e8k

http://tinyurl.com/6a9fwj

TDD

On Tue, 25 Nov 2008 05:27:10 +1100, "Rod Speed"
wrote:

[snip]


They dont have any transformer that uses power all the time.

Possible with any wall-wart you add a switch to. Making it automatic
would be tricky, without power to turn it back on.


"Switcher" refers to a more efficient voltage regulator,

Wrong. It always refers to what you listed above.


That's one of the many varieties of "always" that are strangely
non-inclusive. Maybe you've never heard of "switching regulators", but
I have a lot.

The AC-to-AC converter allows a smaller, lighter transformer (which I
expect draws less power with 0 load).. Perhaps you mistake "low power"
for "no power". That sort of mistake is very common.

[snip]

In , Jim Redelfs said:

In , wrote:

A household's idling load from low power constant loads
can somewhat easily be 30 watts or more.

At .10/kWh, that amounts to ~$26.30/year.

And if I can reduce that by 60-75% or so with 2-3 power strips?

I can EASILY live with that. If that figure were to triple, I might
CONSIDER eliminating "idling load". (Nice term, BTW)

I would more likely follow my own advice and hang out to dry a few loads
of laundry that would otherwise be dried in the electric clothes dryer.

Many apartment buildings forbid outdoor clothes drying. If I was
very severely frugal in such places, I would use indoor clotheslines when
temperature and humidity are favorable for such.

Thankfully I have yet to experience having any of my clothes dried in an
electric clothes dryer at age well into the 40's. My experience is that
clothes driers got their heat from natural gas - although in one apartment
building I lived in, with electric stoves as opposed to gas ones, the
driers had a "fuel oil" odor.

Also consider that in the metro areas of NYC, Philadelphia and Chicago,
most residential electricity costs more like 14 cents per KWH. And in the
portion of the Philly area served by what was formerly PECO, during a
defined summer period monthly consumption past 500 or 600 or whatever KWH
gets billed at more like 18 cents per KWH.

(From memory - I did not actually drag into my view my electric bill
for last August. I will do so if my figures from my memory are disputed.)

Getting aggressive against "idling load" can somewhat easily reduce
power consumption by close to 10 KWH per month, plus another 2, maybe even
3 KWH per month during air conditioning season. At 18 cents or even if it
is 16 cents per KWH in most of the Philly area for electricity consumption
past 500-600 KWH per month during air conditioning season, I see a couple
bucks per month in savings. At other times of the year, I see $1.25-$1.50
per month in savings from being aggressive against "phantom load" in/near
Philly, NYC and Chicago.

- Don Klipstein )

On Mon, 24 Nov 2008 18:48:06 -0600, "Craig M"
wrote:

Raising the frequency also is easier to rectify and filter the sine wave
out, to give DC voltage.


Yes, and there's also less iron in a high-frequency transformer,
making it lighter.

BTW, I have a new USB hub with a 5V2.1A wall wart that's MUCH lighter
than the "brick" we would have had once.

"Gary H" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 24 Nov 2008 08:17:33 -0500, George
wrote:

[snip]

But the Chi Coms need to meet our requirements if it is sold here. I
can't remember the last time I saw a new walwart that wasn't a much more
efficient switcher design instead of an inefficient transformer.

The new wall-warts are smaller, but it's NOT by eliminating the
transformer. These new ones begin with an AC-to-AC converter, that
operates on line voltage and raises the frequency. A higher frequency
requires a smaller transformer.

"Switcher" refers to a more efficient voltage regulator, that controls
the DC output by turning it on and off rather than by wasting power
like a linear regulator (as in older wall warts) does. This also makes
it smaller by reducing the need for a heat sink.

--
31 days until the winter solstice celebration

Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.laughingsquid.com

"The government of the United States is not, in
any sense, founded on the Christian religion."