Anybody familiar with them? Is the "EZ" (model P4460) worth an
extra $15 over model P4400?

I want to see how much electricity my freezers, TV sets, computers,
etc are *really* using, plus check the frequency stability of my
portable generator and that little inverter than I mounted in my truck.

Thanks,
Bob

"zxcvbob" wrote in message
...
Anybody familiar with them? Is the "EZ" (model P4460) worth an extra $15
over model P4400?

I want to see how much electricity my freezers, TV sets, computers, etc
are *really* using, plus check the frequency stability of my portable
generator and that little inverter than I mounted in my truck.

Thanks,
Bob

You may want to get on the Lee Valley mailing list. They had that model as
a special last week (now sold out) for $20.
www.leevalley.com

zxcvbob wrote:
Anybody familiar with them? Is the "EZ" (model P4460) worth an
extra $15 over model P4400?

I want to see how much electricity my freezers, TV sets, computers,
etc are *really* using, plus check the frequency stability of my
portable generator and that little inverter than I mounted in my
truck.

The "EZ" has two enhanced features over the basic model:

1. You can enter your KWH rate and it will tell you how much - in dollars
and cents - the reading cost, and
2. Has a battery backup so it doesn't reset when the power goes off.

If you don't know how to multiply, or do not have access to a calculator, #1
may be necessary. If you want to accumulate readings over a power outage
situation, #2 might be a help.

Neither "enhancement" seems useful for the needs you have.

zxcvbob wrote:

Anybody familiar with them?

Yes! They are the cat's whiskers.

Is the "EZ" (model P4460) worth an
extra $15 over model P4400?

If you need sizzle with your steak, I suppose so. It appears that
the EZ has a built in calculator so you can plug in your electric cost
& 'predict' annual costs.

Amazon has the basic P4400 for $20.62 [buy something else for $5 & the
shipping is free]. The 4600 is $34. I wouldn't spend the
extra, myself. I like the KISS principle-- If I need to
calculate cost or future usage I'll do the math in my head or on a $2
calculator. . . or maybe even dig out a pencil.

Jim

On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 23:16:31 -0500, zxcvbob
wrote:

Anybody familiar with them? Is the "EZ" (model P4460) worth an
extra $15 over model P4400?

I want to see how much electricity my freezers, TV sets, computers,
etc are *really* using, plus check the frequency stability of my
portable generator and that little inverter than I mounted in my truck.

Thanks,
Bob

It may not work on a freezer. It has built in over current protection
that kills power to the device and a freezer may be too much to
handle. I know I cant get a reading off my fridge because the
compressor start up current is over this limit.

On Oct 25, 9:36*am, homer wrote:
On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 23:16:31 -0500, zxcvbob
wrote:

Anybody familiar with them? *Is the "EZ" (model P4460) worth an
extra $15 over model P4400?

I want to see how much electricity my freezers, TV sets, computers,
etc are *really* using, plus check the frequency stability of my
portable generator and that little inverter than I mounted in my truck.

Thanks,
Bob

It may not work on a freezer. *It has built in over current protection
that kills power to the device and a freezer may be too much to
handle. *I know I cant get a reading off my fridge because the
compressor start up current is over this limit.

I'd definitely get the EZ model. It's worth the small addional cost.
You can enter the cost of electricity per KWh and it then will
directly display how much it costs to run the load per day, week,
month or year. You can just leave it up on the display and watch it
update, glance at it during the day, etc. Much better than just
seeing XX Kwh and having to manually do the translation.

Good news is Costco has them for $27.

Bad news is that about 6 months ago I bought one and it was bad. One
push button did not work at all. Took it back and got another one.
That one, a different button didn't work at all. So, I waited
hoping the crap ones would clear out. Bought one last week and it's
working perfectly, at least so far.....

I've put one on two refrigerators, a 24 year old one and a new one.
It worked on both.

Jim Elbrecht wrote:
zxcvbob wrote:

Anybody familiar with them?

Yes! They are the cat's whiskers.

Is the "EZ" (model P4460) worth an
extra $15 over model P4400?

If you need sizzle with your steak, I suppose so. It appears that
the EZ has a built in calculator so you can plug in your electric cost
& 'predict' annual costs.

Amazon has the basic P4400 for $20.62 [buy something else for $5 & the
shipping is free]. The 4600 is $34. I wouldn't spend the
extra, myself. I like the KISS principle-- If I need to
calculate cost or future usage I'll do the math in my head or on a $2
calculator. . . or maybe even dig out a pencil.

Jim

Frys periodically has the P4400 on sale for $14.99. If you
use 120vac devices, you should have at least one. I use
them to size battery requirements for UPS.

On Oct 25, 11:11*am, wrote:
On Sun, 25 Oct 2009 07:30:37 -0700 (PDT), wrote:
On Oct 25, 9:36*am, homer wrote:
On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 23:16:31 -0500, zxcvbob
wrote:

Anybody familiar with them? *Is the "EZ" (model P4460) worth an
extra $15 over model P4400?

I want to see how much electricity my freezers, TV sets, computers,
etc are *really* using, plus check the frequency stability of my
portable generator and that little inverter than I mounted in my truck.

Thanks,
Bob

It may not work on a freezer. *It has built in over current protection
that kills power to the device and a freezer may be too much to
handle. *I know I cant get a reading off my fridge because the
compressor start up current is over this limit.

I'd definitely get the EZ model. *It's worth the small addional cost.
You can enter the cost of electricity per KWh and it then will
directly display how much it costs to run the load per day, week,
month or year. * *You can just leave it up on the display and watch it
update, glance at it during the day, etc. * Much better than just
seeing XX Kwh and having to manually do the translation.

Good news is Costco has them for $27.

Bad news is that about 6 months ago I bought one and it was bad. * One
push button did not work at all. * Took it back and got another one.
That one, a different button didn't work at all. * *So, I waited
hoping the crap ones would clear out. * Bought one last week and it's
working perfectly, at least so far.....

I've put one on two refrigerators, a 24 year old one and a new one.
It worked on both.

The first eye opener for most people is just how little power a fridge
actually uses. It is certainly not the power hog most people think it
is. (a new one).
My side by side, ice in the door Whirlpool used 120KWH in 61.2 days
(August September) and it was outside in the Florida summer heat in
the pool bar. If it was in the house I would expect a lower number but
the difference might show up in the A/C bill..

Depends on the age of the fridge. I bought my kill-a-watt to build a
case for buying a new one. Our refrigerator dated to the 1960s and
after monitoring for a few weeks with the kill a watt meter, looked
like annual usage would be around 2400 KWH, about four times what the
new ones use. So the meter was a good investment of $20, we save
almost that much every month on electricity with the new fridge. -- H

On Oct 25, 6:47*am, "HeyBub" wrote:
zxcvbob wrote:
Anybody familiar with them? *Is the "EZ" (model P4460) worth an
extra $15 over model P4400?

I want to see how much electricity my freezers, TV sets, computers,
etc are *really* using, plus check the frequency stability of my
portable generator and that little inverter than I mounted in my
truck.

The "EZ" has two enhanced features over the basic model:

1. You can enter your KWH rate and it will tell you how much - in dollars
and cents - the reading cost, and
2. Has a battery backup so it doesn't reset when the power goes off.

If you don't know how to multiply, or do not have access to a calculator, #1
may be necessary. If you want to accumulate readings over a power outage
situation, #2 might be a help.

Neither "enhancement" seems useful for the needs you have.

I guess I'm missing something here. They give you some data, but
other than curiosity, what usefullness does that data serve. Plug a
refrig into one and learn it uses x kw and costs x $ per month. But
there ain't a darn thing you can do about it except buy a new frig.
Ditto for all the other appliances you have in your home. Yeah, I can
see figuring what loads you can put on a generator, but other than
that, what 'useful' data do they provide?

KC

On Oct 24, 10:16 pm, zxcvbob wrote:
Anybody familiar with them? Is the "EZ" (model P4460) worth an
extra $15 over model P4400?

I want to see how much electricity my freezers, TV sets, computers,
etc are *really* using, plus check the frequency stability of my
portable generator and that little inverter than I mounted in my truck.

Thanks,
Bob

Andy comments:

I'd like to suggest an alternative.

You can get a "clip on" multimeter from harborfreight.com (free
catalog) for about
$10.00 and measure the current consumed by the device by simply
clipping around
one of the wires (usually the black one) going to the device, and it
will work for any
device that works on 60 cycle AC. The current, times 120, is the kva
in watts.
A simple calc yields the cost per hour to run it.

For frequency of your generator, just plug in one of those $5 electric
clocks and
compare the time to that of your watch. The longer the run time, the
better. If the
frequency is lower, the time on the electric clock will be less than
the time on
your watch, by the same proportion.

Neither of these alternatives are as easy as what you have proposed,
but use
instruments that can be used for other things.

Just a suggestion.

Andy in Eureka, Texas

Andy wrote:

-snip-
I'd like to suggest an alternative.

You can get a "clip on" multimeter from harborfreight.com (free
catalog) for about
$10.00 and measure the current consumed by the device by simply
clipping around
one of the wires (usually the black one) going to the device, and it
will work for any
device that works on 60 cycle AC. The current, times 120, is the kva
in watts.
A simple calc yields the cost per hour to run it.

Not exactly the same as a Kil-o-watt meter.. That gives the cost
*for that hour*. There are a lot of variables over the course of a
24hr day. Defrost cycles, number of refrigeration cycles, etc.


For frequency of your generator, just plug in one of those $5 electric
clocks and
compare the time to that of your watch. The longer the run time, the
better. If the
frequency is lower, the time on the electric clock will be less than
the time on
your watch, by the same proportion.

Neither of these alternatives are as easy as what you have proposed,
but use
instruments that can be used for other things.

I can't imagine a household that won't get $25 worth of use from a
Kill-o-watt meter in a few years. It is one of those things that
once you have it, you find more and more occasions to plug it in.

Jim

On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 08:01:34 -0400, Jim Elbrecht
wrote:

There are a lot of variables over the course of a
24hr day. Defrost cycles, number of refrigeration cycles, etc.

BTW, this Sunday has 25 hours (at least in the US where the mess of
Damn Stupid Time intrudes on reality).
--
58 days until the winter solstice celebration

Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.us

"How could you ask me to believe in God when there's
absolutely no evidence that I can see?" -- Jodie Foster

You can get a "clip on" multimeter from harborfreight.com *(free
catalog) for about
$10.00 and measure the current consumed by the device by simply
clipping around
one of the wires (usually the black one) going to the device, and it
will work for any
device that works on 60 cycle AC. *The current, times 120, is the kva
in watts.


In an AC circuit, Volt x Amps are not exactly the same thing as Watts
due to power factor.

For loads like incandesenct light bulbs and resistance heaters, the
power facotr is very close to one so there is little error but for
reactive loads like motors, there can be a significant difference.

Mark

If you pack 8 hours of electricity into a five minute
warmup, that's multiply by a factor of 96. Suppose my
computer draws 2 amps. Well, multiply that by 96 times, and
we're trying to draw 194 ampere rate, for five minutes. Is
that likely?

My computer warmup is less than five minutes, so we'd have
to draw about a thousand amperes, for a full minute.

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..


wrote in message
...
On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 08:06:49 -0700, Smitty Two

It got started by an IBM study on MTBF on hard drives that
found a
power off/on cycle was worth about 8 hours of running time.
Prior to that it was studies on light bulbs and fluorescent
finding
similar results

Andy wrote:
On Oct 24, 10:16 pm, zxcvbob wrote:
Anybody familiar with them? Is the "EZ" (model P4460) worth an
extra $15 over model P4400?

I want to see how much electricity my freezers, TV sets, computers,
etc are *really* using, plus check the frequency stability of my
portable generator and that little inverter than I mounted in my truck.

Thanks,
Bob

Andy comments:

I'd like to suggest an alternative.

You can get a "clip on" multimeter from harborfreight.com (free
catalog) for about
$10.00 and measure the current consumed by the device by simply
clipping around
one of the wires (usually the black one) going to the device, and it
will work for any
device that works on 60 cycle AC. The current, times 120, is the kva
in watts.

You will get the VA, not the watts. They are not the same except for a
pure resistance load like a light bulb. They are not the same because of
"power factor". If you want the cost of using anything with a motor you
need to know the watts.

"Andy" wrote in message
I'd like to suggest an alternative.

You can get a "clip on" multimeter from harborfreight.com (free
catalog) for about
$10.00 and measure the current consumed by the device by simply
clipping around
one of the wires (usually the black one) going to the device, and it
will work for any
device that works on 60 cycle AC. The current, times 120, is the kva
in watts.
A simple calc yields the cost per hour to run it.

The advantage of a Kill a Watt meter is that it records over time. It takes
fluctuating load into consideration, especially important on refrigerators
and freezers that have a varying load over time, from nothing to full power
with compressor and defrost equipment in use. A spot check will not give
the complete story. Also, no splitting of the cord is required.

Your system works well with simple load that are constant when on.

Mark Lloyd wrote:
On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 08:01:34 -0400, Jim Elbrecht
wrote:

There are a lot of variables over the course of a
24hr day. Defrost cycles, number of refrigeration cycles, etc.

BTW, this Sunday has 25 hours (at least in the US where the mess of
Damn Stupid Time intrudes on reality).

I wouldn't mind if we stayed on DST all year. The worst part of it is
in the fall when we go back to standard time. My internal clock doesn't
like waking up earlier.

On Oct 29, 9:46*am, Tony wrote:
Mark Lloyd wrote:
On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 08:01:34 -0400, Jim Elbrecht
wrote:

There are a lot of variables over the course of a
24hr day. *Defrost cycles, number of refrigeration cycles, etc.

BTW, this Sunday has 25 hours (at least in the US where the mess of
Damn Stupid Time intrudes on reality).

I wouldn't mind if we stayed on DST all year. *The worst part of it is
in the fall when we go back to standard time. *My internal clock doesn't
like waking up earlier.

um, that's the spring. and I hate it too...

nate

N8N wrote:
On Oct 29, 9:46 am, Tony wrote:
Mark Lloyd wrote:
On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 08:01:34 -0400, Jim Elbrecht
wrote:
There are a lot of variables over the course of a
24hr day. Defrost cycles, number of refrigeration cycles, etc.
BTW, this Sunday has 25 hours (at least in the US where the mess of
Damn Stupid Time intrudes on reality).
I wouldn't mind if we stayed on DST all year. The worst part of it is
in the fall when we go back to standard time. My internal clock doesn't
like waking up earlier.

um, that's the spring. and I hate it too...

nate

I knew I was gonna screw that up. What I hate is it getting dark
earlier. Leave it dark longer in the AM because I'll sleep through it
anyway.

N8N wrote:
On Oct 29, 9:46 am, Tony wrote:
Mark Lloyd wrote:
On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 08:01:34 -0400, Jim Elbrecht
wrote:
There are a lot of variables over the course of a
24hr day. Defrost cycles, number of refrigeration cycles, etc.
BTW, this Sunday has 25 hours (at least in the US where the mess of
Damn Stupid Time intrudes on reality).
I wouldn't mind if we stayed on DST all year. The worst part of it is
in the fall when we go back to standard time. My internal clock doesn't
like waking up earlier.

um, that's the spring. and I hate it too...

nate

I knew I was gonna screw that up. What I hate is it getting dark
earlier. Leave it dark longer in the AM because I'll sleep through it
anyway.

In article ,
wrote:

On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 08:06:49 -0700, Smitty Two
wrote:

As far as the computer, those shouldn't be left on 24/7 anyway, for the
health and longevity of the machine. I confess to being baffled by how
that myth got created and so widely adopted.

It got started by an IBM study on MTBF on hard drives that found a
power off/on cycle was worth about 8 hours of running time.
Prior to that it was studies on light bulbs and fluorescent finding
similar results

At one time, starting a fluorescent took something like an hour or two
off its life. Now it's more like 5-10 minutes, though probably longer
if it's used with an old fashioned "glow switch" starter that blinks it
afew times before getting it started.

As for incandescents - I'd like a cite for any of those studies saying
what you say. Although incandescents often burn out during cold starts,
cold starts do surprisingly little damage to most incandescents. What
happens is that an aging filament becomes unable to survive a cold start a
little before it becomes unable to survive continuous operation. The
condition that makes an aging filament unable to survive a cold start is a
hot thin spot in the filament - which worsens during operation at a rate
that accelerates worse than exponentially.

- Don Klipstein )

In article ,
wrote:

On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 08:06:49 -0700, Smitty Two
wrote:

As far as the computer, those shouldn't be left on 24/7 anyway, for the
health and longevity of the machine. I confess to being baffled by how
that myth got created and so widely adopted.

It got started by an IBM study on MTBF on hard drives that found a
power off/on cycle was worth about 8 hours of running time.
Prior to that it was studies on light bulbs and fluorescent finding
similar results

At one time, starting a fluorescent took something like an hour or two
off its life. Now it's more like 5-10 minutes, though probably longer
if it's used with an old fashioned "glow switch" starter that blinks it
afew times before getting it started.

As for incandescents - I'd like a cite for any of those studies saying
what you say. Although incandescents often burn out during cold starts,
cold starts do surprisingly little damage to most incandescents. What
happens is that an aging filament becomes unable to survive a cold start a
little before it becomes unable to survive continuous operation. The
condition that makes an aging filament unable to survive a cold start is a
hot thin spot in the filament - which worsens during operation at a rate
that accelerates worse than exponentially.

- Don Klipstein )

In article ,
(Don Klipstein) wrote:

In article ,
wrote:

On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 08:06:49 -0700, Smitty Two
wrote:

As far as the computer, those shouldn't be left on 24/7 anyway, for the
health and longevity of the machine. I confess to being baffled by how
that myth got created and so widely adopted.

It got started by an IBM study on MTBF on hard drives that found a
power off/on cycle was worth about 8 hours of running time.
Prior to that it was studies on light bulbs and fluorescent finding
similar results

At one time, starting a fluorescent took something like an hour or two
off its life. Now it's more like 5-10 minutes, though probably longer
if it's used with an old fashioned "glow switch" starter that blinks it
afew times before getting it started.

As for incandescents - I'd like a cite for any of those studies saying
what you say. Although incandescents often burn out during cold starts,
cold starts do surprisingly little damage to most incandescents. What
happens is that an aging filament becomes unable to survive a cold start a
little before it becomes unable to survive continuous operation. The
condition that makes an aging filament unable to survive a cold start is a
hot thin spot in the filament - which worsens during operation at a rate
that accelerates worse than exponentially.

- Don Klipstein )

And I'd like to know when the hard drive study was done, and whether the
current generation of drives has been subjected to any similar study. I
personally doubt the validity of the original study. Anyway, there's a
lot more going on inside a computer than a hard drive, and leaving it on
all the time is unquestionably detrimental to the electronics.

In article ,
(Don Klipstein) wrote:

In article ,
wrote:

On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 08:06:49 -0700, Smitty Two
wrote:

As far as the computer, those shouldn't be left on 24/7 anyway, for the
health and longevity of the machine. I confess to being baffled by how
that myth got created and so widely adopted.

It got started by an IBM study on MTBF on hard drives that found a
power off/on cycle was worth about 8 hours of running time.
Prior to that it was studies on light bulbs and fluorescent finding
similar results

At one time, starting a fluorescent took something like an hour or two
off its life. Now it's more like 5-10 minutes, though probably longer
if it's used with an old fashioned "glow switch" starter that blinks it
afew times before getting it started.

As for incandescents - I'd like a cite for any of those studies saying
what you say. Although incandescents often burn out during cold starts,
cold starts do surprisingly little damage to most incandescents. What
happens is that an aging filament becomes unable to survive a cold start a
little before it becomes unable to survive continuous operation. The
condition that makes an aging filament unable to survive a cold start is a
hot thin spot in the filament - which worsens during operation at a rate
that accelerates worse than exponentially.

- Don Klipstein )

And I'd like to know when the hard drive study was done, and whether the
current generation of drives has been subjected to any similar study. I
personally doubt the validity of the original study. Anyway, there's a
lot more going on inside a computer than a hard drive, and leaving it on
all the time is unquestionably detrimental to the electronics.

On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 09:46:29 -0400, Tony
wrote:

Mark Lloyd wrote:
On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 08:01:34 -0400, Jim Elbrecht
wrote:

There are a lot of variables over the course of a
24hr day. Defrost cycles, number of refrigeration cycles, etc.

BTW, this Sunday has 25 hours (at least in the US where the mess of
Damn Stupid Time intrudes on reality).

I wouldn't mind if we stayed on DST all year.

That would be fine. The problems are when you keep CHANGING it.

Maybe you realize that DST all the time is the same as no DST at all.
Clocks are an hour different, but we'd adapt to that. There'd just be
no changes to keep messing things up.

The worst part of it is
in the fall when we go back to standard time. My internal clock doesn't
like waking up earlier.

I think that's common. The natural thing is waking up later.

I'm working on a web page that calculates countdowns. DST has really
made that a lot more complicated (as one little example, most
locations change the offset from UTC by 1 hour for DST. However, there
is one exception: Lord Howe Island, where it's .5 hour).
--
56 days until the winter solstice celebration

Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.us

"How could you ask me to believe in God when there's
absolutely no evidence that I can see?" -- Jodie Foster

In article ,
wrote:

On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 01:56:13 -0700, Smitty Two
wrote:


And I'd like to know when the hard drive study was done, and whether the
current generation of drives has been subjected to any similar study. I
personally doubt the validity of the original study. Anyway, there's a
lot more going on inside a computer than a hard drive, and leaving it on
all the time is unquestionably detrimental to the electronics.


Ther study was done at IBM Rochester in the 90s and primarily focused
on the 3.5" "Lightning" drive. Hard drives are the most likely thing
to fail in a PC and the thing that causes the most grief. (data loss
and extended downtime)

So my choices a

1. Turn the computer off, extending the life of everything in it with
the possible exception of the drive. Back up my data.

2. Leave the computer on 24/7, shortening the life of everything in it
with the possible exception of the drive. Don't back up my data, but
hope I can postpone the inevitable day when I will lose it all.

That's a choice I can make faster than an electron can travel an inch.

"Mark Lloyd" wrote in message
That would be fine. The problems are when you keep CHANGING it.

Maybe you realize that DST all the time is the same as no DST at all.
Clocks are an hour different, but we'd adapt to that. There'd just be
no changes to keep messing things up.


Close, but not exactly. DST gives me (in winter) a dark morning and light
driving home in the evening. Standard time gives me more light in the
morning and I drive home in the dark. My preference is to function on the
same time as DST. If I was on the opposite side of my time zone, I'd be
rather close to what DST is here. My preference is to have the winter dark
in the AM. I did that by changing my hours at work but the rest of the
world does not seem to want to comply to my personal choices for everything.

People often state a preference, but that may not be the same as we see it
in different parts of the same time zone or the northern versus southern
latitudes. At work I have the luxury of coming and going as I please, but
most do not.

"Mark Lloyd" wrote in message
That would be fine. The problems are when you keep CHANGING it.

Maybe you realize that DST all the time is the same as no DST at all.
Clocks are an hour different, but we'd adapt to that. There'd just be
no changes to keep messing things up.


Close, but not exactly. DST gives me (in winter) a dark morning and light
driving home in the evening. Standard time gives me more light in the
morning and I drive home in the dark. My preference is to function on the
same time as DST. If I was on the opposite side of my time zone, I'd be
rather close to what DST is here. My preference is to have the winter dark
in the AM. I did that by changing my hours at work but the rest of the
world does not seem to want to comply to my personal choices for everything.

People often state a preference, but that may not be the same as we see it
in different parts of the same time zone or the northern versus southern
latitudes. At work I have the luxury of coming and going as I please, but
most do not.

On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 17:04:19 -0400, "Ed Pawlowski"
wrote:


"Mark Lloyd" wrote in message
That would be fine. The problems are when you keep CHANGING it.

Maybe you realize that DST all the time is the same as no DST at all.
Clocks are an hour different, but we'd adapt to that. There'd just be
no changes to keep messing things up.


Close, but not exactly. DST gives me (in winter) a dark morning and light
driving home in the evening.

Getting up earlier and leaving work earlier is what does that.

Standard time gives me more light in the
morning and I drive home in the dark.

Getting up later and leaving work later does that.

My preference is to function on the
same time as DST.

Meaning you'd like to do things later in the day. Apparently, a lot of
people feel like that.

If I was on the opposite side of my time zone, I'd be
rather close to what DST is here. My preference is to have the winter dark
in the AM. I did that by changing my hours at work but the rest of the
world does not seem to want to comply to my personal choices for everything.

People often state a preference, but that may not be the same as we see it
in different parts of the same time zone or the northern versus southern
latitudes. At work I have the luxury of coming and going as I please, but
most do not.


That's good. Do it as you please. That's a lot better that supporting
this mind game that claims to alter time, but does not (and can not)
do such a thing.
--
56 days until the winter solstice celebration

Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.us

"How could you ask me to believe in God when there's
absolutely no evidence that I can see?" -- Jodie Foster

On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 17:04:19 -0400, "Ed Pawlowski"
wrote:


"Mark Lloyd" wrote in message
That would be fine. The problems are when you keep CHANGING it.

Maybe you realize that DST all the time is the same as no DST at all.
Clocks are an hour different, but we'd adapt to that. There'd just be
no changes to keep messing things up.


Close, but not exactly. DST gives me (in winter) a dark morning and light
driving home in the evening.

Getting up earlier and leaving work earlier is what does that.

Standard time gives me more light in the
morning and I drive home in the dark.

Getting up later and leaving work later does that.

My preference is to function on the
same time as DST.

Meaning you'd like to do things later in the day. Apparently, a lot of
people feel like that.

If I was on the opposite side of my time zone, I'd be
rather close to what DST is here. My preference is to have the winter dark
in the AM. I did that by changing my hours at work but the rest of the
world does not seem to want to comply to my personal choices for everything.

People often state a preference, but that may not be the same as we see it
in different parts of the same time zone or the northern versus southern
latitudes. At work I have the luxury of coming and going as I please, but
most do not.


That's good. Do it as you please. That's a lot better that supporting
this mind game that claims to alter time, but does not (and can not)
do such a thing.
--
56 days until the winter solstice celebration

Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.us

"How could you ask me to believe in God when there's
absolutely no evidence that I can see?" -- Jodie Foster

In article ,
wrote:

On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 10:48:05 -0700, Smitty Two
wrote:



So my choices a

1. Turn the computer off, extending the life of everything in it with
the possible exception of the drive. Back up my data.

2. Leave the computer on 24/7, shortening the life of everything in it
with the possible exception of the drive. Don't back up my data, but
hope I can postpone the inevitable day when I will lose it all.

That's a choice I can make faster than an electron can travel an inch.


You missed the point. If you are walking away from your machine more
than 8 hours you turn it off. Otherwise the study says leave it on.
How many times do you power your machine off and on in a day?
How often do you back up your data?



My office computer is on all day when I'm at work, off nights and
weekends. My home computer is almost always on when I'm home and awake,
off at night, off if I'll be out of the house for more than an hour or
two.

But the "common wisdom," that most people I know seem to have adopted,
is to leave the computer on 24/7/365. So you're not advocating that?

Data is backed up weekly, which is entirely adequate for my needs, but I
would think others might need or want to do it more or less often.

In article ,
wrote:

On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 10:48:05 -0700, Smitty Two
wrote:



So my choices a

1. Turn the computer off, extending the life of everything in it with
the possible exception of the drive. Back up my data.

2. Leave the computer on 24/7, shortening the life of everything in it
with the possible exception of the drive. Don't back up my data, but
hope I can postpone the inevitable day when I will lose it all.

That's a choice I can make faster than an electron can travel an inch.


You missed the point. If you are walking away from your machine more
than 8 hours you turn it off. Otherwise the study says leave it on.
How many times do you power your machine off and on in a day?
How often do you back up your data?



My office computer is on all day when I'm at work, off nights and
weekends. My home computer is almost always on when I'm home and awake,
off at night, off if I'll be out of the house for more than an hour or
two.

But the "common wisdom," that most people I know seem to have adopted,
is to leave the computer on 24/7/365. So you're not advocating that?

Data is backed up weekly, which is entirely adequate for my needs, but I
would think others might need or want to do it more or less often.

Mark Lloyd wrote:


That's good. Do it as you please. That's a lot better that supporting
this mind game that claims to alter time, but does not (and can not)
do such a thing.

There is a theory (and I'm not making this up) that the Large Hadron
Collider (LHC), in searching for the Higgs boson (the so-called 'God
Particle'), doesn't work and can't be made to work because reasonable
scientists from the future keep coming back in time and ****ing with it.

On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 08:11:46 -0500, "HeyBub"
wrote:

Mark Lloyd wrote:


That's good. Do it as you please. That's a lot better that supporting
this mind game that claims to alter time, but does not (and can not)
do such a thing.

There is a theory (and I'm not making this up) that the Large Hadron
Collider (LHC), in searching for the Higgs boson (the so-called 'God
Particle'), doesn't work and can't be made to work because reasonable
scientists from the future keep coming back in time and ****ing with it.


Maybe that's how we got Daylight Saving Time (that's what it's good
for, ****ing with people) :-)
--
55 days until the winter solstice celebration

Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.us

"How could you ask me to believe in God when there's
absolutely no evidence that I can see?" -- Jodie Foster

dpb wrote:
Tony wrote:
...
... As far as electronics, about the worst thing you can do is turn it
off and on again while it's hot. ...

Where did you get this gem from?

Electronics training and real life experience. It's quite simple
actually, most people know that most electronic failures occur during
the power up surge. That power up surge is even more detrimental when
the components are hot.

wrote:
On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 20:03:45 -0400, Tony
wrote:

Then the most common
failure is the bearings, not anything electronic

Why do you believe that?

Because every failed HD I opened showed signs of abrasion where the head
touched the drive disk. Just my personal experience, granted it is
limited. I should have said most common problems *that I have seen* are
mechanical and not electronic. Then again none of them were mine and
may have been subjected to physical shock, IE the "Fonzie Fix".

On Nov 1, 10:50*am, Tony wrote:
wrote:
On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 20:03:45 -0400, Tony
wrote:

Then the most common
failure is the bearings, not anything electronic

Why do you believe that?

Because every failed HD I opened showed signs of abrasion where the head
touched the drive disk. *Just my personal experience, granted it is
limited. *I should have said most common problems *that I have seen* are
mechanical and not electronic. *Then again none of them were mine and
may have been subjected to physical shock, IE the "Fonzie Fix".

when the drive is turned off normally, the heads are "parked" on a
"landing zone" so wear there should not impact any data...

also most computer drives are set up like a screen saver, if the drive
is not used for 15 minutes (or whatever time the timer is set for) it
parks and spins down automatically..

Mark

Mark wrote:
On Nov 1, 10:50 am, Tony wrote:
wrote:
On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 20:03:45 -0400, Tony
wrote:
Then the most common
failure is the bearings, not anything electronic
Why do you believe that?
Because every failed HD I opened showed signs of abrasion where the head
touched the drive disk. Just my personal experience, granted it is
limited. I should have said most common problems *that I have seen* are
mechanical and not electronic. Then again none of them were mine and
may have been subjected to physical shock, IE the "Fonzie Fix".

when the drive is turned off normally, the heads are "parked" on a
"landing zone" so wear there should not impact any data...

I didn't say the drive was parked. I've seen some idiots pound on their
pc when it would freeze up. If they didn't hurt anything, a few times I
found it just needed all the dust cleaned out, it was overheating.

also most computer drives are set up like a screen saver, if the drive
is not used for 15 minutes (or whatever time the timer is set for) it
parks and spins down automatically..

I've yet to see that as the default setting in any Windows I have used.
Most people don't know that setting exists. I've always had to
manually change mine to that setting. One exception is if it's a laptop
then that would be the normal setting... to save battery life.

On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 23:16:31 -0500, zxcvbob wrote:

:Anybody familiar with them? Is the "EZ" (model P4460) worth an
:extra $15 over model P4400?
:
:I want to see how much electricity my freezers, TV sets, computers,
:etc are *really* using, plus check the frequency stability of my
ortable generator and that little inverter than I mounted in my truck.
:
:Thanks,
:Bob

Two things:

I.

I bought the P4400 in February of 2008. I left it plugged into a power
strip and plugged my desktop computer's power strip (and etc.) plugged
into the Kill-a-Watt meter, measuring power draw (watts), for an
indefinite time. It stopped working. It came back to life, don't
remember the details, but leaving it off and unplugged for a while, it
started working somehow. Someone said they thought that the meters
aren't designed to be used in this way, so I stopped doing it.

II.

I've found that the P4400 (don't know about the other(s)) doesn't
measure low power draw at all accurately. IOW, if your device is drawing
3-4 watts, say, the P4400 doesn't give you anything like an accurate
reading. I only know this because I have a far more accurate way of
measuring power draw, which I have used for years. The P4400 is a lot
easier to use, but my system is much more accurate and I feel I can
depend on it more. It's a simple thing I put together for next to
nothing:

1. I already had a decent digital multimeter that measures AC amps,
easily converted into watts (amps x 120 volts = watts). It cost me
around $100 in the early 1990's.

2. I bought a couple of banana plugs that will fit in the multimeter's
input jacks and attached them to a length of AC two conductor cord,
around 6 feet long. The other end of this ~6 foot length of cord is
soldered (both leads) to either end of a cut wire in a short extension
cord. IOW, I cut one wire in the middle of that extension cord and
connected the cut ends to the cord, the other end of which has the
banana plugs. Plugging the banana plugs into the multimeter first
(ALWAYS do it this way or you will likely cause a dangerous short !), I
THEN plug the extension cord into a power outlet and then a device into
the female end of the extension cord. The multimeter gives me the
current draw and simple arithmetic gives me the watts. Amps x 120 =
watts.

Using this system I determined that the P4400 is useless for low draw
measurement. I don't remember the cutoff where the P4400 starts being
useful. I assume that this holds true for all of them and that I don't
have a lemon here.

Dan


Email: dmusicant at pacbell dot net

On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 20:19:23 -0700 (PDT), KC wrote:

:I guess I'm missing something here. They give you some data, but
ther than curiosity, what usefullness does that data serve. Plug a
:refrig into one and learn it uses x kw and costs x $ per month. But
:there ain't a darn thing you can do about it except buy a new frig.
itto for all the other appliances you have in your home. Yeah, I can
:see figuring what loads you can put on a generator, but other than
:that, what 'useful' data do they provide?
:
:KC

Depends how deep your pockets are. Some people don't give a damn about
20 watts. Others do. 20 watts costs me about $20/year when drawn
24/7/365. Personally, I want to know.

Dan


Email: dmusicant at pacbell dot net