In article ,
raden wrote:
Are all the lights and computers switched off when not in use ?

makes me laugh turning your TV off instead of putting it on standby will
save the planet

... but all these office buildings running lights and PCs 24/7 really
don't impact

Street lighting on all the hours of darkness too. But we understand about
power stations having a minimum demand.

--
*The hardness of the butter is proportional to the softness of the bread *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Bob Eager wrote:
Anyone want to work out how long a TV has to be left on standby to equal
one trip to Torremolinos?? :-)

I read that one return trip by air to LA produces the same CO2 (per
passenger) as the average car does in a year.

--
*A cubicle is just a padded cell without a door.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Couldn't you borrow a metering dingy (from your electricity supplier) and
measure how much the stand-by is using? And at the same time measure other
appliances as well? I borrowed one to measure what an old freezer was
using: I ascertained, as I'd expected, that the monster was using over 700
kW a year.

wrote in message
ups.com...

Cars are pointlessly overpowered to appeal to immature buyers,

That depends on what you want to do with them. My current car has a 1.8l
engine, and is decidely old tech (fuel injection, but none of this fancy air
flow metering & lambda sensors etc.). It uses less fuel on a run than my
first car did, a 1.3 with just over half as many horsepower and all the
modern EFI and a catalytic convertor. And I can overtake things when I want
to easily.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
. wrote:
I didn't see the article you've described; but: after the director
called 'Cut!', 'That's a wrap!" the cameraman's lighting man, turned
off his bank of spots, plugged his batteries into mains-outlets to
recharge them, while the presenter filled in his expenses claim form
indenting for a new toaster that they'd seen in Harrods .. and they
all drove off in their 4x4 'Chelsea Tractor' to collect it.

Cynical? Moi?

experienced more like :-)

Naw - 'we' have our own camera car - the talent travels separately. ;-)

by 'talent' you mean warm props ? LOL

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On 2006-10-24 18:15:17 +0100, " said:

I wonder why there is this attempt to direct attention onto a trivial
area of energy consumption.

The real biggies are air travel, domestic heating and car usage.

The smallest reduction in consumption in any one of those areas would
dwarf the total elimination of standby electricity consumption.

It's called soft targetting - just like fluorescent light bulbs and other
stuff that one might have at home which in reality makes little difference
other than a feel good factor.

Flourescent light bulbs do make a difference to your electric bill, enough
that you make a saving over the life of the bulb. That said, the people who
lived in our house before us put them in both bathrooms, which is a bit
mental.

Mary Fisher wrote:

"mogga" wrote in message
...



But insulating your hot water tank still only saves you ?10 a year
even years after they started promoting insulation.

Whether that's true or not, doesn't it matter that it's saving waste?

Only if it's saving more waste than it consumes - it's not a zero
environmental cost getting the insulation to the house, fixing it,
maybe disposing of it in n years time, etc.

--
Chris Green

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote:
In article . com,
wrote:
Cars are pointlessly overpowered to appeal to immature buyers,

But use rather less fuel than underpowered cars of yore.

Huh? Have you ever investigated the petrol consumption of (for
example) an Austin 7 from the 1930s, it's very economical.

--
Chris Green

On 24 Oct 2006 16:36:29 GMT, "Bob Eager" wrote:

On Tue, 24 Oct 2006 16:17:28 UTC, "John"
wrote:

At the place where I work they are embarking on a campaign on energy
reduction (no issues here) but they keep beating on about TVs left on
standby. Apparently it is going to destroy the planet.

Yet the publicity being used claims £50 per household for stuff on standby.

I get very annoyed about this figure, which is (a) probably ancient (b)
wrong to start with. Proably worked out once (wrongly) in the past, and
forever quoted.

Our 28 inch (sorry!) TV uses nominally 8 watts on standby. Seems to be
in that ball park if I measure it. Let's call it 10W.

OK, that's approximately 250Wh over 24 hours, or 1kWh over 4 days.
That's approximately 90kWh a year.

Take an approximate cost of 10p per kWh. This will vary, but again a
ballpark figure. That makes £9.00 per year - let's round it up to £10 as
the cost per kWh is a little low, perhaps.

So, £10 per year if you leave the TV on standby ALL of the time. In
reality, some of that time, it will be switched on; let's say about 5
hours a day on average, or 20% of the time. You can't count that time as
'wasted standby' time, so that brings the cost per year down to £8. Even
lower if you actually turn it off for the night.

Now, that's only for one appliance, but it's the one everyone quotes and
indeed seems to imply that it's responsible for £50 on it's own.
Selective quoting. It's also the most power hungry.

The figures given are total greenwash. Not to say you shouldn't turn it
off (we do) but let's get there by quoting truthful figures.

Not only that but the heat your TV produces is heat that your heating
doesn't have to.

"Bob Eager" wrote in message
...


Anyone want to work out how long a TV has to be left on standby to equal
one trip to Torremolinos?? :-)

No - but I'll double save by not going to Torremolinos nor having a tv.

"Doki" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
ups.com...

Cars are pointlessly overpowered to appeal to immature buyers,

That depends on what you want to do with them.

Quite. Ours is a work horse, it needs to carry large, weighty items (not
just me before some wag says it) and occasionally tow.

But it's only used when we need those features, most of the time we use the
scooter which, I'm told by a grandson, is boring and unstylish.

shrug

I'm not suggesting.he has one. He can use buses.

Mary

In article ,
wrote:
Cars are pointlessly overpowered to appeal to immature buyers,

But use rather less fuel than underpowered cars of yore.

Huh? Have you ever investigated the petrol consumption of (for
example) an Austin 7 from the 1930s, it's very economical.

Huh? Have you ever owned or driven an Austin 7 from the 30s? I have. And
they're not that economical even considering the pathetic performance. And
are positively dangerous on today's roads. A modern small petrol car will
beat it hands down for fuel consumption. And have brakes that actually
work thrown in as a bonus.

--
*Bills travel through the mail at twice the speed of cheques *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

mogga wrote:

But insulating your hot water tank still only saves you £10 a year
even years after they started promoting insulation.

Who says that? I 'd say that a poorly insulated hot water tank would
waste at least £100 per year.

On 2006-10-25 10:40:20 +0100, Huge said:

On 2006-10-25, norm wrote:

Not only that but the heat your TV produces is heat that your heating
doesn't have to.

I'm trying to reduce both the number of computers and the length of
time they are left running in my study.

VMWare and a f*ck off big machine to run the virtual machines? It
even supports Windows...



I think for the first time ever, I'm going to have to have the heating
on in here.

It'll be a lot nicer in the summer, though.

wrote in message
...
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote:
In article . com,
wrote:
Cars are pointlessly overpowered to appeal to immature buyers,

But use rather less fuel than underpowered cars of yore.

Huh? Have you ever investigated the petrol consumption of (for
example) an Austin 7 from the 1930s, it's very economical.

I haven't, but I'll be a fiver that a Citroen AX will beat it.

Go and look up the power outputs of any old car (carburated) and their fuel
consumption and compare with any injection car. You'll see that the injected
car is doing a lot more with the petrol that's going into the engine. IIRC
MGBs have something like an 11 second 0-60 time and manage between 25 and
35mpg. Whereas my car will do 0-60 in 8 or 9 seconds and manage 50mpg if I
try.

Andy Hall wrote:
On 2006-10-25 10:40:20 +0100, Huge said:

On 2006-10-25, norm wrote:

Not only that but the heat your TV produces is heat that your heating
doesn't have to.

I'm trying to reduce both the number of computers and the length of
time they are left running in my study.

VMWare and a f*ck off big machine to run the virtual machines? It
even supports Windows...

That's *exactly* what I'm doing, replace two aging machines with a
single machine running Linux and vmware to run XP 'inside' the Linux.


--
Chris Green

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote:
In article ,
wrote:
Cars are pointlessly overpowered to appeal to immature buyers,

But use rather less fuel than underpowered cars of yore.

Huh? Have you ever investigated the petrol consumption of (for
example) an Austin 7 from the 1930s, it's very economical.

Huh? Have you ever owned or driven an Austin 7 from the 30s? I have. And
they're not that economical even considering the pathetic performance.

I remember being astonished how economical they were by the standards
of other small cars of the 1950s and 1960s. I can't find any figures
now though.

And
are positively dangerous on today's roads. A modern small petrol car will
beat it hands down for fuel consumption. And have brakes that actually
work thrown in as a bonus.

I didn't claim they were practical on modern roads.

--
Chris Green

In article ,
wrote:
Huh? Have you ever owned or driven an Austin 7 from the 30s? I have.
And they're not that economical even considering the pathetic
performance.

I remember being astonished how economical they were by the standards
of other small cars of the 1950s and 1960s.

Nothing like as good as say a Morris Minor driven at similar speeds.

I can't find any figures now though.

The cruising speed of an Austin 7 was about 40 mph. Fully laden, there are
plenty of main road hills it wouldn't climb.

--
*If they arrest the Energizer Bunny, would they charge it with battery? *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 09:36:42 UTC, Huge
wrote:

On 2006-10-25, wrote:
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote:
In article . com,
wrote:
Cars are pointlessly overpowered to appeal to immature buyers,

But use rather less fuel than underpowered cars of yore.

Huh? Have you ever investigated the petrol consumption of (for
example) an Austin 7 from the 1930s, it's very economical.

That's as may be, but since it dismally fails the Conditions
and Use Regulations and would be unsaleable in a modern market,
completely irrelevant.

(that's 'Construction and Use', I think)

The one that frightened me was the A30/A35 (both, I believe).
Effectively only ONE braking system, there being common components
between the handbrake and footbrake systems. I knew a girl who had one,
and she suffered a total brake failure.

--
The information contained in this post is copyright the
poster, and specifically may not be published in, or used by
Avenue Supplies, http://avenuesupplies.co.uk

John Rumm wrote:
Bob Eager wrote:

Anyone want to work out how long a TV has to be left on standby to equal
one trip to Torremolinos?? :-)

Well, lets have a go...

Google earth recons the distance from Gatwick is 1025 miles...

lets go on a 777, with a passenger capacity of 440 people flying cattle
class. Max range about 6000 miles, max fuel load 120,000 L - so call it
a 1/3rd of a tank there and back. So 40,000 L of fuel, or 90 L (or
about 80kg) per passenger. Lets say we get 42MJ/kg that gives us 3360MJ
of energy.

Err - no.
Your TV on standby consuming 0.8W running 24/7 365 will use about 25MJ...

Unless your TV runs on AVgas, you've got to multiply by the average
efficiency of an oil power station - say 60MJ of oil used.

And the issue isn't really the TVs using 60MJ, it's the few year old
TVs using 10W.
700MJ or so per year.
Or a flight every 4 years, rather than 134. Hardly peanuts.

So the moral of the storey is skip this years flight, you can have your
TV on standby for the next 134 years instead.

Most newer stuff uses less power than most older stuff.
If only for the reason that in many cases, it's gotten cheaper (in large
volumes) to avoid needing an extra part (a heatsink) than to design it
to use under a watt or so on standby.

John wrote:
At the place where I work they are embarking on a campaign on energy
reduction (no issues here) but they keep beating on about TVs left on
standby. Apparently it is going to destroy the planet.

Some of this debate misses one point.
You spend 20-50 quid per year on electricity running stuff in standby.
Where does this go?

Well - half probably goes to the generating company, and thence to
workers in the UK, to feed the UK economy.
All well and good.

But, the other half - or more - goes overseas.
Never mind that some of it goes to distastefull governments, this means
that for every pound that goes out of the UK, we have to sell something
overseas, or buy a pound less of stuff from abroad.

Buying in fuel from overseas hurts our economy.

Strangely, this isn't really the case for nuclear.

As all of the construction and employment happens for people in the UK,
and fuel isn't a cost.

Strangely, this isn't really the case for nuclear.

As all of the construction and employment happens for people in the UK,
and fuel isn't a cost.

Won't foreign companies be allowed to bid for building nuclear power
stations? And isn't the major recent expertise with building and
operating them French?

And I know of no indegenous source of Uranium.

Bob Eager wrote:
On Tue, 24 Oct 2006 16:17:28 UTC, "John"
wrote:

At the place where I work they are embarking on a campaign on energy
reduction (no issues here) but they keep beating on about TVs left on
standby. Apparently it is going to destroy the planet.

Yet the publicity being used claims £50 per household for stuff on standby.

I get very annoyed about this figure, which is (a) probably ancient (b)
wrong to start with. Proably worked out once (wrongly) in the past, and
forever quoted.

Our 28 inch (sorry!) TV uses nominally 8 watts on standby. Seems to be
in that ball park if I measure it. Let's call it 10W.

OK, that's approximately 250Wh over 24 hours, or 1kWh over 4 days.
That's approximately 90kWh a year.

Take an approximate cost of 10p per kWh. This will vary, but again a
ballpark figure. That makes £9.00 per year - let's round it up to £10 as
the cost per kWh is a little low, perhaps.

So, £10 per year if you leave the TV on standby ALL of the time. In
reality, some of that time, it will be switched on; let's say about 5
hours a day on average, or 20% of the time. You can't count that time as
'wasted standby' time, so that brings the cost per year down to £8. Even
lower if you actually turn it off for the night.

Now, that's only for one appliance, but it's the one everyone quotes and
indeed seems to imply that it's responsible for £50 on it's own.
Selective quoting. It's also the most power hungry.

The figures given are total greenwash. Not to say you shouldn't turn it
off (we do) but let's get there by quoting truthful figures.

--
The information contained in this post is copyright the
poster, and specifically may not be published in, or used by
Avenue Supplies, http://avenuesupplies.co.uk

The BBC had a feature on this on the news web site so it might be worth
searching for. The figures are from memory so don't quote me. 23% of
co2 in the UK comes from homes of which about 60% is heating and 20% is
hot water. About 10% was domestic electrical appliances. In essence the
amount used by appliances on standby is bugger all compared to heating
costs.
Another factor I find amazing is that if global warming is due to air
travel and car use why is air travel only responsible for 2% of global
co2 and car use responsible for 3.5% globally.
Seems somebody is telling porky pies here.

Kevin

On 25 Oct 2006 08:51:51 -0700, Kev wrote:

The BBC had a feature on this on the news web site so it might be worth
searching for. The figures are from memory so don't quote me. 23% of
co2 in the UK comes from homes of which about 60% is heating and 20% is
hot water. About 10% was domestic electrical appliances. In essence the
amount used by appliances on standby is bugger all compared to heating
costs.
Another factor I find amazing is that if global warming is due to air
travel and car use why is air travel only responsible for 2% of global
co2 and car use responsible for 3.5% globally.
Seems somebody is telling porky pies here.

Kevin

Don't forget that all this standby and non-standby power used by
appliances ultimately gets turned into heat. So for at least part of
the year your standby/appliance power displaces heating, to some extent.
Obviously if you have air-con during the summer, the standby power
effectively produces _more_ waste, but I'm assuming normal people in
domestic situations (offices can do their own calculations).

If you really want to save energy, put on a sweater and don't wash.

Pete

--
.................................................. .........................
.. never trust a man who, when left alone ...... Pete Lynch .
.. in a room with a tea cosy ...... Marlow, England .
.. doesn't try it on (Billy Connolly) .....................................

dcbwhaley wrote:

Strangely, this isn't really the case for nuclear.

As all of the construction and employment happens for people in the UK,
and fuel isn't a cost.

Won't foreign companies be allowed to bid for building nuclear power
stations? And isn't the major recent expertise with building and
operating them French?

And I know of no indegenous source of Uranium.

Yes, foreign companies may be allowed to bid.

The people building them will presumably be living in the UK, and not
commuting to france daily.
As will the people operating them.

The fuel cost is fairly small. You get about 150Mwh of electricity for
1Kg of uranium.
A price I found from 2005 was about 30 pounds a kilo.
This as a component of the price is .02 pence per kilowatt-hour.

Peter Lynch wrote:
On 25 Oct 2006 08:51:51 -0700, Kev wrote:

The BBC had a feature on this on the news web site so it might be worth
searching for. The figures are from memory so don't quote me. 23% of
co2 in the UK comes from homes of which about 60% is heating and 20% is
hot water. About 10% was domestic electrical appliances. In essence the
amount used by appliances on standby is bugger all compared to heating
costs.

Another factor I find amazing is that if global warming is due to air
travel and car use why is air travel only responsible for 2% of global
co2 and car use responsible for 3.5% globally.
Seems somebody is telling porky pies here.

Don't forget that all this standby and non-standby power used by
appliances ultimately gets turned into heat. So for at least part of
the year your standby/appliance power displaces heating, to some extent.

Though compared to gas heating, you're going to spend maybe 3 times the
price.

Ian Stirling wrote:

John Rumm wrote:

Bob Eager wrote:


Anyone want to work out how long a TV has to be left on standby to equal
one trip to Torremolinos?? :-)

Well, lets have a go...

Google earth recons the distance from Gatwick is 1025 miles...

lets go on a 777, with a passenger capacity of 440 people flying cattle
class. Max range about 6000 miles, max fuel load 120,000 L - so call it
a 1/3rd of a tank there and back. So 40,000 L of fuel, or 90 L (or
about 80kg) per passenger. Lets say we get 42MJ/kg that gives us 3360MJ
of energy.


Err - no.

Your TV on standby consuming 0.8W running 24/7 365 will use about 25MJ...


Unless your TV runs on AVgas, you've got to multiply by the average
efficiency of an oil power station - say 60MJ of oil used.

Yes fair point... although the perhaps fiddle factor ought to take into
account the proportion of non (directly) contributing nuclear electric
generated in the UK.

And the issue isn't really the TVs using 60MJ, it's the few year old
TVs using 10W.

Don't think I have ever seen one using that much. Even my 12 year old
29" Sony is under 2W in standby.

700MJ or so per year.
Or a flight every 4 years, rather than 134. Hardly peanuts.

That was a shortish flight, assuming the whole aircraft was one class
giving a higher passenger density. Go for a longer trip, on an aircraft
with club and first class, and there would also be a jump in oil burnt
per passenger that could be quite significant. There are also plenty of
old less efficient aircraft in use.

swings and roundabouts!

Most newer stuff uses less power than most older stuff.

Although there is a trend toward "bigger and better" in AV gear which
offsets some of the efficiency gains.


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

In message , at 00:23:28 on Wed, 25 Oct
2006, "Dave Plowman (News)" remarked:

I read that one return trip by air to LA

About 6,000 miles each way, so 12,00 miles

produces the same CO2 (per passenger) as the average car does in a
year.

About 10,000 miles a year.

Yep, simply shows that per passenger mile a modern plane is about the
same as a car (and also the same as a high speed train).
--
Roland Perry

"Kev" wrote in message
ups.com...

Bob Eager wrote:
On Tue, 24 Oct 2006 16:17:28 UTC, "John"
wrote:

At the place where I work they are embarking on a campaign on energy
reduction (no issues here) but they keep beating on about TVs left on
standby. Apparently it is going to destroy the planet.

Yet the publicity being used claims £50 per household for stuff on
standby.

I get very annoyed about this figure, which is (a) probably ancient (b)
wrong to start with. Proably worked out once (wrongly) in the past, and
forever quoted.

Our 28 inch (sorry!) TV uses nominally 8 watts on standby. Seems to be
in that ball park if I measure it. Let's call it 10W.

OK, that's approximately 250Wh over 24 hours, or 1kWh over 4 days.
That's approximately 90kWh a year.

Take an approximate cost of 10p per kWh. This will vary, but again a
ballpark figure. That makes £9.00 per year - let's round it up to £10 as
the cost per kWh is a little low, perhaps.

So, £10 per year if you leave the TV on standby ALL of the time. In
reality, some of that time, it will be switched on; let's say about 5
hours a day on average, or 20% of the time. You can't count that time as
'wasted standby' time, so that brings the cost per year down to £8. Even
lower if you actually turn it off for the night.

Now, that's only for one appliance, but it's the one everyone quotes and
indeed seems to imply that it's responsible for £50 on it's own.
Selective quoting. It's also the most power hungry.

The figures given are total greenwash. Not to say you shouldn't turn it
off (we do) but let's get there by quoting truthful figures.

--
The information contained in this post is copyright the
poster, and specifically may not be published in, or used by
Avenue Supplies, http://avenuesupplies.co.uk

The BBC had a feature on this on the news web site so it might be worth
searching for. The figures are from memory so don't quote me. 23% of
co2 in the UK comes from homes of which about 60% is heating and 20% is
hot water. About 10% was domestic electrical appliances. In essence the
amount used by appliances on standby is bugger all compared to heating
costs.
Another factor I find amazing is that if global warming is due to air
travel and car use why is air travel only responsible for 2% of global
co2 and car use responsible for 3.5% globally.
Seems somebody is telling porky pies here.



I don't know where you obtained your figures but ALL energy use adds to the
global warning effect.

Just because something only contributes a small amount doesn't mean it's not
important.

Mary

"Peter Lynch" wrote in message
...
On 25 Oct 2006 08:51:51 -0700, Kev wrote:

The BBC had a feature on this on the news web site so it might be worth
searching for. The figures are from memory so don't quote me. 23% of
co2 in the UK comes from homes of which about 60% is heating and 20% is
hot water. About 10% was domestic electrical appliances. In essence the
amount used by appliances on standby is bugger all compared to heating
costs.
Another factor I find amazing is that if global warming is due to air
travel and car use why is air travel only responsible for 2% of global
co2 and car use responsible for 3.5% globally.
Seems somebody is telling porky pies here.

Kevin

Don't forget that all this standby and non-standby power used by
appliances ultimately gets turned into heat. So for at least part of
the year your standby/appliance power displaces heating, to some extent.
Obviously if you have air-con during the summer, the standby power
effectively produces _more_ waste, but I'm assuming normal people in
domestic situations (offices can do their own calculations).

If you really want to save energy, put on a sweater and don't wash.

Why not wash? You can wash in cold or aired water.

Mary

"Doki" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
...
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote:
In article . com,
wrote:
Cars are pointlessly overpowered to appeal to immature buyers,

But use rather less fuel than underpowered cars of yore.

Huh? Have you ever investigated the petrol consumption of (for
example) an Austin 7 from the 1930s, it's very economical.

I haven't, but I'll be a fiver that a Citroen AX will beat it.

That doesn't mean that it should be used irresponsibly.

Surely we're more knowledgeable and responsible than our forebears in this
matter?

Mary

On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 18:49:37 UTC, "Mary Fisher"
wrote:

Why not wash? You can wash in cold or aired water.

I know you'll probably say you use a local stream or well (!) but most
water is pumped. That uses energy.


--
The information contained in this post is copyright the
poster, and specifically may not be published in, or used by
Avenue Supplies, http://avenuesupplies.co.uk

"Bob Eager" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 18:49:37 UTC, "Mary Fisher"
wrote:

Why not wash? You can wash in cold or aired water.

I know you'll probably say you use a local stream or well (!) but most
water is pumped. That uses energy.

It does but it's not using the added energy needed to heat it.

Sadly there are no local streams hereabouts. We intend to use harvested
water for washing and flushing but we have to get over Spouse's major
surgery first.

That used a lot of power in the lighting over seven hours if nothing else.
But he's still alive and has a good life in front of him, we hope.

Mary

Mary Fisher wrote:
"Doki" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
.. .

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote:

In article . com,
wrote:

Cars are pointlessly overpowered to appeal to immature buyers,

But use rather less fuel than underpowered cars of yore.


Huh? Have you ever investigated the petrol consumption of (for
example) an Austin 7 from the 1930s, it's very economical.

I haven't, but I'll be a fiver that a Citroen AX will beat it.


That doesn't mean that it should be used irresponsibly.

Surely we're more knowledgeable and responsible than our forebears in this
matter?

Mary


Goldilocks wasn't a bear. ;-)

"PJ" wrote in message ...
Mary Fisher wrote:
"Doki" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
. ..

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote:

In article . com,
wrote:

Cars are pointlessly overpowered to appeal to immature buyers,

But use rather less fuel than underpowered cars of yore.


Huh? Have you ever investigated the petrol consumption of (for
example) an Austin 7 from the 1930s, it's very economical.

I haven't, but I'll be a fiver that a Citroen AX will beat it.


That doesn't mean that it should be used irresponsibly.

Surely we're more knowledgeable and responsible than our forebears in
this matter?

Mary
Goldilocks wasn't a bear. ;-)

yawn

On 25 Oct 2006 12:44:15 GMT, "Bob Eager" wrote:


The one that frightened me was the A30/A35 (both, I believe).
Effectively only ONE braking system, there being common components
between the handbrake and footbrake systems. I knew a girl who had one,
and she suffered a total brake failure.

I had one in 1967. The vehicle had a mixture of Lockheed (Hydraulic)
and Girling (rods and cables) brakes.

The front brakes were hydraulic (drums, 2 leading shoes).

The rear brakes were operated by a single hydraulic cylinder behind
the drivers seat connected by a single cable to a bellcrank on the
rear axle casing which operated the two rear drums (1 leading shoe per
drum), via rods. The whole sorry lot rusted up quite frequently.

The handbrake lever was connected by a rod to the piston of the single
hydraulic cyinder for the rear brakes. The handbrake lever itself was
mounted under the floor in a die cast aluminium pillar block on the
driver's right hand side by the door. This crumbled away. Exposure to
salt/dissimilar metals, whatever I couldn't get a replacement to last
more than 15 months despite painting it, undersealing it, & greasing
it. The original had lasted 7 years !

I can't think of any condition of single component failure that could
result in sudden catastrophic loss of all braking, but I'm pretty sure
that the rear brakes could be seized solid with rust without the
driver noticing other than a poor handbrake, which never had been very
good. Then If the bore in the master cylinder developed a rusty patch
this could damage the rubber seal resulting in the hydraulic system
quickly becoming U/S.

The rods, BTW, were a swine to adjust especially since my vehicle had
had a chassis repair which (thinking in retrospect) must have moved
the rear axle forward by 1 - 2 cms. since all the adjustment was taken
up and even after replacing a supposedly stretched cable still more
adjustment was required. :-(

There's one on ebay, 575 quid if anyone wants one. ;-)

DG

On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 19:30:38 UTC, Derek ^
wrote:

On 25 Oct 2006 12:44:15 GMT, "Bob Eager" wrote:


The one that frightened me was the A30/A35 (both, I believe).
Effectively only ONE braking system, there being common components
between the handbrake and footbrake systems. I knew a girl who had one,
and she suffered a total brake failure.

I had one in 1967. The vehicle had a mixture of Lockheed (Hydraulic)
and Girling (rods and cables) brakes.

The front brakes were hydraulic (drums, 2 leading shoes).

The rear brakes were operated by a single hydraulic cylinder behind
the drivers seat connected by a single cable to a bellcrank on the
rear axle casing which operated the two rear drums (1 leading shoe per
drum), via rods. The whole sorry lot rusted up quite frequently.

The handbrake lever was connected by a rod to the piston of the single
hydraulic cyinder for the rear brakes. The handbrake lever itself was
mounted under the floor in a die cast aluminium pillar block on the
driver's right hand side by the door.

I can't think of any condition of single component failure that could
result in sudden catastrophic loss of all braking

I was thinking of a failure of one of the rods as it entered the
cylinder, which would then absorb any travel there might be and also
cause loss of hydraulic fluid.

I needn't have worried - what you say is quite enough! :-)
--
The information contained in this post is copyright the
poster, and specifically may not be published in, or used by
Avenue Supplies, http://avenuesupplies.co.uk

On 25 Oct 2006 19:34:39 GMT, "Bob Eager" wrote:

I can't think of any condition of single component failure that could
result in sudden catastrophic loss of all braking

I was thinking of a failure of one of the rods as it entered the
cylinder, which would then absorb any travel there might be and also
cause loss of hydraulic fluid.

The rear brakes were connected to the single rear hydraulic cyinder by
a "Stirrup" arrangement which surrounded it in the vertical plane. If
a rod/cable came loose there was not enough available free movement to
pop the piston out of the master cylinder.

By the same token if your car didn't have the same dimensions it had
when it was new because some gash mechanic had drilled new mounting
holes and moved the back axle you could have taken up all the allowed
movement and still get no footbrake on the rear wheels. :-(


I needn't have worried - what you say is quite enough! :-)

It was all hairy enough.

In reality it needed a chassis/brake lube about once per month.

IIRC in the user manual an oil & filter change was mandated every
1,000 miles.

DG

In message , Ian
Stirling writes
John Rumm wrote:
Bob Eager wrote:

Anyone want to work out how long a TV has to be left on standby to equal
one trip to Torremolinos?? :-)

Well, lets have a go...

Google earth recons the distance from Gatwick is 1025 miles...

lets go on a 777, with a passenger capacity of 440 people flying cattle
class. Max range about 6000 miles, max fuel load 120,000 L - so call it
a 1/3rd of a tank there and back. So 40,000 L of fuel, or 90 L (or
about 80kg) per passenger. Lets say we get 42MJ/kg that gives us 3360MJ
of energy.

Err - no.
Your TV on standby consuming 0.8W running 24/7 365 will use about 25MJ...

Unless your TV runs on AVgas, you've got to multiply by the average
efficiency of an oil power station - say 60MJ of oil used.

And the issue isn't really the TVs using 60MJ, it's the few year old
TVs using 10W.
700MJ or so per year.
Or a flight every 4 years, rather than 134. Hardly peanuts.

So the moral of the storey is skip this years flight, you can have your
TV on standby for the next 134 years instead.

Most newer stuff uses less power than most older stuff.
If only for the reason that in many cases, it's gotten cheaper (in large
volumes) to avoid needing an extra part (a heatsink) than to design it
to use under a watt or so on standby.

If you want to ignore the energy involved in making it, that is.

Who's going to do the calcs on the advantage on running say, an old
boiler, against the environmental cost of manufacturing and then running
a new condensing boiler ?

--
geoff

In message , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
raden wrote:
Are all the lights and computers switched off when not in use ?

makes me laugh turning your TV off instead of putting it on standby will
save the planet

... but all these office buildings running lights and PCs 24/7 really
don't impact

Street lighting on all the hours of darkness too. But we understand about
power stations having a minimum demand.

Aah, but then if I left my TV on standby, and my phone charger plugged
in, what more would be required ?

--
geoff