On Sun, 22 Feb 2009 11:30:21 -0000, John wrote:

"Andy Burns" wrote in message
et...
John wrote:

not sure you are right to use kWh - kW yes, but not kWh

He's right ... 80 watts x 12 hours = 960 watt-hours = 0.96kWh

I agree with you! Absolutely but the previous person said, "12h a day is
near enough 1kWh". It isn't - it is 0.96kWh

Not trying to be pedantic - but it makes a big difference if you start to
cross reference to other information.

Lesson:

1 Kilowatt running for one hour is 1 kilowatt hour.

500 watts running for one hour = 0.5 kilowatt hour.

1 kilowatt running for 30 mins = 0.5 kilowatt hour

&

80 watts x 12 hours = 960 watt-hours = 0.96kWh

There is no point in precision exceeding accuracy: measuring the input to a
SMPSU will be dubious except with special equipment, so 30 min. running in
24h is irrelevant.
--
Peter.
You don't understand Newton's Third Law of Motion?
It's not rocket science, you know.

On Sun, 22 Feb 2009 14:04:40 +0000, Rod wrote:

John wrote:
From Wikipedia

"Note that the kWh is the product of power in kilowatts divided by time in
hours; it is not kW/h."

Well that's confusing (i.e. getting utterly wrong) 'product' and 'divided'.

kWh is the product of kilowatts *times* hours.

hooray! Saying kW/h is on a par with 'low energy' without staing wattage
(and PF) and time; also advertising primary cells as 'high power' when most
users are interested in the energy stored (even if they don't know it).
--
Peter.
You don't understand Newton's Third Law of Motion?
It's not rocket science, you know.

On Sun, 22 Feb 2009 14:40:48 +0000, Derek Geldard wrote:

On Sat, 21 Feb 2009 13:28:20 -0000, "John"
wrote:


"Andrew Gabriel" wrote in message
.. .
In article ,
"Arfa Daily" writes:
snip

Before you get paranoid about your TV Standby - look at the spec. Modern
sets are very low - mine is only 0.8 of a watt - not that it gets left
on
standby much.


Ha ! Joy ! At last someone who understands the eco bollox about standby
modes, that is continuously thrust at us now ...

It stems from old TV's. If you have a TV well over 10 years old,
it will have a standby of something like 5W - 10W, and depending
on how much you use it, you might find total standby consumption
exceeds the actual viewing consumption. Many countries have had
rules in place for many years now limiting standby power to 1W,
and given TV's are manufactured for use in many different countries,
we all benefit from those rules in any new TV you buy today, even
when we don't actually have such a rule.

We still have problems with items designed for use only in this
(or only a few) countries, which are things like set top boxes.
They often don't significantly reduce consumption in standby
mode.

--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]


I can't see how total standby can exceed actual viewing consumption - this
sounds even more like eco bollox!


Snip

Simple,

Some STB's etc use about the same energy on standby as in operation

Actual hours TV watched may be 2-5 hours.

So standby hours = 19 - 22 hours (if maximised by the user).

Ergo standby consumption can far exceed useful consumption.

Derek

Same as a 'low energy' 'bulb' - leave it on for long enough and it's use
more than a GLS that's on for the time needed.
--
Peter.
You don't understand Newton's Third Law of Motion?
It's not rocket science, you know.

"John" wrote in message
...

"Andy Burns" wrote in message
et...
John wrote:

not sure you are right to use kWh - kW yes, but not kWh

He's right ... 80 watts x 12 hours = 960 watt-hours = 0.96kWh


I agree with you! Absolutely but the previous person said, "12h a day is
near enough 1kWh". It isn't - it is 0.96kWh

Not trying to be pedantic - but it makes a big difference if you start to
cross reference to other information.

Lesson:

1 Kilowatt running for one hour is 1 kilowatt hour.

500 watts running for one hour = 0.5 kilowatt hour.

1 kilowatt running for 30 mins = 0.5 kilowatt hour

&

80 watts x 12 hours = 960 watt-hours = 0.96kWh


??????????? Durrrr .... Which is "near enough 1 kWh", exactly as stated
....

Arfa

"John" wrote in message
...

"Clive George" wrote in message
et...
"John" wrote in message
...
From Wikipedia

"Note that the kWh is the product of power in kilowatts divided by time
in hours; it is not kW/h."

You may just have been unlucky - some clueless numpty on 83.70.166.120
put that change in there this morning. Fixed this afternoon.


Tracking back - It was changed on 13th Feb. (Never looked at the page
history before - interesting)

You've looking at the wrong dates - the change to "divided" was today, and
was fairly swiftly corrected.

I am 86.2.159.xx just in case I am a suspect!!

:-)

A unit of electric energy equal to the work done by one kilowatt acting
for one hour.

Therefore (I think) 80 watts is 0.08 kWh

No. 80 watts for an hour is 0.08 kWh. 40 watts for two hours is 0.08 kWh.
You need to include the time component.

John wrote:

80 watts is 0.08 kWh

Err, no 80 watts is 0.08kW.

leading to 960 watts being consumed after 12 hours. - but still 0.08 kWh

watts are a measure of power, watthours are a measure of energy.

On Sun, 22 Feb 2009 15:27:39 +0000 (GMT), Dave Liquorice wrote:

On Sat, 21 Feb 2009 13:28:20 -0000, John wrote:

I can't see how total standby can exceed actual viewing consumption -
this sounds even more like eco bollox!

Viewing say 4hrs in the evening @ 80W = 320Whrs. There are 20hrs left of
the day in standby, if that standby power is 16W then the set will use
more power in standby than it does for viewing.

It will run at lower power but 'use' (waste) more energy; power is not
used.

As has already been pointed out modern kit has very low standby powers
(1W) but older stuff could well have 16W.


--
Peter.
You don't understand Newton's Third Law of Motion?
It's not rocket science, you know.

Clive George wrote:
"John" wrote in message
...
"Clive George" wrote in message
et...
"John" wrote in message
...
From Wikipedia

"Note that the kWh is the product of power in kilowatts divided by time
in hours; it is not kW/h."
You may just have been unlucky - some clueless numpty on 83.70.166.120
put that change in there this morning. Fixed this afternoon.

Tracking back - It was changed on 13th Feb. (Never looked at the page
history before - interesting)

You've looking at the wrong dates - the change to "divided" was today, and
was fairly swiftly corrected.

I am 86.2.159.xx just in case I am a suspect!!

:-)

A unit of electric energy equal to the work done by one kilowatt acting
for one hour.

Therefore (I think) 80 watts is 0.08 kWh

No. 80 watts for an hour is 0.08 kWh. 40 watts for two hours is 0.08 kWh.
You need to include the time component.


Well it just shows that most ecofreaks haven;t a clue about maths or
energy or power at all.

No wonder they get taken in by ecobollox.

"John" wrote in message
...

"Zen83237" wrote in message
...

"Harry Bloomfield" wrote in message
k...
Zen83237 wrote on 20/02/2009 :
If I am getting this for nothing fair enough but if I am paying for it
what is the point of a low energy bulb that consumes energy when it is
switched off. In my case it is a constant flicker on three lights that
have an light sensitive security switch.

You will be paying for the running of the security switch, the
flickering is a by product of this.

--
Regards,
Harry (M1BYT) (L)
http://www.ukradioamateur.co.uk

Would that be more or less power than the standby on a tv. Seems that
there is another way of saving power here. I hadn't realised that the
power to run a light sensitive switch would power up a CFL bulb.. I just
wonder why the public can't be advised of this problem, if you can call
it that. I assumed that it was a wiring fault.


The issue is not about the CFL Lamp - the issue is that you are needing to
power an electronic device - the security switch. Do you expect it to run
on fresh air? If you dig out the instructions it should tell you it
consumes something - perhaps in the order of 0.2 of a watt. It gets its
'neutral' to complete its circuit through the electronics of the CFL - or
the filament of a bulb. The bulb would get immeasurably warm as a result -
the CFL will give an occasional flicker.

Before you get paranoid about your TV Standby - look at the spec. Modern
sets are very low - mine is only 0.8 of a watt - not that it gets left on
standby much.

Bigger fish to fry as they say.

(Why don't people reduce the timer setting on their PIR Lights for
example)
Sorry, please read my post again. Who said "OCCASIONAL" flicker. This is
constant flickering. If this is 0.2 watts, well I don't know. It certainly
gives off a significant amount of light, and by the way is bloody annoying.
If it is only consuming power that has otherwise been used and is not
costing extra then fair enough. But my simple mind tells me if something
emits energy then that energy must come from somewhere. Surely the 0.2 watts
is consumed in the switch. How can the same energy now power up the bulb. If
it does then you have hit on how to solve the world's energy problems. Use
the same power twice over.
If it wasn't so bloody annoying I would live with it. Who says that people
don't reduce their PIR settings. Mine it minimum settings and it still comes
of far too frequently and long before it is anything like dark.

On Sun, 22 Feb 2009 19:40:45 UTC, "Zen83237" wrote:

Sorry, please read my post again. Who said "OCCASIONAL" flicker. This is
constant flickering.

How often do you get a flicker? And of what duration?

--
The information contained in this post is copyright the
poster, and specifically may not be published in, or used by
http://www.diybanter.com

"Bob Eager" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 22 Feb 2009 19:40:45 UTC, "Zen83237" wrote:

Sorry, please read my post again. Who said "OCCASIONAL" flicker. This is
constant flickering.

How often do you get a flicker? And of what duration?

--
The information contained in this post is copyright the
poster, and specifically may not be published in, or used by
http://www.diybanter.com

It is constant ie all the time it is switched off but only noticable when it
is dark or dusk. The frequency, difficult to say, but certainly many flashes
per second. It doesn't give off anything like enough light to read by but
just switched it off now and I can make out every thing in the room and that
isn't even allowing for my eyes accustomed to the dark.
I should also say that although the light sensitive switches are new in two
rooms the hall way has had one for several years and I never had this
problem until about a year ago which suggests to me that there is something
different about the newer bulbs. The kids managed to smash the bulb and
damage the rose so my first thought was that I rewired the new rose
incorrectly as it started when a new bulb was fitted after the accident.
I wont even go into the toxicity introduced into the house by accidentilly
breaking them.

"Zen83237" wrote in message
...

"Bob Eager" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 22 Feb 2009 19:40:45 UTC, "Zen83237" wrote:

Sorry, please read my post again. Who said "OCCASIONAL" flicker. This is
constant flickering.

How often do you get a flicker? And of what duration?

--
The information contained in this post is copyright the
poster, and specifically may not be published in, or used by
http://www.diybanter.com

It is constant ie all the time it is switched off but only noticable when
it is dark or dusk. The frequency, difficult to say, but certainly many
flashes per second. It doesn't give off anything like enough light to read
by but just switched it off now and I can make out every thing in the room
and that isn't even allowing for my eyes accustomed to the dark.
I should also say that although the light sensitive switches are new in
two rooms the hall way has had one for several years and I never had this
problem until about a year ago which suggests to me that there is
something different about the newer bulbs. The kids managed to smash the
bulb and damage the rose so my first thought was that I rewired the new
rose incorrectly as it started when a new bulb was fitted after the
accident.
I wont even go into the toxicity introduced into the house by accidentilly
breaking them.


Well, you can if you like. It's a valid point, and yet another negative one
that's glossed over by the green mist brigade ...

Arfa

"Mike Clarke" wrote in message
et...
Zen83237 wrote:

I see, the Government in their wisdom are phasing out filament bulbs,
maybe they need to tell industry making the fittings and switches then.

Well the instructions with the last few PIR lights I bought specifically
said that CFL's were not suitable for use with them.

--
Mike Clarke

With respect this is not a PIR, a room switch with inbuild light sensor to
switch the lights on a dusk for predetermined interval.

wrote in message
...
Zen83237 wrote:
A few months back I asked about flickering low energy bulbs when they are
switched off and I was pointed to this:

http://www.wiki.diyfaq.org.uk:80/ind...itle=CFL_Lamps
Occasional flashing
In exceptional cases a CFL will flash occasionally when switched off.
This
is due to wiring capacitance passing a tiny current, which gradually
charges
the CFL's reservoir capacitor, and after a while it attmpts to start,
giving
a momentary flicker.

2 conditions tend to cause this:

a.. an especially long switch wire run
b.. supply switched on the neutral instead of live pole
The question is, is the energy being consumed when the lights supposed to
be
off costing me money, ie is it clocking up on my electricity meter. If I
am
getting this for nothing fair enough but if I am paying for it what is
the
point of a low energy bulb that consumes energy when it is switched off.
In
my case it is a constant flicker on three lights that have an light
sensitive security switch.

Kevin

You pay for it, but you're still better off. Lets take a rough
estimate, say the flicker lasts 1/20th second, and it happens once a
minute. So thats 3 seconds worth per hour, or 72 seconds per day. 0.02
hrs at maybe 15w = 0.0003kW/day,
at a cost of 0.0036p per day.

But this current will flow regardless of what type of bulb you use,
fitting a filament lamp won't save you that 0.0036p. So sorry to
disappoint


NT

More like 20 times a second. So that would put the cost as about 1200 times
what you suggested.
For example, I would prefer to watch tv with the light off, no glare but it
is like sitting in a room with a giant stroboscope so I keep the light on.
So no savings there then.

PeterC wrote:

On Sat, 21 Feb 2009 13:58:56 -0800 (PST), wrote:

Andrew Gabriel wrote:

In article ,
"Arfa Daily" writes:
snip

Before you get paranoid about your TV Standby - look at the spec. Modern
sets are very low - mine is only 0.8 of a watt - not that it gets left on
standby much.


Ha ! Joy ! At last someone who understands the eco bollox about standby
modes, that is continuously thrust at us now ...

It stems from old TV's. If you have a TV well over 10 years old,
it will have a standby of something like 5W - 10W, and depending
on how much you use it, you might find total standby consumption
exceeds the actual viewing consumption. Many countries have had
rules in place for many years now limiting standby power to 1W,
and given TV's are manufactured for use in many different countries,
we all benefit from those rules in any new TV you buy today, even
when we don't actually have such a rule.

We still have problems with items designed for use only in this
(or only a few) countries, which are things like set top boxes.
They often don't significantly reduce consumption in standby
mode.

--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]

It all adds up.
From a list the other week ...
TV: Toshiba 2500TB. 13.4W standby. 75W running. (12 year old).
TV: Panasonic TX-1. 5.8W and 57W (25? years old).
Video recorder: Panasonic. 8.1W and 16.5W (10 years old).
DVD player. Tesco. (8 months old) 8.5W continuous
Freeview box (Asda, 2 months old). 5.5W continuous
Freeview box (Aldi, 'Tevion' 18 months old). 10.3W continuous.
20" 'V7' PC LCD monitor, 21W dim, 42.5W bright.

And the 'pooter?

My PC+19" monitor is 80W on idle; just built a new system for a friend and
it's the same wattage with a 22" screen. 12h a day is near enough 1kWh, 7
days a week, 300 days a year...
--
Peter.
1.8GHz (something or other) PC uses 4.5W when switched "off" (jeez,
oh how I so loathe those ON/OFF 'switches' that aren't). Switched ON
and running windows ****e it uses 72W. (LCD screen unplugged).
I.e. pretty similar to what you are measuring but I tend to have the
PC on only a couple of hours late evening. All to no avail of course,
as my tootsies are having a whopping 2kW of expensive warm air blown
across them as I type

Arfa Daily wrote:

wrote in message
...

Andrew Gabriel wrote:

In article ,
"Arfa Daily" writes:
snip

Before you get paranoid about your TV Standby - look at the spec.
Modern
sets are very low - mine is only 0.8 of a watt - not that it gets left
on
standby much.


Ha ! Joy ! At last someone who understands the eco bollox about standby
modes, that is continuously thrust at us now ...

It stems from old TV's. If you have a TV well over 10 years old,
it will have a standby of something like 5W - 10W, and depending
on how much you use it, you might find total standby consumption
exceeds the actual viewing consumption. Many countries have had
rules in place for many years now limiting standby power to 1W,
and given TV's are manufactured for use in many different countries,
we all benefit from those rules in any new TV you buy today, even
when we don't actually have such a rule.

We still have problems with items designed for use only in this
(or only a few) countries, which are things like set top boxes.
They often don't significantly reduce consumption in standby
mode.

--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]

It all adds up.
From a list the other week ...
TV: Toshiba 2500TB. 13.4W standby. 75W running. (12 year old).
TV: Panasonic TX-1. 5.8W and 57W (25? years old).
Video recorder: Panasonic. 8.1W and 16.5W (10 years old).
DVD player. Tesco. (8 months old) 8.5W continuous
Freeview box (Asda, 2 months old). 5.5W continuous
Freeview box (Aldi, 'Tevion' 18 months old). 10.3W continuous.
20" 'V7' PC LCD monitor, 21W dim, 42.5W bright.

Measured how though ? The figures for the stuff that's 10, 12 even 25 years
old is largely irrelevant, as back then, care was not taken over designing
standby modes with power saving in mind. In the grand scheme of things, most
of those standby powers are quite small (and in reality, may actually be
even smaller). The entire lot added up for a day, could probably be
mitigated by boiling one kettle, or heating up one ready meal ...

Arfa

Tis a digital wattmeter I designed last month. Autoranging, wide
bandwidth current amp, high speed digitising of instantaneous current/
voltage pairs, computation of true and apparent powers, PF, rms
values for A and V, crest factor etc. I copied those numbers as over
the past few years on the internet I've come across ridiculous
amounts of poor quality discussion about equipment power consumption
and oodles of bad measurements being quoted, based usually on
inadequate measuring equipment and theory. Just getting my foot in the
door and yes I agree, a few tens of watts is pretty meaningless when
compared to the real cost killers.
I would disagree though about the old stuff not being designed with
consumption in mind. Quite the reverse. Good engineering has always
been minutely concerned with these kind of details, as they invariably
pay off in profit. The digital stuff about nowadays looks in many
cases to be designed by second raters, who seem familiar with software
and assembling power hungry boutique chips but have little concept of
the effort sweat and tears or elegance and art of good electronics
design.

Zen83237 wrote:


"Mike Clarke" wrote in message
et...
Zen83237 wrote:

I see, the Government in their wisdom are phasing out filament bulbs,
maybe they need to tell industry making the fittings and switches then.

Well the instructions with the last few PIR lights I bought specifically
said that CFL's were not suitable for use with them.

--
Mike Clarke

With respect this is not a PIR, a room switch with inbuild light sensor to
switch the lights on a dusk for predetermined interval.

Fair point, which I'd overlooked.

One reason why PIR's and CFL's don't mix well is that PIR's invariably
switch the lights on for brief periods which is a mode of use that CFL's
are not suited to. Clearly this doesn't apply to dusk to dawn switches.

The other reason why CFL's are a problem with some PIR's is that the sensor
requires a small current to flow through it from line to neutral, the
resistance of a filament bulb is low enough to provide this but a CFL
doesn't provide the right conditions for this with the result that the bulb
may flicker on and off. Domestic dusk to dawn switches sold as replacements
for conventional switches depend on this too and so will not be suited to
use with CFL's. The manufacturers will certainly certainly be aware of it
and ought to point this out.

--
Mike Clarke

wrote in message
...

Arfa Daily wrote:

wrote in message
...

Andrew Gabriel wrote:

In article ,
"Arfa Daily" writes:
snip

Before you get paranoid about your TV Standby - look at the spec.
Modern
sets are very low - mine is only 0.8 of a watt - not that it gets
left
on
standby much.


Ha ! Joy ! At last someone who understands the eco bollox about
standby
modes, that is continuously thrust at us now ...

It stems from old TV's. If you have a TV well over 10 years old,
it will have a standby of something like 5W - 10W, and depending
on how much you use it, you might find total standby consumption
exceeds the actual viewing consumption. Many countries have had
rules in place for many years now limiting standby power to 1W,
and given TV's are manufactured for use in many different countries,
we all benefit from those rules in any new TV you buy today, even
when we don't actually have such a rule.

We still have problems with items designed for use only in this
(or only a few) countries, which are things like set top boxes.
They often don't significantly reduce consumption in standby
mode.

--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]

It all adds up.
From a list the other week ...
TV: Toshiba 2500TB. 13.4W standby. 75W running. (12 year old).
TV: Panasonic TX-1. 5.8W and 57W (25? years old).
Video recorder: Panasonic. 8.1W and 16.5W (10 years old).
DVD player. Tesco. (8 months old) 8.5W continuous
Freeview box (Asda, 2 months old). 5.5W continuous
Freeview box (Aldi, 'Tevion' 18 months old). 10.3W continuous.
20" 'V7' PC LCD monitor, 21W dim, 42.5W bright.

Measured how though ? The figures for the stuff that's 10, 12 even 25
years
old is largely irrelevant, as back then, care was not taken over
designing
standby modes with power saving in mind. In the grand scheme of things,
most
of those standby powers are quite small (and in reality, may actually be
even smaller). The entire lot added up for a day, could probably be
mitigated by boiling one kettle, or heating up one ready meal ...

Arfa

Tis a digital wattmeter I designed last month. Autoranging, wide
bandwidth current amp, high speed digitising of instantaneous current/
voltage pairs, computation of true and apparent powers, PF, rms
values for A and V, crest factor etc. I copied those numbers as over
the past few years on the internet I've come across ridiculous
amounts of poor quality discussion about equipment power consumption
and oodles of bad measurements being quoted, based usually on
inadequate measuring equipment and theory. Just getting my foot in the
door and yes I agree, a few tens of watts is pretty meaningless when
compared to the real cost killers.
I would disagree though about the old stuff not being designed with
consumption in mind. Quite the reverse. Good engineering has always
been minutely concerned with these kind of details, as they invariably
pay off in profit. The digital stuff about nowadays looks in many
cases to be designed by second raters, who seem familiar with software
and assembling power hungry boutique chips but have little concept of
the effort sweat and tears or elegance and art of good electronics
design.

Mostly agreed, and good to see a meter that can really measure 'area under
the curve' no matter what shape that curve is ... Is it complex, hardware
wise, or all done in clever software ? Are you aiming to market it ?

As far as equipment not being designed to save power ten years ago, I was
specifically referring to standby power. Most decent sized CRT TV sets were
down to a running power of no more than 80 watts by then, but the switchmode
power supplies of the day did not have PFC front ends, nor did the
controller ICs have sophisticated burst modes implemented for standby
purposes. Whilst I'm sure that the designers did their best in terms of
standby power consumption, before we were all bombarded with "global
warming" and "carbon footprint" and all of the endless other buzz words and
phrases that we are now daily bombarded with by well-meaning but largely
clueless oiks, there was no real need to minimise standby power, nor the
incentive to develop the techniques to do so. Bear in mind that consumer
electronics design, development and manufacturing, is totally cost driven by
the company bean counters, and ever has been.

It is only very recently in the last couple of years that cheap and easily
implemented techniques, using custom developed smps controller ICs, with
power saving being the specific goal, have been available for the designers
to incorporate. For instance, most equipment now has a specific standby
supply, completely separate from the main supply circuitry, which is totally
shut off when the unit *is* in standby.

FWIW, I work on consumer electronic gear of many varieties from many
manufacturers, on a daily basis, and have done for more years than I want to
remember, and personally, I think that this equipment has never been so well
designed, considering the complexity of the functionality, and the (for the
most part) stunningly good reliability - lead free solder problems aside, of
course !

Now that almost all of the processing of signals is carried out digitally, I
think that elegance of hardware design is no longer an issue. Of course, in
some places such as in the analogue parts of power supplies, and power
output stages, a degree of 'elegance' is still required, if you want to
refer that to good design practice, but as far as I see, that is mostly
taken care of much as it has always been. Whilst the 'boutique' chips might
be somewhat power hungry, given what they do, I think for the most part,
they are pretty damned good, and improving all of the time. Considering the
amounts of circuitry which they are replacing, they probably don't consume
any more than all of that hardware did in the first place. It's just that it
becomes concentrated in one place, and shows up as spot heating, which gives
the impression of power greediness.

Still, nice to see someone that has an understanding of what standby power
is about, and how to measure it. You are right that there is much (eco)
bollox talked about it, and I for one am sick of it !

Arfa

Zen83237 wrote:
"Bob Eager" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 22 Feb 2009 19:40:45 UTC, "Zen83237"
wrote:
Sorry, please read my post again. Who said "OCCASIONAL" flicker.
This is constant flickering.

How often do you get a flicker? And of what duration?

--
The information contained in this post is copyright the
poster, and specifically may not be published in, or used by
http://www.diybanter.com

It is constant ie all the time it is switched off but only noticable
when it is dark or dusk. The frequency, difficult to say, but
certainly many flashes per second. It doesn't give off anything like
enough light to read by but just switched it off now and I can make
out every thing in the room and that isn't even allowing for my eyes
accustomed to the dark. I should also say that although the light
sensitive switches are new
in two rooms the hall way has had one for several years and I never
had this problem until about a year ago which suggests to me that
there is something different about the newer bulbs. The kids managed
to smash the bulb and damage the rose so my first thought was that I
rewired the new rose incorrectly as it started when a new bulb was
fitted after the accident. I wont even go into the toxicity introduced
into the house by
accidentilly breaking them.

The amount of mercury is minimal. The hype about this is truely dreadful.
Just like all the nonsense about asbestos put about by the Elfin group and
shallow minded chattering idiots.

Yes, mercury was an issue for folk who worked with it continuously such as
hatters. Asbestos was an issue for those that mined it, manufactured
products with it and sadly also wives of asbestos workers who washed their
clothes. Solid asbestos is not an issue.

"Clot" wrote in message
...
Zen83237 wrote:
"Bob Eager" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 22 Feb 2009 19:40:45 UTC, "Zen83237"
wrote:
Sorry, please read my post again. Who said "OCCASIONAL" flicker.
This is constant flickering.

How often do you get a flicker? And of what duration?

--
The information contained in this post is copyright the
poster, and specifically may not be published in, or used by
http://www.diybanter.com

It is constant ie all the time it is switched off but only noticable
when it is dark or dusk. The frequency, difficult to say, but
certainly many flashes per second. It doesn't give off anything like
enough light to read by but just switched it off now and I can make
out every thing in the room and that isn't even allowing for my eyes
accustomed to the dark. I should also say that although the light
sensitive switches are new
in two rooms the hall way has had one for several years and I never
had this problem until about a year ago which suggests to me that
there is something different about the newer bulbs. The kids managed
to smash the bulb and damage the rose so my first thought was that I
rewired the new rose incorrectly as it started when a new bulb was
fitted after the accident. I wont even go into the toxicity introduced
into the house by
accidentilly breaking them.

The amount of mercury is minimal. The hype about this is truely dreadful.
Just like all the nonsense about asbestos put about by the Elfin group and
shallow minded chattering idiots.

Yes, mercury was an issue for folk who worked with it continuously such as
hatters. Asbestos was an issue for those that mined it, manufactured
products with it and sadly also wives of asbestos workers who washed their
clothes. Solid asbestos is not an issue.


However, that doesn't change the fact that you, along with all the other
advocates of this 'replacement' technology, are missing the point. No matter
how little mercury is in these things, it never-the-less is there, and is a
toxic component which wasn't present in a conventional incandescent light
bulb. This means that however slight, they do represent a hazard, and as a
result, may not be disposed of in your regular rubbish. Also, in theory, as
they are an electronic device, they should be subject to the WEEE directive,
which means that they should be substantially dismantled, made safe, and the
materials recycled. All of which represents a significant energy budget, and
serves to further mitigate any eco advantages that they are //claimed// to
have over the soon-to-be-banned plain and simple light bulb.

Arfa

Arfa Daily wrote:
"Clot" wrote in message
...
Zen83237 wrote:
"Bob Eager" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 22 Feb 2009 19:40:45 UTC, "Zen83237"
wrote:
Sorry, please read my post again. Who said "OCCASIONAL" flicker.
This is constant flickering.

How often do you get a flicker? And of what duration?

--
The information contained in this post is copyright the
poster, and specifically may not be published in, or used by
http://www.diybanter.com

It is constant ie all the time it is switched off but only noticable
when it is dark or dusk. The frequency, difficult to say, but
certainly many flashes per second. It doesn't give off anything like
enough light to read by but just switched it off now and I can make
out every thing in the room and that isn't even allowing for my eyes
accustomed to the dark. I should also say that although the light
sensitive switches are new
in two rooms the hall way has had one for several years and I never
had this problem until about a year ago which suggests to me that
there is something different about the newer bulbs. The kids managed
to smash the bulb and damage the rose so my first thought was that I
rewired the new rose incorrectly as it started when a new bulb was
fitted after the accident. I wont even go into the toxicity
introduced into the house by
accidentilly breaking them.

The amount of mercury is minimal. The hype about this is truely
dreadful. Just like all the nonsense about asbestos put about by the
Elfin group and shallow minded chattering idiots.

Yes, mercury was an issue for folk who worked with it continuously
such as hatters. Asbestos was an issue for those that mined it,
manufactured products with it and sadly also wives of asbestos
workers who washed their clothes. Solid asbestos is not an issue.


However, that doesn't change the fact that you, along with all the
other advocates of this 'replacement' technology, are missing the
point. No matter how little mercury is in these things, it
never-the-less is there, and is a toxic component which wasn't
present in a conventional incandescent light bulb. This means that
however slight, they do represent a hazard, and as a result, may not
be disposed of in your regular rubbish. Also, in theory, as they are
an electronic device, they should be subject to the WEEE directive,
which means that they should be substantially dismantled, made safe,
and the materials recycled. All of which represents a significant
energy budget, and serves to further mitigate any eco advantages that
they are //claimed// to have over the soon-to-be-banned plain and
simple light bulb.

I don't disagree that there is additional exposure potential from this
source and agree with other comments you make. I do wonder however what
reduction in mercury emissions from coal fired powered stations are made by
wholesale use of CFLs.

snip

However, that doesn't change the fact that you, along with all the
other advocates of this 'replacement' technology, are missing the
point. No matter how little mercury is in these things, it
never-the-less is there, and is a toxic component which wasn't
present in a conventional incandescent light bulb. This means that
however slight, they do represent a hazard, and as a result, may not
be disposed of in your regular rubbish. Also, in theory, as they are
an electronic device, they should be subject to the WEEE directive,
which means that they should be substantially dismantled, made safe,
and the materials recycled. All of which represents a significant
energy budget, and serves to further mitigate any eco advantages that
they are //claimed// to have over the soon-to-be-banned plain and
simple light bulb.

I don't disagree that there is additional exposure potential from this
source and agree with other comments you make. I do wonder however what
reduction in mercury emissions from coal fired powered stations are made
by wholesale use of CFLs.


Whilst lighting represents what might be considered a 'significant' part of
a household's electricity input budget, it is actually relatively
insignificant compared to the 'real' energy consumers like ovens and heaters
and microwave ovens and so on. Many of us could save at least 50% of our
lighting energy input, by actually educating members of our households to
turn off lights when they are not in use. Also, home lighting power
requirements, where CFLs are aimed, is practically insignificant compared to
industrial useage of electricity, so whilst a reduction in overall
consumption may well be detectable if every house in the country changed all
of its lighting to CFL, overall the difference would be small compared to
what most people think it would, based on the ill-informed rubbish on the
subject, that we are being fed.

Bear in mind also that only around 30% of the UK's current electricity
demand is met by coal-fired power stations, and the emmissions of these are
becoming subject to ever more stringent regulation.

http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk...ion/41191.aspx

Also add in the proposed increase in nuclear capacity over the next few
years, and toxic emissions from coal fired generation plants, including
mercury compounds, become much less of an issue.

Like you, I don't subscribe to the hysteria that you sometimes find written
about mercury spillage from CFLs and the need for 'toxic cleanup crews' and
other sensationalist nonsense, but it does concern me a little that these
things will find their way into the environment in general, in potentially
huge quantities, if the total ban on incandescents goes ahead. With the best
will in the world, many people do not / will not / cannot recycle CFLs
responsibly, by taking them to their local tip - even if *they* have the
facilities and knowledge to deal with them.

These things break very much easier than a conventional spherical light
bulb - which is why they need more and heavier gauge packaging, and which is
another thing against them - and it also concerns me that if they do break,
not only is a small quantity of mercury vapour released, but also there is
the potential for the phosphor powders coating the insides of the glass
discharge tube to be released. Now again, I'm not going to make out that
this is a huge potential toxic problem, but it could have significance if it
were to be ingested by a child, for instance. Contrary to what you believe
about asbestos not being especially dangerous, it has been conclusively
shown that as little as one fibre can sit dormant in a lung for perhaps 20
years, before causing horrible death by mesa thelioma. Who's to say that the
chemical phosphors employed in CFLs might not be equally long-term harmful ?
A tiny risk, I know, but like the mercury one, still a new one that wasn't
there with the benign constituents of an incandescent bulb. And tiny risks
add up, when you start to factor in quantities of them.

I'm not totally against CFLs. They have their uses and are an interesting
and novel lighting product. What I do get wound up about, is the way that
the green mist brigade sell the concept of them as a 'one size fits all'
replacement technology for incandescents, with only their energy saving
angle being publicised. They are *not* a drop-in replacement for
incandescents, and are in fact highly unsuitable in many applications. They
also have many ecological disadvantages which are never discussed. The only
reason that they are being offered at the ridiculous below-cost subsidised
prices that they are, is because deep down, people realise that they are not
quite what they are being led to believe, and are resisting taking them up.
Virtually giving them away - indeed some supermarkets actually *have* given
them away - is the only way that they can lead people by the nose, en masse,
into fitting them. The fond hope is then that where they are not
particularly suitable, punters will just accept them anyway as "Not too bad
is it dear ?" "No luv, and it'll save us money and help to save the planet
as well !" Nicely 'conditioned' then, for when it's the *only* light bulb
they can buy

I just wish that we could move away from the stagnation that seems to have
overtaken the population now, and start to think for ourselves a little more
again. We really should not just be sitting back swallowing all of the
eco-bollox that we are being fed by self-serving politicians and
'scientific' consultants (read gravy train government-employed
pseudo-scientists who are really just company directors). In recent years,
we have been 'nannied' to the point where we don't question anything that is
being put to us any more, and it really needs to stop before it's too late
....

Arfa

"Clot" wrote in message
...
Zen83237 wrote:
"Bob Eager" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 22 Feb 2009 19:40:45 UTC, "Zen83237"
wrote:
Sorry, please read my post again. Who said "OCCASIONAL" flicker.
This is constant flickering.

How often do you get a flicker? And of what duration?

--
The information contained in this post is copyright the
poster, and specifically may not be published in, or used by
http://www.diybanter.com

It is constant ie all the time it is switched off but only noticable
when it is dark or dusk. The frequency, difficult to say, but
certainly many flashes per second. It doesn't give off anything like
enough light to read by but just switched it off now and I can make
out every thing in the room and that isn't even allowing for my eyes
accustomed to the dark. I should also say that although the light
sensitive switches are new
in two rooms the hall way has had one for several years and I never
had this problem until about a year ago which suggests to me that
there is something different about the newer bulbs. The kids managed
to smash the bulb and damage the rose so my first thought was that I
rewired the new rose incorrectly as it started when a new bulb was
fitted after the accident. I wont even go into the toxicity introduced
into the house by
accidentilly breaking them.

The amount of mercury is minimal. The hype about this is truely dreadful.
Just like all the nonsense about asbestos put about by the Elfin group and
shallow minded chattering idiots.

Yes, mercury was an issue for folk who worked with it continuously such as
hatters. Asbestos was an issue for those that mined it, manufactured
products with it and sadly also wives of asbestos workers who washed their
clothes. Solid asbestos is not an issue.
If the amount is minimal why aren't they allowed to go to landfill. They
can't go to landfill but it is ok for the debris from a breakage to be
dumped all my kids bedroom.
Am I allowed to sweep it up and put it in the landfill dustbin?

Arfa Daily wrote:

wrote in message
...

Arfa Daily wrote:

wrote in message
...

Andrew Gabriel wrote:

In article ,
"Arfa Daily" writes:
snip

Before you get paranoid about your TV Standby - look at the spec.
Modern
sets are very low - mine is only 0.8 of a watt - not that it gets
left
on
standby much.


Ha ! Joy ! At last someone who understands the eco bollox about
standby
modes, that is continuously thrust at us now ...

It stems from old TV's. If you have a TV well over 10 years old,
it will have a standby of something like 5W - 10W, and depending
on how much you use it, you might find total standby consumption
exceeds the actual viewing consumption. Many countries have had
rules in place for many years now limiting standby power to 1W,
and given TV's are manufactured for use in many different countries,
we all benefit from those rules in any new TV you buy today, even
when we don't actually have such a rule.

We still have problems with items designed for use only in this
(or only a few) countries, which are things like set top boxes.
They often don't significantly reduce consumption in standby
mode.

--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]

It all adds up.
From a list the other week ...
TV: Toshiba 2500TB. 13.4W standby. 75W running. (12 year old).
TV: Panasonic TX-1. 5.8W and 57W (25? years old).
Video recorder: Panasonic. 8.1W and 16.5W (10 years old).
DVD player. Tesco. (8 months old) 8.5W continuous
Freeview box (Asda, 2 months old). 5.5W continuous
Freeview box (Aldi, 'Tevion' 18 months old). 10.3W continuous.
20" 'V7' PC LCD monitor, 21W dim, 42.5W bright.

Measured how though ? The figures for the stuff that's 10, 12 even 25
years
old is largely irrelevant, as back then, care was not taken over
designing
standby modes with power saving in mind. In the grand scheme of things,
most
of those standby powers are quite small (and in reality, may actually be
even smaller). The entire lot added up for a day, could probably be
mitigated by boiling one kettle, or heating up one ready meal ...

Arfa

Tis a digital wattmeter I designed last month. Autoranging, wide
bandwidth current amp, high speed digitising of instantaneous current/
voltage pairs, computation of true and apparent powers, PF, rms
values for A and V, crest factor etc. I copied those numbers as over
the past few years on the internet I've come across ridiculous
amounts of poor quality discussion about equipment power consumption
and oodles of bad measurements being quoted, based usually on
inadequate measuring equipment and theory. Just getting my foot in the
door and yes I agree, a few tens of watts is pretty meaningless when
compared to the real cost killers.
I would disagree though about the old stuff not being designed with
consumption in mind. Quite the reverse. Good engineering has always
been minutely concerned with these kind of details, as they invariably
pay off in profit. The digital stuff about nowadays looks in many
cases to be designed by second raters, who seem familiar with software
and assembling power hungry boutique chips but have little concept of
the effort sweat and tears or elegance and art of good electronics
design.

Mostly agreed, and good to see a meter that can really measure 'area under
the curve' no matter what shape that curve is ... Is it complex, hardware
wise, or all done in clever software ? Are you aiming to market it ?

As far as equipment not being designed to save power ten years ago, I was
specifically referring to standby power. Most decent sized CRT TV sets were
down to a running power of no more than 80 watts by then, but the switchmode
power supplies of the day did not have PFC front ends, nor did the
controller ICs have sophisticated burst modes implemented for standby
purposes. Whilst I'm sure that the designers did their best in terms of
standby power consumption, before we were all bombarded with "global
warming" and "carbon footprint" and all of the endless other buzz words and
phrases that we are now daily bombarded with by well-meaning but largely
clueless oiks, there was no real need to minimise standby power, nor the
incentive to develop the techniques to do so. Bear in mind that consumer
electronics design, development and manufacturing, is totally cost driven by
the company bean counters, and ever has been.

It is only very recently in the last couple of years that cheap and easily
implemented techniques, using custom developed smps controller ICs, with
power saving being the specific goal, have been available for the designers
to incorporate. For instance, most equipment now has a specific standby
supply, completely separate from the main supply circuitry, which is totally
shut off when the unit *is* in standby.

FWIW, I work on consumer electronic gear of many varieties from many
manufacturers, on a daily basis, and have done for more years than I want to
remember, and personally, I think that this equipment has never been so well
designed, considering the complexity of the functionality, and the (for the
most part) stunningly good reliability - lead free solder problems aside, of
course !

Now that almost all of the processing of signals is carried out digitally, I
think that elegance of hardware design is no longer an issue. Of course, in
some places such as in the analogue parts of power supplies, and power
output stages, a degree of 'elegance' is still required, if you want to
refer that to good design practice, but as far as I see, that is mostly
taken care of much as it has always been. Whilst the 'boutique' chips might
be somewhat power hungry, given what they do, I think for the most part,
they are pretty damned good, and improving all of the time. Considering the
amounts of circuitry which they are replacing, they probably don't consume
any more than all of that hardware did in the first place. It's just that it
becomes concentrated in one place, and shows up as spot heating, which gives
the impression of power greediness.

Still, nice to see someone that has an understanding of what standby power
is about, and how to measure it. You are right that there is much (eco)
bollox talked about it, and I for one am sick of it !

Arfa

Interesting!.
I used to have the occasional poke about on sci.electronics.design but
the group seemed to be moving to just banalities and egofests. Hence
for a few months have been reading the DIY stuff (another love of my
life) here. Somewhat surprised at the number of straightforward,
interesting, down to earth, electrical/electronic topics that turn up
here. Strange world!.
Yep. the wattmeter is viable commercially. A nice 50:50 split between
the analogue and micro stuff and little overall cost courtesy of the
micro handling the sampling, LCD and maths. Sadly though, I'm an idle
******* and find it far easier to earn a crust just doing project work
for my industrial customers . Discovered a few gigs of free web
space with my Zen isp, so toying with ideas about putting some
projects like this up on the web.
I take your point about the modern chips. The signal processing
'functionality' that can be offered to customers is unbelievable. A
notable example is what's inside the Freeview boxes.
( Doesn't excuse though which ever Chinaman designed my 15 month old
PC power supply. No PFC. A 0.45 PF and a current waveform that could
be straight from a triac dimmer

snip

Interesting!.
I used to have the occasional poke about on sci.electronics.design but
the group seemed to be moving to just banalities and egofests. Hence
for a few months have been reading the DIY stuff (another love of my
life) here. Somewhat surprised at the number of straightforward,
interesting, down to earth, electrical/electronic topics that turn up
here. Strange world!.
Yep. the wattmeter is viable commercially. A nice 50:50 split between
the analogue and micro stuff and little overall cost courtesy of the
micro handling the sampling, LCD and maths. Sadly though, I'm an idle
******* and find it far easier to earn a crust just doing project work
for my industrial customers . Discovered a few gigs of free web
space with my Zen isp, so toying with ideas about putting some
projects like this up on the web.
I take your point about the modern chips. The signal processing
'functionality' that can be offered to customers is unbelievable. A
notable example is what's inside the Freeview boxes.
( Doesn't excuse though which ever Chinaman designed my 15 month old
PC power supply. No PFC. A 0.45 PF and a current waveform that could
be straight from a triac dimmer


Have you had a look at any of the data sheets for these latest generation
'eco-friendly' switch-mode controller ics, with their burst standby modes ?
They make very interesting reading, Some of them are truly amazing now.
Titsy little sm devices with 380v on them ...

I would be very interested in seeing a schematic or block diagram even, for
your power meter. I have been looking around for a 'good' one for some time,
and I do enjoy having something to build. If you have anything
electronically 'on paper' that you wouldn't mind me having a squint at, the
address that this is posted from, works.

Have you considered submitting it as an article to Elektor magazine ? That
sort of project is right up their street these days, and a little while ago,
they were advertising for contributors.

Arfa

Arfa Daily wrote:

snip
[...]
Have you had a look at any of the data sheets for these latest generation
'eco-friendly' switch-mode controller ics, with their burst standby modes ?
They make very interesting reading, Some of them are truly amazing now.
Titsy little sm devices with 380v on them ...

I would be very interested in seeing a schematic or block diagram even, for
your power meter. I have been looking around for a 'good' one for some time,
and I do enjoy having something to build. If you have anything
electronically 'on paper' that you wouldn't mind me having a squint at, the
address that this is posted from, works.

Have you considered submitting it as an article to Elektor magazine ? That
sort of project is right up their street these days, and a little while ago,
they were advertising for contributors.

Arfa

Those teensy little things running 380V scare me (shouldn't though as
I've found I shower daily with 240Vac going straight through the
heating element and into the shower water!).
Took a Nokia adaptor apart. Nothing in there other than the HF
transformer, bridge, some tiny tiny HV 'lytics, and a couple of those
chips. Works good.
-No- to magazines thanks!. Had some articles published about 1000
years ago, effort involved is way beyond my current motivation level!.
The guys that do do magazine articles I deem as grade #1
masochists
I'll email you the circuit diagram though.

wrote in message
...

Arfa Daily wrote:

snip
[...]
Have you had a look at any of the data sheets for these latest generation
'eco-friendly' switch-mode controller ics, with their burst standby modes
?
They make very interesting reading, Some of them are truly amazing now.
Titsy little sm devices with 380v on them ...

I would be very interested in seeing a schematic or block diagram even,
for
your power meter. I have been looking around for a 'good' one for some
time,
and I do enjoy having something to build. If you have anything
electronically 'on paper' that you wouldn't mind me having a squint at,
the
address that this is posted from, works.

Have you considered submitting it as an article to Elektor magazine ?
That
sort of project is right up their street these days, and a little while
ago,
they were advertising for contributors.

Arfa

Those teensy little things running 380V scare me (shouldn't though as
I've found I shower daily with 240Vac going straight through the
heating element and into the shower water!).
Took a Nokia adaptor apart. Nothing in there other than the HF
transformer, bridge, some tiny tiny HV 'lytics, and a couple of those
chips. Works good.
-No- to magazines thanks!. Had some articles published about 1000
years ago, effort involved is way beyond my current motivation level!.
The guys that do do magazine articles I deem as grade #1
masochists
I'll email you the circuit diagram though.

Received, thanks. Direct reply sent. I used to write regularly for one of
the trade rags, now sadly defunct. It was quite a lot of effort, I agree,
but I still used to quite enjoy it, so masochist I must be !

Arfa