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

"Zen83237" wrote in message
...

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

Better things to worry about surely - like saving the odd bit by a little
less water in the kettle or using the vacuum less - or going faster with it.
If you had conventional bulbs you would not have noticed the small current
flowing through the filamane to power the security switch electronics.

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

In article ,
"Zen83237" writes:

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

Yes, but probably insignificant.

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

A filament lamp will in the same lampholder will cost at least as
much, if not more.

my case it is a constant flicker on three lights that have an light
sensitive security switch.

Probably not designed for CFL lamps.

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

"John" wrote in message
...

"Zen83237" wrote in message
...

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

Better things to worry about surely - like saving the odd bit by a little
less water in the kettle or using the vacuum less - or going faster with
it. If you had conventional bulbs you would not have noticed the small
current flowing through the filamane to power the security switch
electronics.

Already don't overfill the kettle, I leave the house dirty to save on power
consumption.

"Andrew Gabriel" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Zen83237" writes:

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

Yes, but probably insignificant.

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

A filament lamp will in the same lampholder will cost at least as
much, if not more.

my case it is a constant flicker on three lights that have an light
sensitive security switch.

Probably not designed for CFL lamps.

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

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

"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.

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

Zen83237 presented the following explanation :
Would that be more or less power than the standby on a tv.

Much, much less.

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..

Well, it is not actually powering it up is it - it is just flashing
occasionally. Look at it this way - an LED, constantly on and powered
from a small battery, the battery might last a day. The same LED and
battery designed to just flash and the battery would last for months.

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 alternative could be lights left on and forgotten about.

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

"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)

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

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 ...

OTOH, has anyone looked at how much an LCD TV consumes when it's on,
compared to a modern CRT set ? And plasmas, well ... The backlighting for a
decent size LCD consumes over 100 watts on its own !

Arfa

"Zen83237" wrote in message
...

"Andrew Gabriel" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Zen83237" writes:

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

Yes, but probably insignificant.

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

A filament lamp will in the same lampholder will cost at least as
much, if not more.

my case it is a constant flicker on three lights that have an light
sensitive security switch.

Probably not designed for CFL lamps.

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

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


There's unfortunately not much "wisdom" there. Just a bunch of ill-informed
green mist-inspired eco-bollox ... (as well, of course, as an opportunity
for alternative lighting technology manufacturers, doubtless with
politicians on their boards, to jump on the green gravy train).

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

As indeed we have discussed in other threads, that they are not suitable for
use in many applications.

Arfa

On Sat, 21 Feb 2009 01:14:34 -0000, Arfa Daily wrote:

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 ...

The politicians that want TVs etc. not to have standby do not, yet again,
understand this: if TVs had only On and Off, many people would just mute
the sound for the odd half hour between shows - no standby at 1W would
become left on at 100W.

I don't use standby much on the TV but the satellite box is always switched
off if the interval is 15 min. as it's about 15W in 'standby'.

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

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]

"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!

The solution is to check the manuals - it is always stated.

http://www.osti.gov/bridge/servlets/purl/795944-XFu5mJ/native/795944.pdf

"John" wrote in message
...

"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!

The solution is to check the manuals - it is always stated.

http://www.osti.gov/bridge/servlets/purl/795944-XFu5mJ/native/795944.pdf


I guess you mean total standby if used for 18 hours a day versus viewing for
about 6 hours. Sorry I misunderstood you. (still seems unlikely though)

I guess most people switch off when going to bed ................ don't
they?

"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'm pretty sure that the likes of reputable companies like Pace and
Panasonic and so on, don't go out of their way to ignore their moral - if
not mandated in local law - responsibilities regarding energy useage,
particularly in the case of this green-driven and very contentious issue of
standby power.

In many cases - set top boxes in particular being a good example - standby
mode is not just for the convenience of the lazy owner who can't get his
lardy arse beyond reaching for the remote control. Rather, it is masking
important 'housekeeping' issues such as maintaining the EPG, maintaining the
software revision, keeping the phone line modem alive, keeping the LNBs
powered for stability, and in the case of boxes with HDDs in them, retaining
the ability to do live rewind and so on.

Also, almost all modern consumer electronics products such as TV sets, STBs,
DVDs, DVDRs, HDDRs etc, all use switchmode power supplies, which often
employ a burst standby mode which can give misleading readings as to standby
power consumption, when it is measured on 'cheapo' consumer power meters.
The thing is with switchers, once they are running, they tend to be pretty
benign and reliable. Their big stress time is at cold startup, and is the
time that most spontaneously fail. Often, when they do, the failure is so
catastrophic as to render the power supply either uneconomic, or not safe to
repair - if you could even obtain some of the exotic OEM devices employed in
them (and no, typically, the manufacturers are of no help here). If this
happens, and the unit becomes just so much scrap, then all of your green
efforts will have been for nothing as the the unit will either find its way
to landfill, or have to have all the energy that you have saved, spent on
dismantling and recycling it.

This is where I have a problem with the way that green issues are being sold
to the general public. The politicians in their fervour to push this on us,
are only looking at one issue at a time, instead of employing joined-up
thinking. "Standby power consumption is bad ! Switch off when not in use !"
Well, not necessarily if you look at the bigger picture.

"CFLs are good and eco friendly ! Ban power gobbling incandescents !" Yes,
CFLs consume less energy than incandescents when in use, but this is the
*only* eco advantage that they have over traditional light bulbs. In all
other eco issues, they come out worse ...

Arfa

On Sat, 21 Feb 2009 13:44:11 +0000, John wrote:

I guess most people switch off when going to bed ................ don't
they?

No. Most people press the button on the remote. For everything.

Quite a few set top boxes etc. *require* to be left on standby, or they
don't get their updates for the EPG or firmware. And of course in the
case of Sky+ or V+ can't *upload* their viewing figures...

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.

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

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

"PeterC" wrote in message
. ..
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.
You don't understand Newton's Third Law of Motion?
It's not rocket science, you know


Good heavens - my 5 year old LCD is 50 watts on and 3 on standby.

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

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

"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

"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



Sorry - isn't 80 watts equal to 0.08 of a kilowatt - therefore after 12
hours this is 0.96 of a kilowatt consumed - at a rate of 0.08 kilowatt
hours.

Somebody help me!

From Wikipedia

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

John wrote:

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

I'd say within 5% is near enough in this context.

On Sun, 22 Feb 2009 12:32:00 -0000
"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."



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

(cut and paste from Wikipedia, at 13:40 22/2/09)

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

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

I'd say within 5% is near enough in this context.


80 watts is 0.08 kWh

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

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.

--
Rod

Hypothyroidism is a seriously debilitating condition with an insidious
onset.
Although common it frequently goes undiagnosed.
www.thyromind.info www.thyroiduk.org www.altsupportthyroid.org

"John" wrote in message
news

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

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

I'd say within 5% is near enough in this context.


80 watts is 0.08 kWh

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


80 watts is 0.08 kW

Adam

"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.

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

"TheOldFellow" wrote in message
. ..
On Sun, 22 Feb 2009 12:32:00 -0000
"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."



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

(cut and paste from Wikipedia, at 13:40 22/2/09)


Mmmm. Wikipedia updated today - well done!

Another definition:
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

I think my mind is getting a bit clearer having looked at it several times
now.

Confusing the rate of consumption (spot sample) with total consumed in a
given period (for metering)

"John" wrote in message
news

"TheOldFellow" wrote in message
. ..
On Sun, 22 Feb 2009 12:32:00 -0000
"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."



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

(cut and paste from Wikipedia, at 13:40 22/2/09)


Mmmm. Wikipedia updated today - well done!

Another definition:
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

I think my mind is getting a bit clearer having looked at it several times
now.

Confusing the rate of consumption (spot sample) with total consumed in a
given period (for metering)


A watt is a joule per second.
1 kW is 1000 watts.

Both watts and kW are units of power ie the rate at which energy is being
converted

To find the amount of energy that an appliance has used you multiply the
appliances kW rating (it's power) by time (hours) to get kWh.

The kWh is a unit of energy.

So 80W is 0.08kW

0.08kW for 1 hour is 0.08kWh
0.08kW for 2 hours is 0.16kWh
0/08kW for 12 hours is 0.96kW

People sometimes say "kW per hour" when they should be saying "KWh per hour"
eg a 3kW fire uses 3kWh per hour not 3kW per hour.

HTH

Adam

"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)

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

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.

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

--
Cheers
Dave.

On Sun, 22 Feb 2009 11:04:06 -0000, John wrote:

"PeterC" wrote in message
. ..
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.
You don't understand Newton's Third Law of Motion?
It's not rocket science, you know

Good heavens - my 5 year old LCD is 50 watts on and 3 on standby.

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

kW is power; kWh is energy, ~80Wx12h=960Wh, or near enough 1kWh.

A rough estimate for annual consumption is Wx9 (as there are 8760h/year and
there's no point in being too precise with something that can be difficult
to measure accurately), so a box at 10W (as above) wil consume 90kWh
(units)/year. My TV doesn't use anything at all on standby - it wastes 100%
of it.
--
Peter.
You don't understand Newton's Third Law of Motion?
It's not rocket science, you know.