Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#41
Posted to uk.d-i-y,uk.media.tv.misc,uk.tech.digital-tv,uk.tech.broadcast
|
|||
|
|||
Switch off at the socket?
On Sep 15, 10:53*am, David Skinner
wrote: In article dd11dcee-9b58-4d46-899e- , alexander.keys1 @googlemail.com says... There have been a lot of comments recently about the waste of energy due to appliances being left on standby, and various gizmo's that are on offer to turn them off automatically, or otherwise purporting to save energy. What everybody seems to be forgetting is that an energy- saving device comes with most UK socket outlets, it's called a 'switch', and when put into the 'off' position, power cosumption is zero! None of my appliances, including computers, digital TV receivers, etc. have come to harm through this practice, I always switch off at the wall, back in the day when there were fewer appliances this was standard procedure to avoid fire risk. My parents' 1-and-a-bit-year-old TV broke down the other week. Stopped receiving DTV and the settings menus became unavailable. The repair man reloaded the firmware from a memory card, which fixed it. Then he asked whether it got switched off at the mains a lot. It did - every night. He said that that may well have been the cause of firmware corruption and that they should leave the set on standby. It's a Toshiba Regza something or other, if that matters. At under 1w power consumption you'd have to leave it on for sooo long for it to make any difference its just not even funny. I turn off everything that I can but the TV remains on standby. |
#42
Posted to uk.d-i-y,uk.media.tv.misc,uk.tech.digital-tv,uk.tech.broadcast
|
|||
|
|||
Switch off at the socket?
On Sep 15, 11:19*am, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote: In article , * *Man at B&Q wrote: Congratulations - you must be the only person in the country who enjoys reprogramming their VCR/DVD recorder every day... Explain please. What century was your "VCR/DVD recorder" manufactured in? Does it use wax cyclinders? You could probably save a fortune in energy costs by replacing it with a more modern version. Almost anything from the last 20 years or so should do. You know of a VCR etc which can do a pre-programmed recording when powered down at the socket? No, do you, but that wasn't the issue anyway. MBQ |
#43
Posted to uk.d-i-y,uk.media.tv.misc,uk.tech.digital-tv,uk.tech.broadcast
|
|||
|
|||
Switch off at the socket?
On Sep 15, 10:09*am, "Zimmy" wrote:
"Norman Wells" wrote in message ... Vortex4 wrote: "alexander.keys1" wrote in message .... There have been a lot of comments recently about the waste of energy due to appliances being left on standby, and various gizmo's that are on offer to turn them off automatically, or otherwise purporting to save energy. What everybody seems to be forgetting is that an energy- saving device comes with most UK socket outlets, it's called a 'switch', and when put into the 'off' position, power cosumption is zero! None of my appliances, including computers, digital TV receivers, etc. have come to harm through this practice, I always switch off at the wall, back in the day when there were fewer appliances this was standard procedure to avoid fire risk. David Mackays book is a good read on this subject: http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/w...page_155.shtml So he says he can save all of 45 watts if he turns everything off instead of leaving it on standby when he's not using it. *The equivalent of a very dim lightbulb therefore. *Great! However, he ignores the fact that he's also losing 45 watts of heat. *To keep his house at exactly the same temperature, an extra 45 watts of heat need to be pumped out by whatever heating system he has, for as much of the year as he needs any heating at all. *Admittedly, that may be a bit cheaper if it's gas-fired, but it's still the same amount of energy, so it's unlikely to have a huge impact on climate change. You are assuming that those 45W of electricity are converted to 45W of heat with 100% efficiency which is clearly not true. Z It is. But gas/coal etc to electric conversion isnt 100% efficient, so although the end user uses the same amount of energy, with leccy much more is also wasted at the power station. Then there's nuclear... NT |
#44
Posted to uk.d-i-y,uk.media.tv.misc,uk.tech.digital-tv,uk.tech.broadcast
|
|||
|
|||
Switch off at the socket?
On 15/09/09 08:54, Gordon Henderson wrote:
http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/sustainable/charger/ I read that and started thinking the 5000W per person figure was a confusion between power units and energy units, and assuming it meant 5000Wh per person per day, but I decided I'd best check the numbers before possibly inserting foot into mouth ... According to the International Energy Association figures for 2001 the total UK energy consumption was 262,186,000 tonnes of oil equivalent or about 4.3 tonnes of oil per person or 180 Gigajoules per person so dividing by 8760 hours that *did* equate to a continuous 5.7kW per person. Granted some of that will contribute to exported goods and services, but equally our imports will contribute to other countries' consumption figures so it's difficult to adjustment for that. Still barely makes it worthwhile unplugging idle phone chargers though, most of that power is consumed on our behalf, not directly by us. |
#45
Posted to uk.d-i-y,uk.media.tv.misc,uk.tech.digital-tv,uk.tech.broadcast
|
|||
|
|||
Switch off at the socket?
On Sep 15, 11:16*am, "Zimmy" wrote:
"Norman Wells" wrote in message ... Zimmy wrote: "Norman Wells" wrote in message ... However, he ignores the fact that he's also losing 45 watts of heat. To keep his house at exactly the same temperature, an extra 45 watts of heat need to be pumped out by whatever heating system he has, for as much of the year as he needs any heating at all. *Admittedly, that may be a bit cheaper if it's gas-fired, but it's still the same amount of energy, so it's unlikely to have a huge impact on climate change. You are assuming that those 45W of electricity are converted to 45W of heat with 100% efficiency which is clearly not true. Where else do you think it goes? Hmm, maybe powering the standby circuitry, IR receivers, etc? Which is ultimately turned into heat. MBQ |
#46
Posted to uk.d-i-y,uk.media.tv.misc,uk.tech.digital-tv,uk.tech.broadcast
|
|||
|
|||
Switch off at the socket?
Zimmy wrote:
"Norman Wells" wrote in message ... Zimmy wrote: "Norman Wells" wrote in message ... However, he ignores the fact that he's also losing 45 watts of heat. To keep his house at exactly the same temperature, an extra 45 watts of heat need to be pumped out by whatever heating system he has, for as much of the year as he needs any heating at all. Admittedly, that may be a bit cheaper if it's gas-fired, but it's still the same amount of energy, so it's unlikely to have a huge impact on climate change. You are assuming that those 45W of electricity are converted to 45W of heat with 100% efficiency which is clearly not true. Where else do you think it goes? Hmm, maybe powering the standby circuitry, IR receivers, etc? What does it do while it's doing all that, and where do you think it goes afterwards? |
#47
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Switch off at the socket?
On Sep 15, 8:57*am, PeterC wrote:
A GF's audio stack: 0.5W w/o clock but 11W with clock - how long on an AA cell? -- Peter. The head of a pin will hold more angels if it's been flattened with an angel-grinder. "A GF's".... - how many do you have?! Jealously, Matt |
#48
Posted to uk.d-i-y,uk.media.tv.misc,uk.tech.digital-tv,uk.tech.broadcast
|
|||
|
|||
Switch off at the socket?
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
... In article , Norman Wells wrote: You are assuming that those 45W of electricity are converted to 45W of heat with 100% efficiency which is clearly not true. Where else do you think it goes? I suppose those LEDs produce some light? ;-) Which are absorbed by the walls and furniture, unless you leave your curtains open at night. -- Max Demian |
#49
Posted to uk.d-i-y,uk.media.tv.misc,uk.tech.digital-tv,uk.tech.broadcast
|
|||
|
|||
Switch off at the socket?
On Sep 15, 11:28*am, Andy Burns wrote:
On 15/09/09 08:54, Gordon Henderson wrote: http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/sustainable/charger/ I read that and started thinking the 5000W per person figure was a confusion between power units and energy units, and assuming it meant 5000Wh per person per day, but I decided I'd best check the numbers before possibly inserting foot into mouth ... According to the International Energy Association figures for 2001 the total UK energy consumption was 262,186,000 tonnes of oil equivalent or about 4.3 tonnes of oil per person or 180 Gigajoules per person so dividing by 8760 hours that *did* equate to a continuous 5.7kW per person. Granted some of that will contribute to exported goods and services, but equally our imports will contribute to other countries' consumption figures so it's difficult to adjustment for that. Still barely makes it worthwhile unplugging idle phone chargers though, most of that power is consumed on our behalf, not directly by us. Indeed. As the saying goes, 100% of bugger all is still bugger all. OTOH, even just 20% of something larger like unneccessary nightime illumination in shops may be worthwhile. i don't know the exact figures but you see what I mean. MBQ |
#50
Posted to uk.d-i-y,uk.media.tv.misc,uk.tech.digital-tv,uk.tech.broadcast
|
|||
|
|||
Switch off at the socket?
On 15/09/09 11:16, Zimmy wrote:
"Norman Wells" wrote: Where else do you think it goes? Hmm, maybe powering the standby circuitry, IR receivers, etc? And where do you think it ENDS UP? Pretty much the only energy that doesn't contribute to heating the house is the light and sound that that makes it through the windows and walls. |
#51
Posted to uk.d-i-y,uk.media.tv.misc,uk.tech.digital-tv,uk.tech.broadcast
|
|||
|
|||
Switch off at the socket?
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message ... You know of a VCR etc which can do a pre-programmed recording when powered down at the socket? A media centre PC (laptop) will do that. They will even wakeup from hibernation and do a recording and then hibernate again. |
#52
Posted to uk.d-i-y,uk.media.tv.misc,uk.tech.digital-tv,uk.tech.broadcast
|
|||
|
|||
Switch off at the socket?
On Tue, 15 Sep 2009 09:39:13 +0100, "Norman Wells"
wrote: However, he ignores the fact that he's also losing 45 watts of heat. To keep his house at exactly the same temperature, an extra 45 watts of heat need to be pumped out by whatever heating system he has, for as much of the year as he needs any heating at all. Admittedly, that may be a bit cheaper if it's gas-fired, but it's still the same amount of energy, so it's unlikely to have a huge impact on climate change. This is an old (and thoroughly discredited) logical error. Saving 45 watts of energy is not the same as saving 45 watts of heat. For a start, most of that energy is expended in doing the 'work' - e.g. lighting lights, spinning discs, and so on. Any excess heat generated after that (unnecessary) work is done is minimal. By your logic, if I leave a Sky+ box on standby, then the 20 watts it spends on spinning the hard disc is converted into 20 watts of heat. If that were true, it would turn Sky+ into a free energy machine - which is impossible - breaking every scientific law there is. Your 45 watts of wasted energy probably results in (I'm guessing here) maybe 2 watts of heat. Whatever heating system you have is going to be a FAR more efficient way of generating an equivalent amount of heat. And considerably cheaper too. Saving 45 watts at current electricity prices cuts about £40 a year off your electricity bills. It's just burning money. (And, before you even suggest it, burning five pound notes is not an efficient way of heating your home either.) -- |
#53
Posted to uk.d-i-y,uk.media.tv.misc,uk.tech.digital-tv,uk.tech.broadcast
|
|||
|
|||
Switch off at the socket?
On Tue, 15 Sep 2009 09:39:13 +0100, Norman Wells wrote:
Vortex4 wrote: "alexander.keys1" wrote in message ... There have been a lot of comments recently about the waste of energy due to appliances being left on standby, and various gizmo's that are on offer to turn them off automatically, or otherwise purporting to save energy. What everybody seems to be forgetting is that an energy- saving device comes with most UK socket outlets, it's called a 'switch', and when put into the 'off' position, power cosumption is zero! None of my appliances, including computers, digital TV receivers, etc. have come to harm through this practice, I always switch off at the wall, back in the day when there were fewer appliances this was standard procedure to avoid fire risk. David Mackays book is a good read on this subject: http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/w...page_155.shtml So he says he can save all of 45 watts if he turns everything off instead of leaving it on standby when he's not using it. The equivalent of a very dim lightbulb therefore. Great! Which in the very next sentence he states is a saving of £45 per year. Sounds worth having, esp. as it's savings from taxed income. However, he ignores the fact that he's also losing 45 watts of heat. To keep his house at exactly the same temperature, an extra 45 watts of heat need to be pumped out by whatever heating system he has, for as much of the year as he needs any heating at all. Admittedly, that may be a bit cheaper if it's gas-fired, but it's still the same amount of energy, so it's unlikely to have a huge impact on climate change. True, as far as it goes. However for (depending where you live & how well insulated your house is) half the year, it's wasted heat. Plus it doesn't contribute to the _usable_ room environment when the occupants are asleep or out - which for a single person, or couple both working is a significant proportion of the week. And, the £45 you save buys you more gas heating than this wasted leccy provides, so the saving is definitely worthwhile on a purely financial basis, as _well_ as a social / moral position of profligate energy use. |
#54
Posted to uk.d-i-y,uk.media.tv.misc,uk.tech.digital-tv,uk.tech.broadcast
|
|||
|
|||
Switch off at the socket?
On Sep 15, 12:02*pm, (Zero Tolerance)
wrote: On Tue, 15 Sep 2009 09:39:13 +0100, "Norman Wells" wrote: However, he ignores the fact that he's also losing 45 watts of heat. *To keep his house at exactly the same temperature, an extra 45 watts of heat need to be pumped out by whatever heating system he has, for as much of the year as he needs any heating at all. *Admittedly, that may be a bit cheaper if it's gas-fired, but it's still the same amount of energy, so it's unlikely to have a huge impact on climate change. This is an old (and thoroughly discredited) logical error. Saving 45 watts of energy is not the same as saving 45 watts of heat. For a start, most of that energy is expended in doing the 'work' - e.g. lighting lights, spinning discs, and so on. Any excess heat generated after that (unnecessary) work is done is minimal. By your logic, if I leave a Sky+ box on standby, then the 20 watts it spends on spinning the hard disc is converted into 20 watts of heat. It is. If that were true, it would turn Sky+ into a free energy machine - It's taken 20W from the mains supply. How is that "free"? which is impossible - breaking every scientific law there is. I think a few laws were broken when they let you loose on society. Your 45 watts of wasted energy probably results in (I'm guessing here) maybe 2 watts of heat. What do you think happens to the other 43W? MBQ |
#55
Posted to uk.d-i-y,uk.media.tv.misc,uk.tech.digital-tv,uk.tech.broadcast
|
|||
|
|||
Switch off at the socket?
Zero Tolerance wrote:
On Tue, 15 Sep 2009 09:39:13 +0100, "Norman Wells" wrote: However, he ignores the fact that he's also losing 45 watts of heat. To keep his house at exactly the same temperature, an extra 45 watts of heat need to be pumped out by whatever heating system he has, for as much of the year as he needs any heating at all. Admittedly, that may be a bit cheaper if it's gas-fired, but it's still the same amount of energy, so it's unlikely to have a huge impact on climate change. This is an old (and thoroughly discredited) logical error. Who has 'discredited' it, and where? Saving 45 watts of energy is not the same as saving 45 watts of heat. For a start, most of that energy is expended in doing the 'work' - e.g. lighting lights, spinning discs, and so on. Any excess heat generated after that (unnecessary) work is done is minimal. By your logic, if I leave a Sky+ box on standby, then the 20 watts it spends on spinning the hard disc is converted into 20 watts of heat. You're following me well so far. If that were true, it would turn Sky+ into a free energy machine - which is impossible - breaking every scientific law there is. Why do you think it takes 20 watts of energy to keep a spinning disc spinning? Your 45 watts of wasted energy probably results in (I'm guessing here) maybe 2 watts of heat. You never studied any science at school, did you? If you did, you either never got as far as the law of conservation of energy, or never understood it if you did. Whatever heating system you have is going to be a FAR more efficient way of generating an equivalent amount of heat. And considerably cheaper too. It will be somewhat more efficient, and it will be somewhat cheaper as long as it's not electric. There are some savings to be made therefore, but not as much as greeny-weenies think. |
#56
Posted to uk.d-i-y,uk.media.tv.misc,uk.tech.digital-tv,uk.tech.broadcast
|
|||
|
|||
Switch off at the socket?
On Sep 15, 12:06*pm, pete wrote:
On Tue, 15 Sep 2009 09:39:13 +0100, Norman Wells wrote: Vortex4 wrote: "alexander.keys1" wrote in message .... There have been a lot of comments recently about the waste of energy due to appliances being left on standby, and various gizmo's that are on offer to turn them off automatically, or otherwise purporting to save energy. What everybody seems to be forgetting is that an energy- saving device comes with most UK socket outlets, it's called a 'switch', and when put into the 'off' position, power cosumption is zero! None of my appliances, including computers, digital TV receivers, etc. have come to harm through this practice, I always switch off at the wall, back in the day when there were fewer appliances this was standard procedure to avoid fire risk. David Mackays book is a good read on this subject: http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/w...page_155.shtml So he says he can save all of 45 watts if he turns everything off instead of leaving it on standby when he's not using it. *The equivalent of a very dim lightbulb therefore. *Great! Which in the very next sentence he states is a saving of £45 per year. Sounds worth having, esp. as it's savings from taxed income. However, he ignores the fact that he's also losing 45 watts of heat. *To keep his house at exactly the same temperature, an extra 45 watts of heat need to be pumped out by whatever heating system he has, for as much of the year as he needs any heating at all. *Admittedly, that may be a bit cheaper if it's gas-fired, but it's still the same amount of energy, so it's unlikely to have a huge impact on climate change. True, as far as it goes. However for (depending where you live & how well insulated your house is) half the year, it's wasted heat. Plus it doesn't contribute to the _usable_ room environment when the occupants are asleep or out - Warming an empty room will reduce heat loss from adjacent rooms so it does have some effect. You're also getting getting dangerously close to "is it better to leave the heating on all the time or let the house cool down and warm it up again" ;-) MBQ |
#57
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Switch off at the socket?
#1 Worst modern energy hog - computer router.
- Many draw 30W continuously 24/7 literally roasting away - If not needed overnight (10hrs say) it is 109 units or £12/yr Getting it down to 1W gives a real world 29W saving. #2 Worst missed energy opportunity - TV & Monitor. - Going LCD from CRT did not save much for many people - Moving to LED from LCD for TV & Monitor would do so. Real possibility of a real world 29+29W saving. #3 Some nasty LED clocks can run 9W. - Easily replaced by LCD, some battery cost - However with 3-4 clocks the saving does add up Overall not difficult to get £100/yr saving or £1000 a decade towards your heating system's depreciation. Not worth changing a TV/Monitor - just when it fails (and they will) the replacement can be LED (and most likely will looking 3yrs out). Worth waiting that long anyway as backlight optics will take a while to settle (easier with LED over CFL but still at early adopter stage). We do not have enough uptake of heat pump technology (air to air) to replace the millions of (radiant) gas fires out there. Most are only 50% efficient and a fair chunk of that efficiency vanishes up the chimney dragging cold air through the house with it in voluminous quantities. An A-A heat pump is cheaper than most fires, but not likely to last a decade. Worse are the poor sods with "1-bar electric fires". Warmfront for starters need sacking and a different system is required based on consumer choice and a few inspectors rather than a brown-overall "it creates jobs" civil servant in smoke filled room gravy train. |
#58
Posted to uk.d-i-y,uk.media.tv.misc,uk.tech.digital-tv,uk.tech.broadcast
|
|||
|
|||
Switch off at the socket?
On Tue, 15 Sep 2009 04:25:19 -0700 (PDT), Man at B&Q wrote:
On Sep 15, 12:06*pm, pete wrote: On Tue, 15 Sep 2009 09:39:13 +0100, Norman Wells wrote: Vortex4 wrote: "alexander.keys1" wrote in message ... There have been a lot of comments recently about the waste of energy due to appliances being left on standby, and various gizmo's that are on offer to turn them off automatically, or otherwise purporting to save energy. What everybody seems to be forgetting is that an energy- saving device comes with most UK socket outlets, it's called a 'switch', and when put into the 'off' position, power cosumption is zero! None of my appliances, including computers, digital TV receivers, etc. have come to harm through this practice, I always switch off at the wall, back in the day when there were fewer appliances this was standard procedure to avoid fire risk. David Mackays book is a good read on this subject: http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/w...page_155.shtml So he says he can save all of 45 watts if he turns everything off instead of leaving it on standby when he's not using it. *The equivalent of a very dim lightbulb therefore. *Great! Which in the very next sentence he states is a saving of £45 per year. Sounds worth having, esp. as it's savings from taxed income. However, he ignores the fact that he's also losing 45 watts of heat. *To keep his house at exactly the same temperature, an extra 45 watts of heat need to be pumped out by whatever heating system he has, for as much of the year as he needs any heating at all. *Admittedly, that may be a bit cheaper if it's gas-fired, but it's still the same amount of energy, so it's unlikely to have a huge impact on climate change. True, as far as it goes. However for (depending where you live & how well insulated your house is) half the year, it's wasted heat. Plus it doesn't contribute to the _usable_ room environment when the occupants are asleep or out - Warming an empty room will reduce heat loss from adjacent rooms so it does have some effect. While true in theory at least, until you quantify the amount it, saying that doesn't contribute anything useful to the discussion. |
#59
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Switch off at the socket?
On Sep 15, 12:37*pm, "js.b1" wrote:
- Moving to LED from LCD for TV & Monitor would do so. Real possibility of a real world 29+29W saving. Show me a lerge OLED screen that's any good. Why do you think all the Sony ones ended up in the bargain bins? OLED is fine for phones & the like but it's just not there yet for anything as large as a monitor or TV. MBQ |
#60
Posted to uk.d-i-y,uk.media.tv.misc,uk.tech.digital-tv,uk.tech.broadcast
|
|||
|
|||
Switch off at the socket?
On Sep 15, 12:51*pm, pete wrote:
On Tue, 15 Sep 2009 04:25:19 -0700 (PDT), Man at B&Q wrote: On Sep 15, 12:06*pm, pete wrote: On Tue, 15 Sep 2009 09:39:13 +0100, Norman Wells wrote: Vortex4 wrote: "alexander.keys1" wrote in message ... There have been a lot of comments recently about the waste of energy due to appliances being left on standby, and various gizmo's that are on offer to turn them off automatically, or otherwise purporting to save energy. What everybody seems to be forgetting is that an energy- saving device comes with most UK socket outlets, it's called a 'switch', and when put into the 'off' position, power cosumption is zero! None of my appliances, including computers, digital TV receivers, etc. have come to harm through this practice, I always switch off at the wall, back in the day when there were fewer appliances this was standard procedure to avoid fire risk. David Mackays book is a good read on this subject: http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/w...page_155.shtml So he says he can save all of 45 watts if he turns everything off instead of leaving it on standby when he's not using it. *The equivalent of a very dim lightbulb therefore. *Great! Which in the very next sentence he states is a saving of £45 per year. Sounds worth having, esp. as it's savings from taxed income. However, he ignores the fact that he's also losing 45 watts of heat. *To keep his house at exactly the same temperature, an extra 45 watts of heat need to be pumped out by whatever heating system he has, for as much of the year as he needs any heating at all. *Admittedly, that may be a bit cheaper if it's gas-fired, but it's still the same amount of energy, so it's unlikely to have a huge impact on climate change. True, as far as it goes. However for (depending where you live & how well insulated your house is) half the year, it's wasted heat. Plus it doesn't contribute to the _usable_ room environment when the occupants are asleep or out - Warming an empty room will reduce heat loss from adjacent rooms so it does have some effect. While true in theory at least, until you quantify the amount it, saying that doesn't contribute anything useful to the discussion. shrug Neither does your grammar, if you want to be pedantic about it. MBQ |
#61
Posted to uk.d-i-y,uk.media.tv.misc,uk.tech.digital-tv,uk.tech.broadcast
|
|||
|
|||
Switch off at the socket?
"Halmyre" wrote in message
... On 14 Sep, 23:30, Mike Swift wrote: In article .com, NT writes There have been a lot of comments recently about the waste of energy due to appliances being left on standby, and various gizmo's that are on offer to turn them off automatically, or otherwise purporting to save energy. What everybody seems to be forgetting is that an energy- saving device comes with most UK socket outlets, it's called a 'switch', and when put into the 'off' position, power cosumption is zero! None of my appliances, including computers, digital TV receivers, etc. have come to harm through this practice, I always switch off at the wall, back in the day when there were fewer appliances this was standard procedure to avoid fire risk. The phantom power issue is much over stated. In most cases it isn't worth getting up to switch things off. Have you ever driven through most towns late at night, the shops are lit up like Blackpool illuminations, and they want us to switch off at the power socket. I wonder what the residents of Blackpool use as a comparative reference when they want to comment on levels of illumination? -- Halmyre Las Vegas? |
#62
Posted to uk.d-i-y,uk.media.tv.misc,uk.tech.digital-tv,uk.tech.broadcast
|
|||
|
|||
Switch off at the socket?
On Tue, 15 Sep 2009 07:54:45 +0000 (UTC), Gordon Henderson wrote:
I did the power meter thing a year or 2 ago - went round the house meansuring everything. The only real surprise was my HP Colour Laser printer. In it's "low-power" idle mode it's sucking 30W. That now gets turned off. My old HP5N took 45s from standby or 45s from On - I didn't bother to measure it as there was no advantage in it being on, but I'd guess it was about the same. -- Peter. The head of a pin will hold more angels if it's been flattened with an angel-grinder. |
#63
Posted to uk.d-i-y,uk.media.tv.misc,uk.tech.digital-tv,uk.tech.broadcast
|
|||
|
|||
Switch off at the socket?
"tony sayer" wrote in message ... In article , Andrew scribeth thus On Mon, 14 Sep 2009 14:43:54 -0700 (PDT), "alexander.keys1" wrote: There have been a lot of comments recently about the waste of energy due to appliances being left on standby, and various gizmo's that are on offer to turn them off automatically, or otherwise purporting to save energy. What everybody seems to be forgetting is that an energy- saving device comes with most UK socket outlets, it's called a 'switch', and when put into the 'off' position, power cosumption is zero! None of my appliances, including computers, digital TV receivers, etc. have come to harm through this practice, I always switch off at the wall, back in the day when there were fewer appliances this was standard procedure to avoid fire risk. They can't switch the power stations off overnight, so they may as well power the 1W my TV takes to be in standby. I seem to remember that some hydro electric plant is powered down and some gas fired .. but coal is rather long winded to slow down and restart.. They use the spare overnight power to pump the water back up in a stored hydro power station so that it's full in the morning when everyone turns their kettles on, so it isn't wasted. tim |
#65
Posted to uk.d-i-y,uk.media.tv.misc,uk.tech.digital-tv,uk.tech.broadcast
|
|||
|
|||
Switch off at the socket?
It will be somewhat more efficient, and it will be somewhat cheaper as
long as it's not electric. There are some savings to be made therefore, but not as much as greeny-weenies think. As has been said, ZT, all energy coming into your home ends up as heat, which for maybe seven months of the year is actually desirable. Switching off your 45W of standby power just means your central heating system has to deliver 45W more heat to keep the room stat clicked off, so you don't gain anything. None of this breaks any laws of physics: it's all about conservation of energy. You may argue that 45W from your gas supply is environmentally "greener" than 45W from your electricity supply, which is probably true but it's a close call. And, of course, we agree that during the summer months that 45W leakage into your home is actually undesirable, because you're already warm enough. Clearly, then, there will be savings by switching to off rather than to standby, but the crucial point is that these savings are *much* less than the green pundits claim, and are almost not savings at all during the winter months. SteveT |
#66
Posted to uk.d-i-y,uk.media.tv.misc,uk.tech.digital-tv,uk.tech.broadcast
|
|||
|
|||
Switch off at the socket?
"David Skinner" wrote in message t... In article dd11dcee-9b58-4d46-899e- My parents' 1-and-a-bit-year-old TV broke down the other week. Stopped receiving DTV and the settings menus became unavailable. The repair man reloaded the firmware from a memory card, which fixed it. Then he asked whether it got switched off at the mains a lot. It did - every night. He said that that may well have been the cause of firmware corruption and that they should leave the set on standby. It's a Toshiba Regza something or other, if that matters. Mr repair man is talking rubbish to get out of telling you what the real problem was. When I first went on cable tv the installation guy from Nynex (as it was then; later C&W then NTL and finally Virgin Media) wanted the STB left permanently on standby so they could send messages to the television. Now it gets turned off whenever I am out and overnight and, apart from it taking a minute to settle down when first switched back on, there are no problems. |
#67
Posted to uk.d-i-y,uk.media.tv.misc,uk.tech.digital-tv,uk.tech.broadcast
|
|||
|
|||
Switch off at the socket?
|
#68
Posted to uk.d-i-y,uk.media.tv.misc,uk.tech.digital-tv,uk.tech.broadcast
|
|||
|
|||
Switch off at the socket?
In message , Ian
writes "David Skinner" wrote in message et... In article dd11dcee-9b58-4d46-899e- My parents' 1-and-a-bit-year-old TV broke down the other week. Stopped receiving DTV and the settings menus became unavailable. The repair man reloaded the firmware from a memory card, which fixed it. Then he asked whether it got switched off at the mains a lot. It did - every night. He said that that may well have been the cause of firmware corruption and that they should leave the set on standby. It's a Toshiba Regza something or other, if that matters. Mr repair man is talking rubbish to get out of telling you what the real problem was. When I first went on cable tv the installation guy from Nynex (as it was then; later C&W then NTL and finally Virgin Media) wanted the STB left permanently on standby so they could send messages to the television. Now it gets turned off whenever I am out and overnight and, apart from it taking a minute to settle down when first switched back on, there are no problems. They wouldn't be sending messages to the TV. They would be sending messages to the STB. Assuming you're talking about the old analogue STB, it was common practice (indeed often necessary) to send information about frequencies, displayed channel numbers, pay services etc (not unlike the various changes and updates which go on for off-air DTT). Most of these changes were sent continuously (cycling through the data 24/24) and, in large cable TV systems, it could take several hours between one update and the next. If a STB was totally switched off when not in use, it was not uncommon for it to miss the latest data - especially if it was addressed to that particular unit. This was particularly important for new installations which, when first installed, might not be authorised to receive all the services requested by the customer. This often resulted in an essentially un-necessary call to the customer services department, who would have to do a manual re-send of the data applicable to that STB. Depending on the workload etc, this could take some time, during which the customer might again have totally switched off the STB (or might be, say, be at work, having home with the STB switched-off). As a result, the customer services people were sometimes led a merry dance and, despite their best efforts, the customer became more and more dissatisfied with the apparent lack of service! Hence the request from the installation guy to leave the STB at least in standby. -- Ian |
#69
Posted to uk.d-i-y,uk.media.tv.misc,uk.tech.digital-tv,uk.tech.broadcast
|
|||
|
|||
Switch off at the socket?
On Tue, 15 Sep 2009 07:10:50 +0100, Halmyre
wrote: On 14 Sep, 23:30, Mike Swift wrote: In article .com, NT writes There have been a lot of comments recently about the waste of energy due to appliances being left on standby, and various gizmo's that are on offer to turn them off automatically, or otherwise purporting to save energy. What everybody seems to be forgetting is that an energy- saving device comes with most UK socket outlets, it's called a 'switch', and when put into the 'off' position, power cosumption is zero! None of my appliances, including computers, digital TV receivers, etc. have come to harm through this practice, I always switch off at the wall, back in the day when there were fewer appliances this was standard procedure to avoid fire risk. The phantom power issue is much over stated. In most cases it isn't worth getting up to switch things off. Have you ever driven through most towns late at night, the shops are lit up like Blackpool illuminations, and they want us to switch off at the power socket. I wonder what the residents of Blackpool use as a comparative reference when they want to comment on levels of illumination? A floodlight football pitch with a double decker bus on it that has come from Wales? Fred X |
#70
Posted to uk.d-i-y,uk.media.tv.misc,uk.tech.digital-tv,uk.tech.broadcast
|
|||
|
|||
Switch off at the socket?
On Tue, 15 Sep 2009 13:14:51 +0100, No Spam Please suggested:
"Halmyre" asked in message ... I wonder what the residents of Blackpool use as a comparative reference when they want to comment on levels of illumination? Las Vegas? My exact same thoughts. Some facts and figures at http://green.thefuntimesguide.COM/2007/04/las_vegas_energy_use.php Is it not the case that without the Hoover Dam, the bright lights of Las Vegas would not be possible? |
#71
Posted to uk.d-i-y,uk.media.tv.misc,uk.tech.digital-tv,uk.tech.broadcast
|
|||
|
|||
Switch off at the socket?
On Sep 15, 3:12*pm, "Ian" wrote:
"David Skinner" wrote in message t... In article dd11dcee-9b58-4d46-899e- My parents' 1-and-a-bit-year-old TV broke down the other week. Stopped receiving DTV and the settings menus became unavailable. The repair man reloaded the firmware from a memory card, which fixed it.. Then he asked whether it got switched off at the mains a lot. It did - every night. He said that that may well have been the cause of firmware corruption and that they should leave the set on standby. It's a Toshiba Regza something or other, if that matters. Mr repair man is talking rubbish to get out of telling you what the real problem was. What is the real problem, then? MBQ |
#72
Posted to uk.d-i-y,uk.media.tv.misc,uk.tech.digital-tv,uk.tech.broadcast
|
|||
|
|||
Switch off at the socket?
"Man at B&Q" wrote in message ... On Sep 15, 11:16 am, "Zimmy" wrote: "Norman Wells" wrote in message ... Zimmy wrote: "Norman Wells" wrote in message ... However, he ignores the fact that he's also losing 45 watts of heat. To keep his house at exactly the same temperature, an extra 45 watts of heat need to be pumped out by whatever heating system he has, for as much of the year as he needs any heating at all. Admittedly, that may be a bit cheaper if it's gas-fired, but it's still the same amount of energy, so it's unlikely to have a huge impact on climate change. You are assuming that those 45W of electricity are converted to 45W of heat with 100% efficiency which is clearly not true. Where else do you think it goes? Hmm, maybe powering the standby circuitry, IR receivers, etc? Which is ultimately turned into heat. OK! Thanks to all who put me straight. Ultimately, yes it ends up as heat, but its an expensive way to heat your house. I think I'll be sticking to gas CH instead of filling my rooms with wall-warts. :-) Z |
#73
Posted to uk.d-i-y,uk.media.tv.misc,uk.tech.digital-tv,uk.tech.broadcast
|
|||
|
|||
Switch off at the socket?
On 14 Sep, 23:30, Mike Swift wrote:
Have you ever driven through most towns late at night, the shops are lit up like Blackpool illuminations, and they want us to switch off at the power socket. Mike It's not just town and city centres. Our local councillors are trumpeting about their reaction to a suggestion that a tree in the area be lit up at night. They think they've triumphed by providing different coloured lights on the tree according to the season. The formal switching on was the other night. We've just completed a questionnaire put out by the council about saving power and telling us to save money by turning down the heating by one degree. We can't, it won't go any lower than 10C. Yet they've spent our money on the installation of these lights as well as the running costs. You can tell that I'm not pleased ... Mary -- Michael Swift * * * * * We do not regard Englishmen as foreigners. * * * Kirkheaton * * * * * * *We look on them only as rather mad Norwegians. * * Yorkshire * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Halvard Lange |
#74
Posted to uk.d-i-y,uk.media.tv.misc,uk.tech.digital-tv,uk.tech.broadcast
|
|||
|
|||
Switch off at the socket?
wrote in message ... On 14 Sep, 23:30, Mike Swift wrote: Have you ever driven through most towns late at night, the shops are lit up like Blackpool illuminations, and they want us to switch off at the power socket. Mike It's not just town and city centres. Our local councillors are trumpeting about their reaction to a suggestion that a tree in the area be lit up at night. Well they are sort of half right. It would be a complete waste of energy to light it up in the daytime. Adam |
#75
Posted to uk.d-i-y,uk.media.tv.misc,uk.tech.digital-tv,uk.tech.broadcast
|
|||
|
|||
Switch off at the socket?
|
#76
Posted to uk.d-i-y,uk.media.tv.misc,uk.tech.digital-tv,uk.tech.broadcast
|
|||
|
|||
Switch off at the socket?
On 2009-09-15, Zero Tolerance wrote:
On Tue, 15 Sep 2009 09:39:13 +0100, "Norman Wells" wrote: However, he ignores the fact that he's also losing 45 watts of heat. To keep his house at exactly the same temperature, an extra 45 watts of heat need to be pumped out by whatever heating system he has, for as much of the year as he needs any heating at all. Admittedly, that may be a bit cheaper if it's gas-fired, but it's still the same amount of energy, so it's unlikely to have a huge impact on climate change. This is an old (and thoroughly discredited) logical error. Saving 45 watts of energy is not the same as saving 45 watts of heat. For a start, most of that energy is expended in doing the 'work' - e.g. lighting lights, spinning discs, and so on. Any excess heat generated after that (unnecessary) work is done is minimal. By your logic, if I leave a Sky+ box on standby, then the 20 watts it spends on spinning the hard disc is converted into 20 watts of heat. It is, through vibrations and friction in the bearings. If that were true, it would turn Sky+ into a free energy machine - It would not. which is impossible - breaking every scientific law there is. No, it would not. -- David Taylor |
#77
Posted to uk.d-i-y,uk.media.tv.misc,uk.tech.digital-tv,uk.tech.broadcast
|
|||
|
|||
Switch off at the socket?
Man at B&Q wrote:
On Sep 15, 11:28 am, Andy Burns wrote: On 15/09/09 08:54, Gordon Henderson wrote: http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/sustainable/charger/ I read that and started thinking the 5000W per person figure was a confusion between power units and energy units, and assuming it meant 5000Wh per person per day, but I decided I'd best check the numbers before possibly inserting foot into mouth ... According to the International Energy Association figures for 2001 the total UK energy consumption was 262,186,000 tonnes of oil equivalent or about 4.3 tonnes of oil per person or 180 Gigajoules per person so dividing by 8760 hours that *did* equate to a continuous 5.7kW per person. Granted some of that will contribute to exported goods and services, but equally our imports will contribute to other countries' consumption figures so it's difficult to adjustment for that. Still barely makes it worthwhile unplugging idle phone chargers though, most of that power is consumed on our behalf, not directly by us. Indeed. As the saying goes, 100% of bugger all is still bugger all. OTOH, even just 20% of something larger like unneccessary nightime illumination in shops may be worthwhile. i don't know the exact figures but you see what I mean. I think the retailers would take the view that illuminated shops are less likely to be burgled/vandalised. There is an energy cost in dealing with crime. -- Dave - The Medway Handyman www.medwayhandyman.co.uk |
#78
Posted to uk.d-i-y,uk.media.tv.misc,uk.tech.digital-tv,uk.tech.broadcast
|
|||
|
|||
Switch off at the socket?
On Tue, 15 Sep 2009 16:47:46 +0000 (UTC), David Taylor
wrote: On 2009-09-15, Zero Tolerance wrote: On Tue, 15 Sep 2009 09:39:13 +0100, "Norman Wells" wrote: However, he ignores the fact that he's also losing 45 watts of heat. To keep his house at exactly the same temperature, an extra 45 watts of heat need to be pumped out by whatever heating system he has, for as much of the year as he needs any heating at all. Admittedly, that may be a bit cheaper if it's gas-fired, but it's still the same amount of energy, so it's unlikely to have a huge impact on climate change. This is an old (and thoroughly discredited) logical error. Saving 45 watts of energy is not the same as saving 45 watts of heat. For a start, most of that energy is expended in doing the 'work' - e.g. lighting lights, spinning discs, and so on. Any excess heat generated after that (unnecessary) work is done is minimal. By your logic, if I leave a Sky+ box on standby, then the 20 watts it spends on spinning the hard disc is converted into 20 watts of heat. It is, through vibrations and friction in the bearings. If that were true, it would turn Sky+ into a free energy machine - It would not. which is impossible - breaking every scientific law there is. No, it would not. Quite. Scientific laws would be broken if energy went into a box of electronics (from the mains connection or a battery) and did not come out in some form: heat, light, sound, whatever. -- Peter Duncanson (in uk.tech.digital-tv) |
#79
Posted to uk.d-i-y,uk.media.tv.misc,uk.tech.digital-tv,uk.tech.broadcast
|
|||
|
|||
Switch off at the socket?
On Mon, 14 Sep 2009 14:43:54 -0700 (PDT), "alexander.keys1"
wrote: There have been a lot of comments recently about the waste of energy due to appliances being left on standby, and various gizmo's that are on offer to turn them off automatically, or otherwise purporting to save energy. What everybody seems to be forgetting is that an energy- saving device comes with most UK socket outlets, it's called a 'switch', and when put into the 'off' position, power cosumption is zero! None of my appliances, including computers, digital TV receivers, etc. have come to harm through this practice, I always switch off at the wall, back in the day when there were fewer appliances this was standard procedure to avoid fire risk. This energy isn't wasted. Its given off as heat, which is quite useful in a domestic house. |
#80
Posted to uk.d-i-y,uk.media.tv.misc,uk.tech.digital-tv,uk.tech.broadcast
|
|||
|
|||
Switch off at the socket?
In article ,
dennis@home wrote: You know of a VCR etc which can do a pre-programmed recording when powered down at the socket? A media centre PC (laptop) will do that. They will even wakeup from hibernation and do a recording and then hibernate again. Great. So a laptop uses a battery to achieve this. Very energy efficient. -- *I took an IQ test and the results were negative. Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Mains socket switch won't switch | UK diy | |||
Replacing socket and light switch faceplates | UK diy | |||
Socket & Switch 'Borders' | UK diy | |||
Running a Light Switch Off The Socket Ring Main | UK diy | |||
socket and light switch heights | UK diy |