Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#81
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Switch off at the socket?
In article
, js.b1 wrote: - Moving to LED from LCD for TV & Monitor would do so. Nice try - but such things don't exist. -- *Time is the best teacher; unfortunately it kills all its students. Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
#82
Posted to uk.d-i-y,uk.media.tv.misc,uk.tech.digital-tv,uk.tech.broadcast
|
|||
|
|||
Switch off at the socket?
"DVDfever" wrote in message ... On 15 Sep, 00:19, "Ian" wrote: It's amazing that some people go, "Ooh, I'm so green that I unplug all of my TVs, PC, Sky- whatever" but if you ask them to unplug their fridge and freezer and nooooooooooooooooooo, they won't. Green, my arse! Don't unplug their fridge & freezer? Gosh, I wonder why that might be? Col |
#83
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Switch off at the socket?
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 ... It's the job of councils to do dipweed inconsistent things. Read more Dilbert - it will help you to mentally adjust! Most council employees I know believe Dilbert is the inspiration for their managers and the councillors! |
#84
Posted to uk.d-i-y,uk.media.tv.misc,uk.tech.digital-tv,uk.tech.broadcast
|
|||
|
|||
Switch off at the socket?
In article ,
Col wrote: "DVDfever" wrote in message ... On 15 Sep, 00:19, "Ian" wrote: It's amazing that some people go, "Ooh, I'm so green that I unplug all of my TVs, PC, Sky- whatever" but if you ask them to unplug their fridge and freezer and nooooooooooooooooooo, they won't. Green, my arse! Don't unplug their fridge & freezer? Gosh, I wonder why that might be? they might not want green coloured food? -- From KT24 Using a RISC OS computer running v5.11 |
#85
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 13:38:14 +0100, "tim....."
wrote: "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.. basically anything that is high power and heat driven doesnt appreciate lots of heating up and cooling down. used to be some of the really big generators needed to be left spinning while cooling off...... 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. except you only get back maybe 75% of what you put into the pumping during generation. And then you lose some more pushing all the power to N Wales and getting it back again to somewhere useful. tim -- Regards - replace xyz with ntl |
#86
Posted to uk.d-i-y,uk.media.tv.misc,uk.tech.digital-tv,uk.tech.broadcast
|
|||
|
|||
Switch off at the socket?
In article ,
Stephen wrote: On Tue, 15 Sep 2009 13:38:14 +0100, "tim....." wrote: "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.. basically anything that is high power and heat driven doesnt appreciate lots of heating up and cooling down. used to be some of the really big generators needed to be left spinning while cooling off...... 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. except you only get back maybe 75% of what you put into the pumping during generation. And then you lose some more pushing all the power to N Wales and getting it back again to somewhere useful. but it was very close to a couple of nuclear power stations (probably now closed) so the distribution losses would actually be rather low. tim -- From KT24 Using a RISC OS computer running v5.11 |
#87
Posted to uk.d-i-y,uk.media.tv.misc,uk.tech.digital-tv,uk.tech.broadcast
|
|||
|
|||
Switch off at the socket?
"charles" wrote in message ... In article , Col wrote: "DVDfever" wrote in message ... On 15 Sep, 00:19, "Ian" wrote: It's amazing that some people go, "Ooh, I'm so green that I unplug all of my TVs, PC, Sky- whatever" but if you ask them to unplug their fridge and freezer and nooooooooooooooooooo, they won't. Green, my arse! Don't unplug their fridge & freezer? Gosh, I wonder why that might be? they might not want green coloured food? No ****, Sherlock! Col |
#88
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Switch off at the socket?
On Tue, 15 Sep 2009 18:33:56 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
- Moving to LED from LCD for TV & Monitor would do so. Nice try - but such things don't exist. They do but the LED is the backlight source to an LCD screen. The marketing is not being 100% accurate as always. Or he could be refering to the LED advertising boards or screens found at many sporting (and other) venues these days. Resolution would be a bit low for the average living room though. Triad pitch is around 15mm... -- Cheers Dave. |
#89
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Switch off at the socket?
On 15 Sep, 17:37, Tim S wrote:
coughed up some electrons that declared: .... 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. How do you live at 10C? I can see 15C with a wooly jumper, but 10C is pretty chilly. I didn't say that we did live at 10C, the house must be warm enough most of the time for the heating not to come on. We're healthy, we're moving most of the time, we cook, we're well insulated (the house as well as us although we've only gone into jeans instead of shorts in the last few days) ... we find other people's houses far too warm for comfort. But nobody has said our house is cold and they keep coming :-) 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 ... It's the job of councils to do dipweed inconsistent things. That's not why they're elected. I wish they'd just build some bl**dy nukes so we can get back to worrying about world hunger and terrorism instead of debating reducing global warming by 90% of 8% of 1ppm or whatever... Cynical - moi? I have nothing against nuclear power stations, I just think that most people use far more power than they need. Why does everything need a motor? Mary |
#90
Posted to uk.d-i-y,uk.media.tv.misc,uk.tech.digital-tv,uk.tech.broadcast
|
|||
|
|||
Switch off at the socket?
"DVDfever" wrote in message ... It's amazing that some people go, "Ooh, I'm so green that I unplug all of my TVs, PC, Sky- whatever" but if you ask them to unplug their fridge and freezer and nooooooooooooooooooo, they won't. Green, my arse! My ex boss bought some frozen sea food from a shop in Portugal that turned their freezers off overnight. His family were very ill, prompting him to discover why... |
#91
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Switch off at the socket?
Doctor D coughed up some electrons that declared:
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 ... It's the job of councils to do dipweed inconsistent things. Read more Dilbert - it will help you to mentally adjust! Most council employees I know believe Dilbert is the inspiration for their managers and the councillors! Certainly been the inspiration for every employer I've worked for, bar the last one, who were *very* unusual in their sensibleness. But as that includes several universities and the civil service, it is to be expected. The Dilbert effect seemed to start one manager above my own manager (who was generally good) and get exponentially worse upwards. The more the upper management espoused notions of being more corporate, the more stupid it got. It's no surprise to me that Britain's in the state it's in - we do simply breed the some of the most incompetant managers in the world, but without the joy of long lunches like the French, and knowing how to have a good time like the Italians. I'd love to read a treatise on why that may be... Tim |
#92
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Switch off at the socket?
|
#93
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Switch off at the socket?
Tim S wrote:
How do you live at 10C? I can see 15C with a wooly jumper, but 10C is pretty chilly. She answered that earlier. She bakes lots of cakes, and mixes them all with a wooden spoon! Andy |
#94
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Switch off at the socket?
Andy Champ coughed up some electrons that declared:
Tim S wrote: How do you live at 10C? I can see 15C with a wooly jumper, but 10C is pretty chilly. She answered that earlier. She bakes lots of cakes, and mixes them all with a wooden spoon! Andy Then sits in front of a hot oven baking them. Then eats the yummy hot cakes. OK - I can go along with that.... |
#95
Posted to uk.d-i-y,uk.media.tv.misc,uk.tech.digital-tv,uk.tech.broadcast
|
|||
|
|||
Switch off at the socket?
You can tell that I'm not pleased ...
OK, but do you really want a drab, dreary, joyless world where nobody celebrates anything in case it generates some CO2? Where we leave our homes unheated? Do you really want every fountain switched off? Christmas trees with no lights? Every light in every city switched off, apart from basic street lights? Should we close down the cinemas, the museums and the art galleries? They generate CO2, you know. Do you want to live in the 18th century (but without any coal, of course)? I hate the very thought of such a drab world, I'll tell you that for sure. SteveT |
#96
Posted to uk.d-i-y,uk.media.tv.misc,uk.tech.digital-tv,uk.tech.broadcast
|
|||
|
|||
Switch off at the socket?
"Timothy Murphy" wrote in message
... PeterC wrote: My TV is 0.9W; the digibox is 9W (with a PF of 0.45!) so well worth switching off. Perhaps manufacturers should be required to specify standy power consumption. I've been surprised how much difference I have found eg between different computer monitors. They usually do these days. But some only quote for the ultra power saving mode that has limited capability - for example STBs not allowing RF or SCART passthrough (e.g. Humax 9150/9300). Some don't say what they mean by standby - for a printer does that mean that it is visibly on but not actually printing - or just that the unit is connected to the mains? Hi-fi amplifiers should quote the quiescent consumption as well as the full power consumption as they will very rarely be peaking. -- Max Demian |
#97
Posted to uk.d-i-y,uk.media.tv.misc,uk.tech.digital-tv,uk.tech.broadcast
|
|||
|
|||
Switch off at the socket?
Zimmy wrote:
You are assuming that those 45W of electricity are converted to 45W of heat with 100% efficiency which is clearly not true. We can all warm ourselves up on your ears now! There _are_losses with using electricity for heating. It doesn't matter what you do with it once it's inside the house (unless you shine a big light out of the window or something like that) as pretty well everything that comes in on the wire will end up warming the house. The losses are all in the generating plant and the transmission system. These losses come to maybe 2/3 of the energy used. This is likely to be a lot less than the losses in your gas boiler - so it's better to heat with gas. Andy |
#98
Posted to uk.d-i-y,uk.media.tv.misc,uk.tech.digital-tv,uk.tech.broadcast
|
|||
|
|||
Switch off at the socket?
I thought it was more environmentally friendly to keep using the old
stuff ... That's a very important point and rarely given proper consideration. It uses CO2 to make a new appliance and ship it half way round the world. The problem is, it's almost impossible to get reliable figures. The estimates for how much CO2 is produced to make a car vary over a ratio of ten to one. But it may very well be the case that continuing to drive an old Jag at 22mpg is actually greener than buying a brand new Prius. SteveT |
#99
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Switch off at the socket?
In article ,
wrote: As you say, the LED tvs in larger sizes quoted as LED only use the LEDs as backlights to a TFT display. They might be a bit more efficient as they switch off or dim the LEDs in the dark parts of the picture. -- *A bicycle can't stand alone because it's two tyred.* Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
#100
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 I wonder what the residents of Blackpool use as a comparative reference when they want to comment on levels of illumination? They say, "Lit up like the illuminations." Bill |
#101
Posted to uk.d-i-y,uk.media.tv.misc,uk.tech.digital-tv,uk.tech.broadcast
|
|||
|
|||
Switch off at the socket?
|
#102
Posted to uk.d-i-y,uk.media.tv.misc,uk.tech.digital-tv,uk.tech.broadcast
|
|||
|
|||
Switch off at the socket?
In article , Clot wrote:
I am not advocating excessive lighting, but questioning why we do not sort out those that destroy communities. Personally, ignoring which current party is in power, a major problem is the existence of the CPS which ensures that the regularly law abiding citizen that has a motoring incident, (or similar), is prosecuted when the CPS will not take to court those that need to be, (Joe Thug that has been done x times before and knows how to avoid the ropes), "evidence was insufficient" said the CPS. Just frustrates the Police and society. I understand your frustration, but allowing people to be prosecuted with insufficient evidence would destroy communities just as effectively as any thug, because it would remove any last vestige of respect for the law. Rod. -- Virtual Access V6.3 free usenet/email software from http://sourceforge.net/projects/virtual-access/ |
#103
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Switch off at the socket?
On Tue, 15 Sep 2009 23:39:02 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article , wrote: As you say, the LED tvs in larger sizes quoted as LED only use the LEDs as backlights to a TFT display. They might be a bit more efficient as they switch off or dim the LEDs in the dark parts of the picture. This 32" Regza is nominally 96W running (not LED of course) but I've set it up so that the autobrightness works and in the evening it's ~50W, which is less than my 24" CRT. Trouble is, the PF gets worse so that the VA doesn't really change! -- Peter. The head of a pin will hold more angels if it's been flattened with an angel-grinder. |
#104
Posted to uk.d-i-y,uk.media.tv.misc,uk.tech.digital-tv,uk.tech.broadcast
|
|||
|
|||
Switch off at the socket?
"Paul Hyett" wrote in message ... On Mon, 14 Sep 2009 at 14:43:54, alexander.keys1 wrote in uk.media.tv.misc : 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. Congratulations - you must be the only person in the country who enjoys reprogramming their VCR/DVD recorder every day... -- Paul 'Charts Fan' Hyett All my VCRs just get the time from the text automatically. Of course that will soon end. Bill |
#105
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Switch off at the socket?
On Tue, 15 Sep 2009 17:37:27 +0100, Tim S wrote:
coughed up some electrons that declared: 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. How do you live at 10C? I can see 15C with a wooly jumper, but 10C is pretty chilly. 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 ... It's the job of councils to do dipweed inconsistent things. Read more Dilbert - it will help you to mentally adjust! I wish they'd just build some bl**dy nukes so we can get back to worrying about world hunger and terrorism instead of debating reducing global warming by 90% of 8% of 1ppm or whatever... Cynical - moi? They want for us to worry about as much as possible: terrorism, climate change, war etc. It's distracts the "public" from many of their mistakes. -- (\__/) M. (='.'=) Due to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups and (")_(") their inaction to the problem. I am blocking most articles posted from there. If you wish your postings to be seen by everyone you will need use a different method of posting. [Reply-to address valid until it is spammed.] |
#106
Posted to uk.d-i-y,uk.media.tv.misc,uk.tech.digital-tv,uk.tech.broadcast
|
|||
|
|||
Switch off at the socket?
Roderick Stewart wrote:
In article , Clot wrote: I am not advocating excessive lighting, but questioning why we do not sort out those that destroy communities. Personally, ignoring which current party is in power, a major problem is the existence of the CPS which ensures that the regularly law abiding citizen that has a motoring incident, (or similar), is prosecuted when the CPS will not take to court those that need to be, (Joe Thug that has been done x times before and knows how to avoid the ropes), "evidence was insufficient" said the CPS. Just frustrates the Police and society. I understand your frustration, but allowing people to be prosecuted with insufficient evidence would destroy communities just as effectively as any thug, because it would remove any last vestige of respect for the law. Readily accepted if insufficient evidence was the reason. I suspect that in most cases, this amounts to "too difficult" and if the wily known villian was to get off then CPS stats are damaged. |
#107
Posted to uk.d-i-y,uk.tech.digital-tv
|
|||
|
|||
Switch off at the socket?
On Tue, 15 Sep 2009 18:09:50 +0100, Peter Duncanson
wrote: 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. Unless that energy was stored in the box, say if it contained a rechargeable battery. Obviously the battery would become fully charged at some point. -- (\__/) M. (='.'=) Due to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups and (")_(") their inaction to the problem. I am blocking most articles posted from there. If you wish your postings to be seen by everyone you will need use a different method of posting. [Reply-to address valid until it is spammed.] |
#108
Posted to uk.d-i-y,uk.media.tv.misc,uk.tech.digital-tv,uk.tech.broadcast
|
|||
|
|||
Switch off at the socket?
"Andy Champ" wrote in message
... There _are_losses with using electricity for heating............ The losses are all in the generating plant and the transmission system. These losses come to maybe 2/3 of the energy used. This is likely to be a lot less than the losses in your gas boiler - so it's better to heat with gas. Indeed. But this illustrates the point I've been trying to make: switching "off" instead of to "standby" does, often, save energy, but HOW MUCH energy is a complicated matter and it is rarely anything like as high as the green pundits claim. Standby electricity turns into heat, which is valuable except during the summer months. That is a subtlety many greenies don't understand. Two thirds of the energy entering the power station never makes it to your home, so electricity for heating is arguably a poor choice. But don't forget that your domestic gas boiler wastes maybe half the energy going into it, so again we have a complex and subtle situation, which in any case will vary greatly from house to house. And, of course, gas production and distribution also has a CO2 overhead. I just wish the green pundits would acknowledge that their claims are questionable and rely upon several massive over-simplifications. Yes, savings are there to be had, but not of the scale they claim. It would actually INCREASE their credibility. SteveT |
#109
Posted to uk.d-i-y,uk.media.tv.misc,uk.tech.digital-tv,uk.tech.broadcast
|
|||
|
|||
Switch off at the socket?
"dennis@home" wrote in message ... "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. That's nowt. Our lass can wake up from hibernation, eat a cream cake, then hibernate again. Bill |
#110
Posted to uk.d-i-y,uk.media.tv.misc,uk.tech.digital-tv,uk.tech.broadcast
|
|||
|
|||
Switch off at the socket?
On Wed, 16 Sep 2009 11:02:14 +0100, Steve Thackery wrote:
"Andy Champ" wrote in message ... There _are_losses with using electricity for heating............ The losses are all in the generating plant and the transmission system. These losses come to maybe 2/3 of the energy used. This is likely to be a lot less than the losses in your gas boiler - so it's better to heat with gas. Indeed. But this illustrates the point I've been trying to make: switching "off" instead of to "standby" does, often, save energy, but HOW MUCH energy is a complicated matter and it is rarely anything like as high as the green pundits claim. Standby electricity turns into heat, which is valuable except during the summer months. That is a subtlety many greenies don't understand. Two thirds of the energy entering the power station never makes it to your home, so electricity for heating is arguably a poor choice. But don't forget that your domestic gas boiler wastes maybe half the energy going into it, so ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ The figures suggest that bog-standard domestic boilers are about 80% efficient. Modern condensing boilers are closer to 90% efficient. However, if the owner decides to heat water that's never used and therefore cools down, that wasted energy is not due to the (in)efficiency of the boiler. again we have a complex and subtle situation, which in any case will vary greatly from house to house. And, of course, gas production and distribution also has a CO2 overhead. I just wish the green pundits would acknowledge that their claims are questionable and rely upon several massive over-simplifications. Yes, savings are there to be had, but not of the scale they claim. It would actually INCREASE their credibility. SteveT |
#111
Posted to uk.d-i-y,uk.media.tv.misc,uk.tech.digital-tv,uk.tech.broadcast
|
|||
|
|||
Switch off at the socket?
"Steve Thackery" wrote in message ... snip : : Standby electricity turns into heat, which is valuable except during the : summer months. That is a subtlety many greenies don't understand. Indeed, and that is also one of the defences for TF light bulbs, OK they are not the most effective electric fires but the heat produced is NOT wasted for probably nine twelfths of the year (in other words it is only wasted during the dusk to dawn hours between the end of may and the end of September, assuming that the weather is indeed warm to hot), all the rest of the time they contribute to background heat. So with TF bulbs contributing to the heating of the home during most of the year and the whole of life costs of CFL bulbs the greenies are not being all that that clever. The calculations might well be different for the more southerly countries or countries that traditionally have warmer summers than is the average in the UK, just goes to show that, regardless of any other issues with the EU, a "one size fits all" approach to legislation doesn't actually work. What are the latest recycling costs for the *safe* disposal of CFL light bulbs compared to the Vacuum TF bulb?... -- Regards, Jerry. |
#112
Posted to uk.d-i-y,uk.media.tv.misc,uk.tech.digital-tv,uk.tech.broadcast
|
|||
|
|||
Switch off at the socket?
On Wed, 16 Sep 2009 12:32:47 +0100, Jerry wrote:
"Steve Thackery" wrote in message ... snip : : Standby electricity turns into heat, which is valuable except during the : summer months. That is a subtlety many greenies don't understand. Indeed, and that is also one of the defences for TF light bulbs, OK they are not the most effective electric fires but the heat produced is NOT wasted for probably nine twelfths of the year (in other words it is only wasted during the dusk to dawn hours between the end of may and the end of September, assuming that the weather is indeed warm to hot), all the rest of the time they contribute to background heat. So with TF bulbs contributing to the heating of the home during most of the year and the whole of life costs of CFL bulbs the greenies are not being all that that clever. The problem with the heat from TF bulbs is that it's mostly at ceiling height, since that's where most bulbs hang from. What people need is heat at body (whether seated or standing) height, to keep them warm. If your room has the means to circulate the hot air away from the ceilinigs you'll improve the overall efficiency of the heaters - whatever form they take, otherwise you just end up with warm plasterboard, and maybe the room above - if you're not in a bungalow of on the top floor. The calculations might well be different for the more southerly countries or countries that traditionally have warmer summers than is the average in the UK, just goes to show that, regardless of any other issues with the EU, a "one size fits all" approach to legislation doesn't actually work. What are the latest recycling costs for the *safe* disposal of CFL light bulbs compared to the Vacuum TF bulb?... |
#113
Posted to uk.d-i-y,uk.tech.digital-tv
|
|||
|
|||
Switch off at the socket?
On Wed, 16 Sep 2009 10:54:08 +0100, Mark
wrote: On Tue, 15 Sep 2009 18:09:50 +0100, Peter Duncanson wrote: 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. Unless that energy was stored in the box, say if it contained a rechargeable battery. Obviously the battery would become fully charged at some point. While I was writing I did think of a box contining an energy store in the form of a flywheel spinning faster and faster and faster and faster and.... -- Peter Duncanson (in uk.tech.digital-tv) |
#114
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 04:21:51 -0700 (PDT), "Man at B&Q"
wrote: 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. No. It's converted into quite a lot of 'work', quite a lot of 'motion' (or what your earthling mind may know as "force"), and a small amount - much less than 20 watts net worth - of heat. 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"? You can't take 20 watts, then get 20 watts worth of use (e.g. CPUs, processors, spinning discs, etc) out of it, then still have 20 watts left which is magically converted into heat. That's not how it works. There are losses at every stage of energy conversion. which is impossible - breaking every scientific law there is. I think a few laws were broken when they let you loose on society. Oh, my mistake, I thought this might be a sensible discussion. I'll leave you to it... -- |
#115
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 18:09:50 +0100, Peter Duncanson
wrote: 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. Yes, in some form - but not ALL as heat. -- |
#116
Posted to uk.d-i-y,uk.media.tv.misc,uk.tech.digital-tv,uk.tech.broadcast
|
|||
|
|||
Switch off at the socket?
No. It's converted into quite a lot of 'work', quite a lot of 'motion'
(or what your earthling mind may know as "force"), and a small amount - much less than 20 watts net worth - of heat. Oh for goodness' sake, ZT!! I, amongst others, have tried to explain it constructively and politely, and yet you still refuse to learn, or even acknowledge that you have anything to learn! Here's the straight dope, mate: you don't have a f***ing clue about basic physics, and it's high time you realised that and showed a bit of humility. You can't take 20 watts, then get 20 watts worth of use (e.g. CPUs, processors, spinning discs, etc) out of it, then still have 20 watts left which is magically converted into heat. That's not how it works. No, no, no! That's EXACTLY how it works. Energy is neither created nor destroyed: it all ends up as heat. An Intel CPU uses 65W of electricity and generates 65W of heat. A hard disk uses 7W of electricity and generates 7W of heat. A 100W tungsten filament bulb uses 100W of electricity and produces 95W of heat and 5W of light. The light bounces around the room, gets absorbed by all the dark surfaces and re-radiated as heat. How many more times must we go through this? There are losses at every stage of energy conversion. Yes, yes, yes!! And those losses are in the form of heat!! Oh, my mistake, I thought this might be a sensible discussion. Did you really? Does "sensible" include putting your fingers in your ears and insisting everybody else but you is wrong? SteveT |
#117
Posted to uk.d-i-y,uk.media.tv.misc,uk.tech.digital-tv,uk.tech.broadcast
|
|||
|
|||
Switch off at the socket?
"Steve Thackery" wrote in message ... :"Zero Tolerance" said: : : Oh, my mistake, I thought this might be a sensible discussion. : : Did you really? Does "sensible" include putting your fingers in your ears : and insisting everybody else but you is wrong? : Sounds like you're describing the average green wellied eco protestor, don't know if ZT is one though... -- Regards, Jerry. |
#118
Posted to uk.d-i-y,uk.media.tv.misc,uk.tech.digital-tv,uk.tech.broadcast
|
|||
|
|||
Switch off at the socket?
On 2009-09-16, Zero Tolerance wrote:
On Tue, 15 Sep 2009 04:21:51 -0700 (PDT), "Man at B&Q" wrote: You can't take 20 watts, then get 20 watts worth of use (e.g. CPUs, processors, spinning discs, etc) out of it, then still have 20 watts left which is magically converted into heat. That's not how it works. There are losses at every stage of energy conversion. And those losses take the form of heat. |
#119
Posted to uk.d-i-y,uk.media.tv.misc,uk.tech.digital-tv,uk.tech.broadcast
|
|||
|
|||
Switch off at the socket?
On 2009-09-16, Zero Tolerance wrote:
On Tue, 15 Sep 2009 04:21:51 -0700 (PDT), "Man at B&Q" wrote: 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. No. It's converted into quite a lot of 'work', quite a lot of 'motion' (or what your earthling mind may know as "force"), and a small amount - much less than 20 watts net worth - of heat. No. Energy cannot be converted into "motion", it can be converted in to kinetic energy - which would make something accelerate. Ek = 1/2mv^2 The more energy you supply the faster it goes. Supplying 20J of kinetic energy per second to a spinning disk would result in it spinning very quickly indeed. The disk, instead, spins at a constant(ish) rate because, once it reaches the operating speed, it is also losing energy as friction (converting it in to heat) at a rate of 20J per second. The energy initially used to accelerate the disk to its steady state "stays" in the disk until power is removed and it spins down as the remaining energy is converted to heat by friction. 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"? You can't take 20 watts, then get 20 watts worth of use (e.g. CPUs, processors, spinning discs, etc) out of it, then still have 20 watts left which is magically converted into heat. That's not how it works. There are losses at every stage of energy conversion. The losses _are as heat_. A CPU "uses" power because the movement of electrons required to switch a transistor on or off is an electric current, flowing through a resistance (as CPUs are not superconducting). This results in resistive heating: P = I^2R An inefficient PSU takes in energy, loses some -- as heat, and outputs less energy. Your disk then takes energy in, and turns some of it temporarily into movement (of the spinning platters, of the read/write heads, of the vibrating disk), which is all quickly turned in to heat through friction. The CPU turns all its input power nearly instantaneously into heat (hence the massive heatsinks and fans on powerful processors). Even a monitor produces heat - the light will be absorbed by the walls, ceiling, your eyes, the carpet, the window. (Some might escape through the window and heat the atmosphere, some might even escape the atmosphere and fly through the universe for years -- most wont). -- David Taylor |
#120
Posted to uk.d-i-y,uk.tech.digital-tv
|
|||
|
|||
Switch off at the socket?
On Wed, 16 Sep 2009 11:02:14 +0100, "Steve Thackery"
wrote: "Andy Champ" wrote in message ... There _are_losses with using electricity for heating............ The losses are all in the generating plant and the transmission system. These losses come to maybe 2/3 of the energy used. This is likely to be a lot less than the losses in your gas boiler - so it's better to heat with gas. Indeed. But this illustrates the point I've been trying to make: switching "off" instead of to "standby" does, often, save energy, but HOW MUCH energy is a complicated matter and it is rarely anything like as high as the green pundits claim. Standby electricity turns into heat, which is valuable except during the summer months. That is a subtlety many greenies don't understand. Only if you would otherwise use another form of heating. If not the electricity is wasted. Two thirds of the energy entering the power station never makes it to your home, so electricity for heating is arguably a poor choice. But don't forget that your domestic gas boiler wastes maybe half the energy going into it, 1/2? Modern boilers are more efficient than this. so again we have a complex and subtle situation, which in any case will vary greatly from house to house. And, of course, gas production and distribution also has a CO2 overhead. I just wish the green pundits would acknowledge that their claims are questionable and rely upon several massive over-simplifications. Yes, savings are there to be had, but not of the scale they claim. It would actually INCREASE their credibility. We live in an oversimplified world because our illustrious leaders think we cannot cope with any detail. :-( -- (\__/) M. (='.'=) Due to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups and (")_(") their inaction to the problem. I am blocking most articles posted from there. If you wish your postings to be seen by everyone you will need use a different method of posting. [Reply-to address valid until it is spammed.] |
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 |