UK diy (uk.d-i-y) For the discussion of all topics related to diy (do-it-yourself) in the UK. All levels of experience and proficency are welcome to join in to ask questions or offer solutions.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #41   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,829
Default New Woodburner Regulations

Andrew wrote:

new woodburner regulations


Speaking of new regulations (and not really needing another thread) I
hadn't realised that we are in a transition phase for cable regulations,
which will end in July from when all power/data/fibre cables need to be
"CPR compliant" and tested/marked in addition to their existing BASEC
etc compliance.



  #43   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,829
Default New Woodburner Regulations

Dave Plowman wrote:

I'd suggest to read up about the reasons behind such legislation. Rather
than making up your own.


Are you suggesting that saving a few hundred watts for a few minutes per
month is distinguishable from noise in the 2750 TWh EU electricity budget?

I'd even agree that lighting is a worthwhile target, but that maybe they
pushed it a few years too early, how many subsidised CFLs lurk in the
backs of cupboards when decent LEDs were only a few years down the track?

  #44   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,366
Default New Woodburner Regulations

Andy Burns wrote:
Dave Plowman wrote:

I'd suggest to read up about the reasons behind such legislation. Rather
than making up your own.


Are you suggesting that saving a few hundred watts for a few minutes per
month is distinguishable from noise in the 2750 TWh EU electricity budget?

I'd even agree that lighting is a worthwhile target, but that maybe they
pushed it a few years too early, how many subsidised CFLs lurk in the
backs of cupboards when decent LEDs were only a few years down the track?



Perhaps we had to go through the awful ****ing CFL phase to drive the
market for LED development? ;-)

Tim

--
Please don't feed the trolls
  #46   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,168
Default New Woodburner Regulations

On 21/04/2017 11:04, Andy Burns wrote:
John Rumm wrote:

OOI do you have a reference for the "more suction" bit? Just wondering
how they define more suction...


Measured in 'Air Watts' presumably? ISTR dyson making reference to the
relevant IEC standard when the first limit on vacuums was introduced.
Remember, it gets cut further in September ...


The power limit only apply to certain types of vac too.
Like domestic ones and not industrial/commercial.
  #47   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,061
Default New Woodburner Regulations

In article , Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:
In article , The Other Mike
wrote:
On Thu, 20 Apr 2017 11:16:35 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:


Old kit becomes obsolescent naturally. Anyone still using a 405 line
VHF TV? No? Was that because of the EU?


Indirectly it was, the Krauts invented PAL, we managed perfectly well
with black and white tv's.


PAL was developed at the request of the European Broadcast Union. The
previous colour TV system, NTSC, had undergone extensive trials by the
BBC etc and been found lacking.


Not quite true. The BBC found NTSC quite useable - provided it was treated
properly. A test was made by sending am NTSC signal by landline/microwave
to Moscow & back - with no significant degradation. The BBC backed NTSC,
but when the majority of countries opted for PAL, they used that system.
One obvious indication of NTSC as the BBC's choice was the high stability
crystals needed for colour reference were built for NTSC.

There's an obvious reason why a German maker spent large sums developing
PAL as a European standard (incidentally first used in the UK, before
Germany) and that was they actually invested in industry, unlike the UK
which preferred to pay out as much as possible to shareholders. Hence
there being no UK owned electronics company these days, while the
descendants of Telefunken are still going strong.


--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
  #48   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,094
Default New Woodburner Regulations

On 21/04/2017 11:23, Andy Burns wrote:
Dave Plowman wrote:

I'd suggest to read up about the reasons behind such legislation. Rather
than making up your own.


Are you suggesting that saving a few hundred watts for a few minutes per
month is distinguishable from noise in the 2750 TWh EU electricity budget?


Most households have a vacuum - so you have to multiply your 'few
hundred watts' by at least twenty million for the UK to begin to
understand potential savings. And then multiply that figure by 27.

Mind, the 'few minutes' does suggest interesting priorities :-)

--
Cheers, Rob
  #49   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,829
Default New Woodburner Regulations

RJH wrote:

Andy Burns wrote:

Are you suggesting that saving a few hundred watts for a few minutes per
month is distinguishable from noise in the 2750 TWh EU electricity budget?


Most households have a vacuum - so you have to multiply your 'few
hundred watts' by at least twenty million for the UK to begin to
understand potential savings. And then multiply that figure by 27.


Even if all 220 million EU households bought a new vacuum that used 400W
less than their old one and used it for 2 hours a month, it would still
be 2749.8 TWh

Mind, the 'few minutes' does suggest interesting priorities :-)


Absolutely!


  #50   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
NY NY is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,863
Default New Woodburner Regulations

"Andy Burns" wrote in message
...
Even if all 220 million EU households bought a new vacuum that used 400W
less than their old one and used it for 2 hours a month, it would still be
2749.8 TWh


But *would* it still be for 2 hours a month. If you simply reduce the motor
power, without making that motor power produce more suction, all you are
doing is meaning that the device has to be left on longer to do the same
amount of work, because you have to keep going over the bits that a stronger
suction would have picked up first time.

It's the same with kettles. It takes a fixed amount of energy to boil a
given amount of water, so if you reduce the power, the kettle must be left
on longer to boil that water - no saving of energy and certainly no saving
of time (quite the reverse).

Better to encourage people to heat less water - don't boil a full kettle if
your teapot only holds half a kettle-full. Or else encourage people to use
the remaining hot water as part of the washing-up water.



  #51   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,142
Default New Woodburner Regulations

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
The Other Mike wrote:
On Thu, 20 Apr 2017 11:16:35 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:


Old kit becomes obsolescent naturally. Anyone still using a 405 line VHF
TV? No? Was that because of the EU?


Indirectly it was, the Krauts invented PAL, we managed perfectly well
with black and white tv's.


PAL was developed at the request of the European Broadcast Union. The
previous colour TV system, NTSC, had undergone extensive trials by the BBC
etc and been found lacking.

There's an obvious reason why a German maker spent large sums developing
PAL as a European standard (incidentally first used in the UK, before
Germany) and that was they actually invested in industry, unlike the UK
which preferred to pay out as much as possible to shareholders. Hence
there being no UK owned electronics company these days, while the
descendants of Telefunken are still going strong.


Whilst basically I agree with you, you must bear in mind that UK
insurance companies own vast holdings of world wide shares. In that
respect, private companies are much better at investing than most public
ones. The normal sign of doom is purchase of a company by a hedge fund.
The result is normally a shell with no assets. cf BHS, Little Chef and
now Debenhams.
  #52   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,142
Default New Woodburner Regulations

charles wrote:
In article , Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:
In article , The Other Mike
wrote:
On Thu, 20 Apr 2017 11:16:35 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:


Old kit becomes obsolescent naturally. Anyone still using a 405 line
VHF TV? No? Was that because of the EU?


Indirectly it was, the Krauts invented PAL, we managed perfectly well
with black and white tv's.


PAL was developed at the request of the European Broadcast Union. The
previous colour TV system, NTSC, had undergone extensive trials by the
BBC etc and been found lacking.


Not quite true. The BBC found NTSC quite useable - provided it was treated
properly. A test was made by sending am NTSC signal by landline/microwave
to Moscow & back - with no significant degradation. The BBC backed NTSC,
but when the majority of countries opted for PAL, they used that system.
One obvious indication of NTSC as the BBC's choice was the high stability
crystals needed for colour reference were built for NTSC.

There's an obvious reason why a German maker spent large sums developing
PAL as a European standard (incidentally first used in the UK, before
Germany) and that was they actually invested in industry, unlike the UK
which preferred to pay out as much as possible to shareholders. Hence
there being no UK owned electronics company these days, while the
descendants of Telefunken are still going strong.



NTSC is fundamentally a flawed system. I worked with NTSC sets and the
necessity for a Hue control was a pain and it cannot handle reflections
causing multipath signals. In hotel distribution systems, the picture
was frequently unwatchable. Very few european volume electronics
companies exist these days because their production costs are too high
and they cannot compete in the world market place. .
  #53   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,142
Default New Woodburner Regulations

John Rumm wrote:
On 20/04/2017 12:40, dennis@home wrote:

He also ignores that the regulations on vacs limit the power and require
there to be more suction so making vacs perform better.


OOI do you have a reference for the "more suction" bit? Just wondering
how they define more suction... I can see you could trade off static
suction against airflow for a given amount of power - but that may not
make it perform better.



It;s interesting that Machine Mart publiush suction figures for
cleaners IIRC.
  #54   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,142
Default New Woodburner Regulations

Andy Burns wrote:
Dave Plowman wrote:

I'd suggest to read up about the reasons behind such legislation. Rather
than making up your own.


Are you suggesting that saving a few hundred watts for a few minutes per
month is distinguishable from noise in the 2750 TWh EU electricity budget?

I'd even agree that lighting is a worthwhile target, but that maybe they
pushed it a few years too early, how many subsidised CFLs lurk in the
backs of cupboards when decent LEDs were only a few years down the track?


Hindsight is a wonderful thing. More to the point, why should we reduce
energy consumption?
  #55   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,142
Default New Woodburner Regulations

Huge wrote:
On 2017-04-21, Tim+ wrote:
Andy Burns wrote:
Dave Plowman wrote:

I'd suggest to read up about the reasons behind such legislation. Rather
than making up your own.

Are you suggesting that saving a few hundred watts for a few minutes per
month is distinguishable from noise in the 2750 TWh EU electricity budget?

I'd even agree that lighting is a worthwhile target, but that maybe they
pushed it a few years too early, how many subsidised CFLs lurk in the
backs of cupboards when decent LEDs were only a few years down the track?



Perhaps we had to go through the awful ****ing CFL phase to drive the
market for LED development? ;-)


I find it slightly ironic that I'm now using LEDs to replace CFLs rather
than the few remaining incandescents I have ...



Some of my CFLs are 30years old. The modern CFLs die like flies IME.


  #56   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 43,017
Default New Woodburner Regulations

In article ,
Andy Burns wrote:
Dave Plowman wrote:


I'd suggest to read up about the reasons behind such legislation.
Rather than making up your own.


Are you suggesting that saving a few hundred watts for a few minutes per
month is distinguishable from noise in the 2750 TWh EU electricity
budget?


Just as much as saving a few watts per light bulb. Or any other such
savings.

I'd even agree that lighting is a worthwhile target, but that maybe they
pushed it a few years too early, how many subsidised CFLs lurk in the
backs of cupboards when decent LEDs were only a few years down the track?


You really think anyone would have bothered investing the hugh sums needed
to develop LEDs etc without being pushed?

--
*Failure is not an option. It's bundled with your software.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.
  #57   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 43,017
Default New Woodburner Regulations

In article ,
Huge wrote:
On 2017-04-21, Andy Burns wrote:
Andrew wrote:

new woodburner regulations


Speaking of new regulations (and not really needing another thread) I
hadn't realised that we are in a transition phase for cable
regulations, which will end in July from when all power/data/fibre
cables need to be "CPR compliant" and tested/marked in addition to
their existing BASEC etc compliance.


The executor of my estate will likely be dealing with the red/black
cable I have "in stock" ...


Got a tip for you, Huge. Blue equals black and brown red. You can now use
new cable safely. Print this out and keep it for future reference.

--
*There's two theories to arguing with a woman. Neither one works *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.
  #58   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,061
Default New Woodburner Regulations

In article , Capitol
wrote:
Andy Burns wrote:
Dave Plowman wrote:

I'd suggest to read up about the reasons behind such legislation.
Rather than making up your own.


Are you suggesting that saving a few hundred watts for a few minutes
per month is distinguishable from noise in the 2750 TWh EU electricity
budget?

I'd even agree that lighting is a worthwhile target, but that maybe
they pushed it a few years too early, how many subsidised CFLs lurk in
the backs of cupboards when decent LEDs were only a few years down the
track?


Hindsight is a wonderful thing. More to the point, why should we reduce
energy consumption?


presumably because creating energy has costs to the environment

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
  #59   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,829
Default New Woodburner Regulations

Capitol wrote:

Some of my CFLs are 30years old. The modern CFLs die like flies IME.


Some of mine are close to that, they have been relegated to the loft
though ...


  #60   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 43,017
Default New Woodburner Regulations

In article ,
charles wrote:
PAL was developed at the request of the European Broadcast Union. The
previous colour TV system, NTSC, had undergone extensive trials by the
BBC etc and been found lacking.


Not quite true. The BBC found NTSC quite useable - provided it was
treated properly. A test was made by sending am NTSC signal by
landline/microwave to Moscow & back - with no significant degradation.
The BBC backed NTSC, but when the majority of countries opted for PAL,
they used that system. One obvious indication of NTSC as the BBC's
choice was the high stability crystals needed for colour reference were
built for NTSC.


That is not the story we were told at BBC ETD. NTSC was simply not
consistent enough for domestic use in practice.

--
*If a pig loses its voice, is it disgruntled? *

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


  #61   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 43,017
Default New Woodburner Regulations

In article ,
Andy Burns wrote:
RJH wrote:


Andy Burns wrote:

Are you suggesting that saving a few hundred watts for a few minutes
per month is distinguishable from noise in the 2750 TWh EU
electricity budget?


Most households have a vacuum - so you have to multiply your 'few
hundred watts' by at least twenty million for the UK to begin to
understand potential savings. And then multiply that figure by 27.


Even if all 220 million EU households bought a new vacuum that used 400W
less than their old one and used it for 2 hours a month, it would still
be 2749.8 TWh


So even less point having a light bulb that saves 40 watts?

And you seem to be making the common mistake that people are being forced
to rush out and buy a more efficient vacuum, which they're not. So why are
you so against them having a more efficient one available when they do
need a replacement?

Mind, the 'few minutes' does suggest interesting priorities :-)


Absolutely!


--
*Be more or less specific *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.
  #62   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
NY NY is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,863
Default New Woodburner Regulations

"Capitol" wrote in message
o.uk...
Andy Burns wrote:
Dave Plowman wrote:

I'd suggest to read up about the reasons behind such legislation. Rather
than making up your own.


Are you suggesting that saving a few hundred watts for a few minutes per
month is distinguishable from noise in the 2750 TWh EU electricity
budget?

I'd even agree that lighting is a worthwhile target, but that maybe they
pushed it a few years too early, how many subsidised CFLs lurk in the
backs of cupboards when decent LEDs were only a few years down the track?


I'd always judged LED lamps by the GU10 spotlights that we bought to replace
the tungsten ones in our bathroom and in the kitchen light fitting. They
tend to produce dimmer lighting and in a more restricted angle - definitely
not as good as 60W tungsten bulbs.

Then we bought a few Philips Hue lights. Leaving aside the fact that they
can be adjusted to various colours (we'd probably buy fixed-colour ones when
it came to replace the daylight CFLs that we have through the house) they
are very bright - most impressive. I'm not sure what the equivalent tungsten
wattage is, but I'd estimate somewhere between the equivalent of 60W and
100W, while using 7W of power.

It's a shame that a lot of the smaller bulbs (eg candle) are only available
in screw fittings, which means using a bayonet to screw adaptor (increasing
the length) in an existing light fitting, or else finding a matching screw
fitting that can replace the bayonet ones in a light cluster fitting.

  #63   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 39,563
Default New Woodburner Regulations

On 21/04/17 12:31, Capitol wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
The Other Mike wrote:
On Thu, 20 Apr 2017 11:16:35 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"

wrote:


Old kit becomes obsolescent naturally. Anyone still using a 405 line
VHF
TV? No? Was that because of the EU?


Indirectly it was, the Krauts invented PAL, we managed perfectly well
with black and white tv's.


PAL was developed at the request of the European Broadcast Union. The
previous colour TV system, NTSC, had undergone extensive trials by the
BBC
etc and been found lacking.

There's an obvious reason why a German maker spent large sums developing
PAL as a European standard (incidentally first used in the UK, before
Germany) and that was they actually invested in industry, unlike the UK
which preferred to pay out as much as possible to shareholders. Hence
there being no UK owned electronics company these days, while the
descendants of Telefunken are still going strong.


Whilst basically I agree with you, you must bear in mind that UK
insurance companies own vast holdings of world wide shares. In that
respect, private companies are much better at investing than most public
ones. The normal sign of doom is purchase of a company by a hedge fund.
The result is normally a shell with no assets. cf BHS, Little Chef and
now Debenhams.


Ogh god, its 'Red Dave' whinging on about capitalists.

Howes the German jet engine business doing Dave?
When did you last buy a German camera?
What computers are designed in Germany Dave?
What chips are still designed in Germany Dave?

I don't want to live in a ****ry that makes only cars and windmills and
washing machines, frankly.





--
The theory of Communism may be summed up in one sentence: Abolish all
private property.

Karl Marx

  #64   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,094
Default New Woodburner Regulations

On 21/04/2017 12:23, NY wrote:
"Andy Burns" wrote in message
...
Even if all 220 million EU households bought a new vacuum that used
400W less than their old one and used it for 2 hours a month, it would
still be 2749.8 TWh


But *would* it still be for 2 hours a month. If you simply reduce the
motor power, without making that motor power produce more suction, all
you are doing is meaning that the device has to be left on longer to do
the same amount of work, because you have to keep going over the bits
that a stronger suction would have picked up first time.


Possibly - bit like an electric shower. But/and a fair bit of time -
when doing stairs for example - it isn't doing anything except making a
noise (unless you switch off between steps).

It's the same with kettles. It takes a fixed amount of energy to boil a
given amount of water, so if you reduce the power, the kettle must be
left on longer to boil that water - no saving of energy and certainly no
saving of time (quite the reverse).


No, kettles are pretty much 100% efficient. A hoover is nothing like
that - witness the noise for a start. 3kW kettles are a wonderful thing.

Better to encourage people to heat less water - don't boil a full kettle
if your teapot only holds half a kettle-full. Or else encourage people
to use the remaining hot water as part of the washing-up water.


Agreed. I don't use hot water much - household cleaning and very grubby
mitts. Most of the time cold does me fine.

--
Cheers, Rob
  #65   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 39,563
Default New Woodburner Regulations

On 21/04/17 12:45, Capitol wrote:
Andy Burns wrote:
Dave Plowman wrote:

I'd suggest to read up about the reasons behind such legislation. Rather
than making up your own.


Are you suggesting that saving a few hundred watts for a few minutes per
month is distinguishable from noise in the 2750 TWh EU electricity
budget?

I'd even agree that lighting is a worthwhile target, but that maybe they
pushed it a few years too early, how many subsidised CFLs lurk in the
backs of cupboards when decent LEDs were only a few years down the track?


Hindsight is a wonderful thing. More to the point, why should we
reduce energy consumption?


because energy comes at a price.

That's how the market used to work. If e.g. LED lightbulbs cost less
over the bulb lifetime than filament, you would buy LED.

But because the Lefty****s didn't get the ideological result they wanted
out of the free market, they turned it into a subsidy market, where
legislation and taxation dictated what you bought instead.


--
The theory of Communism may be summed up in one sentence: Abolish all
private property.

Karl Marx



  #66   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,094
Default New Woodburner Regulations

On 21/04/2017 12:45, Capitol wrote:
Andy Burns wrote:
Dave Plowman wrote:

I'd suggest to read up about the reasons behind such legislation. Rather
than making up your own.


Are you suggesting that saving a few hundred watts for a few minutes per
month is distinguishable from noise in the 2750 TWh EU electricity
budget?

I'd even agree that lighting is a worthwhile target, but that maybe they
pushed it a few years too early, how many subsidised CFLs lurk in the
backs of cupboards when decent LEDs were only a few years down the track?


Hindsight is a wonderful thing. More to the point, why should we
reduce energy consumption?


More to the point - why consume it in the first place?

--
Cheers, Rob
  #67   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 43,017
Default New Woodburner Regulations

In article ,
NY wrote:
"Andy Burns" wrote in message
...
Even if all 220 million EU households bought a new vacuum that used
400W less than their old one and used it for 2 hours a month, it
would still be 2749.8 TWh


But *would* it still be for 2 hours a month. If you simply reduce the
motor power, without making that motor power produce more suction, all
you are doing is meaning that the device has to be left on longer to do
the same amount of work, because you have to keep going over the bits
that a stronger suction would have picked up first time.


If you followed the discussions when this reduction in maximum vacuum
cleaner power was proposed, you'd know that it *was* possible to reduce
that power consumption without effecting the amount of 'suck' by better
design. Indeed, Dyson wanted a lower limit than the one settled on.

It's the same with kettles. It takes a fixed amount of energy to boil a
given amount of water, so if you reduce the power, the kettle must be
left on longer to boil that water - no saving of energy and certainly
no saving of time (quite the reverse).


It's not the same with a kettle or many other heating devices. Near enough
100% of the energy used goes into heating the water. Unlike a vacuum
cleaner which produces noise, vibration and heat as well as suction.

Better to encourage people to heat less water - don't boil a full kettle
if your teapot only holds half a kettle-full. Or else encourage people
to use the remaining hot water as part of the washing-up water.


You can encourage people to do anything, and they can choose to ignore
you. Requiring a new device to have a certain level of efficiency removes
them being able to ignore that.

--
*Corduroy pillows are making headlines.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.
  #68   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 43,017
Default New Woodburner Regulations

In article ,
Andy Burns wrote:
Capitol wrote:


Some of my CFLs are 30years old. The modern CFLs die like flies IME.


Some of mine are close to that, they have been relegated to the loft
though ...



Just why do so many put these dim energy saving bulbs where they are
rarely used? So not only don't save any appreciable energy, but present a
safety hazard too?

--
*What was the best thing before sliced bread?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.
  #69   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,142
Default New Woodburner Regulations

RJH wrote:
On 21/04/2017 12:45, Capitol wrote:
Andy Burns wrote:
Dave Plowman wrote:

I'd suggest to read up about the reasons behind such legislation.
Rather
than making up your own.

Are you suggesting that saving a few hundred watts for a few minutes per
month is distinguishable from noise in the 2750 TWh EU electricity
budget?

I'd even agree that lighting is a worthwhile target, but that maybe they
pushed it a few years too early, how many subsidised CFLs lurk in the
backs of cupboards when decent LEDs were only a few years down the
track?


Hindsight is a wonderful thing. More to the point, why should we
reduce energy consumption?


More to the point - why consume it in the first place?


You have avoided the question with an opinion.
  #70   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
NY NY is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,863
Default New Woodburner Regulations

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
Better to encourage people to heat less water - don't boil a full kettle
if your teapot only holds half a kettle-full. Or else encourage people
to use the remaining hot water as part of the washing-up water.


You can encourage people to do anything, and they can choose to ignore
you. Requiring a new device to have a certain level of efficiency removes
them being able to ignore that.


True, but it also encourages people to hang onto a less efficient appliance
which may use more energy but also has more of the end result that people
buy it for.

For example if an older 1000W vac has better suction that a modern 500W
(even though the modern one has better "suck per watt" performance) would
you get rid of the old one or would you strive to keep it running because it
does the job better, even though it costs more to run?

Likewise for light bulbs: tungsten ones tend to be smaller than LED or CFL
ones of comparable brightness, and tend to have wider field of coverage (for
GU10 spots) and reach full brightness much quicker than some CFLs. We have a
light fitting in the kitchen which has 5 GU10 sockets. With tungstens, that
lit the work surfaces much better than with LED replacements, so we might
have to replace the fitting with one that takes seven, eight or nine bulbs
to get the same brightness and fewer pools of darkness between one bulb and
the next.



  #71   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,142
Default New Woodburner Regulations

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Andy Burns wrote:
Dave Plowman wrote:


I'd suggest to read up about the reasons behind such legislation.
Rather than making up your own.


Are you suggesting that saving a few hundred watts for a few minutes per
month is distinguishable from noise in the 2750 TWh EU electricity
budget?


Just as much as saving a few watts per light bulb. Or any other such
savings.

I'd even agree that lighting is a worthwhile target, but that maybe they
pushed it a few years too early, how many subsidised CFLs lurk in the
backs of cupboards when decent LEDs were only a few years down the track?


You really think anyone would have bothered investing the hugh sums needed
to develop LEDs etc without being pushed?


The huge sums invested in semiconductors are invested to generate
profits, if you are successful. In consumer products, 9 out of 10
products are failures, but you don't stop investing. The classic failure
is 3D film and television, which consumes vast amounts of investment
every 25 years or so. The classic success is RCA with colour television,
which consumed vast amounts of investment for years before becoming a
success. Tesla is a prime recent example of investment without apparent
reward, time will tell if it is successful.
  #72   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
NY NY is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,863
Default New Woodburner Regulations

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Andy Burns wrote:
Capitol wrote:


Some of my CFLs are 30years old. The modern CFLs die like flies IME.


Were CFLs available as long ago as 30 years? My impression is that they have
only been available for about 10-15 years - maybe that's when the government
and energy companies started promoting them more.


My impression (and it is only an impression - I didn't keep records) is that
early CFLs took much longer to reach working brightness and failed sooner.
When you turn on a light from the switch by the door when you go into the
room, you want that light to be bright immediately so you can see your way
to reach other lights in the room. So I tended to keep the main light as
tungsten and use CFLs for the table lamps etc. Nowadays, with modern CFLs,
that's no longer a problem. The ones we use now get *sufficiently* bright
instantaneously, even if they still a bit of time to reach the final 10% of
their brightness, whereas older ones came on at about 30% brightness
instantaneously and then took about 5 mins to make up the other 70%.

  #73   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,142
Default New Woodburner Regulations

NY wrote:
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Andy Burns wrote:
Capitol wrote:


Some of my CFLs are 30years old. The modern CFLs die like flies IME.


Were CFLs available as long ago as 30 years? My impression is that they
have only been available for about 10-15 years - maybe that's when the
government and energy companies started promoting them more.


My impression (and it is only an impression - I didn't keep records) is
that early CFLs took much longer to reach working brightness and failed
sooner. When you turn on a light from the switch by the door when you go
into the room, you want that light to be bright immediately so you can
see your way to reach other lights in the room. So I tended to keep the
main light as tungsten and use CFLs for the table lamps etc. Nowadays,
with modern CFLs, that's no longer a problem. The ones we use now get
*sufficiently* bright instantaneously, even if they still a bit of time
to reach the final 10% of their brightness, whereas older ones came on
at about 30% brightness instantaneously and then took about 5 mins to
make up the other 70%.


Oldest CFLs I bought around 1980 IIRC.Made by Philips.
  #74   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
NY NY is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,863
Default New Woodburner Regulations

"Capitol" wrote in message
o.uk...
NY wrote:
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Andy Burns wrote:
Capitol wrote:

Some of my CFLs are 30years old. The modern CFLs die like flies IME.


Were CFLs available as long ago as 30 years? My impression is that they
have only been available for about 10-15 years - maybe that's when the
government and energy companies started promoting them more.


My impression (and it is only an impression - I didn't keep records) is
that early CFLs took much longer to reach working brightness and failed
sooner. When you turn on a light from the switch by the door when you go
into the room, you want that light to be bright immediately so you can
see your way to reach other lights in the room. So I tended to keep the
main light as tungsten and use CFLs for the table lamps etc. Nowadays,
with modern CFLs, that's no longer a problem. The ones we use now get
*sufficiently* bright instantaneously, even if they still a bit of time
to reach the final 10% of their brightness, whereas older ones came on
at about 30% brightness instantaneously and then took about 5 mins to
make up the other 70%.


Oldest CFLs I bought around 1980 IIRC.Made by Philips.


Gosh. That's before I even went to university, let along before I bought my
first house. I don't remember CFLs as replacement for tungsten bulbs being
in the shops until probably around the mid 90s when I tried a few and found
that they were pretty poor (long time to reach usable brightness).

By the time I bought my second house in 2000, CFLs were becoming fairly
popular, but sadly I wasn't able to use them because my house had been a
show house and had been fitted with lots of decorative fittings which all
took small bayonet, small edison screw or else *12V* GU10-type spotlights in
the ceiling. I think the only fittings where I could use CFLs were my own
table lamps.


By the way, how do you convince SWMBO that when you want to read in bed, the
best light is a lamp on a bedside table that shines towards the book,
illuminating the pages, rather than an overhead lamp in a ceiling fitting
near the *foot* of the bed. My wife moans that I'll ruin my eyes with this
bright light on the pages and no light in the background, when the
alternative is a bright light directly in your field of view (I try to block
it out with my book) which lights the rest of the room and is extremely dim
on the pages of the book. I feel as if I'm fighting a losing battle...

  #75   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,061
Default New Woodburner Regulations

In article , NY
wrote:
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article , Andy Burns
wrote:
Capitol wrote:


Some of my CFLs are 30years old. The modern CFLs die like flies IME.


Were CFLs available as long ago as 30 years? My impression is that they
have only been available for about 10-15 years - maybe that's when the
government and energy companies started promoting them more.



they were certainly around well before I retired - in 1996.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England


  #76   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,829
Default New Woodburner Regulations

NY wrote:

Were CFLs available as long ago as 30 years? My impression is that they have
only been available for about 10-15 years


I bought some before I moved to this house, and brought them with me 27
years ago, I think they were a year or two old by then, and I didn't buy
the Philips "jam jar" SL*18 version which preceded them, they were
expensive enough back then that I wasn't going to leave them behind.

  #77   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,061
Default New Woodburner Regulations

In article ,
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
charles wrote:
PAL was developed at the request of the European Broadcast Union. The
previous colour TV system, NTSC, had undergone extensive trials by the
BBC etc and been found lacking.


Not quite true. The BBC found NTSC quite useable - provided it was
treated properly. A test was made by sending am NTSC signal by
landline/microwave to Moscow & back - with no significant degradation.
The BBC backed NTSC, but when the majority of countries opted for PAL,
they used that system. One obvious indication of NTSC as the BBC's
choice was the high stability crystals needed for colour reference were
built for NTSC.


That is not the story we were told at BBC ETD. NTSC was simply not
consistent enough for domestic use in practice.


See Pawley p519 - last 4 lines:

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
  #78   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,829
Default New Woodburner Regulations

charles wrote:

NY wrote:

Were CFLs available as long ago as 30 years?


they were certainly around well before I retired - in 1996.


1976 flavour
http://www.lamptech.co.uk/Spec%20Sheets/D%20FLCi%20Philips%20SL1000.htm

1981 flavour
http://www.lamptech.co.uk/Spec%20Sheets/D%20FLCi%20Philips%20SL18.htm



  #79   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,094
Default New Woodburner Regulations

On 21/04/2017 13:57, Capitol wrote:
RJH wrote:
On 21/04/2017 12:45, Capitol wrote:
Andy Burns wrote:
Dave Plowman wrote:

I'd suggest to read up about the reasons behind such legislation.
Rather
than making up your own.

Are you suggesting that saving a few hundred watts for a few minutes
per
month is distinguishable from noise in the 2750 TWh EU electricity
budget?

I'd even agree that lighting is a worthwhile target, but that maybe
they
pushed it a few years too early, how many subsidised CFLs lurk in the
backs of cupboards when decent LEDs were only a few years down the
track?


Hindsight is a wonderful thing. More to the point, why should we
reduce energy consumption?


More to the point - why consume it in the first place?


You have avoided the question with an opinion.


My opinion is informed by the likes of:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small_Is_Beautiful

The 'why' is within.



--
Cheers, Rob
  #80   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,829
Default New Woodburner Regulations

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

Just why do so many put these dim energy saving bulbs where they are
rarely used?


Because I already had them.

So not only don't save any appreciable energy, but present a
safety hazard too?


Indeed not much energy to be saved by loft lighting, but what hazard?
There are five of them up there so not much chance of all failing at once.

Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Woodburner glass newshound UK diy 4 January 4th 16 03:45 PM
WD40 in a woodburner Part Timer UK diy 35 October 25th 15 10:08 PM
Installing a woodburner puffernutter[_2_] UK diy 32 February 4th 14 01:02 AM
Woodburner Gurus Dave Liquorice[_2_] UK diy 23 January 15th 13 06:14 PM
gas fire that looks like a woodburner vbleau UK diy 5 January 27th 09 08:07 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:42 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 DIYbanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about DIY & home improvement"