Discussion:
[OT] "How Green Is Your House" and TV watching
(too old to reply)
Jon D
2005-10-07 16:56:52 UTC
Permalink
On a recent UK broadcast of "How Green Is Your House" the advisor
said she wanted to limit TV watching from 7 hours a day to 1 hour a
day.

Surely a modern TV does not use all that much power and more
substantial electrical savings could have been found easily
elsewhere?

Was she just trying to impose a lifestyle rather than save a useful
amoun of energy?

She also wanted to limit the time spent by the father on listening to
his micro-system through headphones. I would guess this uses even
less power than a TV.

Does anyone know typical consumption figures?
Funfly3
2005-10-07 17:11:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jon D
On a recent UK broadcast of "How Green Is Your House" the advisor
said she wanted to limit TV watching from 7 hours a day to 1 hour a
day.
Surely a modern TV does not use all that much power and more
substantial electrical savings could have been found easily
elsewhere?
Was she just trying to impose a lifestyle rather than save a useful
amoun of energy?
She also wanted to limit the time spent by the father on listening to
his micro-system through headphones. I would guess this uses even
less power than a TV.
Does anyone know typical consumption figures?
adding OT to the beginning of a post does not make it ok to post in the
wrong group ?????
Paul Hyett
2005-10-08 06:06:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Funfly3
adding OT to the beginning of a post does not make it ok to post in the
wrong group ?????
Funny, it thought it *did*. :)
It's not a big deal anyway - it's not like we're still using 800 bit
modems, or 50mb HD's.
--
Paul 'US Sitcom Fan' Hyett
Michael A. Terrell
2005-10-09 00:53:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul Hyett
Post by Funfly3
adding OT to the beginning of a post does not make it ok to post in the
wrong group ?????
Funny, it thought it *did*. :)
It's not a big deal anyway - it's not like we're still using 800 bit
modems, or 50mb HD's.
--
Paul 'US Sitcom Fan' Hyett
800 bit modem?
--
?

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida
**THE-RFI-EMI-GUY**
2005-10-09 03:22:06 UTC
Permalink
Those are made by LUCAS, really V.90, but with all the downtime all you
get is 800 bits!
Post by Michael A. Terrell
Post by Paul Hyett
Post by Funfly3
adding OT to the beginning of a post does not make it ok to post in the
wrong group ?????
Funny, it thought it *did*. :)
It's not a big deal anyway - it's not like we're still using 800 bit
modems, or 50mb HD's.
--
Paul 'US Sitcom Fan' Hyett
800 bit modem?
--
Joe Leikhim K4SAT
"The RFI-EMI-GUY"

The Lost Deep Thoughts By: Jack Handey
Before a mad scientist goes mad, there's probably a time
when he's only partially mad. And this is the time when he's
going to throw his best parties.
Paul Hyett
2005-10-09 06:15:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael A. Terrell
Post by Paul Hyett
It's not a big deal anyway - it's not like we're still using 800 bit
modems, or 50mb HD's.
800 bit modem?
Well, I don't know what speed early modems operated at - I wasn't on-
line then!
--
Paul 'US Sitcom Fan' Hyett
Trevor Best
2005-10-09 10:31:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul Hyett
Post by Michael A. Terrell
Post by Paul Hyett
It's not a big deal anyway - it's not like we're still using 800 bit
modems, or 50mb HD's.
800 bit modem?
Well, I don't know what speed early modems operated at - I wasn't on-
line then!
I started on 2400, but I've heard of 300 baud.
Huge
2005-10-09 11:04:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Trevor Best
Post by Paul Hyett
Post by Michael A. Terrell
Post by Paul Hyett
It's not a big deal anyway - it's not like we're still using 800 bit
modems, or 50mb HD's.
800 bit modem?
Well, I don't know what speed early modems operated at - I wasn't on-
line then!
I started on 2400, but I've heard of 300 baud.
In 1977, when I started in what became known as IT, our modems were
1200/75 (that is, 1200 baud in one direction and 75 baud in the
other) because that was all the bandwidth the technology of the day
could squeeze out of a 'phone line. The 75 baud back channel allowed
you to reverse the line when you needed the "fast" channel in the
other direction. The modems were the size of a shoe-box, weighed
20 or 30lbs and could only be *rented* from BT.
--
"Other people are not your property."
[email me at huge [at] huge [dot] org [dot] uk]
Michael A. Terrell
2005-10-10 14:24:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul Hyett
Post by Michael A. Terrell
Post by Paul Hyett
It's not a big deal anyway - it's not like we're still using 800 bit
modems, or 50mb HD's.
800 bit modem?
Well, I don't know what speed early modems operated at - I wasn't on-
line then!
--
Paul 'US Sitcom Fan' Hyett
First of all, the speed is specified in Bits Per Second, not bits.
The width of the data is specified in Bits. 800 bits would make for a
very odd data buss.


Some of the more common speeds are:

75 baud
110 baud
300 baud
1200 baud
2400 baud
4800 baud
9600 baud
14400 baud
28800 baud
33600 baud
57600 baud

Even lower baud rates were used by current loop teletype machines.


BTW, my first hard drive was a full height 5.25" 5 MB that sounded
like a vacuum cleaner when it was first powered up.
--
?

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida
Vidar Løkken
2005-10-10 15:45:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael A. Terrell
First of all, the speed is specified in Bits Per Second, not bits.
The width of the data is specified in Bits. 800 bits would make for a
very odd data buss.
Yes, speed is in bps, not baud. Baud is how many times pr second the
signal changes. With new modulation technology, it is feasible to
transfer 4 or more bits pr baud. While a 300bps modem likely is a
300baud modem, a 57600 bps modem is certainly not a 57600 baud modem. A
normal phone line has a bandwidth of ~3kHz.
Post by Michael A. Terrell
75 baud
110 baud
300 baud
1200 baud
[... baud listing]
--
MVH,
Vidar

www.bitsex.net
keith
2005-11-08 03:27:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael A. Terrell
Post by Paul Hyett
Post by Michael A. Terrell
Post by Paul Hyett
It's not a big deal anyway - it's not like we're still using 800 bit
modems, or 50mb HD's.
800 bit modem?
Well, I don't know what speed early modems operated at - I wasn't on-
line then!
--
Paul 'US Sitcom Fan' Hyett
First of all, the speed is specified in Bits Per Second, not bits.
Correct, but baud <> bps.
Post by Michael A. Terrell
The width of the data is specified in Bits. 800 bits would make for a
very odd data buss.
^^^^

s/buss/bus/. Buss is something you did with a pretty young girl in the
back seat of a car, many moons ago. ;-)
Post by Michael A. Terrell
75 baud
110 baud
You forgot 134.5 ;-)
Post by Michael A. Terrell
300 baud
1200 baud
2400 baud
4800 baud
9600 baud
14400 baud
28800 baud
33600 baud
57600 baud
No, those are bps numbers. Baud is signal transitions per second. Bits
per second is then the baud times the symbol size. 1200bps modems were
300baud, for example, with 4bit symbols. Older 9600bps modems were
commonly 1200baud with 8bit symbols.
Post by Michael A. Terrell
Even lower baud rates were used by current loop teletype machines.
I've never seen anything slower than 75 or 110 baud. The A/KSR33s were
110baud (10 cps).
Post by Michael A. Terrell
BTW, my first hard drive was a full height 5.25" 5 MB that sounded
like a vacuum cleaner when it was first powered up.
Sucked, eh?
--
Keith
joeh
2005-10-10 10:42:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Funfly3
Post by Jon D
On a recent UK broadcast of "How Green Is Your House" the advisor
said she wanted to limit TV watching from 7 hours a day to 1 hour a
day.
There's never more than 1 hour's worth of watchable TV per day anyway.
Post by Funfly3
Post by Jon D
Was she just trying to impose a lifestyle rather than save a useful
amoun of energy?
And presumably the notion that criticising the amount of time/energy
consumed in watching TV via a TV programme is hypocritical never
occurred to her.
Post by Funfly3
Post by Jon D
Does anyone know typical consumption figures?
adding OT to the beginning of a post does not make it ok to post in the
wrong group ?????
Are you asking us or telling us?
Jon D
2005-10-28 06:50:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Funfly3
adding OT to the beginning of a post does not make it ok to post
in the wrong group ?????
Fucking twat
s***@ntlworld.com
2005-10-28 07:57:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jon D
Post by Funfly3
adding OT to the beginning of a post does not make it ok to post
in the wrong group ?????
Fucking twat
Now that you've introduced yourself, what was the point you were trying
to make?
JRW
2005-10-28 16:18:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by s***@ntlworld.com
Post by Jon D
Post by Funfly3
adding OT to the beginning of a post does not make it ok to post
in the wrong group ?????
Fucking twat
Now that you've introduced yourself, what was the point you were trying
to make?
+###########V ####### I######t###### ####### ########
iti ### itI .### = ####I, :V### X###+ t #####,
### ### #### i##R ### ##+###
### ##W #### ###, ### ### ##V
### ######R ###### ### ###
### ######## #### ### ##Y
### ###B B### ##X ##########
### ### ### ##X ############
### ### ;##X ##+ ## .##
VVV.### VXX ,=###,V ###=X BI,##W;Xt t###.+ ::###Y
i###########X #######, ##### ########## #######X ########
. .. . ..
:tiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii++;, .:;++iiiiiiiiiii;
.=;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;:, ;tV#############WRI; :;;;;;;;;;,
.=;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;:, .X###########################t ,:;;;;;;,
.=;;;;;;;;;;;;:: X###############W####WWW#WW#######M :;;;;,
.=;;;;;;;;;:, :W#######WW######W#WW#BWW#W#WW#WW#######t :;;;,
.=;;;;;;;: +W########W#W####WW#WW##############W#MW#W### :;;,
.=;;;;:, +#########################WMW######WMW##W#W###### :;,
.=;;:. =############WM######WB###WW####WWW#WW##W#WWW####### ;,
.=;;:,R#######################################WW###WW#WW#W###Y ;,
.=;;: I###############################i#####WW#W#BW#WWW##W###B ,,
.=;;;. ######################XI;+:;i V#####W#WWW###W#W#WWW### ,
.=;;;, +YB#######V#RI+ ..,,,:;= X#########M#WW#WWWWWW#B .
.=;;:,=;, :#B: ,;;;;;=++++++++++; I###############W#WW###
.=;::=ti++;.. ;=+++++i=++++=+++iiiiiii:+############WW#W#WW###
.=;,=t++++++=+i++ii++i+ii++i++iiiiiiti+, ####WW####WWW#WWWW####
.=:,+i+++=++=++++iiiii+iiiiiiiiii+++=+;::#W#####W#WW###W###WW##
.=,;ii++++++iii++++iii+iii+=iiii++++==:=R##########W####WW##M##
.;,ii++++++=i++ii++iiiiiii+iiiiiitiii=I######W##W##W#WM#B##W###
.;=Yiii+++++ii+i+iiii+iiiiiititiitiiIX###MW##BW#W###WWW#X#W###M .
.;+ii+iiii+iii+ttiittiiiiiittiitittY##########################X .
.,:;=++i+tiiii+iiiiiiiiitiiiiItttIItW##################; V#= ,
..RB;,+iiiiiii=+=:::.,.,;=ittYItiiItiW##############M +M###, ,,
.,W##X;+tii+=;,;;;+VVBXi.:;tItitItti+:t############X Y#B. .i#.,;,
.. +Xti++++Y#############X;=iiIIItt++:=B##W####B I= .++iI::;:
.,,+ ;=;+i=RXi, .:B###R+tttttItYtti######: ;+;V###Yi+I+;:;,
.,i###i =i=i=;+i;iRYt;. tBWXIiIIItItt=#Y##W :+t+##: ;BV=i;,:;:
.,Bt ###:+iYB##R##WMBI;:=i;=itIItItiti+;+.: =+iii B#W+,+i++:,;;,
.,;#V=X##,;+VBYXM#V #####BIIIItIIIttttiitiIti+ti;; i==+ti+,:;;,
.: +i+tYW.+II=;;ItXXY++W=,tYI+iitIttittItIYYiIiiti+#V+=iI=Y=,;;;,
,;,tVXYIi;+tt+ii+M#RYIVXXWXiiiii+ttYtIItIIitittittI+=;t+;VB.:;;;,
.;,i=:;;=+iIIYIi=;=IXVXI=::+++++iIIIIYIYIItii+ittt=;=;=++; ,;;;;,
.=.it++i==iYtYItIi+=:;:;;=+i+iIYYIIYIItIttiiitItit ;+:.,:;;;;;,
.=,+Iit+++IYiitittIIti=++i+++tYIIIIYYYItttttiIt=iM####..:;;;;;;;,
.=:iVtI=+;XVIYVVVYIIi++++itttttIYVYYIIIittiitIit+I#W#I ,;;;;;;;;,
.=,,+#X:+=IYVIYtt+R##V;=iittIYYYYYVXYIiittYYItitIRXBWY .:;;;;;;;,
.=:..#++t=++, ..+#XB##B+=iIYYVVIItiIYXVVVVYItVXBXVYR#.: ,:;;;;;,
.=;: +ttXBRIVM####i=tiB###MYYIIVBMBtYVXVtYIItXBMVItIX# #, .:;;;;,
.=;;:.. ,tW#####V=tItItX######WBVVBBVIIVYRXBBWWRtttYXW ##I ,:;;,
.=;;:;, WMMBRVXVYVVBW######M#RV#RVtX####RBYIYYYV#: XWMMi .:;,
.=, ,;: #MV=I#W########BXB##MWMRWRRB###BXBVIVYIXBX ,#VXW#I.,;,
.:,;IRBM###W###WWiM#W#W##+=iVitYXBWWRR#WXVRRBXVYRMW= iVBVIVBRt,;,
.;Y##M#MXXBVRtWWXVRW###XiIVYti+IXRBXX#RItVXVRVXBBV WtXYVYWX;.;,
:tVtYIRYtIR#Xt#####BtIXXYIitIYXWMXYMBIYRMXRW#WI . WMVtVtXRX:.;,
:i#MBVYYMWMB#.;+tYYYVVi++itYYVB#XtBMRB#####M+ ,, WRXYRRYiBV:,;,
:+tit+iiRYVB#= ;;=:::;=+I=IYXW#VYMW######Y. :;, IWXYiIRt+B+:,;,
.:=ItVY#YRBWW## ,:=++=i+tIiBW#BYV######t ,=; ;WVXIYIVMYX+,:;,
.:;YBXVXiV#IRW##X:;;=tVRRB###XM####+ ,i :,.MBBYVY#VYMY;.:;,
.:+#I+MtXIIVtV#M#################B =######### : M#XiYBYVVXMY;,:;,
.;;V+ItYiIYYIVRB############WWBWB#####WW##### +#RBVBIRXIVBi,,;;,
.::IViYVVIXV#tXMW#W##WWW#WW#W###########WW### #BIBXVWRXBWV=,:;;,
.:;IBYY;#i#VRX:YI##WWMMM##################W## XVIVYRBXX#Xi=:,:;;,
.;:+MMVBVX+YYWRVi#B#MW####W :Y#W#####R.MYVXIIWMMtttY:,:;;,
.=,,+BRXYRIRVYRW+#;#####:; ,,:,, , t##R;tRiYVYRtVXVRRt,:;;;,
.=:,,iRV#WBXMRY#R#+ .. ,.;:::::::;,:,. RRt#MR#XVXRMWI=,:;;;,
,+=;::=iitIVtVXBX#= ,.:;;===========;===+:t#tVWB#BBRBXRI;;:;===+:
,=:,,. . .,,:;===;:,,,:;==;:,,,,.::;,...,.. ..,,,:;:

############ ######## Y#######= ######## ############
R############M Y####### ####### ######## ############
## ### ### ## ##M### ##
t## .## M## ### ,## W## X## ##t
t## t### :##, ####B B## ### ### ##t
t########## ##t ##### ### ### ##+ ##t
t###########, ##X ##.## ### ### ;. ### ##t
t## ###, ###M## ##W### ###########B ##t
i## ### #####, X####R ;##XiVVVY;### ##i
.## t##R i#### ####; ### ##R ##
############### #### #### ####### I####### ############
:#MBBBBBBBMX; #B# #M# M#BBB## #MBBM#; i#BBBBBBBB##
Mike Henry
2005-10-07 17:43:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jon D
On a recent UK broadcast of "How Green Is Your House" the advisor
said she wanted to limit TV watching from 7 hours a day to 1 hour a
day.
Surely a modern TV does not use all that much power and more
substantial electrical savings could have been found easily
elsewhere?
Was she just trying to impose a lifestyle rather than save a useful
amoun of energy?
It certainly sounds like it! It'd mean you could never watch a movie in
one sitting, even if it was the only thing you watched that day! Absurd.
Post by Jon D
She also wanted to limit the time spent by the father on listening to
his micro-system through headphones. I would guess this uses even
less power than a TV.
She sounds like the sort of TV-hater that they have in home makeover
programmes, where the TV is always banished to a corner of the room
(often behind a folding screen) or they make a cabinet with doors so
that you can "close it away out of sight". Why should it be out of
sight!
Richard Brooks
2005-10-07 18:38:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike Henry
Post by Jon D
On a recent UK broadcast of "How Green Is Your House" the advisor
said she wanted to limit TV watching from 7 hours a day to 1 hour a
day.
Surely a modern TV does not use all that much power and more
substantial electrical savings could have been found easily
elsewhere?
Was she just trying to impose a lifestyle rather than save a useful
amoun of energy?
Well, a seventh of something is a seventh less and maybe some of the
health worries could be due to the amount of vegetating whilst watching tv ?
Post by Mike Henry
It certainly sounds like it! It'd mean you could never watch a movie in
one sitting, even if it was the only thing you watched that day! Absurd.
Post by Jon D
She also wanted to limit the time spent by the father on listening to
his micro-system through headphones. I would guess this uses even
less power than a TV.
She sounds like the sort of TV-hater that they have in home makeover
programmes, where the TV is always banished to a corner of the room
(often behind a folding screen) or they make a cabinet with doors so
that you can "close it away out of sight". Why should it be out of
sight!
Out of sight, out of mind perhaps ?

We had a couple of those cabinets. Beautiful mahogany with mother of
pearl motifs, great craftsmanship.

Okay, I can imagine the modern types should be hidden inside the tv instead.

Richard.
allan tracy
2005-10-09 17:16:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike Henry
She sounds like the sort of TV-hater that they have in home makeover
programmes, where the TV is always banished to a corner of the room
(often behind a folding screen) or they make a cabinet with doors so
that you can "close it away out of sight". Why should it be out of
sight!
That's right, big large plasma screen, surround sound hi-fi speakers,
dvd player and Sky Plus box all connected together by what looks like
three plates of spaghetti and what furniture there is knows its place.

Bliss!
John Jordan
2005-10-07 17:57:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jon D
Surely a modern TV does not use all that much power and more
substantial electrical savings could have been found easily
elsewhere?
I'm going to regret replying to a cross-post, but my 21" Hitachi TV uses
70-80W according to my wattmeter. To bring it closer to the topic, this
is much less than a 21" CRT monitor.
Post by Jon D
She also wanted to limit the time spent by the father on listening to
his micro-system through headphones. I would guess this uses even
less power than a TV.
I'd be surprised if this used more than 30W.
--
John Jordan
Col
2005-10-07 19:46:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Jordan
Post by Jon D
Surely a modern TV does not use all that much power and more
substantial electrical savings could have been found easily
elsewhere?
I'm going to regret replying to a cross-post, but my 21" Hitachi TV uses
70-80W according to my wattmeter. To bring it closer to the topic, this
is much less than a 21" CRT monitor.
Far less in other words than even a modest one bar 1KW electric fire.
Goodness knows how much a full central heating system uses.

What I have heard is that keeping your TV on standby uses a very
large proportion (85%?) of the energy it would use had it been on.

Col
--
Hand in glove,
The sun shines out of our behinds.
Alex Butcher
2005-10-07 21:35:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Jordan
Surely a modern TV does not use all that much power and more substantial
electrical savings could have been found easily elsewhere?
I'm going to regret replying to a cross-post, but my 21" Hitachi TV uses
70-80W according to my wattmeter.
That sounds pretty typical.
Post by John Jordan
To bring it closer to the topic, this is much less than a 21" CRT monitor.
She also wanted to limit the time spent by the father on listening to
his micro-system through headphones. I would guess this uses even less
power than a TV.
I'd be surprised if this used more than 30W.
...but probably significantly more than listening to a headphone system
(e.g. iPod, Discman, Walkman) through headphones, which I guess is the
point that was being made.

Best Regards,
Alex.
--
Alex Butcher Brainbench MVP for Internet Security: www.brainbench.com
Bristol, UK Need reliable and secure network systems?
PGP/GnuPG ID:0x271fd950 <http://www.assursys.com/>
Schrodinger
2005-10-07 23:26:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alex Butcher
Post by John Jordan
Surely a modern TV does not use all that much power and more substantial
electrical savings could have been found easily elsewhere?
I'm going to regret replying to a cross-post, but my 21" Hitachi TV uses
70-80W according to my wattmeter.
That sounds pretty typical.
Post by John Jordan
To bring it closer to the topic, this is much less than a 21" CRT monitor.
She also wanted to limit the time spent by the father on listening to
his micro-system through headphones. I would guess this uses even less
power than a TV.
I'd be surprised if this used more than 30W.
...but probably significantly more than listening to a headphone system
(e.g. iPod, Discman, Walkman) through headphones, which I guess is the
point that was being made.
Dodgy at best - you surely have to factor in the carbon cost of
manufacture - even if he has one already, of LiOn batteries. They have a
limit on how many charges they accept and again, what is the carbon cost of
manufacturing and getting one to market if he ends up buying a replacement
earlier than he would have because of not using his mini system?
Post by Alex Butcher
Best Regards,
Alex.
Alex Butcher
2005-10-08 07:45:01 UTC
Permalink
[snip]
Post by Schrodinger
Post by Alex Butcher
Post by John Jordan
Post by Jon D
She also wanted to limit the time spent by the father on listening to
his micro-system through headphones. I would guess this uses even
less power than a TV.
I'd be surprised if this used more than 30W.
...but probably significantly more than listening to a headphone system
(e.g. iPod, Discman, Walkman) through headphones, which I guess is the
point that was being made.
Dodgy at best - you surely have to factor in the carbon cost of
manufacture - even if he has one already, of LiOn batteries.
Well, only the iPod will be powered by LiOn cells out of those three
alternatives I gave. The others will probably either be powered from
NiCd/NiMH cells, or most greenly, a carefully-selected wall-wart power
supply that's actually vaguely efficient (unlike the vast majority on the
market, in other words!)
Post by Schrodinger
They have a limit on how many charges they accept
Actually, lifetimes of LiOn cells are more closely tied to the
chronological age from the date of manufacture, providing you don't 'deep
cycle' them (i.e. run down 'til the device turns off, then recharge).
Thus, if you don't use it, you're gonna lose it anyway.
Post by Schrodinger
and again, what is the carbon cost of manufacturing and getting one to
market if he ends up buying a replacement earlier than he would have
because of not using his mini system?
a) LiOn cells can be replaced, providing you don't mind taking the device
apart, thus eliminating the need to replace the whole device.

b) Most "Green" suggestions, when made for general consumption, are
couched in terms of either switching to use something in a more efficient
manner, switching to another device that you already own, or switching to
a more efficient device, but only when you come to replace the current
device anyway (this latter point is particularly applicable to advice
given regarding cars, due to the large amount of energy consumed in their
manufacture).

Best Regards,
Alex.
--
Alex Butcher Brainbench MVP for Internet Security: www.brainbench.com
Bristol, UK Need reliable and secure network systems?
PGP/GnuPG ID:0x271fd950 <http://www.assursys.com/>
Alan Hope
2005-10-08 17:16:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alex Butcher
Actually, lifetimes of LiOn cells are more closely tied to the
chronological age from the date of manufacture, providing you don't 'deep
cycle' them (i.e. run down 'til the device turns off, then recharge).
Gosh. No wonder I didn't recognise your name at the top of the post.
--
AH
Schrodinger
2005-10-09 21:47:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alex Butcher
[snip]
Post by Schrodinger
Post by Alex Butcher
Post by John Jordan
Post by Jon D
She also wanted to limit the time spent by the father on listening to
his micro-system through headphones. I would guess this uses even
less power than a TV.
I'd be surprised if this used more than 30W.
...but probably significantly more than listening to a headphone system
(e.g. iPod, Discman, Walkman) through headphones, which I guess is the
point that was being made.
Dodgy at best - you surely have to factor in the carbon cost of
manufacture - even if he has one already, of LiOn batteries.
Well, only the iPod will be powered by LiOn cells out of those three
alternatives I gave. The others will probably either be powered from
NiCd/NiMH cells, or most greenly, a carefully-selected wall-wart power
supply that's actually vaguely efficient (unlike the vast majority on the
market, in other words!)
Post by Schrodinger
They have a limit on how many charges they accept
Actually, lifetimes of LiOn cells are more closely tied to the
chronological age from the date of manufacture, providing you don't 'deep
cycle' them (i.e. run down 'til the device turns off, then recharge).
Thus, if you don't use it, you're gonna lose it anyway.
This is an interesting point and one that I have not seen before -
everything else I have seen relating to LiIon indicates that they have a
lifetime and charge cycle limit - let us say 1000 charges or 3 years before
losing effectiveness.

The point being, if you end up charging a couple of times a day this
drastically reduces the lifetime of said battery. If just once every couple
of days, then you have a few years either way?
Schrodinger
2005-10-07 18:00:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jon D
On a recent UK broadcast of "How Green Is Your House" the advisor
said she wanted to limit TV watching from 7 hours a day to 1 hour a
day.
Surely a modern TV does not use all that much power and more
substantial electrical savings could have been found easily
elsewhere?
A TV uses a relatively small amount of power. Did she mention making sure
that you only boil enough water needed for, say, one cup of tea - instead of
the half kettle most people boil and reboil? How about using a lower temp
setting on your washing machine?
Post by Jon D
Was she just trying to impose a lifestyle rather than save a useful
amoun of energy?
Guess - it's a woman.
Post by Jon D
She also wanted to limit the time spent by the father on listening to
his micro-system through headphones. I would guess this uses even
less power than a TV.
A micro system will use less power than more or less anything in the house.
This is a pathetic attempt at managing someone's lifestyle under the banner
of "the environment". Part of the same logic that calls 4x4s that have
better fuel consumption than many luxury cars bad for the environment. The
government and media is choc full of ill informed dick heads like this.
Post by Jon D
Does anyone know typical consumption figures?
Trevor Best
2005-10-07 18:45:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Schrodinger
A micro system will use less power than more or less anything in the house.
This is a pathetic attempt at managing someone's lifestyle under the banner
of "the environment". Part of the same logic that calls 4x4s that have
better fuel consumption than many luxury cars bad for the environment. The
government and media is choc full of ill informed dick heads like this.
I'll have you know my BMW is environmentally friendly, for every gallon
of fuel I put in, it only pollutes 19 miles of atmosphere.
Schrodinger
2005-10-07 20:43:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Schrodinger
A micro system will use less power than more or less anything in the
house. This is a pathetic attempt at managing someone's lifestyle under
the banner of "the environment". Part of the same logic that calls 4x4s
that have better fuel consumption than many luxury cars bad for the
environment. The government and media is choc full of ill informed dick
heads like this.
I'll have you know my BMW is environmentally friendly, for every gallon of
fuel I put in, it only pollutes 19 miles of atmosphere.
Somebody needs a lesson in Boyle's law.
**THE-RFI-EMI-GUY**
2005-10-07 23:53:28 UTC
Permalink
My FORD Expedition only pollutes 15 miles of atmosphere per gallon!
Post by Schrodinger
Post by Schrodinger
A micro system will use less power than more or less anything in the
house. This is a pathetic attempt at managing someone's lifestyle under
the banner of "the environment". Part of the same logic that calls 4x4s
that have better fuel consumption than many luxury cars bad for the
environment. The government and media is choc full of ill informed dick
heads like this.
I'll have you know my BMW is environmentally friendly, for every gallon of
fuel I put in, it only pollutes 19 miles of atmosphere.
Somebody needs a lesson in Boyle's law.
My FORD Expedition only pollutes 15 miles of atmosphere per gallon!
--
Joe Leikhim K4SAT
"The RFI-EMI-GUY"
All posting done in DSB to placate the "kooks".

The Lost Deep Thoughts By: Jack Handey
Before a mad scientist goes mad, there's probably a time
when he's only partially mad. And this is the time when he's
going to throw his best parties.
Chris Jones
2005-10-08 13:40:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by **THE-RFI-EMI-GUY**
My FORD Expedition only pollutes 15 miles of atmosphere per gallon!
Post by Schrodinger
Post by Trevor Best
Post by Schrodinger
A micro system will use less power than more or less anything in the
house. This is a pathetic attempt at managing someone's lifestyle under
the banner of "the environment". Part of the same logic that calls 4x4s
that have better fuel consumption than many luxury cars bad for the
environment. The government and media is choc full of ill informed dick
heads like this.
I'll have you know my BMW is environmentally friendly, for every gallon
of fuel I put in, it only pollutes 19 miles of atmosphere.
Somebody needs a lesson in Boyle's law.
My FORD Expedition only pollutes 15 miles of atmosphere per gallon!
I get 53 mpg (US gallons) or 64mpg (UK gallons) from my diesel car that only
cost me £2500 (about $3000). It runs on biodiesel made from old cooking
fat. I will think of you with a smile every time the fuel price goes up!
I can drive 4 times as far as you! 4 times!!!!
Chris
Mat Nieuwenhoven
2005-10-09 16:39:08 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 07 Oct 2005 18:00:37 GMT, Schrodinger wrote:

<snip>
Post by Schrodinger
Post by Jon D
Surely a modern TV does not use all that much power and more
substantial electrical savings could have been found easily
elsewhere?
A TV uses a relatively small amount of power.
Not necessarily. Big LCD or worse, plasma TVs use considerable amounts of
power. A CRT TV with 100 Hz refresh also, as do wide-screen CRTs. The best I
could find when shopping for a new 70cm TV two years ago was a Philips 50 Hz
with 4:3 screen , which uses 60 W active and 1 W in standby; and it has a
real "off" switch which we always use. And the next one up (50 Hz, 4:3) was
80 or 90 W, all others were (sometimes considerably) more. If a TV is on 3
hrs/day on average and uses 60 W less than another model, you save 3 * 60 *
365 = 65 kWh/year .
Post by Schrodinger
A micro system will use less power than more or less anything in the house.
This is a pathetic attempt at managing someone's lifestyle under the banner
of "the environment". Part of the same logic that calls 4x4s that have
better fuel consumption than many luxury cars bad for the environment. The
government and media is choc full of ill informed dick heads like this.
Post by Jon D
Does anyone know typical consumption figures?
I've measure some of mine. A new Aiwa small audio system uses 9 W in standby,
in 'eco' mode is about 0.5 W. A Yamaha livingroom stereo takes also around 11
W in standby, and you cannot switch it off. A Sony VCR uses 12 W in standby.
A Whirlpool microwave 10W in standby. All these come from the display type,
which is not LCD but old vacuum-tube type technology which requires a
filament to be on if you want to see something. I'm sure if you have a clock
radio with this kind of display it is just as bad (I buy only LED-based clock
radios). 10 W on standby means 85 kWh/year! I find this ridiculous. I am not
interested in yet another clock on the micowave or stereo or video. I would
favor legislation that makes it mandatory to supply the standby power
consumption in kWh/year , that would get people's attention, I'm sure.

Mat Nieuwenhoven
Halmyre
2005-10-07 19:16:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jon D
On a recent UK broadcast of "How Green Is Your House" the advisor
said she wanted to limit TV watching from 7 hours a day to 1 hour a
day.
Surely a modern TV does not use all that much power and more
substantial electrical savings could have been found easily
elsewhere?
Was she just trying to impose a lifestyle rather than save a useful
amoun of energy?
She also wanted to limit the time spent by the father on listening to
his micro-system through headphones. I would guess this uses even
less power than a TV.
Does anyone know typical consumption figures?
TVs, sound systems and computers use less power than cookers,
dishwashers and washing machines, but you don't see anyone banging on
about *their* use, do you...
--
Halmyre

f c e k
i r i s h c o n n e c t i o n
Chris Jones
2005-10-07 21:41:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jon D
On a recent UK broadcast of "How Green Is Your House" the advisor
said she wanted to limit TV watching from 7 hours a day to 1 hour a
day.
Surely a modern TV does not use all that much power and more
substantial electrical savings could have been found easily
elsewhere?
Was she just trying to impose a lifestyle rather than save a useful
amoun of energy?
She also wanted to limit the time spent by the father on listening to
his micro-system through headphones. I would guess this uses even
less power than a TV.
Does anyone know typical consumption figures?
I agree with you. Much greater savings could be made by reducing the power
of a load which is always on, e.g. in its life, a typical microwave oven
uses more power to run the clock than to cook the food, because it might be
cooking for 5 minutes a day at 1kW, but it's running the clock for 1440
minutes a day at perhaps 5 Watts, because of the inefficient power supply
for the clock. The same kind of thing applies to TVs, many of which use
10W or so just to run the remote control receiver. She should have asked
them to limit the standby time of the TV by switching off at the socket,
rather than limiting the watching time. In my opinion, if your enjoying
something, it isn't entirely a waste, whereas something costly that you
don't even notice, let alone enjoy, is certainly a waste.

It is sending out the wrong message if she makes it seem like energy saving
has to be unpleasant. There are plenty of ways of saving energy that
people wouldn't even notice, like putting power switches in the primary
circuit of the power transformer in a radio, instead of putting the switch
in the secondary as is more usual.

Chris
Andrew Gabriel
2005-10-07 23:14:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jon D
On a recent UK broadcast of "How Green Is Your House" the advisor
said she wanted to limit TV watching from 7 hours a day to 1 hour a
day.
I saw some of the programme. The bits I saw were bullshit.
Can't recall all the issues now, but her comment that a
TV on standby uses 80% of the full-on power was one
of the bits of bullshit which I do recall her saying.

Just remember the programme is meant to be entertainment,
and sadly not educational.
--
Andrew Gabriel
Alex Fraser
2005-10-08 00:02:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew Gabriel
Post by Jon D
On a recent UK broadcast of "How Green Is Your House" the advisor
said she wanted to limit TV watching from 7 hours a day to 1 hour a
day.
I saw some of the programme. The bits I saw were bullshit.
Can't recall all the issues now, but her comment that a
TV on standby uses 80% of the full-on power was one
of the bits of bullshit which I do recall her saying.
If you watched a TV taking 60W for one hour per day, and left it on standby
taking 10W the rest of the time, then almost 80% of the energy used by the
television would be when it was on standby.

Alex
Huge
2005-10-08 10:01:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jon D
On a recent UK broadcast of "How Green Is Your House" the advisor
said she wanted to limit TV watching from 7 hours a day to 1 hour a
day.
Surely a modern TV does not use all that much power and more
substantial electrical savings could have been found easily
elsewhere?
Was she just trying to impose a lifestyle rather than save a useful
amoun of energy?
Yes. She seems to have a big down on enjoying oneself.

She's a typical lentilista. And if she's ridden that bike any distance,
I'm Lynford Christie. Perhaps she should eat fewer pies and mind her
own business?

The concept of overall system costs doesn't seem to have crossed her
blubbery little mind, either. A system that costs (say) £5000
and saves £50/year (the rainwater recovery system she wittered on about
in an earlier programme struck me as a good example) simply isn't
worth installing.

There is also considerable doubt whether switching computers off and
on all the time is a good idea, either. If it shortens the life of the
computer and it needs replacing, you've way exceeded any saving you
may have made.

Much recycling is pointless, too. The energy costs of recycling many
materials way exceeds the cost of replacing from new. Many councils
actually put the contents of recycling bins into landfill anyway. Milton
Keynes recycling centre loses tens of millions a year, evidence that
the materials it recovers are unwanted.
--
"Other people are not your property."
[email me at huge [at] huge [dot] org [dot] uk]
Chris Jones
2005-10-08 13:34:35 UTC
Permalink
**THE-RFI-EMI-GUY**
2005-10-08 16:05:05 UTC
Permalink
A ton of money could be saved by manufacturing items which utilize
quality materials and can be serviced readily. Too much money and
resources are spent filling landfills with appliances and goods which
wear out prematurely and cannot be repaired.
Post by Huge
Much recycling is pointless, too. The energy costs of recycling many
materials way exceeds the cost of replacing from new. Many councils
actually put the contents of recycling bins into landfill anyway. Milton
Keynes recycling centre loses tens of millions a year, evidence that
the materials it recovers are unwanted.
A ton of money could be saved by manufacturing items which utilize
quality materials and can be serviced readily. Too much money and
resources are spent filling landfills with appliances and goods which
wear out prematurely and cannot be repaired.
--
Joe Leikhim K4SAT (This post was transmitted in DSB to placate the "Kooks")
"The RFI-EMI-GUY"

The Lost Deep Thoughts By: Jack Handey
Before a mad scientist goes mad, there's probably a time
when he's only partially mad. And this is the time when he's
going to throw his best parties.
Alex Butcher
2005-10-08 17:07:28 UTC
Permalink
A ton of money could be saved by manufacturing items which utilize quality
materials and can be serviced readily. Too much money and resources are
spent filling landfills with appliances and goods which wear out
prematurely and cannot be repaired.
As long as purchase prices are low, repair knowledge amongst the general
public is low, and expert labour is expensive, many repairable items
probably won't be repaired anyway. A lot of people take a failure as an
excuse to go out and treat themselves to something newer and shinier. :-/

Personally, I've repaired a broken PSU in a VCR (cost me about 3.50GBP and
an hour of my time) and got my parents' TV working again (required a new
internal fuse - 10 for 1.98GBP in Maplin, and about 20mins of my time).

Best Regards,
Alex.
--
Alex Butcher Brainbench MVP for Internet Security: www.brainbench.com
Bristol, UK Need reliable and secure network systems?
PGP/GnuPG ID:0x271fd950 <http://www.assursys.com/>
Bungee
2005-10-08 17:32:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alex Butcher
A ton of money could be saved by manufacturing items which utilize quality
materials and can be serviced readily. Too much money and resources are
spent filling landfills with appliances and goods which wear out
prematurely and cannot be repaired.
As long as purchase prices are low, repair knowledge amongst the general
public is low, and expert labour is expensive, many repairable items
probably won't be repaired anyway. A lot of people take a failure as an
excuse to go out and treat themselves to something newer and shinier. :-/
Personally, I've repaired a broken PSU in a VCR (cost me about 3.50GBP and
an hour of my time) and got my parents' TV working again (required a new
internal fuse - 10 for 1.98GBP in Maplin, and about 20mins of my time).
Best Regards,
Alex.
It isn't just the apparent relative costs. We live in a culture where enquiry
into how things work is actively discouraged along with their repair. This
operates at many levels. Peer pressure on frowns on kids that have had things
fixed by their dads (can't the mean ol' skinflint buy you a new one then).
Schools no longer teach proper engineering skills. The government piles on
steadily more restrictions on what non-tradespeople are allowed to do. Insurance
companies try to weasel out of payments if something ( not even related to the
claim) is not of standard manufacture.
--
Bungee
m***@care2.com
2005-10-16 13:02:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bungee
Post by Alex Butcher
A ton of money could be saved by manufacturing items which utilize quality
materials and can be serviced readily. Too much money and resources are
spent filling landfills with appliances and goods which wear out
prematurely and cannot be repaired.
As long as purchase prices are low, repair knowledge amongst the general
public is low, and expert labour is expensive, many repairable items
probably won't be repaired anyway. A lot of people take a failure as an
excuse to go out and treat themselves to something newer and shinier. :-/
Personally, I've repaired a broken PSU in a VCR (cost me about 3.50GBP and
an hour of my time) and got my parents' TV working again (required a new
internal fuse - 10 for 1.98GBP in Maplin, and about 20mins of my time).
Best Regards,
Alex.
It isn't just the apparent relative costs. We live in a culture where enquiry
into how things work is actively discouraged along with their repair. This
operates at many levels. Peer pressure on frowns on kids that have had things
fixed by their dads (can't the mean ol' skinflint buy you a new one then).
Schools no longer teach proper engineering skills.
Unfortunately our kids are educated by advertising companies, who
bullsht them as far as they can, and schools dont seem to tackle it at
all. They then become adults that are so misinformed about money as to
be bordering on deluded, trained to give all their money away for junk
at any opportunity they can find.
Post by Bungee
The government piles on
steadily more restrictions on what non-tradespeople are allowed to do.
even when its known to increase the rate of deaths, accidents and
costs.

The basic problem is we live in an ignorant society. At least computers
are helping quite a bit with this.


NT
keith
2005-10-10 02:03:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alex Butcher
A ton of money could be saved by manufacturing items which utilize quality
materials and can be serviced readily. Too much money and resources are
spent filling landfills with appliances and goods which wear out
prematurely and cannot be repaired.
As long as purchase prices are low, repair knowledge amongst the general
public is low, and expert labour is expensive, many repairable items
probably won't be repaired anyway. A lot of people take a failure as an
excuse to go out and treat themselves to something newer and shinier. :-/
Certainly.
Post by Alex Butcher
Personally, I've repaired a broken PSU in a VCR (cost me about 3.50GBP and
an hour of my time) and got my parents' TV working again (required a new
internal fuse - 10 for 1.98GBP in Maplin, and about 20mins of my time).
Even though I have the expertice necessary, I wouldn't waste my time on
a $40 VCR. I have far more important things to do with my time (and that
includes tipping a beer or two). I don't waste a couple of hours (vs.
$19) on a Saturday changing the oil in my car either. I have other
"cleaner" things to do, like staining woodwork (this weekend's task, since
it was a wash-out).
--
Keith
Alex Butcher
2005-10-10 18:57:06 UTC
Permalink
[snip]
Post by Alex Butcher
Personally, I've repaired a broken PSU in a VCR (cost me about 3.50GBP
and an hour of my time) and got my parents' TV working again (required a
new internal fuse - 10 for 1.98GBP in Maplin, and about 20mins of my
time).
Even though I have the expertice necessary, I wouldn't waste my time on a
$40 VCR.
a) I regarded it as a "learn how to repair stuff project" with no
negative consequences other than time expended, and therefore "fun" (for
certain values of "fun", I grant you...)

b) all the modern VCRs I could find were rubbish; cheaply made from lots
of plastic, dubious picture/sound quality and limited input/output
connectors.
I have far more important things to do with my time (and that
includes tipping a beer or two). I don't waste a couple of hours (vs.
$19) on a Saturday changing the oil in my car either. I have other
"cleaner" things to do, like staining woodwork (this weekend's task, since
it was a wash-out).
Yeah, I pay someone else to do oil changes, too. That's "not fun" in my
book.

Best Regards,
Alex.
--
Alex Butcher Brainbench MVP for Internet Security: www.brainbench.com
Bristol, UK Need reliable and secure network systems?
PGP/GnuPG ID:0x271fd950 <http://www.assursys.com/>
Simon Cooper
2005-10-10 20:23:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alex Butcher
Post by keith
I have far more important things to do with my time (and that
includes tipping a beer or two). I don't waste a couple of hours (vs.
$19) on a Saturday changing the oil in my car either. I have other
"cleaner" things to do, like staining woodwork (this weekend's task, since
it was a wash-out).
Yeah, I pay someone else to do oil changes, too. That's "not fun" in my
book.
When I bought my car, the previous owner gave me a stack of new oil filters
and washers for the drain pug, which left me feeling obliged to do my own...

After my own personal "Exxon Valdez" incidents, I think I may skip doing
them in future...
m***@lycos.com
2005-10-11 23:18:00 UTC
Permalink
Even though I have the expertice necessary, I wouldn't waste my time on a
$40 VCR. I have far more important things to do with my time (and that
includes tipping a beer or two).
There are not many VCRs anymore for $40, and the few to be found, are
total junk. (USA, Utah)

In the second, more important place, I am weary of buying new VCRs, with
different remote control interfaces, different on screen features, and
other stuff that you just get real used to. I would fix it first if I
could, even tho I don't drink.......

Mark
Huge
2005-10-08 17:36:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by **THE-RFI-EMI-GUY**
Post by Huge
Much recycling is pointless, too. The energy costs of recycling many
materials way exceeds the cost of replacing from new. Many councils
actually put the contents of recycling bins into landfill anyway. Milton
Keynes recycling centre loses tens of millions a year, evidence that
the materials it recovers are unwanted.
A ton of money could be saved by manufacturing items which utilize
quality materials and can be serviced readily. Too much money and
resources are spent filling landfills with appliances and goods which
wear out prematurely and cannot be repaired.
Agreed.
--
"Other people are not your property."
[email me at huge [at] huge [dot] org [dot] uk]
if
2005-10-09 15:52:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Huge
There is also considerable doubt whether switching computers off and
on all the time is a good idea, either. If it shortens the life of the
computer and it needs replacing, you've way exceeded any saving you
may have made.
This has already been done to death in a recent thread here
(uk.comp.homebuilt) but in a nutshell the conclusion was that any switching
them on and off several times a day makes no difference since computers are
invariably replaced long before the adverse effects of power cycling would
be felt.

There is also evidence that leaving a CRT on continuously (as opposed to
using standby mode or off) will actually cut its life by a factor of 2 or 3
because the tube life is dependent mainly on how many hours it is on, with
the phosphor brightness halving every 10-15000 hours.
Huge
2005-10-09 18:04:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by if
Post by Huge
There is also considerable doubt whether switching computers off and
on all the time is a good idea, either. If it shortens the life of the
computer and it needs replacing, you've way exceeded any saving you
may have made.
This has already been done to death in a recent thread here
It's been done to death in lots of places.
Post by if
(uk.comp.homebuilt) but in a nutshell the conclusion was that any switching
them on and off several times a day makes no difference since computers are
invariably replaced long before the adverse effects of power cycling would
be felt.
Not "invariably". Only in houses which suck Bill Gates' cock.
--
"Other people are not your property."
[email me at huge [at] huge [dot] org [dot] uk]
Michael A. Terrell
2005-10-10 14:15:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Huge
There is also considerable doubt whether switching computers off and
on all the time is a good idea, either. If it shortens the life of the
computer and it needs replacing, you've way exceeded any saving you
may have made.
Then you should leave your car or truck idling all the time,
Everyone knows that most of the wear and tear is done while the engine
is warming up. On the other hand, electrolytic capacitors have a
limited life and are slowly destroyed by heat. I see a lot of dead PCs
with defective electrolytics. I put in about $7 US in new caps and they
are ready for a new home.

BTW, I have dozens of PCs in, and around my house. There are three
at my computer desk right now, sometimes there are five running at once.
There is no way in hell I'll leave them all running all the time. When
I finish my home network there will be about three dozen live ports
scattered between five buildings. Not only does leaving and unused PC
on waste electricity, it makes the air conditioning work harder, so you
pay for it twice.
--
?

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida
Bungee
2005-10-10 19:03:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael A. Terrell
Post by Huge
There is also considerable doubt whether switching computers off and
on all the time is a good idea, either. If it shortens the life of the
computer and it needs replacing, you've way exceeded any saving you
may have made.
Then you should leave your car or truck idling all the time,
Everyone knows that most of the wear and tear is done while the engine
is warming up. On the other hand, electrolytic capacitors have a
limited life and are slowly destroyed by heat. I see a lot of dead PCs
with defective electrolytics. I put in about $7 US in new caps and they
are ready for a new home.
Conversely, electrolytics will also degrade if left for long periods unused. As
the oxide layer thins the voltage capability drops, and the capacitance
increases!
--
Bungee
Michael A. Terrell
2005-10-12 06:14:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bungee
Conversely, electrolytics will also degrade if left for long periods unused. As
the oxide layer thins the voltage capability drops, and the capacitance
increases!
--
Bungee
So, how many decades are you going to go between using your
computer? I have electrolytics that are over 50 years old that still
measure the right capacitance, and have a very good ESR.

Very poorly made caps will degrade without being used, but they are
the same ones that have a short life due to poor design and materials
used in their manufacture.
--
?

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida
Chris Jones
2005-10-14 22:01:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael A. Terrell
Post by Bungee
Conversely, electrolytics will also degrade if left for long periods
unused. As the oxide layer thins the voltage capability drops, and the
capacitance increases!
--
Bungee
So, how many decades are you going to go between using your
computer? I have electrolytics that are over 50 years old that still
measure the right capacitance, and have a very good ESR.
Very poorly made caps will degrade without being used, but they are
the same ones that have a short life due to poor design and materials
used in their manufacture.
I switch on my old test equipment for an hour or so every few months, to
remind the capacitors not to go leaky. Apart from that, I switch a device
off if it will be unused for an hour or more.

Chris
southpawArcher
2005-10-08 10:47:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jon D
On a recent UK broadcast of "How Green Is Your House" the advisor
said she wanted to limit TV watching from 7 hours a day to 1 hour a
day.
Was she just trying to impose a lifestyle rather than save a useful
amoun of energy?
A television-programme showcasing the energy-wastage of using television
sets?

Intriguing.
--
sA
Loading...