Laurence Payne wrote:
On Sun, 20 Aug 2006 15:34:37 +0100, Rob
wrote:

"Watts per hour" isn't quite what you mean, I suspect :-)
Er, it was! Have I misunderstood something - wouldn't be the first/last
time :-)

I mean he consumes 400 Watts of electricity in one hour. Stand corrected
awaits ...

Not quite. He consumes 400 watts FOR one hour.

Ah - I think 'per' means 'for each' (the OP's intent of continuous
background), then I changed to average consumption ('in', an
abbreviation of 'within', thinking that was what you were driving at).
Unless you have a better definition of 'per' and 'in' I'll stick with my
original(s).

Rob

Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article , Rob
wrote:


It's annoying (to say the least) how the recent rash of digital
receivers (DAB, Freeview) use almost as much electricity in standby as
when they're switched on.

Not once you've fitted a torpedo to their mains cable, and remove power
from them when they are not in active use. :-)


Yep, you're quite right - laziness tends to get in way.


Ah, all our problems could soon be solved :-)

I've just spent half an hour checking out this:

http://www.steorn.net/frontpage/default.aspx

In fact, if true, our problems could be just beginning ...

Not yet looked at the above...


The problem is there's very little about it - on the web page or
elsewhere. The videos are interesting, and explain to some extent their
position and approach, but again little substance. We'll just have to
wait until the boffins work out a test method, and see what they come up
with.

Rob

In article , Rob
wrote:


Er, it was! Have I misunderstood something - wouldn't be the first/last
time :-)

I mean he consumes 400 Watts of electricity in one hour. Stand corrected
awaits ...

The nominal unit of energy is the Joule.

Power is the *rate* of energy transfer/creation/loss.

1 Watt (power) is 1 Joule per second (energy per time period).

Thus saying "watts per hour" implies "1 Joule per second, per hour", which
may be gibberish as it is neither a power nor an energy.

Thus the Watt-hour is also a unit of energy since it is the number of
joules transferred/created/used if you use power at the rate of 1 joule per
second for 1 hour. The common unit is the kWh.

Hence it isn't clear what something like, "he consumes 400 Watts of
electricity in one hour" actually means.

Slainte,

Jim

--
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Audio Misc http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/AudioMisc/index.html
Armstrong Audio http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/Audio/armstrong.html
Barbirolli Soc. http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/JBSoc/JBSoc.html

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...
In article , Serge
Auckland
wrote:
tony sayer wrote:


With the last increase in energy costs, I went round the house
working
out what the approximate consumption is of all the stuff left on
standby
or on permanently, and I come to something around 400W. That's
3500KWh
per year! Some of the stuff, like fridge, freezer, cooker hob,
ovens
etc can't be switched off without risking damaged food or the
hassle of
resetting clocks, but other stuff certainly can be. Turning off
just the
hi-fi and TV equipment when not being used saves 584KWh a year,
more if
I also turn off the wireless router and the computer at night.


FWIW all the tuners, etc, I have encountered no problems with being
switched off (i.e. unpowered) when not in use. This includes a Pure
DAB
tuner and a Nokia DTTV tuner. Even if the DAB tuner has been
unpowered for
a week irt still remembers the user settings, etc, when powered up
again.

I leave items like a fridge or the central heating control on for
obvious
reasons. Also the DVD recorder. But I routinely switch off other
things.

I would suggest that our domestic consumption is typical, even
lower
than average as our children have left home, so if more people
turned
off stuff on standby, the power saving would be very considerable.

Indeed. I suspect that it will not be long before the UK/EU
regulations
*mandate* that units have to be designed with this in mind, and
pressure is
applied on manufacturers *not* to produce units which have to be 'on
standaby' simply to recall 'user settings'. Even our fridge and
freezed
don't 'forget' what temperature settings were made if they are
accidentially unpowered for a while. It is quite clear that most
electronics could do this - provided the makers design
appropriately.

There is the anecdotal evidence that equipment left on standby or
permanently on seems to be more reliable, but I'm happy to take
that
chance.

I haven't seen any reliable evidence one way or the other that would
concern me. If equipment was poorly designed, I'd be more worried by
leaving it on unattended. More concerned by a fire risk than by unit
failures. If it is well designed, then it really should not
seriously
affect its reliability to be unpowered overnight.

Slainte,

Jim



The Government target is what they call 'One-watt standby' - i.e.
nothing in standby mode takes more than 1W.

In well designed equipment in this modern day and age that really
should not be too difficult - but there again when were domestic brown
goods ever well designed ;-))


--
Woody

harrogate3 at ntlworld dot com

On Sun, 20 Aug 2006 17:48:42 +0100, Rob
wrote:

"Watts per hour" isn't quite what you mean, I suspect :-)
Er, it was! Have I misunderstood something - wouldn't be the first/last
time :-)

I mean he consumes 400 Watts of electricity in one hour. Stand corrected
awaits ...

Not quite. He consumes 400 watts FOR one hour.

Ah - I think 'per' means 'for each' (the OP's intent of continuous
background), then I changed to average consumption ('in', an
abbreviation of 'within', thinking that was what you were driving at).
Unless you have a better definition of 'per' and 'in' I'll stick with my
original(s).

No, don't. You'll just sound ignorant.

Even if I haven't explained it very well, "watts per hour" is as
scientifically illiterate as "gallons per second per second". (OK,
that could measure a rate of acceleration of flow. Another poor
explanation :-)

Laurence Payne wrote:
On Sun, 20 Aug 2006 17:48:42 +0100, Rob
wrote:

"Watts per hour" isn't quite what you mean, I suspect :-)
Er, it was! Have I misunderstood something - wouldn't be the first/last
time :-)

I mean he consumes 400 Watts of electricity in one hour. Stand corrected
awaits ...
Not quite. He consumes 400 watts FOR one hour.
Ah - I think 'per' means 'for each' (the OP's intent of continuous
background), then I changed to average consumption ('in', an
abbreviation of 'within', thinking that was what you were driving at).
Unless you have a better definition of 'per' and 'in' I'll stick with my
original(s).

No, don't. You'll just sound ignorant.


Um - per means 'for each', unless you have a more accurate definition.
You told me to use 'for', or 'FOR', in the first place. Each means every
one of more. Don't mean to patronise ...

Even if I haven't explained it very well, "watts per hour" is as
scientifically illiterate as "gallons per second per second". (OK,
that could measure a rate of acceleration of flow. Another poor
explanation :-)

I'd be happier with 'imprecise', rather than 'ignorant' or
'scientifically illiterate'. The important point is that most people
would understand what I meant.

Rob

In article ,
Serge Auckland wrote:
With the last increase in energy costs, I went round the house working
out what the approximate consumption is of all the stuff left on standby
or on permanently, and I come to something around 400W. That's 3500KWh
per year! Some of the stuff, like fridge, freezer, cooker hob, ovens
etc can't be switched off without risking damaged food or the hassle of
resetting clocks, but other stuff certainly can be.

I'd hardly call leaving a fridge or freezer on being on standby. ;-)

Turning off just the
hi-fi and TV equipment when not being used saves 584KWh a year, more if
I also turn off the wireless router and the computer at night.

I turn off the computer when not in use. Not the router, though.

--
*I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it *

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

On Sun, 20 Aug 2006 22:38:31 +0100, Rob
wrote:

Um - per means 'for each', unless you have a more accurate definition.
You told me to use 'for', or 'FOR', in the first place. Each means every
one of more. Don't mean to patronise ...

Per means divided by. The sum you are doing is multiplied by. You are
talking Watt Hours, not Watts per hour.

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

On Sun, 20 Aug 2006 22:38:31 +0100, Rob
wrote:

Even if I haven't explained it very well, "watts per hour" is as
scientifically illiterate as "gallons per second per second". (OK,
that could measure a rate of acceleration of flow. Another poor
explanation :-)

I'd be happier with 'imprecise', rather than 'ignorant' or
'scientifically illiterate'. The important point is that most people
would understand what I meant.

OK, I give up. Perhaps someone else can get through to you.

"Serge Auckland" wrote in message
...
tony sayer wrote:

I posted this a few weeks ago on another thread, but it's relevant to this
one as well:-

With the last increase in energy costs, I went round the house working out
what the approximate consumption is of all the stuff left on standby or on
permanently, and I come to something around 400W. That's 3500KWh per year!
Some of the stuff, like fridge, freezer, cooker hob, ovens etc can't be
switched off without risking damaged food or the hassle of resetting
clocks, but other stuff certainly can be. Turning off just the hi-fi and
TV equipment when not being used saves 584KWh a year, more if I also turn
off the wireless router and the computer at night.

**I believe you've over-stated things somewhat. Setting aside the obvious
stuff, like refrigerators, most items on standby consume less than 5 Watts
each. Modern items consume less than 1 Watt. I have several itmes which I
leave in standby mode and I don't feel guilty in the slightest. Here's why:

It's August and we've just made it through the worst of a Sydney Winter
(which, for thjose of you in the UK, is not like a 'proper' Winter at all)
without using any room heaters. Not once. No air conditioning. Nothing. Just
warm clothes. Mind you, it has been a relatively mild Winter, with no frosts
(where I live) and typical pre-dawn temperatures of around 7oC. Given that
previously, I would use around 12,000kWh per day in room heating, the 400 Wh
per day for permanently powered stuff is small potatoes. I have shifted most
of my lighting to regular fluorescent, or compact fluorescent, thus saving
even more energy. Moving the (electric) hot water system inside and using a
more efficient model has elicited rather spectacular gains in performance
too. I now use around 20% of the energy I previously did for hot water.
Frankly, I was stunned at the improvement and it has caused me to reconsider
Solar hot water (very practical in most of Oz), given the high capital costs
involved (I figure on a 30 year payback time).




I would suggest that our domestic consumption is typical, even lower than
average as our children have left home, so if more people turned off stuff
on standby, the power saving would be very considerable. There is the
anecdotal evidence that equipment left on standby or permanently on seems
to be more reliable, but I'm happy to take that chance.

**A common misconception. The killer for most permanently powered items are
capacitor failures. Turning stuff off and on as required does several
things:

* Capacitors last longer.
* The product is shielded from unnecessary spikes on the mains.

I always turn stuff off (except for the obvious stuff, with clocks) unless I
actually want to use it.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com