Tuner memory
 

"Trevor Wilson" wrote


**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.



Even leaving items like projectors plugged in can cost you a 200+ quid
lamp - had a ten minute power cut here the other night (according to some of
the clocks) and the next evening the PJ was dead.....

Anybody ever made a successful claim on their power company for summat
similar...???

Tuner memory
 

Don Pearce wrote:
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


I meant 'per' in the context of 'for each' - wasn't that clear to you? I
hope you're not a maths or English teacher - would you really say 'six
per three equals two'?

Rob

Tuner memory
 

Trevor Wilson wrote:
"Serge Auckland" wrote in message
...


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.


One of the few (obviously!) things I remember from physics at school is
that you should use the appliance switch if it has one to avoid damage,
rather than the socket switch or pull the plug. Is there any truth to this?

Rob

Tuner memory
 

Laurence Payne wrote:
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.

It was late :-)

I was simply trying to get a message across. You chose a condescending
approach to correct me, and for that reason alone I chose to pick up on
your own inaccuracy. You've made me aware of the correct method of
expression, and I thank you for that.

Rob

Tuner memory
 

On Mon, 21 Aug 2006 08:33:26 +0100, Rob
wrote:

Don Pearce wrote:
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


I meant 'per' in the context of 'for each' - wasn't that clear to you? I
hope you're not a maths or English teacher - would you really say 'six
per three equals two'?

Rob

"For each" is exactly the meaning of per, and that is why you have it
wrong. Suppose you buy 10 apples for 30 pence, that is three pence per
apple (for each). You do that sum by dividing 30 by ten. So Watts per
hour is Watts divided by hours. You need Watts MULTIPLIED by hours,
which is Watt Hours.

I'm not being pedantic - you are not just a little bit wrong, you have
it entirely upside down.

d

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

Tuner memory
 

On Mon, 21 Aug 2006 08:40:31 +0100, Rob
wrote:

Trevor Wilson wrote:
"Serge Auckland" wrote in message
...


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.


One of the few (obviously!) things I remember from physics at school is
that you should use the appliance switch if it has one to avoid damage,
rather than the socket switch or pull the plug. Is there any truth to this?

Rob

It depends. If the appliance switch is simply turning off the incoming
mains (the traditional way to do it), then pulling the plug or
switching off at the socket is exactly equivalent. If the appliance
switch works through some electronic function, then it isn't.

But whatever the case, there should be absolutely no danger of damage.

d

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

Tuner memory
 

On Mon, 21 Aug 2006 08:33:26 +0100, Rob
wrote:

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

d


I meant 'per' in the context of 'for each' - wasn't that clear to you? I
hope you're not a maths or English teacher - would you really say 'six
per three equals two'?

Oh, give in! You know you'll have to eventually, even if you DIDN'T
like my tone of voice when you were first corrected :-)

Tuner memory
 

In article , Don Pearce
writes
On Mon, 21 Aug 2006 08:33:26 +0100, Rob
wrote:

Don Pearce wrote:
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


I meant 'per' in the context of 'for each' - wasn't that clear to you? I
hope you're not a maths or English teacher - would you really say 'six
per three equals two'?

Rob

"For each" is exactly the meaning of per, and that is why you have it
wrong. Suppose you buy 10 apples for 30 pence, that is three pence per
apple (for each). You do that sum by dividing 30 by ten. So Watts per
hour is Watts divided by hours. You need Watts MULTIPLIED by hours,
which is Watt Hours.

I'm not being pedantic - you are not just a little bit wrong, you have
it entirely upside down.

d


Wish Serge had just referred to it as .4 kWh ;-!....
--
Tony Sayer

Tuner memory
 

On Mon, 21 Aug 2006 09:43:19 +0100, tony sayer
wrote:

In article , Don Pearce
writes
On Mon, 21 Aug 2006 08:33:26 +0100, Rob
wrote:

Don Pearce wrote:
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


I meant 'per' in the context of 'for each' - wasn't that clear to you? I
hope you're not a maths or English teacher - would you really say 'six
per three equals two'?

Rob

"For each" is exactly the meaning of per, and that is why you have it
wrong. Suppose you buy 10 apples for 30 pence, that is three pence per
apple (for each). You do that sum by dividing 30 by ten. So Watts per
hour is Watts divided by hours. You need Watts MULTIPLIED by hours,
which is Watt Hours.

I'm not being pedantic - you are not just a little bit wrong, you have
it entirely upside down.

d


Wish Serge had just referred to it as .4 kWh ;-!....

Then we'd have missed out on an entire sub-thread. ;-)

d

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

Tuner memory
 

On Mon, 21 Aug 2006 08:40:31 +0100, Rob
wrote:

One of the few (obviously!) things I remember from physics at school is
that you should use the appliance switch if it has one to avoid damage,
rather than the socket switch or pull the plug. Is there any truth to this?

When I was at school (some time ago) appliance switches generally
broke the mains input, exactly the same as using the socket switch or
pulling the plug. Now they sometimes switch to a standby mode (as we
have been discussing), or instigate a shut-down routine (computers,
inkjet printers...) I guess you can't go wrong if you use the
appliance switch, then the socket switch. Then remove the plug or
not, depending if you're more frightened of an ungrounded appliance or
a possible lightning strike.