Tuner memory
 

After decorating the lounge I have reconstructed my hi-fi stack and
rewired it so that the only item with permanent mains is the VCR -
everything else goes through am electronic switch.

I have now discovered that my Kenwood KT2060L tuner clearly has only a
capacitor to back up the memory - it does not have a battery or use
E2PROM - so when the mains has been off for a day or less it forgets.

I have been thinking of replacing it for some time, possibly with a
Denon TU260LII, but it would be no good if it suffers the same
problem.

Anyone know of any three-band RDS tuners that don't forget when the
mains has been off for a while? Philips tuners of yore always used
E2PROM, so I guess it may follow that Marantz do too.


--
Woody

harrogate3 at ntlworld dot com

Tuner memory
 

In article , harrogate3
writes
After decorating the lounge I have reconstructed my hi-fi stack and
rewired it so that the only item with permanent mains is the VCR -
everything else goes through am electronic switch.

I have now discovered that my Kenwood KT2060L tuner clearly has only a
capacitor to back up the memory - it does not have a battery or use
E2PROM - so when the mains has been off for a day or less it forgets.

I have been thinking of replacing it for some time, possibly with a
Denon TU260LII,

Used quite a lot of these for off-air monitoring and such and never had a
problem with them at all.. Ever:))

They aren't made anymore but you can find them on e-bay with no bother...


but it would be no good if it suffers the same
problem.

Anyone know of any three-band RDS tuners that don't forget when the
mains has been off for a while? Philips tuners of yore always used
E2PROM, so I guess it may follow that Marantz do too.


--
Woody

harrogate3 at ntlworld dot com



--
Tony Sayer

Tuner memory
 

"harrogate3" wrote in message
...
After decorating the lounge I have reconstructed my hi-fi stack and
rewired it so that the only item with permanent mains is the VCR -
everything else goes through am electronic switch.

I have now discovered that my Kenwood KT2060L tuner clearly has only a
capacitor to back up the memory - it does not have a battery or use
E2PROM - so when the mains has been off for a day or less it forgets.

**Not neccessarily. A capacitor back up can provide many months of memory,
if required. Some older devices used either rechargable batteries, or, in
some cases, lithium cells. In those cases, a couple of years is reasonable
to expect.


I have been thinking of replacing it for some time, possibly with a
Denon TU260LII, but it would be no good if it suffers the same
problem.

**Denon make excellent performing tuners. Modern ones probably use capacitor
back up and keep their memory for a long time (months, at least). However,
your old tuner can be repaired for not much cash.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au



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

Tuner memory
 

On Sat, 19 Aug 2006 19:05:00 GMT, "harrogate3"
wrote:

I have now discovered that my Kenwood KT2060L tuner clearly has only a
capacitor to back up the memory - it does not have a battery or use
E2PROM - so when the mains has been off for a day or less it forgets.

I have been thinking of replacing it for some time, possibly with a
Denon TU260LII, but it would be no good if it suffers the same
problem.

Anyone know of any three-band RDS tuners that don't forget when the
mains has been off for a while? Philips tuners of yore always used
E2PROM, so I guess it may follow that Marantz do too.

Power economy is a factor. But isn't having a good-sounding tuner a
higher priority? If it must be left plugged in, so be it.

Tuner memory
 

"Laurence Payne" lpayne1NOSPAM@dslDOTpipexDOTcom wrote in message
...
On Sat, 19 Aug 2006 19:05:00 GMT, "harrogate3"
wrote:

I have now discovered that my Kenwood KT2060L tuner clearly has
only a
capacitor to back up the memory - it does not have a battery or use
E2PROM - so when the mains has been off for a day or less it
forgets.

I have been thinking of replacing it for some time, possibly with a
Denon TU260LII, but it would be no good if it suffers the same
problem.

Anyone know of any three-band RDS tuners that don't forget when the
mains has been off for a while? Philips tuners of yore always used
E2PROM, so I guess it may follow that Marantz do too.

Power economy is a factor. But isn't having a good-sounding tuner a
higher priority? If it must be left plugged in, so be it.


Therein lies a problem - the 2060L takes essentially the same power
whether on or off.

I have imposed the switching as the Sony MD recorder, Marantz CD
player, and (especially) the Rotel power amp were all permanently
powered and between them consuming about 60W 24/7 when in standby (or
on in the case of the PA.). I'm not a greenie, but with current fuel
price rises one has to stop and think some times.


--
Woody

harrogate3 at ntlworld dot com

Tuner memory
 

In article , harrogate3
writes

"Laurence Payne" lpayne1NOSPAM@dslDOTpipexDOTcom wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 19 Aug 2006 19:05:00 GMT, "harrogate3"
wrote:

I have now discovered that my Kenwood KT2060L tuner clearly has
only a
capacitor to back up the memory - it does not have a battery or use
E2PROM - so when the mains has been off for a day or less it
forgets.

I have been thinking of replacing it for some time, possibly with a
Denon TU260LII, but it would be no good if it suffers the same
problem.

Anyone know of any three-band RDS tuners that don't forget when the
mains has been off for a while? Philips tuners of yore always used
E2PROM, so I guess it may follow that Marantz do too.

Power economy is a factor. But isn't having a good-sounding tuner a
higher priority? If it must be left plugged in, so be it.


Therein lies a problem - the 2060L takes essentially the same power
whether on or off.

I have imposed the switching as the Sony MD recorder, Marantz CD
player, and (especially) the Rotel power amp were all permanently
powered and between them consuming about 60W 24/7 when in standby (or
on in the case of the PA.). I'm not a greenie, but with current fuel
price rises one has to stop and think some times.



Yep.. and I dead to think what the standby is on the office, workshop,
and domestic systems. Probably a tidy sum every year. Course in the
winter months, i.e. around now! 'thro till May next year, it isn't
exactly wasted as the surplus heat generated does help keep the place
warm;)....

--
Woody

harrogate3 at ntlworld dot com



--
Tony Sayer

Tuner memory
 

tony sayer wrote:
In article , harrogate3
writes
"Laurence Payne" lpayne1NOSPAM@dslDOTpipexDOTcom wrote in message
...
On Sat, 19 Aug 2006 19:05:00 GMT, "harrogate3"
wrote:

I have now discovered that my Kenwood KT2060L tuner clearly has
only a
capacitor to back up the memory - it does not have a battery or use
E2PROM - so when the mains has been off for a day or less it
forgets.
I have been thinking of replacing it for some time, possibly with a
Denon TU260LII, but it would be no good if it suffers the same
problem.

Anyone know of any three-band RDS tuners that don't forget when the
mains has been off for a while? Philips tuners of yore always used
E2PROM, so I guess it may follow that Marantz do too.
Power economy is a factor. But isn't having a good-sounding tuner a
higher priority? If it must be left plugged in, so be it.

Therein lies a problem - the 2060L takes essentially the same power
whether on or off.

I have imposed the switching as the Sony MD recorder, Marantz CD
player, and (especially) the Rotel power amp were all permanently
powered and between them consuming about 60W 24/7 when in standby (or
on in the case of the PA.). I'm not a greenie, but with current fuel
price rises one has to stop and think some times.



Yep.. and I dead to think what the standby is on the office, workshop,
and domestic systems. Probably a tidy sum every year. Course in the
winter months, i.e. around now! 'thro till May next year, it isn't
exactly wasted as the surplus heat generated does help keep the place
warm;)....

--
Woody

harrogate3 at ntlworld dot com



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 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.

S.

Tuner memory
 

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.


JeeZZsus!.... You sure about that?.....


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 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.

S.

--
Tony Sayer

Tuner memory
 

Serge Auckland wrote:
tony sayer wrote:
In article , harrogate3
writes
"Laurence Payne" lpayne1NOSPAM@dslDOTpipexDOTcom wrote in message
...
On Sat, 19 Aug 2006 19:05:00 GMT, "harrogate3"
wrote:

I have now discovered that my Kenwood KT2060L tuner clearly has
only a
capacitor to back up the memory - it does not have a battery or use
E2PROM - so when the mains has been off for a day or less it
forgets.
I have been thinking of replacing it for some time, possibly with a
Denon TU260LII, but it would be no good if it suffers the same
problem.

Anyone know of any three-band RDS tuners that don't forget when the
mains has been off for a while? Philips tuners of yore always used
E2PROM, so I guess it may follow that Marantz do too.
Power economy is a factor. But isn't having a good-sounding tuner a
higher priority? If it must be left plugged in, so be it.

Therein lies a problem - the 2060L takes essentially the same power
whether on or off.

I have imposed the switching as the Sony MD recorder, Marantz CD
player, and (especially) the Rotel power amp were all permanently
powered and between them consuming about 60W 24/7 when in standby (or
on in the case of the PA.). I'm not a greenie, but with current fuel
price rises one has to stop and think some times.



Yep.. and I dead to think what the standby is on the office, workshop,
and domestic systems. Probably a tidy sum every year. Course in the
winter months, i.e. around now! 'thro till May next year, it isn't
exactly wasted as the surplus heat generated does help keep the place
warm;)....

--
Woody

harrogate3 at ntlworld dot com



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 remember reading it - quite staggering! 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.

Just a small point - is that 400W taken over 24 hours? I could
understand the figure if things like the fridge and freezer were active,
but it does seem very high, as does your annual figure - my total use
for the last quarter was 509 kWh, almost half your 'background'
consumption, and I consider myself an environmental thug (relatively).
You seem to be using 400W per hour background - that's just bonkers!


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.


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 ...

Rob

Tuner memory
 

Rob wrote:

Just a small point - is that 400W taken over 24 hours? I could
understand the figure if things like the fridge and freezer were active,
but it does seem very high, as does your annual figure - my total use
for the last quarter was 509 kWh, almost half your 'background'
consumption, and I consider myself an environmental thug (relatively).
You seem to be using 400W per hour background - that's just bonkers!

Watts per hour seems to be a singulary pointless measure.

Anyway, in a country which needs central heating for nine months of the year,
kit on standby merely means less gas, oil, coal or wood used to maintain the
same temperature.

--
Eiron

No good deed ever goes unpunished.

Tuner memory
 

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

--
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

Tuner memory
 

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. :-)

[snip]

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...

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

Tuner memory
 

On Sun, 20 Aug 2006 11:50:10 +0100, 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.


JeeZZsus!.... You sure about that?.....

More interesting would be the figure EXCLUDING 'fridge, freezer and
other essentials.

Tuner memory
 

On Sun, 20 Aug 2006 12:06:14 +0100, Rob
wrote:

I remember reading it - quite staggering! 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.

Just a small point - is that 400W taken over 24 hours? I could
understand the figure if things like the fridge and freezer were active,
but it does seem very high, as does your annual figure - my total use
for the last quarter was 509 kWh, almost half your 'background'
consumption, and I consider myself an environmental thug (relatively).
You seem to be using 400W per hour background - that's just bonkers!

"Watts per hour" isn't quite what you mean, I suspect :-)

Tuner memory
 

On Sun, 20 Aug 2006 12:15:00 +0100, Eiron wrote:

Anyway, in a country which needs central heating for nine months of the year,
kit on standby merely means less gas, oil, coal or wood used to maintain the
same temperature.

How is a heating system "on standby"? It's on or it's off.

Or are you referring to that old myth that it's cheaper to leave the
heating on when you aren't in the house?

Tuner memory
 

Jim Lesurf wrote:
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 anecdotal evidence I was referring to is the failure which occurs
when power is reapplied. The conventional wisdom in broadcast is to
leave everything permanently powered whether in use or not, as the
thinking is that stuff fails most commonly on power-up. I too have never
seen any real evidence to this effect, but it has become enshrined in
"custom and practice". It possibly descends from the days of valved
equipment when the thermal shock of power-up could take out heater
filaments. Large valves (especially transmitting valves) were left on
standby with the heaters at just below dark red and no HT to avoid the
thermal shock on switch-on.

S.

Tuner memory
 

Eiron wrote:
Rob wrote:

Just a small point - is that 400W taken over 24 hours? I could
understand the figure if things like the fridge and freezer were
active, but it does seem very high, as does your annual figure - my
total use for the last quarter was 509 kWh, almost half your
'background' consumption, and I consider myself an environmental thug
(relatively). You seem to be using 400W per hour background - that's
just bonkers!

Watts per hour seems to be a singulary pointless measure.


Why? I thought it's a pretty standard measure of electricity consumption.

Anyway, in a country which needs central heating for nine months of the
year,
kit on standby merely means less gas, oil, coal or wood used to maintain
the
same temperature.


The heating's usually on 6 hours a day for 6 months. I'm happy at 18C.

Rob

Tuner memory
 

Laurence Payne wrote:
On Sun, 20 Aug 2006 12:06:14 +0100, Rob
wrote:

I remember reading it - quite staggering! 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.

Just a small point - is that 400W taken over 24 hours? I could
understand the figure if things like the fridge and freezer were active,
but it does seem very high, as does your annual figure - my total use
for the last quarter was 509 kWh, almost half your 'background'
consumption, and I consider myself an environmental thug (relatively).
You seem to be using 400W per hour background - that's just bonkers!

"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 ...

Rob

Tuner memory
 

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.

Tuner memory
 

Laurence Payne wrote:

On Sun, 20 Aug 2006 12:15:00 +0100, Eiron wrote:


Anyway, in a country which needs central heating for nine months of the year,
kit on standby merely means less gas, oil, coal or wood used to maintain the
same temperature.


How is a heating system "on standby"? It's on or it's off.

Or are you referring to that old myth that it's cheaper to leave the
heating on when you aren't in the house?

Do keep up at the back. We're discussing all the electrical kit that could be
turned off or left on standby. Leave it on standby and the central heating
will be on for less time to maintain the same temperature. This of course
doesn't apply in summer, which this year in England was between late June
and the beginning of August.

--
Eiron

No good deed ever goes unpunished.

Tuner memory
 

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

Tuner memory
 

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

Tuner memory
 

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

Tuner memory
 

"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

Tuner memory
 

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 :-)

Tuner memory
 

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

Tuner memory
 

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.

Tuner memory
 

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

Tuner memory
 

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.

Tuner memory
 

"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

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.