| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
|
The Norman Baker TV Standby Mode Challenge
Standby modes on consumer electronics are under attack again:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4620350.stm My problem with this is that I think a lot of the criticism is justified, but I get really annoyed by exaggerated claims which are endlessly lapped up by lazy journalists. Take this quote, for example, from Norman Baker, the Liberal Democrat's environment spokesman, advocating a "polluter pays" approach to the standby problem: "In the end, there has to be costs in the form of manufacturers paying something to recognize the damage they are causing. Some of these standby modes for televisions use two-thirds of the electricity that it would if it were on. I think some people think that standby is a tiny red dot that has no impact at all." He'll be telling us next that a TV on standby uses *more* power than it does when it's switched on. Actually that's a claim I've already seen made, and of course for some values of 'on time' versus 'standby time', it can actually be true! The question of instantaneous power versus overall power consumption just gets thrown into the mix without any comment or qualification. Anyhow, my challenge to you all is to find a TV with a standby mode as woefully inefficient as the one which so exercises Mr Baker's vast political intellect. Name and shame, that's what I say! |
The Norman Baker TV Standby Mode Challenge
"Pyriform" wrote:
Anyhow, my challenge to you all is to find a TV with a standby mode as woefully inefficient as the one which so exercises Mr Baker's vast political intellect. Name and shame, that's what I say! Dunno about TVs but how about this measurement: Goodmans GDB2 (DTT STB) - on: 36mA (8.6W), standby: 34mA (8.2W) -- Dave Farrance |
The Norman Baker TV Standby Mode Challenge
Playing devils advocate, can you point me at some official TV specs. (i.e.
off the Sony/Panasonic etc websites) that state how much power is used in standby mode? I've never spotted them given (unlike some PC monitor manufacturers). The set-top box words were interesting though. Bet a set top box does slow down the processor when "off", even though downloading an update can't be anything like as arduous as rendering real-time images. BTW, if you want to see a real power hog, look at the specs. for a Pentium-4 PC. It has a power save mode that can at best be described as "not quite as bad as the full speed mode but still a small room heater". Paul DS. |
The Norman Baker TV Standby Mode Challenge
"Paul D.Smith" wrote in message .. . Playing devils advocate, can you point me at some official TV specs. (i.e. off the Sony/Panasonic etc websites) that state how much power is used in standby mode? I've never spotted them given (unlike some PC monitor manufacturers). The Philips website lists them under "Specifications" for each set. Most sets appear to be 1W in standby. |
The Norman Baker TV Standby Mode Challenge
"Pyriform" wrote in message
... Standby modes on consumer electronics are under attack again: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4620350.stm This really does wind me up. Standby may use some power, but if you are going to have a go at people wasting electricity, why not ban excessive Christmas lights... This year has been by far the worst, with whole streets seemingly competing with each other to try and blow their local substation. Now that is a real waste. Perhaps I'm way off the mark here, but what happens to the "wasted" energy from TVs on standby? Presumably it is disipated as heat - contributing to the warming of the room - so the central heating can run that slight bit less....well in winter at least. The other thing to consider is whether a TV left on permanent standby is likely to last beyond one which was switched on and off daily. The effect of continual heating up and cooling down of soldered joints is well known. I was talking to someone the other day who was employed to preach the evils of the standby mode to the good people of Lancashire. She said that the next target was to actually get people to unplug TVs, computers and the like, because the power switch on the front is only a low voltage affair requiring part of the PSU to be powered up to monitor it... I should add, that I DO power-off my TVs at night. Adrian |
The Norman Baker TV Standby Mode Challenge
"Pyriform" wrote in message
... Standby modes on consumer electronics are under attack again: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4620350.stm My problem with this is that I think a lot of the criticism is justified, but I get really annoyed by exaggerated claims which are endlessly lapped up by lazy journalists. Take this quote, for example, from Norman Baker, the Liberal Democrat's environment spokesman, advocating a "polluter pays" approach to the standby problem: "In the end, there has to be costs in the form of manufacturers paying something to recognize the damage they are causing. Some of these standby modes for televisions use two-thirds of the electricity that it would if it were on. I think some people think that standby is a tiny red dot that has no impact at all." Lol, what a nice little technically illiterate world they inhabit, if only we just switched the TV off in the evening and planted a few windmills in the ground and covered our tiles a 80w solar panel then everything would be just fine... we could decommission 40% of our generating capacity and neglect to replace it with anything but the said windmills and everything would be happy clappy... don't you see? You must be stupid if you cannot get your head round simple logic like that! I don't seriously believe we will address this problem in a realistic fashion until the lights go out, only then will these foolish notions be cast aside in the cold light of day. |
The Norman Baker TV Standby Mode Challenge
"housetrained" wrote in
: Gizmo from Maplins. Fits between wall socket and plug, remote control, ON or OFF. Recorder & STB on separate socket. Bingo - all off when not in use. Quite useful as at the last count there are eleven standby items in one room alone. Saw one similar in one of these "offer" magazines that comes with the Sun or News of the World, but with the tv supposedly on the "control" socket so everything else switches off when the tv is switched off. Ideal I'm sure for video recorders, Sky+, PVRs, etc etc :-) Bet there will be people rushing out to buy it without thinking through the application properly! |
The Norman Baker TV Standby Mode Challenge
Dave Farrance wrote:
"Pyriform" wrote: Anyhow, my challenge to you all is to find a TV with a standby mode as woefully inefficient as the one which so exercises Mr Baker's vast political intellect. Name and shame, that's what I say! Dunno about TVs but how about this measurement: Goodmans GDB2 (DTT STB) - on: 36mA (8.6W), standby: 34mA (8.2W) Your entry fails the challenge on 2 counts: 1) It's not a TV. 2) Your calculations have neglected power factor. |
The Norman Baker TV Standby Mode Challenge
Dave Farrance wrote on Mon, 23 Jan 2006 16:10:54 GMT:
"Pyriform" wrote: Anyhow, my challenge to you all is to find a TV with a standby mode as woefully inefficient as the one which so exercises Mr Baker's vast political intellect. Name and shame, that's what I say! Dunno about TVs but how about this measurement: Goodmans GDB2 (DTT STB) - on: 36mA (8.6W), standby: 34mA (8.2W) It's a STB. If you put it into standby you just turn off the video output, the reciever is still powered up so it knows the time, etc. -- David Taylor |
The Norman Baker TV Standby Mode Challenge
Adrian B wrote:
Perhaps I'm way off the mark here, but what happens to the "wasted" energy from TVs on standby? Presumably it is disipated as heat - contributing to the warming of the room - so the central heating can run that slight bit less....well in winter at least. True, but I wouldn't defend it on that basis. Electricity is a rather expensive form of heating (and unwanted in summer, of course). The other thing to consider is whether a TV left on permanent standby is likely to last beyond one which was switched on and off daily. The effect of continual heating up and cooling down of soldered joints is well known. Standby modes don't really help you there. Unless they are of the Norman Baker type, the set will be cooling down anyway. Switching my CRT TV on from cold does involve a rather loud and scary invocation of the degaussing circuitry, however, and possibly doing this too often might have a detrimental effect. I was talking to someone the other day who was employed to preach the evils of the standby mode to the good people of Lancashire. She said that the next target was to actually get people to unplug TVs, computers and the like, because the power switch on the front is only a low voltage affair requiring part of the PSU to be powered up to monitor it... I wonder how much energy (food/fuel/computing/paper etc) she uses to tell people this? I did try to measure the 'pseudo-off' power consumption of my PC, but found it was less than my power meter is capable of registering. |
The Norman Baker TV Standby Mode Challenge
It's not as if someone is making you use an STB. Oh, they are...
|
The Norman Baker TV Standby Mode Challenge
On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 17:51:41 -0000, "Pyriform"
wrote: ... 2) Your calculations have neglected power factor. I don't think I've ever seen that specified for domestic equipment. Doesn't that make the whole challenge invalid? -- Alan White Twenty-eight miles NW of Glasgow, overlooking Loch Goil and Loch Long in Argyll, Scotland. Web cam and weather:- http://www.windycroft.gt-britain.co....her/kabcam.htm Some walks and treks:- http://www.windycroft.gt-britain.co.uk/walks/ |
The Norman Baker TV Standby Mode Challenge
In article , NewsWD wrote:
Gizmo from Maplins. Fits between wall socket and plug, remote control, ON or OFF. Recorder & STB on separate socket. Bingo - all off when not in use. Quite useful as at the last count there are eleven standby items in one room alone. Saw one similar in one of these "offer" magazines that comes with the Sun or News of the World, but with the tv supposedly on the "control" socket so everything else switches off when the tv is switched off. Ideal I'm sure for video recorders, Sky+, PVRs, etc etc :-) Bet there will be people rushing out to buy it without thinking through the application properly! Also seen in B&Q. I've bought several of these devices for computer systems, but found they are excellent for AV systems too. I have my audio amplifier powered through the "master" socket (because it is the only device that must always be powered whether I'm listening or viewing) and everything else that doesn't need to be powered all the time to make unattended recordings is powered through the other sockets. The switched equipment includes the TV set, which takes less than the rated 2 Amps, and I've had no problems with this. Rod. |
The Norman Baker TV Standby Mode Challenge
In article , Pyriform wrote:
He'll be telling us next that a TV on standby uses *more* power than it does when it's switched on. Actually that's a claim I've already seen made, and of course for some values of 'on time' versus 'standby time', it can actually be true! No it can't. Journalists, even some technical journalists, appear to be a bit confused about the difference between *power* and *energy*, and of course people who read them are not helped. The question of instantaneous power versus overall power consumption just gets thrown into the mix without any comment or qualification. What they're really trying to say is that the amount of *energy* consumed is related to the *power* consumption (which could equally well be called "energy rate") and the amount of time the equipment consumes energy at that rate. Depending on the ratios between working power and standby power, and between on time and standby time, it is possible for the ratio between working *energy* and standby *energy* to be anything you like, depending on the details of the particular circumstances. e.g. if you leave a typical device in standby for a year and switch it on for one minute, it will probably consume considerably more energy in standby than when working even if its standby power is less than its working power. Rod. |
The Norman Baker TV Standby Mode Challenge
Roderick Stewart wrote:
Pyriform wrote: He'll be telling us next that a TV on standby uses *more* power than it does when it's switched on. Actually that's a claim I've already seen made, and of course for some values of 'on time' versus 'standby time', it can actually be true! No it can't. Journalists, even some technical journalists, appear to be a bit confused about the difference between *power* and *energy*, and of course people who read them are not helped. The question of instantaneous power versus overall power consumption just gets thrown into the mix without any comment or qualification. What they're really trying to say is that the amount of *energy* consumed is related to the *power* consumption (which could equally well be called "energy rate") and the amount of time the equipment consumes energy at that rate. You're right, of course. I knew that, but ended up compounding the confusion by my sloppy wording. Do you think it would help if we measured the energy consumed in joules? Or perhaps calories? Everyone knows what they are... |
The Norman Baker TV Standby Mode Challenge
Alan White wrote:
On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 17:51:41 -0000, "Pyriform" wrote: ... 2) Your calculations have neglected power factor. I don't think I've ever seen that specified for domestic equipment. Doesn't that make the whole challenge invalid? I don't think he was using a published specification. I think he measured the current and calculated the (apparent) power from that. But only he can say for sure. |
The Norman Baker TV Standby Mode Challenge
"Pyriform" wrote:
Alan White wrote: On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 17:51:41 -0000, "Pyriform" wrote: ... 2) Your calculations have neglected power factor. I don't think I've ever seen that specified for domestic equipment. Doesn't that make the whole challenge invalid? I don't think he was using a published specification. I think he measured the current and calculated the (apparent) power from that. But only he can say for sure. Yes, that's right. Mind you, since the current changed very little between on and standby, the power factor was probably about the same, so the *ratio* between the powers was still valid. -- Dave Farrance |
The Norman Baker TV Standby Mode Challenge
Dave Farrance wrote:
I don't think he was using a published specification. I think he measured the current and calculated the (apparent) power from that. But only he can say for sure. Yes, that's right. Mind you, since the current changed very little between on and standby, the power factor was probably about the same, so the *ratio* between the powers was still valid. Agreed. |
The Norman Baker TV Standby Mode Challenge
The message
from "Pyriform" contains these words: ====snip==== I wonder how much energy (food/fuel/computing/paper etc) she uses to tell people this? I did try to measure the 'pseudo-off' power consumption of my PC, but found it was less than my power meter is capable of registering. FYI, this is typically 4 watts. I've observed "off" power consumption in the range 1 to 8 watts on PCs that _aren't_ faulty. -- Regards, John. To reply directly, please remove "buttplug" .Mail via the "Reply Direct" button and Spam-bots will be rejected. |
The Norman Baker TV Standby Mode Challenge
Johnny B Good wrote:
The message from "Pyriform" contains these words: ====snip==== I wonder how much energy (food/fuel/computing/paper etc) she uses to tell people this? I did try to measure the 'pseudo-off' power consumption of my PC, but found it was less than my power meter is capable of registering. FYI, this is typically 4 watts. I've observed "off" power consumption in the range 1 to 8 watts on PCs that _aren't_ faulty. Mine must be unusually efficient then! |
The Norman Baker TV Standby Mode Challenge
The message
from "Pyriform" contains these words: Johnny B Good wrote: The message from "Pyriform" contains these words: ====snip==== I wonder how much energy (food/fuel/computing/paper etc) she uses to tell people this? I did try to measure the 'pseudo-off' power consumption of my PC, but found it was less than my power meter is capable of registering. FYI, this is typically 4 watts. I've observed "off" power consumption in the range 1 to 8 watts on PCs that _aren't_ faulty. Mine must be unusually efficient then! Either that, or your 'power meter' is one of those that fails to register anything below 7 watts. :-) -- Regards, John. To reply directly, please remove "buttplug" .Mail via the "Reply Direct" button and Spam-bots will be rejected. |
The Norman Baker TV Standby Mode Challenge
The Philips website lists them under "Specifications" for each set.
Most sets appear to be 1W in standby. Thanks - that's useful information. Paul DS. |
The Norman Baker TV Standby Mode Challenge
In article , Pyriform wrote:
What they're really trying to say is that the amount of *energy* consumed is related to the *power* consumption (which could equally well be called "energy rate") and the amount of time the equipment consumes energy at that rate. You're right, of course. I knew that, but ended up compounding the confusion by my sloppy wording. Do you think it would help if we measured the energy consumed in joules? Or perhaps calories? Everyone knows what they are... We could. It would be perfectly valid, but the kilowatt-hour, or kWh, or "unit" seems to be the usual measure of electrical energy. It's the one that appears on our electricity bills, so I would expect everybody to know, at least in a practical sense, what they are. Rod. |
The Norman Baker TV Standby Mode Challenge
" wrote in message
ups.com... It's not as if someone is making you use an STB. Oh, they are... I hadn't thought of that. What a good point. Just about every DTT STB I have seen is without a power switch, so unless people are going to switch them off at the wall, that's a lot of STBs all sitting on standby - and an increasing number at that. Also, in most homes, I'm sure you'll find the STB, TV, Video/PVR and DVD all plugged into a 4-way adaptor and powered from one wall socket, and will therefore be left with power all the time for the benefit of the recorder. It seems to me that Sky+ users have the most energy efficient setup - one box which needs stand-by mode and the rest can be powered off. Until DTT PVRs with dual tuners become the norm rather than separate STBs all over the place. I'm still waiting for one with a DVD recorder to appear at a mass-market price. The key to all this is reducing the silver box-count, in addition to turning the telly off at night... Adrian |
The Norman Baker TV Standby Mode Challenge
Johnny B Good wrote:
I wonder how much energy (food/fuel/computing/paper etc) she uses to tell people this? I did try to measure the 'pseudo-off' power consumption of my PC, but found it was less than my power meter is capable of registering. FYI, this is typically 4 watts. I've observed "off" power consumption in the range 1 to 8 watts on PCs that _aren't_ faulty. Mine must be unusually efficient then! Either that, or your 'power meter' is one of those that fails to register anything below 7 watts. :-) Hardly likely, given that I routinely use it to measure standby powers of 1 or 2 watts. |
The Norman Baker TV Standby Mode Challenge
Roderick Stewart wrote:
In article , Pyriform wrote: What they're really trying to say is that the amount of *energy* consumed is related to the *power* consumption (which could equally well be called "energy rate") and the amount of time the equipment consumes energy at that rate. You're right, of course. I knew that, but ended up compounding the confusion by my sloppy wording. Do you think it would help if we measured the energy consumed in joules? Or perhaps calories? Everyone knows what they are... We could. It would be perfectly valid, but the kilowatt-hour, or kWh, or "unit" seems to be the usual measure of electrical energy. It's the one that appears on our electricity bills, so I would expect everybody to know, at least in a practical sense, what they are. A kWh is 1000 joules isn't it, or is it 3600000 joules, I suspect it's the second actually. 1 joule = 1 watt for a second. Thus 1kwh is 1000 * 3600 joules. So, essentially, kwh are joules with a different name. 1kwh = 3.6Mj -- Chris Green |
The Norman Baker TV Standby Mode Challenge
|
The Norman Baker TV Standby Mode Challenge
|
The Norman Baker TV Standby Mode Challenge
In article [email protected], Adrian B wrote:
Just about every DTT STB I have seen is without a power switch, so unless people are going to switch them off at the wall, that's a lot of STBs all sitting on standby - and an increasing number at that. Wouldn't a tuner need to be in standby anyway for the timer to work? Also, in most homes, I'm sure you'll find the STB, TV, Video/PVR and DVD all plugged into a 4-way adaptor and powered from one wall socket, and will therefore be left with power all the time for the benefit of the recorder. All the more reason to get an "Intelligent Mains Extension Lead" from Maplins. The catalogue number is L22BK, and it costs 29.99GBP. The one showing on their web site is slightly different from the ones I have (which only cost 24.99), as it now includes a telephone and modem splitter, though I've also seen them in DIY shops so you may be able to get the cheaper ones too. Rod. |
The Norman Baker TV Standby Mode Challenge
In article , wrote:
A kWh is 1000 joules isn't it, or is it 3600000 joules, I suspect it's the second actually. 1 joule = 1 watt for a second. Thus 1kwh is 1000 * 3600 joules. So, essentially, kwh are joules with a different name. 1kwh = 3.6Mj They're different units for the same thing, so both perfectly valid. However, a Joule is a Watt-second, which is rather a small quantity of energy when considering household electricity bills, so the kilowatt-hour is the one in common use for this purpose. We *could* buy our petrol in millilitres, but generally we don't because the numbers would be silly. Rod. |
The Norman Baker TV Standby Mode Challenge
Chris Howells wrote:
wrote: 1 joule = 1 watt for a second. 1 Watt is one joule per second, e.g. 1W = 1J/S. Not 1J = 1W/S as you suggest. Sorry, yes, a Joule is a Watt Second (that is Watts x Seconds), my sums were right though. -- Chris Green |
The Norman Baker TV Standby Mode Challenge
"Roderick Stewart" wrote in message
om... Wouldn't a tuner need to be in standby anyway for the timer to work? Of course. I'm amazed that shops in this country are *still* selling VHS, DVD and PVR recorders without a DTT receiver built in. It's madness really, because when the analogue signal gets switched off, there's going to be a huge number of people for whom setting matching timers on the recorder and on the STB will be too complicated. The long-term answer to all this is to have a recorder with twin DTT tuners built in. Then it will be the only thing which needs to be left on standby. As long as that standby mode is well designed, power use should be minimal. All the more reason to get an "Intelligent Mains Extension Lead" from Maplins. The catalogue number is L22BK, and it costs 29.99GBP. The one showing on their web site is slightly different from the ones I have (which only cost 24.99), as it now includes a telephone and modem splitter, though I've also seen them in DIY shops so you may be able to get the cheaper ones too. fair enough, but as you say, the STB and recorder would have to be powered separately - unless the "inteligent" gizmo can detect the difference between standby and full-on modes - then a timer recording on the recorder would power-up the STB. This is all very nice fur us technically minded people, but far too complicated for many to want to bother with. They are likely to ask the question "how long can I leave all my stuff on standby for £30 ?" Adrian |
The Norman Baker TV Standby Mode Challenge
On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 15:39:21 -0000, Pyriform wrote:
Standby modes on consumer electronics are under attack again: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4620350.stm My problem with this is that I think a lot of the criticism is justified, but I get really annoyed by exaggerated claims which are endlessly lapped up by lazy journalists. Take this quote, for example, from Norman Baker, the Liberal Democrat's environment spokesman, advocating a "polluter pays" approach to the standby problem: "In the end, there has to be costs in the form of manufacturers paying something to recognize the damage they are causing. Some of these standby modes for televisions use two-thirds of the electricity that it would if it were on. I think some people think that standby is a tiny red dot that has no impact at all." He'll be telling us next that a TV on standby uses *more* power than it does when it's switched on. Actually that's a claim I've already seen made, and of course for some values of 'on time' versus 'standby time', it can actually be true! The question of instantaneous power versus overall power consumption just gets thrown into the mix without any comment or qualification. Anyhow, my challenge to you all is to find a TV with a standby mode as woefully inefficient as the one which so exercises Mr Baker's vast political intellect. Name and shame, that's what I say! Where can I buy a cheap mains socket adapter to measure the power ? |
The Norman Baker TV Standby Mode Challenge
In article [email protected],
Adrian B wrote: Of course. I'm amazed that shops in this country are *still* selling VHS, DVD and PVR recorders without a DTT receiver built in. It's madness really, because when the analogue signal gets switched off, there's going to be a huge number of people for whom setting matching timers on the recorder and on the STB will be too complicated. And so the shops will sell them another box. Are you still amazed? NB Everyone will blame the government and praise the manufacturers and shops for coping with the demand. ;-( -- John Cartmell [email protected] followed by finnybank.com 0845 006 8822 Qercus magazine FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 www.finnybank.com Qercus - the best guide to RISC OS computing |
The Norman Baker TV Standby Mode Challenge
Roderick Stewart wrote:
In article , Pyriform wrote: He'll be telling us next that a TV on standby uses *more* power than it does when it's switched on. Actually that's a claim I've already seen made, and of course for some values of 'on time' versus 'standby time', it can actually be true! No it can't. Journalists, even some technical journalists, appear to be a bit confused about the difference between *power* and *energy*, and of course people who read them are not helped. If you look up "energy" in the dictionary, you'll find that the first definition often refers to fuels like coal, gas, and oil. There's often a difference between the common-usage of a term and its technical-usage, but that doesn't necessarily mean that either are "wrong". -- Dave Farrance |
The Norman Baker TV Standby Mode Challenge
In article [email protected], Adrian B wrote:
fair enough, but as you say, the STB and recorder would have to be powered separately - unless the "inteligent" gizmo can detect the difference between standby and full-on modes - then a timer recording on the recorder would power-up the STB. This is all very nice fur us technically minded people, but far too complicated for many to want to bother with. Agreed, but these items would need to be left in standby anyway. The "intelligent" mains splitter can remove from the equation such things as the TV set, the auto SCART switch box, the hi-fi tuner, the CD player, the tape player and probably your VHS machine too because you won't still be using that for recordings will you? By using a normal mains splitter as well as the "intelligent" one, you arrange switched and unswitched mains supplies to your hi-fi/TV equipment and plug as appropriate. In my case the "master" unit that controls the switched supply is the audio amplifier because that is needed whether I'm listening or viewing. It doesn't save everything, but because the auxiliary mains outlets are switched by physical relay contacts (I can hear them), it minimises the number of things that are connected to the mains when the system is switched off, which is cheaper and safer. Rod. |
The Norman Baker TV Standby Mode Challenge
In article , Dave Farrance wrote:
He'll be telling us next that a TV on standby uses *more* power than it does when it's switched on. Actually that's a claim I've already seen made, and of course for some values of 'on time' versus 'standby time', it can actually be true! No it can't. Journalists, even some technical journalists, appear to be a bit confused about the difference between *power* and *energy*, and of course people who read them are not helped. If you look up "energy" in the dictionary, you'll find that the first definition often refers to fuels like coal, gas, and oil. There's often a difference between the common-usage of a term and its technical-usage, but that doesn't necessarily mean that either are "wrong". It's wrong if it has a technical meaning and you use it wrongly about a piece of technical equipment, because in that situation the technical meaning would be the expected one. That's if there really are two meanings of course. How many meanings can there be for "energy" and "power"? The former is a measure of the *amount* of work done, and the latter is a measure of the *rate* at which it is done, the two units being related in the same way as distance and speed. To use these terms with any other meanings would only confuse, which is why the correct meanings are the correct ones. Rod. |
The Norman Baker TV Standby Mode Challenge
In article , Doz wrote:
Where can I buy a cheap mains socket adapter to measure the power ? Maplins. Rod. |
The Norman Baker TV Standby Mode Challenge
"John Cartmell" wrote in message
... In article [email protected], And so the shops will sell them another box. Are you still amazed? Not amazed that the shops are taking advantage of the situation. Just amazed that the government is stupid enough to let it happen. Adrian |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:15 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HomeCinemaBanter.com