|
|
freeview boxes - are most lousy ?
Anyway - the first was from Tesco, an Astratec in a Setanta sleeved
box, works *really* well, no missing channels that we're aware of. Why did you return this one? We didn't, we have 3 TVs dotted around the house :-} |
freeview boxes - are most lousy ?
The TV Licensing people must think we're a little strange... we've had
3 boxes in the last month alone... OK, we've now acquired a fourth (technically now only the third since one was refunded) - a cheap Technika from Tesco, and i've got to say, the EPG on it is probably the nicest i've seen yet ! |
freeview boxes - are most lousy ?
"Doctor D" wrote in message o.uk... Is this for a t-101 ? .. Yes. they promised an over the air update that's now over due. The thing is, they say the patch is ready but they dont pay for it to be broadcast... I think they are just trying to take the cheaper option. In reality both of my T-101 boxes have been in a drawer for months as they are virtually unusable to all but the most masochistic who enjoy searching for the required channel. An over the air update would be useless unless it was well publicized so I knew to have them plugged in and set up! I send them a mail about once a month and keep getting the reply that I can mail it back and get it updated.. I have 2 of them as well :P.. On Jan 12th they told me they had applied to get a slot to send the update and it would be a few weeks... That slot never did open I guess.. |
Musings On Price Vs Reliability (Was: Freeview boxes - are most lousy)
"Java Jive" wrote in message ... While granting that you said "price alone" rather than just "price", which makes me more inclined to agree with you, I suspect that paying over the odds on something is unlikely to get you better quality. When I first moved in here, I went round the stores looking for a washer(/dryer but I never use that functionality). I was told that Bosch had a name for build and reliability, so although it was significantly more expensive, I bought the Bosch (I'm sure there's a joke in there somewhere, but with the coffee cup still half full I'm not sufficiently awake yet to see it). Within a couple of years or so, just beyond the guarantee period of course, it started stopping in the middle of washes, though it could be restarted from the same point in the wash simply by turning it off for a few seconds and then on again. I called out a repairman who advised me to put up with it, as it would cost hundreds to fix it, so it's been driving me mad ever since. On occasions, it's taken about four resets and all day just to complete one wash. About 4 years ago Bosch moved most of their production of washing machines to eastern Europe Most of those were new cheaper models many of which didn't have countdown displays, where does it say yours was made? Steve Terry |
Musings On Price Vs Reliability (Was: Freeview boxes - are most lousy)
In article , Kay Robinson wrote:
The present [kettle] is a cordless energy saver one I've had for five years, you put water in, set the thermostat, then leave it on for the day only filling when necessary. The consumption used to keep the water just at the boil for five cups of tea is equal to boiling one cupful from cold. It's saved me money on my electric and time when I want a cuppa (except when it needs refilling). I think there is some false reasoning here. The energy required to boil five cups of water from cold is the same however it's done. I don't understand how you can be saving energy by expending the *additional* energy needed to keep it hot all day. Rod. -- Virtual Access V6.3 free usenet/email software from http://sourceforge.net/projects/virtual-access/ |
Musings On Price Vs Reliability (Was: Freeview boxes - are most lousy)
On Sat, 11 Jul 2009 10:19:28 +0100, Roderick Stewart
wrote: The present [kettle] is a cordless energy saver one I've had for five years, you put water in, set the thermostat, then leave it on for the day only filling when necessary. The consumption used to keep the water just at the boil for five cups of tea is equal to boiling one cupful from cold. It's saved me money on my electric and time when I want a cuppa (except when it needs refilling). I think there is some false reasoning here. The energy required to boil five cups of water from cold is the same however it's done. I don't understand how you can be saving energy by expending the *additional* energy needed to keep it hot all day. The answer is that you obviously can't save energy by doing this. She just has **** for brains if she thinks otherwise. |
Musings On Price Vs Reliability (Was: Freeview boxes - are most lousy) (LONG!)
Having plonked her some while ago for rudeness, I hadn't realised that
I'd had such an illogical reply. Of course, Rod, you're right ... In theory, ignoring for the moment practical considerations like energy loss in conversion from electricity to heat, as heat through the walls of the appliance, or as evaporation from the surface of the water *before* boiling - we will examine such things later ... The energy needed to boil a cup of water is a property of the water, not of the machinery/appliance used to boil it. 1) Easiest to understand, the amount, technically the mass rather than the volume, of the water. 2) The specific heat of water, which is the amount of energy required to raise 1 gram of water by 1 degree Centigrade. 3) The (specific) latent heat of vaporisation (boiling), which is the amount of energy required to convert 1 gram of water at boiling point, 100 Deg C, into steam at the same temperature. 4) The initial temperature of the water. Note that none of these descriptions mention the appliance at all. We are now in a position to conduct what Einstein would have called (IIRC) a 'gedanken' or thought experiment. In such a thought experiment, we can stipulate conditions of our choosing to eliminate real world complexities that would otherwise obscure the principles we are trying to understand. We shall consider three nearly identical kettles which we shall stipulate should be: 1) Perfect convertors of electrical energy into heat 2) Initially, perfect insulators, so no heat is lost through the walls of the kettles 3) Initially, closed off from the atmosphere in some way so that no evaporation can take place until boiling actually commences 3) Made of identical materials, etc The only differences that we shall allow with our kettles are that the first is as Kay has described, the second has a conventional 2kW element, the third a similarly conventional 3kW element, identical to the 2kW excepts as to rating. But we had better stipulate "as Kay has described" more exactly. As we don't want to waste any energy by continually having to refill her kettle through water being boiled away, we shall assume that Kay's kettle is like the 2kW differing only in a mechanism, as this is a thought experiment the practicalities or even practicability of the mechanism are not important, to maintain the water at 100 deg C *without* actually boiling it. We shall also stipulate that at hourly intervals five identical quantities, which we shall call 'cups', of water are boiled in each kettle, as follows: In Kay's kettle, the water for all five cups is added at the start of the experiment, brought to 100 deg C, and maintained without boiling at that temperature throughout the experiment, except when the kettle is being actually boiled to draw off a cup of water for use. For the other two kettles, each cup is added one at a time, brought to the boil, and completely poured off for use. Which is most efficient in terms of energy used to boil five cups of water? As the energy required to boil one cup of water is the same, regardless of appliance, straightaway we can comment that the two conventional kettles regardless of the 2kW and 3kW elements will use the same amount of energy to boil each cup, and therefore all five cups. At each boiling, the 3kW kettle will consume electrical energy at a faster *rate* (note rate, which implies a time factor) to boil the water quicker, while the 2kW will take longer, but the *overall* energy used by both will be identical. But what about Kay's kettle? Here, because of the way her kettle works, we need to break the process of boiling, treated as one process in the preceding paragraph, into two: 1) Bringing the water initially to 100 deg C *without* actually boiling it 2) The five seperate boilings to obtain each cup of water By similar reasoning as before, the amount of energy needed for (1) is the same for all three. That's the good news; the bad news is (2). If 'm' is the mass of each cup of water, and 'l' (small L) the latent heat of boiling, the conventional kettles perform this feat 5 times each, so the energy used is 5*l*m for each, but in Kay's kettle, the first boiling uses 5*l*m to boil all five cups just to pour off one, the second 4*l*m, the third 3*l*m, the fourth 2*l*m, and the fifth 1*l*m, so the total energy used in this part of the boiling process is (5 + 4 + 3 + 2 + 1)*l*m which is 15*l*m, or three times as much! And the more you try and economise by adding more cups at the start of the day, the worse it gets! So even without bringing the real world into play, it is clear that Kay is sadly mistaken, but let us now see what happens if we allow for the real world, particularly heat loss to the environment by conduction through the walls of the kettles, and by evaporation prior to boiling. The *rate* of heat loss (note a time element again) through the walls of the kettle will depend mainly on 1) The material that the kettles are made of, but we have conveniently stipulated that they are identical, to eliminate that as a variable. 2) The surface area of the water in contact with the sides of the kettle, which will unavoidably depend on the amount of water in each. For the sake of simplicity, we shall stipulate that this surface area is proportional to the amount of water, though the precise relationship is only important quantitatively, not qualitatively. That is to say, the precise numbers will not affect our conclusion. 3) The temperature difference, or 'heat gradient', between the inside and outside of the kettle. That is, the hotter the water inside the kettle, the greater the heat gradient, so the faster energy is lost through the walls of the kettle. The *rate* of energy loss (again a time element) by evaporation prior to boiling will depend mainly on: 1) Atmospheric conditions, but we can eliminate those as a variable by stipulating that they are the same for all three kettles and do not change throughout the experiment. 2) The surface area of water exposed to the air in each kettle, but we have conveniently stipulated that they are identical; in particular, we can further stipulate that the kettles are cylindrical with a constant cross-section against height, thereby also ensuring that the surface area doesn't vary with the quantity of water in the kettle. 3) The temperature of the water, so the higher the temperature of the water, the faster energy is lost through evaporation from the surface. So, we have now two mechanisms where the rate of energy loss is dependent on the temperature of the water in the kettle, one is also dependent on the amount of water in the kettle. Although the exact quantities lost might be difficult to determine, let us at least see qualitatively what happens now ... Kay's kettle is now even less efficient than the other two. Again let us consider the two phases seperately. During (1), the amount of heat lost through evaporation from the surface of the water must be of the same order of magnitude as one-fifth of the 2kW, for by doing all five cups at once, we are exposing only one fifth of the surface area for the same amount of water. However the situation is reversed with conduction through the walls, as we are exposing (we chose to stipulate), five times as much water surface area to the walls of the kettle. For the sake of simplicity let us assume that these factors approximately cancel out, and that phase (1) is comparable to the 2kW kettle. However, after the first boiling, indeed between all the boilings, the other two kettles are effectively inert. Although they may be cooling down to ambient temperature, that heat that they are then losing was gained from the water while it was boiling, and, the water having been poured off and used, in terms of the experiment's calculations the kettles lose heat during boiling but do not lose heat in between. On the hand, Kay's kettle, by maintaining the water at 100 deg C between boilings, will continue to lose energy by surface evaporation and conduction through the walls at the maximum possible rate that is possible without actually boiling the water! Further, by an argument similar to the latent heat of boiling, the surface area of water exposed to the walls of the kettle (as we stipulated) is initially five, then four, then three, then two, and finally (for the last hour of the experiment) one times that for the other two kettles, so the loss by conduction through the walls is far, far worse than the other two kettles! In short, if Kay was sold her kettle on economical or ecological grounds, and such advertising is still used for similar types of kettle, she should contact the Advertising Standards Authority! Which reminds me ... What of the other two kettles in the real world? Are they still equally efficient, or is one more efficient than the other? The answer is the 3kW kettle is the most efficient - because it boils the water quicker, it loses less heat to the environment while it does so. Therein we see the real significance of the time factor that I heavily emphasised. So ... Ah! I'm glad that someone's had a word in their shell-like: http://www.russellhobbs.co.uk/buyers_guide.html?guide=7 20/04/2007: "2Kw is energy saving as it uses less power to boil the kettle." Today: "Regardless of what you might think, a 3kW element uses no more energy than a lower wattage appliance" An improvement, but a pity they still haven't quite got it right! On Sat, 11 Jul 2009 10:19:28 +0100, Roderick Stewart wrote: In article , Kay Robinson wrote: The present [kettle] is a cordless energy saver one I've had for five years, you put water in, set the thermostat, then leave it on for the day only filling when necessary. The consumption used to keep the water just at the boil for five cups of tea is equal to boiling one cupful from cold. It's saved me money on my electric and time when I want a cuppa (except when it needs refilling). I think there is some false reasoning here. The energy required to boil five cups of water from cold is the same however it's done. I don't understand how you can be saving energy by expending the *additional* energy needed to keep it hot all day. ====================================== Please always reply to news group as the email address in this post's header does not exist. Alternatively, use one of the contact addresses at: http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/JavaJive.html http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/Macfarlane.html |
Musings On Price Vs Reliability (Was: Freeview boxes - are most lousy)
On Fri, 10 Jul 2009 12:07:27 +0100, Kay Robinson
wrote: On Sat, 20 Jun 2009 12:18:29 +0100, Java Jive sharpened a new quill and scratched: While granting that you said "price alone" rather than just "price", which makes me more inclined to agree with you, I suspect that paying over the odds on something is unlikely to get you better quality. When I first moved in here, I went round the stores looking for a washer(/dryer but I never use that functionality). I was told that Bosch had a name for build and reliability, so although it was significantly more expensive, I bought the Bosch (I'm sure there's a joke in there somewhere, but with the coffee cup still half full I'm not sufficiently awake yet to see it). Within a couple of years or so, just beyond the guarantee period of course, it started stopping in the middle of washes, though it could be restarted from the same point in the wash simply by turning it off for a few seconds and then on again. I called out a repairman who advised me to put up with it, as it would cost hundreds to fix it, so it's been driving me mad ever since. On occasions, it's taken about four resets and all day just to complete one wash. And, remember this? Let's all give a big hand to welcome back ... http://tinyurl.com/kkhy9n ... standing in for ... "TOT Conundrum - Kettles" http://groups.google.com/group/uk.te...2 a5b9d5794ce I eventually bought an "Eco friendly technology cordless kettle" (I've only just realised there doesn't appear to be a brand name as such), which seemed like a good idea at the time. It has two compartments. You fill the top one at the beginning of the day with enough water to last the day, and then for each boiling let down enough water at one go to make whatever it is that you're making. So far so good, BUT: If you actually have a little more water in the boiling compartment than is needed, as you tilt the kettle back upright after pouring, this remaining water comes back into contact with the element, instantly reboils and splutters out of the spout. I never did have my hand in the way, but it was very dangerous. I wouldn't have such a kettle in any house with children or infirm people. We more or less decided in the original thread that exposed elements were almost certainly more efficient than concealed elements, yet this had a concealed element. When, like everybody else in the world, you've been raised on the routine of filling a normal kettle and then switching it on, even after a year or so you're likely to forget occasionally that not only do you have to fill this kettle, but you also have to let some water down into the lower compartment before you can boil anything. There's a thermal cutout to protect the kettle, but this having been invoked recently may have something to do with the kettle stopping working not long afterwards. Presumably the element has burnt out. Which brings us to another disadvantage of concealed elements. You can't simply replace it when it dies. So, as the CO2 and other pollution involved in making and disposing of the kettle when 'written off' as an 'overhead' over it's tragically short life, is likely to be of the same order of magnitude as any energy saved during its use, I can't really say that it was really "eco friendly" at all. However, I can definitely say that it was dangerous. So to bring us back to price, I've been in the market for kettles again. There was a rather nice looking Mitsubishi (IIRC) in Curry's, which seemed quite well designed (compact jug design, so you can boil small quantities of water efficiently, and the build quality seemed reasonable, as far as one can judge that by looking and working the controls), but it was £40, and when I read the label more closely, that was half-price! So I didn't buy that, but a bog-standard Asda own brand for a little under £17. My reasoning was based on the following roughly remembered statistics: 1967 - 1988 Two RH 'Forgettles', the first automatic ones. (The second was necessary because the first was dropped and one of the feet was knocked off, leaving a hole in the bottom.) If you grabbed the handle too near the back, steam escaping through the switch mechanism would give you a slight burn, and they both needed a replacement element or two, and not a jug design, which I would now prefer for boiling small quantities of water. But, particularly these days, such a lifespan is impressive. 1988 - 1997 Morphy Richards. Cordless, jug, exposed element, early tendency to leak from the fill height indicator, which, for as long as I could obtain one, when it got too bad I periodically cured by replacing the O-ring at the bottom. When I try and use it now, I think the coffee is tainted, but I don't remember noticing this at the time. 1997 - 2007 RH Cordless, jug, concealed element. Gave up when it too started to leak. 2007 - 2009 'Eco' kettle, as described. So, there doesn't appear to be any relationship between price, eco-friendliness, and reliability, but there is a clear tendency to increasing unreliability throughout my lifetime, so I thought: "If even the brands with a reputable history are now as crap as everything else, why not buy the cheapest and cut your losses!". On Sat, 20 Jun 2009 08:43:11 +0100, "Peter Crosland" wrote: You forgot the golden rule. "He who shops on price alone seldom gets a genuine bargain". ====================================== Please always reply to news group as the email address in this post's header does not exist. Alternatively, use one of the contact addresses at: http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/JavaJive.html http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/Macfarlane.html I don't know where you buy your kettles. I've had only four throughout my life. The first one I replaced the element twice, the third time it went the kettle was so old a replacement couldn't be found after twenty years of service, the next developed a leak after a few years, the third I dropped. The present one is a cordless energy saver one I've had for five years, you put water in, set the thermostat, then leave it on for the day only filling when necessary. The consumption used to keep the water just at the boil for five cups of tea is equal to boiling one cupful from cold. It's saved me money on my electric and time when I want a cuppa (except when it needs refilling). Can you tell us what make and model it is please? |
Musings On Price Vs Reliability (Was: Freeview boxes - are most lousy)
You don't want to know, see my reply to Rod. She's either very much
mistaken or living in different laws of physics to the rest of us. On Sat, 11 Jul 2009 16:15:45 +0100, Peter Duncanson wrote: Can you tell us what make and model it is please? ====================================== Please always reply to news group as the email address in this post's header does not exist. Alternatively, use one of the contact addresses at: http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/JavaJive.html http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/Macfarlane.html |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:08 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HomeCinemaBanter.com