|
|
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... Anyway - the first was from Tesco, an Astratec in a Setanta sleeved box, works *really* well, no missing channels that we're aware of. Lots of handy stuff on the handset like an "info" button that tells you about the programme. Neither of the others are comparable for features ! The second - cheapest in store at Argos - crap EPG, channels missing all over the show (ITV / C4 and all variants). None of the niceties of the Tesco one, just a crap interface all round. I'll be trying to take this back tomorrow, despite their receipt saying it's exempt from the normal 30 day exchange policy... Argos, meet Mr SOGA and his friend "Fit For Purpose", with "Credit Card Chargeback" on quickdial. Last but not least, a "new" sealed box unit today by Thomson from Martin Dawes. The boxes looked new, they were sealed, foam wrap around the main unit, but the handset must have literally been chewed by a dog - one corner was *completely* missing / chewed off. Got a refund on it, but the shop staff claimed they were all new stock. Well f*ck me, but their quality control is slipping, and they must allow pets to work where they're manufactured ! Sadly, the only obviously decent one from Tesco is now out of stock in at least two different stores - has anyone else had similar experiences with these things ? |
freeview boxes - are most lousy ?
Sadly, the only obviously decent one from Tesco is now out of stock in at least two different stores - has anyone else had similar experiences with these things ? I was still fighting Echostar until this morning over their split NIT problems. Then rec'd this: "Good Afternoon We are working on having an over the air update some time in the not too distant future. In view of the long period of inconvenience, we would like to offer you an option to send your boxes here, where we will update them, and then return to you. I would suggest that you should send your box to arrive here either a Monday or Tuesday so that we can have it updated and send back to you before the following weekend. The approximate cost of shipping the box here is around £2.65 (no leads or remotes necessary just the box itself) Unfortunately we don't have a specific date for the download but would like to apologise and thank you for your patience Please make sure you include your return address when sending the box." This is a definite move in the right direction! I recently bought a box from CPC when ordering some other stuff (MET2 FTA-T2624 = £17.82 inc VAT.) The kids have it in their lounge and it appears to be fine although it has an external PSU in case that's a problem. It's dearer at Amazon http://www.amazon.co.uk/Freeview-Rec.../dp/B001NPIIPA |
freeview boxes - are most lousy ?
"Colin Wilson" o.uk wrote in message ... The TV Licensing people must think we're a little strange... we've had 3 boxes in the last month alone... Anyway - the first was from Tesco, an Astratec in a Setanta sleeved box, works *really* well, no missing channels that we're aware of. Lots of handy stuff on the handset like an "info" button that tells you about the programme. Neither of the others are comparable for features ! The second - cheapest in store at Argos - crap EPG, channels missing all over the show (ITV / C4 and all variants). None of the niceties of the Tesco one, just a crap interface all round. I'll be trying to take this back tomorrow, despite their receipt saying it's exempt from the normal 30 day exchange policy... Argos, meet Mr SOGA and his friend "Fit For Purpose", with "Credit Card Chargeback" on quickdial. Last but not least, a "new" sealed box unit today by Thomson from Martin Dawes. The boxes looked new, they were sealed, foam wrap around the main unit, but the handset must have literally been chewed by a dog - one corner was *completely* missing / chewed off. Got a refund on it, but the shop staff claimed they were all new stock. Well f*ck me, but their quality control is slipping, and they must allow pets to work where they're manufactured ! Sadly, the only obviously decent one from Tesco is now out of stock in at least two different stores - has anyone else had similar experiences with these things ? the last example reminds me of a DVD player a friend purchased. Like yours it was all sealed, as new, from a high street shop. When opened, the handset had the batteries installed AND there was a DVD in the player. |
freeview boxes - are most lousy ?
In article ,
Colin Wilson o.uk writes snip It's certainly a bit of a minefield. I got a Daewoo DS608 some years ago which had to be thrown out when something in the digital transmission changed and broke it. Daewoo won't produce a fix. When it was working it was ok. It had an UHF-out so I could use it with an old portable with no SCART. Now I use an el-cheapo Pacific something-or-other in the bedroom which despite only having Now'n'Next EPG is pretty good. It's quick, the remote is well laid out, it just works and the pic is very good. In the other room I have an Inverto 7000 PVR which is rather quirky but I like it. Again, something in the digital transmissions has recently changed so it doesn't work as it should and there's little prospect of a firmware update to fix it as the firm appears to have given up on UK support. I also have a Daewoo DVD recorder which my parents gave me after trying to get it to work and giving up in frustration. Never tried the DVD recorder bit but the built-in Freeview box is very good, and it has progressive-out which is well worth watching DVDs with. What you have to realise is that a lot of these boxes don't adhere strictly to the DTV guidelines so they break when the TV companies change things. Of course, they should be easily fixable with an update, but... Either get a cheapy that works well (like the one you got from Tesco) and regard it as disposable, or spend on a brand name that has some hope of support down the line. Personally, I don't think it is worth spending a lot on them. With attempts to squeeze an HDTV channel into Freeview, I expect there will be further changes that will break things in new and interesting ways. -- (\__/) (='.'=) Bunny says Windows 7 is Vi$ta reloaded. (")_(") http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/windows_7.png |
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... Anyway - the first was from Tesco, an Astratec in a Setanta sleeved box, works *really* well, no missing channels that we're aware of. Lots of handy stuff on the handset like an "info" button that tells you about the programme. Neither of the others are comparable for features ! The second - cheapest in store at Argos - crap EPG, channels missing all over the show (ITV / C4 and all variants). None of the niceties of the Tesco one, just a crap interface all round. I'll be trying to take this back tomorrow, despite their receipt saying it's exempt from the normal 30 day exchange policy... Argos, meet Mr SOGA and his friend "Fit For Purpose", with "Credit Card Chargeback" on quickdial. Last but not least, a "new" sealed box unit today by Thomson from Martin Dawes. The boxes looked new, they were sealed, foam wrap around the main unit, but the handset must have literally been chewed by a dog - one corner was *completely* missing / chewed off. Got a refund on it, but the shop staff claimed they were all new stock. Well f*ck me, but their quality control is slipping, and they must allow pets to work where they're manufactured ! Sadly, the only obviously decent one from Tesco is now out of stock in at least two different stores - has anyone else had similar experiences with these things ? You forgot the golden rule. "He who shops on price alone seldom gets a genuine bargain". Peter Crosland |
freeview boxes - are most lousy ?
In message ,
Colin Wilson o.uk writes The TV Licensing people must think we're a little strange... we've had 3 boxes in the last month alone... Anyway - the first was from Tesco, an Astratec in a Setanta sleeved box, works *really* well, no missing channels that we're aware of. Lots of handy stuff on the handset like an "info" button that tells you about the programme. Neither of the others are comparable for features ! Why did you return this one? -- Ian |
Musings On Price Vs Reliability (Was: Freeview boxes - are most lousy)
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 |
freeview boxes - are most lousy ?
"Doctor D" wrote in message o.uk... Sadly, the only obviously decent one from Tesco is now out of stock in at least two different stores - has anyone else had similar experiences with these things ? I was still fighting Echostar until this morning over their split NIT problems. Then rec'd this: "Good Afternoon We are working on having an over the air update some time in the not too distant future. In view of the long period of inconvenience, we would like to offer you an option to send your boxes here, where we will update them, and then return to you. I would suggest that you should send your box to arrive here either a Monday or Tuesday so that we can have it updated and send back to you before the following weekend. The approximate cost of shipping the box here is around £2.65 (no leads or remotes necessary just the box itself) Unfortunately we don't have a specific date for the download but would like to apologise and thank you for your patience Please make sure you include your return address when sending the box." This is a definite move in the right direction! I recently bought a box from CPC when ordering some other stuff (MET2 FTA-T2624 = £17.82 inc VAT.) The kids have it in their lounge and it appears to be fine although it has an external PSU in case that's a problem. It's dearer at Amazon http://www.amazon.co.uk/Freeview-Rec.../dp/B001NPIIPA Is this for a t-101 ? .. 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. |
freeview boxes - are most lousy ?
Tom E wrote:
"Colin Wilson" o.uk wrote in message ... The TV Licensing people must think we're a little strange... we've had 3 boxes in the last month alone... Anyway - the first was from Tesco, an Astratec in a Setanta sleeved box, works *really* well, no missing channels that we're aware of. Lots of handy stuff on the handset like an "info" button that tells you about the programme. Neither of the others are comparable for features ! The second - cheapest in store at Argos - crap EPG, channels missing all over the show (ITV / C4 and all variants). None of the niceties of the Tesco one, just a crap interface all round. I'll be trying to take this back tomorrow, despite their receipt saying it's exempt from the normal 30 day exchange policy... Argos, meet Mr SOGA and his friend "Fit For Purpose", with "Credit Card Chargeback" on quickdial. Last but not least, a "new" sealed box unit today by Thomson from Martin Dawes. The boxes looked new, they were sealed, foam wrap around the main unit, but the handset must have literally been chewed by a dog - one corner was *completely* missing / chewed off. Got a refund on it, but the shop staff claimed they were all new stock. Well f*ck me, but their quality control is slipping, and they must allow pets to work where they're manufactured ! Sadly, the only obviously decent one from Tesco is now out of stock in at least two different stores - has anyone else had similar experiences with these things ? the last example reminds me of a DVD player a friend purchased. Like yours it was all sealed, as new, from a high street shop. When opened, the handset had the batteries installed AND there was a DVD in the player. There are companies that specialise in reboxing returns etc to make them appear "as new" - even down to being able to spray things with a "new equipment" scent! -- Cheers, John. /================================================== ===============\ | Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk | |-----------------------------------------------------------------| | John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk | \================================================= ================/ |
freeview boxes - are most lousy ?
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! |
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 |
Musings On Price Vs Reliability (Was: Freeview boxes - are most lousy)
On Sat, 11 Jul 2009 16:30:22 +0100, Java Jive wrote:
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. I've been Googling for details of energy-saving and "eco" kettles to see if there is anything that fits the description that Kay gave. The nearest is the Philips HD4686 Energy Saver: http://www.p4c.philips.com/files/h/h...92_pss_eng.pdf It has a temperature control - 40, 60, 80 or 100°C. It also has a "keep warm" button to maintain the temperature. http://stuff.tv/review/Philips-HD4686-Energy-Saver/ That review says "there's a 'keep warm' button that maintains your chosen temperature, while you juggle cups and teabags". I would be amazed if the "keep warm" button was intended to maintain the temperature of the water all day long. That just wouldn't make sense. I assume the kettle is called an "energy saver" because of the ability to chose the temperature to which you want the water heated, rather than bringing it to boiling point every time. Other approaches to energy saving are at: http://www.uk-energy-saving.com/eco-...ng-kettle.html and http://www.uk-energy-saving.com/ener...rgy-sense.html Those both offer accurate measurement of the amount of water to be heated. This avoids energy being wasted in heating water that does not need to be heated. 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 |
Musings On Price Vs Reliability (Was: Freeview boxes - are most lousy)
On Sat, 11 Jul 2009 17:23:58 +0100, Peter Duncanson
wrote: The nearest is the Philips HD4686 Energy Saver: http://www.p4c.philips.com/files/h/h...92_pss_eng.pdf Useful for someone doing a lot of cooking with sauces, etc, perhaps, but could hardly be seriously described as energy saving in any other situation. Other approaches to energy saving are at: http://www.uk-energy-saving.com/eco-...ng-kettle.html That's the one that was the subject of my original diatribe, the dangerous one that only lasted two years, and, simply because of that, could hardly be described as eco-friendly at all. *Any* eco-friendly device needs to be built to last so that the environmental 'overhead' of producing it and disposing of it at the end of its useful life is spread over as many years of use as possible. http://www.uk-energy-saving.com/ener...rgy-sense.html Looks ok. I seriously wonder though whether any concealed element kettle is truly eco-friendly. We concluded in the original thread of April 2007 that exposed elements were almost certainly more efficient, and they have the useful advantage of being replaceable, thus extending the kettle's useful life. Those both offer accurate measurement of the amount of water to be heated. This avoids energy being wasted in heating water that does not need to be heated. Yes, that's an important point, and is why for most situations a jug design which can boil as little as a single cup is almost certainly going to be better than other designs. ====================================== 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)
In article ,
Java Jive wrote: I seriously wonder though whether any concealed element kettle is truly eco-friendly. We concluded in the original thread of April 2007 that exposed elements were almost certainly more efficient, and they have the useful advantage of being replaceable, thus extending the kettle's useful life. There is no inherant reason why a concealed element can't be replaced. indeed, it should be an easier job since you shouldn't need to worry about a water tight seal. It's just that, nowadays, spare parts for 'cheap' appliances are not available as the cost of getting the job done by someone who has to be paid would mean it was cheaper to buy a whole new unit. -- From KT24 Using a RISC OS computer running v5.11 |
Musings On Price Vs Reliability (Was: Freeview boxes - are mostlousy)
Java Jive wrote:
I seriously wonder though whether any concealed element kettle is truly eco-friendly. We concluded in the original thread of April 2007 that exposed elements were almost certainly more efficient, and they have the useful advantage of being replaceable, thus extending the kettle's useful life. I beg to differ. An exposed element kettle has a minimum water depth sufficient to cover the element. A concealed element has a minimum depth sufficient to cover the bottom - which is a trivial amount. If you are making a cup of tea I think you'll need more than a cup's worth of water to cover the exposed element. In this case you are heating water that you don't need. BTW my concealed-element one appears to be self de-scaling. Bits fall off every so often, and it never builds up to any extent. Andy |
Musings On Price Vs Reliability (Was: Freeview boxes - are most lousy)
On Sat, 11 Jul 2009 22:05:48 +0100, Andy Champ
wrote: A concealed element has a minimum depth sufficient to cover the bottom - which is a trivial amount. I think though, if you read the actual instructions for most, perhaps all, concealed element kettles, the minimum amount is more than this. If you are making a cup of tea I think you'll need more than a cup's worth of water to cover the exposed element. In this case you are heating water that you don't need. Shouldn't do, if it's well enough designed, though of course not all are, or perhaps I should say 'were' seeing they've all but vanished now. ====================================== 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)
In article ,
Kay Robinson wrote: On Sat, 11 Jul 2009 10:19:28 +0100, Roderick Stewart sharpened a new quill and scratched: 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. I take it then that you believe switching an immersion heater on only when you need hot water is the way to go? Thermastatic controls have moved on since WWII. It may take 1000w to heat a kettle up from cold, to keep it hot may only take 1w per hour. That depends entirely on how well insulated the container is. Water tanks tend to have considerably more insulation than kettles. And you still don't understand energy units. You can use any number of watts to heat up water from cold - the question is how long for. 1kW for 10 minutes or 3kW for 3 minutes? The unit is kilowatt hours not kilowatt per hour. Kay -- From KT24 Using a RISC OS computer running v5.11 |
Musings On Price Vs Reliability (Was: Freeview boxes - are most lousy)
"Kay Robinson" wrote in message ... On Sat, 11 Jul 2009 10:19:28 +0100, Roderick Stewart sharpened a new quill and I take it then that you believe switching an immersion heater on only when you need hot water is the way to go? Thermastatic controls have moved on since WWII. It may take 1000w to heat a kettle up from cold, to keep it hot may only take 1w per hour. Kay Look Kay, you really are out of your depth here. This isn't the sort of woolly issue where people like you can spout unsubstantiated drivel, and wacky theories abound, it's a scientific question which can be settled by the application of some simple straightforward physical principles. These guys on here know their stuff. They have been trained to use scientific method. An example of your woolly thought and lack of knowledge is the expression 'may only take 1w per hour' which you use above. Firstly it's 'W', not 'w'. Secondly '1W per hour' is meaningless. You could say '1W for an hour' -- that's 1 Watt of energy expended for an hour -- but not '1W per hour' Struggling with the distinction? I thought so. Thirdly, and most important, you've just made that figure up. It's a totally spurious statistic. That behaviour might be acceptable amongst you wooly thinkers, but it certainly ain't science! This sort of muddled thinking is prevalent amonst certain types of people and it explains a lot of barmy stuff -- shen fui, astrology, gold plated speaker leads, etc. Bill |
Musings On Price Vs Reliability (Was: Freeview boxes - are most lousy)
On Sun, 12 Jul 2009 18:58:49 +0100, Kay Robinson
wrote: On Sat, 11 Jul 2009 10:19:28 +0100, Roderick Stewart sharpened a new quill and scratched: 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. I take it then that you believe switching an immersion heater on only when you need hot water is the way to go? Thermastatic controls have moved on since WWII. It may take 1000w to heat a kettle up from cold, to keep it hot may only take 1w per hour. What matters is not the development of thermostatic controls but the prevention of the loss of heat from the water. The immersion heater in my hot water cylinder is on for a couple of hours before I get up in the morning. It is not on again until the evening. During the morning and afternoon the water is kept hot by the substantial insulation on the cylinder. There is no need for top-ups from the immersion heater unless I use a lot of hot water during the day. |
Musings On Price Vs Reliability (Was: Freeview boxes - are most lousy)
In article , Kay Robinson wrote:
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. I take it then that you believe switching an immersion heater on only when you need hot water is the way to go? Yes. That's what a combi boiler does. It doesn't waste energy keeping a tank of water hot when nobody's using it. Thermastatic controls have moved on since WWII. It may take 1000w to heat a kettle up from cold, to keep it hot may only take 1w per hour. That's right. It takes 1000W for a few minutes to boil a kettle. But to boil a kettle and then keep it hot all day takes 1000W for a few minutes *plus* whatever it takes to make up for thermal losses throughout the day. Even if the extra is only a small amount, it's still more than just boiling the kettle. 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 Mon, 13 Jul 2009 12:06:02 +0100, brightside S9
wrote: pedant mode There is much confusion about energy and power and the Watt. There has been an ongoing discussion in The Times about the inability of their writers to understand the difference, (The Times and science again). The unit of ENERGY is the Joule. (SI symbol J). The unit of POWER is the Watt. (SI symbol W). One unit of power is one unit of energy divided by one unit of time (the second, SI symbol s). Hence power W = J/s, or the *rate of use* of energy. The *amount of energy* used (as recorded by your leccy meter for example) is Kilowatt hours. This is the units of watts multiplied by the units of time, or (J/t)*t i.e. Joules. It's perhaps a more convenient unit for electricity bills than Joules, but it's probably used mainly for historical reasons. I'm not sure what other countries do. 1 Kilowatt Hour = 3,600,000 Joules An example:- You have a 3kW immersion heater. This means that it is *power* rated at 3kW. This is the rate at which the heater *uses* energy, i.e J/s. If you have an old fashioned leccy meter this is indicated by the 'speed' of rotation (angular velocity) of the disk, or on a newer leccy meter, the *rate* at which the led flashes. The faster the disk turns, the more power is being *supplied*. The amount of energy *used* is recorded on the leccy meter as kWh. This is the number of revolutions of the disk or flashes of the led to add one kWh to the meter reading. Look at your leccy meter, it will tell you how many revolutions or flashes it takes to record 1kWh of energy used. Leave your 3kW immersion heater on for one hour and the *energy* used (3000W/3600s)*3600s = 3000J or expressed on your leccy bill as 3kWh. So 1kWh = 1000J = one thousand SI units of energy. A slip there ... The correct calculation = 3*1000*60*60 = 10,800,000 Joules, or, more conveniently, 10.8MJ! So kettles, like immersion heaters, use energy to heat the water. Energy is Joules and is not time dependant. i.e it matters not how fast the kettle comes to the boil, nor how much water there is in it, (assuming no heat loss by radiation from the kettle) the same amount of energy is used to bring the volume of water in the kettle to the boil, whether it takes one minute or one hour or whatever time interval is chosen. It should now be obvious that to keep a kettle of water at a given temperature, given that it is impossible to stop heat loss by radiation from the kettle, it will take energy to achieve the maintenance of the required water temperature. Exactly, but I suspect you're wasting your time :-) /pedant mode Shed salesmen and domestic appliance manufacturers either don't know the facts, or try to confuse you with power and energy. They will say anything to flog the stuff. So Kay, you've been conned by whoever flogged you the kettle. ====================================== 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)
"Kay Robinson" wrote in message ... On Sun, 12 Jul 2009 19:34:29 +0100, "Bill Wright" sharpened a new quill and scratched: "Kay Robinson" wrote in message ... On Sat, 11 Jul 2009 10:19:28 +0100, Roderick Stewart sharpened a new quill and I take it then that you believe switching an immersion heater on only when you need hot water is the way to go? Thermastatic controls have moved on since WWII. It may take 1000w to heat a kettle up from cold, to keep it hot may only take 1w per hour. Kay Look Kay, you really are out of your depth here. This isn't the sort of woolly issue where people like you can spout unsubstantiated drivel, and wacky theories abound, it's a scientific question which can be settled by the application of some simple straightforward physical principles. These guys on here know their stuff. They have been trained to use scientific method. An example of your woolly thought and lack of knowledge is the expression 'may only take 1w per hour' which you use above. Firstly it's 'W', not 'w'. Secondly '1W per hour' is meaningless. You could say '1W for an hour' -- that's 1 Watt of energy expended for an hour -- but not '1W per hour' Struggling with the distinction? I thought so. Thirdly, and most important, you've just made that figure up. It's a totally spurious statistic. That behaviour might be acceptable amongst you wooly thinkers, but it certainly ain't science! This sort of muddled thinking is prevalent amonst certain types of people and it explains a lot of barmy stuff -- shen fui, astrology, gold plated speaker leads, etc. Bill Simply put, when I'm in all day I drink about 18 cups of tea during that period. I have a wattmeter and placing this in the socket then making my cups in the normal way ie switching on to heat enough for that cup each time took the reading, I then filled the kettle and leaving it on I went about my normal business, only needing to top up the kettle and found that the wattage used was some 50% less that the previous method. Now to me that's a saving. Science apart all I'm interested in is in cutting down my electric consunption, not for 'green' issues or 'saving the planet' simply in saving myself money out of my pension. Naturally I don't leave it on all night nor when I'm going out for the day. All the remarks, sneering, patronising or whatever don't detract from the fact that I'm making some saving on my electric consumtion. That's all that matters. Kay If you want to save more, get one of the new near instant water boiling kettles that boil only the water poured Steve Terry |
Musings On Price Vs Reliability (Was: Freeview boxes - are most lousy)
On Mon, 13 Jul 2009 12:06:02 +0100, brightside S9
wrote: pedant mode snip It should now be obvious that to keep a kettle of water at a given temperature, given that it is impossible to stop heat loss by radiation from the kettle, it will take energy to achieve the maintenance of the required water temperature. /pedant mode Still in pedant mode: wouldn't more heat be lost from a kettle by convection that by radiation? Insulation in the form of a "kettle cosy" would help to keep the water up to temperature. I found a patent application fo a kettle cosy: http://smtp2.patent.gov.uk/p-find-pu...lNum ber=6262 This has a reference to a UK Govt. briefing note DEFRA BNCK06: Kettle trends. This has interesting figures in Table 1: http://www.hartleyinnovative.co.uk/d...EFRA%20MTP.pdf Energy use per kettle per year (kWh) Standard kettle 169.6 Eco kettle 118.72 Keep warm kettle 248.26 Totals for all kettles of a type: Energy saved/added per year (TWh) Standard kettle Eco kettle 1.27 saved Keep warm kettle 1.96 added Carbon saved/added per year (MtC) Standard kettle Eco kettle 0.14 saved Keep warm kettle 0.22 added "Keep warm" kettles are the worst on all criteria. |
Musings On Price Vs Reliability (Was: Freeview boxes - are most lousy)
On Mon, 13 Jul 2009 14:17:51 +0100, Peter Duncanson
wrote: On Mon, 13 Jul 2009 12:06:02 +0100, brightside S9 wrote: pedant mode snip It should now be obvious that to keep a kettle of water at a given temperature, given that it is impossible to stop heat loss by radiation from the kettle, it will take energy to achieve the maintenance of the required water temperature. /pedant mode Still in pedant mode: wouldn't more heat be lost from a kettle by convection that by radiation? It's all down to actualities like properties of the appliance's materials - what it's made off (steel will conduct heat away more quickly than plastic, but plastic will likely radiate more, depending on it's colour, black radiates off more heat than white), where it is, etc, etc. But I suspect that in most, perhaps all, practical situations you'd probably be right. Insulation in the form of a "kettle cosy" would help to keep the water up to temperature. I found a patent application fo a kettle cosy: http://smtp2.patent.gov.uk/p-find-pu...lNum ber=6262 Takes me back to the days when a teapot was kept well stewed on the side of the stove with a tea-cosy over it! This has a reference to a UK Govt. briefing note DEFRA BNCK06: Kettle trends. This has interesting figures in Table 1: http://www.hartleyinnovative.co.uk/d...EFRA%20MTP.pdf Energy use per kettle per year (kWh) Standard kettle 169.6 Eco kettle 118.72 Keep warm kettle 248.26 Totals for all kettles of a type: Energy saved/added per year (TWh) Standard kettle Eco kettle 1.27 saved Keep warm kettle 1.96 added Carbon saved/added per year (MtC) Standard kettle Eco kettle 0.14 saved Keep warm kettle 0.22 added "Keep warm" kettles are the worst on all criteria. GOOD FIND! Exactly bears out in practical experience what I was saying in my thought experiment when replying to Rod (which of course was really aimed at Kay, though she doesn't show any sign of having read it, let alone of having understood it). However, I note that they probably don't include the eco-cost (pollution, including CO2 produced) of production and disposal written off as an annual 'overhead' over the product's lifetime, which is essential to get the full picture. If my experience is typical, including that would change the prospects for the eco-kettles somewhat. ====================================== 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)
In article ,
Kay Robinson wrote: Simply put, when I'm in all day I drink about 18 cups of tea during that period. I have a wattmeter and placing this in the socket then making my cups in the normal way ie switching on to heat enough for that cup each time took the reading, I then filled the kettle and leaving it on I went about my normal business, only needing to top up the kettle and found that the wattage used was some 50% less that the previous method. Wattage doesn't mean anything as far as energy consumption. It's watthours or more usually kilowatthours that matter. ie how long you use those watts for. A 2kW kettle used less watts than a 3kW one, but takes far longer to heat the water and actually uses more energy - that's what matters Now to me that's a saving. Science apart all I'm interested in is in cutting down my electric consunption, not for 'green' issues or 'saving the planet' simply in saving myself money out of my pension. Naturally I don't leave it on all night nor when I'm going out for the day. All the remarks, sneering, patronising or whatever don't detract from the fact that I'm making some saving on my electric consumtion. I think what I, and others, are saying is that there is no way you can use less energy with this device. -- From KT24 Using a RISC OS computer running v5.11 |
Musings On Price Vs Reliability (Was: Freeview boxes - are most lousy)
In article , charles
wrote: In article , Kay Robinson wrote: Simply put, when I'm in all day I drink about 18 cups of tea during that period. I have a wattmeter and placing this in the socket then making my cups in the normal way ie switching on to heat enough for that cup each time took the reading, I then filled the kettle and leaving it on I went about my normal business, only needing to top up the kettle and found that the wattage used was some 50% less that the previous method. Wattage doesn't mean anything as far as energy consumption. In this context I would go further. The comment about "wattage used was some 50% less" is at best ambiguous and at worst meaninless. What does "wattage used" mean in the above assertion? No way to tell from what was written, so we'd have to guess. Does show that when people are clueless about the relevant science they can easily become muddled or mislead. Now to me that's a saving. Science apart all I'm interested in is in cutting down my electric consunption, What do you mean by "electric consumption"? Power or energy? The difference is critical. For the reasons others have explained and exampled. You can easily have situation where higher power applied can *save* energy. So you need to understand and make your mind up. Hint: It is the energy that the power co will charge you for. :-) not for 'green' issues or 'saving the planet' simply in saving myself money out of my pension. Naturally I don't leave it on all night nor when I'm going out for the day. All the remarks, sneering, patronising or whatever don't detract from the fact that I'm making some saving on my electric consumtion. But they might warn that your belief this is a "fact" may be wrong. Still, its your money. if you want to waste it if you have confused energy with power, that's your free... erm, costly choice. :-) Slainte, Jim -- Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me. Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html |
Musings On Price Vs Reliability (Was: Freeview boxes - are most lousy)
In article , Kay Robinson wrote:
Simply put, when I'm in all day I drink about 18 cups of tea during that period. I have a wattmeter and placing this in the socket then making my cups in the normal way ie switching on to heat enough for that cup each time took the reading, I then filled the kettle and leaving it on I went about my normal business, only needing to top up the kettle and found that the wattage used was some 50% less that the previous method. Now to me that's a saving. Science apart all I'm interested in is in cutting down my electric consunption, not for 'green' issues or 'saving the planet' simply in saving myself money out of my pension. Naturally I don't leave it on all night nor when I'm going out for the day. All the remarks, sneering, patronising or whatever don't detract from the fact that I'm making some saving on my electric consumtion. That's all that matters. You can't be. It's not possible. If you measure the amount of *energy* used throughout the day (not the wattage), and your instrument is accurate, then it will show you what's really going on. But regardless of this, a thought experiment and pure reason should be enough. It takes a certain amount of energy to boil enough water for a cup of tea, and twice as much for two cups of tea, three times as much for three, and so on. It doesn't matter whether you boil the water quickly or slowly; it can take minutes or hours to reach boiling point, and the same amount of energy will be used for boiling the water every time. What *does* matter is the heat lost to the surroundings while the water is being heated and before it is poured out (thereby becoming no longer part of the equation). This energy is in addition to the energy that actually boils the water. This heat loss might be very small, but it is always there and can never be less than zero. It occurs all the time the kettle contains water at a higher temperature than its surroundings. Heat the water very quickly with a high power kettle which is subsequently switched off, and this condition only lasts a few minutes with little heat loss in between cups of tea, and practically none when the kettle has cooled down, but keep it just off the boil all day and there will be a constant heat loss, which will cost you *more* energy than boiling just enough water as quickly as possible when you need it. You'll never use less energy by keeping something hot all day than by not keeping it hot all day. That would be nonsense. Think about it. I'm not sneering, but like it or not, you're just wrong. 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 Mon, 13 Jul 2009 12:00:15 +0100, Kay Robinson
wrote: Simply put, when I'm in all day I drink about 18 cups of tea during that period. I have a wattmeter and placing this in the socket then making my cups in the normal way ie switching on to heat enough for that cup each time took the reading, I then filled the kettle and leaving it on I went about my normal business, I expect you have a lot of business to do, what with 18 cups a day. Good God, I expect you keep the bog in permanent flush mode so you have a stream of water going all day and this saves you from having to do a full flush. That must save you water. the kettle and found that the wattage used was some 50% less that the previous method. Wattage is like speed. You can't tell how far you've gone (distance is like energy and therefore money) without considering time. Now to me that's a saving. To you, it's stupidity. You refuse to acknowledge several intelligent people who have wasted their time on you trying to explain. Perhaps we should all go "moo" at you instead. I guess you might understand then. Naturally I don't leave it on all night nor when I'm going out for the day. Why the hell not? Surely if it saves you money during the day, it works at night and when you're out just the same? FFS, how does the kettle know the difference? All the remarks, sneering, patronising or whatever don't detract from the fact that I'm making some saving on my electric consumtion. No you are not. I expect you're fat and ugly as well. You've certainly got the first third. |
Musings On Price Vs Reliability (Was: Freeview boxes - are most lousy)
Just not to lose sight of the point, it's the first one of those that
I had, and that I wrote a diatribe about because I thought it was dangerous and, by only lasting a little over 2 years, barely if at all eco-friendly. On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 09:59:41 +0100, brightside S9 wrote: There are kettles that boill the required amount of water for a cup / mug on demand. See http://www.carbonneutralfuel.co.uk/eco_kettles.html ====================================== 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)
"Paul Ratcliffe" wrote in message ... On Mon, 13 Jul 2009 12:00:15 +0100, Kay Robinson I expect you're fat and ugly as well. Oh Paul! Bill |
| 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