Switch off at the socket?
 

On Tue, 15 Sep 2009 18:09:50 +0100, Peter Duncanson
wrote:

On Tue, 15 Sep 2009 16:47:46 +0000 (UTC), David Taylor
wrote:

On 2009-09-15, Zero Tolerance wrote:
On Tue, 15 Sep 2009 09:39:13 +0100, "Norman Wells"
wrote:

However, he ignores the fact that he's also losing 45 watts of heat. To
keep his house at exactly the same temperature, an extra 45 watts of heat
need to be pumped out by whatever heating system he has, for as much of the
year as he needs any heating at all. Admittedly, that may be a bit cheaper
if it's gas-fired, but it's still the same amount of energy, so it's
unlikely to have a huge impact on climate change.

This is an old (and thoroughly discredited) logical error. Saving 45
watts of energy is not the same as saving 45 watts of heat. For a
start, most of that energy is expended in doing the 'work' - e.g.
lighting lights, spinning discs, and so on. Any excess heat generated
after that (unnecessary) work is done is minimal.

By your logic, if I leave a Sky+ box on standby, then the 20 watts it
spends on spinning the hard disc is converted into 20 watts of heat.

It is, through vibrations and friction in the bearings.

If that were true, it would turn Sky+ into a free energy machine -

It would not.

which is impossible - breaking every scientific law there is.

No, it would not.

Quite. Scientific laws would be broken if energy went into a box of
electronics (from the mains connection or a battery) and did not come
out in some form: heat, light, sound, whatever.

Unless that energy was stored in the box, say if it contained a
rechargeable battery. Obviously the battery would become fully
charged at some point.
--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) Due to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups and
(")_(") their inaction to the problem. I am blocking most articles
posted from there. If you wish your postings to be seen by
everyone you will need use a different method of posting.
[Reply-to address valid until it is spammed.]

Switch off at the socket?
 

"Andy Champ" wrote in message
...

There _are_losses with using electricity for heating............

The losses are all in the generating plant and the transmission system.
These losses come to maybe 2/3 of the energy used. This is likely to be a
lot less than the losses in your gas boiler - so it's better to heat with
gas.

Indeed. But this illustrates the point I've been trying to make: switching
"off" instead of to "standby" does, often, save energy, but HOW MUCH energy
is a complicated matter and it is rarely anything like as high as the green
pundits claim.

Standby electricity turns into heat, which is valuable except during the
summer months. That is a subtlety many greenies don't understand. Two
thirds of the energy entering the power station never makes it to your home,
so electricity for heating is arguably a poor choice. But don't forget that
your domestic gas boiler wastes maybe half the energy going into it, so
again we have a complex and subtle situation, which in any case will vary
greatly from house to house. And, of course, gas production and
distribution also has a CO2 overhead.

I just wish the green pundits would acknowledge that their claims are
questionable and rely upon several massive over-simplifications. Yes,
savings are there to be had, but not of the scale they claim. It would
actually INCREASE their credibility.

SteveT

Switch off at the socket?
 

"[email protected]" wrote in message
...


"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...

You know of a VCR etc which can do a pre-programmed recording when
powered
down at the socket?

A media centre PC (laptop) will do that.
They will even wakeup from hibernation and do a recording and then
hibernate again.

That's nowt. Our lass can wake up from hibernation, eat a cream cake, then
hibernate again.

Bill

Switch off at the socket?
 

On Wed, 16 Sep 2009 11:02:14 +0100, Steve Thackery wrote:
"Andy Champ" wrote in message
...

There _are_losses with using electricity for heating............

The losses are all in the generating plant and the transmission system.
These losses come to maybe 2/3 of the energy used. This is likely to be a
lot less than the losses in your gas boiler - so it's better to heat with
gas.

Indeed. But this illustrates the point I've been trying to make: switching
"off" instead of to "standby" does, often, save energy, but HOW MUCH energy
is a complicated matter and it is rarely anything like as high as the green
pundits claim.

Standby electricity turns into heat, which is valuable except during the
summer months. That is a subtlety many greenies don't understand. Two
thirds of the energy entering the power station never makes it to your home,
so electricity for heating is arguably a poor choice. But don't forget that
your domestic gas boiler wastes maybe half the energy going into it, so
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
The figures suggest that bog-standard domestic boilers are about 80% efficient.
Modern condensing boilers are closer to 90% efficient. However, if the owner
decides to heat water that's never used and therefore cools down, that wasted
energy is not due to the (in)efficiency of the boiler.

again we have a complex and subtle situation, which in any case will vary
greatly from house to house. And, of course, gas production and
distribution also has a CO2 overhead.

I just wish the green pundits would acknowledge that their claims are
questionable and rely upon several massive over-simplifications. Yes,
savings are there to be had, but not of the scale they claim. It would
actually INCREASE their credibility.

SteveT

Switch off at the socket?
 

"Steve Thackery" wrote in message
...
snip
:
: Standby electricity turns into heat, which is valuable except
during the
: summer months. That is a subtlety many greenies don't
understand.

Indeed, and that is also one of the defences for TF light bulbs,
OK they are not the most effective electric fires but the heat
produced is NOT wasted for probably nine twelfths of the year (in
other words it is only wasted during the dusk to dawn hours
between the end of may and the end of September, assuming that
the weather is indeed warm to hot), all the rest of the time they
contribute to background heat. So with TF bulbs contributing to
the heating of the home during most of the year and the whole of
life costs of CFL bulbs the greenies are not being all that that
clever.

The calculations might well be different for the more southerly
countries or countries that traditionally have warmer summers
than is the average in the UK, just goes to show that, regardless
of any other issues with the EU, a "one size fits all" approach
to legislation doesn't actually work.

What are the latest recycling costs for the *safe* disposal of
CFL light bulbs compared to the Vacuum TF bulb?...
--
Regards, Jerry.

Switch off at the socket?
 

On Wed, 16 Sep 2009 12:32:47 +0100, Jerry wrote:

"Steve Thackery" wrote in message
...
snip
:
: Standby electricity turns into heat, which is valuable except
during the
: summer months. That is a subtlety many greenies don't
understand.

Indeed, and that is also one of the defences for TF light bulbs,
OK they are not the most effective electric fires but the heat
produced is NOT wasted for probably nine twelfths of the year (in
other words it is only wasted during the dusk to dawn hours
between the end of may and the end of September, assuming that
the weather is indeed warm to hot), all the rest of the time they
contribute to background heat. So with TF bulbs contributing to
the heating of the home during most of the year and the whole of
life costs of CFL bulbs the greenies are not being all that that
clever.

The problem with the heat from TF bulbs is that it's mostly at ceiling
height, since that's where most bulbs hang from. What people need
is heat at body (whether seated or standing) height, to keep them warm.
If your room has the means to circulate the hot air away from the
ceilinigs you'll improve the overall efficiency of the heaters -
whatever form they take, otherwise you just end up with warm
plasterboard, and maybe the room above - if you're not in a bungalow
of on the top floor.


The calculations might well be different for the more southerly
countries or countries that traditionally have warmer summers
than is the average in the UK, just goes to show that, regardless
of any other issues with the EU, a "one size fits all" approach
to legislation doesn't actually work.

What are the latest recycling costs for the *safe* disposal of
CFL light bulbs compared to the Vacuum TF bulb?...

Switch off at the socket?
 

On Wed, 16 Sep 2009 10:54:08 +0100, Mark
wrote:

On Tue, 15 Sep 2009 18:09:50 +0100, Peter Duncanson
wrote:

On Tue, 15 Sep 2009 16:47:46 +0000 (UTC), David Taylor
wrote:

On 2009-09-15, Zero Tolerance wrote:
On Tue, 15 Sep 2009 09:39:13 +0100, "Norman Wells"
wrote:

However, he ignores the fact that he's also losing 45 watts of heat. To
keep his house at exactly the same temperature, an extra 45 watts of heat
need to be pumped out by whatever heating system he has, for as much of the
year as he needs any heating at all. Admittedly, that may be a bit cheaper
if it's gas-fired, but it's still the same amount of energy, so it's
unlikely to have a huge impact on climate change.

This is an old (and thoroughly discredited) logical error. Saving 45
watts of energy is not the same as saving 45 watts of heat. For a
start, most of that energy is expended in doing the 'work' - e.g.
lighting lights, spinning discs, and so on. Any excess heat generated
after that (unnecessary) work is done is minimal.

By your logic, if I leave a Sky+ box on standby, then the 20 watts it
spends on spinning the hard disc is converted into 20 watts of heat.

It is, through vibrations and friction in the bearings.

If that were true, it would turn Sky+ into a free energy machine -

It would not.

which is impossible - breaking every scientific law there is.

No, it would not.

Quite. Scientific laws would be broken if energy went into a box of
electronics (from the mains connection or a battery) and did not come
out in some form: heat, light, sound, whatever.

Unless that energy was stored in the box, say if it contained a
rechargeable battery. Obviously the battery would become fully
charged at some point.

While I was writing I did think of a box contining an energy store in
the form of a flywheel spinning faster and faster and faster and faster
and....

--
Peter Duncanson
(in uk.tech.digital-tv)

Switch off at the socket?
 

On Tue, 15 Sep 2009 04:21:51 -0700 (PDT), "Man at B&Q"
wrote:

By your logic, if I leave a Sky+ box on standby, then the 20 watts it
spends on spinning the hard disc is converted into 20 watts of heat.

It is.

No. It's converted into quite a lot of 'work', quite a lot of 'motion'
(or what your earthling mind may know as "force"), and a small amount
- much less than 20 watts net worth - of heat.

If that were true, it would turn Sky+ into a free energy machine -

It's taken 20W from the mains supply. How is that "free"?

You can't take 20 watts, then get 20 watts worth of use (e.g. CPUs,
processors, spinning discs, etc) out of it, then still have 20 watts
left which is magically converted into heat. That's not how it works.
There are losses at every stage of energy conversion.

which is impossible - breaking every scientific law there is.

I think a few laws were broken when they let you loose on society.

Oh, my mistake, I thought this might be a sensible discussion.
I'll leave you to it...
--

Switch off at the socket?
 

On Tue, 15 Sep 2009 18:09:50 +0100, Peter Duncanson
wrote:

Quite. Scientific laws would be broken if energy went into a box of
electronics (from the mains connection or a battery) and did not come
out in some form: heat, light, sound, whatever.

Yes, in some form - but not ALL as heat.
--

Switch off at the socket?
 

No. It's converted into quite a lot of 'work', quite a lot of 'motion'
(or what your earthling mind may know as "force"), and a small amount
- much less than 20 watts net worth - of heat.

Oh for goodness' sake, ZT!! I, amongst others, have tried to explain it
constructively and politely, and yet you still refuse to learn, or even
acknowledge that you have anything to learn!

Here's the straight dope, mate: you don't have a f***ing clue about basic
physics, and it's high time you realised that and showed a bit of humility.

You can't take 20 watts, then get 20 watts worth of use (e.g. CPUs,
processors, spinning discs, etc) out of it, then still have 20 watts
left which is magically converted into heat. That's not how it works.

No, no, no! That's EXACTLY how it works. Energy is neither created nor
destroyed: it all ends up as heat. An Intel CPU uses 65W of electricity and
generates 65W of heat. A hard disk uses 7W of electricity and generates 7W
of heat. A 100W tungsten filament bulb uses 100W of electricity and
produces 95W of heat and 5W of light. The light bounces around the room,
gets absorbed by all the dark surfaces and re-radiated as heat.

How many more times must we go through this?

There are losses at every stage of energy conversion.

Yes, yes, yes!! And those losses are in the form of heat!!

Oh, my mistake, I thought this might be a sensible discussion.

Did you really? Does "sensible" include putting your fingers in your ears
and insisting everybody else but you is wrong?

SteveT