Switch off at the socket?
 

"Kennedy McEwen" wrote in message
...
In article , Max Demian
writes
"J G Miller" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 16 Sep 2009 13:28:53 +0100, Steve Thackery wrote:

Energy is neither created nor destroyed

Only according to classical physics.

Nope, it is also an axiom in modern physics: E=mc^2

That states that energy can be destroyed by converting it to mass, and
created by converting mass into energy.

Classical physics regards mass and energy to be separately conserved.

--
Max Demian

Switch off at the socket?
 

"Owain" wrote in message
...
On 16 Sep, 23:42, "Max Demian" wrote:
Energy is neither created nor destroyed
Only according to classical physics.
Except in nuclear power stations and in stars. ;)
And springs and batteries and everything else that stores energy. (Not
that
you can measure the differences in mass.)

Surely if you're storing energy you're not creating or destroying it?

Maybe, but it violates the conservation of mass.

--
Max Demian

Switch off at the socket?
 

Steve Thackery coughed up some electrons that declared:

Hum interesting but I think based on a false premise that the grid
has the *exactly* the same frequency *everywhere*. The frequency will
be close but not exact, the many sets that supply power to the grid
are not connected by a hard physical link but by a relatively elastic
one of the long reactive grid distribution lines.

Not false at all! Every generator connected to the grid is phase-locked
to the grid and is thus bound to run at the same, grid, frequency.

Though I heard from a mate at NG that oscillations are possible (though not
wanted obviously). They had at the old London control centre an instrument
nicknamed the Scottish Wobble Meter. It measured phase differences between
somewhere in Scotland and presumably somewhere the south end of the grid.

I know this because he related one day having to fix it - or rather the
photocopier that was interfering with it causing it to slowly oscillate
giving the control room men an impending heart attack.

On an aside - if you google for National Grid Blackstart you get to some
very interesting documents that show why no-one wants the whole lot to pop.

Switch off at the socket?
 

"Max Demian" wrote in message
...
"Owain" wrote in message
...
On 16 Sep, 23:42, "Max Demian" wrote:
Energy is neither created nor destroyed
Only according to classical physics.
Except in nuclear power stations and in stars. ;)
And springs and batteries and everything else that stores energy. (Not
that
you can measure the differences in mass.)

Surely if you're storing energy you're not creating or destroying it?

Maybe, but it violates the conservation of mass.

You can store energy without converting it to mass.
Chemical (batteries), and mechanical (springs) methods store energy without
converting it to mass.

Switch off at the socket?
 

Steve T wrote "savings are much less than the green pundits claim."

British Gas recently gave me a 'Real Time Electricity Monitor". I plugged
it in and it, typically, registered about 17 watts. This was lower than
expected and didn't move when I put on a few 100 watt lights. I suspected
it was faulty and returned it for replacement. When the replacement arrived
I plugged it in it, typically, registered about 33 watts usage - even with a
few lights on.

I spoke to someone from the 'Electricity Efficiency Team'. He tried to tell
me that the reading was an average reading over any hour. I pointed out
that the measurement unit was watts not watts/hour. He then went away to
the manufacturers who came back with the concept of 'power factor' (you can
read about it at en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AC_power) and that, because of PF,
consumers were charged only for the power actually used and that this varied
according to the type of appliance and that this is less than the rated
wattage of appliances. My schoolboy knowledge of a watt being voltage
divided by amperage is obviously wrong.

I cannot get my head around the concept of power factor and, as there seems
to be no answer for the large discrepancy in the reading between the two
meters the whole thing seems to be a bit of a fudge. Anyway, assuming all
this to be true how does my consumer meter know how much electricity is
being effectively used.

Bringing this back to the previous post, if the concept of power factor
really does effectively reduce the actual amount of power used why are we
being urged to replace tungsten bulbs in favour of the new bulbs. The
difference in wattage may be far greater overstated than the actual
difference.

Bill Ridgeway

Switch off at the socket?
 

This energy isn't wasted. Its given off as heat, which is quite useful
in a domestic house.

.... if and only if you are living in cold regions.... :)

--
@[email protected] Might, Courage, Vision, SINCERITY.
/ v \ Simplicity is Beauty! May the Force and Farce be with you!
/( _ )\ (Ubuntu 9.04) Linux 2.6.30.5
^ ^ 20:41:03 up 1 day 4:20 0 users load average: 3.55 3.76 3.73
不借貸! 不詐騙! 不援交! 不打交! 不打劫! 不自殺! 請考慮綜援 (CSSA):
http://www.swd.gov.hk/tc/index/site_...sub_addressesa

Switch off at the socket?
 

alexander.keys1 wrote:
There have been a lot of comments recently about the waste of energy
due to appliances being left on standby, and various gizmo's that are
on offer to turn them off automatically, or otherwise purporting to
save energy. What everybody seems to be forgetting is that an energy-
saving device comes with most UK socket outlets, it's called a
'switch', and when put into the 'off' position, power cosumption is
zero! None of my appliances, including computers, digital TV
receivers, etc. have come to harm through this practice, I always
switch off at the wall, back in the day when there were fewer
appliances this was standard procedure to avoid fire risk.

It also reduces the fire risk when you left home or are sleeping!

--
@[email protected] Might, Courage, Vision, SINCERITY.
/ v \ Simplicity is Beauty! May the Force and Farce be with you!
/( _ )\ (Ubuntu 9.04) Linux 2.6.30.5
^ ^ 20:44:03 up 1 day 4:23 0 users load average: 3.99 3.67 3.68
不借貸! 不詐騙! 不援交! 不打交! 不打劫! 不自殺! 請考慮綜援 (CSSA):
http://www.swd.gov.hk/tc/index/site_...sub_addressesa

Switch off at the socket?
 

[email protected] coughed up some electrons that declared:



"Max Demian" wrote in message
...
"Owain" wrote in message
...
On 16 Sep, 23:42, "Max Demian" wrote:
Energy is neither created nor destroyed
Only according to classical physics.
Except in nuclear power stations and in stars. ;)
And springs and batteries and everything else that stores energy. (Not
that
you can measure the differences in mass.)

Surely if you're storing energy you're not creating or destroying it?

Maybe, but it violates the conservation of mass.

You can store energy without converting it to mass.
Chemical (batteries), and mechanical (springs) methods store energy
without converting it to mass.

Phone call for you - some bloke called Albert...

Seriously - yes, there is a mass increase.

You'd be hard pushed to measure it though.

eg, a 60Ah 12V car battery might be claimed to store 60*3600*12 joules of
useful energy. That's about 2.6MJ

That is equivalent to a mass of 2.88E-11 kg, or 28.8 nanogrammes

Cheers

Tim

Switch off at the socket?
 

On Thu, 17 Sep 2009 09:26:28 +0100, "Norman Wells"
wrote:

Kennedy McEwen wrote:
In article , Java Jive
writes

Unless it's fed by gravity, like the Chatsworth one that was
mentioned, and does not use mains water that is thereby wasted, which
instead you could have drunk or used to shower, it is, as you say,
not strictly necessary, and is consuming CO2.


Isn't consuming CO2 meant to be a GOOD THING? ;-)

We need more consumption of CO2!

Carbon Capture is the way to go and it is the ONLY way that Britain
will make a significant difference.

No, sadly, it just joins the list of other things where Britain can make no
difference whatsoever.

When will people realise just how insignificant and impotent we are in a
global context?

We still in the G7, G8, G10, G15 etc... Someone must think our views
are not insignificant.

--
(\__/) 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?
 

In article ,
Man-wai Chang to The Door (+MS=32B) wrote:
alexander.keys1 wrote:
There have been a lot of comments recently about the waste of energy
due to appliances being left on standby, and various gizmo's that are
on offer to turn them off automatically, or otherwise purporting to
save energy. What everybody seems to be forgetting is that an energy-
saving device comes with most UK socket outlets, it's called a
'switch', and when put into the 'off' position, power cosumption is
zero! None of my appliances, including computers, digital TV
receivers, etc. have come to harm through this practice, I always
switch off at the wall, back in the day when there were fewer
appliances this was standard procedure to avoid fire risk.

It also reduces the fire risk when you left home or are sleeping!

why not just throw the main breaker on the consumer unit? You'd save
having to go round turning off all the individual switches and further
reduce the fire risk ;-)

--
From KT24

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.11