Switch off at the socket?
 

On 15/09/09 08:54, Gordon Henderson wrote:

http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/sustainable/charger/

I read that and started thinking the 5000W per person figure was a
confusion between power units and energy units, and assuming it meant
5000Wh per person per day, but I decided I'd best check the numbers
before possibly inserting foot into mouth ...

According to the International Energy Association figures for 2001
the total UK energy consumption was 262,186,000 tonnes of oil equivalent

or about 4.3 tonnes of oil per person

or 180 Gigajoules per person

so dividing by 8760 hours that *did* equate to a continuous 5.7kW per
person. Granted some of that will contribute to exported goods and
services, but equally our imports will contribute to other countries'
consumption figures so it's difficult to adjustment for that.

Still barely makes it worthwhile unplugging idle phone chargers though,
most of that power is consumed on our behalf, not directly by us.

Switch off at the socket?
 

On Sep 15, 11:16*am, "Zimmy" wrote:
"Norman Wells" wrote in message

...



Zimmy wrote:
"Norman Wells" wrote in message
...

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.

You are assuming that those 45W of electricity are converted to 45W
of heat with 100% efficiency which is clearly not true.

Where else do you think it goes?

Hmm, maybe powering the standby circuitry, IR receivers, etc?

Which is ultimately turned into heat.

MBQ

Switch off at the socket?
 

Zimmy wrote:
"Norman Wells" wrote in message
...
Zimmy wrote:
"Norman Wells" wrote in message
...

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.

You are assuming that those 45W of electricity are converted to 45W
of heat with 100% efficiency which is clearly not true.

Where else do you think it goes?


Hmm, maybe powering the standby circuitry, IR receivers, etc?

What does it do while it's doing all that, and where do you think it goes
afterwards?

Switch off at the socket?
 

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Norman Wells wrote:
You are assuming that those 45W of electricity are converted to 45W
of heat with 100% efficiency which is clearly not true.

Where else do you think it goes?

I suppose those LEDs produce some light? ;-)

Which are absorbed by the walls and furniture, unless you leave your
curtains open at night.

--
Max Demian

Switch off at the socket?
 

On Sep 15, 11:28*am, Andy Burns wrote:
On 15/09/09 08:54, Gordon Henderson wrote:

http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/sustainable/charger/

I read that and started thinking the 5000W per person figure was a
confusion between power units and energy units, and assuming it meant
5000Wh per person per day, but I decided I'd best check the numbers
before possibly inserting foot into mouth ...

According to the International Energy Association figures for 2001
the total UK energy consumption was 262,186,000 tonnes of oil equivalent

or about 4.3 tonnes of oil per person

or 180 Gigajoules per person

so dividing by 8760 hours that *did* equate to a continuous 5.7kW per
person. Granted some of that will contribute to exported goods and
services, but equally our imports will contribute to other countries'
consumption figures so it's difficult to adjustment for that.

Still barely makes it worthwhile unplugging idle phone chargers though,
most of that power is consumed on our behalf, not directly by us.

Indeed. As the saying goes, 100% of bugger all is still bugger all.
OTOH, even just 20% of something larger like unneccessary nightime
illumination in shops may be worthwhile. i don't know the exact
figures but you see what I mean.

MBQ

Switch off at the socket?
 

On 15/09/09 11:16, Zimmy wrote:

"Norman Wells" wrote:

Where else do you think it goes?

Hmm, maybe powering the standby circuitry, IR receivers, etc?

And where do you think it ENDS UP? Pretty much the only energy that
doesn't contribute to heating the house is the light and sound that that
makes it through the windows and walls.

Switch off at the socket?
 

"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.

Switch off at the socket?
 

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.
If that were true, it would turn Sky+ into a free energy machine -
which is impossible - breaking every scientific law there is.

Your 45 watts of wasted energy probably results in (I'm guessing here)
maybe 2 watts of heat. Whatever heating system you have is going to be
a FAR more efficient way of generating an equivalent amount of heat.
And considerably cheaper too.

Saving 45 watts at current electricity prices cuts about £40 a year
off your electricity bills. It's just burning money. (And, before you
even suggest it, burning five pound notes is not an efficient way of
heating your home either.)
--

Switch off at the socket?
 

On Tue, 15 Sep 2009 09:39:13 +0100, Norman Wells wrote:
Vortex4 wrote:
"alexander.keys1" wrote in message
...
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.

David Mackays book is a good read on this subject:
http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/w...page_155.shtml

So he says he can save all of 45 watts if he turns everything off instead of
leaving it on standby when he's not using it. The equivalent of a very dim
lightbulb therefore. Great!

Which in the very next sentence he states is a saving of £45 per year. Sounds
worth having, esp. as it's savings from taxed income.

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.

True, as far as it goes. However for (depending where you live & how well
insulated your house is) half the year, it's wasted heat. Plus it doesn't
contribute to the _usable_ room environment when the occupants are asleep
or out - which for a single person, or couple both working is a significant
proportion of the week.
And, the £45 you save buys you more gas heating than this wasted leccy
provides, so the saving is definitely worthwhile on a purely financial
basis, as _well_ as a social / moral position of profligate energy use.

Switch off at the socket?
 

On Sep 15, 12:02*pm, (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.

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"?

which is impossible - breaking every scientific law there is.

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

Your 45 watts of wasted energy probably results in (I'm guessing here)
maybe 2 watts of heat.

What do you think happens to the other 43W?

MBQ

Switch off at the socket?
 

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.

Who has 'discredited' it, and where?

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.

You're following me well so far.

If that were true, it would turn Sky+ into a free energy machine -
which is impossible - breaking every scientific law there is.

Why do you think it takes 20 watts of energy to keep a spinning disc
spinning?


Your 45 watts of wasted energy probably results in (I'm guessing here)
maybe 2 watts of heat.

You never studied any science at school, did you?

If you did, you either never got as far as the law of conservation of
energy, or never understood it if you did.

Whatever heating system you have is going to be
a FAR more efficient way of generating an equivalent amount of heat.
And considerably cheaper too.

It will be somewhat more efficient, and it will be somewhat cheaper as long
as it's not electric. There are some savings to be made therefore, but not
as much as greeny-weenies think.

Switch off at the socket?
 

On Sep 15, 12:06*pm, pete wrote:
On Tue, 15 Sep 2009 09:39:13 +0100, Norman Wells wrote:
Vortex4 wrote:
"alexander.keys1" wrote in message
....
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.

David Mackays book is a good read on this subject:
http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/w...page_155.shtml

So he says he can save all of 45 watts if he turns everything off instead of
leaving it on standby when he's not using it. *The equivalent of a very dim
lightbulb therefore. *Great!

Which in the very next sentence he states is a saving of £45 per year. Sounds
worth having, esp. as it's savings from taxed income.

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.

True, as far as it goes. However for (depending where you live & how well
insulated your house is) half the year, it's wasted heat. Plus it doesn't
contribute to the _usable_ room environment when the occupants are asleep
or out -

Warming an empty room will reduce heat loss from adjacent rooms so it
does have some effect.

You're also getting getting dangerously close to "is it better to
leave the heating on all the time or let the house cool down and warm
it up again" ;-)

MBQ

Switch off at the socket?
 

On Tue, 15 Sep 2009 04:25:19 -0700 (PDT), Man at B&Q wrote:
On Sep 15, 12:06*pm, pete wrote:
On Tue, 15 Sep 2009 09:39:13 +0100, Norman Wells wrote:
Vortex4 wrote:
"alexander.keys1" wrote in message
...
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.

David Mackays book is a good read on this subject:
http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/w...page_155.shtml

So he says he can save all of 45 watts if he turns everything off instead of
leaving it on standby when he's not using it. *The equivalent of a very dim
lightbulb therefore. *Great!

Which in the very next sentence he states is a saving of £45 per year. Sounds
worth having, esp. as it's savings from taxed income.

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.

True, as far as it goes. However for (depending where you live & how well
insulated your house is) half the year, it's wasted heat. Plus it doesn't
contribute to the _usable_ room environment when the occupants are asleep
or out -

Warming an empty room will reduce heat loss from adjacent rooms so it
does have some effect.

While true in theory at least, until you quantify the amount it, saying that
doesn't contribute anything useful to the discussion.

Switch off at the socket?
 

On Sep 15, 12:51*pm, pete wrote:
On Tue, 15 Sep 2009 04:25:19 -0700 (PDT), Man at B&Q wrote:
On Sep 15, 12:06*pm, pete wrote:
On Tue, 15 Sep 2009 09:39:13 +0100, Norman Wells wrote:
Vortex4 wrote:
"alexander.keys1" wrote in message
...
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.

David Mackays book is a good read on this subject:
http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/w...page_155.shtml

So he says he can save all of 45 watts if he turns everything off instead of
leaving it on standby when he's not using it. *The equivalent of a very dim
lightbulb therefore. *Great!

Which in the very next sentence he states is a saving of £45 per year. Sounds
worth having, esp. as it's savings from taxed income.

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.

True, as far as it goes. However for (depending where you live & how well
insulated your house is) half the year, it's wasted heat. Plus it doesn't
contribute to the _usable_ room environment when the occupants are asleep
or out -

Warming an empty room will reduce heat loss from adjacent rooms so it
does have some effect.

While true in theory at least, until you quantify the amount it, saying that
doesn't contribute anything useful to the discussion.

shrug Neither does your grammar, if you want to be pedantic about
it.

MBQ

Switch off at the socket?
 

"Halmyre" wrote in message
...
On 14 Sep, 23:30, Mike Swift wrote:
In article
.com, NT writes

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.

The phantom power issue is much over stated. In most cases it isn't
worth getting up to switch things off.

Have you ever driven through most towns late at night, the shops are lit
up like Blackpool illuminations, and they want us to switch off at the
power socket.


I wonder what the residents of Blackpool use as a comparative
reference when they want to comment on levels of illumination?

--
Halmyre

Las Vegas?

Switch off at the socket?
 

On Tue, 15 Sep 2009 07:54:45 +0000 (UTC), Gordon Henderson wrote:

I did the power meter thing a year or 2 ago - went round the house
meansuring everything. The only real surprise was my HP Colour Laser
printer. In it's "low-power" idle mode it's sucking 30W. That now gets
turned off.

My old HP5N took 45s from standby or 45s from On - I didn't bother to
measure it as there was no advantage in it being on, but I'd guess it was
about the same.
--
Peter.
The head of a pin will hold more angels if
it's been flattened with an angel-grinder.

Switch off at the socket?
 

"tony sayer" wrote in message
...
In article , Andrew
scribeth thus
On Mon, 14 Sep 2009 14:43:54 -0700 (PDT), "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.

They can't switch the power stations off overnight, so they may as
well power the 1W my TV takes to be in standby.

I seem to remember that some hydro electric plant is powered down and
some gas fired .. but coal is rather long winded to slow down and
restart..

They use the spare overnight power to pump the water back up in a stored
hydro power station so that it's full in the morning when everyone turns
their kettles on, so it isn't wasted.

tim

Switch off at the socket?
 

On Tue, 15 Sep 2009 10:53:06 +0100, David Skinner wrote:

In article dd11dcee-9b58-4d46-899e-
, alexander.keys1
@googlemail.com says...

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.

My parents' 1-and-a-bit-year-old TV broke down the other week. Stopped
receiving DTV and the settings menus became unavailable.

The repair man reloaded the firmware from a memory card, which fixed it.
Then he asked whether it got switched off at the mains a lot. It did -
every night. He said that that may well have been the cause of firmware
corruption and that they should leave the set on standby.

It's a Toshiba Regza something or other, if that matters.

Ah, got one of those here (not mine but some friends staying here for a few
weeks wanted a new TV so we're using theirs) and it's switched off most of
the time.
Difference is, it's not using the Freeview decoder as my arial isn't good
enough (gets ITV etc. but not BBC), so we haven't noticed anything wrong
with DTV. It's only 2 months old so might have been modified since a year
or so ago.
--
Peter.
The head of a pin will hold more angels if
it's been flattened with an angel-grinder.

Switch off at the socket?
 

It will be somewhat more efficient, and it will be somewhat cheaper as
long as it's not electric. There are some savings to be made therefore,
but not as much as greeny-weenies think.

As has been said, ZT, all energy coming into your home ends up as heat,
which for maybe seven months of the year is actually desirable.

Switching off your 45W of standby power just means your central heating
system has to deliver 45W more heat to keep the room stat clicked off, so
you don't gain anything. None of this breaks any laws of physics: it's all
about conservation of energy.

You may argue that 45W from your gas supply is environmentally "greener"
than 45W from your electricity supply, which is probably true but it's a
close call. And, of course, we agree that during the summer months that 45W
leakage into your home is actually undesirable, because you're already warm
enough.

Clearly, then, there will be savings by switching to off rather than to
standby, but the crucial point is that these savings are *much* less than
the green pundits claim, and are almost not savings at all during the winter
months.

SteveT

Switch off at the socket?
 

"David Skinner" wrote in message
t...
In article dd11dcee-9b58-4d46-899e-


My parents' 1-and-a-bit-year-old TV broke down the other week. Stopped
receiving DTV and the settings menus became unavailable.

The repair man reloaded the firmware from a memory card, which fixed it.
Then he asked whether it got switched off at the mains a lot. It did -
every night. He said that that may well have been the cause of firmware
corruption and that they should leave the set on standby.

It's a Toshiba Regza something or other, if that matters.

Mr repair man is talking rubbish to get out of telling you what the real
problem was. When I first went on cable tv the installation guy from Nynex
(as it was then; later C&W then NTL and finally Virgin Media) wanted the STB
left permanently on standby so they could send messages to the television.
Now it gets turned off whenever I am out and overnight and, apart from it
taking a minute to settle down when first switched back on, there are no
problems.

Switch off at the socket?
 

In article ,
says...

Mr repair man is talking rubbish to get out of telling you what the real
problem was. When I first went on cable tv the installation guy from Nynex
(as it was then; later C&W then NTL and finally Virgin Media) wanted the STB
left permanently on standby so they could send messages to the television.
Now it gets turned off whenever I am out and overnight and, apart from it
taking a minute to settle down when first switched back on, there are no
problems.

I would suspect so too, except that another symptom of the failure was
that a green LED on the front of the TV stayed-on for a long time
whenever the TV was put into standby. Googling this suggested that the
LED indicated that the TV was trying to update.

What, exactly, it was trying to update, I dunno, but if it was trying to
update Freeview channels or firmware version when someone turned it off
at the plug, I can see how that could corrupt something.

Switch off at the socket?
 

In message , Ian
writes

"David Skinner" wrote in message
et...
In article dd11dcee-9b58-4d46-899e-


My parents' 1-and-a-bit-year-old TV broke down the other week. Stopped
receiving DTV and the settings menus became unavailable.

The repair man reloaded the firmware from a memory card, which fixed it.
Then he asked whether it got switched off at the mains a lot. It did -
every night. He said that that may well have been the cause of firmware
corruption and that they should leave the set on standby.

It's a Toshiba Regza something or other, if that matters.

Mr repair man is talking rubbish to get out of telling you what the
real problem was. When I first went on cable tv the installation guy
from Nynex (as it was then; later C&W then NTL and finally Virgin
Media) wanted the STB left permanently on standby so they could send
messages to the television. Now it gets turned off whenever I am out
and overnight and, apart from it taking a minute to settle down when
first switched back on, there are no problems.

They wouldn't be sending messages to the TV. They would be sending
messages to the STB.

Assuming you're talking about the old analogue STB, it was common
practice (indeed often necessary) to send information about frequencies,
displayed channel numbers, pay services etc (not unlike the various
changes and updates which go on for off-air DTT). Most of these changes
were sent continuously (cycling through the data 24/24) and, in large
cable TV systems, it could take several hours between one update and the
next.

If a STB was totally switched off when not in use, it was not uncommon
for it to miss the latest data - especially if it was addressed to that
particular unit. This was particularly important for new installations
which, when first installed, might not be authorised to receive all the
services requested by the customer. This often resulted in an
essentially un-necessary call to the customer services department, who
would have to do a manual re-send of the data applicable to that STB.
Depending on the workload etc, this could take some time, during which
the customer might again have totally switched off the STB (or might be,
say, be at work, having home with the STB switched-off).

As a result, the customer services people were sometimes led a merry
dance and, despite their best efforts, the customer became more and more
dissatisfied with the apparent lack of service! Hence the request from
the installation guy to leave the STB at least in standby.
--
Ian

Switch off at the socket?
 

On Tue, 15 Sep 2009 07:10:50 +0100, Halmyre
wrote:

On 14 Sep, 23:30, Mike Swift wrote:
In article
.com, NT writes

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.

The phantom power issue is much over stated. In most cases it isn't
worth getting up to switch things off.

Have you ever driven through most towns late at night, the shops are lit
up like Blackpool illuminations, and they want us to switch off at the
power socket.


I wonder what the residents of Blackpool use as a comparative
reference when they want to comment on levels of illumination?


A floodlight football pitch with a double decker bus on it that has come
from Wales?

Fred X

Switch off at the socket?
 

On Tue, 15 Sep 2009 13:14:51 +0100, No Spam Please suggested:

"Halmyre" asked in message
...

I wonder what the residents of Blackpool use as a comparative reference
when they want to comment on levels of illumination?

Las Vegas?

My exact same thoughts. Some facts and figures at

http://green.thefuntimesguide.COM/2007/04/las_vegas_energy_use.php

Is it not the case that without the Hoover Dam, the bright lights of
Las Vegas would not be possible?

Switch off at the socket?
 

On Sep 15, 3:12*pm, "Ian" wrote:
"David Skinner" wrote in message

t...

In article dd11dcee-9b58-4d46-899e-

My parents' 1-and-a-bit-year-old TV broke down the other week. Stopped
receiving DTV and the settings menus became unavailable.

The repair man reloaded the firmware from a memory card, which fixed it..
Then he asked whether it got switched off at the mains a lot. It did -
every night. He said that that may well have been the cause of firmware
corruption and that they should leave the set on standby.

It's a Toshiba Regza something or other, if that matters.

Mr repair man is talking rubbish to get out of telling you what the real
problem was.

What is the real problem, then?

MBQ

Switch off at the socket?
 

"Man at B&Q" wrote in message
...
On Sep 15, 11:16 am, "Zimmy" wrote:
"Norman Wells" wrote in message

...



Zimmy wrote:
"Norman Wells" wrote in message
...

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.

You are assuming that those 45W of electricity are converted to 45W
of heat with 100% efficiency which is clearly not true.

Where else do you think it goes?

Hmm, maybe powering the standby circuitry, IR receivers, etc?

Which is ultimately turned into heat.

OK! Thanks to all who put me straight. Ultimately, yes it ends up as heat,
but its an expensive way to heat your house. I think I'll be sticking to gas
CH instead of filling my rooms with wall-warts. :-)

Z

Switch off at the socket?
 

On 14 Sep, 23:30, Mike Swift wrote:


Have you ever driven through most towns late at night, the shops are lit
up like Blackpool illuminations, and they want us to switch off at the
power socket.

Mike

It's not just town and city centres. Our local councillors are
trumpeting about their reaction to a suggestion that a tree in the
area be lit up at night. They think they've triumphed by providing
different coloured lights on the tree according to the season. The
formal switching on was the other night.

We've just completed a questionnaire put out by the council about
saving power and telling us to save money by turning down the heating
by one degree. We can't, it won't go any lower than 10C. Yet they've
spent our money on the installation of these lights as well as the
running costs.

You can tell that I'm not pleased ...

Mary

--
Michael Swift * * * * * We do not regard Englishmen as foreigners. * * *
Kirkheaton * * * * * * *We look on them only as rather mad Norwegians. * *
Yorkshire * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Halvard Lange

Switch off at the socket?
 

wrote in message
...
On 14 Sep, 23:30, Mike Swift wrote:


Have you ever driven through most towns late at night, the shops are lit
up like Blackpool illuminations, and they want us to switch off at the
power socket.

Mike

It's not just town and city centres. Our local councillors are
trumpeting about their reaction to a suggestion that a tree in the
area be lit up at night.


Well they are sort of half right. It would be a complete waste of energy to
light it up in the daytime.

Adam

Switch off at the socket?
 

The message
from (Zero Tolerance) contains these words:

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.

Why do you suppose a constant source of energy input is required to
keep a disk spinning?

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.
If that were true, it would turn Sky+ into a free energy machine -
which is impossible - breaking every scientific law there is.

It would be breaking the laws of physics if it didn't behave like a 20
watt heater.

Your 45 watts of wasted energy probably results in (I'm guessing here)
maybe 2 watts of heat. Whatever heating system you have is going to be
a FAR more efficient way of generating an equivalent amount of heat.
And considerably cheaper too.

No, it would be only as efficient as a classic one bar electric fire
(only in miniature).

Saving 45 watts at current electricity prices cuts about £40 a year
off your electricity bills. It's just burning money. (And, before you
even suggest it, burning five pound notes is not an efficient way of
heating your home either.)

Let's take the example of the need to keep feeding power to a hard disk
drive's spindle motor in order to maintain a steady 7,200rpm speed.
Unless the spindle bearing is frictionless and the disks it spins are
operating in a perfect vacuum, a continuous supply of power is required
to balance the generation of heat by friction in the bearings and air
drag on the platters.

Although a small fraction of these frictional losses result in
vibrational energy (120Hz vibration and windrush noise[1]), by far the
greatest representation of frictional loss is in the generation of heat
(approximately 20 watts in your example - in practice, most 7,200 rpm
drives generate about 7 to 9 watts of such heat).

Once a steady temperature gradient has been achieved (typically after
around half an hour's runtime when the components have absorbed enough
energy to reach this equilibrium temperature) the heat output will
become equal to the heat input [1].

Just because electrical energy can be converted into 'useful work' with
varying degrees of efficiency, this doesn't imply that it never finally
degrades to heat energy dissipated into the wider environment.

[1] This sort of energy loss is rarely more than 1% of the total losses
in such systems, although I would expect a jet engine to have
exceptionally higher percentage losses in terms of such sound
vibrational energy emissions. In any case, if most of this energy (sound
and mechanical vibration) were largely absorbed within the case of the
apparatus, they too would contribute their small part in raising the
temperature of the local environment.

HTH & HAND

--
Regards, John.

Please remove the "ohggcyht" before replying.
The address has been munged to reject Spam-bots.

Switch off at the socket?
 

Switch off at the socket?
 

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.

--
David Taylor

Switch off at the socket?
 

Man at B&Q wrote:
On Sep 15, 11:28 am, Andy Burns wrote:
On 15/09/09 08:54, Gordon Henderson wrote:

http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/sustainable/charger/

I read that and started thinking the 5000W per person figure was a
confusion between power units and energy units, and assuming it meant
5000Wh per person per day, but I decided I'd best check the numbers
before possibly inserting foot into mouth ...

According to the International Energy Association figures for 2001
the total UK energy consumption was 262,186,000 tonnes of oil
equivalent

or about 4.3 tonnes of oil per person

or 180 Gigajoules per person

so dividing by 8760 hours that *did* equate to a continuous 5.7kW per
person. Granted some of that will contribute to exported goods and
services, but equally our imports will contribute to other countries'
consumption figures so it's difficult to adjustment for that.

Still barely makes it worthwhile unplugging idle phone chargers
though, most of that power is consumed on our behalf, not directly
by us.

Indeed. As the saying goes, 100% of bugger all is still bugger all.
OTOH, even just 20% of something larger like unneccessary nightime
illumination in shops may be worthwhile. i don't know the exact
figures but you see what I mean.

I think the retailers would take the view that illuminated shops are less
likely to be burgled/vandalised. There is an energy cost in dealing with
crime.


--
Dave - The Medway Handyman
www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

Switch off at the socket?
 

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.

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

Switch off at the socket?
 

On Mon, 14 Sep 2009 14:43:54 -0700 (PDT), "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.

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

Switch off at the socket?
 

In article ,
[email protected] wrote:
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.

Great. So a laptop uses a battery to achieve this. Very energy efficient.

--
*I took an IQ test and the results were negative.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Switch off at the socket?
 

"DVDfever" wrote in message
...
On 15 Sep, 00:19, "Ian" wrote:



It's amazing that some people go, "Ooh, I'm so green that I unplug all
of my TVs, PC, Sky- whatever" but if you ask them to unplug their
fridge and freezer and nooooooooooooooooooo, they won't. Green, my
arse!

Don't unplug their fridge & freezer?
Gosh, I wonder why that might be?

Col

Switch off at the socket?
 

In article ,
Col wrote:

"DVDfever" wrote in message
...
On 15 Sep, 00:19, "Ian" wrote:



It's amazing that some people go, "Ooh, I'm so green that I unplug all
of my TVs, PC, Sky- whatever" but if you ask them to unplug their
fridge and freezer and nooooooooooooooooooo, they won't. Green, my
arse!

Don't unplug their fridge & freezer?
Gosh, I wonder why that might be?


they might not want green coloured food?

--
From KT24

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.11

Switch off at the socket?
 

On Tue, 15 Sep 2009 13:38:14 +0100, "tim....."
wrote:


"tony sayer" wrote in message
...
In article , Andrew
scribeth thus
On Mon, 14 Sep 2009 14:43:54 -0700 (PDT), "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.

They can't switch the power stations off overnight, so they may as
well power the 1W my TV takes to be in standby.

I seem to remember that some hydro electric plant is powered down and
some gas fired .. but coal is rather long winded to slow down and
restart..

basically anything that is high power and heat driven doesnt
appreciate lots of heating up and cooling down.

used to be some of the really big generators needed to be left
spinning while cooling off......

They use the spare overnight power to pump the water back up in a stored
hydro power station so that it's full in the morning when everyone turns
their kettles on, so it isn't wasted.

except you only get back maybe 75% of what you put into the pumping
during generation.

And then you lose some more pushing all the power to N Wales and
getting it back again to somewhere useful.

tim


--
Regards

- replace xyz with ntl

Switch off at the socket?
 

In article ,
Stephen wrote:
On Tue, 15 Sep 2009 13:38:14 +0100, "tim....."
wrote:


"tony sayer" wrote in message
...
In article , Andrew
scribeth thus
On Mon, 14 Sep 2009 14:43:54 -0700 (PDT), "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.

They can't switch the power stations off overnight, so they may as
well power the 1W my TV takes to be in standby.

I seem to remember that some hydro electric plant is powered down and
some gas fired .. but coal is rather long winded to slow down and
restart..

basically anything that is high power and heat driven doesnt
appreciate lots of heating up and cooling down.

used to be some of the really big generators needed to be left
spinning while cooling off......

They use the spare overnight power to pump the water back up in a stored
hydro power station so that it's full in the morning when everyone turns
their kettles on, so it isn't wasted.

except you only get back maybe 75% of what you put into the pumping
during generation.

And then you lose some more pushing all the power to N Wales and
getting it back again to somewhere useful.


but it was very close to a couple of nuclear power stations (probably now
closed) so the distribution losses would actually be rather low.

tim



--
From KT24

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.11

Switch off at the socket?
 

"charles" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Col wrote:

"DVDfever" wrote in message
...
On 15 Sep, 00:19, "Ian" wrote:



It's amazing that some people go, "Ooh, I'm so green that I unplug all
of my TVs, PC, Sky- whatever" but if you ask them to unplug their
fridge and freezer and nooooooooooooooooooo, they won't. Green, my
arse!

Don't unplug their fridge & freezer?
Gosh, I wonder why that might be?


they might not want green coloured food?


No ****, Sherlock!

Col