|
|
Switch off at the socket?
"DVDfever" wrote in message ... 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! My ex boss bought some frozen sea food from a shop in Portugal that turned their freezers off overnight. His family were very ill, prompting him to discover why... |
Switch off at the socket?
You can tell that I'm not pleased ...
OK, but do you really want a drab, dreary, joyless world where nobody celebrates anything in case it generates some CO2? Where we leave our homes unheated? Do you really want every fountain switched off? Christmas trees with no lights? Every light in every city switched off, apart from basic street lights? Should we close down the cinemas, the museums and the art galleries? They generate CO2, you know. Do you want to live in the 18th century (but without any coal, of course)? I hate the very thought of such a drab world, I'll tell you that for sure. SteveT |
Switch off at the socket?
"Timothy Murphy" wrote in message
... PeterC wrote: My TV is 0.9W; the digibox is 9W (with a PF of 0.45!) so well worth switching off. Perhaps manufacturers should be required to specify standy power consumption. I've been surprised how much difference I have found eg between different computer monitors. They usually do these days. But some only quote for the ultra power saving mode that has limited capability - for example STBs not allowing RF or SCART passthrough (e.g. Humax 9150/9300). Some don't say what they mean by standby - for a printer does that mean that it is visibly on but not actually printing - or just that the unit is connected to the mains? Hi-fi amplifiers should quote the quiescent consumption as well as the full power consumption as they will very rarely be peaking. -- Max Demian |
Switch off at the socket?
Zimmy wrote:
You are assuming that those 45W of electricity are converted to 45W of heat with 100% efficiency which is clearly not true. We can all warm ourselves up on your ears now! There _are_losses with using electricity for heating. It doesn't matter what you do with it once it's inside the house (unless you shine a big light out of the window or something like that) as pretty well everything that comes in on the wire will end up warming the house. 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. Andy |
Switch off at the socket?
I thought it was more environmentally friendly to keep using the old
stuff ... That's a very important point and rarely given proper consideration. It uses CO2 to make a new appliance and ship it half way round the world. The problem is, it's almost impossible to get reliable figures. The estimates for how much CO2 is produced to make a car vary over a ratio of ten to one. But it may very well be the case that continuing to drive an old Jag at 22mpg is actually greener than buying a brand new Prius. SteveT |
Switch off at the socket?
"Halmyre" wrote in message ... On 14 Sep, 23:30, Mike Swift wrote: In article .com, NT writes I wonder what the residents of Blackpool use as a comparative reference when they want to comment on levels of illumination? They say, "Lit up like the illuminations." Bill |
Switch off at the socket?
|
Switch off at the socket?
In article , Clot wrote:
I am not advocating excessive lighting, but questioning why we do not sort out those that destroy communities. Personally, ignoring which current party is in power, a major problem is the existence of the CPS which ensures that the regularly law abiding citizen that has a motoring incident, (or similar), is prosecuted when the CPS will not take to court those that need to be, (Joe Thug that has been done x times before and knows how to avoid the ropes), "evidence was insufficient" said the CPS. Just frustrates the Police and society. I understand your frustration, but allowing people to be prosecuted with insufficient evidence would destroy communities just as effectively as any thug, because it would remove any last vestige of respect for the law. Rod. -- Virtual Access V6.3 free usenet/email software from http://sourceforge.net/projects/virtual-access/ |
Switch off at the socket?
"Paul Hyett" wrote in message ... On Mon, 14 Sep 2009 at 14:43:54, alexander.keys1 wrote in uk.media.tv.misc : 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. Congratulations - you must be the only person in the country who enjoys reprogramming their VCR/DVD recorder every day... :p -- Paul 'Charts Fan' Hyett All my VCRs just get the time from the text automatically. Of course that will soon end. Bill |
Switch off at the socket?
Roderick Stewart wrote:
In article , Clot wrote: I am not advocating excessive lighting, but questioning why we do not sort out those that destroy communities. Personally, ignoring which current party is in power, a major problem is the existence of the CPS which ensures that the regularly law abiding citizen that has a motoring incident, (or similar), is prosecuted when the CPS will not take to court those that need to be, (Joe Thug that has been done x times before and knows how to avoid the ropes), "evidence was insufficient" said the CPS. Just frustrates the Police and society. I understand your frustration, but allowing people to be prosecuted with insufficient evidence would destroy communities just as effectively as any thug, because it would remove any last vestige of respect for the law. Readily accepted if insufficient evidence was the reason. I suspect that in most cases, this amounts to "too difficult" and if the wily known villian was to get off then CPS stats are damaged. |
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 |
Switch off at the socket?
"Steve Thackery" wrote in message ... :"Zero Tolerance" said: : : 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? : Sounds like you're describing the average green wellied eco protestor, don't know if ZT is one though... -- Regards, Jerry. |
Switch off at the socket?
On 2009-09-16, Zero Tolerance wrote:
On Tue, 15 Sep 2009 04:21:51 -0700 (PDT), "Man at B&Q" wrote: 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. And those losses take the form of heat. |
Switch off at the socket?
On 2009-09-16, Zero Tolerance wrote:
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. No. Energy cannot be converted into "motion", it can be converted in to kinetic energy - which would make something accelerate. Ek = 1/2mv^2 The more energy you supply the faster it goes. Supplying 20J of kinetic energy per second to a spinning disk would result in it spinning very quickly indeed. The disk, instead, spins at a constant(ish) rate because, once it reaches the operating speed, it is also losing energy as friction (converting it in to heat) at a rate of 20J per second. The energy initially used to accelerate the disk to its steady state "stays" in the disk until power is removed and it spins down as the remaining energy is converted to heat by friction. 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. The losses _are as heat_. A CPU "uses" power because the movement of electrons required to switch a transistor on or off is an electric current, flowing through a resistance (as CPUs are not superconducting). This results in resistive heating: P = I^2R An inefficient PSU takes in energy, loses some -- as heat, and outputs less energy. Your disk then takes energy in, and turns some of it temporarily into movement (of the spinning platters, of the read/write heads, of the vibrating disk), which is all quickly turned in to heat through friction. The CPU turns all its input power nearly instantaneously into heat (hence the massive heatsinks and fans on powerful processors). Even a monitor produces heat - the light will be absorbed by the walls, ceiling, your eyes, the carpet, the window. (Some might escape through the window and heat the atmosphere, some might even escape the atmosphere and fly through the universe for years -- most wont). -- David Taylor |
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. Only if you would otherwise use another form of heating. If not the electricity is wasted. 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, 1/2? Modern boilers are more efficient than this. 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. We live in an oversimplified world because our illustrious leaders think we cannot cope with any detail. :-( -- (\__/) 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?
On 2009-09-16, Zero Tolerance wrote:
On Tue, 15 Sep 2009 04:21:51 -0700 (PDT), "Man at B&Q" 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. You seem to be missing a rather fundamental law of physics - conservation of energy: you cannot create or destroy energy. All the energy that goes into a computer remains in existence for ever. It is merely converted to a different (less useful) form. The laws of thermodynamics are also applicable - doing useful work increases the entropy of a system (i.e. produces heat). -- David Taylor |
Switch off at the socket?
On Sep 15, 10:26*pm, "Steve Thackery" wrote:
You can tell that I'm not pleased ... OK, but do you really want a drab, dreary, joyless world where nobody celebrates anything in case it generates some CO2? *Where we leave our homes unheated? Why would you want to do that? Do you really want every fountain switched off? * The one at Chatsworth is quite spectacular and doesn't need any electrical power as I understand it. Christmas trees with no lights? * Perfect application for rechargeable solarpowered LED lights. The nones in may garden still work in winter. Every light in every city switched off, apart from basic street lights? No, only most the ines that are totally unneccessary need to be switched off. Should we close down the cinemas, the museums and the art galleries? *They generate CO2, you know. So does posting to Usenet. Do you want to live in the 18th century (but without any coal, of course)? We have plenty of coal. I hate the very thought of such a drab world, I'll tell you that for sure.. The only things missing are imagination, vision and some long term strategic planning. MBQ |
Switch off at the socket?
On Sep 16, 1:06*pm, (Zero Tolerance)
wrote: 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. No. You really don't have a clue. Yes it does useful work but that work ultimately generates heat (e.g. due to friction in the bearings, etc.) 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. Of course you can't, and I never said you could. It takes 20W form the mains and puts out 20W of heat, foing some useful work in the process. 20 in - 20 out = 0. There's no free energu anywhere in the equation. 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. So di I until you joined in. I'll leave you to it... Good riddance. MBQ |
Switch off at the socket?
"Man at B&Q" wrote in message ... On Sep 15, 10:26 pm, "Steve Thackery" wrote: snip Christmas trees with no lights? : : Perfect application for rechargeable solarpowered : LED lights. In Australia!... |
Switch off at the socket?
"pete" wrote in message ... [ re Tungsten Filament bulbs and how they contribute to the heating of a room ] : : 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. Not sure what you're trying to get at there (you might have even been agreeing with me?), if the TF bulb helps to increase the air temperature at ceiling level above that of the lower level then more heat (quite possibly at a lower temperature) will remain were it *is needed* for longer - all heat rises eventually, even heat given off by under floor heating eventually ends up at ceiling level if there is no other exit or means of heat exchange such as cold surfaces or ambient air temperature IYSWIM. -- Regards, Jerry. |
Switch off at the socket?
On Sep 16, 3:03*pm, "Jerry"
wrote: "Man at B&Q" wrote in ... On Sep 15, 10:26 pm, "Steve Thackery" wrote: snip Christmas trees with no lights? : : Perfect application for rechargeable solarpowered : LED lights. In Australia!... Which of the bit you snipped did you have difficulty with? MBQ |
Switch off at the socket?
On Wed, 16 Sep 2009 15:24:10 +0100, Jerry wrote:
"pete" wrote in message ... [ re Tungsten Filament bulbs and how they contribute to the heating of a room ] : : 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. Not sure what you're trying to get at there (you might have even been agreeing with me?), if the TF bulb helps to increase the air temperature at ceiling level above that of the lower level then more heat (quite possibly at a lower temperature) will remain were it *is needed* for longer - all heat rises eventually, even heat given off by under floor heating eventually ends up at ceiling level if there is no other exit or means of heat exchange such as cold surfaces or ambient air temperature IYSWIM. Well, if you have a 100W TF light suspended from the ceiling, the heat from that bulb will rise to the top of the room. The occupants won't get any direct benefit from that 100Watts. Not unless they're exceptionally tall - in which case their heads will get a little warmer. As you say, you may get some small improveent from that heat adding to the temperature gradient in the room, but it won't be anything like the 100Watts the bulb is putting out. You'd be far better off putting in a CFL (or 6) and installing a small fan to move the warm air off the ceiling if only temporarily, so that it can usefully warm the room's occupants. |
Switch off at the socket?
On Wed, 16 Sep 2009 13:28:53 +0100, Steve Thackery wrote:
Energy is neither created nor destroyed Except in nuclear power stations and in stars. ;) |
Switch off at the socket?
"Man at B&Q" wrote in message ... On Sep 16, 3:03 pm, "Jerry" wrote: "Man at B&Q" wrote in ... On Sep 15, 10:26 pm, "Steve Thackery" wrote: snip Christmas trees with no lights? : : Perfect application for rechargeable solarpowered : LED lights. In Australia!... Which of the bit you snipped did you have difficulty with? Non of it, unlike you (well, what I could understand, what are "nones", I assume you mean Gnomes?...). Remember that most people in the UK locate their Christmas trees inside the house and also have the lights on during the few hours of effective sunlight most people get (on a good day) at that time of year (just after the winter equinox, assuming that everyone keeps to the traditional calibration period), how are you going to charge a battery connected to and powering the said lights? I suspect that if you moved your Gnomes into the house and only put them outside with the cat each night you might not have the brightest Gnomes on the street come a few days - bit like you MBQ! A better way of powering such lights might well be a battery but one recharged using cheap rate mains electricity during the night. |
Switch off at the socket?
"pete" wrote in message ... : On Wed, 16 Sep 2009 15:24:10 +0100, Jerry wrote: : : "pete" wrote in message : ... : : [ re Tungsten Filament bulbs and how they contribute to the : heating of a room ] : : : : : 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. : : Not sure what you're trying to get at there (you might have even : been agreeing with me?), if the TF bulb helps to increase the air : temperature at ceiling level above that of the lower level then : more heat (quite possibly at a lower temperature) will remain : were it *is needed* for longer - all heat rises eventually, even : heat given off by under floor heating eventually ends up at : ceiling level if there is no other exit or means of heat exchange : such as cold surfaces or ambient air temperature IYSWIM. : : Well, if you have a 100W TF light suspended from the ceiling, the heat : from that bulb will rise to the top of the room. The occupants won't get : any direct benefit from that 100Watts. Not unless they're exceptionally : tall - in which case their heads will get a little warmer. People do not heat their person but the room though... : As you say, you may get some small improveent from that heat adding to : the temperature gradient in the room, but it won't be anything like the : 100Watts the bulb is putting out. You'd be far better off putting in a : CFL (or 6) and installing a small fan to move the warm air off the ceiling : if only temporarily, so that it can usefully warm the room's occupants. No you would not, the fan will actually cause the ambient temperature to fail, due to the air movement, you will actually need to use more heat to keep to the same ambient temperature! Only use a fan if you have to either distribute heated (or cooled air) or need air movement for other reasons. -- Regards, Jerry. |
Switch off at the socket?
"Java Jive" wrote in message ... snip : : Energy consumption from appliances in standby is environmentally : undesirable, and where reasonably possible should be minimised. : Rubbish, it might be economically undesirable [1], it makes not one jot of difference environmentally - the only thing that is being changed by switching off rather than to stand-by is were the energy (in this case electricity) is being wasted, by Joe Blogs at No.26 (or where-ever) or by the frecking great resistor banks at the power stations... [2] to the home owner/bill payer -- Regards, Jerry. |
Switch off at the socket?
"Steve Thackery" wrote in message ... 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? Mr Tolerance, look at Mr Thackery's head. As you can see, steam is coming out of his ears. This is heat produced as a result of his brain being overloaded, trying to educate pork. Bill |
Switch off at the socket?
"Java Jive" wrote in message ... Exactly, so avoiding wasting it is a good thing environmentally. It really is as simple as that. Sorry, JJ, but I still don't think you understand my argument. The point is that the savings are much less than the green pundits claim. Yes, there are savings, and any savings are worthwhile. We don't differ there. But by exaggerating the effectiveness of these savings, we mislead the public into doing the wrong things, and governments into making the wrong policies. Government policies are made based upon the claimed or expected benefits. If they work from bad information, they produce bad policies. I firmly believe that many environmental policies are bad because they are based on bad science, or on powerful lobbying, not on good science and solid facts. Have you heard of Pareto analysis? To over-simplify, you find out what the big contributors are, and tackle them first, thus making a big difference early on. If you want to make a big difference you need to tackle the big stuff. My major concern is that the public now thinks they can save the planet by using CFLs and switching their telly off at the wall. It simply isn't true. To save the planet (IF you accept the current scientific position on anthropogenic global warming) the public will need to fundamentally alter almost every aspect of their lifestyle, not fart about switching things off at the wall. We both agree that every little helps. But when a government bases its policies on bad science or loud lobbying, then we get bad policies. Did you know that the figure used by the UK government in the car scrappage white paper for the CO2 impact of manufacturing a new car is ONE TENTH that claimed by Ford? If Ford are correct, and making a new car actually generates ten times as much CO2 as the government believes, then the car scrappage scheme would be an environmental faux pas. It would be MUCH better to encourage people to keep their old cars, even though they produce more CO2 per km. See what I mean? Bad science and loud lobbying lead to bad policies, and bad policies lead to us all doing the wrong things to save the planet. THAT is my main concern. SteveT |
Switch off at the socket?
|
Switch off at the socket?
On Wed, 16 Sep 2009 17:12:29 +0100, "Steve Thackery"
wrote: Have you heard of Pareto analysis? To over-simplify, you find out what the big contributors are, and tackle them first, thus making a big difference early on. If you want to make a big difference you need to tackle the big stuff. My major concern is that the public now thinks they can save the planet by using CFLs and switching their telly off at the wall. 60 million people doing anything would easily have a big effect. -- |
Switch off at the socket?
On Wed, 16 Sep 2009 12:45:14 +0000 (UTC), David Taylor
wrote: You seem to be missing a rather fundamental law of physics - conservation of energy: you cannot create or destroy energy. All the energy that goes into a computer remains in existence for ever. It is merely converted to a different (less useful) form. The laws of thermodynamics are also applicable - doing useful work increases the entropy of a system (i.e. produces heat). I stand thoroughly corrected, and I much appreciate your doing so in a calmer manner than others here seemed to manage. Thanks. :) -- |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:08 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HomeCinemaBanter.com