The Norman Baker TV Standby Mode Challenge

Adrian B wrote:
Perhaps I'm way off the mark here, but what happens to the "wasted"
energy from TVs on standby? Presumably it is disipated as heat -
contributing to the warming of the room - so the central heating can
run that slight bit less....well in winter at least.

True, but I wouldn't defend it on that basis. Electricity is a rather
expensive form of heating (and unwanted in summer, of course).

The other thing
to consider is whether a TV left on permanent standby is likely to
last beyond one which was switched on and off daily. The effect of
continual heating up and cooling down of soldered joints is well
known.

Standby modes don't really help you there. Unless they are of the Norman
Baker type, the set will be cooling down anyway. Switching my CRT TV on
from cold does involve a rather loud and scary invocation of the
degaussing circuitry, however, and possibly doing this too often might
have a detrimental effect.

I was talking to someone the other day who was employed to preach the
evils of the standby mode to the good people of Lancashire. She said
that the next target was to actually get people to unplug TVs,
computers and the like, because the power switch on the front is only
a low voltage affair requiring part of the PSU to be powered up to
monitor it...

I wonder how much energy (food/fuel/computing/paper etc) she uses to
tell people this? I did try to measure the 'pseudo-off' power
consumption of my PC, but found it was less than my power meter is
capable of registering.

It's not as if someone is making you use an STB. Oh, they are...

On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 17:51:41 -0000, "Pyriform"
wrote:

...
2) Your calculations have neglected power factor.

I don't think I've ever seen that specified for domestic equipment.
Doesn't that make the whole challenge invalid?

--
Alan White
Twenty-eight miles NW of Glasgow, overlooking Loch Goil and Loch Long in Argyll, Scotland.
Web cam and weather:- http://www.windycroft.gt-britain.co....her/kabcam.htm
Some walks and treks:- http://www.windycroft.gt-britain.co.uk/walks/

In article , NewsWD wrote:
Gizmo from Maplins. Fits between wall socket and plug, remote control,
ON or OFF. Recorder & STB on separate socket. Bingo - all off when not
in use. Quite useful as at the last count there are eleven standby
items in one room alone.

Saw one similar in one of these "offer" magazines that comes with the Sun
or News of the World, but with the tv supposedly on the "control" socket so
everything else switches off when the tv is switched off.

Ideal I'm sure for video recorders, Sky+, PVRs, etc etc :-)

Bet there will be people rushing out to buy it without thinking through the
application properly!

Also seen in B&Q.

I've bought several of these devices for computer systems, but found they are
excellent for AV systems too. I have my audio amplifier powered through the
"master" socket (because it is the only device that must always be powered
whether I'm listening or viewing) and everything else that doesn't need to be
powered all the time to make unattended recordings is powered through the other
sockets. The switched equipment includes the TV set, which takes less than the
rated 2 Amps, and I've had no problems with this.

Rod.

In article , Pyriform wrote:
He'll be telling us next that a TV on standby uses *more* power than it
does when it's switched on. Actually that's a claim I've already seen
made, and of course for some values of 'on time' versus 'standby time',
it can actually be true!

No it can't. Journalists, even some technical journalists, appear to be a
bit confused about the difference between *power* and *energy*, and of
course people who read them are not helped.

The question of instantaneous power versus
overall power consumption just gets thrown into the mix without any
comment or qualification.

What they're really trying to say is that the amount of *energy* consumed
is related to the *power* consumption (which could equally well be called
"energy rate") and the amount of time the equipment consumes energy at
that rate.

Depending on the ratios between working power and standby power, and
between on time and standby time, it is possible for the ratio between
working *energy* and standby *energy* to be anything you like, depending
on the details of the particular circumstances.

e.g. if you leave a typical device in standby for a year and switch it on
for one minute, it will probably consume considerably more energy in
standby than when working even if its standby power is less than its
working power.

Rod.

Roderick Stewart wrote:
Pyriform wrote:
He'll be telling us next that a TV on standby uses *more* power than
it does when it's switched on. Actually that's a claim I've already
seen made, and of course for some values of 'on time' versus
'standby time', it can actually be true!

No it can't. Journalists, even some technical journalists, appear to
be a bit confused about the difference between *power* and *energy*,
and of course people who read them are not helped.

The question of instantaneous power versus
overall power consumption just gets thrown into the mix without any
comment or qualification.

What they're really trying to say is that the amount of *energy*
consumed is related to the *power* consumption (which could equally
well be called "energy rate") and the amount of time the equipment
consumes energy at that rate.

You're right, of course. I knew that, but ended up compounding the
confusion by my sloppy wording. Do you think it would help if we
measured the energy consumed in joules? Or perhaps calories? Everyone
knows what they are...

Alan White wrote:
On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 17:51:41 -0000, "Pyriform"
wrote:

...
2) Your calculations have neglected power factor.

I don't think I've ever seen that specified for domestic equipment.
Doesn't that make the whole challenge invalid?

I don't think he was using a published specification. I think he
measured the current and calculated the (apparent) power from that. But
only he can say for sure.

"Pyriform" wrote:

Alan White wrote:
On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 17:51:41 -0000, "Pyriform" wrote:
...
2) Your calculations have neglected power factor.

I don't think I've ever seen that specified for domestic equipment.
Doesn't that make the whole challenge invalid?

I don't think he was using a published specification. I think he
measured the current and calculated the (apparent) power from that. But
only he can say for sure.

Yes, that's right. Mind you, since the current changed very little
between on and standby, the power factor was probably about the same, so
the *ratio* between the powers was still valid.

--
Dave Farrance

Dave Farrance wrote:
I don't think he was using a published specification. I think he
measured the current and calculated the (apparent) power from that.
But only he can say for sure.

Yes, that's right. Mind you, since the current changed very little
between on and standby, the power factor was probably about the same,
so the *ratio* between the powers was still valid.

Agreed.

The message
from "Pyriform" contains these words:

====snip====

I wonder how much energy (food/fuel/computing/paper etc) she uses to
tell people this? I did try to measure the 'pseudo-off' power
consumption of my PC, but found it was less than my power meter is
capable of registering.

FYI, this is typically 4 watts. I've observed "off" power consumption
in the range 1 to 8 watts on PCs that _aren't_ faulty.

--
Regards, John.

To reply directly, please remove "buttplug" .Mail via the
"Reply Direct" button and Spam-bots will be rejected.