Energy Saving on Standby ..How good are your boxes?

Steve Thackery wrote:
Given that people *are* going to use standby then it's sensible to
make this as efficient as possible.

Exactly. Discourage the use of standby, whilst at the same time
making standby modes as low power as possible. There is no
contradiction here.
Frankly it's all crap anyway. We could put ourselves to considerable
inconvenience and not make a scrap of difference, because the real
problem isn't us and our TVs on standby, it's America and the growing
Eastern industrial economies.

If you want to go green, insulate the hell out of your house - that
makes the biggest reduction in your carbon footprint for your money
by far. And remember, standby mode is only wasteful in the summer. In the
winter, when your heating system is on, the waste energy warms
your house, which is fine.
Agreed on all points.

My house is pretty energy efficient - double glazing all round , cavity and
loft insulation , and I don't leave much running 24/7.
This is mostly done because it makes financial sense to do this rather than
because I think it will save the planet. It does make a small difference to
CO2 emissions but it's only a tiny pittance in the scheme of things and even
if I (and the rest of the uk) used no fossil fuels from now on this would be
completely canceleed out by china and india's increases.



--
Alex

"I laugh in the face of danger. Then I hide until it goes away"

www.drzoidberg.co.uk www.ebayfaq.co.uk

charles wrote:
In article ,
tim..... wrote:


The TV itself doesn't need to be left on standby but it's certainly
more convenient to use the remote and put it into standby.

Yes I accepted that. But this isn't a user desire, it's
user lazieness.

My MiL used to turn off her tv set with the on/off switch every time
she'd finished using it. After 3 years, the switch failed -
permanently off ;-(

I had something similar. My old TV worked fine for 5 years being turned off
with the remote and only "OFF" at the mains when I was going away for a
week. I sold it to a friend who turned it off and on with the front panel
button and after 18 months the button broke and it cost them more to repair
this than the tv was worth
--
Alex

"I laugh in the face of danger. Then I hide until it goes away"

www.drzoidberg.co.uk www.ebayfaq.co.uk

"Alan" wrote in message
...
In message , Michael Chare
wrote

Freeview receivers may need to be in standby mode so that the analogue
signal is
passed through.


Er, if you are not watching TV there is no need for a box to feed any
signal through to the TV

But the box doesn't know that, so it has to assume you might be.

"Dr Zoidberg" wrote in message
...
Steve Thackery wrote:
Frankly it's all crap anyway. We could put ourselves to considerable
inconvenience and not make a scrap of difference, because the real
problem isn't us and our TVs on standby, it's America and the growing
Eastern industrial economies.

This is mostly done because it makes financial sense to do this rather
than because I think it will save the planet. It does make a small
difference to CO2 emissions but it's only a tiny pittance in the scheme of
things and even if I (and the rest of the uk) used no fossil fuels from
now on this would be completely canceleed out by china and india's
increases.

I'm glad see a bit of common sense is being used here.

Bill

charles wrote:

My MiL used to turn off her tv set with the on/off switch every time she'd
finished using it. After 3 years, the switch failed - permanently off ;-(

A mutual friend of ours (Mr Phil Sp..) purchased a TV set one serial number
digit removed from mine. ISTR he spent about six hours adjusting the
convergence and geometry in the engineering menu. In the small hours of the
morning he had optimised it to his satisfaction. He hit the 'standby' button
on the remote, at which point there was a bang from the PSU, followed by silence.

It turns out the PSU had a known problem doing this if returned to standby.
ISTR Phil got the PSU replaced. Two other colleagues bought the same model at
the same time, again very similar serial numbers. I have never put my set into
standby, because of Phil's experience. It has its moments and will shut down
every few months, but almost 10 years on it's still working. The other two
sets died in 2005. If you're lurking Phil, is your one still going ?

(The TV sets were ex-demo 'sold as seen' offered to the four of us BTW, not
obtained via normal retail)

--
Mark
Please replace invalid and invalid with gmx and net to reply.

Dr Zoidberg wrote:
tim..... wrote:
I don't get this claim.

Why would people rather leave it on?

Because some equipment takes a lot longer to boot from off rather than
standby

Yup. For example, the OP mentioned Tvonics DVR-150/250 have an issue*
where if the hard drive is filled, the machine takes progressively
longer to switch on from power up. This sort of usability failing also
makes users want to keep the thing in standby rather than powered off,
never mind about the need for being alive to catch the users timed
recordings and software bug fixes.

* - http://www.tvonics.com/dvr150support.html

--
Adrian C

On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 14:51:01 +0000, Alan
wrote:

Their DTT PVRs ,the DVR 150 and 250 and the Logik LP2250 have an on-mode
consumption of less than 20watts and a standby consumption of just 3 watts.

Is that for the box alone or does it include the external power supply?
Plug in power supplies could add another 20% to the figure during
operation and are probably very inefficient when supplying the lower
standby power?

Don't we have another set of rules and regulations to thank for the
existence of so many external power supplies? I think it's some safety
requirement about the physical construction of anything with a captive
mains lead, which makes the equipment cheaper if it's low voltage
only, with the result that the "power" switch on the equipment itself
is only switching the low voltage while an external transformer is
permanently connected to the mains.

If this is so, then any regulation about power consumption will have
to make allowance for it, or it will simply be a case of one set of
rules and regulations trying to counteract another, maybe
rationalising the situation on paper to the satisfaction of the
bureacrats but without really improving anything.

Rod.

On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 17:27:42 -0000, "Steve Thackery"
wrote:

Given that people *are* going to use standby then it's sensible to make
this as efficient as possible.

Exactly. Discourage the use of standby, whilst at the same time making
standby modes as low power as possible. There is no contradiction here.

Also encourage the use of external relay-switched mains sockets like
the ones made by Oneclick ( www.oneclickpower.co.uk ) so that when the
main item in a computer or hi-fi system is switched off, only that
item remains on standby and everything else is disconnected by a
proper airgap.

Rod.

On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 18:48:05 -0000, "Graculus"
wrote:

Freeview receivers may need to be in standby mode so that the analogue
signal is
passed through.


Er, if you are not watching TV there is no need for a box to feed any
signal through to the TV

But the box doesn't know that, so it has to assume you might be.

Or it might be fed to another box which needs the signal to make a
timed recording from it.

Rod.

"Dr Zoidberg" wrote:
[...] It does make a small difference to
CO2 emissions but it's only a tiny pittance in the scheme of things and even
if I (and the rest of the uk) used no fossil fuels from now on this would be
completely canceleed out by china and india's increases.

It is still necessary for us to reduce, else it makes it very difficult to
persuade others that they shouldn't just keep increasing until they match
us. We should be aiming to improve to near their levels, not resign ourselves
to them deteriorating to our levels!
--
MJ Ray - see/vidu http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html
Webmaster/web developer, statistician, sysadmin, trainer, koha dev,
online shop builder, GNU/Linux, debian, gobo, gnustep, mailing lists
Workers co-op @ Weston-super-Mare, Somerset. http://www.ttllp.co.uk/