Widescreen TV's a major contributor to the Global Warmigg Crisis.

On Tue, 03 Jul 2007 23:26:41 +0100, Alex Heney wrote:

On Tue, 3 Jul 2007 22:50:59 +0100, "Pyriform"
wrote:

Alex Heney wrote:
Any chance of you actually *reading* what you respond to?

Are you an idiot or something?

Something :-)

The only reason you guys can see each other is because a crosspost was
started with malign intent by a guy with mental issues. I'm beginning to
wonder if you're almost as bad.

Alex Heney wrote:
And the CRT 32PW9570/05 uses 109W in normal usage, while the same
sized LCD 32PF9641D/10 uses 128W (it does use less in standby).

The LCD will have a larger screen size, of course...

Any chance of you actually *reading* what you respond to?

I was talking about the *same* size screen.

And the LCD will have a larger viewable screen size, so you are not
comparing like with like.

I am comparing as close as possible "like with like".

The actual screen size is the same, so what you posted above was
wrong.

The *viewable* screen size is *slightly* lower with the CRT, and would
need a 30.2" LCD to give an exact equivalent, but Philips don't make a
30" LCD.

And if they did, it would have a lower power consumption. Thus you are not
comparing like with like, which was my entire point. The fact that the
manufacturer makes it impossible for you to compare like with like by not
producing an exact equivalent is irrelevant!

Alex Heney wrote:
On Tue, 03 Jul 2007 23:36:49 +0100, Scott
wrote:

Alex Heney wrote:
On Tue, 3 Jul 2007 00:54:09 +0100, "Pyriform"
wrote:

Alex Heney wrote:
While this is nothing whatsoever to do with widescreen (of course,
that is just your hobby-horse), it is rather surprising that LCD
and plasma screen TV sets *do* use more power than the equivalent
CRT.

I couldn't find the specifications of many, but looking on the
Philips website, they have the full spec including power
consumption of all their TVs.

And the CRT 32PW9570/05 uses 109W in normal usage, while the same
sized LCD 32PF9641D/10 uses 128W (it does use less in standby).


A very odd result - when looking at a 19" CRT compared to LCD the
situation is reversed. Why should that be?
19" LCD = 40W http://tinyurl.com/3xz6wf
19" CRT = 100W http://tinyurl.com/2g2v3k

Possibly something to do with the fact they are computer monitors, not
TVs. Adding the tuner probably makes more difference to an LCD.

That's just silly. The actual answer is that the LCD power consumption is
determined largely by the power consumed by its backlight, which in most
designs is a fixed overhead irrespective of the image content. The power
required increases fairly linearly with screen area. Parity with CRT power
consumption is reached at a somewhat higher screen size than 19".

Plus the fact that the CRT is no longer manufactured, so is obsolete.

How is that in any way relevent?

Alex Heney wrote:
On Tue, 03 Jul 2007 23:36:49 +0100, Scott
wrote:

Alex Heney wrote:
On Tue, 3 Jul 2007 00:54:09 +0100, "Pyriform"
wrote:

Alex Heney wrote:
While this is nothing whatsoever to do with widescreen (of course,
that is just your hobby-horse), it is rather surprising that LCD and
plasma screen TV sets *do* use more power than the equivalent CRT.

I couldn't find the specifications of many, but looking on the Philips
website, they have the full spec including power consumption of all
their TVs.

And the CRT 32PW9570/05 uses 109W in normal usage, while the same
sized LCD 32PF9641D/10 uses 128W (it does use less in standby).

A very odd result - when looking at a 19" CRT compared to LCD the situation is
reversed. Why should that be?
19" LCD = 40W http://tinyurl.com/3xz6wf
19" CRT = 100W http://tinyurl.com/2g2v3k

Possibly something to do with the fact they are computer monitors, not
TVs. Adding the tuner probably makes more difference to an LCD.


For the LCD you would expect (32/19)^2*40+16 (16 for the speakers) that equals
129.46W that is very close. Conclusion: adding a tuner makes no difference LCD
power consumption is proportional to area. CRT scaling has very little
dependence on screen area.

Plus the fact that the CRT is no longer manufactured, so is obsolete.

On Tue, 3 Jul 2007 22:47:04 +0100, "Pyriform"
wrote:

Yes, I really do need you to provide me with a link to such a graph.
Such an astonishing paleoclimatic reconstruction would be glorious
to behold, I am sure.

Not sure what it has to do with LCD/Plasma/CRT wide screen
televisions... but here you go:

http://www.scotese.com/climate.htm

no need to thank me, I do what I can to enlighten

In that case you can now enlighten me as to where exactly the cycle that
fits so perfectly with recent warming may be found on that site. It seems
rather elusive.

Oh for goodness' sake! Did you not see my other post in which I put a
link? Or do you only look at replies to your own posts?

Here is the link again
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:V...core-petit.png

Now tell me that you cannot see any obvious cycle in that graph.

--
Cynic

In article , cynic_999
@yahoo.co.uk says...
On Tue, 3 Jul 2007 22:47:04 +0100, "Pyriform"
wrote:

Yes, I really do need you to provide me with a link to such a graph.
Such an astonishing paleoclimatic reconstruction would be glorious
to behold, I am sure.

Not sure what it has to do with LCD/Plasma/CRT wide screen
televisions... but here you go:

http://www.scotese.com/climate.htm

no need to thank me, I do what I can to enlighten

In that case you can now enlighten me as to where exactly the cycle that
fits so perfectly with recent warming may be found on that site. It seems
rather elusive.

Oh for goodness' sake! Did you not see my other post in which I put a
link? Or do you only look at replies to your own posts?

Here is the link again
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:V...core-petit.png

Now tell me that you cannot see any obvious cycle in that graph.


Got anything that shows human population on that timescale?
Coz it doesn't matter what's causing it, if it's gonna kill us we ought to try to mitigate it.
--
Snob? Were I a snob, I wouldn't be talking to you.

Cynic wrote:
On Tue, 3 Jul 2007 22:47:04 +0100, "Pyriform"
wrote:

Yes, I really do need you to provide me with a link to such a
graph. Such an astonishing paleoclimatic reconstruction would be
glorious to behold, I am sure.

Not sure what it has to do with LCD/Plasma/CRT wide screen
televisions... but here you go:

http://www.scotese.com/climate.htm

no need to thank me, I do what I can to enlighten

In that case you can now enlighten me as to where exactly the cycle
that fits so perfectly with recent warming may be found on that
site. It seems rather elusive.

Oh for goodness' sake! Did you not see my other post in which I put a
link?

No. It never got to the server I use.

Here is the link again
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:V...core-petit.png

Now tell me that you cannot see any obvious cycle in that graph.

I see a correlation between atmospheric CO2 levels and global temperatures.
Was that what you had in mind?

Scott wrote:

A very odd result - when looking at a 19" CRT compared to LCD the
situation is reversed. Why should that be?
19" LCD = 40W http://tinyurl.com/3xz6wf
19" CRT = 100W http://tinyurl.com/2g2v3k

I've noticed that too. The smaller TVs tend to use much higher wattage
in the CRT version compared to the LCD, but when you compare bigger sets
the differences are much smaller.

On Wed, 4 Jul 2007 10:55:37 +0100, foghollow
wrote:

Here is the link again
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:V...core-petit.png

Now tell me that you cannot see any obvious cycle in that graph.

Got anything that shows human population on that timescale?
Coz it doesn't matter what's causing it, if it's gonna kill us we ought to try to mitigate it.

Well according to another poster, *all* mammels get wiped out.

--
Cynic

On Wed, 4 Jul 2007 11:36:32 +0100, "Pyriform"
wrote:

Oh for goodness' sake! Did you not see my other post in which I put a
link?

No. It never got to the server I use.

Here is the link again
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:V...core-petit.png

Now tell me that you cannot see any obvious cycle in that graph.

I see a correlation between atmospheric CO2 levels and global temperatures.
Was that what you had in mind?

No. Sorry you cannot understand what I was pointing out. Oh, and
BTW, the correlation between CO2 and temperature show that CO2 change
*follows* temperature change.

--
Cynic