OT No more wind farms on land.

Terry Casey wrote:

I could believe 400W. Those sets used to produce a lot of heat. People
used to comment on it.

Perhaps not, Bill.

I've just looked at the Service Manual for the Bush CTV25 - one of the
first sets introduced in 1967, with a fair number of power hungry
valves.

The valve heaters are transformer fed, so no wasteful mains dropper.

Heaters: 184VAC @ 300mA = 55.2W
HT: 283V @ 640mA = 181.1W
LT: 15V @ 220mA = 3.3W

Total = 249.6W

(Figures are for 625 line working, figures for 405 are ~13W lower.)

There would have been some losses not accounted for here but they would
be minuscule in proportion to the total, so not much over 250W max.

Oh well there we are then! I suppose in those days 250W of extra heat in
the living room would be significant!

Funny though, because I do remember that it was commonly remarked on,
how hot the thing was, and there was a Mr Cooper (who owned a chain of
bakery shops and drove a fabulous car) who had the black and white set
next to the colour set and used it for black and white programmes on the
grounds of power consumption! Mind you, he was a bit bonkers.

Bill

"Norman Wells" wrote in message
...
Max Demian wrote:

My 32" TV uses 75 watts - how much did the b/w sets in the 60s use?

Mainly they were off. Mainly therefore they used nothing.

No they weren't. People turned them on and left them on even if they weren't
watching, as they took 2 minutes to warm up.

--
Max Demian

On Thu, 10 May 2012 15:47:10 +0100, Terry Casey
wrote:

In article , says...

Johny B Good wrote:
On Thu, 10 May 2012 00:02:24 +0100, "Max Demian"
wrote:


====snip====

My 32" TV uses 75 watts - how much did the b/w sets in the 60s use?

Well, here's a starting point (I'm assuming an all valve set), the
heater chain alone (300mA filaments) would have accounted for 80W. At
a guess, I'd have thought no more than another 80W tops for the HT
supply, probably nearer the 30 to 50 Watt mark so, in total, somewhere
between 110 to 160 watts.
I vaguely remember that the sets I used to deliver in the late 60s used
about 150W.

I do recall mention of a colour (or maybe it was a _color_) TV set
taking 400 Watts[1]. A few years after hearing that quote, I couldn't
see how a fully valved colour TV set could consume such a vast amount
of power no matter how ancient the design and figured a more probable
figure would be around the 200 Watt mark and significantly less for
the later transistor/valve hybrid designs that appeared un the UK in
the late 70s.

[1] Does anyone else recall this 400W figure and where it may Have
originated?
I could believe 400W. Those sets used to produce a lot of heat. People
used to comment on it.

Perhaps not, Bill.

I've just looked at the Service Manual for the Bush CTV25 - one of the
first sets introduced in 1967, with a fair number of power hungry
valves.

The valve heaters are transformer fed, so no wasteful mains dropper.

That's rather unusual to see the use of any mains transformer in a
valved TV set due to the problems of leakage flux. I suppose it was
either a toroidal or mu metal screened autotransformer that was used
(heater voltage of 184v suggesting the use of an auto-transformer).


Heaters: 184VAC @ 300mA = 55.2W

That approximates to some 29 valves worth of 6.3v heaters. Probably
more like 24 if one happened to be a PL519 LOPT driver (40v heater).

HT: 283V @ 640mA = 181.1W

That seems a surprisngly high rating on the main HT supply (but I
never ever dabbled with TV sets other than a Sony TV9UKB portable to
add a switched video input socket to allow its use as a monitor, so
can't relate this to experience).

LT: 15V @ 220mA = 3.3W

Total = 249.6W

(Figures are for 625 line working, figures for 405 are ~13W lower.)

There would have been some losses not accounted for here but they would
be minuscule in proportion to the total, so not much over 250W max.

Since those figures appear to be dependent upon reciever mode rather
than simply maxima ratings of the supplies. I can't see any reason to
add "other losses" and the 249.6W figure is as close to 250W as makes
no difference. Obviously, the actual demand will depend on picture
brightness and vary depending on picture content.

I was about to assume a monochrome reciever but this quote from a
wiki article:

"The first regular color broadcasts in Europe were by the United
Kingdom's BBC2 beginning on July 1, 1967 (PAL)."

Suggests you were describing a colour TV set (which the model number
strongly hints at - since confirmed by a quick google).

Since a lot of the main HT power lands up ultimately heating the
picture tube's shadow mask, the screen real estate will be a large
factor, presumably a larger tubed set could easily raise consumption
to the 400W level.

I'm guessing the 25 refers to a 25 inch tube so it's not hard to
imagine a 30 to 33 inch tubed version slurping some 400 odd watts or
so from the mains socket.
--
Regards, J B Good

In article , johnny-b-
says...

On Thu, 10 May 2012 15:47:10 +0100, Terry Casey
wrote:

I've just looked at the Service Manual for the Bush CTV25 - one of the
first sets introduced in 1967, with a fair number of power hungry
valves.

The valve heaters are transformer fed, so no wasteful mains dropper.

That's rather unusual to see the use of any mains transformer in a
valved TV set due to the problems of leakage flux. I suppose it was
either a toroidal or mu metal screened autotransformer that was used
(heater voltage of 184v suggesting the use of an auto-transformer).


The power input circuitry is here, in full:

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/24301298/CTV25_Pwr.jpg

You will see that it IS an auto transformer ...

Heaters: 184VAC @ 300mA = 55.2W

That approximates to some 29 valves worth of 6.3v heaters. Probably
more like 24 if one happened to be a PL519 LOPT driver (40v heater).


Your estimate of the number of valves is somewhat excessive ...


HT: 283V @ 640mA = 181.1W

That seems a surprisngly high rating on the main HT supply (but I
never ever dabbled with TV sets other than a Sony TV9UKB portable to
add a switched video input socket to allow its use as a monitor, so
can't relate this to experience).

LT: 15V @ 220mA = 3.3W

Total = 249.6W

(Figures are for 625 line working, figures for 405 are ~13W lower.)

There would have been some losses not accounted for here but they would
be minuscule in proportion to the total, so not much over 250W max.

Since those figures appear to be dependent upon reciever mode rather
than simply maxima ratings of the supplies. I can't see any reason to
add "other losses" and the 249.6W figure is as close to 250W as makes
no difference. Obviously, the actual demand will depend on picture
brightness and vary depending on picture content.

I was about to assume a monochrome reciever but this quote from a
wiki article:

"The first regular color broadcasts in Europe were by the United
Kingdom's BBC2 beginning on July 1, 1967 (PAL)."

Suggests you were describing a colour TV set (which the model number
strongly hints at - since confirmed by a quick google).


The word 'colour' was inadvertently left out of my opening remarks,
although was implied by the precious posts.


Since a lot of the main HT power lands up ultimately heating the
picture tube's shadow mask, the screen real estate will be a large
factor, presumably a larger tubed set could easily raise consumption
to the 400W level.

I'm guessing the 25 refers to a 25 inch tube so it's not hard to
imagine a 30 to 33 inch tubed version slurping some 400 odd watts or
so from the mains socket.

25" tubes were the largest colour tubes available in 1967.

As for the consumption increasing when larger tubes became available, I
very much doubt it, as the elimination of the high valve heater power
from the move to all solid state designs would largely have compensated
for it.

--

Terry

In article ,
Terry Casey scribeth thus
In article , johnny-b-
says...

On Thu, 10 May 2012 15:47:10 +0100, Terry Casey
wrote:

I've just looked at the Service Manual for the Bush CTV25 - one of the
first sets introduced in 1967, with a fair number of power hungry
valves.

The valve heaters are transformer fed, so no wasteful mains dropper.

That's rather unusual to see the use of any mains transformer in a
valved TV set due to the problems of leakage flux. I suppose it was
either a toroidal or mu metal screened autotransformer that was used
(heater voltage of 184v suggesting the use of an auto-transformer).


The power input circuitry is here, in full:

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/24301298/CTV25_Pwr.jpg

You will see that it IS an auto transformer ...

Heaters: 184VAC @ 300mA = 55.2W

That approximates to some 29 valves worth of 6.3v heaters. Probably
more like 24 if one happened to be a PL519 LOPT driver (40v heater).


Remember those sets with the "Capactive Wattless" droppers?..

On Fri, 11 May 2012 11:52:37 +0100, Terry Casey
wrote:

In article , johnny-b-
says...

On Thu, 10 May 2012 15:47:10 +0100, Terry Casey
wrote:

I've just looked at the Service Manual for the Bush CTV25 - one of the
first sets introduced in 1967, with a fair number of power hungry
valves.

The valve heaters are transformer fed, so no wasteful mains dropper.

That's rather unusual to see the use of any mains transformer in a
valved TV set due to the problems of leakage flux. I suppose it was
either a toroidal or mu metal screened autotransformer that was used
(heater voltage of 184v suggesting the use of an auto-transformer).


The power input circuitry is here, in full:

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/24301298/CTV25_Pwr.jpg

You will see that it IS an auto transformer ...

The diagram shows an isolated secondary winding being rectified and
smoothed to a positive undefined voltage feeding the D5 and D6 socket
holes. The high microfarad values suggest a lower HT voltage for use
by screen grids / pre-amp /processing stages.

The 240v tap, interestingly, is half wave rectified and filtered by a
low pass Pi cct. This, I presume, is the source of the 283v HT supply.


Heaters: 184VAC @ 300mA = 55.2W

The efficiency isn't improved a whole lot since the tapping point is
at the 220v mark. That 184v being fed to the heater chain comes after
what I can only surmise is a barretter (BTH1). The overall power
consumption is higher ( 66W).

Incidently, whilst on the subject of transformers, do you happen to
know whether the transformer was a toroidal or just a standard but
very well shielde one? It could only be one or the other.

The diagram shows a total of ten valve filaments. Is this really all
there were?


That approximates to some 29 valves worth of 6.3v heaters. Probably
more like 24 if one happened to be a PL519 LOPT driver (40v heater).


Your estimate of the number of valves is somewhat excessive ...

I did state it in terms of 6.3v heater filaments, assuming 6.3 and
12.6 volts were more or less standard voltages (excepting for the
likes of the PL series such as that PL519 with its 40v heater
filament). I guess most of those heater filaments must have been much
higher than the 6.3 and 12.6v I'd assumed.


HT: 283V @ 640mA = 181.1W

That seems a surprisngly high rating on the main HT supply (but I
never ever dabbled with TV sets other than a Sony TV9UKB portable to
add a switched video input socket to allow its use as a monitor, so
can't relate this to experience).

LT: 15V @ 220mA = 3.3W

It looks like this being derived from the 10v tap on the primary (It
was common practice to tap in 20v increments on the live end of the
primary and use a 10v tap at the neutral end to obtain a 10v tapping
interval)


Total = 249.6W

(Figures are for 625 line working, figures for 405 are ~13W lower.)

There would have been some losses not accounted for here but they would
be minuscule in proportion to the total, so not much over 250W max.

Since those figures appear to be dependent upon reciever mode rather
than simply maxima ratings of the supplies. I can't see any reason to
add "other losses" and the 249.6W figure is as close to 250W as makes
no difference. Obviously, the actual demand will depend on picture
brightness and vary depending on picture content.

I was about to assume a monochrome reciever but this quote from a
wiki article:

"The first regular color broadcasts in Europe were by the United
Kingdom's BBC2 beginning on July 1, 1967 (PAL)."

Suggests you were describing a colour TV set (which the model number
strongly hints at - since confirmed by a quick google).


The word 'colour' was inadvertently left out of my opening remarks,
although was implied by the precious posts.


Since a lot of the main HT power lands up ultimately heating the
picture tube's shadow mask, the screen real estate will be a large
factor, presumably a larger tubed set could easily raise consumption
to the 400W level.

I'm guessing the 25 refers to a 25 inch tube so it's not hard to
imagine a 30 to 33 inch tubed version slurping some 400 odd watts or
so from the mains socket.

25" tubes were the largest colour tubes available in 1967.

As for the consumption increasing when larger tubes became available, I
very much doubt it, as the elimination of the high valve heater power
from the move to all solid state designs would largely have compensated
for it.

In which case, the figure of 400W must be american in origin. ;-)
--
Regards, J B Good

On 07/05/2012 09:54, Martin wrote:
On Mon, 07 May 2012 02:54:01 +0100, Java
wrote:

But there's no reason why you shouldn't make a start by compensating
for two of them ...

That implies that I am wasting resources. I am not and never have
done.


On Sun, 06 May 2012 23:44:04 +0200, wrote:

On Sun, 06 May 2012 22:14:53 +0100, Bill
wrote:

Grimly Curmudgeon wrote:

Problem is; the incredibly selfish and short-sighted majority of the
population who see no reason or need to limit their power consumption
or take any steps to live in a more sustainable fashion.

That's me.

and me too. The two of us can't compensate for the actions of billions
of Asians.


critcher said..................................
these wind farms are a waste of money and resources,
if the money spent on wind farms had been spent on a severn barrage
we would have a source of energy far superior to wind farms, and a way
of controlling tides in the severn estuary,therefore also controlling
any global warming sea water depth increases.
At the moment there will be a massive amount to be spent on sea wall
defences in the estuary if the scenario of increased depth comes true.
Also factor in the amount of work and therefore employment to build the
barrage and the tax and revenue from this. In the future we will rue the
day the barrage was killed off.
Forgot to mention the road services between Wales and South West England
and the recreational services of a large area of water.

On Fri, 11 May 2012 17:30:19 +0100, critcher wrote:

critcher said..................................

I suggest you learn a bit more about renewable sources of energy ...

these wind farms are a waste of money and resources,

They won't be enough on their own - other renewable sources of
energy will be required to complement them - and *some* of them may
have been installed in inappropriate places, but generally they are
not a waste of money and resources.

if the money spent on wind farms had been spent on a severn barrage
we would have

Quite possibly a huge silt problem that would consume more energy to
clean up than the barrage could produce.

and a way
of controlling tides in the severn estuary,

But no way of controlling silt deposition, which currently tidal and
river currents between them sort of do for us.

therefore also controlling
any global warming sea water depth increases.

Current sea level rise due to global warming is about 1.7 +- 0.3mm/yr.
However there is another significant factor affecting water levels
around the south coast of Britain, glacial rebound is sinking the
south coast at about 0.5mm/yr. This would be unaffected by building
the barrage, as the barrage would be sinking too.

At the moment there will be a massive amount to be spent on sea wall
defences in the estuary if the scenario of increased depth comes true.
Also factor in the amount of work and therefore employment to build the
barrage and the tax and revenue from this. In the future we will rue the
day the barrage was killed off.

I'm not sure that it was ever a viable proposition. At very least it
was always going to be a huge capital investment for the amount of
energy it could produce, and the risk posed by silt is real and very
significant. If the decision were down to myself, I would not agree
to it without some fairly compelling experimental or trial evidence
that silt was not actually going to be a problem.

Forgot to mention the road services between Wales and South West England

Which already have two bridges across the Severn.

and the recreational services of a large area of water.

Which would be zilch if it silted up.
--
================================================== =======
Please always reply to ng as the email in this post's
header does not exist. Or use a contact address at:
http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/JavaJive.html
http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/Macfarlane.html

In article , johnny-b-
says...

On Fri, 11 May 2012 11:52:37 +0100, Terry Casey
wrote:

In article , johnny-b-
says...

On Thu, 10 May 2012 15:47:10 +0100, Terry Casey
wrote:

I've just looked at the Service Manual for the Bush CTV25 - one of the
first sets introduced in 1967, with a fair number of power hungry
valves.

The valve heaters are transformer fed, so no wasteful mains dropper.

That's rather unusual to see the use of any mains transformer in a
valved TV set due to the problems of leakage flux. I suppose it was
either a toroidal or mu metal screened autotransformer that was used
(heater voltage of 184v suggesting the use of an auto-transformer).


The power input circuitry is here, in full:

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/24301298/CTV25_Pwr.jpg

You will see that it IS an auto transformer ...

The diagram shows an isolated secondary winding being rectified and
smoothed to a positive undefined voltage feeding the D5 and D6 socket
holes. The high microfarad values suggest a lower HT voltage for use
by screen grids / pre-amp /processing stages.


No. That is the low voltage supply to the semiconductor stages.

The 240v tap, interestingly, is half wave rectified and filtered by a
low pass Pi cct. This, I presume, is the source of the 283v HT supply.


Yes, and is a perfectly conventional design for the period.


Heaters: 184VAC @ 300mA = 55.2W

The efficiency isn't improved a whole lot since the tapping point is
at the 220v mark. That 184v being fed to the heater chain comes after
what I can only surmise is a barretter (BTH1). The overall power
consumption is higher ( 66W).


A Barretter! In 1967! What planet have you been on?

That version of the schematic appears to have been drawn incorrectly,
8TH1, a VA1015 THERMISTOR has a hot resistance of around 40 ohms. A
later version shows the tap correctly (and omits the 200V primary tap).
I have amended the drawing to suit.

Incidently, whilst on the subject of transformers, do you happen to
know whether the transformer was a toroidal or just a standard but
very well shielde one? It could only be one or the other.


No, but toroidal transformers were not common in 1967.

The diagram shows a total of ten valve filaments. Is this really all
there were?


Yes. It's a hybrid set. All of the low level circuits use transistors.

However, the CRT heater isn't part of the heater chain and is fed by a
separate 6.3V winding at the bottom. This is also rectified and used for
a negative bias supply (for the brightness control circuitry)


That approximates to some 29 valves worth of 6.3v heaters. Probably
more like 24 if one happened to be a PL519 LOPT driver (40v heater).


Your estimate of the number of valves is somewhat excessive ...

I did state it in terms of 6.3v heater filaments, assuming 6.3 and
12.6 volts were more or less standard voltages (excepting for the
likes of the PL series such as that PL519 with its 40v heater
filament). I guess most of those heater filaments must have been much
higher than the 6.3 and 12.6v I'd assumed.


Yes


HT: 283V @ 640mA = 181.1W

That seems a surprisngly high rating on the main HT supply (but I
never ever dabbled with TV sets other than a Sony TV9UKB portable to
add a switched video input socket to allow its use as a monitor, so
can't relate this to experience).

LT: 15V @ 220mA = 3.3W

It looks like this being derived from the 10v tap on the primary (It
was common practice to tap in 20v increments on the live end of the
primary and use a 10v tap at the neutral end to obtain a 10v tapping
interval)

No. See above.



Total = 249.6W

(Figures are for 625 line working, figures for 405 are ~13W lower.)

There would have been some losses not accounted for here but they would
be minuscule in proportion to the total, so not much over 250W max.

Since those figures appear to be dependent upon reciever mode rather
than simply maxima ratings of the supplies. I can't see any reason to
add "other losses" and the 249.6W figure is as close to 250W as makes
no difference. Obviously, the actual demand will depend on picture
brightness and vary depending on picture content.

I was about to assume a monochrome reciever but this quote from a
wiki article:

"The first regular color broadcasts in Europe were by the United
Kingdom's BBC2 beginning on July 1, 1967 (PAL)."

Suggests you were describing a colour TV set (which the model number
strongly hints at - since confirmed by a quick google).


The word 'colour' was inadvertently left out of my opening remarks,
although was implied by the precious posts.


Since a lot of the main HT power lands up ultimately heating the
picture tube's shadow mask, the screen real estate will be a large
factor, presumably a larger tubed set could easily raise consumption
to the 400W level.

I'm guessing the 25 refers to a 25 inch tube so it's not hard to
imagine a 30 to 33 inch tubed version slurping some 400 odd watts or
so from the mains socket.

25" tubes were the largest colour tubes available in 1967.

As for the consumption increasing when larger tubes became available, I
very much doubt it, as the elimination of the high valve heater power
from the move to all solid state designs would largely have compensated
for it.

In which case, the figure of 400W must be american in origin. ;-)

I selected this manual, at random, for the sole purpose of giving
accurate consumption figures for such a set. It was not my intention to
analyse the entire circuit in fine detail. Should you wish to continue,
might I respectfully suggest that you obtain your own copy from one of
the many web vendors and continue on your own?

--

Terry

On Thu, 10 May 2012 14:33:56 +0100, Bill Wright
wrote:

I vaguely remember that the sets I used to deliver in the late 60s used
about 150W.

It was from about then I recall the 'typical' power consumption being
in electric lamp territory - give or take. Many people seemed to think
they took next to nothing or consumed large amounts.