Warning about cheap TVs currently on sale

In article ,
Agamemnon wrote:
That would explain why the new condensing boiler that was installed in
my house is more noisy than the old boiler it replaced and provides
less heat than it's predecessors while using about the same amount of
gas.

Perhaps you know now you should have got an expert to specify and install
it.

--
*When the going gets tough, the tough take a coffee break *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Agamemnon wrote:
A decent modern boiler will modulate the flame and pump speed to
maintain the optimum.

Right then, that would explain why my new condensing boiler is leaving
the house colder than its predecessor. Presumably by turning up the
radiators and the thermostat to compensate for this I am making the
boiler less efficient than the one it replace. Totally useless.

Well, that statement is. It would be a very poorly designed modern boiler
which was less efficient in non condensing mode than an older one. Plus
the fact that even if it does go into that mode to heat up the house it
can then go into condensing mode to maintain that temperature.

--
*We waste time, so you don't have to *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Richard Tobin wrote:
In article ,
DM wrote:

However, jsut becasuse tv a uses more power than TV B, does not mean
that the differece between them is given off as heat.

Yes it does. All the energy used by a television ends up as heat.
Light reflects around a bit and is then absorbed, heating up whatever
absorbs it. The same goes for sound.

.... and then it moves around a wee bit more and might change state
again, the question arises as what you consider to be useful heat
energy. Some energy might be absorbed and changed to chemical
energy...it does not all stop with heat.

What we consider as heat is just a small part of the electro-magnetic
spectrum, and there is a considerable portion of that spectrum that
isn't going to help heat up your room.

You'll also have a lot more luck heating your room up with a 100Watt
incandecent bulb than you will with a 100W speaker.


In fact that sort
of reasoning of really very poor and does not apply to electronics design.

So what's your theory? Where do you think the power goes?


Some energy is radiated- especially in poorly deisgned electronics, some
is used to perform additional functions, some goes towards perfoming
functions that just are not so well designed in set A than in set B,
moving around some more electrons will require more energy and a small
part might heat things up locally, but to think that the difference in
power consumption between two sets is all in excess heat, that is useful
for waming up your room is very simplistic and inaccurate.

cheers

David

DM wrote:

Richard Tobin wrote:
In article ,
DM wrote:

However, jsut becasuse tv a uses more power than TV B, does not mean
that the differece between them is given off as heat.

Yes it does. All the energy used by a television ends up as heat.
Light reflects around a bit and is then absorbed, heating up whatever
absorbs it. The same goes for sound.

... and then it moves around a wee bit more and might change state
again, the question arises as what you consider to be useful heat
energy. Some energy might be absorbed and changed to chemical
energy...it does not all stop with heat.

What we consider as heat is just a small part of the electro-magnetic
spectrum, and there is a considerable portion of that spectrum that
isn't going to help heat up your room.

You'll also have a lot more luck heating your room up with a 100Watt
incandecent bulb than you will with a 100W speaker.


In fact that sort
of reasoning of really very poor and does not apply to electronics design.

So what's your theory? Where do you think the power goes?


Some energy is radiated- especially in poorly deisgned electronics, some
is used to perform additional functions, some goes towards perfoming
functions that just are not so well designed in set A than in set B,
moving around some more electrons will require more energy and a small
part might heat things up locally, but to think that the difference in
power consumption between two sets is all in excess heat, that is useful
for waming up your room is very simplistic and inaccurate.

This is the problem we have today. People who are totally and utterly
ignorant of basic science seem to be equally ignorant of their own
ignorance.

It used to be the thick and/or ignorant knew they were thick and/or
ignorant and shut the **** up.

You can post vague unsubstantiated drivel without a single figure and try
to fool the equally ignorant, but, FYI, you don't fool me.

--

nospam wrote:
DM wrote:

Richard Tobin wrote:
In article ,
DM wrote:

However, jsut becasuse tv a uses more power than TV B, does not mean
that the differece between them is given off as heat.
Yes it does. All the energy used by a television ends up as heat.
Light reflects around a bit and is then absorbed, heating up whatever
absorbs it. The same goes for sound.
... and then it moves around a wee bit more and might change state
again, the question arises as what you consider to be useful heat
energy. Some energy might be absorbed and changed to chemical
energy...it does not all stop with heat.

What we consider as heat is just a small part of the electro-magnetic
spectrum, and there is a considerable portion of that spectrum that
isn't going to help heat up your room.

You'll also have a lot more luck heating your room up with a 100Watt
incandecent bulb than you will with a 100W speaker.

In fact that sort
of reasoning of really very poor and does not apply to electronics design.
So what's your theory? Where do you think the power goes?

Some energy is radiated- especially in poorly deisgned electronics, some
is used to perform additional functions, some goes towards perfoming
functions that just are not so well designed in set A than in set B,
moving around some more electrons will require more energy and a small
part might heat things up locally, but to think that the difference in
power consumption between two sets is all in excess heat, that is useful
for waming up your room is very simplistic and inaccurate.

This is the problem we have today. People who are totally and utterly
ignorant of basic science seem to be equally ignorant of their own
ignorance.

It used to be the thick and/or ignorant knew they were thick and/or
ignorant and shut the **** up.

You can post vague unsubstantiated drivel without a single figure and try
to fool the equally ignorant, but, FYI, you don't fool me.


LOL - the irony of it all.

You are asking for figures but you don't provide anythng to justify your
own position.

On Tue, 20 Jan 2009 04:46:08 -0800, bronson69 wrote:

Are you referring to yourself?

Methinks you need to re-calibrate your satire detector.

In article ,
DM wrote:

Yes it does. All the energy used by a television ends up as heat.
Light reflects around a bit and is then absorbed, heating up whatever
absorbs it. The same goes for sound.

... and then it moves around a wee bit more and might change state
again, the question arises as what you consider to be useful heat
energy. Some energy might be absorbed and changed to chemical
energy...it does not all stop with heat.

No, I'm afraid this is rubbish. Give me any example of a chemical
change likely to result from any TV output.

What we consider as heat is just a small part of the electro-magnetic
spectrum

No. Heat is not part of the electromagnetic spectrum at all. It's
the kinetic energy of molecules. I suspect this is the root of your
misunderstanding.

You'll also have a lot more luck heating your room up with a 100Watt
incandecent bulb than you will with a 100W speaker.

Nonsense.

Some energy is radiated- especially in poorly deisgned electronics,

And is absorbed.

some is used to perform additional functions, some goes towards perfoming
functions that just are not so well designed in set A than in set B,

And they all end up as heat.

moving around some more electrons will require more energy and a small
part might heat things up locally, but to think that the difference in
power consumption between two sets is all in excess heat, that is useful
for waming up your room is very simplistic and inaccurate.

No, it's completely true. Only the energy that gets radiated out of
the room (perhaps your neighbours can see you TV screen) will not heat
it, and that is a negligible proportion.

In short, everything you said is false.

-- Richard
--
Please remember to mention me / in tapes you leave behind.

On Tue, 20 Jan 2009 19:48:52 +0000, Roderick Stewart wrote:
But isn't that compensated by the amount of hot air they generate?

Very probably, but there is that huge carbon footprint they generate
due to the speakers and attendees flying in and then taking taxis (never
the bus) or driving to the conference, rarely if ever taking the train.

"DM" wrote in message
...
Richard Tobin wrote:
You'll also have a lot more luck heating your room up with a 100Watt
incandecent bulb than you will with a 100W speaker.

A 100W bulb runs at 100W all the time. A speaker rated at 100W runs at
whatever power the amp provides. In this case the '100W' refers to the
maximum the speaker can handle. So the comparision is worthless.

Bill

In article ,
Bill Wright wrote:

A 100W bulb runs at 100W all the time. A speaker rated at 100W runs at
whatever power the amp provides. In this case the '100W' refers to the
maximum the speaker can handle. So the comparision is worthless.

Quite true, and in any case amplifier power ratings are generally
entirely specious. But if it did produce 100W, it would heat things
up just as much as a 100W bulb.

I'm reminded of the fan heater ads about 20 years ago which made
claims like "powerful 1 kW heater, high efficiency - consumes only
3412 BTU / hour". Or was it the other way round.

-- Richard
--
Please remember to mention me / in tapes you leave behind.