freeview boxes - are most lousy ?

Anyway - the first was from Tesco, an Astratec in a Setanta sleeved
box, works *really* well, no missing channels that we're aware of.
Why did you return this one?

We didn't, we have 3 TVs dotted around the house :-}

The TV Licensing people must think we're a little strange... we've had
3 boxes in the last month alone...

OK, we've now acquired a fourth (technically now only the third since
one was refunded) - a cheap Technika from Tesco, and i've got to say,
the EPG on it is probably the nicest i've seen yet !

"Doctor D" wrote in message
o.uk...

Is this for a t-101 ? ..

Yes.

they promised an over the air update that's now over due. The thing is,
they say the patch is ready but they dont pay for it to be broadcast...
I
think they are just trying to take the cheaper option.

In reality both of my T-101 boxes have been in a drawer for months as they
are virtually unusable to all but the most masochistic who enjoy searching
for the required channel. An over the air update would be useless unless
it
was well publicized so I knew to have them plugged in and set up!


I send them a mail about once a month and keep getting the reply that I can
mail it back and get it updated..
I have 2 of them as well :P..

On Jan 12th they told me they had applied to get a slot to send the update
and it would be a few weeks... That slot never did open I guess..

I thought Bosch were owned by Black and Decker...

No, I tend to agree, these days all the manufacturers tend to use the same
bits and hence these have all the same faults. I do not know about washing
machines, as I need to have mechanical sequencers being blind and unable to
read displays, and these are getting rarer by the day.

With freeview etc, I guess like many, I come at the buying with personal
prefs.

Mine are.

Must have audio description
a menu system which defaults to a certain place so one can use it blind
A remote one does not need a superhuman memory to use with differently
shaped buttons for different things and not too many multiple functions
according to a mode I cannot see the setting of.

Could not care less about the program guide as none are accessible in any
case.

I know a lot of people with other prefs are out there, but one common cry is
simplicity of use and that it just work.

The reliability I suppose depends on the amount of testing of software
upgrades sent out, and the actual build quality and if it runs not too hot
inside the box, which was probably designed for looks and not cooling!

Brian

--
Brian Gaff....Note, this account does not accept Bcc: email.
graphics are great, but the blind can't hear them
Email:
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ __________


"Java Jive" wrote in message
...
While granting that you said "price alone" rather than just "price",
which makes me more inclined to agree with you, I suspect that paying
over the odds on something is unlikely to get you better quality.

When I first moved in here, I went round the stores looking for a
washer(/dryer but I never use that functionality). I was told that
Bosch had a name for build and reliability, so although it was
significantly more expensive, I bought the Bosch (I'm sure there's a
joke in there somewhere, but with the coffee cup still half full I'm
not sufficiently awake yet to see it). Within a couple of years or
so, just beyond the guarantee period of course, it started stopping in
the middle of washes, though it could be restarted from the same point
in the wash simply by turning it off for a few seconds and then on
again. I called out a repairman who advised me to put up with it, as
it would cost hundreds to fix it, so it's been driving me mad ever
since. On occasions, it's taken about four resets and all day just to
complete one wash.

And, remember this? Let's all give a big hand to welcome back ...
http://tinyurl.com/kkhy9n
... standing in for ...

"TOT Conundrum - Kettles"

http://groups.google.com/group/uk.te...2 a5b9d5794ce

I eventually bought an "Eco friendly technology cordless kettle" (I've
only just realised there doesn't appear to be a brand name as such),
which seemed like a good idea at the time. It has two compartments.
You fill the top one at the beginning of the day with enough water to
last the day, and then for each boiling let down enough water at one
go to make whatever it is that you're making. So far so good, BUT:

If you actually have a little more water in the boiling compartment
than is needed, as you tilt the kettle back upright after pouring,
this remaining water comes back into contact with the element,
instantly reboils and splutters out of the spout. I never did have my
hand in the way, but it was very dangerous. I wouldn't have such a
kettle in any house with children or infirm people.

We more or less decided in the original thread that exposed elements
were almost certainly more efficient than concealed elements, yet this
had a concealed element.

When, like everybody else in the world, you've been raised on the
routine of filling a normal kettle and then switching it on, even
after a year or so you're likely to forget occasionally that not only
do you have to fill this kettle, but you also have to let some water
down into the lower compartment before you can boil anything. There's
a thermal cutout to protect the kettle, but this having been invoked
recently may have something to do with the kettle stopping working not
long afterwards. Presumably the element has burnt out.

Which brings us to another disadvantage of concealed elements. You
can't simply replace it when it dies.

So, as the CO2 and other pollution involved in making and disposing of
the kettle when 'written off' as an 'overhead' over it's tragically
short life, is likely to be of the same order of magnitude as any
energy saved during its use, I can't really say that it was really
"eco friendly" at all. However, I can definitely say that it was
dangerous.

So to bring us back to price, I've been in the market for kettles
again. There was a rather nice looking Mitsubishi (IIRC) in Curry's,
which seemed quite well designed (compact jug design, so you can boil
small quantities of water efficiently, and the build quality seemed
reasonable, as far as one can judge that by looking and working the
controls), but it was £40, and when I read the label more closely,
that was half-price! So I didn't buy that, but a bog-standard Asda
own brand for a little under £17.

My reasoning was based on the following roughly remembered statistics:

1967 - 1988 Two RH 'Forgettles', the first automatic ones. (The
second was necessary because the first was dropped and one of the feet
was knocked off, leaving a hole in the bottom.) If you grabbed the
handle too near the back, steam escaping through the switch mechanism
would give you a slight burn, and they both needed a replacement
element or two, and not a jug design, which I would now prefer for
boiling small quantities of water. But, particularly these days, such
a lifespan is impressive.

1988 - 1997 Morphy Richards. Cordless, jug, exposed element, early
tendency to leak from the fill height indicator, which, for as long as
I could obtain one, when it got too bad I periodically cured by
replacing the O-ring at the bottom. When I try and use it now, I
think the coffee is tainted, but I don't remember noticing this at the
time.

1997 - 2007 RH Cordless, jug, concealed element. Gave up when it too
started to leak.

2007 - 2009 'Eco' kettle, as described.

So, there doesn't appear to be any relationship between price,
eco-friendliness, and reliability, but there is a clear tendency to
increasing unreliability throughout my lifetime, so I thought: "If
even the brands with a reputable history are now as crap as everything
else, why not buy the cheapest and cut your losses!".

On Sat, 20 Jun 2009 08:43:11 +0100, "Peter Crosland"
wrote:

You forgot the golden rule. "He who shops on price alone seldom gets a
genuine bargain".

======================================

Please always reply to news group as the email address in
this post's header does not exist. Alternatively, use one of the
contact addresses at:
http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/JavaJive.html
http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/Macfarlane.html

"Java Jive" wrote in message
...
While granting that you said "price alone" rather than just "price",
which makes me more inclined to agree with you, I suspect that paying
over the odds on something is unlikely to get you better quality.

When I first moved in here, I went round the stores looking for a
washer(/dryer but I never use that functionality). I was told that
Bosch had a name for build and reliability, so although it was
significantly more expensive, I bought the Bosch (I'm sure there's a
joke in there somewhere, but with the coffee cup still half full I'm
not sufficiently awake yet to see it). Within a couple of years or
so, just beyond the guarantee period of course, it started stopping in
the middle of washes, though it could be restarted from the same point
in the wash simply by turning it off for a few seconds and then on
again. I called out a repairman who advised me to put up with it, as
it would cost hundreds to fix it, so it's been driving me mad ever
since. On occasions, it's taken about four resets and all day just to
complete one wash.


About 4 years ago Bosch moved most of their production of washing
machines to eastern Europe
Most of those were new cheaper models many of which didn't have
countdown displays, where does it say yours was made?

Steve Terry

In article , Kay Robinson wrote:
The present [kettle] is a cordless energy saver one
I've had for five years, you put water in, set the thermostat, then
leave it on for the day only filling when necessary. The consumption
used to keep the water just at the boil for five cups of tea is equal
to boiling one cupful from cold. It's saved me money on my electric
and time when I want a cuppa (except when it needs refilling).

I think there is some false reasoning here. The energy required to boil
five cups of water from cold is the same however it's done. I don't
understand how you can be saving energy by expending the *additional*
energy needed to keep it hot all day.

Rod.
--
Virtual Access V6.3 free usenet/email software from
http://sourceforge.net/projects/virtual-access/

On Sat, 11 Jul 2009 10:19:28 +0100, Roderick Stewart
wrote:

The present [kettle] is a cordless energy saver one
I've had for five years, you put water in, set the thermostat, then
leave it on for the day only filling when necessary. The consumption
used to keep the water just at the boil for five cups of tea is equal
to boiling one cupful from cold. It's saved me money on my electric
and time when I want a cuppa (except when it needs refilling).

I think there is some false reasoning here. The energy required to boil
five cups of water from cold is the same however it's done. I don't
understand how you can be saving energy by expending the *additional*
energy needed to keep it hot all day.

The answer is that you obviously can't save energy by doing this.
She just has **** for brains if she thinks otherwise.

Having plonked her some while ago for rudeness, I hadn't realised that
I'd had such an illogical reply. Of course, Rod, you're right ...

In theory, ignoring for the moment practical considerations like
energy loss in conversion from electricity to heat, as heat through
the walls of the appliance, or as evaporation from the surface of the
water *before* boiling - we will examine such things later ...

The energy needed to boil a cup of water is a property of the water,
not of the machinery/appliance used to boil it.

1) Easiest to understand, the amount, technically the mass rather
than the volume, of the water.

2) The specific heat of water, which is the amount of energy required
to raise 1 gram of water by 1 degree Centigrade.

3) The (specific) latent heat of vaporisation (boiling), which is the
amount of energy required to convert 1 gram of water at boiling point,
100 Deg C, into steam at the same temperature.

4) The initial temperature of the water.

Note that none of these descriptions mention the appliance at all.

We are now in a position to conduct what Einstein would have called
(IIRC) a 'gedanken' or thought experiment. In such a thought
experiment, we can stipulate conditions of our choosing to eliminate
real world complexities that would otherwise obscure the principles we
are trying to understand.

We shall consider three nearly identical kettles which we shall
stipulate should be:
1) Perfect convertors of electrical energy into heat
2) Initially, perfect insulators, so no heat is lost through the
walls of the kettles
3) Initially, closed off from the atmosphere in some way so that no
evaporation can take place until boiling actually commences
3) Made of identical materials, etc

The only differences that we shall allow with our kettles are that the
first is as Kay has described, the second has a conventional 2kW
element, the third a similarly conventional 3kW element, identical to
the 2kW excepts as to rating. But we had better stipulate "as Kay has
described" more exactly. As we don't want to waste any energy by
continually having to refill her kettle through water being boiled
away, we shall assume that Kay's kettle is like the 2kW differing only
in a mechanism, as this is a thought experiment the practicalities or
even practicability of the mechanism are not important, to maintain
the water at 100 deg C *without* actually boiling it.

We shall also stipulate that at hourly intervals five identical
quantities, which we shall call 'cups', of water are boiled in each
kettle, as follows:

In Kay's kettle, the water for all five cups is added at the start of
the experiment, brought to 100 deg C, and maintained without boiling
at that temperature throughout the experiment, except when the kettle
is being actually boiled to draw off a cup of water for use.

For the other two kettles, each cup is added one at a time, brought to
the boil, and completely poured off for use.

Which is most efficient in terms of energy used to boil five cups of
water?

As the energy required to boil one cup of water is the same,
regardless of appliance, straightaway we can comment that the two
conventional kettles regardless of the 2kW and 3kW elements will use
the same amount of energy to boil each cup, and therefore all five
cups. At each boiling, the 3kW kettle will consume electrical energy
at a faster *rate* (note rate, which implies a time factor) to boil
the water quicker, while the 2kW will take longer, but the *overall*
energy used by both will be identical.

But what about Kay's kettle? Here, because of the way her kettle
works, we need to break the process of boiling, treated as one process
in the preceding paragraph, into two:
1) Bringing the water initially to 100 deg C *without* actually
boiling it
2) The five seperate boilings to obtain each cup of water

By similar reasoning as before, the amount of energy needed for (1) is
the same for all three. That's the good news; the bad news is (2). If
'm' is the mass of each cup of water, and 'l' (small L) the latent
heat of boiling, the conventional kettles perform this feat 5 times
each, so the energy used is 5*l*m for each, but in Kay's kettle, the
first boiling uses 5*l*m to boil all five cups just to pour off one,
the second 4*l*m, the third 3*l*m, the fourth 2*l*m, and the fifth
1*l*m, so the total energy used in this part of the boiling process is
(5 + 4 + 3 + 2 + 1)*l*m which is 15*l*m, or three times as much! And
the more you try and economise by adding more cups at the start of the
day, the worse it gets!

So even without bringing the real world into play, it is clear that
Kay is sadly mistaken, but let us now see what happens if we allow for
the real world, particularly heat loss to the environment by
conduction through the walls of the kettles, and by evaporation prior
to boiling.

The *rate* of heat loss (note a time element again) through the walls
of the kettle will depend mainly on
1) The material that the kettles are made of, but we have
conveniently stipulated that they are identical, to eliminate that as
a variable.
2) The surface area of the water in contact with the sides of the
kettle, which will unavoidably depend on the amount of water in each.
For the sake of simplicity, we shall stipulate that this surface area
is proportional to the amount of water, though the precise
relationship is only important quantitatively, not qualitatively. That
is to say, the precise numbers will not affect our conclusion.
3) The temperature difference, or 'heat gradient', between the inside
and outside of the kettle. That is, the hotter the water inside the
kettle, the greater the heat gradient, so the faster energy is lost
through the walls of the kettle.

The *rate* of energy loss (again a time element) by evaporation prior
to boiling will depend mainly on:
1) Atmospheric conditions, but we can eliminate those as a variable
by stipulating that they are the same for all three kettles and do not
change throughout the experiment.
2) The surface area of water exposed to the air in each kettle, but
we have conveniently stipulated that they are identical; in
particular, we can further stipulate that the kettles are cylindrical
with a constant cross-section against height, thereby also ensuring
that the surface area doesn't vary with the quantity of water in the
kettle.
3) The temperature of the water, so the higher the temperature of the
water, the faster energy is lost through evaporation from the surface.

So, we have now two mechanisms where the rate of energy loss is
dependent on the temperature of the water in the kettle, one is also
dependent on the amount of water in the kettle. Although the exact
quantities lost might be difficult to determine, let us at least see
qualitatively what happens now ...

Kay's kettle is now even less efficient than the other two. Again let
us consider the two phases seperately.

During (1), the amount of heat lost through evaporation from the
surface of the water must be of the same order of magnitude as
one-fifth of the 2kW, for by doing all five cups at once, we are
exposing only one fifth of the surface area for the same amount of
water. However the situation is reversed with conduction through the
walls, as we are exposing (we chose to stipulate), five times as much
water surface area to the walls of the kettle. For the sake of
simplicity let us assume that these factors approximately cancel out,
and that phase (1) is comparable to the 2kW kettle.

However, after the first boiling, indeed between all the boilings, the
other two kettles are effectively inert. Although they may be cooling
down to ambient temperature, that heat that they are then losing was
gained from the water while it was boiling, and, the water having been
poured off and used, in terms of the experiment's calculations the
kettles lose heat during boiling but do not lose heat in between.

On the hand, Kay's kettle, by maintaining the water at 100 deg C
between boilings, will continue to lose energy by surface evaporation
and conduction through the walls at the maximum possible rate that is
possible without actually boiling the water! Further, by an argument
similar to the latent heat of boiling, the surface area of water
exposed to the walls of the kettle (as we stipulated) is initially
five, then four, then three, then two, and finally (for the last hour
of the experiment) one times that for the other two kettles, so the
loss by conduction through the walls is far, far worse than the other
two kettles!

In short, if Kay was sold her kettle on economical or ecological
grounds, and such advertising is still used for similar types of
kettle, she should contact the Advertising Standards Authority!

Which reminds me ...

What of the other two kettles in the real world? Are they still
equally efficient, or is one more efficient than the other? The
answer is the 3kW kettle is the most efficient - because it boils
the water quicker, it loses less heat to the environment while it does
so. Therein we see the real significance of the time factor that I
heavily emphasised.

So ... Ah! I'm glad that someone's had a word in their shell-like:
http://www.russellhobbs.co.uk/buyers_guide.html?guide=7

20/04/2007:
"2Kw is energy saving as it uses less power to boil the kettle."

Today:
"Regardless of what you might think, a 3kW element uses no more energy
than a lower wattage appliance"

An improvement, but a pity they still haven't quite got it right!

On Sat, 11 Jul 2009 10:19:28 +0100, Roderick Stewart
wrote:

In article , Kay Robinson wrote:
The present [kettle] is a cordless energy saver one
I've had for five years, you put water in, set the thermostat, then
leave it on for the day only filling when necessary. The consumption
used to keep the water just at the boil for five cups of tea is equal
to boiling one cupful from cold. It's saved me money on my electric
and time when I want a cuppa (except when it needs refilling).

I think there is some false reasoning here. The energy required to boil
five cups of water from cold is the same however it's done. I don't
understand how you can be saving energy by expending the *additional*
energy needed to keep it hot all day.

======================================

Please always reply to news group as the email address in
this post's header does not exist. Alternatively, use one of the
contact addresses at:
http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/JavaJive.html
http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/Macfarlane.html

On Fri, 10 Jul 2009 12:07:27 +0100, Kay Robinson
wrote:

On Sat, 20 Jun 2009 12:18:29 +0100, Java Jive
sharpened a new quill and scratched:

While granting that you said "price alone" rather than just "price",
which makes me more inclined to agree with you, I suspect that paying
over the odds on something is unlikely to get you better quality.

When I first moved in here, I went round the stores looking for a
washer(/dryer but I never use that functionality). I was told that
Bosch had a name for build and reliability, so although it was
significantly more expensive, I bought the Bosch (I'm sure there's a
joke in there somewhere, but with the coffee cup still half full I'm
not sufficiently awake yet to see it). Within a couple of years or
so, just beyond the guarantee period of course, it started stopping in
the middle of washes, though it could be restarted from the same point
in the wash simply by turning it off for a few seconds and then on
again. I called out a repairman who advised me to put up with it, as
it would cost hundreds to fix it, so it's been driving me mad ever
since. On occasions, it's taken about four resets and all day just to
complete one wash.

And, remember this? Let's all give a big hand to welcome back ...
http://tinyurl.com/kkhy9n
... standing in for ...

"TOT Conundrum - Kettles"

http://groups.google.com/group/uk.te...2 a5b9d5794ce

I eventually bought an "Eco friendly technology cordless kettle" (I've
only just realised there doesn't appear to be a brand name as such),
which seemed like a good idea at the time. It has two compartments.
You fill the top one at the beginning of the day with enough water to
last the day, and then for each boiling let down enough water at one
go to make whatever it is that you're making. So far so good, BUT:

If you actually have a little more water in the boiling compartment
than is needed, as you tilt the kettle back upright after pouring,
this remaining water comes back into contact with the element,
instantly reboils and splutters out of the spout. I never did have my
hand in the way, but it was very dangerous. I wouldn't have such a
kettle in any house with children or infirm people.

We more or less decided in the original thread that exposed elements
were almost certainly more efficient than concealed elements, yet this
had a concealed element.

When, like everybody else in the world, you've been raised on the
routine of filling a normal kettle and then switching it on, even
after a year or so you're likely to forget occasionally that not only
do you have to fill this kettle, but you also have to let some water
down into the lower compartment before you can boil anything. There's
a thermal cutout to protect the kettle, but this having been invoked
recently may have something to do with the kettle stopping working not
long afterwards. Presumably the element has burnt out.

Which brings us to another disadvantage of concealed elements. You
can't simply replace it when it dies.

So, as the CO2 and other pollution involved in making and disposing of
the kettle when 'written off' as an 'overhead' over it's tragically
short life, is likely to be of the same order of magnitude as any
energy saved during its use, I can't really say that it was really
"eco friendly" at all. However, I can definitely say that it was
dangerous.

So to bring us back to price, I've been in the market for kettles
again. There was a rather nice looking Mitsubishi (IIRC) in Curry's,
which seemed quite well designed (compact jug design, so you can boil
small quantities of water efficiently, and the build quality seemed
reasonable, as far as one can judge that by looking and working the
controls), but it was £40, and when I read the label more closely,
that was half-price! So I didn't buy that, but a bog-standard Asda
own brand for a little under £17.

My reasoning was based on the following roughly remembered statistics:

1967 - 1988 Two RH 'Forgettles', the first automatic ones. (The
second was necessary because the first was dropped and one of the feet
was knocked off, leaving a hole in the bottom.) If you grabbed the
handle too near the back, steam escaping through the switch mechanism
would give you a slight burn, and they both needed a replacement
element or two, and not a jug design, which I would now prefer for
boiling small quantities of water. But, particularly these days, such
a lifespan is impressive.

1988 - 1997 Morphy Richards. Cordless, jug, exposed element, early
tendency to leak from the fill height indicator, which, for as long as
I could obtain one, when it got too bad I periodically cured by
replacing the O-ring at the bottom. When I try and use it now, I
think the coffee is tainted, but I don't remember noticing this at the
time.

1997 - 2007 RH Cordless, jug, concealed element. Gave up when it too
started to leak.

2007 - 2009 'Eco' kettle, as described.

So, there doesn't appear to be any relationship between price,
eco-friendliness, and reliability, but there is a clear tendency to
increasing unreliability throughout my lifetime, so I thought: "If
even the brands with a reputable history are now as crap as everything
else, why not buy the cheapest and cut your losses!".

On Sat, 20 Jun 2009 08:43:11 +0100, "Peter Crosland"
wrote:

You forgot the golden rule. "He who shops on price alone seldom gets a
genuine bargain".

======================================

Please always reply to news group as the email address in
this post's header does not exist. Alternatively, use one of the
contact addresses at:
http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/JavaJive.html
http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/Macfarlane.html

I don't know where you buy your kettles. I've had only four throughout
my life. The first one I replaced the element twice, the third time it
went the kettle was so old a replacement couldn't be found after
twenty years of service, the next developed a leak after a few years,
the third I dropped. The present one is a cordless energy saver one
I've had for five years, you put water in, set the thermostat, then
leave it on for the day only filling when necessary. The consumption
used to keep the water just at the boil for five cups of tea is equal
to boiling one cupful from cold. It's saved me money on my electric
and time when I want a cuppa (except when it needs refilling).

Can you tell us what make and model it is please?

You don't want to know, see my reply to Rod. She's either very much
mistaken or living in different laws of physics to the rest of us.

On Sat, 11 Jul 2009 16:15:45 +0100, Peter Duncanson
wrote:

Can you tell us what make and model it is please?

======================================

Please always reply to news group as the email address in
this post's header does not exist. Alternatively, use one of the
contact addresses at:
http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/JavaJive.html
http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/Macfarlane.html