Author Topic: Standby Power For TV And Net Devices In Perspective  (Read 8233 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline SgtRockTopic starter

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 1200
  • Country: us
Standby Power For TV And Net Devices In Perspective
« on: July 01, 2012, 03:56:18 am »
Greetings EEVBees:

--See below a great article about actual standby power demand of devices. Wall Warts are not addressed in the article. If you have an accurate idea of what is using how much of your electricity, you will have a better idea where to start economizing, eh?

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/06/29/energy_saving_trust_report/

--Lighting  and personal comfort, are also in play.

"The paragraph quoted above refers to ceiling lights powered from 5A lighting circuits, not ones plugged into the wall: but these often use transformers too - for instance for low-voltage ceiling spotlights. In such cases, of course, it is often not feasible to cut power to the transformer without knocking off a breaker or pulling out the light fitting. It's odd that the very people so keen to unplug the telly are often big fans of such spotlights, and would never believe that they waste far more juice even when switched "off" than the TV does on standby."

"The big stuff is travel, making and having things (ie buildings, furniture, tools, interior decor, infrastructure etc) and heating/cooling (a large amount of this is laundry and personal hygiene). Remember: skipping one bath or shower saves as much energy as switching off a typical gadget at the wall for a year."

"I'll have the Alfalfa sandwich, and the smashed yeast"
Woody Allen 1935 -

Best Regards
Clear Ether
 

Offline Rerouter

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 4694
  • Country: au
  • Question Everything... Except This Statement
Re: Standby Power For TV And Net Devices In Perspective
« Reply #1 on: July 01, 2012, 05:46:19 am »
yeah i tend to just laugh at the tv "energy wise savings" bull where they first thing they reccomend is unplug your tv at standby, primarily due to the people so obsessed about saving those cents per year usually buy the cheaper tv's which dont like being hit with inrush current 2-3 times a day,

and spot on about the low voltage lighting and wall wart lamps, it annoys me to no end, as i have a neighbour obsessed about unplugging his tv, and his standby on the lights is 18W!

 

Offline vk6zgo

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 7563
  • Country: au
Re: Standby Power For TV And Net Devices In Perspective
« Reply #2 on: July 01, 2012, 08:03:49 am »

Down light  "transformers" are normally disconnected from the mains supply when in the" Off" condition.
I have never seen any which aren't controlled by a normal light switch on the wall,& in some cases, a dimmer.
If the dimmer is turned right down,they will be dark,but that is not "Off"!
"Off" is with the wall switch turned "Off".

OK,they are very wasteful of power when they are "On".& maybe when dimmed,but "Off"-------I'm sorry,but I'm going to have to call "bullshit" on that one!

The IKEA lamp that was initially referred to may well have a switch after  the "transformer",but to extend  that to a totally different type of lighting system is stretching things to breaking point!

If you have a Solar HWS,the "miss a shower" story doesn't hold up either!

The biggest problem with these disputes is that  both sides feel quite free to make up stuff that supports their argument!
 

Offline johnwa

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 255
  • Country: au
    • loopgain.net - a few of my projects
Re: Standby Power For TV And Net Devices In Perspective
« Reply #3 on: July 01, 2012, 08:29:27 am »
I think the same comments apply for standby power as for CFLs. Used appropriately they make sense, but the debate seems to divide into two camps: the "if you are using any incandescents at all you are killing baby seals" brigade, and the "its all a government plot to take away our light globes and give us mercury poisoning" lot.

In most households, it should be possible to achieve a meaningful reduction in energy usage by switching things at the wall. Though it is stupid to blindly unplug every last appliance - for all the trouble rummaging around behind the TV, you might only save 0.5W on standby. I think it is better to at least measure the standby consumption of everything, and then find where the most gains can be made, with the least inconvenience, in terms of switch accessibility/frequency of switching/loss of clock settings, etc.

I went over everything in the house a while ago, and now there are a few things that I switch off at the wall. The microwave oven uses 6 watts, I didn't use the clock on it, and the wall switch is easily accessible, so it makes sense to switch it off. Likewise for a couple of computers that are only used occasionally. However, I leave the stereo plugged in, so I can switch it with the remote control.

You are right of course, SgtRock, heating is responsible for the largest proportion of energy usage by far, and if you are going to spend money in an effort to improve efficiency, this is the place to do it.
 

Offline G7PSK

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3859
  • Country: gb
  • It is hot until proved not.
Re: Standby Power For TV And Net Devices In Perspective
« Reply #4 on: July 01, 2012, 09:14:40 am »
The campaign to switch of TV's when not in use in order to save standby current is more about the total power saved by the nation as a whole rather than a few pennies saved by the individual. 18 watts times fifty million or so is a large chunk of output from a power station, the same is the reason that the EU has banned the manufacture and sale of traditional light bulbs, A huge amount of generation capacity is relived so that it can be taken up by all the cell phone chargers that get left on, A friend of mine just decorated their spare bed room that had last been used about 7 years ago plugged into a socket under the bed was a phone charger that was still warm, how much power is that wasted?   
 

Offline SeanB

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 16272
  • Country: za
Re: Standby Power For TV And Net Devices In Perspective
« Reply #5 on: July 01, 2012, 10:24:17 am »
That again is due to the owner. The standby power use that is claimed to be the output of a power station is bogus, as at best it will be the output of the smallest unit in the smallest station. It might be a difference if you are running the grid at close to collapse with no reserve margin, and in that case you are in deep doodo if an incident like a bird shorting out a power line happens, as the cascade will definitely island the system into a total blackout, and it will take a day or more to restore a minimal grid then. That is a political problem, as it means that no reserve is left and there is absolutely no more redundancy to handle anticipatable faults.

It would be far better to go for solutions like insulation, fixing street lighting that is faulty and dayburning ( 400W by 20 poles per kilometer adds up rather quickly to a signifigant load) and promoting solar heating of water ( the solar heating is big here in SA, with a sponsorship of low cost homes by the utility, paid by the few who pay through the nose for power, which is making a bigger difference than unplugging a 1W load per household) and using gas for cooking and heating. All big loads that are able to be shifted to an alternative, the lighting of a house is the least effective thing to do, it just makes the people feel that they are doing something.

Sad is that i have been doing this for the last 20 years, and the least effective was cutting small load usage. The biggest was insulating the geyser, the first 2m of pipe out of it and using the stove less and using gas occasionally.

I will give a tip that saves a lot of power - when washing clothes take them out immediately the machine stops, fold them neatly ( still damp) and wrinkle free and then hang them up to dry in the shape they hang naturally. they will dry wrinkle free, and will either not need or will need less ironing. Ironing clothes, or using a drier, is a massive energy waste that is easily avoided by this. If ironing a shirt for use under a jacket you only need to do the collar and the top of the front, as well as the ends of the sleeves. The rest is hidden anyway.
 

Offline mariush

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 4983
  • Country: ro
  • .
Re: Standby Power For TV And Net Devices In Perspective
« Reply #6 on: July 01, 2012, 11:56:26 am »
The best thing anyone could do is to get a Kill-a-watt device (or something similar) for themselves, to see how much each thing eats from the wall.

I got one off eBay and it works great.

What I found is that I have two monitors on the desk, both consume about 25-40w in total when running, less than a watt when computer is off. 
The Nokia charger I leave in the socket uses about 0.4w unplugged to anything.
The computer power supply also uses less than a watt when idle (seasonic gold efficiency)

However, the Logitech 5.1 speakers consume as little as 15-20w at low volume, and about 45 watts at about 60% volume. Even when the computer is off, it will suck about 15 watts from the wall due to the old amplifier chips it uses.
I didn't check lately but I'm sure the cable modem uses about 5 watts constantly and it's always on. The cable decoder set top box is also sure to use about 10-15 watts but didn't test it.

So for me at least, it's pointless to worry about a phone charger or something drawing power when off, when I could accidentally forget the speakers on over night and they'll waste as much power in a few hours as those devices drain within a month.

 

Offline SgtRockTopic starter

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 1200
  • Country: us
Re: Standby Power For TV And Net Devices In Perspective
« Reply #7 on: July 01, 2012, 01:50:23 pm »
Dear G7PSK:

--I have read with pleasure, many of your posts. As a general matter you obviously have forgotten more about many areas of Electronics, than I know. That is why I am so surprised at your reaction to, what I regard as a rather forthright and well reasoned article, the thrust of which is that, the savings of unplugging have been overstated by a factor of between 5 and 10 times. The figure you use is 18 Watts, which is only about 28% of the 64 Watt average the Energy Savings Trust reports, don't you trust them?

You stated:

"The campaign to switch [of] TV's when not in use in order to save standby current is more about the total power saved by the nation as a whole rather than a few pennies saved by the individual. 18 watts times fifty million or so is a large chunk of output from a power station..."

--Let me see if I have this right. What you are saying is that there is one of those multiplication deals going on. So that if 50 million people plugged and unplugged every possible standby using device, multiple times a day they would pert near like to plum save the output of an entire gereratin station. Of course this ignores the possibility that they would burn up a few extra millions of devices due to as many as a thousand extra instances of in-rush current per device. The cost of replacing these devices might be more than the power saved.

--With regard to your statement that down lights do not use standby power, is it your position that both the author of the article, who specifically mentioned 5A lighting circuits, and Rerouter who mentioned the 18W standby of his neighbor's lights, were both throwing the bull, so to speak? You might want to consider that merely because you have never seen something, it is not absolute proof that it does not exist.

--Certainly you are correct though that if you do not use electricity to heat water, you only save water by not taking a shower, because you have already saved the electricity by using one of the only known non-scam solar schemes. But I think most of us understand this sort of thing without explanation.

--You stated:

"A friend of mine just decorated their spare bed room that had last been used about 7 years ago plugged into a socket [sic] under the bed was a phone charger that was still warm, how much power is [sic] that wasted?"

--Good point, I am also given to understand that Camellia Sinensis futures have been taking a beating of late on the Shanghai Exchange.

--Lastly, you mentioned the CFL Totalitarian Juggernaut. I just ordered some small mercury tilt switches from Hong Kong. I am making a warning light from the tilt switch and a flashing LED for a dog collar (total cost less that $4), to remind me to shut a ball valve going to a leaky shower valve, a stop gap until a scheduled re-plumb of the whole house is carried out in a few months. But I digress. If a child were to take one of these mercury switches to school, and if it should fall and break, the building would be evacuated and the Hazmat Team in Bunny Suits would be called. But if a CFL were to break, they would merely sweep it up and go on about the business of under-educating the kids. As near as I can tell, this is because, the mercury used in CFLs is magic and has no toxic properties.

--Of course, if you read my original post, you will see that my point was not to tell people what to plug or unplug, but to help them get a realistic idea of the things they can do to save electricity before reaching the rather arduous need to unplug as many as 5 or 10 devices, possibly 3 or 4 times a day, 365 days a year.

"How could Nixon have won? I don't know a single person who voted for him!"
Pauline Kael 1919 - 2001

Best Regards
Clear Ether
 

Offline G7PSK

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3859
  • Country: gb
  • It is hot until proved not.
Re: Standby Power For TV And Net Devices In Perspective
« Reply #8 on: July 01, 2012, 02:36:07 pm »
Dear Sgt Rock The advertising campaign here in the UK to turn of and save power is most certainly more about the total power saved by the nation than anything else, I don't think I mentioned water heaters or down lights.

We have a situation developing in the UK and the rest of Europe where we are running out of generating capacity as old plants end their usefully life span and new plants are not being built as the generating company's have been privatetised, the share holders want instant returns on their investment not something 20 years down the road, and who can blame them.There is also gross under investment by the utilities in the UK as they struggle to raise further investment.

That is why some things are better run by state organisations or quangos as we call them in the UK,who can take the social investment aspect into consideration and dont need an instant return on monies invested but can look at 25 or 50 years on projects,  you would not expect roads to be run by private company's for the social good of the community and in the same way other infrastructure utilities also are best run centrally for the good of the nation.     

P.S. I know bugger all about electronics compared to many on the forum But I do know a bit about power generation as I have been involved in building power generators for the pas 40 years or so.
« Last Edit: July 01, 2012, 02:46:21 pm by G7PSK »
 

Offline Rufus

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2095
Re: Standby Power For TV And Net Devices In Perspective
« Reply #9 on: July 01, 2012, 03:06:49 pm »
The campaign to switch of TV's when not in use in order to save standby current is more about the total power saved by the nation as a whole rather than a few pennies saved by the individual.

Totally stupid argument. An insignificant 0.1% of power used for standby in one household remains and insignificant 0.1% of power used by millions of households.

Anyone who thinks multiplying a small proportion by a big number makes the proportion bigger is arithmetically challenged.

A friend of mine just decorated their spare bed room that had last been used about 7 years ago plugged into a socket under the bed was a phone charger that was still warm, how much power is that wasted?   

About 1W and I would have to work for about 170ms a day to pay for it.

 

Offline tom66

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 6680
  • Country: gb
  • Electronics Hobbyist & FPGA/Embedded Systems EE
Re: Standby Power For TV And Net Devices In Perspective
« Reply #10 on: July 01, 2012, 06:48:37 pm »
Let's do a sample calculation on inrush

Take a simple 230VAC to 5VDC, 300mA adapter (BlackBerry charger, for example.)

Typical mains cap in this is going to be ~10µF. At 325V peak this is 0.52 joules. (1/2 CV^2) Divide by 3600 to get watt hours. This is 0.14 milli-watthours.

Compared to typical standby power of 0.05W - 50mW - you will use more mWh in just 10.1 seconds.

So, unplugging and plugging in chargers for any less than 10.1 seconds wastes energy. Any more is probably completely fine.

Just like the debate on whether or not turning off fluorescent tube lighting with normal capacitance starters saves energy. It does, but you must turn the light off for at least 15 seconds for it to matter.
 

Offline Rufus

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2095
Re: Standby Power For TV And Net Devices In Perspective
« Reply #11 on: July 01, 2012, 07:15:37 pm »
Quote
Totally stupid argument. An insignificant 0.1% of power used for standby in one household remains and insignificant 0.1% of power used by millions of households.

Anyone who thinks multiplying a small proportion by a big number makes the proportion bigger is arithmetically challenged.

Who was arguing about proportions?

Not arguing about proportions is the problem.

G7PSK did assert that a lot of small savings whilst not significant of themselves can had up to a  "chunk" of worthwhile savings.

Which is the completely wrong and stupid argument.

If expending X amount of effort or money to achieve a saving Y isn't worthwhile multiplying X and Y by a million changes nothing, it is still not worthwhile. The argument made by arithmetically challenged idiots is a million Y is worthwhile compared to a single X.

Let's do a sample calculation on inrush

Inrush energy is irrelevant the problem turning things on and off repeatedly is wear and tear on the switch and stress on components causing earlier failure followed by the cost of lack of availability and repair or replacement.

The cost of an electrician call out to replace a wall socket with a knackered switch would provide 1W of standby power to a device for about 50 years.
 

Offline G7PSK

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3859
  • Country: gb
  • It is hot until proved not.
Re: Standby Power For TV And Net Devices In Perspective
« Reply #12 on: July 01, 2012, 08:40:15 pm »
What I am saying is that the drive to switch of or unplug TV's etc is politically driven to reduce the overall draw on power stations. Whether the amount saved is worth while to an individual I do not know but there is a political push for power saving due to things like carbon credits and to a far greater extent the looming shortfall in generating capacity with old coal and nuclear plants going off stream and nothing really coming along to replace them (at least in Europe) other than a few gas fired dual cycle plants. And with north sea gas running low there is an increased dependency on Russian gas the supply of which is politically tenuous to say the least. There are of course the wind farms (you cant look out along the Norfolk coastline now without seeing at least one wind farm and often several, but the wind does not blow all the time in fact most times I have seen the wind farms they are idle.
so the politicians fix is to turn of the TV and with a bit of luck you will be to idle to turn it back on to see the report on the latest politician to be caught with his pants down or hand in the till.
 

Offline IanB

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 11790
  • Country: us
Re: Standby Power For TV And Net Devices In Perspective
« Reply #13 on: July 01, 2012, 09:19:30 pm »
What I am saying is that the drive to switch of or unplug TV's etc is politically driven to reduce the overall draw on power stations.

Fair enough, but what others are saying in response is that a reduction of 0.1% for individuals will never amount to more than a 0.1% reduction in the overall load on power stations. Much less in fact, due to other industrial and commercial electricity consumers. It isn't a bad idea to reduce consumption anywhere it is reasonable, but it isn't going to save the world.
 

Offline G7PSK

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3859
  • Country: gb
  • It is hot until proved not.
Re: Standby Power For TV And Net Devices In Perspective
« Reply #14 on: July 01, 2012, 09:35:56 pm »
Politicians are not known for their maths skills or common sense,I see full well what the others are saying and don't disagree with them but as Tesco say every little helps.
 

Offline vk6zgo

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 7563
  • Country: au
Re: Standby Power For TV And Net Devices In Perspective
« Reply #15 on: July 02, 2012, 09:23:23 am »



--With regard to your statement that down lights do not use standby power, is it your position that both the author of the article, who specifically mentioned 5A lighting circuits, and Rerouter who mentioned the 18W standby of his neighbor's lights, were both throwing the bull, so to speak?

Well,actually,that was me-- VK6ZGO.
I know we Hams all look alike!

I do think just that about the author, as the whole article has the same "breathless"air that those written by the people he is criticising do.

I believe Rerouter may be mistaken.
Unless I am becoming senile,the licencing authorities in Western Australia,or AFAIK any other State would not allow a lighting system which could not be turned off completely at the wall.
I don't think that they would be allowed in the UK,either.

The standard replacement  halon globes we can still buy don't need a "warm up" current,& the down lights of the same species I have used don't either.
If they did,it would be the only possible reason to have a permanent mains connection to the "transformers",which are really switchmode supplies.


 You might want to consider that merely because you have never seen something, it is not absolute proof that it does not exist.

I've never seen a Unicorn,either,Sarge! ;D


--Certainly you are correct though that if you do not use electricity to heat water, you only save water by not taking a shower, because you have already saved the electricity by using one of the only known non-scam solar schemes. But I think most of us understand this sort of thing without explanation.

I agree,Solar HWS are the success story of Solar Power--no silly conversion,just heat the water & go.
And,if you live somewhere sunny,you can turn off the booster,as we did,& run all year with ample hot water.
Not much good in the UK,though! ;D


I think the rest were G7PSK!

--You stated:

"A friend of mine just decorated their spare bed room that had last been used about 7 years ago plugged into a socket [sic] under the bed was a phone charger that was still warm, how much power is [sic] that wasted?"

I would be more concerned about the possible fire risk!
We have an ADSL modem which I turn off at night,along with the computer,not to save power,but because the ADSL box gets incredibly warm in operation --hot in the summer!


--Good point, I am also given to understand that Camellia Sinensis futures have been taking a beating of late on the Shanghai Exchange.

--Lastly, you mentioned the CFL Totalitarian Juggernaut. I just ordered some small mercury tilt switches from Hong Kong. I am making a warning light from the tilt switch and a flashing LED for a dog collar (total cost less that $4), to remind me to shut a ball valve going to a leaky shower valve, a stop gap until a scheduled re-plumb of the whole house is carried out in a few months. But I digress. If a child were to take one of these mercury switches to school, and if it should fall and break, the building would be evacuated and the Hazmat Team in Bunny Suits would be called. But if a CFL were to break, they would merely sweep it up and go on about the business of under-educating the kids. As near as I can tell, this is because, the mercury used in CFLs is magic and has no toxic properties.

CFLs only contain a very small quantity of  mercury in compound with other stuff,whereas,tilt switches have a glob about the size of a pea of mercury in its metallic form,so  there is a bit of a justification.

On the other hand,I have dropped mercury switches,but they have never broken & released  mercury into the environment.
Maybe it's because the glass is quite thick for the size of the package,or that the mercury is all at the lowest(impact) point & its mass absorbs the impact---dunno!
The switch stops working,though,not quite sure why!

When I was a kid,my Uncle & Grandfather had a  small Gold Mine,with its own small Battery (ore crusher).
They used Mercury ,Cyanide,& Arsenic in various Gold recovery methods.

A favourite trick of my Uncle's was to take an old copper Penny,dip it in Mercury & "change it into a 2 shilling piece" (Pre-Decimal days).
Us kids were awestruck!
My Dad used to tell stories about leaving a speck of mercury in the chook yard (Chicken pen).
The chooks would be attracted to the mercury,would peck it up,& basically,it would go right through their digestive system & out the other end,
The hen would turn around,see the attractive shiny object,& repeat the process---continuous amusement! ;D

Now we've gone to the other extreme!

I'm quite sure they would bring out the bunny suits here if you broke a fluoro of any kind,though to be fair,the most likely  breakages would be normal tubes.
Some local authorities won't take either CFLs or tubes at  their tip!



--Of course, if you read my original post, you will see that my point was not to tell people what to plug or unplug, but to help them get a realistic idea of the things they can do to save electricity before reaching the rather arduous need to unplug as many as 5 or 10 devices, possibly 3 or 4 times a day, 365 days a year.

"How could Nixon have won? I don't know a single person who voted for him!"
Pauline Kael 1919 - 2001

Best Regards
Clear Ether

Sarge,I agree that the argument for turning everything off at the wall to save "standby power usage" is at least,extremely suspect,but  I disagree with countering that argument with one that has similar defects.
Cheers,VK6ZGO
« Last Edit: July 02, 2012, 09:30:37 am by vk6zgo »
 

Offline tom66

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 6680
  • Country: gb
  • Electronics Hobbyist & FPGA/Embedded Systems EE
Re: Standby Power For TV And Net Devices In Perspective
« Reply #16 on: July 02, 2012, 09:37:31 am »
Mechanical wear for switches and plugs isn't a big issue. Look at a relay for a good example: 5,000,000 mechanical operations expected.

http://www.farnell.com/datasheets/1537833.pdf
 

Offline T4P

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3697
  • Country: sg
    • T4P
Re: Standby Power For TV And N%t Devices In Perspective
« Reply #17 on: July 02, 2012, 10:25:17 am »
Relays are relays they hardly got much weight to shift
How about the cheapies?
The cheapies ain't hardly got that much life, probably more like 1,000,000 mechanical operations
For electrical performance they start off at 100,000 but drop that to 10,000 at rated current and at 250V

For plugs they have a shitload of force to handle, especially the OHL ones that require a lot of force to lock contact
Bundle that with poor quality and BAM probably around 100 cycles

In this OHLJ filled world it's always better to err on the side of understimation
 

Uncle Vernon

  • Guest
Re: Standby Power For TV And Net Devices In Perspective
« Reply #18 on: July 02, 2012, 11:25:47 am »
Down light  "transformers" are normally disconnected from the mains supply when in the" Off" condition.
I have never seen any which aren't controlled by a normal light switch on the wall,& in some cases, a dimmer.

For fixed wiring you are quite correct the mains is interupted by a wall switch. Plug in appliances that is another story! Much of the junk our supposedly energy saving governments allows to be imported uses secondary switch and leaves a Wunhunglo transformer primary permanently across the mains.  Mis information abounds, ask any politician and they'll bank on about carbon, and energy saving lamps and all sorts of plain wrong crap.
For a clever country it has me **sed why people voted for the current lot of numbies! Or why the public preferred face of the other side is the minister most responsible for not saving the planet by quadrupling the cost of light globes. Idiots all!

 

Offline vk6zgo

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 7563
  • Country: au
Re: Standby Power For TV And Net Devices In Perspective
« Reply #19 on: July 02, 2012, 04:23:09 pm »
Down light  "transformers" are normally disconnected from the mains supply when in the" Off" condition.
I have never seen any which aren't controlled by a normal light switch on the wall,& in some cases, a dimmer.

For fixed wiring you are quite correct the mains is interupted by a wall switch. Plug in appliances that is another story! Much of the junk our supposedly energy saving governments allows to be imported uses secondary switch and leaves a Wunhunglo transformer primary permanently across the mains.  Mis information abounds, ask any politician and they'll bank on about carbon, and energy saving lamps and all sorts of plain wrong crap.
For a clever country it has me **sed why people voted for the current lot of numbies!
Unc,some years back,in the interests of efficiency,one of my employers decided to de-staff a country TV station,& do call outs from Perth.
This was fair enough,but we were concerned about safety,as this Site was 160 km away,in the middle of a farmers paddock.
It was a high power station,so it seemed sensible to send 2 people on call out!

We had a meeting with the Union Secretary & the Boss,where the Union bloke declared "Definitely 2 people on call--that is not negotiable!"
The Boss agreed,so everybody went away happy!
Next week,the "On call" rosters came out.
You guessed it!---One person on call!

Apparently ,the two had gone down to the boozer & renegotiated the deal!
Unimpressed,I went to the next Union meeting,where numerous irate members were almost ready to lynch the bloke,over other similar matters.

Here's the kicker!
At the next Union election,he was re-elected!

I gave up trying to understand voters about that time!
 


 Or why the public preferred face of the other side is the minister most responsible for not saving the planet by quadrupling the cost of light globes. Idiots all!



The story so  far-------

In the article Sarge referred to,they made the original point re plug in lamps from IKEA,then extended that to down lights alleging that they were left in "standby", using large amounts of power.
Rerouter made a comment re his neighbours alleged  power draw of 18 watts for downlights in "standby".
I,rather intemperately,used the "male bovine excreta word",in refuting these suggestions.

I have always assumed any draw from real transformers which are not loaded to be  minimal,but I have never done any tests.
"Pretend" transformers such as those which are commonly used today,may be different.

Re: The Pollies---- The thing is,they are all lay persons,with no real knowledge of Technology,

Looking at their education,their Degrees are in Law,Economics,Political Science,Social Science,etc,which fits them well for quite a few of their responsibilities,but whenever they come up against Science & Technology,they know about as much as the young person at Mac Donalds who serves burgers.
So they cast around to take advice from experts----& there are plenty of them,all with their own cart  to push!

Back in the day,such pollies were balanced a bit by practical people,such as farmers in the old Country Party,& trades people in the Labor Party.
I bet  we'll never again have an ex Engine Driver as Prime Minister!

Who you vote for is a lot like what football team you barrack for!

Being a Labor voter is a bit like being a Fitzroy supporter----They haven't quite changed their name & moved to Brisbane,but they've changed bloody near everything else! ;D

On another occasion,I suggested the answer to energy problems would to be to attach alternators to Ben Chifley's & Bob Menzies' remains to generate power as they turn over in their graves at what their successors have done to their Political Parties!

 

Uncle Vernon

  • Guest
Re: Standby Power For TV And Net Devices In Perspective
« Reply #20 on: July 03, 2012, 12:31:12 am »
I have always assumed any draw from real transformers which are not loaded to be  minimal,but I have never done any tests.
"Pretend" transformers such as those which are commonly used today,may be different.
I'd substitute the term garbage for your term pretend. Current draw is certainly a lot less than with the secondary loaded but unlikely to comply with the <1W aim we are supposedly all chasing. No doubt garbage switch modes will soon replace the transformers, albeit driven by lowest cost rather than any energy concern. The point remains however that these are just bad design with dubious safety considerations in their design.

What irks me is the madness that has the clueless masses playing energy sleuth while the government decides all manner expensive of nonsense of no consequence other than political and economic ones. This garbage should never be allowed to be imported let alone sold yet it remains illegal for a qualified EE to replace his own light switch. Who votes for these morons?

Changing the nations light globes resulted in exactly what % of  savings on the national and household power bill. Yeah that was a good one, can see why that jackass is the labor voters favorite liberal.

On sunday refrigerant went up by 300% across the board. For what? Australian manufacturers have to cop the full whack and try to remain competitive.  Yet you'll be able to by a pre-charged POS imported A/C or fridge from Raj Mfg Co that wont cop any of that tax. That'll save the planet and some non specified grandchildren how exactly? Same applies with your motor car,  300% impost on the A/C of anything locally assembled or manufactured, while a late model Kia Kevorkian will sail through unchecked. The consider the cost of an A/C re-gas for any car, that's just gone up $500 to $1K. For what, to allow some lying troll cling onto a few more months at the helm of a coalition of nutjob lefties?

Call me a denier, I think that is standard leftie practice but there is bugger all science to any of this. More importantly it's achieving nothing but to cripple industry on this side of the ditch. Sure you leftie dreamers are doing something to ensure the future of grandchildren unfortunately none of them being Australian grandchildren.

Eliminating "unnecessary" standby and in-use current is something we should always be striving for, but not at the expense of common sense. The carbon pollution created by a whole suburb or well designed LED TVs on standby remains inconsequential in comparison to that used by a red headed troll flying halfway across the planet in a old jet aircraft for the purpose of banging on and insulting foreigners. What happen to the Kevin07 fleet of ministerial Prius fleet, didn't take these grubs long to slip back into V8 holdens, how much planet was saved there.

On another occasion,I suggested the answer to energy problems would to be to attach alternators to Ben Chifley's & Bob Menzies' remains to generate power as they turn over in their graves at what their successors have done to their Political Parties!

I'd imagined a useful amount of energy could be created from the heat of burning the current lot at the stake.!The only problem being being no one can be sure how much carbon tax would apply to the burning of red hair.
 

Offline vk6zgo

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 7563
  • Country: au
Re: Standby Power For TV And Net Devices In Perspective
« Reply #21 on: July 03, 2012, 01:22:03 am »
I have always assumed any draw from real transformers which are not loaded to be  minimal,but I have never done any tests.
"Pretend" transformers such as those which are commonly used today,may be different.
I'd substitute the term garbage for your term pretend. Current draw is certainly a lot less than with the secondary loaded but unlikely to comply with the <1W aim we are supposedly all chasing. No doubt garbage switch modes will soon replace the transformers, albeit driven by lowest cost rather than any energy concern. The point remains however that these are just bad design with dubious safety considerations in their design.

What irks me is the madness that has the clueless masses playing energy sleuth while the government decides all manner expensive of nonsense of no consequence other than political and economic ones. This garbage should never be allowed to be imported let alone sold yet it remains illegal for a qualified EE to replace his own light switch. Who votes for these morons?
Near as dammit,50% for one lot,50% for the other,which is why we have got the few % where that rule varies pulling the strings!

Changing the nations light globes resulted in exactly what % of  savings on the national and household power bill. Yeah that was a good one, can see why that jackass is the labor voters favorite liberal.

As I said,Unc,he doesn't really know any better!

On sunday refrigerant went up by 300% across the board. For what? Australian manufacturers have to cop the full whack and try to remain competitive.  Yet you'll be able to by a pre-charged POS imported A/C or fridge from Raj Mfg Co that wont cop any of that tax. That'll save the planet and some non specified grandchildren how exactly? Same applies with your motor car,  300% impost on the A/C of anything locally assembled or manufactured, while a late model Kia Kevorkian will sail through unchecked. The consider the cost of an A/C re-gas for any car, that's just gone up $500 to $1K. For what, to allow some lying troll cling onto a few more months at the helm of a coalition of nutjob lefties/

The Labor Party stopped being "lefties" when  Bob Hawke turned out to be "Maggie Thatcher in drag",back in the 1980s--Just listen to them,every second word is something about "market forces"!
The Libs aren't any better ! Conservatives! Hah!Same old dog poo about "market forces" again!

When Bob Menzies was PM,we had large Government run Technical organisations,which were efficient & large Private Technical organisations which were equally efficient.
Bob was more of a practical Social Democrat than any of this current mob,on either side!


Call me a denier, I think that is standard leftie practice but there is bugger all science to any of this. More importantly it's achieving nothing but to cripple industry on this side of the ditch. Sure you leftie dreamers are doing something to ensure the future of grandchildren unfortunately none of them being Australian grandchildren.

Old style lefties were all about "the worker",& with all the ranting & raving on both sides,shared the ideal of low unemployment with most of the old style bosses.
This mob,(both sides) don't really know or care!
After all,who cares if the Boss goes broke,& the workers are out of a job,they can all go & work on the mines in WA,& the Chinese will keep on buying iron ore.
(And Santa Claus lives at the North Pole! ;D)


Eliminating "unnecessary" standby and in-use current is something we should always be striving for, but not at the expense of common sense. The carbon pollution created by a whole suburb or well designed LED TVs on standby remains inconsequential in comparison to that used by a red headed troll flying halfway across the planet in a old jet aircraft for the purpose of banging on and insulting foreigners. What happen to the Kevin07 fleet of ministerial Prius fleet, didn't take these grubs long to slip back into V8 holdens, how much planet was saved there.

On another occasion,I suggested the answer to energy problems would to be to attach alternators to Ben Chifley's & Bob Menzies' remains to generate power as they turn over in their graves at what their successors have done to their Political Parties!

I'd imagined a useful amount of energy could be created from the heat of burning the current lot at the stake.!The only problem being being no one can be sure how much carbon tax would apply to the burning of red hair.

Or,as Tony is fairly physically fit,we could put him in a squirrel cage!-----far more sustainable. ;D
 

Offline WorldPowerLabs

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 62
Re: Standby Power For TV And Net Devices In Perspective
« Reply #22 on: July 03, 2012, 02:37:57 pm »
Mechanical wear for switches and plugs isn't a big issue. Look at a relay for a good example: 5,000,000 mechanical operations expected.

http://www.farnell.com/datasheets/1537833.pdf

I'm not trying to start a disagreement, but (in the USA) we have many devices with very cheap, poor quality plugs.  I've seen the blades on plugs get chewed up quite badly just from plugging and unplugging a few dozen times (not under load -- no arcing, just mechanical wear).

I do unplug almost everything I'm not actively using.  Not for power savings, but for safety.  This way, I won't accidentally leave a toaster oven or heater plugged in and I don't have to worry about onehunglow components releasing their magic smoke when I'm not home.
 


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf