[OT] "How Green Is Your House" and TV watching

[Alex Butcher]

On Sat, 08 Oct 2005 16:05:05 +0000, **THE-RFI-EMI-GUY** wrote:

A ton of money could be saved by manufacturing items which utilize quality
materials and can be serviced readily. Too much money and resources are
spent filling landfills with appliances and goods which wear out
prematurely and cannot be repaired.

As long as purchase prices are low, repair knowledge amongst the general
public is low, and expert labour is expensive, many repairable items
probably won't be repaired anyway. A lot of people take a failure as an
excuse to go out and treat themselves to something newer and shinier. :-/

Personally, I've repaired a broken PSU in a VCR (cost me about 3.50GBP and
an hour of my time) and got my parents' TV working again (required a new
internal fuse - 10 for 1.98GBP in Maplin, and about 20mins of my time).

Best Regards,
Alex.
--
Alex Butcher Brainbench MVP for Internet Security: www.brainbench.com
Bristol, UK Need reliable and secure network systems?
PGP/GnuPG ID:0x271fd950 <http://www.assursys.com/>

 

[Alan Hope]

Alex Butcher goes:

Actually, lifetimes of LiOn cells are more closely tied to the
chronological age from the date of manufacture, providing you don't 'deep
cycle' them (i.e. run down 'til the device turns off, then recharge).

Gosh. No wonder I didn't recognise your name at the top of the post.


--
AH

 

[Bungee]

Alex Butcher <alex.butcher.news0505@assursys.co.uk> wrote:

On Sat, 08 Oct 2005 16:05:05 +0000, **THE-RFI-EMI-GUY** wrote:

A ton of money could be saved by manufacturing items which utilize quality
materials and can be serviced readily. Too much money and resources are
spent filling landfills with appliances and goods which wear out
prematurely and cannot be repaired.

As long as purchase prices are low, repair knowledge amongst the general
public is low, and expert labour is expensive, many repairable items
probably won't be repaired anyway. A lot of people take a failure as an
excuse to go out and treat themselves to something newer and shinier. :-/

Personally, I've repaired a broken PSU in a VCR (cost me about 3.50GBP and
an hour of my time) and got my parents' TV working again (required a new
internal fuse - 10 for 1.98GBP in Maplin, and about 20mins of my time).

Best Regards,
Alex.

It isn't just the apparent relative costs. We live in a culture where enquiry
into how things work is actively discouraged along with their repair. This
operates at many levels. Peer pressure on frowns on kids that have had things
fixed by their dads (can't the mean ol' skinflint buy you a new one then).
Schools no longer teach proper engineering skills. The government piles on
steadily more restrictions on what non-tradespeople are allowed to do. Insurance
companies try to weasel out of payments if something ( not even related to the
claim) is not of standard manufacture.

--
Bungee

 

[Huge]

**THE-RFI-EMI-GUY** <rhyolite@nettally.com> writes:

Huge wrote:


Much recycling is pointless, too. The energy costs of recycling many
materials way exceeds the cost of replacing from new. Many councils
actually put the contents of recycling bins into landfill anyway. Milton
Keynes recycling centre loses tens of millions a year, evidence that
the materials it recovers are unwanted.



A ton of money could be saved by manufacturing items which utilize
quality materials and can be serviced readily. Too much money and
resources are spent filling landfills with appliances and goods which
wear out prematurely and cannot be repaired.

Agreed.

--
"Other people are not your property."
[email me at huge [at] huge [dot] org [dot] uk]

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

Paul Hyett wrote:

In uk.media.tv.misc on Fri, 7 Oct 2005, Funfly3 wrote :

adding OT to the beginning of a post does not make it ok to post in the
wrong group ?????

Funny, it thought it *did*.

It's not a big deal anyway - it's not like we're still using 800 bit
modems, or 50mb HD's.
--
Paul 'US Sitcom Fan' Hyett

800 bit modem?

--
?

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

 

[**THE-RFI-EMI-GUY**]

Those are made by LUCAS, really V.90, but with all the downtime all you
get is 800 bits!

Michael A. Terrell wrote:

Paul Hyett wrote:


In uk.media.tv.misc on Fri, 7 Oct 2005, Funfly3 wrote :



adding OT to the beginning of a post does not make it ok to post in the
wrong group ?????



Funny, it thought it *did*.


It's not a big deal anyway - it's not like we're still using 800 bit
modems, or 50mb HD's.
--
Paul 'US Sitcom Fan' Hyett




800 bit modem?

--
Joe Leikhim K4SAT
"The RFI-EMI-GUY"

The Lost Deep Thoughts By: Jack Handey
Before a mad scientist goes mad, there's probably a time
when he's only partially mad. And this is the time when he's
going to throw his best parties.

 

[Paul Hyett]

In uk.media.tv.misc on Sun, 9 Oct 2005, Michael A. Terrell wrote :

It's not a big deal anyway - it's not like we're still using 800 bit
modems, or 50mb HD's.

800 bit modem?

Well, I don't know what speed early modems operated at - I wasn't on-
line then!
--
Paul 'US Sitcom Fan' Hyett

 

[Trevor Best]

Paul Hyett wrote:

In uk.media.tv.misc on Sun, 9 Oct 2005, Michael A. Terrell wrote :

It's not a big deal anyway - it's not like we're still using 800 bit
modems, or 50mb HD's.

800 bit modem?


Well, I don't know what speed early modems operated at - I wasn't on-
line then!

I started on 2400, but I've heard of 300 baud.

 

[Huge]

Trevor Best <nospam@localhost.invalid> writes:

Paul Hyett wrote:
In uk.media.tv.misc on Sun, 9 Oct 2005, Michael A. Terrell wrote :

It's not a big deal anyway - it's not like we're still using 800 bit
modems, or 50mb HD's.

800 bit modem?


Well, I don't know what speed early modems operated at - I wasn't on-
line then!

I started on 2400, but I've heard of 300 baud.

In 1977, when I started in what became known as IT, our modems were
1200/75 (that is, 1200 baud in one direction and 75 baud in the
other) because that was all the bandwidth the technology of the day
could squeeze out of a 'phone line. The 75 baud back channel allowed
you to reverse the line when you needed the "fast" channel in the
other direction. The modems were the size of a shoe-box, weighed
20 or 30lbs and could only be *rented* from BT.

--
"Other people are not your property."
[email me at huge [at] huge [dot] org [dot] uk]

 

[if]

huge@ukmisc.org.uk (Huge) wrote in news:di85dl$idp$2@anubis.demon.co.uk:

There is also considerable doubt whether switching computers off and
on all the time is a good idea, either. If it shortens the life of the
computer and it needs replacing, you've way exceeded any saving you
may have made.

This has already been done to death in a recent thread here
(uk.comp.homebuilt) but in a nutshell the conclusion was that any switching
them on and off several times a day makes no difference since computers are
invariably replaced long before the adverse effects of power cycling would
be felt.

There is also evidence that leaving a CRT on continuously (as opposed to
using standby mode or off) will actually cut its life by a factor of 2 or 3
because the tube life is dependent mainly on how many hours it is on, with
the phosphor brightness halving every 10-15000 hours.

 

[allan tracy]

She sounds like the sort of TV-hater that they have in home makeover
programmes, where the TV is always banished to a corner of the room
(often behind a folding screen) or they make a cabinet with doors so
that you can "close it away out of sight". Why should it be out of
sight!

That's right, big large plasma screen, surround sound hi-fi speakers,
dvd player and Sky Plus box all connected together by what looks like
three plates of spaghetti and what furniture there is knows its place.

Bliss!

 

[Mat Nieuwenhoven]

On Fri, 07 Oct 2005 18:00:37 GMT, Schrodinger wrote:

<snip>

Surely a modern TV does not use all that much power and more
substantial electrical savings could have been found easily
elsewhere?

A TV uses a relatively small amount of power.

Not necessarily. Big LCD or worse, plasma TVs use considerable amounts of
power. A CRT TV with 100 Hz refresh also, as do wide-screen CRTs. The best I
could find when shopping for a new 70cm TV two years ago was a Philips 50 Hz
with 4:3 screen , which uses 60 W active and 1 W in standby; and it has a
real "off" switch which we always use. And the next one up (50 Hz, 4:3) was
80 or 90 W, all others were (sometimes considerably) more. If a TV is on 3
hrs/day on average and uses 60 W less than another model, you save 3 * 60 *
365 = 65 kWh/year .

A micro system will use less power than more or less anything in the house.
This is a pathetic attempt at managing someone's lifestyle under the banner
of "the environment". Part of the same logic that calls 4x4s that have
better fuel consumption than many luxury cars bad for the environment. The
government and media is choc full of ill informed dick heads like this.

Does anyone know typical consumption figures?

I've measure some of mine. A new Aiwa small audio system uses 9 W in standby,
in 'eco' mode is about 0.5 W. A Yamaha livingroom stereo takes also around 11
W in standby, and you cannot switch it off. A Sony VCR uses 12 W in standby.
A Whirlpool microwave 10W in standby. All these come from the display type,
which is not LCD but old vacuum-tube type technology which requires a
filament to be on if you want to see something. I'm sure if you have a clock
radio with this kind of display it is just as bad (I buy only LED-based clock
radios). 10 W on standby means 85 kWh/year! I find this ridiculous. I am not
interested in yet another clock on the micowave or stereo or video. I would
favor legislation that makes it mandatory to supply the standby power
consumption in kWh/year , that would get people's attention, I'm sure.

Mat Nieuwenhoven

 

[Huge]

if <if@nospam.uk.invalid> writes:

huge@ukmisc.org.uk (Huge) wrote in news:di85dl$idp$2@anubis.demon.co.uk:

There is also considerable doubt whether switching computers off and
on all the time is a good idea, either. If it shortens the life of the
computer and it needs replacing, you've way exceeded any saving you
may have made.

This has already been done to death in a recent thread here

It's been done to death in lots of places.

(uk.comp.homebuilt) but in a nutshell the conclusion was that any switching
them on and off several times a day makes no difference since computers are
invariably replaced long before the adverse effects of power cycling would
be felt.

Not "invariably". Only in houses which suck Bill Gates' cock.

--
"Other people are not your property."
[email me at huge [at] huge [dot] org [dot] uk]

 

[Schrodinger]

"Alex Butcher" <alex.butcher.news0505@assursys.co.uk> wrote in message
newsan.2005.10.08.07.44.59.663799@assursys.co.uk...

On Fri, 07 Oct 2005 23:26:02 +0000, Schrodinger wrote:

"Alex Butcher" <alex.butcher.news0505@assursys.co.uk> wrote in message
newsan.2005.10.07.21.35.21.912@assursys.co.uk...
On Fri, 07 Oct 2005 18:57:35 +0100, John Jordan wrote:
Jon D wrote:

[snip]

She also wanted to limit the time spent by the father on listening to
his micro-system through headphones. I would guess this uses even
less power than a TV.

I'd be surprised if this used more than 30W.

...but probably significantly more than listening to a headphone system
(e.g. iPod, Discman, Walkman) through headphones, which I guess is the
point that was being made.


Dodgy at best - you surely have to factor in the carbon cost of
manufacture - even if he has one already, of LiOn batteries.

Well, only the iPod will be powered by LiOn cells out of those three
alternatives I gave. The others will probably either be powered from
NiCd/NiMH cells, or most greenly, a carefully-selected wall-wart power
supply that's actually vaguely efficient (unlike the vast majority on the
market, in other words!)

They have a limit on how many charges they accept

Actually, lifetimes of LiOn cells are more closely tied to the
chronological age from the date of manufacture, providing you don't 'deep
cycle' them (i.e. run down 'til the device turns off, then recharge).
Thus, if you don't use it, you're gonna lose it anyway.

This is an interesting point and one that I have not seen before -
everything else I have seen relating to LiIon indicates that they have a
lifetime and charge cycle limit - let us say 1000 charges or 3 years before
losing effectiveness.

The point being, if you end up charging a couple of times a day this
drastically reduces the lifetime of said battery. If just once every couple
of days, then you have a few years either way?

 

[keith]

On Sat, 08 Oct 2005 18:07:28 +0100, Alex Butcher wrote:

On Sat, 08 Oct 2005 16:05:05 +0000, **THE-RFI-EMI-GUY** wrote:

A ton of money could be saved by manufacturing items which utilize quality
materials and can be serviced readily. Too much money and resources are
spent filling landfills with appliances and goods which wear out
prematurely and cannot be repaired.

As long as purchase prices are low, repair knowledge amongst the general
public is low, and expert labour is expensive, many repairable items
probably won't be repaired anyway. A lot of people take a failure as an
excuse to go out and treat themselves to something newer and shinier. :-/

Certainly.

Personally, I've repaired a broken PSU in a VCR (cost me about 3.50GBP and
an hour of my time) and got my parents' TV working again (required a new
internal fuse - 10 for 1.98GBP in Maplin, and about 20mins of my time).

Even though I have the expertice necessary, I wouldn't waste my time on
a $40 VCR. I have far more important things to do with my time (and that
includes tipping a beer or two). I don't waste a couple of hours (vs.
$19) on a Saturday changing the oil in my car either. I have other
"cleaner" things to do, like staining woodwork (this weekend's task, since
it was a wash-out).

--
Keith

 

[joeh]

Funfly3 wrote:

"Jon D" <jon_d@nomail.com> wrote in message
news:96E8B693C63D571E5D@66.250.146.159...
On a recent UK broadcast of "How Green Is Your House" the advisor
said she wanted to limit TV watching from 7 hours a day to 1 hour a
day.

There's never more than 1 hour's worth of watchable TV per day anyway.

Was she just trying to impose a lifestyle rather than save a useful
amoun of energy?

And presumably the notion that criticising the amount of time/energy
consumed in watching TV via a TV programme is hypocritical never
occurred to her.

Does anyone know typical consumption figures?
adding OT to the beginning of a post does not make it ok to post in the
wrong group ?????

Are you asking us or telling us?

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

Huge wrote:

There is also considerable doubt whether switching computers off and
on all the time is a good idea, either. If it shortens the life of the
computer and it needs replacing, you've way exceeded any saving you
may have made.

Then you should leave your car or truck idling all the time,
Everyone knows that most of the wear and tear is done while the engine
is warming up. On the other hand, electrolytic capacitors have a
limited life and are slowly destroyed by heat. I see a lot of dead PCs
with defective electrolytics. I put in about $7 US in new caps and they
are ready for a new home.

BTW, I have dozens of PCs in, and around my house. There are three
at my computer desk right now, sometimes there are five running at once.
There is no way in hell I'll leave them all running all the time. When
I finish my home network there will be about three dozen live ports
scattered between five buildings. Not only does leaving and unused PC
on waste electricity, it makes the air conditioning work harder, so you
pay for it twice.


--
?

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

Paul Hyett wrote:

In uk.media.tv.misc on Sun, 9 Oct 2005, Michael A. Terrell wrote :

It's not a big deal anyway - it's not like we're still using 800 bit
modems, or 50mb HD's.

800 bit modem?

Well, I don't know what speed early modems operated at - I wasn't on-
line then!
--
Paul 'US Sitcom Fan' Hyett

First of all, the speed is specified in Bits Per Second, not bits.
The width of the data is specified in Bits. 800 bits would make for a
very odd data buss.


Some of the more common speeds are:

75 baud
110 baud
300 baud
1200 baud
2400 baud
4800 baud
9600 baud
14400 baud
28800 baud
33600 baud
57600 baud

Even lower baud rates were used by current loop teletype machines.


BTW, my first hard drive was a full height 5.25" 5 MB that sounded
like a vacuum cleaner when it was first powered up.
--
?

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

 

[Vidar Lřkken]

Michael A. Terrell <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote this in
<434A79EC.C1F9FE0E@earthlink.net>:

First of all, the speed is specified in Bits Per Second, not bits.
The width of the data is specified in Bits. 800 bits would make for a
very odd data buss.

Yes, speed is in bps, not baud. Baud is how many times pr second the
signal changes. With new modulation technology, it is feasible to
transfer 4 or more bits pr baud. While a 300bps modem likely is a
300baud modem, a 57600 bps modem is certainly not a 57600 baud modem. A
normal phone line has a bandwidth of ~3kHz.

Some of the more common speeds are:

75 baud
110 baud
300 baud
1200 baud
[... baud listing]

--
MVH,
Vidar

www.bitsex.net

 

[Alex Butcher]

On Sun, 09 Oct 2005 22:03:30 -0400, keith wrote:

On Sat, 08 Oct 2005 18:07:28 +0100, Alex Butcher wrote:

[snip]

Personally, I've repaired a broken PSU in a VCR (cost me about 3.50GBP
and an hour of my time) and got my parents' TV working again (required a
new internal fuse - 10 for 1.98GBP in Maplin, and about 20mins of my
time).

Even though I have the expertice necessary, I wouldn't waste my time on a
$40 VCR.

a) I regarded it as a "learn how to repair stuff project" with no
negative consequences other than time expended, and therefore "fun" (for
certain values of "fun", I grant you...)

b) all the modern VCRs I could find were rubbish; cheaply made from lots
of plastic, dubious picture/sound quality and limited input/output
connectors.

I have far more important things to do with my time (and that
includes tipping a beer or two). I don't waste a couple of hours (vs.
$19) on a Saturday changing the oil in my car either. I have other
"cleaner" things to do, like staining woodwork (this weekend's task, since
it was a wash-out).

Yeah, I pay someone else to do oil changes, too. That's "not fun" in my
book.

Best Regards,
Alex.
--
Alex Butcher Brainbench MVP for Internet Security: www.brainbench.com
Bristol, UK Need reliable and secure network systems?
PGP/GnuPG ID:0x271fd950 <http://www.assursys.com/>