Toshiba TV29C90 problem; Image fades to black...

[Thomas Tornblom]

meow2222@care2.com writes:

On 5 Jul, 14:45, Thomas Tornblom <tho...@Hax.SE> wrote:
bz <bz+...@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> writes:
Thomas Tornblom <tho...@Hax.SE> wrote innews:x0d4z7e1x4.fsf@Hax.SE:

Switching to 25A fuses
solved that. After the heatpump conversion I can most likely go back
to 20A fuses and save some on the electrical bill.

How would going to 20A fuses save some on the electric bill?

There are two parts to the bill, one consumption part, which obviosuly
is not affected by this, and then a fixed part, which is dependent on
the installed main fuse. The weaker the fuse, the less the fixed part
is.

When we moved in there was different tariffs for 16, 20, 25, 35A, but
after a few years they dropped the 16 and 20 A tariffs. Now they are
reinstating them.

It will increase the fixed part by about $150 a year, which is not
enough for me to bother. I rather not have to get out and replace
blown fuses.

Installing some load management to save 150 a year might be worth it,
perhaps an opening for a product there.

There are plenty of load limiters on the Swedish market and have been
at least since the 70:s. They work by temporarily cutting out electric
radiators or boilers. The only thing I can now without too much
inconveniance cut out during an overload is the additional heater
element in the heatpump, which kicks in if the output of the heatpump
is not enough during really cold weather. In a situation like this we
are highly unlikely to run the washer, dryer and stove on full blast
anyway.

Some heatpumps have built in limiters that will cut out the extra
heater on overload.

I might give weaker fuses a try over the winter anyway. I can install
the weaker 20A fuses myself, but to get the lower rate I have to tell
the electrical company to change fuse plugs so that I can no longer use
the stronger 25A fuses, and if I do that now, I can not immediatebly
change back in the winter if needed.

NT

Thomas

 

[Spurious Response]

On Sat, 07 Jul 2007 08:40:44 GMT, Thomas Tornblom <thomas@Hax.SE> wrote:

Actually I believe that induction cooking is better, more easily
controlled and safer than gas.

Snippet from http://theinductionsite.com/how-induction-works.shtml

It look VERY inefficient.

It also REQUIRES iron cookware.

Two killers right there.

Tally:

Total Suckage.

In fact... it sucks so bad that it sucks at sucking.

 

[Lamey]

On Sun, 08 Jul 2007 00:53:22 -0700, Spurious Response
<SpuriousResponse@cleansignal.org> wrote:

On Sat, 07 Jul 2007 08:40:44 GMT, Thomas Tornblom <thomas@Hax.SE> wrote:


Actually I believe that induction cooking is better, more easily
controlled and safer than gas.

Snippet from http://theinductionsite.com/how-induction-works.shtml


It look VERY inefficient.

It also REQUIRES iron cookware.

Two killers right there.

Tally:

Total Suckage.

In fact... it sucks so bad that it sucks at sucking.

And you should know all about sucking Prongtard.

--
Usenet lits score:

GIT-R-DONE!
alt.usenet.legends.lamey
http://blu05.port5.com
AUK Offishal Tinfoil Sombrero award 05/07
#20 Usenet asshole
#6 Lits Slut
#9 Cog in the AUK Hate Machine
<approved by Lionel>
#11 Most posting trolls/hunters/flonkers 2007
#1 Disenfranchised AUK Kookologist.
#1 AUK Galactic Killfile Award
< we all know how well that works...LOL >
#33 on Teh Buzzard lits o lub.
Co-inventer of the "Prongtard Yap-Dog Award"

<working on one of them specheel AUK awards>
http://www.dino-soft.org/microsoft/security/updates/doitBST.html

 

[Spurious Response]

On Sun, 08 Jul 2007 00:25:22 -0700, meow2222@care2.com wrote:

no, they radiate less total energy because they take 1/3 the time and
radiated power is no different to a 1kW unit, since that depends
entirely on water temp and kettle shape & finish.

Sorry, but the difference in time heating 4 quarts of water in a 1kW
vat is NOT 3 times that of the 3kW unit.

There are constraints. The water has to still be there when you are
done.

If it takes a 1kW unit to heat it to boil in ten minutes, there is no
way in hell a 3kW unit will do it in three.

It is NOT linear, chucko.

 

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article <f6519358imrhu0rajo88ljb4q1qhrlvfhb@4ax.com>,
Spurious Response <SpuriousResponse@cleansignal.org> wrote:

Eh? Most plastics are poor conductors of heat.

Read what I said again. Sure, most plastics are poor conductors of
heat, however, most, if not all plastics with high temperature capacity
are much better conductors of heat than their intolerant relatives.

Still a better insulator than the sort of metals kettles would otherwise
be made of, though, which was the point.

In other words, if it is a high temp tolerant plastic, it conducts heat
far better than any plastic you might be thinking of. Kinda goes with the
territory.

Now silicone, SOFT plastic types do insulate thermally. That is
different, and there are not a large number of them in that category. We
are talking about solid, construction capable type materials here.
The plastic that would be used on a vat of boiling water as a major
element of its containment would likely be a fair conductor of heat.

The reason low tolerance plastic types have such a low tolerance is
because of their lack of thermal conduction. Apply heat to the surface,
and it stays there. This is a bad thing when said heat can make said
surface reach a melting temperature fairly fast.

Think you're missing the point that the water restricts the maximum
temperature.

--
*If you try to fail, and succeed, which have you done?

Dave Plowman dave@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

 

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article <0i5193p5d5gpc66l2up37p8e9c7o1ff17d@4ax.com>,
Spurious Response <SpuriousResponse@cleansignal.org> wrote:

If you're there to reduce the heat, why not simply use the boiling
water?

A lot of dishes require a maintained boil point... Like pasta, for
example.

You do pasta in a kettle? Have you some secret way of getting it to align
so it can be poured?

So things like lids allow continued boiling even after heat reduction.
No lid... no boil... Unless you bring the heat back up. Which is what
the lid id good for.

You've found a source of open kettles then? Is this a US thing? I don't
think they would conform to UK H&S regs. Do you dip the cup into them to
get the boiling water out?

--
*You! Off my planet!

Dave Plowman dave@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

 

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article <bm519394tl3melan7gjqtlpast1jka9sq9@4ax.com>,
Spurious Response <SpuriousResponse@cleansignal.org> wrote:

Good grief. Most just want that cup of tea *now*.

I am willing to extend my "now" period in order to conserve a few
dollars at the end of the month when the gas bill arrives.

So use a proper electric kettle. That will save your gas bill.

--
*There's no place like www.home.com *

Dave Plowman dave@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

 

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article <4d71931ob34abfdmak3n92p8p13jba4t27@4ax.com>,
Spurious Response <SpuriousResponse@cleansignal.org> wrote:

no, they radiate less total energy because they take 1/3 the time and
radiated power is no different to a 1kW unit, since that depends
entirely on water temp and kettle shape & finish.

Sorry, but the difference in time heating 4 quarts of water in a 1kW
vat is NOT 3 times that of the 3kW unit.

There are constraints. The water has to still be there when you are
done.

If it takes a 1kW unit to heat it to boil in ten minutes, there is no
way in hell a 3kW unit will do it in three.

It is NOT linear, chucko.

Go on then Einstein, show the maths to prove this.

--
*Why do we say something is out of whack? What is a whack?

Dave Plowman dave@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

 

[Spurious Response]

On Sun, 08 Jul 2007 09:57:52 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
<dave@davenoise.co.uk> wrote:

In article <bm519394tl3melan7gjqtlpast1jka9sq9@4ax.com>,
Spurious Response <SpuriousResponse@cleansignal.org> wrote:
Good grief. Most just want that cup of tea *now*.


I am willing to extend my "now" period in order to conserve a few
dollars at the end of the month when the gas bill arrives.

So use a proper electric kettle. That will save your gas bill.

Bullshit. It would cost me twice as much to boil my water with your
kettle as it would with my gas and stove-top 2 quart saucepan.

Also, if your kettles have exposed coils in them, folks won't likely be
putting their pasta into them.

 

[Spurious Response]

On Sun, 08 Jul 2007 09:59:47 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
<dave@davenoise.co.uk> wrote:

In article <4d71931ob34abfdmak3n92p8p13jba4t27@4ax.com>,
Spurious Response <SpuriousResponse@cleansignal.org> wrote:
no, they radiate less total energy because they take 1/3 the time and
radiated power is no different to a 1kW unit, since that depends
entirely on water temp and kettle shape & finish.


Sorry, but the difference in time heating 4 quarts of water in a 1kW
vat is NOT 3 times that of the 3kW unit.

There are constraints. The water has to still be there when you are
done.

If it takes a 1kW unit to heat it to boil in ten minutes, there is no
way in hell a 3kW unit will do it in three.

It is NOT linear, chucko.

Go on then Einstein, show the maths to prove this.

Basic inline water heaters prove it. If it were so much faster, we
would have 3kW inline water heaters. As it stands, that it not the case.

Sure, as you increase power, you get more work done. But you also lose
more of that heat as well.

What it really comes down to is the diameter (and length) of the coil.

Since both 1kW as well as 3kW coils BOTH reach temperatures far above
the boiling temp of water, it would seem to me that you would foresee
some point at which there are diminishing returns from the amount of
energy one dumps into those coils over the return of heat imparted into
the water.

I'd bet that a larger diameter coil will heat the water faster than a
smaller diameter coil, for any given equal wattage, and the reason is
that the coil surface area is so much larger, yet it's surface temp is
very much the same.

So to me, the ideal heater for water would be one that does the job
with the least amount of energy in a reasonable time.

 

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article <qac193l08og6s8cco69iplfb3et0g5t3g7@4ax.com>,
Spurious Response <SpuriousResponse@cleansignal.org> wrote:

So use a proper electric kettle. That will save your gas bill.

Bullshit. It would cost me twice as much to boil my water with your
kettle as it would with my gas and stove-top 2 quart saucepan.

I'd love to see your proof. A 'two quart' saucepan will have *vast* heat
losses. A decent electric kettle can cope with just one cupful of water if
that's all that's needed.

Also, if your kettles have exposed coils in them, folks won't likely be
putting their pasta into them.

Did you put soap in the kettle as a kid too?

--
*I don't have a solution, but I admire your problem. *

Dave Plowman dave@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

 

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article <jgc193tc36ga9njp6m9fkie6r0pk08o5uc@4ax.com>,
Spurious Response <SpuriousResponse@cleansignal.org> wrote:

So to me, the ideal heater for water would be one that does the job
with the least amount of energy in a reasonable time.

Having had experience of a 1kW electric kettle I can tell you it doesn't
take a 'reasonable' time.

--
*Sticks and stones may break my bones but whips and chains excite me*

Dave Plowman dave@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

 

[Lamey]

On Sun, 08 Jul 2007 09:59:47 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
<dave@davenoise.co.uk> wrote:

In article <4d71931ob34abfdmak3n92p8p13jba4t27@4ax.com>,
Spurious Response <SpuriousResponse@cleansignal.org> wrote:
no, they radiate less total energy because they take 1/3 the time and
radiated power is no different to a 1kW unit, since that depends
entirely on water temp and kettle shape & finish.


Sorry, but the difference in time heating 4 quarts of water in a 1kW
vat is NOT 3 times that of the 3kW unit.

There are constraints. The water has to still be there when you are
done.

If it takes a 1kW unit to heat it to boil in ten minutes, there is no
way in hell a 3kW unit will do it in three.

It is NOT linear, chucko.

Go on then Einstein, show the maths to prove this.

He can't, he'll call you a retard and backpedel his way out.

--
Usenet lits score:

GIT-R-DONE!
alt.usenet.legends.lamey
http://blu05.port5.com
AUK Offishal Tinfoil Sombrero award 05/07
#20 Usenet asshole
#6 Lits Slut
#9 Cog in the AUK Hate Machine
<approved by Lionel>
#11 Most posting trolls/hunters/flonkers 2007
#1 Disenfranchised AUK Kookologist.
#1 AUK Galactic Killfile Award
< we all know how well that works...LOL >
#33 on Teh Buzzard lits o lub.
Co-inventer of the "Prongtard Yap-Dog Award"

<working on one of them specheel AUK awards>
http://www.dino-soft.org/microsoft/security/updates/doitBST.html

 

[Thomas Tornblom]

Spurious Response <SpuriousResponse@cleansignal.org> writes:

On Sat, 07 Jul 2007 08:40:44 GMT, Thomas Tornblom <thomas@Hax.SE> wrote:


Actually I believe that induction cooking is better, more easily
controlled and safer than gas.

Snippet from http://theinductionsite.com/how-induction-works.shtml


It look VERY inefficient.

On the contrary. It is very efficient as it is *only* the cookware
that heats up.

Did you miss the 84% vs 40% for gas efficiency paragraph?

It also REQUIRES iron cookware.

Most cookware sold today in Sweden is induction compatible, and have
been for quite a while. Even though we don't have have an induction
stove today I believe most of our cookware is compatible.

What type of cookware would you miss out on?

Two killers right there.

Tally:

Total Suckage.

In fact... it sucks so bad that it sucks at sucking.

I would say you have no clue.

They started out in restaurant kitchens many years ago and they have
several advantages:

1) super quick cooking as no heat needs to be transfered to the
cookware, it is the cookware itself that gets heated, quite similar to
a microwave where the food itself generates the heat

2) much less losses, which reduces the cooling needed i the kitchen

3) easy and quick regulation

4) safe, the stove top doesn't hot, other than by transfer from the
cookware.

I recommend following the link to this page:

http://theinductionsite.com/proandcon.shtml

to see the pros and cons.

 

[Laughing-at-DeserTBob]

http://cgi.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/cl.pl?miscrcvr&1188257061&item

 

[Tam/WB2TT]

"Dave Plowman (News)" <dave@davenoise.co.uk> wrote in message
news:4eff1a99c9dave@davenoise.co.uk...

In article <0i5193p5d5gpc66l2up37p8e9c7o1ff17d@4ax.com>,
Spurious Response <SpuriousResponse@cleansignal.org> wrote:
If you're there to reduce the heat, why not simply use the boiling
water?

A lot of dishes require a maintained boil point... Like pasta, for
example.

You do pasta in a kettle? Have you some secret way of getting it to align
so it can be poured?

This must be a cultural thing, but I have no idea what in hell you are
talking about.

So things like lids allow continued boiling even after heat reduction.
No lid... no boil... Unless you bring the heat back up. Which is what
the lid id good for.

You've found a source of open kettles then? Is this a US thing? I don't
think they would conform to UK H&S regs. Do you dip the cup into them to
get the boiling water out?

You use a spaghetti strainer. And yes, some things need an open kettle.

Tam

--
*You! Off my planet!

Dave Plowman dave@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

 

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article <HfGdnSPBy-5_zgzbnZ2dnUVZ_jidnZ2d@comcast.com>,
Tam/WB2TT <t-tammaru@c0mca$t.net> wrote:

"Dave Plowman (News)" <dave@davenoise.co.uk> wrote in message
news:4eff1a99c9dave@davenoise.co.uk...
In article <0i5193p5d5gpc66l2up37p8e9c7o1ff17d@4ax.com>, Spurious
Response <SpuriousResponse@cleansignal.org> wrote:
If you're there to reduce the heat, why not simply use the boiling
water?

A lot of dishes require a maintained boil point... Like pasta, for
example.

You do pasta in a kettle? Have you some secret way of getting it to
align so it can be poured?

This must be a cultural thing, but I have no idea what in hell you are
talking about.

Join the club. My stupid reply was in response to the stupid comment from
Spurious response.

So things like lids allow continued boiling even after heat
reduction. No lid... no boil... Unless you bring the heat back up.
Which is what the lid id good for.

You've found a source of open kettles then? Is this a US thing? I
don't think they would conform to UK H&S regs. Do you dip the cup into
them to get the boiling water out?

You use a spaghetti strainer. And yes, some things need an open kettle.

Thinks. In the UK a kettle is only used for boiling water. Usually for
making tea or instant coffee. Do you guys call some form of general
cooking utensil a kettle too?

--
*Isn't it a bit unnerving that doctors call what they do "practice?"

Dave Plowman dave@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

 

[Malcolm Moore]

On Sun, 08 Jul 2007 22:38:57 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
<dave@davenoise.co.uk> wrote:

In article <HfGdnSPBy-5_zgzbnZ2dnUVZ_jidnZ2d@comcast.com>,
Tam/WB2TT <t-tammaru@c0mca$t.net> wrote:
"Dave Plowman (News)" <dave@davenoise.co.uk> wrote in message
news:4eff1a99c9dave@davenoise.co.uk...
In article <0i5193p5d5gpc66l2up37p8e9c7o1ff17d@4ax.com>, Spurious
Response <SpuriousResponse@cleansignal.org> wrote:
If you're there to reduce the heat, why not simply use the boiling
water?

A lot of dishes require a maintained boil point... Like pasta, for
example.

You do pasta in a kettle? Have you some secret way of getting it to
align so it can be poured?

This must be a cultural thing, but I have no idea what in hell you are
talking about.

Join the club. My stupid reply was in response to the stupid comment from
Spurious response.


So things like lids allow continued boiling even after heat
reduction. No lid... no boil... Unless you bring the heat back up.
Which is what the lid id good for.

You've found a source of open kettles then? Is this a US thing? I
don't think they would conform to UK H&S regs. Do you dip the cup into
them to get the boiling water out?

You use a spaghetti strainer. And yes, some things need an open kettle.

Thinks. In the UK a kettle is only used for boiling water. Usually for
making tea or instant coffee. Do you guys call some form of general
cooking utensil a kettle too?

I think this may be the problem. From

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kettle>

"In the United Kingdom, Ireland, and Canada, a kettle is a device used
to quickly heat water for hot drinks, such as tea or instant coffee.
It is normally constructed out of durable plastic or steel (with a
plastic handle) and powered by mains electricity."

and

"In the United States, a kettle usually refers to the stovetop
metallic version with a steam whistle.

Elsewhere in the world (and sometimes in the United Kingdom) the word
kettle can refer to a metal pot for boiling or stewing, and a kettle
is probably the most ancient kind of metal cooking utensil.

The word kettle originates from Latin catillus, which in various
contexts is translated as bowl, deep dish, or funnel."

Perhaps SR is cooking pasta in something like a Kettle Drum

--
Regards
Malcolm
Remove sharp objects to get a valid e-mail address

 

[Jasen Betts]

On 2007-07-08, Spurious Response <SpuriousResponse@cleansignal.org> wrote:

On Sun, 08 Jul 2007 00:25:22 -0700, meow2222@care2.com wrote:

no, they radiate less total energy because they take 1/3 the time and
radiated power is no different to a 1kW unit, since that depends
entirely on water temp and kettle shape & finish.


Sorry, but the difference in time heating 4 quarts of water in a 1kW
vat is NOT 3 times that of the 3kW unit.

There are constraints. The water has to still be there when you are
done.

If it takes a 1kW unit to heat it to boil in ten minutes, there is no
way in hell a 3kW unit will do it in three.

Of course not! it'd take three and twentyy seconds.

It is NOT linear, chucko.

for a heating element immersed in the water it is almost exactly linear,
do the math.

Bye.
Jasen

 

[Jasen Betts]

On 2007-07-08, Spurious Response <SpuriousResponse@cleansignal.org> wrote:

On Sun, 08 Jul 2007 09:59:47 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
dave@davenoise.co.uk> wrote:

In article <4d71931ob34abfdmak3n92p8p13jba4t27@4ax.com>,
Spurious Response <SpuriousResponse@cleansignal.org> wrote:
no, they radiate less total energy because they take 1/3 the time and
radiated power is no different to a 1kW unit, since that depends
entirely on water temp and kettle shape & finish.

Sorry, but the difference in time heating 4 quarts of water in a 1kW
vat is NOT 3 times that of the 3kW unit.

There are constraints. The water has to still be there when you are
done.

If it takes a 1kW unit to heat it to boil in ten minutes, there is no
way in hell a 3kW unit will do it in three.

It is NOT linear, chucko.

Go on then Einstein, show the maths to prove this.

Basic inline water heaters prove it. If it were so much faster, we
would have 3kW inline water heaters. As it stands, that it not the case.

Only 3KW? why would someone want a toy like that?

Sure, as you increase power, you get more work done. But you also lose
more of that heat as well.

What it really comes down to is the diameter (and length) of the coil.

Since both 1kW as well as 3kW coils BOTH reach temperatures far above
the boiling temp of water, it would seem to me that you would foresee
some point at which there are diminishing returns from the amount of
energy one dumps into those coils over the return of heat imparted into
the water.

do the math... heat is the one form of energy tat can always be
produced electrically with 100% efficiency.

I'd bet that a larger diameter coil will heat the water faster than a
smaller diameter coil, for any given equal wattage, and the reason is
that the coil surface area is so much larger, yet it's surface temp is
very much the same.

convection, and bubbling, will stir the water, a cappucino machine
will heat a mug of milk in only a few seconds - the steam jet is
good for over ten kilowatts.

So to me, the ideal heater for water would be one that does the job
with the least amount of energy in a reasonable time.

faster is generally more efficient.

Bye.
Jasen