🚀 go-pugleaf

~misfit~ wrote:
> Somewhere on teh intarwebs bcoombes wrote:
>> Synapse Syndrome wrote:
>>> Conor <conor_turton@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> I guess you also think that leaving a tv in standby is a waste
>>>>>>>> too?
>>>>>>> In the UK, there's been a big campaign
>>>>>> And its all bollocks.
>>>>>>
>>>>> It's still tens of millions of watts wasted throughout the country.
>>>>>
>>>> And? You can't fully stop a powerstation from producing electricity
>>> Whatever gave you that idea?  It does not even seem to make much
>>> sense.  Are you saying that the National Grid is running at 100%
>>> capacity all the time or what?  It never has.
>>>
>> There is nearly always surplus capacity on the grid during off peak
>> times as because of the sheer size and mass of large turbine rotors
>> it takes several hours to run them up, also most turbine failures
>> occur during run down/up so engineers prefer to keep them under load
>> anyway,
> 
> I think you'll find that they like to keep them spinning, but not 'under 
> load', at least no more load than minimum.
> 
>>> Peak demand power power stations using gas and emergency diesel are
>>> turned on and off all the time.  And this issue is long term -
>>> allowing lower capacity on the baseload power stations, using coal
>>> and nuclear power (which can also be turned off, anyway).
>>>
>> Well, the fact that there are peak demand facilities doesn't
>> invalidate Conor's point.
> 
> So what's happening to all this power that's not being used? (Hint; It can't 
> just keep going round and round the lines waiting for someone to turn on a 
> switch on their computer.)

No shit Sherlock..it's there on the grid and requires energy to produce even if 
it's not, which was Conor's point.

bcoombes wrote:
> ~misfit~ wrote:
>> Somewhere on teh intarwebs bcoombes wrote:
>>> Synapse Syndrome wrote:
>>>> Conor <conor_turton@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> I guess you also think that leaving a tv in standby is a waste
>>>>>>>>> too?
>>>>>>>> In the UK, there's been a big campaign
>>>>>>> And its all bollocks.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's still tens of millions of watts wasted throughout the country.
>>>>>>
>>>>> And? You can't fully stop a powerstation from producing electricity
>>>> Whatever gave you that idea?  It does not even seem to make much
>>>> sense.  Are you saying that the National Grid is running at 100%
>>>> capacity all the time or what?  It never has.
>>>>
>>> There is nearly always surplus capacity on the grid during off peak
>>> times as because of the sheer size and mass of large turbine rotors
>>> it takes several hours to run them up, also most turbine failures
>>> occur during run down/up so engineers prefer to keep them under load
>>> anyway,
>>
>> I think you'll find that they like to keep them spinning, but not 
>> 'under load', at least no more load than minimum.
>>
>>>> Peak demand power power stations using gas and emergency diesel are
>>>> turned on and off all the time.  And this issue is long term -
>>>> allowing lower capacity on the baseload power stations, using coal
>>>> and nuclear power (which can also be turned off, anyway).
>>>>
>>> Well, the fact that there are peak demand facilities doesn't
>>> invalidate Conor's point.
>>
>> So what's happening to all this power that's not being used? (Hint; It 
>> can't just keep going round and round the lines waiting for someone to 
>> turn on a switch on their computer.)
> 
> No shit Sherlock..it's there on the grid and requires energy to produce 
> even if it's not      , which was Conor's point.

meaning even if it's not USED of course.

Bernard Peek wrote:
> In message <gpmjcr$aav$1@news.motzarella.org>, ~misfit~ 
> <misfit61nz@yahoo.com.au> writes
> 
> 
>>> There is nearly always surplus capacity on the grid during off peak
>>> times as because of the sheer size and mass of large turbine rotors
>>> it takes several hours to run them up, also most turbine failures
>>> occur during run down/up so engineers prefer to keep them under load
>>> anyway,
>>
>> I think you'll find that they like to keep them spinning, but not 'under
>> load', at least no more load than minimum.
> 
> They keep the rotors turning because if you leave them stopped they 
> start to bend under their own weight.
> 
> It doesn't take a lot of steam to keep the rotors turning so they don't 
> burn very much fuel. As soon as you draw any power from them they slow 
> down unless you turn up the steam pressure, which requires more fuel. 
> The generators that are under load are kept at a fixed 3600rpm by 
> adjusting the steam pressure; more load, more steam required. So the 
> fuel usage is mostly dependent on the load. If you cut down the amount 
> of electricity being drawn from the grid you cut down the amount of fuel 
> being used.
> 
> There is never any power that's not being used and increased load 
> immediately increases the amount of fuel being used. The systems are 
> automated so that when a generating set is put under load it slows down. 
> The slowdown triggers the steam valve to open more. Opening the steam 
> valve draws in more water. Drawing in more water cools the boiler. 
> Cooling the boiler triggers an increase in the fuel feed.
> 
> Some systems can respond to increased demand in less than a second. 
> Others take a lot longer. Slow systems like nuclear reactors are used 
> for base-load. Fast response systems are used for peak loads like 
> half-time at the cup-final.
> 
Nice explanation although from a 'not used' point of view there is always 
inevitable energy loss over the whole grid system which the generators see as 
'load'.

In article <01cea21f$0$20670$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com>, Clocky says...
> 
> Conor wrote:
> > In article <49be195a$0$16175$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk>, GB says...
> >>
> >>> I guess you also think that leaving a tv in standby is a waste too?
> >>
> >> In the UK, there's been a big campaign
> >
> > And its all bollocks.
> >
> > My LG TV uses 1W in standby. My PS3 uses 1.9W and my Xbox 360, 2.5W.
> > By far the most guilty thing in my house is my SkyHD box which uses
> > 34W in "Standby" as they don't really go into standby but just flick
> > off the hard drive.
> 
> So clearly it isn't bollocks. Multiply all that wasted energy by every 
> household, office and workplace and it's a very substantial amount of wasted 
> energy whether you care about that or not.

Who says it's wasted? It's only wasted if it's not performing a 
function as I require.

As I said, the govts energy saving is all bollocks. Take low energy 
lightbulbs. They bleated on about them as the saviour of the planet but 
forgot to take into account that in a cold climate like ours, any 
savings from the bulbs are negated by the increase in heating to 
compensate for the lack of heat the bulbs give off.

-- 
Conor

I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't 
looking good either. - Scott Adams

In article <gpmc6e$haq$1@lust.ihug.co.nz>, Your Name says...

> Not to mention dangerous (according to the fire service).

I'm glad you didn't say it was your opinion.

-- 
Conor

I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't 
looking good either. - Scott Adams

In article <gpnfev$u3g$1@news.motzarella.org>, ~misfit~ says...

> ... and I have LED nightlights enroute and in the bathroom. They use maybe 
> 2W all up and do the job just fine. Also, they don't 'wake me up' so much as 
> I have trouble getting back to sleep. (I'm an insomniac.)

How much energy was wasted in their production compared to a standard 
bulb?

-- 
Conor

I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't 
looking good either. - Scott Adams

brian w edginton wrote:
> Especially problematic in the middle of the night (at my age, I
> have to make a couple of trips) while barely awake.

Hmmm, there could be an underlying problem. If you are sleeping properly, 
the body produces a hormone that stops you needing to pee. Possible issues 
are that you aren't sleeping properly, perhaps due to OSA which is rather 
serious,  or you have diabetes. Or, none of the above, but it would be worth 
checking, rather than assuming it's just old/middle age.

"Clint Sharp" <clint@clintsmc.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:gZkzo3Bn2gvJFwif@clintsmc.demon.co.uk...
> In message <87qrr4pi090etc55qsktnbm6tn674qtp1u@4ax.com>, Woger
> <woger@woger.net.ru> writes
> >No they have far   far better shops like Mapling and otheres..
> Bloody hell, Dick Smith must be atrocious if you think Maplin is better.
> -- 
> Clint Sharp

Maplin is good for what it is..
RS and Maplin are the only 2 mainstream stores where you can buy
electrical/electronic componets (in the UK)..
I personally dont like Maplin when other larger mainstreams like RS and
Farnell (mail(fax)/web only I think?)..

"Synapse Syndrome" <synapse@NOSPAMsyndrome.me.uk> wrote in message
news:n_KdncaILPq15SPUnZ2dnUVZ8geWnZ2d@bt.com...
> Conor <conor_turton@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>>>
> >>>>> I guess you also think that leaving a tv in standby is a waste too?
> >>>>
> >>>> In the UK, there's been a big campaign
> >>>
> >>> And its all bollocks.
> >>>
> >>
> >> It's still tens of millions of watts wasted throughout the country.
> >>
> > And? You can't fully stop a powerstation from producing electricity
>
> Whatever gave you that idea?  It does not even seem to make much sense.
Are
> you saying that the National Grid is running at 100% capacity all the time
> or what?  It never has.
>
> Peak demand power power stations using gas and emergency diesel are turned
> on and off all the time.  And this issue is long term - allowing lower
> capacity on the baseload power stations, using coal and nuclear power
(which
> can also be turned off, anyway).
>
> > so might as well use it.
>
> Okay Dubya.  That's just beyond naive.
>
> ss.
>
>

Or shoving water up a mountain during the day, and then draining it out at
peak times ...
The grid may well never work at 100% capacity, it probably doesnt ever work
above 50% without throwing alarms...
I personally keep all my equipment plugged in, SMPS's have a lovely way of
going dead when you cycle the source power on and off, so If you unplugged
your PSU every day I bet you'd kill at least one PSU a year. (negating all
gains)

On Tue, 17 Mar 2009 16:04:06 +0000, mr deo wrote:

[...]

> I personally keep all my equipment plugged in, SMPS's have a lovely way
> of going dead when you cycle the source power on and off, so If you
> unplugged your PSU every day I bet you'd kill at least one PSU a year.
> (negating all gains)

I have at least one, more usually two or three, PC's on most days; I 
always power them down fully at night, and have done so for the last 
decade.

I've never, ever experienced a PSU failure in all this time.

I did have a Linksys router that suffered a failed wall-wart. That 
however was on 24/7/365...

Chris

-- 
Remove prejudice to reply.

On Tue, 17 Mar 2009 04:18:19 GMT
Stephen Worthington <stephen@jsw12.gen34.nz56.remove_numbers> wrote:

> On Tue, 17 Mar 2009 15:38:40 +1300, Richard <rich@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
> 
> >People leave loads of actual loads on lots, dont get efficiant models 
> >and all sorts of other things. To turn things off at the wall so that 
> >they use a pittance less power is not a good return on work ratio 
> >compared with doing something productive.
> 
> That light is probably a safety issue.  They need it to be able to get
> there in the night without falling.  It would be a lot more expensive
> to the country to have them hospitalised for a fall than leaving a
> light on.

I keep a torch by the bed. I'm not elderly, but I do get up to go to the
toilet a lot. If I turn the bathroom light on I get dazzled and the
extractor fan runs for 15 minutes afterwards. If I kept my Freeview box
on at night the big, bright blue LED would make a good night-light!

-- 
TH * http://www.realh.co.uk

On Tue, 17 Mar 2009 13:26:05 -0000
Conor <conor_turton@hotmail.com> wrote:

> As I said, the govts energy saving is all bollocks. Take low energy 
> lightbulbs. They bleated on about them as the saviour of the planet but 
> forgot to take into account that in a cold climate like ours, any 
> savings from the bulbs are negated by the increase in heating to 
> compensate for the lack of heat the bulbs give off.

I suspect most of that energy's wasted making the ceiling hot rather
than the whole room warm.

-- 
TH * http://www.realh.co.uk

Conor wrote:
> In article <01cea21f$0$20670$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com>, Clocky
> says...
>>
>> Conor wrote:
>>> In article <49be195a$0$16175$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk>, GB says...
>>>>
>>>>> I guess you also think that leaving a tv in standby is a waste
>>>>> too?
>>>>
>>>> In the UK, there's been a big campaign
>>>
>>> And its all bollocks.
>>>
>>> My LG TV uses 1W in standby. My PS3 uses 1.9W and my Xbox 360, 2.5W.
>>> By far the most guilty thing in my house is my SkyHD box which uses
>>> 34W in "Standby" as they don't really go into standby but just flick
>>> off the hard drive.
>>
>> So clearly it isn't bollocks. Multiply all that wasted energy by
>> every household, office and workplace and it's a very substantial
>> amount of wasted energy whether you care about that or not.
>
> Who says it's wasted? It's only wasted if it's not performing a
> function as I require.
>
> As I said, the govts energy saving is all bollocks. Take low energy
> lightbulbs. They bleated on about them as the saviour of the planet
> but forgot to take into account that in a cold climate like ours, any
> savings from the bulbs are negated by the increase in heating to
> compensate for the lack of heat the bulbs give off.

Heat radiates upwards, a lightbulb would make an insignificant difference to 
room temperature.

Sounds like more ignorant straw clutching to me.

On Tue, 17 Mar 2009 16:04:06 GMT, "mr deo"
<rstlne@atatwhereherewheretherehuyeh.com> wrote:

>Or shoving water up a mountain during the day, and then draining it out at
>peak times ...
>The grid may well never work at 100% capacity, it probably doesnt ever work
>above 50% without throwing alarms...
>I personally keep all my equipment plugged in, SMPS's have a lovely way of
>going dead when you cycle the source power on and off, so If you unplugged
>your PSU every day I bet you'd kill at least one PSU a year. (negating all
>gains)

Switch mode power supplies are very reliable when designed and built
properly.  If you are expecting them to die with power cycling, then
you are thinking about the ones built with bad capacitors.  Like
motherboards, there are plenty around still with bad capacitors.  But
once they are all dead, the new ones should be much more reliable.

On Tue, 17 Mar 2009 19:10:43 -0000
Conor <conor_turton@hotmail.com> wrote:

> In article <20090317183849.3c265632@realh.co.uk>, Tony Houghton
> says...
> > 
> > On Tue, 17 Mar 2009 13:26:05 -0000
> > Conor <conor_turton@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > As I said, the govts energy saving is all bollocks. Take low
> > > energy lightbulbs. They bleated on about them as the saviour of
> > > the planet but forgot to take into account that in a cold climate
> > > like ours, any savings from the bulbs are negated by the increase
> > > in heating to compensate for the lack of heat the bulbs give off.
> > 
> > I suspect most of that energy's wasted making the ceiling hot rather
> > than the whole room warm.
> 
> It still needs to be heated whether it's with central heating or the 
> bulb.

But I think you're wrong if you believe that the heat given off by a
lightbulb means you can reduce the output from your heating by anything
near a corresponding amount. It creates a local hot-spot around the bulb
and much of the heat energy would go into keeping that little area
hotter than the rest of the room rather than dissipating evenly in a
useful way. Room heaters either need to be big and near the floor, or
have a fan or parabolic mirror to project their heat.

-- 
TH * http://www.realh.co.uk

In article <72ai4dFp50pmU1@mid.individual.net>, Rod Speed says...

> > It still needs to be heated whether it's with central heating or the bulb.
> 
> Not in the summer. 

In the summer, you hardly need the lights on because of the longer days 
anyway.


-- 
Conor

I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't 
looking good either. - Scott Adams

In article <mqKdnZNuiNcJk13UnZ2dnUVZ8rCWnZ2d@posted.plusnet>, Craig 
Wallace says...

> The specifications say it uses 0.4W in standby.
> So still saving electricity compared to leaving speakers, monitors, 
> printer, digibox etc switched on (which might be using about 4W or so each).

If your digibox isn't on standby, how does it receive updates?

-- 
Conor

I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't 
looking good either. - Scott Adams

In article <01d0156f$0$20621$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com>, Clocky says...

> Heat radiates upwards, a lightbulb would make an insignificant difference to 
> room temperature.
> 
> Sounds like more ignorant straw clutching to me.

Says the man who claims heat radiates upwards.

Heat rises. The bulb merely heats up the area above it which means that 
doesn't need to be heated by the radiators, thus reducing the amount 
they need to give out.

And a 60W bulb gives out a fair bit of heat.


-- 
Conor

I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't 
looking good either. - Scott Adams

In article <20090317221537.1af9348a@hp530>, Tony Houghton says...

> But I think you're wrong if you believe that the heat given off by a
> lightbulb means you can reduce the output from your heating by anything
> near a corresponding amount. 

My friend has an amusement arcade, all on one level, which was a former 
cinema. Has about 80 machines in it, all using about the same power as 
an 80W bulb each. Recently, his heating packed up. You could barely 
notice the difference.

-- 
Conor

I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't 
looking good either. - Scott Adams

On Tue, 17 Mar 2009 23:45:16 -0000
Conor <conor_turton@hotmail.com> wrote:

> In article <20090317221537.1af9348a@hp530>, Tony Houghton says...
> 
> > But I think you're wrong if you believe that the heat given off by a
> > lightbulb means you can reduce the output from your heating by anything
> > near a corresponding amount. 
> 
> My friend has an amusement arcade, all on one level, which was a former 
> cinema. Has about 80 machines in it, all using about the same power as 
> an 80W bulb each. Recently, his heating packed up. You could barely 
> notice the difference.

Arcade machines spread their heat dissipation over a bigger area and are
next to the occupants instead of on the ceiling.

-- 
TH * http://www.realh.co.uk

Conor wrote:
> In article <20090317221537.1af9348a@hp530>, Tony Houghton says...
>
>> But I think you're wrong if you believe that the heat given off by a
>> lightbulb means you can reduce the output from your heating by
>> anything near a corresponding amount.
>
> My friend has an amusement arcade, all on one level, which was a
> former cinema. Has about 80 machines in it, all using about the same
> power as an 80W bulb each. Recently, his heating packed up. You could
> barely notice the difference.

He needed heating ?  What part of Antarctica is he at ?


geoff 

Conor wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Conor wrote

>>> It still needs to be heated whether it's with central heating or the bulb.

>> Not in the summer.

> In the summer, you hardly need the lights on because of the longer days anyway.

Wrong, as always. You need the lights on quite a bit of the time when there is no need for heating. 

On Tue, 17 Mar 2009 23:43:46 -0000, Conor <conor_turton@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>In article <01d0156f$0$20621$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com>, Clocky says...
>
>> Heat radiates upwards, a lightbulb would make an insignificant difference to 
>> room temperature.
>> 
>> Sounds like more ignorant straw clutching to me.
>
>Says the man who claims heat radiates upwards.
>
>Heat rises. The bulb merely heats up the area above it which means that 
>doesn't need to be heated by the radiators, thus reducing the amount 
>they need to give out.
>
>And a 60W bulb gives out a fair bit of heat.

It gives out 60 W of heat, less the bit that gets radiated out any
windows.  The light output is converted to heat too eventually.  So a
60 W light is generally going to replace 60 W of heater.

Conor wrote:
> In article <mqKdnZNuiNcJk13UnZ2dnUVZ8rCWnZ2d@posted.plusnet>, Craig 
> Wallace says...
> 
>> The specifications say it uses 0.4W in standby.
>> So still saving electricity compared to leaving speakers, monitors, 
>> printer, digibox etc switched on (which might be using about 4W or so each).
> 
> If your digibox isn't on standby, how does it receive updates?

And with how long they take to get going, turning them off is not an 
option IMO, despite them being probably the biggest "standby" load ever...

Tony Houghton wrote:
> I suspect most of that energy's wasted making the ceiling hot rather
> than the whole room warm.

Only if you have stupid recessed lights, like most people put in to suit 
their cheap 2400mm low ceiling.

On Wed, 18 Mar 2009 08:40:22 GMT
Stephen Worthington <stephen@jsw12.gen34.nz56.remove_numbers> wrote:

> On Tue, 17 Mar 2009 23:43:46 -0000, Conor <conor_turton@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
> 
> >Heat rises. The bulb merely heats up the area above it which means
> >that doesn't need to be heated by the radiators, thus reducing the
> >amount they need to give out.
> >
> >And a 60W bulb gives out a fair bit of heat.
> 
> It gives out 60 W of heat, less the bit that gets radiated out any
> windows.  The light output is converted to heat too eventually.  So a
> 60 W light is generally going to replace 60 W of heater.

But more of the heat energy from the lightbulb will be wasted heating
the wrong place. Rather than saving the heating from heating up a little
bit of air, it will take a bit of air that's already at a comfortable
temperature and heat it more. Some of that extra heat will dissipate
into the room, true, but because it's at a higher temperature it will
also dissipate outside quicker too, especially by conduction through the
ceiling if we're talking about a ceiling light. Even if people upstairs
are able to benefit from that, they're likely to want a light on too..

Similarly, the warm air from PCs usually gets blown towards a wall.
Laptops aren't so bad, mine somehow helps keep my legs warm in Winter
even though I've got a "Cushtop" ;).

-- 
TH * http://www.realh.co.uk

In article <20090318133610.034c43f4@realh.co.uk>, Tony Houghton says...

> But more of the heat energy from the lightbulb will be wasted heating
> the wrong place. 

Why? As heat rises, the top part of the room above human being level 
has to be heated up first and then the temperature gradually warms up 
lower down.

-- 
Conor

I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't 
looking good either. - Scott Adams

In article <20090318003303.50355e18@realh.co.uk>, Tony Houghton says...

> Arcade machines spread their heat dissipation over a bigger area and are
> next to the occupants instead of on the ceiling.

How fucking dumb are you? Hot air rises, cold air falls. In order to 
have, say, 20C at ground level to 6ft - the height of a person, you 
have to have 20C from 6ft to the ceiling.

-- 
Conor

I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't 
looking good either. - Scott Adams

On Wed, 18 Mar 2009 16:42:12 -0000
Conor <conor_turton@hotmail.com> wrote:

> In article <20090318003303.50355e18@realh.co.uk>, Tony Houghton says...
> 
> > Arcade machines spread their heat dissipation over a bigger area and are
> > next to the occupants instead of on the ceiling.
> 
> How fucking dumb are you? Hot air rises, cold air falls.

So why can't you realise how that makes it better to have your heat
sources near the ground than on the ceiling?

> In order to 
> have, say, 20C at ground level to 6ft - the height of a person, you 
> have to have 20C from 6ft to the ceiling.

That's not what heat from a ceiling light achieves. Unless the air
around it gets blown downwards it has to heat it to above 20C for it to
fight the temperature gradient and raise the temperature at ground
level.

I think the point you're trying to make is that because the lightbulb is
heating the air around it, heat from below isn't lost into that space.
That's true, but the point I'm making is that the area around the
lightbulb gets hotter than the desired 20C and in real world conditions
(no absolutely perfect insulation, people coming in and out of doors
etc) that surplus energy can escape from the room faster.

-- 
TH * http://www.realh.co.uk

On Wed, 18 Mar 2009 16:40:52 -0000
Conor <conor_turton@hotmail.com> wrote:

> In article <20090318133610.034c43f4@realh.co.uk>, Tony Houghton says...
> 
> > But more of the heat energy from the lightbulb will be wasted heating
> > the wrong place. 
> 
> Why? As heat rises, the top part of the room above human being level 
> has to be heated up first and then the temperature gradually warms up 
> lower down.

But you tend to get a temperature gradient, so the air around the
lightbulb, which is already hot enough, gets a little bit hotter without
having much effect on the cooler air lower down that you really want to
heat. We don't live in hermetically sealed rooms with perfect
insulation, so heat is always escaping. Putting heat sources on the
ceiling or high up on a wall are the best places if you want the heat to
escape from the room before it gets a chance to dissipate evenly around
it.

-- 
TH * http://www.realh.co.uk

On Wed, 18 Mar 2009 17:55:48 +0000, Tony Houghton wrote:

> On Wed, 18 Mar 2009 16:40:52 -0000
> Conor <conor_turton@hotmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> In article <20090318133610.034c43f4@realh.co.uk>, Tony Houghton says...
>> 
>>> But more of the heat energy from the lightbulb will be wasted heating
>>> the wrong place. 
>> 
>> Why? As heat rises, the top part of the room above human being level 
>> has to be heated up first and then the temperature gradually warms up 
>> lower down.
> 
> But you tend to get a temperature gradient, so the air around the
> lightbulb, which is already hot enough, gets a little bit hotter without
> having much effect on the cooler air lower down that you really want to
> heat. We don't live in hermetically sealed rooms with perfect
> insulation, so heat is always escaping. Putting heat sources on the
> ceiling or high up on a wall are the best places if you want the heat to
> escape from the room before it gets a chance to dissipate evenly around
> it.

It's a "light bulb" not a heater.

On Thu, 19 Mar 2009 06:49:15 +1200, Bret wrote:

[...]
 
> It's a "light bulb" not a heater.

Strictly speaking, it's a filament lamp. Oh, and the ones I've touched 
when switched on certainly get hot...

Chris

-- 
Remove prejudice to reply.

On Wed, 18 Mar 2009 18:53:46 GMT, Chris Whelan wrote:

> On Thu, 19 Mar 2009 06:49:15 +1200, Bret wrote:
> 
> [...]
>  
>> It's a "light bulb" not a heater.
> 
> Strictly speaking, it's a filament lamp. Oh, and the ones I've touched 
> when switched on certainly get hot...
> 
> Chris

While they certainly do heat up, they are primarily a source of lighting.

On Thu, 19 Mar 2009 09:16:09 +1200, Your Name wrote:

> "Bret" <at@at.corn> wrote in message
> news:1o03n1k6sjg5y$.1nrxa52h8bhbp$.dlg@40tude.net...
>> On Wed, 18 Mar 2009 18:53:46 GMT, Chris Whelan wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 19 Mar 2009 06:49:15 +1200, Bret wrote:
>>>
>>> [...]
>>>
>>>> It's a "light bulb" not a heater.
>>>
>>> Strictly speaking, it's a filament lamp. Oh, and the ones I've touched
>>> when switched on certainly get hot...
>>
>> While they certainly do heat up, they are primarily a source of lighting.
> 
> Except of course ones like the "heat lamps" that are installed in many
> bathrooms these days to provide both heat and light.  :-)

Radiant heat can defeat gravity :)

On Thu, 19 Mar 2009 08:45:05 +1200, Bret wrote:

> On Thu, 19 Mar 2009 09:16:09 +1200, Your Name wrote:
> 
>> "Bret" <at@at.corn> wrote in message
>> news:1o03n1k6sjg5y$.1nrxa52h8bhbp$.dlg@40tude.net...
>>> On Wed, 18 Mar 2009 18:53:46 GMT, Chris Whelan wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 19 Mar 2009 06:49:15 +1200, Bret wrote:
>>>>
>>>> [...]
>>>>
>>>>> It's a "light bulb" not a heater.
>>>>
>>>> Strictly speaking, it's a filament lamp. Oh, and the ones I've touched
>>>> when switched on certainly get hot...
>>>
>>> While they certainly do heat up, they are primarily a source of lighting.
>> 
>> Except of course ones like the "heat lamps" that are installed in many
>> bathrooms these days to provide both heat and light.  :-)
> 
> Radiant heat can defeat gravity :)

Yes I meant convection.

"Bret" <at@at.corn> wrote in message
news:1o03n1k6sjg5y$.1nrxa52h8bhbp$.dlg@40tude.net...
> On Wed, 18 Mar 2009 18:53:46 GMT, Chris Whelan wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 19 Mar 2009 06:49:15 +1200, Bret wrote:
> >
> > [...]
> >
> >> It's a "light bulb" not a heater.
> >
> > Strictly speaking, it's a filament lamp. Oh, and the ones I've touched
> > when switched on certainly get hot...
>
> While they certainly do heat up, they are primarily a source of lighting.

Except of course ones like the "heat lamps" that are installed in many
bathrooms these days to provide both heat and light.  :-)

In article <20090318174031.245efd70@realh.co.uk>, Tony Houghton says...

> I think the point you're trying to make is that because the lightbulb is
> heating the air around it, heat from below isn't lost into that space.
>
AT FUCKING LAST. Only took you 3 days to work that out.



-- 
Conor

I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't 
looking good either. - Scott Adams

On Wed, 18 Mar 2009 22:42:48 -0000
Conor <conor_turton@hotmail.com> wrote:

> In article <20090318174031.245efd70@realh.co.uk>, Tony Houghton says...
> 
> > I think the point you're trying to make is that because the lightbulb is
> > heating the air around it, heat from below isn't lost into that space.
> >
> AT FUCKING LAST. Only took you 3 days to work that out.

You can't even count to 1 and post something accurate about it.

-- 
TH * http://www.realh.co.uk

On 17/03/2009 23:42, Conor wrote:
> In article<mqKdnZNuiNcJk13UnZ2dnUVZ8rCWnZ2d@posted.plusnet>, Craig
> Wallace says...
>
>> The specifications say it uses 0.4W in standby.
>> So still saving electricity compared to leaving speakers, monitors,
>> printer, digibox etc switched on (which might be using about 4W or so each).
>
> If your digibox isn't on standby, how does it receive updates?

What updates does it need to receive? And why can't it receive those 
during the time its switched on?


-- 
Craig Wallace
http://craig.neogeo.org.uk
http://www.neogeo.org.uk

On Wed, 18 Mar 2009 23:41:31 +0000
Craig Wallace <craigw84@fast_NOSPAM_mail.fm> wrote:

> On 17/03/2009 23:42, Conor wrote:
> > In article<mqKdnZNuiNcJk13UnZ2dnUVZ8rCWnZ2d@posted.plusnet>, Craig
> > Wallace says...
> >
> >> The specifications say it uses 0.4W in standby.  So still saving
> >> electricity compared to leaving speakers, monitors, printer,
> >> digibox etc switched on (which might be using about 4W or so each).
> >
> > If your digibox isn't on standby, how does it receive updates?
> 
> What updates does it need to receive? And why can't it receive those
> during the time its switched on?

It might have to tune to different frequencies to gather all of the new
information, which wouldn't be nice if someone was trying to watch or
record something. I've heard of people complaining about boxes updating
in the small hours and ruining what they were trying to watch or record.

The Service Info for Freesat is quite weird, AFAICT it only includes
Service Descriptor Tables for other frequencies so you have to tune to
at least 2 frequencies to get a full set of SDTs.

Freeview boxes don't have that excuse, but ISTR reading that firmware
updates for common models are broadcast over the air and maybe they're
only sent on certain frequencies?

-- 
TH * http://www.realh.co.uk

Tony Houghton wrote:
> That's not what heat from a ceiling light achieves. Unless the air
> around it gets blown downwards it has to heat it to above 20C for it to
> fight the temperature gradient and raise the temperature at ground
> level.
> 
> I think the point you're trying to make is that because the lightbulb is
> heating the air around it, heat from below isn't lost into that space.
> That's true, but the point I'm making is that the area around the
> lightbulb gets hotter than the desired 20C and in real world conditions
> (no absolutely perfect insulation, people coming in and out of doors
> etc) that surplus energy can escape from the room faster.
> 

Actually the heat in the lamp would probably make a chimney effect, 
dragging cold air into the room thru whatever openings were left, making 
it overall colder then if the lamp was not there in a hole in the cieling.

The difference between that and the radient heat from it shining down 
could make it one way or the other, and it would be very lamp and room 
specific so there is little point looking into it IMO.

In article <JrGdnXC8aPs2G1zUnZ2dnUVZ8jiWnZ2d@posted.plusnet>, Craig 
Wallace says...

> What updates does it need to receive? 

Software updates for a start. 


> And why can't it receive those 
> during the time its switched on?

The possibility of interrupting viewing.


-- 
Conor

I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't 
looking good either. - Scott Adams

Of course, even the original "lightbulb" of fire on a stick gave off more
heat than light.  :)

"Richard" <rich@ihug.co.nz> wrote in message 
news:gpn2e2$nvj$1@news.albasani.net...
> Synapse Syndrome wrote:
>> Conor <conor_turton@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> I guess you also think that leaving a tv in standby is a waste too?
>>>> In the UK, there's been a big campaign
>>> And its all bollocks.
>>>
>>
>> It's still tens of millions of watts wasted throughout the country.
>
> And there is a hell of a lot more wasted in areas that people can make a 
> real difference without inconvinencing themselves, Hell, the old people 
> next door to me leave their toilet light on all night - no idea why, but 
> it is.
>
> People leave loads of actual loads on lots, dont get efficiant models and 
> all sorts of other things. To turn things off at the wall so that they use 
> a pittance less power is not a good return on work ratio compared with 
> doing something productive.

It can take upwards of 3 seconds sometimes to flick a wall switch.

NotSure wrote:
> Re:Computer Power Consumption
> 
> Did you know...
> 
> Computers use 7W (seven watts) of power
> even if SWITCHED OFF!!
> 
> measure it for yourself!!
> 
> $20 meter at DickSmih
> 
> Manual:
> http://www-2.net/misc/elto-power-meter-INDEX.html
> 
> MONEY???  rule of thumb:
> 1 watt = 2 dollars per year
> 
> when on:
> 
> Computer:  50Watts
> Screen: 50 Watts
> Laptop: 25 Watt
> 
> 
Gee I would get that off switch fixed, mine draws nothing when switched 
Off, (hard on/off switch) but it does consume power when in a powered 
down state (soft on/off switch) and that draw increases if it is in a 
standby state.

Your terminology is a bit awry and not in keeping with todays equipment 
which have both soft and hard on off switches.

"John" <john@junk.com> wrote in message
news:gpumk5$mu6$1@news-01.bur.connect.com.au...
>
> "Richard" <rich@ihug.co.nz> wrote in message
> news:gpn2e2$nvj$1@news.albasani.net...
> > Synapse Syndrome wrote:
> >> Conor <conor_turton@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>> I guess you also think that leaving a tv in standby is a waste too?
> >>>> In the UK, there's been a big campaign
> >>> And its all bollocks.
> >>
> >> It's still tens of millions of watts wasted throughout the country.
> >
> > And there is a hell of a lot more wasted in areas that people can make a
> > real difference without inconvinencing themselves, Hell, the old people
> > next door to me leave their toilet light on all night - no idea why, but
> > it is.
> >
> > People leave loads of actual loads on lots, dont get efficiant models
and
> > all sorts of other things. To turn things off at the wall so that they
use
> > a pittance less power is not a good return on work ratio compared with
> > doing something productive.
>
> It can take upwards of 3 seconds sometimes to flick a wall switch.

Sheer laziness. Switching things off when you've finished using them is an
EXTREMELY easy habit to get into. Obviously you never listened to your
mother telling you to put your toys away when you've finished playing with
them.

John wrote:

>> People leave loads of actual loads on lots, dont get efficiant models and 
>> all sorts of other things. To turn things off at the wall so that they use 
>> a pittance less power is not a good return on work ratio compared with 
>> doing something productive.
> 
> It can take upwards of 3 seconds sometimes to flick a wall switch.

Then there is waiting for things to start up - sky boxes are terrible at 
that, some TVs also take an eternity to come on from AC restoration.

In MsgID<Mv-dnXON8LcTJCDUnZ2dnUVZ8j6WnZ2d@westnet.com.au> on Mon, 16 Mar
2009 13:29:32 +1100, in uk.comp.homebuilt, 'Kwyjibo' wrote:

>NotSure wrote:
>> Re:Computer Power Consumption
>>
>> Did you know...
>>
>> Computers use 7W (seven watts) of power
>> even if SWITCHED OFF!!
>
>Nope. They typically use <5W when in sleep (s3) mode. Powered off (s5/g2) is 
>typically a lot less than 1W
>Note that shutting down in Vista (by default) does not shutdown the PC. It 
>just puts it into sleep mode (s3). You need to adjust the power options to 
>get a true shutdown (s5/g2)

I hadn't realised that, thanks.

I thought the big boys had finally yielded to the gradually spreading
common sense WRT background power leaching, how come they've taken a step
backwards? 

I suspect (during my brief immunisation exposure) that I took real boot to
be part of the hardware setup and never properly noticed when it was just
sleeping rather than properly off. (Yes, yes, I know, but I didn't like it
and didn't keep it installed for more than a day or two. Plus, machines
that are capable of camoflaguing the snail like consequences of $soft
pass-the-parcel layering tend to be only passing through around here, and
they're like *lightening* fast the moment you stick in a slightly more
sensible OS)

If vasti is as slow on real bootup as I fear, then joe public will
probably find it irresistable to stick with a PR friendly
bloatware-starts-quick-if-you-never-switch-off default mode. Even more so
if they never properly realise it's still burning juice. I suppose that
implies a likely answer to my question above :-(


Hey, wonder what an energy audit would look like for a builtin low-power
nimh USP designed to supply just the sleep power. (?)


Dave J. 

In MsgID<aNPvl.126$OO7.17@text.news.virginmedia.com> on Tue, 17 Mar 2009
15:59:02 GMT, in uk.comp.homebuilt, 'mr deo' wrote:

>
>"Clint Sharp" <clint@clintsmc.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:gZkzo3Bn2gvJFwif@clintsmc.demon.co.uk...
>> In message <87qrr4pi090etc55qsktnbm6tn674qtp1u@4ax.com>, Woger
>> <woger@woger.net.ru> writes
>> >No they have far   far better shops like Mapling and otheres..
>> Bloody hell, Dick Smith must be atrocious if you think Maplin is better.
>> -- 
>> Clint Sharp
>
>Maplin is good for what it is..
>RS and Maplin are the only 2 mainstream stores where you can buy
>electrical/electronic componets (in the UK)..
>I personally dont like Maplin when other larger mainstreams like RS and
>Farnell (mail(fax)/web only I think?)..

I can't stand Maplins, they're a glorified toyshop that happen to do
spares at outrageous prices. They'll charge you a fiver for a fifty pence
component, they'll tell you they have stuff in store when they don't etc
etc. And as for computer tat, the rough ratio between reasonable and
maplin prices is 1:2.5

The only plus side is that here (Sheffield) there are some fairly
knowledgable and friendly folk working behind the parts counter. (Also a
couple of braindead droids but they're the minority)

Dave J.

In MsgID<gpl44b$tmu$1@news.albasani.net> on Mon, 16 Mar 2009 21:55:21
+1300, in uk.comp.homebuilt, 'Richard' wrote:

>Apparantly maplins has gone even furthur down the de-electronicification 
>path then DSE has. Even jaycar are seeing that its more profitable 
>selling crap in a box then components.

Aha, it may rescue someone somtime if I mention Bardwells.

For anyone who ever gets stuck for odd discreets (trannys fets ics
passives crystales ferrites transformers sockets etc) or general hardware
(boxes alternative heatsinks and more) then there's Bardwells, again here
in Sheffield. The are a miracle for electronic hobbyist stuff. Their
prices show maplins up for the rip merchant supermarket they truly are.

Their web page offers mail order and shows a fair selection of their
stuff, however as the business is based around a very friendly proprietor
and some staff who're often also keen hobbyists a phone call is a vital
backup for anything you can't see on the site. 

http://www.bardwells.co.uk

Well designed site even if not totally representative of their stock (as
they do point out on the initial page)

It's a small place that's just grown and grown over the years (decades?)
through such limited retail supply elsewhere and their being the only
source for so many odds and ends. The place is jam packed with drawer upon
drawer of discreets and shelf upon shelf of larger hardware and test
equipment. I've tried to give some clue in the first paragraph but I can't
really begin to describe their breadth of coverage. See the site to get
the beginning of a clue. They're also happy to order stuff that's not
immediately to hand.

They do carry some computer tat, even if as something of a secondary. It's
certainly worthy of a phonecall for anything unusual.

I know the above sounds as if I'm advertising them, but anyone who knows
me can see how unlikely that would be. I've no connection other than as a
very impressed customer and a genuine liking for the boss. I mention here
mostly for the secondary readership who're also into home designed
electronics.

http://www.bardwells.co.uk


Dave J.