Range clock - Disconnect it!
Bill
using electricity. (Small amount, but many little things like this can add
up.)
So I pulled my electric range out from the wall, unplugged it, and
disconnected the clock. (Only do this if you know what you are doing.)
I already have many electronic things on power strips and turn off the power
strips when not in use. These things use electricity all the time...
HeyBub
> The clock on my range has never kept correct time, yet it keeps
> running and using electricity. (Small amount, but many little things
> like this can add up.)
>
> So I pulled my electric range out from the wall, unplugged it, and
> disconnected the clock. (Only do this if you know what you are doing.)
>
Savings? Bah. Now you'll have to buy your wife a watch.
Jeff
phones fro time. It looks like you'll have to buy her a new cellphone
for kitchen work.
Electric consumption of any clock, sans lighting, is nearly
negligible. Certainly compared to a ranges power use!
Jeff
val189
Now.....you be SURE to disconnect the fridge lights, oven light, and
rip out the range hood while you're at it.
Never knew about power strips...anyone care to dispute that?
dpb
...
> Never knew about power strips...anyone care to dispute that?
The little "power on" indicator light if there is one is all...if you
have so many power strips their load is measurable you have too many
things or too few wall outlets.
--
dpb
> The clock on my range has never kept correct time, yet it keeps running and
> using electricity. (Small amount, but many little things like this can add
> up.)
>
> So I pulled my electric range out from the wall, unplugged it, and
> disconnected the clock. (Only do this if you know what you are doing.)
If you can even measure the difference...
And, of course, by disconnecting the range clock you've also disabled
the auto-on/off feature...
As an aside, it would seem quite unusual for a wall-sourced electric
clock to not be pretty accurate since grid frequency is normally pretty
precise.
--
Edwin Pawlowski
"val189" <gweh...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
>>
>> I already have many electronic things on power strips and turn off the
>> power
>> strips when not in use. These things use electricity all the time...
>
> Now.....you be SURE to disconnect the fridge lights, oven light, and
> rip out the range hood while you're at it.
>
> Never knew about power strips...anyone care to dispute that?
I think he's talking about electronics plugged into the strips, not the
strips themselves
Edwin Pawlowski
"dpb" <no...@non.net> wrote in message
>
> And, of course, by disconnecting the range clock you've also disabled the
> auto-on/off feature...
>
> As an aside, it would seem quite unusual for a wall-sourced electric clock
> to not be pretty accurate since grid frequency is normally pretty precise.
> --
The clock in our old range stopped working 10 years ago but it was still
right twice a day. New range has no clock, no electronics, no circuit
board, just plenty of power to cook with. www.bertazzoni-italia.com We got
the black 30"
dpb
OTOH, the clock in our (roughly 25 yr old) range still functions as
accurately as any in the house (including the electric which dates from
1948 when we first got grid REA power). I'm quite certain my wife would
not do w/o the auto-start feature and am even more certain she'd never
accept black. :)
--
Rod Speed
> The clock on my range has never kept correct time, yet it keeps running and using electricity. (Small amount, but many
> little things like this can add up.)
No they cant.
> So I pulled my electric range out from the wall, unplugged it, and
> disconnected the clock. (Only do this if you know what you are doing.)
And if you dont have a clue about the cost of the electricity it uses.
> I already have many electronic things on power strips and turn off the power strips when not in use. These things use
> electricity all the time...
But if you use electricity for cooking, hot water and house heating,
those uses will completely swamp the use by stuff like the range clock.
Rod Speed
> Bill <billnomailnosp...@yahoo.com> wrote
He didnt say that the power strip itself uses any power, just that he uses
power strips as a convenient way to turn off what isnt used all the time,
most obviously plug packs/wall warts that so many of the smaller devices
use now, and other stuff that isnt normally turned off when not in use.
David Nebenzahl
> Bill <billnoma...@yahoo.com> wrote
>
>> The clock on my range has never kept correct time, yet it keeps
>> running and using electricity. (Small amount, but many little
>> things like this can add up.)
>
> No they cant.
Yes, they can, and do.
Haven't you noticed that even the power companies themselves (like PG&E
here) are running ad campaigns advising people to get rid of all those
"phantom" electricity users?
A guy here at UC Berkeley has done research showing that all these
things--wall warts, devices that power LEDs, etc.--use a trememdous
amount of electricity when added up.
--
The best argument against democracy is a five-minute
conversation with the average voter.
- Attributed to Winston Churchill
Tony Hwang
> On 6/1/2008 11:59 AM Rod Speed spake thus:
>
>> Bill <billnoma...@yahoo.com> wrote
>>
>>> The clock on my range has never kept correct time, yet it keeps
>>> running and using electricity. (Small amount, but many little
>>> things like this can add up.)
>>
>>
>> No they cant.
>
>
> Yes, they can, and do.
>
> Haven't you noticed that even the power companies themselves (like PG&E
> here) are running ad campaigns advising people to get rid of all those
> "phantom" electricity users?
>
> A guy here at UC Berkeley has done research showing that all these
> things--wall warts, devices that power LEDs, etc.--use a trememdous
> amount of electricity when added up.
>
>
No kidding! But if the clock is disconnected can't do timed use of oven!
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Bill <billnoma...@yahoo.com> wrote
>>> The clock on my range has never kept correct time, yet it keeps running and using electricity. (Small amount, but
>>> many little things like this can add up.)
>> No they cant.
> Yes, they can, and do.
Nope, not with an electric range where the time you have one of the
plates on for has a MUCH more important effect on the electricity used.
> Haven't you noticed that even the power companies themselves (like PG&E here) are running ad campaigns advising people
> to get rid of all those "phantom" electricity users?
They aint talking about the clock in a range.
> A guy here at UC Berkeley has done research showing that all these things--wall warts, devices that power LEDs, etc.--
> use a trememdous amount of electricity when added up.
Pity that the clock in a range being discussed cant add up when there is only one of them.
And the range takes vastly more power when you turn one of the
plates on so that completely swamps the power the clock uses.
Anthony Matonak
> David Nebenzahl wrote:
...
>> A guy here at UC Berkeley has done research showing that all these
>> things--wall warts, devices that power LEDs, etc.--use a trememdous
>> amount of electricity when added up.
>>
How many people use the timer on an oven? What kinds of food can
you leave in an oven for many hours without it going bad on you?
Anthony
David Nebenzahl
> David Nebenzahl <nob...@but.us.chickens> wrote
>> Rod Speed wrote
>>> Bill <billnoma...@yahoo.com> wrote
>
>>>> The clock on my range has never kept correct time, yet it keeps
>>>> running and using electricity. (Small amount, but many little
>>>> things like this can add up.)
>
>>> No they cant.
>
>> Yes, they can, and do.
>
> Nope, not with an electric range where the time you have one of the
> plates on for has a MUCH more important effect on the electricity used.
The fact that the burners use a lot more electricity doesn't change the
fact that things like clocks, wall warts, etc., still use small amounts
of electricity, and when added together constitute a significant
fraction of energy usage.
The point is that if the clock isn't serving any useful purpose, then
disconnecting it to save electricity (an admittedly small amount, but
see above) is a good thing to do.
Jeff Wisnia
> val189 <gweh...@bellsouth.net> wrote
>
>>Bill <billnomailnosp...@yahoo.com> wrote
>
>
>>>The clock on my range has never kept correct time, yet it keeps
>>>running and using electricity. (Small amount, but many little things
>>>like this can add up.)
It's sort of hard to believe that it wasn't keeping correct time. Was
there perhaps a "cook timer" function operated by a little knob in the
center of the clock face? That's where the one on our stove's clock is,
and if you don't do the cook timer setting function correctly you can
advance the time on the clock.
Plus, you can't set the clock "backwards", so if you advance it say 10
minutes by clumsy setting of the cook timer the only way to reset the
time is to crank the minute hand around almost twelve rotations,
someting SWMBO never sees a need to do.
>
>
>>>So I pulled my electric range out from the wall, unplugged it, and
>>>disconnected the clock. (Only do this if you know what you are doing.)
>
>
>>>I already have many electronic things on power strips and turn off the
>>>power strips when not in use. These things use electricity all the time...
>
>
>>Now.....you be SURE to disconnect the fridge lights,
>>oven light, and rip out the range hood while you're at it.
>
>
>>Never knew about power strips...anyone care to dispute that?
>
>
> He didnt say that the power strip itself uses any power, just that he uses
> power strips as a convenient way to turn off what isnt used all the time,
> most obviously plug packs/wall warts that so many of the smaller devices
> use now, and other stuff that isnt normally turned off when not in use.
>
>
Some power strips do use power. To light up the little pilot lamp which
indicates that the strip's switch is on.
I wonder (but am too lazy to calculate) how long that light would have
to be left on to add a penny to your electric bill. <G>
--
Jeffry Wisnia
(W1BSV + Brass Rat '57 EE)
The speed of light is 1.98*10^14 fathoms per fortnight.
h
"dpb" <no...@non.net> wrote in message news:g1uq3v$fff$1...@aioe.org...
> Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
I'm quite certain my wife would
> not do w/o the auto-start feature and am even more certain she'd never
> accept black. :)
>
Interesting. I've never used an auto-start in my life, and have no idea why
anyone would ever want to, and all my appliance are black :)
George
> On 6/1/2008 11:59 AM Rod Speed spake thus:
>
>> Bill <billnoma...@yahoo.com> wrote
>>
>>> The clock on my range has never kept correct time, yet it keeps
>>> running and using electricity. (Small amount, but many little
>>> things like this can add up.)
>>
>> No they cant.
>
> Yes, they can, and do.
>
> Haven't you noticed that even the power companies themselves (like PG&E
> here) are running ad campaigns advising people to get rid of all those
> "phantom" electricity users?
>
> A guy here at UC Berkeley has done research showing that all these
> things--wall warts, devices that power LEDs, etc.--use a trememdous
> amount of electricity when added up.
>
>
waste. People tend to focus on big things but it is the small wasteful
or efficient things multiplied by hundreds of millions of users that
really ad up. Those cheepo wall wart power supplies waste power in two
ways. One is standby loss. Assume they loose a low 3W/each and you have
10. That is a waste of 22.32kwh/month per home just having them plugged
in and not even doing anything useful.
Then the cheepo power supplies are quite inefficient when powering a
load. I have read that the waste is collectively over 50 billion
kwh/year in the US.
Jeff Wisnia
> On 6/1/2008 1:43 PM Rod Speed spake thus:
>
>> David Nebenzahl <nob...@but.us.chickens> wrote
>>
>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>
>>>> Bill <billnoma...@yahoo.com> wrote
>>
>>
>>>>> The clock on my range has never kept correct time, yet it keeps
>>>>> running and using electricity. (Small amount, but many little
>>>>> things like this can add up.)
>>
>>
>>>> No they cant.
>>
>>
>>> Yes, they can, and do.
>>
>>
>> Nope, not with an electric range where the time you have one of the
>> plates on for has a MUCH more important effect on the electricity used.
>
>
> The fact that the burners use a lot more electricity doesn't change the
> fact that things like clocks, wall warts, etc., still use small amounts
> of electricity, and when added together constitute a significant
> fraction of energy usage.
>
> The point is that if the clock isn't serving any useful purpose, then
> disconnecting it to save electricity (an admittedly small amount, but
> see above) is a good thing to do.
>
>
Has anyone thought about how much wasted electricity we'd be saving now
if the utilities could have forseen the eventual spike in energy cost
and used heavier conductors for their runs?
I'd expect that the added cost of the copper or aluminum needed to
reduce resistive losses in all those distribution wires by making them
thicker would get paid off pretty fast at today's fuel costs.
(It's a good thing Edison didn't win out, or we'd still be distributing
electricity at 110 volts DC throughout our power systems, with even
greater transmission losses. <G>)
Jeff
George
I don't believe ovens have had delayed start for a long time due to
safety reasons but most have cooking length timers. We use ours all of
the time mainly as a reminder when to remove the food. But it wouldn't
be a major deal if it didn't have a timer because there are lots of
inexpensive windup or electronic timers that could be substituted.
CJT
I think it'll light for a year on about a penny.
--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form che...@prodigy.net.
Wayne Boatwright
That's only half of the reason to leave it connected. Most modern ranges
have an electronic clock combined with the controls to set the temperature
and turn the oven on and off. You disconnect that and you won't ever bake
again.
Now, if you range is 30 years old, that's another story (usually).
Apart from the clock/timer on a range, most other "always on" devices have
a reason for always being on. If unplugged or disconnected, you generally
have to reset all the options every time you plug the device in. Good
examples are VCR and DVD recorders, coffeemakers with programmable cycles,
almost anything that stores settings.
Yes, you're paying for the convenience of using that energy, but it's
terribly inconvenient if you don't.
--
Wayne Boatwright
-------------------------------------------
Sunday, 06(VI)/01(I)/08(MMVIII)
-------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------
Be kind to your inferiors, if you can
find any.
-------------------------------------------
CJT
<snip>
>
> Apart from the clock/timer on a range, most other "always on" devices have
> a
poor
reason for always being on. If unplugged or disconnected, you generally
> have to reset all the options every time you plug the
poorly designed
device in. Good
> examples are
poorly designed
VCR and DVD recorders, coffeemakers with programmable cycles,
> almost anything that stores settings
in volatile memory instead of the correct way
.
<snip>
George
They generally deal with that by increasing system voltage levels and
keeping the voltage as high as possible until they reach the point of
utilization. For example the two transmission lines that come into my
area used to be 120kV and last year they increased them to 240kV.
>
> (It's a good thing Edison didn't win out, or we'd still be distributing
> electricity at 110 volts DC throughout our power systems, with even
> greater transmission losses. <G>)
>
> Jeff
>
DC high voltage transmission lines have lower losses and are less
expensive to build. They use solid state convertors at each end. 500 kV
was the max for a while and I know the Canadians have a line in service
for at least 20 years that operates at 735 kV DC and I read that the
Chinese recently started construction of a 800 kV DC transmission line.
David Nebenzahl
> Wayne Boatwright wrote:
> <snip>
> device in. Good
>> examples are
>
> poorly designed
>
> VCR and DVD recorders, coffeemakers with programmable cycles,
>> almost anything that stores settings
>
> in volatile memory instead of the correct way
Right. Can you say "NOVRAM"?
Rod Speed
Thats a completely trivial amount of power compared with whats plugged into it.
> I wonder (but am too lazy to calculate) how long that light would have to be left on to add a penny to your electric
> bill. <G>
Try a year or so.
Rod Speed
> Tony Hwang wrote
>> David Nebenzahl wrote
>>> A guy here at UC Berkeley has done research showing that all these
>>> things--wall warts, devices that power LEDs, etc.--use a trememdous
>>> amount of electricity when added up.
>> No kidding! But if the clock is disconnected can't do timed use of oven!
> How many people use the timer on an oven? What kinds of food can
> you leave in an oven for many hours without it going bad on you?
The most obvious example is raw meat which you want to start roasting
while you are still out of the house, so its cooked when you show up later.
George
> On 6/1/2008 3:09 PM CJT spake thus:
>
>> Wayne Boatwright wrote:
>> <snip>
>> device in. Good
>>> examples are
>>
>> poorly designed
>>
>> VCR and DVD recorders, coffeemakers with programmable cycles,
>>> almost anything that stores settings
>>
>> in volatile memory instead of the correct way
>
> Right. Can you say "NOVRAM"?
>
>
efficiency switcher instead of the cheap walmart class junk currently in
use.
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed wrote
>> David Nebenzahl <nob...@but.us.chickens> wrote
>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>> Bill <billnoma...@yahoo.com> wrote
>>>>> The clock on my range has never kept correct time, yet it keeps
>>>>> running and using electricity. (Small amount, but many little
>>>>> things like this can add up.)
>>>> No they cant.
>>> Yes, they can, and do.
>> Nope, not with an electric range where the time you have one of the
>> plates on for has a MUCH more important effect on the electricity used.
> The fact that the burners use a lot more electricity doesn't change the fact that things like clocks, wall warts,
> etc., still use small amounts of electricity,
That bit was JUST about the clock. There is no wall wart with a range.
> and when added together constitute a significant fraction of energy usage.
And the clock he stupidly disconnected doesnt.
> The point is that if the clock isn't serving any useful purpose, then
> disconnecting it to save electricity (an admittedly small amount,
Too small an amount to bother about for anyone by a mindless anal obsessive.
> but see above)
See above.
> is a good thing to do.
Nope, completely stupid waste of time.
David Nebenzahl
> DC high voltage transmission lines have lower losses and are less
> expensive to build. They use solid state convertors at each end. 500 kV
> was the max for a while and I know the Canadians have a line in service
> for at least 20 years that operates at 735 kV DC and I read that the
> Chinese recently started construction of a 800 kV DC transmission line.
Wow; so that old Tesla-Edison debate *isn't* settled science like
everyone wants us to believe, eh?
Got any good reading links on this? I'm curious. And, in a nutshell, why
does DC have lower losses? (Not disputing, just curious.)
Rod Speed
> David Nebenzahl wrote
>> Rod Speed wrote
>>> David Nebenzahl <nob...@but.us.chickens> wrote
>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>> Bill <billnoma...@yahoo.com> wrote
>>>>>> The clock on my range has never kept correct time, yet it keeps
>>>>>> running and using electricity. (Small amount, but many little
>>>>>> things like this can add up.)
>>>>> No they cant.
>>>> Yes, they can, and do.
>>> Nope, not with an electric range where the time you have one of the
>>> plates on for has a MUCH more important effect on the electricity used.
>> The fact that the burners use a lot more electricity doesn't change
>> the fact that things like clocks, wall warts, etc., still use small
>> amounts of electricity, and when added together constitute a
>> significant fraction of energy usage.
>> The point is that if the clock isn't serving any useful purpose, then
>> disconnecting it to save electricity (an admittedly small amount, but
>> see above) is a good thing to do.
> Has anyone thought about how much wasted electricity we'd be saving now if the utilities could have forseen the
> eventual spike in energy cost and used heavier conductors for their runs?
Yes, the power companys do that all the time.
> I'd expect that the added cost of the copper or aluminum needed to reduce resistive losses in all those distribution
> wires by making them thicker would get paid off pretty fast at today's fuel costs.
Fraid not, essentially because the price of copper has increased dramatically too.
> (It's a good thing Edison didn't win out, or we'd still be
> distributing electricity at 110 volts DC throughout our power
> systems, with even greater transmission losses. <G>)
Nope, that would never have survived the dramatic increase in the use of electricity.
David Nebenzahl
> David Nebenzahl <nob...@but.us.chickens> wrote
>
>> and when added together constitute a significant fraction of energy usage.
>
> And the clock he stupidly disconnected doesnt.
>
>> The point is that if the clock isn't serving any useful purpose, then
>> disconnecting it to save electricity (an admittedly small amount,
>
> Too small an amount to bother about for anyone by a mindless anal obsessive.
You're missing the point, my friend. You're thinking "how much money
will someone save on their electric bill by disconnecting a clock?" (the
answer to which is, of course, practically nothing). I'm talking about
the *collective* energy usage of all those millions of clocks, wall
warts, etc., plugged in out there.
Tony Hwang
Why not?
Don't like the convenience? You or your better wife stays home ll the time?
Tony Hwang
Hi,
No kidding. I wonder what kinda car the OP'er drives.
Tony Hwang
Hi,
Electronic timer uses energy as well as spring wound ones. Every thing
in this world either produces or uses energy!
Tony Hwang
Whoa!
Prove it with simple Ohm's law. If it is HV, how heavy is the cable
gonna be? Is it EASY to generate HV DC, I mean pure DC?
Bob F
"David Nebenzahl" <nob...@but.us.chickens> wrote in message
news:484322b2$0$4998$8226...@news.adtechcomputers.com...
> On 6/1/2008 3:17 PM George spake thus:
>
>> DC high voltage transmission lines have lower losses and are less expensive
>> to build. They use solid state convertors at each end. 500 kV was the max for
>> a while and I know the Canadians have a line in service for at least 20 years
>> that operates at 735 kV DC and I read that the Chinese recently started
>> construction of a 800 kV DC transmission line.
>
> Wow; so that old Tesla-Edison debate *isn't* settled science like everyone
> wants us to believe, eh?
>
> Got any good reading links on this? I'm curious. And, in a nutshell, why does
> DC have lower losses? (Not disputing, just curious.)
AC has added capacitive and inductive losses, added to the resistive losses of
DC.
Bob F
"David Nebenzahl" <nob...@but.us.chickens> wrote in message
> On 6/1/2008 3:27 PM Rod Speed spake thus:
>
>> David Nebenzahl <nob...@but.us.chickens> wrote
>>
>>> and when added together constitute a significant fraction of energy usage.
>>
>> And the clock he stupidly disconnected doesnt.
>>
>>> The point is that if the clock isn't serving any useful purpose, then
>>> disconnecting it to save electricity (an admittedly small amount,
>>
>> Too small an amount to bother about for anyone by a mindless anal obsessive.
>
> You're missing the point, my friend. You're thinking "how much money will
> someone save on their electric bill by disconnecting a clock?" (the answer to
> which is, of course, practically nothing). I'm talking about the *collective*
> energy usage of all those millions of clocks, wall warts, etc., plugged in out
> there.
I suspect that many wall-warts waste way more power that the electric clock in
an old oven.
SteveB
these little clocks that we could make as much difference as AlGore does
with his global warming theories. If anyone is concerned about how much
electricity their clock uses, contact me, and I will send you a quarter for
a year's usage.
Steve
Rod Speed
> George wrote
>> Jeff Wisnia wrote
>>> David Nebenzahl wrote
>>>>>>> No they cant.
>> DC high voltage transmission lines have lower losses and are less
>> expensive to build. They use solid state convertors at each end. 500 kV was the max for a while and I know the
>> Canadians have a line in service for at least 20 years that operates at 735 kV DC and I read that the Chinese
>> recently started construction of a 800 kV DC transmission line.
> Whoa!
We aint horses, Tonto.
> Prove it with simple Ohm's law.
Not possible, because more than simple ohm's law is involved.
> If it is HV, how heavy is the cable gonna be?
Depends on how much power you want to move thru it.
> Is it EASY to generate HV DC, I mean pure DC?
Its not that EASY, but still worth doing in some situations.
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed wrote
>>> and when added together constitute a significant fraction of energy usage.
>> And the clock he stupidly disconnected doesnt.
>>> The point is that if the clock isn't serving any useful purpose, then disconnecting it to save electricity (an
>>> admittedly small amount,
>> Too small an amount to bother about for anyone but a mindless anal obsessive.
> You're missing the point,
Nope, you are.
> my friend.
You're no friend of mine.
> You're thinking "how much money will someone save on their electric bill by disconnecting a clock?"
Nope. I rubbed your nose in the FACT that with the RANGE
being discussed, the use of electricity by the clock is such a
trivial part of what the rest of the RANGE uses that it isnt worth
bothering about unless you are a mindless anal obsessive.
> (the answer to which is, of course, practically nothing).
So it isnt worth bothering about disconnecting THE CLOCK IN THE RANGE
which happened to be what the OP was stupid enough to bother about.
> I'm talking about the *collective* energy usage of all those millions of clocks, wall warts, etc., plugged in out
> there.
Pity that hardly anyone is actually stupid enough to bother
to disconnect the clocks in many of the RANGES out there.
And if you care about what a wall wart uses, the only thing that
makes any sense at all is to replace the ones that are the dinosaur
transformer based wall warts with proper modern switch mode wall
warts instead and save virtually all of the power those use, and have
the convenience of being able to leave them plugged in all the time.
David Nebenzahl
> George wrote:
>
>> DC high voltage transmission lines have lower losses and are less
>> expensive to build. They use solid state convertors at each end. 500 kV
>> was the max for a while and I know the Canadians have a line in service
>> for at least 20 years that operates at 735 kV DC and I read that the
>> Chinese recently started construction of a 800 kV DC transmission line.
>
> Prove it with simple Ohm's law. If it is HV, how heavy is the cable
> gonna be?
So far as that goes, keep in mind that as the voltage increases, the
size of the conductors needed to carry the electricity decreases (that's
one reason long-distance transmission lines are HV). So you can either
increase the size of the conductors, or step the voltage up using
existing conductors.
David Nebenzahl
> And if you care about what a wall wart uses, the only thing that
> makes any sense at all is to replace the ones that are the dinosaur
> transformer based wall warts with proper modern switch mode wall
> warts instead and save virtually all of the power those use, and have
> the convenience of being able to leave them plugged in all the time.
Well, yes, that would be an improvement.
metspitzer
<nob...@but.us.chickens> wrote:
>On 6/1/2008 5:23 PM Rod Speed spake thus:
>
>> And if you care about what a wall wart uses, the only thing that
>> makes any sense at all is to replace the ones that are the dinosaur
>> transformer based wall warts with proper modern switch mode wall
>> warts instead and save virtually all of the power those use, and have
>> the convenience of being able to leave them plugged in all the time.
>
>Well, yes, that would be an improvement.
One suggestion made earlier in this group was to plug your charging
devices into a power strip that has an on/off switch. (forget about
the fact that the plugs are not designed to only take up one outlet
space)
Every little bit does help, and it is the right thing to do.
I don't really think Al Gore is doing his part, but that is another
story. :)
Lou
"Anthony Matonak" <antho...@nothing.like.socal.rr.com> wrote in message
news:48430bb2$0$3384$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
> Tony Hwang wrote:
>> David Nebenzahl wrote:
> ...
>>> A guy here at UC Berkeley has done research showing that all these
>>> things--wall warts, devices that power LEDs, etc.--use a trememdous
>>> amount of electricity when added up.
>>>
>> No kidding! But if the clock is disconnected can't do timed use of oven!
>
> How many people use the timer on an oven? What kinds of food can
> you leave in an oven for many hours without it going bad on you?
If nothing else, I use the timer for the self-cleaning cycle. And before
someone starts telling me how much electricity the cycle uses, it's a lot
cheaper than a container of oven cleaner. And old-fashioned household
"tips" like leaving a pan of ammonia in the oven overnight don't work - I've
tried that sort of thing. Not to mention how much easier it is to set it
and forget it than it is to clean the oven by hand.
CJT
> On 6/1/2008 3:53 PM Tony Hwang spake thus:
>
>> George wrote:
>
> >
>
>>> DC high voltage transmission lines have lower losses and are less
>>> expensive to build. They use solid state convertors at each end. 500
>>> kV was the max for a while and I know the Canadians have a line in
>>> service for at least 20 years that operates at 735 kV DC and I read
>>> that the Chinese recently started construction of a 800 kV DC
>>> transmission line.
>>
>>
>> Prove it with simple Ohm's law. If it is HV, how heavy is the cable
>> gonna be?
>
>
> So far as that goes, keep in mind that as the voltage increases, the
> size of the conductors needed to carry the electricity decreases (that's
> one reason long-distance transmission lines are HV). So you can either
> increase the size of the conductors, or step the voltage up using
> existing conductors.
>
>
task presented by the increased voltage. :-)
Edwin Pawlowski
"Tony Hwang" <drag...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
> Hmmm,
> No kidding! But if the clock is disconnected can't do timed use of oven!
In the 21 years we had our old oven we never used the timed start. I don't
remember if the one before that had that feature or not. Never had the
need. One of my criteria for our new range was minimal electronics. Don't
need them, don't want them. I expect the Bertazzoni will last 50 years with
maybe an igniter of the convection fan needing replacement in that time.
That's OK though as I'm not going to last another 50 years.
Edwin Pawlowski
"dpb" <no...@non.net> wrote in message news:g1uq3v$fff$1...@aioe.org...
> Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
>> "dpb" <no...@non.net> wrote in message
>>> the auto-on/off feature...
>>>
>>> As an aside, it would seem quite unusual for a wall-sourced electric
>>> clock to not be pretty accurate since grid frequency is normally pretty
>>> precise.
>>> --
>>
>> The clock in our old range stopped working 10 years ago but it was still
>> right twice a day. New range has no clock, no electronics, no circuit
>> board, just plenty of power to cook with. www.bertazzoni-italia.com We
>> got the black 30"
>
> OTOH, the clock in our (roughly 25 yr old) range still functions as
> accurately as any in the house (including the electric which dates from
> 1948 when we first got grid REA power). I'm quite certain my wife would
> accept black. :)
>
Black and SS. They have 7 other colors too. The paint is applied at the
same place that Lamborghinis and Ferraris are painted. Same quality too.
Edwin Pawlowski
You never met my grandson
Jeff
> On 6/1/2008 3:17 PM George spake thus:
>
>> DC high voltage transmission lines have lower losses and are less
>> expensive to build. They use solid state convertors at each end. 500
>> kV was the max for a while and I know the Canadians have a line in
>> service for at least 20 years that operates at 735 kV DC and I read
>> that the Chinese recently started construction of a 800 kV DC
>> transmission line.
>
> Wow; so that old Tesla-Edison debate *isn't* settled science like
> everyone wants us to believe, eh?
Well Edison wanted to transmit at the the same voltage it was going to
be used at. AC made it possible to transform to a higher voltage, and
less loss because there is less i^2 * r loss (double voltage = half
current for same power) I think Tesla would approve of the current
generation HVDC lines, remember the end distribution is still AC.
>
> Got any good reading links on this?
I'm sure there's a good bit on the net.
I'm curious. And, in a nutshell, why
> does DC have lower losses? (Not disputing, just curious.)
Advances in semiconductors and circuit breakers made HVDC possible.
You have a higher peak voltage with AC, so you will have more corona
loss. For underground cable, you'll have much less capacitive loss.
For long lines HVDC has a lot of advantages. Higher capacity, lower
losses and a smaller footprint because you have less lines.
Also, it makes it easier to sync power grids as the different power
generators don't all have to be in the same phase. That can be a big
issue and is why restarting a down generator or grid can take a long time.
Jeff
>
>
Samantha Hill - remove TRASH to reply
>
> So I pulled my electric range out from the wall, unplugged it, and
> disconnected the clock. (Only do this if you know what you are doing.)
So now you can't use the oven timer, right?
Don Klipstein
<SNIP previously quoted material>
>I suspect that many wall-warts waste way more power that the electric
>clock in an old oven.
All of these consume mostly 1-2 watts apiece. Electric clocks usually
consume about 2 watts.
Many but far from all wallwarts have losses more like 3, a few times 4
watts when fully loaded. Ones dissipating that much power get very warm.
Switcher type cell phone chargers tend to have losses around or under a
watt, usually well under a watt once the battery is charged.
As for power consumption of an LED in an AC-powered device, including
related power dissipations and losses in associated circuitry and the
power supply circuitry: Often anywhere from .05 to .4 watt. This is
usually .05 to .2 watt per LED in decices that have more of them. These
figures can easily be reduced by at least 75% using modern higher
efficiency LEDs, which are still usually not used for indicator lights
because they cost a few cents more than ones of technology that was
standard in the early 1980's.
Clock radios tend to consume anywhere from 1 to 4 watts apiece. Clock
displays on microwave ovens and VCRs tend to consume about half a watt to
a watt, give or take depending on the technology used.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now, for appliances that constantly consume a little power when they are
"off":
The converter box that I just got for my older tech TV consumes less
than a watt when it is "off", but it is consuming some power to run a red
LED and to be receptive to the remote to turn it "on".
I just measured my TV as drawing 12 watts when "off", according to my
"Kill-A-Watt" watt-meter, which actually measures true power consumption
as opposed to "reactive" and "harmonic", even for electronic-ballasted
CFLs. At my electricity rate, the off-time for my TV costs me about $13
per year! I oughtta get a power strip with a switch for it and the
converter box!
My desktop computer's ATX power supply is not fully "off" when "shut
down" by any means other than turning off the switch on the back of the
power supply or disconnecting it from AC power. The motherboard has an
LED that glows whenever the power supply is receiving power, and I hear a
very brief high piched squeal of the power supply's switching frequency
becoming audible whenever I do what it takes to make that motherboard LED
go out. I now have my desktop on a power strip with a switch to make it
fully "off" when I want it "off".
At least some printers also consume a little power when "off".
Supposedly, some of those perform a cleaning operation (with some ink
consumption) when power is applied/restored.
- Don Klipstein (d...@misty.com)
Don Klipstein
>On Sun, 01 Jun 2008 17:41:55 -0700, David Nebenzahl
><nob...@but.us.chickens> wrote:
>
>>On 6/1/2008 5:23 PM Rod Speed spake thus:
>>
>>> And if you care about what a wall wart uses, the only thing that
>>> makes any sense at all is to replace the ones that are the dinosaur
>>> transformer based wall warts with proper modern switch mode wall
>>> warts instead and save virtually all of the power those use, and have
>>> the convenience of being able to leave them plugged in all the time.
>>
>>Well, yes, that would be an improvement.
>
>One suggestion made earlier in this group was to plug your charging
>devices into a power strip that has an on/off switch. (forget about
>the fact that the plugs are not designed to only take up one outlet
>space)
That is changing, especially notably with cell phone chargers. Notably,
the slim cell phone chargers have switchmode circuitry. The smallest 60
Hz iron core transformers I have seen that can put out a couple watts
won't fit in those.
>Every little bit does help, and it is the right thing to do.
- Don Klipstein (d...@misty.com)
Don Klipstein
in part:
>Some power strips do use power. To light up the little pilot lamp which
>indicates that the strip's switch is on.
If the pilot lamp is a neon lamp of C2A/NE-2H or A1C or similar type,
the power consumption of the neon lamp and its associated dropping
resistor (for 120 volts AC) is usually around 1/3 watt.
I don't remember too clearly what I found in terms of current and power
numbers for one with an LED pilot lamp, though I do think that .4 watt
sounds about right. This can be halved with noticeably increased LED
light output if an LED costing a few cents more and much more efficient is
used.
>I wonder (but am too lazy to calculate) how long that light would have
>to be left on to add a penny to your electric bill. <G>
It appears to me that the USA national average is about 11 cents per
KWH, maybe now closer to 12, and at least will be 12 soon.
1/3 watt at 12 cents per KWH for 1 year costs about 35 cents per year.
An InGaN green LED that gets plenty bright at half a milliamp (.06 watt
at 120 VAC including dropping resistor losses), plus dropping resistor and
bridge rectifier, in production quantities may cost 15 cents more than the
neon lamp. Add some more for likely a little circuit board and assembly.
I guess the retail cost goes up a couple bucks, maybe just one buck should
they sell by millions, to save about 30 cents a year (plus however
electricity rates inflate in the future).
I would buy them at that rate. Sadly, too many people won't even spend
extra up front two years' worth of electricity savings for a more
efficient model when shopping for refrigerators!
- Don Klipstein (d...@misty.com)
dpb
Happy for them, I guess...never make it here, though... :)
--
dpb
...
>> How many people use the timer on an oven? What kinds of food can
>> you leave in an oven for many hours without it going bad on you?
Since I was the one who pointed it out, don't have any statistic on
either numbers of people who do use it or an extensive list of all the
possible uses, but certainly it gets used for things like starting the
roast for Sunday dinner, etc., quite frequently.
--
dpb
Different strokes...that's why they make more than one.
--
nick hull
> > So I pulled my electric range out from the wall, unplugged it, and
> > disconnected the clock. (Only do this if you know what you are doing.)
> ...
>
> If you can even measure the difference...
>
> And, of course, by disconnecting the range clock you've also disabled
> the auto-on/off feature...
I disconnected only my clock (it was noisy) so the oven light would
still work.
Free men own guns - www(dot)geocities(dot)com/CapitolHill/5357/
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
Jeff
> At least some printers also consume a little power when "off".
> Supposedly, some of those perform a cleaning operation (with some ink
> consumption) when power is applied/restored.
I think that's common. And ink costs more than electricity.
I've just dumped my Epson, which consumed vast amounts of ink during
cleaning cycles, for an HP which recycles the ink back into the
cartridge. I don't mind turning my HP off, although it appears to have a
switch mode power supply.
HP has spent a large fortune on printer technology lately and the big
print shops are using HP's.
Jeff
>
> - Don Klipstein (d...@misty.com)
Jeff
Hmm, I see you've snipped all context to make your point.
The real point is that phantom power loss is not negligible and
accounts for 5% to 10% worldwide. Higher in more developed economies.
Many appliance use more power "off" than on (collectively).
Now, you will probably object to any regulation that would level the
playing field and require all manufacturers to reduce phantom drain.
And that's a real shame as the technology already exists and the return
on investment is quick.
You can't consume your way out of every problem. You certainly would
rather do nothing about global warming. It's funny how some people can
deny the human component of global warming and yet have no problem with
the rationale of going to war in Iraq.
Also note that I've never advocated removing the clock from the range.
Jeff
>
> Steve
>
>
ra...@vt.edu
> Many appliance use more power "off" than on (collectively).
Uh, cite? No, never mind, the above statement is just
pure BS.
Bill Ranck
Blacksburg, Va.
George
that 9% of electrical power is wasted just due to cheap power supplies.
For some reason a lot of people just don't see how little things add up.
Bill
Right I can't use the oven timer. BUT I am no Julia Child! I have burned
boiled chicken. In other words I would never use an oven timer nor would I
ever use the clock on a range.
By the way my electric bill last month was $32. This is because of doing
many little things like the above, buying new Energy Star appliances (use
less energy), use compact fluorescent light bulbs everywhere, use woodstove
for heating, have beefed up insulation on house, installed Energy Star
windows, and turn off power to electronic things when not in use (with power
strip).
Seerialmom
> The clock on my range has never kept correct time, yet it keeps running and
> using electricity. (Small amount, but many little things like this can add
> up.)
>
> disconnected the clock. (Only do this if you know what you are doing.)
>
> strips when not in use. These things use electricity all the time...
So having done this...was your electric bill substantially smaller the
next month?
Seerialmom
> On 6/1/2008 11:59 AM Rod Speed spake thus:
>
> > Bill <billnomailnosp...@yahoo.com> wrote
>
> >> The clock on my range has never kept correct time, yet it keeps
> >> running and using electricity. (Small amount, but many little
> >> things like this can add up.)
>
>
> Yes, they can, and do.
>
> here) are running ad campaigns advising people to get rid of all those
> "phantom" electricity users?
>
> A guy here at UC Berkeley has done research showing that all these
> things--wall warts, devices that power LEDs, etc.--use a trememdous
> amount of electricity when added up.
>
> The best argument against democracy is a five-minute
> conversation with the average voter.
>
> - Attributed to Winston Churchill
I have and I'm annoyed at some of these commercials, even though I do
understand about vampire electrical use. My 1960+ Sunbeam Toaster and
basic Mr. Coffee (just has the on/off switch) do not use electricity
while sitting on the counter plugged in. Yet based on some of those
commercials the average consumer would think they do. They don't say
how to tell if you have vampires in your house. However, I do know
that my microwave, TV(s), vcr(s), cable box(es) etc. do. But I don't
feel like reprogramming everytime I want to use them, so I let them
continue to feast.
Rod Speed
> Samantha Hill wrote
>> Bill wrote
>>> So I pulled my electric range out from the wall, unplugged it, and
>>> disconnected the clock. (Only do this if you know what you are doing.)
>> So now you can't use the oven timer, right?
> Right I can't use the oven timer. BUT I am no Julia Child! I have burned boiled chicken. In other words I would never
> use an oven timer nor would I ever use the clock on a range.
It saves fuck all.
> By the way my electric bill last month was $32. This is because of doing many little things like the above,
Nope.
> buying new Energy Star appliances (use less energy),
Thats the real reason your bill dropped significantly, and that
was nothing like a little thing, and wasnt cheap to do either.
> use compact fluorescent light bulbs everywhere, use woodstove for heating,
Thats nothing like a little thing either.
> have beefed up insulation on house, installed Energy Star windows,
Or those in spades.
> and turn off power to electronic things when not in use (with power strip).
That saved you fuck all and using switch mode wall warts is a MUCH more practical
approach because you dont have to fart around turning stuff off all the time.
Pipedown
bottom of the savings barrel this fastidiously. Well at least I hope not.
By the time the oil really runs out, we should be getting most of our
electricity from various green sources.
"Bill" <billnoma...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:6afuqhF...@mid.individual.net...
> The clock on my range has never kept correct time, yet it keeps running
> and using electricity. (Small amount, but many little things like this can
> add up.)
>
> So I pulled my electric range out from the wall, unplugged it, and
> disconnected the clock. (Only do this if you know what you are doing.)
>
Jeff
> In misc.consumers.frugal-living Jeff <jeff@spam_me_not.com> wrote:
>
>> Many appliance use more power "off" than on (collectively).
>
> Uh, cite? No, never mind, the above statement is just
> pure BS.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standby_power
From the US department of Energy:
"Many appliances continue to draw a small amount of power when they
are switched off. These "phantom" loads occur in most appliances that
use electricity, such as VCRs, televisions, stereos, computers, and
kitchen appliances. In the average home, 75% of the electricity used to
power home electronics is consumed while the products are turned off.
This can be avoided by unplugging the appliance or using a power strip
and using the switch on the power strip to cut all power to the
appliance."[4]
It would seem the only government office you believe in is the OVP.
Jeff
>
> Bill Ranck
> Blacksburg, Va.
Pipedown
living off the grid maybe using solar and batteries, this kind of stuff
makes a measurable difference. For that matter if you have a gas range and
it only needs 110V, you could put it on a wall switch and avoid modifying
the range.
I can't imagine the OP with an electric range but for some reason he
evidently does. For newer ranges with electronic controls, this would not
be possible as the clock is integrated into all the controls.
Rod Speed
> ra...@vt.edu wrote
>> Jeff <jeff@spam_me_not.com> wrote
>>> Many appliance use more power "off" than on (collectively).
>> Uh, cite? No, never mind, the above statement is just pure BS.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standby_power
> From the US department of Energy:
> "Many appliances continue to draw a small amount of power when
> they are switched off. These "phantom" loads occur in most appliances
> that use electricity, such as VCRs, televisions, stereos, computers,
> and kitchen appliances. In the average home, 75% of the electricity
> used to power home electronics is consumed while the products are
> turned off. This can be avoided by unplugging the appliance or using
> a power strip and using the switch on the power strip to cut all
> power to the appliance."[4]
Doesnt say anything like your stupid claim at the top.
> It would seem the only government office you believe in is the OVP.
Or that you have never ever had a clue.
Rod Speed
> This guy is years ahead of his time.
Nope.
> Someday we will all be scraping the bottom of the savings barrel this fastidiously.
Nope.
> Well at least I hope not. By the time the oil really runs out, we should be getting most of our electricity from
> various green sources.
The vast bulk of our electricity doesnt come from oil, it comes from coal,
and even if we stop doing that because of the CO2 produced by that
approach, we'll be using nukes instead, not 'various green sources'
> Bill <billnoma...@yahoo.com> wrote
ra...@vt.edu
> ra...@vt.edu wrote:
> > In misc.consumers.frugal-living Jeff <jeff@spam_me_not.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Many appliance use more power "off" than on (collectively).
> >
> > Uh, cite? No, never mind, the above statement is just
> > pure BS.
> kitchen appliances. In the average home, 75% of the electricity used to
> power home electronics is consumed while the products are turned off.
That is not the same as "appliances use more power 'off' than on."
The power usage rate is certainly less during standby than during
regular usage. Duty cycle of off time vs. on time can certainly
mean that an appliance *may* use more energy over time during standby, but
only because it is in standby for much longer periods. When dealing
with kitchen appliances, the standby current is very low relative to
in use current because most kitchen appliances tend to be fairly big
energy users. I doubt the LED clock on my stove uses as much energy
in 1 year as one burner uses to boil a pot of water in 5 minutes.
The big hits on standby power are going to be VCRs, computers, TVs
and the like. Those tend to not use a lot of power when in use, so
the relative difference between standby and in use is not as much to
overcome.
Bill Ranck
Blacksburg, Va.
dpb
All true but it's still hard to believe the "average house" over 75% in
standby, even for electronics. Maybe I have a hard time thinking that
because I'm sure my house is far below average in numbers of these
devices so I suspect my estimate of "average" is skewed as compared to
the sample mean.
--
dpb
...
> The vast bulk of our electricity doesnt come from oil, it comes from coal,
> and even if we stop doing that because of the CO2 produced by that
> approach, we'll be using nukes instead, not 'various green sources'
Nuclear _is_ a "green" source...
--
ra...@vt.edu
> All true but it's still hard to believe the "average house" over 75% in
> standby, even for electronics. Maybe I have a hard time thinking that
> because I'm sure my house is far below average in numbers of these
> devices so I suspect my estimate of "average" is skewed as compared to
> the sample mean.
Yeah, I find that a little hard to believe too, but I only have
one TV in my house. So, I'm probably not "average" either in that
regard. In my kitchen the only things that use any standby power
are the stove, microwave, and coffee maker. The coffee maker has
a couple of LEDs that stay on, pointlessly, all the time but it
certainly uses more energy making a pot of coffee in the morning
than those LEDs use the other 23.5 hours of the day. The same
goes for the microwave and stove clocks. The microwave has a
clock display that I disable mostly because I don't need 4 clocks
in my kitchen, but I'm sure the clock circuit is still running and
it just doesn't display the time. The stove and coffee maker both
have clocks which can't be disabled, but again, any one of those
use more energy in daily usage than the standby uses the entire
rest of the time, by a wide margin.
Bill Ranck
Blacksburg, Va.
Rod Speed
> In misc.consumers.frugal-living Jeff <jeff@spam_me_not.com> wrote:
>> ra...@vt.edu wrote:
>>> In misc.consumers.frugal-living Jeff <jeff@spam_me_not.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Many appliance use more power "off" than on (collectively).
>>>
>>> Uh, cite? No, never mind, the above statement is just
>>> pure BS.
>
>> electronics is consumed while the products are turned off.
That isnt relevant to the total power use of the house tho.
And is dubious with some of the home electronics like TVs and
computers, which just happen to be the main uses of power in
the average home even with just the home electronics.
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed wrote:
>> The vast bulk of our electricity doesnt come from oil, it comes from
>> coal, and even if we stop doing that because of the CO2 produced by
>> that approach, we'll be using nukes instead, not 'various green sources'
> Nuclear _is_ a "green" source...
Nope.
dpb
...
> ... In my kitchen the only things that use any standby power
> are the stove, microwave, and coffee maker. The coffee maker has
> a couple of LEDs that stay on, pointlessly, all the time but it
> certainly uses more energy making a pot of coffee in the morning
The problem w/ the coffee maker we currently have is it thinks it has to
get a second fill ready to brew any second so preheats the other water
w/ no way to disable this "feature". Not only is it a power waster, the
water level is always low from boil-off so have to add extra to compensate.
The microwave is combined in the range so nothing additional there and
it's mechanical display w/ no processor boards, there's a clock radio w/
its display, but that's it for electronic gadgets in kitchen.
--
Jeff
> In misc.consumers.frugal-living Jeff <jeff@spam_me_not.com> wrote:
>> ra...@vt.edu wrote:
>>> In misc.consumers.frugal-living Jeff <jeff@spam_me_not.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Many appliance use more power "off" than on (collectively).
>>> Uh, cite? No, never mind, the above statement is just
>>> pure BS.
>
>> kitchen appliances. In the average home, 75% of the electricity used to
>> power home electronics is consumed while the products are turned off.
>
> That is not the same as "appliances use more power 'off' than on."
> The power usage rate is certainly less during standby than during
> regular usage. Duty cycle of off time vs. on time can certainly
> mean that an appliance *may* use more energy over time during standby, but
> only because it is in standby for much longer periods.
Yes, did you miss the collectively?
How could you possibly think otherwise?
Isn't this whole thread about the amount of energy wasted while in standby?
When dealing
> with kitchen appliances, the standby current is very low relative to
> in use current because most kitchen appliances tend to be fairly big
> energy users. I doubt the LED clock on my stove uses as much energy
> in 1 year as one burner uses to boil a pot of water in 5 minutes.
Actually, and I had misnamed before, Energy should be what we are
talking about as energy has a time component. The power company bills
for the amount of energy you use. The amount of power you use at any
instant is usually irrelevant (unless you have peak billing).
Now, I would say that most stoves use more energy on than off(there's
wide range here, I'm sure my old Jennaire uses no power when off).
I don't know how much power a typical stove with electronic controls
uses but I found this.
http://michaelbluejay.com/electricity/transformers.html
The clock on the microwave uses more energy than the oven
The first time I heard that statement I thought,"Great, another
electrical myth, like the myth that you should leave lights on because
they take a lot of electricity to start up.". After all, I knew that the
oven uses about 1000 watts while the clock uses five.
But then I thought, wait a minute, the clock is running 24/7, while the
oven is running just a few minutes a day. Then I did the math:
How much energy the clock uses in a day: 5 (watts) x 24 (hours) =
120 (watt-hours)
How long it takes the microwave to the same amount of energy:
120 watt-hours / 1000 watts = 0.12 hours, or 7.2 minutes
This means that if you use a typical microwave oven for less than 7.2
minutes/day, the clock uses more electricity than the oven. Wow.
That sounds perhaps even low to me and it is possible it uses twice
the power while off. I suppose I could dig out my amprobe and check my
late model name brand microwave since I don't have a kill a watt meter.
They are but one "electronic" device in a home though.
> The big hits on standby power are going to be VCRs, computers, TVs
> and the like. Those tend to not use a lot of power when in use, so
> the relative difference between standby and in use is not as much to
> overcome.
Who said otherwise? If you read this thread, I've never advocated
removing a clock from a stove, quite the opposite.
ra...@vt.edu
> Now, I would say that most stoves use more energy on than off(there's
> wide range here, I'm sure my old Jennaire uses no power when off).
Well, sure, like my toaster. It doesn't use any current when it's
not being used.
> I don't know how much power a typical stove with electronic controls
> uses but I found this.
> http://michaelbluejay.com/electricity/transformers.html
> After all, I knew that the
> oven uses about 1000 watts while the clock uses five.
I think he is seriously over estimating the power usage of a
clock chip and LCD display. 1 Watt would be more like it.
5 Watts would be about right for an old mechanical stove clock.
> How much energy the clock uses in a day: 5 (watts) x 24 (hours) =
> 120 (watt-hours)
Now divide that by 5 to get a more realistic value . . .
> How long it takes the microwave to the same amount of energy:
> 120 watt-hours / 1000 watts = 0.12 hours, or 7.2 minutes
> This means that if you use a typical microwave oven for less than 7.2
> minutes/day, the clock uses more electricity than the oven. Wow.
I probably use my microwave in the 5 to 10 minutes per day range.
> That sounds perhaps even low to me and it is possible it uses twice
> the power while off. I suppose I could dig out my amprobe and check my
> late model name brand microwave since I don't have a kill a watt meter.
In other words, he didn't want to test to find out his "estimate" was
bogus. He probably knew it was high.
Bill Ranck
Blacksburg, Va.
SteveB
"dpb" <no...@non.net> wrote in message news:g1vvfk$ftd$3...@aioe.org...
Trouble is, it's damn near impossible to buy anything today WITHOUT all the
bells and whistles that crap out on you soon after purchase, creating an
obscenely inflated estimate for repair or replacing.
Just give me the simple stuff, please.
Steve
dpb
Well, it's been going since '84 so far...
--
Jeff
> In misc.consumers.frugal-living Jeff <jeff@spam_me_not.com> wrote:
>
>> Now, I would say that most stoves use more energy on than off(there's
>> wide range here, I'm sure my old Jennaire uses no power when off).
>
> Well, sure, like my toaster. It doesn't use any current when it's
> not being used.
>
>> I don't know how much power a typical stove with electronic controls
>> uses but I found this.
>
>> http://michaelbluejay.com/electricity/transformers.html
>
>> After all, I knew that the
>> oven uses about 1000 watts while the clock uses five.
>
> I think he is seriously over estimating the power usage of a
> clock chip and LCD display. 1 Watt would be more like it.
> 5 Watts would be about right for an old mechanical stove clock.
You are, of course, neglecting the power supply losses. Non switching
regulators typically throw away half or more of the power. The trend is
away from them.
>
>> How much energy the clock uses in a day: 5 (watts) x 24 (hours) =
>> 120 (watt-hours)
>
> Now divide that by 5 to get a more realistic value . . .
>
>> How long it takes the microwave to the same amount of energy:
>> 120 watt-hours / 1000 watts = 0.12 hours, or 7.2 minutes
>
>> This means that if you use a typical microwave oven for less than 7.2
>> minutes/day, the clock uses more electricity than the oven. Wow.
>
> I probably use my microwave in the 5 to 10 minutes per day range.
>
>> That sounds perhaps even low to me and it is possible it uses twice
>> the power while off. I suppose I could dig out my amprobe and check my
>> late model name brand microwave since I don't have a kill a watt meter.
>
> In other words, he didn't want to test to find out his "estimate" was
> bogus. He probably knew it was high.
Oh blah blah blah.
For my late model GE smallish microwave, it uses 3 watts on idle. That
required winding 30 turns on an amprobe, measuring the current and
dividing by 30 and then multiplying by the line voltage. If you had the
same MW and used it 5 minutes the phantom energy is equal to the in use
energy.
What does yours use?
I have never recommended removing clocks from anything, quite the
contrary. But just because they are necessary does not mean they aren't
trivial. Considering that a microwave is a high drain device while in
operation just shows the depth of the problem for all the low drain
devices that probably have higher idle drain. The old cable boxes
certainly spring to mind. So does anything run by a wall wart.
I have no problem in believing that at least 5% of the energy used in
this country is phantom losses. Probably half of that is recoverable by
better design. With the cost of copper what it is, I'd think wall warts
have a limited future.
Rod Speed
You're wrong. They will continue to be used because they are
the best approach, particularly when they are switch mode.
SteveB
"Jeff" <jeff@spam_me_not.com> wrote in message
news:QNedndXfwdOvZ97V...@earthlink.com...
Yeah. We need more laws.
Steve
David Nebenzahl
Yep (meaning "I agree with you"). But I don't understand why you seem so
sre that we'll be using this decidedly non-green source when so many
other truly green sources have such better chances of not only providing
practical power but also doing it economically. (Specifically: solar
photovoltaic, wind, geothermal, tide [being proposed for the San
Francisco Bay Area], cogeneration, recovered landfill methane,
small-head hydro, etc.)
Not only that, but doing it in a truly distributed fashion, allowing
better matches between sources and loads.
Bill
>
> So having done this...was your electric bill substantially smaller the
next month?
>
Actually I have been working on saving on my electric bill for many years
now. One year I might buy a new Energy Star appliance. The next install more
insulation. Year after that put everything on power strips, etc.
So I have not noticed any one big drop in my electric use at any one time.
(Except when I replaced an old window air conditioner with a new one.)
Basically my electric use has been slowly dropping as I learn about saving
electricity on misc.consumers.frugal-living or
http://www.energystar.gov then make a few changes here and there.
Jeff
Regulation is not a bad thing.
It's very hard for a company to do something for the long term good when
doing that puts it at a short term competitive disadvantage. That's why
regulations that are evenly applied to all competitors work. And why
voluntary targets don't.
We've had 7 years of corporate free reign under George W Bush. Few would
think the results are impressive. Fewer still would believe that we have
made progress toward solving the problems that loom.
Jeff
>
> Steve
>
>
Edwin Pawlowski
<ra...@vt.edu> wrote in message
>
>> kitchen appliances. In the average home, 75% of the electricity used to
>> power home electronics is consumed while the products are turned off.
>
> That is not the same as "appliances use more power 'off' than on."
Sure it is. At the end of the billing cycles, do you pay more for the on
time or the off time?
Bill
>
> ...However, I do know that my microwave, TV(s), vcr(s), cable box
> (es) etc. do. But I don't feel like reprogramming everytime I want to
> use them, so I let them continue to feast.
>
Right. I had an old component stereo main amplifier which would lose its
settings if I removed the power from it. So in that case I put everything
else on a power strip and turned those off, but left the main amplifier
plugged in. Then it did not lose its settings. Later I got a new model which
remembers its settings and this is now on the power strip. I turn off power
to it when not in use.
So if it is something which is a pain to reset after it is unplugged, then
leave it plugged in. If your not using the clock and it remembers its other
settings when power is removed, then put that on a power strip and remove
power when not in use. If you use the clock/timer, leave it plugged in.
Note: Do not unplug a VCR with the tape still inside! Always eject the tape
first before removing power. Otherwise the tape can jamb.
CJT
>
>
> Uh, cite? No, never mind, the above statement is just
> pure BS.
>
> Blacksburg, Va.
If e.g. a PC uses 5 watts "off" and 200 watts "on" it's not rocket
science to figure out what fraction of time it must be used for the
"on" power to equal or exceed the "off" power. I suspect plenty of
PC's don't make the cut (or do, but just barely).
--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form che...@prodigy.net.
CJT
> Jeff <jeff@spam_me_not.com> wrote
>
>>ra...@vt.edu wrote
>>
>>>Jeff <jeff@spam_me_not.com> wrote
>
>
>>>>Many appliance use more power "off" than on (collectively).
>
>
>>>Uh, cite? No, never mind, the above statement is just pure BS.
>
>
>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standby_power
>
>
>>From the US department of Energy:
>
>
>>"Many appliances continue to draw a small amount of power when
>>they are switched off. These "phantom" loads occur in most appliances
>>that use electricity, such as VCRs, televisions, stereos, computers,
>>and kitchen appliances. In the average home, 75% of the electricity
>>used to power home electronics is consumed while the products are
>>turned off. This can be avoided by unplugging the appliance or using
>>a power strip and using the switch on the power strip to cut all
>>power to the appliance."[4]
>
>
> Doesnt say anything like your stupid claim at the top.
75% is more than 25%.
>
>
>>It would seem the only government office you believe in is the OVP.
>
>
> Or that you have never ever had a clue.
>
>
>
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Jeff <jeff@spam_me_not.com> wrote
>>> ra...@vt.edu wrote
>>>> Jeff <jeff@spam_me_not.com> wrote
>>>>> Many appliance use more power "off" than on (collectively).
>>>> Uh, cite? No, never mind, the above statement is just pure BS.
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standby_power
>>> From the US department of Energy:
>>> "Many appliances continue to draw a small amount of power when
>>> they are switched off. These "phantom" loads occur in most
>>> appliances that use electricity, such as VCRs, televisions,
>>> stereos, computers, and kitchen appliances. In the average home,
>>> 75% of the electricity used to power home electronics is consumed
>>> while the products are turned off. This can be avoided by
>>> unplugging the appliance or using a power strip and using the
>>> switch on the power strip to cut all power to the appliance."[4]
>> Doesnt say anything like your stupid claim at the top.
> 75% is more than 25%.
That aint the % the original stupid claim was made about.
Rod Speed
> <ra...@vt.edu> wrote
>>> In the average home, 75% of the electricity used to power home electronics is consumed while the products are turned
>>> off.
>> That is not the same as "appliances use more power 'off' than on."
> Sure it is.
Nope, home electronics aint the same thing as appliances.
> At the end of the billing cycles, do you pay more for the on time or the off time?
You pay more for the on time with APPLIANCES.
Rod Speed
> ra...@vt.edu wrote
>> Jeff <jeff@spam_me_not.com> wrote
>>> Many appliance use more power "off" than on (collectively).
>> Uh, cite? No, never mind, the above statement is just pure BS.
> If e.g. a PC uses 5 watts "off" and 200 watts "on" it's not rocket
> science to figure out what fraction of time it must be used for the
> "on" power to equal or exceed the "off" power. I suspect plenty of PC's don't make the cut (or do, but just barely).
Pity the original claim was made about APPLIANCES where thats almost never true.
Rod Speed
>>>> I think if we all disconnected all the lights we have that run
>>>> 24/7 and all these little clocks that we could make as much
>>>> difference as AlGore does with his global warming theories. If anyone is concerned about how much electricity
>>>> their clock uses, contact me, and I will send you a quarter for a year's usage. Hmm, I see you've snipped all
>>>> context to make your point.
>>> The real point is that phantom power loss is not negligible and
>>> accounts for 5% to 10% worldwide. Higher in more developed
>>> economies. Many appliance use more power "off" than on (collectively).
>>> Now, you will probably object to any regulation that would level
>>> the playing field and require all manufacturers to reduce phantom
>>> drain. And that's a real shame as the technology already exists and the return on investment is quick.
>>> You can't consume your way out of every problem. You certainly
>>> would rather do nothing about global warming. It's funny how some
>>> people can deny the human component of global warming and yet have no problem with the rationale of going to war in
>>> Iraq.
>>> Also note that I've never advocated removing the clock from the range.
>> Yeah. We need more laws.
> Regulation is not a bad thing.
Depends entirely on how its done.
> It's very hard for a company to do something for the long term good
> when doing that puts it at a short term competitive disadvantage.
You havent established that it does with that last.
> That's why regulations that are evenly applied to all competitors work.
Sometimes they do, sometimes they dont.
> And why voluntary targets don't.
Sometimes they do, sometimes they dont.
> We've had 7 years of corporate free reign under George W Bush.
Lie.
> Few would think the results are impressive.
Most arent qualfied to have an opinion on that particular question.
> Fewer still would believe that we have made progress toward solving the problems that loom.
Irrelevant to what is feasible with regulation.
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed wrote
>>>> The vast bulk of our electricity doesnt come from oil, it comes
>>>> from coal, and even if we stop doing that because of the CO2
>>>> produced by that approach, we'll be using nukes instead, not
>>>> 'various green sources'
>>> Nuclear _is_ a "green" source...
>> Nope.
> Yep (meaning "I agree with you"). But I don't understand why you seem so sre that we'll be using this decidedly
> non-green source when so many other truly green sources have such better chances of not only providing practical power
> but also doing it economically.
The reason is that they dont.
> (Specifically: solar photovoltaic, wind, tide [being proposed for the San Francisco Bay Area],
None of those provide base load power.
> geothermal,
That isnt available to enough countrys to be able
to provide the bulk of their base load power.
> cogeneration, recovered landfill methane, small-head hydro, etc.)
Cant provide anything like what any modern first world country needs.
> Not only that, but doing it in a truly distributed fashion, allowing better matches between sources and loads.
The entire power system of a modern first world country is never
about that anymore. Its actually about using the entire system to help
with the deficiencys of all of those allegedly green power sources.
max
> I doubt the LED clock on my stove uses as much energy
> in 1 year as one burner uses to boil a pot of water in 5 minutes.
how much water? call it about a gallon. This is an very large amount
of water, since when most of us want to boil water in 5 minutes we're
talking about coffee/tea water. But hey, it's an easy number.
It takes about 1200 BTU to boil a gallon of water
BTU suck, so the conversion to watts is
1 BTU = 0.3 watt-hours
ergo 1200BTU *.3watt-hrs/btu = 360 watt-hours.
now...let's do the math...
365days x 24 hrs/day 8760 = hours/year
If your LED clock uses 1 watt/hour then it consumes 8760
watt-hours/year. If your stove clock is LED, 1 watt is __very__
conservative and generous to your case.
8760 > 360
THEREFORE:
It takes at least 24 times as much energy to run your 1 watt LED clock
as to boil a gallon of water.
surprised? Time is a funny thing...
--
This signature can be appended to your outgoing mesages. Many people include in
their signatures contact information, and perhaps a joke or quotation.
max
max <beta...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> In article <g21h1k$nun$1...@solaris.cc.vt.edu>, ra...@vt.edu wrote:
>
> > I doubt the LED clock on my stove uses as much energy
> > in 1 year as one burner uses to boil a pot of water in 5 minutes.
>
> how much water? call it about a gallon. This is an very large amount
> of water, since when most of us want to boil water in 5 minutes we're
> talking about coffee/tea water. But hey, it's an easy number.
>
>
> It takes about 1200 BTU to boil a gallon of water
>
> BTU suck, so the conversion to watts is
> 1 BTU = 0.3 watt-hours
>
> ergo 1200BTU *.3watt-hrs/btu = 360 watt-hours.
>
> now...let's do the math...
>
> 365days x 24 hrs/day 8760 = hours/year
>
> If your LED clock uses 1 watt/hour then it consumes 8760
> watt-hours/year. If your stove clock is LED, 1 watt is __very__
> conservative and generous to your case.
>
> 8760 > 360
>
> THEREFORE:
> It takes at least 24 times as much energy to run your 1 watt LED clock
> as to boil a gallon of water.
>
> surprised? Time is a funny thing...
i got interrupted and forgot what i was doing. dammit.