typical power consumption of a 50 inch plasma TV
Manusha
Panasonic model. Panasonic-VIERA-TC-P50VT25-50
the manual says its average power consumption is 135W. Is this the RMS
figure?
i am bit confused as when i search the local dealers, the model they
have is TH-P50V20, which has the same functionality as the above
model, but the rated power consumption was indicated as 500W.
Obviously this is much higher than the 135W figure indicated in the
other similar model. Could some explain this?
Thanks
Glenn Gundlach
> I was browsing the net for a 50 inch plasma TV and settled with this
> Panasonic model. Panasonic-VIERA-TC-P50VT25-50
>
>
> the manual says its average power consumption is 135W. Is this the RMS
> figure?
>
> i am bit confused as when i search the local dealers, the model they
> have is TH-P50V20, which has the same functionality as the above
> model, but the rated power consumption was indicated as 500W.
> Obviously this is much higher than the 135W figure indicated in the
> other similar model. Could some explain this?
>
> Thanks
LCD and DLP sets run at a constant power level regardless of picture
content. CRT and Plasma power consumption varies with program
material. Black screen is minimum and a full white field is maximum
power. All other video will be somewhere between these boundaries.
Plasmas used to be so power hungry they required cooling fans but have
improved a lot. They also have a bad habit of burning the phosphors.
They're better but ...
G²
Ken
<stra...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> LCD and DLP sets run at a constant power level regardless of
> picture content.
Not true today.
Many LCD have LED background light with local dimming.
k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz
wrote:
>I was browsing the net for a 50 inch plasma TV and settled with this
>Panasonic model. Panasonic-VIERA-TC-P50VT25-50
>
>http://www.amazon.com/Panasonic-VIERA-TC-P50VT25-50-inch-Plasma/dp/B003NA1AGM/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1293259980&sr=8-1
>
>the manual says its average power consumption is 135W. Is this the RMS
>figure?
Watts RMS is meaningless.
>i am bit confused as when i search the local dealers, the model they
>have is TH-P50V20, which has the same functionality as the above
>model, but the rated power consumption was indicated as 500W.
>Obviously this is much higher than the 135W figure indicated in the
>other similar model. Could some explain this?
Or it's the standby power. ;-)
My three-year-old 46" Panasonic Viera consumes about 500W, so a new 50" at the
same power is quite believable. 135W is not.
Kevin McMurtrie
"k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" <k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
My older TC-P50V10 consumes 500W peak. I could imagine a newer model
drawing only 135W in a dimly lit room.
It should be noted that Panasonic TVs don't interoperate with anything
except other Panasonic and Sony devices. The long list of supported
multimedia formats on my model is complete bullshit. The SD card is
useless and Internet content only works when Panasonic maintains their
servers properly.
--
I will not see posts or email from Google because I must filter them as spam
mi...@sushi.com
> Panasonic model. Panasonic-VIERA-TC-P50VT25-50
>
>
> the manual says its average power consumption is 135W. Is this the RMS
> figure?
>
> i am bit confused as when i search the local dealers, the model they
> have is TH-P50V20, which has the same functionality as the above
> model, but the rated power consumption was indicated as 500W.
> Obviously this is much higher than the 135W figure indicated in the
> other similar model. Could some explain this?
>
> Thanks
For a while they were marketing these low power plasmas as PDP
technology, which of course made me think of DEC. They seemed to drop
the PDP buzzword, but it is true that the new plasma TVs are lower
power. You could just buy a $14 Kill-a-watt and measure it for
yourself in the store. On some older plasma TVs, I measure about
380W.
You may want to see what the latest story is on the black level
creeping up on Panasonic plasma TVs. Don't get me wrong here, I think
plasma is the best technology out there for direct view, but there was
some issue about a shift in the black level.
Costco has 3D Panasonics. I really don't like the effect. It looks to
me like the things out in front are in their own plane. Yeah, it has
depth, but it doesn't look 3D. This may be due to source material. The
Panasonic 3D demo material certainly is better than Sony or Samsung.
Especially the 3D beach volleyball. ;-) But it doesn't look real to
me. However, it is a decent TV all by itself, and probably for gaming,
3D would be fun. The Sony scheme is just terrible. The glasses are
active and and need batteries.
k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz
wrote:
WTF are you doing plugging an SD card into a TV for? That's all BS hype
anyhow. Internet content? It's a friggin' TV! It plugs into cable fine (not
so fine on Dish but that has nothing to do with Panasonic).
Their service is top-notch. ...and that's worth a *lot* more to me than some
silly SD card reader.
k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz
wrote:
They probably aren't real. If I were the ad exec, at least I know how I'd play
the "game". ;-)
Kevin McMurtrie
"k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" <k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
Playing from SDHC cards is handy if you have a video camera or want to
play digital files without dragging in a computer.
Panasonic's VieraCast fails at least every holiday, including today.
Menus are a jumble of broken graphics and the TV locks up. I haven't
tried it recently, but it used to let you buy Amazon videos when there
was no server capacity to stream them. It would stutter then fail or
crash. Amazon customer support does not like Panasonic.
As for the TV argument, if you want "just a TV" then there are cheaper
models.
mi...@sushi.com
<k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
> On Sat, 25 Dec 2010 16:40:49 -0800, Kevin McMurtrie <mcmurt...@pixelmemory.us>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >In article <ksvch6l5h0taa0v2sdvt8m7nnvlpbd9...@4ax.com>,
> > "k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" <k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
>
> >> On Fri, 24 Dec 2010 22:56:58 -0800 (PST), Manusha <manusha1...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
>
> >> >I was browsing the net for a 50 inch plasma TV and settled with this
> >> >Panasonic model. Panasonic-VIERA-TC-P50VT25-50
>
The "future" TV content is probably not going to be directly loadable
to the TV without some external box. Google, XBMC, Roku, MythTV. etc.
Time marches on. As long as you have multiple HDMI inputs, I don't see
a problem. [Has it occurred to any of these manufacturers to make the
HDMI inputs just look like a freakin' TV channel. Try explaining to
people that don't get tech that you need to select the "source".]
Note that 3D has some variant of HDMI requirement. I think only some
BluRay players do it at the moment. I really don't think 3D is the
next big thing, but then again I think Facebook is stupid and Twitter
is just marginally useful, so don't count on me to pick the next big
thing.
What was the thing Gary Shapiro used to say? Watch what technology the
porn industry adopts? OK, if porn goes 3D, maybe there is a market.
k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz
wrote:
>On Dec 25, 5:31 pm, "k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
That's the way I see it, too. Actually, *current* content isn't usable
without an external box. Why do I want any of that crap on the monitor
itself? Yeah, more HDMI, or similar is useful.
>Note that 3D has some variant of HDMI requirement. I think only some
>BluRay players do it at the moment. I really don't think 3D is the
>next big thing, but then again I think Facebook is stupid and Twitter
>is just marginally useful, so don't count on me to pick the next big
>thing.
I don't Twitter or Facebook either, much to the disappointment of the family.
My wife downloaded the pictures of the newest grand niece Christmas.
>What was the thing Gary Shapiro used to say? Watch what technology the
>porn industry adopts? OK, if porn goes 3D, maybe there is a market.
The Stewardesses was a hit and then people got bored with the whole deal.
Hollywood is pushing 3D again but I predict it'll fizzle out this time too.
People will again get bored with it, particularly paying a premium for it.
ghelf
Kill-O-Watt meter. I was surprised it was so high.
Jim Thompson
IIRC That's why they've been banned in Californica.
...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, CTO | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |
I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.
Jim Yanik
in news:m20kh6hbmpigup445...@4ax.com:
> On Mon, 27 Dec 2010 21:16:30 -0800, "ghelf"
><gh...@sbcglobalDeathToSpam.net> wrote:
>
>>Just measured my wattage on my 50" Plasma HP TV, and was 400 Watts
>>using a Kill-O-Watt meter. I was surprised it was so high.
>
> IIRC That's why they've been banned in Californica.
>
> ...Jim Thompson
only because the leftists won't allow new power plants to be built,and are
also tough on long distance transmission lines.The whole West Coast has
that problem.
If the PRC had excess electric capacity,they'd still be sold there.
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com
Jim Thompson
wrote:
In most households, 400W would be running all day long... that can get
costly.
k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz
<To-Email-Use-Th...@On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 28 Dec 2010 11:26:27 -0600, Jim Yanik <jya...@abuse.gov>
>wrote:
>
>>Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-Th...@On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote
>>in news:m20kh6hbmpigup445...@4ax.com:
>>
>>> On Mon, 27 Dec 2010 21:16:30 -0800, "ghelf"
>>><gh...@sbcglobalDeathToSpam.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Just measured my wattage on my 50" Plasma HP TV, and was 400 Watts
>>>>using a Kill-O-Watt meter. I was surprised it was so high.
>>>
>>> IIRC That's why they've been banned in Californica.
>>>
>>> ...Jim Thompson
>>
>>only because the leftists won't allow new power plants to be built,and are
>>also tough on long distance transmission lines.The whole West Coast has
>>that problem.
>>If the PRC had excess electric capacity,they'd still be sold there.
>
>In most households, 400W would be running all day long... that can get
>costly.
Raises hand for SWMBO. I don't consider $15/month all that "costly". I have
a couple of far more expensive hobbies. I pay that much for an ISP I haven't
used for more than email accounts for years (since the last time I used
dial-up).
Jim Yanik
in news:ip7kh6ls4t8pvvbae...@4ax.com:
> On Tue, 28 Dec 2010 11:26:27 -0600, Jim Yanik <jya...@abuse.gov>
> wrote:
>
>>Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-Th...@On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote
>>in news:m20kh6hbmpigup445...@4ax.com:
>>
>>> On Mon, 27 Dec 2010 21:16:30 -0800, "ghelf"
>>><gh...@sbcglobalDeathToSpam.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Just measured my wattage on my 50" Plasma HP TV, and was 400 Watts
>>>>using a Kill-O-Watt meter. I was surprised it was so high.
>>>
>>> IIRC That's why they've been banned in Californica.
>>>
>>> ...Jim Thompson
>>
>>only because the leftists won't allow new power plants to be built,and
>>are also tough on long distance transmission lines.The whole West
>>Coast has that problem.
>>If the PRC had excess electric capacity,they'd still be sold there.
>
> In most households, 400W would be running all day long... that can get
> costly.
>
> ...Jim Thompson
"all day long" would be 16 hrs a day,assuming you turn off the TV when
you're asleep,and then there's the time when you're not home,unless you
leave the TV on for security.
that's about 192 KWH for a 30 day month. at my rates,that's an extra $22,if
I got my math right.
mi...@sushi.com
Web-Site.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Dec 2010 21:16:30 -0800, "ghelf"
>
> <gh...@sbcglobalDeathToSpam.net> wrote:
> >Just measured my wattage on my 50" Plasma HP TV, and was 400 Watts using a
> >Kill-O-Watt meter. I was surprised it was so high.
>
> IIRC That's why they've been banned in Californica.
>
> ...Jim Thompson
> --
> | James E.Thompson, CTO | mens |
> | Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
> | Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
> | Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
> | Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
>
> I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.
Checking the internet, I can't find a ban on plasma TVs in California.
I see proposals, but no official ban. I checked the legal code and
can't find anything regarding plasma except for blood plasma. Nothing
on the California Energy Commission website, other than proposals.
Plenty of plasma TVs for sale at the moment in California.
Spehro Pefhany
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2009/11/19/MN5G1AMLE5.DTL
Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
sp...@interlog.com Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com
mi...@sushi.com
wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Dec 2010 00:47:38 -0800 (PST), the renowned
>
>
>
> "m...@sushi.com" <m...@sushi.com> wrote:
> >On Dec 28, 7:21 am, Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...@On-My-
> >Web-Site.com> wrote:
> >> On Mon, 27 Dec 2010 21:16:30 -0800, "ghelf"
>
> >> <gh...@sbcglobalDeathToSpam.net> wrote:
> >> >Just measured my wattage on my 50" Plasma HP TV, and was 400 Watts using a
> >> >Kill-O-Watt meter. I was surprised it was so high.
>
> >> IIRC That's why they've been banned in Californica.
>
> >> ...Jim Thompson
> >> --
> >> | James E.Thompson, CTO | mens |
> >> | Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
> >> | Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
> >> | Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
> >> | Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
> >> | E-mail Icon athttp://www.analog-innovations.com|1962 |
>
> >> I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.
>
> >Checking the internet, I can't find a ban on plasma TVs in California.
> >I see proposals, but no official ban. I checked the legal code and
> >can't find anything regarding plasma except for blood plasma. Nothing
> >on the California Energy Commission website, other than proposals.
>
> >Plenty of plasma TVs for sale at the moment in California.
>
>
> Best regards,
> Spehro Pefhany
> --
> "it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
> sp...@interlog.com Info for manufacturers:http://www.trexon.com
> Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com
Would it kill a reporter to cite the bill, standard, regulation,
whatever.
The best I can find from the CEC website are regulations for TVs less
that 58 inches.
-------------
Active Mode Energy Efficiency Requirements
Maximum On Mode Power Usage Effective January 1, 2011:
= 0.20 x Screen Area (inches2) + 32 (watts)
Maximum On Mode Power Usage Effective January 1, 2013:
= 0.12 x Screen Area (inches2) +25 (watts)
Power Factor:
Minimum power factor required to be 0.9.
---------------
Going on the border, a 58 inch display has 1437.44 square inches.
That means you could have 319.5 watts in 2011. Present day plasmas
already beat this spec. The model mentions could meet the 197.5 watt
limit of 2013. I just don't see the problem here. Hell, buy a 60 inch
plasma and you're covered.
I can only find the proposed spec, not the adopted spec. The CEC
website doesn't make this easy. Search on television and you find
every mention of television, not the final rules.
Spehro Pefhany
>Would it kill a reporter to cite the bill, standard, regulation,
>whatever.
That's the problem with you kids, no search skills ;-)
http://www.energy.ca.gov/releases/2010_releases/2010-09-02_k-douglas_tv_eff_Standards_ma.html
There's a formula:
Active mode power < (K * Screen Area (in^2) + Y )watts
where K = 0.20 / Y = 32 from Jan 1, 2011
and K = 0.12 / Y = 25 from Jan 1, 2013
BTW, the link in the above notice is broken. Here is one that works:
http://www.energy.ca.gov/2010publications/CEC-400-2010-012/CEC-400-2010-012.PDF
See page 170 of 226.
mi...@sushi.com
wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Dec 2010 14:55:17 -0800 (PST), the renowned
>
>
>
>
> There's a formula:
>
> Active mode power < (K * Screen Area (in^2) + Y )watts
>
> where K = 0.20 / Y = 32 from Jan 1, 2011
> and K = 0.12 / Y = 25 from Jan 1, 2013
>
> BTW, the link in the above notice is broken. Here is one that works:
>
>
> See page 170 of 226.
>
> Best regards,
> Spehro Pefhany
> --
> "it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
> sp...@interlog.com Info for manufacturers:http://www.trexon.com
> Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com
Which is exactly what I wrote down, only mine is clearer. The use of a
slash makes it appear as if you are dividing something. That is the
kind of fuck up that sends your satellite out to space instead of
orbit.
Spehro Pefhany
;-) No such problems so far. I think the worst I could do is make a
satellite tumble.
mi...@sushi.com
wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Dec 2010 19:43:47 -0800 (PST), the renowned
>
>
>
You do recall the NASA fubar where people confused the metric and
English units.
On a team project, it had both chip designers and programmers. I was
on the chip side of course. We are at a staff meeting. Just looking at
the handouts, I proclaim at the beginning of the meeting that the
software won't work. Needless to say the software guys are baffled,
and so is the project leader. How'd I figure that out? Some of the
code treated a parameter as floating point, while other code treated
it as a signed integer. Perhaps tolerable in the guts of the code, but
not tolerable when passing parameters on the stack.
Good engineering requires significant nitpicking. Especially true in
chips. If you just get close, you will never finish a project of any
significance.
Spehro Pefhany
>On a team project, it had both chip designers and programmers. I was
>on the chip side of course. We are at a staff meeting. Just looking at
>the handouts, I proclaim at the beginning of the meeting that the
>software won't work. Needless to say the software guys are baffled,
>and so is the project leader. How'd I figure that out? Some of the
>code treated a parameter as floating point, while other code treated
>it as a signed integer. Perhaps tolerable in the guts of the code, but
>not tolerable when passing parameters on the stack.
No kidding. That should be spelled out in the software design
documents.
>Good engineering requires significant nitpicking. Especially true in
>chips. If you just get close, you will never finish a project of any
>significance.
Unfortunately, even in the aerospace business, there are engineers who
can't do a PCB-level design without multiple spins. Drives me up the
$#$#$ wall.
Greegor
wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Dec 2010 14:29:46 -0800 (PST), the renowned
>
> >On a team project, it had both chip designers and programmers. I was
> >on the chip side of course. We are at a staff meeting. Just looking at
> >the handouts, I proclaim at the beginning of the meeting that the
> >software won't work. Needless to say the software guys are baffled,
> >and so is the project leader. How'd I figure that out? Some of the
> >code treated a parameter as floating point, while other code treated
> >it as a signed integer. Perhaps tolerable in the guts of the code, but
> >not tolerable when passing parameters on the stack.
>
> No kidding. That should be spelled out in the software design
> documents.
>
> >Good engineering requires significant nitpicking. Especially true in
> >chips. If you just get close, you will never finish a project of any
> >significance.
SP > Unfortunately, even in the aerospace business,
SP > there are engineers who can't do a PCB-level
SP > design without multiple spins. Drives me up
SP > the $#$#$ wall.
Because they lack fine tuning?
mi...@sushi.com
<speffS...@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Dec 2010 14:29:46 -0800 (PST), the renowned
>
I thought you board guys prototype via PCBs these days. There are so
many parts that are only available in surface mount, blah blah blah.
The IC houses use those nasty board grinders for eval boards, and even
then there are a few revs on simple products.
Personally, I rather see a board reved than odd jumpers added to the
final product.
Spehro Pefhany
There often doesn't need to be, particularly not on simple products.
Now this is impressive:-
http://research.swtch.com/2011/01/mos-6502-and-best-layout-guy-in-world.html
and this is too (in a different way):-
http://www.visual6502.org/JSSim/index.html
>Personally, I rather see a board reved than odd jumpers added to the
>final product.
If it needs fly wires to make it work because the designer(s) screwed
up, what are the chances that there are more latent problems that have
not yet been detected? Pretty good, IMHO.
skaggs...@gmail.com
> I was browsing the net for a 50 inch plasma TV and settled with this
> Panasonic model. Panasonic-VIERA-TC-P50VT25-50
>
> the manual says its average power consumption is 135W. Is this the RMS
> figure?
>
> have is TH-P50V20, which has the same functionality as the above
> model, but the rated power consumption was indicated as 500W.
> Obviously this is much higher than the 135W figure indicated in the
> other similar model. Could some explain this?
>
Most power consumption is rated in RMS, for a plasma TV it depends on what mode you are using it in. For example, if you have a 50" Plasma that has a resolution of 1080p, running this TV at max resolution can draw as much as 700 watts of electricity. This is a lot of power to be used for a TV and for entertainment. Granted you won't be using the max res mode all the time but still it's a lot of power being used.
ChesterW
Viewmaster but $1k more expensive.
Klaus Kragelund
> On Saturday, December 25, 2010 1:56:58 AM UTC-5, Manusha wrote:
>
> > I was browsing the net for a 50 inch plasma TV and settled with this
>
> > Panasonic model. Panasonic-VIERA-TC-P50VT25-50
>
> >
>
> > http://www.amazon.com/Panasonic-VIERA-TC-P50VT25-50-inch-Plasma/dp/B003NA1AGM/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1293259980&sr=8-1
>
> >
>
> > the manual says its average power consumption is 135W. Is this the RMS
>
> > figure?
>
> >
>
> > i am bit confused as when i search the local dealers, the model they
>
> > have is TH-P50V20, which has the same functionality as the above
>
> > model, but the rated power consumption was indicated as 500W.
>
> > Obviously this is much higher than the 135W figure indicated in the
>
> > other similar model. Could some explain this?
Jim Thompson
...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson | mens |
| Analog Innovations | et |
k...@attt.bizz
sort of picture. The 2011 Panasonic 42" Plasma TV only draws 150W. I
still like plasma TVs, though they're pretty much antiques, now.
harris...@gmail.com
Tim Wescott
> My TV went out energy saver went out my TV will not come back on any
> suggestions?
include things like make & model of the TV and the energy saver.
Some of us on this group know how to repair things, but we lean heavily
toward design engineers -- and a good proportion of us (myself included)
are the kind to be head-deep into a piece of malfunctioning equipment
before we realize that the power cord is unplugged.
--
www.wescottdesign.com
rickman
> My TV went out energy saver went out my TV will not come back on any suggestions?
using the power button on the set rather than the remote? Read the
manual? A friend had an old CRT set that would sometimes get messed up
and you had to unplug the power for some time to allow the
microprocessor to reset. Leave the set unplugged for a half hour or
more, then try it?
--
Rick C
Robert Baer
> My TV went out energy saver went out my TV will not come back on any suggestions?
Klaus Kragelund
I had to install the old plasma again, was very disappointed with the blackness level and sound quality of the LED
Cheers
Klaus
Don Y
We find ourselves gravitating to the old plasma instead of the newer LED.
The LED is... "crisper". But, almost visually uncomfortably so. I
liken it to speakers that are too "bright".
(being able to count the pores in an actor's face doesn't leave me
thinking I've had a BETTER viewing experience!)
k...@notreal.com
a year ago. I recently took the plasma out of the box and set it up
in my office and the picture is totally washed out, compared to the
Samsung.