[Eeyore]

RobertL wrote:

Also electrical faults usually arise during the power-up
process.

Largely myth. The change in temperature as things warm up may REVEAL some faults
though.

Graham

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article ,
Laurence Payne lpayne1NOSPAM@dslDOTpipexDOTcom wrote:
On Wed, 11 Jul 2007 10:32:08 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

It's precisely by NOT doing those things that Americans use vastly
more energy per head of population than anyone else on the planet.
About twice as much as the average European AIUI.

And the average European would *love* to be able to afford to do the
same. Then there's the Chinese, Indians, Africans. All of which aspire
to be wealthy. With wealth comes consumption.

If global warming truly is the fault of man's consumption there is
absolutely nothing can be done about it by man. Eventually, nature will
sort it. Luckily I won't be around when it does.

Am I the only reasonably affluent European who is perfectly empowered
to over-consume but often chooses not to? I'm no paragon, but waste
makes me uncomfortable, so I don't do it.

You may consider you don't waste energy, but you'll consume many times
that of most in the world. Who'll be aiming for your lifestyle - or above.

--
*Why is it that to stop Windows 95, you have to click on "Start"?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article ,
Trevor Wilson wrote:
**Nope, you're not. Apart form the needless waste of energy and
additional greenhouse effects (which he and his generation will have to
deal with) all electrolytic capacitors within the amplifier will wear
out faster.

And by the time they do he'll have his own teenager to shout at...

--
*Heart attacks... God's revenge for eating his animal friends

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

[EADGBE]

On Jul 10, 8:41 am, Eeyore
wrote:

Did you never try teaching him anything ?

Graham

Graham:

If you have ever tried to raise a teenager, you would know how futile
teaching good habits--or anything else--can be! Trust me, he has been
told--repeatedly--to take better care of things, to clean his room, to
do his chores, etc., etc. The trouble is that a) he is extremely
absent-minded, and b) has a hugely bad habit of rushing to the next
activity. We've made some inroads, but it's really been an uphill
battle.

[Keith G]

"EADGBE" wrote in message
s.com...
On Jul 10, 8:41 am, Eeyore
wrote:

Did you never try teaching him anything ?

Graham

Graham:

If you have ever tried to raise a teenager, you would know how futile
teaching good habits--or anything else--can be! Trust me, he has been
told--repeatedly--to take better care of things, to clean his room, to
do his chores, etc., etc. The trouble is that a) he is extremely
absent-minded, and b) has a hugely bad habit of rushing to the next
activity. We've made some inroads, but it's really been an uphill
battle.


You're over complicating the issue. I already told you - forget
*teaching* him anything (impossible), just tell him you'll kick his arse
if he leaves your receiver on again! (If the idea of violence in not
practicable/desirable for any reason, threaten to hurt him
*financially* - that'll do it for sure... :-)

There is every argument for not leaving kit on 24/7 (waste, cost, wear &
tear, global warming, risk of fire &c.) and *none* for leaving stuff on,
in my book...

[Walt]

Serge Auckland wrote:
"Walt" wrote

As for the power consumption, a receiver at idle uses an insignificant
amount. I wouldn't sweat that either.

A receiver at idle will use something like 6-10 W, which over 1 year is
52kW/h even at the 6 watt level. Not insignificant in my view.

At eight cents a kwh, that's about 4 bucks a year, or about the cost of
a cup of coffee at Starbucks.

We may have different thresholds for insignificant.

A couple of
years ago, I measured everything I normally left on standby, including
cookers, ovens TV etc but excluding fridges and freezers and had something
in excess of 400 watts, or 3500 kW/h per year. I now turn off or unplug at
least half of what I used just to leave on standby.

Some appliances are energy vampires and consume lots of energy even when
"off". TV's are notorious for this. Definitely turn this stuff off.
And an oven with a standby mode? WTF? Is it hot all the time?

//Walt

[Keith G]

"Walt" wrote in message
...
Serge Auckland wrote:
"Walt" wrote

As for the power consumption, a receiver at idle uses an
insignificant amount. I wouldn't sweat that either.

A receiver at idle will use something like 6-10 W, which over 1 year
is 52kW/h even at the 6 watt level. Not insignificant in my view.

At eight cents a kwh, that's about 4 bucks a year, or about the cost
of a cup of coffee at Starbucks.

We may have different thresholds for insignificant.


But times how many million is that...??

(Watch these Yanks squeal when the Chinese adopt the same mentality and
attitude to gouging the planet, pollution and energy wastage when they
get going.....)

[Laurence Payne]

On Wed, 11 Jul 2007 12:09:43 -0400, Walt
wrote:

A receiver at idle will use something like 6-10 W, which over 1 year is
52kW/h even at the 6 watt level. Not insignificant in my view.

At eight cents a kwh, that's about 4 bucks a year, or about the cost of
a cup of coffee at Starbucks.

We may have different thresholds for insignificant.

Would you bend down to pick up a penny? A dime? A dollar?

[Codifus]

On Jul 10, 12:04 am, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:
"EADGBE" wrote in message

ups.com...



I bought a used Nakamichi TA-4A Stasis receiver and I am currently
using it in a spare room to amplify a DVD
player.

I have a 13 year old son who never turns things off. And by "never" I
mean NEVER EVER.

Every time he uses the receiver to watch a DVD, he simply walks away
from it when he is finished.

Today I came home from work and found it on. He had used it that
morning, so I estimate that this amplifier had been on for about _8_
solid hours when I came home and discovered it.

Is this bad for it? It has good ventilation all round it, but it was
quite warm from being on so long.

Should I ban him from using the receiver, or am I being needlessly
picky?

**Nope, you're not. Apart form the needless waste of energy and additional
greenhouse effects (which he and his generation will have to deal with) all
electrolytic capacitors within the amplifier will wear out faster.

--
Trevor Wilsonwww.rageaudio.com.au

--
Posted via a free Usenet account fromhttp://www.teranews.com

What's the normal lifespan of an electrolytic capacitor? 10, 15 years?
I bet the power switch will war out before then. The amp will be fine,
but it just won't trun on.

CD

[Serge Auckland]

"Walt" wrote in message
...
Serge Auckland wrote:
"Walt" wrote

As for the power consumption, a receiver at idle uses an insignificant
amount. I wouldn't sweat that either.

A receiver at idle will use something like 6-10 W, which over 1 year is
52kW/h even at the 6 watt level. Not insignificant in my view.

At eight cents a kwh, that's about 4 bucks a year, or about the cost of a
cup of coffee at Starbucks.

We may have different thresholds for insignificant.

If anything sums up the difference between the US and UK attitudes to energy
use it is this.


A couple of years ago, I measured everything I normally left on standby,
including cookers, ovens TV etc but excluding fridges and freezers and had
something in excess of 400 watts, or 3500 kW/h per year. I now turn off or
unplug at least half of what I used just to leave on standby.

Some appliances are energy vampires and consume lots of energy even when
"off". TV's are notorious for this. Definitely turn this stuff off. And
an oven with a standby mode? WTF? Is it hot all the time?

//Walt

No, but the clock/timer is on and consuming power.

S.

--
http://audiopages.googlepages.com

[Eeyore]

codifus wrote:

What's the normal lifespan of an electrolytic capacitor? 10, 15 years?

Depends on use.


I bet the power switch will war out before then.

Unlikely. They need to be moderately robust these days or they'll likely fail
safety compliance tests.

Graham

[Walt]

Serge Auckland wrote:
"Walt" wrote
Serge Auckland wrote:
"Walt" wrote

As for the power consumption, a receiver at idle uses an insignificant
amount. I wouldn't sweat that either.

A receiver at idle will use something like 6-10 W, which over 1 year is
52kW/h even at the 6 watt level. Not insignificant in my view.

At eight cents a kwh, that's about 4 bucks a year, or about the cost of a
cup of coffee at Starbucks.

We may have different thresholds for insignificant.

If anything sums up the difference between the US and UK attitudes to energy
use it is this.

Maybe you should find someone else to tar with your overly broad brush?

My attitude towards energy conservation is to go after the things that
matter first, rather than chasing after pence while pounds go down the
tubes. Things like living within walking distance of my job, installing
a 90% efficient furnace and a programmable thermostat, keeping the temp
under 20 in the winter (when I'm home, the thermostat drops it to 15
when I'm not), using compact fluorescents, etc. That kind of stuff.
Rather than sweating about piddly ****.

The fact is that a receiver at or near idle uses about the same amount
of energy as an electric clock. You don't turn those off when not in
use, do you? Or have you gotten rid of all your clocks?

//Walt

[Eeyore]

Walt wrote:

The fact is that a receiver at or near idle uses about the same amount
of energy as an electric clock.

No. Quite wrong actually.

Graham

[Trevor Wilson]

"codifus" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Jul 10, 12:04 am, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:
"EADGBE" wrote in message

ups.com...



I bought a used Nakamichi TA-4A Stasis receiver and I am currently
using it in a spare room to amplify a DVD
player.

I have a 13 year old son who never turns things off. And by "never" I
mean NEVER EVER.

Every time he uses the receiver to watch a DVD, he simply walks away
from it when he is finished.

Today I came home from work and found it on. He had used it that
morning, so I estimate that this amplifier had been on for about _8_
solid hours when I came home and discovered it.

Is this bad for it? It has good ventilation all round it, but it was
quite warm from being on so long.

Should I ban him from using the receiver, or am I being needlessly
picky?

**Nope, you're not. Apart form the needless waste of energy and
additional
greenhouse effects (which he and his generation will have to deal with)
all
electrolytic capacitors within the amplifier will wear out faster.

--
Trevor Wilsonwww.rageaudio.com.au

--
Posted via a free Usenet account fromhttp://www.teranews.com

What's the normal lifespan of an electrolytic capacitor? 10, 15 years?
I bet the power switch will war out before then. The amp will be fine,
but it just won't trun on.

**Depends on the electro. So-called 'computer grade' or mil-spec caps are
typically rated for 100,000 hours @ 105oC. The types of caps used in
domestic equipment are more likely to be rated for between 5,000 and 10,000
hours @ 85oC. At the lower temps found in domestic equipment (say: 50oC) you
could expect roughly 4 times longer life. That equates to around 2.2 years
of continuous operation (worst case). Assuming, of course, that the caps
have been designed and constructed correctly. Some will not last that long.
Some will last longer. Some localised heating can occur inside amps, which
raise the temperature of caps to very high levels. I've seen designs where
resistors, adjacent to caps are allowed to exceed 140oC. Those caps can
easily be operated at 100oC without the amplifier being noticeably warm.
BTW: Most bi-polar caps (the type found in most speaker crossovers) have a
rated life of around 2,000 hours. Sobering thought, huh?

More seriously, of course, is the collateral damage which can be caused by a
failing capacitor. The gunk inside can be quite corrosive.

Moral: When not in use, turn it off.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Trevor Wilson]

"Walt" wrote in message
...
EADGBE wrote:
I bought a used Nakamichi TA-4A Stasis receiver and I am currently
using it in a spare room to amplify a DVD
player.

I have a 13 year old son who never turns things off. And by "never" I
mean NEVER EVER.

Is this bad for it? It has good ventilation all round it, but it was
quite warm from being on so long.


There aren't any moving parts in a receiver, so there's nothing mechanical
to wear out. I bought a Technics receiver in 1978 and left it on
continuously (except for when I moved) until I replaced it in 2005.

I wouldn't worry about it. There's a school of thought that power cycles
(turning it on and off) place more wear on it than leaving it on.

**A school of thought which is promoted by idiots is not much value. People
who actually know stuff, do not accept such twaddle.


As for the power consumption, a receiver at idle uses an insignificant
amount. I wouldn't sweat that either.

**A million receivers using "insignificant amounts" suddenly starts to look
quite significant. And don't forget: We're not talking about the 1 - 5 Watts
of power used by items left on standby. A Naka receiver idling will consume
around 50-60 Watts.


Now, lights, motors, TV's, ovens, etc do use a significant amount of
power when they're on - you should teach your son to turn these off when
not in use, but that's another topic.

**Nah. Heating and air conditioning are the big ones. Oh yeah. and bloody
pool filters.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Eeyore]

Trevor Wilson wrote:

"codifus" wrote in message

What's the normal lifespan of an electrolytic capacitor? 10, 15 years?
I bet the power switch will war out before then. The amp will be fine,
but it just won't trun on.

**Depends on the electro. So-called 'computer grade' or mil-spec caps are
typically rated for 100,000 hours @ 105oC.

I don't recall any electrolytic specs over 10,000 hrs ever.

Alternatively please supply a spec that says they're good for 100,000 hrs.


The types of caps used in domestic equipment are more likely to be rated for
between 5,000 and 10,000 hours @ 85oC.

More like anywhere between 1000 - 4000 hrs actually.

Of course these specs are at full rated temp and ripple current, so actual
lifetimes in real world operating conditions tend to be a lot longer. Life
doubles for every 10C below rated temp. Coupling caps that carry almost no
current will simply keep working until the electrolyte's almost dried up but
will gradually lose capacitance with age..

Graham

[Trevor Wilson]

"Walt" wrote in message
...
Serge Auckland wrote:
"Walt" wrote
Serge Auckland wrote:
"Walt" wrote

As for the power consumption, a receiver at idle uses an insignificant
amount. I wouldn't sweat that either.

A receiver at idle will use something like 6-10 W, which over 1 year
is 52kW/h even at the 6 watt level. Not insignificant in my view.

At eight cents a kwh, that's about 4 bucks a year, or about the cost of
a cup of coffee at Starbucks.

We may have different thresholds for insignificant.

If anything sums up the difference between the US and UK attitudes to
energy use it is this.

Maybe you should find someone else to tar with your overly broad brush?

My attitude towards energy conservation is to go after the things that
matter first, rather than chasing after pence while pounds go down the
tubes. Things like living within walking distance of my job, installing a
90% efficient furnace

**90% efficient? Huh? AFAIK, all heaters are close to 100% efficient. Air
conditioners are another matter. Mine has an EER of 4. That makes it the
equivalent of 400% efficient.

and a programmable thermostat, keeping the temp
under 20 in the winter (when I'm home, the thermostat drops it to 15 when
I'm not), using compact fluorescents, etc. That kind of stuff. Rather
than sweating about piddly ****.

The fact is that a receiver at or near idle uses about the same amount of
energy as an electric clock.

**Utter bull****. A clock radio typically employs a power transformer of
around 2VA. (2 Watts), That is the MAXIMUM power consumption. OTOH, the
service manual for the Naka SR4 I have in front of me states that it's
maximum power consumption is 350 Watts. Figure on around 35 Watts for the
transformer, at idle. Each output stage dissipates around 8 Watts (output
devices only), plus more for the drivers et al. Then there's a few more
Watts for the various regulators. Figure on another 10 - 15 Watts. You're
already well above 60 Watts. It's likely that the OP's amp dissipates even
more.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au




--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Trevor Wilson]

"Eeyore" wrote in message
...


Trevor Wilson wrote:

"codifus" wrote in message

What's the normal lifespan of an electrolytic capacitor? 10, 15 years?
I bet the power switch will war out before then. The amp will be fine,
but it just won't trun on.

**Depends on the electro. So-called 'computer grade' or mil-spec caps are
typically rated for 100,000 hours @ 105oC.

I don't recall any electrolytic specs over 10,000 hrs ever.

Alternatively please supply a spec that says they're good for 100,000 hrs.

**Good point. I re-checked and the 100,000 hour life span is for a
significantly reduced temperature. Typically 40oC.





The types of caps used in domestic equipment are more likely to be rated
for
between 5,000 and 10,000 hours @ 85oC.

More like anywhere between 1000 - 4000 hrs actually.

**Like I said: I cheked. Between 500 and 12,000 hours appears to be the
usual range. Of course, for domestic stuff, your cite of 4,000 hours
(maximum) is probably close to the mark.


Of course these specs are at full rated temp and ripple current, so actual
lifetimes in real world operating conditions tend to be a lot longer. Life
doubles for every 10C below rated temp. Coupling caps that carry almost no
current will simply keep working until the electrolyte's almost dried up
but
will gradually lose capacitance with age..

**Yep. Except that coupling caps are hardly an issue in a modern amp.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Eeyore]

Trevor Wilson wrote:

"Walt" wrote


My attitude towards energy conservation is to go after the things that
matter first, rather than chasing after pence while pounds go down the
tubes. Things like living within walking distance of my job, installing a
90% efficient furnace

**90% efficient? Huh? AFAIK, all heaters are close to 100% efficient.

A furnace in the USA is what we call a boiler in the UK. 90% efficient is quite
reasonable. Something has to go up the flue !

Graham

[Trevor Wilson]

"Eeyore" wrote in message
...


Trevor Wilson wrote:

"Walt" wrote


My attitude towards energy conservation is to go after the things that
matter first, rather than chasing after pence while pounds go down the
tubes. Things like living within walking distance of my job,
installing a
90% efficient furnace

**90% efficient? Huh? AFAIK, all heaters are close to 100% efficient.

A furnace in the USA is what we call a boiler in the UK. 90% efficient is
quite
reasonable. Something has to go up the flue !

**Ah. How wasteful. A space heater would be better. Air conditioners are
MUCH more efficient again. Of course, they don't work so well at VERY low
ambient temps (which we pretty much don't have here in Australia).


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Serge Auckland]

"Walt" wrote in message
...
Serge Auckland wrote:
"Walt" wrote
Serge Auckland wrote:
"Walt" wrote

As for the power consumption, a receiver at idle uses an insignificant
amount. I wouldn't sweat that either.

A receiver at idle will use something like 6-10 W, which over 1 year
is 52kW/h even at the 6 watt level. Not insignificant in my view.

At eight cents a kwh, that's about 4 bucks a year, or about the cost of
a cup of coffee at Starbucks.

We may have different thresholds for insignificant.

If anything sums up the difference between the US and UK attitudes to
energy use it is this.

Maybe you should find someone else to tar with your overly broad brush?

My attitude towards energy conservation is to go after the things that
matter first, rather than chasing after pence while pounds go down the
tubes. Things like living within walking distance of my job, installing a
90% efficient furnace and a programmable thermostat, keeping the temp
under 20 in the winter (when I'm home, the thermostat drops it to 15 when
I'm not), using compact fluorescents, etc. That kind of stuff. Rather
than sweating about piddly ****.

All good things, but receivers left on standby or idle is *not* piddly ****
when you consider how many of them there are, and how it's not just the odd
receiver, but all the other stuff that's left idling.

The fact is that a receiver at or near idle uses about the same amount of
energy as an electric clock. You don't turn those off when not in use, do
you? Or have you gotten rid of all your clocks?

Not so, a clock will draw about 2W, whilst a receiver on idle some 20x that
much. As to clocks, I actually don't have any other than what's built into
my kitchen oven, VCR and the like. I prefer to wear a watch.

S.

--
http://audiopages.googlepages.com

[Trevor Wilson]

"Phil Allison" wrote in message
...

"Eeysore ****ing ASD ****ed Tenth Wit"



For any decently designed piece of equipment the idea that components
will wear
out by being switched on is a pure fiction.



** Shame about all valves, all forms of lamps, X caps, etc etc....

**And white LEDs.



Certain components (notably electrolytic capacitors) *will* however wear
out by being left on.


** Electros deteriorate faster when left in storage, as compared to being
operated normally & at room temp.

**Not so much, when left in storage. At least, not with relatively modern
caps. Here are some results I measured, using a Data Precision capacitance
meter and my Handy DandyT Bob Parker ESR meter.

Approximate age of cap: Capacitance/Voltage: Measured capacitance: Measured
ESR:

25 years 1,000uF/16V 1,245uF
0.06 Ohms
25 years 1,000uF/16V 1,398uF
0.08 Ohms
25 years 1,000uF/16V 1,322uF
0.08 Ohms
16 years 220uF/50V 249uF
0.14 Ohms
10 years 470uF/63V 475uF
0.06 Ohms
10 years 1uF/350V 0.957uF
56 Ohms
5 years 470uF/25V 480uF
0.06 Ohms
3 months 1,000/16V 980uF
0.02 Ohms

All capacitors were purchased new, by me. Various manufacturers. None were
particularly expensive types.

A few years ago I did test some large, surplus, caps, manufactured in the
early 1970s for Lawrence Livermore, for use in a very large storage system
in plasma research. At least 50% of the caps, which had been in long term
storage, were seriously degraded. Even after careful attempts at forming.
They were, as I recall, 10,000uF/100V (or thereabouts) units. I suggested to
the client that they all be disposed of. The failure rate was unacceptably
high.




Life is reduced by operation OR storage at elevated temps.

**Agreed.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Codifus]

Eeyore wrote:

codifus wrote:


What's the normal lifespan of an electrolytic capacitor? 10, 15 years?


Depends on use.



I bet the power switch will war out before then.


Unlikely. They need to be moderately robust these days or they'll likely fail
safety compliance tests.

Graham

Fair enough. From now, I'll turn my amp off when not in use. If the
power switch fails however, I'm coming after you and Mr. Wilson

By the way, I took up this habit of leaving the power on after my
previous amplifier, an Onkyo 8500, became somwhat useless because the
input selector (Tuner, Aux, CD etc) developed connectivity problems.
When listening to music the soundstage would gradually fade to left and
eventually the right channel would be off. Fiddling with the input
buttons fixed it temporarily. I've had a technician solder the
problematic circuit and that lasted about 2 months. The amp still works
fine if you fiddle with it, but that can get incredibly annoying. If not
for that, I would still be using it.

My replacement Yamaha has a different type input slector, if I select
from the remote, there are no moving parts. Just the LEDs change. The
power button on the Yamaha, though doesn't feel as "robust" as the power
button on my old Onkyo.

Anyway, we'll see . . . . . .
CD

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article ,
Trevor Wilson wrote:
My attitude towards energy conservation is to go after the things that
matter first, rather than chasing after pence while pounds go down
the tubes. Things like living within walking distance of my job,
installing a 90% efficient furnace

**90% efficient? Huh? AFAIK, all heaters are close to 100% efficient.
Air conditioners are another matter. Mine has an EER of 4. That makes
it the equivalent of 400% efficient.

Only electric heaters are near 100% efficient. Gas can be 95 or so *at
best* when in condensing mode - oil rather less.

--
*Your kid may be an honours student, but you're still an idiot.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article ,
Walt wrote:
The fact is that a receiver at or near idle uses about the same amount
of energy as an electric clock. You don't turn those off when not in
use, do you? Or have you gotten rid of all your clocks?

Most of my clocks are battery operated and a single AA cell lasts years.
The current consumption is tiny.

--
*Cover me. I'm changing lanes.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

[dizzy]

Trevor Wilson wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote in message

Trevor Wilson wrote:

"Walt" wrote

My attitude towards energy conservation is to go after the things that
matter first, rather than chasing after pence while pounds go down the
tubes. Things like living within walking distance of my job,
installing a
90% efficient furnace

**90% efficient? Huh? AFAIK, all heaters are close to 100% efficient.

A furnace in the USA is what we call a boiler in the UK. 90% efficient is
quite
reasonable. Something has to go up the flue !

**Ah. How wasteful. A space heater would be better.

No, it would not. Where do you think the electricity comes from?
Magically 100% efficient coal-burning plants?

90% efficiency is not bad, guy.

Air conditioners are MUCH more efficient again.

Huh? NOT.

[Trevor Wilson]

"Codifus" wrote in message
...
Eeyore wrote:

codifus wrote:


What's the normal lifespan of an electrolytic capacitor? 10, 15 years?


Depends on use.



I bet the power switch will war out before then.


Unlikely. They need to be moderately robust these days or they'll likely
fail
safety compliance tests.

Graham

Fair enough. From now, I'll turn my amp off when not in use. If the power
switch fails however, I'm coming after you and Mr. Wilson

**Good luck with that. Power switches tend to be VERY reliable.
Manufacturers tend to like to avoid court cases. They make the switches to
some tough specs. Most are designed to me UL specs, or the even tougher
European specs.


By the way, I took up this habit of leaving the power on after my previous
amplifier, an Onkyo 8500, became somwhat useless because the input
selector (Tuner, Aux, CD etc) developed connectivity problems. When
listening to music the soundstage would gradually fade to left and
eventually the right channel would be off. Fiddling with the input buttons
fixed it temporarily. I've had a technician solder the problematic
circuit and that lasted about 2 months. The amp still works fine if you
fiddle with it, but that can get incredibly annoying. If not for that, I
would still be using it.

**ALL the other switches in your amp are not required to meet any specs.
Manufacturers choose the cheapest available part. Soldering won't help. You
need to replace the switch.


My replacement Yamaha has a different type input slector, if I select from
the remote, there are no moving parts. Just the LEDs change. The power
button on the Yamaha, though doesn't feel as "robust" as the power button
on my old Onkyo.

Anyway, we'll see . . . . . .

**Many modern power switches send a signal to a microprocessor, which, in
turn, operates a relay. Those switches rarely fail. Microprocessors
sometimes fail (or the crystal). Relays rarely fail. The small, auxiliary
transformer, which powers the remote switch on circuit fail somewhat more
often. The chip which controls the input switching sometimes fail, but less
often than most switches.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Trevor Wilson]

"dizzy" wrote in message
news
Trevor Wilson wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote in message

Trevor Wilson wrote:

"Walt" wrote

My attitude towards energy conservation is to go after the things
that
matter first, rather than chasing after pence while pounds go down
the
tubes. Things like living within walking distance of my job,
installing a
90% efficient furnace

**90% efficient? Huh? AFAIK, all heaters are close to 100% efficient.

A furnace in the USA is what we call a boiler in the UK. 90% efficient
is
quite
reasonable. Something has to go up the flue !

**Ah. How wasteful. A space heater would be better.

No, it would not. Where do you think the electricity comes from?

**Not all space heaters require electricity.

Magically 100% efficient coal-burning plants?.

**Not all electricity is derived from coal-buring plants.


90% efficiency is not bad, guy.

**ALL my heaters convert electricity into heat with nearly 100% efficiency.
NOTHING is wasted. However, since I fitted air conditioning, I rarely use
them. The air cons are MUCH less energy demanding.


Air conditioners are MUCH more efficient again.

Huh? NOT.

**Huh. Yeah. I suggest you do some reading. My air cons produce nearly 8kW
of heat from 2kW of electricity. My little workshop one does 3.6kW of heat,
for 820 Watts of electricity consumption.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Phil Allison]

"Trevor Wilson"

**Good luck with that. Power switches tend to be VERY reliable.


** Nonsense - they are one of the more common failures in audio
equipment.


Manufacturers tend to like to avoid court cases.


** Got SFA to do with the matter of "wear and tear" failures in service.


They make the switches to some tough specs.


** Pure speculation.

Some are well made and conservatively rated - others are neither.


Most are designed to me UL specs, or the even tougher European specs.


** Got SFA to do with actual mechanical ruggedness or longevity in service.

Equipment makers ( not switch makers) chose the cheapest AC power switch
that works and don't give a hoot if that means the surge rating is exceeded
with every second switch on cycle.

Fractures of internal metal and plastic parts is common - sometimes leading
to a short to the frame and a serious electrocution hazard if all ground
conductors are not intact.

On some high powered amps using toroidal transformers ( no soft start) the
AC switch will eventually weld itself permanently on !!

The " push on - push off " switches used in so many items of audio gear
commonly fail open after internal metal parts get burned away at each switch
on. Same goes for mini rocker switches on many items where the AC
transformer is of a few hundred VA.



....... Phil

[Trevor Wilson]

"Phil Allison" wrote in message
...

"Trevor Wilson"

**Good luck with that. Power switches tend to be VERY reliable.


** Nonsense - they are one of the more common failures in audio
equipment.

**Nope. Not even remotely close. I deal almost exclusively with domestic
audio equipment. In the last 20 years, I have replaced, maybe, 20 power
switches. They're more reliable than (say) power transformers, transistors,
electrolytic caps and fusible resistors. And almost all have been for older
products. ALL the other switches are vastly less reliable.



Manufacturers tend to like to avoid court cases.


** Got SFA to do with the matter of "wear and tear" failures in service.


They make the switches to some tough specs.


** Pure speculation.

Some are well made and conservatively rated - others are neither.


Most are designed to me UL specs, or the even tougher European specs.


** Got SFA to do with actual mechanical ruggedness or longevity in
service.

Equipment makers ( not switch makers) chose the cheapest AC power switch
that works and don't give a hoot if that means the surge rating is
exceeded with every second switch on cycle.

**Perhaps some of the less well known manufacturers operate that way. Most
of the larger manufacutrers, IME, choose approved and tested switches.


Fractures of internal metal and plastic parts is common - sometimes
leading to a short to the frame and a serious electrocution hazard if all
ground conductors are not intact.

**I've only seen such things on equpment which pre-dates around 1975. Since
then, switches arrived which are significantly more robust. Again, IME,
which is limited to domestic audio equipment. YMMV.


On some high powered amps using toroidal transformers ( no soft start) the
AC switch will eventually weld itself permanently on !!

**Indeed. Electronic switching (aka: TRIAC) makes far more sense for these
products.


The " push on - push off " switches used in so many items of audio gear
commonly fail open after internal metal parts get burned away at each
switch on. Same goes for mini rocker switches on many items where the AC
transformer is of a few hundred VA.

**I don't see such problems very often.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Eeyore]

Trevor Wilson wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote
Trevor Wilson wrote:
"Walt" wrote


My attitude towards energy conservation is to go after the things that
matter first, rather than chasing after pence while pounds go down the
tubes. Things like living within walking distance of my job,
installing a
90% efficient furnace

**90% efficient? Huh? AFAIK, all heaters are close to 100% efficient.

A furnace in the USA is what we call a boiler in the UK. 90% efficient is
quite
reasonable. Something has to go up the flue !

**Ah. How wasteful. A space heater would be better. Air conditioners are
MUCH more efficient again. Of course, they don't work so well at VERY low
ambient temps (which we pretty much don't have here in Australia).

Electric space heating wastes ~ 66% of the potential energy in the fuel at the
power station (as waste heat) and in transmission losses.

Fuel burnt directly in a furnace / boiler delivers ~ 90% of the energy to the
'load'.

Graham

[Eeyore]

Trevor Wilson wrote:

"Codifus" wrote

My replacement Yamaha has a different type input slector, if I select from
the remote, there are no moving parts. Just the LEDs change. The power
button on the Yamaha, though doesn't feel as "robust" as the power button
on my old Onkyo.

Anyway, we'll see . . . . . .

**Many modern power switches send a signal to a microprocessor, which, in
turn, operates a relay. Those switches rarely fail. Microprocessors
sometimes fail (or the crystal). Relays rarely fail.

Relays are somewhat expensive though.

Almost certainly the switching in the above is done with solid state FET
switches. These can be very good indeed.

Graham

[Trevor Wilson]

"Eeyore" wrote in message
...


Trevor Wilson wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote
Trevor Wilson wrote:
"Walt" wrote


My attitude towards energy conservation is to go after the things
that
matter first, rather than chasing after pence while pounds go down
the
tubes. Things like living within walking distance of my job,
installing a
90% efficient furnace

**90% efficient? Huh? AFAIK, all heaters are close to 100% efficient.

A furnace in the USA is what we call a boiler in the UK. 90% efficient
is
quite
reasonable. Something has to go up the flue !

**Ah. How wasteful. A space heater would be better. Air conditioners are
MUCH more efficient again. Of course, they don't work so well at VERY low
ambient temps (which we pretty much don't have here in Australia).

Electric space heating wastes ~ 66% of the potential energy in the fuel at
the
power station (as waste heat) and in transmission losses.

Fuel burnt directly in a furnace / boiler delivers ~ 90% of the energy to
the
'load'.

**Which makes modern air conditioners a MUCH more preferable heating system.
Gas space heaters are somewhat better than your "boilers', it would seem, as
they can be close to 100% efficient.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Phil Allison]

"Trevor Wilson"
Phil Allison

**Good luck with that. Power switches tend to be VERY reliable.


** Nonsense - they are one of the more common failures in audio
equipment.

**Nope. Not even remotely close.


** You are simply WRONG.



Equipment makers ( not switch makers) chose the cheapest AC power switch
that works and don't give a hoot if that means the surge rating is
exceeded with every second switch on cycle.

**Perhaps some of the less well known manufacturers operate that way. Most
of the larger manufacutrers, IME, choose approved and tested switches.


** Got SFA to do with actual mechanical ruggedness or longevity in
service.

Do learn to read sometime - ARSEHOLE.




Fractures of internal metal and plastic parts is common - sometimes
leading to a short to the frame and a serious electrocution hazard if all
ground conductors are not intact.

**I've only seen such things on equpment which pre-dates around 1975.


** Then you have not seen much audio gear.



On some high powered amps using toroidal transformers ( no soft start)
the AC switch will eventually weld itself permanently on !!

**Indeed.


** The TW cretin now contradicts itself.



The " push on - push off " switches used in so many items of audio gear
commonly fail open after internal metal parts get burned away at each
switch on. Same goes for mini rocker switches on many items where the AC
transformer is of a few hundred VA.

**I don't see such problems very often.


** Ignorance is not evidence - cretin.





........ Phil

[Eeyore]

Trevor Wilson wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote
Trevor Wilson wrote:
"Eeyore" wrote
Trevor Wilson wrote:
"Walt" wrote


My attitude towards energy conservation is to go after the things
that matter first, rather than chasing after pence while pounds go
down
the tubes. Things like living within walking distance of my job,
installing a 90% efficient furnace

**90% efficient? Huh? AFAIK, all heaters are close to 100% efficient.

A furnace in the USA is what we call a boiler in the UK. 90% efficient
is quite reasonable. Something has to go up the flue !

**Ah. How wasteful. A space heater would be better. Air conditioners are
MUCH more efficient again. Of course, they don't work so well at VERY low
ambient temps (which we pretty much don't have here in Australia).

Electric space heating wastes ~ 66% of the potential energy in the fuel at
the power station (as waste heat) and in transmission losses.

Fuel burnt directly in a furnace / boiler delivers ~ 90% of the energy to
the 'load'.

**Which makes modern air conditioners a MUCH more preferable heating system.
Gas space heaters are somewhat better than your "boilers', it would seem, as
they can be close to 100% efficient.

Not all air conditioners function as heat pumps. Nor are all as efficient as you
suggest. I think it may relate to outside temperature. How much heat could you
get out of them when it's -4C outside ?

Graham

[Trevor Wilson]

"Eeyore" wrote in message
...


Trevor Wilson wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote
Trevor Wilson wrote:
"Eeyore" wrote
Trevor Wilson wrote:
"Walt" wrote


My attitude towards energy conservation is to go after the things
that matter first, rather than chasing after pence while pounds
go
down
the tubes. Things like living within walking distance of my job,
installing a 90% efficient furnace

**90% efficient? Huh? AFAIK, all heaters are close to 100%
efficient.

A furnace in the USA is what we call a boiler in the UK. 90%
efficient
is quite reasonable. Something has to go up the flue !

**Ah. How wasteful. A space heater would be better. Air conditioners
are
MUCH more efficient again. Of course, they don't work so well at VERY
low
ambient temps (which we pretty much don't have here in Australia).

Electric space heating wastes ~ 66% of the potential energy in the fuel
at
the power station (as waste heat) and in transmission losses.

Fuel burnt directly in a furnace / boiler delivers ~ 90% of the energy
to
the 'load'.

**Which makes modern air conditioners a MUCH more preferable heating
system.
Gas space heaters are somewhat better than your "boilers', it would seem,
as
they can be close to 100% efficient.

Not all air conditioners function as heat pumps.

**Indeed. However, the prospective purchaser would decide what was the
appropriate type, before plonking down the cash. Most air cons are heating
and cooling types. For the record: They're ALL heat pumps, regardless of
heating or cooling ability

Nor are all as efficient as you
suggest.

**Most 'proper' ones are. Some Chinese manufacturers have been guilty of
over-stating the capacity of their units. As has LG. Recently LG was fined
AUS$3 million for lying about the ratings of their units.

http://www.smarthouse.com.au/Smart_I...chens/F7X9T8F3

Other manufacturers have likely been examining the case carefully.

I think it may relate to outside temperature. How much heat could you
get out of them when it's -4C outside ?

**Yeah, that's the kicker. They don't work so well at VERY low temps.
Something, few Aussies need to be bothered with. My Mitsubishis are rated
down to -15oC and up to 46oC. Adequate for Sydney climate.



--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article ,
Trevor Wilson wrote:
Gas space heaters are somewhat better than your "boilers', it would
seem, as they can be close to 100% efficient.

They might be if flue less. But such types aren't common in the domestic
environment. They'd need considerable ventilation which in practice would
more than negate any efficiency gains in the appliance. They also take up
a deal of room.

--
*Forget about World Peace...Visualize using your turn signal.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

[Eeyore]

Trevor Wilson wrote:

Gas space heaters are somewhat better than your "boilers', it would seem, as
they can be close to 100% efficient.

Not everyone wants their house filled with lots of CO2 and water vapour though.

Graham

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article ,
Eeyore wrote:


Trevor Wilson wrote:

Gas space heaters are somewhat better than your "boilers', it would
seem, as they can be close to 100% efficient.

Not everyone wants their house filled with lots of CO2 and water vapour
though.

Or more worryingly CO. I'd not have a non room sealed gas appliance in the
house - with the exception of a hob.

--
Small asylum seeker wanted as mud flap, must be flexible and willing to travel

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

[Laurence Payne]

On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 01:58:27 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

Only electric heaters are near 100% efficient.

Maybe at your end of the power cable. What about if you include
generation and transmission into the system?