[George Newton]

I have a Sony Receiver STR- DE675 rated at 220W power
consumption.

I have my PC's sound connected to one of the receiver's inputs.

I would appreciate if someone could estimate how much power
my receiver is drawing when it is on and no sound is being
generated.

[George Newton]

George Newton wrote:
I have a Sony Receiver STR- DE675 rated at 220W power consumption.

I have my PC's sound connected to one of the receiver's inputs.

I would appreciate if someone could estimate how much power my receiver
is drawing when it is on and no sound is being generated.

I forgot to add that I'm using Cambridge Soundworks M50
speakers if that is relevant.

[Mr.T]

"George Newton" wrote in message
ninternet...
George Newton wrote:
I have a Sony Receiver STR- DE675 rated at 220W power consumption.

I have my PC's sound connected to one of the receiver's inputs.

I would appreciate if someone could estimate how much power my receiver
is drawing when it is on and no sound is being generated.

Your guess (between 1 and 200W) will be nearly as good as anyone elses, but
probably closer to 10-30W.


I forgot to add that I'm using Cambridge Soundworks M50
speakers if that is relevant.

Not really.

MrT.

[Mark Zacharias[_2_]]

"George Newton" wrote in message
et...
I have a Sony Receiver STR- DE675 rated at 220W power consumption.

I have my PC's sound connected to one of the receiver's inputs.

I would appreciate if someone could estimate how much power my receiver is
drawing when it is on and no sound is being generated.


Probably in the 10 to 15 watt range. More recent models by many
manufacturers are designed to draw less in Standby mode, but when turned on,
and at idle there are losses which, in full sized receivers, cannot be
reduced too much while still using mostly conventional transformer power
supplies and bipolar transistor output stages, which the market and
economics still demand for the most part.

Mark Z.

[Arny Krueger]

"George Newton" wrote in message
ninternet
George Newton wrote:
I have a Sony Receiver STR- DE675 rated at 220W power
consumption. I have my PC's sound connected to one of the receiver's
inputs. I would appreciate if someone could estimate how much
power my receiver is drawing when it is on and no sound
is being generated.

I forgot to add that I'm using Cambridge Soundworks M50
speakers if that is relevant.

The answer will cost you a little more than $20. You need to buy a
Kill-A-Watt.

[Richard Crowley]

"George Newton" wrote ...
I have a Sony Receiver STR- DE675 rated at 220W power consumption.

I have my PC's sound connected to one of the receiver's inputs.

I would appreciate if someone could estimate how much power my receiver is
drawing when it is on and no sound is being generated.

If you want a wild guess you could use 10-20W. Note that it may
even draw power when it is turned "OFF". This has nothing to do
with what kind of source is connected (PC or otherwise), and
also nothing to do with the speakers (unless they have their own
power cords).

As Mr. Krueger suggested, it is pretty cheap to just get yourself a
"Kill-a-Watt" meter and measure it directly. They are handy for
other things around the house as well. Particularly if you are trying
to reduce your power consumption.

http://www.amazon.com/P3-Internation.../dp/B00009MDBU

Significant numbers of modern electronic equipment never really
turn "off", rather they go into some sort of standby mode and turn
off all the lights to make it look like nobody's home. This is
particularly the case with equpment that operates from "wall-wart"
power (transformers or switching supplies in the plug, or in a
"power brick" inline with the mains cord) because that part never
gets switched off.

This is one of the issues that the "green" movement is going after.
There are already both industry and public ads for "greener" power
supplies that draw minimal (or no) power when turned "off". This
web page claims...

"The U.S. Department of Energy tells us that not only do appliances
continue to draw electricity while the products are turned off, but in
the average home nearly 75% of all electricty used to power electronics
is consumed by products that are switched off."
http://www.terrapass.com/blog/posts/...tricity-vampir

With one side of his mouth Obama said that he wouldn't "increase
taxes" on the middle-class, but with the other side, he _promised_
us that energy costs would "skyrocket" (his term, IIRC). I have
great confidence that he will faithfully deliver on THAT promise.

[George Newton]

Richard Crowley wrote:
"George Newton" wrote ...
I have a Sony Receiver STR- DE675 rated at 220W power consumption.

I have my PC's sound connected to one of the receiver's inputs.

I would appreciate if someone could estimate how much power my receiver is
drawing when it is on and no sound is being generated.

If you want a wild guess you could use 10-20W. Note that it may
snip
great confidence that he will faithfully deliver on THAT promise.



Thanks for all your input on this. Also, to complete this,
the receiver is rated at 1 watt standby.

Thanks again.

[AZ Nomad[_2_]]

On Wed, 2 Dec 2009 09:54:39 -0800, Richard Crowley wrote:


"The U.S. Department of Energy tells us that not only do appliances
continue to draw electricity while the products are turned off, but in
the average home nearly 75% of all electricty used to power electronics
is consumed by products that are switched off."
http://www.terrapass.com/blog/posts/...tricity-vampir

That's only true if you have no fridge, electric stove, electric
washer/dryer and your HVAC uses no electricity.

The fridge alone will use more power than all the AC adapters, and
powered down electronics in a typical household.

[Richard Crowley]

"AZ Nomad" wrote ...
Richard Crowley wrote:
"The U.S. Department of Energy tells us that not only do appliances
continue to draw electricity while the products are turned off, but in
the average home nearly 75% of all electricty used to power electronics
is consumed by products that are switched off."
http://www.terrapass.com/blog/posts/...tricity-vampir

That's only true if you have no fridge, electric stove, electric
washer/dryer and your HVAC uses no electricity.

The fridge alone will use more power than all the AC adapters, and
powered down electronics in a typical household.

You must have missed the word "electronics". Nobody considers
fridge, stove (cooker), washer/dryer, HVAC to be "electronics".

[cjt]

Richard Crowley wrote:
"AZ Nomad" wrote ...
Richard Crowley wrote:
"The U.S. Department of Energy tells us that not only do appliances
continue to draw electricity while the products are turned off, but in
the average home nearly 75% of all electricty used to power electronics
is consumed by products that are switched off."
http://www.terrapass.com/blog/posts/...tricity-vampir
That's only true if you have no fridge, electric stove, electric
washer/dryer and your HVAC uses no electricity.

The fridge alone will use more power than all the AC adapters, and
powered down electronics in a typical household.

You must have missed the word "electronics". Nobody considers
fridge, stove (cooker), washer/dryer, HVAC to be "electronics".


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amdahl%27s_law

[Geoff]

AZ Nomad wrote:
On Wed, 2 Dec 2009 09:54:39 -0800, Richard Crowley
wrote:


"The U.S. Department of Energy tells us that not only do appliances
continue to draw electricity while the products are turned off, but
in the average home nearly 75% of all electricty used to power
electronics is consumed by products that are switched off."
http://www.terrapass.com/blog/posts/...tricity-vampir

That's only true if you have no fridge, electric stove, electric
washer/dryer and your HVAC uses no electricity.

The fridge alone will use more power than all the AC adapters, and
powered down electronics in a typical household.

And all are insignificant compared to having a stove element on for a minute
a day.

geoff

[AZ Nomad[_2_]]

On Thu, 3 Dec 2009 16:01:57 +1300, geoff wrote:
AZ Nomad wrote:
On Wed, 2 Dec 2009 09:54:39 -0800, Richard Crowley
wrote:


"The U.S. Department of Energy tells us that not only do appliances
continue to draw electricity while the products are turned off, but
in the average home nearly 75% of all electricty used to power
electronics is consumed by products that are switched off."
http://www.terrapass.com/blog/posts/...tricity-vampir

That's only true if you have no fridge, electric stove, electric
washer/dryer and your HVAC uses no electricity.

The fridge alone will use more power than all the AC adapters, and
powered down electronics in a typical household.

And all are insignificant compared to having a stove element on for a minute
a day.

But let's ignore all the kilowatt appliances; let's get all anal and
stupid over 500mw AC adapters left on all day.
Keep them unplugged all year and you can save yourself enough power to
fry an egg.

[Mark Zacharias[_2_]]

"George Newton" wrote in message
ninternet...
Richard Crowley wrote:
"George Newton" wrote ...
I have a Sony Receiver STR- DE675 rated at 220W power consumption.

I have my PC's sound connected to one of the receiver's inputs.

I would appreciate if someone could estimate how much power my receiver
is drawing when it is on and no sound is being generated.

If you want a wild guess you could use 10-20W. Note that it may
snip
great confidence that he will faithfully deliver on THAT promise.



Thanks for all your input on this. Also, to complete this, the receiver is
rated at 1 watt standby.

Thanks again.


I thought the original question involved the receiver being turned on but
essentially sitting idle.

Mark Z.

[GregS[_3_]]

In article ernet, George Newton wrote:
Richard Crowley wrote:
"George Newton" wrote ...
I have a Sony Receiver STR- DE675 rated at 220W power consumption.

I have my PC's sound connected to one of the receiver's inputs.

I would appreciate if someone could estimate how much power my receiver is
drawing when it is on and no sound is being generated.

If you want a wild guess you could use 10-20W. Note that it may
snip
great confidence that he will faithfully deliver on THAT promise.



Thanks for all your input on this. Also, to complete this,
the receiver is rated at 1 watt standby.

Thanks again.

You get an energy star.

greg

[GregS[_3_]]

In article , "geoff" wrote:
AZ Nomad wrote:
On Wed, 2 Dec 2009 09:54:39 -0800, Richard Crowley
wrote:


"The U.S. Department of Energy tells us that not only do appliances
continue to draw electricity while the products are turned off, but
in the average home nearly 75% of all electricty used to power
electronics is consumed by products that are switched off."

http://www.terrapass.com/blog/posts/...rts-and-slay-e
lectricity-vampir

That's only true if you have no fridge, electric stove, electric
washer/dryer and your HVAC uses no electricity.

The fridge alone will use more power than all the AC adapters, and
powered down electronics in a typical household.

And all are insignificant compared to having a stove element on for a minute
a day.



When I turn on both garage heaters, thats 6.3 KW, but my 2.5 ton air is only drawing 1.5KW.

greg

[Richard Crowley]

"AZ Nomad" wrote ...
But let's ignore all the kilowatt appliances; let's get all anal and
stupid over 500mw AC adapters left on all day.
Keep them unplugged all year and you can save yourself enough power to
fry an egg.

Sense does not appear to be very common amoung the
"green" community.

[Mr.T]

"Richard Crowley" wrote in message
...
"AZ Nomad" wrote ...
The fridge alone will use more power than all the AC adapters, and
powered down electronics in a typical household.

Naturally.

You must have missed the word "electronics". Nobody considers
fridge, stove (cooker), washer/dryer, HVAC to be "electronics".

Would have been true once upon a time, however most fridges, freezers,
washing machines, stoves, and even toasters now contain electronics. Most
even have full CPU/digital control systems, especially HVAC, so the
definition of "electronics" in this case simply depends on the person making
the claim.

MrT.

[David Nebenzahl]

On 12/2/2009 7:25 PM AZ Nomad spake thus:

On Thu, 3 Dec 2009 16:01:57 +1300, geoff wrote:

AZ Nomad wrote:

On Wed, 2 Dec 2009 09:54:39 -0800, Richard Crowley
wrote:

"The U.S. Department of Energy tells us that not only do appliances
continue to draw electricity while the products are turned off, but
in the average home nearly 75% of all electricty used to power
electronics is consumed by products that are switched off."
http://www.terrapass.com/blog/posts/...tricity-vampir

That's only true if you have no fridge, electric stove, electric
washer/dryer and your HVAC uses no electricity.

The fridge alone will use more power than all the AC adapters, and
powered down electronics in a typical household.

And all are insignificant compared to having a stove element on for
a minute a day.

But let's ignore all the kilowatt appliances; let's get all anal and
stupid over 500mw AC adapters left on all day.
Keep them unplugged all year and you can save yourself enough power to
fry an egg.

Wrong way to look at it.

Certainly insignificant on an individual level; not so on a global one.

That should be "keep them unplugged all year and save ourselves from
having to make many more megawatts of electricity".

You could look it up.


--
I am a Canadian who was born and raised in The Netherlands. I live on
Planet Earth on a spot of land called Canada. We have noisy neighbours.

- harvested from Usenet

[Mr.T]

"David Nebenzahl" wrote in message
s.com...
That should be "keep them unplugged all year and save ourselves from
having to make many more megawatts of electricity".

And reduce GHG emissions by 0.00001%??? That will really make a difference!
Should save the planet for another couple of days anyway I guess. :-)

MrT.

[GregS[_3_]]

In article , "Mr.T" MrT@home wrote:

"Richard Crowley" wrote in message
...
"AZ Nomad" wrote ...
The fridge alone will use more power than all the AC adapters, and
powered down electronics in a typical household.

Naturally.

You must have missed the word "electronics". Nobody considers
fridge, stove (cooker), washer/dryer, HVAC to be "electronics".

Would have been true once upon a time, however most fridges, freezers,
washing machines, stoves, and even toasters now contain electronics. Most
even have full CPU/digital control systems, especially HVAC, so the
definition of "electronics" in this case simply depends on the person making
the claim.


Probably cleaning the coils will make up for any wall supplies.

Refridgerators still are dumb. The defrost cycle should not occur
when your using it. You should be able to set the time of day for that to occur.
I have measured the drops in temps of the freezer and fridge
with a recorder, and thay are not trivial. This is without opening the doors.

greg

[David Nebenzahl]

On 12/3/2009 11:49 PM Mr.T spake thus:

"David Nebenzahl" wrote in message
s.com...

That should be "keep them unplugged all year and save ourselves from
having to make many more megawatts of electricity".

And reduce GHG emissions by 0.00001%??? That will really make a difference!
Should save the planet for another couple of days anyway I guess. :-)

I don't think so. It's a real energy sink; researchers estimate phantom
power as 5 to 10% of household energy usage. Eliminating it would result
in a lot more than a 0.00001% reduction in GHG.

Read all about it:
http://www.eereblogs.energy.gov/ener...Power-Use.aspx

Excerpt:

LBNL [Lawrence Berkeley Nat'l Lab.] calculated that videocassette
recorders (VCRs) consumed more electricity over the course of a year in
standby mode than while actively recording or playing. They measured the
power consumed by cable and satellite boxes and found that they consume
nearly as much power when switched off as when turned on; switching from
"on" to "off" with a remote control seemed to do nothing more than
switch a light from green to red in some cases.


--
I am a Canadian who was born and raised in The Netherlands. I live on
Planet Earth on a spot of land called Canada. We have noisy neighbours.

- harvested from Usenet

[Mr.T]

"David Nebenzahl" wrote in message
s.com...
And reduce GHG emissions by 0.00001%??? That will really make a
difference!
Should save the planet for another couple of days anyway I guess. :-)

I don't think so. It's a real energy sink; researchers estimate phantom
power as 5 to 10% of household energy usage.

Which is exactly the bull**** claims we are arguing about!


Read all about it:

http://www.eereblogs.energy.gov/ener...-By-Reduce-You
r-Standby-Power-Use.aspx

Excerpt:

LBNL [Lawrence Berkeley Nat'l Lab.] calculated that videocassette
recorders (VCRs) consumed more electricity over the course of a year in
standby mode than while actively recording or playing.

No argument, but still only a *MINUTE* fraction of total energy consumption!
Your citation simply doesn't support your theory. It's just a red herring
for the technically illiterate.


They measured the
power consumed by cable and satellite boxes and found that they consume
nearly as much power when switched off as when turned on; switching
from
"on" to "off" with a remote control seemed to do nothing more than
switch a light from green to red in some cases.

No argument there either, but still only a *MINUTE* fraction of total energy
consumption. Turn your air conditioner off for one day, and you can run your
cable box for a year!

Maybe you better learn just how much these items consume in ANY mode,
compared to an electric stove, refridgerator, air conditioner, electric
heater etc. And that's not even counting the BIG power useage, *INDUSTRY*. A
typical aluminium smelter uses more electricity than all the average
domestic users combined for an average city, regardless of what light globes
they use, and whether they have NO standby devices at all.

In any case the REAL problem is too many people, until someone proposes to
REDUCE global population, they are simply talking out of their ass!

MrT.

[David Nebenzahl]

On 12/4/2009 7:21 PM Mr.T spake thus:

"David Nebenzahl" wrote in message
s.com...

And reduce GHG emissions by 0.00001%??? That will really make a
difference! Should save the planet for another couple of days
anyway I guess. :-)

I don't think so. It's a real energy sink; researchers estimate phantom
power as 5 to 10% of household energy usage.

Read all about it:

http://www.eereblogs.energy.gov/ener...-By-Reduce-You
r-Standby-Power-Use.aspx

Excerpt:

LBNL [Lawrence Berkeley Nat'l Lab.] calculated that videocassette
recorders (VCRs) consumed more electricity over the course of a year in
standby mode than while actively recording or playing.

No argument, but still only a *MINUTE* fraction of total energy consumption!
Your citation simply doesn't support your theory.

5-10% of household consumption *minute*???? Granted, there is industrial
consumption; however, it's still a very much non-negligible amount of
power we're talking about here.

In any case the REAL problem is too many people, until someone proposes to
REDUCE global population, they are simply talking out of their ass!

No argument there. Haven't heard that dirty word "overpopulation" used
much for many decades now.


--
I am a Canadian who was born and raised in The Netherlands. I live on
Planet Earth on a spot of land called Canada. We have noisy neighbours.

- harvested from Usenet

[Richard Crowley]

"David Nebenzahl" wrote ...
I don't think so. It's a real energy sink; researchers estimate phantom
power as 5 to 10% of household energy usage. Eliminating it would result
in a lot more than a 0.00001% reduction in GHG.

A 2:1 variation is not an "estimate" it is an uninformed guess.

Read all about it:
http://www.eereblogs.energy.gov/ener...Power-Use.aspx

Excerpt:

LBNL [Lawrence Berkeley Nat'l Lab.] calculated that videocassette
recorders (VCRs) consumed more electricity over the course of a year in
standby mode than while actively recording or playing. They measured the
power consumed by cable and satellite boxes and found that they consume
nearly as much power when switched off as when turned on; switching from
"on" to "off" with a remote control seemed to do nothing more than
switch a light from green to red in some cases.

But a whole city of VCRs in "standby" don't waste as much power as a single
old inefficient refrigerator. Or a mile of streetlights that don't turn off
at dawn.

[Mr.T]

"David Nebenzahl" wrote in message
s.com...
LBNL [Lawrence Berkeley Nat'l Lab.] calculated that videocassette
recorders (VCRs) consumed more electricity over the course of a year
in
standby mode than while actively recording or playing.

No argument, but still only a *MINUTE* fraction of total energy
consumption!
Your citation simply doesn't support your theory.

5-10% of household consumption *minute*????


It IS minute and it's NOT 5-10% of *TOTAL* electricity consumption. And a
*totally* insignificant proportion of total GHGE which is caused by far more
than electricity usage.
But do feel free to provide PROOF of exactly what proportion of *TOTAL*
GHGE is caused by standby power consumption, I'm sure lots of people would
be very interested in your *scientific* research.


In any case the REAL problem is too many people, until someone proposes
to
REDUCE global population, they are simply talking out of their ass!

No argument there. Haven't heard that dirty word "overpopulation" used
much for many decades now.


Which is exactly the major problem with the whole GHGE/climate change
debate!

MrT.

[David Nebenzahl]

On 12/5/2009 5:29 PM Mr.T spake thus:

"David Nebenzahl" wrote in message
s.com...

LBNL [Lawrence Berkeley Nat'l Lab.] calculated that
videocassette recorders (VCRs) consumed more electricity over
the course of a year in standby mode than while actively
recording or playing.

No argument, but still only a *MINUTE* fraction of total energy
consumption! Your citation simply doesn't support your theory.

5-10% of household consumption *minute*????

It IS minute and it's NOT 5-10% of *TOTAL* electricity consumption. And a
*totally* insignificant proportion of total GHGE which is caused by far more
than electricity usage.
But do feel free to provide PROOF of exactly what proportion of *TOTAL*
GHGE is caused by standby power consumption, I'm sure lots of people would
be very interested in your *scientific* research.

Look, Bub, don't address me as if *I* was the one who wrote that study.
I cited it is all.

It was written by reasonably intelligent and diligent folks whose
judgement I trust. So I'm quite willing to accept their figure of 5-10%
of *household* usage. I *know* that doesn't include industrial uses of
electricity, and I don't know what the proportion domestic usage is to
industrial usage; I do know it's still a significant fraction of total
electricity usage, not "minute".

Add to that the fact that most of our (U.S.) electricity comes from
burning fossil fuel (coal, oil or natural gas), one can state with some
confidence that the total contribution to global climate change from
"vampire power" devices is something on the order of 1 to 2 percent. Not
the primary cause of the problem, but not insignificant either.

Plus the use of such devices is growing all the time, not decreasing.


--
I am a Canadian who was born and raised in The Netherlands. I live on
Planet Earth on a spot of land called Canada. We have noisy neighbours.

- harvested from Usenet

[Mr.T]

"David Nebenzahl" wrote in message
s.com...
Look, Bub, don't address me as if *I* was the one who wrote that study.
I cited it is all.

Yep you cited it as if it somehow supported your dubious claims.


It was written by reasonably intelligent and diligent folks whose
judgement I trust. So I'm quite willing to accept their figure of 5-10%
of *household* usage.


Some people are easily suckered it seems. You need to read what they
actually wrote, and how they arrived at their figures in any case.


I *know* that doesn't include industrial uses of
electricity, and I don't know what the proportion domestic usage is to
industrial usage; I do know it's still a significant fraction of total
electricity usage, not "minute".


IF YOU think it's significant, then you must have some idea of what it
*really* is, and some idea of what YOU think is significant?
(based on more than pulling figures from your ass, or misquoting someone
else who pulled them from their ass)


Add to that the fact that most of our (U.S.) electricity comes from
burning fossil fuel (coal, oil or natural gas), one can state with some
confidence that the total contribution to global climate change from
"vampire power" devices is something on the order of 1 to 2 percent.

No you cant!
Sure it's greater than zero, that's all you can really say without any
*facts* to back it up.


Not the primary cause of the problem, but not insignificant either.


And NOT 5-10% either!
"Significant" is obviously open to any interpretation. You are welcome to
yours, and welcome to act as you see fit. I suggest reducing your REAL power
usage before worrying so much about the the last 1%!!!!!

What I object to is taxes and trading schemes which do nothing except
increase prices to consumers and reduce our standard of living, whilst we
merrily increase the global population and make the problem worse. Our
government *encourages* overpopulation by paying baby bonuses, and importing
more immigrants than our local population growth every year. The upshot is
we have national water shortages, and a plan for huge increases in energy
costs.

MrT.

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

Mr.T wrote:

Which is exactly the major problem with the whole GHGE/climate change
debate!

With a strong politic segment having a policy of actively increasing
population whereever they are and having a strong weight at the UN you may
not hear it so as to not offend those easily offended people.

MrT.

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Geoff]

David Nebenzahl wrote:
On 12/3/2009 11:49 PM Mr.T spake thus:

"David Nebenzahl" wrote in message
s.com...

That should be "keep them unplugged all year and save ourselves from
having to make many more megawatts of electricity".

And reduce GHG emissions by 0.00001%??? That will really make a
difference! Should save the planet for another couple of days anyway
I guess. :-)

I don't think so. It's a real energy sink; researchers estimate
phantom power as 5 to 10% of household energy usage.

Those researchers - what kindy were they from ? Clearly hadn't learned
basic arithmetic yet....


geoff

[Geoff]

David Nebenzahl wrote:

It was written by reasonably intelligent and diligent folks


Clearly NOT.

whose judgement I trust.

More fool you then.

geoff

[Geoff]

Peter Larsen wrote:
Mr.T wrote:

Which is exactly the major problem with the whole GHGE/climate change
debate!

With a strong politic segment having a policy of actively increasing
population whereever they are and having a strong weight at the UN
you may not hear it so as to not offend those easily offended people.

MrT.

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

Peter,

Having a 'pronunciation war' just now.

CopenHARgen or CopenHAYgen ?

geoff

[Jerry Peters]

geoff wrote:
David Nebenzahl wrote:
On 12/3/2009 11:49 PM Mr.T spake thus:

"David Nebenzahl" wrote in message
s.com...

That should be "keep them unplugged all year and save ourselves from
having to make many more megawatts of electricity".

And reduce GHG emissions by 0.00001%??? That will really make a
difference! Should save the planet for another couple of days anyway
I guess. :-)

I don't think so. It's a real energy sink; researchers estimate
phantom power as 5 to 10% of household energy usage.

Those researchers - what kindy were they from ? Clearly hadn't learned
basic arithmetic yet....


geoff

Perhaps they were trained at the University of East Anglia. Which
seems to specialize in ways of making data fit their theory.

Jerry

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

geoff wrote:

Having a 'pronunciation war' just now.

CO2 neutral I hope .... O;-)

CopenHARgen

German, as Kopenhagen, widespread because nobody dared correct Danny
Kaye's - in my opinion - misunderstood german style pronounciation, he
probsbly thought he was getting clóser to the danish version, but he wasn't.

or CopenHAYgen ?

GP English, the one to use when speaking english and by being softer closer
to the danish København, literally meaning "traders harbour".

geoff

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[AZ Nomad[_2_]]

On Mon, 7 Dec 2009 10:03:26 +1300, geoff wrote:
David Nebenzahl wrote:
On 12/3/2009 11:49 PM Mr.T spake thus:

"David Nebenzahl" wrote in message
s.com...

That should be "keep them unplugged all year and save ourselves from
having to make many more megawatts of electricity".

And reduce GHG emissions by 0.00001%??? That will really make a
difference! Should save the planet for another couple of days anyway
I guess. :-)

I don't think so. It's a real energy sink; researchers estimate
phantom power as 5 to 10% of household energy usage.

Those researchers - what kindy were they from ? Clearly hadn't learned
basic arithmetic yet....


Their idea of a household doesn't have lights, a fridge, HVAC, or hot water.

[Jerry Peters]

AZ Nomad wrote:
On Mon, 7 Dec 2009 10:03:26 +1300, geoff wrote:
David Nebenzahl wrote:
On 12/3/2009 11:49 PM Mr.T spake thus:

"David Nebenzahl" wrote in message
s.com...

That should be "keep them unplugged all year and save ourselves from
having to make many more megawatts of electricity".

And reduce GHG emissions by 0.00001%??? That will really make a
difference! Should save the planet for another couple of days anyway
I guess. :-)

I don't think so. It's a real energy sink; researchers estimate
phantom power as 5 to 10% of household energy usage.

Those researchers - what kindy were they from ? Clearly hadn't learned
basic arithmetic yet....


Their idea of a household doesn't have lights, a fridge, HVAC, or hot water.

Or an electric stove, washing machine, and dryer. Hmm, perhaps
something like a dorm room with maybe a mini-fridge and hotplate? With
a lot of electronic gadgets of course. Then you might get into the
5-10% usage range.

Jerry

[AZ Nomad[_2_]]

On Sun, 6 Dec 2009 22:57:20 +0000 (UTC), Jerry Peters wrote:
AZ Nomad wrote:
On Mon, 7 Dec 2009 10:03:26 +1300, geoff wrote:
David Nebenzahl wrote:
On 12/3/2009 11:49 PM Mr.T spake thus:

"David Nebenzahl" wrote in message
s.com...

That should be "keep them unplugged all year and save ourselves from
having to make many more megawatts of electricity".

And reduce GHG emissions by 0.00001%??? That will really make a
difference! Should save the planet for another couple of days anyway
I guess. :-)

I don't think so. It's a real energy sink; researchers estimate
phantom power as 5 to 10% of household energy usage.

Those researchers - what kindy were they from ? Clearly hadn't learned
basic arithmetic yet....


Their idea of a household doesn't have lights, a fridge, HVAC, or hot water.

Or an electric stove, washing machine, and dryer. Hmm, perhaps
something like a dorm room with maybe a mini-fridge and hotplate? With
a lot of electronic gadgets of course. Then you might get into the
5-10% usage range.

More like a motel 6 with a TV and nothing else. However, even a motel 6
has lighting.

[Geoff]

AZ Nomad wrote:

Their idea of a household doesn't have lights, a fridge, HVAC, or hot
water.

And taken WHEN nobody home, and/or not averaged over a typical whole day.

geoff

[Geoff]

Peter Larsen wrote:
geoff wrote:

Having a 'pronunciation war' just now.

CO2 neutral I hope .... O;-)

CopenHARgen

German, as Kopenhagen, widespread because nobody dared correct Danny
Kaye's - in my opinion - misunderstood german style pronounciation, he
probsbly thought he was getting clóser to the danish version, but he
wasn't.
or CopenHAYgen ?

GP English, the one to use when speaking english and by being softer
closer to the danish København, literally meaning "traders harbour".

Don't call that horrible northern UK "short A", GP English !

geoff

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

geoff wrote:

Peter Larsen wrote:
geoff wrote:

Having a 'pronunciation war' just now.

CO2 neutral I hope .... O;-)

CopenHARgen

German, as Kopenhagen, widespread because nobody dared correct Danny
Kaye's - in my opinion - misunderstood german style pronounciation,
he probsbly thought he was getting clóser to the danish version, but
he wasn't.

or CopenHAYgen ?

GP English, the one to use when speaking english and by being softer
closer to the danish København, literally meaning "traders harbour".

Don't call that horrible northern UK "short A", GP English !

??????? ... read again, Copenh gen, us style a is NOT short,
a(y)

The short a is the german style Copenha(r)Gen.

geoff

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Trevor Wilson]

Mr.T wrote:
"David Nebenzahl" wrote in message
s.com...
LBNL [Lawrence Berkeley Nat'l Lab.] calculated that
videocassette recorders (VCRs) consumed more electricity over
the course of a year in standby mode than while actively
recording or playing.

No argument, but still only a *MINUTE* fraction of total energy
consumption! Your citation simply doesn't support your theory.

5-10% of household consumption *minute*????


It IS minute and it's NOT 5-10% of *TOTAL* electricity consumption.
And a *totally* insignificant proportion of total GHGE which is
caused by far more than electricity usage.
But do feel free to provide PROOF of exactly what proportion of
*TOTAL* GHGE is caused by standby power consumption, I'm sure lots of
people would be very interested in your *scientific* research.

**I'm disputing your points. The big problems are water heating, space
heating and cooling, pool filters and the other stuff. FWIW: I measured my
STB in standby. 20 Watts! 22 Watts when operating. I just purchased a new
PVR from the same manufacturer. Fortunately, they've learned their lessons.
It consumes 0.6 Watts in standby.

IMO, mandatory low power consumption in standby is a very important step.

--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au