[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]

"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

[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

[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]

"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

[Laurence Payne]

On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 12:33:24 +1000, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:

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.

Want to just run that past us again? :-)

[dizzy]

Trevor Wilson wrote:

**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.

Wow! Good for you! Now, tell me how efficient the generators at your
electrical plant are!

Sheesh!

There are no magical 100% efficient heaters that aren't getting a
"free ride" from something upstream, guy.

I'll say it again: 90% efficiency is not bad. Remember that I'm
speaking of gas or oil-burners, for which there is generally NO
practical replacement in colder climates (except "100% efficient"
electric heat, and most electricity has to be generated by burning
something anyway).

A electic space heater is NOT clearly "less wasteful" than 90%
efficient gas heat, despite the fact the electric heater itself is
100% efficient.

Get it now?

[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

[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

[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

[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 ,
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.

[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?

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article ,
Laurence Payne lpayne1NOSPAM@dslDOTpipexDOTcom 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?

Which part of 'heater' escaped you?

If you wish to include the mining and transmission of the fuel used either
to burnt directly or used to generate electricity it's a whole new ball
game.

--
*Hard work pays off in the future. Laziness pays off now *

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

[Laurence Payne]

On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 13:57:50 +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?

Which part of 'heater' escaped you?

If you wish to include the mining and transmission of the fuel used either
to burnt directly or used to generate electricity it's a whole new ball
game.

Indeed. And you have to, don't you?

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article ,
Laurence Payne lpayne1NOSPAM@dslDOTpipexDOTcom wrote:
On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 13:57:50 +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?

Which part of 'heater' escaped you?

If you wish to include the mining and transmission of the fuel used
either to burnt directly or used to generate electricity it's a whole
new ball game.

Indeed. And you have to, don't you?

Yes. If only successive governments realised the same. The vast supplies
of natural gas we had - ideal for domestic heating - were wasted on
attempting to provide cheap electricity for a limited period. Now we'll
all pay the price of having to import the stuff.

--
*Give me ambiguity or give me something else.

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

[jakdedert]

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Laurence Payne lpayne1NOSPAM@dslDOTpipexDOTcom 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?

Which part of 'heater' escaped you?

If you wish to include the mining and transmission of the fuel used either
to burnt directly or used to generate electricity it's a whole new ball
game.

As the thread has slipped into a discussion of conserving global
resources, overall efficiency from source to end-user seems germane.

That's where the thread was headed.

jak

[dizzy]

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

Laurence Payne lpayne1NOSPAM@dslDOTpipexDOTcom 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?

Which part of 'heater' escaped you?

If you wish to include the mining and transmission of the fuel used either
to burnt directly or used to generate electricity it's a whole new ball
game.

We must play that ball game, when some snooty snob (not you) says "how
wasteful" when the issue of 90% efficient furnaces comes up, and brags
about his "nothing is wasted" space heaters.

[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

[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.