phil-news-nospam@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> On Wed, 07 May 2008 18:41:06 -0400 RobertVA
<robert_c72athotmail@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> | phil-news-nospam@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> |> On Wed, 07 May 2008 08:10:39 -0400 Agent_C
<Agent-C-hates-spam@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> |> | On Tue, 06 May 2008 22:32:08 -0600, root <no@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> |> |
> |> |>I shut the HDTV off (Philips 42PFL7422D/37) first with the remote,
then with a power strip to eliminate power usage when I'm not using it.
Any drawbacks to this, other than a slower turn on time? I am concerned
about the electronics blowing out because there seems to be some sort of
trauma to the thing when the plug is pulled.
> |> |
> |> | I'm a firm believer in using electronics the way they were
engineered.
> |> | In the case of most all flat panel TV's, that means leaving them
> |> | plugged in and using the power button on the unit, or the remote
> |> | control to turn them on.
> |>
> |> I'm a firm believer in not using electronics the way they were
mis-engineered.
> |> I'm also a firm believer in using energy efficiently, and not using
when it is
> |> not needed.
> |>
> |>
> |> | In the case of my Sony, it avoids having to go through a PITA
> |> | initialization routine every time its cold started.
> |>
> |> In the case of Sony, it is clearly very poorly engineered, especially
at the
> |> software level, if it can't complete its bootup and initialization
withn in
> |> second or two. It doesn't need to be starting up a web database.
> |>
> |>
> |> | I think FAR too much is made of this tiny trickle of power they
> |> | consume while not in use, and it's often grossly overstated. For
> |> | example, I read in a brochure from Con Edison, that some appliances
> |> | use 'as mush as 25%' of their power while not in use; that's just
> |> | patently false and misleading.
> |>
> |> A few actually do use as much as 25%. Most use about 5% to 10%.
> |>
> |> A friend of mine with a large CRT-type TV found that his TV was using
65 watts
> |> of power when off, and about 350 watts when on.
> |>
> |> Would you leave a 60-watt lightbulb on that was not lightning up
anything that
> |> is used most of the time, just so you'd have the light just a bit
quicker than
> |> if you had to turn it on by hand, a few times a day you go into that
room?
> |
> | If "a bit quicker" meant moving furniture around to reach the outlet
to
> | plug it in and again to unplug it when I'm through with the lamp I
> | would. With some electronics this would instead involve scanning
> | channels for a digital tuner, maintaining the contents of a program
> | guide, waiting to reload the decryption authorizations for a
> | cable/satellite STB, setting a clock or charging an MP3 player.
>
> I've yet to see a lamp, such as a table lamp, where the integrated
on/off
> switch doesn't really turn it all the way off. So you would not need to
> do that with a lamp. Just turn the lamp off and it's off.
>
> FYI, many, but not all, computer PSUs have a switch on the back that
really
> turns them off. Does yours? Do you use it when turning your computer
off?
Actually I do have a lamp I don't want to replace that has a
non-functioning oddball switch that would be hard to replace.
Fortunately that lamp is in a location where I like to leave it
operating all evening, so I've equipped it with a compact florescent and
a timer.
Nope, I'm not getting on my hands and knees to reach the back of CPU's
power supply and if I were to move the UPS to a position that isn't
equally inconvenient I'd be tripping over it or all the cords coming out
of it (CPU, monitor, modem, router, speakers, scanner, printer, external
hard drive etc).
|
