http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living?hl=en
misc.consumers.frugal-living@googlegroups.com
Today's topics:
* Range clock - Disconnect it! - 23 messages, 9 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/3e2a7ad7ec279de4?hl=en
* Richard Branson and an alternative to eBay - 2 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/1e60826ab353aaf4?hl=en
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Range clock - Disconnect it!
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/3e2a7ad7ec279de4?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 23 ==
Date: Sun, Jun 1 2008 1:48 pm
From: Anthony Matonak
Tony Hwang wrote:
> David Nebenzahl wrote:
...
>> A guy here at UC Berkeley has done research showing that all these
>> things--wall warts, devices that power LEDs, etc.--use a trememdous
>> amount of electricity when added up.
>>
> No kidding! But if the clock is disconnected can't do timed use of oven!
How many people use the timer on an oven? What kinds of food can
you leave in an oven for many hours without it going bad on you?
Anthony
== 2 of 23 ==
Date: Sun, Jun 1 2008 2:37 pm
From: David Nebenzahl
On 6/1/2008 1:43 PM Rod Speed spake thus:
> David Nebenzahl <nobody@but.us.chickens> wrote
>> Rod Speed wrote
>>> Bill <billnomailnospamx@yahoo.com> wrote
>
>>>> The clock on my range has never kept correct time, yet it keeps
>>>> running and using electricity. (Small amount, but many little
>>>> things like this can add up.)
>
>>> No they cant.
>
>> Yes, they can, and do.
>
> Nope, not with an electric range where the time you have one of the
> plates on for has a MUCH more important effect on the electricity used.
The fact that the burners use a lot more electricity doesn't change the
fact that things like clocks, wall warts, etc., still use small amounts
of electricity, and when added together constitute a significant
fraction of energy usage.
The point is that if the clock isn't serving any useful purpose, then
disconnecting it to save electricity (an admittedly small amount, but
see above) is a good thing to do.
--
The best argument against democracy is a five-minute
conversation with the average voter.
- Attributed to Winston Churchill
== 3 of 23 ==
Date: Sun, Jun 1 2008 2:46 pm
From: Jeff Wisnia
Rod Speed wrote:
> val189 <gwehrenb@bellsouth.net> wrote
>
>>Bill <billnomailnosp...@yahoo.com> wrote
>
>
>>>The clock on my range has never kept correct time, yet it keeps
>>>running and using electricity. (Small amount, but many little things
>>>like this can add up.)
It's sort of hard to believe that it wasn't keeping correct time. Was
there perhaps a "cook timer" function operated by a little knob in the
center of the clock face? That's where the one on our stove's clock is,
and if you don't do the cook timer setting function correctly you can
advance the time on the clock.
Plus, you can't set the clock "backwards", so if you advance it say 10
minutes by clumsy setting of the cook timer the only way to reset the
time is to crank the minute hand around almost twelve rotations,
someting SWMBO never sees a need to do.
>
>
>>>So I pulled my electric range out from the wall, unplugged it, and
>>>disconnected the clock. (Only do this if you know what you are doing.)
>
>
>>>I already have many electronic things on power strips and turn off the
>>>power strips when not in use. These things use electricity all the time...
>
>
>>Now.....you be SURE to disconnect the fridge lights,
>>oven light, and rip out the range hood while you're at it.
>
>
>>Never knew about power strips...anyone care to dispute that?
>
>
> He didnt say that the power strip itself uses any power, just that he uses
> power strips as a convenient way to turn off what isnt used all the time,
> most obviously plug packs/wall warts that so many of the smaller devices
> use now, and other stuff that isnt normally turned off when not in use.
>
>
Some power strips do use power. To light up the little pilot lamp which
indicates that the strip's switch is on.
I wonder (but am too lazy to calculate) how long that light would have
to be left on to add a penny to your electric bill. <G>
--
Jeffry Wisnia
(W1BSV + Brass Rat '57 EE)
The speed of light is 1.98*10^14 fathoms per fortnight.
== 4 of 23 ==
Date: Sun, Jun 1 2008 3:00 pm
From:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"dpb" <none@non.net> wrote in message news:g1uq3v$fff$1@aioe.org...
> Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
I'm quite certain my wife would
> not do w/o the auto-start feature and am even more certain she'd never
> accept black. :)
>
Interesting. I've never used an auto-start in my life, and have no idea why
anyone would ever want to, and all my appliance are black :)
== 5 of 23 ==
Date: Sun, Jun 1 2008 2:53 pm
From: George
David Nebenzahl wrote:
> On 6/1/2008 11:59 AM Rod Speed spake thus:
>
>> Bill <billnomailnospamx@yahoo.com> wrote
>>
>>> The clock on my range has never kept correct time, yet it keeps
>>> running and using electricity. (Small amount, but many little
>>> things like this can add up.)
>>
>> No they cant.
>
> Yes, they can, and do.
>
> Haven't you noticed that even the power companies themselves (like PG&E
> here) are running ad campaigns advising people to get rid of all those
> "phantom" electricity users?
>
> A guy here at UC Berkeley has done research showing that all these
> things--wall warts, devices that power LEDs, etc.--use a trememdous
> amount of electricity when added up.
>
>
For sure, slow and steady always wins the race. In this case it is
waste. People tend to focus on big things but it is the small wasteful
or efficient things multiplied by hundreds of millions of users that
really ad up. Those cheepo wall wart power supplies waste power in two
ways. One is standby loss. Assume they loose a low 3W/each and you have
10. That is a waste of 22.32kwh/month per home just having them plugged
in and not even doing anything useful.
Then the cheepo power supplies are quite inefficient when powering a
load. I have read that the waste is collectively over 50 billion
kwh/year in the US.
== 6 of 23 ==
Date: Sun, Jun 1 2008 2:54 pm
From: Jeff Wisnia
David Nebenzahl wrote:
> On 6/1/2008 1:43 PM Rod Speed spake thus:
>
>> David Nebenzahl <nobody@but.us.chickens> wrote
>>
>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>
>>>> Bill <billnomailnospamx@yahoo.com> wrote
>>
>>
>>>>> The clock on my range has never kept correct time, yet it keeps
>>>>> running and using electricity. (Small amount, but many little
>>>>> things like this can add up.)
>>
>>
>>>> No they cant.
>>
>>
>>> Yes, they can, and do.
>>
>>
>> Nope, not with an electric range where the time you have one of the
>> plates on for has a MUCH more important effect on the electricity used.
>
>
> The fact that the burners use a lot more electricity doesn't change the
> fact that things like clocks, wall warts, etc., still use small amounts
> of electricity, and when added together constitute a significant
> fraction of energy usage.
>
> The point is that if the clock isn't serving any useful purpose, then
> disconnecting it to save electricity (an admittedly small amount, but
> see above) is a good thing to do.
>
>
Has anyone thought about how much wasted electricity we'd be saving now
if the utilities could have forseen the eventual spike in energy cost
and used heavier conductors for their runs?
I'd expect that the added cost of the copper or aluminum needed to
reduce resistive losses in all those distribution wires by making them
thicker would get paid off pretty fast at today's fuel costs.
(It's a good thing Edison didn't win out, or we'd still be distributing
electricity at 110 volts DC throughout our power systems, with even
greater transmission losses. <G>)
Jeff
--
Jeffry Wisnia
(W1BSV + Brass Rat '57 EE)
The speed of light is 1.98*10^14 fathoms per fortnight.
== 7 of 23 ==
Date: Sun, Jun 1 2008 2:57 pm
From: George
Anthony Matonak wrote:
> Tony Hwang wrote:
>> David Nebenzahl wrote:
> ...
>>> A guy here at UC Berkeley has done research showing that all these
>>> things--wall warts, devices that power LEDs, etc.--use a trememdous
>>> amount of electricity when added up.
>>>
>> No kidding! But if the clock is disconnected can't do timed use of oven!
>
> How many people use the timer on an oven? What kinds of food can
> you leave in an oven for many hours without it going bad on you?
>
> Anthony
I don't believe ovens have had delayed start for a long time due to
safety reasons but most have cooking length timers. We use ours all of
the time mainly as a reminder when to remove the food. But it wouldn't
be a major deal if it didn't have a timer because there are lots of
inexpensive windup or electronic timers that could be substituted.
== 8 of 23 ==
Date: Sun, Jun 1 2008 3:03 pm
From: CJT
Jeff Wisnia wrote:
> Rod Speed wrote:
>
>> val189 <gwehrenb@bellsouth.net> wrote
>>
>>> Bill <billnomailnosp...@yahoo.com> wrote
>>
>>
>>
>>>> The clock on my range has never kept correct time, yet it keeps
>>>> running and using electricity. (Small amount, but many little things
>>>> like this can add up.)
>
>
> It's sort of hard to believe that it wasn't keeping correct time. Was
> there perhaps a "cook timer" function operated by a little knob in the
> center of the clock face? That's where the one on our stove's clock is,
> and if you don't do the cook timer setting function correctly you can
> advance the time on the clock.
>
> Plus, you can't set the clock "backwards", so if you advance it say 10
> minutes by clumsy setting of the cook timer the only way to reset the
> time is to crank the minute hand around almost twelve rotations,
> someting SWMBO never sees a need to do.
>
>>
>>
>>>> So I pulled my electric range out from the wall, unplugged it, and
>>>> disconnected the clock. (Only do this if you know what you are doing.)
>>
>>
>>
>>>> I already have many electronic things on power strips and turn off the
>>>> power strips when not in use. These things use electricity all the
>>>> time...
>>
>>
>>
>>> Now.....you be SURE to disconnect the fridge lights,
>>> oven light, and rip out the range hood while you're at it.
>>
>>
>>
>>> Never knew about power strips...anyone care to dispute that?
>>
>>
>>
>> He didnt say that the power strip itself uses any power, just that he
>> uses
>> power strips as a convenient way to turn off what isnt used all the time,
>> most obviously plug packs/wall warts that so many of the smaller devices
>> use now, and other stuff that isnt normally turned off when not in use.
>>
>
>
> Some power strips do use power. To light up the little pilot lamp which
> indicates that the strip's switch is on.
>
> I wonder (but am too lazy to calculate) how long that light would have
> to be left on to add a penny to your electric bill. <G>
>
I think it'll light for a year on about a penny.
--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form che...@prodigy.net.
== 9 of 23 ==
Date: Sun, Jun 1 2008 3:04 pm
From: Wayne Boatwright
On Sun 01 Jun 2008 01:48:42p, Anthony Matonak told us...
> Tony Hwang wrote:
>> David Nebenzahl wrote: ...
>>> A guy here at UC Berkeley has done research showing that all these
>>> things--wall warts, devices that power LEDs, etc.--use a trememdous
>>> amount of electricity when added up.
>>>
>> No kidding! But if the clock is disconnected can't do timed use of oven!
>
> How many people use the timer on an oven? What kinds of food can
> you leave in an oven for many hours without it going bad on you?
>
> Anthony
>
That's only half of the reason to leave it connected. Most modern ranges
have an electronic clock combined with the controls to set the temperature
and turn the oven on and off. You disconnect that and you won't ever bake
again.
Now, if you range is 30 years old, that's another story (usually).
Apart from the clock/timer on a range, most other "always on" devices have
a reason for always being on. If unplugged or disconnected, you generally
have to reset all the options every time you plug the device in. Good
examples are VCR and DVD recorders, coffeemakers with programmable cycles,
almost anything that stores settings.
Yes, you're paying for the convenience of using that energy, but it's
terribly inconvenient if you don't.
--
Wayne Boatwright
-------------------------------------------
Sunday, 06(VI)/01(I)/08(MMVIII)
-------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------
Be kind to your inferiors, if you can
find any.
-------------------------------------------
== 10 of 23 ==
Date: Sun, Jun 1 2008 3:09 pm
From: CJT
Wayne Boatwright wrote:
<snip>
>
> Apart from the clock/timer on a range, most other "always on" devices have
> a
poor
reason for always being on. If unplugged or disconnected, you generally
> have to reset all the options every time you plug the
poorly designed
device in. Good
> examples are
poorly designed
VCR and DVD recorders, coffeemakers with programmable cycles,
> almost anything that stores settings
in volatile memory instead of the correct way
.
<snip>
--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form che...@prodigy.net.
== 11 of 23 ==
Date: Sun, Jun 1 2008 3:17 pm
From: George
Jeff Wisnia wrote:
> David Nebenzahl wrote:
>
>> On 6/1/2008 1:43 PM Rod Speed spake thus:
>>
>>> David Nebenzahl <nobody@but.us.chickens> wrote
>>>
>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>
>>>>> Bill <billnomailnospamx@yahoo.com> wrote
>>>
>>>
>>>>>> The clock on my range has never kept correct time, yet it keeps
>>>>>> running and using electricity. (Small amount, but many little
>>>>>> things like this can add up.)
>>>
>>>
>>>>> No they cant.
>>>
>>>
>>>> Yes, they can, and do.
>>>
>>>
>>> Nope, not with an electric range where the time you have one of the
>>> plates on for has a MUCH more important effect on the electricity used.
>>
>>
>> The fact that the burners use a lot more electricity doesn't change
>> the fact that things like clocks, wall warts, etc., still use small
>> amounts of electricity, and when added together constitute a
>> significant fraction of energy usage.
>>
>> The point is that if the clock isn't serving any useful purpose, then
>> disconnecting it to save electricity (an admittedly small amount, but
>> see above) is a good thing to do.
>>
>>
>
> Has anyone thought about how much wasted electricity we'd be saving now
> if the utilities could have forseen the eventual spike in energy cost
> and used heavier conductors for their runs?
>
> I'd expect that the added cost of the copper or aluminum needed to
> reduce resistive losses in all those distribution wires by making them
> thicker would get paid off pretty fast at today's fuel costs.
They generally deal with that by increasing system voltage levels and
keeping the voltage as high as possible until they reach the point of
utilization. For example the two transmission lines that come into my
area used to be 120kV and last year they increased them to 240kV.
>
> (It's a good thing Edison didn't win out, or we'd still be distributing
> electricity at 110 volts DC throughout our power systems, with even
> greater transmission losses. <G>)
>
> Jeff
>
DC high voltage transmission lines have lower losses and are less
expensive to build. They use solid state convertors at each end. 500 kV
was the max for a while and I know the Canadians have a line in service
for at least 20 years that operates at 735 kV DC and I read that the
Chinese recently started construction of a 800 kV DC transmission line.
== 12 of 23 ==
Date: Sun, Jun 1 2008 3:22 pm
From: David Nebenzahl
On 6/1/2008 3:09 PM CJT spake thus:
> Wayne Boatwright wrote:
> <snip>
> device in. Good
>> examples are
>
> poorly designed
>
> VCR and DVD recorders, coffeemakers with programmable cycles,
>> almost anything that stores settings
>
> in volatile memory instead of the correct way
Right. Can you say "NOVRAM"?
--
The best argument against democracy is a five-minute
conversation with the average voter.
- Attributed to Winston Churchill
== 13 of 23 ==
Date: Sun, Jun 1 2008 3:20 pm
From: "Rod Speed"
Jeff Wisnia <jwisnia@conversent.net> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> val189 <gwehrenb@bellsouth.net> wrote
>>> Bill <billnomailnosp...@yahoo.com> wrote
>>>> The clock on my range has never kept correct time, yet it keeps running and using electricity. (Small amount, but
>>>> many little things like this can add up.)
> It's sort of hard to believe that it wasn't keeping correct time. Was
> there perhaps a "cook timer" function operated by a little knob in the
> center of the clock face? That's where the one on our stove's clock
> is, and if you don't do the cook timer setting function correctly you
> can advance the time on the clock.
> Plus, you can't set the clock "backwards", so if you advance it say 10
> minutes by clumsy setting of the cook timer the only way to reset the
> time is to crank the minute hand around almost twelve rotations,
> someting SWMBO never sees a need to do.
>>>> So I pulled my electric range out from the wall, unplugged it, and
>>>> disconnected the clock. (Only do this if you know what you are doing.)
>>>> I already have many electronic things on power strips and turn off the power strips when not in use. These things
>>>> use electricity all the time...
>>> Now.....you be SURE to disconnect the fridge lights,
>>> oven light, and rip out the range hood while you're at it.
>>> Never knew about power strips...anyone care to dispute that?
>> He didnt say that the power strip itself uses any power, just that
>> he uses power strips as a convenient way to turn off what isnt used
>> all the time, most obviously plug packs/wall warts that so many of
>> the smaller devices use now, and other stuff that isnt normally
>> turned off when not in use.
> Some power strips do use power. To light up the little pilot lamp
> which indicates that the strip's switch is on.
Thats a completely trivial amount of power compared with whats plugged into it.
> I wonder (but am too lazy to calculate) how long that light would have to be left on to add a penny to your electric
> bill. <G>
Try a year or so.
== 14 of 23 ==
Date: Sun, Jun 1 2008 3:22 pm
From: "Rod Speed"
Anthony Matonak <anthonym40@nothing.like.socal.rr.com> wrote
> Tony Hwang wrote
>> David Nebenzahl wrote
>>> A guy here at UC Berkeley has done research showing that all these
>>> things--wall warts, devices that power LEDs, etc.--use a trememdous
>>> amount of electricity when added up.
>> No kidding! But if the clock is disconnected can't do timed use of oven!
> How many people use the timer on an oven? What kinds of food can
> you leave in an oven for many hours without it going bad on you?
The most obvious example is raw meat which you want to start roasting
while you are still out of the house, so its cooked when you show up later.
== 15 of 23 ==
Date: Sun, Jun 1 2008 3:26 pm
From: George
David Nebenzahl wrote:
> On 6/1/2008 3:09 PM CJT spake thus:
>
>> Wayne Boatwright wrote:
>> <snip>
>> device in. Good
>>> examples are
>>
>> poorly designed
>>
>> VCR and DVD recorders, coffeemakers with programmable cycles,
>>> almost anything that stores settings
>>
>> in volatile memory instead of the correct way
>
> Right. Can you say "NOVRAM"?
>
>
Sure, and for cases where power is required all of the time use a high
efficiency switcher instead of the cheap walmart class junk currently in
use.
== 16 of 23 ==
Date: Sun, Jun 1 2008 3:27 pm
From: "Rod Speed"
David Nebenzahl <nobody@but.us.chickens> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> David Nebenzahl <nobody@but.us.chickens> wrote
>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>> Bill <billnomailnospamx@yahoo.com> wrote
>>>>> The clock on my range has never kept correct time, yet it keeps
>>>>> running and using electricity. (Small amount, but many little
>>>>> things like this can add up.)
>>>> No they cant.
>>> Yes, they can, and do.
>> Nope, not with an electric range where the time you have one of the
>> plates on for has a MUCH more important effect on the electricity used.
> The fact that the burners use a lot more electricity doesn't change the fact that things like clocks, wall warts,
> etc., still use small amounts of electricity,
That bit was JUST about the clock. There is no wall wart with a range.
> and when added together constitute a significant fraction of energy usage.
And the clock he stupidly disconnected doesnt.
> The point is that if the clock isn't serving any useful purpose, then
> disconnecting it to save electricity (an admittedly small amount,
Too small an amount to bother about for anyone by a mindless anal obsessive.
> but see above)
See above.
> is a good thing to do.
Nope, completely stupid waste of time.
== 17 of 23 ==
Date: Sun, Jun 1 2008 3:31 pm
From: David Nebenzahl
On 6/1/2008 3:17 PM George spake thus:
> DC high voltage transmission lines have lower losses and are less
> expensive to build. They use solid state convertors at each end. 500 kV
> was the max for a while and I know the Canadians have a line in service
> for at least 20 years that operates at 735 kV DC and I read that the
> Chinese recently started construction of a 800 kV DC transmission line.
Wow; so that old Tesla-Edison debate *isn't* settled science like
everyone wants us to believe, eh?
Got any good reading links on this? I'm curious. And, in a nutshell, why
does DC have lower losses? (Not disputing, just curious.)
--
The best argument against democracy is a five-minute
conversation with the average voter.
- Attributed to Winston Churchill
== 18 of 23 ==
Date: Sun, Jun 1 2008 3:29 pm
From: "Rod Speed"
Jeff Wisnia <jwisnia@conversent.net> wrote
> David Nebenzahl wrote
>> Rod Speed wrote
>>> David Nebenzahl <nobody@but.us.chickens> wrote
>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>> Bill <billnomailnospamx@yahoo.com> wrote
>>>>>> The clock on my range has never kept correct time, yet it keeps
>>>>>> running and using electricity. (Small amount, but many little
>>>>>> things like this can add up.)
>>>>> No they cant.
>>>> Yes, they can, and do.
>>> Nope, not with an electric range where the time you have one of the
>>> plates on for has a MUCH more important effect on the electricity used.
>> The fact that the burners use a lot more electricity doesn't change
>> the fact that things like clocks, wall warts, etc., still use small
>> amounts of electricity, and when added together constitute a
>> significant fraction of energy usage.
>> The point is that if the clock isn't serving any useful purpose, then
>> disconnecting it to save electricity (an admittedly small amount, but
>> see above) is a good thing to do.
> Has anyone thought about how much wasted electricity we'd be saving now if the utilities could have forseen the
> eventual spike in energy cost and used heavier conductors for their runs?
Yes, the power companys do that all the time.
> I'd expect that the added cost of the copper or aluminum needed to reduce resistive losses in all those distribution
> wires by making them thicker would get paid off pretty fast at today's fuel costs.
Fraid not, essentially because the price of copper has increased dramatically too.
> (It's a good thing Edison didn't win out, or we'd still be
> distributing electricity at 110 volts DC throughout our power
> systems, with even greater transmission losses. <G>)
Nope, that would never have survived the dramatic increase in the use of electricity.
== 19 of 23 ==
Date: Sun, Jun 1 2008 3:44 pm
From: David Nebenzahl
On 6/1/2008 3:27 PM Rod Speed spake thus:
> David Nebenzahl <nobody@but.us.chickens> wrote
>
>> and when added together constitute a significant fraction of energy usage.
>
> And the clock he stupidly disconnected doesnt.
>
>> The point is that if the clock isn't serving any useful purpose, then
>> disconnecting it to save electricity (an admittedly small amount,
>
> Too small an amount to bother about for anyone by a mindless anal obsessive.
You're missing the point, my friend. You're thinking "how much money
will someone save on their electric bill by disconnecting a clock?" (the
answer to which is, of course, practically nothing). I'm talking about
the *collective* energy usage of all those millions of clocks, wall
warts, etc., plugged in out there.
--
The best argument against democracy is a five-minute
conversation with the average voter.
- Attributed to Winston Churchill
== 20 of 23 ==
Date: Sun, Jun 1 2008 3:46 pm
From: Tony Hwang
h wrote:
> "dpb" <none@non.net> wrote in message news:g1uq3v$fff$1@aioe.org...
>
>>Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
>
> I'm quite certain my wife would
>
>>not do w/o the auto-start feature and am even more certain she'd never
>>accept black. :)
>>
>
>
> Interesting. I've never used an auto-start in my life, and have no idea why
> anyone would ever want to, and all my appliance are black :)
>
>
Hi,
Why not?
Don't like the convenience? You or your better wife stays home ll the time?
== 21 of 23 ==
Date: Sun, Jun 1 2008 3:47 pm
From: Tony Hwang
Jeff Wisnia wrote:
> David Nebenzahl wrote:
>
>> On 6/1/2008 1:43 PM Rod Speed spake thus:
>>
>>> David Nebenzahl <nobody@but.us.chickens> wrote
>>>
>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>
>>>>> Bill <billnomailnospamx@yahoo.com> wrote
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>> The clock on my range has never kept correct time, yet it keeps
>>>>>> running and using electricity. (Small amount, but many little
>>>>>> things like this can add up.)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>> No they cant.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Yes, they can, and do.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Nope, not with an electric range where the time you have one of the
>>> plates on for has a MUCH more important effect on the electricity used.
>>
>>
>>
>> The fact that the burners use a lot more electricity doesn't change
>> the fact that things like clocks, wall warts, etc., still use small
>> amounts of electricity, and when added together constitute a
>> significant fraction of energy usage.
>>
>> The point is that if the clock isn't serving any useful purpose, then
>> disconnecting it to save electricity (an admittedly small amount, but
>> see above) is a good thing to do.
>>
>>
>
> Has anyone thought about how much wasted electricity we'd be saving now
> if the utilities could have forseen the eventual spike in energy cost
> and used heavier conductors for their runs?
>
> I'd expect that the added cost of the copper or aluminum needed to
> reduce resistive losses in all those distribution wires by making them
> thicker would get paid off pretty fast at today's fuel costs.
>
> (It's a good thing Edison didn't win out, or we'd still be distributing
> electricity at 110 volts DC throughout our power systems, with even
> greater transmission losses. <G>)
>
> Jeff
>
Hi,
No kidding. I wonder what kinda car the OP'er drives.
== 22 of 23 ==
Date: Sun, Jun 1 2008 3:48 pm
From: Tony Hwang
George wrote:
> Anthony Matonak wrote:
>
>> Tony Hwang wrote:
>>
>>> David Nebenzahl wrote:
>>
>> ...
>>
>>>> A guy here at UC Berkeley has done research showing that all these
>>>> things--wall warts, devices that power LEDs, etc.--use a trememdous
>>>> amount of electricity when added up.
>>>>
>>> No kidding! But if the clock is disconnected can't do timed use of oven!
>>
>>
>> How many people use the timer on an oven? What kinds of food can
>> you leave in an oven for many hours without it going bad on you?
>>
>> Anthony
>
>
> I don't believe ovens have had delayed start for a long time due to
> safety reasons but most have cooking length timers. We use ours all of
> the time mainly as a reminder when to remove the food. But it wouldn't
> be a major deal if it didn't have a timer because there are lots of
> inexpensive windup or electronic timers that could be substituted.
Hi,
Electronic timer uses energy as well as spring wound ones. Every thing
in this world either produces or uses energy!
== 23 of 23 ==
Date: Sun, Jun 1 2008 3:53 pm
From: Tony Hwang
George wrote:
> Jeff Wisnia wrote:
>
>> David Nebenzahl wrote:
>>
>>> On 6/1/2008 1:43 PM Rod Speed spake thus:
>>>
>>>> David Nebenzahl <nobody@but.us.chickens> wrote
>>>>
>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>
>>>>>> Bill <billnomailnospamx@yahoo.com> wrote
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>> The clock on my range has never kept correct time, yet it keeps
>>>>>>> running and using electricity. (Small amount, but many little
>>>>>>> things like this can add up.)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> No they cant.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Yes, they can, and do.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Nope, not with an electric range where the time you have one of the
>>>> plates on for has a MUCH more important effect on the electricity used.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The fact that the burners use a lot more electricity doesn't change
>>> the fact that things like clocks, wall warts, etc., still use small
>>> amounts of electricity, and when added together constitute a
>>> significant fraction of energy usage.
>>>
>>> The point is that if the clock isn't serving any useful purpose, then
>>> disconnecting it to save electricity (an admittedly small amount, but
>>> see above) is a good thing to do.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Has anyone thought about how much wasted electricity we'd be saving
>> now if the utilities could have forseen the eventual spike in energy
>> cost and used heavier conductors for their runs?
>>
>> I'd expect that the added cost of the copper or aluminum needed to
>> reduce resistive losses in all those distribution wires by making them
>> thicker would get paid off pretty fast at today's fuel costs.
>
>
> They generally deal with that by increasing system voltage levels and
> keeping the voltage as high as possible until they reach the point of
> utilization. For example the two transmission lines that come into my
> area used to be 120kV and last year they increased them to 240kV.
>
>>
>> (It's a good thing Edison didn't win out, or we'd still be
>> distributing electricity at 110 volts DC throughout our power systems,
>> with even greater transmission losses. <G>)
>>
>> Jeff
>>
> DC high voltage transmission lines have lower losses and are less
> expensive to build. They use solid state convertors at each end. 500 kV
> was the max for a while and I know the Canadians have a line in service
> for at least 20 years that operates at 735 kV DC and I read that the
> Chinese recently started construction of a 800 kV DC transmission line.
Whoa!
Prove it with simple Ohm's law. If it is HV, how heavy is the cable
gonna be? Is it EASY to generate HV DC, I mean pure DC?
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Richard Branson and an alternative to eBay
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/1e60826ab353aaf4?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Sun, Jun 1 2008 2:46 pm
From: Weird Beard
On Sun, 01 Jun 2008 15:32:10 GMT, Samantha Hill - remove TRASH to reply
<samhill@TRASHsonic.net> wrote the following in alt.marketing.online.ebay:
> Niel J Humphreys wrote:
>>
>> Really? So why are Ebay sueing Craglist at the moment?
>
> What I understand from reading the people who follow such things is that
> it is ultimately probably a precursor to a hostile takeover attempt,
> which apparently is eBay's standard operating procedure or, if I may,
> their M.O.
Not to say that a hostile takeover is a "nice" thing, but it's not
neccesarily illegal. And if Craigslist really ticked off an employee with
20% stock THAT bad it would've been SOMEBODY if not eBay buying a seat on
the board.
--
"It don't mean a thing if it ain't got that certain je-ne-sais-quoi."
Peter Schickele
== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Sun, Jun 1 2008 3:10 pm
From:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"James E. Morrow" <jamesemorrow@email.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.22ac9008cf1177ac98982a@news.individual.net...
> In article <4842ac5b$0$7718$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>, <h> says...
>>
>> "Dave Liquorice" <allsortsnotthisbit@howhill.com> wrote in message
>> news:nyyfbegfubjuvyypbz.k1sj3p6.pminews@srv1.howhill.net...
>> > On Sun, 1 Jun 2008 10:17:20 +0100, Niel J Humphreys wrote:
>> >
>> >>> and who owns Craigslist.............yes, ebay.
>> >>
>> >> Really? So why are Ebay sueing Craglist at the moment?
>> >
>> > If "eBay" have any trademarks or other patents etc that they feel
>> > "Craigslist" is using without permission they *have* to pursue
>> > "Craigslist" for such infringement. Even if both are owned by the same
>> > "holding" company. Otherwise others can use "eBays" lack of defence of
>> > such things against "eBay" should "eBay" try and take them to court
>> > over
>> > similar "infringements".
>> >
>> > Does that make sense?
>> >
>> > From the borrom of the Craigslist Factsheet:
>> > http://www.craigslist.org/about/factsheet.html
>> >
>> > Q: Is there a connection between craigslist and eBay?
>> > A: eBay acquired 25% of the equity in craigslist from a former
>> > shareholder
>> > in august of 2004.
>> >
>> > So eBay don't own Craigslist outright, they do have a significant
>> > shareholding.
>> >
>> > --
>> > Cheers
>> > Dave.
>> >
>> No, it did not make sense, because between the misspellings, grammatical
>> errors, and the unnecessary quotation marks, what you wrote was nearly
>> unreadable.
>>
>>
>>
>
> You are entitled to your own opinion regarding readability. However his
> post does correctly reflect patent and copyright law. The axiom is
> "Defend it or lose it."
>
I have no idea if that is correct for patents or copyrights, but it is
certainly true for trademarks. I have had to defen my own on several
occasions. The cease and desist letter is your friend :)
==============================================================================
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "misc.consumers.frugal-living"
group.
To post to this group, visit http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living?hl=en
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to misc.consumers.frugal-living-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
To change the way you get mail from this group, visit:
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/subscribe?hl=en
To report abuse, send email explaining the problem to abuse@googlegroups.com
==============================================================================
Google Groups: http://groups.google.com?hl=en
No comments:
Post a Comment