http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living?hl=en
misc.consumers.frugal-living@googlegroups.com
Today's topics:
* Doorbell always uses electricity! - 15 messages, 9 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/3198294a289e9e57?hl=en
* Upcoming Washington Post online discussion - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/f0846ccfd55e4347?hl=en
* do you plant to lower your indoor temp this winter? - 2 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/a259dedc39c3ba0d?hl=en
* Nike Air Jordan 1 - 23 Air Force One Nike Shox Nike TN www.cicigogo.cn - 1
messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/7f08b240c048ee98?hl=en
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Doorbell always uses electricity!
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/3198294a289e9e57?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 15 ==
Date: Sun, Nov 23 2008 7:25 pm
From: don@manx.misty.com (Don Klipstein)
In article <niqii4l1g9aapqul39t7ot2oalisq1blue@4ax.com>, PeterD wrote:
>On Sat, 22 Nov 2008 16:40:02 -0800, "Bill"
><billnomailnospamx@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>This thread has seemed to hit a nerve!
>>
>>Why are so many people getting upset that I am working to eliminate "vampire
>>loads" in my house and reduce my electric bill?
>>
>>Anyway here are the facts about "vampire power" for those who are interested
>>in this (can be 5% of your electric bill and 75% of the power for electronic
>>things is used while the devices are turned off!)....
>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standby_power
>>
>
>Pleae do not confuse Wikipedia for facts. As to that 75% number, it is
>highly suspect.
>
>Again, a simple cost/benefit analysis would show the best path to
>follow. However, simple math is beyond many people who blindly follow
>whatever the current fad is (be it global warming, electric cars, or
>whatever) in an attempt to appear 'on top of things', and 'all wise'.
>
>In the end, sure you can save a few penny's of electricity, and spend
>dollars doing so.
<SNIP from here>
Putting in a little effort can decrease idling load by maybe 20 watts,
give or take (with major variation from household to household). That
amounts to about 175 KWH per year, or roughly about $20 per year at
current average residential electricity rates.
I really ought to get a power strip for my TV. Most of the energy it
consumes is consumed while it is off. Same is true of my DTV box. If my
computer system was not on a power strip, most of the energy consumed by
my printer and cable modem (and its wallwart) would be consumed while they
are off. If not for the power strip, about 5% of the energy consumed by
my monitor and 20% of the energy consumed by the contents of my tower case
would be consumed while they were off. And over 90% of the energy
consumed by my landline phone is consumed while it is on standby.
That 75% number sounds high to me - I think more like 30%, possibly
40%, which is still a lot.
- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)
== 2 of 15 ==
Date: Sun, Nov 23 2008 7:41 pm
From: don@manx.misty.com (Don Klipstein)
In <832f099d-1b47-43f2-b0ff-4c2b04f18187@z1g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
terry wrote:
>On Nov 23, 11:40 am, PeterD <pet...@hipson.net> wrote:
>> On Sat, 22 Nov 2008 16:40:02 -0800, "Bill"
>>
>> <billnomailnosp...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >This thread has seemed to hit a nerve!
>>
>> >Why are so many people getting upset that I am working to eliminate "vampire
>> >loads" in my house and reduce my electric bill?
>>
>> >Anyway here are the facts about "vampire power" for those who are interested
>> >in this (can be 5% of your electric bill and 75% of the power for electronic
>> >things is used while the devices are turned off!)....
>> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standby_power
>>
>> Please do not confuse Wikipedia for facts. As to that 75% number, it is
>> highly suspect.
>>
>> Again, a simple cost/benefit analysis would show the best path to
>> follow. However, simple math is beyond many people who blindly follow
>> whatever the current fad is (be it global warming, electric cars, or
>> whatever) in an attempt to appear 'on top of things', and 'all wise'.
>>
>> In the end, sure you can save a few penny's of electricity, and spend
>> dollars doing so. And perhaps you feel good doing it that way. Fine,
>> it's your house, as long as no one else gets hurt, go for it. But, if
>> you are really interested in saving money (or energy) then I'd
>> recommend thinking about what you are doing, looking at real numbers,
>> analyzing the various factors (including items such as startup
>> current) and seeing what is the real best solution.
>
>Exactly. What interested people here I think was the the fallacy and
>futility of worrying about a minuscule amount of wasted energy;
>equivalent perhaps to the home heat lost during time taken to have the
>front door open on a cold day to bring in a few bags of groceries!
175 KWH ballpark is what it takes to recover from letting cold air while
bringing in groceries?
>It's heartening though that in this day and age of wasteful and
>prodigal monster homes, jacuzzi and swimming pool styles of living,
>V8 Hummers etc. (A situation possibly being currently amended by
>'tightening our belts'?) is that there is awareness and interest in
>WHAT IS WORTH DOING to conserve.
WHAT IS WORTH DOING includes atacking all worthwhile fronts, not just
the most worthwhile one. (And no, I don't drive a V8 anything. When I
drive a personal vehicle for personal use, it is usually the Bianchi. And
the other one has an aerodynamic body, 6-cylinder engine designed for
fuel economy more than horsepower and a tranny with a lockup torque
converter.)
>What seems to escape many is that by spending many dollars to use
>manufactured items one only saves a few cents worth of energy.
I think a couple power strips can fairly easily save about $20 per year.
> All manufactured items require resources and energy to manufacture. For
>example how much elctrcity is required say, to refine iron ore, make
>galvanized sheet steel and stamp out an electrical outlet box, along
>with the energy required to run the factory in which it is made,
>package it, transport it to a local retail outlet, stock the shelves,
>buy or have screws to mount, bring it home, etc. etc. ??????
The price to buy it has to cover the cost of the energy used to produce
and transport it, as well as taxes and overhead and labor.
>A neighbour (driven by a wife with virtually zero technical
>appreciation) has gone all CFLs. Even for those locations where lights
>are only used occasionally. Each CFL costs around $3 compared to the
>25 cent el-cheapos I use and requires several manufacturing operations
>involving electronic components and a very small amount of mercury.
A decent CFL actually reduces mercury contribution to the environment by
reducing coal burning. But I do agree in using them only where
appropriate - they tend to not be appropriate for use where they have
little on-time and the on-time in short usages.
>But their electricity consumption has changed little.
>Why? Because they like most here they use electrcity for heating.
You think most people have resistive electric heat?
> So any waste heat from 'inefficient' old fashioned incandescent light
>bulbs does not contribute to warming the home; likewise an
>'inefficient' fridge etc. lost heat from an electric hot water tank
>etc.
What about in homes with oil or gas heat? Electric resstive heating at
usual electrical cost rates costs more than oil or gas for heating. What
about in homes with heat pumps - where electricity consumption is only
half the energy heating the home (the other half is pumped in from
outside)? What about when it is not heating season? What about when it
is air conditioning season - when energy is consumed to pump the heat out?
>One item that does waste heat energy is a clothes dryer; it just
>chucks warm damp air outside for some 20 to 30 minutes each time it is
>run. Hey must cost that out! We run ours as little as possible and
>whenver weather allows dry heavy items, blankets, towels etc. on our
>two cothes lines. See item on clothe line supports.
- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)
== 3 of 15 ==
Date: Sun, Nov 23 2008 7:48 pm
From: clare@snyder.on.ca
On Sun, 23 Nov 2008 16:58:51 -0800 (PST), "hallerb@aol.com"
<hallerb@aol.com> wrote:
>On Nov 23, 7:45?pm, Dave Garland <dave.garl...@wizinfo.com> wrote:
>> Bill wrote:
>> > Seems to me someone wants everyone to be using more electricity!
>>
>> It's not that no problem exists. ?You've said that you've *saved* over
>> $120/mo in electricity (more than twice as much as my entire electric
>> bill!). ?Clearly somewhere in your house there are things pulling
>> massive amounts of power.
>>
>> What most of us are saying is that things like doorbell transformers and
>> wall warts don't consume enough electricity to be significant in this.
>> ? Now, unplugging unused wall warts isn't a bad idea. ?I've got most of
>> the ones I use to recharge batteries plugged into an outlet strip, and
>> only turn it on when I'm recharging something. ?But I don't know if I'm
>> recouping enough money to pay for the (cheap) outlet strip. ?Where you
>> need to look is 1) things that make heat (esp. electric heaters,
>> furnaces, stoves, and water heaters, for the most part stuff like hair
>> driers, coffee makers, waffle irons, etc. aren't turned on for long
>> enough to be of major significance if you're not living in a restaurant
>> or hair salon), 2) things with powerful electric motors (A/C, heat
>> pumps, dehumidifiers, blowers, refrigerators and freezers), and 3)
>> incandescent (including halogen) bulbs that are on for long periods.
>> Pretty much in that order. ?Those things are where your payback can be
>> real, and large.
>>
>> Dave
>
>the outlet strip likely has a power on light of some sort wasting
>power when its on..
>
>individually the amount wasted is likely small, however nationwide for
>everyone it must add up and waste is waste.....
>
>given global change and energy costs the less waste the better.
>
>and my retired engineer pointed out things can be more efficent if you
>design it this way.
>
>its governments job to encourage efficency.
But how do you control it when 95%+ of the crap consuming the
"phantom" power is made in China? They don't play by the US's rules.
== 4 of 15 ==
Date: Sun, Nov 23 2008 7:51 pm
From: "hallerb@aol.com"
On Nov 23, 10:25�pm, d...@manx.misty.com (Don Klipstein) wrote:
> In article <niqii4l1g9aapqul39t7ot2oalisq1b...@4ax.com>, PeterD wrote:
> >On Sat, 22 Nov 2008 16:40:02 -0800, "Bill"
> ><billnomailnosp...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >>This thread has seemed to hit a nerve!
>
> >>Why are so many people getting upset that I am working to eliminate "vampire
> >>loads" in my house and reduce my electric bill?
>
> >>Anyway here are the facts about "vampire power" for those who are interested
> >>in this (can be 5% of your electric bill and 75% of the power for electronic
> >>things is used while the devices are turned off!)....
> >>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standby_power
>
> >Pleae do not confuse Wikipedia for facts. As to that 75% number, it is
> >highly suspect.
>
> >Again, a simple cost/benefit analysis would show the best path to
> >follow. However, simple math is beyond many people who blindly follow
> >whatever the current fad is (be it global warming, electric cars, or
> >whatever) in an attempt to appear 'on top of things', and 'all wise'.
>
> >In the end, sure you can save a few penny's of electricity, and spend
> >dollars doing so.
>
> <SNIP from here>
>
> � Putting in a little effort can decrease idling load by maybe 20 watts,
> give or take (with major variation from household to household). �That
> amounts to about 175 KWH per year, or roughly about $20 per year at
> current average residential electricity rates.
>
> � I really ought to get a power strip for my TV. �Most of the energy it
> consumes is consumed while it is off. �Same is true of my DTV box. �If my
> computer system was not on a power strip, most of the energy consumed by
> my printer and cable modem (and its wallwart) would be consumed while they
> are off. �If not for the power strip, about 5% of the energy consumed by
> my monitor and 20% of the energy consumed by the contents of my tower case
> would be consumed while they were off. �And over 90% of the energy
> consumed by my landline phone is consumed while it is on standby.
>
> � That 75% number sounds high to me - I think more like 30%, possibly
> 40%, which is still a lot.
>
> �- Don Klipstein (d...@misty.com)- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
tv life expectancy and othewr deevices may be less,turned off from
thermal cycle shock.
DTV boxes use idle time to download guide updates and other utilities.
its not a free lunch
== 5 of 15 ==
Date: Sun, Nov 23 2008 7:56 pm
From: don@manx.misty.com (Don Klipstein)
In <jim.redelfs-AE310E.10355123112008@news.west.cox.net>, Jim Redelfs wrote:
>In <2fcb43d1-bc1d-4225-a037-a4686d8e9eb4@t3g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,
> "hallerb@aol.com" <hallerb@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> government should require energy efficency numbers on everything with
>>minimum standards
>
>I respectfully disagree.
>
>It's more than enough that the government has mandated energy efficiency
>labels on MAJOR energy consuming items such as HVAC components, water
>heaters, laundry equipment, refrigerators and freezers.
>
>Mandating testing and labeling for energy efficiency on "everything"
>from toasters (virtually 100% efficient, BTW)
At what? How much of the heat heats the target and how much goes
elsewhere? Especially when it is air conditioning season?
> to doorbell transformers
>would be too intrusive, costly and accomplish little if anything.
Given your figures in earlier articles in this thread compared to ones I
can show, I don't think it's a big deal for doorbell transformers to have
to show their power consumption. And I doubt the cost would have to be
increased more than $2 if the core material is "29M6" (or similarly good)
as opposed to something only a couple steps above recycled ship hulls, and
the primary turns count is increased enough to get peak magnetization down
to about 13.75 kilogauss or so at 125 V. Doing all that can save most
consumers about 75 cents to $1 per year per doorbell transformer.
>Government rarely "gets it right" with the big and important things. I
>shudder to think of it getting into such trivial things.
I think "Energy Star" has done reasonably well, except for an instance
brought to my attention earlier this year where EPA apparently did some
boneheaded turf battle move against DOE in the area of LED lighting.
- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)
== 6 of 15 ==
Date: Sun, Nov 23 2008 8:11 pm
From: don@manx.misty.com (Don Klipstein)
In <OYWdna24Q9GyZLTUnZ2dnUVZ_tTinZ2d@posted.visi>, Dave Garland wrote:
>Bill wrote:
>
>> Seems to me someone wants everyone to be using more electricity!
>
>It's not that no problem exists. You've said that you've *saved* over
>$120/mo in electricity (more than twice as much as my entire electric
>bill!). Clearly somewhere in your house there are things pulling
>massive amounts of power.
>
>What most of us are saying is that things like doorbell transformers and
>wall warts don't consume enough electricity to be significant in this.
> Now, unplugging unused wall warts isn't a bad idea. I've got most of
>the ones I use to recharge batteries plugged into an outlet strip, and
>only turn it on when I'm recharging something. But I don't know if I'm
>recouping enough money to pay for the (cheap) outlet strip.
Most of those wallwarts when idling consume 1-2 watts of electricity,
.5-1 watt if they are more modern "switchmode" ones as opposed to ones
with iron core transformers. Modern cellphone chargers consume
about .5 watt unloaded. (There is a noticeable weight difference
between switchmode ones and iron core ones.)
1 watt costs close to $1 per year at average residential electric
billing rates in the USA. I think that the power strip will have a
payback rate exceeding that of a decent mutual fund experiencing a bhull
market.
> Where you
>need to look is
> 1) things that make heat (esp. electric heaters,
>furnaces, stoves, and water heaters, for the most part stuff like hair
>driers, coffee makers, waffle irons, etc. aren't turned on for long
>enough to be of major significance if you're not living in a restaurant
>or hair salon),
> 2) things with powerful electric motors (A/C, heat
>pumps, dehumidifiers, blowers, refrigerators and freezers),
Blower motors don't consume nearly as much power as refrigeration/AC/
heatpump compressor motors. But some blowers are not nearly as efficient
as they can be now, and some refrigeration from 20 years ago still exists
now, while being something like 40-50% as efficient as the modern stuff.
> and 3)
>incandescent (including halogen) bulbs that are on for long periods.
>Pretty much in that order.
That depends on the home. Some homes are in locations with lower
climate control needs. Some homes are occupied by occupants with
lower climate control needs. Also consider that (3) can add to load of
(2) since heat from incandescent bulbs adds to heat to be pumped out of
the home by air conditioning.
> Those things are where your payback can be real, and large.
I would do everything where the payback rate exceeds that of long term
dividend-reinvested performance of the S&P 500 (and that exceeds long term
performance of value of a lot with a house on it).
- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)
== 7 of 15 ==
Date: Sun, Nov 23 2008 8:34 pm
From: E Z Peaces
Red Green wrote:
> E Z Peaces <cash@invalid.invalid> wrote in
>>>
>> I used to do that with a AA cell and a transformer made to energize
>> two conductors of a telephone cable to light a dial. Occasionally I
>> found an unsuspecting person to hold the plug.
>>
>> I also used to enjoy putting my tongue on the terminals of a 9 volt
>> battery.
>
> That was cool wasn't it! Did you also used to eat the paper paste in
> kiddie school art class?
>
School paste was bland. I preferred homemade paste with a lots of alum.
== 8 of 15 ==
Date: Sun, Nov 23 2008 8:39 pm
From: don@manx.misty.com (Don Klipstein)
In <10783245-4bd2-409d-aa28-98ad8b6a698b@f20g2000yqg.googlegroups.com>,
hallerb@aol.com wrote:
<SNIP in part due to stray MIME-related characters popping in)
>the outlet strip likely has a power on light of some sort wasting
>power when its on..
That is 1/4-1/3 watt, occaisionally less.
>individually the amount wasted is likely small, however nationwide for
>everyone it must add up and waste is waste.....
>
>given global change and energy costs the less waste the better.
>
>and my retired engineer pointed out things can be more efficent if you
>design it this way.
Power strips without lights are common and easily available.
I also know how to get in a light consuming only 1/20 watt! Make it an
InGaN green LED, in series with a 150K 1/4 watt resistor and a suitable
diode. Put a second diode across the LED antiparallel with the LED
(parallel in opposite directions). This also usually works fairly well
with an InGaN blue LED despite discouraging numbers for photometrics.
And I think that manufacturing cost of adding that in at the 100,000
unit per year level should be something like roughly 30-40 cents or so
above that of using an NE-2H neon lamp and its appropriate resistor.
That can still bump up the retail price a couple bucks. Retail price
goes up $1 according to a business model selling minimum of 1/4 million
and preferably 1/2 million units per year.
Spend 1-2 bucks more for a power strip having an "on light" to consume
1/4 watt less and keeping the "on light" decently bright (save 20-25 cents
less per year) - rate of return is comparable to or somewhat more than
that of long term performance of an S&P 500 index fund, should the power
strip last at least 20-30 years.
The LED cost can be brought down maybe a dime if instead of InGaN
chemistry, the LED is the variant of GaP that is the most major one of the
ones to be known as "low current red". Peak wavelength of that one is
usually noted as 690, 697 or 700 nm - but the spectrum is a broadband red
one, so most of the photometric output is not from "borderline infrared".
It will be rather dim at average current of .34 milliamp, but still easily
visible in a dark room. It is probably a good idea with this LED to use a
120K-ohm resistor instead of a 150K one (power consumption is increased
from 1/20 watt to 1/16 watt) - and I would only do so if using such a red
LED instead of the better green one is necessary and sufficient to
decrease the retail price by a buck.
>its governments job to encourage efficency.
That I agree with!
- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)
== 9 of 15 ==
Date: Sun, Nov 23 2008 8:43 pm
From: letterman@invalid.com
On Sun, 23 Nov 2008 18:20:25 -0600, Dave Garland
<dave.garland@wizinfo.com> wrote:
>letterman@invalid.com wrote:
>> The thing is, there is a doorbell that does not need any electrical
>> power. Simply mount a nice looking brass bell on the wall next to the
>> door, using a bracket. Drill a small hole in the wall a couple feet
>> above the bell, and attach a piece of nylon string to the bell. Push
>> the other end of the string thru the hole in the wall and let it hang
>> outside. Put a nice wooden bead on the end of the string. Then place
>> a sign that reads "PULL STRING FOR DOORBELL".
>>
>> Cost: The price of the bell, bracket, string and bead. No further
>> costs for life, and no electrical energy needed ever.
>
>If:
>1) you live in a climate where you don't mind a hole between the inside
>and the outside (at -30F with a stiff wind you want as few holes as
>possible),
>2) you don't have an enclosed porch, which would put the bell on the
>porch outside the main door,
>3) you can hear a bell by the entry even with one floor, several closed
>doors, and perhaps some other sources of audio like kids or radios in
>between.
>
>So I can't knock your solution, it is an elegant one for people who live
>in mild climates (I can even go one better there, if you always keep
>your windows open people can just call for you through the open window).
> But it won't work for everybody.
>
>Dave
Actually the hole only needs to be the same size as the rope as long
as the rope has a little grease on it (vaseline). One could also use
a cable like the throttle cable on a lawnmower, and caulk aeound the
outer shell. In fact, using that method, the cable could go straight
in to the bell, and have a decorative handle on the outside.
== 10 of 15 ==
Date: Sun, Nov 23 2008 8:51 pm
From: don@manx.misty.com (Don Klipstein)
In article <0p3ki4pdd1pm2ojaqa7qer3h3r69f27dql@4ax.com>, Jim Elbrecht wrote:
>On Sun, 23 Nov 2008 15:18:47 -0800, "Bill"
><billnomailnospamx@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>I've gone through my home and examined *every* electrical gadget, appliance,
>>etc.
>>
>>98% of the products I have use electricity when not being used! 98%!!!!
>-snip-
>
>I would be interested in seeing your list of 50 or 100 items and
>especially interested in seeing how much electricity they use.
<SNIP from here>
If it's merely 60-70% of everything and their usage-while-off is 3-5% of
electric bill of 1/4-1/3 of people with electric bills, that is still
significant!
- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)
== 11 of 15 ==
Date: Sun, Nov 23 2008 8:56 pm
From: don@manx.misty.com (Don Klipstein)
In <jim.redelfs-6C2A1F.10274023112008@news.west.cox.net>, J Redelfs said:
>In article <niqii4l1g9aapqul39t7ot2oalisq1blue@4ax.com>,
> PeterD <peter2@hipson.net> wrote:
>
>> In the end, sure you can save a few penny's of electricity,
>> and spend dollars doing so.
>
>There is an old phrase for that. It predates the concept of "green" and
>energy conservation by some centuries:
>
>Penny wise and pound foolish.
And I can save pounds per year for a few pounds via a move that you
deride as penny-wise-pound-foolish. Looks like I gotta put a switchable
power strip for my TV and DTV box onto my written shopping list, since a
parttime engineer also having a delivery job and a long term lover at age
47 is subject to brain memory overloading!!!
- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)
== 12 of 15 ==
Date: Sun, Nov 23 2008 9:04 pm
From: AZ Nomad
On Mon, 24 Nov 2008 04:51:49 +0000 (UTC), Don Klipstein <don@manx.misty.com> wrote:
>In article <0p3ki4pdd1pm2ojaqa7qer3h3r69f27dql@4ax.com>, Jim Elbrecht wrote:
>>On Sun, 23 Nov 2008 15:18:47 -0800, "Bill"
>><billnomailnospamx@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>I've gone through my home and examined *every* electrical gadget, appliance,
>>>etc.
>>>
>>>98% of the products I have use electricity when not being used! 98%!!!!
>>-snip-
>>
>>I would be interested in seeing your list of 50 or 100 items and
>>especially interested in seeing how much electricity they use.
><SNIP from here>
> If it's merely 60-70% of everything and their usage-while-off is 3-5% of
>electric bill of 1/4-1/3 of people with electric bills, that is still
>significant!
Not really. You get far better return on your time and money by going
after the 95-97%. Turn lights off when not in use. Unclog the line
from the dryer. Go with a more efficient water heater and fridge if
they're ancient. Spending a thousand dollars worth of time and supplies
to trim off $2/month is insanity. It is the high wattage items that
matter. Not three dozen quarter watt items that don't add up to 5 watts
or to a whole ten dollars a year.
== 13 of 15 ==
Date: Sun, Nov 23 2008 9:34 pm
From: The Daring Dufas
E Z Peaces wrote:
> Craig M wrote:
>> That pulse can pack a pretty good hit, want to try something, flash a
>> 9 volt batt on the low voltage side of a doorbell transformer, and
>> feel what you get on the other side.
>> that pulse can back feed through the house wiring, and posiblilty zap
>> something else.
>> Thats all I was worried about.
>>
> I used to do that with a AA cell and a transformer made to energize two
> conductors of a telephone cable to light a dial. Occasionally I found
> an unsuspecting person to hold the plug.
>
> I also used to enjoy putting my tongue on the terminals of a 9 volt
> battery.
>
> The doorbell might absorb some of the pulse, but not as well as a
> resistive load. I agree that if you didn't get shocked pressing the
> button, you might get shocked releasing it.
If you are really out of your mind like me.
You can stick this battery to your tongue
or for a psychedelic effect stick it to your
forehead.
TDD
== 14 of 15 ==
Date: Sun, Nov 23 2008 9:37 pm
From: jdc@mail.fiawol.org (J. Cochran)
In article <6ou6mrF5apobU1@mid.individual.net>,
Bill <billnomailnospamx@yahoo.com> wrote:
>I've gone through my home and examined *every* electrical gadget, appliance,
>etc.
>
>98% of the products I have use electricity when not being used! 98%!!!!
>
>Things which have no reason to use power when off! Things which used to have
>a regular on/off switch.
>
>Seems to me someone wants me to be using more electricity!
>
>So I post on the internet that I am shutting this stuff off and I get a good
>number of responses NOT wanting me to do this!
And I can easily tell you why.
Take a close look at your first article in this rather long thread.
Now using just that article, don't you see a rather nasty potential for
injuring or killing someone?
So the immediate reaction from the people reading is
"What an IDIOT! He wants to save a couple of cents per month at the risk
of potentially killing someone! I have got to stop someone else from doing
something this stupid and also potentially harming someone else"
Then later in the tread, you mention actually using a GFCI and wiring
everything to code, etc., etc., etc. But you totally ignore anything
involving return on investment. In order to save pennies, you spend 10s of
dollars. Not a rational choice, but it is your choice.
== 15 of 15 ==
Date: Sun, Nov 23 2008 10:18 pm
From: Vic Smith
On Mon, 24 Nov 2008 00:37:48 -0500 (EST), jdc@mail.fiawol.org (J.
Cochran) wrote:
>In article <6ou6mrF5apobU1@mid.individual.net>,
>Bill <billnomailnospamx@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>I've gone through my home and examined *every* electrical gadget, appliance,
>>etc.
>>
>>98% of the products I have use electricity when not being used! 98%!!!!
>>
>>Things which have no reason to use power when off! Things which used to have
>>a regular on/off switch.
>>
>>Seems to me someone wants me to be using more electricity!
>>
>>So I post on the internet that I am shutting this stuff off and I get a good
>>number of responses NOT wanting me to do this!
>
>And I can easily tell you why.
>Take a close look at your first article in this rather long thread.
>Now using just that article, don't you see a rather nasty potential for
>injuring or killing someone?
>
>So the immediate reaction from the people reading is
>
>"What an IDIOT! He wants to save a couple of cents per month at the risk
>of potentially killing someone! I have got to stop someone else from doing
>something this stupid and also potentially harming someone else"
>
>Then later in the tread, you mention actually using a GFCI and wiring
>everything to code, etc., etc., etc. But you totally ignore anything
>involving return on investment. In order to save pennies, you spend 10s of
>dollars. Not a rational choice, but it is your choice.
I take issue with your assertion that this a long thread.
We haven't even begun to put a value on "Pride of Ownership."
Forget about the 120 volt welcome to strangers.
That's a distraction from the real issue.
Which is "Pride of Ownership."
Whether it be your home or the apartment you are renting, consider
this: The first impression you make on a visitor is your door, your
doormat, and your doorbell or knocker.
Also your house/apartment numbering if you care to be found.
Take care of them and they will take care of you.
I'm giving my daughter a new door mat for Christmas.
Its color complements her home decor.
Not the usual "Welcome."
It says "Go Away."
She may not think it appropriate. I leave the decision in her hands.
Whatever she decides, a doormat is the smile your entryway presents to
the world at large. But maybe not that one.
This doormat costs 5 bucks.
Yes, for as little as 5 bucks you can present an image to the world
that says what you want it to say.
That's many years of the transformer electricity savings being
discussed. And much more valuable IN THE LONG RUN.
Return on investment?
What price "Pride of Ownership?" That's real ROI.
Until the depths are plumbed trying our best to answer the real
question - What price "Pride of Ownnership" - it is fruitless to waste
time on transformer pennies.
That's my strong belief. Others may disagree.
--Vic (VicsDiscountDoormatsDoorbellsandKnockers.com)
(CUSTOMIZED DOOR MAT WORDING AT LOW COST)
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Upcoming Washington Post online discussion
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/f0846ccfd55e4347?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sun, Nov 23 2008 9:23 pm
From: artsy6@gmail.com
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2008/11/21/DI2008112101289.html
==============================================================================
TOPIC: do you plant to lower your indoor temp this winter?
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/a259dedc39c3ba0d?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Sun, Nov 23 2008 9:34 pm
From: Jeff
chilisincarne@gmail.com wrote:
> I usually have about 73F indoors, but now with the expensive heating
> costs ive been thinking of maybe going a bit lower.
> So last week i tried sinking it all the way down to 60F and see how it
> felt, and it was unbelievably damn COLD! I had to wear socks and t-
> shirt while sleeping LOL!
> Maybe something around 66F would be better?
A lot will depend on the type of heat, how you acclimate, how you dress
and how active you are. Even if it is drafty. A little cold draft makes
a big difference. It seems that over heating one part of the body does
not even out another part being too cool!
Forced air heat will feel different than radiant. I think I can tolerate
a few degrees cooler with radiant.
With all those caveats and dressing a little warm , I find 68F to be
very reasonable, 65, OK. 60F is getting cold.
I heat by the room, more or less and keep where I work at 68 and less
frequented areas around 60. The rest of the house can get much cooler.
If I have to live at 60 or a bit lower I need to be dressed warm or
have a blanket.
Cheers,
Jeff
>
> Have you experimented with lower indoor temp? What is a alrite lowest
> temp?
== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Sun, Nov 23 2008 11:19 pm
From: E Z Peaces
chilisincarne@gmail.com wrote:
> I usually have about 73F indoors, but now with the expensive heating
> costs ive been thinking of maybe going a bit lower.
> So last week i tried sinking it all the way down to 60F and see how it
> felt, and it was unbelievably damn COLD! I had to wear socks and t-
> shirt while sleeping LOL!
> Maybe something around 66F would be better?
>
> Have you experimented with lower indoor temp? What is a alrite lowest
> temp?
In the south, I've been running 80 summer and 64 winter. Now that you
mention it, I should reduce my winter setting. Up north, I lived
comfortably for two years in an unheated space that was typically in the
low 50s. Before that, one winter I had to sleep in a space where the
thermometer by my bed was typically in the 40s. I had a sheet and thin
spread but no blanket. Against expectations, I was comfortable. I
often camped comfortably in an unheated tent when it was in the teens.
Before the Franklin Stove, our ancestors had to live in cold, drafty
spaces. When we find 60 intolerable instead of cozy, we're probably
making mistakes that would have been obvious to them. Because it can
take time for a warm person to feel chilly or a chilly person to feel
warm, cause and effect may not be obvious.
Our ancestors knew the importance of sitting or lying on insulated
surfaces to conserve heat. Nowadays, close-cell vinyl works well for
insulated pads.
Our ancestors knew the importance of hats. Donning or doffing one is as
effective as adjusting the thermostat, and it works faster. The head,
neck, and torso are the most important parts to insulate, so a vest
makes a big difference. Cold feet are more an effect than a cause of
being chilly, but roomy footwear with insulating soles can increase comfort.
In my life, I've found that regardless of thermostat settings, I'd be
chilliest indoors when I spent the least time outdoors.
A few weeks after returning from the tropics, where it was humid and
daytime temperatures were routinely above 110, I found myself attending
college were the temperature was in the teens. The heat indoors was
stifling. I kept my radiator off and slept with the window open. I
wore short sleeves indoors and out. It seems somebody who lives
outdoors, even in the tropics, may develop a much higher metabolism than
people who spend their time indoors.
Diet affects metabolism. In winter camping, a drink of apple juice
would help me sleep warm. Indoors, sometimes I've waked up in the night
terribly cold after having cabbage or broccoli for supper, although the
temperature was normal and I had plenty of warm bedding. Those
vegetables have toxins that can depress metabolism. I've learned to
limit my consumption in winter, not to eat them raw, and not to cut them
up until cooked.
One huge change in the American diet has been the replacement of
traditional fats with the manufactured seed oils that have become
available since 1885. Thanks to Depression poverty and then war
shortages, consumption surpassed that of traditional fats. Consumption
has increased ever since, due to advertising claims that these
manufactured fats would spare us from the epidemics of heart attacks and
cancer. In fact, these epidemics appeared after the introduction of
seed oils and have increased in proportion to their consumption.
Obesity and intolerance of exercise have increased in proportion to the
consumption of seed oils. Farmers want to raise pigs who are obese
couch potatoes. Seed oils were a breakthrough for farmers because they
tend to reduce thyroid levels. Among Americans, the normal thyroid
level is much lower than it was a century ago. If our ancestors could
be cozy in houses we would find intolerably cold, it could be due in
part to the fact that they consumed only tiny amounts of seed oils.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Nike Air Jordan 1 - 23 Air Force One Nike Shox Nike TN www.cicigogo.cn
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/7f08b240c048ee98?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sun, Nov 23 2008 9:51 pm
From: cn
Nike Air Jordan 15 XV Force 1 Jordan Fusion AJF 15 AJF15 AJ15F
www.cicigogo.cn Jordan 15 fusion
Nike Air Jordan 16 XVI Force 1 Jordan Fusion AJF 16 AJF16 AJ16F
www.cicigogo.cn Jordan 16 fusion
Nike Air Jordan 17 XVII Force 1 Jordan Fusion AJF 17 AJF17 AJ17F
www.cicigogo.cn Jordan 17 fusion
Nike Air Jordan 18 XVIII Force 1 Jordan Fusion AJF18 AJF18 AJ18F
www.cicigogo.cn Jordan 18 fusion
Nike Air Jordan 19 XIX Force 1 Jordan Fusion AJF 19 AJF19 AJ19F
www.cicigogo.cn Jordan 19 fusion
Nike Air Jordan 20 XX Force 1 Jordan Fusion AJF 20 AJF20 AJ20F
www.cicigogo.cn Jordan 20 fusion
Nike Air Jordan 21 XXI PE Force 1 Jordan Fusion AJF 21 AJF21 AJ21F
www.cicigogo.cn Jordan 21 fusion
Nike Air Jordan XXII 22 Force 1 Jordan Fusion AJF 22 AJF22 AJ22F
www.cicigogo.cn Jordan 22 fusion
Nike Air Jordan XXIII 23 Force 1 Jordan Fusion AJF 23 AJF23 AJ23F
www.cicigogo.cn Jordan 23 fusion
Jordan 4-11 Fusion www.cicigogo.cn
Jordan 7-8 Fusion www.cicigogo.cn
Jordan 10-12 Fusion www.cicigogo.cn
Jordan 11-13 Fusion www.cicigogo.cn
Jordan 9-23 Fusion www.cicigogo.cn
Jordan 13-23 Fusion www.cicigogo.cn
Jordan 1 jordan 4 jordan 5 jordan 5 fusion jordan 5 jordan 3 fusion
jordan 3 Jordan 23 jordan 11 jordan 12
jordan 7 jordan 8 jordan 6 jordan 6 rings
jordan 13 jordan 14 jordan 15 jordan 2 Jordan 7.5 Jordan 9.5 Jordan
12.5 Jordan 3.5 Jordan 4.5 Jordan
15.5 Jordan 19.5 Jordan 21.5 Jordan 21 Jordan 22
AIR Jordan 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23
shoes on www.cicigogo.cn
AIR Jordan 1 www.cicigogo.cn
AIR Jordan 2 www.cicigogo.cn
AIR Jordan 3 www.cicigogo.cn
AIR Jordan 4 www.cicigogo.cn
AIR Jordan 5 www.cicigogo.cn
AIR Jordan 6 Rings www.cicigogo.cn
AIR Jordan 6 www.cicigogo.cn
AIR Jordan 7 www.cicigogo.cn
AIR Jordan 8 www.cicigogo.cn
AIR Jordan 9 www.cicigogo.cn
AIR Jordan 10 www.cicigogo.cn
AIR Jordan 11 www.cicigogo.cn
AIR Jordan 12 www.cicigogo.cn
AIR Jordan 13 www.cicigogo.cn
AIR Jordan 14 www.cicigogo.cn
AIR Jordan 15 www.cicigogo.cn
AIR Jordan 16 www.cicigogo.cn
AIR Jordan 17 www.cicigogo.cn
AIR Jordan 18 www.cicigogo.cn
AIR Jordan 19 www.cicigogo.cn
AIR Jordan 20 www.cicigogo.cn
AIR Jordan 21 www.cicigogo.cn
AIR Jordan 22 www.cicigogo.cn
AIR Jordan 23 www.cicigogo.cn
AIR Jordan 3.5 www.cicigogo.cn
AIR AIR Jordan 4.5 www.cicigogo.cn
AIR Jordan 7.5 www.cicigogo.cn
AIR Jordan 9.5 www.cicigogo.cn
AIR Jordan 12.5 www.cicigogo.cn
AIR Jordan 15.5 www.cicigogo.cn
AIR Jordan 19.5 www.cicigogo.cn
AIR Jordan 21.5 www.cicigogo.cn
AIR Jordan Large Size Jordan www.cicigogo.cn
AIR Jordan Size 14 Jordan www.cicigogo.cn
AIR Jordan Size 15 shoes www.cicigogo.cn
AIR Jordan DMP www.cicigogo.cn
air jordan
Air max 87 www.cicigogo.cn
Air max 89 www.cicigogo.cn
Air max 90 www.cicigogo.cn
Air max 91 www.cicigogo.cn
Air max 95 www.cicigogo.cn
Air max 97 www.cicigogo.cn
Air max 2003 www.cicigogo.cn
Air max 2006 www.cicigogo.cn
Air max tn www.cicigogo.cn
Air max ltd www.cicigogo.cn
Air max stab www.cicigogo.cn
www.cicigogo.cn
air jordan
Shox R3 www.cicigogo.cn
Shox R4 www.cicigogo.cn
Shox R5 www.cicigogo.cn
Shox R6 www.cicigogo.cn
Shox OZ www.cicigogo.cn
Shox NZ www.cicigogo.cn
Shox Zoom www.cicigogo.cn
Shox TL3 www.cicigogo.cn
Shox Monester www.cicigogo.cn
Nike shox www.cicigogo.cn
air jordan
Nike air force one, air force 1, air force one low cut, air force one
high cut, air force one release date
Air force one, air foce one 25TH, af 1, af 1 25TH, Nike air force one
new releases, limited version
Air Force One www.cicigogo.cn
Air Force one 25TH www.cicigogo.cn
AF 1 www.cicigogo.cn
AF 1 25TH www.cicigogo.cn
www.cicigogo.cn
air jordan
Dunk sb nike sb dunk nike dunk sb dunk sb high dunk sb low dunk sb
woman
Nike sb dunk Nike Dunk High SB nike dunk low premuim sb Nike SB Dunk
High Shimizu
Nike SB Dunk Pro Nike SB Dunk Dunk SB www.cicigogo.cn
Nike Dunk shoes www.cicigogo.cn
Dunk shoes for woman www.cicigogo.cn
Dunk low cut www.cicigogo.cn
Dunk high cut www.cicigogo.cn
Timberland Boots - Timberland Shoes - Timberland Footwear
UGG? boots for women, men and kids
UGG Classic Short, Classic Short Boots, Classic Sheepskin Boots
==============================================================================
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