http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living?hl=en
misc.consumers.frugal-living@googlegroups.com
Today's topics:
* Range clock - Disconnect it! - 13 messages, 6 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/3e2a7ad7ec279de4?hl=en
* Doing Good - Need More Inv. Info - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/e3031c9e2e68c36a?hl=en
* Poverty in California... - 4 messages, 3 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/df52112e775185a1?hl=en
* Which suit? - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/5ca27cae9dd08ebb?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
* earn money in easy way - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/92b03ecd8e66e5e9?hl=en
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Range clock - Disconnect it!
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/3e2a7ad7ec279de4?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 13 ==
Date: Mon, Jun 2 2008 7:14 pm
From: "Bill"
"Seerialmom" wrote in message
>
> So having done this...was your electric bill substantially smaller the
next month?
>
Actually I have been working on saving on my electric bill for many years
now. One year I might buy a new Energy Star appliance. The next install more
insulation. Year after that put everything on power strips, etc.
So I have not noticed any one big drop in my electric use at any one time.
(Except when I replaced an old window air conditioner with a new one.)
Basically my electric use has been slowly dropping as I learn about saving
electricity on misc.consumers.frugal-living or
http://www.energystar.gov then make a few changes here and there.
== 2 of 13 ==
Date: Mon, Jun 2 2008 7:18 pm
From: Jeff
SteveB wrote:
> "Jeff" <jeff@spam_me_not.com> wrote in message
> news:QNedndXfwdOvZ97VnZ2dnUVZ_obinZ2d@earthlink.com...
>> SteveB wrote:
>>> I think if we all disconnected all the lights we have that run 24/7 and
>>> all these little clocks that we could make as much difference as AlGore
>>> does with his global warming theories. If anyone is concerned about how
>>> much electricity their clock uses, contact me, and I will send you a
>>> quarter for a year's usage.
>> Hmm, I see you've snipped all context to make your point.
>>
>> The real point is that phantom power loss is not negligible and accounts
>> for 5% to 10% worldwide. Higher in more developed economies. Many
>> appliance use more power "off" than on (collectively).
>>
>> Now, you will probably object to any regulation that would level the
>> playing field and require all manufacturers to reduce phantom drain. And
>> that's a real shame as the technology already exists and the return on
>> investment is quick.
>>
>> You can't consume your way out of every problem. You certainly would
>> rather do nothing about global warming. It's funny how some people can
>> deny the human component of global warming and yet have no problem with
>> the rationale of going to war in Iraq.
>>
>> Also note that I've never advocated removing the clock from the range.
>>
>> Jeff
>>
>>> Steve
>
> Yeah. We need more laws.
Regulation is not a bad thing.
It's very hard for a company to do something for the long term good when
doing that puts it at a short term competitive disadvantage. That's why
regulations that are evenly applied to all competitors work. And why
voluntary targets don't.
We've had 7 years of corporate free reign under George W Bush. Few would
think the results are impressive. Fewer still would believe that we have
made progress toward solving the problems that loom.
Jeff
>
> Steve
>
>
== 3 of 13 ==
Date: Mon, Jun 2 2008 7:21 pm
From: "Edwin Pawlowski"
<ranck@vt.edu> wrote in message
>
>> kitchen appliances. In the average home, 75% of the electricity used to
>> power home electronics is consumed while the products are turned off.
>
> That is not the same as "appliances use more power 'off' than on."
Sure it is. At the end of the billing cycles, do you pay more for the on
time or the off time?
== 4 of 13 ==
Date: Mon, Jun 2 2008 7:25 pm
From: "Bill"
"Seerialmom" wrote in message
>
> ...However, I do know that my microwave, TV(s), vcr(s), cable box
> (es) etc. do. But I don't feel like reprogramming everytime I want to
> use them, so I let them continue to feast.
>
Right. I had an old component stereo main amplifier which would lose its
settings if I removed the power from it. So in that case I put everything
else on a power strip and turned those off, but left the main amplifier
plugged in. Then it did not lose its settings. Later I got a new model which
remembers its settings and this is now on the power strip. I turn off power
to it when not in use.
So if it is something which is a pain to reset after it is unplugged, then
leave it plugged in. If your not using the clock and it remembers its other
settings when power is removed, then put that on a power strip and remove
power when not in use. If you use the clock/timer, leave it plugged in.
Note: Do not unplug a VCR with the tape still inside! Always eject the tape
first before removing power. Otherwise the tape can jamb.
== 5 of 13 ==
Date: Mon, Jun 2 2008 8:27 pm
From: CJT
ranck@vt.edu wrote:
> In misc.consumers.frugal-living Jeff <jeff@spam_me_not.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Many appliance use more power "off" than on (collectively).
>
>
> Uh, cite? No, never mind, the above statement is just
> pure BS.
>
> Bill Ranck
> Blacksburg, Va.
If e.g. a PC uses 5 watts "off" and 200 watts "on" it's not rocket
science to figure out what fraction of time it must be used for the
"on" power to equal or exceed the "off" power. I suspect plenty of
PC's don't make the cut (or do, but just barely).
--
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.
== 6 of 13 ==
Date: Mon, Jun 2 2008 8:34 pm
From: CJT
Rod Speed wrote:
> Jeff <jeff@spam_me_not.com> wrote
>
>>ranck@vt.edu wrote
>>
>>>Jeff <jeff@spam_me_not.com> wrote
>
>
>>>>Many appliance use more power "off" than on (collectively).
>
>
>>>Uh, cite? No, never mind, the above statement is just pure BS.
>
>
>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standby_power
>
>
>>From the US department of Energy:
>
>
>>"Many appliances continue to draw a small amount of power when
>>they are switched off. These "phantom" loads occur in most appliances
>>that use electricity, such as VCRs, televisions, stereos, computers,
>>and kitchen appliances. In the average home, 75% of the electricity
>>used to power home electronics is consumed while the products are
>>turned off. This can be avoided by unplugging the appliance or using
>>a power strip and using the switch on the power strip to cut all
>>power to the appliance."[4]
>
>
> Doesnt say anything like your stupid claim at the top.
75% is more than 25%.
>
>
>>It would seem the only government office you believe in is the OVP.
>
>
> Or that you have never ever had a clue.
>
>
>
--
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.
== 7 of 13 ==
Date: Mon, Jun 2 2008 8:38 pm
From: "Rod Speed"
CJT <abujlehc@prodigy.net> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Jeff <jeff@spam_me_not.com> wrote
>>> ranck@vt.edu wrote
>>>> Jeff <jeff@spam_me_not.com> wrote
>>>>> Many appliance use more power "off" than on (collectively).
>>>> Uh, cite? No, never mind, the above statement is just pure BS.
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standby_power
>>> From the US department of Energy:
>>> "Many appliances continue to draw a small amount of power when
>>> they are switched off. These "phantom" loads occur in most
>>> appliances that use electricity, such as VCRs, televisions,
>>> stereos, computers, and kitchen appliances. In the average home,
>>> 75% of the electricity used to power home electronics is consumed
>>> while the products are turned off. This can be avoided by
>>> unplugging the appliance or using a power strip and using the
>>> switch on the power strip to cut all power to the appliance."[4]
>> Doesnt say anything like your stupid claim at the top.
> 75% is more than 25%.
That aint the % the original stupid claim was made about.
>>> It would seem the only government office you believe in is the OVP.
>> Or that you have never ever had a clue.
== 8 of 13 ==
Date: Mon, Jun 2 2008 8:40 pm
From: "Rod Speed"
Edwin Pawlowski <esp@snet.net> wrote
> <ranck@vt.edu> wrote
>>> In the average home, 75% of the electricity used to power home electronics is consumed while the products are turned
>>> off.
>> That is not the same as "appliances use more power 'off' than on."
> Sure it is.
Nope, home electronics aint the same thing as appliances.
> At the end of the billing cycles, do you pay more for the on time or the off time?
You pay more for the on time with APPLIANCES.
== 9 of 13 ==
Date: Mon, Jun 2 2008 8:42 pm
From: "Rod Speed"
CJT <abujlehc@prodigy.net> wrote
> ranck@vt.edu wrote
>> Jeff <jeff@spam_me_not.com> wrote
>>> Many appliance use more power "off" than on (collectively).
>> Uh, cite? No, never mind, the above statement is just pure BS.
> If e.g. a PC uses 5 watts "off" and 200 watts "on" it's not rocket
> science to figure out what fraction of time it must be used for the
> "on" power to equal or exceed the "off" power. I suspect plenty of PC's don't make the cut (or do, but just barely).
Pity the original claim was made about APPLIANCES where thats almost never true.
== 10 of 13 ==
Date: Mon, Jun 2 2008 8:47 pm
From: "Rod Speed"
Jeff <jeff@spam_me_not.com> wrote
> SteveB wrote
>> Jeff <jeff@spam_me_not.com> wrote
>>> SteveB wrote
>>>> I think if we all disconnected all the lights we have that run
>>>> 24/7 and all these little clocks that we could make as much
>>>> difference as AlGore does with his global warming theories. If anyone is concerned about how much electricity
>>>> their clock uses, contact me, and I will send you a quarter for a year's usage. Hmm, I see you've snipped all
>>>> context to make your point.
>>> The real point is that phantom power loss is not negligible and
>>> accounts for 5% to 10% worldwide. Higher in more developed
>>> economies. Many appliance use more power "off" than on (collectively).
>>> Now, you will probably object to any regulation that would level
>>> the playing field and require all manufacturers to reduce phantom
>>> drain. And that's a real shame as the technology already exists and the return on investment is quick.
>>> You can't consume your way out of every problem. You certainly
>>> would rather do nothing about global warming. It's funny how some
>>> people can deny the human component of global warming and yet have no problem with the rationale of going to war in
>>> Iraq.
>>> Also note that I've never advocated removing the clock from the range.
>> Yeah. We need more laws.
> Regulation is not a bad thing.
Depends entirely on how its done.
> It's very hard for a company to do something for the long term good
> when doing that puts it at a short term competitive disadvantage.
You havent established that it does with that last.
> That's why regulations that are evenly applied to all competitors work.
Sometimes they do, sometimes they dont.
> And why voluntary targets don't.
Sometimes they do, sometimes they dont.
> We've had 7 years of corporate free reign under George W Bush.
Lie.
> Few would think the results are impressive.
Most arent qualfied to have an opinion on that particular question.
> Fewer still would believe that we have made progress toward solving the problems that loom.
Irrelevant to what is feasible with regulation.
== 11 of 13 ==
Date: Mon, Jun 2 2008 8:55 pm
From: "Rod Speed"
David Nebenzahl <nobody@but.us.chickens> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> dpb <none@non.net> wrote
>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>> The vast bulk of our electricity doesnt come from oil, it comes
>>>> from coal, and even if we stop doing that because of the CO2
>>>> produced by that approach, we'll be using nukes instead, not
>>>> 'various green sources'
>>> Nuclear _is_ a "green" source...
>> Nope.
> Yep (meaning "I agree with you"). But I don't understand why you seem so sre that we'll be using this decidedly
> non-green source when so many other truly green sources have such better chances of not only providing practical power
> but also doing it economically.
The reason is that they dont.
> (Specifically: solar photovoltaic, wind, tide [being proposed for the San Francisco Bay Area],
None of those provide base load power.
> geothermal,
That isnt available to enough countrys to be able
to provide the bulk of their base load power.
> cogeneration, recovered landfill methane, small-head hydro, etc.)
Cant provide anything like what any modern first world country needs.
> Not only that, but doing it in a truly distributed fashion, allowing better matches between sources and loads.
The entire power system of a modern first world country is never
about that anymore. Its actually about using the entire system to help
with the deficiencys of all of those allegedly green power sources.
== 12 of 13 ==
Date: Mon, Jun 2 2008 9:12 pm
From: max
In article <g21h1k$nun$1@solaris.cc.vt.edu>, ranck@vt.edu wrote:
> I doubt the LED clock on my stove uses as much energy
> in 1 year as one burner uses to boil a pot of water in 5 minutes.
how much water? call it about a gallon. This is an very large amount
of water, since when most of us want to boil water in 5 minutes we're
talking about coffee/tea water. But hey, it's an easy number.
It takes about 1200 BTU to boil a gallon of water
BTU suck, so the conversion to watts is
1 BTU = 0.3 watt-hours
ergo 1200BTU *.3watt-hrs/btu = 360 watt-hours.
now...let's do the math...
365days x 24 hrs/day 8760 = hours/year
If your LED clock uses 1 watt/hour then it consumes 8760
watt-hours/year. If your stove clock is LED, 1 watt is __very__
conservative and generous to your case.
8760 > 360
THEREFORE:
It takes at least 24 times as much energy to run your 1 watt LED clock
as to boil a gallon of water.
surprised? Time is a funny thing...
--
This signature can be appended to your outgoing mesages. Many people include in
their signatures contact information, and perhaps a joke or quotation.
== 13 of 13 ==
Date: Mon, Jun 2 2008 11:04 pm
From: max
In article <betatron-7223DA.23123502062008@news.ftupet.com>,
max <betatron@earthlink.net> wrote:
> In article <g21h1k$nun$1@solaris.cc.vt.edu>, ranck@vt.edu wrote:
>
> > I doubt the LED clock on my stove uses as much energy
> > in 1 year as one burner uses to boil a pot of water in 5 minutes.
>
> how much water? call it about a gallon. This is an very large amount
> of water, since when most of us want to boil water in 5 minutes we're
> talking about coffee/tea water. But hey, it's an easy number.
>
>
> It takes about 1200 BTU to boil a gallon of water
>
> BTU suck, so the conversion to watts is
> 1 BTU = 0.3 watt-hours
>
> ergo 1200BTU *.3watt-hrs/btu = 360 watt-hours.
>
> now...let's do the math...
>
> 365days x 24 hrs/day 8760 = hours/year
>
> If your LED clock uses 1 watt/hour then it consumes 8760
> watt-hours/year. If your stove clock is LED, 1 watt is __very__
> conservative and generous to your case.
>
> 8760 > 360
>
> THEREFORE:
> It takes at least 24 times as much energy to run your 1 watt LED clock
> as to boil a gallon of water.
>
> surprised? Time is a funny thing...
i got interrupted and forgot what i was doing. dammit.
--
This signature can be appended to your outgoing mesages. Many people include in
their signatures contact information, and perhaps a joke or quotation.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Doing Good - Need More Inv. Info
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/e3031c9e2e68c36a?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Jun 2 2008 7:32 pm
From: 7derek <7dereklondon@gmail.com>
A while back I joined an 'Invitation Only' retirement club, invested
$200.00 and I am amazed at what it has now grown to. I am doing good
with this and I would like to know about other secure, short term,
high yield investment clubs that are out there. This is a good very
secure club so please e-mail me info ONLY on legal, secure clubs.
THANKS!
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Poverty in California...
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/df52112e775185a1?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 4 ==
Date: Mon, Jun 2 2008 9:05 pm
From:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Ken Lay" <livin_la_vida_morte@skilling.the.whipping.boy> wrote in message
news:livin_la_vida_morte-29AE30.17595302062008@news.supernews.com...
> In article <48442f78$0$31722$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>, <h> wrote:
>
>> If you can't feed 'em, don't breed 'em.
>
> Who are you talking to? Is the OP the mother of all those impoverished
> people?
>
>> And with the current population of the world approaching 7 billion,
>> no one, anywhere, regardless of income, should have more than one
>> child.
>
> Nobody should speed, either, or eat too much, or have sex too much or
> experiment with drugs. Of course, we *could* kill the second child of
> any fertile myrtles. Then we would have *negative* population growth!
> Get it? Get it? NEGATIVE population growth.
>
Umm, yeah, negative population growth should be the goal. There are too many
people on this planet. We can either choose to reduce the population or the
planet will do it for us. I chose to be childfree. I wish at least 50% of
the population would do the same. In one generation, poverty solved.
== 2 of 4 ==
Date: Mon, Jun 2 2008 9:50 pm
From: "Rod Speed"
h wrote
> Ken Lay <livin_la_vida_morte@skilling.the.whipping.boy> wrote
>> h wrote
>>> If you can't feed 'em, don't breed 'em.
>> Who are you talking to? Is the OP the mother of all those impoverished people?
>>> And with the current population of the world approaching 7 billion, no one, anywhere, regardless of income, should
>>> have more than one child.
>> Nobody should speed, either, or eat too much, or have sex too much or
>> experiment with drugs. Of course, we *could* kill the second child of
>> any fertile myrtles. Then we would have *negative* population growth!
>> Get it? Get it? NEGATIVE population growth.
> Umm, yeah, negative population growth should be the goal. There are too many people on this planet. We can either
> choose to reduce the population or the planet will do it for us.
That last is just plain wrong with modern first world countrys.
NONE of those are self replacing on population if you take out the immigration.
> I chose to be childfree. I wish at least 50% of the population would do the same.
Taint gunna happen.
> In one generation, poverty solved.
Wrong again.
== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Mon, Jun 2 2008 10:07 pm
From: Anthony Matonak
h wrote:
...
> Umm, yeah, negative population growth should be the goal. There are too many
> people on this planet. We can either choose to reduce the population or the
> planet will do it for us. I chose to be childfree. I wish at least 50% of
> the population would do the same. In one generation, poverty solved.
Why stop at 50%? Why not 75%? Why not 100%? If everyone in the world
stopped having children then we would solve all of humanities problems
in one single generation.
I'm reminded of all those religions throughout history that believed
very strongly in zero reproduction. They all died out, of course.
Anthony
== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Tues, Jun 3 2008 12:00 am
From:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Anthony Matonak" <anthonym40@nothing.like.socal.rr.com> wrote in message
news:4844d211$0$30171$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
>h wrote:
> ...
>> Umm, yeah, negative population growth should be the goal. There are too
>> many people on this planet. We can either choose to reduce the population
>> or the planet will do it for us. I chose to be childfree. I wish at least
>> 50% of the population would do the same. In one generation, poverty
>> solved.
>
> Why stop at 50%? Why not 75%? Why not 100%? If everyone in the world
> stopped having children then we would solve all of humanities problems
> in one single generation.
>
Actually, I think human extinction is an excellent idea, but I'll settle for
cutting the population in half. Since breeders will always fail to rein in
reproduction on their own, I'm just glad I'll be dead in 50 years. By then
this planet will have nearly 15 billion people and be uninhabitable, at
least for any civilized people.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Which suit?
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/5ca27cae9dd08ebb?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Jun 2 2008 10:50 pm
From: JonL
tmclone@searchmachine.com wrote:
> On Jun 2, 6:59 am, Shawn Hirn <s...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> In article <CqydncfsFMoJxt7VnZ2dnUVZ_hGdn...@comcast.com>, <Frank>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I need a new suit but don't have a clue as which brand is good and which is
>>> not. Don't needed for work, only for weddings and funerals. Something basic,
>>> good material and good workmanship, name brand recognition not important.
>>> Going to Macy's this weekend so any advice is appreciated.
>>> http://www1.macys.com/catalog/index.ognc?CategoryID=17721&PageID=1772...
>>> *-1&CURRENT_PAGE=2
>> If its just for weddings and funerals, why worry about the brand? Shop
>> at some thrift stores and see what they have? It makes no sense, at
>> least to me, to spend hundreds of dollars on a name brand suit just to
>> wear a few times a year, if that, when you can buy a nice pair of
>> slacks, shirt, and a jacket at a thrift store for a few dollars.
>
> I second that. You might be able to find an excellent suit in nearly
> new condition at the thrift store as well. When I quit my job to run
> my business full time I gave away most of my corporate wardrobe to the
> local shelter which ran a job service for older wmen re-entering the
> work force. When DH and I gave up carbs a few years later he lost 45
> pounds and gave all his suits to the Salvie. Some size 44 guy with a
> 36 inseam got a great deal.
Third that. Thrift stores are loaded with litely-used funeral/weddings
only suits. Stick to black or navy blue, with a bold red or red-blue
tie, plus a more conservative tie for funerals. Spend a few bucks to
have it tailored, if needed. Nothing looks worse than an ill-fitting
suit. Don't forget shoes. (everyone notices your shoes) No need for
high-end, but don't wear cheap-looking shoes.
==============================================================================
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: Mon, Jun 2 2008 10:50 pm
From: "tpow"
"Samantha Hill - remove TRASH to reply" <samhill@TRASHsonic.net> wrote in
message news:4842c0be$0$17178$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
> tpow wrote:
>>
>> and who owns Craigslist.............yes, ebay.
>
>
> eBay doesn't not own Craigslist. A disgruntled former employee who owned
> somewhere in the neighborhood of 20% of Craigslist sold his stock to eBay.
ahh the old double negative............20% is well 20% give it a few more
months my dear.
== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Jun 2 2008 11:52 pm
From: Samantha Hill - remove TRASH to reply
tpow wrote:
> "Samantha Hill - remove TRASH to reply" <samhill@TRASHsonic.net> wrote in
> message news:4842c0be$0$17178$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
>> tpow wrote:
>>> and who owns Craigslist.............yes, ebay.
>>
>> eBay doesn't not own Craigslist. A disgruntled former employee who owned
>> somewhere in the neighborhood of 20% of Craigslist sold his stock to eBay.
>
> ahh the old double negative............20% is well 20% give it a few more
> months my dear.
I am sorry for the double negative -- my text expander that I use for
work (that does things like change "egd" to "esophagogastroduodenoscopy"
once I hit the space bar) must have done that and I missed catching it
Truthfully, eBay does NOT own a controlling interest in CL, and CL
doesn't want them to own a controlling interest.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: earn money in easy way
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/92b03ecd8e66e5e9?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Jun 2 2008 11:16 pm
From: kalaimathy
GET ENOUGH MONEY IFROOM ONLINE JOB
************************************************
http\\www.kalaimathyt.blogspot.com
************************************************
==============================================================================
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