Frugal Living: 25 new messages in 12 topics

Tuesday, June 3, 2008

25 new messages in 12 topics - digest

misc.consumers.frugal-living
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living?hl=en

misc.consumers.frugal-living@googlegroups.com

Today's topics:

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Poverty in California...
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/df52112e775185a1?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 3 ==
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.

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, Jun 3 2008 1:26 am
From: "Fred"

h wrote:
> "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.

That same mindless claim has been made ever since Malthus started doing it.

Didnt happen then, and it aint gunna happen now either.

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, Jun 3 2008 2:38 am
From: Ken Lay

In article <4844ea2c$0$31742$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>, <h> wrote:

> Actually, I think human extinction is an excellent idea

Well, you definitely have the suicidal demographics' vote, but the
murderous segment is split on your candidacy.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: PHONE TALK KEY WORDS
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/9efcab1c125d5f03?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Jun 3 2008 12:10 am
From: mahe3s@gmail.com

SIR IAM MEENA

I RECEIVED MISSED CALL FROM HIS NUMBER

WHO ARE YOU

IAM MAHENDRAN

IAM PREPARING FOR IAS EXAMS

IAM TRIED THE OTHER NUMBER

IT COMES TO YOU

ALL ARE SAYING LIKE THIS

IAM NOT AS YOU THINK

YOU ARE TALKING THIS MUCH TIME. WHAT ARE YOU?

IAM A MEDICAL COLLEGE STUDENT

www.goodhome5.blogspot.com
www.goodhome5.blogspot.com
www.goodhome5.blogspot.com
www.goodhome5.blogspot.com
www.goodhome5.blogspot.com
www.goodhome5.blogspot.com
www.goodhome5.blogspot.com
www.goodhome5.blogspot.com
www.goodhome5.blogspot.com
www.goodhome5.blogspot.com
www.goodhome5.blogspot.com
www.goodhome5.blogspot.com
www.goodhome5.blogspot.com
www.goodhome5.blogspot.com
www.goodhome5.blogspot.com
www.goodhome5.blogspot.com
www.goodhome5.blogspot.com
www.goodhome5.blogspot.com

==============================================================================
TOPIC: good price sneakers shoes ugg boots
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/1bf25b8b4ae67303?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Jun 3 2008 12:49 am
From: chinagood068@yahoo.cn

CHINA SUPPLY CHEAP LV DUNK UGG BOOTS DIOR SHOES, AIR FORCE 1S JORDAN 3
4 5 12 23 FUSION SHOES,LACOSTE PUMA TRAINERS,D&G PRADA HOGAN DSQUARED
AND MORE BRAND GOODS .More please sign in My website!

==============================================================================
TOPIC: WARNING: You may be unwittingly contributing money to Bush when you go
out and purchase certain items.
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/6e3dbef6ed641cab?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Jun 2 2008 9:19 pm
From: ultimauw@excite.com (Adolphus Ambiguous)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlyle_Group#Current_portfolio_and_major_acquisitions

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Tues, Jun 3 2008 8:40 am
From: Derald

Do you actually know someone dimwitted enough to make buying
decisions on the strength of some poorly written and pointless
propaganda piece "published" in the planet's least reliable source? Does
he also abstain from Target stores because they're rumored to be
"French"? ...sheesh! Do you have a clue what a so-called "private
equity" firm actually *does* for its money? Perhaps you'd do best to
concentrate on keeping your "good job" at the Hess station.
--
HTH,
Derald

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Earn 25 US$ in just 5 mins . . .
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/70b987dcfd93d287?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Jun 3 2008 1:57 am
From: Sona

Earn 25 US$ in just 5 mins . . .

You can earn 25 US$ in just 5mins from now, please follow the simple
steps:
It's absolutely free to join.

Step 01
CLICK HERE
http://www.awsurveys.com/HomeMain.cfm?RefID=78e78
A page will open

Step 02
Click on "Create a Free Account"

Step 03
Fill up the details and register.

Step 04
After registration, go to home. You will see - The Following Surveys
are Available:
A list of surveys is given under this heading. Just click on those
surveys and fill up the details. You will get paid.

For More Details Plz contact me : sonamathur.ebusiness@yahoo.com

Click Here For More Earning opportunities
http://freemoneyteamonline.blogspot.com/
Regards
Sona Mathur

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Camcorder Hard Drive - Find Tips - SALES on Camcorders all Brand Names
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/821287311dc14324?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Jun 3 2008 3:02 am
From: "M.L."

>> I've learned a lot from this thread. FYI, in order to post this from
>> GoogleGroups, I have to type in
>> one of those challenge words to prove I am human. Not sure how new
>> this is, but maybe it'll cut
>> down on the GoogleNews Spam.
>
> Captcha checks have been broken. It is more of a nuisance, than
> a real barrier.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Captcha

Your link showed that not all captchas have been broken.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: What is Telemarketing.
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/6cb310e12fe9d363?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Jun 3 2008 3:16 am
From: srividya

You see a beautiful girl at a party. You go up to her and get her
www.superslim3.blogspot.com
telephone number. The next day you call say," Hi, I'm very rich, Marry
me".

That's -----------------Telemarketing.

www.superslim3.blogspot.com
www.superslim3.blogspot.com

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Yellowed white shirt - how to bleach?
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/449d30cc7c9effe7?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Jun 3 2008 3:27 am
From: clams_casino

Lou wrote:

>"JohansonWanson" <JojO@circumference.com> wrote in message
>news:483c8389$0$7715$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
>
>
>>My cool white dress shirt got yellowed by sun screen over a vacation. I
>>have some chlorine bleach - should I use that? I don't want to set the
>>stain - any help would be very much appreciated.
>>
>>
>
>The use and care label should tell whether or not chlorine bleach is
>acceptable. In a general way, chlorine bleach will yellow a white cotton
>shirt, and you'll never get it white again.
>
>
>
>
Actually, chorine bleach can be excellent for whitening cotton (unlike
wool, nylon, etc).

It's the optical brighteners that can be adversely affected (degraded /
yellowed) by chlorine.

Another approach might be a non chlorine bleach (peroxide based bleach).

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Range clock - Disconnect it!
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/3e2a7ad7ec279de4?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 11 ==
Date: Tues, Jun 3 2008 3:55 am
From: spambait@milmac.com (Doug Miller)

In article <g21hf2$551$1@aioe.org>, dpb <none@non.net> wrote:

>All true but it's still hard to believe the "average house" over 75% in
>standby, even for electronics. Maybe I have a hard time thinking that
>because I'm sure my house is far below average in numbers of these
>devices so I suspect my estimate of "average" is skewed as compared to
>the sample mean.

That's not what the article said. This is: "In the average home, 75% of the
electricity used to power home electronics is consumed while the products are
turned off."

That's not saying that 75% of the total electricity use in the home is used to
power electronic equipment on standby. It's saying that 75% of the electricity
used to power electronic equipment -- which is surely only a fairly small
fraction of total use -- is consumed while the equipment is on standby. Seems
reasonable to me.

== 2 of 11 ==
Date: Tues, Jun 3 2008 3:57 am
From: spambait@milmac.com (Doug Miller)

In article <6aj1hoF32tre4U1@mid.individual.net>, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:

>And is dubious with some of the home electronics like TVs and
>computers, which just happen to be the main uses of power in
>the average home even with just the home electronics.

TVs and computers are the main uses of power in the average home? Only if the
"average home" doesn't have refrigerators, clothes dryers, air conditioners,
furnaces, etc.

== 3 of 11 ==
Date: Tues, Jun 3 2008 5:31 am
From: dpb

Doug Miller wrote:
> In article <g21hf2$551$1@aioe.org>, dpb <none@non.net> wrote:
>
>> All true but it's still hard to believe the "average house" over 75% in
>> standby, even for electronics. Maybe I have a hard time thinking that
>> because I'm sure my house is far below average in numbers of these
>> devices so I suspect my estimate of "average" is skewed as compared to
>> the sample mean.
>
> That's not what the article said. This is: "In the average home, 75% of the
> electricity used to power home electronics is consumed while the products are
> turned off."
...

That is what I inferred, if you'll simply read what I wrote, but my
incredulity still exists as noted even for that mix...

== 4 of 11 ==
Date: Tues, Jun 3 2008 5:35 am
From: dpb

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...solves C sequestration, can regenerate more fuel than burned,
etc., etc., etc., ...

== 5 of 11 ==
Date: Tues, Jun 3 2008 5:44 am
From: dpb

David Nebenzahl wrote:
> On 6/2/2008 12:58 PM Rod Speed spake thus:
>
>> 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"). ...

See above...removes almost all the issues the greens are complaining
about in an economical, reliable form.

> ... 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. (Specifically: solar
> photovoltaic, wind, geothermal, tide [being proposed for the San
> Francisco Bay Area], cogeneration, recovered landfill methane,
> small-head hydro, etc.)

'Cause they don't have the energy density and reliability required for
replacement of baseload generation on the scale required. Every where
I've been the sun still goes down at night when lights are wanted, wind
isn't reliable (I just published in earlier thread results of analysis
of large wind farm in W KS which is highest US area for wind suitability
and it has only produced at less than half installed capacity on average
for six years with several _months_ of operation at roughly 20%).

The other sources you listed are even smaller contributors and are even
more limited in their availabilities other than waste methane which is,
while widely distributed, still a relatively small source.

The problem w/ the "green" plans has always been and remains one of
confusing wishing for it to be so w/ making it actually work in
practical and economical manner. These all have their place but there
is still a need and will always unless there is some truly revolutionary
breakthrough for baseload, 24/7 reliable generation.

> Not only that, but doing it in a truly distributed fashion, allowing
> better matches between sources and loads.
...

Can you say expensive?

== 6 of 11 ==
Date: Tues, Jun 3 2008 6:03 am
From: ranck@vt.edu

In misc.consumers.frugal-living Jeff <jeff@spam_me_not.com> wrote:
> ranck@vt.edu wrote:
> > I think he is seriously over estimating the power usage of a
> > clock chip and LCD display. 1 Watt would be more like it.
> > 5 Watts would be about right for an old mechanical stove clock.

> You are, of course, neglecting the power supply losses. Non switching
> regulators typically throw away half or more of the power. The trend is
> away from them.

Well, we do seem to be arguing the number of angels dancing on pinheads.
;-)

> > In other words, he didn't want to test to find out his "estimate" was
> > bogus. He probably knew it was high.

> Oh blah blah blah.

> For my late model GE smallish microwave, it uses 3 watts on idle. That
> required winding 30 turns on an amprobe, measuring the current and
> dividing by 30 and then multiplying by the line voltage. If you had the
> same MW and used it 5 minutes the phantom energy is equal to the in use
> energy.

That sounds believable, and since you actually measured I'll accept that.

> I have never recommended removing clocks from anything, quite the
> contrary. But just because they are necessary does not mean they aren't
> trivial. Considering that a microwave is a high drain device while in
> operation just shows the depth of the problem for all the low drain
> devices that probably have higher idle drain. The old cable boxes
> certainly spring to mind. So does anything run by a wall wart.

Actually, I wish they would do away with clocks in microwaves and
kitchen appliances in general. I don't need or want extra clocks
in my kitchen. The only reason my coffee maker has one is that the
coffee makers with clocks have an auto-shutoff that I consider a
safety freature. I really don't like that there are 2 LEDs on there
that do nothing of value, but stay lit all the time.

Again, I'm probably not typical as I only have 1 TV and no cable box
or satellite receiver. My stereo receiver stays on 24/7 because it
has some issues with powering on after being turned off and is too
old to have any sort of standby mode or remote control, but I'll be
replacing that one of these days. That receiver also exhibits some
elements of poor design, in my opinion. For example it has a pair
of lights which indicate a "high blend" function is either on or off.
This function is automatic and there is no user control to defeat it,
so why do I need a pair of lights to tell me about it? I see a lot
of stuff like that which I consider a waste of both materials and
power.

> I have no problem in believing that at least 5% of the energy used in
> this country is phantom losses. Probably half of that is recoverable by
> better design. With the cost of copper what it is, I'd think wall warts
> have a limited future.

Really, I'm pretty much in agreement with you here. 5% sounds reasonable.
Even 10% would not surprise me. I just don't like alarmist language
and exageration when real facts and reasonable arguments should be enough.
And, I will say that you, Jeff, are not who I'm talking about being
alarmist.

Bill Ranck
Blacksburg, Va.

== 7 of 11 ==
Date: Tues, Jun 3 2008 6:13 am
From: salty@dog.com

On Tue, 3 Jun 2008 13:03:28 +0000 (UTC), ranck@vt.edu wrote:

>In misc.consumers.frugal-living Jeff <jeff@spam_me_not.com> wrote:
>> ranck@vt.edu wrote:
>> > I think he is seriously over estimating the power usage of a
>> > clock chip and LCD display. 1 Watt would be more like it.
>> > 5 Watts would be about right for an old mechanical stove clock.
>
>> You are, of course, neglecting the power supply losses. Non switching
>> regulators typically throw away half or more of the power. The trend is
>> away from them.
>
>Well, we do seem to be arguing the number of angels dancing on pinheads.
>;-)
>

Not really. Transformers draw significant power even when there is no
demand upon them. They just turn it into heat rather than work.

Plug in a wall wart with no load on it and measure the temperature and
current draw after an hour. That's a very tiny transformer.

If you remove one tube form a two tube florescent light fixture with
an old fashioned transformer, it hardly changes power consumption at
all.

== 8 of 11 ==
Date: Tues, Jun 3 2008 6:24 am
From: SMS

Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
> "val189" <gwehrenb@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
>>> 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?
>
> I think he's talking about electronics plugged into the strips, not the
> strips themselves

Just don't turn off a power strip that has a desktop computer plugged
into it. The power supply provides +5V Standby to the motherboard's RTC
(real time clock) and CMOS RAM (which holds configuration data). When
the computer is unplugged (or during a power failure) the small,
non-rechargeable, lithium coin cell battery, maintains the RTC and CMOS
RAM. Often these are soldered in, not in a battery holder, and difficult
to replace. These batteries are not intended to supply power to the RTC
and CMOS RAM for long periods of time (unlike computers of 15 years ago
where the power supply didn't provide any power when the system was
turned off, and they used a much higher capacity battery).

== 9 of 11 ==
Date: Tues, Jun 3 2008 7:19 am
From: Jeff

ranck@vt.edu wrote:
> In misc.consumers.frugal-living Jeff <jeff@spam_me_not.com> wrote:
>> ranck@vt.edu wrote:
>>> I think he is seriously over estimating the power usage of a
>>> clock chip and LCD display. 1 Watt would be more like it.
>>> 5 Watts would be about right for an old mechanical stove clock.
>
>> You are, of course, neglecting the power supply losses. Non switching
>> regulators typically throw away half or more of the power. The trend is
>> away from them.
>
> Well, we do seem to be arguing the number of angels dancing on pinheads.
> ;-)
>
>>> In other words, he didn't want to test to find out his "estimate" was
>>> bogus. He probably knew it was high.
>
>> Oh blah blah blah.
>
>> For my late model GE smallish microwave, it uses 3 watts on idle. That
>> required winding 30 turns on an amprobe, measuring the current and
>> dividing by 30 and then multiplying by the line voltage. If you had the
>> same MW and used it 5 minutes the phantom energy is equal to the in use
>> energy.
>
> That sounds believable, and since you actually measured I'll accept that.
>
>> I have never recommended removing clocks from anything, quite the
>> contrary. But just because they are necessary does not mean they aren't
>> trivial. Considering that a microwave is a high drain device while in
>> operation just shows the depth of the problem for all the low drain
>> devices that probably have higher idle drain. The old cable boxes
>> certainly spring to mind. So does anything run by a wall wart.
>
> Actually, I wish they would do away with clocks in microwaves and
> kitchen appliances in general.

I'm a little surprised where TVs have popped up. If you thought an
excess of clocks was bad, you'll hate seeing a TV above the icemaker
door on the fridge. I wouldn't be surprised now to see one on the microwave!

It's starting to look like the efficiency gains of appliances is being
offset by phantom losses of a plethora of low duty cycle or unnecessary
bonus devices.

I don't need or want extra clocks
> in my kitchen. The only reason my coffee maker has one is that the
> coffee makers with clocks have an auto-shutoff that I consider a
> safety freature. I really don't like that there are 2 LEDs on there
> that do nothing of value, but stay lit all the time.
>
> Again, I'm probably not typical as I only have 1 TV and no cable box
> or satellite receiver. My stereo receiver stays on 24/7 because it
> has some issues with powering on after being turned off and is too
> old to have any sort of standby mode or remote control, but I'll be
> replacing that one of these days.

I'm not exactly sure where receiver technology is these days. Old style
receivers throw away a lot of power. The trend is toward energy
efficient because they are cheaper to manufacture, less heat sinking and
smaller overall size and a smaller power supply. With that said, there's
nothing quite like the sound from an old MacIntosh Tube or solid state amp.

Everyone needs some indulgence!

That receiver also exhibits some
> elements of poor design, in my opinion. For example it has a pair
> of lights which indicate a "high blend" function is either on or off.
> This function is automatic and there is no user control to defeat it,
> so why do I need a pair of lights to tell me about it? I see a lot
> of stuff like that which I consider a waste of both materials and
> power.
>

The disturbing trend is what is typical. There's an explosion of small
electronic devices and an explosion of electronics in all devices, like
your coffee maker. So phantom power is on the increase. Radically on the
increase.

I think good design can eliminate much of this, and I see that there
is a one watt initiative aiming at keeping phantom power per device
under one watt.

>> I have no problem in believing that at least 5% of the energy used in
>> this country is phantom losses. Probably half of that is recoverable by
>> better design. With the cost of copper what it is, I'd think wall warts
>> have a limited future.
>
> Really, I'm pretty much in agreement with you here. 5% sounds reasonable.
> Even 10% would not surprise me. I just don't like alarmist language
> and exageration when real facts and reasonable arguments should be enough.
> And, I will say that you, Jeff, are not who I'm talking about being
> alarmist.
>

Thanks. I think we just got of on the wrong foot!

I'm not sure where the future lies, but it seems increasingly obvious
that some steps need to be taken. A nearly free lunch like reducing
phantom losses through design seems like a good plan.

Personally, I'm more concerned over the big ticket energy users, like
heating and air conditioning and lighting.

Jeff

> Bill Ranck
> Blacksburg, Va.

== 10 of 11 ==
Date: Tues, Jun 3 2008 7:29 am
From: Kyle

On Jun 1, 5:37 pm, David Nebenzahl <nob...@but.us.chickens> wrote:
[snip]
> 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.

I think the point being made in this discussion is also how much
people are being penny wise and pound (dollar) foolish.

Before one worries about how much electricity is being wasted by LEDs
and clocks and small electrics that are in standby (these days it
seems nothing is every truly and completely turned off) one should
worry how much energy they are wasting in their high-draw devices such
as the hot water heater, the refrigerator, the stove, etc.

Once someone has addressed the unnecessary losses there (are you
keeping your water heater on too high a setting? are you standing
there staring into the 'fridge with the door open thinking about what
to eat?) then they should feel free to also eliminate the small losses.

== 11 of 11 ==
Date: Tues, Jun 3 2008 8:00 am
From: ranck@vt.edu

In misc.consumers.frugal-living Jeff <jeff@spam_me_not.com> wrote:
> ranck@vt.edu wrote:
> > Actually, I wish they would do away with clocks in microwaves and
> > kitchen appliances in general.

> I'm a little surprised where TVs have popped up. If you thought an
> excess of clocks was bad, you'll hate seeing a TV above the icemaker
> door on the fridge. I wouldn't be surprised now to see one on the microwave!

I've seen those. The first time I saw it, I thought it was a joke,
but apparently they really are marketing them. I don't know where
to start with just how dumb an idea I think that is. Well, I won't
be buying one. I did see a prototype some years back where the
video screen on the door was to allow you to see inside without
opening the door, thus saving energy by not having the door open
while browsing, but that's not what seems to have made it to market.

> It's starting to look like the efficiency gains of appliances is being
> offset by phantom losses of a plethora of low duty cycle or unnecessary
> bonus devices.

There are a lot "because we can" features on things. Mostly harmless,
but often enough it's a small power user. My microwave has a bunch
of pre-programmed cooking functions which I will never use, but at
least those don't seem to use any power if I ignore them.

> > or satellite receiver. My stereo receiver stays on 24/7 because it
> > has some issues with powering on after being turned off and is too
> > old to have any sort of standby mode or remote control, but I'll be
> > replacing that one of these days.

> I'm not exactly sure where receiver technology is these days. Old style
> receivers throw away a lot of power. The trend is toward energy
> efficient because they are cheaper to manufacture, less heat sinking and
> smaller overall size and a smaller power supply. With that said, there's
> nothing quite like the sound from an old MacIntosh Tube or solid state amp.

Mine's solid state. No way I'd leave a tube amp on 24/7, though I guess
the "true audiophiles" do so the tubes stay warm. I assume new stuff
uses switching power supplies.

> I think good design can eliminate much of this, and I see that there
> is a one watt initiative aiming at keeping phantom power per device
> under one watt.

That should be easily achievable if engineers can avoid that tendency
they have to add stuff because they think it's cool, without considering
if it's really going to be useful and at what cost.

> I'm not sure where the future lies, but it seems increasingly obvious
> that some steps need to be taken. A nearly free lunch like reducing
> phantom losses through design seems like a good plan.

No argument here.

> Personally, I'm more concerned over the big ticket energy users, like
> heating and air conditioning and lighting.

Exactly. Though at lot of the low hanging fruit has been picked in
those areas.

Bill Ranck
Blacksburg, Va.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Here you can get very useful information to make money,and appearance
amazing pictures
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/c920340a7d2277d5?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Jun 3 2008 6:10 am
From: 82484658@qq.com

Here you can get very useful information to make money,and appearance
amazing pictures
http://www.flixya.com/post/superphoto/813150/

==============================================================================
TOPIC: another celebrity goes Scientology
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/6e740135d665ef81?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Jun 2 2008 7:31 pm
From: FRice@SkepticTank.Org (Fredric L. Rice)

barb <xenubarb@netscape.net> wrote:
>Mensanator wrote:
>> On May 31, 10:18�pm, markritter...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> According to CNN...The latest celebrity to become a Scientologist:
>>> VANILLA ICE.
>Who is Vanilla Ice? Do they sell them on Venice Beach?

}:-} It was a crapper from like 20 years ago, a nobody now but marginally
popular among white children who wanted to grow up to be Negros. }:-}

---
"Anonymous is under yer plate, in your shorts, hanging from the ceiling" -- Phil Scott
"At least with crystal meth you don't end up a Scientologist." -- markritter

==============================================================================
TOPIC: www.0086wholesale.com wholesale ed hardy lacoste ggg tshirts,lacoste
trainers
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/ffa0986bf3acb4ab?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Jun 3 2008 7:47 am
From: myniceshoes8@yahoo.com.cn

--------( www.0086wholesale.com ) ---------

Discount Coach Sandals, Dior Sandals, Prada Sandals, Chanel Sandals,
Versace Sandals, Crocs Sandals, Women's Sandals Men's Slippers From
China
Affliction T-shirts lacoste T-shirts Polo T-shirts Brand ShirtsGGG T-
shirts Designer T-Shirts Helen Coat burberry coat Cheap Jacket Juicy
Couture bbc hoodies bape hoodies Cheap Designer Hoodies NFL NHL NBA
MLB Jersey

==============================================================================

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

Frugal Living

Blog Archive

Tuesday, June 3, 2008

25 new messages in 12 topics - digest

No comments: