http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living?hl=en
misc.consumers.frugal-living@googlegroups.com
Today's topics:
* Range clock - Disconnect it! - 22 messages, 9 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/3e2a7ad7ec279de4?hl=en
* Poverty in California... - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/df52112e775185a1?hl=en
* Collectible Sports Memorabilia - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/d78b2395f6f04683?hl=en
* Richard Branson and an alternative to eBay - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/1e60826ab353aaf4?hl=en
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Range clock - Disconnect it!
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/3e2a7ad7ec279de4?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 22 ==
Date: Tues, Jun 3 2008 4:31 pm
From: Mark Lloyd
On Tue, 3 Jun 2008 11:10:48 -0700, "Bob F" <bobnospam@gmail.com>
wrote:
[snip]
>
>I had one (early) DVD player that, when turned off, merely turned off the LED on
>the front panel. The power supply was still fully supplying power to the board
>and drive, even when turned off.
>
>
Current ones (at least should) turn off the video output(s) too. This
allows you to use an automatic audio/video switch.
I would expect motors to be off as well.
--
Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.laughingsquid.com
"DISCLAIMER If you find a posting or message
from me offensive, inappropriate, or disruptive,
please ignore it. If you don't know how to
ignore a posting, complain to me and I will
demonstrate."
== 2 of 22 ==
Date: Tues, Jun 3 2008 4:38 pm
From: spambait@milmac.com (Doug Miller)
In article <6alm7jF38139cU1@mid.individual.net>, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>Doug Miller <spambait@milmac.com> wrote
>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>>> Doug Miller <spambait@milmac.com> wrote
>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>> Jeff <jeff@spam_me_not.com> wrote
>
>>>>>> In the average home, 75% of the electricity used to power home
>>>>>> electronics is consumed while the products are turned off.
>
>>>>> 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?
>
>>> Didnt say anything like that.
>
>>> I said that those are the main power users OF THE HOME ELECTRONICS.
>
>> Ummm... no, you didn't.
>
>Yes I did.
>
>> It's right there: "...TVs and computers, which just happen
>> to be the main uses of power in the average home ..."
>
>Pity that had the words EVEN WITH JUST THE HOME ELECTRONICS
>on the end of it, which you have just carefully deleted.
>
>> Now that may not be what you *meant* ... but it is what you *said*.
>
>No it isnt.
Not much point in continuing to argue with someone who denies having written
his own words.
Bye.
== 3 of 22 ==
Date: Tues, Jun 3 2008 4:47 pm
From: terry
On Jun 2, 4:02 pm, "Pipedown" <piped...@nowhere.net> wrote:
> This may seem extreme to most of us living on the grid but if one were to be
> living off the grid maybe using solar and batteries, this kind of stuff
> makes a measurable difference. For that matter if you have a gas range and
> it only needs 110V, you could put it on a wall switch and avoid modifying
> the range.
>
> I can't imagine the OP with an electric range but for some reason he
> evidently does. For newer ranges with electronic controls, this would not
> be possible as the clock is integrated into all the controls.
>
> "Bill" <billnomailnosp...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:6afuqhF37qq1vU1@mid.individual.net...
>
>
>
> > The clock on my range has never kept correct time, yet it keeps running
> > and using electricity. (Small amount, but many little things like this can
> > add up.)
>
> > So I pulled my electric range out from the wall, unplugged it, and
> > disconnected the clock. (Only do this if you know what you are doing.)
>
> > I already have many electronic things on power strips and turn off the
> > power strips when not in use. These things use electricity all the time...- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
And sometimes has to be reset if/when a power glitch occurs. Darn it!
Up til now, and noting that 'modern stoves' are almost impossible to
buy without an 'electronic-digital clock/timer' have been able to
survive, from 1956 to the present, using a series of new and used
(usually donated free) kitchen cooking stoves.
However have kept a couple of old-fashioned electromechanical clocks
from scrapped stoves so as to have on hand if/when it becomes
necessary to acquire an electronic clock model!
Advantage of the older clocks is even if the power goes off for a few
minutes, the clock restarts by itself and the roast is not left
uncooked or the cake in the oven is not spoiled.
Then when next one notices just adjust the clock time if using it as a
time piece is important.
And yes; in a school and church hall cafeteria the stove clock timer
was frequently being bumped by cooking pots on the top of the stove,
oven stopped working causing frequent calls for assistance. Usually
myself! So disconnected it!
== 4 of 22 ==
Date: Tues, Jun 3 2008 4:53 pm
From: dpb
Rod Speed wrote:
> dpb <none@non.net> wrote
...
>> If the "greens" have any serious ideas of affecting CO2, we'll find out shortly as the present 20+ license
>> applications pending at the NRC wend their way thru...
>
> Nope, they are completely irrelevant to the success or otherwise of those applications.
Not in any reasonable sense--to make up for the generation lost by
switching away from combustion it's going to take more than your
definition of green; hence, nuclear will be a major contributor to the
reduction in greenhouse gases, specifically CO, if there is going to be
any significant reduction (or even maintaining nearly the present level)
as there simply aren't going to be enough alternative generation sources
available in time.
You can say it isn't green if you want, but it's a nonfunctional
definition for accomplishing anything.
--
== 5 of 22 ==
Date: Tues, Jun 3 2008 5:02 pm
From: dpb
Rod Speed wrote:
> dpb <none@non.net> wrote
...
I didn't see all this bs earlier so final comments...
>> And why not, pray tell?
>
> Green is primarily about renewable resources and power nukes aint.
>
> We dont even use breeder reactors for nuke power generation.
That we don't currently is only owing to the shortsightedness of a
former administration that decreed the NRC would not process the
licensing application for the reprocessing facility GE was planning to
build in Barnwell, SC, area.
The same administration followed that gem w/ the cancellation of the
CRBRP demonstration project outside Oak Ridge, TN.
At my former employer, we were designing for Pu and Th reload fuel
cycles in conventional PWRs in the early to mid-'70s. Needless to say,
the above two actions precluded going further.
So, that we don't currently use breeders in commercial power generation
in the US is only a political decision, not a technical one. Also note
I didn't say we currently were breeding only that it is feasible; hence
renewable.
>> Being less intrusive on the environment of the _OVERALL_ process from manufacturing, fuel supply, operation and
>> disposal is the epitome of "green".
>
> Nope. Infanticide would be very green using that test and you
> wont find too many spruiking infanticide as being very green.
The discussion is of power generation, not population control so the
comparison is of no value.
--
== 6 of 22 ==
Date: Tues, Jun 3 2008 5:30 pm
From: don@manx.misty.com (Don Klipstein)
In article <8lga44d6vh1a93n54kncejdsa4rgs1cssa@4ax.com>, salty@dog.com wrote:
>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.
On that last point, I find that the power consumption changes a lot.
The change is less when the ballast is one of those "pseudoparallel"
electronic ones rated to power more than one quantity of tubes, and the
remaining tube(s) get increased power when one tube is removed. But the
overall power consumption still goes down when one tube is removed.
- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)
== 7 of 22 ==
Date: Tues, Jun 3 2008 5:34 pm
From: don@manx.misty.com (Don Klipstein)
In article <Syb1k.3334$N87.138@nlpi068.nbdc.sbc.com>, SMS wrote:
>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).
My computer has an Asus A7N8X-E "deluxe" motherboard for the AMD "Athlon
XP" processor. That is maybe 5 years old. I got it the same day I got a
"3200+" processor. The battery is removable and replaceable. I have that
computer on a power strip that I often turn off.
- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)
== 8 of 22 ==
Date: Tues, Jun 3 2008 6:02 pm
From: "Rod Speed"
Doug Miller <spambait@milmac.com> wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>> Doug Miller <spambait@milmac.com> wrote
>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>>>> Doug Miller <spambait@milmac.com> wrote
>>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>>> Jeff <jeff@spam_me_not.com> wrote
>>>>>>> In the average home, 75% of the electricity used to power home
>>>>>>> electronics is consumed while the products are turned off.
>>>>>> 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?
>>>> Didnt say anything like that.
>>>> I said that those are the main power users OF THE HOME ELECTRONICS.
>>> Ummm... no, you didn't.
>> Yes I did.
>>> It's right there: "...TVs and computers, which just happen
>>> to be the main uses of power in the average home ..."
>> Pity that had the words EVEN WITH JUST THE HOME ELECTRONICS
>> on the end of it, which you have just carefully deleted.
>>> Now that may not be what you *meant* ... but it is what you *said*.
>> No it isnt.
> Not much point in continuing to argue with someone
> who denies having written his own words.
No point in bothering with a terminal fuckwit that selectively
quotes what I actually did say in a desperate and flagrantly
dishonest attempt to bullshit its way out of its predicament.
> Bye.
Dont let the door hit you on the arse on the way out, liar.
== 9 of 22 ==
Date: Tues, Jun 3 2008 6:06 pm
From: "Rod Speed"
dpb <none@non.net> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> dpb <none@non.net> wrote
>>> If the "greens" have any serious ideas of affecting CO2, we'll find out shortly as the present 20+ license
>>> applications pending at the NRC wend their way thru...
>> Nope, they are completely irrelevant to the success or otherwise of those applications.
> Not in any reasonable sense--to make up for the generation lost by switching away from combustion it's going to take
> more than your definition of green;
Its not my definition, its the generally accepted use of that term.
> hence, nuclear will be a major contributor to the reduction in greenhouse gases, specifically CO, if there is going to
> be any significant reduction (or even maintaining nearly the present level) as there simply aren't going to be enough
> alternative generation sources available in time.
Sure, but that doesnt mean that the US system will have a clue on that basic stuff.
> You can say it isn't green if you want, but it's a nonfunctional definition for accomplishing anything.
It doesnt have to be called green to be able to accomplish something useful.
== 10 of 22 ==
Date: Tues, Jun 3 2008 6:06 pm
From: salty@dog.com
On Wed, 4 Jun 2008 05:32:12 +1000, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>salty@dog.com wrote
>> ranck@vt.edu wrote
>>> 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.
>
>Correct.
>
>> If you remove one tube form a two tube florescent
>> light fixture with an old fashioned transformer,
>
>Thats not a transformer, thats a ballast, electrically very different.
>
>> it hardly changes power consumption at all.
>
>Wrong. Those take very little power when turned off.
>
Those who claim you are a fool are apparently correct.
== 11 of 22 ==
Date: Tues, Jun 3 2008 6:07 pm
From: salty@dog.com
On Wed, 4 Jun 2008 05:42:51 +1000, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>salty@dog.com 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...
>
>> <http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/R/ROCKY_FLATS_LAWSUIT?SITE=1010WINS&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT>
>
>Thats not nuke electricity generation.
>
That doesn't make a BIT of difference.
== 12 of 22 ==
Date: Tues, Jun 3 2008 6:16 pm
From: salty@dog.com
On Wed, 4 Jun 2008 00:30:17 +0000 (UTC), don@manx.misty.com (Don Klipstein)
wrote:
>In article <8lga44d6vh1a93n54kncejdsa4rgs1cssa@4ax.com>, salty@dog.com wrote:
>>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.
>
> On that last point, I find that the power consumption changes a lot.
>
> The change is less when the ballast is one of those "pseudoparallel"
>electronic ones rated to power more than one quantity of tubes, and the
>remaining tube(s) get increased power when one tube is removed. But the
>overall power consumption still goes down when one tube is removed.
>
> - Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)
My point was that the power consumption is not cut in half by removing one of
the tubes. If you turn on a two tube fixture with NO tubes in it, it will draw
power as well.
== 13 of 22 ==
Date: Tues, Jun 3 2008 6:12 pm
From: "Rod Speed"
dpb <none@non.net> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> dpb <none@non.net> wrote
> I didn't see all this bs earlier so final comments...
It aint bullshit, its fact.
>>> And why not, pray tell?
>> Green is primarily about renewable resources and power nukes aint.
>> We dont even use breeder reactors for nuke power generation.
> That we don't currently is only owing to the shortsightedness of a former administration that decreed the NRC would
> not process the licensing application for the reprocessing facility GE was planning to build in Barnwell, SC, area.
Nope, breeders arent used for power nukes anywhere in the world.
> The same administration followed that gem w/ the cancellation of the CRBRP demonstration project outside Oak Ridge,
> TN.
> At my former employer, we were designing for Pu and Th reload fuel cycles in conventional PWRs in the early to
> mid-'70s. Needless to say, the above two actions precluded going further.
Irrelevant to the rest of the world.
> So, that we don't currently use breeders in commercial power
> generation in the US is only a political decision, not a technical one.
Pity about the rest of the world.
> Also note I didn't say we currently were breeding only that it is feasible; hence renewable.
>>> Being less intrusive on the environment of the _OVERALL_ process from manufacturing, fuel supply, operation and
>>> disposal is the epitome of "green".
>> Nope. Infanticide would be very green using that test and you
>> wont find too many spruiking infanticide as being very green.
> The discussion is of power generation, not population control so the comparison is of no value.
Wrong, as always. We were discussing what constitutes green.
You havent got a clue about what that means.
Nukes are nothing like green.
They are however the best way to generate power if you care about CO2 emissions.
== 14 of 22 ==
Date: Tues, Jun 3 2008 6:27 pm
From: dpb
Rod Speed wrote:
...
> Wrong, as always. We were discussing what constitutes green.
...in the context of power generation
> You havent got a clue about what that means.
I know very well how it is used by certain advocates. Whether it is a
working definition is another matter. I choose to look at an entire
system rather than whether or not some label is or isn't meaningful.
You'll also note I've used "green", not green if you've been watching
carefully... :)
As for breeders, again I have only expounded on what is feasible (even
more so than relying on your acceptance of the conventional green
definition) as being a renewable source, not that it is presently being
used. You really need to read what is actually said rather than what
you think is said.
--
--
== 15 of 22 ==
Date: Tues, Jun 3 2008 6:28 pm
From: dpb
salty@dog.com wrote:
> On Wed, 4 Jun 2008 05:42:51 +1000, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> salty@dog.com 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...
>>> <http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/R/ROCKY_FLATS_LAWSUIT?SITE=1010WINS&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT>
>> Thats not nuke electricity generation.
>>
>
> That doesn't make a BIT of difference.
It makes a HUGE difference.
--
== 16 of 22 ==
Date: Tues, Jun 3 2008 6:47 pm
From: CJT
SMS wrote:
> 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).
Those little cells typically can power the clock and CMOS for a heck of
a long time; I wouldn't sweat it.
--
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.
== 17 of 22 ==
Date: Tues, Jun 3 2008 6:52 pm
From: CJT
George wrote:
> Pipedown wrote:
>
>> This guy is years ahead of his time. Someday we will all be scraping
>> the bottom of the savings barrel this fastidiously. Well at least I
>> hope not. By the time the oil really runs out, we should be getting
>> most of our electricity from various green sources.
>>
>>
>>
>> "Bill" <billnomailnospamx@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:6afuqhF37qq1vU1@mid.individual.net...
>>
>>> The clock on my range has never kept correct time, yet it keeps
>>> running and using electricity. (Small amount, but many little things
>>> like this can add up.)
>>>
>>> So I pulled my electric range out from the wall, unplugged it, and
>>> disconnected the clock. (Only do this if you know what you are doing.)
>>>
>>> I already have many electronic things on power strips and turn off
>>> the power strips when not in use. These things use electricity all
>>> the time...
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
> I think we will see continuous adjustments of lifestyle towards
> efficiency. A lot of it is right in front of our noses such as driving
> normal cars instead of big, piggy fluffed up trucks for personal
> transportation. I good example of that is todays GM announcement that
> they will be closing their gas guzzler "car" plants.
I think they're closing four, but out of how many?
I still think the answer is treadmills in prisons. :-)
--
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.
== 18 of 22 ==
Date: Tues, Jun 3 2008 6:57 pm
From: CJT
max wrote:
> In article <g248pi$3su$1@aioe.org>, dpb <none@non.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Consider, for example, the problem of wind generation previously
>>mentioned. Since, as mentioned, even in one of the most advantageous
>>siting areas for wind, it requires from 2.5X to 4X the needed capacity
>>to have 50:50 probability the wind farm will provide that much (on a
>>monthly basis, the multipliers get even larger as time averaging goes
>>shorter), there has to be that backup generation somewhere, somehow to
>>make it up when needed. That, unfortunately, means investment in some
>>other generation capacity that most often now is gas turbine which
>>drives up demand for diminishing natural gas and does add to the CO.
>
>
> This is the most bullshit pocket-picking analysis i think i've ever
> seen.
>
Huh? I think he makes a valid point -- facilities must be designed for
peak demand, not average demand.
--
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.
== 19 of 22 ==
Date: Tues, Jun 3 2008 8:15 pm
From: "Edwin Pawlowski"
<ranck@vt.edu> wrote in message
> 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.
Just as the microwave has a clock based timer that counts down and shuts if
off too. Makes is saver for children and seniours to use over other cooking
apliances. Why would you want to eliminate that? You could step back 20
years and put in a windup timer but I don't see any real savings there.
== 20 of 22 ==
Date: Tues, Jun 3 2008 9:48 pm
From: "Rod Speed"
salty@dog.com wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>> salty@dog.com wrote
>>> ranck@vt.edu wrote
>>>> 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.
>> Correct.
>>> If you remove one tube form a two tube florescent
>>> light fixture with an old fashioned transformer,
>> Thats not a transformer, thats a ballast, electrically very different.
>>> it hardly changes power consumption at all.
>> Wrong. Those take very little power when turned off.
> Those who claim you are a fool are apparently correct.
Never ever could bullshit its way out of a wet paper bag.
== 21 of 22 ==
Date: Tues, Jun 3 2008 9:50 pm
From: "Rod Speed"
salty@dog.com wrote
> don@manx.misty.com (Don Klipstein) wrote
>> salty@dog.com wrote
>>> ranck@vt.edu wrote
>>>> 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.
>> On that last point, I find that the power consumption changes a lot.
>> The change is less when the ballast is one of those "pseudoparallel"
>> electronic ones rated to power more than one quantity of tubes, and
>> the remaining tube(s) get increased power when one tube is removed.
>> But the overall power consumption still goes down when one tube is removed.
> My point was that the power consumption is not cut in
> half by removing one of the tubes. If you turn on a two
> tube fixture with NO tubes in it, it will draw power as well.
Nope, it doesnt with the traditional ballast that fools like you dont realise isnt a transformer.
== 22 of 22 ==
Date: Tues, Jun 3 2008 9:57 pm
From: "Rod Speed"
dpb <none@non.net> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>> Being less intrusive on the environment of the OVERALL process from manufacturing, fuel supply, operation and
>>>>> disposal is the epitome of "green".
>>>> Nope. Infanticide would be very green using that test and you
>>>> wont find too many spruiking infanticide as being very green.
>>> The discussion is of power generation, not population control so the comparison is of no value.
>> Wrong, as always. We were discussing what constitutes green.
> ...in the context of power generation
Nope, the epitomy of green wasnt.
>> You havent got a clue about what that means.
> I know very well how it is used by certain advocates.
Thats how its used by anyone with a clue.
> Whether it is a working definition is another matter.
It isnt even a definition, working or otherwise.
> I choose to look at an entire system rather than whether or not some label is or isn't meaningful.
Pity nukes still arent anything like green even if you do that.
> You'll also note I've used "green", not green if you've been watching carefully... :)
You'll end up completely blind if you dont watch out.
> As for breeders, again I have only expounded on what is feasible
It aint what is feasible that makes something green, its what is actually done that matters.
> (even more so than relying on your acceptance of the conventional green definition) as being a renewable source, not
> that it is presently being used.
Pity that when current power generation by nukes isnt done with breeders,
its completely silly to claim that nuke power is green, as you did.
> You really need to read what is actually said rather than what you think is said.
You really need to retake Bullshitting 101.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Poverty in California...
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/df52112e775185a1?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Jun 3 2008 5:23 pm
From: The Real Bev
Samantha Hill - remove TRASH to reply wrote:
> Cindy Hamilton wrote:
>>
>> Reproductive freedom has always been the privilege of those with
>> the resources to reproduce successfully.
>
> Well, my experience has been that those people who championed abortion
> in the name of reproductive freedom sure seem to have backpedalled when
> it comes to making the door go both ways. Maybe they should have called
> it nonreproductive freedom instead.
>
> And childbearing is not a privilege; it's a fact of life that I don't
> believe the government has any right to make illegal. Discourage it by
> removing tax benefits; sure. But not make it illegal.
How about fertility treatments for welfare wannabe-moms? I think that's
a civil right now...
--
Cheers,
Bev
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
If it weren't for pain, we wouldn't have any fun at all.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Collectible Sports Memorabilia
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/d78b2395f6f04683?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Jun 3 2008 7:07 pm
From: fdgfg
Modern sports has become astonishingly popular. This popularity has
propelled the collectible sports memorabilia industry to new heights,
also. Physical connection to a sporting event or personality with a
collectible sports memorabilia item creates a special bond between fan
and sport
http://zluu.8tt.org/diving/collectible-sports-memorabilia.html
http://zluu.8tt.org/
==============================================================================
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 1 ==
Date: Tues, Jun 3 2008 8:28 pm
From: Donna
"Lumpy" <lumpy@digitalcartography.com> wrote in news:6ahhr4F35i75dU1
@mid.individual.net:
> Shopping victoriously for used tires.
I thought it was winning victoriously?
--
~Donna
http://www.thesewingdictionary.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