Range clock - Disconnect it!

Page 4 of 12  


Didnt say anything like that.
I said that those are the main power users OF THE HOME ELECTRONICS.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Ummm... no, you didn't. It's right there: "...TVs and computers, which just happen to be the main uses of power in the average home ..."
Now that may not be what you *meant* ... but it is what you *said*.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Yes I did.

Pity that had the words EVEN WITH JUST THE HOME ELECTRONICS on the end of it, which you have just carefully deleted.

No it isnt.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Not much point in continuing to argue with someone who denies having written his own words.
Bye.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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.

Dont let the door hit you on the arse on the way out, liar.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@vt.edu wrote:

Yes, did you miss the collectively?
How could you possibly think otherwise?
Isn't this whole thread about the amount of energy wasted while in standby?
When dealing

Actually, and I had misnamed before, Energy should be what we are talking about as energy has a time component. The power company bills for the amount of energy you use. The amount of power you use at any instant is usually irrelevant (unless you have peak billing).
Now, I would say that most stoves use more energy on than off(there's wide range here, I'm sure my old Jennaire uses no power when off).
I don't know how much power a typical stove with electronic controls uses but I found this.
http://michaelbluejay.com/electricity/transformers.html
The clock on the microwave uses more energy than the oven
The first time I heard that statement I thought,"Great, another electrical myth, like the myth that you should leave lights on because they take a lot of electricity to start up.". After all, I knew that the oven uses about 1000 watts while the clock uses five.
But then I thought, wait a minute, the clock is running 24/7, while the oven is running just a few minutes a day. Then I did the math:
How much energy the clock uses in a day: 5 (watts) x 24 (hours) 120 (watt-hours)
How long it takes the microwave to the same amount of energy: 120 watt-hours / 1000 watts = 0.12 hours, or 7.2 minutes
This means that if you use a typical microwave oven for less than 7.2 minutes/day, the clock uses more electricity than the oven. Wow.
That sounds perhaps even low to me and it is possible it uses twice the power while off. I suppose I could dig out my amprobe and check my late model name brand microwave since I don't have a kill a watt meter.
They are but one "electronic" device in a home though.

Who said otherwise? If you read this thread, I've never advocated removing a clock from a stove, quite the opposite.

Jeff
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Well, sure, like my toaster. It doesn't use any current when it's not being used.

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.

Now divide that by 5 to get a more realistic value . . .

I probably use my microwave in the 5 to 10 minutes per day range.

In other words, he didn't want to test to find out his "estimate" was bogus. He probably knew it was high.
Bill Ranck Blacksburg, Va.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@vt.edu wrote:

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.

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.
What does yours use?
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.
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.
Jeff

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

You're wrong. They will continue to be used because they are the best approach, particularly when they are switch mode.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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

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

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.

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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 3 Jun 2008 13:03:28 +0000 (UTC), snipped-for-privacy@vt.edu wrote:

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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@dog.com wrote

Correct.
Thats not a transformer, thats a ballast, electrically very different.

Wrong. Those take very little power when turned off.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Those who claim you are a fool are apparently correct.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@dog.com wrote

Never ever could bullshit its way out of a wet paper bag.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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 ( snipped-for-privacy@misty.com)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wed, 4 Jun 2008 00:30:17 +0000 (UTC), snipped-for-privacy@manx.misty.com (Don Klipstein) wrote:

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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@dog.com wrote

Nope, it doesnt with the traditional ballast that fools like you dont realise isnt a transformer.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Sorry, Rod, but this discussion is about the laws of physics on the planet Earth. We weren't including your planet, whatever it is.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@dog.com wrote

Never ever could bullshit its way out of a wet paper bag.
The ballast is in series with the tube, so when there is no tube present, there is no current drawn.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

That must be why the full name for the device is "Transformer Ballast", eh?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.