I meant "the GUI option of the SHUTDOWN command as documented just below is not available remotely".
Viz.
shutdown -i
does NOT do anything useful - it does not invoke the shutdown window. So you have to enter the options you wish to use on the command line.
I did not mean using Windows in a purely text-based way.
Yes they are. I've bought loads of 'em.
IKEA, among others, keep them. Try a wholesaler.
I did go to TLC's site and look - the ones I linked to were meant to be the 117mm ones in the list below:
LA TH100 100w Tungston Halogen Lamp - 78mm EA EA 10+
2.50 1.99LA TH150 150w Tungston Halogen Lamp - 78mm EA EA 10+
2.00 1.75LA TH150L 150w Tungsten Halogen Lamp - 117mm EA EA 10+
2.00 1.75LA TH200 200w Tungsten Halogen Lamp - 117mm EA EA 10+
1.60 1.25LA TH300 300w Tungsten Halogen Lamp- 117mm EA EA 10+
1.60 1.25LA TH500 500w Tungsten Halogen Lamp- 117mm EA EA 10+
1.25 1.25Seem to be the same length as the 200, 300 and 500W ones. There is
*also* a 78mm 150W but that was not what I meant. Is there any problem with using these?
None at all, just never seen them, and had looked a bit a couple of years ago.
Good - I didn't want to be giving out duff advice. :-)
I have a number of always-on PC's spread around my family, allowing me to remote manage their infrastructure and providing a family VoIP service. I found I could use old Compaq Deskpro EN systems, which even 3 years ago I could pick up very cheaply. They're a mixture of 700MHz and 1GHz PIII's, 512Mbytes RAM. They consume around 20W when the disk spinds down and that's including powering an ethernet hub and wireless access point, for which I seal power from the unused CD drive connector (which is much more efficient than using their own wall-warts).
They weren't around some years back. 300W was the lowest, then 200W, and now 150W. I do wonder if the 150W really gets hot enough to run the halogen cycle as well -- it may be due to these types of fittings all needing to be enclosed nowadays that this is possible.
GE do some special IR reflecting ones which reflect the IR back onto the filament so it requires less energy for the same light output. 225W replaces 300W, and 375W replaces
500W. These can be difficult to find, but B&Q sometimes have one or other rating in stock. Unfortunately, GE don't do them in any other ratings in this country.
Mine was about £450 two years ago, IIRC. I would expect that's come down, but I haven't checked.
Air-to-air heat pumps have quite a limited outside temperature range where they are useful for heating, though.
I would be surprised. I suggest buying a plug-in energy meter and checking.
A freezer might be significant if its insulation has broken down and the compressor is running much longer than it should. A dishwasher normally uses less water than washing by hand (unless you don't fill it), and only heats the main wash and final rinse.
snipped-for-privacy@cucumber.demon.co.uk (Andrew Gabriel) wrote in news:485e4080$0$78073$ snipped-for-privacy@news.aaisp.net.uk:
This is correct, and probably the way to do it. The only minor (ahem!) complication is that the majority (?) of consumer class routers disallow port forwarding to the network broadcast address
Typically this is 192.168.x.255 where x = 0 or 1 depending on the brand of router. However, broadcast traffic to the LAN from an external WAN address is regarded as a security risk, so this may be a problem.
You may find that entering 255 in the fourth field of the target address is rejected when attempting to configure port forwarding of the UDP packet (usually on port 7 or 9). If it is the case that it's just the config screen data validation which is rejecting this, there is a way to get round this by using the TamperIE tool (Google for it
- similar tools for use with other browsers probably exist). However, if the router firmware prohibits forwarding to the broadcast address, then that's insurmountable.
A bit of experimentation will help. Configure your router, then try the tool here:
If you run a copy of Wireshark/Ethereal on a different PC behind the router you shpuld be able to spot the incoming broadcast traffic. If this arrives OK, there shouldn't be a problem. If it doesn't arrive, then the router is blocking it. Provided you have port forwarding correctly configured, that means you may have to try a different brand/model of router...
Hope this helps
The smaller LV or mains ceiling light stuff goes down to 50W, maybe 25W.. Car headlights at 55W etc...
I suspect that might be down to the safety elfs, you really don't want to get in the way of an exploding halogen bubble.
Well thats good, because nuclear fuel only costs .1p per unit.
No, it isn't.
Not sure what it is at the moment, but the equivalent cost of a Kwh of boiler oil running at 80% efficiency is about the price in liters divided by ten: currently about 5.5p.
Last bill my off peak was 4.8p and my on peak was about 11p.
Break even nuclear electricity for new sets is around 2p a unit.
Current off peak seems to average around 4p a unit, and on peak varies with usage, with the higher level band being around 10p after the initial 17p bullshit level is exceeded: Which I mot surely would within a couple of Weeks in winter ..
My total electricity and heating at current oil prices is around £3200 estimated at projected oil prices. My split is pretty much 50/50 night/day and given the layout of the house I could probably keep that with electric heating also. That puts my median usage all electric at around 7p a unit.
For a conventional boiler my break even is therefore 70p liter ion oil.
With a heatpump giving me a 60% energy 'discount' my break even is at
28p a liter.It currently around twice that.
given that I fully expect to spend £2500 on heating oil over the next year, even if oil got no higher, and electricity stayed the same, that over a ten year amortization program means a heatpump could cost up to £12500 and still be worth it.
The house is fully insulated, and there is no gas.
What you fail to realise that whilst gas and oil are rocketing, coal and nuclear - which generate the bulk of the electricity - are not.
In fact at last years WOOD prices, a wood burning stve is about half the price of oil central heating.
Tell me where I can get a 15kW output unit that will run of a couple of hundred meters of pipe layed in the ground.
I tried phoning one supplier, but they didn't call me back..
It may use less water, but it heats it all.
There is no need to use more than a trickle of hot water to wash most dishes: indeed with detergents there is no need for hot water at all.
On Mon, 23 Jun 2008 03:15:21 +0100 someone who may be The Natural Philosopher wrote this:-
Only if a cycle only has a main wash and final rinse. The word final is a clue that there is more than one rinse.
Of course dishwasher water tends to be heated by electricity [1], while the water for hand washing tends not to be heated by electricity in many households. Therefore the balance does depend on how much water the dishwasher heats compared to a bowl, which is much less for a small model and perhaps the same amount for a large model (though a large model takes more dishes than most people will manage in one bowl of hand washing), together with how hot the dishwasher heats the water.
[1] it is possible to feed them with hot water, which those with solar hot water in particular may want to do.On Mon, 23 Jun 2008 03:11:26 +0100 someone who may be The Natural Philosopher wrote this:-
Is it really.
It is rather more expensive than that, even before taking the costs of decommissioning into account. The power station in Finland has already demonstrated the reality behind nuclear lobby claims on both price and time.
54.4% for April 2006 to March 2007. Coal 35.8%, nuclear 18.6, gas 38.8%, renewable 4.7%, other 2.1% according to BERR, as reported at .I have no idea about coal without looking it up, but if Mr Brown is foolish enough to jump on the nuclear bandwagon with the other sheep then in his retirement he can watch the price of nuclear fuel rocketing due to the laws of supply and demand.
The cost of nuclear fuel is not significant in the cost of nuclear powered electricity. Even if it does rocket (which is most unlikely as there are far more uranium reserves than anyone can currently envisage using, not to mention other elements which can also be used, and fast breeders, etc), it would have no noticable effect on cost of nuclear powered electricity.
Given we have imported spent uranium for reprocessing for some years from other countries, I wouldn't be surprised if we are in a position where we have more material for fast breeder reactors than we could ever use. (IIRC, you get over 50 times more energy than on the first use of the uranium.) Fast breeders aren't currently economic only because uranium is so cheap and in plentyful supply.
On 23 Jun 2008 08:30:49 GMT someone who may be snipped-for-privacy@cucumber.demon.co.uk (Andrew Gabriel) wrote this:-
All these "untapped reserves" of uranium remind me of the claims that there is vast amounts of oil around an all that is needed is for the price to go up for it to be economic.
covers those claims well,see below for nuclear.
Most of it on the condition that it is returned to the country of origin.
The claim that it is only economics that prevents breeder reactors being used is false. The actual reason is that, so far, they have not worked.
is a good summary of nuclear. It has this to say on breeder reactors:
"Breeders are in principle a very attractive technology. In uranium ore, a mere 0.7 percent of the uranium content consists of the useful isotope ? the one that is fissile and produces energy ? uranium-235. Most of the rest consists of uranium-238, and most of that simply gets in the way and has to be dumped at the end; it is uranium-238 which is responsible for much of the awesome mixture of radioactive materials that causes the waste problem. And yet, uranium-238, as we saw in the introduction, also has the property of being fertile. When bombarded by neutrons from a 'start-up' fuel like uranium-235 or plutonium-239, it can absorb a neutron to become uranium-239, which quickly decays to neptunium-239 and then to plutonium-239. This means that plutonium-239 can be used as a start-up fuel to breed more plutonium-239, more-or-less indefinitely. That's where the claim that nuclear power would one day be too cheap to meter comes from. The Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA) and International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) suggest that if all available sources of ore are exploited, and fast-breeder reactors perfected and developed, we may look forward to 20,000 years of nuclear energy at current rates of output.
"But there is a catch. It is a complicated technology. It consists of three operations: breeding, reprocessing and fuel fabrication, all of which have to work concurrently and smoothly.
"First, breeding: this does not simply convert uranium-238 to plutonium- 239; at the same time, it breeds plutonium-241, americium, curium, rhodium, technetium, palladium and much else. This fiercely radioactive mixture tends to clog up and corrode the equipment. There are in principle ways round these problems, but a smoothly-running breeding process on a commercial scale has never yet been achieved.
"Secondly, reprocessing. The mixture of radioactive products that comes out of the breeding process has to be sorted, with the plutonium-239 being extracted. The mixture itself is highly radioactive, and tends to degrade the solvent, tributyl phosphate. Here, too, insoluble compounds form, clogging up the equipment; there is some debate about how great the danger is of plutonium accumulating into a critical mass, and setting off a nuclear explosion. The mixture gets hot and releases radioactive gases; and significant quantities of the plutonium and uranium are lost as waste. As in the case of the breeder operation itself, smoothly-running reprocessing on a commercial scale has never yet been achieved.
"The third operation is to fabricate the recovered plutonium as fuel. The mixture gives off a great deal of gamma and alpha radiation, so the whole process of forming the fuel into rods which can then be put back into a reactor has to be done by remote control. This, too, has yet to be achieved as a smoothly-running commercial operation.
"And, of course, it follows that the whole fast-breeder cycle, consisting of three processes none of which have ever worked as intended, has itself never worked. There are three fast-breeder reactors in the world: Beloyarsk-3 in Russia, Monju in Japan and Phénix in France; Monju and Phénix have long been out of operation; Beloyarsk is still operating, but it has never bred.
"But let us look on the bright side of all this. Suppose that, with 30 years of intensive research and development, the world's nuclear energy industry could find a use for all the reactor-grade plutonium in existence, and fabricate it into fuel rods. You can see straight away how seductive this technology is because when plutonium is used in fast breeders, wrapped in large 'blankets' of uranium-238, you need (in theory) just three tonnes of plutonium to drive the process along, so you could (in theory) start up 80 fast-breeder reactors at the same time. So, they start breeding in 2035. But the process is not as fast as the name suggests ('fast' refers to the speeds needed at the subatomic level, rather than the speed of the process), and the outcome is by no means certain; but let us give the technology the benefit of the doubt: everything goes according to plan. Forty years later, each breeder reactor would have bred enough plutonium to replace itself and to start up another one. With the benefit of these magical assumptions becoming reality, by 2075 ? long after reaching the depths of the coming energy famine ? we would have 160 breeder reactors in place worldwide (there are 439 nuclear reactors in operation now). And that is all we would have, because the ordinary, uranium-235-based reactors would by then be out of fuel."
Grief, do you use 1kW electric bar heaters for lighting, or somesuch?
It was really a complaint from Lucifer.
HomeOwnersHub website 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.