And they see for themselves that devices such as phone chargers, and tellies in standby mode use an immeasurably tiny amount of juice, in direct contradiction to what the green brigade keep on saying.
In message , at 06:49:15 on Sun, 8 Mar
2015, john james remarked:
...the dynamic contrast feature carried by most LCD and a few plasma TVs. The idea behind these is that the TV continually assesses the content of the picture you're watching, to see how bright or dark a shot is. And if it detects that a shot is predominantly dark, it will reduce the TV's light output in a bid to make blacks look less grey. Then, when it detects a scene that's brighter, it will up the light output again to give this scene more intensity.
That wouldn't have the same usage pattern, particularly wouldn't be seen last thing or first thing in the morning, or during the night.
Still not convinced that it changes the consumption of the whole TV enough to make any real measurable difference.
But the ones that do don't have a problem.
How can you see something that can't be measured?
In message , at 08:27:24 on Sun, 8 Mar
2015, john james remarked:The backlight is probably the biggest power consumption factor in a TV. I've got a large non-LED TV as a computer monitor and I can feel the heat coming off the screen from six inches away.
I don't buy that.
Yes, but that isn't the backlight.
Been with them for a while. Recently I have had to change tariff every month to get the newest "Best Deal". Whilst this works for me, surely we shouldn't have to micro-manage it in this way.
Chris
In message , at 19:34:17 on Sun, 8 Mar
2015, john james remarked:
There's some numbers here :
Executive summary:
For LED the delta for 25% *brightness setting* change is 3W, so at zero brightness the total (ie the consumption of the non-backlight components alone) would be ~16W, while at 100% brightness the backlight is consuming 29-16 = 13 watts. I doubt there's any one non-backlight component taking 13 watts (of the 16 watts) on its own.
Meanwhile, the delta between black and white visible *content* is smaller, at about 1W, which is the fluctuation we'd need to be looking for.
CCFL similarly.
What is it then (it goes away when I put the screen into standby).
If it's too small to be measured then you can see that it uses negligible power. So if you turn off all the things on standby and your meter shows no reduction in power use the point is proven.
Which is bugger all in the total power consumption.
That is never seen with a TV when watching TV.
Which is again bugger all in the total consumption.
And plenty of places won't have just one TV being watched too.
The rest that isn't the backlight.
And I don't get anything like that with a LED TV.
In message , at 09:42:49 on Sun, 8 Mar 2015, Roland Perry remarked:
It's also more noticeable when the computer goes into black-screen-saver mode, which is consistent with that being the highest power consumption situation in the table in the article linked above.
In message , at 21:12:26 on Sun, 8 Mar
2015, john james remarked:Irrelevant. It's a way of determining the power usages at full brightness setting.
Ditto.
Then you'll have two channels to pick out of the total household consumption - no different to a radio receiver picking out one signal from hundreds of others.
That's because the total power consumption involved is smaller (but half of it is still the backlight). This monitor here is a quite old 23-inch CCFL. It keeps the whole room warm!
FWIW I've got an old 19-inch Dell "Ultrasharp" monitor in the other room that's a little furnace.
How about with a plasma?
The transformers are retro fitted in tens of minutes and come as part of the equipment.
It was no more expensive when I signed up and no more expensive than the best BG tariff a year later. The difference was that I never built up more than a few quid credit with them because the bills were accurate
+/- a few days consumption.Now that my contract has finished all of the BG offerings, irrespective of payment method, are around £200/240 more expensive than the deals from more than a dozen other suppliers. It looks if BG is attempting to entice existing customers into signing up to very expensive fixed price deals with £30 quid switch penalties per fuel for the next year.
Do they turn into raisins?
In message , at 12:42:56 on Sun, 8 Mar
2015, alan_m remarked:
One of the very first energy supplies I had, back in the 80's, was a monthly instalments one, and resulted in me lending them every increasing sums of money in the summer, which got paid off in the winter. I've had a dislike of that sort of scheme ever since.
BG tried to switch me to a fixed price scheme, but they seemed far too keen for me to do it, which rang alarm bells.
Moneybox said they are not compatible if you change supplier, but will be soon.
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.