On Thu, 27 Nov 2008 02:21:21 +0000 (UTC), firstname.lastname@example.org (Don
It is rated at 200 va - which at unity power factor would be 200
watts. As it was used for controlling a heating element it had a 200
watt limit. It is a 0 - 110% voltage transformer, and the idle current
does not change from min to max .
The meter I am using is a UPM EM100 energy meter set to the amp scale.
The watt scale also reads 0, and when I plug one of the wall warts in
it does read - HOWEVER, the minimum reading is 2 watts and 0.02 amps,
so when it says 0, it means less than 0.02 amps, and less than 2
watts. (not less than 1, which I had previously reported)
Nope, most are just rubbing your nose in your stupidity.
No one is getting upset, just rubbing your nose in your stupidity.
Not with a single doorbell, stupid.
And just replacing the transformer with a modern switch mode wall wart
will save almost all the power it currently uses, tho it still isnt cost
Pleae do not confuse Wikipedia for facts. As to that 75% number, it is
Again, a simple cost/benefit analysis would show the best path to
follow. However, simple math is beyond many people who blindly follow
whatever the current fad is (be it global warming, electric cars, or
whatever) in an attempt to appear 'on top of things', and 'all wise'.
In the end, sure you can save a few penny's of electricity, and spend
dollars doing so. And perhaps you feel good doing it that way. Fine,
it's your house, as long as no one else gets hurt, go for it. But, if
you are really interested in saving money (or energy) then I'd
recommend thinking about what you are doing, looking at real numbers,
analyzing the various factors (including items such as startup
current) and seeing what is the real best solution.
Exactly. What interested people here I think was the the fallacy and
futility of worrying about a minuscule amount of wasted energy;
equivalent perhaps to the home heat lost during time taken to have the
front door open on a cold day to bring in a few bags of groceries!
It's heartening though that in this day and age of wasteful and
prodigal monster homes, jacuzzi and swimming pool styles of living,
V8 Hummers etc. (A situation possibly being currently amended by
'tightening our belts'?) is that there is awareness and interest in
WHAT IS WORTH DOING to conserve.
What seems to escape many is that by spending many dollars to use
manufactured items one only saves a few cents worth of energy. All
manufactured items require resources and energy to manufacture. For
example how much elctrcity is required say, to refine iron ore, make
galvanized sheet steel and stamp out an electrical outlet box, along
with the energy required to run the factory in which it is made,
package it, transport it to a local retail outlet, stock the shelves,
buy or have screws to mount, bring it home, etc. etc. ??????
A neighbour (driven by a wife with virtually zero technical
appreciation) has gone all CFLs. Even for those locations where lights
are only used occasionally. Each CFL costs around $3 compared to the
25 cent el-cheapos I use and requires several manufacturing operations
involving electronic components and a very small amount of mercury.
But their electricity consumption has changed little.
Why? Because they like most here they use electrcity for heating. So
any waste heat from 'inefficient' old fashioned incandescent light
bulbs does not contribute to warming the home; likewise an
'inefficient' fridge etc. lost heat from an electric hot water tank
One item that does waste heat energy is a clothes dryer; it just
chucks warm damp air outside for some 20 to 30 minutes each time it is
run. Hey must cost that out! We run ours as little as possible and
whenver weather allows dry heavy items, blankets, towels etc. on our
two cothes lines. See item on clothe line supports.
My best friend has degrees in electronics, electrial power and once
was a design engineer for at the time a major power transformer
I asdked him about standby losses, he rreports it depends on ntheb
transformer. they can be built to be ultra low, which cost more, or
lossy and cheap to build.
government should require energy efficency numbers on everything with
I respectfully disagree.
It's more than enough that the government has mandated energy efficiency
labels on MAJOR energy consuming items such as HVAC components, water
heaters, laundry equipment, refrigerators and freezers.
Mandating testing and labeling for energy efficiency on "everything"
from toasters (virtually 100% efficient, BTW) to doorbell transformers
would be too intrusive, costly and accomplish little if anything.
Government rarely "gets it right" with the big and important things. I
shudder to think of it getting into such trivial things.
I've gone through my home and examined *every* electrical gadget, appliance,
98% of the products I have use electricity when not being used! 98%!!!!
Things which have no reason to use power when off! Things which used to have
a regular on/off switch.
Seems to me someone wants me to be using more electricity!
So I post on the internet that I am shutting this stuff off and I get a good
number of responses NOT wanting me to do this!
Seems to me someone wants me to be using more electricity!
Now a consumer suggests manufacturers should be required to make products
which use less electricity when off. Then that person gets hit with flak!
Seems to me someone wants everyone to be using more electricity!
It's not that no problem exists. You've said that you've *saved* over
$120/mo in electricity (more than twice as much as my entire electric
bill!). Clearly somewhere in your house there are things pulling
massive amounts of power.
What most of us are saying is that things like doorbell transformers and
wall warts don't consume enough electricity to be significant in this.
Now, unplugging unused wall warts isn't a bad idea. I've got most of
the ones I use to recharge batteries plugged into an outlet strip, and
only turn it on when I'm recharging something. But I don't know if I'm
recouping enough money to pay for the (cheap) outlet strip. Where you
need to look is 1) things that make heat (esp. electric heaters,
furnaces, stoves, and water heaters, for the most part stuff like hair
driers, coffee makers, waffle irons, etc. aren't turned on for long
enough to be of major significance if you're not living in a restaurant
or hair salon), 2) things with powerful electric motors (A/C, heat
pumps, dehumidifiers, blowers, refrigerators and freezers), and 3)
incandescent (including halogen) bulbs that are on for long periods.
Pretty much in that order. Those things are where your payback can be
real, and large.
the outlet strip likely has a power on light of some sort wasting
power when its on..
individually the amount wasted is likely small, however nationwide for
everyone it must add up and waste is waste.....
given global change and energy costs the less waste the better.
and my retired engineer pointed out things can be more efficent if you
design it this way.
its governments job to encourage efficency.
But the Chi Coms need to meet our requirements if it is sold here. I
can't remember the last time I saw a new walwart that wasn't a much more
efficient switcher design instead of an inefficient transformer.
The new wall-warts are smaller, but it's NOT by eliminating the
transformer. These new ones begin with an AC-to-AC converter, that
operates on line voltage and raises the frequency. A higher frequency
requires a smaller transformer.
"Switcher" refers to a more efficient voltage regulator, that controls
the DC output by turning it on and off rather than by wasting power
like a linear regulator (as in older wall warts) does. This also makes
it smaller by reducing the need for a heat sink.
On Tue, 25 Nov 2008 05:27:10 +1100, "Rod Speed"
Possible with any wall-wart you add a switch to. Making it automatic
would be tricky, without power to turn it back on.
That's one of the many varieties of "always" that are strangely
non-inclusive. Maybe you've never heard of "switching regulators", but
I have a lot.
The AC-to-AC converter allows a smaller, lighter transformer (which I
expect draws less power with 0 load).. Perhaps you mistake "low power"
for "no power". That sort of mistake is very common.
On Tue, 25 Nov 2008 14:01:27 +1100, "Rod Speed"
That's much better.
Power to the wall-wart is AC. The load on that converter is a
transformer, which REQUIRES AC. A transformer will not work with DC.
The quote I responded to is "They dont have any transformer that uses
power all the time". That's the "no power".
After writing that I realized that the transformer could be eliminated
by operating the voltage regulator on line voltage (possibly practical
with a switching regulator). That would eliminate the transformer, as
well as the (input / output) isolation which is required for safety.
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.