The current Maplin one appears to get the measurement of PF correct. I also have a Brennenstuhl one which Maplin used to sell, and this appears to estimate the the phase shift (Ø) and apply cos Ø to the VA to get the power, which goes badly wrong with SMPSU's. Someone did say it works better with a battery inside it, which mine doesn't have (it died).
I made a true power meter about 25 years ago which uses an analogue multiplier, and doesn't suffer problems due to digital sampling. It only gives the true power, and has no provision for calculating VA or Ø.
I have the brenn* one too - it gets 'simple' power supplies - with a bridge feeding a cap, or transformer + bridge + cap right.
Yeah - but these days you can get a micro with 2 A/Ds for under a pound, and it's probably cheaper to do it that way. One blob to drive the LCD and compute the power, and track the peak power, ...
The 4ft fluorescent tube under the eaves on the front of my house outlived the fitting, which rusted away to shreds. The tube's still working in my shed.
They are probably ok if switched on for long periods as well - that ought to ensure they are operating at a decent temperature. For frequently switched situations (like via a PIR) they would be hopeless.
Can't think why... unless you spend too much time swallowing government spin.
Unless you have no big users of electricity in the house (i.e. things with heaters) then titting about with CFLs etc is going to make a very marginal difference when viewed as a part of the whole house consumption. A couple of days worth of savings from changing a 100W incandecent to a 20W CFL adds up to under 30 mins worth of consumption from any of the big appliances.
In so far as it makes any difference, they should last longer because the control gear life will be extended, although that's not the normal failure mode unless the lamps are running hot.
The main issue in the cold is they will take longer to warm up and reach full light output. If exposed to cold wind, they may never reach full output, and for this reason, the type with an extra outer glass bulb should be used in this situation.
I stayed in Sheffield city centre on Thursday night. Every building I could see from the 7th floor flat I was staying in was lit up all night. Made me wonder why I bothered trying to save energy.
(Rhetorical question; my 'leccy bill has fallen over the period that 'leccy has gone up 60%)
On 3 Feb 2007 03:50:58 -0800 someone who may be "Staffbull" wrote this:-
These will be the major factor in your consumption. Do the washing machine and drier need to be on so often? If they are needed so often could they be run overnight on an off-peak tariff? Could things be dried in other ways? Could some cooking be done by slow cooker? Do all meals need to be hot?
Energy saving bulbs will make a useful difference to consumption, but only if their savings are not being swamped by other consumption.
As a conservative estimate - they save me 1Kwh/day - and mean I don't have to be as rigourous at switching off lights as I might otherwise.
Sure - this is only 40 quid or so a year, but why the hell should I not take it?
Look at the tumble drier. This is a huge load. Especially the non-condensing ones.
It also wears the clothes a fair bit, and makes them last less long.
A drying rack in a spare (gas) heated room, with a small fan, and adequate ventilation can really reduce bills.
On the cooking - turning stuff down, so it's just simmering instead of a rolling boil cooks it just as fast. Cooking stew and stuff in a pan in the oven can use less energy than if you do it in a pan, plus, it's really hard to burn stuff.
Microwave can be useful this way on conventional oven mode.
The microwave is a relatively inefficiant way of cooking - 50% of the input energy goes out the back, but it can be more efficient than an open pan, as for some things you don't need extra water, and you're not heating up a large pan/ring/... just the food.
A 3Kw kettle, with a flat element, that can safely boil 1/2 cup of water is nice too, which saves a little energy, and gets you boiling water faster when you press the button too.
Yes, these are small things (not the dryer)
Yes, most of them only save 5 quid each.
Put all the little things together, and you can be looking at 100 quid or so a year, while generally just changing the way you do things, rather than actually taking more time.
You wouldn't believe how common this is in the US, and that's with vertical axis agitator machines which waste gallons of hot water. California had to run TV adverts asking people not to do this when it was short of electricity and running rolling blackouts a few years ago. In my motel room, the cleaner would put the dishwasher on to wash just one wine glass.
On Sun, 4 Feb 2007 18:31:40 +0000 someone who may be Andy Hall wrote this:-
Nice try. However, the answer is no. As others have indicated it may be possible to run the washing machine less often but full rather then partly full.
There are plenty of clothes driers. Ranging from ones which stand on the floor to ones that hang from the ceiling like
formatting link
the clothes have been spun properly these are no great difficulty to use.
A minor alteration, perhaps. Most people are able to accommodate such changes, only a few whine that they want things as they were.
Possibly, but then one has to buy more clothes which implies energy consumption in making and transporting them.
Condensation?
A matter of degree..... To make a worthwhile energy saving, one would need to adopt cold food and lightbulb cooking on a significant number of occasions.
Plus ca change, plus c?est la meme chose
or perhaps in this case, the opposite - the more things stay the same, the less they change or no gain without pain.
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.