Re: Fluorescent Bulbs Are Known to Zap Domestic Tranquillity; Energy-Savers a Turnoff for Wives

[Marc_F_Hult <MFHult@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, 17 May 2007 13:31:25 GMT, nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxx (Dave Houston) wrote
in message  <464c5235.236716125@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>:

>Inflated energy figures seem to be ubiquitous. One has to wonder whether
>they are being deliberately duplicitous or are just stupid to understand
>technical stuff.

"They" ? Are "They" in black helicopters. UN or ECO ?

>For example, Monday's Slate had this article...
>
>     http://www.slate.com/id/2164136/
>
>which included this...
> "Cable and video-game boxes, DVD players, and other electronics can use
> as much energy in standby mode as a 75-watt light bulb that's left on."
> I doubt there are any devices that use 75W in standby - even my 15 year
>old stereo receiver draws less than 1W in standby. Even if they mean that
>as the total for all devices that draw phantom power, I think the 75W
>figure is still badly inflated for the typical home.

But they wrote _"can"_ as in "might" and Slate does *not* write for the
"typical home". Slate writes for folks with houses _full_ of electronics.

The standby power consumption of actual devices varies widely even within
a category. For example while that of most LCD and TVs is less than a
couple watts, it is reported that the standby power of the

	Westinghouse LTV-32W3 is 	34 watts,
	Sharp LC-37D90U 		40 watts
	Sharp Aquos LC-65D90U 		76 watts   !!!

and so on.

This is apparently because these TV/LCDs can have more than one "Power
down" mode. For example,  Westinghouse's LTV-32W3

	"E-Saver: takes longer to power up but requires less power
	Normal: powers up quicker but requires more power "

So even a _single_ (eg) Sharp Aquos LC-65D90U at 76 watts is more than
what Slate says.

Imagine a house full of these and similar in Slates' affluent target
demographic!

Standby modes in some other devices are also standby for function only,
and don't actually reduce power at all. The on-off switch on my cable
model disconnects the modem signal but does nothing wattsoever for power
consumption.

Folks looking for ways to be proactive should look for the EnergyStar
label which reflects a qualitative assessment provided by one of those
agencies that is endlessly maligned by a few bitter everybody-but-me-
bashers in this newsgroup.

>They certainly should know better because treehugger.com has this on
>their website...
>
>     http://www.treehugger.com/files/2005/05/killawatt.php

ROTFL

Why should Slate "certainly know better" because one of the millions and
millions of web sites out there shows one of the thousands of ways to
measure power -- which Slate makes no claim of having done themselves
anyway?

And on a page that was published 24 months before the Slate article back
in 2005  no less!

Moreover this url provides NO DATA WHATSOEVER on actual devices.

So even if Slate's writers had memorized every word and taped copies on
their refrigerators, it wouldn't help them one iota "to know better".

The reason Dave indulges in this deception, and pollutes this newsgroup
with it, is that Dave wants to make yet another reference, once again, to
the ever-handy Kill-A-Watt device sold through Radio Shack and Smarthome,
among many other places, that Dave once wrote an obscure online review
about that couldn't be found or read when he referenced it ;-)

This is intellectual garbage and self-promotion poorly done.

>You almost have to conclude it's a case of deliberate disinformation.

I conclude without uncertainty that Dave is the one deliberately spreading
misinformation.

Dave scours the Internet looking for things to criticize in order to find
things to quibble with to show that he is a Very Superior Person. Trouble
is, it has the opposite effect.

... Marc
Marc_F_Hult
www.ECOntrol.org