I really lik e the timer idea. There are things I can't use it on
though, like the VCR (Yes I still have one), because it forgets the
pre-programmed channels evey time it's unplugged. A real pain after
a power outage. The TV would be great on a timer, though.


--- In Beyond_cheap_fuel@..., "laurence200857"
<laurence.wilkins@...> wrote:
>
> Oh, Pete, I fear you may have opened the floodgates! OK, here's
> "what's wrong with that" as you ask. Mankind is BONE IDLE and 9
times
> out of 10 will not get up off his @rse to cross the living room to
> switch off an appliance when he could just press the red button on
the
> remote instead. And manufacturers wont really start to lower standby
> power until it hurts sales not to. But you knew all that :)
>
> I have been doing some research. I have an old analogue 14 inch TV.
> Switched on, it burns 60W. That's OK; I'm watching it. Switched off,
> it burns 7W. It gets worse. Attached to it is a Digibox. Switched on
> it burns 14W. Switched off (i.e. little green light on the front
turms
> red) it burns - wait for it - 14W. ARE THEY HAVING A LAUGH??
>
> My nice new plasma screen burns 250W when switched on, 29W (!!) on
> standby AND 24 WATTS WHEN SWITCHED OFF BY THE "MAINS" BUTTON ON THE
> TV! I wonder how many people even REALISE that? The only way to kill
> the consumption fully is to RIP THE PLUG OUT. And how many can be
> bothered to do that? (See para 1).
>
> I already have an easy half-answer to this. On such devices where
> there might be at least reasonably regular useage patterns (I am not
> generally watching TV after midnight or before 5PM weekdays,
different
> at the weekends) I have simply installed a 7 day TIMESWITCH. Simple,
> and it works.
>
> Here's another even better idea - I reckon I could easily build a
> prototype, but proper type approval for mainstream production rules
> out small guys like me - a variation on the timeswitch or "Smart
> Socket(r)" (which are really good, by the way). Imagine a plug-in
> socket which ONLY switches on its output when it sees an IR pulse
(ANY
> IR pulse - it doesn't need to decode it) and then switches off after
> (say) two hours if it has seen no further pulses. Few of us can
watch
> the same channel for much longer than that without reaching for the
> remote to adjust the volume of something.That would sort out Mr
LARDY
> BLOKE in para 1 (which, let's face it, is all of us), and probably
> save the planet, to. A bit.
>
> So, you energy concious types out there, tell me if YOU would be
> interested in such a device, and what you think you would be
prepared
> to pay - I might look into a handful of prototypes if the demand is
> there
>
> Remember- every wasted standby-watt is costing you around a pound a
> year in round numbers
>
> While you are figuring out what such a device might be worth to you
or
> anyone else, here's something else to make you think. I have read
more
> than once that it is FIVE TO SEVEN TIMES CHEAPER to not waste energy
> in the first place, than to try and generate it locally from
renewable
> resources (wind/solar/hydro/tidal or whatever). Make ya think,
dunnit?
>
> Laurence Wilkins
>