 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v3 wrote:
> Can anybody suggest why this might be? I mean, huge powerful electric
They just are.
I find it interesting that you're focusing on power rather than energy.
How long do you spend boiling water vs how long is the washer running?
--
Atheism is a non-prophet organization.
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawaz org<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Yes, but 4 W!!!! 4 mW should be enough.
>
> Perhaps, depends on what other features the kit has, though.
How about running an LCD panel, transmitting and receiving data from a
base-station 10s of miles away, interpreting incoming data packets, waiting
for key presses? All for 10 mW.
> I know, for example, that the system I have here at my feet has an ATX
> board, which means the "power" switch is solid state rather than a
> physical switch. That means the board is powered all the time (when the
> power supply switch is on at the back of the system).
The main point is that mainboard and PSU makers have no incentive to make a
low power and efficient "off" state. Really, such a small fraction of
people/companies will make a decision based on the efficiency of the off
state it is not worth it at all.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Even so... that takes it up to, what, 19 mW? I don't know what the other
> 3,981 W is for...
Heat.
> Convesly, the PC uses *less* power than I was expecting when turned on,
> so...
Is that with or without POV rendering? ;-) Go on then, tell us how much it
would cost to do a 9 month render...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Oh... no, not really. I mean, sound vibrations are really, *really* tiny.
> (Think about it; even when the sound is turned up painfully loud, the
> speaker cones move by such a tiny amount you can't even see them move at
> all!)
Huh? Even at normal listening volumes I can see the bass cones move on
mine... Try feeding a 20 Hz sine wave in and watch the cone... These are
only perhaps 6" drivers, nothing spectacular. Mind you, I have never
noticed the tiny 2" cones move on my PC speakers.
> AFAIK, the reason we have 200 W amplifiers and speakers isn't so much
> because it takes that much electricity to move air around, but to reduce
> RF pickup in the speaker wire... (Or rather, to reduce the *signifigance*
> of such pickup.)
Huh? You are saying that they deliberately make speakers less efficient so
that a higher voltage can be used to drive them? I've never heard that
before. Also I have never seen much "serious" hi-fi rated at anything like
200 W for home use. IME 15 W per channel is plenty to fill a medium sized
room very loudly, perhaps if you live in a very large house and like
listening to music very loud you'd want 200 W.
> The mater claims 249.98 V.
Sounds ok to me, the voltage will fluctuate a lot depending on lots of
factors, like how much power people are using around you etc. Try measuring
the voltage at different times of the day...
> Also, 49.97 Hz. (So much for "they keep it to exactly 50 Hz to help all
> those clocks that use it". The frequency waivers all over the place!)
And you think your meter is accurate to +/- 0.03 Hz? It's worth noting that
the national grid in the UK keeps all power stations interconnected so all
generators *must* make power at the same frequency. If everyone in the
country turned on their kettles then the frequency and voltage would
probably drop significantly...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 03 Sep 2007 08:45:39 +0200, scott wrote:
>>> Yes, but 4 W!!!! 4 mW should be enough.
>>
>> Perhaps, depends on what other features the kit has, though.
>
> How about running an LCD panel, transmitting and receiving data from a
> base-station 10s of miles away, interpreting incoming data packets,
> waiting for key presses? All for 10 mW.
Well, the distance to the base station doesn't matter unless it's
wireless, then it's just the transmitter power.
>> I know, for example, that the system I have here at my feet has an ATX
>> board, which means the "power" switch is solid state rather than a
>> physical switch. That means the board is powered all the time (when
>> the power supply switch is on at the back of the system).
>
> The main point is that mainboard and PSU makers have no incentive to
> make a low power and efficient "off" state. Really, such a small
> fraction of people/companies will make a decision based on the
> efficiency of the off state it is not worth it at all.
Very true.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> How about running an LCD panel, transmitting and receiving data from a
>> base-station 10s of miles away, interpreting incoming data packets,
>> waiting for key presses? All for 10 mW.
>
> Well, the distance to the base station doesn't matter unless it's
> wireless, then it's just the transmitter power.
I was just illustrating that a normal mobile phone can do all that stuff
(both transmitting and receiving to the base station) for around 10 mW.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
>> Even so... that takes it up to, what, 19 mW? I don't know what the
>> other 3,981 W is for...
>
> Heat.
>
>> Convesly, the PC uses *less* power than I was expecting when turned
>> on, so...
>
> Is that with or without POV rendering? ;-)
Without *anything* happening, it uses 110 W.
With my stonking-great video card with a fan the size of a plannet, it
uses 190 W. (Roughly. It waivers a lot.) During the boot sequence it
tops 280 W. (Presumably when all those electric motors all start up at
once...)
Actually, what the heck...
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/about/power
(Table of my work so far.)
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
John VanSickle wrote:
>> Damn... pitty we can't use heat to do *useful* stuff!
>
> Heat already does useful things. For instance, it causes cute girls to
> wear skimpy clothing.
Hey, neat!
(Pitty it's too damn hot to do anything about it...)
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Oh... no, not really. I mean, sound vibrations are really, *really*
>> tiny. (Think about it; even when the sound is turned up painfully
>> loud, the speaker cones move by such a tiny amount you can't even see
>> them move at all!)
>
> Huh? Even at normal listening volumes I can see the bass cones move on
> mine... Try feeding a 20 Hz sine wave in and watch the cone... These
> are only perhaps 6" drivers, nothing spectacular. Mind you, I have
> never noticed the tiny 2" cones move on my PC speakers.
I have never seen any cone on any speaker move visibly - no matter how
much physical pain my ears were in. See, human ears are, like, *really*
sensitive...
> Huh? You are saying that they deliberately make speakers less efficient
> so that a higher voltage can be used to drive them? I've never heard
> that before.
Yes.
> Also I have never seen much "serious" hi-fi rated at
> anything like 200 W for home use. IME 15 W per channel is plenty to
> fill a medium sized room very loudly, perhaps if you live in a very
> large house and like listening to music very loud you'd want 200 W.
Hmm, I think my amplifier (nothing special) is rated at 60 W per
channel. (IIRC, into 8 ohms at 1 kHz.)
That's 60 W RMS by the way. Not like the "100 W" portable thing I once
owned that was actually 0.5 W RMS. ;-)
>> The mater claims 249.98 V.
>
> Sounds ok to me, the voltage will fluctuate a lot depending on lots of
> factors, like how much power people are using around you etc. Try
> measuring the voltage at different times of the day...
Wait... the *voltage* changes depending on how much you use it? That's
odd. I thought that potential difference was always constant, and it's
only *current* that changes...
>> Also, 49.97 Hz. (So much for "they keep it to exactly 50 Hz to help
>> all those clocks that use it". The frequency waivers all over the place!)
>
> And you think your meter is accurate to +/- 0.03 Hz?
Actually, the instruction book (which is oddly large for such a simple
device) states the accuracy for all readings. I forget what it says for
the frequency...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mueen Nawaz wrote:
> I find it interesting that you're focusing on power rather than
> energy. How long do you spend boiling water vs how long is the washer
> running?
Well, that's the other part. The fridge doesn't use much power, but it's
permanently switched on. (Altough obviously it only draws any current
now and then.) So far it's clocked up a fair number of kWh...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
