Date: Fri Nov 14, 2008 8:23 am. By: Johnny B Good
The message from z contains these words:
Johnny B Good wrote in news:3130303037373036491C6A7945@plugzetnet.co.uk:
The message <Xns9B54E66EF61zyadayadayada@216.196.97.131 from z contains these words:
http://www.theoceanharvest.com/content/videos-albacore-tuna-catch
the tuna videos are pretty basic, we want to run a full seaons of video during crabbing. Those deadliest catch guys can eat our shorts.. crabbing off a small boat like that in the raging pacific is way more hairy that those guys
anyway, thats what i've been doing..
You might try rec.video.desktop and ping "Scubajam" (Jim McGauhey) he can provide some great advice on this sort of thing.
Luck; Ken
cheers.. downloading that group now..
knew i'd get some good pointers even being off semi topic -- none the less ditch your CRTs if you can kids.. those things suck the power bigtime!
Well, assuming your readings are accurate, yours certainly does! ISTM, that your 24 inch CRT Monitor is taking around a hundred watts more than one might reasonably expect.
Well on the back it says 2.2 amps 120 volts so it should be 264 watts right? Maybe that is just the max it can draw. I don't have a watt-o- meter.
That's fairly typical for electronic kit. The rating plate usually shows maximum amps for fuse protection and/or cord rating purposes (although the degaussing surge on switch on is usually close to, or may even exceed, the outlet's limit.
In the UK, this is a 13 amp plugtop fuse limit whilst the cold resistance of the degaussing circuit can be less than 12 ohms, implying a brief surge current maxing out at a whopping 370v/12 ohm equal to an initial surge of just over 30 amps worst case! Admittedly, this only happens when the switch contacts close at the crest of the mains voltage waveform and quickly drops below the outlet's limit within a few milliseconds. In fact this surge is _so_brief_ that a 5 amp plugtop fuse will handle the task over decades of daily degaussing surges.
However, getting back to the rating plate, as I said before, it will state the worst case sustained amperage load and the worst case continuous or rated voltage in order to comply with regulatory requirements. For most electronic kit (CRT degaussing surges aside), this is usually in excess of the _actual_ power consumption by a factor of 2 or 3 times.
The only time the rating plate figures will bear any relationship to reality, is when it is placed on an electric kettle or clothes iron (or, even a soldering iron!), essentially, a domestic appliance which relies on heating elements and/ or motors for its primary functions.
But yeah.. not your typical monitor. I got it off a silicon graphics work station circa 1998 -- at the time it was about the biggest heaviest monitor you could find without spending a million dollars. Pretty fantastic for gaming and such .. almost need a hoist to move the damn thing though.
Unfortunately (or perhaps not, since I find the 19 inchers heavy enough, thank you very much! ;-), I haven't owned one that big, so I can't offer any 'typical' power consumption figures for that size. However, I can present some figures for the smaller sizes.
I'm sure the more modern CRTs are much more efficient -- likesay I don't think silicon graphics were too worried about off the grid assholes like me ;)
Those _are_ modern CRT displays, even the 12 year old 15 inch Scenic I use on my test bench is 'modern'! Interestingly, that states on its rating label, 100 to 240 v ac 50/60Hz 2 to 1 amp (obviously using a smpsu) implying a power consumption of 240 watts on a 240 volt supply (but actually only using 60 watts).
When you're talking about a technology that's been in development for over a century, all of the last twelve year's production can be classed as modern. You can't even claim the last two years of LCD production as being 'modern'. The ongoing developments in flat panel display technology, particularly of the LCD type, is still in such a state of flux, that 'last year's model can be described by the phrase: "That's _so_ last year!" with the same venom normally reserved for out of fashion clothing by celebrity fashion victims.
I think you'll find those wattage figures to be typical for any monitor produced over the last 10 to 15 years, excepting for the high spec models which include circuitry to improve geometry to near perfection which will likely use slightly more juice than their cheap 'n' cheerful counterparts, whatever the vintage.
Most 15 inch CRT displays, typically consume around 60 watt, 17 inch around 70 to 75 watts and 19 inch around the 80 to 90 watt mark. Extrapolating the 90 watt figure from a 19 inch to a 24 inch tube, suggests a figure somewhere in the region of 130 to 140 watts is what might reasonably be expected.
Most folk aren't going to see the 200 watt reduction that you're getting, more likely 30 to 50 watts at most out of a system total that might be in the two to three hundred watt region. Obviously, in the context of this NG, where power consumption is a high priority, there is a case to "Upgrade" from CRT (a mature technolgy with over a century of development behind it) to the newer (but relatively immature) technology of LCD flat panel displays.
Yeah OK. Most people probably won't see such a huge difference.
For those of us (the majority) where colour rendition accuracy is not a high priority, the "upgrade" to a flat panel LCD display when the current CRT is showing its age (or has failed) makes a lot of sense if the limitations of LCD are accepted (not the least of which, quite often, it's the only affordable choice). Be careful, especially when replacing a large CRT with an equally large LCD panel, that you're not going to be _increasing_ your power consumption.
I'm quite impressed with these 22 inch montiors. Most of the ones i looked at maxed out at 48 watts and 2 watts in standby. The ones without speakers were a little less than that. WHen you jump to 24 inch LCD many of the cheaper ones could hit as high as 90, While the smaller 20 inchers still weighed in at between 40-50 watts. Seems like 22 is the sweet spot for power vs size if you want to go wide screen and have HDMI options.
There's no doubt that most modern LCD computer displays will use less power than an equivilent sized CRT (but not a drop to 20% of the 240 watt implied by the CRT's rating plate on my Scenic 15 incher - more like a reduction to 50 to 80 percent of the crt consumption - a 12 to 30 watts saving).
Don't rely on the rating plate to show actual consumption of your existing monitor when deciding you need to reduce your power consumption by trading it in for a modern LCD panel. Measure it's actual consumption before deciding whether it's worth the hassle for what might turn out to be a far less significant saving on the electricity bill than you'd anticipated.
An effective way to reduce power consumption by your display (whatever the technology) is to disable any screensavers and use the power settings to power down the display after a reasonable period (say 20 to 30 minutes). This is especially important for backlit technology such as an LCD panel where the classic 'screensaver' does anything but!
Yeah screen savers are of the devil!
The annoying thing is that screen savers came into vogue just as the last of the dumb monitors (without the power saving blanking feature) were being 'skipped'[1] by the... er, well, skipfull[2] !
One of the reasons why there is such a glut of 'screen saver' programs around is down to microsoft still including them as a standard feature in their windows OSes thus lending such utilities an air of legitimacy. Plus, of course, masquerading a trojan as a screensaver is still a popular way to con victims into inflicting adware and worse onto their systems. Microsoft could have dropped their screen saver with windows 95, yet even Vista has a built in screensaver.
Since the default timeout for the screensaver is ten minutes and the power saving blanking is set to 20 minutes, it might be argued, in the case of a crt monitor, that the screensaver gives you a ten minute warning that the less instant resume from blanked low power mode will follow. This, of course, doesn't apply to a backlit flat panel, resumption is pretty well instant from the power down state.
Personally, I find myself nudging the mouse to unblank the display if I'm still sat by the desk when this happens which is why I set the power down timeout interval to 30 minutes. It's very unlikely that the mouse or the keyboard will remain untouched during that time if I'm still sat at the desk. IOW, the chances are good that I won't be there to witness the event and therefore not be niggled enough to nudge the mouse to unblank it, it'll only happen when I've left the room, in which case, it becomes a 'Good Thing' rather than an irritation.
[1] To throw into a rubbish[3] skip.
[2] Something similar to a Dumpster.
[3] Trash
-- Regards, John.
Please remove the "ohggcyht" before replying. The address has been munged to reject Spam-bots.