50mxe20 Posted October 5, 2006 Share Posted October 5, 2006 Folks.... lets cool it..... many internet discussions turn into flame fests because of our intolerance.Who's being intolerant? Once it awhile we like to have a bit of fun. No offence meant to the topic starter. Apologies if any was taken. Remember how easy it is to offend, so lets approach this forum with a polite and gentle attitude.. and remember the old saying 'If you dont have something nice (or useful) to say... dont say it.' ....Just my take on things.... That's what the smilies are for so that everyone knows we are tongue-in-cheek. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BadBeachBoy Posted October 5, 2006 Share Posted October 5, 2006 The responses do seem to go past the "friendly banter" and get close to "darn rude". Whislt my guess is no better than anyone elses, perhaps he didnt even consider power usage (assuming it to be similar) and them some equally unhelpful person has said "hey those plasmas Reeeaalllllyyyyyy use a load of electricity". I think this type of situation would give raise to the OP's question and be a legitimate precurser to the post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bc27 Posted October 5, 2006 Author Share Posted October 5, 2006 Hi everyone I'm glad I made some of your days, and gave you a laugh ;-) The reason I asked here was I couldn't get the info of any salesperson, all they said was that it would rise, and that "you'll really notice it". I have no problem using the screen nor paying for it. Perhaps I should have put the reasoning in behind the question. I guess you learn something evryday. Oh, and the reason I asked here was I've been watching these treads for some time, and had only ever seen helpful answers, to questions as "simple" as mine. No offense taken, seriously . .I enjoyed some of the replies as well. . .Just wish I could buy some film for my new digital camera . .oh. and sell those agfa/kodak shares I have. Cheers Whislt my guess is no better than anyone elses, perhaps he didnt even consider power usage (assuming it to be similar) and them some equally unhelpful person has said "hey those plasmas Reeeaalllllyyyyyy use a load of electricity". You got it in one! Cheers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
50mxe20 Posted October 5, 2006 Share Posted October 5, 2006 Hi everyoneI'm glad I made some of your days, and gave you a laugh ;-) Good on ya. That's being a good sport. Ask anything you like. Don't let us put you off. I got burnt on my 1st or 2nd post and I'm still here! It's an initiation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
optusman Posted October 5, 2006 Share Posted October 5, 2006 Funniest thread I've seen for ages. Cheered me up immensely.Like buying a camera and not being able to afford the film (showing my age - no one uses film anymore do they). Or like buying a Mercedes/Jaguar etc etc and not being able to put fuel in it. Perhaps you could leave the plasma off and save power/energy. Just sit and stare at it each night and admire it's design and beauty. Or, like buying a Printer, can't afford the ink, .......hang on a sec... [ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
diesel Posted October 5, 2006 Share Posted October 5, 2006 The latest Pioneer plasma 42" is quoted at 266kWh/yr... Pioneer Japan assuming average price is 12 cents a Kwh thats ~$32. No budget breaker I'm sure if you shelled out $2.5K for the TV.... Now go and enjoy it!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shrek Posted October 5, 2006 Share Posted October 5, 2006 Tough crowd in this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug1503559538 Posted October 5, 2006 Share Posted October 5, 2006 I don't think this guy really wants to know about the power usage... he just got a NEW PLASMA... he wants some attention don't you think?! I think you're spot on here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
d-train1503560846 Posted July 2, 2007 Share Posted July 2, 2007 Or maybe, just maybe bc27 was ahead of his time: http://www.smh.com.au/news/home-theatre/pl...2624171396.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moby disc Posted July 2, 2007 Share Posted July 2, 2007 Considering there are calls to put energy comsumption stickers on TVs, similar to what are on fridges and air conditioners, its a reasonable question. This issue has been on TV a bit. Generally from what has been said is the bigger the screen, the bigger the power bill. It seems to be a 106cm plasma uses around three times the power that 68cm crts use. In a country where incandecent lightbulbs are being outlawed and people get sucked into buying low voltage halogen lights that have high wattage, its a reasonable question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xtractdigit Posted July 2, 2007 Share Posted July 2, 2007 Wow what is wrong with this question? I was just thinking the same thing as I am about to go on a 1 year caravan tour around aus. I have a 46x sony and I need to know what current it draws so I can plan the battery and solar system. I am also thinking a cheap 50" pana plasma may be better ( more robust) than the lcd. On this thread, soon we may be limited as to what power we are allowed per annum, like water. So hey laugh it up buddy you may have a plasma you cant power. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phealey21 Posted July 2, 2007 Share Posted July 2, 2007 Whoa nice thread dig! I thought it was a legitimate question, some of us actually like to know where our money is going and how much of it too. Might be a crazy concept to some of the credit card warriors I suppose Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
diesel Posted July 2, 2007 Share Posted July 2, 2007 A lot of people will happily fork out $50+/month for Foxtel or $3/day for a coffee. lets keep things in perspective here Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jfbari Posted July 2, 2007 Share Posted July 2, 2007 A lot of people will happily fork out $50+/m,ontyh for Foxtel or $3/day for a coffee. lets keep things in perspective here Hmmmmmmm......I may just have to forego those lazy couple of Latte's down at the local coffee shop overlooking Lake Burley Griffin every day so that I can afford to watch my two plasmas......Bugga. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nevyn72 Posted July 2, 2007 Share Posted July 2, 2007 A lot of people will happily fork out $50+/m,ontyh for Foxtel or $3/day for a coffee. lets keep things in perspective here More like $100+/mnth for Fo$tel if you actually want some decent channels to watch! Disclaimer: I don't, and will never pay to watch adds! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
<<AJ>> Posted July 2, 2007 Share Posted July 2, 2007 In a country where incandecent lightbulbs are being outlawed and people get sucked into buying low voltage halogen lights that have high wattage, its a reasonable question. And the fact that these so called low-energy light bulbs that are getting forced upon us use similar, if not more energy in their entire life cycle in the process of manufacturing and recycling, and this is something I am sure not many people are aware off (I wasn't unitl I did some research, after being in Bunnings and comparing a less than $1 incandecent to a $7+ low-energy globe I was wondering where the inccreased costs were and was it to do with the manufacturing process therefore a greater use of energy). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roderick Posted July 2, 2007 Share Posted July 2, 2007 And the fact that these so called low-energy light bulbs that are getting forced upon us use similar, if not more energy in their entire life cycle in the process of manufacturing and recycling, and this is something I am sure not many people are aware off (I wasn't unitl I did some research, after being in Bunnings and comparing a less than $1 incandecent to a $7+ low-energy globe I was wondering where the inccreased costs were and was it to do with the manufacturing process therefore a greater use of energy). Sorry but that's drivel. CFLs don't take vast amounts of energy to manufacture, and in the the right application save many times their cost in saved electricity over incandescent globes. The average household can save themselves quite a bit of money by using them extensively and the impact across the entire nation is quite substantial. However, they are not ideal in all circumstances. I see that Phillips have now developed a 1000 lumen LED light -- thats a bit brighter than a 50 watt halogen light (900 lumen). It uses far less elecrticity and lasts one hell of of a long time. It's about to go on sale later this year, so the CFLs will probably be be eclipsed by LED lighting within the next 10 years. They won't be cheap, initially, but will save you a bit of money in the long run. Plasma TVs and class AB receivers are currently big guzzlers of electricity (if you'll excuse the pun). You'll probably see a big improvement in their efficiencies in years to come. Every little bit counts. Rod Edit: The 1000 Lumen LED downlight is from Ozram, not Phillips. It's called the 'Ostar'. http://www.osram-os.com/ostar-lighting/index.php?lan=eng Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave_L Posted July 2, 2007 Share Posted July 2, 2007 I also didn't see any harm in asking the question, which I imagine many of us didn't even consider when looking for which panel to buy.....I'm sure that would have been almost at the bottom of the "priority list" for many people. Not to mention the many of us who also have, in addition to the large screen panel, a STB/PVR (if not two), AVR, DVD, PS3/XBox etc... But I guess many that posted here are right....why worry about what quantities of electricity we're using ? As long as the individual is happy, that's all that matters.....right ? The irony in all this is that we're all sitting here, in front of a computer, to read this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roderick Posted July 2, 2007 Share Posted July 2, 2007 The irony in all this is that we're all sitting here, in front of a computer, to read this. True, but at least PCs are headed in the right direction. The major manufacterers like Dell and HP have all agreed to new standards that make their switchmode power supplies much more efficient. Notebook computers are leading the way in energy efficiency, cos battery life is paramount. These improvements will filter through to most desktop machines. What we need now is to figure out a cheap way of manufacturing LED TV and monitor screens. They should be extremely efficient. We already have some REALLY BIG examples at sports stadiums, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cttc Posted July 3, 2007 Share Posted July 3, 2007 Problem is many people just quote the specs which is max power. If you want a good comparisons of actual Plasma/LCD usage check out these:- http://reviews.cnet.com/4520-6475_7-6400401-3.html?tag=lnav http://www.hometheatermag.com/gearworks/106gear/ http://www.g4techtv.ca/callforhelp/shownot...3.shtml?regular http://www.tv.com/story/3153.html?q=tv Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frankdoncaster Posted July 3, 2007 Share Posted July 3, 2007 Just got my new Panasonic 42"HD today, and was wondering how much I should budget for increased power charges!I am sure that it will cost more than my old 68cm Sharp 4:3 Tell me the bad news . . . . . Thanks in advance!!! I want to know the answer too, for curiosity reason, although I do not own a Plasma. Have you, so far, got a real life answer from a Plasma owner? I guess you have stepped on the nerve of some of the Plasma owners. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
top_oz_bloke Posted July 3, 2007 Share Posted July 3, 2007 Sorry but that's drivel. CFLs don't take vast amounts of energy to manufacture, and in the the right application save many times their cost in saved electricity over incandescent globes. The average household can save themselves quite a bit of money by using them extensively and the impact across the entire nation is quite substantial. However, they are not ideal in all circumstances.I see that Phillips have now developed a 1000 lumen LED light -- thats a bit brighter than a 50 watt halogen light (900 lumen). It uses far less elecrticity and lasts one hell of of a long time. It's about to go on sale later this year, so the CFLs will probably be be eclipsed by LED lighting within the next 10 years. They won't be cheap, initially, but will save you a bit of money in the long run. Edit: The 1000 Lumen LED downlight is from Ozram, not Phillips. It's called the 'Ostar'. http://www.osram-os.com/ostar-lighting/index.php?lan=eng Can you please show me where the 1000lm led specs are? I can only find 580lm@15W, which is a not so great efficacy of 39lm/W (compare with the best fluorescents at 90+lm/w, Metal Halide 80lm/W & CFL at 60 lm/W) I'm sure LED will eventually have it's day, but I'n not going to get too excited until something actually lives up to the hype. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
diesel Posted July 3, 2007 Share Posted July 3, 2007 The extra cost of running a large screen is not an issue for me as it's the price I am willing to pay for a good viewing experience. Cost to run will vastly differ from each install as some watch more TV than others. I for example have mine on, on average about 6-7 hours a day. Others maybe less or more. Another perspective is this. Why would you buy a reverse cycle air con and then not use it because it costs too much to run or buy a V8 and worry about petrol pricing Surely running costs have to be taken into consideration - it's a whole of purchase perspective that's needed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Felix.. Posted July 3, 2007 Share Posted July 3, 2007 Surely running costs have to be taken into consideration - it's a whole of purchase perspective that's needed Yes the TCO should always be an important consideration in any purchase. Btw this is probably one of the most diverse range of opinions I've seen on a thread at DTV (not in the General and Miscellaneous Off Topic Forum). So well done fellas! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roderick Posted July 3, 2007 Share Posted July 3, 2007 Can you please show me where the 1000lm led specs are?I can only find 580lm@15W, which is a not so great efficacy of 39lm/W (compare with the best fluorescents at 90+lm/w, Metal Halide 80lm/W & CFL at 60 lm/W) I'm sure LED will eventually have it's day, but I'n not going to get too excited until something actually lives up to the hype. I'm going by an article in the latest Silicon Chip magazine. I've no reason to doubt its veracity. The 1000 Lumen Ostar lighting is not yet on sale but is "scheduled for release within months", according to the article, and "75 lumens per watt at a current of 350 mA". Let's hope it eventuates . Try this link : - http://www.osram-os.com/news/press_release...an=eng&id=9 Edit2: This is the exact link to Osram press release http://www.osram-os.com/download_protected...ting_1000lm.rtf Rod Edit: Don't know where you got the 80lm/W for metal halides. Halogen downlights are only 18-25 Lumen/Watt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts