Jump to content

Sign in to follow this  
bc27

Plasma Power Usage

Recommended Posts

Roderick,

about 10m above sea level. Hope that's enough !!

Trevor,

At least in our lifetime, Trevor :) .

What worries me about living next to the beach, though, is the possibility of tsunamis. We have friends with a holiday house right next the beach near Batemens Bay, and I was not popular for mentioning this topic. I am a geologist by trade and tend to think about such things.

There is evidence near Wollongong -- admitedly controversial -- of enormous tsunamis going back a few 10's of thousands of years. All it takes is a big submarine sediment slide off the edge of the continental shelf to generate a REALLY BIG tsunami. You dont necessarily need earthquakes. An asteroid impact can do it too.

On the other hand, if it's a holliday house you would have to be very unlucky to cop it while you are there!

I don't think I would buy a house too close to the shore line, though.

That should cheer you up a bit :D

Rod

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I heard some interesting science on global warming a couple weeks back. The debate on global warming has become so big that large companies, ie oil barons hire scientists to conduct (biased) tests etc and they publish results on websites, books etc.

So even though some results are scientific the source of the funding needs to be traced and apparently a large proportion, if not most of them are from companies that have a vested interest in ensuring they can still continue business as usual.

The interesting and undisputable evidence that raised an eyebrow is that in Antartica every year when it snows, layers of snow become frozen trapping the atmosphere, and year after year its layered and provides a history in the same way the growth rings on tree's do.

Scientists have drilled about 400 years worth of layers and its only in the last 100 years or thereabouts since the start of the industrial revolution that the CO2 levels in the atmosphere skyrocketed.

Another interesting point was that Earth will never die and will always prosper, until inevitably when the sun dies out etc.

Its not earth that will lose, its the Human race and other species but life will evolve and prosper again eventually.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Scientists have drilled about 400 years worth of layers and its only in the last 100 years or thereabouts since the start of the industrial revolution that the CO2 levels in the atmosphere skyrocketed.

They can go back a lot further than that -- thousands of years with the ice cores from Antarctica. The Russians are about to drill into the big lake thats at the bottom of the ice cap in the middle of Antarctica. Who knows what they'll find?

If you look at my avatar, thats yours truly at the South Pole itself a long time ago -- like 1965.

Agree about the importance of the CO2 exponential curve.

Rod

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great responses people. I'm now glad I brought this topic back to life, because at the time when the thread was posted, most of the replies I found were nonchalant and I didn't think much thought had actually gone into their responses for such a poignant topic these days - be it media hype or not.

Good to read both sides of tales.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Great responses people. I'm now glad I brought this topic back to life, because at the time when the thread was posted, most of the replies I found were nonchalant and I didn't think much thought had actually gone into their responses for such a poignant topic these days - be it media hype or not.

Good to read both sides of tales.

Talk about watts!!

I tested my 71inch 180cm LCOS display and it draws 180Watts watching Channel 9 HD. Its tag rating on the rear is rated at 210 Watts. Could you imagine what a 180 CM plasma would draw?, I would take a guess something around 450+ watts doing the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Talk about watts!!

I tested my 71inch 180cm LCOS display and it draws 180Watts watching Channel 9 HD. Its tag rating on the rear is rated at 210 Watts. Could you imagine what a 180 CM plasma would draw?, I would take a guess something around 450+ watts doing the same.

Talk about KiloWatts!!

Check out this story on the 103" Panasonic Plasma

Based on specifications for its smaller models, Panasonic's 261-centimetre screen could be consuming as much as 1.08 kilowatts of energy, estimated an energy expert at RMIT, Alan Pears. That compared with anywhere between 50 and 200 watts for an 80 centimetre conventional TV, he said

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Talk about KiloWatts!!

Check out this story on the 103" Panasonic Plasma

Based on specifications for its smaller models, Panasonic's 261-centimetre screen could be consuming as much as 1.08 kilowatts of energy, estimated an energy expert at RMIT, Alan Pears. That compared with anywhere between 50 and 200 watts for an 80 centimetre conventional TV, he said
Today Tonight / ACA hype or fact ???????????

Throwing some numbers at boy-child he tells me the size of a 16:9 261cm screen is 127cm * 227cm, Area = 28,829 cm2

The 80cm "conventional" has an area of 3,072cm2.

So the larger one has an area 9.38 times the size........

Let's allow the "conventional" one uses "50 - 200 watts"...We'll split the difference and go for 125.........watts

So a display area of 9.38 times the size, multiplied by 125 watts = 1.172 Kw ...............

Yep, he's right, No story there :P !!!!

(Well, OK, Maybe the big plasma is actually slightly more efficient then the "conventional" CRT :D )

Austen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Great responses people. I'm now glad I brought this topic back to life, because at the time when the thread was posted, most of the replies I found were nonchalant and I didn't think much thought had actually gone into their responses for such a poignant topic these days - be it media hype or not.

Good to read both sides of tales.

Damn it i hate it when you pick the same name as someone else????? That does it im now calling myself "the owen".

Edited by The D-train

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What pros/cons would a 103" Plasma have over a projector?

Cost versus convienience

Ability to watch during daytime without curtains closed

Projector is MUCH lighter

I assume power usage of a projector would be much less, but those replacement globes can be darn expensive. Not 103" plasma expensive, but relative to the purchase price of a projector, expensive

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd imagine that the 103" Plasma would have a degrading effect on the average home owner's electric bill.

Hope the Kuro 50" (XDA) doesn't have as much watt usage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well just got the 1st power bill involving the new plasma..................down by $10................not that getting the plasma dropped the bill of course............had something to do with getting a decent working fridge to replace the other one & the dead seals

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


gees, lucky I didn't start this thread.

dvduser and lyle, would you be kind enough to grant me permission to ask a question on this forum?

scared.

sharp eye

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like the Federal Govt is putting energy efficiency ratings mandatory as of April next year. I believe Panasonic also announced that their '09 range will have up to half as much power consumption as current models.

SMH Story

All home appliances will soon have to conform to a strict new 10-star energy efficiency rating system, the federal Minister for the Environment, Peter Garrett, said yesterday.

Power-hungry plasma televisions and computers will have to carry new labels so customers can compare efficiency claims

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well the 42" Panasonic HD Plasma is rated at using a whopping 535watts so will be a lot more compared to your old 68cm tv.

My 42PV60a only uses 341watts in comparison so going to HD uses a lot more power for the same size screen. In fact the panasonic 50" 1366x768 uses less but only just at 528watts,

food for thought.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's some more useless information for an old thread :P

Pioneer PDP-428XDA - 299W (0.4W standby)

Pioneer PDP-508XDA - 369W (0.4W standby)

Pioneer PDP-LX508A - 415W (0.3W standby)

Pioneer PDP-LX608A - 502W (0.4W standby)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Here's some more useless information for an old thread :P

Pioneer PDP-428XDA - 299W (0.4W standby)

Pioneer PDP-508XDA - 369W (0.4W standby)

Pioneer PDP-LX508A - 415W (0.3W standby)

Pioneer PDP-LX608A - 502W (0.4W standby)

They measured or rated numbers?

'Cause rated numbers don't meen anything at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm not sure if there's any substance in this quote I heard somewhere.

But apparently the amount of energy it takes to make a Solar panel is far more energy than the panel itself will ever produce in its life.

yeah i think it was the coal company,

have a look under power stations,and why we shouldn't change and to a alternative source,

i think bp and caltex have the same story about bio deisel,how it's no good for the there hip pockets,

sorry i mean enviroment,

sorry should i keep bullshiting and put my head in sand i still think everythhing is OK :angry:

by the way has everybody in qld sold there cars and traded up for the tin boats yet.

Quiet normal :wacko:

Edited by dumbells

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
yeah i think it was the coal company,

have a look under power stations,and why we shouldn't change and to a alternative source,

i think bp and caltex have the same story about bio deisel,how it's no good for the there hip pockets,

sorry i mean enviroment,

sorry should i keep bullshiting and put my head in sand i still think everythhing is OK :angry:

There are many so called energy efficient, green, green offset and zero emmison misconceptions and misinformation that it is hard for the average consumer to know what is real and what is not.

Just look at the electric car - sure it maybe zero emmission, but what about the CO2 released back at the power station to produce the electricity to recharge the batteries. And Bio diesel or ethanol fuels - the crops and land used displace food crops.

Hydrogen fuel for cars and Nuclear for power maybe the future, but there is no one silver bullet to replace our reliance on oil/coal.

Rant over

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Classifieds Statistics


    Currently Active Ads

    Total Sales (Since 2018)

    Total Sales Value (Last 14 Days)

    Total Ads Value (Since March 2020)
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...