Saving electricity with an OWL

1carminestocky

Cardew wrote: »

Or buy a £6 plug in monitor and it will tell you exactly what it uses for the different cycles! 30C/40C/60C wash - easy care etc.

Then use the same monitor for your dishwasher, dryer, fridge, freezer, iron, heater, microwave, Hoover, PC, printer, modems, TV, DVD, PVR, MP3 all phone chargers and equipment, electric fires, bread maker, kettle, toaster, etc etc.

When you know the consumption of your appliances, lend the monitor to your family and friends.

You keep banging on about this, Cardew, but have so far completely failed to answer my question with regard to how much your plug-in monitor is telling you your electric oven, immersion heater and shower is using. I wonder why :rolleyes: Is it because you can't tell, perchance? Those 3 items constitute THREE of the FOUR most leccy-hungry devices in most people's home. I have a plug-in monitor, it's great for lots of stuff but IMO is nowhere near as useful as the Owl. And the cheapest I have seen at the moment is £15 now that the one at Maplin is full price again. Aldi's £6 one is only available very sporadically. £15 for a plug in monitor or £35 for an Owl, I know which I would prefer.

espresso

kittie wrote: »

lol espresso :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: , who are you trying to impress. I also know my ohms from my amps, having a degree in physics.

I am not trying to impress anyone, as I am qualified to talk about these matters. If you are a 'know it all' then, why were you taken in by the incorrect information posted in this thread? You have even thanked one of the muppet posters, so don't roll about laughing at me, when you did not notice the glaring errors yourself!

:rolleyes:


Just for the record, I have only been critical of some of the silly 'apparent cost' results posted, obtained by using devices like the OWL, knowing that they could not possibly be true. The OP has stated that he knows his ohms law etc. but it didn't stop him posting these ridiculous cost figures did it, just because they were on the display.

1carminestocky

espresso wrote: »

I am not trying to impress anyone, as I am qualified to talk about these matters. If you are a 'know it all' then, why were you taken in by the incorrect information posted in this thread? You have even thanked one of the muppet posters, so don't roll about laughing at me, when you did not notice the glaring errors yourself!

:rolleyes:


Just for the record, I have only been critical of some of the silly 'apparent cost' results posted, obtained by using devices like the OWL, knowing that they could not possibly be true. The OP has stated that he knows his ohms law etc. but it didn't stop him posting these ridiculous cost figures did it, just because they were on the display.

[EMAIL="I@ve"]I've[/EMAIL] gone from troll to muppet now, I see. :rolleyes: You really are a DEEPLY unpleasant individual. I've always abided by the adage don't talk to someone online any differently to how you would talk to them face to face. I'm assuming you don't agree? :rotfl:

markbloke

espresso wrote: »

Just for the record, I have only been critical of some of the silly 'apparent cost' results posted, obtained by using devices like the OWL, knowing that they could not possibly be true. The OP has stated that he knows his ohms law etc. but it didn't stop him posting these ridiculous cost figures did it, just because they were on the display.

Not true, he also stated the following

The charger is saying Input: 100-240v 50-60hz 180ma.

The OP didn't post the figures "just because they were on the display", he had reason to believe the figures were not beyond the rated maximum consumption quoted on the device. Nothing I've seen the OP post actually breaks any laws of physics, or even scratches them beyond repair.

espresso

markbloke wrote: »

Not true, he also stated the following

The charger is saying Input: 100-240v 50-60hz 180ma.

The OP didn't post the figures "just because they were on the display", he had reason to believe the figures were not beyond the rated maximum consumption quoted on the device. Nothing I've seen the OP post actually breaks any laws of physics, or even scratches them beyond repair.

The 180mA is an absolute maximum current that would not be drawn offload i.e. no phone on charge. Read the post by Cardew regarding the explanation about PC power supply ratings. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing! I think that this thread has now run it's course.

markbloke

The point remains that he didn't post the figures "just because they were on the display" - he had other reasons to think the figures were plausible. Indeed they are quite possible if a fault condition exists in the low voltage cable.
By the way, if you think this thread has run its course you can always stop posting in it. I'm sure nobody will mind.

1carminestocky

markbloke wrote: »

The point remains that he didn't post the figures "just because they were on the display" - he had other reasons to think the figures were plausible. Indeed they are quite possible if a fault condition exists in the low voltage cable.
By the way, if you think this thread has run its course you can always stop posting in it. I'm sure nobody will mind.

:rotfl: Shall we post a poll? I'm voting 'I certainly don't mind' :beer:

espresso

markbloke wrote: »

The point remains that he didn't post the figures "just because they were on the display" - he had other reasons to think the figures were plausible. Indeed they are quite possible if a fault condition exists in the low voltage cable.

However he chose to believe the displayed figures without questioning them, his other reasons were totally wrong and hopefully he has now learnt from this mistake.

By the way, if you think this thread has run its course you can always stop posting in it. I'm sure nobody will mind.

I see that the troll who publicly announced only a week ago, that he had put me on his ignore list, just could not resist reading my posts and trying to wind up Cardew again. Very childish, do you not know when to stop - no self control.

Next he will be posting that we are one and the same as he has never seen us both on-line at the same time. I ceratinly won't mind if you don't post your obsessive drivel any more.

:rotfl:

.................

Cardew

1carminestocky wrote: »

You keep banging on about this, Cardew, but have so far completely failed to answer my question with regard to how much your plug-in monitor is telling you your electric oven, immersion heater and shower is using. I wonder why :rolleyes: Is it because you can't tell, perchance? Those 3 items constitute THREE of the FOUR most leccy-hungry devices in most people's home. I have a plug-in monitor, it's great for lots of stuff but IMO is nowhere near as useful as the Owl. And the cheapest I have seen at the moment is £15 now that the one at Maplin is full price again. Aldi's £6 one is only available very sporadically. £15 for a plug in monitor or £35 for an Owl, I know which I would prefer.

Not only do you post a lot of misinformation but you can't even read posts; or if you can read them, comprehension is yet another area in which you are challenged.

If you look at my post earlier today I wrote:

Our great advocate of the Owl make great play on the fact that the simple plug in meter cannot measure costs of an oven/immersion heater etc; which is true of course -but neither can the owl.

Ideed I have posted about the inability of any 'domestic' meter to measure hard wired appliances with a thermostat.

I went on to explain that your estimate using the data from the owl was that an immersion heater left on 24/7 would cost £1,314 a year. That you might believe those figures to be true would not be a surprise to people who have read your posts.

It is a pity that you cannot take a leaf out of the OP's book.

He posted some data which, after representations from several people on this formum, he has the grace to concede was unreliable so has retracted.

You just carry on in the same vein.

Lastly, that you would rather the owl over the plug-in meter is not the slightest bit surprising.

Woby_Tide

1carminestocky wrote: »

You keep banging on about this, Cardew, but have so far completely failed to answer my question with regard to how much your plug-in monitor is telling you your electric oven, immersion heater and shower is using. I wonder why :rolleyes: Is it because you can't tell, perchance? Those 3 items constitute THREE of the FOUR most leccy-hungry devices in most people's home.

Well quite, but if you've needed to pay £35 to find that out then ........ Fact is you don't really need to tell someone "Don't leave the oven on 24 hours, it's expensive" or "if you have the shower on all day it costs more than showering for 5 minutes". If you are going to cook something or wash you've little chance of modifying that behaviour, it will happen.

giving someone the information that running a wash at 60 compared to 40 or 30 saves £x or how much each tumble dryer load costs or how much all teh devices in standby or PC's switched on use over a day without people paying much attention, that in my eyes is the sort of behaviour that is more likely to be changed by the average consumer.

As I said earlier I think they both have a use, but the Owl seems to be more about generating a "wow how much are using" response without actually providing much metrics on what is using it. The plug ins give more info on items that the majority may not be aware what they use(or as the common mistake seen here is that the rated use is constant and so get misled about what their main usage is)