TV powerdown

allisonw

I've been using a TV powerdown from eon with my old TV as it used almost as much electricity in standby as it did when on but my new TV only uses 0.2 watts when in standby.

So is there any point in using the TV powerdown, as I seem to recall someone saying that it also used electricity as long as it was plugged in?

Also with my new TV not being so bulky I can actually reach the socket now to switch it off if needed :j

Another thing should I leave my Sky plus box on all the time or switch it off at night? It uses 40 watts on standby. I have been leaving it on or on standby all the time

Same reason as above, I can now reach the socket:j

Allison

moonrakerz

I find your figure of 40W in standby to be extremely high - what document did you get this figure from ?
My Sky + box and manual only give Max figures - 50W, I would expect a standby figure to be less than 20% of this, even in the worst case.
The original Sky boxes showed very little difference in use and standby - around 10W - the more modern boxes with an HDD use a lot more power when in use - but considerable less when in standby.

If you are using one of these plug-in power monitors they are notoriously inaccurate at low current readings.

allisonw

I find your figure of 40W in standby to be extremely high

Why do you say this? As far as I was led to believe and from what I had read, a Sky plus box hardly reduced the power consumption in standby, something like a reduction of 10 watts, perhaps you should do some research?

My Sky + box and manual only give Max figures - 50W,

The original Sky boxes showed very little difference in use and standby - around 10W

In fact you have quoted that in your post. I believe 50 watts - 10 watts = 40 watts unless my subtraction is in some way incorrect?


Not a very helpfull reply to my post, all you have done is find fault even when you agree with my figures and you have not even addressed the original question.

I have been browsing these forums for a while now and notice this happens a lot.

People reply to posts without answering the question asked and pad out their reply with a lot of superfluous drivel.

Thank you anyway for your attempt at answering my post

Kurtis_Blue

He explained in his post that whilst this small difference was inherent in the original Sky boxes your Sky+ box does not suffer from this and should have a larger difference in power consumption.

He did so to answer the question you posed as to whether to power down your Sky+ box, he also bought more information to this important debate not to deride you but to hopefully assist you in coming to a final choice in either turning off your electronic goods in the evening (or when not in active use) or leaving them in stand by.

Whilst you noticed previously other posters replying with drivel you still felt this was the ideal place for a decision of such magnitude, and for this I and I'm sure the other readers are grateful for the trust you have placed with us.

Personally I would leave them on as I would forget to turn them off, what with other things happening. If i was going on a break of longer than say 3 days I normally power down must items except the fridge and freezer, strangely this is more focused in my mind when travelling abroad, not sure why though.

I also like to reboot electronics that communicate with others periodically, just to make sure any automatic updates are carried out, but as the Sky box takes so long to reboot this is quite rare and normally only when it displays issues, such as lock ups or missing channel line ups.

macman

OP, this is a public forum, so I'm afraid that if you post on here it's more than likely that some of the replies may be what you deem to be 'superfluous drivel' (which moonrakerz's reply was not). The advice is free and it's up to you whether to take it or not.

brewerdave

The advantage with the EON powerdown I find, is that with a careful use of a multiway socket I can shut off the power to my stereo amplifier,CD player,DVD recorder,tape deck,VHS recorder,Freeview+ HDD box & TV - All with a press on one remote control button,just leaving the SKY+ box on to record any later evening programmes.

davemurgatroyd

For information Sky+ boxes (non HD) merely turn off the video and audio output circuits which gives a very minimal power saving in standby. Early HD boxes (Thomson and Pace) are exactly the same, the Samsung boxes actually turn off the power to one of the lnbs in standby which gives a slightly better saving. The problems with switching the box off completely are missing software updates and downloads for the Anytime push VOD system and many experts claim that power cycling the boxes (turning off at the mains) shortens the life of some electronic components in particular hard disk drives and power supplies (which like the same components in PCs are designed to be capable of permanently being powered up.

Not too sure on the latest Amstrads but they do have a "deep standby" (off) mode using the remote for both switching on and off and this now meets the EU directive for standby consumption of less than 2W (I believe) although it will not update or download anything in this mode.

davemurgatroyd

moonrakerz wrote: »

I find your figure of 40W in standby to be extremely high - what document did you get this figure from ?
My Sky + box and manual only give Max figures - 50W, I would expect a standby figure to be less than 20% of this, even in the worst case.
The original Sky boxes showed very little difference in use and standby - around 10W - the more modern boxes with an HDD use a lot more power when in use - but considerable less when in standby.

If you are using one of these plug-in power monitors they are notoriously inaccurate at low current readings.

Very inaccurate assumptions considering nothing but the video and audio output circuits are turned off in standby - leaving the mainboard and processors fully turned on together with full power to both lnb outputs and if you have Anytime function turned on then the HDD will be running and even if Anytime turned off the HDD is still powered up. What you expect and what actually happens are two very different things in this case. See my other post above.

davemurgatroyd

macman wrote: »

OP, this is a public forum, so I'm afraid that if you post on here it's more than likely that some of the replies may be what you deem to be 'superfluous drivel' (which moonrakerz's reply was not). The advice is free and it's up to you whether to take it or not.

It is however a wildly innaccurate post based purely on his inaccurate assumptions.

davemurgatroyd

Kurtis_Blue wrote: »

He explained in his post that whilst this small difference was inherent in the original Sky boxes your Sky+ box does not suffer from this and should have a larger difference in power consumption.

He did so to answer the question you posed as to whether to power down your Sky+ box, he also bought more information to this important debate not to deride you but to hopefully assist you in coming to a final choice in either turning off your electronic goods in the evening (or when not in active use) or leaving them in stand by.

Whilst you noticed previously other posters replying with drivel you still felt this was the ideal place for a decision of such magnitude, and for this I and I'm sure the other readers are grateful for the trust you have placed with us.

Personally I would leave them on as I would forget to turn them off, what with other things happening. If i was going on a break of longer than say 3 days I normally power down must items except the fridge and freezer, strangely this is more focused in my mind when travelling abroad, not sure why though.

I also like to reboot electronics that communicate with others periodically, just to make sure any automatic updates are carried out, but as the Sky box takes so long to reboot this is quite rare and normally only when it displays issues, such as lock ups or missing channel line ups.

If you actually read his post you would see the words "I would expect" which in this case is totally incorrect assumption (not information as you put it) and it would seem the OP has a lot more actual knowledge on this subject than the responder. See my posts above which are facts and NOT mere assumption.

moonrakerz

davemurgatroyd wrote: »

It is however a wildly innacurate post based purely on his inaccurate assumptions.

Not quite sure who this was aimed at - but............

My post was made in completely good faith.
I have yet to see, anywhere, actual verifiable figures quoted for a Sky box power consumption in standby (if the OP HAS found these, I would be delighted to see them, hence my perfectly polite request) - so, as an Electrical Engineer I have made some perfectly reasonable assumptions based on my (not great, admittedly) knowledge of these units.

1.The early units did not use as much power as the later/current ones. As little as 10W ?
2. The early units in "standby" showed very little reduction in power consumption, as there was little to actually power down.
3. Later/current units have a much higher power consumption (HDD, multiple feed LNBs, etc) and therefore have a much reduced power usage when these items are shut down in standby.
Most of the other people who have commented on my post seemed to have understood my points and accepted them for what they were. (thank you !)

However the OP was, for some reason, incapable of understanding what I said OR for their own peculiar reasons wanted to start a dispute.
Their technical knowledge, one would have expected, would be better than their command of the English Language (or even a spell-checker !) - but from their response (superflious !!) I fear it is far worse.

I could have said in my post that I consider the use of many of these power saving "gadgets" to be a complete waste of money, aimed solely at lining the pockets of those who sell them to the gullible - but I was far too polite - unlike the OP !