TV powerdown

davemurgatroyd

moonrakerz wrote: »

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 !

The first boxes you are referring to otherweise known as a standard SD box have the same stand by "turn off" as virtually every box since (except the Samsung HD box) merely turning off the video and audio output circuitry which in the case of the standard boxes is actually a higher percentage of its power usage compared to Sky+ and Sky HD with HDDs and second lnb power requirements as they actually powered down a lot higher percentage of their circuitry. There have been no changes to what is turned off in standby from the very first to the latest Sky HD box (excluding Samsung's turning off one lnb and Amstrad's latest deep-standby mode). So from this other than improvements in chip designs and HDD design reducing power usage when turned on there has been very little change in the percentage differences in power consumption between "on" and "standby" over the last 12 years. In terms of actual total power consumption of boxes when on IIRC the latest Amstrad HD box uses 45W Max when on and over 25W in standby unless recording Anytime downloads when it is way over 35W.

The whole point I was trying to make is that you seem to assume that a lot of the circuitry is turned off in standby and that is what is fallacious - very little is turned off apart from the video and audio output circuits with their very minimal power usage. (Obviously with the two exceptions I quoted above). The two lnb outputs alone consume over 6 W and are permanently on when most boxes are connected to the mains

allisonw

Electrical Engineer

are you an important Electrical Engineer as I see you capitalised it?

Moneymaker

Getting back on topic, this might interest you:
http://www.dusky-control.com/power-consumption.shtml

allisonw

link in above post

Thanks for that, it corroborates my figures. I have a Pace Sky plus.

I never searched online for corroboration as I knew I was correct.

Kurtis_Blue

allisonw wrote: »

are you an important Electrical Engineer as I see you capitalised it?

The capitalisation is correct.