Posted by Jim Wilkins on February 14, 2009, 3:44 pm
On Feb 14, 1:23 am, david.willi...@bayman.org (David Williams) wrote:
> -> reasionable accuracy. But really, I don't care. One simple posting
> -> from this ~100W PC consumes more electricity than a nightlight uses in
> -> a year.
> Oh I see what you mean. Your 100W computer uses more energy in the time
> (maybe 10 minutes) that it takes to post a message than a night-light
> does in a year.
> Really? The computer would use something like 20 watt-hours. A year is
> about 9000 hours. So you're saying a night-light uses only about
> 20/9000 watts. That's about 2 milliwatts. I seriously doubt it!
> dow
I type poorly and edit much.
Jim Wilkins
Posted by Neon John on February 14, 2009, 4:27 pm
On Sat, 14 Feb 2009 00:23:44 -0600, david.williams@bayman.org (David
Williams) wrote:
>-> reasionable accuracy. But really, I don't care. One simple posting
>-> from this ~100W PC consumes more electricity than a nightlight uses in
>-> a year.
>
>Oh I see what you mean. Your 100W computer uses more energy in the time
>(maybe 10 minutes) that it takes to post a message than a night-light
>does in a year.
>
>Really? The computer would use something like 20 watt-hours. A year is
>about 9000 hours. So you're saying a night-light uses only about
>20/9000 watts. That's about 2 milliwatts. I seriously doubt it!
Just happen to have an electroluminescent nightlight here in my junk
box. Label sez 120 volts, 0.05 watts. 50 milliwatts isn't too far
off as a guestimate.
John
Posted by Jim Wilkins on February 15, 2009, 11:11 am
On Feb 14, 10:06 pm, david.willi...@bayman.org (David Williams) wrote:
> -> >Really? The computer would use something like 20 watt-hours. A year is
> -> >about 9000 hours. So you're saying a night-light uses only about
> -> >20/9000 watts. That's about 2 milliwatts. I seriously doubt it!
> -> Just happen to have an electroluminescent nightlight here in my junk
> -> box. Label sez 120 volts, 0.05 watts. 50 milliwatts isn't too far
> -> off as a guestimate.
> -> John
> Only a factor of 25 wrong. Okay. The order of magnitude of the order
> of magnitude is right.
> dow
Don't take sarcasm so literally.
Posted by T. Keating on February 23, 2009, 9:02 am
On Sat, 14 Feb 2009 21:06:53 -0600, david.williams@bayman.org (David
Williams) wrote:
>-> >Really? The computer would use something like 20 watt-hours. A year is
>-> >about 9000 hours. So you're saying a night-light uses only about
>-> >20/9000 watts. That's about 2 milliwatts. I seriously doubt it!
>
>-> Just happen to have an electroluminescent nightlight here in my junk
>-> box. Label sez 120 volts, 0.05 watts. 50 milliwatts isn't too far
>-> off as a guestimate.
>
>-> John
>
>Only a factor of 25 wrong. Okay. The order of magnitude of the order
>of magnitude is right.
Is that your informed opinion.. or just plain ignorance??
A small plastic device dissipating more than a few hundred milliwatts
of thermal energy would feel warm to the touch.
When operating, the plug in nightlight EL devices I have are cool to
the touch.
Posted by Jim Wilkins on February 23, 2009, 10:46 am
> On Sat, 14 Feb 2009 21:06:53 -0600, david.willi...@bayman.org (David
The amount of computer time spend disagreeing with my PC vs nightlight
estimate has validated it several times over.
Jim Wilkins
XML site map
> -> from this ~100W PC consumes more electricity than a nightlight uses in
> -> a year.
> Oh I see what you mean. Your 100W computer uses more energy in the time
> (maybe 10 minutes) that it takes to post a message than a night-light
> does in a year.
> Really? The computer would use something like 20 watt-hours. A year is
> about 9000 hours. So you're saying a night-light uses only about
> 20/9000 watts. That's about 2 milliwatts. I seriously doubt it!
> dow