It seems like another governmental knee-jerk response to something overheard in a rest-room. We had the grand debacle of CFL lamps not so long ago - What a load of bad ideas! Nevertheless, there was a small positive there with a minor part of lighting costs dropping to as little as 20% power cost and product life rising to around 4 x for a replacement cost increased 4 x.
Now we have high temp. Halogen globes for a power cost of around 75%, product life about the same as standard long-life bulbs and a replacement cost of 3 x standard. Just great, huh?
Banning commercial class A amplifier products would be another knee-jerk and just like other 'bright' ideas, seems only to show that something, however minuscule in the overall scale of domestic power consumption, is being done. If real, such nibbling at the edges seems to be aimed at soft targets with no effective representation, like Joe Public.
Well, we do eventually become aware of the stupid ideas when it's all over, don't we!
Now we have high temp. Halogen globes for a power cost of around 75%, product life about the same as standard long-life bulbs and a replacement cost of 3 x standard. Just great, huh?
Banning commercial class A amplifier products would be another knee-jerk and just like other 'bright' ideas, seems only to show that something, however minuscule in the overall scale of domestic power consumption, is being done. If real, such nibbling at the edges seems to be aimed at soft targets with no effective representation, like Joe Public.
Well, we do eventually become aware of the stupid ideas when it's all over, don't we!
The "efficiency" of a light bulb is based on wanted output versus unwanted output.
If you look at an incandescent light bulb as a light source only, and because I'm lazy let's use an efficiency of 20% (energy applied to light) then they are quite inefficient.
But, the remaining 80% is output as heat.
What if the heat is also wanted? Then they are 100% efficient.
Any place on the planet where you have a heater in your home, to raise the ambient temperature over the outdoor temperature, an incandescent is 100% efficient because it produces 20% wanted light and 80% wanted heat. And 100% of that heat is heat you don't need to use the heater to create.
If politicians actually had any brains ... if the "greens" who live north of about latitude 40 N actually could think instead of act like slathering sheep ... then what they would be mandating is incandescents in winter and [some other] lamp in summer.
BC Hydro (power utility in British Columbia, Canada) did a study a few years ago, which showed a province-wide shift to CFL bulbs would result in a fairly major increase in natural gas use to compensate for the lost heat. Throw in the power factor of CFLs and the shift becomes an increase in Carbon Emissions, not a decrease.
Same thing for amplifiers. If it's Class A and it's winter, it's 100% efficient. If it has vacuum tubes and it's winter, it's 100% efficient. And since they all (bulbs, amps) have a much friendlier power factor, they save energy over the alternatives, even if the alternatives were also 100% efficient (wanted light, wanted sound, wanted heat).
Yesterday it was -37.4C overnight. And naturally, the first thing I though was ... I need in my home light bulbs that generate less heat.
Where I live, in summer, the sun gets up at 3AM and falls at 11PM. So, you don't even really use artificial light in summer.
Believe it or not there are people who want us to change to Daylight Savings Time (we don't observe it in my province). You know, so mothers can try to get their kids to bed when the sun is going down at midnight. If there was such a thing, we should switch to Daylight Spending Time, get to bed at 10.
Where I work, which is still within the provincial boundary, in summer you get a kind of sunset/sunrise that flirts with the northernmost horizon for two hours. Near the solstace it's legal VFR Rule flying 24 hours a day (sun never goes 6 degrees below the horizon). You can go anywhere anytime without a flashlight and see just fine.
But, we need Daylight Savings Time.
Some people are such idiots.
If you look at an incandescent light bulb as a light source only, and because I'm lazy let's use an efficiency of 20% (energy applied to light) then they are quite inefficient.
But, the remaining 80% is output as heat.
What if the heat is also wanted? Then they are 100% efficient.
Any place on the planet where you have a heater in your home, to raise the ambient temperature over the outdoor temperature, an incandescent is 100% efficient because it produces 20% wanted light and 80% wanted heat. And 100% of that heat is heat you don't need to use the heater to create.
If politicians actually had any brains ... if the "greens" who live north of about latitude 40 N actually could think instead of act like slathering sheep ... then what they would be mandating is incandescents in winter and [some other] lamp in summer.
BC Hydro (power utility in British Columbia, Canada) did a study a few years ago, which showed a province-wide shift to CFL bulbs would result in a fairly major increase in natural gas use to compensate for the lost heat. Throw in the power factor of CFLs and the shift becomes an increase in Carbon Emissions, not a decrease.
Same thing for amplifiers. If it's Class A and it's winter, it's 100% efficient. If it has vacuum tubes and it's winter, it's 100% efficient. And since they all (bulbs, amps) have a much friendlier power factor, they save energy over the alternatives, even if the alternatives were also 100% efficient (wanted light, wanted sound, wanted heat).
Yesterday it was -37.4C overnight. And naturally, the first thing I though was ... I need in my home light bulbs that generate less heat.
Where I live, in summer, the sun gets up at 3AM and falls at 11PM. So, you don't even really use artificial light in summer.
Believe it or not there are people who want us to change to Daylight Savings Time (we don't observe it in my province). You know, so mothers can try to get their kids to bed when the sun is going down at midnight. If there was such a thing, we should switch to Daylight Spending Time, get to bed at 10.
Where I work, which is still within the provincial boundary, in summer you get a kind of sunset/sunrise that flirts with the northernmost horizon for two hours. Near the solstace it's legal VFR Rule flying 24 hours a day (sun never goes 6 degrees below the horizon). You can go anywhere anytime without a flashlight and see just fine.
But, we need Daylight Savings Time.
Some people are such idiots.
Last edited:
Sure. It's been experiencing what we call "weather" ... the most perfectly random phenomena the average person ever consistently encounters and shares with his close companions.
Take any two points on the planet ... and combine the weather they experienced on any given day, and that particular weather combination has never, and never will be, repeated.
It's been relatively comfortable for humans temperature wise, and we're ferociously adaptable anyway, so we pretty much occupy the extremes from one corner to the other, and everywhere in between.
We've been on a natural warming trend for a few hundred years, plus we might have influenced the trend by accelerating it's path by our own activities. The typical result of hitting the peak temperature is it starts to get cold again right after that.
We are spending a great deal of effort to reduce the influences we can identify, but the reality is we actually increase our influences every year, and unless we stop reproducing, there is no feasible end to our influence.
The planet, now that you mention it, is totally OK with all this. In fact it would be totally OK with a methane atmosphere and volcanoes every mile spewing lava onto every inch of the surface. So, it's hard to say anything "the planet" is worried about is actually happening to "the planet". I think "the planet" is indifferent to the climate; she knows she's got 4 billion years left and intends to make the most of it.
Humans, on the other hand, could probably be accurately described as a cancer on the planet, and the sooner they go extinct the better, probably. Meddlers.
The humans haven't been around that long, and probably are half-way or more along the natural path to their complete elimination as a species, but have an unhealthy and completely incorrect impression of their own importance.
Oh, and the humans are worried the planet will change. Naturally the planet laughs at this, since it's been changing every year for billions of years and is quite used to it by now.
"The Planet" is fine and right up until the moment the Sun goes supernova and destroys it, will be OK with whatever you can throw at her. The humans, on the other hand, refer to "the Planet" but really mean "the humans". Selfish to the end.
Take any two points on the planet ... and combine the weather they experienced on any given day, and that particular weather combination has never, and never will be, repeated.
It's been relatively comfortable for humans temperature wise, and we're ferociously adaptable anyway, so we pretty much occupy the extremes from one corner to the other, and everywhere in between.
We've been on a natural warming trend for a few hundred years, plus we might have influenced the trend by accelerating it's path by our own activities. The typical result of hitting the peak temperature is it starts to get cold again right after that.
We are spending a great deal of effort to reduce the influences we can identify, but the reality is we actually increase our influences every year, and unless we stop reproducing, there is no feasible end to our influence.
The planet, now that you mention it, is totally OK with all this. In fact it would be totally OK with a methane atmosphere and volcanoes every mile spewing lava onto every inch of the surface. So, it's hard to say anything "the planet" is worried about is actually happening to "the planet". I think "the planet" is indifferent to the climate; she knows she's got 4 billion years left and intends to make the most of it.
Humans, on the other hand, could probably be accurately described as a cancer on the planet, and the sooner they go extinct the better, probably. Meddlers.
The humans haven't been around that long, and probably are half-way or more along the natural path to their complete elimination as a species, but have an unhealthy and completely incorrect impression of their own importance.
Oh, and the humans are worried the planet will change. Naturally the planet laughs at this, since it's been changing every year for billions of years and is quite used to it by now.
"The Planet" is fine and right up until the moment the Sun goes supernova and destroys it, will be OK with whatever you can throw at her. The humans, on the other hand, refer to "the Planet" but really mean "the humans". Selfish to the end.
Last edited:
To answer the question in post one.
Within EU the standby and off mode power requirement applies:
eceee pages on EuP Eco-design: stand-by ? ECEEE
But it has been implemented this way:
http://www.eceee.org/Eco_design/products/standby/draft_guidelines_standby_Oct09
So if a standby mode can not be used you have to justify the inappropriateness.
That is probably not going to be so easy.
For sound equipment no specific reguirement for power consumption of power amplifiers has been developed but I remember that it has been discussed earlier. They are part of annex one in Commission Regulation (EC) No 1275/2008.
Only some equipments are currently covered: ENTR_Lot_3 ? ECEEE
Anyone that have more information on this?
Within EU the standby and off mode power requirement applies:
eceee pages on EuP Eco-design: stand-by ? ECEEE
But it has been implemented this way:
http://www.eceee.org/Eco_design/products/standby/draft_guidelines_standby_Oct09
So if a standby mode can not be used you have to justify the inappropriateness.
That is probably not going to be so easy.
For sound equipment no specific reguirement for power consumption of power amplifiers has been developed but I remember that it has been discussed earlier. They are part of annex one in Commission Regulation (EC) No 1275/2008.
Only some equipments are currently covered: ENTR_Lot_3 ? ECEEE
Anyone that have more information on this?
Ban Class A-amps?
Could easily sound like a proposition made by the Norwegian goverment.
As another proposition from them, affecting only the common man, no affect to them with good access to not only own bank-account, but also to others via taxes and other economic benefits built up by the Norwegian goverment the last 65 years.
AND with absolutely NO positive effect to the globe we all share.
Well, those of us who lives will be able to tell.
Probably the melonheads we elect to make the rules even will ban all types of power consuming apparatus wich does not produce at least the power they consume to pass back on the grid, with a suitable fee for the consumers to pay.
Would I be suprised if this happens?
No way.
Could easily sound like a proposition made by the Norwegian goverment.
As another proposition from them, affecting only the common man, no affect to them with good access to not only own bank-account, but also to others via taxes and other economic benefits built up by the Norwegian goverment the last 65 years.
AND with absolutely NO positive effect to the globe we all share.
Well, those of us who lives will be able to tell.
Probably the melonheads we elect to make the rules even will ban all types of power consuming apparatus wich does not produce at least the power they consume to pass back on the grid, with a suitable fee for the consumers to pay.
Would I be suprised if this happens?
No way.
Knock knock...Hello? Goodevening Sir, sorry to bother you but we've had reports of high bias appliances being used in the neighbourhood. Would you or anyone in your household be in possession of, or be aware of anyone using such appliances?..Errr No? May we take this opportunity to remind you, you must keep your bias below 23ma per output device.....
A friend of mine just sold his 80W Class A power amplifier because he read a few articles about power consumption in audio....I was recently over at his house and noticed he has about 25 downlights in the ceiling @ 60W each....
Isn't it a shame when media hype gets in the way of people enjoying good audio. Class A gear doesn't really cost that much when compared with, say, a dishwasher, clothes dryer. In fact, it's just a drop in the ocean. I'd have thought a decent solar panel and pure sine wave inverter system would cover the cost of leaving a Class A amp running 24/7 365....
Isn't it a shame when media hype gets in the way of people enjoying good audio. Class A gear doesn't really cost that much when compared with, say, a dishwasher, clothes dryer. In fact, it's just a drop in the ocean. I'd have thought a decent solar panel and pure sine wave inverter system would cover the cost of leaving a Class A amp running 24/7 365....
Good.
This post deserves to be repeated.
The fools who made the ban over incadence lamps know bnothing about living close to the North pole. We have to turn up the heaters to compensate for the "low energy"-lamps, wich by the way contains mercury wich I think is a rather bad idea to spread around as this ban does.
And what is the real energy saving, when they had to establish an extra transport system to collect theese lamps wich is indeed high risk waste?
Member
Joined 2009
Paid Member
The trouble with using incandessants in the winter is that if yuo want CFL in the summer you have to go around chaning them - and when you do the colour spectrum changes and so does the time it takes to turn it on and reach full output. So where I have CFL's I just leave them on 24-7 so I don't have to wait for them to warm up.
Summers here in Norway may be so light anyway, so the lamps aren't in use then
The only benefit living close to and north of the polar circle.
The most striking with many popular class A amps is that they are
well below a decently designed AB class amp in respect of perfs ,
wich is paradoxal for amps branded as "better sounding".
My main design guideline is reliability so i prefer AB class amp
with signal detection to reduce losses as much as possible,
i even reduced the PSU of my amp from +-55V to +-22V
with a circuit that reduce the iddle current to about 10mA
when no signal is present and the amp is on 24/7 since
a few years....
well below a decently designed AB class amp in respect of perfs ,
wich is paradoxal for amps branded as "better sounding".
My main design guideline is reliability so i prefer AB class amp
with signal detection to reduce losses as much as possible,
i even reduced the PSU of my amp from +-55V to +-22V
with a circuit that reduce the iddle current to about 10mA
when no signal is present and the amp is on 24/7 since
a few years....
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.