Electricity monitors

[EFLImpudence]

Found out that my fileserver was very expensive to run and I could buy a new one which was much more energy efficient that would pay for it self in 6 months.

Such is the nature of products these days.

If I have left stuff on overnight then I can get notifications of it.

Too late?

By using the history feature I was able to work out that the flood light was getting triggered way too often and thus replaced it with a lower energy one.

The two are not related.

I also use it to help remind the other half to turn something off.

The problem is the other half.

Being able to show it in such simple way and express the real actual cost of the actions is much more effective than just saying "turn it off it costs money"

No, it isn't.
Things cost more to run when they are on.

So quite a few useful things in this house from having one

 

[Rob_Quads]

Such is the nature of products these days.

Not all the time. You could buy an efficient HDD 3 years ago which was still better than a HDD you could buy now so its not as simple as you try and make it sound.

Too late?

Nope - My notifications are set to trigger at 11 so before I have gone to sleep. If I have left something on in the garage etc then I can go down and turn it off

The two are not related.

Well they are. If its a high power light but its not on that often then is not such a significant issue. If its is being used often then its worth looking at the higher cost lower power light (otherwise its not cost effective to spend more on the energy efficient light)

No, it isn't.
Things cost more to run when they are on.

Again quantifying the amount of usage is what is key. Saying it costs more is all well and good but often you need to be able to equate it to something to understand the relative important. Yes it uses more but is it only the cost of a pint a week or are you wasting a weekend away

Bit like saying when you go to buy a TV and want a better spec then the features will cost more. Yes it will cost more but how much is the important thing i.e. quantifying.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

By using the history feature I was able to work out that the flood light was getting triggered way too often and thus replaced it with a lower energy one.

The two are not related.

Nor do you need an consumption monitor to tell you that a halogen lamp will use more power than a CFL which will use more power than an LED.

 

[RF Lighting]

Some people do. I have a friend who believes ELV lamps use less electric than LV ones of the same wattage.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

And some people make death threats against TV presenters when they hear a rumour that they might take over from Jeremy Clarkson on Top Gear.

 

[JohnW2]

I have a friend who believes ELV lamps use less electric than LV ones of the same wattage.

IME, that's not an uncommon misconception.

Kind Regards, John

 

[RF Lighting]

And some people make death threats against TV presenters when they hear a rumour that they might take over from Jeremy Clarkson on Top Gear.

Is an electricity monitor likely to stop that sort of behaviour?

 

[ban-all-sheds]

No.

Just observing that there are some people out there who are so stupid and barking mad that their beliefs cannot be used as justification for the existence of things.

 

[RF Lighting]

I don't think sending abusive messages is quite the same as not having a full understanding of physics and in particular ohms law.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I have a friend who believes ELV lamps use less electric than LV ones of the same wattage.

IME, that's not an uncommon misconception.

 

[RF Lighting]

I guess as a retired chef, he doesn't have much knowledge of ohms law, like I as an electrician don't know how to make a soufle. I bet there's probably a chefs forum somewhere calling an electrician stupid for not knowing how to make a soufle when it is second nature to them.

He knows the lights use less voltage. I don't think it's unreasonable for someone to assume less voltage = less power.

 

[JohnW2]

He knows the lights use less voltage. I don't think it's unreasonable for someone to assume less voltage = less power.

Quite. Obviously wrong but, as you say, probably not an unreasonable assumption on the part of someone who does not understand the physics.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

He knows the lights use less voltage. I don't think it's unreasonable for someone to assume less voltage = less power.

It is completely, utterly, verging-on-the-need-for-permanent-care unreasonable when a lamp is described as 50W.

He KNOWS that he is charged for the power he uses.

He KNOWS that his electricity supplier does not send him a questionnaire asking him which of his 50W bulbs work at 12V and which at 230V.

How can he POSSIBLY think that a 50W 12V light is going to show up on his bill as having used less than a 50W 230V one?

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Obviously wrong but, as you say, probably not an unreasonable assumption on the part of someone who does not understand the physics.

It is completely, utterly, verging-on-the-need-for-permanent-care unreasonable.

You don't have to "understand the physics". You don't have to know what a watt is - you just have to know that, just as your *(&£%$*#@; bill tells you in plain English, you pay for how many you use over what time.

Stop making excuses for people who JUST WILL NOT THINK.

 

[JohnW2]

He KNOWS that he is charged for the power he uses.

I think you'll find that a fair number of people know only that they are charged for the "electricity" they use, and haven't a clue about the true meaning of words like 'power', 'voltage', 'current' and 'energy'.

In any event, and given that you are so keen on preciseness, what you suggest is clearly not even correct - he is charged for the energy, not power, that he uses. He will be charged exactly the same for using 1000W of power for and hour as for using 100W of power for 10 hours!

Kind Regards, John