How would they tell if NO one was watching?
Not 'how many aerials are taking energy' but, rather the total amount of energy being taken by all aerials (and many other things). How much energy is taken by each receiver depends upon the design of that receiver - at extremes, a 'crystal set' would take (relatively) a lot of energy, whereas a modern receiver with a very high impedance input would take extremely little energy. Also, if the receiver had an up-front tuned-circuit (or even just a 'tuned' aerial), it would probably 'consume energy' even if the receiver were switched off - so not a measure of 'viewers'!In theory it is possible to calculate how many aerials are taking energy from the broadcast signal.
Quite so - apart from the above issues, energy consumed by receiving aerials is such a small proportion of the total fate of broadcast energy that the exercise would be a total joke.In practise it is totally and utterly impossible.
That's obviously a lot more 'direct' (a 'wired connection'), albeit pretty imprecise (for a host of reasons)In the 1970's some German TV stations did some surveys and talent show voting by asking people to turn on an appliance and the power stations reported the increase in consumption.
There have always been stories about people extracting power by that method in the vicinity of very high-powered broadcast stations, and I'm not sure whether or not the law ever got to grips with that one!There was talk many years ago about a farmer who had a heavy gauge cable strung along the top of a fence to make a loop aerial which was then tuned to the BBC Long wave transmitter to obtain some power.
It certainly used to be possible to get a 5ft fluorescent tube to light up by holding one end and waving it around in the air in the vicinity of the Brookman's Park transmitter!It could be true as it was possible to light a very small lamp from a tuned aerial on the school physics lab bench ....
That doesn't matter.I'm not winding you up. I know what it means and you know what it means but loads of people have no idea what the 'kWh' on their bill actually means,
That doesn't matter.and have no idea what a thousand watt hours are.
Indeed.It's just the unit that electric is measured in. It could be any old combination of letters as far as they're concerned.
That depends entirely on their understanding (if any) of what fnargles are, and how they relate to fnarglelumpettes.So they get billed for a number of fnarglelumpettes.
A bulb's packaging says 50 fnargles and a bulb's packaging says 50 fnargles.
What's reasonable in thinking that 50 fnargles are not the same as 50 fnargles?
Maybe for you, I and like-minded people, but I fear that would really get the average Joe Public 'well confused'Lamps should be labelled as
Watts 50 of which ... 45 are heat ... 3 are visible light ... 1 is UV radiation ... 0.5 is wide spectrum electromagnetic radiation etc. etc.
How would they tell if NO one was watching?
No it isn't. The radiated power of the transmitter aerial is all dissipated somewhere, whether there are receiving aerials present or not.In theory it is possible to calculate how many aerials are taking energy from the broadcast signal. In theory putting up a new receiving aerial would affect the field strength at that point and hence the ERP ( Effective Radiated Power ) at the transmitter would increase.
Are you positing the existence of people who genuinely are truly incapable of actually understanding that the "50" on a packet tells them how much electricity the lamp uses?That depends entirely on their understanding (if any) of what fnargles are,
Not an analogous concept, and you know it.So they get billed for a number of mL of alcohol.
A bottle's packaging says 500mL and a bottle's packaging says 500 mL.
What's reasonable in thinking that 500mL are not the same as 500mL?
Because the thing which forms the basis on which they are billed, which they can see when they read their bills, is the same.... quite a lot, I would say, if one bottle contains a product specified as 1.2% alcohol and the other as 24% alcohol. If it seems reasonable to some people when the difference in specifications is 1.2% vs. 24%, why does it become unreasonable if the difference in specifications is 12V vs. 240V?
I think you'll find I've been talking about understanding. Are you positing the existence of people who are genuinely unable to actually understand?You seem to continue to assume, incorrectly, that everyone ("who does not require 24/7 care") knows things which you regards as obvious. Just like my old maths teacher!
Whether they are "unable to understand", I can't say - I imagine that some would be able and others not. However, the point is that there are people who do not understand (or even 'know') the things we are talking about, whether they would be "capable of understanding" or not.Are you positing the existence of people who are genuinely unable to actually understand?
WRT those who are able but do not:Whether they are "unable to understand", I can't say - I imagine that some would be able and others not.
Stop making excuses for people who JUST WILL NOT THINK.
Actually, outside your perfect world, there are a LOT of people who do not understand that.Are you positing the existence of people who genuinely are truly incapable of actually understanding that the "50" on a packet tells them how much electricity the lamp uses?
If you need to find a tradesperson to get your job done, please try our local search below, or if you are doing it yourself you can find suppliers local to you.
Select the supplier or trade you require, enter your location to begin your search.
Are you a trade or supplier? You can create your listing free at DIYnot Local