|
Home > Archive > Electrical Engineering > December 2007 > Big screen TV's negate energy savings from CFLs
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Big screen TV's negate energy savings from CFLs
|
|
| Beachcomber 2007-12-14, 9:25 am |
|
Did anyone see the article from the Wall Street Journal on 12/13?
Apparently, you can install those low-flow showerheads, replace your
incandescent lamps everywhere in your house with CFLs, buy energy star
appliances and vow to take shorter showers, but...
That big screen plasma TV you're buying this year is still going to
suck 10 - 15% more energy overall on your electric bill and probably
negate everything you are doing at home to save energy and save the
earth and stop the global warming.
Even the LCD displays typically consume more power than the CRT's they
are replacing, (according to this article), and there is not much that
the manufactuers can do about it.
So if you are the concerned, do-gooder type... Do you plan to do all
those good, touch-feely, good things to save energy, but still plan on
watching the Super Bowl on your new 42 inch Plasma Screen TV?
What to do....?
Beachcomber
| |
| Palindrome 2007-12-14, 9:25 am |
| Beachcomber wrote:
> Did anyone see the article from the Wall Street Journal on 12/13?
>
> Apparently, you can install those low-flow showerheads, replace your
> incandescent lamps everywhere in your house with CFLs, buy energy star
> appliances and vow to take shorter showers, but...
>
> That big screen plasma TV you're buying this year is still going to
> suck 10 - 15% more energy overall on your electric bill and probably
> negate everything you are doing at home to save energy and save the
> earth and stop the global warming.
>
> Even the LCD displays typically consume more power than the CRT's they
> are replacing, (according to this article), and there is not much that
> the manufactuers can do about it.
>
> So if you are the concerned, do-gooder type... Do you plan to do all
> those good, touch-feely, good things to save energy, but still plan on
> watching the Super Bowl on your new 42 inch Plasma Screen TV?
>
> What to do....?
>
Absolutely not a problem, for me - except when I have people visiting,
my only form of heating is electrical power. So using a big TV, if I had
one, would simply mean that joules would come out of that instead of a
room heater.
--
Sue
| |
| phil-news-nospam@ipal.net 2007-12-14, 9:25 am |
| On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 10:20:36 GMT Beachcomber <invalid@notreal.none> wrote:
|
| Did anyone see the article from the Wall Street Journal on 12/13?
|
| Apparently, you can install those low-flow showerheads, replace your
| incandescent lamps everywhere in your house with CFLs, buy energy star
| appliances and vow to take shorter showers, but...
I was looking at some "energy star" clothes dryers. They still need a
30 amp circuit.
| That big screen plasma TV you're buying this year is still going to
| suck 10 - 15% more energy overall on your electric bill and probably
| negate everything you are doing at home to save energy and save the
| earth and stop the global warming.
I'm not buying one of those. I'm hanging on to my 36" CRT power hog for
now :-(
| Even the LCD displays typically consume more power than the CRT's they
| are replacing, (according to this article), and there is not much that
| the manufactuers can do about it.
I did switch my computer monitor from CRT to LCD. There is less heat
coming off the top of it. The CRT got quite toasty. The LCD is not.
| So if you are the concerned, do-gooder type... Do you plan to do all
| those good, touch-feely, good things to save energy, but still plan on
| watching the Super Bowl on your new 42 inch Plasma Screen TV?
|
| What to do....?
I'll just get online and read the lastest on AEE.
--
|---------------------------------------/----------------------------------|
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (ka9wgn.ham.org) / Do not send to the address below |
| first name lower case at ipal.net / spamtrap-2007-12-14-0812@ipal.net |
|------------------------------------/-------------------------------------|
| |
| phil-news-nospam@ipal.net 2007-12-14, 9:25 am |
| On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 10:42:25 GMT Palindrome <me9@privacy.net> wrote:
| Beachcomber wrote:
|> Did anyone see the article from the Wall Street Journal on 12/13?
|>
|> Apparently, you can install those low-flow showerheads, replace your
|> incandescent lamps everywhere in your house with CFLs, buy energy star
|> appliances and vow to take shorter showers, but...
|>
|> That big screen plasma TV you're buying this year is still going to
|> suck 10 - 15% more energy overall on your electric bill and probably
|> negate everything you are doing at home to save energy and save the
|> earth and stop the global warming.
|>
|> Even the LCD displays typically consume more power than the CRT's they
|> are replacing, (according to this article), and there is not much that
|> the manufactuers can do about it.
|>
|> So if you are the concerned, do-gooder type... Do you plan to do all
|> those good, touch-feely, good things to save energy, but still plan on
|> watching the Super Bowl on your new 42 inch Plasma Screen TV?
|>
|> What to do....?
|>
|
| Absolutely not a problem, for me - except when I have people visiting,
| my only form of heating is electrical power. So using a big TV, if I had
| one, would simply mean that joules would come out of that instead of a
| room heater.
Great for winter. What about in summer?
--
|---------------------------------------/----------------------------------|
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (ka9wgn.ham.org) / Do not send to the address below |
| first name lower case at ipal.net / spamtrap-2007-12-14-0816@ipal.net |
|------------------------------------/-------------------------------------|
| |
| Palindrome 2007-12-14, 9:25 am |
| phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 10:42:25 GMT Palindrome <me9@privacy.net> wrote:
> | Beachcomber wrote:
> |> Did anyone see the article from the Wall Street Journal on 12/13?
> |>
> |> Apparently, you can install those low-flow showerheads, replace your
> |> incandescent lamps everywhere in your house with CFLs, buy energy star
> |> appliances and vow to take shorter showers, but...
> |>
> |> That big screen plasma TV you're buying this year is still going to
> |> suck 10 - 15% more energy overall on your electric bill and probably
> |> negate everything you are doing at home to save energy and save the
> |> earth and stop the global warming.
> |>
> |> Even the LCD displays typically consume more power than the CRT's they
> |> are replacing, (according to this article), and there is not much that
> |> the manufactuers can do about it.
> |>
> |> So if you are the concerned, do-gooder type... Do you plan to do all
> |> those good, touch-feely, good things to save energy, but still plan on
> |> watching the Super Bowl on your new 42 inch Plasma Screen TV?
> |>
> |> What to do....?
> |>
> |
> | Absolutely not a problem, for me - except when I have people visiting,
> | my only form of heating is electrical power. So using a big TV, if I had
> | one, would simply mean that joules would come out of that instead of a
> | room heater.
>
> Great for winter. What about in summer?
>
That wouldn't be a problem either. I live in the middle of a National
Park - so why would I want to be watching TV during the long, glorious,
days of Summer?
Then again, it's Winter now, so all the tourists have left and all the
beauty spots are, well, beautiful. So why would I want to be watching TV
now?
--
Sue
| |
| Beachcomber 2007-12-14, 1:25 pm |
| On 14 Dec 2007 14:16:27 GMT, phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote:
>On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 10:20:36 GMT Beachcomber <invalid@notreal.none> wrote:
>|
>| Did anyone see the article from the Wall Street Journal on 12/13?
>|
>| Apparently, you can install those low-flow showerheads, replace your
>| incandescent lamps everywhere in your house with CFLs, buy energy star
>| appliances and vow to take shorter showers, but...
>
>I was looking at some "energy star" clothes dryers. They still need a
>30 amp circuit.
>
>
Interestingly enough, the WSJ article on 12/13 points out that "Energy
Star" devices are only defined for their efficiency when they are OFF
(or more properly in standby and sucking power constantly to keeps
clocks & receiver circuitry running while awaiting commands).
When the appliance is turned ON, they can use power without regard to
the imposition of government standards.
Beachcomber
| |
| Salmon Egg 2007-12-14, 1:25 pm |
| On 12/14/07 2:42 AM, in article
l6t8j.112758$Rr7.60337@fe09.news.easynews.com, "Palindrome"
<me9@privacy.net> wrote:
> Absolutely not a problem, for me - except when I have people visiting,
> my only form of heating is electrical power. So using a big TV, if I had
> one, would simply mean that joules would come out of that instead of a
> room heater.
Get a heat pump.
Bill
| |
|
| Beachcomber wrote:
> Did anyone see the article from the Wall Street Journal on 12/13?
>
> Apparently, you can install those low-flow showerheads, replace your
> incandescent lamps everywhere in your house with CFLs, buy energy star
> appliances and vow to take shorter showers, but...
>
> That big screen plasma TV you're buying this year is still going to
> suck 10 - 15% more energy overall on your electric bill and probably
> negate everything you are doing at home to save energy and save the
> earth and stop the global warming.
>
> Even the LCD displays typically consume more power than the CRT's they
> are replacing, (according to this article), and there is not much that
> the manufactuers can do about it.
>
> So if you are the concerned, do-gooder type... Do you plan to do all
> those good, touch-feely, good things to save energy, but still plan on
> watching the Super Bowl on your new 42 inch Plasma Screen TV?
>
> What to do....?
>
> Beachcomber
>
>
No problem, we'll just go to Al Gore's house and watch
it there. Ya see, he's got this scheme where he can
use 87 bi-jillion watts without harming the environment,
make some third-world country rich, and win the Nobel
prize, all in one swell foop. It's almost as good as
perpetual motion!
But, like always, there's a flaw. After watching
the thing with him, we'll need to spend so much time
in the shower trying to get clean that we'll waste
far more energy than we saved, to say nothing of the
water wasted and the pollution caused by all the soap
we'll need.
Ed
| |
| Charles Perry 2007-12-14, 5:25 pm |
|
"Beachcomber" <invalid@notreal.none> wrote in message
news:4762ac11.763000@news.verizon.net...
> On 14 Dec 2007 14:16:27 GMT, phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote:
>
> Interestingly enough, the WSJ article on 12/13 points out that "Energy
> Star" devices are only defined for their efficiency when they are OFF
> (or more properly in standby and sucking power constantly to keeps
> clocks & receiver circuitry running while awaiting commands).
>
> When the appliance is turned ON, they can use power without regard to
> the imposition of government standards.
>
> Beachcomber
>
>
That is incorrect. An Energy Star compliant PC power supply now has to be
80% efficient at normal usage levels.
Charles Perry P.E.
| |
|
| In article <47625614.3898125@news.verizon.net>, invalid@notreal.none
says...
>
> Did anyone see the article from the Wall Street Journal on 12/13?
>
> Apparently, you can install those low-flow showerheads, replace your
> incandescent lamps everywhere in your house with CFLs, buy energy star
> appliances and vow to take shorter showers, but...
Smell, screw up your eyes, but buy that 60" TV.
> That big screen plasma TV you're buying this year is still going to
> suck 10 - 15% more energy overall on your electric bill and probably
> negate everything you are doing at home to save energy and save the
> earth and stop the global warming.
I was rather surprised. The 42" plasma TV we just bought dissipates
575W, according to the documentation. I haven't put my power meter
on it yet but if it makes you feel better, we have electric heat.
> Even the LCD displays typically consume more power than the CRT's they
> are replacing, (according to this article), and there is not much that
> the manufactuers can do about it.
I was surprised at that too but the picture sure is nice.
> So if you are the concerned, do-gooder type... Do you plan to do all
> those good, touch-feely, good things to save energy, but still plan on
> watching the Super Bowl on your new 42 inch Plasma Screen TV?
Good thing I'm not a do-gooder type. I won't even have to buy
AlBore's Carbon offsets so I can feel better about myself.
> What to do....?
Pay the electric bill, have another drink, and watch the leftist
whine about their plasma TVs, dripping shower heads, and bad eyes.
--
Keith
| |
| ChairmanOfTheBored 2007-12-14, 8:25 pm |
| On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 10:20:36 GMT, invalid@notreal.none (Beachcomber)
wrote:
>
>Did anyone see the article from the Wall Street Journal on 12/13?
>
>Apparently, you can install those low-flow showerheads, replace your
>incandescent lamps everywhere in your house with CFLs, buy energy star
>appliances and vow to take shorter showers, but...
>
>That big screen plasma TV you're buying this year is still going to
>suck 10 - 15% more energy overall on your electric bill and probably
>negate everything you are doing at home to save energy and save the
>earth and stop the global warming.
>
>Even the LCD displays typically consume more power than the CRT's they
>are replacing, (according to this article), and there is not much that
>the manufactuers can do about it.
>
>So if you are the concerned, do-gooder type... Do you plan to do all
>those good, touch-feely, good things to save energy, but still plan on
>watching the Super Bowl on your new 42 inch Plasma Screen TV?
>
>What to do....?
>
>Beachcomber
>
An old 25" console used over 350W.
My 32" used 300W
My 37" Dual format HDTV CRT uses near 400W.
Many LCD FPDs use around 150W or more (mine at 32").
Sure plasma will use more than LCD, but does it really take more than
an old, large CRT to drive?
| |
| Beachcomber 2007-12-14, 9:25 pm |
|
> An old 25" console used over 350W.
>
> My 32" used 300W
>
> My 37" Dual format HDTV CRT uses near 400W.
>
> Many LCD FPDs use around 150W or more (mine at 32").
>
> Sure plasma will use more than LCD, but does it really take more than
>an old, large CRT to drive?
On a large scale, I think the point is that recent developments in new
consumer electronic products are going to lead to significant and
perhaps dramatic increases in overall energy use for most households.
It's not just the new plasma, projection, or LCD TVs. More and more
people are connecting these to "Always On" DVR's, home theatre amps,
computer gaming consoles, and satellite or cable tuners.
Beachcomber
| |
| Paul Hovnanian P.E. 2007-12-15, 3:25 am |
| Beachcomber wrote:
>
[snip]
> Even the LCD displays typically consume more power than the CRT's they
> are replacing, (according to this article), and there is not much that
> the manufactuers can do about it.
I don't think so. I have a 37" LCD TV set that draws 210W. My 24" CRT TV
draws 180 W.
I have a 17" CRT monitor and a 17" LCD monitor. The CRT takes 180 W, the
LCD's power brick is rated at 50W (I can't find the specs on the screen.
It may draw less than 50W).
Some folks at Boeing did a heat load calculation on an engineering
office building back when LCDs were still pricey. The power saved plus
the reduction in air conditioning would pay for an LCD monitor in one to
two years, IIRC.
--
Paul Hovnanian mailto:Paul@Hovnanian.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer - These opiini^H^H damn! ^H^H ^Q ^[ .... :w :q :wq :wq! ^d
exit X Q ^C ^? :quitbye CtrlAltDel ~~q :~q logout save/quit :!QUIT
^[zz ^[ZZZZZZ ^H man vi ^@ ^L ^[c ^# ^E ^X ^I ^T ? help helpquit ^D
man quit ^C ^c ?Quit ?q CtrlShftDel "Hey, what does this button d..."
| |
| phil-news-nospam@ipal.net 2007-12-15, 3:25 am |
| On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 15:12:25 GMT Palindrome <me9@privacy.net> wrote:
| phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote:
|> On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 10:42:25 GMT Palindrome <me9@privacy.net> wrote:
|> | Beachcomber wrote:
|> |> Did anyone see the article from the Wall Street Journal on 12/13?
|> |>
|> |> Apparently, you can install those low-flow showerheads, replace your
|> |> incandescent lamps everywhere in your house with CFLs, buy energy star
|> |> appliances and vow to take shorter showers, but...
|> |>
|> |> That big screen plasma TV you're buying this year is still going to
|> |> suck 10 - 15% more energy overall on your electric bill and probably
|> |> negate everything you are doing at home to save energy and save the
|> |> earth and stop the global warming.
|> |>
|> |> Even the LCD displays typically consume more power than the CRT's they
|> |> are replacing, (according to this article), and there is not much that
|> |> the manufactuers can do about it.
|> |>
|> |> So if you are the concerned, do-gooder type... Do you plan to do all
|> |> those good, touch-feely, good things to save energy, but still plan on
|> |> watching the Super Bowl on your new 42 inch Plasma Screen TV?
|> |>
|> |> What to do....?
|> |>
|> |
|> | Absolutely not a problem, for me - except when I have people visiting,
|> | my only form of heating is electrical power. So using a big TV, if I had
|> | one, would simply mean that joules would come out of that instead of a
|> | room heater.
|>
|> Great for winter. What about in summer?
|>
|
| That wouldn't be a problem either. I live in the middle of a National
| Park - so why would I want to be watching TV during the long, glorious,
| days of Summer?
Sounds like a good solution.
| Then again, it's Winter now, so all the tourists have left and all the
| beauty spots are, well, beautiful. So why would I want to be watching TV
| now?
Then it seems you don't have a problem :-)
--
|---------------------------------------/----------------------------------|
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (ka9wgn.ham.org) / Do not send to the address below |
| first name lower case at ipal.net / spamtrap-2007-12-15-0027@ipal.net |
|------------------------------------/-------------------------------------|
| |
| Andrew Gabriel 2007-12-15, 3:25 am |
| In article <4762ac11.763000@news.verizon.net>,
invalid@notreal.none (Beachcomber) writes:
> Interestingly enough, the WSJ article on 12/13 points out that "Energy
> Star" devices are only defined for their efficiency when they are OFF
> (or more properly in standby and sucking power constantly to keeps
> clocks & receiver circuitry running while awaiting commands).
When I was looking at Energy Star ~3 years ago, there were some
interesting loopholes. A PC in power saving mode just had to drop
it's consumption to some proportion (10% IIRC) of the max rating of
the PSU, so if you fitted an appropriately oversized PSU you could
conform without actually reducing the consumption of the PC at all.
TCO was a much tougher standard at the time. e.g. TCO'03 monitors
could not draw more than 1W in stand-by, regardless of PSU size
or full power consumption.
--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]
| |
| phil-news-nospam@ipal.net 2007-12-15, 9:25 am |
| On 15 Dec 2007 08:36:05 GMT Andrew Gabriel <andrew@cucumber.demon.co.uk> wrote:
| In article <4762ac11.763000@news.verizon.net>,
| invalid@notreal.none (Beachcomber) writes:
|> Interestingly enough, the WSJ article on 12/13 points out that "Energy
|> Star" devices are only defined for their efficiency when they are OFF
|> (or more properly in standby and sucking power constantly to keeps
|> clocks & receiver circuitry running while awaiting commands).
|
| When I was looking at Energy Star ~3 years ago, there were some
| interesting loopholes. A PC in power saving mode just had to drop
| it's consumption to some proportion (10% IIRC) of the max rating of
| the PSU, so if you fitted an appropriately oversized PSU you could
| conform without actually reducing the consumption of the PC at all.
In fact I have had to oversize some power supplies because there seems
to be a crop of them in the past few years that will let some voltages
slip down at higher loads, and some critical devices (hard drives) have
shutdown as a result. On a machine using around 65 watts on, a 135 watt
P/S would occaisionally have hard drives shut down. When I put in a
_new_ (and that may be part of the equation) 250 watts P/S, the problem
has not returned at all.
I'm building a new computer this month (as individual parts trickle in)
and I am making sure the P/S is well oversized for better stability.
--
|---------------------------------------/----------------------------------|
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (ka9wgn.ham.org) / Do not send to the address below |
| first name lower case at ipal.net / spamtrap-2007-12-15-0838@ipal.net |
|------------------------------------/-------------------------------------|
| |
| ChairmanOfTheBored 2007-12-15, 5:25 pm |
| On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 03:12:47 GMT, invalid@notreal.none (Beachcomber)
wrote:
>
>
>On a large scale, I think the point is that recent developments in new
>consumer electronic products are going to lead to significant and
>perhaps dramatic increases in overall energy use for most households.
EEEH! Wrong! Strike two. LCD panels are now being backlit by LEDs
instead of more power consumptive designs. Also, when OLED matures for
large sized arrays, we will see no backlighting at al as an OLED is a
light source at the pixel level. They will use less than plasma or LCD.
>
>It's not just the new plasma, projection, or LCD TVs. More and more
>people are connecting these to "Always On" DVR's, home theatre amps,
>computer gaming consoles, and satellite or cable tuners.
Oh boy! My HT setup uses a whole ten watt hours more than before!
I am not worried. People used to leave lights on all the time, and use
those damned scent emitters, and there have been dongles in use in
households for decades. Where have you been?
My carbon footprint is smaller than a newborn babe's. I ride a bicycle
to work, ten miles away.
My computer, cable box, and router, and one 15W CFL is all that runs
here, except at shower time, or when I watch a DVD movie.
The hot water here is near boiling, and that is provided, so my cooking
bill is low as well.
| |
| ChairmanOfTheBored 2007-12-15, 5:25 pm |
| On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 20:18:17 -0800, "Paul Hovnanian P.E."
<paul@hovnanian.com> wrote:
>Beachcomber wrote:
>[snip]
>
>I don't think so. I have a 37" LCD TV set that draws 210W. My 24" CRT TV
>draws 180 W.
>
>I have a 17" CRT monitor and a 17" LCD monitor. The CRT takes 180 W, the
>LCD's power brick is rated at 50W (I can't find the specs on the screen.
>It may draw less than 50W).
>
>Some folks at Boeing did a heat load calculation on an engineering
>office building back when LCDs were still pricey. The power saved plus
>the reduction in air conditioning would pay for an LCD monitor in one to
>two years, IIRC.
Not just more pricey, but they was before they further improved on FPD
efficiency as well. FPDs (LCD variety) are far more efficient than a CRT
of the same form factor (size).
| |
| ChairmanOfTheBored 2007-12-15, 5:25 pm |
| On 15 Dec 2007 08:36:05 GMT, andrew@cucumber.demon.co.uk (Andrew Gabriel)
wrote:
>In article <4762ac11.763000@news.verizon.net>,
> invalid@notreal.none (Beachcomber) writes:
>
>When I was looking at Energy Star ~3 years ago, there were some
>interesting loopholes. A PC in power saving mode just had to drop
>it's consumption to some proportion (10% IIRC) of the max rating of
>the PSU, so if you fitted an appropriately oversized PSU you could
>conform without actually reducing the consumption of the PC at all.
Yeah, I am quite sure that folks everywhere rushed out and bought 1kW
PSUs for their 100Watt slimline PCs. NOT!
Use a little common sense.
| |
| ChairmanOfTheBored 2007-12-15, 5:25 pm |
| On 15 Dec 2007 14:44:03 GMT, phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote:
>On 15 Dec 2007 08:36:05 GMT Andrew Gabriel <andrew@cucumber.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>| In article <4762ac11.763000@news.verizon.net>,
>| invalid@notreal.none (Beachcomber) writes:
>|> Interestingly enough, the WSJ article on 12/13 points out that "Energy
>|> Star" devices are only defined for their efficiency when they are OFF
>|> (or more properly in standby and sucking power constantly to keeps
>|> clocks & receiver circuitry running while awaiting commands).
>|
>| When I was looking at Energy Star ~3 years ago, there were some
>| interesting loopholes. A PC in power saving mode just had to drop
>| it's consumption to some proportion (10% IIRC) of the max rating of
>| the PSU, so if you fitted an appropriately oversized PSU you could
>| conform without actually reducing the consumption of the PC at all.
>
>In fact I have had to oversize some power supplies because there seems
>to be a crop of them in the past few years that will let some voltages
>slip down at higher loads, and some critical devices (hard drives) have
>shutdown as a result. On a machine using around 65 watts on, a 135 watt
>P/S would occaisionally have hard drives shut down. When I put in a
>_new_ (and that may be part of the equation) 250 watts P/S, the problem
>has not returned at all.
What a fucking joke. BOTH the 135W and the 250W supply sounds like
cheap chinese bullshit. Do you also buy PC cases that are less than $50
each, and come with a supply? No wonder you have problems.
I haven't used a PC PSU that was rated at less than 400W for years, and
most of my machines did not consume more than a few hundred watts. Why?
Because I know the difference between high end cheap chinese with a
slightly higher cost, and low end cheap chinese (your retarded choice)
that cost less, but are almost guaranteed to have a huge failure rate
when used at over 50% of their rated output.
My last case was about $130 and did not come with a supply. But then
hey, Antec makes the best cases around. My machine has four HDs, and two
optical drives, and an NVidia 8800 vid card, which anyone with any brains
knows uses a huge chunk of juice.
>
>I'm building a new computer this month (as individual parts trickle in)
>and I am making sure the P/S is well oversized for better stability.
Jeez. Just go to Tom's Hardware site and look at the already done for
you research on brands and price/value analysis as well.
| |
|
| In article <4763434e.6455718@news.verizon.net>, invalid@notreal.none
says...
>
>
> On a large scale, I think the point is that recent developments in new
> consumer electronic products are going to lead to significant and
> perhaps dramatic increases in overall energy use for most households.
>
> It's not just the new plasma, projection, or LCD TVs. More and more
> people are connecting these to "Always On" DVR's, home theatre amps,
> computer gaming consoles, and satellite or cable tuners.
DVRs seem to draw more than they should (my cable STB runs the disk
drive when nothing is being recorded or even watched). I probably
would shut it off if it didn't take so long to get its brains back.
The rest of the stuff you mention is pretty small potatoes. THe
kabillions of wall-warts idling may be of greater concern and easier
to do something about. Though, I'd have to see the data (both
physical and economic) to be convinced.
--
Keith
| |
|
| In article <47635589.D372D872@hovnanian.com>, paul@hovnanian.com
says...
> Beachcomber wrote:
> [snip]
>
> I don't think so. I have a 37" LCD TV set that draws 210W. My 24" CRT TV
> draws 180 W.
>
> I have a 17" CRT monitor and a 17" LCD monitor. The CRT takes 180 W, the
> LCD's power brick is rated at 50W (I can't find the specs on the screen.
> It may draw less than 50W).
>
> Some folks at Boeing did a heat load calculation on an engineering
> office building back when LCDs were still pricey. The power saved plus
> the reduction in air conditioning would pay for an LCD monitor in one to
> two years, IIRC.
That calculation is only valid if the replacements are the same size.
It wasn't long ago that 15" displays were the norm. Now it's at
least 19", perhaps a couple of 21" in that environment. ...or should
be if they're doing a real economic analysis, rather than a research-
to-prove-conclusion analysis. If dual displays saved one minute a
day, the second monitor would have a payback of a year or two. I
could save a hell of a lot more than that, not to mention a few
trees. Power consumption (or anything else) can't be analyzed in a
vacuum.
--
Keith
| |
| phil-news-nospam@ipal.net 2007-12-15, 8:25 pm |
| On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 13:39:51 -0800 ChairmanOfTheBored <RUBored@crackasmile.org> wrote:
| On 15 Dec 2007 14:44:03 GMT, phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote:
|
|>On 15 Dec 2007 08:36:05 GMT Andrew Gabriel <andrew@cucumber.demon.co.uk> wrote:
|>| In article <4762ac11.763000@news.verizon.net>,
|>| invalid@notreal.none (Beachcomber) writes:
|>|> Interestingly enough, the WSJ article on 12/13 points out that "Energy
|>|> Star" devices are only defined for their efficiency when they are OFF
|>|> (or more properly in standby and sucking power constantly to keeps
|>|> clocks & receiver circuitry running while awaiting commands).
|>|
|>| When I was looking at Energy Star ~3 years ago, there were some
|>| interesting loopholes. A PC in power saving mode just had to drop
|>| it's consumption to some proportion (10% IIRC) of the max rating of
|>| the PSU, so if you fitted an appropriately oversized PSU you could
|>| conform without actually reducing the consumption of the PC at all.
|>
|>In fact I have had to oversize some power supplies because there seems
|>to be a crop of them in the past few years that will let some voltages
|>slip down at higher loads, and some critical devices (hard drives) have
|>shutdown as a result. On a machine using around 65 watts on, a 135 watt
|>P/S would occaisionally have hard drives shut down. When I put in a
|>_new_ (and that may be part of the equation) 250 watts P/S, the problem
|>has not returned at all.
|
| What a fucking joke. BOTH the 135W and the 250W supply sounds like
| cheap chinese bullshit. Do you also buy PC cases that are less than $50
| each, and come with a supply? No wonder you have problems.
It was a cheap power supply in an otherwise just right case. The 250W
supply works just fine. So that seems to rule out the Chinese as the
source of the problem.
| I haven't used a PC PSU that was rated at less than 400W for years, and
| most of my machines did not consume more than a few hundred watts. Why?
| Because I know the difference between high end cheap chinese with a
| slightly higher cost, and low end cheap chinese (your retarded choice)
| that cost less, but are almost guaranteed to have a huge failure rate
| when used at over 50% of their rated output.
The usage was under 50% on the first power supply. Now it is near 25%.
| My last case was about $130 and did not come with a supply. But then
| hey, Antec makes the best cases around. My machine has four HDs, and two
| optical drives, and an NVidia 8800 vid card, which anyone with any brains
| knows uses a huge chunk of juice.
Antec did not then, nor even now, makes any case that meets the requirements
I had at the time I built the machines in question. Today I have different
requirements and alas, an Antec case does indeed fit just right. I have
two of them here, now, ready for stuff to be installed (when parts on the
critical work path finally arrive). Unfortunately no one supplier carries
everything I need. I've ordered from 4 different places so far. If I
could get it all from Newegg, I would, as they have been fastest and doing
the processing and delivery. But they do not carry 100% of models and they
do run out of things sometimes.
|>I'm building a new computer this month (as individual parts trickle in)
|>and I am making sure the P/S is well oversized for better stability.
|
| Jeez. Just go to Tom's Hardware site and look at the already done for
| you research on brands and price/value analysis as well.
Because YOU say so? I do quite well figuring out what I need.
Actually I would, if they would ever figure out how to design a web site
properly.
--
|---------------------------------------/----------------------------------|
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (ka9wgn.ham.org) / Do not send to the address below |
| first name lower case at ipal.net / spamtrap-2007-12-15-1845@ipal.net |
|------------------------------------/-------------------------------------|
| |
| phil-news-nospam@ipal.net 2007-12-15, 8:25 pm |
| On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 13:31:19 -0800 ChairmanOfTheBored <RUBored@crackasmile.org> wrote:
| On 15 Dec 2007 08:36:05 GMT, andrew@cucumber.demon.co.uk (Andrew Gabriel)
| wrote:
|
|>In article <4762ac11.763000@news.verizon.net>,
|> invalid@notreal.none (Beachcomber) writes:
|>> Interestingly enough, the WSJ article on 12/13 points out that "Energy
|>> Star" devices are only defined for their efficiency when they are OFF
|>> (or more properly in standby and sucking power constantly to keeps
|>> clocks & receiver circuitry running while awaiting commands).
|>
|>When I was looking at Energy Star ~3 years ago, there were some
|>interesting loopholes. A PC in power saving mode just had to drop
|>it's consumption to some proportion (10% IIRC) of the max rating of
|>the PSU, so if you fitted an appropriately oversized PSU you could
|>conform without actually reducing the consumption of the PC at all.
|
| Yeah, I am quite sure that folks everywhere rushed out and bought 1kW
| PSUs for their 100Watt slimline PCs. NOT!
|
| Use a little common sense.
The standard has been to get a PSU with a rating about double that of the
actual power level you expect to use. Do you have a reason to believe it
should change to some other ratio? Maybe quadruple?
--
|---------------------------------------/----------------------------------|
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (ka9wgn.ham.org) / Do not send to the address below |
| first name lower case at ipal.net / spamtrap-2007-12-15-1856@ipal.net |
|------------------------------------/-------------------------------------|
| |
| Paul Hovnanian P.E. 2007-12-15, 9:25 pm |
| krw wrote:
>
> In article <47635589.D372D872@hovnanian.com>, paul@hovnanian.com
> says...
>
> That calculation is only valid if the replacements are the same size.
> It wasn't long ago that 15" displays were the norm. Now it's at
> least 19", perhaps a couple of 21" in that environment. ...or should
> be if they're doing a real economic analysis, rather than a research-
> to-prove-conclusion analysis. If dual displays saved one minute a
> day, the second monitor would have a payback of a year or two. I
> could save a hell of a lot more than that, not to mention a few
> trees. Power consumption (or anything else) can't be analyzed in a
> vacuum.
Of course, many other considerations would have to go into the analysis.
But it stood on the power savings alone.
We were kidding among ourselves that they (the Boeing facilities people)
would probably bite if we showed them that the reduced depth of a flat
panel would allow closer spacing of desks and a resulting higher
'engineers per square foot' figure. We all suspected that they had
modeled offices after the one in 'Brazil'.
--
Paul Hovnanian mailto:Paul@Hovnanian.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
Why are so many towns named after water towers?
| |
| Stuart 2007-12-16, 9:25 am |
| In article <6uh8m3lnijb1c1aqt16u1tv60l0sqqssj3@4ax.com>,
ChairmanOfTheBored <RUBored@crackasmile.org> wrote:
[color=darkred]
> What a fucking joke. BOTH the 135W and the 250W supply sounds like
> cheap chinese bullshit. Do you also buy PC cases that are less than $50
> each, and come with a supply? No wonder you have problems.
No, it's probably just down to instantaneous peaks of current drawn by
different devices occuring at the same time.
--
Stuart Winsor
From is valid but subject to change without notice if it gets spammed.
For Barn dances and folk evenings in the Coventry and Warwickshire area
See: http://www.barndance.org.uk
| |
|
| In article <4764919A.3229B93C@hovnanian.com>,
alt.engineering.electrical, paul@hovnanian.com says...
> krw wrote:
>
> Of course, many other considerations would have to go into the analysis.
> But it stood on the power savings alone.
Sure, power savings can be seen on the bottom line. Engineer
savings can't, so aren't considered. :-( Someone over on
alt.folklore.computers has told the story about justifying
terminals for engineers in the '70s. His analysis showed that the
cost of the computer was lower than the telephone on their desk,
but somehow the telephone was seen as a necessity, not a "luxury"
like computer access. Engineers had to queue in "terminal rooms"
for access. BTW, the company in question was IBM (I was one of the
first in mainframe development with a terminal on my desk, in
'78ish).
> We were kidding among ourselves that they (the Boeing facilities people)
> would probably bite if we showed them that the reduced depth of a flat
> panel would allow closer spacing of desks and a resulting higher
> 'engineers per square foot' figure. We all suspected that they had
> modeled offices after the one in 'Brazil'.
In '01 they moved our group to a renovated building (then moved us
back after layoffs after spending $2.5M on rented space, but that's
another story). They were going to move us from 8'x12' (higher
levels had 12'x12') offices to 6'x8' Dilbertvilles, until they saw
my three monitors and two systems (plus a laptop). The space-
cadets then decided that engineers would get 8'x8' cubes (still
smallish, but it worked) and techs the 6x8s. After adding
"breakout rooms" and more conference rooms for discussion/reviews,
that were previously done in offices, they saved zero space over
the previous floor plan.
In short, don't give the space-cadets any ideas. They have enough
bad ones on their own.
--
Keith
| |
| gfretwell@aol.com 2007-12-16, 1:25 pm |
| On Sun, 16 Dec 2007 12:17:35 -0500, krw <krw@att.bizzzzz> wrote:
>Engineers had to queue in "terminal rooms"
>for access. BTW, the company in question was IBM (I was one of the
>first in mainframe development with a terminal on my desk, in
>'78ish).
You must be talking about "graphics" terminals. Text terminals were
very common on IBM desks in 72-73. Places like AAS Bethesda had
hundreds of 2260s and later 3277-78s.
| |
|
| In article <9toam31kh81u0psfmog8h9n5bbp610imiu@4ax.com>,
alt.engineering.electrical, gfretwell@aol.com says...
> On Sun, 16 Dec 2007 12:17:35 -0500, krw <krw@att.bizzzzz> wrote:
>
>
> You must be talking about "graphics" terminals. Text terminals were
> very common on IBM desks in 72-73. Places like AAS Bethesda had
> hundreds of 2260s and later 3277-78s.
>
No, 327x. I did have a 3277GA though. Terminals were common for
programmers, but engineers "didn't need them". I ran into this
attitude in management as late as '84. One first line wouldn't let
me order PCs for his engineers because "his engineers aren't
secretaries".
--
Keith
| |
| gfretwell@aol.com 2007-12-16, 5:25 pm |
| On Sun, 16 Dec 2007 13:43:51 -0500, krw <krw@att.bizzzzz> wrote:
>No, 327x. I did have a 3277GA though. Terminals were common for
>programmers, but engineers "didn't need them". I ran into this
>attitude in management as late as '84. One first line wouldn't let
>me order PCs for his engineers because "his engineers aren't
>secretaries".
We had the same problem in FE but we had parts ;-)
Most of our PCs were in wooden cases (cases have serial numbers) until
we embarassed them so bad they gave us hand me down sales PCs.
| |
| Paul Hovnanian P.E. 2007-12-16, 5:25 pm |
| krw wrote:
>
> In article <4764919A.3229B93C@hovnanian.com>,
> alt.engineering.electrical, paul@hovnanian.com says...
>
> Sure, power savings can be seen on the bottom line. Engineer
> savings can't, so aren't considered. :-( Someone over on
> alt.folklore.computers has told the story about justifying
> terminals for engineers in the '70s. His analysis showed that the
> cost of the computer was lower than the telephone on their desk,
> but somehow the telephone was seen as a necessity, not a "luxury"
> like computer access. Engineers had to queue in "terminal rooms"
> for access. BTW, the company in question was IBM (I was one of the
> first in mainframe development with a terminal on my desk, in
> '78ish).
>
>
> In '01 they moved our group to a renovated building (then moved us
> back after layoffs after spending $2.5M on rented space, but that's
> another story). They were going to move us from 8'x12' (higher
> levels had 12'x12') offices to 6'x8' Dilbertvilles, until they saw
> my three monitors and two systems (plus a laptop). The space-
> cadets then decided that engineers would get 8'x8' cubes (still
> smallish, but it worked) and techs the 6x8s. After adding
> "breakout rooms" and more conference rooms for discussion/reviews,
> that were previously done in offices, they saved zero space over
> the previous floor plan.
>
> In short, don't give the space-cadets any ideas. They have enough
> bad ones on their own.
Before they sent my applications to India, I had 2, 4 desk cubicles to
myself and my hardware One was actually a 3 desk cube due to the
unfortunate location of a building column. I kept telling a friend of
mine in facilities that I was going to submit a request to have the
column moved. I needed the space.
;-)
--
Paul Hovnanian mailto:Paul@Hovnanian.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
Dedicated to the unrestricted propagation of worthless
information across the Internet.
| |
| Paul Hovnanian P.E. 2007-12-16, 5:25 pm |
| krw wrote:
>
> In article <9toam31kh81u0psfmog8h9n5bbp610imiu@4ax.com>,
> alt.engineering.electrical, gfretwell@aol.com says...
> No, 327x. I did have a 3277GA though. Terminals were common for
> programmers, but engineers "didn't need them". I ran into this
> attitude in management as late as '84. One first line wouldn't let
> me order PCs for his engineers because "his engineers aren't
> secretaries".
The mid '80s' is about when PCs started to appear in our engineering
departments. They started off being sequestered in 'computing cubicles'
until management discovered that everyone had to leave their desks to
get any work done.
One of the 'executive potential' candidates took a look at what a few of
the early adopters of PC technology were doing and complained that our
using PCs "wasn't fair" to those who didn't know how to use them. That
signaled the beginning of the end of the engineering department to me.
--
Paul Hovnanian mailto:Paul@Hovnanian.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
The opinions stated herein are the sole property of the author. All
rights
reserved. Void where prohibited. For external use only. Standard
disclaimers
apply. If irritation, rash or swelling occurs, discontinue use
immediately
and consult a physician.
| |
| ChairmanOfTheBored 2007-12-16, 5:25 pm |
| On Sun, 16 Dec 2007 12:17:35 -0500, krw <krw@att.bizzzzz> wrote:
>In short, don't give the space-cadets any ideas. They have enough
>bad ones on their own.
You're a fine fucking example.
| |
| ChairmanOfTheBored 2007-12-16, 5:25 pm |
| On Sun, 16 Dec 2007 12:46:03 -0500, gfretwell@aol.com wrote:
>On Sun, 16 Dec 2007 12:17:35 -0500, krw <krw@att.bizzzzz> wrote:
>
>
>You must be talking about "graphics" terminals. Text terminals were
>very common on IBM desks in 72-73. Places like AAS Bethesda had
>hundreds of 2260s and later 3277-78s.
He's an idiot.
| |
|
| In article <116bm3h6pnlftpnhpe836phhcfq476qk6m@4ax.com>,
alt.engineering.electrical, gfretwell@aol.com says...
> On Sun, 16 Dec 2007 13:43:51 -0500, krw <krw@att.bizzzzz> wrote:
>
>
> We had the same problem in FE but we had parts ;-)
We had a couple of hundred 3277GAs and some thing like a hundred
5100s built out of parts. The 3277GAs were legit, but the 5100s
came in the back door. Someone got ahold of the BOM and ordered
100+ copies of everything on it and had a summer coop put them all
together. The mucky mucks found out and change the system so one
had to have a serial number to order the case. We already had 100
systems. ;-)
> Most of our PCs were in wooden cases (cases have serial numbers) until
> we embarassed them so bad they gave us hand me down sales PCs.
Sounds familiar. ;-) In the '80s I ordered new stuff when it
became available (I had a network of "ears"). I took the best of
it and the older stuff got handed down the line, eventually to
secretaries. They couldn't "justify" new equipment but we had the
right lie^h^h^hbusiness case. Everyone was happy. ;-)
--
Keith
| |
|
| In article <4765A136.EC0E9C6D@hovnanian.com>,
alt.engineering.electrical, paul@hovnanian.com says...
> krw wrote:
>
> The mid '80s' is about when PCs started to appear in our engineering
> departments. They started off being sequestered in 'computing cubicles'
> until management discovered that everyone had to leave their desks to
> get any work done.
I'm surprised they noticed, or cared. We had to near-mutiny to get
the point across. Local management wasn't hard to convince but
division and corporate had their head stuck in the sand, or
somewhere.
> One of the 'executive potential' candidates took a look at what a few of
> the early adopters of PC technology were doing and complained that our
> using PCs "wasn't fair" to those who didn't know how to use them. That
> signaled the beginning of the end of the engineering department to me.
Wow! I'm glad our management didn't look around and see what
everyone was doing with them. The first adopters were the
executives themselves. They did *nothing* with them but look
important. Well, the head cheese didn't have one. He bragged
about never having had the need for computer. Of course, that was
just before the boat nearly sank (what iceberg?).
--
Keith
| |
| gfretwell@aol.com 2007-12-16, 8:25 pm |
| On Sun, 16 Dec 2007 18:16:29 -0500, krw <krw@att.bizzzzz> wrote:
>Sounds familiar. ;-) In the '80s I ordered new stuff when it
>became available (I had a network of "ears"). I took the best of
>it and the older stuff got handed down the line, eventually to
>secretaries. They couldn't "justify" new equipment but we had the
>right lie^h^h^hbusiness case. Everyone was happy. ;-)
Once I found "trade" forum we had lots of stuff. That was a "free for
all" flea market for swapping IBM stuff around.
| |
|
| In article <6sbbm3l07d49o41rgegpq4n523ssjhkhb1@4ax.com>,
alt.engineering.electrical, RUBored@crackasmile.org says...
> On Sun, 16 Dec 2007 12:17:35 -0500, krw <krw@att.bizzzzz> wrote:
>
>
>
> You're a fine fucking example.
>
Hey Dimbulb, did your mommy find her missing underwear yet?
--
Keith
| |
|
| In article <evebm31ak4qit5am8b7rlld4drvgaqf7rm@4ax.com>,
alt.engineering.electrical, gfretwell@aol.com says...
> On Sun, 16 Dec 2007 18:16:29 -0500, krw <krw@att.bizzzzz> wrote:
>
>
>
> Once I found "trade" forum we had lots of stuff. That was a "free for
> all" flea market for swapping IBM stuff around.
Every time I went there they wanted an IPT for the stuff. If I had
the blue-money for an IPT I wouldn't need to trade for it. Bean
counters are so narrow-minded.
--
Keith
| |
| Paul Hovnanian P.E. 2007-12-16, 8:25 pm |
| krw wrote:
>
[snip]
> Wow! I'm glad our management didn't look around and see what
> everyone was doing with them. The first adopters were the
> executives themselves. They did *nothing* with them but look
> important. Well, the head cheese didn't have one. He bragged
> about never having had the need for computer. Of course, that was
> just before the boat nearly sank (what iceberg?).
At about this time, my dad worked as an engineering manager for a
defense contractor. He never had any use for a PC, figuring that these
were better for CAD, analysis and other similar tasks.
However, his management had other ideas. While his engineers had trouble
requisitioning anything, the IT folks were instructed to install PCs on
every manager's desk (for appearance purposes). When his showed up, he
took one look at it and called one of his staff to come and get the
damned thing. They (happily) complied. A week or so later, the IT folks
stopped by to check the system out and.....it was not on his desk.
Fortunately, they had a piss poor asset tracking system, so they figured
the original had never been delivered and they simply got him another
one.
This went on for about half a dozen or so PCs until someone upstairs
caught on and told him to quit relocating them. OTOH, staff was quite
happy.
--
Paul Hovnanian mailto:Paul@Hovnanian.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur.
(Whatever is said in Latin sounds profound.)
| |
| gfretwell@aol.com 2007-12-17, 3:25 am |
| On Sun, 16 Dec 2007 19:18:40 -0500, krw <krw@att.bizzzzz> wrote:
>
>Every time I went there they wanted an IPT for the stuff. If I had
>the blue-money for an IPT I wouldn't need to trade for it. Bean
>counters are so narrow-minded.
You just had to have something to "trade" besides blue money, that was
the point. We were in the hardware business. I could usually come up
with something someone would want. I sorted the "Used Part Returns"
and I tested anything that looked promising. If someone threw a "FRU
bucket" of several parts, usually only one was bad, if there was a bad
part at all.
This stuff was usually just bulk shipped to a recycler anyway for
pennies a pound. I figured I was saving the company money by
"recycling" it myself.
| |
| Michael A. Terrell 2007-12-17, 3:25 am |
| krw wrote:
>
> In article <6sbbm3l07d49o41rgegpq4n523ssjhkhb1@4ax.com>,
> alt.engineering.electrical, RUBored@crackasmile.org says...
> Hey Dimbulb, did your mommy find her missing underwear yet?
If she did, she wouldn't want it back. 
--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.
Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida
| |
| ChairmanOfTheBored 2007-12-17, 3:25 am |
| On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 02:19:57 -0500, "Michael A. Terrell"
<mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:
>krw wrote:
>
>
> If she did, she wouldn't want it back.
Hasn't that infected jaw killed you yet?
It sure has gone to your brain and killed what little of that you had.
| |
|
| In article <cv4cm3pbt5etl47c198gl238lj76j24r5t@4ax.com>,
alt.engineering.electrical, gfretwell@aol.com says...
> On Sun, 16 Dec 2007 19:18:40 -0500, krw <krw@att.bizzzzz> wrote:
>
>
> You just had to have something to "trade" besides blue money, that was
> the point. We were in the hardware business. I could usually come up
> with something someone would want. I sorted the "Used Part Returns"
> and I tested anything that looked promising. If someone threw a "FRU
> bucket" of several parts, usually only one was bad, if there was a bad
> part at all.
> This stuff was usually just bulk shipped to a recycler anyway for
> pennies a pound. I figured I was saving the company money by
> "recycling" it myself.
>
That was the problem with being in development; no spare parts.
WHen I was working for CCP I the early '80s, I did have access to a
pile of 64K and then 256K DRAMs though. Unfortunately, while I had
more than enough to fill any PC I could lay my hands on, I wasn't
the keeper of the keys so couldn't even use them as barter either.
:-(
--
Keith
| |
|
| In article <4765DD1F.90D77366@hovnanian.com>,
alt.engineering.electrical, paul@hovnanian.com says...
> krw wrote:
> [snip]
>
>
> At about this time, my dad worked as an engineering manager for a
> defense contractor. He never had any use for a PC, figuring that these
> were better for CAD, analysis and other similar tasks.
>
> However, his management had other ideas. While his engineers had trouble
> requisitioning anything, the IT folks were instructed to install PCs on
> every manager's desk (for appearance purposes). When his showed up, he
> took one look at it and called one of his staff to come and get the
> damned thing. They (happily) complied. A week or so later, the IT folks
> stopped by to check the system out and.....it was not on his desk.
> Fortunately, they had a piss poor asset tracking system, so they figured
> the original had never been delivered and they simply got him another
> one.
>
> This went on for about half a dozen or so PCs until someone upstairs
> caught on and told him to quit relocating them. OTOH, staff was quite
> happy.
I work in the defense industry now (contractor). Nothing's
changed.
--
Keith
|
|
|
|
|