| Forum Home | ||||
| PC World Chat | ||||
| Thread ID: 105950 | 2009-12-19 22:56:00 | I thought at first it was a good idea | Thomas01 (317) | PC World Chat |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 841294 | 2009-12-19 22:56:00 | Now I'm not so sure. I had got the Christmas lights outside and winking merrily. To save electricity I feed them through a simple cheap time switch. It switches on for a few hours at night and early morning. Then I had my idea. A dustbuster in my study is charging all the time but is only used occasionally. Why don't I use the timeclock after Christmas to ration the hours the charging unit is feeding the dustbuster. Good idea? But then I thought - perhaps the timeclock may use more electricity than the charging unit does! It's hardly matters either way but I just wondered what more knowledgeable types feel about it. Tom |
Thomas01 (317) | ||
| 841295 | 2009-12-19 23:08:00 | If its a mechanical type of timer it won't use any power, but even a digital one will use next to nothing as well | gary67 (56) | ||
| 841296 | 2009-12-20 06:40:00 | If its a mechanical type of timer it won't use any power, but even a digital one will use next to nothing as well Yes its a mechanical one. But it must have some simple motor or something to drive it so will consume power. On the other hand when I was very young (and that's a heck of a long time ago) I was told that a charging unit will consume power only when the battery actually is in a state to receive it. So leaving the charging unit on 24/24 could consume less power than a timer will. I don't know in fact, and as I mentioned before, it really doesn't matter - but I am intrigued about the actual truth. Tom |
Thomas01 (317) | ||
| 841297 | 2009-12-20 09:19:00 | So leaving the charging unit on 24/24 could consume less power than a timer will. Quite possible. A quick google brings up a mechanical timer that is spec'd at ≤ 2.5W and a wall adapter a 0.7W at idle (even doing nothing the typical adapter still feels warm, heat = power being used.) |
PaulD (232) | ||
| 841298 | 2009-12-20 09:59:00 | Bet your lights don't compare to this (www.youtube.com) | --Wolf-- (128) | ||
| 841299 | 2009-12-20 20:28:00 | Possibly more relevant than the power being consumed, is the effect that a continuous trickle charge will have on the batteries lifespans. Whichever option is best for the batteries (intermittent vs continuous charging) will likely be the factor that saves money and energy in the longer term. This then is going to depend on the composition of the batteries. NiCad? THey don't like going falt, and they don't like continuous charging, and there's that memory effect too if you always keep them too topped up. |
Paul.Cov (425) | ||
| 1 | |||||