Re: Slightly off-the-wall idea for getting a new Mac...

On Sun, 18 May 2008 21:06:05 +0100, wildrover.andy@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Andy Hewitt) wrote:

>T i m <news@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>> >Hmm, about half that of my G5 at idle then.
>> 
>> I haven't tried putting it to sleep and not sure if the Intel C2D's
>> adjust their clock etc. That was with the 2 x 250G SATA drives (Raid1)
>> , Floppy (idle) and the Audigy panel (it uses the floppy size power
>> connector). PCIe x16 with GeForce 6800GT and 4 ****t USB, Pinnacle DTV
>> card and Audigy cards in PCI slots. We didn't have a optical drive in
>> at the time (gonna get a SATA DVDR) but were using a external USB one.
>
>No, I meant 'idle' not sleep.

<Shrug>  I know, I haven't tried putting it to sleep <stop>. It might
give another set of values <stop> ;-)

> The machine is sitting there, running, but
>no work is being done in any apps.

Yep, and ours was ~ 140 W
>
>[..]
>> >> The PF of the whole lot was about .6 if that helps?
>> >
>> >PF? (According to Wikipedia it means 'Packet Filter')
>> 
>> ;-)   Power Factor, from memory summat about the power being drawn in
>> phase with the voltage or not. Like if you have a pure resistive load
>> you get a PF of 1. Something offering a more capacitive or inductive
>> load would be less than 1 (ie, my .6). The lower the number (tending
>> towards 0) the worse way the energy is consumed, therefore less
>> efficient therefore more expensive to run.  That's why PF should be
>> taken into account when working out the metered 'cost' of a load.
>> 
>> So, if you take Jenny's new PC. If it is using 140W the actual £ cost
>> would be that of 240 VA (Volts x Amps = Watts but only into a pure
>> resistive load, for AC this all is of course) so because her PC isn't
>> a pure resistor it cost more than the displayed 140W to run.
>> 
>> Or summat like that!
>
>Well, you got me looking this up... And your PF of 0.6 is pretty poor
>according to these:

Yep but not untypical and why we will look at replacing the PSU.

><http://www.cip.ukcentre.com/Power%20Factor.htm>
>
><http://www.energy-in-motion.com/PFC.html>
>
>Reading those sites indicates that this calculation has limited purpose
>in domestic usage, and seems to be more commonly used with three phase
>setups.

Agreed, apart from PC power supplies, oh, and my Arc welder.  ;-)

And then there is the bigger question as to how well our 'domestic'
meters work in the first place etc?