PDA

View Full Version : Leaving it on or off?



Sparky
01-12-2004, 09:26 PM
Do you shut off your computor after each time you use it. What are the pros and cons. Have a HP 7955 and replaced the power supply last spring.......the fan is now making some noise occasionally. I normally shut it off and the odd time put it into the hibernation mode. Any comments. /forums/images/graemlins/frown.gif

konde
01-12-2004, 09:35 PM
I leave my work PC on Mon-Fri. (logged off) and shut it off on weekends. I usually shut down my home PC nightly. Regarding the work PC, I usually reboot at least once a day to clear the memory and give XP a chance to delete temporary files.

mikealex
01-12-2004, 09:53 PM
I have two machines at home. The Win 2K machine is usually turned off, because I don't use it often. The Linux machine is on 24x7. The fan in the Win 2K machine makes odd noises now and then when I power it on, but the Linux machine runs as smooth as new.

Lsweers
01-12-2004, 11:26 PM
24X7 for 3 years now, only the occasional reboot. No problems with hardware

Leo

ClassicSat
01-12-2004, 11:36 PM
I turn it off when I nor nobdy els is going to use is.
IMO, The machine will wear out because of startup stresses
far after it's useful life.

MrVH
01-12-2004, 11:52 PM
At home I use my own simple rule. If it will be used with 2 hours, it stays on, if not, it gets turned off.

At work, my main computer stays on 24/7. I only turn it off when I'm going to be gone for 2 days or more (which is very rarely dog-gone-it).

batfink
01-13-2004, 12:11 AM
Home computer is on 24/7...work computer is also on because system updates run overnight...

Mystic
01-13-2004, 12:20 AM
I usually leave my main PC on most of the time. Lately, since I fixed some of the irregular problems with the different fans in the case*. It's reasonably quiet, and with little complaints. Usually, though in the summer I turn it off when I'm not using it so that it doesn't get too warm. We have AC, but the PC still likes to get warm. Right now it stays at a cool 25-30c inside, so I'm pretty content with that.

Plus with all the stuff I have on my PC it takes sometimes over 10 minutes to boot up, so I say, just leave it on, and it's always ready when I need it.

* I replaced my power supply fan last spring because the old one was making a lot of noise. The fan was still moving, but I couldn't work with that noise, and to get it to stop, I kept having to tap on the back of the case, and it usually stopped. The next fan problem I had was with my Hard Drive undermount fan that I installed to cool down the Maxtor that heats up too much, but unfortunately, it burnt when I first used it for some reason, and I have a bad feeling that the fall of my CD Writer was a casualty of this incident. I installed a 5 1/4 hard drive bay with a fan to see if this would help the problem. It kept the HD nice and cool, but after a few months the fan on that went. At first I thought it was my HD making that high pitched whining noise, since it was acting up as well. So I pulled the fan bay out, and put the hard drive back, and everything is quiet. And it's been good for the last couple of weeks, so it's been on since then.

snoman
01-13-2004, 02:16 AM
Mine's on in the morning and stays on until bedtime then I put it in hibernation mode instead of a cold shut down.

North0f60
01-13-2004, 02:27 AM
At .19 cents per kilowatt hour, a big OFF!!!

batfink
01-13-2004, 04:08 AM
You really mean 19 cents, not .19 cents...if power was that cheap I would leave every light on in the house...

XBR_II
01-13-2004, 05:01 AM
Another consideration is the amount of dust and pet hair that gets needlessly sucked through the system when left running idle, especially PCs placed at floor level. Turning your computer off during these times not only saves you money -- it also reduces the amount of crud that gets deposited inside the case. This dust forms an insulating blanket that increases the thermal stress placed on major components, which can in turn shorten the operating life of your unit.

konde
01-13-2004, 05:20 AM
Excelllent point, I had never thought of that.

pauldryan
01-13-2004, 05:27 AM
That is very true and is quite often the cause of fan failure. I use compressed air and vacuum the insides of my home PC's about every four months and it is amazing how much crap accumulates.

Paul

mikealex
01-13-2004, 12:58 PM
Exactly why mine are both off the floor. Two large dogs makes for a lot of dog hair I also use compressed air to blow out the machines anytime I open them up for something (which is fairly often for me).

Todd_Sandrock
01-13-2004, 01:54 PM
Just out of curiosity, would you 24/7 guys leave a 500-watt light bulb burning 24/7 if you weren't using it?

mikealex
01-13-2004, 02:15 PM
Nope, but the lightbulb wouldn't be doing anything. My Linux box is rarely idle.

Todd_Sandrock
01-13-2004, 02:25 PM
Then you're using it (although what the heck is it doing at 3am?). Can anyone answer my question?

mikealex
01-13-2004, 02:31 PM
I expect the reason most people who leave their machines on do it because of the microwave mentality of today's society. Nobody wants to wait for 2 minutes for anything anymore.

batfink
01-13-2004, 02:52 PM
If it took a minute for your 500 watt bulb to turn on all of our lights would be on all day...

That is the problem, friends...

When CES has a machine that will turn on in less than 10 seconds, it will be a winner...

Montrealer
01-13-2004, 03:03 PM
</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
When CES has a machine that will turn on in less than 10 seconds, it will be a winner...

[/ QUOTE ]

My AMD Athlon XP 2200+ (overclocked to 2.012 Ghz) with Windows XP takes about that much time to come out of hibernation, which combines the speed of always on with the power savings of turing the PC off.

That being said, my PC is off if not doing anything but on overnight when busy performing various tasks.

usbhubman
01-13-2004, 03:10 PM
A lot of the hype about leaving computers on 24/7 was years ago when memory and bios chips were discrete components. A good memory board could have had upwards of 32 or 64 chips on it. Constantly turning this on and off eventually resulted in what was knows as "chip creep". Due to thermal expansion and cooling, chips would eventually come loose in their sockets causing all kinds of intermittent problems. It wasn't unusual to run around popping chips back into their sockets and actually 'hearing' them snap back into the board. Todays chips and cards are secured much better and memory is actually 'clipped' onto the board so as not to work itself loose.

Todays power supplies are very well regulated with additional regulation on the mobo and the largest risk to the machine comes now from outside the box surges from your friendly powerco or turning on large power hungry equipment in your home or office. i.e. large motors are a dead short until the magnetic field builds up to limit current flow. This can cause a drastic drop in voltage if you have large motors in fridges or freezers on the same bus or things like elevators in apartment buildings.

Most modern computers on at least a surge protector or better yet, an UPS, can be safely turned on or off repeatedly. My personal machine is on an UPS and it gets turned on in the morning and off when I leave the house or at night. I use
WIZMO (http://www.grc.com/wizmo/wizmo.htm) from GRC to manually turn off the monitors when I'm not using them. Big 17" and 19" monitors will outdraw your computer big time so good power conservation with these devices is the best way to keep your power bill down. 15cents here and 25 cents there and pretty soon you're talking $$$ !

pauldryan
01-13-2004, 04:25 PM
</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
although what the heck is it doing at 3am?). Can anyone answer my question?

[/ QUOTE ]

I won't speak for others, but my machines are rarely turned off but they do go into severe power saving mode after an hour. That includes the monitors, wheras the printers are usually left in the off mode and turned on at the power bar when needed.

Two of my machines have 250 watt power supplies and one has a 300 watt. In power saving mode, the monitors shut down, as do hard drives, cpu cycles, etc. There's certainly not the equivalent of a constant 500 watt lightbulb burning.

As for what happens after hours, in my case that's when the utilities kick in. I don't run my antivirus constantly, but do run a deep scan twice a week on all machines. The same goes for my spam software "Ad-Aware". I also run a Norton "speed disk" on all of my drives once a week and there's something else ..... I just can't think of it. These are activities scheduled for quiet hours since they are CPU and/or HD intensive.

Paul

MeSat
01-13-2004, 05:50 PM
Run Linux at work and home. I don't shut down except when I have to. Last time I shut my work computer down, it died and took over a week to get repaired.

As waiting for bootup and such, with a AMD 3200, it is fast but at 7:00 when you have to get an email out before 07:05, the time to boot would take to long.

I have been known to wake at 02:00 and get on line.

Also, Linux does many background tasks overnight that you would normally not think about. These tasks would all have to be rescheduled for different times.

Now the monitor is another issue. It draws more power and the energy saving features are supposed to be shut the monitor down.

With kids around, I waste more energy on lights than on the computer. My son (2) will play in 3 or 4 different rooms and turns the lights on so he can. My daughter is quite good at turning most lights off.

My wife likes bright light and won't be in a room without the lights on, even to watch TV.

As usbhubman said, thermal expansion and contraction on a PC can cause more problems, especially as thermal ranges inside of cases has increased drastically.

BCTripster
01-13-2004, 08:51 PM
</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
500-watt light bulb burning

[/ QUOTE ]

I doubt anyone here owns a system that uses that much power constantly.

Just because your power supply says 350W doesn't mean it's constantly using that amount, it depends on the system load, when in power saver mode most PCs are only using about 60-100W.

As to the original question, I have 3 machines running 24/7 at home, plus my laptop is generally plugged in and running as well (in sleep mode it uses like nothing).

Why are mine running 24/7? The Linux box is my router/gateway with a 24/7 dialup connection, it also does some monitoring of my remote servers for me.

My main workstation is checking mail and also monitoring servers for me, I also can be paged at any time during the night and I do not wish to wait 5 minutes for the machine to boot up, I need to have instant access to my servers.

My wife's machine I run in power saving mode so it largely shuts down after she is done using it. Well mostly power saving mode, Windows stinks at coming back up from a "stand-by" situation so it doesn't quite get that far.

For those of us who do run 24/7, be careful if/when you do shut a machine down for a long spell, your hard drives might not spin back up, I have a few old machines sitting behind me and that is what happened. Sweet thing was one of them had a drive that was 2 months before end of warranty, it was a 15GB and they sent a 20GB to replace it /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif

As for power usage, our average monthly household bill is around $90 and that includes heating! /forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif And I write-off a good chunk for business anyway.

Mystic
01-14-2004, 01:15 AM
The reasons I leave my PC on for 24/7 is for just about all the reasons mentioned above.
I have my anti-virus checking over night once a week, usually on Wednesdays. Tuesday &amp; Friday's are for thorough scan disk scans, and Sunday night is for my weekly defrag. I've had problems with my hard drive in the past, with it not spinning up when I start the computer, so I leave it on. Sure it may sound silly, but I feel that there's less stress on leaving it on than to start it up and shut it down every day. I have a 300 watt power supply, but during th evening when I'm using my PC, I have decided to use one 17watt (70 watt brightness) new type of lamp than to use the room lights that are 3 - 60 watt lights. So instead of 180 watts, I'm only using 17 watts an hour on the lighting. So if I'm not saving on the PC, I'm atleast saving in lighting. And the final reason is that it takes a good 5 minutes or longer to load up my P3-800 with XP, so all I need to do when starting up is to turn on the monitor, which I do turn off if I'm going to leave the room for more than 5 minutes. And if I forget, it turns off automatically after 30 minutes.

BCTripster
01-14-2004, 01:26 AM
Ditto on lighting here, I installed a bunch of the compact fluorescents, the 13W versions that put out the equivalent of 60W.

One of the other reasons for doing that was to cut down on the number of times I have to change the damn bulbs out here in the sticks, not sure why but we go through a bunch and yet computers and satellite stuff operates just fine.

I have my desklamp on the UPS system here and for some reason it goes through bulbs like mad, I might get 1/4-1/2 the rated lifespan and I've even tried different lamps. Gave up and stuck a compact fluorescent in the ceiling, hasn't crashed yet! /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif

MrVH
01-14-2004, 02:05 AM
Pah, that's nuttin'... I go through 6 bulbs a week in my freakin' store. I only got 20 bulbs total, sheesh.

(sorry, back on topic)

BCTripster
01-14-2004, 02:27 AM
I kept it on topic mentioning the desklamp plugged into the UPS /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif

XBR_II
01-14-2004, 02:28 AM
Keep in mind that if your home is electrically heated, the heat generated by lighting and appliances will just end up displacing that which would have been produced by your baseboard strips or furnace otherwise. In such cases, it ends up being a total wash. Even if your home is heated with oil or natural gas, the electricity used to operate these loads will offset some portion of your fuel costs. Any accounting of the financial savings from lowering your electrical demand must take this relationship into consideration.

Here in Nova Scotia, electric heat is roughly 1.5 times the cost of oil on a BTU basis. Right now, I'm paying 6.7 cents per kWh equivalent for oil versus 9.9 cents per kWh for electricity; the difference (or incremental cost), including HST, works out to be just 3.2 cents per kWh. That is, in effect, what I pay for electricity after deducting the savings in oil.

I'm not advocating that we use electricity unwisely. Far from it. Power generation and transmission extracts a terrible toll on our environment. The point I wish to make is that during the heating season, the cost of operating that computer or light bulb is effectively nil if you heat your home electrically and relatively modest even if you do not.

BCTripster
01-14-2004, 02:32 AM
</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
The point I wish to make is that during the heating season, the cost of operating that computer or light bulb is effectively nil if you heat your home electrically and relatively modest even if you do not.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can attest to that, my office space is our spare room and it's fairly small. Since I put in the third computer I have not had to turn on the baseboard at all, even during the recent cold spell it stayed comfortable enough in here, even more so once the 25W desklamp was turned on.

It's amazing how such little amount of extra power can help heat the room up, now if it gets too warm I just shut something down /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif

North0f60
01-14-2004, 05:15 AM
</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
our average monthly household bill is around $90 and that includes heating!

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow, i can only dream of that. Our electric bill came in today a $275 for 28 days. Add heating fuel bill for the same period of $220 and i'm already at $495

pauldryan
01-14-2004, 06:02 AM
Mystic,

I suspect that you've got a network issue, if it takes your PC five full minutes or longer to boot. That's just too long unless part of the boot process is to make you a cup of coffee. Anything over ninety seconds would have me searching for a remedy; that's how long it takes my 900 celly server to boot, acquire the other PC's, sign on to the kid's MSN Messenger, and release the mouse.

Paul

Todd_Sandrock
01-14-2004, 04:24 PM
I'd concur. My PC XP home has AV and firewall software and boots in about 40 seconds.

I installed a "go-back" style utility that came bundled with Norton and it killed my boot time, so I uninstalled it.

I'm in the "leave it on during the evening or weekend-day but turn it off at night" camp. For a router, I use, well, a router that might consume 25w if all the LEDs lit at once. I've found that my virus scan will kick in if the computer finds idle time for an hour or so during the day. To each their own.

Bent
01-14-2004, 04:55 PM
XBR is right, watts are always watts,

if you heat with electricity and light with oil lamps you are talking a strange but different story.

B.T.W. XBR, I'm soon receiving documented proof on the set-back thermostat debate that came up a while ago. (this ones gonna pi$$ someone off), but I still say to each their own. a lot of folks aren't going to utize a set-back t-stat to save five to ten bucks a month and not becomfortable. /forums/images/graemlins/blush.gif

MeSat
01-14-2004, 05:45 PM
If bulbs are going this often, I would look for something that is surging the bulbs.

For all out there that are concerned about energy usage and replacing bulbs there is a new player on the market. It is better than the florescent bulbs but more expensive.

LED bulbs are now appearing. LED bulbs are being reported at lifetimes in the 100,000 to 200,000 hours. That is 11-22 years of life. They use less than 5W of power.

Standard light LED bulb (https://www.netdisty.net/ds/TRF-A19/default.asp)

My concern about any replacement is the ability to put on timers and dimmers.

Dede
01-14-2004, 07:29 PM
Yikes... 170$ for a light bulb? /forums/images/graemlins/shocked.gif

Todd_Sandrock
01-14-2004, 08:51 PM
That and they flicker like a CRT.

pauldryan
01-15-2004, 02:28 AM
</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
I'm soon receiving documented proof on the set-back thermostat debate

[/ QUOTE ]

Have you been searching for that documentation all this time and what makes you think anyone here will accept it as gospel? There's a lot of 'flat-earthers' here that probably think that whole Mars lander thingy is done in Fox's backlot. /forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

Paul

XBR_II
01-15-2004, 04:22 AM
</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
B.T.W. XBR, I'm soon receiving documented proof on the set-back thermostat debate that came up a while ago.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks, Brent.... looking forward to hearing what you have to report. That was a pretty spirited debate, as you might recall.

Right now, it's -23C with a wind chill of -34C. Cold enough, as it turns out, for my radiator pipes to freeze. /forums/images/graemlins/shocked.gif My mission tonight is to get that water flowing again before it causes serious damage.

[We normally keep our bedroom between 12C and 15C because I find it hard to sleep in a warm room. Since a good deal of heat flows upstairs through the stairwell, the upper floor loop doesn't come on all that often. That means the water inside these pipes can cool off rather rapidly where they run through closets and knee walls. I guess the only solution is to manually raise and lower the upstairs thermostat to keep this water from sitting still too long.]

XBR_II
01-15-2004, 05:06 AM
There's a whole lot of hype out there about LEDs, so don't let yourself get taken for a ride ...the best white LEDs on the market today are no more efficient than a standard incandescent bulb (both fall in the range of 15 to 20 lumens per watt). By comparison, a typical compact flourescent bulb produces 60 lumens per watt and a 4 ft. linear flourescent can approach 90 to 100 lumens per watt.

The claimed 100,000 hour operating life is also a bit suspect. Did you know that the light output of white LEDs can drop by 35 per cent in as little as 4,000 hours? [Do a google search on "LED" and "phosphor degradation" for more information on this.] The 4 ft. linear flourescent we mentioned earlier can still produce 95 per cent of it's original light output at the end of its rated life (20,000 hours).

Also, bear in mind that most "white" LEDS tend to be rather "cool" in appearance (6,500 K or 7,500 K in colour temperature versus 2,700 K for incandescent and 4,100 K for the cool white flourescents found in most offices). Furthermore, the CRI (colour rendering index) is quite a bit lower, so LED lighting will distort the way you will see colours.

LEDs work extremely well in some applications (e.g., traffic signals, exit signs, dashboard lighting) but it will be some time before you will see them used for general lighting.

pauldryan
01-15-2004, 06:21 AM
</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
The 4 ft. linear flourescent we mentioned earlier can still produce 95 per cent of it's original light output at the end of its rated life (20,000 hours).

[/ QUOTE ]

A standard T12 four foot fluorescent tube has a usable life span of anywhere from 9000 to 10000 hours (About two years of daytime use) and looses 20% of it's rated capacity before its first year of use. The newer T8's do have a much longer lifespan but do require T8 electronic ballasts not normally found on residential products. I'm sure we're not getting 95% or anywhere near that at the end of their useful lives either.

But I do agree with the rest of your comments.

Paul

XBR_II
01-15-2004, 06:54 AM
</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
A standard T12 four foot fluorescent tube has a usable life span of anywhere from 9000 to 10000 hours (About two years of daytime use) and looses 20% of it's rated capacity before its first year of use. The newer T8's do have a much longer lifespan but do require T8 electronic ballasts not normally found on residential products. I'm sure we're not getting 95% or anywhere near that at the end of their useful lives either.

[/ QUOTE ]
Lumen Maintenance (http://www.geconsumerproducts.com/pressroom/current/Lighting/commltng/starcoat.htm)

F40 T12 Rapid Start - 20,000 Hours Rated Life (http://catalog.gelighting.com/cgi-bin/gx.cgi/AppLogic+FTContentServer?)

pauldryan
01-15-2004, 04:53 PM
You're now talking about specialty, premium products that aren'y commonly used in commercial settings. I stand by my earlier comments.

Paul

MeSat
01-15-2004, 05:25 PM
The ones that I have seen don't flicker.

Of course, Florescent bulbs can flicker as well.

MeSat
01-15-2004, 05:27 PM
But divide that over 10 years and add in the energy savings costs and you may be surprised.

I read an article last week about a person that has lit his apartment totally with LED's and the total power with all the lights on was about 200W.

XBR_II
01-15-2004, 05:30 PM
If you would prefer to limit our discussion to "old" technology:

Your basic, every day, run-of-the-mill Sylvania F40 D41 (which you can buy at Home Hardware or Canadian Tire for as little as $0.99 on sale) has an intial lumen rating of 3,200 and a mean lumen rating of 2,880 -- 90 per cent of its original output. Likewise, a Sylvania 34 watt T12 (F34/D841/SS/ECO) has an inital lumen rating of 2,900 and a mean lumen rating of 2,610 -- also 90 per cent. Both have a rated life of 20,000 hours when operated on standard, rapid start, magentic core ballasts typically found in residential environments.

Anything else we can clarify for you?

MeSat
01-15-2004, 05:31 PM
Ouch, the apartment that my mother used to live in had this problem in the suite upstairs. It flooded the hell out of my mothers place with just a little pin hole. What a mess.

MeSat
01-15-2004, 05:43 PM
I do have some suspicions and there are questions about the color temp. These are issues that the manufacuters are working on.

I don't like the light output of any compact florescent lights that I have used. I also don't like the turn-on time in cooler weather. I have used them in two locations in our house and when the house is cool, they would take ~2minutes to get to a usable level. In one case it was a two bulb fixture and I put a regular bulb in one of the fixtures.

I have a LED clock that is close to 20 years old and the LED's are still working and two that are over 10 years old so I have some faith in the life of the leds.

I have seen LED emergency exit light bulbs that are over 6 years old with no problems.

Leds have been around for a very long time and have proven reliable. I have yet to see the indoor bulbs in action. I have only seen the ones used on radio towers, vehicles and the emergency light ones. I know that two white LED;s that I have worked with are a very bright blue-white light, to blue for my taste.

It is a new market and there will be changes made as with any technolgy. I am planning on getting LED Pars for lighting the outside of my garage.

XBR_II
01-15-2004, 06:02 PM
</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
But divide that over 10 years and add in the energy savings costs and you may be surprised.

I read an article last week about a person that has lit his apartment totally with LED's and the total power with all the lights on was about 200W.

[/ QUOTE ]

Even at 30 lumens per watt (and this is really pushing the envelope with today's technology), LEDs would only be half as efficient as CFLs. That guy could have cut his lighting load in half had he opted to go with compact fluorescents instead. And at as little as $5.00 a pop, CFLs are the hands down winner when it comes to bang for the buck.

As previously mentioned, long term lumen depreciation for LEDs is extremely high. Even if these LEDs continued to operate at 100,000 hours -- and that's one big "if" -- they could be so dim as to be effectively useless.

There's also that other issue of colour temperature and CRI. "Warm white" LEDs that operate in the 3,200 K range are slowly coming into the marketplace; that's a whole lot more acceptable than 7,500 K when it comes to residential use. But CRI is still a problem. Ever hear people complain how fluorescent lighting tends to make things look a little "funny"? Well, today's LEDs would make fabric, furniture and faces downright knee slapping, gut busting, eye watering hilarious.

XBR_II
01-15-2004, 06:19 PM
</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
I have a LED clock that is close to 20 years old and the LED's are still working and two that are over 10 years old so I have some faith in the life of the leds.

I have seen LED emergency exit light bulbs that are over 6 years old with no problems.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's because monochromatic and near monochromatic LEDs that are used in these applications don't degrade nearly as rapidly as their white counterparts.

That said, over half of the LEDs in the centre brake light of my '94 LHS are dead and the remaining few that work are so dim you can hardly tell if they're on or off in bright daylight. No doubt the technology has improved tremendously since then, but it does serve as a warning to early adoptors. /forums/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

Todd_Sandrock
01-15-2004, 06:22 PM
Take a look at LED taillights or the Xmas lights like the ones I bought. Pan your head left to right (i.e. look across them, not at them) and you'll see the flicker, as if you were looking at a TV set. Much worse than a fluorescent flicker.

Bent
01-15-2004, 06:25 PM
I think that's because LED's are a one way conducting product, we prolly aren't rectifieing any of the 60hz AC going into them, so they might only be on half the time...

XBR_II
01-15-2004, 06:38 PM
</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
Ouch, the apartment that my mother used to live in had this problem in the suite upstairs. It flooded the hell out of my mothers place with just a little pin hole. What a mess.

[/ QUOTE ]

My heart goes out to your mother. I'm not leaving the house until it thaws, just in case we have a similar problem. I suspect it may have froze where the pipe makes a small, 18 inch, run through the attic space just above the main floor den. There wasn't much insulation protecting this pipe and the attic is vented to the outside, so it would have been the coldest point in the loop.

I've temporarily sealed off the attic vent and left the access door to this space open to help warm the area. I also have a couple trouble lights running immediately below the pipe. Hoping that will do the trick.

In future, whenever it dips below -20C, I'll make sure the water is circulated more frequently. Additional insulation will help as well.

pauldryan
01-15-2004, 07:54 PM
I'm bemused at how quick you are to condemn the manufacturer's overly optimistic ratings for LEDs and yet would have us accept those quoted for flourecent tubes as gospel. I don't know compact fluorescent tube technolgy well enough to comment, but I feel quite qualified in stating that that anything over eighteen months of continuous use with tubes is gravy although the lowered lighting output inevitably causes occupant complaints as they near the end of their useful life. Cathode decay in fluorescent lights is a fact of life, just ask anyone trying to grow orchids at home.

Paul

XBR_II
01-15-2004, 08:29 PM
I'm fully comfortable with the numbers published by Osram Sylvania, GE and Philips. These are reputable manufacturers and their ratings are routinely verified by independent testing bodies.

And let's be honest, Paul... anyone claiming "a standard T12 four foot fluorescent tube has a usable life span of anywhere from 9000 to 10000 hours [...] and looses 20% of it's rated capacity before its first year of use." clearly hasn't done their homework. You, of all people, should know better.

pauldryan
01-15-2004, 10:06 PM
</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
a standard T12 four foot fluorescent tube has a usable life span of anywhere from 9000 to 10000 hours

[/ QUOTE ]
That's not a question of me not doing my homework, it's more an issue of me screwing up my math. The life span quoted should have been 16 to 18,000 hours of useful life. I think that you forget to factor in the reality of dust being attracted to the tubes and the attendant buildup of heat reducing the useful life expectancy. In my bidness we do replace a lot of tubes, not theoretical, but real ones.

Paul

XBR_II
01-15-2004, 11:00 PM
In normal operation, heat should never be a problem for open tube fixtures nor, for that matter, enclosed fixtures. T8s and T12s achieve optimal operating efficiency at 25C; for T5s, it's 35C or higher. In any event, lamp life is not adversely affected by higher operating temperatures and while dust accumulation on the outer surface of the tube will certainly degrade light output, it has no bearing on life expectancy.

MeSat
01-16-2004, 05:40 PM
I would get that pipe well insulated. Build a box over it and remove any insulation under it. Insulate the box with styrafoam insulation. The heat rising should keep it thawed.

I had a pipe in a crawl space that would freeze and I did something similiar. Hasn't frozen in over ten years.

Not venting the attic can create more problems.

XBR_II
01-16-2004, 09:23 PM
Many thanks for the tip. After hours of warming the space and gently heating the pipe with trouble lights (seemingly to no avail), I ended up hauling out the blow torch and applying the blue flame. It wasn't very long before the water started flowing again. Thankfully, no leaks and I didn't burn down the house in the process.

For now, I've covered the pipe with a piece of slip on foam insulation and embedded it inside a 12 inch batt of fiberglass insulation that I've butted-up against the wall. Eventually, I hope to move it out of there altogether. I discovered another cold spot and that's where the pipe goes inside the wall behind the bathtub; I need to work on that one as well.

As I renovate this house, I'm tearing out all exterior walls, air sealing, insulating and re-drywalling. The main floor and downstairs levels have been upgraded to R22, about the best you can do with 2x4 construction without removing the exterior siding. If all goes well, I should be able to start working on the upstairs level later this spring.

I_Want_My_HDTV
01-16-2004, 10:43 PM
Two things cause wear on computer components:
1. hours of use.
2. power cycles.

This means that you do not want to:
1. leave it on more than necessary.
2. turn it on and off more than necessary.

That being said, most computer components will become obsolete long before they break down or wear out. I usually turn my system on the first time I use it each day and leave it on until I go to bed. I use hibernate if I want to save what is on the screen, otherwise I shut down. Both are the same as far as power cycling is concerned. I might put the system on standby or hibernate if I am going to be away from the system for an extended time during the day.