I just found your very interesting site and this thread makes me react, because it seems to me that I can answer some questions.
Christophe wrote:1) ADSL Modem Router : 20,7 W when you unplug the router and just leave its tranfo we find: 18,4 W
The router itself only consumes 2,3 W but its tranfo consumes 18,4! The efficiency of the system is therefore miserable 11,1%!It's a safe bet that all small transformers have similar performance ... hence their warming!
Yes and no.
In fact, an empty "transformer" does not have the same efficiency as a load. This can be seen by measuring the differential on load (router plugged in). For example with the PM230 on one side, and an ammeter on the other, between the output of the "transformer" and the power input of the router.
In addition, there are currently 2 converter technologies, alias "AC adapter" or more commonly called "transformer":
- Those with transformer, precisely, and that heat a lot
- Those without transformers, either based on high voltage capacitance (capacitor) type voltage drop-offs, or based on switching power supply.
These last two, much lighter and less bulky, tend to replace the first.
It is known to electronics that switching power supplies do not work or not properly without a minimum load on their output.
Christophe wrote:Conclusions: disconnect our transformers from small electro device!
Always, if you want them to last a long time!
About the "Fluocompact Tube Desk Lamp", the figure is indeed quite curious and perhaps indicates, at best, a malfunction of the device, at worst a deception of the goods!
Christophe wrote:3) PC (AMD64 3000 + with 2 hard drives + 3 ventillos extra extractions + 1 GB ram)
[...]
The cos phi is 0.99 probably because of the windy ???
No, surely not!
The fans are powered by direct current and nothing else than the power supply (switching) of the PC is connected to the sector in the tower. It is said power supply that generates this cos (phi).Christophe wrote:4) Samsung SyncMaster 913V Flat Screen : 26 to 30 W (30 W at startup) it seems to consume a little less when it is hot.
For an 19 26 W I find it quite reputable.
There does not seem to be any variation depending on the "colors" of the screen. In other words, a very dark or very bright screen gives the same consumption ...
Yes, because the brightness of the screen is provided by fluorescent tubes placed behind the LCD screen whose pixels are opaque in front of their filter to darken the color they control. The conso is therefore constant unlike a CRT screen whose beam power projected on the screen must vary according to the brightness to give it.
Christophe wrote:sebarmageddon wrote:under linux, the same computer consumes more, which is particularly zero
I noticed exactly the same thing!
Linux eats more resources than Windows but I think that it does not come from linux itself but from the GNU (graphical interface) which is in fact a "plugin" of linux ... while windows is in the Core ( if I say bullshit correct me computer scientists) ...
Ok
On Windows, since I do not know which version (2000 or NT), a HALT instruction is sent to the processor when the operating system estimates that it has nothing to do for a while. I also remember that at that time, AMD processors did not manage well or did not manage this instruction, which made them heat more than the Intel, in addition to the fact that their internal structure generated a higher power consumption. 'electricity.
Under Linux, a similar system has certainly been implemented later (at least I hope so)
) but today's Linux kernel is less preemptive than Windows, so it's likely to be less efficient.
But over-consumption can also come from the graphical interface. Graphics cards being first optimized for Windows, I would not be surprised that it generates such a difference.
Sorry if I might have sounded a bit 'bring my science back'
See you soon
