1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

HR20 Power Consumption?

Discussion in 'DIRECTV General Discussion' started by georgecostanza, Aug 21, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. georgecostanza

    georgecostanza Mentor

    34
    0
    Jan 10, 2005
    Has anyone ever measured the power consumption of the HR20 when it's ON, and in standby mode? Just curious how much wattage it pulls.

    Fleming
     
  2. Cols Dave

    Cols Dave Cool Member

    23
    0
    Jul 28, 2007
    I beleive that it's 1 million watts. Or 7 volts. Somewhere in that vacinity.

    Dave


















    (sorry, I was bored and felt like being snarky)
     
  3. Earl Bonovich

    Earl Bonovich Lifetime Achiever

    30,092
    3
    Nov 15, 2005
    Some people have tried to measure it... do a search, I don't recall the correct terms though...

    The differences between "on" and "standby" are going to be very very minor.
     
  4. armophob

    armophob Difficulty Concen........

    7,393
    65
    Nov 13, 2006
    Fort Pierce, FL
    Most posts show no difference. Lots of threads on this.
     
  5. Stuart Sweet

    Stuart Sweet The Shadow Knows!

    37,060
    287
    Jun 18, 2006
    1.21 gigawatts :lol:

    Seriously, I did some very empirical testing - I watched the power meter with the HR20 on and standby, timed the speed at which it turned. Zero difference beyond what I'd call statistical error. However, I can say it runs cooler when in standby, by about 1-2 degrees, which is probably due to the processors working harder during trickplay or menu rendering.
     
  6. compnurd

    compnurd Hall Of Fame

    1,520
    18
    Apr 23, 2007
    Evans City PA
    i really dont see why this is an issue. 39 watts is what 1 dollar a month?
     
  7. davring

    davring Hall Of Fame

    6,417
    1
    Jan 13, 2007
    About $3.00 a month @ 0.10 a kilowatt hour.
     
  8. Tom Robertson

    Tom Robertson Lifetime Achiever DBSTalk Club

    21,331
    246
    Nov 15, 2005
    There are reasons to know: RV'ers typically have to be very careful about power consumption; purchasing a UPS to allow for runtime can also be a concern; and some people account for every watt in use (especially in a zero sum energy use house.)

    I hooked up my HR20 to an APC UPS, it measured 34 to 35 watts when in use. I've not tested various flavors of usage yet: SWM attached, one tuner, two tuner, standby, 3lnb vs. 5, etc. And I suspect I won't get a chance to test them all.

    Cheers,
    Tom
     
  9. JeffBowser

    JeffBowser blah blah blah

    2,549
    18
    Dec 21, 2006
    So this begs the question - why do they have an "off" mode at all ? I have one unit that has never been off, and 4 others that I keep off when not in use. Doesn't seem to make one bit of difference. Perhaps the off mode is merely a placebo ? To save the LEDs ?
     
  10. techntrek

    techntrek Godfather

    298
    0
    Apr 26, 2007
    Tom hit the nail on the head here, but missed a much bigger reason. It isn't about saving $3 a month, its about saving hundreds of millions. As I pointed out on that other thread, every watt saved gets multiplied by 100,000? 200,000? However many units get sold. Shaving off 10 watts per day times 200,000 units that are running 24/7, and suddenly you save 2,000,000 watts per day. That's an entire power station that can stay offline. :eek2: If you don't need it, they don't have to build it. Saving hundreds of millions.

    And on the consumer side $3 saved times 200,000 units is $600,000 dollars each month you and I don't have to send to "the man".

    Sometimes the bigger picture speaks louder than the smaller picture. ;)
     
  11. dharrismco

    dharrismco Legend

    112
    0
    Aug 22, 2006
    I have my SWM and HR20 connected to an APC UPS bx1300lcd.. According to that the HR20 uses the nearly the same watts in standby as awake (checked before moving the SWM to it). The HR20 was using 33-35 watts when watching live TV. I bumped up to 52-53 watts once the SWM was connected.
     
  12. dpeters11

    dpeters11 Hall Of Fame

    16,247
    490
    May 30, 2007
    Cincinnati
    Someone should hook their DVR up to a Kill-a-Watt meter, that should tell us exactly what the wattage is and kwh. I have one, but it takes up two outlets and only gives you one so I can't test the DVR alone.

    It has a standby simply to turn off the LEDs, so that if you have one in your bedroom say, the light isn't always on. Hardly anything really turns off anymore, anything with a remote is on enough to accept the signal. It would be nice if it were able to go low enough power to boot up before a recording starts then power off.
     
  13. techntrek

    techntrek Godfather

    298
    0
    Apr 26, 2007
    dpeters11 - most of the stuff that doesn't entirely turn off can be put on switched power strips. This includes tv/vcr/dvd & non-dvr sat boxes. I figure I cut my monthly bill 5-10% just by putting most things on switches. It helps that in my house half the outlets in every room are attached to a switch on the wall.

    I have a kill-a-watt and will run my own test tonight.
     
  14. JeffBowser

    JeffBowser blah blah blah

    2,549
    18
    Dec 21, 2006
    One thing about that, though - electronic stuff has a on\off cycle lifetime in addition to power-on hours. When I was in QC for a major electronics company, on\off cycles were nearly always the failure point, reached long before power on hours limit was hit. It takes a toll on electronics everytime you turn it on. That being said, I imagine these days they have gotten the cycle lifetimes improved a bit.

     
  15. techntrek

    techntrek Godfather

    298
    0
    Apr 26, 2007
    Well, all of my stuff has been on switches for about a year and a half now and so far no failures. Its a commonly-touted practice in the "renewables circles" and this is the first I've heard about it potentially reducing equipment lifetime. I'll report back in the future if I do hear about it or if I experience it myself.
     
  16. JeffBowser

    JeffBowser blah blah blah

    2,549
    18
    Dec 21, 2006
    It is entirely possible on\off cycle lifetime exceeds that of the expected useful lifetime of the device. In that case, your only concern would be a unit with some weak point prone to early failure.

     
  17. Tom Robertson

    Tom Robertson Lifetime Achiever DBSTalk Club

    21,331
    246
    Nov 15, 2005
    A bit of correction in your math and analysis.
    • New power stations are in the hundreds of megawats
    • 10 watt(hours) per day is only .4 watt instantaneous, that times 200,000 is only 80,000W generation, far, far less than one plant
    • But try 40M receivers instead of 200,000 (not just hr20)

    But I come back to is this a justifiable expenditure? Some components need to run 24x7 or functionality is lost. And is this the lowest hanging fruit to be trimmed?

    Cheers,
    Tom
     
  18. techntrek

    techntrek Godfather

    298
    0
    Apr 26, 2007
    I'm talking 10 watts, which are by definition per hour. So that 2 megawatt number stands, although you are right that its not an entire nuclear plant, but many coal plants are built in that range to handle peak loads. Every coal plant closed down (or not built) is a good thing.

    Adjust the numbers way up to account for all DVRs in use, and a larger amount of watts saved per unit (10 is low; for the HR20 it should be 20+ cut in standby) and you can get in the range of a nuclear reactor. Closing one of them is even better.

    Since we are only talking a redesign of software and possibly hardware (assuming most DVRs aren't currently designed to go low-power like most computers are), its very realistic. If its part of the initial requirements phase it shouldn't incur any extra expenditure at all. The costs only get exponential if its added on in later stages, like in a software rewrite or a mid-production hardware change.

    As for functionality, none would be lost. The processer would still monitor incoming sat messages and user inputs (remote), just at a slower speed. Recordings, updates, etc. would still occur, it would just ramp up to full speed a few seconds before it had to do a scheduled record. If you turned it "on", it might take a few seconds before it showed a picture - not any different than most TVs.
     
  19. HD AV

    HD AV Legend

    178
    0
    Nov 22, 2006
    Turning electronic equipment such as a computer, TV, DVR, (and even light bulbs) drastically reduces life cycle compared to "standby mode". As an example, light bulbs are rated at continuous hours. Leaving on, with no power interruptions or spikes, it will burn for the hours rated. The more you turn it off and on, the shorter the life span. This is true for TVs, and especially true for anything with a hard disc drive. Don't power down your DVR unless absolutely necessary! Never leave it off for long periods of time. The disc has sealed bearings and the lubricant will become "sticky" from cooling cycles and will eventually cause the drive to fail upon spinup, or rather lack thereof. Any competent computer repair tech will verify this.
     
  20. JeffBowser

    JeffBowser blah blah blah

    2,549
    18
    Dec 21, 2006
    Actually - what becomes sticky on HD's is the surface of the platter itself, not the motor. Back in the early 90's Seagate and Rodime, among others, had major, major problems with that, as head height above the platter started getting reduced to mere microns.

    You with the coal and nuclear plant points - let's get serious. Coal plants now put out less pollution that I do going to the bathroom after a beef an bean burrito, and how do you figure we will replace our power generating capabilities ? Wind ? Not enough. Solar ? Not enough. Nuclear is clean, and good, if people get over the media generated sensationalist fears about it.

    Mind you, conserving power and reducing our demands is a good thing, I agree, but we need to be realistic, not pie in the sky.

     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page