California will almost certainly adopt new energy standards for TVs this Summer which will first go into effect in 2011.

The Tier 1 standard effectively bans the plasma technology panels which use approximately 30% more power than conventional (flourescent backlight) LCD flat panels. There are no current plasmas which meet the proposed Tier 1 standard.

The Tier 2 standard in 2013 requires a 49% power reduction which will effectively ban conventional LCDs with flourescent backlighting. The only present technology big screens which can meet the Tier 2 standards are LED backlit LCDs and LED rear projection sets such as the Mitsubishi LaserVue.

These requirements are in addition to the current "Energy Star" regulations which address how much power can be consumed in standby mode. The new standards apply to operating TVs.

http://blog.wired.com/gadgets/2009/03/california-tv.html

Just means I'll travel out-of-state to purchase my TVs in the future. I'm sure Nevada won't mind the extra sales tax revenue.

California will almost certainly adopt new energy standards for TVs this Summer which will first go into effect in 2011.

The Tier 1 standard effectively bans the plasma technology panels which use approximately 30% more power than conventional (flourescent backlight) LCD flat panels. There are no current plasmas which meet the proposed Tier 1 standard.

The Tier 2 standard in 2013 requires a 49% power reduction which will effectively ban conventional LCDs with flourescent backlighting. The only present technology big screens which can meet the Tier 2 standards are LED backlit LCDs and LED rear projection sets such as the Mitsubishi LaserVue.

These requirements are in addition to the current "Energy Star" regulations which address how much power can be consumed in standby mode. The new standards apply to operating TVs.

http://blog.wired.com/gadgets/2009/03/california-tv.html

Nice misleading headline. :rolleyes:

This is really good news in the long term. I think plasma and LCD have reached near their best resolution now, and makers can now think of making them more energy efficient without sacrificing PQ.

There is a lot of needless waste that can be engineered away, not just in TVs. I find most brick power supplies waste energy even when the gadget its used for is turned off; the thermal losses from their power supplies still keep the brick 'warm' doing nothing except generating heat. This can easily be engineered away, just that no one really cares about it and the energy used is just a few dollars a year per user, but collectively does add up for a county.

California will almost certainly adopt new energy standards for TVs this Summer which will first go into effect in 2011.

The Tier 1 standard effectively bans the plasma technology panels which use approximately 30% more power than conventional (flourescent backlight) LCD flat panels. There are no current plasmas which meet the proposed Tier 1 standard.

The Tier 2 standard in 2013 requires a 49% power reduction which will effectively ban conventional LCDs with flourescent backlighting. The only present technology big screens which can meet the Tier 2 standards are LED backlit LCDs and LED rear projection sets such as the Mitsubishi LaserVue.

These requirements are in addition to the current "Energy Star" regulations which address how much power can be consumed in standby mode. The new standards apply to operating TVs.

http://blog.wired.com/gadgets/2009/03/california-tv.html

And as California goes, so goes the nation. Its about time!! Plasmas are not about the future, I've been saying that all along.

And as California goes, so goes the nation. Its about time!! Plasmas are not about the future, I've been saying that all along.

And yet, you recently purchased a 5020 Pioneer Plasma. You never stop talking in circles.:rolleyes:

And yet, you recently purchased a 5020 Pioneer Plasma. You never stop talking in circles.:rolleyes:

I really don't think he did to be honest. but who knows. doesn't make sense for someone to be glad that the technology he just bought might get banned.
I have an idea.
Someone with a 5020 please find some very specific marking on the back of the TV, or something very specific in the menu that we can ask Auditor to verify.
It will have to be something that cannot be found on the internet and that only an owner would be able to find..

And as California goes, so goes the nation. Its about time!! Plasmas are not about the future, I've been saying that all along.

Hmmm the rest of the nation still doesn't follow CA's emission standards or title 24 lighting requirements. What were you referring to?

I don't think its very American for the government to ban sales like this.

I mean, The power companys are buisnesses. They are not run by the goverment nor are they government funded.

If I am buying my electricity from a buisness, and paying for it myself, then the government should keep thier damn nose out of it!
This is not russia.

If I want to consume a whole bunch of electricity then it is my buisness. I am paying for it not the government.

In other news CA is also trying to ban black cars.

Every day I awake glad I don't live in that ridiculous state.

Display manufacturers were already pushing toward more efficient displays.

Dear Government, please stay out of my house. Thank you

And as California goes, so goes the nation. Its about time!! Plasmas are not about the future, I've been saying that all along.

You're irrational. And you don't own a Pioneer.

In other news CA is also trying to ban black cars.

Every day I awake glad I don't live in that ridiculous state.



Actually, it's not so bad. Great weather, hot chicks. :D

.

Btw, would the new, allegedly more energy-efficient Panasonic 'Neo' plasmas meet the new standard? :confused:

If so, give Panny a big high-five for seemingly being Nostradamus on this one.
.

http://www.energy.ca.gov/appliances/2008rulemaking/documents/2008-07-16_workshop/presentations/PGE_Televisions_Presentation.pdf

http://www.energy.ca.gov/appliances/2008rulemaking/documents/2008-12-15_workshop/presentations/PGE_TV_presentation_to_CEC_15Dec2008_Final.pdf

California will almost certainly adopt new energy standards for TVs this Summer which will first go into effect in 2011.

The Tier 1 standard effectively bans the plasma technology panels which use approximately 30% more power than conventional (flourescent backlight) LCD flat panels. There are no current plasmas which meet the proposed Tier 1 standard.



I am confused here.



Per the documents that XROX has provided:
http://www.energy.ca.gov/appliances/2008rulemaking/documents/2008-12-15_workshop/presentations/PGE_TV_presentation_to_CEC_15Dec2008_Final.pdf

What you are claiming is incorrect.

http://i293.photobucket.com/albums/mm71/chadmak09/energy2.jpg?t=1238465946

I think we need to ban automobiles, and big trucks too, along with cows, because they fart....

I think we need to ban automobiles, and big trucks too, along with cows, because they fart....

ahh that mean I would be banned also!:D

The best thing that could happen to CA is a massive earthquake and the entire state sink.

Suck it, North Carolina... we can't hear you over the sound of your own inbreeding. :p
.

California will almost certainly adopt new energy standards for TVs this Summer which will first go into effect in 2011.

The Tier 1 standard effectively bans the plasma technology panels which use approximately 30% more power than conventional (flourescent backlight) LCD flat panels. There are no current plasmas which meet the proposed Tier 1 standard.

The Tier 2 standard in 2013 requires a 49% power reduction which will effectively ban conventional LCDs with flourescent backlighting. The only present technology big screens which can meet the Tier 2 standards are LED backlit LCDs and LED rear projection sets such as the Mitsubishi LaserVue.

These requirements are in addition to the current "Energy Star" regulations which address how much power can be consumed in standby mode. The new standards apply to operating TVs.

http://blog.wired.com/gadgets/2009/03/california-tv.html

Gary, you might want to change the title of your thread and edit some of the bad information you're passing along as the link that xerox provided definitely proved your statement wrong about plasmas. It's bad enough the arguments that ensue in this forum over LCD and plasma but posting false information certainly doesn't help ones cause. :)

I hereby declare this to be the most disgusting thread ever on AVS.

Other than that I would like to suggest to the proponents of keeping the government out that the only truly private method of getting power is from solar panels and, possibly, wind. If your utility burns gas, oil or cow manure, there is a negative impact on all of us. This gives us, through our representatives, a legal right to tell you what you can or cannot do. If you don't like, buy yourself an island or sue.

As I wrote in another thread, water rationing is already in place so it's only logical that energy is next. Right on, California.

Yeah, but it's a TV. A FRICKIN TV PEOPLE! I consider myself a liberal and I think I do my part in the conservation/green effort. I always recycle, even when it isn't conveniant. I carpool when I can. And not just because of gas money.

I certainly don't like that we're as dependent on oil, foreign or not, as we are. But don't be melodramatic please. Running my energy hog of a plasma tv isn't going to destroy the world (actually, my Kuro is on power save 2 all the time).

I hereby declare this to be the most disgusting thread ever on AVS.

Other than that I would like to suggest to the proponents of keeping the government out that the only truly private method of getting power is from solar panels and, possibly, wind. If your utility burns gas, oil or cow manure, there is a negative impact on all of us. This gives us, through our representatives, a legal right to tell you what you can or cannot do. If you don't like, buy yourself an island or sue.

As I wrote in another thread, water rationing is already in place so it's only logical that energy is next. Right on, California.

lol.
So you don't use power from the power companys?
I am all for harnessing Wind, solar panels, etc.
But the government needs to push this agenda to the power companys and have them implement these methods and make it profitable to do so..
We as a people have no choice but to buy our power from the power companys. And no I cannot afford to turn my roof into a solar panel station.
Invading my home and telling me which television I am allowed to have is insanity.
I would suggest that the goverment starts working with the power companys and stay the heck out of my living room.
Especially when the power consumption differences between todays new plasmas and LCD's are so close.

It's the cows fault, they fart.

TVs represent a very small portion of our overall energy usage. Transportation and heating & cooling of buildings are the huge majority. Ramazur, you on board for a limit on how cool you can keep your house in the summer? Say 80 degrees? How about per person limits on how many gallons of gasoline you can use in a year? You've expressed a happy willingness to jump down the slippery slope - how far down until you try to stop?

jeff

CA is not the only one to consider 'banning' plasma tvs, its been in the UK, Oz and the entire European Union agenda since 2007. Its kind of moot since many plasma makers are leaving the market, and whomever is left will have to deal with legislation, if it passes. Although plasma is target in the titles of these news articles, really they are looking at all TVs past a certain power consumption, including LCDs. However, given plasmas overall reputation over LCD, it seems a more prominent target:

UK:

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article268295.ece


EU:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1112110/Energy-guzzling-plasma-TVs-banned-Brussels-eco-blitz.html

In Australia:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/10/10/2055587.htm

greenland, you have a personal problem. It's not a life sentance with most people, who tend to grow out of it. But if you are already older than the 25 years it takes the human brain to mature, then I would express my sympathies for your condition and encourage you to seek out therapy.

FYI when I posted the thread topic I believed it to be true based on the original article I linked to. I was not "lobbing an incendiary device". In fact I was discussing flat panel technology which is an appropriate topic for this Forum. The diversion into Political topics is largely your doing and unwelcome. I now ask you civally and for the third time to stop inflaming the other members, or I will be forced to request that my own thread be closed.

Whats the difference between running vacuum cleaners, heaters, ac units swimming pool pumps, and using a plasma tv.
Most swimming pool pumps are using around 5-10 amps. Last time I checked the 60 kuro only uses 4.5 amps.
So I would venture to say there are just as many people in CA with swimming pools as 60" tvs
A 500w swimming pool pump running 24h a day at .12 cent per k/w hr is $525.50 a year
A 750w pool pump which is not unrealistic costs $788.4 a year
A 60" tv using 4.5a and running at 12hrs per day only costs 252.28 a year.

I guess along with tvs they should ban all the swimming pools in CA also

Even if there were half the pools for large plasmas it still is less.

What's telling is that you haven't contributed anything to this thread's topic, yet insist on continuing with your stupid posts.

I looked up some info - turns out TVs account for approximately 2.9% of household electricity usage. The big hitters are:
Refrigerators - 13.7%
Heating/AC - 14.1% (Note, this is only for electricity, so oil & gas heat are not captured)
Hot water - 9.1% (same, does not account for oil & gas heaters)
Lighting - 8.8%

So I think CA is fiddling in the margins here. Now perhaps studies are showing that our fridges and HVAC systems are at a good place efficiency-wise so now they're moving down the line. Could be. But like I said earlier, solutions that err on the side of freedom should always be preferred over those that do not.

You can compare this to vehicle fuel efficiency standards. Right now we've got CAFE, which is highly flawed but is what it is. It doesn't outright ban any types of vehicles. This CA TV law would be like the government banning all sales of any vehicles that get fewer than say 20 mpg. That would not be cool.

jeff

greenland, you have a personal problem. It's not a life sentance with most people, who tend to grow out of it. But if you are already older than the 25 years it takes the human brain to mature, then I would express my sympathies for your condition and encourage you to seek out therapy.

FYI when I posted the thread topic I believed it to be true based on the original article I linked to. I was not "lobbing an incendiary device". In fact I was discussing flat panel technology which is an appropriate topic for this Forum. The diversion into Political topics is largely your doing and unwelcome. I now ask you civally and for the third time to stop inflaming the other members, or I will be forced to request that my own thread be closed.

Where did you get the thread headline from. The article that you linked to those not say anything about banning Plasma TVs, so why did you create that incendiary big lie. What was your motivation for that fabrication on your part.

A person requested that you correct it, shortly after you started the thread, but you choose to ignore that request, so you clearly wanted to spread that false rumor.

Now you are claiming that you have no way to change it, but you do have the way to get it closed. As if the way you request that it be closed, would not be the very same method that would allow you to request that the headline be corrected to reflect the truth. You have been exposed, and you do not like it.

Instead of requesting that it be closed, you can easily request that the headline be changed. But of course I believe you, that you did not already know that.

I am out of here, so carry on with your charade.

CA is not the only one to consider 'banning' plasma tvs, its been in the UK, Oz and the entire European Union agenda since 2007.
Fate of Plasma Displays in Europe Less Dire than Rumored

"Giant plasma TVs face ban in battle to green Britain," read a headline for an article in the UK newspaper The Independent. "EU law could ban plasma TVs," warned another in the online PC Advisor. Right after the New Year, a flurry of such articles appeared in the UK and also in the US.

The articles were in response to an EU initiative currently being drafted by the European Commission and scheduled for release this April. Highlights of the initiative, according to Paul Gray, Director, European TV Research, for display industry research firm DisplaySearch, include:

- A set of minimum energy efficiency standards for TV sets that set a maximum power consumption limit proportional to screen area.

- A mandatory "eco" labeling system (similar to Energy Star in the States) at point of sale for televisions. These are currently being used in the EU for appliances such as washers and dryers and, more recently, cars.

- A mandatory requirement to reduce standby power consumption below 1 watt.


So the initiative, while definitely being crafted to pare down the numbers of non-energy-efficient TVs, is not taking particular aim at plasma technology. "While it makes great headlines," wrote Gray in a January 20 DisplaySearch blog entry, "especially in the Euro-skeptic British press, it's just not true."

The EC itself took steps to de-bunk the idea that the EU will ban plasma TVs. The EC posted this on its web site, The EU in the United Kingdom: "…Sarah Lambert, Acting Head of Representation, said that the Commission has decided to target televisions because sales are going through the roof and certain models take up a lot of energy. 'We are working with manufacturers and other groups such as the environmental lobby, retailers and small businesses because we are not legislating in a vacuum. The aim is to come up with a proposal that everyone can live with and to provide an incentive to make change in order to accelerate the market penetration of the most efficient technologies,' she said."

Information Display contacted Gray to ask how he thought manufacturers on both sides of the pond should react to the pending legislation. "The good ones have known for a while that there is an energy problem with plasma if they do nothing," he says. "While it's debatable how much more energy plasma uses than LCD, it's clear that for general uses, Plasma does use a bit more."

He cites Panasonic as an example of a manufacturer who has been proactive in this area, with its recently introduced NeoPDP (Plasma Panel Display) technology. When asked about similar efforts from other manufacturers, he answered, "Panasonic has been very open and shown it very early. But I imagine that anybody with a serious stake in plasma has to be working on it. It's a hurdle that everybody's going to come across in every market."

California has consistently used a multitude of means to encourage energy conservation, not only of appliances but even so far as to subsidize compact flourescent light bulbs. I do not find the proposed HDTV standards onerous, in fact if they accelerate the adoption of energy-efficient LED backlighting, the AV enthusiast and the conservationist in me are both pleased.

FYI CAFE has in fact changed the mix of automobiles and trucks produced by the major manufacturers. It has also saved millions of barrels of oil, and as the installed base of appliances turns over in the next decade, the more efficient HDTVs and other devices potentially save very large amounts of power in the long term. Speaking as a right winger and owner of three ozone-destroying SUVs who almost literally has a power plant in my back yard that I can literally smell when it is running, I approve.

FYI my solar-heated swimming pool runs the pump 3 hours per day. Primarily because of that pump I am already on the 3rd and most expensive tier of pricing on my electric bill. I have managed to live here 25 years without air conditioning, I doubt if that will change, I can't afford the power.

As long as the government is encouraging conservation, I don't have a problem. As long as plasma afficianados want to smuggle energy hog panels in from Nevada, I don't care - it's their electric bill, and I doubt there are many of my nieghbors who would go to that much bother.

thread title edited

please limit your comments to technical issues related to flat panels

Thanks

Where did you get the thread headline from. The article that you linked to those not say anything about banning Plasma TVs, so why did you create that incendiary big lie. What was your motivation for that fabrication on your part.
Good questions. Some people here including the OP seem to have missed or not bothered to read the following presentations already posted:

http://www.energy.ca.gov/appliances/2008rulemaking/documents/2008-07-16_workshop/presentations/PGE_Televisions_Presentation.pdf

http://www.energy.ca.gov/appliances/2008rulemaking/documents/2008-12-15_workshop/presentations/PGE_TV_presentation_to_CEC_15Dec2008_Final.pdf

Plasma tv's power consumption is much more sensitive to settings than LCD is. Even the Panasonic 800 series seems to exceed tier 1 levels when not in vivid mode.

And also consider the dates of the proposed energy standards. By 2011 nearly all PDP should easily meet Tier 1 on any display mode and by 2013 they should easily meet Tier 2 out of vivid or dynamic mode.

It does not appear possible to edit the post subject without the assistance of a moderator, so I am forced to let it stand. It remains mostly true, since there are only two models of plasma panels that are known to meet Tier 1 standards, and none that presently meet Tier 2.

As for California's politics, you guys have already treaded real near the line IMHO. Speaking purely about energy conservation and HDTVs, I generally approve of such. Such energy efficiency standards have already reduced the number of options available to car buyers in this state, and now appears likely to reduce the options for buyers of HDTVs. I don't care a whole lot, although in general I tend to resent government intrusion into our lives. I live about a mile from a Calpine Turbine Power Plant that is fueled with natural gas and used only during peak loads. If energy-efficient HDTVs keep that plant idled, I'm all for it, because burning fossil fuels are making many Americans sick, and causing us to consume more oil than is wise.

I do believe that California air quality standards should be adopted elsewhere - including energy efficient HDTVs and zero emissions vehicles. If that reduces the diversity of choice but improves the environment, that seems like a good trade-off.

Are you ever going to deal with facts and truth? It says the 2 top selling plasmas between August and October 2008 already meet tier 1 and that was before the new more energy effecient models were available. As for tier 2, you're looking 4 years down the road s who knows if LCD's and plasmas will even be in the game at that time but if they are I'm plenty confident that they will be able to produce a tier 2 set. :rolleyes:

ca is not the only one to consider 'banning' plasma tvs, its been in the uk, oz and the entire european union agenda since 2007. Its kind of moot since many plasma makers are leaving the market, and whomever is left will have to deal with legislation, if it passes. Although plasma is target in the titles of these news articles, really they are looking at all tvs past a certain power consumption, including lcds. However, given plasmas overall reputation over lcd, it seems a more prominent target:

Uk:

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article268295.ece


eu:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1112110/energy-guzzling-plasma-tvs-banned-brussels-eco-blitz.html

in australia:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/10/10/2055587.htm

nobody is banning plasma TV's!

thread title edited

please limit your comments to technical issues related to flat panels

Thanks

Even that title is misleading Mark as the proposal effects all TV's not just plasma.

I think we need to ban automobiles, and big trucks too, along with cows, because they fart....

Or maybe just start with things that account for more than 3% of household electrical consumption.

Even that title is misleading Mark as the proposal effects all TV's not just plasma.

noted: if I change that someone will complain it should be moved to another forum :o

Mark,

Why not use the Headline from the article that the OP linked to.

Here it is.

California Proposes Ban on Energy-Hogging HDTVs Starting in 2011

Great idea :)

thread title edited

please limit your comments to technical issues related to flat panels

Thanks

Just to even the thread, the flagship Sharp 65SE94U LCD TV consumes 525 watts in operation, the same as a Pioneer 60" Kuro 151FD. Both numbers are as posted in their user's manual.

However, those numbers don't hold for all TV's in the plasma class, so it would be good to review power consumption as one item when you're buying TVs.

Judge for yourselves:

http://www.crutchfield.com/p_13346PZ850/Panasonic-TH-46PZ850U.html?tp=161&tab=features_and_specs

In this TV, maximum power consumption was 638 watts, versus 230 watts for a Samsung 950.

http://www.crutchfield.com/p_305LN46950/Samsung-LN46A950.html?tp=161&tab=features_and_specs

Crutchfield also measures the power consumption themselves, see added links on their website.

Ecology and 'green' aside, the power consumption is important to know if you plan on getting a surge protector or equivalent, to plug the TV and other home theater electronics into it too.

Just to even the thread, the flagship Sharp 65SE94U LCD TV consumes 525 watts in operation, the same as a Pioneer 60" Kuro 151FD. Both numbers are as posted in their user's manual.

However, those numbers don't hold for all TV's in the plasma class, so it would be good to review power consumption as one item when you're buying TVs.

Judge for yourselves:

http://www.crutchfield.com/p_13346PZ850/Panasonic-TH-46PZ850U.html?tp=161&tab=features_and_specs

In this TV, maximum power consumption was 638 watts, versus 230 watts for a Samsung 950.

http://www.crutchfield.com/p_305LN46950/Samsung-LN46A950.html?tp=161&tab=features_and_specs

Crutchfield also measures the power consumption themselves, see added links on their website.

Ecology and 'green' aside, the power consumption is important to know if you plan on getting a surge protector or equivalent, to plug the TV and other home theater electronics into it too. Again, plasma tv's are power on demand devices, LCDs are constant power devices. You cannot compare them in this manner!

Thank you, Mark. Folks, I only meant that the original article I came across implied the ban of Plasmas, and it's purely MY MISTAKE that I believed such and didn't do further research. But it remains true that we know of two specific plasma models that can meet the Tier 1 standards, and lots more that will not. It has also been specificly brought forward that the EU is targeting Plasma technology. (I'm not researching that claim either.)

But speaking as an EE I will say that Plasma's will find it difficult to meet Tier2 standards. It is true that any technology, Plasma, flourescent LCD, or LED LCD, will vary in power consumption based on the brightness, contrast, etc settings - and also based upon the average image brightness of the program stream. There are definately power saving opportunities available in the electronics, but the major efficiency lost in a plasma is infrared radiation that is a byproduct of the visible display itself. It is completely possible that the Tier 2 efficiency requirements would also degrade the Plasma video performance - especially if they resort to undesireable power saving techniques such as dynamic contrast and brightness settings.

Where plasma and LCD tend to diverge is where they consume the most power. Conventional flourescent backlit displays tend to be least efficient in dark scenes, where the polarizers are absorbing lots of visible light and radiating infrared. Plasmas tend to be efficient in dark scenes because the current in the plasma cells is cutoff, aside from the bias current that maintains the plasma state, which is lost as 100% heat. During bright scenes, power consumption is highest in plasmas, as is the power in the display lost as heat.

LED backlights consume very little power when on and none when dark, leaving only the pariasitical power consumption in the display electronics. LEDs have the advantage from an efficiency standpoint as well as the ultimate levels of video performance today - and the highest product cost. Hopefully that last will change.

Edit: xrox summarized what I was saying as "power on demand devices". We were both trying to explain why comparing the power consumed is difficult across the technologies. LED backlit HDTVs are also "power on demand devices", the conventional flourescent backlights are constant brightness.

This is as funny as a pro-choice person being opposed to the death penalty because he believes in sanctity of life.

Viper, do you support the federal minimum wage law?

Yeah, that's absolutely hilarious...and not at all a relevant comparison. Way to take that completely out of context. How is trying my absolute best to conserve energy by making sure all my appliances are off (rather than just in standby) when not in use, my AC not running too high or too low according to the temperature outside, etc...not in accordance with my beliefs in making a more energy efficient (and independent) America.

And yes, I do believe in a federal min wage law. I used to work for minimum wage when I was younger during the summers at a local game shop. Obviously, I was being supported by my parents, but I could certainly understand how someone with this paycheck would have trouble supporting himself/herself, or sadly, a family. I think it's a crime that it was as low as it was for so long.

Forgive me if I don't agree with your radical ideas though. Fighting over 2.9% of household energy consumption just doesn't seem like the best use of our elected officials' time.

Arizona Bay......
Read my sig, xrox. :p

Read my sig, xrox. :pGood catch on the Arizona bay :) Nice sig too :)

09 Summer tour........

Edit: It is "lift an eye to heaven" and not "live tonight in heaven" although I would love to spend a night in heaven :)

Thank you, Mark. Folks, I only meant that the original article I came across implied the ban of Plasmas, and it's purely MY MISTAKE that I believed such and didn't do further research. But it remains true that we know of two specific plasma models that can meet the Tier 1 standards, and lots more that will not. It has also been specificly brought forward that the EU is targeting Plasma technology. (I'm not researching that claim either.)

But speaking as an EE I will say that Plasma's will find it difficult to meet Tier2 standards. It is true that any technology, Plasma, flourescent LCD, or LED LCD, will vary in power consumption based on the brightness, contrast, etc settings - and also based upon the average image brightness of the program stream. There are definately power saving opportunities available in the electronics, but the major efficiency lost in a plasma is infrared radiation that is a byproduct of the visible display itself. It is completely possible that the Tier 2 efficiency requirements would also degrade the Plasma video performance - especially if they resort to undesireable power saving techniques such as dynamic contrast and brightness settings.

Where plasma and LCD tend to diverge is where they consume the most power. Conventional flourescent backlit displays tend to be least efficient in dark scenes, where the polarizers are absorbing lots of visible light and radiating infrared. Plasmas tend to be efficient in dark scenes because the current in the plasma cells is cutoff, aside from the bias current that maintains the plasma state, which is lost as 100% heat. During bright scenes, power consumption is highest in plasmas, as is the power in the display lost as heat.

LED backlights consume very little power when on and none when dark, leaving only the pariasitical power consumption in the display electronics. LEDs have the advantage from an efficiency standpoint as well as the ultimate levels of video performance today - and the highest product cost. Hopefully that last will change.

Edit: xrox summarized what I was saying as "power on demand devices". We were both trying to explain why comparing the power consumed is difficult across the technologies. LED backlit HDTVs are also "power on demand devices", the conventional flourescent backlights are constant brightness.

Sorry gary. Not buying it as it seems many flaws in your postings have already been exposed for what they were. Putting sugar on them doesn't change your objective. :cool:

Where plasma and LCD tend to diverge is where they consume the most power. Conventional flourescent backlit displays tend to be least efficient in dark scenes, where the polarizers are absorbing lots of visible light and radiating infrared. Plasmas tend to be efficient in dark scenes because the current in the plasma cells is cutoff, aside from the bias current that maintains the plasma state, which is lost as 100% heat. During bright scenes, power consumption is highest in plasmas, as is the power in the display lost as heat.This is a great explanation of why you need to measure "average" power with power on demand devices.

It has been measured that the typical display user watches on average ~ 20% average picture level post gamma.

But speaking as an EE I will say that Plasma's will find it difficult to meet Tier2 standards. It is true that any technology, Plasma, flourescent LCD, or LED LCD, will vary in power consumption based on the brightness, contrast, etc settings - and also based upon the average image brightness of the program stream. There are definately power saving opportunities available in the electronics, but the major efficiency lost in a plasma is infrared radiation that is a byproduct of the visible display itself. It is completely possible that the Tier 2 efficiency requirements would also degrade the Plasma video performance - especially if they resort to undesireable power saving techniques such as dynamic contrast and brightness settingsFrom the presentation I posted:

-Current plasma TVs can exceed Tier 1 levels today
–The two top selling plasma TVs during Aug-Oct 2008 (42” and 50” TVs)
exceeded Tier 1 levels
-Most plasma TVs today have a luminous efficiency of around 2 to 2.5
lumens per watt (LPW)
-In 2005, the Advanced PDP Development Center Corporation (APDC)
developed technology making it possible to achieve luminous efficiency in
excess of 5 LPW.
-Advanced PDP Development Center Corporation (APDC) was established in July 2003
to co-develop basic technology for advanced PDPs with five PDP companies. Top
funders include Hitachi, Panasonic, and Pioneer.
-Panasonic showcased a ~5 LPW TV at the January 2008 CES, expected to be in
production 2nd Quarter 2009
->5 LPW plasma TVs should meet Tier 2 levels
-Next goal for APDC is 10 LPW
–Performance increases and costs lower
–This level will easily exceed Tier 2 levels

Note: This data does not even include the currently available NeoPDP panels

But the real question is do those energy-saving models utilize dynamic contrast and brightness techniques to achieve those low numbers? Even my 2007 Samsung has a "Dynamic" mode setting that saves power, but it's too wierd to leave on. Nor can I achieve reasonable calibrations in a bright room with the backlight set at anything but 10 (brightest).

I'm just pointing out that many power saving features degrade image quality. If you depend upon such features to achieve the mandated power saving levels, plasma performance will be degraded compared to today's models. Come to think of it, LCD performance would also be degraded by such features unless (as today) they can be defeated.

Good catch on the Arizona bay :) Nice sig too :)

09 Summer tour........

Edit: It is "lift an eye to heaven" and not "live tonight in heaven" although I would love to spend a night in heaven :)

Thanks.

I hate how Tool is deliberately slow with releasing their lyrics.

But the real question is do those energy-saving models utilize dynamic contrast and brightness techniques to achieve those low numbers? Even my 2007 Samsung has a "Dynamic" mode setting that saves power, but it's too wierd to leave on. Nor can I achieve reasonable calibrations in a bright room with the backlight set at anything but 10 (brightest).

I'm just pointing out that many power saving features degrade image quality. If you depend upon such features to achieve the mandated power saving levels, plasma performance will be degraded compared to today's models. Come to think of it, LCD performance would also be degraded by such features unless (as today) they can be defeated.Usually, power saving modes in power on demand displays like CRT,PDP,OLED,SED,FED adjust the automatic brightness limiter (ABL) to further limit peak power and thus limit average brightness.

Interestingly, even the tiny sony XEL-1 uses an automatic brightness limiter and even more suprisingly it uses an additoinal dynamic brightness limiter or someting that drops average brightness even further?

What's interesting is using Crutchfields stats (don't know how accurate it is) The 46" Samsung 950 costs 2.66/month, Samsung 46" 530 costs $3.06/month and the Panasonic 46" PZ85U costs $3.90 month. That would add up to the Pany costs being $15.00 a year more than the 950 and $10.00 a year more than the 530. Sure it adds up when all units sold are factored in over all, but hardly a significant number for an individual to base his decision on as at most it's only $.04 a day. The new Neo's are reported to be much more effecient than the PZ/PX series.

What's interesting is using Crutchfields stats (don't know how accurate it is)
Crutchfields stats, IMHO, are among those worth looking at. They report the actual average measured power usage of the set in it's default "home" setting over a 15 minute clip from I Robot , which was selected "...for its visual variety."

YMMV of course, but their numbers represent something close to reality. You'll note many posters point to the rating values on spec sheets, which are maximum usage amounts. Actual measured values are always much lower, with plasma TVs typical on the order of 40% of the max.

There's a lot of offhanded comments about plasmas being energy hogs (and at least one thread with the exact title "Plasmas are power hogs!!!") but real-world measurements don't support that conclusion.

Here's some data from Crutchfield:
Panasonic P50X1 - 182 W
Panasonic P50S1 - 208 W
Panasonic P50G1 - 229 W
Samsung 52A550 - 224 W
Sony 52S5100 - 233 W
Sony 55XBR8 - 214 W

Looks to me like they're all in the same ballpark. Someone will probably say "but the plasma Home modes are too dim" and maybe they're right. So let's say for the sake of argument that you turn up the contrast and the energy usage increases 25% on the plasmas. They'll still be in the same ballpark.

jeff

"The Future Still Looks Bright for Plasma TVs:
Dramatic Cost Reductions and Significant Performance
Improvements Lie Ahead"

Display Search White Paper 25 page Pdf download.

ftp://ftp.panasonic.com/pub/Panasonic/consumer_electronics/whitepapers/Future_Looks_Bright_for_Plasma_TVs.pdf

I dread the padlock is soon coming. :(

posts deleted

respectfully request posts remain On Topic: there are plenty of other forums [other than AVS] to discuss politics et al

Thanks

Here is the kicker, and this has happened in my industry. California will mandate what is allowable, (pick your product), as soon as everyone complies, they will change the rules. Been there done that. This is government run amok, plain and simple. You guys can save the planet all you want, but the bottom line is taxation and control. And unfortunately, many are willing to bend over and take it in the rear for the collective good.

Sounds like the current administration, who happen to be big fanboys of one Saul Alinsky. In Saul's writings, he had 12 rules. And from what I can see, the administration is following them to a tee. Rule #12 seems to be the most popular at this time... You tell me?

Rule 12: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it." Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions. (This is cruel, but very effective. Direct, personalized criticism and ridicule works.)

Here is the link to the rest of them: http://www.geocities.com/WallStreet/8925/alinsky.htm

Please keep talk to displays and power consumption. More bickering, finger pointing, OT, and other things will result in lock. Thanks.

larry

A recently completed study sponsored by the U.S. Department of Energy made a number of recommendations regarding power consumption of the television sets.

One of the recommendations suggested that those who own plasmas should be provided with tax credits if they promise to watch programs with low contents of white. When asked by reporters for examples, the department spokesman said that movies about coal mines and caves, for example, would be very effective in this regard.

The LCD owners, on the other hand, would be eligible for tax benefits if they limit their viewing habits to skiing competitions and programs about polar bears as these tend to be so blinding as to cause the users to turn down the backlight.

A bill authorizing the above tax incentives is working its way through the House Ways and Means Committee. Early estimates put the cost of the program at about 85 billion a year.

So I would venture to say there are just as many people in CA with swimming pools as 60" tvs.Any TV salesman who has flown into Bob Hope Airport in Burbank knows that it indeed takes two hands to handle this Whopper.

And yet, you recently purchased a 5020 Pioneer Plasma. You never stop talking in circles.:rolleyes:

Not talking in circles at all. Just because I own a TV, doesn't mean anything. It isn't about me, its about the good of the world.

And as California goes, so goes the nation. Its about time!! Plasmas are not about the future, I've been saying that all along.

LCD talking points

posts deleted

respectfully request posts remain On Topic: there are plenty of other forums [other than AVS] to discuss politics et al

Thanks

Please keep talk to displays and power consumption. More bickering, finger pointing, OT, and other things will result in lock. Thanks.

larry

is there some part of this you don't understand?

[rhetorical question]

a panasonic 42inch plasma like the TH-42PX81( european model) consumes 202watts at 150cd/m2 of brightness .
compared to lcd like last years sony 40inch W4500 series(european model) consumes 125watts at 200cd/m2.
even a 46inch sony xbr8 concumes only 149watts at 150cd/m2 ,
so the sony lcd produces a brighter image,and has more contrast but still consumes less energy.
high time plasma need to improve its efficiency.:rolleyes:

My LN52A550 with the backlight set to 4 draws 170W. The LN46A630 consumes 140W. Not bad.

High end lcd really needs to improve its PQ:rolleyes:

high time plasma need to improve its efficiency.:rolleyes:Check your PDP history before you roll your eyes after a uneducated comment like that. Is this ridiculously stupid LCD vs PDP debate ever going to end? I bet the same stale arguments will continue when LCD is 1 watt better than PDP, 1mm thinner, and 1lb lighter. None of which matter for picture quality.

You know what is the biggest energy hog? Spending 99% of your energy here arguing. Has anyone every actually made someone change their viewpoint? It is pointless.....

sorry for the rant :(

My LN52A550 with the backlight set to 4 draws 170W. The LN46A630 consumes 140W. Not bad.


Crutchfield through their tests show the 550 to draw 224 watts while a 40" version of the 630 draws 170 watts. I would imagine the 46" version to test out at around 200 watts which is in line with a Panasonic 46". I know plasma's have shown considerable drop in usage through calibration also. In the end, I don't think the numbers are really all that significant from each other and as we have seen both the newer LCD's and the newer plasmas have reduced it even further.

You know what is the biggest energy hog? Spending 99% of your energy here arguing. Has anyone every actually made someone change their viewpoint? It is pointless.....

sorry for the rant :(

Don't be. Your "rant" is spot on. We read and post but we never explain why. I wish somebody would start "Why am I here" thread.

Deep down we know that, no matter what we post, at the end evebody will cling to their postions. That's OK. The really bad part, in spite of the AVS rule that does not allow cloning posts, is that many posters express the same opinions over and over again without any effort to be more original or creative. This can't be good for the AVS advertizers. Add to this personal attacks, bad spelling and no sense of humor and, as they say, "Houston, we have a problem".

Don't be. Your "rant" is spot on. We read and post but we never explain why. I wish somebody would start "Why am I here" thread.

Deep down we know that, no matter what we post, at the end evebody will cling to their postions. That's OK. The really bad part, in spite of the AVS rule that does not allow cloning posts, is that many posters express the same opinions over and over again without any effort to be more original or creative. This can't be good for the AVS advertizers. Add to this personal attacks, bad spelling and no sense of humor and, as they say, "Houston, we have a problem".

I disagree. I've learned a lot in this forum especially from guys like xrox, d-nice and several others of which I use to help form an opinion and often change my view as I learn more. Is there some garbage and bickering? sure and the majority of us are just as guilty as the next guy but I don't keep coming back and complaining about it almost every day. If it bothers me to much, I would leave.

I disagree. I've learned a lot in this forum especially from guys like xrox, d-nice and several others of which I use to help form an opinion and often change my view as I learn more. Is there some garbage and bickering? sure and the majority of us are just as guilty as the next guy but I don't keep coming back and complaining about it almost every day. If it bothers me to much, I would leave.

Learning and debating are two different things.

Don't be. Your "rant" is spot on. We read and post but we never explain why. I wish somebody would start "Why am I here" thread.

Deep down we know that, no matter what we post, at the end evebody will cling to their postions. That's OK. The really bad part, in spite of the AVS rule that does not allow cloning posts, is that many posters express the same opinions over and over again without any effort to be more original or creative. This can't be good for the AVS advertizers. Add to this personal attacks, bad spelling and no sense of humor and, as they say, "Houston, we have a problem".LOL, yes I admit I'm the worst at spelling here by a long shot (it is almost comical at times:)). And over the years I've learned to ignore and stay away from arguing "my preference" as it is just so pointless and rarely involves any sense of humor.

Edit: Let me add that focusing on the science has led me to develop a strong respect for all techs (LCD,PDP,OLED,CRT,SED..etc). If you can develop even a little respect for techs other than your preference it is a lot easier to not post inflammatory biased posts stating supreme superiority :)

Learning and debating are two different things.

I was just responding off what you posted as nothing was mentioned about whether it was a debate or just something to learn from.

Deep down we know that, no matter what we post, at the end evebody will cling to their postions.

and like I pointed out I have learned from several posts and posters and changed my view from some of those posts.

I was just responding off what you posted as nothing was mentioned about whether it was a debate or just something to learn from.

Deep down we know that, no matter what we post, at the end evebody will cling to their postions.

and like I pointed out I have learned from several posts and posters and changed my view from some of those posts.

In everyday English, positions are about opinions.

For example, a question: What is your position on...calls for an answer: My opinion on this subject is.... On the other hand, the question: What do you know about...might result in: I know that...

If I wanted to include knowledge I woud have said so because I know the difference.

thank you