or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › Flat Panels General and OLED Technology › Which produces more heat, CRT or plasma TV's?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Which produces more heat, CRT or plasma TV's? - Page 3

post #61 of 163
191.15x3.41=651.82 Samsung LN52B750
187.17x3.41=638.25 Panasonic TC-P42S1
If the LCD doesn't warm the room why then do you say the plasma does? Less heat output yet you feel it and it warms up the room but the LCD does not!!?? Perhaps you should read up on this. Either way you look at it the amount of heat output from either display is exremely small and will not make a noticeable difference in a room.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bigbare
Perhaps you should read up a bit on this.
ToBeFrank-
I have no need to.
Quote: Bigbare
In order for your temperature to rise you must increase the heat output to the room.
ToBeFrank-
That's obvious... that would be from the plasma tv when it's turned on.
post #62 of 163
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigbare View Post

191.15x3.41=651.82 Samsung LN52B750
187.17x3.41=638.25 Panasonic TC-P42S1
If the LCD doesn't warm the room why then do you say the plasma does? Less heat output yet you feel it and it warms up the room but the LCD does not!!?? Perhaps you should read up on this. Either way you look at it the amount of heat output from either display is exremely small and will not make a noticeable difference in a room.

Perhaps you should get your numbers right. You're using the energy usage for the default settings for both TVs. First, I'm using the cnet settings for my LCD as I imagine many people will. Second, I will be using the cnet settings for my plasma. Third, as I've stated several times, I'm using vivid mode for break-in on the plasma so the energy use right now will be even higher than the cnet settings. So for the calibrated BTU output:

Panasonic TC-P42S1: 235.32x3.41=802.44
Samsung LN52B750: 128.86x3.41=439.41

As you can see, when calibrated the plasma is putting out almost twice as much heat as the calibrated LCD. Get it now?
post #63 of 163
Quote:
Originally Posted by ToBeFrank View Post

Perhaps you should get your numbers right. You're using the energy usage for the default settings for both TVs. First, I'm using the cnet settings for my LCD as I imagine many people will. Second, I will be using the cnet settings for my plasma. Third, as I've stated several times, I'm using vivid mode for break-in on the plasma so the energy use right now will be even higher than the cnet settings. So for the calibrated BTU output:

Panasonic TC-P42S1: 235.32x3.41=802.44
Samsung LN52B750: 128.86x3.41=439.41

As you can see, when calibrated the plasma is putting out almost twice as much heat as the calibrated LCD. Get it now?



According to Crutchfield and their tests the B750 consumes 198.21 watts while the 42S1 consumes 170.73.
post #64 of 163
Quote:
Originally Posted by maxdog03 View Post

According to Crutchfield and their tests the B750 consumes 198.21 watts while the 42S1 consumes 170.73.

Crutchfield says the following next to their power ratings:
Quote:


Default picture setting for home use.

I said:
Quote:


You're using the energy usage for the default settings for both TVs.

The energy use depends on the settings being used. I already stated I'm using the cnet settings. You can view their measurements for those settings on the following pages (search for "juice box"):

TC-P42S1

LN52B750
post #65 of 163
Quote:
Originally Posted by ToBeFrank View Post

Crutchfield says the following next to their power ratings: I said: The energy use depends on the settings being used. I already stated I'm using the cnet settings. You can view their measurements for those settings on the following pages (search for "juice box"):

TC-P42S1

LN52B750

Even at default, CNet and Crutchfield have different numbers for the Panasonic.
post #66 of 163
Quote:
Originally Posted by maxdog03 View Post

Even at default, CNet and Crutchfield have different numbers for the Panasonic.

CNet explains how they measure power here. People can decide for themselves whether to trust the numbers. My actual experience with my plasma and LCD agrees with the CNet numbers. No surprise since I'm using their settings.

Jeez, I didn't realize the plasma guys would get so butthurt over someone with real world experience answering a question about heat with plasmas. It's just a tv!
post #67 of 163
Quote:
Originally Posted by ToBeFrank View Post

CNet explains how they measure power here. People can decide for themselves whether to trust the numbers. My actual experience with my plasma and LCD agrees with the CNet numbers. No surprise since I'm using their settings.

Jeez, I didn't realize the plasma guys would get so butthurt over someone with real world experience answering a question about heat with plasmas. It's just a tv!

lol, settle down frankie. How are you using their settings when you claim you have your Panasonic in torch mode right now? Also, CNET doesn't show the complete settings on that site do they? Wasn't it just the first screen?

PS- I also own a plasma and LCD.
post #68 of 163
Quote:
Originally Posted by maxdog03 View Post

How are you using their settings when you claim you have your Panasonic in torch mode right now?

The point was CNet clearly shows the plasma set using significantly more power using their calibrated settings and the LCD uses significantly less power using their settings. Apparently I have to show this to prove that I really can feel the difference in heat between the two TVs.

I will be using the CNet settings for my plasma when the break-in is done. I let everyone know that the plasma is currently in torch mode in case that is the reason it heats up my room so much. But the fact remains that according to CNet, the plasma will be putting off almost twice as much heat as the LCD after break-in. Not to mention we're comparing a 42" plasma to a 52" LCD. If we were comparing a 52" plasma to the 52" LCD, the numbers would look even worse for the plasma.

Quote:


Also, CNET doesn't show the complete settings on that site do they? Wasn't it just the first screen?

CNet settings:

LN52B750

TC-P42S1
post #69 of 163
Quote:
Originally Posted by ToBeFrank View Post

The point was CNet clearly shows the plasma set using significantly more power using their calibrated settings and the LCD uses significantly less power using their settings. Apparently I have to show this to prove that I really can feel the difference in heat between the two TVs.

I will be using the CNet settings for my plasma when the break-in is done. I let everyone know that the plasma is currently in torch mode in case that is the reason it heats up my room so much. But the fact remains that according to CNet, the plasma will be putting off almost twice as much heat as the LCD after break-in. Not to mention we're comparing a 42" plasma to a 52" LCD. If we were comparing a 52" plasma to the 52" LCD, the numbers would look even worse for the plasma.



CNet settings:

LN52B750

TC-P42S1

Bottom line is to much of a deal is being made out of "heat" on these TVs. They are TVs not heaters and the amount is insignificant over all whether it's twice, 3 times or more. All I can go on is my own real experience and none of my TVs (two Samsung LCDs and one Pioneer plasma) put out any amount of heat that isn't easily dissipated into the room and thus having no effect on over all temperature. If your experience is different then so be it.
post #70 of 163
Quote:
Originally Posted by maxdog03 View Post

the amount is insignificant over all whether it's twice, 3 times or more.

Maybe for your situation, but I have the TV and the room that proves you wrong. The only reason I had to justify it or as you put it, make a deal out of it, is because people like you were basically saying I was full of it.
post #71 of 163
Quote:
Originally Posted by ToBeFrank View Post

Maybe for your situation, but I have the TV and the room that proves you wrong. The only reason I had to justify it or as you put it, make a deal out of it, is because people like you were basically saying I was full of it.

so your situation proves I'm wrong but my situation proves I'm right. Fortunately I live with my situation and not yours.

Like you said, these are just TVs (and not heaters).

Have a nice day!
post #72 of 163
What raises room temperature more in a 30 second time frame--displays or passing gas?
post #73 of 163
Good question Artwood, I may have to lean towards the gas however lacking data on btu output it is only a guess. Either way you look at it unless you're in a closet either one will not make a noticable difference.
post #74 of 163
I've always been out of the closet when it comes to gas.

The whole heat in the room argument is about as silly.
post #75 of 163
Yup but it stil seems to come up. Not sure why people can't understand the whole concept.
post #76 of 163
It's kind of funny... you see people quibble over differences of ~100W or less. That additional 100W is equivalent to turning on a light bulb (a 100W bulb, granted) in the room, or to having another person come sit down and watch TV with you (from what I recall, a typical person dissipates about 100W of heat while at rest).
post #77 of 163
Who cares? If you can't afford it go live in a cave!
post #78 of 163
Some people make the biggest deal out of the smallest difference. It almost seams as though they don't even realize just how small a difference they are.
post #79 of 163
How long will it be before the government imposes a heat output display tax?
post #80 of 163
Quote:
Originally Posted by Artwood View Post

How long will it be before the government imposes a heat output display tax?

I think that bill is headed to the Senate as of Friday. God help us.
post #81 of 163
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigbare View Post

Good question Artwood, I may have to lean towards the gas however lacking data on btu output it is only a guess. Either way you look at it unless you're in a closet either one will not make a noticable difference.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Artwood View Post

What raises room temperature more in a 30 second time frame--displays or passing gas?

I sure there is a government funded, global warming believing drone out there somewhere studying this. Didn't the last bill to the Presidents desk have a $20,000,000.00 (put zeros for effect) earmark to study pig farts, seriously.
post #82 of 163
I thought it was the cows they were looking at and they want to tax the farmers for cow farts based on the results. RIDICULUS!!!
post #83 of 163
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigbare View Post

I thought it was the cows they were looking at and they want to tax the farmers for cow farts based on the results. RIDICULUS!!!

The cow farts are in the cap and trade bill, the pig farts were a few months ago.
post #84 of 163
My Dell 2209WA IPS panel LCD radiates heat off of the top of the display, and the panel itself is very hot to the touch. Typical of IPS panels though as they have a much stronger backlight than TN/VA panels.

My 22" NEC FP2141 CRT, on the other hand, doubled as a space heater during the winter
post #85 of 163
Heat is a good thing in the winter--the poor don't have to spend as much on heating oil because of TVs that put out heat!
post #86 of 163
Yes, big rooms and small rooms can experience a different temperature rise given a tv of particular output in watts. Additionally, the relative ventilation of that room (or lack of ventilation) can further accentuate the temperature rise.

Think of the room as a water tank of a certain size. A big room is a big tank, and a small room is a small tank. The tv of x amount of output is like a water spigot of x amount of flowrate. A large power rating is like a water spigot that flows more water. The final detail is the ventilation of the room which relies on how open, closed, or stagnant the room is, or if there is active cooling as in an a/c vent. This ventilation would be like the drain hole in the water tank.

So are you seeing how all of this comes together? You can have a spigot filling a big tank, and eventually the tank will get full (it will get hot in the room, but not after a long, long time). If the tank has a drain that flows more than the spigot, then the tank will never fill up (the temperature in the room will not rise at all). Now put that same spigot in a small tank with negligible draining. The room will get pretty warm fairly quickly, if you run the tv long enough. Now if you increase the ventilation (exchange through an open window or via a/c) enough, it will keep up with the tv, and the room temperature won't change at all.

Is this enough examples for y'all?!

These are the basic concepts that tie together the wattage of the device with room size and the btu/hr (which is really just the english units equivalent of "watts") part that involves the leakage/ventilation of the room. Even if you are talking about a mere 150 W of output, it may be a relatively small amount compared to things like lightbulbs, but if the room is small enough with poor ventilation, even that can catch up with you. That's how the heater in a waterbed or pool works, in fact. It's not necessarily a great amount of heat input, but over time, it is enough to accumulate into significant temperature. You just have to wait on it.

The basic rule for the tv, the larger the panel, the more light it is going to have to throw to create an illuminated image over that surface area. The more light involved, the more power it is probably going to dissipate in the process. Bigger/fancier panels will be more power hungry, aside from particular miracle technologies in effect for that display.
post #87 of 163
btu/h is not the english equivalent of a watts. A btu is the amount of heat required to raise 1 pound of water 1 degree. watts are 1 watt is equal to 1 amp through a 1 volt or 1 joule per second. They do however correlate to eachother. One watt is equal to 3.41 btu. You are correct that ventilation will absolutely help remove heat however it would take a long time to add that much heat to be noticable in any normal sized viewing room. The whole idea that a display is like a heater in someones room is quite a strech at best. Can a display heat a room, if many strict conditions are met sure it could over a long time. If your room is not much bigger than a walk in closet with no openings and is totally sealed you may feel it after a while. These are hopefully not anyones conditions. Even in a dedicated room one would hope that some form of ventilation was installed even just for air circulation for breathing. So I guess when it comes down to real world application in home it is highly highly unlikely that any display will add that much heat period.
post #88 of 163
The "pound" is not an english unit? Is the "joule" not metric?

Btu is a unit of energy. A joule is...a unit of energy. When you divide either by a time unit, then they become a unit of power. There is a direct conversion between btu/hr and watts.

A bedroom with poor ventilation is certainly enough for a temperature rise to occur just from a large, high-output flat panel (i.e, not a computer monitor, but even that is not out of the question if it is extreme enough).

A large room with excellent ventilation/climate control could seem limitless in energy mass for even considerably large panels, but that is only because it is a big space (which increases the time constant) and the ventilation prevents any appreciable accumulation of excess heat. Cut the ventilation in a well-insulated large room, and even an idling flat panel could be enough to warm up a large room, given the better part of a day.

Legions of tube amp owners would disagree with you that a single device in a room dissipating a couple hundred watts all day will be quite enough to get an enclosed room "toasty"...but they tolerate it anyway, because they just cannot get along without "tube sound".
post #89 of 163
These must be extremely small rooms with no ventilation at all. If you run the numbers the actual heat out put is so small per hour that even a small room should be able to handle it. There are many other places other than just ventilation that will disapate the heat. Walls, floors, ceilings, windows, all of these will absorb the heat in the room and transfer it to any cooler surroundings. I don't know about anyone else but even in summer time my walls and floors are very cool thus giving a place for heat to be transfered. It is not just a simple matter of ventilation or cooling. In the years I have been doing HVAC for a living I have yet to run into a room that has suffered from having a display and some other equipment associated with HT and the likes. Like I stated before I have been in media rooms that were not much bigger than a walk in closet with no ventialtion they still take a full day or two before the temperature rises even into the 80's in the summer. These contain more equipment than even large million dollars home have on them for HT. Even a majority of the worst case scenario's I have ran the numbers for only output around 1/12 a ton of cooling and hour at max use, which is not always what they run at.
post #90 of 163
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Hanky View Post

These are the basic concepts that tie together the wattage of the device with room size and the btu/hr (which is really just the english units equivalent of "watts")

BTU is the english equivalent of what the metric or SI system refers to as joules not watts. They usually express it in kilojoules because a joule is so small. 1 kJ=1.055 btu. So yes eventually the two come together after some math is done but they are not the direct correlation to eachother.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › Flat Panels General and OLED Technology › Which produces more heat, CRT or plasma TV's?