Two guys playing on one guitar, composition by Mozart -
Tuesday, September 09, 2008
Monday, September 08, 2008
Become a Coca-Cola Free Community
One of the Human Rights' Abuse cases, trying to be brought mainstream - at the Labor Day Parade, September 6, 2008 - New York
Read more here -
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
CRD or LCD?
CRT or LCD?
I get an email about energy conservation in offices - "Switch off the monitor when not in use", and thought I would get specific information regarding the energy cost savings and pay- off time for a flat screen vs. a CRT monitor.
There are many specific factors that go into calculating this. Among them are:
1. Time Usage – how often your monitor is on (and for a CRT is it asleep or awake?), hours used per day, days usedper year.
2. Energy usage – the wattages of the specific two monitors you wish to compare.
3. Local energy costs – the cost charged per kW by your electric provider:
First, you need to calculate the kW used per year for each monitor. The energy usages can then be converted into costs by multiplying by your energy rate. The difference between the two costs reflects the cost savings you will recoup after using a flat screen (instead of a CRT) for one year. You can apply this annual savings to the price difference between the two models to determine how long it will take to pay off the more expensive flat screen.
The Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Network (EREN) is part of the US Dept of Energy. At the EREN website they list the wattage of many appliances - http://www.eren.doe.gov/consumerinfo/refbriefs/ec7.html
http://www.eren.doe.gov/consumerinfo/refbriefs/ec7.html
The wattage of a CRT monitor is listed as 150 watts (awake) or 30 (asleep). This means that in energy use, one hour of awake time => five hours of sleep time for the EPA example monitor.
According to IBM, the T Series flat panel monitors consume 3-4 watts asleep and 30 – 65 watts awake - http://www.pc.ibm.com/us/accessories/access_promo/flatpanel/tour/
Note that the awake energy use changes by a factor of more than 2, depending on screen size. For a flat screen monitor which uses 3.5 watts (asleep) and 50 watts (awake) 1 hour of awake time = 14 hours of sleep time.
For an example solution (for a CRT) see below:
Time Use – hours/day: 6.5 (to account for sleep time)
Time Use – days/year: (52weeks/yr – 2weeks vacation/yr) x (5days/wk) => 250 days/year
Monitor Watts: 150
Cost per kWh: $0.07
[(hours/day) x (days/year) x (watts)] / 1000 watts/kW = annual kWh
consumption (kW) x ($/kWh) = annual energy cost
[(6.5hr/day) x (250days/yr) x (150watts)]/1000 = 243.75 kWh
annual energy consumption (243.75 kWh) x ($0.07/kWh) = $17 per year
A CRT monitor costs $17 per year in electricity. Using the above calculations for a flat screen monitor with the following data:
Time Use – hours/day: 6.2 (to account for sleep time)
Time Use – days/year: (52weeks/yr – 2weeks vacation/yr) x (5days/wk) => 250 days/year> Monitor Watts: 50
Cost per kWh: $0.07
A flat panel monitor costs $5.40 per year electricity.
To determine your annual energy usage, use the wattage values printed on the back/bottom of the two monitors you are comparing. To determine the Time Usage for a CRT that goes to sleep, use an average value of time based on the % time the monitor is awake/asleep.
Additional Information ->> Many resources can be found where the energy efficiency of flat screen monitors is touted. Several of these sites are:
UC Irvine News, March 14, 2001 ->
http://www.today.uci.edu/ucinews/0314f4.html
National Renewable Energy Laboratory -> http://www.nrel.gov/sustainable_nrel/energy_saving.html
While the EPA Monitor Power Management Calculator is helpful in> computing cost savings on the basis of certain criteria, this calculation does not allow you to calculate costs based on monitor type.
http://yosemite1.epa.gov/Estar/consumers.nsf/content/powercalculator.htm
I used the following search terms: flat, screen, panel, monitor, energy use, efficiency, watts, utility, cost, electricity.
One more article is : http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/2006/07/11/stories/2006071102140400.htm>>>
Another article on this is:
http://savingenergy.wordpress.com/2006/11/21/saving-energy-one-monitor-at-a-time/
I get an email about energy conservation in offices - "Switch off the monitor when not in use", and thought I would get specific information regarding the energy cost savings and pay- off time for a flat screen vs. a CRT monitor.
There are many specific factors that go into calculating this. Among them are:
1. Time Usage – how often your monitor is on (and for a CRT is it asleep or awake?), hours used per day, days usedper year.
2. Energy usage – the wattages of the specific two monitors you wish to compare.
3. Local energy costs – the cost charged per kW by your electric provider:
First, you need to calculate the kW used per year for each monitor. The energy usages can then be converted into costs by multiplying by your energy rate. The difference between the two costs reflects the cost savings you will recoup after using a flat screen (instead of a CRT) for one year. You can apply this annual savings to the price difference between the two models to determine how long it will take to pay off the more expensive flat screen.
The Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Network (EREN) is part of the US Dept of Energy. At the EREN website they list the wattage of many appliances - http://www.eren.doe.gov/consumerinfo/refbriefs/ec7.html
http://www.eren.doe.gov/consumerinfo/refbriefs/ec7.html
The wattage of a CRT monitor is listed as 150 watts (awake) or 30 (asleep). This means that in energy use, one hour of awake time => five hours of sleep time for the EPA example monitor.
According to IBM, the T Series flat panel monitors consume 3-4 watts asleep and 30 – 65 watts awake - http://www.pc.ibm.com/us/accessories/access_promo/flatpanel/tour/
Note that the awake energy use changes by a factor of more than 2, depending on screen size. For a flat screen monitor which uses 3.5 watts (asleep) and 50 watts (awake) 1 hour of awake time = 14 hours of sleep time.
For an example solution (for a CRT) see below:
Time Use – hours/day: 6.5 (to account for sleep time)
Time Use – days/year: (52weeks/yr – 2weeks vacation/yr) x (5days/wk) => 250 days/year
Monitor Watts: 150
Cost per kWh: $0.07
[(hours/day) x (days/year) x (watts)] / 1000 watts/kW = annual kWh
consumption (kW) x ($/kWh) = annual energy cost
[(6.5hr/day) x (250days/yr) x (150watts)]/1000 = 243.75 kWh
annual energy consumption (243.75 kWh) x ($0.07/kWh) = $17 per year
A CRT monitor costs $17 per year in electricity. Using the above calculations for a flat screen monitor with the following data:
Time Use – hours/day: 6.2 (to account for sleep time)
Time Use – days/year: (52weeks/yr – 2weeks vacation/yr) x (5days/wk) => 250 days/year> Monitor Watts: 50
Cost per kWh: $0.07
A flat panel monitor costs $5.40 per year electricity.
To determine your annual energy usage, use the wattage values printed on the back/bottom of the two monitors you are comparing. To determine the Time Usage for a CRT that goes to sleep, use an average value of time based on the % time the monitor is awake/asleep.
Additional Information ->> Many resources can be found where the energy efficiency of flat screen monitors is touted. Several of these sites are:
UC Irvine News, March 14, 2001 ->
http://www.today.uci.edu/ucinews/0314f4.html
National Renewable Energy Laboratory -> http://www.nrel.gov/sustainable_nrel/energy_saving.html
While the EPA Monitor Power Management Calculator is helpful in> computing cost savings on the basis of certain criteria, this calculation does not allow you to calculate costs based on monitor type.
http://yosemite1.epa.gov/Estar/consumers.nsf/content/powercalculator.htm
I used the following search terms: flat, screen, panel, monitor, energy use, efficiency, watts, utility, cost, electricity.
One more article is : http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/2006/07/11/stories/2006071102140400.htm>>>
Another article on this is:
http://savingenergy.wordpress.com/2006/11/21/saving-energy-one-monitor-at-a-time/
Sunday, April 06, 2008
Computing Green - Chennai
[article source: The Hindustan Times, February 19, 2008]
Is the south greener than the north? So it seems, as far as construction is concerned. According to a report released by real estate consultancy Jones Lang LaSalle Meghraj on Tuesday, Chennai leads in India in terms of the number as well as the total volume of certified green building space.
Out of the 17 LEED — Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design, a green building rating system developed by the US Green Building Council — certified buildings in the country, Chennai alone is home to eight of them. This accounts for 67.3 per cent of the total green building space in India.
The ‘India Green Buildings Anthology’ report makes another startling revelation. Contrary to what most people think, in the context of the Asia Pacific region, India is ahead of China both in terms of projects certified as well as registered under LEED. While India has 17, China has only 4 certified projects.
However, experts say that the total area of green buildings registered in China exceeds that of India as large township projects as well as the Olympic Games infrastructure are going in for green certification, says the Jones Lang LaSalle Meghraj report.
Coming back to India, Kolkata is second only to Chennai with 15.7 per cent share of the total green building space, even though it has only one green building, the Technopolis.
However, with a total size of 6,50,000 square feet, the project assumes colossal proportions.
Kolkata is closely followed by the National Capital Region in the ranking with a 8.7 per cent share in the total area spread over three projects. Mumbai comes fourth with only one project and a share of 2.9 per cent. Other cities where certified green buildings have been built are Kochi, Hyderabad and Gulbarga.
“This shows that apart from the major metropolitan cities, projects registered for green building certification are spread far and wide across the country in around 12 smaller cities and towns,” the report points out.
Also, apart from residential, healthcare and hospitality projects joining the bandwagon, there are some examples of large infrastructure and township development projects also going green.
Of mention are the Hyderabad International Airport Passenger Terminal as well as an integrated township in Asansol that have been registered as green buildings, says the report.
>> If you want to know more, check this link
Monday, February 04, 2008
Harbhajan - Symonds ... et al
Check out the video tape released by the Indian and the Australian cricket boards w.r.t the incident.
[Video source: Youtube - Link provided in the header of this post.]
Wednesday, January 09, 2008
Rationale thinking - Players in the Balance
What started out as a fantastic series is fast disappearing into one of 'the' most noted series (for a lot of unforgettable moments) in the history of the sport of Cricket.
Everyone has been highly opinionated - either taking sides on Harbhajan, or with Symonds, Ponting & Hogg. We hear Navjot Sidhu telling "It is not about Cricket; it is about National Honor" - well, we all know how he can voice his opinions, even when he doesn't know anything concrete about it. On the other side, we hear the CAB backing their side, and we know that both the CAB and its players have, for years long, voicing their opinions on the field, sledging the opponents (and the umpires), making intimidation a part of their reportoire.
Now, where is the balance?
Everyone is highly caught up with 'defending' their country and player(s), and while they are doing it, it appears that they have lost rationale thinking. Blindly supporting either side is not going to give us a solution.
So, why was Bucknor was taken out of the Perth test? Has no other umpire made wrong decisions in any other test or one day international in the history of cricket? Has no other team lost or won a test match because of wrong decision taken in the heat of the moment by an umpire? What are we accomplishing by this?
We all talk about the stress on the bowler and the batsman, and the runs that the fielders give away. But, the most difficult job on the cricket field is held by the Umpire on the 22-yard turf. He has to:
1. Count the number of deliveries bowled in an over
2. Count the extras, and the runs scored by a batsman
3. Give No-Balls, Wides, and other extra runs that would make the bowlers frown
4. Check for any variations caused by the players to the turf
and, most importantly,
5. Give appeals for LBW, for the bat-pad catches, for the catches taken by the fielders which appear to have been grounded - ALL IN A MATTER OF SECONDS.
How many of us would be able to do that job precisely, whether we have done it for one year or 20 years? Everybody has a bad day. Everybody makes a wrong decision. Everybody plays an important part in winning / losing the game.
If we go against the umpires who have given wrong decisions all these years, we wouldn't have any umpires, leave alone an ICC Elite Panel of umpires.
Everybody would remember the India-Australia match at Sharjah on April 24,1998, where Sachin scored 134. We had 27 runs to win with 5 overs to spare. You might argue that it is not as close as it gets, but it still was a close game. Sachin was given LBW to a ball which was pitching on the 6th or 7th stump, by umpire Javed Akhtar. But the Indians did not argue that day, because they won the match. What would have happened if the Indians lost the match? Would we have argued against Javed Akhtar, alleging that he was a Pakistani and because of that gave decisions against the Indians? Would we have stopped playing against Pakistan? Or, would we have made allegations of Match-fixing like Ali Bacher of the South African Cricket Board did?
There have been lot of instances similar to the recent one in Australia. The only exception to this has been the on-field credibility displayed by the players. We don't know whether Harbhajan called Symonds by any name, or whether Symonds instigated Harbhajan.
However, we could see one thing from the video telecast of the test match - Ponting did not take the catch. Ponting is one of the greatest players in the Cricket history, undoubtedly. But his on-field and off-field compatibility with the opponents is miserable. It appears that there is no 'team spirit' in him; everything he wants is - to win more matches, to get Australia more victories. And he is willing to take chances, come what may. And, that is the attitude that is questionable. And, nobody, not the players, not the CAB can do anything about it. Only Ponting has to realise that its high time he changes his perspective on things, and becomes a better individual.
The Indian board could not have asked for a better chance to show its patriotism. The players could not have asked for a bigger distraction from their own pathetic display in the second innings at Sydney. Two batsmen got poor decisions. What about the others? Is batting through two sessions to save a Test? And, we call ourselves the greatest batting line-up in the world? It is all so convenient.
It is time that players of both teams become men and take things into their hands and move on and play better cricket rather than slashing each other through the media and their boards.
If this is the state of cricket for years to come, we would be the examples of what Churchill said - "11 fools are playing; 11,000 fools are watching". Only in this case, the well paid 11 fools are backed by 11 billion fools.
Everyone has been highly opinionated - either taking sides on Harbhajan, or with Symonds, Ponting & Hogg. We hear Navjot Sidhu telling "It is not about Cricket; it is about National Honor" - well, we all know how he can voice his opinions, even when he doesn't know anything concrete about it. On the other side, we hear the CAB backing their side, and we know that both the CAB and its players have, for years long, voicing their opinions on the field, sledging the opponents (and the umpires), making intimidation a part of their reportoire.
Now, where is the balance?
Everyone is highly caught up with 'defending' their country and player(s), and while they are doing it, it appears that they have lost rationale thinking. Blindly supporting either side is not going to give us a solution.
So, why was Bucknor was taken out of the Perth test? Has no other umpire made wrong decisions in any other test or one day international in the history of cricket? Has no other team lost or won a test match because of wrong decision taken in the heat of the moment by an umpire? What are we accomplishing by this?
We all talk about the stress on the bowler and the batsman, and the runs that the fielders give away. But, the most difficult job on the cricket field is held by the Umpire on the 22-yard turf. He has to:
1. Count the number of deliveries bowled in an over
2. Count the extras, and the runs scored by a batsman
3. Give No-Balls, Wides, and other extra runs that would make the bowlers frown
4. Check for any variations caused by the players to the turf
and, most importantly,
5. Give appeals for LBW, for the bat-pad catches, for the catches taken by the fielders which appear to have been grounded - ALL IN A MATTER OF SECONDS.
How many of us would be able to do that job precisely, whether we have done it for one year or 20 years? Everybody has a bad day. Everybody makes a wrong decision. Everybody plays an important part in winning / losing the game.
If we go against the umpires who have given wrong decisions all these years, we wouldn't have any umpires, leave alone an ICC Elite Panel of umpires.
Everybody would remember the India-Australia match at Sharjah on April 24,1998, where Sachin scored 134. We had 27 runs to win with 5 overs to spare. You might argue that it is not as close as it gets, but it still was a close game. Sachin was given LBW to a ball which was pitching on the 6th or 7th stump, by umpire Javed Akhtar. But the Indians did not argue that day, because they won the match. What would have happened if the Indians lost the match? Would we have argued against Javed Akhtar, alleging that he was a Pakistani and because of that gave decisions against the Indians? Would we have stopped playing against Pakistan? Or, would we have made allegations of Match-fixing like Ali Bacher of the South African Cricket Board did?
There have been lot of instances similar to the recent one in Australia. The only exception to this has been the on-field credibility displayed by the players. We don't know whether Harbhajan called Symonds by any name, or whether Symonds instigated Harbhajan.
However, we could see one thing from the video telecast of the test match - Ponting did not take the catch. Ponting is one of the greatest players in the Cricket history, undoubtedly. But his on-field and off-field compatibility with the opponents is miserable. It appears that there is no 'team spirit' in him; everything he wants is - to win more matches, to get Australia more victories. And he is willing to take chances, come what may. And, that is the attitude that is questionable. And, nobody, not the players, not the CAB can do anything about it. Only Ponting has to realise that its high time he changes his perspective on things, and becomes a better individual.
The Indian board could not have asked for a better chance to show its patriotism. The players could not have asked for a bigger distraction from their own pathetic display in the second innings at Sydney. Two batsmen got poor decisions. What about the others? Is batting through two sessions to save a Test? And, we call ourselves the greatest batting line-up in the world? It is all so convenient.
It is time that players of both teams become men and take things into their hands and move on and play better cricket rather than slashing each other through the media and their boards.
If this is the state of cricket for years to come, we would be the examples of what Churchill said - "11 fools are playing; 11,000 fools are watching". Only in this case, the well paid 11 fools are backed by 11 billion fools.
Tuesday, January 08, 2008
Portrait
Portrait of my parents drawn by an excellent Screever near Rockefeller Center on
January 6, 2008. He drew it in around 25-30 minutes....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)