TV TrickleSaver cuts off power to rogue game consoles
By Donald Melanson 
posted July 8th 2009 2:42PM
posted July 8th 2009 2:42PM
It's no secret that some game consoles consume a whole lot more power than others, and it looks like that fact hasn't escaped the folks at TrickleStar, who've now rolled out their TV TrickleSaver device aimed at cutting down on some of that rogue power consumption. As you can probably guess from the looks of it, you simply plug both your TV and game console into the device (it'll also work just fine with a power bar, thankfully), and then the device itself works its magic to completely cut off power to the game console or consoles whenever your shut off your TV. Of course, it'll also work just fine with devices other than game consoles, but TrickleStar goes out of its way to single out the PlayStation 3 as its primary target, followed closely by the Xbox 360 -- each of which should consume more than enough power to eventually cover the $34.95 price tag for the TrickleSaver.
[Via OhGizmo!]
[Via OhGizmo!]
This and the referring article are so full of holes it's pathetic. Lets do a simple math problem. HWC measured the draw at 1.9 watts in standby. The US average electricity price is about 10 cents per kilowatt-hour. That's THOUSAND watt hour. It will take 526.3158 HOURS at standby to get to 1 kilowatt-hour. That's 21.9 days. At $35 for the device, it will take (35/0.10)= 350 kilowatt-hours of savings to get to the break even point. No multiply the hours it takes to make one kw/hr (526.3158) by the number of hours to break even (350) and you end up with 184,210.5 hours before the device breaks even. That is 7,675.439 days. OR 21 YEARS!!!!!!!!
Do you get that? It will take 21 YEARS for this device to pay for itself......
Yeah, uh that's worth it.
Mobius
1.9 Watts is not what the ps3 and my tv combined consume. And mind you i have a 32 lcd HD TV. Together they consume 5.4 watts of standby power. the average price for electricity in CT is about .14 and .19 cents for prime time usage. So lets take the least .14 for a 1 KW it will take 185.186 hours hence a little over 7 days I have no idea where you got your measurement of 1.9 watts but i use a killawats meter for exact numbers and have checked twice at different intervals. So 35/0.14= 250 kilowatt-hours of saving. now 185.186X250 = 46250 hours so its 5.4 years to recoup the 35 dollars but every year the price of energy goes up by at least %15 at least in CT it does hence even less then 5.4 years would be needed.
This is for the hippie, feel good people that only do something for the "better of society". If everyone spent $35 on this contraption, the company would be rich and if 100,000,000 were sold in the US at an average of 2Wh savings would reduce the total power consumption in the US by 200,000kWh.
This is how socialism works, everyone chips in for the "greater good" and society benefits in general. The US government makes a shite load of money in sales tax and by forming a new branch of the government to monitor the overall power savings the US government successfully spends more money and power figuring out the power savings than what was saved in the first place. The US government then passes a new Act that raises taxes because even though it seems that we are saving power, power consumption has increased and the American people are no longer green. This new Act is called the Tax, Tax, Tax, and Tax Act and makes it impossible for the middle income Americans to afford electricity and has spiraled the country into debt making the US a third world country.
So, I would not recommend buy one...
Most people do only pay about 10 cent per KW for electricity, however distribution and transmission costs double that to closer to 20 cents.
The article above links to a test run by HWC that read the PS3 alone at 1.9 Watts in standby. PS, the Killawats meter is a nice toy, but is not exactly a super accurate meter especially on lower power draw readings, but that's a different issue. Consdering that the device was stated to be specifically targeting the PS3, I used only the PS3. Could not care less about the TV.
Second, the price of electricity in Colorado is 6 cents per kwhr. Hence the using 10 cents as the national average. Or did you think that Connecticut was the only state in the US that has electrical power? This is a nation wide blog, not a Connecticut blog.
Even so, something that pays for itself in 5 years is STILL not really worth it as you could be living somewhere else, you might have a different TV, you might not have the PS3 anymore, things change. If it doesn't pay for itself in a year, you are losing money.
Oh and btw, gor82, do you understand how the device works? It senses the power draw in the plug attached to your TV. When the power draw increases, it assumes the TV is on and powers up the other plug. That means the TV is still in standby. Catch that? So you will not save anything at all on the TV. So now to re-run your numbers:
That's 526.3 hours times 250 hours or 15 Years at your rates, 11 years at 19 cents per kwhr.
A bargain!
First. The device only turns off the Console. Not the TV, else your remote control wouldn't work.
Second. This is not going to save any electricity whenever the TV is on.
Last. Even if it did "only" take 5 years to pay for itself, is 40 dollars worth having some ugly white and green brick in your living room for 5 years?
have to keep your TV on when you try to download large content on ps3/xo? this wastes more power!
Exactly! I frequently leave my console running to download a long list of content that I've queued up. And I turn my 46" LCD off to "save teh energies"... This device would kill that practice.
Now, using this to run printers, monitors, and speakers as slaves to a desktop computer is a smart idea. (you can't use those things without the computer.
Yeah, this possibly would be useful for VCRs and DVD players (though the power consumption in standby mode is miniscule anyway) if you don't care about their clock and you don't have one that loses all its settings when the power is cut. Old game consoles didn't consume any power when off, and new ones do so for a reason, such as being able to respond to a wireless controller or download updates 24/7.
What we need is a device that prevents people from leaving the TV on when they leave the room. I'm looking at you, dad.
This looks like a genuinely useful product!
This looks like a genuinely useless product!
(fixed)
Got to love those math geeks to get to the real answer. Thx mobius for the reality check.
Would be cool if something like this worked for power protection / backup units.
I have a UPS (power backup) system that does have this. For a while I used it to cut off power to my speakers, monitor, etc. when my computer turned off. More convenient than turning it off manually.
But I stopped using it because the light that signaled the trickle saver was on was super f***ing bright and I couldn't sleep with it on.
You know you can just open up such devices and stick a piece of paper over the led and done, you'll have a nice pleasant intensity, if you prefer to not open it any half-translucent sticky material will also do, a white sticker you have around the house somewhere no doubt, possibly peal it off the box that your cotton sticks for ear cleaning came in or some such common household item, anything where you have a peelable non-transparent sticky tape, cut a piece off stick it over the LED.
@mobius Thanks for doing the math... I was just pulling out the ol' HP calc to do just what you did...Saved me the time, and so yeah, the parts I calculated do jibe with your math, so you are correct...It's like the saying for the lottery...being a tax for those who can't add....This is the exact same thing! Unless you live in a notoriously high electrical cost, saving one or two watts of power is kinda stupid.
I have a Harmony remote which does this...in addition to a thousand other useful things...way better money spent there
Powerstrip - on - off - works just fine for me.
Why in the heck is it that hard for electronics manufactures to make things that actually turn off, as in don't use any juice? Is it that hard?
It's impossible for something to be able to sense soft turn ons (like a remote control) without a little power to be able to power the remote control radio (or circuit to detect specific IR patterns for powering up) and logic to make it turn on. The only way to make it consume zero power is to physically shut it off, but then the remotes won't work.
1-3 watts isn't anything to get all worked up about. It just boggles the mind how people get so bent out of shape over such little power consumption, yet they are the same people who haven't gotten CCFLs or adjusted their thermostat which would save measurable money. HVAC and lighting are the two overwhelming largest consumers of electricity. Worrying about 1-3 watts here and there will not save anything appreciable, no matter how good the intentions are.
The thing is that switching power supplies for higher wattage like when a console is in use means you can't make it work with equal efficiency when it's drawing next to nothing, so they'd have to make it run on a rechargeable battery I guess since it would be too costly to add another mini powersupply I bet, but still they count every penny and $3 more components is $3 less profit, times x million sales is millions of dollars.
Would you pay a million bucks so people that don't care use slightly less electricity?
Would it be so hard to put batteries in consumer electronics, so that we could shut them off without losing all of the settings?
There's plenty of electricity for everybody. Go ahead - they'll make more.
What do you mean by "shut my TV off"???
The thing notices when the TV/monitor stops drawing power and at that point switches off the attached console automagically.
They make them for TV's and video/cabletuners/etectera devices for years already, often with the devices turning off everything and then waiting for any signal from a remote control to power it all up again.
They also make similar devices that you connect your washing machine and dryer too so that when one is on the other can't be put on because many homes don't have the wiring to run them at the same time without tripping a fuse or causing a fire.
This is a very welcome product but the big problem here is that many devices don't behave well when the power is yanked. I would like to see some standard way to tell a device to shut off via the power line so that it is done gracefully. It's ridiculous how many power vampires there are around my house!
I guess Donald is an XBOX Fanboy. NOWHERE on the site does it mention the PS3, but obviously judging by the colors, it's meant for the 360.
http://store.tricklestar.com/products/tricklesaver/
Obviously this author hasnt done a cost analysis on how much his standby load is costing him, so I had to do it for him. Looks like the TV TrickleSaver has a 40 year payback!
http://blog.mapawatt.com/2009/07/08/tv-tricklesaver/
This thing ain't getting NEAR my WiiConnect24.
What these devices are great for is turning off and on old Hi-Fi amps that don't have IR control.
im assuming the IR receiver in your TV runs off an onboard battery?
because if it isn't, it seems to me you wouldn't be able to turn on the TV 'wirelessly' either, since it depends on the IR remote.
Man, talking about saving power i just cut 1200+- Kwh of our yearly consumption, we had an 10 year old freezer that consumed 1400+-KWh every year, i bought a new one that consumed no more than 230+-KWh a year.
Good job... Stimulating the economy, and being Eco (wallet) friendly.
Al Gore would be so proud. He'll never know, though, as he doesn't have a computer and can't access the internet because it uses too much power.
/sarcasm
I have about a dozen game systems and have them all connected simultaneously (and no, I don't turn them all on at the same time).
When I don't play them, I unplug them or turn off the power strip they're connected to.
This not only saves "trickle" electricity (and for that many systems, plus various electronics I don't use too often, it DOES add up), but also prevents wear and tear on AC adaptors and internal power supplies from eventually blowing out.
A power strip will cost you a couple bucks, and you just plug it into a decent surge protector. Who the hell wants this crap?
I dont use this particular device, but a far cheaper one with more outlets..
In my little home cinama I have a a Xbox360, Sony PS3, Oppo BDP-83 Blu-ray, Samsung DVB-C HDTV thing, a 8 port ethernet switch, TViX 6500a, WII, Onkyo TX-NR905, Octava 5 port HDMI switch, Toshiba HD-XA1 HD-DVD and finally a JVC HD1 projector.
Most of these only consume 1-3 wats in standby, but the ethernet switch doesnt do standby and uses 10 watt. The Samsung DVB-C for the television signals use around 20 watts while running and exactly the same in standby. All together it is something like 40-50 watt when in standby so I bought a device to turn off the power for 10$ and it works like a charm.