Robert Rich wrote:

>Quoting Manuel Kasper <mk at neon1 dot net>:
>
>  
>
>>On 22.12.2004 07:01 +1300, C. Falconer wrote:
>>    
>>
>>>Celeron 300 running .70 A (.34 A was CRT) leaving 0.36 for machine.
>>>Celeron 1700 running .65 A (.28 A was CRT) leaving 0.37 A for
>>>machine Dell P3 700 laptop 0.14 A while charging battery and 0.10 A
>>>later.
>>>
>>>For 235 Volts here in New Zealand that works out at
>>>Celeron 300		165 Watts or 84.6 Watts for the machine
>>>Celeron 1700	153 Watts or 86.9 Watts for the machine
>>>Laptop		32.9 Watts charging or 23.5 Watts not charging
>>>      
>>>
>><snip>
>>
>>It's been a while, but if it helps anyone - my WRAP.1A beta board was
>>once measured at 300 mA busy (booting) and 210 mA idle @ 12 VDC (with
>>one NIC connected, IIRC).
>>    
>>
>
>Those amp figures had me scratching my head (the celeron 300 was effectively
>360mA) until i saw the @ 12VDC.
>
>.360 * 235 = 84.6W (celery)
>.210 * 12 = 2.5W (wrap)
>
>Of course the wrap figures don't include power supply losses (those bricks don't
>get hot for free), and the celeron is spinning a lot more than a clock...
>
>For comparison, the nVidia 6800 Ultra graphics card draws 110 watts all by
>itself (which, btw, is essentially equivalent to the maximum sustainable power
>output of an average person)
>
>All this talk about power consumption makes me feel like someone's dad (not my
>own, of course, who seemingly marveled at anything involving massive quantities
>of power...especially when displayed as the rate of change in kinetic energy :))
>  
>
Ah, nothing like good old HP!!!  :-D
Chris




-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.296 / Virus Database: 265.6.3 - Release Date: 12/21/2004