Eco Mode
Many TVs have an explicitly-explained 'Eco Mode' if you want to save energy.
And many have a 'Full Garish' (<- I just made that name up, energy hog) Mode so that they "look good" in brightly lit stores.
None of this is a secret.
The idiot box is smarter than it seems: a spat has broken out between America's Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and the Consumer Technology Association about the energy consumption of televisions. The NRDC reckons TV makers are configuring sets to perform well on government tests, while in the living room they become …
"One of these two is a constructive statement."
With dieselgate fresh in the memory I'd have expected the CTA to have taken the moral high ground - which in this case would probably be the fence on which it could sit. Otherwise, if NRDC is proven right when the shit hits the fan they'll be standing right in line to get their share.
Place television in a selection of homes which are connected to a mains electrical supply and are inhabited by people and where the aforementioned inhabitants watch television on a telly.
FTFY.
Although as IANAL I am sure I have missed out a few clauses that would make sure that the test conditions could not be misinterpreted.
Then you'll have the TV companies trying to find out who these people are so they can influence them to use the TV 'correctly' and eco lobbyists doing the same thing in the opposite direction.
I would have thought it's not that hard to specify a test to get a reasonable power reading, the only caveat I'd add is that all picture quality (things like brightness and contrast) data published must be that captured during the tests. Then if the manufacturer creates an artificial mode for the tests which compromises picture quality for low power use their picture quality specs will show that.
"Real world" fuel economy is a tough thing to replicate as people drive so differently and put different tyres on, carry extra stuff, encounter different traffic etc. Watching TV has got more variables today than in the past but surly it's not that complicated.
I've a talk talk freeview box connected to my telly. It points out during start up that you can make it fire up quicker by going into the eco settings in the menu. I'd guess they have to hit a stand by power consumption to sell the box but once it's sold all the eco-twattery, hair-shirt shite can go out of the window in favour of a much better user experience.
I know, what can I say? Can't be arsed to switch and I'm also a tight-arse who objects to paying the dirty digger a subscription to access stuff I've no intention of watching and still have adverts (honestly, you want me to pay for TV and expect me to watch adverts? And adverts seem to make up around 15-20% of any hour of programming?) Guess I've been spoilt by the BBC.
Really ought to sort out a better ISP though...
It's well known in Mexico that the govt agency in charge of standards has a fixed quantity they pump out of a petrol station pump to check that it's calibrated.
So if you ask the pump for that amount, you get exactly that amount. Any other amount you ask for gets a station-owner-configurable diddle factor applied to the amount, so you get less. Sometimes quite a bit less.
You have to park with the pump in your immediate field of vision and make sure the pump attendant sees you watch them zero the pump, or they will just pretend to put fuel in. But that's a story for another day.
"that during the DOE test loop, some TVs seemed to exhibit “inexplicable and sustained drops in energy use”. It suggests that software is specifically detecting the test loop and adjusting the TV's performance to suit."
Well, duh. That's not cheating on a test, that's how it should perform when it's in that situation: It's detecting when it can save a little energy, and doing so.
This, along with the counters already pointed out above and in the article, show the whole argument is silly.
I purchased a screen and then set it to have the best picture I could achieve with my vision. I don't really care about it's consumption, only the picture. If however it used a stupid amount of lecy then I might be concerned.
Fortunately the kids are at school now so it's not on much so I care even less.
${regulatory_body} lays down tests that ${product} must pass. Manufacturers make products which pass those tests. ${regulatory_body} acts all surprised when it's noticed that products passing it's tests behave differently under different conditions.
Just like the dieselgate row, the product passed the tests laid down - that's all there is to it. If ${regulatory_body} wants ${product} to behave in a specific way under specific situations/conditions then they need to make their tests representative of those conditions.
All this shows (yet again) is that if you lay down specific tests/targets, then people will work to them. This isn't news to any of us - except perhaps the people doing the complaining.
Schools get assessed on certain things (like exam results) - so they start to teach towards maximising those things they are assessed on. Those with long memories will recall when cars were taxed on engine size, with breaks at 1600cc and 2000cc resulting in all manufacturers having 1598 and 1998cc engine options. Then taxman decides he's missing out and moves the goalposts - resulting within a very short time in 1798cc engine options. Hospital waiting lists are another example.
None of this is news, sigh
I'm currently trying to work out which vacuum cleaners score the worst in the energy efficiency ratings so that I can buy one with the same suction power as my aging DC01 which I can't get spares for any more... A vacuum cleaner isn't efficient if a low power motor means it can't do it's job properly.
I suspect that most (if not all) modern LCD sets consume considerably LESS energy than the set my folks bought back in 1967. It was loaded with nice glowing vacuum tubes (valves) that nicely warmed the room that we watched the TV in. The set it replaced (from the 50's) might have consumed less, but it was a smaller screen size.
If you want to criticize power consumption, look at plasma sets. They get hot to the touch. Of course, the also have good contrast ratios, but fade away over time. Oh, they are HEAVY! as well. I won't go into how much RF hash they create (it is a bunch!).
How much of all this is driven by interlocking ownership of various corporations?
For instance, are the companies which manufacture TVs also owned by some of the same people who own the Power or Oil companies?
Not a Conspiracy so much as "Hey, lets not get Hasty and build something that hurts profits from my Other stocks."