Some newer tv's by some manufacturers (think mainly Sony and Philips) allow you to switch of the whole set without it being in standby using the remote control, wonder if it's this guys that are the cause of that..
There should be a panel of knowledgeable people who challenge all the technical aspects of the pitch, including the money and patents.
There have been many times when the dragons get into an argument over the money details or a patent, simply because they are too stupid to work it out themselves (Duncan is not that bad - Debra is terrible). It really turns it into Trash TV when this happens.
There should a panel of logical but uncharismatic people who sort this out for them.
Also, the 'invention' is having a rechargable battery that is charged when the TV is ON, and discharges when the TV is on standby, powering the electronics which recognise the 'standby' signal and cut the power to the TV.
Why not just power the microprocessor etc.. from the mains?!?! Using a rechargeable battery is a trick that makes the device appear to use no energy. It is a trick. There is no point in putting this in TVs.
It is appauling how incompetent these dragons are.
The dragons have been tricked. These two people DO have a patent, but it is specifically on an external device which cuts the power to the TV when it recieves a "standby" signal.
They CANNOT 'build this into TVs', because they don't have a patent on simply 'not consuming power'. A computer is allowed to shutdown using a remote control, as is a TV, a lightbulb or anything else. They cannot have a patent on that.
It is incredible how the dragons didn't even ask for a patent document.
Yes of course you can just turn off at the mains, but these are great if you have a wall mounted TV with hidden wiring that may be a pain to keep switching on and off.
Also all the arguments of the unit cost are now defunct as they have a new standby saver compact model that can be purchased for only £5 from ebay!
So you will get your money back within 12 months if used everyday even if it only saves 1.5 pence per day!
For once that dreadful snapping turtle Debra actually invested in something...even if she was just going along for the ride. Does she EVER take initiative and attempt to invest in anything on her own or make the first offer? Or is she just there because the formula calls for one female on the panel who isn't appealing enough to upstage the men?
20W is very high for standby, I bet they chose that specific TV, the great majority are easily under 5W.
In fact our microwave uses 5W just to display the clock whereas the TV in the kitchen uses 1W on standby... (and yes we turn the microwave off at the socket).
@drsquirrel0 You're probably right about the 20W TV, but they had national statistics which made an equally compelling case and didn't rely on that one TV set. Hats off to them for doing so well in the den.
@sbowesuk They said something like £8 per month per household on standby.
Lets assume 5w, that is 3600Wh or 3.6kWh. which if you pay 10p a unit (which is still often over the high rate for eco7... in the day) is 36p a month.
Charging the little battery inside is less efficient than the tv itself being on standby... and TV makers are better these days at lowering the standby wattage.#
They are right that some devices are 100% on standby, I have one... it takes 6w standby and powered! :D
@KarlUKmidlands Energy in, Energy out... you won't get the same out of a battery that you put it. Also I have recently had a pair of 37" LCDs delivered that also measure 0W when idle ;) its been a long time coming since they did this. And like many other people I don't want DVR units to be turned off, Sky boxes take long enough to turn on from off :/ stupid Sky.
@drsquirrel0 I opened mine up and the battery is Tiny just 55ma it only needs to power the IR sensor and relay, the battery is about 30 time smaller capacity than a mobile phone battery and will only takes milliamps for a few minutes to charge, where if you have appliances on standby Sky Box 17watt, TV 5 watts, etc you are still saving money, it might not be a lot but its still worth the saving and the convinience of not having to go to the back of the TV when you go out or to bed!
@KarlUKmidlands I just tested the standby saver and it consumes 1 watt for itself, tested with a power meter.
So if you had it on for 10 hours every day for a year it would cost approx 40p a year. Whilst if just your Sky box is on standby using 17watts for say 10 hours a day it costs £6.12p in leccy so it's saving £5.72 a year in leccy if you just have a sky box plugged in most people will have multiple applicances so it definately saves money :)
This is bullshit... the reason why it has 0W when on standby is it has a small battery in it... this battery has to be charged so takes slightly more power once on.
Also when you consider the inefficiency of charging batteries... its actually worse than a standby unit that draws its power directly from the main source.
I could have 1 less shower a year and save enough power to leave my stuff on standby... or a few kettles with the minimum amount of water (yet people still boil way too much).
Hi everyone out there, I designed and built a multi-outlet intel power board that allows you to plug in any number of controlled items EACH BEING INDEPENDENTLY CONTROLLED without relying on the state of any other connected item (DVD VCR TV POWER AMPetc) you may turn on and off individually and even shut down all at once if required. There are no rechargeable batteries. My device Power Wizard also allows you to turn on to full power with a single press of the remote power button, it's IR and RF .
Did I hear correctly? They're charging a battery while the TV is running to run the standby function when the TV is off? How does that save any energy?
Some newer tv's by some manufacturers (think mainly Sony and Philips) allow you to switch of the whole set without it being in standby using the remote control, wonder if it's this guys that are the cause of that..
Kalinho83 4 months ago
Why was this so damn hard to find.
74dorset 5 months ago
My 1200 watt power supply is home on standby now. I just assumed It was not using any power.
spurrell 6 months ago
There should be a panel of knowledgeable people who challenge all the technical aspects of the pitch, including the money and patents.
There have been many times when the dragons get into an argument over the money details or a patent, simply because they are too stupid to work it out themselves (Duncan is not that bad - Debra is terrible). It really turns it into Trash TV when this happens.
There should a panel of logical but uncharismatic people who sort this out for them.
fmmjqtft1 7 months ago
Also, the 'invention' is having a rechargable battery that is charged when the TV is ON, and discharges when the TV is on standby, powering the electronics which recognise the 'standby' signal and cut the power to the TV.
Why not just power the microprocessor etc.. from the mains?!?! Using a rechargeable battery is a trick that makes the device appear to use no energy. It is a trick. There is no point in putting this in TVs.
It is appauling how incompetent these dragons are.
fmmjqtft1 7 months ago
The dragons have been tricked. These two people DO have a patent, but it is specifically on an external device which cuts the power to the TV when it recieves a "standby" signal.
They CANNOT 'build this into TVs', because they don't have a patent on simply 'not consuming power'. A computer is allowed to shutdown using a remote control, as is a TV, a lightbulb or anything else. They cannot have a patent on that.
It is incredible how the dragons didn't even ask for a patent document.
fmmjqtft1 7 months ago
Yes of course you can just turn off at the mains, but these are great if you have a wall mounted TV with hidden wiring that may be a pain to keep switching on and off.
Also all the arguments of the unit cost are now defunct as they have a new standby saver compact model that can be purchased for only £5 from ebay!
So you will get your money back within 12 months if used everyday even if it only saves 1.5 pence per day!
Another Great British Invention - Nice One Ecotek
KarlUKmidlands 8 months ago
Did Peter really not understand that per annum cost should not be compared to the cost of a product that is expected to be used for years?
mourantell 8 months ago
Comment removed
goth9ever 8 months ago
I think the real problem here is not with flat panel TV's, but with CRT's
agedude44 8 months ago
good idea shame everything didnt work out after the show
bluecupboardhere 9 months ago
Ugly pair of pricks
Pilkie101 10 months ago
last ten seconds - SLAMMED!
dilwich123 1 year ago
For once that dreadful snapping turtle Debra actually invested in something...even if she was just going along for the ride. Does she EVER take initiative and attempt to invest in anything on her own or make the first offer? Or is she just there because the formula calls for one female on the panel who isn't appealing enough to upstage the men?
thatreallycuteguy 1 year ago
20W is very high for standby, I bet they chose that specific TV, the great majority are easily under 5W.
In fact our microwave uses 5W just to display the clock whereas the TV in the kitchen uses 1W on standby... (and yes we turn the microwave off at the socket).
drsquirrel0 1 year ago
@drsquirrel0 You're probably right about the 20W TV, but they had national statistics which made an equally compelling case and didn't rely on that one TV set. Hats off to them for doing so well in the den.
sbowesuk 1 year ago
@sbowesuk They said something like £8 per month per household on standby.
Lets assume 5w, that is 3600Wh or 3.6kWh. which if you pay 10p a unit (which is still often over the high rate for eco7... in the day) is 36p a month.
Charging the little battery inside is less efficient than the tv itself being on standby... and TV makers are better these days at lowering the standby wattage.#
They are right that some devices are 100% on standby, I have one... it takes 6w standby and powered! :D
drsquirrel0 1 year ago
Comment removed
KarlUKmidlands 8 months ago
Charging the battery inside the unit is definately NOT less efficient.
The battery is only tiny and takes only milliwatts to charge that is negligable.
Where as an average persons TV or set top box will takes a few watts all night for hours when its on standby.
Also most people with have many things on standby at the same time eg TV, Set Top Box, PC
By installing this or by switching of at the mains you are saving many watts of power overall!
Checkout standby-saver.co.uk
KarlUKmidlands 8 months ago
@KarlUKmidlands Energy in, Energy out... you won't get the same out of a battery that you put it. Also I have recently had a pair of 37" LCDs delivered that also measure 0W when idle ;) its been a long time coming since they did this. And like many other people I don't want DVR units to be turned off, Sky boxes take long enough to turn on from off :/ stupid Sky.
drsquirrel0 7 months ago
@drsquirrel0 I opened mine up and the battery is Tiny just 55ma it only needs to power the IR sensor and relay, the battery is about 30 time smaller capacity than a mobile phone battery and will only takes milliamps for a few minutes to charge, where if you have appliances on standby Sky Box 17watt, TV 5 watts, etc you are still saving money, it might not be a lot but its still worth the saving and the convinience of not having to go to the back of the TV when you go out or to bed!
KarlUKmidlands 7 months ago
@KarlUKmidlands I just tested the standby saver and it consumes 1 watt for itself, tested with a power meter.
So if you had it on for 10 hours every day for a year it would cost approx 40p a year. Whilst if just your Sky box is on standby using 17watts for say 10 hours a day it costs £6.12p in leccy so it's saving £5.72 a year in leccy if you just have a sky box plugged in most people will have multiple applicances so it definately saves money :)
KarlUKmidlands 7 months ago
This is bullshit... the reason why it has 0W when on standby is it has a small battery in it... this battery has to be charged so takes slightly more power once on.
Also when you consider the inefficiency of charging batteries... its actually worse than a standby unit that draws its power directly from the main source.
I could have 1 less shower a year and save enough power to leave my stuff on standby... or a few kettles with the minimum amount of water (yet people still boil way too much).
drsquirrel0 1 year ago
Richard Farleigh is so freakin sexy!
LadyBowie30 1 year ago
@LadyBowie30 Lol, would you still think that if he was a bin-man? :P
sbowesuk 1 year ago
@sbowesuk
Yes I would.
LadyBowie30 1 year ago
I have a better idea. Turn of the TV without the remote. That's what I do. I just saved myself 20 pounds for every TV I have.
Visfen 1 year ago
@Visfen If you don't leave things on standby that's great, but let's face it when it comes to human laziness there's a huge market out there.
sbowesuk 1 year ago
@sbowesuk And would the lazy people buy and install this?
Visfen 1 year ago
The patent didnt stand up apparently and they had to sell the company for like 600k
25195287 1 year ago
genius
takewhole 1 year ago
They are gay Motherfuckers!!!
reconforsales 1 year ago
WTF 50%??
frayner06 1 year ago
@frayner06
5 dragons though....they will make millions no doubt. Better to have 50% of a lot rather than 100% little...
Satonamill 1 year ago
correct me if im wrong but he is a downs syndrome gentlemen isnt he?
666fannyfart 2 years ago
@666fannyfart I think his Dad had Down Syndrome. Thats why hes more or less a hybrid.
majortom321 1 year ago
Hi everyone out there, I designed and built a multi-outlet intel power board that allows you to plug in any number of controlled items EACH BEING INDEPENDENTLY CONTROLLED without relying on the state of any other connected item (DVD VCR TV POWER AMPetc) you may turn on and off individually and even shut down all at once if required. There are no rechargeable batteries. My device Power Wizard also allows you to turn on to full power with a single press of the remote power button, it's IR and RF .
ThePowerWizard 2 years ago
Bollocks !
666fannyfart 2 years ago
i dont see why you cant just turn off it at the mains, thats what i always do, its silly really
xaxie1 2 years ago 2
the answer to your question is so simple its silly really...."laziness"
Plutoniummatt 2 years ago 4
It's a shame they had to part with half the company. If I was a Dragon I'd have offered the ful amount for 35% of the patent on the technology.
LoafOfPint 2 years ago
It fell through because they couldn't agree on the patent. However those two guys found other investors and now say "I never have to work".
37uber 2 years ago
best invention on this programme. Fair play to them.
contactlewis 2 years ago 8
Did I hear correctly? They're charging a battery while the TV is running to run the standby function when the TV is off? How does that save any energy?
ralfcis 3 years ago
Good question - tbh the only energy that will be charging the battery is from a capacitor - but that isnt enough to charge a battery :P
I assume they dont mean you charge whilst the TV is powered
Moglinzard 3 years ago
The standby function in the unit does not use as much power.
standby-saver. com/product_details
"The unit consumes less than 1 Watt and therefore meets the requirements for power usage of the Energy Saving Trust approval scheme."
hitssquad 2 years ago