This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Blackle article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article was nominated for deletion on 2 August 2007. The result of the discussion was keep. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Is it just me, or does the 'functionality' section seem to be copied word for word from the blog? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.120.117.119 ( talk) 02:57, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Much of the discussion about Blackle has centered on how to estimate the energy savings. (What size monitor, type of monitor, brightness/contrast settings, etc...) A simple energy conversion reveals that all of this is inconsequential. Use the original estimate: 750 MWhr per year. How much energy is this? It's the amount of electricity generated by a 500 MW power plant (an average coal plant) in about an hour and a half. That is the energy savings PER YEAR.
To convert these energy savings into something more concrete, convert 750 MWhr into the equivalents energy obtained from a barrel of oil, using the calculator found here. 750 MWhr is only 423 barrels of oil. Compare this to the BILLIONS of barrels of oil used every year, and it becomes clear that using Blackle is inconsequential. Who cares if the calculation is off by a factor of 10? Saving 40 or 4000 barrels of oil makes no difference compared to the billions of gallons of oil or the billions of gigawatt hours of electricity consumed each year.
I had to put these comments on the discussion page, because they are "original research" or whatever. However, these facts are more important than the garbage in any of the blogs the article links to. Please read the World energy resources and consumption page to see how inconsequential Backle really is. Feel free to include any of these number in the article if you know how to get them past the "original research" censors. Thanks!
(added heading)
This page is contradictory.
Robertson et al report a white background using only 2-3% more power than black.
In fact, in LCD monitors, power is required to turn pixels black (they are white, or rather clear by default), so using Blackle on such screens will actually increase power usage very slightly.
I'm not sure exactly what is required of the sources to avoid this deletion. There is currently a link to a US DOE website and to a paper from LBNL. I think both of these should be "reliable sources." They don't discuss Blackle though, just the general subject of power consumption in monitors. Does there need to be a specific reliable 3rd party source that mentions blackle? I guess so. A google search for "blackle" returns 800 000 hits. Obviously this isn't as good as adding some reliable source to the article, but might indicate something about notability.
As a side note, people seem to conclude that Blackle is useless or even increases energy consumption... but the original blog recognizes that this only works on CRTs and uses the CRT usage numbers in the calculation (apparently), after this they still come up with the energy savings. CRT use is apparently higher in developing areas of the world as well. Sewebster 19:58, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm the one who started this article , n i don't know why this article should be deleted! When i heard about Blackle I searched Wikipedia just to realize that the page was deleted! I had to search several pages of the web just to find out what all the huge fuss was about Blackle. So i thought that i'd just create a Wiki as a one stop option for others interested about Blackle. Isn't that what Wiki is supposed to be? To just have all the answers u r looking for in just 1 webpage. This single criterion should be enough to NOT DELETE this page. I further wish if we could relocate it to Blackle once that page has been unlocked. Mac v 17:35, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm very sorry, but I'm going to have to remove the sub-sections about the different types of monitor displays. Although they are very interesting, they can't stay in this article. Some of the info in these sub-sections belongs on articles about those display types. The rest is original research synthesis, meaning that different factual sources have been drawn on to forge well cited, but still original research, commentary on the subject in hand. In short, it fails WP:SYNTH. — gorgan_almighty 10:38, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
We appear to have had a couple of accidental edit conflicts, because we were both editing the page at the same time. Normally I would try to restore the changes you made to the article, but I didn't in this case because I didn't agree with them. In particular, why did you put a {{ neutrality}} tag into the criticism section? I know the old criticism section had one, but I've completely re-written it now, and I don't think there are any neutrality issues. On a separate note, I've finished making all the edits I was going to make for now. — gorgan_almighty 12:39, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
If there is no more discussion on these items, I am going to change the criticism phrasing to "found that the average power saving was lower than previously published studies and in a narrower range" and add cites. Also I will change the LCD part from "showed no power saving" to "showed increased power use"
also, add a sentence to the beginning 'who claim that certain types of computer monitors save substantial energy when displaying black as a background color." add "studies have verified the claim for CRT monitors, and are inconclusive for LCD monitors" and cite Roberson and Techlog.
also, add back in the alternative sites back in ala CSR asia
also, remove the neutrality
also, Ill write texasandroid and get Blackle unprotected. I'll do this tomorrow. please speak now if you have further comments. MyTigers 01:21, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Adding this off line chat to the discussion
The information I added comes from reliable secondary sources (citations given), and is not equivalent to synthesised original research statements. I am working hard to try to phrase your changes in a way that will be acceptable. Please be patient. — gorgan_almighty 13:38, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
What I believe has transpired is that some lcd screens dim the backlight when there is a lot of black on the screen, so black saves energy over white. There were problems with contrast and brightness doing that, so many manufacturers stopped doing that since 2002. If you want to say techlogg tested 4 lcd monitors and they used more power displaying black and not reference Roberson, that's ok by me. But the blanket statement that all lcd monitors from all manufacturers use more energy displaying a black screen than a white screen is not proven and should not be construed a such.
The main criticism is that Blackle doesnt say that the savings are minimal using lcd screens, thats the legitmate criticism. When you get a chance, can you comment of the blackle discussion to finish the edits. MyTigers 18:11, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Should we mention the benefit done to the eyes by reading from a black background. Maddoxx from the Best Website in the Universe mentions that he has a black background on his site for this reason. He claims that monitors are not pieces of paper even though we'd like to think they are and making the background white is like making it a light bulb. Thus, sitting for hours staring at the monitor is equivalent to staring at a light bulb. I use Blackle for this reason. I find it's much easier on the eyes. Any thoughts on this? Should it be mentioned in the article? Jstanierm 01:10, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
One need to also consider if Blackle.com is helping save energy by spreading the word. After all there own website states that it urges people to use it as the home page to remind us that we need to save energy. potentially the energy saved thanks to that "guilt" factor is much more than can ever be saved by black screens.
But this is beyond Original Research .. its just a hypothesis. Is there a wikipedia template to tell people that this article is subject to current and ongoing original research that might still be unpublished but might be reported in the talk page?
-- Inkiwna 15:01, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Has anyone tried doing searches for "Wikipedia" on both Google and Blackle?
Blackle does indeed seem to promote "environmentally friendly" web pages before other. Blackle global warming, and at least five advertisements will come up. Left long enough, the page will change to the first advert result.-- 68.193.163.234 ( talk) 00:07, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Blackle uses google custom search, which allows an adsense publisher to specify 'keywords' that bias the search in some direction. For example, a google custom search box on a maths website and one on a fishing website might give totally different results for "lines". I can only assume Heap Media has used this feature to bias search results towards environmental issues. mike40033 ( talk) 02:38, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
gorgan_almighty said: "Removed unverified claims. Claims like that MUST be cited, or not made at all"
MyTigers said :"disagree, this is worthy. I was skeptical as well, but this is true and notable."
I'm afraid that paragraph is more than just uncited criticism. Unless someone can find a reliable source to back it up, it's an unfounded accusation of corruption, which amounts to liable. We need to be very careful about accusations like that, so true or not, it should be removed until a reliable source can be found to back it up. — gorgan_almighty 16:49, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
I've added neutrality. If this is the case, the entire functionality section must be removed as unverifiable. Take "The iGoogle feature is also lacking in Blackle." for example. There is no documentation of this claim, but inspection of the site will show that it is valid. Obviously, inherent factual content about the topic should remain, and content should no be selectively pruned . MyTigers 11:49, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
What to do about links to other sites that are related? I have been deleting these but they keep popping up. How about another page of links, or a parent article. Pretty sure they don't belong here. MyTigers 21:41, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Broken link report: the external link to US Department of Energy (www.microtech.doe.gov/energy star/info.htm#display) is broken, as of this date, Nov 9, 2008. Here is a link to the current USDOE discussion of Energy Star monitors and power consumption: http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?fuseaction=find_a_product.showProductGroup&pgw_code=MO. Related to the subject of power consumption by computing machinery in general is this link to the US Energy Star web site, for a discussion and links to resources for managing power consumption across an enterprise: http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=power_mgt.pr_power_mgt_implementation_res#tech_assistance. After attempting to follow the broken link to microtech.doe.gov, my ISP offered a suggestion page, containing this link: http://www.freedownloadmanager.org/downloads/doe_software/, which provides a link for a freeware wizard, released in 2001, to make it convenient to manage your power settings. The freedownloadmanager page contains a link to the www.microtech.doe.gov site, but following the link leads to another page on the freedownloadmanager site. Although a discussion of power management is not directly related to a discussion of how various display technologies consume power, it is related to the overarching subject of power consumption by computing machinery, and thus perhaps deserves a place in an "external link". 98.144.13.252 ( talk) 22:11, 9 November 2008 (UTC)David Hewitt
This reminds me of a Toyota Prius. -- Boogster Go! 00:21, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
I think this should be moved to simply "Blackle". jj137 ♠ Talk 01:39, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
The first paragraph is lacking description and has misleading information. The website is powered by Google Custom Search. It is not developed by Heap Media as the article claims, the code has been written by Google. Blackle simply provides the domain name. I also added a summary that described the principle of the website, as per Wikipedia:Layout#First_paragraph, but it has been reverted -- Nezek ( talk) 22:44, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
I went ahead and removed the functionallity section. It had no citation and looked a lot like WP:OR, and also wasn't relevant or notable to this article specifically as it addressed issues of all google custom searches. In case you want to add it to the appropriate article, you can view in this diff [1] -- Nezek ( talk) 01:37, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackle.com#Criticism
"The Climate Savers Computing Initiative, a consortium of large software and hardware vendors, that promotes efficient computing on a large scale, forecasted a power saving of only 10,000 Megawatts by 2010. [6]"
[1] "Pat Gelsinger, Senior Vice President and General Manager of Intel's Digital Enterprise Group added, 'By 2010, the Climate Savers Computing Initiative will cut greenhouse gas emissions in an amount equal to removing more than 11 million cars from the road or shutting down 20 500-megawatt coal-fired power plants -- a significant step in reducing the emissions affecting our planet..."
It seems there was a misinterpretation--the source says that Pat Gelsinger was the one who forcasted the power saving, and no such criticism of blackle.com, as implied in the wikipedia article, was made. So I'm going to go ahead and remove that part of the subtopic. I hope that's alright with everybody.
Also, keep in mind the difference between power and energy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watt#Confusion_of_watts_and_watt-hours
SkpVwls ( talk) 18:46, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Is black the new green? is a nice source for criticisms of blackle.com, if anyone would like to add more to this subtopic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SkpVwls ( talk • contribs) 19:30, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
References
Is it my imagination, or does this page attract an above-average amount of vandalism? It seems that every second time I check my watchlist, someone's added some over-the-top praise or completely false claims about Blackle. What gives?? mike40033 ( talk) 05:24, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
I do not agree -- Aaron Justin Giebel ( talk) 22:18, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
There are others sites like this bpled.com "black google" don't they deserve a mention? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.36.172.44 ( talk) 13:26, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
No. I is no longer a website [1] -- Aaron Justin Giebel ( talk) 22:20, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
References
I totally dispute the claims made in this article. Whilst I do not dispute that Blackle have made the claims that they have, they are totally false because Blackle have overlooked something.
I have no doubt that Blackle have assumed that a CRT based computer monitor based on an average sized delta-gun tube has a total beam current of about 1 mA. At 25,000 volts, that is 25 watts of power being delivered by the EHT supply. Blackle have doubtless assumed that for a black picture, where the guns are cut off, the tube consumes zero power. Factor the saving downward slightly to account for the fact that some visible picture must be present, multiply by the number of monitors and time and you have the alleged energy saving.
Unfortunately, it's a myth. What has been overlooked is that colour display tubes have to be supplied from a stabilised EHT supply (otherwise the picture would get smaller as the brightness reduces). That stabilisation is invariably from a shunt stabilised supply (because historically, the stabiliser tube could be controlled using a relatively low voltage of about 30-40 volts). More modern monitors use a tripler circuit to supply the EHT, but this too contains a shunt connected voltage dependant resistor to stabilise the supply. The principle of operation of a shunt stabiliser is that any current that does not flow through the CRT flows through the stabiliser instead, keeping the EHT voltage practically constant. Thus: as the beam current reduces (as the overall picture gets darker), the stabiliser current rises to keep the EHT current constant (and hence power and energy).
If the CRT is displaying a black picture, it dissipates little or no power. But the stabiliser element is now dissipating the entire 25 watts that Blackle though they were saving and that is the power being delivered by the EHT circuit regardless of the displayed brightness. The energy saving is therefore zero.
There is no saving for an LCD monitor either because the backlight tube (or LEDs) emit the same amount of light regardless of what is displayed. 86.149.142.3 ( talk) 17:32, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
We specificly mention that they "claimed" to have saved that power. We are not endorsing the claim. Aaron Justin Giebel ( talk) 22:21, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Blackle article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article was nominated for deletion on 2 August 2007. The result of the discussion was keep. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Is it just me, or does the 'functionality' section seem to be copied word for word from the blog? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.120.117.119 ( talk) 02:57, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Much of the discussion about Blackle has centered on how to estimate the energy savings. (What size monitor, type of monitor, brightness/contrast settings, etc...) A simple energy conversion reveals that all of this is inconsequential. Use the original estimate: 750 MWhr per year. How much energy is this? It's the amount of electricity generated by a 500 MW power plant (an average coal plant) in about an hour and a half. That is the energy savings PER YEAR.
To convert these energy savings into something more concrete, convert 750 MWhr into the equivalents energy obtained from a barrel of oil, using the calculator found here. 750 MWhr is only 423 barrels of oil. Compare this to the BILLIONS of barrels of oil used every year, and it becomes clear that using Blackle is inconsequential. Who cares if the calculation is off by a factor of 10? Saving 40 or 4000 barrels of oil makes no difference compared to the billions of gallons of oil or the billions of gigawatt hours of electricity consumed each year.
I had to put these comments on the discussion page, because they are "original research" or whatever. However, these facts are more important than the garbage in any of the blogs the article links to. Please read the World energy resources and consumption page to see how inconsequential Backle really is. Feel free to include any of these number in the article if you know how to get them past the "original research" censors. Thanks!
(added heading)
This page is contradictory.
Robertson et al report a white background using only 2-3% more power than black.
In fact, in LCD monitors, power is required to turn pixels black (they are white, or rather clear by default), so using Blackle on such screens will actually increase power usage very slightly.
I'm not sure exactly what is required of the sources to avoid this deletion. There is currently a link to a US DOE website and to a paper from LBNL. I think both of these should be "reliable sources." They don't discuss Blackle though, just the general subject of power consumption in monitors. Does there need to be a specific reliable 3rd party source that mentions blackle? I guess so. A google search for "blackle" returns 800 000 hits. Obviously this isn't as good as adding some reliable source to the article, but might indicate something about notability.
As a side note, people seem to conclude that Blackle is useless or even increases energy consumption... but the original blog recognizes that this only works on CRTs and uses the CRT usage numbers in the calculation (apparently), after this they still come up with the energy savings. CRT use is apparently higher in developing areas of the world as well. Sewebster 19:58, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm the one who started this article , n i don't know why this article should be deleted! When i heard about Blackle I searched Wikipedia just to realize that the page was deleted! I had to search several pages of the web just to find out what all the huge fuss was about Blackle. So i thought that i'd just create a Wiki as a one stop option for others interested about Blackle. Isn't that what Wiki is supposed to be? To just have all the answers u r looking for in just 1 webpage. This single criterion should be enough to NOT DELETE this page. I further wish if we could relocate it to Blackle once that page has been unlocked. Mac v 17:35, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm very sorry, but I'm going to have to remove the sub-sections about the different types of monitor displays. Although they are very interesting, they can't stay in this article. Some of the info in these sub-sections belongs on articles about those display types. The rest is original research synthesis, meaning that different factual sources have been drawn on to forge well cited, but still original research, commentary on the subject in hand. In short, it fails WP:SYNTH. — gorgan_almighty 10:38, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
We appear to have had a couple of accidental edit conflicts, because we were both editing the page at the same time. Normally I would try to restore the changes you made to the article, but I didn't in this case because I didn't agree with them. In particular, why did you put a {{ neutrality}} tag into the criticism section? I know the old criticism section had one, but I've completely re-written it now, and I don't think there are any neutrality issues. On a separate note, I've finished making all the edits I was going to make for now. — gorgan_almighty 12:39, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
If there is no more discussion on these items, I am going to change the criticism phrasing to "found that the average power saving was lower than previously published studies and in a narrower range" and add cites. Also I will change the LCD part from "showed no power saving" to "showed increased power use"
also, add a sentence to the beginning 'who claim that certain types of computer monitors save substantial energy when displaying black as a background color." add "studies have verified the claim for CRT monitors, and are inconclusive for LCD monitors" and cite Roberson and Techlog.
also, add back in the alternative sites back in ala CSR asia
also, remove the neutrality
also, Ill write texasandroid and get Blackle unprotected. I'll do this tomorrow. please speak now if you have further comments. MyTigers 01:21, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Adding this off line chat to the discussion
The information I added comes from reliable secondary sources (citations given), and is not equivalent to synthesised original research statements. I am working hard to try to phrase your changes in a way that will be acceptable. Please be patient. — gorgan_almighty 13:38, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
What I believe has transpired is that some lcd screens dim the backlight when there is a lot of black on the screen, so black saves energy over white. There were problems with contrast and brightness doing that, so many manufacturers stopped doing that since 2002. If you want to say techlogg tested 4 lcd monitors and they used more power displaying black and not reference Roberson, that's ok by me. But the blanket statement that all lcd monitors from all manufacturers use more energy displaying a black screen than a white screen is not proven and should not be construed a such.
The main criticism is that Blackle doesnt say that the savings are minimal using lcd screens, thats the legitmate criticism. When you get a chance, can you comment of the blackle discussion to finish the edits. MyTigers 18:11, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Should we mention the benefit done to the eyes by reading from a black background. Maddoxx from the Best Website in the Universe mentions that he has a black background on his site for this reason. He claims that monitors are not pieces of paper even though we'd like to think they are and making the background white is like making it a light bulb. Thus, sitting for hours staring at the monitor is equivalent to staring at a light bulb. I use Blackle for this reason. I find it's much easier on the eyes. Any thoughts on this? Should it be mentioned in the article? Jstanierm 01:10, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
One need to also consider if Blackle.com is helping save energy by spreading the word. After all there own website states that it urges people to use it as the home page to remind us that we need to save energy. potentially the energy saved thanks to that "guilt" factor is much more than can ever be saved by black screens.
But this is beyond Original Research .. its just a hypothesis. Is there a wikipedia template to tell people that this article is subject to current and ongoing original research that might still be unpublished but might be reported in the talk page?
-- Inkiwna 15:01, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Has anyone tried doing searches for "Wikipedia" on both Google and Blackle?
Blackle does indeed seem to promote "environmentally friendly" web pages before other. Blackle global warming, and at least five advertisements will come up. Left long enough, the page will change to the first advert result.-- 68.193.163.234 ( talk) 00:07, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Blackle uses google custom search, which allows an adsense publisher to specify 'keywords' that bias the search in some direction. For example, a google custom search box on a maths website and one on a fishing website might give totally different results for "lines". I can only assume Heap Media has used this feature to bias search results towards environmental issues. mike40033 ( talk) 02:38, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
gorgan_almighty said: "Removed unverified claims. Claims like that MUST be cited, or not made at all"
MyTigers said :"disagree, this is worthy. I was skeptical as well, but this is true and notable."
I'm afraid that paragraph is more than just uncited criticism. Unless someone can find a reliable source to back it up, it's an unfounded accusation of corruption, which amounts to liable. We need to be very careful about accusations like that, so true or not, it should be removed until a reliable source can be found to back it up. — gorgan_almighty 16:49, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
I've added neutrality. If this is the case, the entire functionality section must be removed as unverifiable. Take "The iGoogle feature is also lacking in Blackle." for example. There is no documentation of this claim, but inspection of the site will show that it is valid. Obviously, inherent factual content about the topic should remain, and content should no be selectively pruned . MyTigers 11:49, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
What to do about links to other sites that are related? I have been deleting these but they keep popping up. How about another page of links, or a parent article. Pretty sure they don't belong here. MyTigers 21:41, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Broken link report: the external link to US Department of Energy (www.microtech.doe.gov/energy star/info.htm#display) is broken, as of this date, Nov 9, 2008. Here is a link to the current USDOE discussion of Energy Star monitors and power consumption: http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?fuseaction=find_a_product.showProductGroup&pgw_code=MO. Related to the subject of power consumption by computing machinery in general is this link to the US Energy Star web site, for a discussion and links to resources for managing power consumption across an enterprise: http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=power_mgt.pr_power_mgt_implementation_res#tech_assistance. After attempting to follow the broken link to microtech.doe.gov, my ISP offered a suggestion page, containing this link: http://www.freedownloadmanager.org/downloads/doe_software/, which provides a link for a freeware wizard, released in 2001, to make it convenient to manage your power settings. The freedownloadmanager page contains a link to the www.microtech.doe.gov site, but following the link leads to another page on the freedownloadmanager site. Although a discussion of power management is not directly related to a discussion of how various display technologies consume power, it is related to the overarching subject of power consumption by computing machinery, and thus perhaps deserves a place in an "external link". 98.144.13.252 ( talk) 22:11, 9 November 2008 (UTC)David Hewitt
This reminds me of a Toyota Prius. -- Boogster Go! 00:21, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
I think this should be moved to simply "Blackle". jj137 ♠ Talk 01:39, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
The first paragraph is lacking description and has misleading information. The website is powered by Google Custom Search. It is not developed by Heap Media as the article claims, the code has been written by Google. Blackle simply provides the domain name. I also added a summary that described the principle of the website, as per Wikipedia:Layout#First_paragraph, but it has been reverted -- Nezek ( talk) 22:44, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
I went ahead and removed the functionallity section. It had no citation and looked a lot like WP:OR, and also wasn't relevant or notable to this article specifically as it addressed issues of all google custom searches. In case you want to add it to the appropriate article, you can view in this diff [1] -- Nezek ( talk) 01:37, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackle.com#Criticism
"The Climate Savers Computing Initiative, a consortium of large software and hardware vendors, that promotes efficient computing on a large scale, forecasted a power saving of only 10,000 Megawatts by 2010. [6]"
[1] "Pat Gelsinger, Senior Vice President and General Manager of Intel's Digital Enterprise Group added, 'By 2010, the Climate Savers Computing Initiative will cut greenhouse gas emissions in an amount equal to removing more than 11 million cars from the road or shutting down 20 500-megawatt coal-fired power plants -- a significant step in reducing the emissions affecting our planet..."
It seems there was a misinterpretation--the source says that Pat Gelsinger was the one who forcasted the power saving, and no such criticism of blackle.com, as implied in the wikipedia article, was made. So I'm going to go ahead and remove that part of the subtopic. I hope that's alright with everybody.
Also, keep in mind the difference between power and energy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watt#Confusion_of_watts_and_watt-hours
SkpVwls ( talk) 18:46, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Is black the new green? is a nice source for criticisms of blackle.com, if anyone would like to add more to this subtopic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SkpVwls ( talk • contribs) 19:30, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
References
Is it my imagination, or does this page attract an above-average amount of vandalism? It seems that every second time I check my watchlist, someone's added some over-the-top praise or completely false claims about Blackle. What gives?? mike40033 ( talk) 05:24, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
I do not agree -- Aaron Justin Giebel ( talk) 22:18, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
There are others sites like this bpled.com "black google" don't they deserve a mention? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.36.172.44 ( talk) 13:26, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
No. I is no longer a website [1] -- Aaron Justin Giebel ( talk) 22:20, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
References
I totally dispute the claims made in this article. Whilst I do not dispute that Blackle have made the claims that they have, they are totally false because Blackle have overlooked something.
I have no doubt that Blackle have assumed that a CRT based computer monitor based on an average sized delta-gun tube has a total beam current of about 1 mA. At 25,000 volts, that is 25 watts of power being delivered by the EHT supply. Blackle have doubtless assumed that for a black picture, where the guns are cut off, the tube consumes zero power. Factor the saving downward slightly to account for the fact that some visible picture must be present, multiply by the number of monitors and time and you have the alleged energy saving.
Unfortunately, it's a myth. What has been overlooked is that colour display tubes have to be supplied from a stabilised EHT supply (otherwise the picture would get smaller as the brightness reduces). That stabilisation is invariably from a shunt stabilised supply (because historically, the stabiliser tube could be controlled using a relatively low voltage of about 30-40 volts). More modern monitors use a tripler circuit to supply the EHT, but this too contains a shunt connected voltage dependant resistor to stabilise the supply. The principle of operation of a shunt stabiliser is that any current that does not flow through the CRT flows through the stabiliser instead, keeping the EHT voltage practically constant. Thus: as the beam current reduces (as the overall picture gets darker), the stabiliser current rises to keep the EHT current constant (and hence power and energy).
If the CRT is displaying a black picture, it dissipates little or no power. But the stabiliser element is now dissipating the entire 25 watts that Blackle though they were saving and that is the power being delivered by the EHT circuit regardless of the displayed brightness. The energy saving is therefore zero.
There is no saving for an LCD monitor either because the backlight tube (or LEDs) emit the same amount of light regardless of what is displayed. 86.149.142.3 ( talk) 17:32, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
We specificly mention that they "claimed" to have saved that power. We are not endorsing the claim. Aaron Justin Giebel ( talk) 22:21, 27 September 2019 (UTC)