3 ms·
Very true - To be honest at the point I knew the house consumption and hadn't yet clamped individual devices I had expected to find a single culprit like that,
by iSloth 4y ago
Very true - To be honest at the point I knew the house consumption and hadn't yet clamped individual devices I had expected to find a single culprit like that, or even a faulty device with earth leakage that was affectively dumping the current for no real purpose.
I should have also pointed out, I really do wish more devices would have more physical power switches where it makes sense - As an example the washing machine has a touch sensitive main power button, yet our tumble dryer (same manufacture & design) has a more physical on/off switch - The former uses a decent amount of standby power, the second uses none, the only real purpose I see is a slightly more "premium" feel to the washing machine.
- verall 4y agoMains power switches are a wear item and can withstand like 10-100x less on/off cycles than a simple button that controls some 3.3V gpio on a microcontroller.
- lmt55 4y agoA cheap mains power switch from 30-40 years ago had no problem being cycled once or twice a day for 30-40 years without ever failing. This is not a binding constraint.
- verall 4y agoEither there's not alot of current going across that switch, or it's just a little lucky - just because that one is going strong doesn't mean over half of the same switch hasn't failed in the same application. Or, if it's really 40 years old, "cheap" could be "really fat and expensive" today. If you pick up an old "broken" power (audio) amp, the most likely reason for it to be broken is pots - switch - caps - FETs in that order.