Proper (ab)use of UPS

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

Hi,

I'm told from several sources/friends not to connect some appliances to the
UPS, like printers, but not provide some explanations. So, what kind of
appliances I couldn't connect to the UPS? Can I connect, say, my TV,
DVDPlayer, stereo systems, etc. And why?

TIA

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

On 17 Jun 2005 02:40:09 GMT, Ricky Romaya
<something@somewhere.com> wrote:

>Hi,
>
>I'm told from several sources/friends not to connect some appliances to the
>UPS, like printers, but not provide some explanations.

Some, like lasers that pre-heat a lamp, simply have very
high peak current draw. Any device with high current
potential should not be connected to (any UPS not capable of
this event, the additive current of all devices it could
possibly see).


>So, what kind of
>appliances I couldn't connect to the UPS? Can I connect, say, my TV,
>DVDPlayer, stereo systems, etc. And why?

Depends on the UPS, IT'S current capability, for peak as
well as sustained current. Kinda silly to connect things
that don't NEED to stay up during an outtage, IMO, and if
you have frequent outtages, completely draining the battery
gets pretty expensive.

If you don't know the average or peak current of a piece of
gear, you're facing an uphill battle- will need do a lot of
research. Offhand, a TV depends on size but may draw a
couple amps, a DVD player, under 0.4A, a stereo can vary a
lot depending on size, type, and loudness, crude guess would
be an amp in typical light use, or a little less.

A modern computer can drain a (typical consumer grade) UPS
fairly quickly, most people would likely want it powering
only manditory gear as long as possible (read: needed).
Keep in mind that attaching UPS to everything in sight means
replacing all those batteries every 3-5 years too, even if
they're seldom used... shelf life still degrades their
capacity.

 

[Clyde]

Archived from groups: comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

Ricky Romaya wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm told from several sources/friends not to connect some appliances to the
> UPS, like printers, but not provide some explanations. So, what kind of
> appliances I couldn't connect to the UPS? Can I connect, say, my TV,
> DVDPlayer, stereo systems, etc. And why?
>
> TIA

I always thought that the reason you wouldn't plug a printer into a UPS
is that it doesn't need it. If the power goes off you will not lose
anything or damage anything in the printer. Generally you want to plug
in only computer equipment that needs a shutdown procedure or that
really needs protection from spikes. Most UPS devices have plugs that
will protect from spikes that are not on the battery. That would be good
for the printer and most of your equipment. Generally I just have my
computer, my monitor, and my network devices plugged into the battery.

My Epson printer is supposed to be shutdown with a button and not by
unplugging, but this is a procedure to preserve the ink from drying out.
A few minutes shutdown with the power off does not affect it.

Thanks,
Clyde

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

kony,
I totally agree with your post you're very good at anything I've seen you discuss so far!

However, I just don't get why laser printers use up so much power, I always thought they were
more efficient in every way than inkjets...

And how long would it take an average laser (like a Samsung ML-1210) to pre-heat the lamp?

And how much power does it take to do that?

And once the lamp's warm, does the laser then use much more power than an inkjet?

Once again, please answer these questions, because they really confuse me as to how much more
efficient a laser printer is (and why?, and even more important question).

Hope to hear from you soon, and keep up the good work kony!!!

Cool_X


kony wrote:
> On 17 Jun 2005 02:40:09 GMT, Ricky Romaya
> <something@somewhere.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Hi,
>>
>>I'm told from several sources/friends not to connect some appliances to the
>>UPS, like printers, but not provide some explanations.
>
>
> Some, like lasers that pre-heat a lamp, simply have very
> high peak current draw. Any device with high current
> potential should not be connected to (any UPS not capable of
> this event, the additive current of all devices it could
> possibly see).
>
>
>
>>So, what kind of
>>appliances I couldn't connect to the UPS? Can I connect, say, my TV,
>>DVDPlayer, stereo systems, etc. And why?
>
>
> Depends on the UPS, IT'S current capability, for peak as
> well as sustained current. Kinda silly to connect things
> that don't NEED to stay up during an outtage, IMO, and if
> you have frequent outtages, completely draining the battery
> gets pretty expensive.
>
> If you don't know the average or peak current of a piece of
> gear, you're facing an uphill battle- will need do a lot of
> research. Offhand, a TV depends on size but may draw a
> couple amps, a DVD player, under 0.4A, a stereo can vary a
> lot depending on size, type, and loudness, crude guess would
> be an amp in typical light use, or a little less.
>
> A modern computer can drain a (typical consumer grade) UPS
> fairly quickly, most people would likely want it powering
> only manditory gear as long as possible (read: needed).
> Keep in mind that attaching UPS to everything in sight means
> replacing all those batteries every 3-5 years too, even if
> they're seldom used... shelf life still degrades their
> capacity.
>

 

[Stephen]

Archived from groups: comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

On Fri, 17 Jun 2005 15:25:03 GMT, Cool_X <cool_x_usenetNOSPAM@shaw.ca>
had a flock of green cheek conures squawk out:

>
>However, I just don't get why laser printers use up so much power, I always thought they were
>more efficient in every way than inkjets...

In the standby mode, the fuser and other sections of the printer are
turned off. The fuser needs a lot of current to heat up the rollers
quickly and to maintain the temperature.


--

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

On Fri, 17 Jun 2005 15:25:03 GMT, Cool_X
<cool_x_usenetNOSPAM@shaw.ca> wrote:

>kony,
>I totally agree with your post you're very good at anything I've seen you discuss so far!
>
>However, I just don't get why laser printers use up so much power, I always thought they were
>more efficient in every way than inkjets...

No lasers in their sleep modes may use fairly low power but
during printing use at least as much as inkjets- though it
would depend on the particular printer, on average a laser
is a larger printer.

The other difference is that lasers often have a far more
sophisticated onboard processor and memory, that in itself
uses a (non-trivial) amount of power. All of this is still
relatively minor compared to heated up the fuser, which may
easily use 5A or more. Some people note the lights in their
room dim when their laser heats the fuser. One of the more
popular methods of fuser heating is a long thin halogen bulb
rated for 500W or more- but again depends on the size of the
printer, a larger printer with larger drum will need more
heating but will typically curl pages less.


>
>And how long would it take an average laser (like a Samsung ML-1210) to pre-heat the lamp?

I"d cal that a pretty low-end printer, not average for a
laser, but perhaps typical budget consumer printer. Length
of time isn't very long a few seconds but I don't have the
ML-1210, I can't time it for you. A good clue is the "time
to first page" spec for a printer, take that and subtract a
small % of the time to end up with heating time.


>
>And how much power does it take to do that?
>
>And once the lamp's warm, does the laser then use much more power than an inkjet?

The lamp has to be kept warm when it continues to print.
Some, until they go into sleep mode, will periodically
reheat the fuser over and over- though I believe newer
lasers are better in this regard, conserving a little more
power but I dont' have any comparison numbers, do not
benchmark laser current draws and don't put mine on an UPS.
Then again, the ones I use most are old as the hills, they
just won't die so they get used for most text (IBM/Lexmark
4039 & HP Laserjet III, both with over 200,000 pages- lost
track a few years back). It gets really cheap to run a
laser if you just buy bulk toner and only need text, so you
don't even have to be very picky about the toner unlike some
newer cheap lasers, which IIRC, may need lower-temp toner
(no proof, just a vague recollection of this).


>
>Once again, please answer these questions, because they really confuse me as to how much more
>efficient a laser printer is (and why?, and even more important question).

They aren't more efficient power-wise. They're faster, and
cheaper over the long haul, and you dont' have to fool with
dry carts or clogged inkjets.

I'd expect all of them to be too power hungry for a typical
1000VA or lower UPS combined with a modern system and CRT.
If you dont' use a CRT monitor then you might be able to run
a small laser on a larger UPS, but it's still not something
I'd advise when it can be avoided. Many lasers do list
their current requirements so if you have that need you can
proceed from there sizing an ups for it. Large UPS get
really expensive though, might be cheaper to just buy an
inkjet if you anticipate regularly needing to print during
power outtages.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

kony,
Thanks so much for your continued time spent helping me, you are a TRUE EXPERT. And on that
note, how did you learn everything you're an expert on regarding computers? Master's degree in
computer engineering???

I still have a few more questions:

1. About my Samsung ML1210, that was bought years ago brand new, so I definitely don't think
it was a low-end printer then...At the time it was bought, it cost $321 CDN...Sorry that wasn't
a question, just a clarification...(and BTW, I gave it as an example not b/c it was a current
printer, but b/c its was the only one I ever owned - but I don't own it anymore...)

2. You said:

"A good clue is the "time to first page" spec for a printer, take that and subtract a small %
of the time to end up with heating time."

I disagree with that b/c even after a few seconds after the lamp had completely warmed up (a
first print job), the data going over USB to the printer took quite a few seconds before the
printer actually started printing (the second print job, done a few seconds after the first).
My point is that data transfer (here over USB, probably MUCH worse for parallel, although
PLEASE let me know about THAT TOO) from the computer to the printer's buffer RAM takes quite a
few seconds, which I don't think you took into consideration (And BTW, it wasn't an ancient
system either - it was a Compaq Evo N600c laptop with a P3 1.2GHz and 256 MB PC 133 SDRAM, 30
GB HD (probably 5400 RPM))

3. Sorry for a silly question, but I don't speak Usenet very well. Can you quickly tell me
what IIRC meant (I think it's something to do with the first person's recollection).

4. You said:

"They aren't more efficient power-wise. They're faster, and cheaper over the long haul, and
you dont' have to fool with dry carts or clogged inkjets."

Can you give me an average percentage for all lasers vs. similar inkjets as to how much more
power a laser uses in comparison?

5. Continuing #4, does that percentage change when comparing low, middle, high, and
professional lasers vs. similar inkjets (BTW, I'm trying my hardest to compare apples to apples
like you)

6. If it does, than can you give me the average percentage for the class of printers (laser
and inkjet - categories described in #5), for those categories (see brackets in this question #6)?

The rest of your post I fully understand and agree with (BTW, I read an APC manual that said
not to connect any laser to a UPS less than 1400 VA, but this was a manual for a big SmartUPS
less than 1400VA (APC's professional UPSs) - just so you know the exact figure quoted by a
reputable manufacturer IMO!)

7. BTW, in your opinion, who makes the best UPSs (consumer and business/professional). I
haven't heard of any better OEM than APC...(who also resells through retail, as everyone should
know)

Thanks once again for all of your priceless advice and expertise (as well as accurately reading
everything I post), and please let me know about these questions (once again).

Cool_X

kony wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Jun 2005 15:25:03 GMT, Cool_X
> <cool_x_usenetNOSPAM@shaw.ca> wrote:
>
>
>>kony,
>>I totally agree with your post you're very good at anything I've seen you discuss so far!
>>
>>However, I just don't get why laser printers use up so much power, I always thought they were
>>more efficient in every way than inkjets...
>
>
> No lasers in their sleep modes may use fairly low power but
> during printing use at least as much as inkjets- though it
> would depend on the particular printer, on average a laser
> is a larger printer.
>
> The other difference is that lasers often have a far more
> sophisticated onboard processor and memory, that in itself
> uses a (non-trivial) amount of power. All of this is still
> relatively minor compared to heated up the fuser, which may
> easily use 5A or more. Some people note the lights in their
> room dim when their laser heats the fuser. One of the more
> popular methods of fuser heating is a long thin halogen bulb
> rated for 500W or more- but again depends on the size of the
> printer, a larger printer with larger drum will need more
> heating but will typically curl pages less.
>
>
>
>>And how long would it take an average laser (like a Samsung ML-1210) to pre-heat the lamp?
>
>
> I"d cal that a pretty low-end printer, not average for a
> laser, but perhaps typical budget consumer printer. Length
> of time isn't very long a few seconds but I don't have the
> ML-1210, I can't time it for you. A good clue is the "time
> to first page" spec for a printer, take that and subtract a
> small % of the time to end up with heating time.
>
>
>
>>And how much power does it take to do that?
>>
>>And once the lamp's warm, does the laser then use much more power than an inkjet?
>
>
> The lamp has to be kept warm when it continues to print.
> Some, until they go into sleep mode, will periodically
> reheat the fuser over and over- though I believe newer
> lasers are better in this regard, conserving a little more
> power but I dont' have any comparison numbers, do not
> benchmark laser current draws and don't put mine on an UPS.
> Then again, the ones I use most are old as the hills, they
> just won't die so they get used for most text (IBM/Lexmark
> 4039 & HP Laserjet III, both with over 200,000 pages- lost
> track a few years back). It gets really cheap to run a
> laser if you just buy bulk toner and only need text, so you
> don't even have to be very picky about the toner unlike some
> newer cheap lasers, which IIRC, may need lower-temp toner
> (no proof, just a vague recollection of this).
>
>
>
>>Once again, please answer these questions, because they really confuse me as to how much more
>>efficient a laser printer is (and why?, and even more important question).
>
>
> They aren't more efficient power-wise. They're faster, and
> cheaper over the long haul, and you dont' have to fool with
> dry carts or clogged inkjets.
>
> I'd expect all of them to be too power hungry for a typical
> 1000VA or lower UPS combined with a modern system and CRT.
> If you dont' use a CRT monitor then you might be able to run
> a small laser on a larger UPS, but it's still not something
> I'd advise when it can be avoided. Many lasers do list
> their current requirements so if you have that need you can
> proceed from there sizing an ups for it. Large UPS get
> really expensive though, might be cheaper to just buy an
> inkjet if you anticipate regularly needing to print during
> power outtages.
>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

On Sat, 18 Jun 2005 15:18:58 GMT, Cool_X
<cool_x_usenetNOSPAM@shaw.ca> wrote:


>1. About my Samsung ML1210, that was bought years ago brand new, so I definitely don't think
>it was a low-end printer then...At the time it was bought, it cost $321 CDN...Sorry that wasn't
>a question, just a clarification...(and BTW, I gave it as an example not b/c it was a current
>printer, but b/c its was the only one I ever owned - but I don't own it anymore...)


I may've been thinking of the ML-1740, and it seems
backwards that the lower model # is a better printer.



>
>2. You said:
>
>"A good clue is the "time to first page" spec for a printer, take that and subtract a small %
>of the time to end up with heating time."
>
>I disagree with that b/c even after a few seconds after the lamp had completely warmed up (a
>first print job), the data going over USB to the printer took quite a few seconds before the
>printer actually started printing (the second print job, done a few seconds after the first).

I can't help it if your printer is odd... typically the
majority of the time is warm-up, and sending data to a laser
shouldn't take long at all, for a page of text. If your
spool settings are such that you try to send a lot of pages
(if yours even allows it- large enough buffer for that).

If you get a print job qued up and ready to go and then when
you try to send it, the system can't connect to the printer
(because it's off) then right after turning it on, that
"time till first page" should be the majority of the warm-up
period, very few seconds after that. That doesn't
necessarily mean your system is done sending that first
page, only that the printer was ready.



>My point is that data transfer (here over USB, probably MUCH worse for parallel

No parallel is about the same as USB1, unless one uses SPP
instead of EPP or ECP. Either way, data transfer rates are
a minor amount of time unless you're sending raw data, which
seems unlikely for typical jobs unless you'd reconfigured
the driver to do that (if the driver even supports it).

>, although
>PLEASE let me know about THAT TOO) from the computer to the printer's buffer RAM takes quite a
>few seconds,

No, for a page of text it's under a second. Depends on the
job though, if you're trying to spool out a novel, then sure
it'll take a little bit longer.

>which I don't think you took into consideration (And BTW, it wasn't an ancient
>system either - it was a Compaq Evo N600c laptop with a P3 1.2GHz and 256 MB PC 133 SDRAM, 30
>GB HD (probably 5400 RPM))

Even on a old 486 system, the parallel port can send a few
pages of text in a second. If your driver and/or windows
and/or the printing applicaton (for example, Adobe Acrobat
is sometimes dreadfully slow at printing) is a bottleneck,
that's entirely separate from "laser printers" in general.


>
>3. Sorry for a silly question, but I don't speak Usenet very well. Can you quickly tell me
>what IIRC meant (I think it's something to do with the first person's recollection).

If
I
Remember
Correctly

>
>4. You said:
>
>"They aren't more efficient power-wise. They're faster, and cheaper over the long haul, and
>you dont' have to fool with dry carts or clogged inkjets."
>
>Can you give me an average percentage for all lasers vs. similar inkjets as to how much more
>power a laser uses in comparison?


No I can't... haven't been lurking around all the printers
at the store or anything. I can tell you that the typical
inkjet uses less than 20W, while the warmup on a business
class laser printer's drum is over 350W, usually over 450W.
We can't really ignore the warmup current even though it's
only for a short duration of the total printer "on-time" but
the remainder of the time can depend on how well the
printeris built. A big heavy-duty printer is going to likely
have more powerful motors, more memory, and it's own
mainboard with a RISC processor on it.
Win(software)printers like most inkjets are little more than
a buffer and a microcontroller or two plus 2 or 3 smaller
motors.

If I had to guess- and that guess might be quite wrong, I'd
guess the typical laser's _average_ on-time power usage is
3X that of a similar (in this case, meaning light-duty,
low-cost consumer grade) laser printer. Seek the
manufacturer's spec sheets if you need compare two specific
printers.

>
>5. Continuing #4, does that percentage change when comparing low, middle, high, and
>professional lasers vs. similar inkjets (BTW, I'm trying my hardest to compare apples to apples
>like you)

Yes... though I'd expect less difference in inkjets.
Apples-to-apples is somewhat meaningless though, you'd have
to consider two specific printers- and you can do that
yourself. Bottom line is, don't put a laser on an UPS
unless your UPS is rated to handle the peak current the
laser's manufacturer specs.


>6. If it does, than can you give me the average percentage for the class of printers (laser
>and inkjet - categories described in #5), for those categories (see brackets in this question #6)?

I don't claim to be a laser printer expert. An average
percentage is meaningless as you'd have to consider a
specific printer than may vary a lot from any average. I
gave a rough guess above.


>The rest of your post I fully understand and agree with (BTW, I read an APC manual that said
>not to connect any laser to a UPS less than 1400 VA, but this was a manual for a big SmartUPS
>less than 1400VA (APC's professional UPSs) - just so you know the exact figure quoted by a
>reputable manufacturer IMO!)

Unless you NEED a laser printer running during an outage,
just don't do it. The goal should not be seeing whether you
can wear out the UPS battery in least time possible. That
gets expensive and wasteful, unless it's really an
emergency... in which case I'd suggest you get a cheap
inkjet for such an occasion as even when you could run a
laser on an UPS, you'd still get much longer runtime from
the inkjet. Or, get a generator if it's that much of an
issue.


>
>7. BTW, in your opinion, who makes the best UPSs (consumer and business/professional). I
>haven't heard of any better OEM than APC...(who also resells through retail, as everyone should
>know)

"Best" is sorta pointless IMO, determine the budget then if
you're not in a rush, use that budget to buy the highest
rated capacity unit when you see a good deal/sale on 'em.
Sales make all the difference in what you get for the buck,
an UPS is not new technology and for your concerns the main
issue will be how much capacity you can get for the budget.