Why are HDTVs so dang heavy?

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Maybe Im wrong but they seem like they are considerably heavier than a
SDTV of the same screen size.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Are you talking tube TV's? (40" and under) or projections?

"John@Smith.com" <xxxxspud@newscene.com> wrote in message
news:87bh80tp5e29ue6rj359h5ohqjne4s3fvh@4ax.com...
> Maybe Im wrong but they seem like they are considerably heavier than a
> SDTV of the same screen size.
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"John@Smith.com" <xxxxspud@newscene.com> wrote in message
news:87bh80tp5e29ue6rj359h5ohqjne4s3fvh@4ax.com...
> Maybe Im wrong but they seem like they are considerably heavier than a
> SDTV of the same screen size.

Yep, you are wrong.

Leonard

 

[greywolf]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"John@Smith.com" <xxxxspud@newscene.com> wrote in message
news:87bh80tp5e29ue6rj359h5ohqjne4s3fvh@4ax.com...
> Maybe Im wrong but they seem like they are considerably heavier than a
> SDTV of the same screen size.
>

If you are talking about direct view sets, it's not HD vs. SD, but 4:3 vs.
16:9 aspect ratio. 16:9 sets are wider than 4:3 sets of the same diagonal
measure. Thicker glass is required to make the CRT strong enough to hold a
vacuum. For example, the Toshiba cinema series are all HD capable but the
34" 16:9 set weighs 162 lbs while the larger 36" 4:3 set weighs 154 lbs.

Pat

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Last time we met, Greywolf <greywolfin45@*spamisbad*sbcglobal.net> had said:
> "John@Smith.com" <xxxxspud@newscene.com> wrote in message
> news:87bh80tp5e29ue6rj359h5ohqjne4s3fvh@4ax.com...
> > Maybe Im wrong but they seem like they are considerably heavier than a
> > SDTV of the same screen size.
> >
>
> If you are talking about direct view sets, it's not HD vs. SD, but 4:3 vs.
> 16:9 aspect ratio. 16:9 sets are wider than 4:3 sets of the same diagonal
> measure. Thicker glass is required to make the CRT strong enough to hold a
> vacuum. For example, the Toshiba cinema series are all HD capable but the
> 34" 16:9 set weighs 162 lbs while the larger 36" 4:3 set weighs 154 lbs.

yeh, this. also, 16:9 sets need to be much deeper than 4:3. a 30"
16:9 set will be about as deep as a 34" or 36" 3:4.


dv

--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
The geographical center of Boston is in Roxbury. Due north of the
center we find the South End. This is not to be confused with South
Boston which lies directly east from the South End. North of the South
End is East Boston and southwest of East Boston is the North End.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"John@Smith.com" <xxxxspud@newscene.com> wrote in
news:87bh80tp5e29ue6rj359h5ohqjne4s3fvh@4ax.com:

> Maybe Im wrong but they seem like they are considerably heavier than a
> SDTV of the same screen size.

Heftier power supplies are definitely part of that picture. It takes more
energy to drive a 1080-line screen than a 525-line one. Quite a LOT more.



--
Dave Oldridge
ICQ 1800667

Paradoxically, most real events are highly improbable.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"Dave Oldridge" <doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote in message
news:Xns94D4DC11C3582doldridgsprintca@24.71.223.159...
> "John@Smith.com" <xxxxspud@newscene.com> wrote in
> news:87bh80tp5e29ue6rj359h5ohqjne4s3fvh@4ax.com:
>
> > Maybe Im wrong but they seem like they are considerably heavier than a
> > SDTV of the same screen size.
>
> Heftier power supplies are definitely part of that picture. It takes more
> energy to drive a 1080-line screen than a 525-line one. Quite a LOT more.

Exactly how much more power? Approximately how much more power? What
exactly weighs so much more about a PS in a HD set?

Quite simply, you have no idea what you are talking about. Modern
televisions use power supplies that weigh very little compared to those in
the past with heavy transformers and large filter caps. The difference in
power supply capacity hardly accounts for any design difference in the power
supply that would affect the weight of a set significantly. The issue of
differences in CRT design for direct view sets has some small effect on
weight, but the difference in the electronics is hardly a big deal.

Leonard

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 08:09:54 -0400, "GGA" <crpediem@ptdprolog.net>
wrote:

>Are you talking tube TV's? (40" and under) or projections?

>

TUBE.

However the post that implied there was no difference got me thinking
maybe Im totally off on this since Im comparing a few old, really
cheap 27" sets with my new 27" 4:3 HDTV. Maybe they ALL weigh a ton
nowadays. I see now - the really cheap TV sets tend to be lighter.


I checked COMPUSA's site.

Take for instance this one which is among the cheapest 27" sets.
AT2702 27-inch Remote TV Apex non HDTV 88 lbs

I also have a really cheapo RCA 27" thats considerably lighter than my
philips HDTV 27".


But when you compare it to the better EDTV sets it does weigh around
the same range.

27PT830H 27-inch HDTV Monitor 4:3 HDTV 106 lbs
Samsung 27" HDTV 4:3 114.6 lbs

Two non-HDTV sets made my Philips and Panasonic that cost around
$300-400 , not the $198-200 which the really cheap sets go for , weigh
95lbs and 100 lbs.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

I've also heard that the physics of providing the modern flat screens
(versus a bulging convex shape) requires the glass to be thicker, thus
heavier, to contain the same vacuum inherent to CRT technology.

YMMV

"John@Smith.com" <xxxxspud@newscene.com> wrote in message
news:hs5l80lliv9c7j4cr7si9lfqra1hqtpg55@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 08:09:54 -0400, "GGA" <crpediem@ptdprolog.net>
> wrote:
>
> >Are you talking tube TV's? (40" and under) or projections?
>
> >
>
> TUBE.
>
> However the post that implied there was no difference got me thinking
> maybe Im totally off on this since Im comparing a few old, really
> cheap 27" sets with my new 27" 4:3 HDTV. Maybe they ALL weigh a ton
> nowadays. I see now - the really cheap TV sets tend to be lighter.
>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"Leonard Caillouet" <lcaillonospam@devoynet.com> wrote in
news:bimic.13675$VQ3.7451@lakeread06:

>
> "Dave Oldridge" <doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote in message
> news:Xns94D4DC11C3582doldridgsprintca@24.71.223.159...
>> "John@Smith.com" <xxxxspud@newscene.com> wrote in
>> news:87bh80tp5e29ue6rj359h5ohqjne4s3fvh@4ax.com:
>>
>> > Maybe Im wrong but they seem like they are considerably heavier
>> > than a SDTV of the same screen size.
>>
>> Heftier power supplies are definitely part of that picture. It takes
>> more energy to drive a 1080-line screen than a 525-line one. Quite a
>> LOT more.
>
> Exactly how much more power? Approximately how much more power? What
> exactly weighs so much more about a PS in a HD set?

I would expect to find most of the difference in heat sinks and, while
it's by no means the bulk of the weight difference, it IS part of it
(what part of "part of it" did you fail to understand? No doubt heavier
CRTs and other parts have something to do with it, too.


Did you have a bad day, or are you just naturally hostile to strangers?


--
Dave Oldridge
ICQ 1800667

Paradoxically, most real events are highly improbable.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"Dave Oldridge" <doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote in message
news:Xns94D5A4DD3AA45doldridgsprintca@24.71.223.159...
> "Leonard Caillouet" <lcaillonospam@devoynet.com> wrote in
> news:bimic.13675$VQ3.7451@lakeread06:
>
> >
> > "Dave Oldridge" <doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote in message
> > news:Xns94D4DC11C3582doldridgsprintca@24.71.223.159...
> >> "John@Smith.com" <xxxxspud@newscene.com> wrote in
> >> news:87bh80tp5e29ue6rj359h5ohqjne4s3fvh@4ax.com:
> >>
> >> > Maybe Im wrong but they seem like they are considerably heavier
> >> > than a SDTV of the same screen size.
> >>
> >> Heftier power supplies are definitely part of that picture. It takes
> >> more energy to drive a 1080-line screen than a 525-line one. Quite a
> >> LOT more.
> >
> > Exactly how much more power? Approximately how much more power? What
> > exactly weighs so much more about a PS in a HD set?
>
> I would expect to find most of the difference in heat sinks and, while
> it's by no means the bulk of the weight difference, it IS part of it
> (what part of "part of it" did you fail to understand? No doubt heavier
> CRTs and other parts have something to do with it, too.
>
>
> Did you have a bad day, or are you just naturally hostile to strangers?

I apologize if I seemed hostile. I do get frustrated with the constant
stream of statements that mislead people that are based on misunderstandings
of the technology. The difference in the current demands of HD vs SD sets
is easily within the ability of most high quality power supplies in modern
televisions without substantial changes. There is much less need for larger
heat sinks with the use of modern swithching power supplies that have become
much more efficient in recent years. The difference in weight for a power
supply due to HD would be negligible. The difference due to sloppy design
in EITHER HD or SD sets would be far greater.

Again, sorry if I seemed harsh.

Leonard

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"Leonard Caillouet" <lcaillonospam@devoynet.com> wrote in
news:ByZic.21807$VQ3.15252@lakeread06:

>
> "Dave Oldridge" <doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote in message
> news:Xns94D5A4DD3AA45doldridgsprintca@24.71.223.159...
>> "Leonard Caillouet" <lcaillonospam@devoynet.com> wrote in
>> news:bimic.13675$VQ3.7451@lakeread06:
>>
>> >
>> > "Dave Oldridge" <doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote in message
>> > news:Xns94D4DC11C3582doldridgsprintca@24.71.223.159...
>> >> "John@Smith.com" <xxxxspud@newscene.com> wrote in
>> >> news:87bh80tp5e29ue6rj359h5ohqjne4s3fvh@4ax.com:
>> >>
>> >> > Maybe Im wrong but they seem like they are considerably heavier
>> >> > than a SDTV of the same screen size.
>> >>
>> >> Heftier power supplies are definitely part of that picture. It
>> >> takes more energy to drive a 1080-line screen than a 525-line one.
>> >> Quite a LOT more.
>> >
>> > Exactly how much more power? Approximately how much more power?
>> > What exactly weighs so much more about a PS in a HD set?
>>
>> I would expect to find most of the difference in heat sinks and,
>> while it's by no means the bulk of the weight difference, it IS part
>> of it (what part of "part of it" did you fail to understand? No
>> doubt heavier CRTs and other parts have something to do with it, too.
>>
>>
>> Did you have a bad day, or are you just naturally hostile to
>> strangers?
>
> I apologize if I seemed hostile. I do get frustrated with the
> constant stream of statements that mislead people that are based on
> misunderstandings of the technology. The difference in the current
> demands of HD vs SD sets is easily within the ability of most high
> quality power supplies in modern televisions without substantial
> changes. There is much less need for larger heat sinks with the use
> of modern swithching power supplies that have become much more
> efficient in recent years. The difference in weight for a power
> supply due to HD would be negligible. The difference due to sloppy
> design in EITHER HD or SD sets would be far greater.
>
> Again, sorry if I seemed harsh.

Actually, I think the reason my TV is so bloody heavy (115lb for a 27")
is that perfectly flat screen and all the equipment that goes with making
the CRT scan it cleanly. That's GOT to need thicker glass than a curved
tube and it's got to need more hardware to scan it properly (simply
because of the geometry).

But it's all worth it to have such nice pictures.

--
Dave Oldridge
ICQ 1800667

Paradoxically, most real events are highly improbable.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"John@Smith.com" <xxxxspud@newscene.com> wrote in message news:<87bh80tp5e29ue6rj359h5ohqjne4s3fvh@4ax.com>...
> Maybe Im wrong but they seem like they are considerably heavier than a
> SDTV of the same screen size.

My 6 year old kid can push my SONY 65" HDTV around with ease. It
comes with wheels and handles for easy movement. Your observation is
not true in general. If your brand is too heavy, just buy another
brand.

 

[steve]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

I have 2 30" TV's. One is a Philips HDTV widescreen and is 140 lbs. The
other is a Toshiba NTSC 4:3 set is 150 lbs.
My 2 cents.


"Leonard Caillouet" <lcaillonospam@devoynet.com> wrote in message
news:ByZic.21807$VQ3.15252@lakeread06...
>
> "Dave Oldridge" <doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote in message
> news:Xns94D5A4DD3AA45doldridgsprintca@24.71.223.159...
> > "Leonard Caillouet" <lcaillonospam@devoynet.com> wrote in
> > news:bimic.13675$VQ3.7451@lakeread06:
> >
> > >
> > > "Dave Oldridge" <doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote in message
> > > news:Xns94D4DC11C3582doldridgsprintca@24.71.223.159...
> > >> "John@Smith.com" <xxxxspud@newscene.com> wrote in
> > >> news:87bh80tp5e29ue6rj359h5ohqjne4s3fvh@4ax.com:
> > >>
> > >> > Maybe Im wrong but they seem like they are considerably heavier
> > >> > than a SDTV of the same screen size.
> > >>
> > >> Heftier power supplies are definitely part of that picture. It takes
> > >> more energy to drive a 1080-line screen than a 525-line one. Quite a
> > >> LOT more.
> > >
> > > Exactly how much more power? Approximately how much more power? What
> > > exactly weighs so much more about a PS in a HD set?
> >
> > I would expect to find most of the difference in heat sinks and, while
> > it's by no means the bulk of the weight difference, it IS part of it
> > (what part of "part of it" did you fail to understand? No doubt heavier
> > CRTs and other parts have something to do with it, too.
> >
> >
> > Did you have a bad day, or are you just naturally hostile to strangers?
>
> I apologize if I seemed hostile. I do get frustrated with the constant
> stream of statements that mislead people that are based on
misunderstandings
> of the technology. The difference in the current demands of HD vs SD sets
> is easily within the ability of most high quality power supplies in modern
> televisions without substantial changes. There is much less need for
larger
> heat sinks with the use of modern swithching power supplies that have
become
> much more efficient in recent years. The difference in weight for a power
> supply due to HD would be negligible. The difference due to sloppy design
> in EITHER HD or SD sets would be far greater.
>
> Again, sorry if I seemed harsh.
>
> Leonard
>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"Steve" <uncle499@hotmail.com> wrote in
newsP7lc.2822$MC6.51@fe1.columbus.rr.com:

> I have 2 30" TV's. One is a Philips HDTV widescreen and is 140 lbs.
> The other is a Toshiba NTSC 4:3 set is 150 lbs.
> My 2 cents.

My 27" Samsung is probably a bit of a heavyweight at 115lb. But it does
have rather spunky audio--for a TV (I actually use my stereo for sound).

--
Dave Oldridge
ICQ 1800667

Paradoxically, most real events are highly improbable.