CON Ed - CONNING US with HIGH VOLTAGE!

On Fri, 01 Jul 2005 21:46:14 GMT, "Gunnar" Gave us:

But... But... But... Is THAT a "Hundred Watt Light Bulb"?

Hahahaha.....

On Fri, 1 Jul 2005 18:23:01 -0400, "Pete J. Ahacich" Gave us:

Jeez. At that wattage, it is likely quite inefficient by comparison to higher wattage units.

Actually they aren't. They are very efficient. the lumens/watt isn't much different between my 9 watt and my 25 watt CF's.

Steve Spence Dir., Green Trust

Fluorescent lights don't exactly follow the same rules that other lights do. Other lights gain a performance advantage with size and wattage. The elements are a lot hotter than surrounding temperatures. So, on a small bulb with a small element, a large portion of the heat generated is lost to the outside environment. It has to waste a lot more energy per lumen to maintain operating temperature. When you increase the size, it's internal volume, to outside surface area ratio goes up. The energy loss from the exposed surface of the element is smaller in reference to it's wattage and lumen output, so it wastes less heat maintain operating temperature, and efficiency goes up.

Fluorescent lights are not a lot hotter than their environment. What determines their efficiency is the energy/current density of the discharge in the tube. That determines how effectively it drives the phosphor on the walls of the tube. You have a sweet spot. If you drop below that density, the efficiency goes down. If you go above that level, efficiency goes down.

CF's from 3W to 25W usually have about the same lumens per watt because of the fact that energy densities, and tube diameters are roughly the same for all wattages. The more wattage, the longer the discharge tube. While the factors that determine the efficiency of every inch of discharge tube is about the same. The discharge current levels are at the maximum the materials allow. They run the tube as hard as they can without destroying the phosphors, to make the light as small as possible for the wattage it's rated That causes efficiencies to be close to the bottom of the fluorescent family. About 60 lumens per watt.

You have to start getting into the 32W T8's and up to the 110W T12 high outputs to get a good gain in lumens/watt as compared to CF's . The linear T8's and T12's don't operate so close to the maximum operating edge.

T8 15W lights run around 65 lumens per watt T12 40W lights run around 75 lumens per watt. T8 32W lights run around 85 to 95 lumens per watt. About 50% more than compact fluorescent lights. T12 60W lights run around 95 to 100 lumens per watt. T12 110W lights run around 88 lumens per watt If you go up to T12 215W very high output lights, you get back into the current densities that you find in CF's tubes. A 96 inch 215W T12 is being driven has hard as it can without destroying the phosphors. So you end up with about the same efficiency as a CF. around 60 lumens per watt.

Sounds like chemophobia to me. Unless you break the glass and suck out the contents, it's not likely to hurt you. Have you had all your old mercury amalgam fillings drilled out yet? Smashed all the old mercury thermometers? Did you fight the doctor who tried to shove one up your rectum?

Good grief. Anal beyond belief.

On Sun, 03 Jul 2005 06:46:08 GMT, "JoeSixPack" Gave us:

I feel the same way about RoHS.

Metallic form lead is not hazardous.

|> As long as someone is willing to manufacture decent lighting products, |> I will continue to use them. Once LEDs become truly viable (including |> solving some remaining spectrum issues), I will migrate to that. But, |> until then, it will be incandescent for me. All mercury based products |> will not be permitted in my house, anyway. |>

| | Sounds like chemophobia to me. Unless you break the glass and suck out the | contents, it's not likely to hurt you. Have you had all your old mercury | amalgam fillings drilled out yet? Smashed all the old mercury thermometers? | Did you fight the doctor who tried to shove one up your rectum?

Never had any mercury amalgam fillings. A friend of mine who did had both removed. All my themometers are alcohol, mechanical, or digital. Doctors uses digital now, regardless of where they shove it in, and they even take your blood pressure digitally.

I'm not afraid of mercury. But unless I really need to have it for some reason, there's no point in needlessly taking the risk.

The mercury issue is actually the lesser issue of fluorescent lights for me. One of the spectral issues is what bothers me most.

Mercury isn't used in thermometers for the last 20 years.

Dentists are ceasing to install mercury amalgams. Plastic style ines are very common now.

This stuff is already happenning. Have you been hiding for the last 20 years?

thermometers?

On Sun, 3 Jul 2005 17:10:02 -0400, "John P Bengi" Gave us:

It is STILL quite easy to buy a laboratory thermometer that utilizes mercury, just not one for human temperature readings.

Alcohol versions do not carry the range.

Digital ones do. Mercury ones are very scarce if at all.

On Sun, 3 Jul 2005 22:01:33 -0400, "John P Bengi" Gave us:

We'd better watch our step, John, the grammar and spelling fanatic might jump on us for our "ones" usage. Then again, he may miss it completely. Hehehe

Daestrom You come across as a person with 40+ years, intelligent and with vast knowledge.I thank you for sharing you time with this a other groups. You are the type of person whose company would improve the taste of my after none express coffee. Again, we must thank you for that.

Mean temperatures are 12f (January) and 72f (July) at my location. The cost of heating with resistance is not that different from fossil fuel if one takes advantage of having different temperatures in different rooms. The source is hydro and I have little choice.

True. When heat isn't required, I usually replace the most used lamps with lamps of the florescent type

My house, a raised bungalow, has about 120 square feet of double side glass facing south. That is very good in a cold and sunny winter day but a pain at night and in the summer. I have played with motorized foam and mirror panels, a hobby that I am about to give up.The time has come to revert the house to it's original condition an lose the title given by neighbors of the "crazy scientist"

Regards

Vlad Some people associate the name Vlad with Vladimir Putin I prefer the association with Vladimir Horowitz, my preferred pianist

Wire 2 of them in series. Solves your problem.

It's more of a political thing than a scientific concern. Actually it's a bit more like religion. People love to embalm themselves in a belief system that is unaffected by reality. It's much more comfortable than accounting for the facts.

Well, you just have to review your income tax forms. If you make enough money, you can claim to be 'eccentric'. If you are in the bottom tax-bracket, then you're just 'crazy'. Middle tax bracket would only qualify you for 'some kind of kook' (like me).

A lot of alt.solar.thermal discussions have taken place about using large amounts of sun-facing glass and finding some way to cover them up at night/clouds. Unfortunately, most of them are either manual, or not very satisfactory. One idea that seems promising is to build another solid wall just inside the glass (or add glass outside of existing wall) and control the ventilation to the 'sun space'. But then you lose whatever view you have (and I like to have a view).

I like the idea of passive solar over 'active' systems (higher reliability and lower maintenance). But getting a system that doesn't lose more heat in winter than it gains is a bit tricky. Especially for my cousin who lives about 46 degrees N. Here in NY, although the latitude is better (only 41N), we have a lot of cloud cover from Lake Ontario (and a lot of 'lake-effect' snow). The number of sunny days in Jan *and* Feb can usually be counted your fingers with some left over.

I prefer full orchestral music myself (mostly the three B's)

daestrom

From: JBengi @ yahoo (John=A0P=A0Bengi) Eat (censored) If you have a hard time comprehending posting then get out.

--------------------------------------------- My MY John Bengi you had been decent cool calm and what i thought was collected until this post., tssktisktissk

=AEoy

| Since the light bulb is a non-linear resistance, the power will not be | increased by 14% as the bulb resistance will be higher. However, to make | your worries larger, incandescent lamp life is roughly proportional to the | 13th power of the voltage! Manufacturers, unlike you, know of the | variations from nominal and take them into account.

So if I double the voltage, the lamp will last 8192 times longer? :-) I think you meant to have "inversely" in there somewhere.

| with regard to shock - load of nonsense. Negligable increase in risk from | 120 to 128V.

Don't touch the electrical metal parts and you won't need to worry to

| However, I am sure that Con Ed will be happy to put a good recording meter | on the system to get an actual record of voltage variations over a period of | time. This is quite often done.

I would not use "happy to" in association with any electrical utility, other than for cashing good checks.