[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [APD] Lighting

now see i want tesla lights!
did they ever get made?

S. Hieber wrote:

>Your power company is probably comparing compact
>flourescents to incandescent bulbs.
>Another one of Edison's get rich quick schemes,
>incandescent bulbs shed about 95-97% of their input energy
>as heat and the balance as light. That's right, almost
>every bit of energy they consume is wasted! They always
>could be made cheaply and with Edison's support they caught
>on quite well. Tesla and others had more efficient
>alternatives, but everyone tended to believe Edison.
>With fluorescents, about 65% of their input energy as heat
>nd about 35% as light. The seems pretty inefficent until
>you compare it to incandescents! With a compact
>fluporescent that's all coiled up, that percentage of light
>output drops a bit because the bulb blocks some of its own
>light. So a fluorescent bulb rated at roughly about 1/4 to
>1/5 the wattage (actual consumption) of an incandescent
>will give off about the same amount of light. If you don't
>turn them on and off often, they will tend to burn (to
>work) for much longer than incandescent bulbs too. 
>Thus, it's hard *not* to save money switching to cf unless
>one pays rediculously high prices for cf bulbs. Drawbacks
>are 1) they cost more up front than incadescent bulbs and
>2) fluorescents don't have the relative excess of red
>wavelength light that incandescents have and will probably
>have much more green, so things will look somewhat diff
>color under one light rather than the other. The diff can
>be striking at first but even in striking cases, the human
>perception seems to adapt after a short while. In cany
>case, the amount of diff varies from one brand of bulb to
>another. The really cheap compcat fluorescents can appear
>downright ghastly and make your skin appear downright
>ghostly. The better bulbs, don't make things look all that
>diff. Note that how things look under incandescent is not
>more correct; just diff and what most folks are used to.
>Some people claim they can't tolerate being under
>flourescent lighting because of the blinking. "Old
>fashioned" fluorescent cycled on/off at 120 times per
>second with some detectable perectual artifacts. (How,
>these folks watch movies or television, I'll never
>know.)Anyway, compact fluorescents usually cycle at several
>thousand to several tens of thousands time per sec, and
>human visual perception simply cannot detect that.
>Note that most of your electric bill is probably going
>towards any heating or airconditioning devices that use
>motors. Or other appliances such as steam irons, toaster,
>dishwashers, etc. If you use any of those a lot, changing
>bulbs won't make a big dent in your electric bill.
>Still incadescents are such awfully inefficent devices,
>it's a shame to use them if you don't have to. Although,
>they are excellent electric heaters if you can accomodate
>their fragility ;-)
>--- Lief Brittan Youngs <liefy at yahoo_com> wrote:
>>My utility company is raving about compact flourescent
>>lighting being the way to save huge costs on electricity
>>even though the light bulbs are more expensive. Can
>>anyone veryify this?
>>Also, I have been told for same amount of light you need
>>a lower wattage compact flourescent bulb. If there the
>>same savings and added light are the same in aquarium
>>lighting? Or are the compact light fixtures and bulbs too
>* * * * * * * * * * *
>Coming Soon in November, the winners and all the other beautiful entries in the 6th Annual International Aquascaping Contest. Every continent is represented -- except Antarctica. Maybe next year Antarctica, too ;-)
>Aquatic-Plants mailing list
>Aquatic-Plants at actwin_com
Aquatic-Plants mailing list
Aquatic-Plants at actwin_com