[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [APD] Lighting
stupid edison...
S. Hieber wrote:
>Tesla was fooling around with wireless lighting, among the
>many other "wild and crazy" things he was into. In fact, he
>figured it was possible to transmit electricty great
>distances without wires and pursued this idea for many
>years after he had established the viability of
>transmitting alternating current via wire.
>
>The lights in his shop were wireless. Tesla saw very few
>patents go into production. One of the few was the ac
>motor, which he essentially gave away to his friend
>Westinghouse.
>
>Meanwhile, Edison, whose patents relied on DC power
>generation, gave demonstartions of animal electrocution
>around the country to demonstrate how dangerous AC was.
>
>Tesla countered my giving himself a large jolt of AC at
>very high frequency and suffered no apparent harm. The
>Edison was always the more popular of the two, as were his
>shows.
>
>sh
>
>--- urville <urville at peoplepc_com> wrote:
>
>
>
>>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 ;-)
>>>
>>>
>>>sh
>>>
>>>--- 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
>>
>>
>>>>expensive?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>* * * * * * * * * * *
>>>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 ;-)
>>
>>
>>>http://showcase.aquatic-gardeners.org
>>>_______________________________________________
>>>Aquatic-Plants mailing list
>>>Aquatic-Plants at actwin_com
>>>http://www.actwin.com/mailman/listinfo/aquatic-plants
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>Aquatic-Plants mailing list
>>Aquatic-Plants at actwin_com
>>http://www.actwin.com/mailman/listinfo/aquatic-plants
>>
>>
>>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Aquatic-Plants mailing list
>Aquatic-Plants at actwin_com
>http://www.actwin.com/mailman/listinfo/aquatic-plants
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
Aquatic-Plants mailing list
Aquatic-Plants at actwin_com
http://www.actwin.com/mailman/listinfo/aquatic-plants