Re: [APD] Lighting

["S. Hieber" <shieber at yahoo_com>]

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