|
Home > Archive > Electrical code Compliance > July 2005 > incandescent efficiency, was: CON Ed - CONNING US with HIGH
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
incandescent efficiency, was: CON Ed - CONNING US with HIGH
|
|
| danny burstein 2005-06-30, 11:25 pm |
| In <da1h96$phn$1@usenet.otenet.gr> "Dimitrios Tzortzakakis" <dimtzort@otenet.gr> writes:
quote:
>Why are lower wattage bulbs inefficient?Here, the lowest wattage incadescent
>bulbs are 25 W, and are moderately warm even after hours.
I can't pull up the actual charts from this account, but as a general
rule, incandescent lamps are less efficient, as in lumens per watt, at
lower power ratings.
In other words, you'll get more lumens (and less immediate wasted heat)
from a 150 watt lamp than you will from two 75 watt ones.
--
_____________________________________________________
Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key
dannyb@panix.com
[to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]
| |
| gfretwell@aol.com 2005-07-01, 4:25 am |
| On 30 Jun 2005 16:57:46 -0400, dannyb@panix.com (danny burstein)
wrote:
quote:
>In <da1h96$phn$1@usenet.otenet.gr> "Dimitrios Tzortzakakis" <dimtzort@otenet.gr> writes:
>
>
>I can't pull up the actual charts from this account, but as a general
>rule, incandescent lamps are less efficient, as in lumens per watt, at
>lower power ratings.
>
>In other words, you'll get more lumens (and less immediate wasted heat)
>from a 150 watt lamp than you will from two 75 watt ones.
Pure efficiency rated by watts to lumens is not really significant. If
you can live with less lumens (and watts) you will save money. If you
make up with the lower light by turning on more lights you won't save
money
| |
| phil-news-nospam@ipal.net 2005-07-01, 12:25 pm |
| In sci.engr.electrical.compliance gfretwell@aol.com wrote:
| Pure efficiency rated by watts to lumens is not really significant. If
| you can live with less lumens (and watts) you will save money. If you
| make up with the lower light by turning on more lights you won't save
| money
My bathroon light/heater/vent combo has a nigh-light feature on a 4th
switch. It currently has a 4 watt C-7 style white bulb in it. It is
sufficient light for me to sit and read a magazine. I don't use the
main light unless I am showering, or cleaning the room.
Basically, I am a "low light person". I often go around with no light
at all, as I am doing now (the CRT screen provides plenty of illumination).
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Phil Howard KA9WGN | http://linuxhomepage.com/ http://ham.org/ |
| (first name) at ipal.net | http://phil.ipal.org/ http://ka9wgn.ham.org/ |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |
| Dimitrios Tzortzakakis 2005-07-01, 12:25 pm |
| You are right, but they are much cheaper than compared compact fluorescent
or halogen, and here the former cost 9 euro and the latter 4 to 5 euro.
--
Tzortzakakis Dimitrios
major in electrical engineering, freelance electrician
FH von Iraklion-Kreta, freiberuflicher Elektriker
dimtzort AT otenet DOT gr
Ο "danny burstein" <dannyb@panix.com> έγραψε στο μήνυμα
news:da1mca$kk9$1@panix5.panix.com...
quote:
> In <da1h96$phn$1@usenet.otenet.gr> "Dimitrios Tzortzakakis"
<dimtzort@otenet.gr> writes:
quote:
>
incadescent[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> I can't pull up the actual charts from this account, but as a general
> rule, incandescent lamps are less efficient, as in lumens per watt, at
> lower power ratings.
>
> In other words, you'll get more lumens (and less immediate wasted heat)
> from a 150 watt lamp than you will from two 75 watt ones.
> --
> _____________________________________________________
> Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key
> dannyb@panix.com
> [to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]
| |
|
| On Fri, 1 Jul 2005 16:42:03 +0300, "Dimitrios Tzortzakakis"
<dimtzort@otenet.gr> wrote:
quote:
>You are right, but they are much cheaper than compared compact fluorescent
>or halogen, and here the former cost 9 euro and the latter 4 to 5 euro.
I heat my house with electricity, consequently during winter months
any lamp that I used has 100% of efficiency.
Incandescent lights are a dime a dozen so I give preference to
incandescent lights when heat is desired.
During that period I am also very " wasteful" with light in order to
save energy.
If the thermostat for the house is set to a low temperature and the
light " travels" with the occupants I believe that I am saving energy.
It's like being on the sun on a Winter day.
The system can be made automatic by the use of "presence detectors".
Comments please.
Vlad
| |
| daestrom 2005-07-01, 6:25 pm |
|
"Vlad" <Bla@dot.com> wrote in message
news:8rpac1553nn4l5fnd8iqeh4c6a3fhmdoj8@4ax.com...
quote:
> On Fri, 1 Jul 2005 16:42:03 +0300, "Dimitrios Tzortzakakis"
> <dimtzort@otenet.gr> wrote:
>
>
> I heat my house with electricity, consequently during winter months
> any lamp that I used has 100% of efficiency.
> Incandescent lights are a dime a dozen so I give preference to
> incandescent lights when heat is desired.
> During that period I am also very " wasteful" with light in order to
> save energy.
> If the thermostat for the house is set to a low temperature and the
> light " travels" with the occupants I believe that I am saving energy.
> It's like being on the sun on a Winter day.
> The system can be made automatic by the use of "presence detectors".
>
> Comments please.
You don't mention where you are, or how cold it is in winter time. Heating
with resistance heating can be very expensive. Yes, in your situation the
heat generated by incandescent lamps isn't a 'waste' if you would just have
to replace that heat with your electric baseboard/furnace instead.
Depending on your climate, you could save a *lot* of money by switching to
another form of heating. Fossil fuel (NG or propane) can be much cheaper.
In the right climate, an air-source heat pump can also save a lot of money.
Your statements about the waste heat from lighting not really being a
'waste' are true, but only if you use resistance heating. And it is only
true during the heating season.
daestrom
| |
| Steve Spence 2005-07-01, 11:25 pm |
| At home depot today I saw a 5 pack of 14watt CF's for $9.95
I was aready in line, so I'll pick up a couple of packs this weekend.
Steve Spence
Dir., Green Trust
http://www.green-trust.org
Contributing Editor
http://www.off-grid.net
http://www.rebelwolf.com/essn.html
Vlad wrote:
quote:
> On Fri, 1 Jul 2005 16:42:03 +0300, "Dimitrios Tzortzakakis"
> <dimtzort@otenet.gr> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> I heat my house with electricity, consequently during winter months
> any lamp that I used has 100% of efficiency.
> Incandescent lights are a dime a dozen so I give preference to
> incandescent lights when heat is desired.
> During that period I am also very " wasteful" with light in order to
> save energy.
> If the thermostat for the house is set to a low temperature and the
> light " travels" with the occupants I believe that I am saving energy.
> It's like being on the sun on a Winter day.
> The system can be made automatic by the use of "presence detectors".
>
> Comments please.
>
> Vlad
| |
| Gunnar 2005-07-01, 11:25 pm |
|
"Vlad" <Bla@dot.com> wrote in message
news:8rpac1553nn4l5fnd8iqeh4c6a3fhmdoj8@4ax.com...
quote:
> On Fri, 1 Jul 2005 16:42:03 +0300, "Dimitrios Tzortzakakis"
> <dimtzort@otenet.gr> wrote:
>
>
> I heat my house with electricity, consequently during winter months
> any lamp that I used has 100% of efficiency.
> Incandescent lights are a dime a dozen so I give preference to
> incandescent lights when heat is desired.
most people have the lights up high, sooo, the heat is up high. I would then
think 'heating" with light bulbs is "wasteful" with regards to even heat,
unless you have fans circulating the air, which add to energy consumption...
quote:
> During that period I am also very " wasteful" with light in order to
> save energy.
The lifetime of a baseboard heater is many times an incandescent light bulb.
You do not save an iota of energy, but pay more for that energy as your
"incandescent heater" breaks down more often than a baseboard heater.
quote:
> If the thermostat for the house is set to a low temperature and the
> light " travels" with the occupants I believe that I am saving energy.
Well, you save energy by setting a low temp on your thermostat  But you
lose money by "heating' with your light bulbs, in my humble opinion.
quote:
> It's like being on the sun on a Winter day.
Not quite, the sunlight is free, the light from your bulb is not...
quote:
> The system can be made automatic by the use of "presence detectors".
Which adds to the cost of the system. If your heating was from an energy
source cheaper than electricity, switching off lights by detectors should
eventually pay for the cost of the detectors.
quote:
>
> Comments please.
each situation is different with many variables. But I think your belief
that you save money by heating with incandescent light bulbs is flawed.
quote:
>
> Vlad
| |
| Pete J. Ahacich 2005-07-01, 11:25 pm |
| Hi all:
What's up with the Sylvania daylight 13w CFs??? None of the Lowes in the
Daytona Beach area seem to have them. Have any of you noticed a diminished
supply of them in your area? Just curious.
pja
"Steve Spence" <sspence@green-trust.org> wrote in message
news:qAixe.4786$t07.3073@fe12.lga...[vbcol=seagreen]
> At home depot today I saw a 5 pack of 14watt CF's for $9.95
>
> I was aready in line, so I'll pick up a couple of packs this weekend.
>
>
> Steve Spence
> Dir., Green Trust
> http://www.green-trust.org
>
> Contributing Editor
> http://www.off-grid.net
> http://www.rebelwolf.com/essn.html
>
> Vlad wrote:
| |
| TokaMundo 2005-07-01, 11:25 pm |
| On Fri, 01 Jul 2005 21:46:14 GMT, "Gunnar" <sorry@nomail.com> Gave us:
quote:
>most people have the lights up high, sooo, the heat is up high. I would then
>think 'heating" with light bulbs is "wasteful" with regards to even heat,
>unless you have fans circulating the air, which add to energy consumption...
But... But... But... Is THAT a "Hundred Watt Light Bulb"?
Hahahaha.....
| |
| TokaMundo 2005-07-01, 11:25 pm |
| On Fri, 1 Jul 2005 18:23:01 -0400, "Pete J. Ahacich"
<pjahacich@bellsouth.net> Gave us:
quote:
>Hi all:
>
>What's up with the Sylvania daylight 13w CFs??? None of the Lowes in the
>Daytona Beach area seem to have them. Have any of you noticed a diminished
>supply of them in your area? Just curious.
>
Jeez. At that wattage, it is likely quite inefficient by comparison
to higher wattage units.
| |
| Steve Spence 2005-07-02, 4:25 am |
| In-Reply-To: <rmrbc19a99hcu060cf84btvgauu8rc44se@4ax.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 29
Message-ID: <YAmxe.4441$SQ1.1304@fe09.lga>
Date: Fri, 01 Jul 2005 22:02:28 -0400
NNTP-Posting-Host: 68.199.76.130
X-Complaints-To: abuse@cv.net
X-Trace: fe09.lga 1120269752 68.199.76.130 (Fri, 01 Jul 2005 19:02:32 MST)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 01 Jul 2005 19:02:32 MST
Organization: Optimum Online
Xref: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com alt.engineering.electrical:161928 misc.industry.utilities.electric:25662 sci.engr.electrical.compliance:18708 alt.energy.homepower:112358
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
http://www.green-trust.org
Contributing Editor
http://www.off-grid.net
http://www.rebelwolf.com/essn.html
TokaMundo wrote:
quote:
> On Fri, 1 Jul 2005 18:23:01 -0400, "Pete J. Ahacich"
> <pjahacich@bellsouth.net> Gave us:
>
>
>
>
>
> Jeez. At that wattage, it is likely quite inefficient by comparison
> to higher wattage units.
>
| |
|
|
quote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> 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.
>
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.
| |
|
| On Fri, 01 Jul 2005 16:53:53 GMT, "daestrom"
<daestrom@NO_SPAM_HEREtwcny.rr.com> wrote:
quote:
>
>"Vlad" <Bla@dot.com> wrote in message
>news:8rpac1553nn4l5fnd8iqeh4c6a3fhmdoj8@4ax.com...
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.
[vbcol=seagreen]
>You don't mention where you are, or how cold it is in winter time. Heating
>with resistance heating can be very expensive. Yes, in your situation the
>heat generated by incandescent lamps isn't a 'waste' if you would just have
>to replace that heat with your electric baseboard/furnace instead.
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.
quote:
>
>Depending on your climate, you could save a *lot* of money by switching to
>another form of heating. Fossil fuel (NG or propane) can be much cheaper.
>In the right climate, an air-source heat pump can also save a lot of money.
>
>Your statements about the waste heat from lighting not really being a
>'waste' are true, but only if you use resistance heating. And it is only
>true during the heating season.
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
| |
| daestrom 2005-07-05, 6:25 pm |
|
"Vlad" <Bla@dot.com> wrote in message
news:9u9lc11tc98ksrqit7u15tt1v351hhj67b@4ax.com...
quote:
> On Fri, 01 Jul 2005 16:53:53 GMT, "daestrom"
> <daestrom@NO_SPAM_HEREtwcny.rr.com> wrote:
>
<snip>
quote:
>
> 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"
>
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.
quote:
> Vlad
> Some people associate the name Vlad with Vladimir Putin
> I prefer the association with Vladimir Horowitz, my preferred pianist
I prefer full orchestral music myself (mostly the three B's)
daestrom
|
|
|
|
|