bpnjensen wrote:

In the winter, this is probably true - what you lose on light
efficiency you save on heating. Then, the question becomes - per unit
of tangible heat energy, what costs less - the electricity to light
the bulb or the "other" source?

The most efficent way to heat is by moving heat, not creating it.
A refrigerator works by moving heat out of the cooling compartment into
the room. This is a specific case of a heat pump.

An air conditioner is a similar case. Some air conditioners can be run
backwards, i.e. used to suck heat out of the air and deliver to a room.
These are called in the US "heat pumps", which is silly as an air conditoner
of any kind is a heat pump.

Here they have hit the market big, with a large reduction (almost to
nothing, VAT only) on airconditioners, there is a big influx of models
and lots of competition. They are called "inverters" here.

The next most efficent way of heating is fire. Either radiated heat from a
fire, or transfered heat via pumped air or water. My son just moved into a
new apartment and it has a Junkers (German) gas heater. The heat transfer is
so efficent, the case and exhaust pipe are plastic. It's smaller than a
a microwave oven, interior wall mounted and heats a 150 square meter apartment.

A neighbor has a 20 year old Junkers, and it is a huge metal box the size
of a medium sized refrigerator, mounted on an outside wall with a metal
vent pipe. My guess is that most of the heat gets radiated by the box and
vent pipe and goes up the chimney as it were.

The technology has improved immensely.

A fireplace is the exception to the rule because since it is in a room
with people it needs to be properly ventilated and more heat goes up the
chimney than into the room. Add into it the fact that the room requires
a constant flow of fresh (outside) air, which is cold and you get very
close to a net loss.

A stove is better as you can control the amount of air in (and therefore out),
but not a lot.

Electric resistance heating is really poor, not only does it give you
so little heat per kWh, electricity is expensive. The average kilowatt
hour in the US at your home starts out as 3kWh at the generating plant.
Since more than half of the electricity in the US comes from coal,
and most of the rest from oil, think about it.

I always laugh because people here buy these sauna heating panels. They
are about a foot square and consume/output 400 watts of heat. This means
if they are on full they reach over 120F, which makes them impossible to
put anywhere near people. If you turn them down to a safe and comfortable
temperature, they consume less electricity, but put out less heat. They
also are less efficent at the lower temperatures.

So the answer is if you live in a climate that does not drop below
freezing an electric heat pump (backwards air conditioner) is probably
your best "bang for the buck". Probably you could get away with
electric auxilary heating for the few days it becomes so cold that
the heat pump can't suck enough heat out of the air.

If you live in a colder environment, then you probably would need an
auxilary heater such as a Junkers or the US equivalent.

Then there is the whole notion of solar heat collectors. There are special
ones designed to keep GPS satellites warm and can reach 250F from "earthshine".
A former co-worker was going to install them in the UK, I never did hear if
he did and if so, how they worked out.

Note that heat and electricity storage systems are expensive and not always
practical, so any solar heating system needs a backup.

With that said, we have a solar hot water heater and it does enough heat
for 3-4 showers at night May through September. It does not see the sun
until 11am, so if you want a hot shower in the morning you have to use
an electric heater.

Geoff.

--
Geoffrey S. Mendelson, Jerusalem, Israel N3OWJ/4X1GM
New word I coined 12/13/09, "Sub-Wikipedia" adj, describing knowledge or
understanding, as in he has a sub-wikipedia understanding of the situation.
i.e possessing less facts or information than can be found in the Wikipedia.

On Jun 6, 7:59*pm, "Geoffrey S. Mendelson"
wrote:
bpnjensen wrote:
In the winter, this is probably true - what you lose on light
efficiency you save on heating. *Then, the question becomes - per unit
of tangible heat energy, what costs less - the electricity to light
the bulb or the "other" source?

The most efficent way to heat is by moving heat, not creating it.
A refrigerator works by moving heat out of the cooling compartment into
the room. This is a specific case of a heat pump.

An air conditioner is a similar case. Some air conditioners can be run
backwards, i.e. used to suck heat out of the air and deliver to a room.
These are called in the US "heat pumps", which is silly as an air conditoner
of any kind is a heat pump.

Here they have hit the market big, with a large reduction (almost to
nothing, VAT only) on airconditioners, there is a big influx of models
and lots of competition. They are called "inverters" here.

The next most efficent way of heating is fire. Either radiated heat from a
fire, or transfered heat via pumped air or water. My son just moved into a
new apartment and it has a Junkers (German) gas heater. The heat transfer is
so efficent, the case and exhaust pipe are plastic. It's smaller than a
a microwave oven, interior wall mounted and heats a 150 square meter apartment.

A neighbor has a 20 year old Junkers, and it is a huge metal box the size
of a medium sized refrigerator, mounted on an outside wall with a metal
vent pipe. My guess is that most of the heat gets radiated by the box and
vent pipe and goes up the chimney as it were.

The technology has improved immensely.

A fireplace is the exception to the rule because since it is in a room
with people it needs to be properly ventilated and more heat goes up the
chimney than into the room. Add into it the fact that the room requires
a constant flow of fresh (outside) air, which is cold and you get very
close to a net loss.

A stove is better as you can control the amount of air in (and therefore out),
but not a lot.

Electric resistance heating is really poor, not only does it give you
so little heat per kWh, electricity is expensive. The average kilowatt
hour in the US at your home starts out as 3kWh at the generating plant.
Since more than half of the electricity in the US comes from coal,
and most of the rest from oil, think about it.

I always laugh because people here buy these sauna heating panels. They
are about a foot square and consume/output 400 watts of heat. This means
if they are on full they reach over 120F, which makes them impossible to
put anywhere near people. If you turn them down to a safe and comfortable
temperature, they consume less electricity, but put out less heat. They
also are less efficent at the lower temperatures.

So the answer is if you live in a climate that does not drop below
freezing an electric heat pump (backwards air conditioner) is probably
your best "bang for the buck". Probably you could get away with
electric auxilary heating for the few days it becomes so cold that
the heat pump can't suck enough heat out of the air.

If you live in a colder environment, then you probably would need an
auxilary heater such as a Junkers or the US equivalent.

Then there is the whole notion of solar heat collectors. There are special
ones designed to keep GPS satellites warm and can reach 250F from "earthshine".
A former co-worker was going to install them in the UK, I never did hear if
he did and if so, how they worked out.

Note that heat and electricity storage systems are expensive and not always
practical, so any solar heating system needs a backup.

With that said, we have a solar hot water heater and it does enough heat
for 3-4 showers at night May through September. It does not see the sun
until 11am, so if you want a hot shower in the morning you have to use
an electric heater.

Geoff.

--
Geoffrey S. Mendelson, Jerusalem, Israel *N3OWJ/4X1GM
New word I coined 12/13/09, "Sub-Wikipedia" adj, describing knowledge or
understanding, as in he has a sub-wikipedia understanding of the situation.

On Jun 6, 9:09*pm, bpnjensen wrote:
On Jun 6, 7:59*pm, "Geoffrey S. Mendelson"
wrote:



bpnjensen wrote:
In the winter, this is probably true - what you lose on light
efficiency you save on heating. *Then, the question becomes - per unit
of tangible heat energy, what costs less - the electricity to light
the bulb or the "other" source?

The most efficent way to heat is by moving heat, not creating it.
A refrigerator works by moving heat out of the cooling compartment into
the room. This is a specific case of a heat pump.

An air conditioner is a similar case. Some air conditioners can be run
backwards, i.e. used to suck heat out of the air and deliver to a room.
These are called in the US "heat pumps", which is silly as an air conditoner
of any kind is a heat pump.

Here they have hit the market big, with a large reduction (almost to
nothing, VAT only) on airconditioners, there is a big influx of models
and lots of competition. They are called "inverters" here.

The next most efficent way of heating is fire. Either radiated heat from a
fire, or transfered heat via pumped air or water. My son just moved into a
new apartment and it has a Junkers (German) gas heater. The heat transfer is
so efficent, the case and exhaust pipe are plastic. It's smaller than a
a microwave oven, interior wall mounted and heats a 150 square meter apartment.

A neighbor has a 20 year old Junkers, and it is a huge metal box the size
of a medium sized refrigerator, mounted on an outside wall with a metal
vent pipe. My guess is that most of the heat gets radiated by the box and
vent pipe and goes up the chimney as it were.

The technology has improved immensely.

A fireplace is the exception to the rule because since it is in a room
with people it needs to be properly ventilated and more heat goes up the
chimney than into the room. Add into it the fact that the room requires
a constant flow of fresh (outside) air, which is cold and you get very
close to a net loss.

A stove is better as you can control the amount of air in (and therefore out),
but not a lot.

Electric resistance heating is really poor, not only does it give you
so little heat per kWh, electricity is expensive. The average kilowatt
hour in the US at your home starts out as 3kWh at the generating plant.
Since more than half of the electricity in the US comes from coal,
and most of the rest from oil, think about it.

I always laugh because people here buy these sauna heating panels. They
are about a foot square and consume/output 400 watts of heat. This means
if they are on full they reach over 120F, which makes them impossible to
put anywhere near people. If you turn them down to a safe and comfortable
temperature, they consume less electricity, but put out less heat. They
also are less efficent at the lower temperatures.

So the answer is if you live in a climate that does not drop below
freezing an electric heat pump (backwards air conditioner) is probably
your best "bang for the buck". Probably you could get away with
electric auxilary heating for the few days it becomes so cold that
the heat pump can't suck enough heat out of the air.

If you live in a colder environment, then you probably would need an
auxilary heater such as a Junkers or the US equivalent.

Then there is the whole notion of solar heat collectors. There are special
ones designed to keep GPS satellites warm and can reach 250F from "earthshine".
A former co-worker was going to install them in the UK, I never did hear if
he did and if so, how they worked out.

Note that heat and electricity storage systems are expensive and not always
practical, so any solar heating system needs a backup.

With that said, we have a solar hot water heater and it does enough heat
for 3-4 showers at night May through September. It does not see the sun
until 11am, so if you want a hot shower in the morning you have to use
an electric heater.

Geoff.

--
Geoffrey S. Mendelson, Jerusalem, Israel *N3OWJ/4X1GM
New word I coined 12/13/09, "Sub-Wikipedia" adj, describing knowledge or
understanding, as in he has a sub-wikipedia understanding of the situation.
i.e possessing less facts or information than can be found in the Wikipedia.

Great explanation - thanks Geoff.

TO&A - After 31 Lame-Ass Replies to
another great (OT) CUHULIN Post

RHF -proclaims- It is better to . . . Light One
Incandescent Light Bulbs : Then To Curse
the Eco-Socialist Darkness of Cap-and-Trade

Last week I was in a Home Depot and they had
a package of 6 GE Reveal 100 Watt Light Bulbs
for under $5. {~85 Cents Each}

super 'sub' sizing it -a-la- wiki-ped-dia ~ RHF

On Jun 5, 11:10*pm, dave wrote:
wrote:
http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/r...?ArtNum=290585

Load up on LOTS of Incandescent Light Bulbs.Hoard them.Get a Lifetime
supply of them, before it is too late.
cuhulin

- Why? *
- I quit using them 20 years ago and never looked back.

The the trail of darkness extending forever
behind you . . .

-*Try to be brave.

and only look Forward into the Light
of a New [CFL] Tomorrow . . .

Dave you being 'brave' is the Front-end of
http://skeptico.blogs.com/.a/6a00d83...db50970c-800wi
.. . . an Ass' Ass ;-) ~ RHF

On Jun 6, 12:02*pm, dave wrote:
Denton wrote:

I'm with cuhulin on this one.

To believe those things are safe is a fool's denial.

It requires more pollution over time to operate the old school bulbs.
This includes mercury, radioactive trace elements from coal, and CO2.

Dave better yet is . . .
Sun Light to Live by . . .
Moon Light to Sleep by . . .

no batteries of a/c required ~ RHF

On Jun 6, 5:48*pm, Bill Baka wrote:
On 06/06/2010 04:46 PM, Gregg wrote:



On Jun 6, 10:02 am, *wrote:
I'm with cuhulin on this one.

How do you want to die? Burn to death from the flaky power supplies used in
those damned CFL bulb *bases?
Or do you prefer the more subtle means of neurological hemorrhages and
clotting by inhaling the VERY TOXIC
gas that will come out when you accidentally drop one on the floor? No it
won't happen right away...it will
take hold years later, probably by the time you start developing lesions and
growths from that cell phone
you've got glued to your ear.

To believe those things are safe is a fool's denial.

What things? The bulbs or cell phones, or both? FWIW - whenever I use
my cell I use the speaker mode. I feel I know enough to not TX right
on my head. Everytime I see someone using their cell in that matter it
crosses my mind.

And the BT technology, I'm not real familiar with how that works, I
have an idea though. But using anything like that - that someone can
copy what you're saying isn't a good thing IMO and even worse is that
if it's on (though you're not using it) anyone with a lick of common
sense and the correct piece can listen to everything you're doing /
saying / in your vehicle. I suppose many people either don't care or
don't know, it has to be one or the other IMO.

I don't know about you guys, but I like my filament bulbs in the winter.
The lack of efficiency just helps heat the room I am in, so no big deal.
My summer bulbs are CFL's, soon to be LED's when the price comes down to
something a mere mortal can afford.

Replaced an old CRT TV in a back Bedroom with
a new LCD TV and had to add a new Electric
Heater to keep the room warm during the winter.
- - - now was that progress ? ~ RHF

On Jun 6, 7:10*pm, bpnjensen wrote:
On Jun 6, 7:06*pm, Bill Baka wrote:



On 06/06/2010 06:59 PM, bpnjensen wrote:

On Jun 6, 5:48 pm, Bill *wrote:

I don't know about you guys, but I like my filament bulbs in the winter.
The lack of efficiency just helps heat the room I am in, so no big deal.
My summer bulbs are CFL's, soon to be LED's when the price comes down to
something a mere mortal can afford.

In the winter, this is probably true - what you lose on light
efficiency you save on heating. *Then, the question becomes - per unit
of tangible heat energy, what costs less - the electricity to light
the bulb or the "other" source?

I am sure this can be calculated, but not by this guy! :-)

I have a big reason to not want the CFL's in the winter, radio noise.
DX sucks in the summer and the noise level goes up in the evenings when
everybody turns on their energy saving noise makers.

Understood, the older ones were terrible - but the new ones I have
purchased are RF quiet as a mouse. *If there is any noise, it's much
lower than the background. *I can have all these new CFLs in the house
off or on and the radio S/N is the same.

Don't ask me which brand just now - I'd have to run and get the
package from the garage; but if you shy away from CFLs, this is one
less reason to do so.

Bruce

BpnJ - Try un-screwing the CFLs when not in-use
and you may find that the RFI is even lower ~ RHF

On Jun 6, 8:54*am, "Geoffrey S. Mendelson"
wrote:
Gregg wrote:
I think both lights have its niche. I have two of the newer expensive
ones. They definitely don't produce the same amount of light, though
I'm sure their data says otherwise. I just use the simply "common
sense" test. Pretty simple IMO, hold up an open book and look. Which
type of light makes it easier to read? Until they come up with an even
better type of lite that emits more lite, my majority of bulbs will be
the usual.

The problem is that incadesecnt lights are truely a full spectrum device.
They emit waves from far infrared (heat) to near ultra-violet over a
continuous spectrum.

Most of their output is far infrared, about 90% of the total, and by the
time they get to ultra violet, it's negligable.

Floursecent bulbs emit only ultraviolet light inside, and use that to excite
phospors on the outside of the bulb. They absorb most of the UV light, and
emit single color light. Household bulbs use a combination of the 3
primary colors of light (red, green and blue) to produce what looks like
(but really is not) full spectrum light.

LED's also work the same way, combining but they emit the colors directly..

Both are combined in such a way as to look white. The problem is that the
colors are generally set up to mimic daylight, (the light of the sky
on a clear day), not sunlight. The human eye is used to seeing sunlight, and
is more comfortable reading with it.

Incadescent light is the most comfortable for reading, being more like
sunlight (actually it is even more red).

As far as efficency goes, incadescent light is about 10% efficent, although
there are more efficent and longer lasting bulbs around, they have never
really been markted effectivley.

LED lights are about 25-30% efficent due to problems with heat dissipation,
the fact they are DC devices in a world with AC power and so on. There have
been claims of almsot 50% efficency in the future, but so far they are just
claims.

Flourescent lights are around 35% efficent, which currently makes them the
leader in lighting.

It's IMHO actually a false claim because due to the difference in spectrum
output, I find that I (and my family) all need higher power lights to read
if they are flouresent. That's why although I've been using CFL's for 13
years or so, we still have reading lamps with incadescent bulbs in them.

What I am hoping to see is a varation of the 360 degree LED with improved
efficency. These are similar in design to flourescent lights. The LEDs are
encased in a block of plastic, which instead of clear like traditional
ones flouresceses (glows).

The ones I have been using to replace radio dial lamps glow brightly in
a daylight white color in all directions, I'm hoping to be able to
buy them in "warm" (redder lights for reading) in the near future.

Until then, IMHO you are wise to replace all of your incadescent lights
for general illumination with flourescent ones, the "regular" kind being
cheaper to maintain than CFL's, but to make sure you have a large supply
of replacement bulbs for your reading lights.

Geoff.

--
Geoffrey S. Mendelson, Jerusalem, Israel *N3OWJ/4X1GM
New word I coined 12/13/09, "Sub-Wikipedia" adj, describing knowledge or
understanding, as in he has a sub-wikipedia understanding of the situation.

Brenda Ann wrote:


Imagine how much MORE efficient those lamps would be if they DIDN'T eminate
energy in totally useless RF ranges...


They don't emit much at all. The routine noise spikes on the mains are
much noisier.

They certainly are quieter than halogen torchierres or quartz driveway
lights.

Geoffrey S. Mendelson wrote:
bpnjensen wrote:

In the winter, this is probably true - what you lose on light
efficiency you save on heating. Then, the question becomes - per unit
of tangible heat energy, what costs less - the electricity to light
the bulb or the "other" source?

The most efficent way to heat is by moving heat, not creating it.
A refrigerator works by moving heat out of the cooling compartment into
the room. This is a specific case of a heat pump.

An air conditioner is a similar case. Some air conditioners can be run
backwards, i.e. used to suck heat out of the air and deliver to a room.
These are called in the US "heat pumps", which is silly as an air conditoner
of any kind is a heat pump.

Here they have hit the market big, with a large reduction (almost to
nothing, VAT only) on airconditioners, there is a big influx of models
and lots of competition. They are called "inverters" here.

The next most efficent way of heating is fire. Either radiated heat from a
fire, or transfered heat via pumped air or water. My son just moved into a
new apartment and it has a Junkers (German) gas heater. The heat transfer is
so efficent, the case and exhaust pipe are plastic. It's smaller than a
a microwave oven, interior wall mounted and heats a 150 square meter apartment.

A neighbor has a 20 year old Junkers, and it is a huge metal box the size
of a medium sized refrigerator, mounted on an outside wall with a metal
vent pipe. My guess is that most of the heat gets radiated by the box and
vent pipe and goes up the chimney as it were.

The technology has improved immensely.

A fireplace is the exception to the rule because since it is in a room
with people it needs to be properly ventilated and more heat goes up the
chimney than into the room. Add into it the fact that the room requires
a constant flow of fresh (outside) air, which is cold and you get very
close to a net loss.

A stove is better as you can control the amount of air in (and therefore out),
but not a lot.

Electric resistance heating is really poor, not only does it give you
so little heat per kWh, electricity is expensive. The average kilowatt
hour in the US at your home starts out as 3kWh at the generating plant.
Since more than half of the electricity in the US comes from coal,
and most of the rest from oil, think about it.

I always laugh because people here buy these sauna heating panels. They
are about a foot square and consume/output 400 watts of heat. This means
if they are on full they reach over 120F, which makes them impossible to
put anywhere near people. If you turn them down to a safe and comfortable
temperature, they consume less electricity, but put out less heat. They
also are less efficent at the lower temperatures.

So the answer is if you live in a climate that does not drop below
freezing an electric heat pump (backwards air conditioner) is probably
your best "bang for the buck". Probably you could get away with
electric auxilary heating for the few days it becomes so cold that
the heat pump can't suck enough heat out of the air.

If you live in a colder environment, then you probably would need an
auxilary heater such as a Junkers or the US equivalent.

Then there is the whole notion of solar heat collectors. There are special
ones designed to keep GPS satellites warm and can reach 250F from "earthshine".
A former co-worker was going to install them in the UK, I never did hear if
he did and if so, how they worked out.

Note that heat and electricity storage systems are expensive and not always
practical, so any solar heating system needs a backup.

With that said, we have a solar hot water heater and it does enough heat
for 3-4 showers at night May through September. It does not see the sun
until 11am, so if you want a hot shower in the morning you have to use
an electric heater.

Geoff.


I have special fixtures that allow me to burn methane. I have it piped
in from Texas.