| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
(OT) Why the end of the lightbulb is a dark day for us all
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 |
(OT) Why the end of the lightbulb is a dark day for us all
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. *Try to be brave. Hoarding light bulbs... shakes head and :-)s... |
(OT) Why the end of the lightbulb is a dark day for us all
|
(OT) Why the end of the lightbulb is a dark day for us all
On Jun 6, 1:57*am, bpnjensen wrote:
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. *Try to be brave. Hoarding light bulbs... shakes head and :-)s... Be careful "shaking that head" thing.....someone may call you on it. ;-) 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. |
(OT) Why the end of the lightbulb is a dark day for us all
bpnjensen wrote:
Hoarding light bulbs... shakes head and :-)s... Nothing wrong with being thrifty. One or two of the of the thousands I've saved over the years still have that curly wire thing still in one piece. mike |
(OT) Why the end of the lightbulb is a dark day for us all
On 6/06/2010 4:36 PM, Gregg wrote:
On Jun 6, 1:57 am, wrote: On Jun 5, 11:10 pm, 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. Try to be brave. Hoarding light bulbs... shakes head and :-)s... Be careful "shaking that head" thing.....someone may call you on it. ;-) Why shouldn't he do it? You do it all the time, even with all the "loose screws". Such a risk taker, eh? 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. It's a great pity you didn't use the "common sense" test when you allied yourself with the trolls. But then, common sense isn't a very common commodity in your neck of the woods, is it? 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. Anyway, I'm glad you finally "saw the light" and recanted your bat signal to the DTS. That "backchannel" of yours must really have been buzzing after Nurk got his signals crossed! Krypsis |
(OT) Why the end of the lightbulb is a dark day for us all
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. i.e possessing less facts or information than can be found in the Wikipedia. |
(OT) Why the end of the lightbulb is a dark day for us all
http://www.ideafinder.com/history/in.../lightbulb.htm
Before the invention of the Incandescent light bulbs, there was Arc Lights, sort of like striking an Arc with an electric welding machine.They were very Bright harsh lights too, but they didn't last long. We can weld anything but the crack of Dawn ~ old Shack's Welding shop (radio commercials) that used to be across the mighty Pearl River from doggy's couch. And Dawn was a good old gal. cuhulin |
(OT) Why the end of the lightbulb is a dark day for us all
You know what a Radiometer is, I have two of them.If I set them in the
Sunlight or near an Incandescent light bulb, the little black and white vanes spin around fast.If I set them near a flourescent light, the vanes do not spin around at all.Light, real Light has mass and pressure.In outer Space, there are a few devices which use Solar Sails, the Light from the Sun gives them power to soar through outer Space. Incandescent Light Bulbs are the Best Light Bulbs. Stock up, hoard those Incandescent Light Bulbs.Fill up your closets and attics and basements with Incandescent Light Bubs. In the Land of the Blind, the One Eyed Man is King. cuhulin |
(OT) Why the end of the lightbulb is a dark day for us all
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. |
(OT) Why the end of the lightbulb is a dark day for us all
On Jun 6, 7:02*am, "Denton" 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. Yes, paranoia will get you far. |
(OT) Why the end of the lightbulb is a dark day for us all
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. |
(OT) Why the end of the lightbulb is a dark day for us all
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. Indeed - and instead of being in a compact, eminently manageable form and amount, it is spread out en mass across the atmosphere and landscape, affecting all the life on the planet, and unable to to be controlled or avoided. Oil pushers make the same goofy arguments about solar panels - too many toxic elements in a panel. Same retort applies. |
(OT) Why the end of the lightbulb is a dark day for us all
Think about those Volcanos spouting off and when the Oceans burp.There
is NO Way humans can compete with them. cuhulin |
(OT) Why the end of the lightbulb is a dark day for us all
Illuminati's Biggest Crime? Suppressing Nikola Tesla Technology.
http://www.henrymakow.com/nikola_tesla.html cuhulin |
(OT) Why the end of the lightbulb is a dark day for us all
On Jun 6, 2:15*pm, wrote:
Think about those Volcanos spouting off and when the Oceans burp.There is NO Way humans can compete with them. cuhulin Not sure what you mean exactly - but human output of carbon and etc. exceeds by a large factor the output of volcanoes. Hard to imagine, but remember - there are billions of us, using this stuff at a breakneck speed. |
(OT) Why the end of the lightbulb is a dark day for us all
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. Good explanantion, that made it make sense even too me. 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. OK, copy that too. Can you explain this for me, with the combination of your radio knowledge and these different bulbs etc. Why in your opinion won't anyone replace my LED (am I saying that right?) on my modded 394. I want that crap green gondo and replaced with the indiglo blue like RadioLabs do with their 398/909. I asked them and never received a response which was kind of surprising in how good they usually are in answering emails. Are you familiar enough with what I'm asking - is it even possible? I know it can't be for the lack of room because the 909 is a portable and the 394 is a desktop. Can't hurt to ask you - no one else knows apparently. :-) Incadescent light is the most comfortable for reading, being more like sunlight (actually it is even more red). Ok, would that explain this then? I used to have a reading lite that was red, it wasn't a hot red or anything - but at least "for me" for some reason that was the best reading light I had. 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. Exactly. I tried the newer ones for reading, it just wasn't going to work for me unfortunately. My hope was to use two of them in front of the house with each light encased in its own housing. I guess because of the differences of temperature throughout the day into night/ cold/ humidity etc. they didn't last five months (I think) and they're too expensive to use them if they're not going to last longer than that. 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. Yep, refer to earlier on my post about the red for reading. I've also noticed on CB's nowadays. It seems to be the fad of using all different kinds of LEDS on the radio and Nitro Knobs, from what I hear they are pretty expensive. There are all kinds of youtube vids of these radio modded out, I must say they are somewhat eye catching if anything else. :-) 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. Copy that. Thanks Geoff. I learned a little about lights. |
(OT) Why the end of the lightbulb is a dark day for us all
On Jun 6, 10:02*am, "Denton" 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. |
(OT) Why the end of the lightbulb is a dark day for us all
Gregg wrote:
I asked them and never received a response which was kind of surprising in how good they usually are in answering emails. Are you familiar enough with what I'm asking - is it even possible? I know it can't be for the lack of room because the 909 is a portable and the 394 is a desktop. Can't hurt to ask you - no one else knows apparently. :-) I had to go find a service manual for it to answer this one. There is a row of surface mount LEDs soldered to the logic board. On top of this is an LCD screen. The manual goes into no detail, so I have no idea of how it is mounted or connected. If, and I say if, the LCD is just stuck on there with some tape or glue, and is connected to the circuit board with a cable, then you could probably remove it without damage, and replace the LED's with another color. or put an opaque strip over them and a new strip with a different color. That may be a little more difficult because you have to find a place to draw power from. Then you just stick the LCD back in place and it works. :-) More likely the LCD is instead soldered to the board. It may be surrounded by a metal shield as LCD's are very noisy electricaly and it could interfere with your reception. The shield may be soldered to the board too. Removing soldered on shields is difficult and removing soldered on LCD's is time consuming, which translates to expensive. By my count, there are at least 28 pins or connections on the bottom of the LCD. So I expect that the cost of replacing the LEDs is very high, far more than the radio is worth. When the radio was relatively new, if you needed to replace the LCD or an LED, you would just get a new logic board from Radio Shack. Now you would have to find a dead radio with a working logic board, such as one that had the front end destroyed by lightening and use that. I hope that answers your question. 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. |
(OT) Why the end of the lightbulb is a dark day for us all
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. |
(OT) Why the end of the lightbulb is a dark day for us all
On 06/06/2010 04:29 PM, Gregg wrote:
On Jun 6, 8:54 am, "Geoffrey S. 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. Good explanantion, that made it make sense even too me. 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. OK, copy that too. Can you explain this for me, with the combination of your radio knowledge and these different bulbs etc. Why in your opinion won't anyone replace my LED (am I saying that right?) on my modded 394. I want that crap green gondo and replaced with the indiglo blue like RadioLabs do with their 398/909. I asked them and never received a response which was kind of surprising in how good they usually are in answering emails. Are you familiar enough with what I'm asking - is it even possible? I know it can't be for the lack of room because the 909 is a portable and the 394 is a desktop. Can't hurt to ask you - no one else knows apparently. :-) Incadescent light is the most comfortable for reading, being more like sunlight (actually it is even more red). Ok, would that explain this then? I used to have a reading lite that was red, it wasn't a hot red or anything - but at least "for me" for some reason that was the best reading light I had. 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. Exactly. I tried the newer ones for reading, it just wasn't going to work for me unfortunately. My hope was to use two of them in front of the house with each light encased in its own housing. I guess because of the differences of temperature throughout the day into night/ cold/ humidity etc. they didn't last five months (I think) and they're too expensive to use them if they're not going to last longer than that. 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. Yep, refer to earlier on my post about the red for reading. I've also noticed on CB's nowadays. It seems to be the fad of using all different kinds of LEDS on the radio and Nitro Knobs, from what I hear they are pretty expensive. There are all kinds of youtube vids of these radio modded out, I must say they are somewhat eye catching if anything else. :-) 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. Copy that. Thanks Geoff. I learned a little about lights. Are any of you guys old enough to remember the 70's when black light psychedelic art was a big deal. There was a place in LA called His place, a bit religious, but they had some outstanding works of black light art. I really wish I had bought some of those. |
(OT) Why the end of the lightbulb is a dark day for us all
On Jun 6, 5:52*pm, Bill Baka wrote:
Are any of you guys old enough to remember the 70's when black light psychedelic art was a big deal. There was a place in LA called His place, a bit religious, but they had some outstanding works of black light art. I really wish I had bought some of those. I remember, but I'd rather not ;-) |
(OT) Why the end of the lightbulb is a dark day for us all
On Jun 6, 5:48*pm, Bill Baka 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! :-) |
(OT) Why the end of the lightbulb is a dark day for us all
On 06/06/2010 06:55 PM, bpnjensen wrote:
On Jun 6, 5:52 pm, Bill wrote: Are any of you guys old enough to remember the 70's when black light psychedelic art was a big deal. There was a place in LA called His place, a bit religious, but they had some outstanding works of black light art. I really wish I had bought some of those. I remember, but I'd rather not ;-) 1969 I will never forget. Moon landing, live in 'Boy toy' to a hot French redhead and her always horny daughter. One worked days, the other evenings so I was never without. I was grinning ear to ear that year. That guy 'Bob', on the men's products commercials had nothing to smile about like I did. Overloaded on sex at 20 years old. GRIN |
(OT) Why the end of the lightbulb is a dark day for us all
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. |
(OT) Why the end of the lightbulb is a dark day for us all
On Jun 6, 7:03*pm, Bill Baka wrote:
On 06/06/2010 06:55 PM, bpnjensen wrote: On Jun 6, 5:52 pm, Bill *wrote: Are any of you guys old enough to remember the 70's when black light psychedelic art was a big deal. There was a place in LA called His place, a bit religious, but they had some outstanding works of black light art. I really wish I had bought some of those. I remember, but I'd rather not ;-) 1969 I will never forget. Moon landing, live in 'Boy toy' to a hot French redhead and her always horny daughter. One worked days, the other evenings so I was never without. I was grinning ear to ear that year. That guy 'Bob', on the men's products commercials had nothing to smile about like I did. Overloaded on sex at 20 years old. GRIN Now THAT'S worth remembering! |
(OT) Why the end of the lightbulb is a dark day for us all
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. |
(OT) Why the end of the lightbulb is a dark day for us all
"Bill Baka" wrote in message ... 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. Imagine how much MORE efficient those lamps would be if they DIDN'T eminate energy in totally useless RF ranges... |
(OT) Why the end of the lightbulb is a dark day for us all
On Jun 6, 7:32*pm, "Brenda Ann"
wrote: "Bill Baka" wrote in message ... 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. Imagine how much MORE efficient those lamps would be if they DIDN'T eminate energy in totally useless RF ranges... Again - mine appear to be radio silont. |
(OT) Why the end of the lightbulb is a dark day for us all
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. |
(OT) Why the end of the lightbulb is a dark day for us all
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. |
(OT) Why the end of the lightbulb is a dark day for us all
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 |
(OT) Why the end of the lightbulb is a dark day for us all
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 |
(OT) Why the end of the lightbulb is a dark day for us all
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 |
(OT) Why the end of the lightbulb is a dark day for us all
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 |
(OT) Why the end of the lightbulb is a dark day for us all
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 |
(OT) Why the end of the lightbulb is a dark day for us all
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. |
(OT) Why the end of the lightbulb is a dark day for us all
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. |
(OT) Why the end of the lightbulb is a dark day for us all
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. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:15 PM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com