(10) Technologies That Deserve To Die

"Watson A.Name - Watt Sun" wrote:

In article <3F9B2231.1F7899B3@bellatlantic.net>,
ehsjr@bellatlantic.net mentioned...


oldsoundguy wrote:

hmmmmm .. bet you haven't been into a lighting store in a long time.
There are now full spectrum fluroescensts out now .. not terribly
expensive .. I changed over 90% of the lighting in my home to same ..
inital cost with rebates from the local power company was about 200 to
250 usd .. I saved 100 in electrical costs the first month of use.

I do not believe that. Implied is that the 100 dollar savings
was due to the lighting change. Your electric bill may very
well have been 100 dollars lower - but what numbers do you have
concerning how many dollars the lighting change saved you?

How do you know that?

How do I know what?

He could have an electric bill that's over a
thousand dollars, in which case a hundred dollar savings would be a
drop in the bucket, easily attainable.

I don't question that the bill could drop 100 - what I
question is the implication that the 100 dollar drop was due
to changing his lighting. I do not believe it - so I asked
him for numbers.

I have a high rate - 13.5 cents/kWh. 100 dollars translates to
~740 kWh at that rate. Thats a huge amount of lighting wattage
to save in a month - about 1000 watts of lighting for each and
every hour in a 31 day month (744 hours). Figuring lighting
peak usage is about 8 hours per day, it is even more difficult
to believe that a 100 dollar savings can be achieved by
lighting conversion. He may have a higher rate - I've heard
of a rate of almost 26 cents per kWh - and he may have a huge
amount of lighting - I don't know. But he can post the numbers
- how many lights he converted and the wattage savings for
each light would give a starting point, and any other numbers
he has may complete the picture. He may have done an analysis
to identify how much he saved by the lighting conversion - or
he may merely have seen his bill drop and not determined what
part the lighting played in making it drop.

 

[John Stewart]

Lizard Blizzard wrote:

Tim Williams wrote:

"Lizard Blizzard" <NOSPAM@rsccd.org> wrote in message
news:bnbdkc$4jp12$1@hades.csu.net...

4. INCANDESCENT LIGHT BULBS
...
But it's still a far cry from the glories of natural daylight.


I say it's pretty darn good. Can't beat the wide, natural spectrum of
random thermal noise! Only difference between that and the sun is it's
hotter (and is mostly hydrogen and helium glowing), and has travelled
through 1AU of space and the Earth's atmosphere.


Plus there's the cost of light bulbs, their fragility, the replacement
overhead, the vast waste of energy, glass, and tungsten, the goofy ...


Lamps as we know them today are amazingly rugged. Very thin glass, yet
I've dropped one onto a sidewalk from 10' up and it still didn't break!
Fluorescents, OTOH, are extremely fragile; I've broken one falling just
2' onto a table. And there was some paper there to pad its fall.


They will be replaced by a superior technology, something cheap, cool,
and precisely engineered, that emits visible wavelengths genuinely
suited to a consumer's human eyeball.


If you ask me, incandescents have got it down... show me a fluorescent
with that spectrum and I'll buy it.

I think the whole point of this was that incandescents have most of
their electromagnetic radiation in the _wrong_ part of the spectrum,
namely IR. Of course that's where it's needed the least. Unless of
course you're using the light blub in an incubator! ;-)

Besides all this, what does the writer propose to replace it with?
Fluorescents don't fit because of what I just said. They are also
economically unfeasable, although some of the small devices have made
headway into such existing installations. Any other technology, say
electroluminescent whatever, or LEDs, is way off from this day in time
for a variety of reasons.

Economically unfeasible? If so, then why are they all over the place?
I think you need to explain your assertions. And we haven't even
discussed HID lamps. I think you need to thoroughly read Don's Lighting
web pages. http://members.misty.com/don/light.html

Tim

No one in this thread thought to mention the awful things all these new
non-linear loads do to the power system. That includes pretty well all
lighting (not Tungsten), data processing, variable speed drives, Etc.

Lighting is a large part of the load & has very large effect on your
local power utility. The worst offender is the 3rd harmonic of the load
current.
In a 3-phase system which may appear to be balanced the 3rd harmonic
adds in the return lead & in some cases is larger than any of the fundamental

loads in the power system. The problem is addressed by derating transformers
& a number of slick connexions in the system. Lots of problems.

Used to be you would only see this sort of thing if you were dealing
with a load that needed lots of DC such as a street railway, ball mill
or electric furnace. Now the problem is everywhere.

Cheers, John Stewart

 

oldsoundguy wrote:

On Sun, 26 Oct 2003 04:50:04 -0800, Watson A.Name - "Watt Sun"
alondra101@hotmail.com> wrote:

In article <3F9B2231.1F7899B3@bellatlantic.net>,
ehsjr@bellatlantic.net mentioned...


oldsoundguy wrote:

hmmmmm .. bet you haven't been into a lighting store in a long time.
There are now full spectrum fluroescensts out now .. not terribly
expensive .. I changed over 90% of the lighting in my home to same ..
inital cost with rebates from the local power company was about 200 to
250 usd .. I saved 100 in electrical costs the first month of use.

I do not believe that. Implied is that the 100 dollar savings
was due to the lighting change. Your electric bill may very
well have been 100 dollars lower - but what numbers do you have
concerning how many dollars the lighting change saved you?

How do you know that? He could have an electric bill that's over a
thousand dollars, in which case a hundred dollar savings would be a
drop in the bucket, easily attainable.

A lady at work replaced her fridge, and saved $50 the first month.

My electrical bill was in the 280 US a month range .. lowest being 140
a month .. now it ranges (with a local 30% INCREASE in rates) between
90 on the low to 180 on the high .. I would say that using
fluroescents is a substantial saving. I have 3 way in the lamps
requireing same. Only those fixtures running less than a 40 watt
sitll have incancescent lamps, as 40 watt is the lowest that you can
buy at present in the CCF lreplacement bulbs. add to that in a two
year time, I have yet to have to replace a single bulb (including
outdoor porch lamps and bathroom lamps and the hood lamp over the
stove top) .. and the new CCF bulbs come with a 7 year warantee.

I assume the high-low difference is seasonal? Heating and/or
air conditioning related? Your low delta is 140 to 90, so that's
a 50 dollar difference. How many incandescants at what wattage
did you replace? How many "rating watts" did you save per
replacement, based on the wattage of the incandescent vs the
wattage of the fluorescent?

 

[DarkMatter]

On Sun, 26 Oct 2003 16:39:20 -0700, Jim Thompson
<invalid@invalid.invalid> Gave us:

5 computers running 24/7

Just keeping the monitors OFF when not in use (not just green
mode... I mean OFF) will save several tens of dollars a month, if they
are CRT types.

 

[Don Klipstein]

In <k9lopv44a84qubin0uklnp5jugrasi3hbj@4ax.com>, Jim Thompson wrote:

Lots of lighting, all incandescent, except garage. (Lots of interior
lighting is flood lights in ceilings, some as high as 18', so I'm
interested in replacements that have longer life AND high light
output.)

Many compact fluorescesnts are not good for the heat buildup in recessed
ceiling downlights.

Some that are:

1. Philips SLS 15 and 20 watt. R30 and R40 snap-on reflectors are
available, and these lamps are available with these reflectors included.
I have not actually tested these, but I imagine that the R40 works
(with the 20 watt SLS) almost as well as a 70 watt halogen or 75 watt
incandescent wide flood, while the R30 is more seriously compromised by
its smaller size. Both are probably better where you have them spread out
over the ceiling so that the beams merge and it does not matter as much
how well defined the beams are.

2. Replace the fixtures with ones made for CF lamps, and that have their
own ballasts (as opposed to ballasts being in the lamp bases.) I see
enough dual-13-watt and really impressive dual-26-watt ones in office
buildings. NOTE - these have a wide beam spread, wider than that of most
floods.

3 (less preferred) 9 watt PL/twintube with screw-in ballast. These I
have seen in recessed ceiling fixtures and they hold up, but I doubt this
will make enough light.

- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com, http://www.misty.com/~don/cfbest.html

 

[Watson A.Name - "Watt Sun]

In article <3F9C6B1D.50823310@sympatico.ca>, jh.stewart@sympatico.ca
mentioned...

Lizard Blizzard wrote:

Tim Williams wrote:

"Lizard Blizzard" <NOSPAM@rsccd.org> wrote in message
news:bnbdkc$4jp12$1@hades.csu.net...

4. INCANDESCENT LIGHT BULBS
...
But it's still a far cry from the glories of natural daylight.


I say it's pretty darn good. Can't beat the wide, natural spectrum of
random thermal noise! Only difference between that and the sun is it's
hotter (and is mostly hydrogen and helium glowing), and has travelled
through 1AU of space and the Earth's atmosphere.


Plus there's the cost of light bulbs, their fragility, the replacement
overhead, the vast waste of energy, glass, and tungsten, the goofy ...


Lamps as we know them today are amazingly rugged. Very thin glass, yet
I've dropped one onto a sidewalk from 10' up and it still didn't break!
Fluorescents, OTOH, are extremely fragile; I've broken one falling just
2' onto a table. And there was some paper there to pad its fall.


They will be replaced by a superior technology, something cheap, cool,
and precisely engineered, that emits visible wavelengths genuinely
suited to a consumer's human eyeball.


If you ask me, incandescents have got it down... show me a fluorescent
with that spectrum and I'll buy it.

I think the whole point of this was that incandescents have most of
their electromagnetic radiation in the _wrong_ part of the spectrum,
namely IR. Of course that's where it's needed the least. Unless of
course you're using the light blub in an incubator! ;-)

Besides all this, what does the writer propose to replace it with?
Fluorescents don't fit because of what I just said. They are also
economically unfeasable, although some of the small devices have made
headway into such existing installations. Any other technology, say
electroluminescent whatever, or LEDs, is way off from this day in time
for a variety of reasons.

Economically unfeasible? If so, then why are they all over the place?
I think you need to explain your assertions. And we haven't even
discussed HID lamps. I think you need to thoroughly read Don's Lighting
web pages. http://members.misty.com/don/light.html

Tim

No one in this thread thought to mention the awful things all these new
non-linear loads do to the power system. That includes pretty well all
lighting (not Tungsten), data processing, variable speed drives, Etc.

We had some a/c air handlers converted to variable drive. The Danfoss
boxes that drive the motors causes this high pitched screeching that's
irritating to the ears. I'm sure some of it gets back into the power
lines.

Lighting is a large part of the load & has very large effect on your
local power utility. The worst offender is the 3rd harmonic of the load
current.
In a 3-phase system which may appear to be balanced the 3rd harmonic
adds in the return lead & in some cases is larger than any of the fundamental

I've noticed that the single return lead for all three phases
sometimes has several volts difference betwen it and the ground lead.

loads in the power system. The problem is addressed by derating transformers
& a number of slick connexions in the system. Lots of problems.

I'd think that PF correcton and newer electronic ballasts would be
better at reducing this problem.

Used to be you would only see this sort of thing if you were dealing
with a load that needed lots of DC such as a street railway, ball mill
or electric furnace. Now the problem is everywhere.

As for data processing, I would guess that the loads od servers etc
are completely isolated from commercial power by a large UPS.
Although, of course the UPS might be the problem...

Cheers, John Stewart

--
@@F@r@o@m@@O@r@a@n@g@e@@C@o@u@n@t@y@,@@C@a@l@,@@w@h@e@r@e@@
###Got a Question about ELECTRONICS? Check HERE First:###
http://users.pandora.be/educypedia/electronics/databank.htm
My email address is whitelisted. *All* email sent to it
goes directly to the trash unless you add NOSPAM in the
Subject: line with other stuff. alondra101 <at> hotmail.com
Don't be ripped off by the big book dealers. Go to the URL
that will give you a choice and save you money(up to half).
http://www.everybookstore.com You'll be glad you did!
Just when you thought you had all this figured out, the gov't
changed it: http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/binary.html
@@t@h@e@@a@f@f@l@u@e@n@t@@m@e@e@t@@t@h@e@@E@f@f@l@u@e@n@t@@

 

[Watson A.Name - "Watt Sun]

In article <slrnbporop.98v.don@manx.misty.com>, don@manx.misty.com
mentioned...

In <k9lopv44a84qubin0uklnp5jugrasi3hbj@4ax.com>, Jim Thompson wrote:

Lots of lighting, all incandescent, except garage. (Lots of interior
lighting is flood lights in ceilings, some as high as 18', so I'm
interested in replacements that have longer life AND high light
output.)

Many compact fluorescesnts are not good for the heat buildup in recessed
ceiling downlights.

Some that are:

1. Philips SLS 15 and 20 watt. R30 and R40 snap-on reflectors are
available, and these lamps are available with these reflectors included.
I have not actually tested these, but I imagine that the R40 works
(with the 20 watt SLS) almost as well as a 70 watt halogen or 75 watt
incandescent wide flood, while the R30 is more seriously compromised by
its smaller size. Both are probably better where you have them spread out
over the ceiling so that the beams merge and it does not matter as much
how well defined the beams are.

2. Replace the fixtures with ones made for CF lamps, and that have their
own ballasts (as opposed to ballasts being in the lamp bases.) I see
enough dual-13-watt and really impressive dual-26-watt ones in office
buildings. NOTE - these have a wide beam spread, wider than that of most
floods.

3 (less preferred) 9 watt PL/twintube with screw-in ballast. These I
have seen in recessed ceiling fixtures and they hold up, but I doubt this
will make enough light.

When I'm up in the ceiling I see a lot of light coming from all the
holes in those chromed fixtures with the U tubes in them. Must be to
let heat out into the ceiling, to prevent buildup.

- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com, http://www.misty.com/~don/cfbest.html

--
@@F@r@o@m@@O@r@a@n@g@e@@C@o@u@n@t@y@,@@C@a@l@,@@w@h@e@r@e@@
###Got a Question about ELECTRONICS? Check HERE First:###
http://users.pandora.be/educypedia/electronics/databank.htm
My email address is whitelisted. *All* email sent to it
goes directly to the trash unless you add NOSPAM in the
Subject: line with other stuff. alondra101 <at> hotmail.com
Don't be ripped off by the big book dealers. Go to the URL
that will give you a choice and save you money(up to half).
http://www.everybookstore.com You'll be glad you did!
Just when you thought you had all this figured out, the gov't
changed it: http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/binary.html
@@t@h@e@@a@f@f@l@u@e@n@t@@m@e@e@t@@t@h@e@@E@f@f@l@u@e@n@t@@

 

[Greg Pierce]

On Sun, 26 Oct 2003 19:47:25 -0500, the highly esteemed John Stewart
enlightened us with these pearls of wisdom:

Lizard Blizzard wrote:

Tim Williams wrote:

"Lizard Blizzard" <NOSPAM@rsccd.org> wrote in message
news:bnbdkc$4jp12$1@hades.csu.net...

4. INCANDESCENT LIGHT BULBS
...
But it's still a far cry from the glories of natural daylight.


I say it's pretty darn good. Can't beat the wide, natural spectrum of
random thermal noise! Only difference between that and the sun is
it's hotter (and is mostly hydrogen and helium glowing), and has
travelled through 1AU of space and the Earth's atmosphere.


Plus there's the cost of light bulbs, their fragility, the replacement
overhead, the vast waste of energy, glass, and tungsten, the goofy ...


Lamps as we know them today are amazingly rugged. Very thin glass,
yet I've dropped one onto a sidewalk from 10' up and it still didn't
break! Fluorescents, OTOH, are extremely fragile; I've broken one
falling just 2' onto a table. And there was some paper there to pad
its fall.


They will be replaced by a superior technology, something cheap, cool,
and precisely engineered, that emits visible wavelengths genuinely
suited to a consumer's human eyeball.


If you ask me, incandescents have got it down... show me a fluorescent
with that spectrum and I'll buy it.

I think the whole point of this was that incandescents have most of
their electromagnetic radiation in the _wrong_ part of the spectrum,
namely IR. Of course that's where it's needed the least. Unless of
course you're using the light blub in an incubator! ;-)

Besides all this, what does the writer propose to replace it with?
Fluorescents don't fit because of what I just said. They are also
economically unfeasable, although some of the small devices have made
headway into such existing installations. Any other technology, say
electroluminescent whatever, or LEDs, is way off from this day in time
for a variety of reasons.

Economically unfeasible? If so, then why are they all over the place? I
think you need to explain your assertions. And we haven't even
discussed HID lamps. I think you need to thoroughly read Don's Lighting
web pages. http://members.misty.com/don/light.html

Tim

No one in this thread thought to mention the awful things all these new
non-linear loads do to the power system. That includes pretty well all
lighting (not Tungsten), data processing, variable speed drives, Etc.

Lighting is a large part of the load & has very large effect on your local
power utility. The worst offender is the 3rd harmonic of the load current.
In a 3-phase system which may appear to be balanced the 3rd harmonic adds
in the return lead & in some cases is larger than any of the fundamental

loads in the power system. The problem is addressed by derating
transformers & a number of slick connexions in the system. Lots of
problems.

Used to be you would only see this sort of thing if you were dealing with
a load that needed lots of DC such as a street railway, ball mill or
electric furnace. Now the problem is everywhere.

Cheers, John Stewart

That is why power factor correction is such a big deal. It fixes most of
the problems you mentioned. Most (if not all) electronic ballasts use
it - if they didn't, imagine what impact a large building full of them
would have. Imagine what the utility bill would be if the building had
a power factor watt-hour meter!

I wonder how long it will be before the utilities start fitting homes with
such meters. With all the electronics that people have these days,
and all of it using conventional rectified supplies with no power
factor correction, people will be in shock when they get their
electric bills after such a meter is installed

--
Greg

--The software said it requires Win2000 or better, so I installed Linux.

 

[John Stewart]

Greg Pierce wrote:

On Sun, 26 Oct 2003 19:47:25 -0500, the highly esteemed John Stewart
enlightened us with these pearls of wisdom:

Lizard Blizzard wrote:

Tim Williams wrote:

"Lizard Blizzard" <NOSPAM@rsccd.org> wrote in message
news:bnbdkc$4jp12$1@hades.csu.net...

4. INCANDESCENT LIGHT BULBS
...
But it's still a far cry from the glories of natural daylight.


I say it's pretty darn good. Can't beat the wide, natural spectrum of
random thermal noise! Only difference between that and the sun is
it's hotter (and is mostly hydrogen and helium glowing), and has
travelled through 1AU of space and the Earth's atmosphere.


Plus there's the cost of light bulbs, their fragility, the replacement
overhead, the vast waste of energy, glass, and tungsten, the goofy ...


Lamps as we know them today are amazingly rugged. Very thin glass,
yet I've dropped one onto a sidewalk from 10' up and it still didn't
break! Fluorescents, OTOH, are extremely fragile; I've broken one
falling just 2' onto a table. And there was some paper there to pad
its fall.


They will be replaced by a superior technology, something cheap, cool,
and precisely engineered, that emits visible wavelengths genuinely
suited to a consumer's human eyeball.


If you ask me, incandescents have got it down... show me a fluorescent
with that spectrum and I'll buy it.

I think the whole point of this was that incandescents have most of
their electromagnetic radiation in the _wrong_ part of the spectrum,
namely IR. Of course that's where it's needed the least. Unless of
course you're using the light blub in an incubator! ;-)

Besides all this, what does the writer propose to replace it with?
Fluorescents don't fit because of what I just said. They are also
economically unfeasable, although some of the small devices have made
headway into such existing installations. Any other technology, say
electroluminescent whatever, or LEDs, is way off from this day in time
for a variety of reasons.

Economically unfeasible? If so, then why are they all over the place? I
think you need to explain your assertions. And we haven't even
discussed HID lamps. I think you need to thoroughly read Don's Lighting
web pages. http://members.misty.com/don/light.html

Tim

No one in this thread thought to mention the awful things all these new
non-linear loads do to the power system. That includes pretty well all
lighting (not Tungsten), data processing, variable speed drives, Etc.

Lighting is a large part of the load & has very large effect on your local
power utility. The worst offender is the 3rd harmonic of the load current.
In a 3-phase system which may appear to be balanced the 3rd harmonic adds
in the return lead & in some cases is larger than any of the fundamental

loads in the power system. The problem is addressed by derating
transformers & a number of slick connexions in the system. Lots of
problems.

Used to be you would only see this sort of thing if you were dealing with
a load that needed lots of DC such as a street railway, ball mill or
electric furnace. Now the problem is everywhere.

Cheers, John Stewart

That is why power factor correction is such a big deal. It fixes most of
the problems you mentioned. Most (if not all) electronic ballasts use
it - if they didn't, imagine what impact a large building full of them
would have. Imagine what the utility bill would be if the building had
a power factor watt-hour meter!

This is a point were there is a lot of misunderstanding. By its very nature,
power factor (PF) correction is frequency selective. The correction capacitor
used if it is provided at all is that which brings the PF of that load
to equal one at the power frequency. Does nothing for the harmonics. They
are all still there. In a simple non-linear load the 3rd harmonic is dominant.
However, there are many other odd order (5th, 7th, Etc) present as well.

In the power system itself there are other PF caps installed, often at
transformer stations (TS), sometimes on poles closer to the load.
You can often see them from outside the fence at a TS.
They are there to minimize the reactive currents in the transformers.
Only the current which is in phase with the fundamental voltage of the power
system does useful work. The rest, including that due to the harmonics is
dissipated as heat, some of it in the TS transformers. The harmonics in the
system at the load can also induce circulating currents in other equipment
at the load. In other words, the PS in your PC will generate harmonic
currents which will show up in your refrigerator!!

An occasional fault can occur in a power system when the power factor
capacitors resonate with inductive reactance's in another part of the system
to which they are connected. However, this does not happen at the power
frequency, but rather at one of the harmonics mentioned above. There are
documented cases of failures where the system was excited into oscillation
by harmonics of the load at say the 13th or 17th of the power frequency.
If the harmonics were not there, the failure would not be triggered.

There are industry standards such as IEEE-519 & IEC-555 which define
limits of harmonic generation in products to be used in power systems.
Also, definitions of derating systems for transformers.

I wonder how long it will be before the utilities start fitting homes with
such meters. With all the electronics that people have these days,
and all of it using conventional rectified supplies with no power
factor correction, people will be in shock when they get their
electric bills after such a meter is installed

--
Greg

--The software said it requires Win2000 or better, so I installed Linux.

A good reference for those working in the field & which doesn't get into
higher mathematics is Mark Waller's book on Harmonics. It's available
new or used from Alibris. I got mine at a power systems conference.
Try www.alibris.com or

http://www.alibris.com/search/search.cfm?qwork=4191854&matches=4&qsort=r

Cheers, John Stewart

 

[Watson A.Name - "Watt Sun]

In article <3F9D0134.F478B9B0@sympatico.ca>, jh.stewart@sympatico.ca
mentioned...
[snip]

This is a point were there is a lot of misunderstanding. By its very nature,
power factor (PF) correction is frequency selective. The correction capacitor
used if it is provided at all is that which brings the PF of that load
to equal one at the power frequency. Does nothing for the harmonics. They
are all still there. In a simple non-linear load the 3rd harmonic is dominant.
However, there are many other odd order (5th, 7th, Etc) present as well.

I'm not sure why this is so. It seems to me that the capacitors would
act as a low pass filter to bypass the higher harmonics. I can
understand that the capacitor's reactance may be cancelled out by the
inductance on the line, but still, reducing the inductive reactance
should also reduce the impedance that higher harmonics see, and reduce
their levels.

I can hear the buzz of the harmonics when I use my tone tracer to
trace down the datacomm and telecomm lines. The buzz gets especially
bad when the tracer is near a fluo light.

[snip]

Cheers, John Stewart

--
@@F@r@o@m@@O@r@a@n@g@e@@C@o@u@n@t@y@,@@C@a@l@,@@w@h@e@r@e@@
###Got a Question about ELECTRONICS? Check HERE First:###
http://users.pandora.be/educypedia/electronics/databank.htm
My email address is whitelisted. *All* email sent to it
goes directly to the trash unless you add NOSPAM in the
Subject: line with other stuff. alondra101 <at> hotmail.com
Don't be ripped off by the big book dealers. Go to the URL
that will give you a choice and save you money(up to half).
http://www.everybookstore.com You'll be glad you did!
Just when you thought you had all this figured out, the gov't
changed it: http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/binary.html
@@t@h@e@@a@f@f@l@u@e@n@t@@m@e@e@t@@t@h@e@@E@f@f@l@u@e@n@t@@

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

"Watson A.Name - Watt Sun" wrote:

In article <3F9D0134.F478B9B0@sympatico.ca>, jh.stewart@sympatico.ca
mentioned...
[snip]

This is a point were there is a lot of misunderstanding. By its very nature,
power factor (PF) correction is frequency selective. The correction capacitor
used if it is provided at all is that which brings the PF of that load
to equal one at the power frequency. Does nothing for the harmonics. They
are all still there. In a simple non-linear load the 3rd harmonic is dominant.
However, there are many other odd order (5th, 7th, Etc) present as well.

I'm not sure why this is so. It seems to me that the capacitors would
act as a low pass filter to bypass the higher harmonics. I can
understand that the capacitor's reactance may be cancelled out by the
inductance on the line, but still, reducing the inductive reactance
should also reduce the impedance that higher harmonics see, and reduce
their levels.

I can hear the buzz of the harmonics when I use my tone tracer to
trace down the datacomm and telecomm lines. The buzz gets especially
bad when the tracer is near a fluo light.

[snip]
Cheers, John Stewart



--
@@F@r@o@m@@O@r@a@n@g@e@@C@o@u@n@t@y@,@@C@a@l@,@@w@h@e@r@e@@
###Got a Question about ELECTRONICS? Check HERE First:###
http://users.pandora.be/educypedia/electronics/databank.htm
My email address is whitelisted. *All* email sent to it
goes directly to the trash unless you add NOSPAM in the
Subject: line with other stuff. alondra101 <at> hotmail.com
Don't be ripped off by the big book dealers. Go to the URL
that will give you a choice and save you money(up to half).
http://www.everybookstore.com You'll be glad you did!
Just when you thought you had all this figured out, the gov't
changed it: http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/binary.html
@@t@h@e@@a@f@f@l@u@e@n@t@@m@e@e@t@@t@h@e@@E@f@f@l@u@e@n@t@@

A fluorescent lamp can generate noise above 4 GHz. I use one as a
noise source to test C-Band LNAs, LNBs, and LNCs.
--


Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

 

[petrus bitbyter]

"John Stewart" <jh.stewart@sympatico.ca> schreef in bericht
news:3F9C6B1D.50823310@sympatico.ca...

Lizard Blizzard wrote:

Tim Williams wrote:

"Lizard Blizzard" <NOSPAM@rsccd.org> wrote in message
news:bnbdkc$4jp12$1@hades.csu.net...

4. INCANDESCENT LIGHT BULBS
...
But it's still a far cry from the glories of natural daylight.


I say it's pretty darn good. Can't beat the wide, natural spectrum of
random thermal noise! Only difference between that and the sun is
it's
hotter (and is mostly hydrogen and helium glowing), and has travelled
through 1AU of space and the Earth's atmosphere.


Plus there's the cost of light bulbs, their fragility, the replacement
overhead, the vast waste of energy, glass, and tungsten, the goofy ...


Lamps as we know them today are amazingly rugged. Very thin glass,
yet
I've dropped one onto a sidewalk from 10' up and it still didn't
break!
Fluorescents, OTOH, are extremely fragile; I've broken one falling
just
2' onto a table. And there was some paper there to pad its fall.


They will be replaced by a superior technology, something cheap, cool,
and precisely engineered, that emits visible wavelengths genuinely
suited to a consumer's human eyeball.


If you ask me, incandescents have got it down... show me a fluorescent
with that spectrum and I'll buy it.

I think the whole point of this was that incandescents have most of
their electromagnetic radiation in the _wrong_ part of the spectrum,
namely IR. Of course that's where it's needed the least. Unless of
course you're using the light blub in an incubator! ;-)

Besides all this, what does the writer propose to replace it with?
Fluorescents don't fit because of what I just said. They are also
economically unfeasable, although some of the small devices have made
headway into such existing installations. Any other technology, say
electroluminescent whatever, or LEDs, is way off from this day in time
for a variety of reasons.

Economically unfeasible? If so, then why are they all over the place?
I think you need to explain your assertions. And we haven't even
discussed HID lamps. I think you need to thoroughly read Don's Lighting
web pages. http://members.misty.com/don/light.html

Tim

No one in this thread thought to mention the awful things all these new
non-linear loads do to the power system. That includes pretty well all
lighting (not Tungsten), data processing, variable speed drives, Etc.

Lighting is a large part of the load & has very large effect on your
local power utility. The worst offender is the 3rd harmonic of the load
current.
In a 3-phase system which may appear to be balanced the 3rd harmonic
adds in the return lead & in some cases is larger than any of the
fundamental

loads in the power system. The problem is addressed by derating
transformers
& a number of slick connexions in the system. Lots of problems.

Used to be you would only see this sort of thing if you were dealing
with a load that needed lots of DC such as a street railway, ball mill
or electric furnace. Now the problem is everywhere.

Cheers, John Stewart

John,

It's a problem faced by the power companies for years already. So they adapt
their regulations. Fluorescent light ballasts must have phase correction
capacitors, even in the households. For large buildings, particularly
productions plants and the like, the phase deviation has to stay within well
defined bounds otherwise you risk a high penalty. Newer EU regulations are
coming that require SMPSs to behave like pure resistive loads for the net.
Electronics to achive this are developed and are used in new equipment.
Regulations on EMC are hardended some years ago already. So the problems you
mentioned are not ignored in the real world and the tools to overcome them
are available.

petrus


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.525 / Virus Database: 322 - Release Date: 9-10-2003

 

[Mark Jones]

In news:xp9nb.401685$lh.104777136@amsnews02.chello.com (petrus bitbyter):

"John Stewart" <jh.stewart@sympatico.ca> schreef in bericht
news:3F9C6B1D.50823310@sympatico.ca...
Lizard Blizzard wrote:

Tim Williams wrote:

"Lizard Blizzard" <NOSPAM@rsccd.org> wrote in message
news:bnbdkc$4jp12$1@hades.csu.net...

4. INCANDESCENT LIGHT BULBS
...
But it's still a far cry from the glories of natural daylight.


I say it's pretty darn good. Can't beat the wide, natural spectrum
of random thermal noise! Only difference between that and the sun
is it's hotter (and is mostly hydrogen and helium glowing), and has
travelled through 1AU of space and the Earth's atmosphere.


Plus there's the cost of light bulbs, their fragility, the
replacement overhead, the vast waste of energy, glass, and
tungsten, the goofy ...


Lamps as we know them today are amazingly rugged. Very thin glass,
yet I've dropped one onto a sidewalk from 10' up and it still didn't
break! Fluorescents, OTOH, are extremely fragile; I've broken one
falling just 2' onto a table. And there was some paper there to pad
its fall.


They will be replaced by a superior technology, something cheap,
cool, and precisely engineered, that emits visible wavelengths
genuinely suited to a consumer's human eyeball.


If you ask me, incandescents have got it down... show me a
fluorescent with that spectrum and I'll buy it.

I think the whole point of this was that incandescents have most of
their electromagnetic radiation in the _wrong_ part of the spectrum,
namely IR. Of course that's where it's needed the least. Unless of
course you're using the light blub in an incubator! ;-)

Besides all this, what does the writer propose to replace it with?
Fluorescents don't fit because of what I just said. They are also
economically unfeasable, although some of the small devices have made
headway into such existing installations. Any other technology, say
electroluminescent whatever, or LEDs, is way off from this day in
time for a variety of reasons.

Economically unfeasible? If so, then why are they all over the place?
I think you need to explain your assertions. And we haven't even
discussed HID lamps. I think you need to thoroughly read Don's
Lighting web pages. http://members.misty.com/don/light.html

Tim

No one in this thread thought to mention the awful things all these new
non-linear loads do to the power system. That includes pretty well all
lighting (not Tungsten), data processing, variable speed drives, Etc.

Lighting is a large part of the load & has very large effect on your
local power utility. The worst offender is the 3rd harmonic of the load
current.
In a 3-phase system which may appear to be balanced the 3rd harmonic
adds in the return lead & in some cases is larger than any of the
fundamental

loads in the power system. The problem is addressed by derating
transformers & a number of slick connexions in the system. Lots of
problems.

Used to be you would only see this sort of thing if you were dealing
with a load that needed lots of DC such as a street railway, ball mill
or electric furnace. Now the problem is everywhere.

Cheers, John Stewart


John,

It's a problem faced by the power companies for years already. So they
adapt their regulations. Fluorescent light ballasts must have phase
correction capacitors, even in the households. For large buildings,
particularly productions plants and the like, the phase deviation has
to stay within well defined bounds otherwise you risk a high penalty.
Newer EU regulations are coming that require SMPSs to behave like pure
resistive loads for the net. Electronics to achive this are developed
and are used in new equipment. Regulations on EMC are hardended some
years ago already. So the problems you mentioned are not ignored in the
real world and the tools to overcome them are available.

petrus

What are the formulas for power factor correction? Say if I have a 1:10,000
step-up transformer, line sourcing 1.8A @ 120v/60Hz. What size cap would be
needed? Prolly something like 2uF/350V metallicized? And what kind of power
rating would the cap require, since of course it is paralleled with the line
voltage. I clearly remember back in school what happens when a small cap is
placed on live mains... POP!

I suppose the lag could be shown on a 'scope, perhaps dual-channel in V/I
mode?

 

[Mjolinor]

What are the formulas for power factor correction? Say if I have a
1:10,000
step-up transformer, line sourcing 1.8A @ 120v/60Hz. What size cap would
be
needed? Prolly something like 2uF/350V metallicized? And what kind of
power
rating would the cap require, since of course it is paralleled with the
line
voltage. I clearly remember back in school what happens when a small cap
is
placed on live mains... POP!

I suppose the lag could be shown on a 'scope, perhaps dual-channel in V/I
mode?

There are no formulae for power factor correction unless you fully state the
load. A transformer isn't a load, whatever is connected to the other side of
it is the load, plus whatever the efficiency of the transformer isn't. After
this it's just a matter of some application of complex arithmetic to work
out how far the phase angle shifts for that load. If you are saying a purely
resistive load and the only phase shift is that which is introduced by the
transformer inefficiencies then it would be so small as to be considered "0"
provided the transformer is being used within it's normal operating
conditions. In my opinion

 

[JW]

On Sun, 26 Oct 2003 08:32:42 -0800 DarkMatter
<DarkMatter@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote in Message id:
<8otnpvsc8ldc6tug9naiqrsbj6gi01pj7i@4ax.com>:

That is correct. Good catch. The only flaw being that you top
posted the reply. Doh!

Anal-retentive twat.

 

[oldsoundguy]

On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 00:48:05 GMT, ehsjr@bellatlantic.net wrote:

oldsoundguy wrote:

On Sun, 26 Oct 2003 04:50:04 -0800, Watson A.Name - "Watt Sun"
alondra101@hotmail.com> wrote:

In article <3F9B2231.1F7899B3@bellatlantic.net>,
ehsjr@bellatlantic.net mentioned...



My electrical bill was in the 280 US a month range .. lowest being 140
a month .. now it ranges (with a local 30% INCREASE in rates) between
90 on the low to 180 on the high .. I would say that using
fluroescents is a substantial saving. I have 3 way in the lamps
requireing same. Only those fixtures running less than a 40 watt
sitll have incancescent lamps, as 40 watt is the lowest that you can
buy at present in the CCF lreplacement bulbs. add to that in a two
year time, I have yet to have to replace a single bulb (including
outdoor porch lamps and bathroom lamps and the hood lamp over the
stove top) .. and the new CCF bulbs come with a 7 year warantee.

I assume the high-low difference is seasonal? Heating and/or
air conditioning related? Your low delta is 140 to 90, so that's
a 50 dollar difference. How many incandescants at what wattage
did you replace? How many "rating watts" did you save per
replacement, based on the wattage of the incandescent vs the
wattage of the fluorescent?

SHEESH!! you people are so ANTI saving money you question
everything???? The variance is because I have electric heat in the
winter .. Air conditioning in the summer (but less illumination
required) house is 100% electric .. no gas .. I replace like for like
in most cases and INCREASED in places such as the kitchen and bath,
because I could exceed the wattage recommended due to the decreased
heat involved in the various fixtures. You would think you are
fighting the battle between DC bulbs and AC bulbs that was at the
begining of electric lighting!! The bottom line = equal or more LUMENS
/Candle Power for a LOT less cost per month .. even with local rate
increases! Plus, initally the power company picked up about 120 bucks
or so in the cost of the lamps with discount coupons. But if you are
the type that throws money away .. go for it .. lamp your place whth
halogens!! (IF you are, I have some land options on a Sandals
development in Nome that might interest you.)

 

[Some Dude]

oldsoundguy wrote:

SHEESH!! you people are so ANTI saving money you question
everything???? The variance is because I have electric heat in the
winter ..

In that case, your savings during the winter will be much smaller (if
any) as the heat provided by the incandescent lamps will now have to be
provided by your electric heaters. There may be some savings due to your
heating system being slightly better at getting the heat to where it's
needed but I wouldn't expect it to be much. After all, the whole premise
of this thread has been that incandescent bulbs are bad because they
expend 99% of energy consumed as heat.

 

[oldsoundguy]

On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 19:49:59 GMT, Some Dude <none@for.you> wrote:

oldsoundguy wrote:

SHEESH!! you people are so ANTI saving money you question
everything???? The variance is because I have electric heat in the
winter ..

In that case, your savings during the winter will be much smaller (if
any) as the heat provided by the incandescent lamps will now have to be
provided by your electric heaters. There may be some savings due to your
heating system being slightly better at getting the heat to where it's
needed but I wouldn't expect it to be much. After all, the whole premise
of this thread has been that incandescent bulbs are bad because they
expend 99% of energy consumed as heat.

Yea, the savings PER month are smaller in the winter .. another reason
being the need to have more LIGHTS on .. duuuuhhh!! but there are
still very MEASURABLE savings. Stupidity costs money!! .. I have
three computers .. and a full blown media room .. so only ONE electric
heater (in the bath) is on at all in the winter .. majority of heat is
generated in the kitchin from the cook top and oven, and from the
computers and media!! AS NOTED I save well over 100 bucks a month ..
that is bottom line, look at the bill and pay it MONEY over the
previous years, and our rates have gone up 30% in that same time .. so
I SAVE .. what is so complex about that that you have to get involved
in some stupid argument? And of course, I use less energy, therefor
demanding less from the environment!

 

[Watson A.Name - "Watt Sun]

In article <3F9D20DC.12E9F6E8@earthlink.net>,
mike.terrell@earthlink.net mentioned...

"Watson A.Name - Watt Sun" wrote:

In article <3F9D0134.F478B9B0@sympatico.ca>, jh.stewart@sympatico.ca
mentioned...
[snip]

This is a point were there is a lot of misunderstanding. By its very nature,
power factor (PF) correction is frequency selective. The correction capacitor
used if it is provided at all is that which brings the PF of that load
to equal one at the power frequency. Does nothing for the harmonics. They
are all still there. In a simple non-linear load the 3rd harmonic is dominant.
However, there are many other odd order (5th, 7th, Etc) present as well.

I'm not sure why this is so. It seems to me that the capacitors would
act as a low pass filter to bypass the higher harmonics. I can
understand that the capacitor's reactance may be cancelled out by the
inductance on the line, but still, reducing the inductive reactance
should also reduce the impedance that higher harmonics see, and reduce
their levels.

I can hear the buzz of the harmonics when I use my tone tracer to
trace down the datacomm and telecomm lines. The buzz gets especially
bad when the tracer is near a fluo light.

[snip]
Cheers, John Stewart


A fluorescent lamp can generate noise above 4 GHz. I use one as a
noise source to test C-Band LNAs, LNBs, and LNCs.

Yeah, really. Of course an incandescent can generate wavelengths
above 4 GHz, too. What freq is green light? Some 400 terahertz? I
don't remember. ;-)


--
@@F@r@o@m@@O@r@a@n@g@e@@C@o@u@n@t@y@,@@C@a@l@,@@w@h@e@r@e@@
###Got a Question about ELECTRONICS? Check HERE First:###
http://users.pandora.be/educypedia/electronics/databank.htm
My email address is whitelisted. *All* email sent to it
goes directly to the trash unless you add NOSPAM in the
Subject: line with other stuff. alondra101 <at> hotmail.com
Don't be ripped off by the big book dealers. Go to the URL
that will give you a choice and save you money(up to half).
http://www.everybookstore.com You'll be glad you did!
Just when you thought you had all this figured out, the gov't
changed it: http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/binary.html
@@t@h@e@@a@f@f@l@u@e@n@t@@m@e@e@t@@t@h@e@@E@f@f@l@u@e@n@t@@

 

oldsoundguy wrote:

On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 00:48:05 GMT, ehsjr@bellatlantic.net wrote:



oldsoundguy wrote:

On Sun, 26 Oct 2003 04:50:04 -0800, Watson A.Name - "Watt Sun"
alondra101@hotmail.com> wrote:

In article <3F9B2231.1F7899B3@bellatlantic.net>,
ehsjr@bellatlantic.net mentioned...



My electrical bill was in the 280 US a month range .. lowest being 140
a month .. now it ranges (with a local 30% INCREASE in rates) between
90 on the low to 180 on the high .. I would say that using
fluroescents is a substantial saving. I have 3 way in the lamps
requireing same. Only those fixtures running less than a 40 watt
sitll have incancescent lamps, as 40 watt is the lowest that you can
buy at present in the CCF lreplacement bulbs. add to that in a two
year time, I have yet to have to replace a single bulb (including
outdoor porch lamps and bathroom lamps and the hood lamp over the
stove top) .. and the new CCF bulbs come with a 7 year warantee.

I assume the high-low difference is seasonal? Heating and/or
air conditioning related? Your low delta is 140 to 90, so that's
a 50 dollar difference. How many incandescants at what wattage
did you replace? How many "rating watts" did you save per
replacement, based on the wattage of the incandescent vs the
wattage of the fluorescent?

SHEESH!! you people are so ANTI saving money you question
everything????

Who is anti saving money???
Is it unreasonable to ask where the 50 - 100 dollar savings
comes from, when that represents about 370-740 kwh lower
energy use at the rates I pay? Since you seem to attribute
it to converted lighting, is it unreasonable to ask how many
fixtures you converted, and what the estimated savings in
watts are for each converted fixture?
How hard could the answer be?

You could say something like
"I replaced 20 75 watt incandescent bulbs with 20
15 watt fluorescent bulbs, saving 60 watts per bulb" or
whatever the actual numbers are.

The variance is because I have electric heat in the
winter .. Air conditioning in the summer (but less illumination
required) house is 100% electric .. no gas .. I replace like for like
in most cases and INCREASED in places such as the kitchen and bath,
because I could exceed the wattage recommended due to the decreased
heat involved in the various fixtures. You would think you are
fighting the battle between DC bulbs and AC bulbs that was at the
begining of electric lighting!! The bottom line = equal or more LUMENS
/Candle Power for a LOT less cost per month .. even with local rate
increases! Plus, initally the power company picked up about 120 bucks
or so in the cost of the lamps with discount coupons. But if you are
the type that throws money away .. go for it .. lamp your place whth
halogens!! (IF you are, I have some land options on a Sandals
development in Nome that might interest you.)