Florescent light bulbs?

In article <elebeh$8ss_001@s907.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, jmfbahciv@aol.com writes:

In article <4579A6ED.ED344467@hotmail.com>,
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:


Joel Kolstad wrote:

"Edward Green" <spamspamspam3@netzero.com> wrote

"Well, you shouldn't discount all that free electric heating you get
with incandescents (it's free, because you've already attributed the
cost to lighting). In the winter that waves on fuel bills, and in the
summer it help our airconditioners run longer, to efficiently
dehumidify the air."

It's only "free" if you have electric heat rather than natural gas or fuel
oil, both of which are cheaper. Even then, it's arguably not quite as good
as
a floor heater, since most of the heat will stay up on the ceiling where
the
lamp is rather than being forced down to circulate among the people -- I
imagine draftier homes or a ceiling fan may mitigate this, however.

That being said, for people with electric heating, in winter I think
running a
few spare PCs on BOINC or something similar is a pretty good idea!

Unless I have an electric heater on or the washing machine, my largest
electrical
load now is easily the PC.


When my disk died, I moved to a Toshiba laptop that has one of those
energy star labels on the cover. My power usage dropped 100Kwh/month.

I think it was the terminal that was using most of the power.

It was, with CRT terminals. Since those are disappearing by now, the

worries expressed in this thread about the energy wasted by
screensavers are, if not misplaced, then at least vastly exaggerated.

Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"

 

[jasen]

On 2006-12-07, Joel Kolstad <JKolstad71HatesSpam@yahoo.com> wrote:

Tim,

"Tim Wescott" <tim@seemywebsite.com> wrote in message
news:QqKdnYmXOfKvDOrYnZ2dnUVZ_rLinZ2d@web-ster.com...
Right. A florescent bulb costs $9.99, 40kWh costs diddly, and so does an
incandescent bulb.

I believe the 4 packs of GE compact fluorescents are $9.99 at your local Wally
World --> $2.50 each.

I haven't seen the kind of prices Graham is quoting for non-"no name" bulbs.

I have, maybe it's cheaper to buuild them for 240V operation. Or maybe it's
a socialist plot!

Bye.
Jasen

 

[jasen]

On 2006-12-07, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

CoreyWhite wrote:

the pure H20 steam from nuclear power plants is a greeen
house gas

Nuclear power plants don't give off steam.

the cooling towers emit water vapour, which is basically the same stuff.


Bye.
Jasen

 

[jasen]

On 2006-12-08, Elder <carl.robson@bouncing-czechs.com> wrote:

In article <zy9eh.42$45.297@news.uchicago.edu>,
mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu says...
Solar heat evaporates annually some 2-3*10^14 tons of water. Compare
this with any amount of water you'll be producing. Some sense of
proportion is needed.

Amount of water per vehicle per day might be minimal, but multiply that
by millions of vehicles per day it might make a small difference.

how much water do petroleum fueled vehicles produce?

Bye.
Jasen

 

[Edward Green]

mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:

In article <elebeh$8ss_001@s907.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, jmfbahciv@aol.com writes:
In artic
I think it was the terminal that was using most of the power.

It was, with CRT terminals. Since those are disappearing by now, the
worries expressed in this thread about the energy wasted by
screensavers are, if not misplaced, then at least vastly exaggerated.

And even with CRT's, with modern computers. I had a vintage '99
machine now replaced by a vintage '05 machine, both with CRT's, and I
know that when the machines went to sleep (blank screen) the CRT's
stayed cool. Then, you did say "screen savers"... I guess if you
configure your PC in order to watch bouncing globes on a CRT during all
its idle hours, that's your business.

OTOH, I can see that in a modern office building, there must have been
some time window when concern about the power consumption of 1000's of
idling CRT's would have been a legitimate concern.

 

[Eeyore]

mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com writes:
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

Unless I have an electric heater on or the washing machine, my largest
electrical load now is easily the PC.


When my disk died, I moved to a Toshiba laptop that has one of those
energy star labels on the cover. My power usage dropped 100Kwh/month.

I think it was the terminal that was using most of the power.

It was, with CRT terminals. Since those are disappearing by now, the
worries expressed in this thread about the energy wasted by
screensavers are, if not misplaced, then at least vastly exaggerated.

You say that but I recently checked the power consumption of my 21" Trinitron vs a 20"
LCD.

The Trinitron is 130W vs 44W for LCD I looked at. Samsung's 21" 213t uses up to 75W !

I'm not going to fret over that especially as I far prefer a CRT.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

Edward Green wrote:

mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:

In article <elebeh$8ss_001@s907.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, jmfbahciv@aol.com writes:
In artic
I think it was the terminal that was using most of the power.

It was, with CRT terminals. Since those are disappearing by now, the
worries expressed in this thread about the energy wasted by
screensavers are, if not misplaced, then at least vastly exaggerated.

And even with CRT's, with modern computers. I had a vintage '99
machine now replaced by a vintage '05 machine, both with CRT's, and I
know that when the machines went to sleep (blank screen) the CRT's
stayed cool. Then, you did say "screen savers"... I guess if you
configure your PC in order to watch bouncing globes on a CRT during all
its idle hours, that's your business.

OTOH, I can see that in a modern office building, there must have been
some time window when concern about the power consumption of 1000's of
idling CRT's would have been a legitimate concern.

Windows has had the ability to put the monitor into standy mode for yonks !

That's what I do ( after 10 mins inactivity - I'll probably change it to 5 mins shortly )
and don't bother with a screen saver.

Graham

 

In article <1165704629.350268.58870@73g2000cwn.googlegroups.com>, "Edward Green" <spamspamspam3@netzero.com> writes:

mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:

In article <elebeh$8ss_001@s907.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, jmfbahciv@aol.com writes:
In artic
I think it was the terminal that was using most of the power.

It was, with CRT terminals. Since those are disappearing by now, the
worries expressed in this thread about the energy wasted by
screensavers are, if not misplaced, then at least vastly exaggerated.

And even with CRT's, with modern computers. I had a vintage '99
machine now replaced by a vintage '05 machine, both with CRT's, and I
know that when the machines went to sleep (blank screen) the CRT's
stayed cool. Then, you did say "screen savers"... I guess if you
configure your PC in order to watch bouncing globes on a CRT during all
its idle hours, that's your business.

Heck, we pay to watch images dancing on the TV screen, don't we

OTOH, I can see that in a modern office building, there must have been
some time window when concern about the power consumption of 1000's of
idling CRT's would have been a legitimate concern.

Yes, certainly. In the summer it could've been quite a significant

load on the building AC.

Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"

 

[jasen]

On 2006-12-08, ehsjr <ehsjr@bellatlantic.net> wrote:

CoreyWhite wrote:



20%, is what Al Gore said. He would know better than me. What do you
think the electric power needs of the florescents would be? And where
can I buy a Tesla Bulb?


Maybe from that paragon of honesty who claimed he
invented the internet...

Al gore never claimed to have invented the internet.


--

Bye.
Jasen

 

[Rich Grise]

On Sat, 09 Dec 2006 14:50:29 -0800, Edward Green wrote:

mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
In article <elebeh$8ss_001@s907.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, jmfbahciv@aol.com writes:
In artic
I think it was the terminal that was using most of the power.

It was, with CRT terminals. Since those are disappearing by now, the
worries expressed in this thread about the energy wasted by
screensavers are, if not misplaced, then at least vastly exaggerated.

And even with CRT's, with modern computers. I had a vintage '99
machine now replaced by a vintage '05 machine, both with CRT's, and I
know that when the machines went to sleep (blank screen) the CRT's
stayed cool. Then, you did say "screen savers"... I guess if you
configure your PC in order to watch bouncing globes on a CRT during all
its idle hours, that's your business.

OTOH, I can see that in a modern office building, there must have been
some time window when concern about the power consumption of 1000's of
idling CRT's would have been a legitimate concern.

I've got a couple of CRTs in my office that turn themselves off if
they're not used - well, they go on standby (or whatever you call it);
and when I activate one, I have to wait for the cathode to warm up again -
I'd think that if they've got sense enough to turn off the filament
supply, they've probably got sense enough to turn off the deflection
circuits and HV. Maybe even the high-level video drivers.

I would. ;-)

Cheers!
Rich

 

[Rich Grise, Plainclothes]

On Sat, 09 Dec 2006 21:00:37 +0000, jasen wrote:

On 2006-12-07, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
CoreyWhite wrote:

the pure H20 steam from nuclear power plants is a greeen
house gas

Nuclear power plants don't give off steam.

the cooling towers emit water vapour, which is basically the same stuff.

It's a non-issue anyway, since it all falls back onto the ground as rain,
and runs back to the oceans as rivers, except for what soaks in and
irrigates our plants and provides drinking water and stuff. ;-)

And if the sea levels rise, just ask The Netherlands how to build dikes. ;-)

Cheers!
Rich

 

[Rich Grise]

On Sat, 09 Dec 2006 21:11:44 +0000, jasen wrote:

On 2006-12-08, Elder <carl.robson@bouncing-czechs.com> wrote:
In article <zy9eh.42$45.297@news.uchicago.edu>,
mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu says...
Solar heat evaporates annually some 2-3*10^14 tons of water. Compare
this with any amount of water you'll be producing. Some sense of
proportion is needed.

Amount of water per vehicle per day might be minimal, but multiply that
by millions of vehicles per day it might make a small difference.

how much water do petroleum fueled vehicles produce?

2C8H18 + 25O2 -> 16CO2 + 18H20

That's with octane - you can do the same with any hydrocarbon.

Hope This Helps!
Rich

 

In article <pan.2006.12.10.01.37.46.431490@example.net>, Rich Grise <rich@example.net> writes:

On Sat, 09 Dec 2006 21:11:44 +0000, jasen wrote:
On 2006-12-08, Elder <carl.robson@bouncing-czechs.com> wrote:
In article <zy9eh.42$45.297@news.uchicago.edu>,
mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu says...
Solar heat evaporates annually some 2-3*10^14 tons of water. Compare
this with any amount of water you'll be producing. Some sense of
proportion is needed.

Amount of water per vehicle per day might be minimal, but multiply that
by millions of vehicles per day it might make a small difference.

how much water do petroleum fueled vehicles produce?


2C8H18 + 25O2 -> 16CO2 + 18H20

That's with octane - you can do the same with any hydrocarbon.

Hope This Helps!
Rich

To first order you can take (for the purpose of the above) petroleum as CH2,

so you get approximately 30% (by mass) of the exhaust as water.

Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"

 

[Homer J Simpson]

"CoreyWhite" <CoreyWhite@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1165456161.484403.293980@80g2000cwy.googlegroups.com...

He is wrong about a lot of his theories. He claims that global warming
is caused only by C02 gasses

No, but Reagan said: "Approximately 80 percent of our air pollution stems
from hydrocarbons released by vegetation."

 

[jasen]

On 2006-12-09, Rich Grise <rich@example.net> wrote:

On Sat, 09 Dec 2006 03:02:51 +0000, jasen wrote:
On 2006-12-08, Joel Kolstad <JKolstad71HatesSpam@yahoo.com> wrote:
mensanator@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1165602199.500167.145140@j72g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
No, warmer air due to lighting makes the thermostat kick on
less often reducing your consumption of gas or fuel oil.

Sure, but it's still cheaper to buy 1kWh of heat from the gas or fuel oil
company than it is from the electric company!

A more interesting comparison might be how efficiently you can light a room
with gas!

hmm, how to get gas into a fuel cell...

There are methane fuel cells, but what does a fuel cell have to do with
lighting? Make electricity, and run CFLs?

yeah something like that.

Haven't you ever seen a gas light? ;-)

yes, but they're not more efficient than incandescent.

OTOH if there's a chemical process that produces light directly (rather than by
incandescence) that'd probably be the winner.

Bye.
Jasen

 

[krw]

In article <elfjqr$qia$2@jasen.is-a-geek.org>, jasen@free.net.nz
says...

On 2006-12-08, ehsjr <ehsjr@bellatlantic.net> wrote:
CoreyWhite wrote:



20%, is what Al Gore said. He would know better than me. What do you
think the electric power needs of the florescents would be? And where
can I buy a Tesla Bulb?


Maybe from that paragon of honesty who claimed he
invented the internet...

Al gore never claimed to have invented the internet.



He did claim responsibility for it though, which was absurd enough.

--
Keith

 

[krw]

In article <uWJeh.50916$rv4.37461@edtnps90>, nobody@nowhere.com
says...

"CoreyWhite" <CoreyWhite@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1165456161.484403.293980@80g2000cwy.googlegroups.com...

He is wrong about a lot of his theories. He claims that global warming
is caused only by C02 gasses

No, but Reagan said: "Approximately 80 percent of our air pollution stems
from hydrocarbons released by vegetation."

Cite! He did say that forests contribute to pollution, which is
correct (see: Smokey Mountains).

--

Keith

 

[Richard Henry]

krw wrote:

In article <elfjqr$qia$2@jasen.is-a-geek.org>, jasen@free.net.nz
says...
On 2006-12-08, ehsjr <ehsjr@bellatlantic.net> wrote:
CoreyWhite wrote:



20%, is what Al Gore said. He would know better than me. What do you
think the electric power needs of the florescents would be? And where
can I buy a Tesla Bulb?


Maybe from that paragon of honesty who claimed he
invented the internet...

Al gore never claimed to have invented the internet.



He did claim responsibility for it though, which was absurd enough.

If you read the actual words, he claimed to have financed it.

 

[The Ghost In The Machine]

In sci.math, jasen
<jasen@free.net.nz>
wrote
on 10 Dec 2006 02:32:06 GMT
<elfrj6$rqp$8@jasen.is-a-geek.org>:

On 2006-12-09, Rich Grise <rich@example.net> wrote:
On Sat, 09 Dec 2006 03:02:51 +0000, jasen wrote:
On 2006-12-08, Joel Kolstad <JKolstad71HatesSpam@yahoo.com> wrote:
mensanator@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1165602199.500167.145140@j72g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
No, warmer air due to lighting makes the thermostat kick on
less often reducing your consumption of gas or fuel oil.

Sure, but it's still cheaper to buy 1kWh of heat from the gas or fuel oil
company than it is from the electric company!

A more interesting comparison might be how efficiently you can light a room
with gas!

hmm, how to get gas into a fuel cell...

There are methane fuel cells, but what does a fuel cell have to do with
lighting? Make electricity, and run CFLs?

yeah something like that.

Haven't you ever seen a gas light? ;-)

yes, but they're not more efficient than incandescent.

OTOH if there's a chemical process that produces light directly (rather than by
incandescence) that'd probably be the winner.

Assuming the chemical can be produced with less energy than
using incandescent bulbs, fluorescent bulbs, or LEDs. There
is also the issue of feeding the reagents into the light,
and discarding the reaction products.

The best I can do here is luciferin or luciferinase, an
enzyme used by many animals (fireflies [family Lampyridae]
probably being the best known, but presumably it's also
used by deep sea creatures). Presumably the other reagent
in the reaction is oxygen, though according to

http://www.lifesci.ucsb.edu/~biolum/chem/

other atoms are also involved -- the example shows calcium.

After the chemical produces light it needs to be "reset", presumably by
additional energy input and/or another chemical reaction -- or more
reagents added into the light bulb.

Bye.
Jasen

--
#191, ewill3@earthlink.net
Windows Vista. Because a BSOD is just so 20th century; why not
try our new color changing variant?

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

 

[Eeyore]

jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

"Joel Kolstad" <JKolstad71HatesSpam@yahoo.com> wrote:
"Edward Green" <spamspamspam3@netzero.com> wrote in message

"Well, you shouldn't discount all that free electric heating you get
with incandescents (it's free, because you've already attributed the
cost to lighting). In the winter that waves on fuel bills, and in the
summer it help our airconditioners run longer, to efficiently
dehumidify the air."

It's only "free" if you have electric heat rather than natural gas or fuel
oil, both of which are cheaper. Even then, it's arguably not quite as good
as
a floor heater, since most of the heat will stay up on the ceiling where the
lamp is rather than being forced down to circulate among the people -- I
imagine draftier homes or a ceiling fan may mitigate this, however.

That being said, for people with electric heating, in winter I think running
a few spare PCs on BOINC or something similar is a pretty good idea!

In my shop, our CPUs ran so hot we had to air condition the
room even in winter.

I was recently pleased to discover that the 500 and 600 MHz Pentium 3 CPUs I have
can be cooled perfectly adequately without forced cooling.

At least that's one less fan to make noise and wear out.

Graham