Enzo wrote:Context. You have an 18 watt device rather than a 100 watt device. WHile the amount of light it produces is of a practical concern to you, in this debate, power use is the key. It draws 18 watts from the grid instead of 100 to do the same job. SO whatever inefficiencies the power plant brings to the party, our CLF bulb uses only 18% as much. On your end, similar, your 18 watts is dissipated as heat and light. (Oh and possibly a tiny amount as mechanical energy/sound) SO you are also using 18% of what you used to use.
Enzo wrote:That may sound like double dipping, but wherever the inefficiencies lie, you will be using only 18% as much.
Arneb wrote:Well, at least now you know that much, fire is good at both...
Arneb wrote:The heat generated by the inefficiency of your light bulb heats the room, all right. It is certainly possible to heat your room with lights: When we light the 20 candles on our Christmas tree, I always have to let cool air in after the candles have burnt down because they produce som much heat. But the heating is it indiscriminate, wether you want it or not. If you live in conditions that require heating, you have little to gain because the (say) 80 Watts you lose as heat from a light bulb that draws 100 W is small compared to the several kilowatt you need to keep a room warm - especially in North America, where buildings lose a lot of their heat to the ourside world. And in situations where you don't need the heating, their heating effect is unwelcome (you, living in Singapore, even have to turn up the air con, and THAT is very energy-inefficient).
Arneb wrote:Also, there are countries where fossil fuels are cheap while electricity prduced from them is not - bad housekeeping to heat your home with light bulbs instead of turning up the heat on the oil heater you filled with cheap oil.
Arneb wrote:Then of course, if you use the new lamps for a flashlight, the calculation is even more favourable: Buying a fifth of the batteries (=ineffecient, expensive, chemical electricity storing devices) surely is lighter on your pocket especially since flash lights aren't normally used to keep warm.
Arneb wrote:An artist had a lovely idea for this. When the EU banned 100 W light bulbs, he offered them as "heating elements; just put them into a socket usually used for lamps, and not only will they keep you warm, they will also produce a bright, warm, comfortable light". And the piece of art was, he was actually allowed to sell them as heating elements.
Arneb wrote:So yeah, you could save a notch on your heating costs, under certain circumstances. Still, the 18 W replacementws are probably a good idea under most conditions.
My understanding is that this “fire” can also be used for cooking. What technology! Exciting times ahead.
Enzo wrote:I think the light bulb is less efficient at heating than the power plant, so I don't think it is a wash there.
Enzo wrote:I think the light bulb is less efficient at heating than the power plant, so I don't think it is a wash there.
Enzo wrote:Most bulb inefficiencies go into heat.
Arneb wrote:It is really just heat (so, kinetic energy). Remember the days when lampshades would catch fire because the came too close to the light bulb? I still have a hard time touching one of the new light bulbs even though they are just slightly warm to the touch, when touching an old 100 W thing could give you a burn in seconds.
Mactep wrote:It can't be inefficient at producing heat because it produces heat instead.
Arneb wrote:Mactep wrote:It can't be inefficient at producing heat because it produces heat instead.
I think that goes without saying.
Мастер wrote:Arneb wrote:Mactep wrote:It can't be inefficient at producing heat because it produces heat instead.
I think that goes without saying.
Well, I was told that the bulb is an inefficient way to produce heat, and most of the inefficiency goes towards producing heat . . .
Enzo wrote:Bulbs are very inefficient at lighting. The inefficiency at light production mainly goes into heat. But I think they are also less efficient at heating their environment than the power plant.
Мастер wrote:The other (and the one I’m having trouble with) is how the bulb itself could be inefficient. It produces light and heat. If you want both of those things, then they’re not waste, their desirable outputs from the bulb. But for the bulb to be inefficient at producing a combination of these two things, the energy consumed must be turned into some third form. And I can’t think what that would be. It isn’t accelerating rocks to high velocities. It isn’t pumping water uphill. It isn’t producing gasoline that can be burnt later. Where is the energy going, if the bulb itself is inefficient?
Мастер wrote:So I just wonder if those currently experiencing the Arctic winter, and looking at their old incandescent bulbs, thinking, maybe I should save some energy by replacing them, will really save anything. At least before spring, when it gets warm.
Arneb wrote:Energetically, a light bulb is inefficient for the purpose of heating and of lighting, except when you want to get the precise proportion of light and heating they produce.
Arneb wrote:We'd gain nothing from keeping the 100 W bulbs
Мастер wrote:Arneb wrote:Energetically, a light bulb is inefficient for the purpose of heating and of lighting, except when you want to get the precise proportion of light and heating they produce.
Well, if you use them for light, and they generate some heat, but not all the heat you need - then there would be no loss.Arneb wrote:We'd gain nothing from keeping the 100 W bulbs
I don’t think there is any question of gaining something; perhaps just failure to lose anything.
The picture I have is of Ivan in Murmansk scratching his head, wondering, I installed all these high efficiency light bulbs; why is my energy bill the same as before?
Might that happen?
Return to Science and Technology
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest