|
|
Switch off at the socket?
On Wed, 16 Sep 2009 15:24:10 +0100, Jerry wrote:
"pete" wrote in message ... [ re Tungsten Filament bulbs and how they contribute to the heating of a room ] : : The problem with the heat from TF bulbs is that it's mostly at ceiling : height, since that's where most bulbs hang from. What people need : is heat at body (whether seated or standing) height, to keep them warm. Not sure what you're trying to get at there (you might have even been agreeing with me?), if the TF bulb helps to increase the air temperature at ceiling level above that of the lower level then more heat (quite possibly at a lower temperature) will remain were it *is needed* for longer - all heat rises eventually, even heat given off by under floor heating eventually ends up at ceiling level if there is no other exit or means of heat exchange such as cold surfaces or ambient air temperature IYSWIM. Well, if you have a 100W TF light suspended from the ceiling, the heat from that bulb will rise to the top of the room. The occupants won't get any direct benefit from that 100Watts. Not unless they're exceptionally tall - in which case their heads will get a little warmer. As you say, you may get some small improveent from that heat adding to the temperature gradient in the room, but it won't be anything like the 100Watts the bulb is putting out. You'd be far better off putting in a CFL (or 6) and installing a small fan to move the warm air off the ceiling if only temporarily, so that it can usefully warm the room's occupants. |
Switch off at the socket?
On Wed, 16 Sep 2009 13:28:53 +0100, Steve Thackery wrote:
Energy is neither created nor destroyed Except in nuclear power stations and in stars. ;) |
Switch off at the socket?
"Man at B&Q" wrote in message ... On Sep 16, 3:03 pm, "Jerry" wrote: "Man at B&Q" wrote in ... On Sep 15, 10:26 pm, "Steve Thackery" wrote: snip Christmas trees with no lights? : : Perfect application for rechargeable solarpowered : LED lights. In Australia!... Which of the bit you snipped did you have difficulty with? Non of it, unlike you (well, what I could understand, what are "nones", I assume you mean Gnomes?...). Remember that most people in the UK locate their Christmas trees inside the house and also have the lights on during the few hours of effective sunlight most people get (on a good day) at that time of year (just after the winter equinox, assuming that everyone keeps to the traditional calibration period), how are you going to charge a battery connected to and powering the said lights? I suspect that if you moved your Gnomes into the house and only put them outside with the cat each night you might not have the brightest Gnomes on the street come a few days - bit like you MBQ! A better way of powering such lights might well be a battery but one recharged using cheap rate mains electricity during the night. |
Switch off at the socket?
"pete" wrote in message ... : On Wed, 16 Sep 2009 15:24:10 +0100, Jerry wrote: : : "pete" wrote in message : ... : : [ re Tungsten Filament bulbs and how they contribute to the : heating of a room ] : : : : : The problem with the heat from TF bulbs is that it's mostly at : ceiling : : height, since that's where most bulbs hang from. What people : need : : is heat at body (whether seated or standing) height, to keep : them warm. : : Not sure what you're trying to get at there (you might have even : been agreeing with me?), if the TF bulb helps to increase the air : temperature at ceiling level above that of the lower level then : more heat (quite possibly at a lower temperature) will remain : were it *is needed* for longer - all heat rises eventually, even : heat given off by under floor heating eventually ends up at : ceiling level if there is no other exit or means of heat exchange : such as cold surfaces or ambient air temperature IYSWIM. : : Well, if you have a 100W TF light suspended from the ceiling, the heat : from that bulb will rise to the top of the room. The occupants won't get : any direct benefit from that 100Watts. Not unless they're exceptionally : tall - in which case their heads will get a little warmer. People do not heat their person but the room though... : As you say, you may get some small improveent from that heat adding to : the temperature gradient in the room, but it won't be anything like the : 100Watts the bulb is putting out. You'd be far better off putting in a : CFL (or 6) and installing a small fan to move the warm air off the ceiling : if only temporarily, so that it can usefully warm the room's occupants. No you would not, the fan will actually cause the ambient temperature to fail, due to the air movement, you will actually need to use more heat to keep to the same ambient temperature! Only use a fan if you have to either distribute heated (or cooled air) or need air movement for other reasons. -- Regards, Jerry. |
Switch off at the socket?
"Java Jive" wrote in message ... snip : : Energy consumption from appliances in standby is environmentally : undesirable, and where reasonably possible should be minimised. : Rubbish, it might be economically undesirable [1], it makes not one jot of difference environmentally - the only thing that is being changed by switching off rather than to stand-by is were the energy (in this case electricity) is being wasted, by Joe Blogs at No.26 (or where-ever) or by the frecking great resistor banks at the power stations... [2] to the home owner/bill payer -- Regards, Jerry. |
Switch off at the socket?
"Steve Thackery" wrote in message ... No. It's converted into quite a lot of 'work', quite a lot of 'motion' (or what your earthling mind may know as "force"), and a small amount - much less than 20 watts net worth - of heat. Oh for goodness' sake, ZT!! I, amongst others, have tried to explain it constructively and politely, and yet you still refuse to learn, or even acknowledge that you have anything to learn! Here's the straight dope, mate: you don't have a f***ing clue about basic physics, and it's high time you realised that and showed a bit of humility. You can't take 20 watts, then get 20 watts worth of use (e.g. CPUs, processors, spinning discs, etc) out of it, then still have 20 watts left which is magically converted into heat. That's not how it works. No, no, no! That's EXACTLY how it works. Energy is neither created nor destroyed: it all ends up as heat. An Intel CPU uses 65W of electricity and generates 65W of heat. A hard disk uses 7W of electricity and generates 7W of heat. A 100W tungsten filament bulb uses 100W of electricity and produces 95W of heat and 5W of light. The light bounces around the room, gets absorbed by all the dark surfaces and re-radiated as heat. How many more times must we go through this? Mr Tolerance, look at Mr Thackery's head. As you can see, steam is coming out of his ears. This is heat produced as a result of his brain being overloaded, trying to educate pork. Bill |
Switch off at the socket?
"Java Jive" wrote in message ... Exactly, so avoiding wasting it is a good thing environmentally. It really is as simple as that. Sorry, JJ, but I still don't think you understand my argument. The point is that the savings are much less than the green pundits claim. Yes, there are savings, and any savings are worthwhile. We don't differ there. But by exaggerating the effectiveness of these savings, we mislead the public into doing the wrong things, and governments into making the wrong policies. Government policies are made based upon the claimed or expected benefits. If they work from bad information, they produce bad policies. I firmly believe that many environmental policies are bad because they are based on bad science, or on powerful lobbying, not on good science and solid facts. Have you heard of Pareto analysis? To over-simplify, you find out what the big contributors are, and tackle them first, thus making a big difference early on. If you want to make a big difference you need to tackle the big stuff. My major concern is that the public now thinks they can save the planet by using CFLs and switching their telly off at the wall. It simply isn't true. To save the planet (IF you accept the current scientific position on anthropogenic global warming) the public will need to fundamentally alter almost every aspect of their lifestyle, not fart about switching things off at the wall. We both agree that every little helps. But when a government bases its policies on bad science or loud lobbying, then we get bad policies. Did you know that the figure used by the UK government in the car scrappage white paper for the CO2 impact of manufacturing a new car is ONE TENTH that claimed by Ford? If Ford are correct, and making a new car actually generates ten times as much CO2 as the government believes, then the car scrappage scheme would be an environmental faux pas. It would be MUCH better to encourage people to keep their old cars, even though they produce more CO2 per km. See what I mean? Bad science and loud lobbying lead to bad policies, and bad policies lead to us all doing the wrong things to save the planet. THAT is my main concern. SteveT |
Switch off at the socket?
|
Switch off at the socket?
On Wed, 16 Sep 2009 17:12:29 +0100, "Steve Thackery"
wrote: Have you heard of Pareto analysis? To over-simplify, you find out what the big contributors are, and tackle them first, thus making a big difference early on. If you want to make a big difference you need to tackle the big stuff. My major concern is that the public now thinks they can save the planet by using CFLs and switching their telly off at the wall. 60 million people doing anything would easily have a big effect. -- |
Switch off at the socket?
On Wed, 16 Sep 2009 12:45:14 +0000 (UTC), David Taylor
wrote: You seem to be missing a rather fundamental law of physics - conservation of energy: you cannot create or destroy energy. All the energy that goes into a computer remains in existence for ever. It is merely converted to a different (less useful) form. The laws of thermodynamics are also applicable - doing useful work increases the entropy of a system (i.e. produces heat). I stand thoroughly corrected, and I much appreciate your doing so in a calmer manner than others here seemed to manage. Thanks. :) -- |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:07 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HomeCinemaBanter.com