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.

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.

"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.

"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.

"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.

"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

"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

On Wed, 16 Sep 2009 at 10:28:53, wrote in
uk.media.tv.misc :

In uk.media.tv.misc Paul Hyett wrote:

Congratulations - you must be the only person in the country who enjoys
reprogramming their VCR/DVD recorder every day...

You must have a very old VCR/DVD recorder. Most modern 'boxes' retain
their settings and programming after being switched off
overnight or for several days. I went away for 7 days and all mine
were OK when powered up again.

My VCR *is* at least 10 years old.
--
Paul 'Charts Fan' Hyett

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.

--

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.

--