Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion Climate Change Forum CFL - tempers in the house of (representatives ? )

8550 / 100 = 85.5 thats not picking at nits.

but 8550 / 100 = 86 is just wrong.



theres no way , 100 Watts is never more efficient than 35 Watts.

no matter how you look at it.

especially when its being used on streets and highways that have cars with headlights attached and in a country where its illegal to drive at night without your headlights on.

and when your looking at it from a taxpayers viewpoint
the 35 Watt bulbs look more efficient.

I can't believe this is coming from you Paul. Where did you go to school? Do you honestly believe those bulbs consume exactly 100W? Sure it might not be 100.0001W? This is just arguing for the sake of arguing. I rounded it to make it clearer. You know that. It makes no difference. Both values are correct, so is 90lm/W.





So use this instead. Produces more light than the LED unit for the same electrical power consumed.
http://www.pdfdoc.ru/electrical-installa...5w/lumens-3300/


At the end of the day, LEDs still don't save power over conventional lights for street and room lighting applications. They simply generate too much heat and not enough light.

I think this one would be better for our homes in the
future , we could run our whole house lighting system using a car battery or less.

it only uses 1 Watt.

and outputs 74 lm

so its efficiency is 74 lm/W

thats brighter and more efficient than the
60 lm/W 8 Watt bulbs.

http://www.pdfdoc.ru/lighting/led-lamps/...-white-715-8301

since the U.S. is slowly going kerplunk and 50 million of its citizens are being threatened with a no income situation , why not install things that you might be able to afford when you dont have an income.

you could power these lights by rubbing two sticks together , LOL

as a matter of fact I think it would be a great way for the 50 million threatned citizens to show there opinion of the republican actions by reducing there spending on
republican puppet master industries such as energy.

Now we're getting somewhere. So LEDs are reasonably efficient afterall! For low power applications like indoor spotlights.

Go for it! Get some (get lots, 74lm isn't much)! You can power use a single halogen transformer and drive dozens together!

That's if you want narrow beam spotlights like over the kitchen bench. To light a room you'd still do better with fluorescent tubes - for now - maybe in the future LEDs can replace them too!

By the way, Americans are happy to waste energy because it's so cheap, not because the government forces them to. Look what the rest of the world is doing when they're constrained by fuel taxes and low incomes. Look at the prevalence of electric bikes in Asia, the use of diesel cars in Europe, solar water heaters just about everywhere, people living in the same cities where they work, not driving to the shops (because they're just downstairs from your high rise apartment building) etc.

not really , I still like the 35 W LED street lights
vs the 135 Watt street lights.

2100 lm isnt bad for 35 Watts.

and they wouldnt need to be 5 ft long like they would if
you used a fluorescent bulb in a street light.

and if the fluorescent bulbs were used then the new intelligent street lights systems wouldnt be as efficient.

because the intelligent street light systems turn the street lights off when there are no cars on the road.

I get 1600 lm from my 23 Watt CFL bulbs and
they are equivalent to the 100 Watt incandessant bulbs.

and to avoid constantly turning lights on and off I might even install motion sensors in my home to turn the lights on and off for me.

It's not going to light a street. You'd need more of them to cover the same area of lit ground.


I've thought about that before but not sure how to do it without it being really irritating. What if you sit still for a while and the lights go out? If it's detecting body heat, what if you leave the computer on and the lights stay on too because they think it's a person. Might need some more sophisticated sensors than just PIR security ones.

My solution is to just leave the lights on all the time The cost of power is low enough that I wouldn't notice the difference.

switches that detect movement when you enter a room or exit a room.

placed at the doorway.

they would need to be on / off switches.

but if there is more than 1 in your home you could have a problem.

perhaps a sensor that is on your watch that tells a pickup that you are now in the room and the lights need to be turned on in that room.

as long as someone wearing a sensor is in that room the light will stay on.

and you could have a manual switch to keep the light from comming on like while your sleeping etc...etc...

Bill Gates' house:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Gates%27_house

"Guests wear pins that upon entrance of a room automatically adjust temperature, music, and lighting based on the guest's preferences..."

you know Bill Gates gives a whole lot of money to charities , microsoft gives away almost any thing you would need to learn programming of any type , I would like to exclude Bill Gates when I speak of rich people , he cant help it that he is rich , my gosh he has really tried hard to avoid being that rich but hes just a money magnet because he is such a nice person.

Sure Paul. I hadn't considered his character and wealth, only the fact that his house seems to wired along the lines that you have in mind (but more so):

yes I see , he has already modernized his electricity usage
and his electricity usage wouldnt be as much as a conventional home because he has an earth sheltered home.

the earth shelter home takes advantage of ground temperatures to control the homes internal temperatures.

I would be willing to wager that in his home you could find many of the CFL lights and the even newer LED lights also and on his grounds you will most likely find solar powered lights.

and possibly a few electric cars in his garage.