On Apr 9, 7:36 pm, wrote:
Ernie Willson wrote:
It is true that the old incandescent bulbs do provide heat, however,
like resistance heat, they are very inefficient.

How is it inefficient if that heat is kept inside the
house?

You can look at an incandescent bulb as being something like 99%
efficient compared to an ideal resistive heater, meaning that 99% (and
I'm pulling that number out of the air) of the electricity that passes
through the bulb is eventually converted to heat. Some of it is
initially radiated as visible light, but most of that is eventually
absorbed by some surface and converted to heat (sort of). I think the
only real loss is any visible light that goes out through a window,
for instance.

But he's comparing it to a heat pump which, rather than converting the
electricity into heat, is using the electricity to move (pump)
existing heat from outside the building to inside. Basically, an air
conditioner in reverse. Supposedly, under the right conditions, this
can bring in more heat than what would be produced by converting 100%
of the electricity it uses directly into heat.

I personally know nothing about how much more or under what conditions.