Doug Miller wrote:
In article , bud-- wrote:
Doug Miller wrote:
In article , bud--
wrote:
It is possible the 'device' saves power by providing less illumination.
It does not make sense for your house and, according to the mouthpiece,
is not intended for residential. I didn't read any of the propaganda and
I have no idea if it makes sense anywhere else. I am, in general, skeptical.

Lighting is a *huge* cost for retail businesses -- look around next time
you're in Wal-Mart, Home Depot, or any supermarket. Installing one of those
gadgets in a Wal-Mart store would probably pay for itself in a matter of
months. I imagine that stadiums would benefit considerably too. But as I
showed in an earlier post, it's pretty well pointless for residential use.
I agree you could reduce cost *IF* you can use a lower lighting level.
Would seem like a big box would design the lighting at the level they
needed,

Probably a correct assumption...

in which case the 'device' would be pointless.

.. but probably an incorrect conclusion. If the device can reduce power
consumption by 30% while reducing lighting levels by less than that, it's
worthwhile.

So you reduce the electrical energy in by 30% and the light energy out
is not reduced by 30%? There is a free lunch?


In most lighting applications, a sufficiently brief interruption of the
current will have negligible effect on the light output. Consider an
incandescent lamp on a 60Hz AC power source. 120 times a second, the voltage
is *zero*. But since it takes longer than 1/120 of a second for the filament
to cool to the point where it no longer emits visible light, there's no
flicker. It's no stretch to imagine that an electronic controller could chop
30 or 40% out of the total power with nowhere nearly a 30-40% reduction in
lighting levels.

Electrical energy in is greater or equal to light energy out. Doe the
'device' increase the efficiency of the lighting? If not perhaps they
could win the Nobel prize. (I suspect your claims are greater than their
claims.)

--
bud--