In article , bud-- wrote:
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?

Didn't say that. But I expect there'd be a lower *heat* output.