Doug Miller wrote:
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.

I don't see any reason why heat would drop more than light.

Take the case of slicing out part of the AC cycle (which is what happens
with the common phase angle control dimmers we all use). Apply that to
an incandescent lamp. If you reduce electrical power by 5% the lamp will
run cooler, which means that less energy comes out in light and the
percentage of the electrical energy that becomes heat increases. Light
energy goes down more than 5% and efficiency is reduced.

The 'device', if I remember right, is intended for fluorescents. I see
no reason to believe that heat will be disproportionately reduced. I
expect that light will fall by the same percentage as the electrical
energy.

I agree with AZ.

I really don't want to reread the propaganda (which may or may not be
true) but my recollection is the alleged virtue of the 'device' is that
you can put it on an existing whole branch circuit with existing
non-dimming ballasts and dim the lamps for energy savings (at a lower
light level). Someone may have read the propaganda closer than I did.

If dimming the lamps makes sense, like large window areas and daylight,
and if the circuits are arranged right, like parallel to the windows
instead of window to darker interior,
and if the 'device' dimming works,
and does not reduce the life of ballasts and lamps,
and does not change the lamp color characteristics,
then the device may make a lot of sense (or cents).

--
bud--