On Sat, 16 Oct 2010 23:33:14 -0700 (PDT), RicodJour
wrote:

On Oct 17, 2:09*am, "
wrote:
On Sat, 16 Oct 2010 23:04:32 -0700 (PDT), RicodJour wrote:
On Oct 17, 1:41*am, " wrote:
On Sun, 17 Oct 2010 00:13:00 -0400, "Robert Green" wrote:
wrote in message
On Sat, 16 Oct 2010 09:15:16 -0700, "DGDevin" wrote:

The very fact that an incandescent bulb produces so much heat (as opposed to
light) from the electricity it consumes should be a hint as to why such
bulbs are no longer such a great idea. *When we switched to CFLs our
electric bill took a dive. *Pay more for power vs. pay less for power,
hmmmm, tough call.

Nonsense. *A 100W incandescent bulb will put out exactly the same heat as a
100W fluorescent; 100W.

WHAT???? *A 100W CFL puts out far more light energy than a 100W incandescent
bulb.

Read what was written.

What you probably mean is that they draw the same amount of
electrical current, but for instance a CFL rated at 23W is considered the
equivalent in light energy to a 100W tungsten bulb.

No, that's not what I meant, but it's a result of the same.

Now think of how dim a
25W incandescent bulb is an you have an idea of the difference in how much
of that energy is being lost as heat, not light, in a tungsten bulb.

You really need to brush up on your reading comprehension.

And you're playing with semantics.

No, I'm not. *A 100W heater was needed and an incandescent bulb works just as
well as a 100W heater or 100W fluorescent. *

It was clear what DGDevin meant.

It was clear he didn't know what he was saying, rather just flew off into his
usual leftist's screed.

You're imagining that...he said no such thing. This is exactly what
he wrote:
"The very fact that an incandescent bulb produces so much heat (as
opposed to
light) from the electricity it consumes should be a hint as to why
such
bulbs are no longer such a great idea. When we switched to CFLs our
electric bill took a dive. Pay more for power vs. pay less for power,
hmmmm, tough call. "

Come on, you're not that stupid. This whole paragraph is out of place, as
well as being wrong. It was a *HEATER* that was needed here, so the whole
subject of light vs. heat was wrong. The only thing that matters is heat.
They're using a light bulb not because it's inefficient, rather because it's
CHEAP. It puts out *exactly* the same heat as any other 100W load, yet DGD
had to get his digs in at the (irrelevant) light output, and he was wrong.

Robert Green's choice of words confused the issue, but DG's thrust
was that CFLs cost less for the same amount of light. They're more
efficient. You'll spend less to light up the place. Little argument
there, right?

But that's *WRONG*. Heat is what was wanted. Both are equally efficient at
producing heat. The *light* argument was the confusing issue (it confused
you). ...and a red herring.

For the record, I'm not crazy about CFLs due to the mercury in them,
but there's little argument that they're a step in the right direction
regardless of anyone's take on politics.

I'm not crazy about them for many reasons. In general, they suck and I won't
use them.

Communication is more than just taking every word
literally...especially in a newsgroup.

It's more than AGW 24/7, too.

Agreed. Who brought up the subject?

That's the whole thrust behind CFLs - the reason DGD brought the canard into
the discussion.