On Sun, 17 Oct 2010 15:52:18 -0700, David Nebenzahl
wrote:

On 10/17/2010 9:00 AM zzzzzzzzzz spake thus:

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

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.

Dunno how this seems to have been overlooked in this thread, but I'm
pretty sure you're just plain wrong he CFLs produce *less* heat for
the same amount of *light* produced.

Now it may be true that CFLs may be (close to) as "efficient at
producing heat" *per watt of power consumed*. In other words, four
23-watt CFLs may produce close to the same amount of heat as a single
100-watt incandescent. (Not sure, though: Don Klipstein, are you in the
house?)

But I don't think that's what you meant. A 23-watt CFL produces far less
heat than a 100-watt incandescent, while producing about the same amount
of light.

So what did you mean, exactly, by "both are equally efficient at
producing heat"?
You came into the discussion too late. Go back to sleep.
We were talking about using incandescent lamps as low powered heaters.
Any light produced is either a useless byproduct or an intermediate
step in distributing the needed heat.