On Fri, 29 Oct 2010 21:21:39 -0400, wrote:

On Fri, 29 Oct 2010 20:11:11 -0400, wrote:

On Fri, 29 Oct 2010 13:03:02 -0400, wrote:

On Fri, 29 Oct 2010 12:47:53 -0400, wrote:

On Fri, 29 Oct 2010 08:12:31 -0400, wrote:

I also question your "100w" bulb theory. A regular old F40 4'
fluorescent tube uses 40 watts, not counting the ballast. Even the
newest F032T8 electronic ballast system still consumes 130w or so for
four 8' tubes.

The question is not how much power it consumes. The question is how
much of that power gets exhaled as heat, rather than as light.

The amount of light from 4 - 8' tubes compared to a single 100 watt
incandescent? Surely you can see what is wrong with that picture!

The reality is that every watt is exhaled as heat eventually. When I
was designing computer rooms we used the total electrical input as the
sensible heat number we needed to take away along with the latent heat
of the people.
Even the kinetic energy of motors eventually gets converted as heat
through friction.

If you were going to use the lighting as primary source of heating, I
think it's pretty obvious that you would want incandescents, not
florescents.

You want watts. Doesn't matter how you get them.

Light does not magically convert to heat.

You are *wrong*. Everything turns to heat. Entropy.

Light that is not reflected,
is absorbed.

....and heats.

Florescent fixtures give off very little heat compared to
the number of incandescents needed to provode the same amount of
light.

Irrelevant. We were discussing the heat output of 100W light. It is, by
definition, 100W.