On Sun, 31 Oct 2010 21:14:00 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 31 Oct 2010 17:53:11 -0500, "
wrote:

On Sun, 31 Oct 2010 17:30:33 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 31 Oct 2010 10:49:15 -0500, "
wrote:

On Sun, 31 Oct 2010 08:48:01 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 30 Oct 2010 04:33:35 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Oct 30, 12:27*am, wrote:
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.

Good grief is dog confused. gfretw's point was that to compare the
amount of heat put into a building from lighting you need to compare
the electricity usage. That means the Kwh of energy going into the
building. It makes very little difference if you use incandescents
or florescents to generate heat. To generate the same amount of heat,
sure, you'd need a lot more florescents. But if building A which uses
florescents has 1000Kwh a day in usage for lighting, and building B
using incandescents has 1000 Kwh a day in usage, they are both
receiving almost the same amount of heat from it. There are some
second order effects I can think of to consider, but they aren't going
to be significant and would only further add to the confusion.

And I agree with gfretw that malls have a mix of lighting types.


Religious beliefs such as yours are not based on facts or logic.

When cornered, a dog can only attack wildly.

What an asshat you are.

What a liar you are.

I didn't attack wildly. I said there is no
point in arguing with you because your position is not grounded in
reality. You have religious beliefs and I have obviously threatened
them.

You're scientifically illiterate, that's for damn sure.

Go argue with W_Tom. You two are like peas in a pod.

Like W_Tom, you're absolutely clueless.

You just can't stand the idea that alternative energy can work
effectively. You flat earth religious kooks are all the same.

Wow! That's a red herring, even by your (low) standards. No, I believe the
Conservation of Energy is not just a good idea, but the law. You clearly
don't.