In ,
wrote:

On Nov 23, 10:25=EF=BF=BDpm, (Don Klipstein) wrote:

What I said in favor of switching off idling loads

tv life expectancy and othewr deevices may be less,turned off from
thermal cycle shock.

I find that highly overrated. I even find extrapolation from burnouts
of incandescent lightbulbs - disproportionately upon cold start. However,
incandescent lightbulbs that have aged into a condition unable to survive
a cold start have their remaining hours already numbered (in lower double
digits), and the main relevant filament failure mode progresses at a rate
that accelerates worse than exponentially!

DTV boxes use idle time to download guide updates and other utilities.

Mine is constantly powered so far since I have yet to powerstrip it (and
my TV). I have yet to notice it being updated for anything since 1 hour
after I first successfully used it!

I oughtta get off my butt and get a power strip for my TV and my DTV
box!

its not a free lunch

- Don Klipstein )

In , AZ Nomad said:
On 11/24/08 04:51:49 +0 UTC, Don Klipstein wrote:
In article , Jim Elbrecht said:
On 11/23/08 15:18:47 -0800, "Bill" said:

I've gone through my home and examined *every* electrical gadget,
appliance, etc.

98% of the products I have use electricity when not being used! 98%!!!!
-snip-

I would be interested in seeing your list of 50 or 100 items and
especially interested in seeing how much electricity they use.
SNIP from here

If it's merely 60-70% of everything and their usage-while-off is 3-5% of
electric bill of 1/4-1/3 of people with electric bills, that is still
significant!

Not really. You get far better return on your time and money by going
after the 95-97%. Turn lights off when not in use.

I already do that.

Unclog the line from the dryer.

I have yet to live where dryer exhaust lines spend any significant time
being clogged, and I have yet to know anyone allowing me to detect such
clogs!

Go with a more efficient water heater and fridge if they're ancient.

I agree here - mainly for the fridge!

Spending a thousand dollars worth of time and supplies
to trim off $2/month is insanity.

Spending $20-$30 in a high-spending-in-this-area-year is actually
frugal. If that is insane, then I am proudly insane!

It is the high wattage items that matter. Not three dozen quarter watt
items that don't add up to 5 watts or to a whole ten dollars a year.

But my contention is that "phantom loads" consist highly of items
drawing 1/2 watt, 1 watt, 2 watts, and in one instance 4-5 watts (my
computer when "off"), and in another instance 10-11 watts when off (my
TV).

I see sanity rather than insanity to buy a couple power strips to chip
down electric bill by $2 per month!

I also see how such contention of mine does not dispute need to reduce
energy consumption in "more major" areas!

- Don Klipstein )

In article , J. Cochran wrote:
In article ,
Bill wrote:
I've gone through my home and examined *every* electrical gadget, appliance,
etc.

98% of the products I have use electricity when not being used! 98%!!!!

Things which have no reason to use power when off! Things which used to have
a regular on/off switch.

Seems to me someone wants me to be using more electricity!

So I post on the internet that I am shutting this stuff off and I get a good
number of responses NOT wanting me to do this!

And I can easily tell you why.
Take a close look at your first article in this rather long thread.
Now using just that article, don't you see a rather nasty potential for
injuring or killing someone?

So the immediate reaction from the people reading is

"What an IDIOT! He wants to save a couple of cents per month at the risk
of potentially killing someone! I have got to stop someone else from doing
something this stupid and also potentially harming someone else"

Did not the idea suggested here involve "Romex" and an appropriate
v120V-rated pushbutton switch?

Then later in the tread, you mention actually using a GFCI and wiring
everything to code, etc., etc., etc. But you totally ignore anything
involving return on investment. In order to save pennies, you spend 10s of
dollars. Not a rational choice, but it is your choice.

Savings can easily amount to $1.50-$2 per year. Deepending on value of
labor to accomplish such, possibly even in a family's "entertainment
buidget", at least some families can find such a project to be more
worthwhile than earning money to put into "safer" investments/savings.

- Don Klipstein )

Sam E wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Gary H wrote
George wrote

But the Chi Coms need to meet our requirements if it is sold here. I
can't remember the last time I saw a new walwart that wasn't a much
more efficient switcher design instead of an inefficient transformer.

The new wall-warts are smaller, but it's NOT by eliminating the
transformer. These new ones begin with an AC-to-AC converter,
that operates on line voltage and raises the frequency. A higher
frequency requires a smaller transformer.

They dont have any transformer that uses power all the time.

Possible with any wall-wart you add a switch to. Making it
automatic would be tricky, without power to turn it back on.

Makes a lot more sense to use a modern switchmode wallwart instead.

"Switcher" refers to a more efficient voltage regulator,

Wrong. It always refers to what you listed above.

That's one of the many varieties of "always" that are strangely non-inclusive.

I meant to say 'also' not 'always'. I dont proof read my posts.

Maybe you've never heard of "switching regulators",

Fraid so.

but I have a lot.

The AC-to-AC converter allows a smaller, lighter transformer
(which I expect draws less power with 0 load)..

You dont know they are AC to AC.

Perhaps you mistake "low power" for "no power".

I never said anything about no power.

That sort of mistake is very common.

There is no mistake except with the use of the word always.

In article , Vic Smith wrote:
On Mon, 24 Nov 2008 00:37:48 -0500 (EST), (J.
Cochran) wrote:

In article ,
Bill wrote:
I've gone through my home and examined *every* electrical gadget, appliance,
etc.

98% of the products I have use electricity when not being used! 98%!!!!

Things which have no reason to use power when off! Things which used to have
a regular on/off switch.

Seems to me someone wants me to be using more electricity!

So I post on the internet that I am shutting this stuff off and I get a good
number of responses NOT wanting me to do this!

And I can easily tell you why.
Take a close look at your first article in this rather long thread.
Now using just that article, don't you see a rather nasty potential for
injuring or killing someone?

So the immediate reaction from the people reading is

"What an IDIOT! He wants to save a couple of cents per month at the risk
of potentially killing someone! I have got to stop someone else from doing
something this stupid and also potentially harming someone else"

Then later in the tread, you mention actually using a GFCI and wiring
everything to code, etc., etc., etc. But you totally ignore anything
involving return on investment. In order to save pennies, you spend 10s of
dollars. Not a rational choice, but it is your choice.

I take issue with your assertion that this a long thread.
We haven't even begun to put a value on "Pride of Ownership."
Forget about the 120 volt welcome to strangers.
That's a distraction from the real issue.
Which is "Pride of Ownership."
Whether it be your home or the apartment you are renting, consider
this: The first impression you make on a visitor is your door, your
doormat, and your doorbell or knocker.

I surely got a positive impression from the "Bike Church" in that area!
Use human power to burn off a few of the exxcessive calories that
Americans usually take in!

Also your house/apartment numbering if you care to be found.

That I surely agree with!

Take care of them and they will take care of you.

Do unto others what you want others to do unto you - the "Golden Rule"!
Whether you consider that originated by an embodiment of the Lord of All
Gods or by a "mere major prophet" (my words) or by someone who merely
managed to "channel The Force" about 2,000 years ago...

I'm giving my daughter a new door mat for Christmas.
Its color complements her home decor.
Not the usual "Welcome."
It says "Go Away."
She may not think it appropriate. I leave the decision in her hands.

I like the non-worded doormats.

I also like the sign in the window of the front door (or posted on the
front door if the front door lacks a window and is owned by a landlord and
permitted by the landlord): NEVER MIND THE DOG - BEWARE OF OWNER! Such
as owner of the dog, or owner of defensive weapon should dogs only be
allowed on basis of "guide animals". The sign along that route usually
has a picture of close-range view down-the-barrel view of a large caliber
revolver. I do note that the "owner in question" often carries a handgun
other than a revolver, so I consider merely carrying a handgun of any kind
negates "any grounds of false advertising" on basis of mechanism or
caliber size of whatever sidearm is carried by the "owner" that warns that
a handgun is warned against in a posting!

Whatever she decides, a doormat is the smile your entryway presents to
the world at large. But maybe not that one.
This doormat costs 5 bucks.
Yes, for as little as 5 bucks you can present an image to the world
that says what you want it to say.

I would still want my doormat to, if anything as to what it says,
"Please wipe your shoes here"!
Sign at eye level on the front door should say where permissible,
"Never Mind The Dog - Beware Of Owner!", along with a picture of
down-the-barrel view of a handgun.
Otherwise, have a sign saying "Beware Of Dog" - preferably with a
"Photoshopped" "somewhat reasonable" image of your dog (or the one you
don't actually have) causing grievous injury to someone, preferably in a
way likely to result in a hospital admission and days in the Intensive
Care Unit!

That's many years of the transformer electricity savings being
discussed. And much more valuable IN THE LONG RUN.
Return on investment?
What price "Pride of Ownership?" That's real ROI.
Until the depths are plumbed trying our best to answer the real
question - What price "Pride of Ownnership" - it is fruitless to waste
time on transformer pennies.
That's my strong belief. Others may disagree.

SNIP a bit from here

- Don Klipstein )

In ,
wrote:

SNIP to link quoted

proper analysis:
http://www.wiki.diyfaq.org.uk/index....le=3DCFL_Lamps

I followed such link and my results we

"There is currently no text in this page, you can search for this page
title in other pages or edit this page."

- Don Klipstein )

In article , Dave Garland wrote:
wrote:
the outlet strip likely has a power on light of some sort wasting
power when its on..

But not when it's off And that power is probably returned manyfold
by virtue of the fact that the light reminds you that the other things
plugged in are continuing to use power, so you turn it off sooner.

In any case, mostly the power-on light is a switch with something like a
built-in NE-2 (1/17 watt) bulb. No big deal.

individually the amount wasted is likely small, however nationwide for
everyone it must add up and waste is waste.....

It's true. But we need to maintain a sense of proportionality. A
single person running central air sucks as much power (3-20KW) as
150,000 outlet strip indicator lights.

Sometimes true, usually less than true since a power strip light
consumes often around 1/4 watt. Merely 80,000 of such "lighted power
strips" (my words) amounts to high end of your range for "central air".

Also consider that "air conditioning" by most who have such is in a
minority of each year.

And furthermore, when "phantom loads" consume several watts, during air
conditioning season the A/C burden is increased by a few watts.

- Don Klipstein (don@misty,com)

On Tue, 25 Nov 2008 01:22:33 +0000 (UTC), (Don
Klipstein) wrote:

In ,
wrote:

Jim Redelfs wrote:
SNIP what was already said

The other point worth making is that the power and cost figures for
standby power are routinely exaggerated.

The ones I mentioned in this thread are actual measurements. I have a
watt meter!

Those with political interest
in having everyone else unplug everything are either not competent in
the subject, or are happy to be lses than honest to try to motivate
others to unplug.

And of course, biggest of all... youve only got one life, try to spend
the time doing something useful. Speaking of which.... later.

- Don Klipstein )


I have quite an assortment of "wall warts" and other assorted power
supplies for devices that have been discarded over the years.

All of them work.
I tested 19 of them for idle current draw on a digital meter that
reeds to the closes 0.01 amp.
6 of the 19 registered no parasitic draw at all, and the rest varied
from .02 to .06 amps

Additionally:

My PC draws .05A
The charger for my Craftsman battery drill draws 0.05A

Both battery chargers for nicads / nimh batteries showed no idle
current at all.

A 200watt Variac shows no draw at all.

terry wrote in
:

On Nov 23, 11:40*am, PeterD wrote:
On Sat, 22 Nov 2008 16:40:02 -0800, "Bill"

wrote:
This thread has seemed to hit a nerve!

Why are so many people getting upset that I am working to eliminate
"vam
pire
loads" in my house and reduce my electric bill?

Anyway here are the facts about "vampire power" for those who are
intere
sted
in this (can be 5% of your electric bill and 75% of the power for
electr
onic
things is used while the devices are turned off!)....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standby_power

Please do not confuse Wikipedia for facts. As to that 75% number, it
is highly suspect.

Again, a simple cost/benefit analysis would show the best path to
follow. However, simple math is beyond many people who blindly follow
whatever the current fad is (be it global warming, electric cars, or
whatever) in an attempt to appear 'on top of things', and 'all wise'.

In the end, sure you can save a few penny's of electricity, and spend
dollars doing so. And perhaps you feel good doing it that way. Fine,
it's your house, as long as no one else gets hurt, go for it. But, if
you are really interested in saving money (or energy) then I'd
recommend thinking about what you are doing, looking at real numbers,
analyzing the various factors (including items such as startup
current) and seeing what is the real best solution.

Exactly. What interested people here I think was the the fallacy and
futility of worrying about a minuscule amount of wasted energy;
equivalent perhaps to the home heat lost during time taken to have the
front door open on a cold day to bring in a few bags of groceries!

It's heartening though that in this day and age of wasteful and
prodigal monster homes, jacuzzi and swimming pool styles of living,
V8 Hummers etc. (A situation possibly being currently amended by
'tightening our belts'?) is that there is awareness and interest in
WHAT IS WORTH DOING to conserve.

What seems to escape many is that by spending many dollars to use
manufactured items one only saves a few cents worth of energy. All
manufactured items require resources and energy to manufacture. For
example how much elctrcity is required say, to refine iron ore, make
galvanized sheet steel and stamp out an electrical outlet box, along
with the energy required to run the factory in which it is made,
package it, transport it to a local retail outlet, stock the shelves,
buy or have screws to mount, bring it home, etc. etc. ??????

A neighbour (driven by a wife with virtually zero technical
appreciation) has gone all CFLs. Even for those locations where lights
are only used occasionally. Each CFL costs around $3 compared to the
25 cent el-cheapos I use and requires several manufacturing operations
involving electronic components and a very small amount of mercury.
But their electricity consumption has changed little.

Why? Because they like most here they use electrcity for heating. So
any waste heat from 'inefficient' old fashioned incandescent light
bulbs does not contribute to warming the home; likewise an
'inefficient' fridge etc. lost heat from an electric hot water tank
etc.

One item that does waste heat energy is a clothes dryer; it just
chucks warm damp air outside for some 20 to 30 minutes each time it is
run. Hey must cost that out! We run ours as little as possible and
whenver weather allows dry heavy items, blankets, towels etc. on our
two cothes lines. See item on clothe line supports.

Cheers.

I've frequently thought about how stupid it is that in the winter we heat
homes, have this box inside that takes that heated air and makes it cold
and loses that cold because of the heated air around it that used to be
cold air.

Probably cost a fortune to make refrigs that could use piped in air from
outside. And the further south you are the longer the ROI breakeven.

In article , Gary H wrote:
On Mon, 24 Nov 2008 08:17:33 -0500, George
wrote:

[snip]

But the Chi Coms need to meet our requirements if it is sold here. I
can't remember the last time I saw a new walwart that wasn't a much more
efficient switcher design instead of an inefficient transformer.

The new wall-warts are smaller, but it's NOT by eliminating the
transformer. These new ones begin with an AC-to-AC converter, that
operates on line voltage and raises the frequency. A higher frequency
requires a smaller transformer.

"Switcher" refers to a more efficient voltage regulator, that controls
the DC output by turning it on and off rather than by wasting power
like a linear regulator (as in older wall warts) does. This also makes
it smaller by reducing the need for a heat sink.

The "Switcher" can refer to not only a DC voltage regulator, but also to
circuitry operating a greatly smaller transformer that may require voltage
regulation means.

"Switcher"/"Switchmode" even applies to high frequency usage of a
miniaturized high frequency gransformer than can weigh close to or even
under 1/4 ounce, along with voltage regulation *that in more-crude form*
can be merely an analogue of a thermostat, as in there is an "output
filter capacitor" AKA "smoothing capacitor", and the switchmode circuitry
in question is "on" when the output voltage is "insufficient/low" and
"off" when the outputv voltage "exceeds target by whatever margin".

- Don Klipstein )

In article ,
wrote:
On 24 Nov 2008 08:17:33 -0500, George said:

wrote:

But how do you control it when 95%+ of the crap consuming the
"phantom" power is made in China? They don't play by the US's rules.

But the Chi Coms need to meet our requirements if it is sold here. I
can't remember the last time I saw a new walwart that wasn't a much more
efficient switcher design instead of an inefficient transformer.

You think so, eh?
How about the lead paint on toys, and Melamine in milk products and
pet food?

They meet our requirements, do they?

SNIP following stuff already said as well as most stuff previously
said

USA "customs" is supposed to enforce rules as ro what is allowed to be
imported into USA.

The "Customs and Border Protection" USA government agency is now within
the recently created "Department Of Homeland Security".

In pre-9/11 times, USA had passport checkings governed by "Department of
State", which was one of the 4 "Cabinet Level Departments" of the
"Executive Branch" of USA Federal government back when the Constitution
and the "Bill Of Rights (earlier Amendments to USA's Constitution) took
effect!
Nowadays, how many "Cabinet Level Departments" does USA have? Close to
15? I would want 8! Even that is double what existed in USA in earlier
days/years of existence of what was longer ago called the "Department Of
War"!

- Don Klipstein )

i will take ur advise as i read there are a lot of negative effects if
we still using the doorbell..
i will be anti-doorbell..
=]

xoxo,
aineecumi

neway, my secret to release tension is playing this game a
href=http://www.gamestotal.com http://www.gamestotal.com /a a
href=http://uc.gamestotal.com http://uc.gamestotal.com /a a
href=http://gc.gamestotal.com http://gc.gamestotal.com /a a
href=http://3700ad.gamestotal.com http://3700ad.gamestotal.com /a
a href=http://manga.gamestotal.com http://manga.gamestotal.com /a

"Red Green" wrote in message

...Probably cost a fortune to make refrigs that could use piped in air
from outside. And the further south you are the longer the
ROI breakeven.


A new energy saving project for me!

I thought the doorbell project was about the last thing I could do around my
house to save any more on my electric bill... Until I read your post above!

What a great idea! Actually I have a crawl space and it is quite cold down
there in the fall/winter/spring. And I also like fresh air. And my
refrigerator uses a fan to blow air over the condenser coil...

So how about a vent from the crawl space attached to an air intake on the
bottom of my refrigerator? I imagine one of those 4" flexible dryer hoses
would be a large enough vent for this?

Anyway cold air would come in the dryer vent hose from a 4" hole drilled in
the floor, then the refrigerator would not need to work as hard.

Then I would get fresh warm air each time the refrigerator ran.

Problems with this are that some refrigerators do not have fans, just a coil
on the back. I suppose you could build an insulated chamber which exposed
the back to the outside air for this? Better yet would be the back and sides
of the refrigerator as well.

Then also some houses are sealed so tight these days, they would not allow
any air to be blown into the house because there would be no exit. I suppose
you could exhaust the air back into the crawl space.

Or if the exit air vent was on one side of the house, and the wind was
blowing toward that vent, there might be positive air pressure coming into
the exit vent and this would cause the fan to not be able to blow air over
the condenser coils or air might flow backwards.

Anyway something to think about. Maybe new homes could have a refrigerator
chamber exposed to the outside via vents or refrigerators could have
optional connection(s) for 4" (or whatever) flexible hose to connect to the
crawlspace/outside. (Like a dryer does.)

A screen or air filter on the vent openings would be a good idea.

wrote:
On Tue, 25 Nov 2008 01:22:33 +0000 (UTC), (Don
Klipstein) wrote:
In ,
wrote:

Jim Redelfs wrote:
SNIP what was already said

The other point worth making is that the power and cost figures for
standby power are routinely exaggerated.

The ones I mentioned in this thread are actual measurements. I have a
watt meter!

I believe you already said that. Its good to have real figures.


I have quite an assortment of "wall warts" and other assorted power
supplies for devices that have been discarded over the years.

All of them work.
I tested 19 of them for idle current draw on a digital meter that
reeds to the closes 0.01 amp.
6 of the 19 registered no parasitic draw at all, and the rest varied
from .02 to .06 amps

Unfortunately its not current that counts, but power. Idle current on
transformers does not havea power factor of 1.


Additionally:

My PC draws .05A
The charger for my Craftsman battery drill draws 0.05A

Both battery chargers for nicads / nimh batteries showed no idle
current at all.

A 200watt Variac shows no draw at all.

sounds like your meter's faulty


NT

On Tue, 25 Nov 2008 14:01:27 +1100, "Rod Speed"
wrote:

[snip]


Wrong. It always refers to what you listed above.

That's one of the many varieties of "always" that are strangely non-inclusive.

I meant to say 'also' not 'always'. I dont proof read my posts.


That's much better.

Maybe you've never heard of "switching regulators",

Fraid so.

but I have a lot.

The AC-to-AC converter allows a smaller, lighter transformer
(which I expect draws less power with 0 load)..

You dont know they are AC to AC.


Power to the wall-wart is AC. The load on that converter is a
transformer, which REQUIRES AC. A transformer will not work with DC.

Perhaps you mistake "low power" for "no power".

I never said anything about no power.


The quote I responded to is "They dont have any transformer that uses
power all the time". That's the "no power".

After writing that I realized that the transformer could be eliminated
by operating the voltage regulator on line voltage (possibly practical
with a switching regulator). That would eliminate the transformer, as
well as the (input / output) isolation which is required for safety.

That sort of mistake is very common.

There is no mistake except with the use of the word always.

In article ,
(Don Klipstein) wrote:

toasters (virtually 100% efficient, BTW)

At what?

Heating.

How much of the heat heats the target and how much goes
elsewhere? Especially when it is air conditioning season?

That does not affect the efficiency of the heat production. What
HAPPENS to the heat is not germane to my claim of 100% efficiency.

Your points, of course, are well considered AND considerable if
operating cooling equipment within the same environment.

The electric furnace I owned for 13-years was likewise efficient. If
one turned-off the lights at night and peered into the device, dim light
could be seen - waste light.
--

JR

In article ,
(Don Klipstein) wrote:

At .10/kWh, that amounts to ~$26.30/year.

And if I can reduce that by 60-75% or so with 2-3 power strips?

ahem More POWER to you!
--

JR

In article ,
(Don Klipstein) wrote:

I see sanity rather than insanity to buy a couple power strips
to chip down electric bill by $2 per month!

That's not "insane".

Instead, I PREFER to spend that $2/month rather than have to remember to
close the power strip switch every time I wish to watch TV or use
whatever else is connected to the power strip - that used to be
connected full-time and available without second thought. That is the
price I willingly pay for such convenience.

I also see how such contention of mine does not dispute need
to reduce energy consumption in "more major" areas!

How about "reduce INCREASING energy consumption"?

Conservation will not actually REDUCE the level of consumption. It will
only reduce the INCREASE and, perhaps unfortunately, not by much.

Also, the "need" to reduce is debatable.
--

JR

On Tue, 25 Nov 2008 05:36:33 -0800 (PST), wrote:

wrote:
On Tue, 25 Nov 2008 01:22:33 +0000 (UTC), (Don
Klipstein) wrote:
In ,
wrote:

Jim Redelfs wrote:
SNIP what was already said

The other point worth making is that the power and cost figures for
standby power are routinely exaggerated.

The ones I mentioned in this thread are actual measurements. I have a
watt meter!

I believe you already said that. Its good to have real figures.


I have quite an assortment of "wall warts" and other assorted power
supplies for devices that have been discarded over the years.

All of them work.
I tested 19 of them for idle current draw on a digital meter that
reeds to the closes 0.01 amp.
6 of the 19 registered no parasitic draw at all, and the rest varied
from .02 to .06 amps

Unfortunately its not current that counts, but power. Idle current on
transformers does not havea power factor of 1.

True, as I stared before - however if there is no CURRENT draw, there
is no POWER. The ones that draw no current consume no power. Those
that draw .o5A consume somewhat less than the calculated 5.85 watts at
117 volts.


Additionally:

My PC draws .05A
The charger for my Craftsman battery drill draws 0.05A

Both battery chargers for nicads / nimh batteries showed no idle
current at all.

A 200watt Variac shows no draw at all.

sounds like your meter's faulty

Nope. 0 amps indicated means less than 0.01 amp. As I clearly stated,
accurate to 0.01 amp.


NT

Jim Redelfs wrote:
In article ,
(Don Klipstein) wrote:

I see sanity rather than insanity to buy a couple power strips
to chip down electric bill by $2 per month!

That's not "insane".

Instead, I PREFER to spend that $2/month rather than have to remember to
close the power strip switch every time I wish to watch TV or use
whatever else is connected to the power strip - that used to be
connected full-time and available without second thought. That is the
price I willingly pay for such convenience.

I also see how such contention of mine does not dispute need
to reduce energy consumption in "more major" areas!

How about "reduce INCREASING energy consumption"?

Conservation will not actually REDUCE the level of consumption. It will
only reduce the INCREASE and, perhaps unfortunately, not by much.

But lots of folks think otherwise. Thats just your rationalization as to
why waste is OK.


Also, the "need" to reduce is debatable.

Don Klipstein wrote:
Many apartment buildings forbid outdoor clothes drying. If I was
very severely frugal in such places, I would use indoor clotheslines when
temperature and humidity are favorable for such.

In the heating season, the humidity from such indoor drying is
beneficial. There are also inexpensive folding wooden drying racks
which work well so long as you do not generate massive quantities of
damp laundry at one time. In my experience, a large folding rack can
dry a moderate machine-load of laundry, so long as it does not include
more than one sheet.

Assuming one has space to set a rack up without it being in the way,
they're no more work than a power dryer, although it may take a day for
the load to dry.

Dave

Jim Redelfs wrote:
In article ,
(Don Klipstein) wrote:

toasters (virtually 100% efficient, BTW)

At what?

Heating.

It very much depends on exactly what you mean by "efficient". It is
true that virtually 100% of the energy used for resistance heating is
converted to heat.

But it is also true that using the same amount of energy to run, say, a
heat pump, will deliver significantly more heat. That doesn't make heat
pumps more than 100% efficient (they're not).

It is also true that you can generate more heat by directly using the
same quantity of natural gas as was used to produce the energy, even
though the typical gas furnace is probably not more than 90% efficient.

Dave

Red Green wrote:

Probably cost a fortune to make refrigs that could use piped in air from
outside. And the further south you are the longer the ROI breakeven.

Yes. I've been thinking of doing that for the last 40 years. It would
work best if you could build the refrigerator into the house (think
walk-in cooler, but smaller, or the undercounter fridges found in bars).
You'd need a fan to circulate outside (cold) air in, and dampers to
close off from the outside, and a controller to regulate the dampers &
fan and switch to powered refrigeration when the outside temperature is
warmer than refrigerator-interior temperature. Ditto for the freezer,
though even in Minnesota there isn't that long a period when outside
temperature stays below 0 degrees F. (But outside air could be used to
cool the coils of the powered refrigeration and increase its
efficiency.) For that (in Minnesota) you could avoid much of the
refrigeration energy for maybe 3 months, and get some unknown
improvement most of the rest of the year.

One side benefit is that if you're building the fridge, you're not
constrained to fitting insulation within a thin metal shell, you can
insulate as much as you want. The dampers and the door would be the
parts that were harder to insulate.

But it does sound like a lot of work to accomplish.

Dave

Sam E wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Sam E wrote

Maybe you've never heard of "switching regulators",

Fraid so.

but I have a lot.

The AC-to-AC converter allows a smaller, lighter transformer
(which I expect draws less power with 0 load)..

You dont know they are AC to AC.

Power to the wall-wart is AC.

Yes.

The load on that converter is a transformer, which REQUIRES AC. A transformer will not work with DC.

Doesnt mean that the wallwart is AC to AC overall, most of them
are AC to DC overall and you dont have to have a transformer in it.

Perhaps you mistake "low power" for "no power".

I never said anything about no power.

The quote I responded to is "They dont have any transformer that uses power all the time". That's the "no power".

Nope.

After writing that I realized that the transformer could be eliminated
by operating the voltage regulator on line voltage (possibly practical
with a switching regulator). That would eliminate the transformer,

Precisely.

as well as the (input / output) isolation which is required for safety.

That doesnt have to be done with a transformer.

"Bill" wrote in
:

"Red Green" wrote in message

...Probably cost a fortune to make refrigs that could use piped in
air from outside. And the further south you are the longer the
ROI breakeven.


A new energy saving project for me!

I thought the doorbell project was about the last thing I could do
around my house to save any more on my electric bill... Until I read
your post above!

What a great idea! Actually I have a crawl space and it is quite cold
down there in the fall/winter/spring. And I also like fresh air. And
my refrigerator uses a fan to blow air over the condenser coil...

So how about a vent from the crawl space attached to an air intake on
the bottom of my refrigerator? I imagine one of those 4" flexible
dryer hoses would be a large enough vent for this?

Bad idea. Musty air. Could pull in some nasty bio crud as well. Then
there's the wildlife under there!


Anyway cold air would come in the dryer vent hose from a 4" hole
drilled in the floor, then the refrigerator would not need to work as
hard.

Then I would get fresh warm air each time the refrigerator ran.

Problems with this are that some refrigerators do not have fans, just
a coil on the back. I suppose you could build an insulated chamber
which exposed the back to the outside air for this? Better yet would
be the back and sides of the refrigerator as well.

Then also some houses are sealed so tight these days, they would not
allow any air to be blown into the house because there would be no
exit. I suppose you could exhaust the air back into the crawl space.

Or if the exit air vent was on one side of the house, and the wind was
blowing toward that vent, there might be positive air pressure coming
into the exit vent and this would cause the fan to not be able to blow
air over the condenser coils or air might flow backwards.

Anyway something to think about. Maybe new homes could have a
refrigerator chamber exposed to the outside via vents or refrigerators
could have optional connection(s) for 4" (or whatever) flexible hose
to connect to the crawlspace/outside. (Like a dryer does.)

A screen or air filter on the vent openings would be a good idea.



The frig makers wouldn't like it. They'd have to make an eco and non-eco
version of RFs' for different climates. Then the home construction
industry would have to start allowing for it in design and construction.
Then there's the consumer aspect. "You want a $400 frig or the same bare
boes thing in eco for $800?. Or, you can get a really nice non-eco one
with bells and whistles for 800.".

I have to agree, thats a doorbell
"The Daring Dufas" wrote in message
...
wrote:
On Thu, 20 Nov 2008 22:38:04 -0600, The Daring Dufas
wrote:

Jeff Wisnia wrote:
The Daring Dufas wrote:
Bill wrote:

I had a friend some years ago who ran the communications
division of the local power company. This was back when
they had HF radios for communications and the techs actually
had to know something about electronics. They would get
electronic interference complaints which were often traced
to doorbell transformers. It was a very common problem and
one that many people don't even think of today.

TDD

Sorry, but I have a hard time believing that.

If it was "a very common problem", can you offer a cite proving that a
60 hz transformer and 10-50 feet of unshielded wire with 24 vac on it
can cause interference at radio frequencies?

Wouldn't you expect that if that story was true those big pole pig
transformers and all that higher voltage wiring running on the poles on
nearly every street would have caused the radios to melt? G

Jeff

Do you know what voltage most (USA) doorbells operate on?

TDD
I've got 3 different ones floating around - 12, 16, and 24 volts AC.
(They would work just as well on lower voltage DC)

Dang! Nobody seemed to get the little dig at Jeff.
What you will find are 6, 8, 10, 12, 16 and 24 volts
AC. Some really old stuff will be DC dry cell powered
but only if the owner wants to keep it original for
nostalgic or antique collecting purposes. Most of the
doorbell transformers I install have triple taps for
8, 16 and 24 volts. Many doorbells will need a 10 volt
transformer and if you need 24 volts to ring your ding
dong you're either deaf or have a seriously complicated
system. I have setup some serious systems for industrial
and commercial buildings by making use of the very loud
and fun to play with devices manufactured by Edwards
Signaling which now belongs to GE. My personal favorite:

http://tinyurl.com/5zkoow

TDD

In article ,
George wrote:

Conservation will not actually REDUCE the level of consumption.
It will only reduce the INCREASE and, perhaps unfortunately,
not by much.

But lots of folks think otherwise.

No doubt. For good or ill, I believe they are VASTLY outnumbered.

Thats just your rationalization as to why waste is OK.

Waste is NOT "OK". However, one man's "waste" is another man's "useful
purpose".
--

JR

On Wed, 26 Nov 2008 06:23:02 +1100, "Rod Speed"
wrote:

Sam E wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Sam E wrote

Maybe you've never heard of "switching regulators",

Fraid so.

but I have a lot.

The AC-to-AC converter allows a smaller, lighter transformer
(which I expect draws less power with 0 load)..

You dont know they are AC to AC.

Power to the wall-wart is AC.

Yes.

The load on that converter is a transformer, which REQUIRES AC. A transformer will not work with DC.

Doesnt mean that the wallwart is AC to AC overall,

Yes, although you might have noticed I wasn't talking about "overall",
but about the circuitry that comes before the transformer.

most of them
are AC to DC overall and you dont have to have a transformer in it.


Care to explain how the non-transformer wall-wart changes voltage?

Perhaps you mistake "low power" for "no power".

I never said anything about no power.

The quote I responded to is "They dont have any transformer that uses power all the time". That's the "no power".

Nope.


OK I did make a mistake there, by assuming the presence of a
transformer. How would you do it (convert 120V to 12V or so) without a
transformer?

After writing that I realized that the transformer could be eliminated
by operating the voltage regulator on line voltage (possibly practical
with a switching regulator). That would eliminate the transformer,

Precisely.

as well as the (input / output) isolation which is required for safety.

That doesnt have to be done with a transformer.


I guess that's the "faith based" method :-)

On Tue, 25 Nov 2008 08:53:58 -0600, Jim Redelfs
wrote:

In article ,
(Don Klipstein) wrote:

I see sanity rather than insanity to buy a couple power strips
to chip down electric bill by $2 per month!

That's not "insane".

Instead, I PREFER to spend that $2/month rather than have to remember to
close the power strip switch every time I wish to watch TV or use
whatever else is connected to the power strip - that used to be
connected full-time and available without second thought. That is the
price I willingly pay for such convenience.


Also, many TVs "forget" settings (at least on/off status) when power
is removed. This adds to the work you have to do when you turn it back
on.

I also see how such contention of mine does not dispute need
to reduce energy consumption in "more major" areas!

How about "reduce INCREASING energy consumption"?

Conservation will not actually REDUCE the level of consumption. It will
only reduce the INCREASE and, perhaps unfortunately, not by much.

Also, the "need" to reduce is debatable.
--
29 days until the winter solstice celebration

Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.laughingsquid.com

"The government of the United States is not, in
any sense, founded on the Christian religion."

Sam E wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Sam E wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Sam E wrote

Maybe you've never heard of "switching regulators",

Fraid so.

but I have a lot.

The AC-to-AC converter allows a smaller, lighter transformer
(which I expect draws less power with 0 load)..

You dont know they are AC to AC.

Power to the wall-wart is AC.

Yes.

The load on that converter is a transformer, which REQUIRES AC.
A transformer will not work with DC.

Doesnt mean that the wallwart is AC to AC overall,

Yes, although you might have noticed I wasn't talking about "overall",

That is what was being discussed tho.

but about the circuitry that comes before the transformer.

That wasnt what was being discussed.

most of them are AC to DC overall and you dont have to have a transformer in it.

Care to explain how the non-transformer wall-wart changes voltage?

Most obviously with the low current use of a capacitor.

Nothing to stop you just rectifying the mains, then just doing a switch mode
chopping that up and rectifying to a lower voltage without transformer either.

Perhaps you mistake "low power" for "no power".

I never said anything about no power.

The quote I responded to is "They dont have any transformer
that uses power all the time". That's the "no power".

Nope.

OK I did make a mistake there, by assuming the presence of a transformer.
How would you do it (convert 120V to 12V or so) without a transformer?

See above.

After writing that I realized that the transformer could be eliminated
by operating the voltage regulator on line voltage (possibly practical
with a switching regulator). That would eliminate the transformer,

Precisely.

as well as the (input / output) isolation which is required for safety.

That doesnt have to be done with a transformer.

I guess that's the "faith based" method :-)

Guess again.

In article ,
wrote:

On 25 Nov 08 01:22:33 +0 UTC, (Don Klipstein) wrote:

In ,
wrote:

Jim Redelfs wrote:
SNIP what was already said

The other point worth making is that the power and cost figures for
standby power are routinely exaggerated.

The ones I mentioned in this thread are actual measurements. I have a
watt meter!

Those with political interest
in having everyone else unplug everything are either not competent in
the subject, or are happy to be lses than honest to try to motivate
others to unplug.

And of course, biggest of all... youve only got one life, try to spend
the time doing something useful. Speaking of which.... later.

- Don Klipstein )


I have quite an assortment of "wall warts" and other assorted power
supplies for devices that have been discarded over the years.

All of them work.
I tested 19 of them for idle current draw on a digital meter that
reeds to the closes 0.01 amp.

A true RMS one? If th meter is a true RMS one, it will boast about
that.

6 of the 19 registered no parasitic draw at all, and the rest varied
from .02 to .06 amps

Additionally:

My PC draws .05A
The charger for my Craftsman battery drill draws 0.05A

Both battery chargers for nicads / nimh batteries showed no idle
current at all.

A 200watt Variac shows no draw at all.

I have trouble a Variac that size not drawing a watt or two, And aren't
they rated in VA and not watts?

- Don Klipstein )

In , wrote:

On Tue, 25 Nov 2008 05:36:33 -0800 (PST), wrote:

wrote:
On Tue, 25 Nov 2008 01:22:33 +0000 (UTC), (Don
Klipstein) wrote:
In ,
wrote:

Jim Redelfs wrote:
SNIP what was already said

The other point worth making is that the power and cost figures for
standby power are routinely exaggerated.

The ones I mentioned in this thread are actual measurements. I have a
watt meter!

I believe you already said that. Its good to have real figures.

I have quite an assortment of "wall warts" and other assorted power
supplies for devices that have been discarded over the years.

All of them work.
I tested 19 of them for idle current draw on a digital meter that
reeds to the closes 0.01 amp.
6 of the 19 registered no parasitic draw at all, and the rest varied
from .02 to .06 amps

Unfortunately its not current that counts, but power. Idle current on
transformers does not havea power factor of 1.

True, as I stared before - however if there is no CURRENT draw, there
is no POWER. The ones that draw no current consume no power. Those
that draw .o5A consume somewhat less than the calculated 5.85 watts at
117 volts.

Additionally:

My PC draws .05A
The charger for my Craftsman battery drill draws 0.05A

Both battery chargers for nicads / nimh batteries showed no idle
current at all.

A 200watt Variac shows no draw at all.

sounds like your meter's faulty

Nope. 0 amps indicated means less than 0.01 amp. As I clearly stated,
accurate to 0.01 amp.

If it indicates less than .01 amp for that Variac, and the Variac is not
disconnected somehow, I doubt the emeter is accurate at all.

- Don Klipstein )

On Thu, 27 Nov 2008 02:23:05 +0000 (UTC), (Don
Klipstein) wrote:

In , wrote:

On Tue, 25 Nov 2008 05:36:33 -0800 (PST), wrote:

wrote:
On Tue, 25 Nov 2008 01:22:33 +0000 (UTC), (Don
Klipstein) wrote:
In ,
wrote:

Jim Redelfs wrote:
SNIP what was already said

The other point worth making is that the power and cost figures for
standby power are routinely exaggerated.

The ones I mentioned in this thread are actual measurements. I have a
watt meter!

I believe you already said that. Its good to have real figures.

I have quite an assortment of "wall warts" and other assorted power
supplies for devices that have been discarded over the years.

All of them work.
I tested 19 of them for idle current draw on a digital meter that
reeds to the closes 0.01 amp.
6 of the 19 registered no parasitic draw at all, and the rest varied
from .02 to .06 amps

Unfortunately its not current that counts, but power. Idle current on
transformers does not havea power factor of 1.

True, as I stared before - however if there is no CURRENT draw, there
is no POWER. The ones that draw no current consume no power. Those
that draw .o5A consume somewhat less than the calculated 5.85 watts at
117 volts.

Additionally:

My PC draws .05A
The charger for my Craftsman battery drill draws 0.05A

Both battery chargers for nicads / nimh batteries showed no idle
current at all.

A 200watt Variac shows no draw at all.

sounds like your meter's faulty

Nope. 0 amps indicated means less than 0.01 amp. As I clearly stated,
accurate to 0.01 amp.

If it indicates less than .01 amp for that Variac, and the Variac is not
disconnected somehow, I doubt the emeter is accurate at all.

- Don Klipstein )


Well, I tested it and it works - and the idle current IS less than .01
amps. I'll check it with my lab meter when I get a chance.

On Thu, 27 Nov 2008 02:21:21 +0000 (UTC), (Don
Klipstein) wrote:

In article ,
wrote:

On 25 Nov 08 01:22:33 +0 UTC, (Don Klipstein) wrote:

In ,
wrote:

Jim Redelfs wrote:
SNIP what was already said

The other point worth making is that the power and cost figures for
standby power are routinely exaggerated.

The ones I mentioned in this thread are actual measurements. I have a
watt meter!

Those with political interest
in having everyone else unplug everything are either not competent in
the subject, or are happy to be lses than honest to try to motivate
others to unplug.

And of course, biggest of all... youve only got one life, try to spend
the time doing something useful. Speaking of which.... later.

- Don Klipstein )


I have quite an assortment of "wall warts" and other assorted power
supplies for devices that have been discarded over the years.

All of them work.
I tested 19 of them for idle current draw on a digital meter that
reeds to the closes 0.01 amp.

A true RMS one? If th meter is a true RMS one, it will boast about
that.

6 of the 19 registered no parasitic draw at all, and the rest varied
from .02 to .06 amps

Additionally:

My PC draws .05A
The charger for my Craftsman battery drill draws 0.05A

Both battery chargers for nicads / nimh batteries showed no idle
current at all.

A 200watt Variac shows no draw at all.

I have trouble a Variac that size not drawing a watt or two, And aren't
they rated in VA and not watts?

- Don Klipstein )

It is rated at 200 va - which at unity power factor would be 200
watts. As it was used for controlling a heating element it had a 200
watt limit. It is a 0 - 110% voltage transformer, and the idle current
does not change from min to max .
The meter I am using is a UPM EM100 energy meter set to the amp scale.
The watt scale also reads 0, and when I plug one of the wall warts in
it does read - HOWEVER, the minimum reading is 2 watts and 0.02 amps,
so when it says 0, it means less than 0.02 amps, and less than 2
watts. (not less than 1, which I had previously reported)

In , Jim Redelfs said:
In , (D Klipstein) wrote:

toasters (virtually 100% efficient, BTW)

At what?

Heating.

How much of the heat heats the target and how much goes
elsewhere? Especially when it is air conditioning season?

That does not affect the efficiency of the heat production. What
HAPPENS to the heat is not germane to my claim of 100% efficiency.

Your points, of course, are well considered AND considerable if
operating cooling equipment within the same environment.

The electric furnace I owned for 13-years was likewise efficient. If
one turned-off the lights at night and peered into the device, dim light
could be seen - waste light.

Whatever light does not get out the windows (or escapes the house
somehow) becomes heat.

Same story for the considerable amount of infrared wavelengths - some of
which do go through glass.

Lightbulbs are pretty efficient at home heating also - it's just a
matter of where the heat goes.

- Don Klipstein )

In article ,
(Don Klipstein) wrote:

Lightbulbs are pretty efficient at home heating also

Indeed.

In my aforementioned electrically-heated home, I illuminated the
playroom in the basement with six, 100-watt incandescent lamps, each
with a bowl reflector.

During the heating season, I made little (if any) "bones" about it when
my young daughters left them on after vacating the room. The living
room floor, directly above, was always nice and toasty.

As the girls aged, I explained that they should try to turn them off to
save energy which equated to money, particularly when we weren't running
the heating plant. They "got it" and did quite well, remembering to
turn off the lamps when they left the room.

- it's just a matter of where the heat goes.

Agreed.

As to your point that LIGHT becomes heat, I wonder how MUCH light would
be required to heat a given space? Velly interesting...
--

JR

In , Jim Redelfs
wrote in part towards the end in response to a prior posting of mine:

As to your point that LIGHT becomes heat, I wonder how MUCH light would
be required to heat a given space? Velly interesting...

Giving efficiency of lamps or for that matter almost every other
electrical load in a house approaching 100% for converting the electrical
energy consumed to heat, I would not be too concerned with how much of the
heat materializes after spending a few or several nanoseconds being in the
form of light along a path of electricity consumption becoming heat. I
would just consider the watts consumed by the electrical load and multiply
by 3.4 to get BTU/hour if that is what you want.

Should you want something more academic, as in watts or BTU/hour in a
given quantity of light:

The most common "official definition" (my words) of "visible light" is
"electromagnetic radiation" having wavelegths in the 400-700 nm range.

1 watt of such from most light sources used to illuminate homes has
about 240-300 lumens. A lumen is amount of photometric output that
illuminates 1 square foot to extent of 1 footcandle, or 1 square meter to
extent of 1 lux. A "USA-usual" 100 watt 120V "big-3 brand" lightbulb with
rated life expectancy of 750 hours and coiled-coil filament produces
1670-1750 lumens, and about 6.6 watts, maybe 6.7 watts of radiation of
wavelengths 400-700 nm.

Plenty of other "white light sources" produce radiation having roughly
240-320 lumens per watt of radiation of wavelength 240-320 nm, meaning 1
watt or 3.4 BTU/hour from 400-700-nm-"light" amounting to 240-320 lumens.

Keep in mind that along with that 6.6-6.7 watts of radiation in the
"official visible light range", the above 100W lightbulb produces plenty
of infrared. Something like around roughly ballpark 50 watts of infrared
radiated by the filament passes through the glass bulb. The glass bulb
typically radiates a few watts more infrared, maybe as much as 10 or a
dozen or so.
Since a 100 watt 120V lightbulb can produce something like 75 watts
combined of infrared and visible light with a trace of ultraviolet that is
mostly in the "non-tanning portion of UVA as in 'Blacklight Range' ",
when light output is 1710 lumens, each lumen of light escaping the fixture
*may* be associated with close to .044 watt of radiation that becomes heat
in the home after exiting the lightbulb in form of radiation (in addition
to heat from the fixture). .044 watt is about .15 BTU/hour.

But also since energy going into a lamp within a home experiences
well-approaching 100% efficiency of producing heat within the home, I
suggest that room or building heating effects result mainly from power
consumption of the light source rather than photometrics. At the usual
rate of about 3.4 BTU/hour per watt.

The biggest problem I hear now is as to how much home heating by lamps
is achieved at ceilings and how much of that is off-target by producing
heat above where it is wanted/needed!

- Don Klipstein )

Don Klipstein wrote:

In , Jim Redelfs
wrote in part towards the end in response to a prior posting of mine:

As to your point that LIGHT becomes heat, I wonder how MUCH light would
be required to heat a given space? Velly interesting...


Giving efficiency of lamps or for that matter almost every other
electrical load in a house approaching 100% for converting the electrical
energy consumed to heat, I would not be too concerned with how much of the
heat materializes after spending a few or several nanoseconds being in the
form of light along a path of electricity consumption becoming heat. I
would just consider the watts consumed by the electrical load and multiply
by 3.4 to get BTU/hour if that is what you want.

Should you want something more academic, as in watts or BTU/hour in a
given quantity of light:

The most common "official definition" (my words) of "visible light" is
"electromagnetic radiation" having wavelegths in the 400-700 nm range.

1 watt of such from most light sources used to illuminate homes has
about 240-300 lumens. A lumen is amount of photometric output that
illuminates 1 square foot to extent of 1 footcandle, or 1 square meter to
extent of 1 lux. A "USA-usual" 100 watt 120V "big-3 brand" lightbulb with
rated life expectancy of 750 hours and coiled-coil filament produces
1670-1750 lumens, and about 6.6 watts, maybe 6.7 watts of radiation of
wavelengths 400-700 nm.

Plenty of other "white light sources" produce radiation having roughly
240-320 lumens per watt of radiation of wavelength 240-320 nm, meaning 1
watt or 3.4 BTU/hour from 400-700-nm-"light" amounting to 240-320 lumens.

Keep in mind that along with that 6.6-6.7 watts of radiation in the
"official visible light range", the above 100W lightbulb produces plenty
of infrared. Something like around roughly ballpark 50 watts of infrared
radiated by the filament passes through the glass bulb. The glass bulb
typically radiates a few watts more infrared, maybe as much as 10 or a
dozen or so.
Since a 100 watt 120V lightbulb can produce something like 75 watts
combined of infrared and visible light with a trace of ultraviolet that is
mostly in the "non-tanning portion of UVA as in 'Blacklight Range' ",
when light output is 1710 lumens, each lumen of light escaping the fixture
*may* be associated with close to .044 watt of radiation that becomes heat
in the home after exiting the lightbulb in form of radiation (in addition
to heat from the fixture). .044 watt is about .15 BTU/hour.

But also since energy going into a lamp within a home experiences
well-approaching 100% efficiency of producing heat within the home, I
suggest that room or building heating effects result mainly from power
consumption of the light source rather than photometrics. At the usual
rate of about 3.4 BTU/hour per watt.

The biggest problem I hear now is as to how much home heating by lamps
is achieved at ceilings and how much of that is off-target by producing
heat above where it is wanted/needed!

- Don Klipstein )
Don,

I'm happy to see that you've cranked out the above numbers, which I have
wondered about but not taken the time to calculate.

Ceiling heating is easily utilized by running ceiling fans backwards at
a fairly low speed. We've been doing that for years and find that it
really improves comfort.

With respect to areas inadequately addressed by the EPA and DOE
regarding LED lighting I submit that for those of us with less acute
vision than we had when much younger I have found that LED lighting is
often a problem. Incandescent lamps, and fluorescent lamps (due to
their phosphor reemission) produce a fairly broad, continuous spectrum
with the bulk of the energy in the longer wavelengths. LED lighting
(that without phosphors) produces light in a very narrow spectral band,
or bands, usually at the shorter wavelengths. By a judicious selection
of materials the wavelengths and intensities of the components forming
the resulting line spectrum the eye can be tricked into believing that
the light is the same as that from an incandescent lamp. It looks like
"white" light. About 50years +/- ago George Wald showed how this
happens in his work on the molecular theory of color vision. A good
overview of this is found in the lecture he gave when accepting the
Nobel Prize for this discovery.

When I look at something under LED derived "white appearing" light
doesn't mean that when my eyes were refracted the light source was the
same. Consequently, my glasses and the eyes they are correcting are
optimized, not for short wavelength lines, but rather for the
predominantly longer wavelengths present in the incandescent
illumination used by the ophthalmologist. As one ages and the ability
to accommodate deteriorates this becomes non-trivial.

Boden

On Fri, 28 Nov 2008 20:57:03 -0600, Jim Redelfs
wrote:


As to your point that LIGHT becomes heat, I wonder how MUCH light would
be required to heat a given space? Velly interesting...

A *lot* of light! However, you must define light first (what spectrum)
before you can answer it.

I now have an "always off" house!

The only three things which are "always on" are my phone answering machine,
the refrigerator*, and the freezer*.

*New "Energy Star" appliances.

Everything else has a handy "extension cord type switch" added next to the
appliance so I can easily turn it "totally off" when not in use.

For my computer and TV/Stereo/Entertainment center areas, I have one or more
power strips (no lights on these power strips) right next to each other so I
can easily switch on just what I need to use (not everything all on with one
power strip). Or I have little switches for one item plugged into the power
strip.

So for my entertainment system, I can separately turn on the TV, stereo,
Playstation, satellite TV, DVD, etc. I just turn on what I need. All the
switches are right in one location and labeled, so easy.

Microwave is on switch, GFCI's are switched, outlet surge protectors are
switched, garage door opener switched, HEPA air cleaners switched, window
air conditioners switched, cell phone and other battery chargers, clock on
range disconnected, space heaters switched so they are totally off, and of
course the doorbell now only uses electricity when the button is pressed.

This was a one time expense. I used money I had saved from previous energy
saving projects to pay for this. Anyway for the rest of my life I will have
a lower electric bill.

In the past people have advised me to invest my money in the stock market
(instead of in energy saving projects) because I would get a better return
on my money. I'm glad I did not do that!