In ,
RicodJour spewed forth:
On Oct 16, 1:57 pm, "ChairMan" wrote:
DGDevin spewed forth:

Pay more for power
vs. pay less for power, hmmmm, tough call.

but shouldn't the market be the one that effects the change and not
gvmt? I know lots of people don't like choice, but things are
getting ridiculous.

Here's an example of the 'free' market making a choice.
http://www.foxnews.com/health/2010/1...s-decay-months


That's why i haven't set foot in a micky d's since my kids were about 12(now
28&32)
And people still *choose* to eat there,it's called thinning the herd.
It's like riding a motorcycle without a helmet, those people are known as
donors


Remember:
A). There is no such thing as a free market

No, but the freer the market, the more oppurtunity one has to succeed

B). Decisions are rarely made with full information

It's still free choice and *I* can decide what's best for me better than the
gvnmt can

C). People shouldn't get old and die...especially me.

Again, it's choice, just ask Jack Kavorkiang

In ,
spewed forth:
On Sat, 16 Oct 2010 12:57:16 -0500, "ChairMan" wrote:

In m,
DGDevin spewed forth:
"Jon Danniken" wrote in message
...

I am currently using a 60W bulb for that exact purpose - to
provide heat in a small space.

Jon

When I wore a younger man's clothes I worked in oilfield camps in
the frozen north. The big tanks of propane which provided heat for
the trailers had insulated boxes under them containing lightbulbs
that were powered by the camp diesel generator which ran 24/7. The
heat from those bulbs kept the propane from turning into a gel and
not flowing to the heaters.
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.

but shouldn't the market be the one that effects the change and not
gvmt? I know lots of people don't like choice, but things are
getting ridiculous.

Up here, in the summer time we don't use lights much, and in the
winter we need the heat anyway - so what's wrong with incandescent
lighting? If I'm sitting reading in the evening and the lamp is giving
both heat and light I can be comfortable with the thermostat at a
lower setting as the lamp produces radiant heating - warming me in
it's beam without having to heat the whole house.

Yup, thats what's nice about "choice"

In ,
Stormin Mormon spewed forth:
Do you have government permission to ask that question? You could be
considered unpatriotic.

I hear the helicopters now and they're black

In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:


He walked over to a rack, extended his hand without even looking, and
plucked the CD out of the bin. Exactly what I wanted.

You'll never guess the section in which it was filed. Wait for it now...
"Classics."

I was under the impression that "Classics" included, you know, Frank Sinatra
and Bing Crosby.

Function of getting older. About 10 years I was talking with the guy
who was programming the local "Album oriented rock" station at the same
time I was running the local Rolling Stone wannabe "alternative" paper.
He mentioned he knew he had gone over the hill when he realized
that the Classic Rock stations were playing his playlist from the AOR
days.

--
"Even I realized that money was to politicians what the ecalyptus tree is to koala bears: food, water, shelter and something to crap on."
---PJ O'Rourke

On Sun, 17 Oct 2010 17:32:32 -0500, "ChairMan" wrote:

In ,
spewed forth:
On Sat, 16 Oct 2010 12:57:16 -0500, "ChairMan" wrote:

In m,
DGDevin spewed forth:
"Jon Danniken" wrote in message
...

I am currently using a 60W bulb for that exact purpose - to
provide heat in a small space.

Jon

When I wore a younger man's clothes I worked in oilfield camps in
the frozen north. The big tanks of propane which provided heat for
the trailers had insulated boxes under them containing lightbulbs
that were powered by the camp diesel generator which ran 24/7. The
heat from those bulbs kept the propane from turning into a gel and
not flowing to the heaters.
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.

but shouldn't the market be the one that effects the change and not
gvmt? I know lots of people don't like choice, but things are
getting ridiculous.

Up here, in the summer time we don't use lights much, and in the
winter we need the heat anyway - so what's wrong with incandescent
lighting? If I'm sitting reading in the evening and the lamp is giving
both heat and light I can be comfortable with the thermostat at a
lower setting as the lamp produces radiant heating - warming me in
it's beam without having to heat the whole house.

Yup, thats what's nice about "choice"

Heretic!

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"?



--
The fashion in killing has an insouciant, flirty style this spring,
with the flaunting of well-defined muscle, wrapped in flags.

- Comment from an article on Antiwar.com (http://antiwar.com)

On Sun, 17 Oct 2010 14:27:34 -0700 (PDT), "hr(bob) "
wrote:

On Oct 17, 3:35Â*pm, "
wrote:
On Sun, 17 Oct 2010 16:02:29 -0400, "Stormin Mormon"

wrote:
I'd guess that the fluorescents put out less heat, and more light.

Your guess would be wrong. Â*Think about it.

For a given input power, say 25 watts, the compact fluorescent puts
out more light energy than the 25 watt incandescent light bulb.
Unless there is a new law of thermodynamics, if the compact
fluorescent light puts out more light energy, it must put out less
heat energy. Now, we can argue the amount of the difference, but
there is a difference in the heat output between two 25 watt devices.
NOT necessarily - if a flourescing powder changes one wavelength of
energy output to another, the difference does not need to be
significant -and that is really how flourescent lights work. The
phosphor is activated (excited) by invisible radiation to emit visible
spectrum radiation instead.
Is there a difference in heat output between the 2 25 watt devices?
Definitely. Is it a significant percentage????? Perhaps -but the
ballasts on my CFLs do generate pretty significant heat.

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.

On 10/17/2010 4:05 PM spake thus:

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.

I got that, thank you very much. The question being discussed here is
the *efficiency* of CFLs at producing heat vs. incandescents, no? So
what's your answer? I'm still not sure, but it seems to me that
incandescents are more "efficient" in that way--in other words, more of
their energy gets converted to heat than light, proportionally, compared
with CFLs. Right?


--
The fashion in killing has an insouciant, flirty style this spring,
with the flaunting of well-defined muscle, wrapped in flags.

- Comment from an article on Antiwar.com (http://antiwar.com)

On Sun, 17 Oct 2010 17:12:23 -0700, David Nebenzahl
wrote:

On 10/17/2010 4:05 PM spake thus:

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.

I got that, thank you very much. The question being discussed here is
the *efficiency* of CFLs at producing heat vs. incandescents, no?

No. They are *exactly* the same. Both are 100% efficient at heating.

So
what's your answer? I'm still not sure, but it seems to me that
incandescents are more "efficient" in that way--in other words, more of
their energy gets converted to heat than light, proportionally, compared
with CFLs. Right?

No, all energy use results in heat; 100W in = 100W out. When the light
strikes an object, that which doesn't get reflected heats the object.

DerbyDad03" wrote in message
news:0a384117-c5a1-4c53-a7d7-

stuff snipped since this side thread has drifted

(My favorite was always "Space Monkey Mafia" )

--
Bobby G.

What I love doing is pointing out to my "kids" (18 - 24) how many of
"their" songs are remakes of songs from my generation. I love pointing
out to them that many of the artists that they listen to fit into one
of 2 groups:

1 - They don't know how to write quality music so they remix the great
songs from my generation.
2 - They know how to write quality music, but they also recognize
quality writing when they see it and give tribute by remixing it.

You're more charitable than I am. Remixing always equalled creative
bankruptcy to me, but I realize that's just a personal opinion. That
doesn't mean there aren't great songs still being written as there are some
very talented songwriters still cranking away.

Somehow I doubt that too many of the new songs they listen to will be
remixed by the next generation of musicians. If it's crap now, it'll
still be crap in 20 years.

But it will be kitschy crap 20 years from now, and that might be enough to
breathe new life into it.

I'm not putting down all music of today,
because there are a lot of talented writers/performers out there, and
I like some of the same stuff my kids do. However, when I see them
enjoying Eminem sampling "Big Brother and The Holding Company" or
Silvertide rocking Dylan's "Maggie's Farm", I have to point out to
them whose music they are listening to.

Silvertide? Is that what silverfish ride in on? (-: (I occasionally force
myself to watch shows like Entertainment Tonight and TMZ just to learn the
names and faces of the current generation of "stars." My generation seems
to be showing up mostly on the obituary page and that's too depressing. )-:

--
Bobby G.

On Sun, 17 Oct 2010 17:12:23 -0700, David Nebenzahl
wrote:

On 10/17/2010 4:05 PM spake thus:

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.

I got that, thank you very much. The question being discussed here is
the *efficiency* of CFLs at producing heat vs. incandescents, no? So
what's your answer? I'm still not sure, but it seems to me that
incandescents are more "efficient" in that way--in other words, more of
their energy gets converted to heat than light, proportionally, compared
with CFLs. Right?
Marginally so, to moderately so, I would have to say. particularly in
a small space where light is absorbed - since light (visible
radiation) also turns to heat as it is absorbed.
Energy cannot be made or destroyed. Light is energy. So is heat. Just
different wavelengths or frequencies. When absorbed they are both the
same. 25 watts is 25 watts, basically.
The question is how well that visible radiation is absorbed and turned
to heat????

I have thought about it. If you'd like me to change my mind, please
supply some proof. Just saying someone is wrong, is useless. Telling
someone to "think about it" is insulting.

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..


wrote in message
...
On Sun, 17 Oct 2010 16:02:29 -0400, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:

I'd guess that the fluorescents put out less heat, and more light.

Your guess would be wrong. Think about it.

In article ,
zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Sun, 17 Oct 2010 17:12:23 -0700, David Nebenzahl
wrote:

On 10/17/2010 4:05 PM spake thus:

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.

I got that, thank you very much. The question being discussed here is
the *efficiency* of CFLs at producing heat vs. incandescents, no?

No. They are *exactly* the same. Both are 100% efficient at heating.

So
what's your answer? I'm still not sure, but it seems to me that
incandescents are more "efficient" in that way--in other words, more of
their energy gets converted to heat than light, proportionally, compared
with CFLs. Right?

No, all energy use results in heat; 100W in = 100W out. When the light
strikes an object, that which doesn't get reflected heats the object.

A 25 watt CFL placed at a window will not heat the room it is in as much
as a 25W bulb placed at the same window.


--
Better to be stuck up in a tree than tied to one.

Larry Wasserman - Baltimore Maryland - lwasserm(a)sdf. lonestar.org

That's pretty much my reasoning. However, the guy says I'm wrong. And
he's going to provide the evidence.

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..


"hr(bob) " wrote in message
...

For a given input power, say 25 watts, the compact fluorescent puts
out more light energy than the 25 watt incandescent light bulb.
Unless there is a new law of thermodynamics, if the compact
fluorescent light puts out more light energy, it must put out less
heat energy. Now, we can argue the amount of the difference, but
there is a difference in the heat output between two 25 watt devices.

More insulting, and no proof. I guess you don't have the facts on your
side. So sad. You may have another try, if you wish.

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..


wrote in message
...
On Sun, 17 Oct 2010 14:27:34 -0700 (PDT), "hr(bob) "
wrote:

On Oct 17, 3:35 pm, "
wrote:
On Sun, 17 Oct 2010 16:02:29 -0400, "Stormin Mormon"

wrote:
I'd guess that the fluorescents put out less heat, and more light.

Your guess would be wrong. Think about it.

For a given input power, say 25 watts, the compact fluorescent puts
out more light energy than the 25 watt incandescent light bulb.

Another who would rather talk than listen and think.

Unless there is a new law of thermodynamics, if the compact
fluorescent light puts out more light energy, it must put out less
heat energy. Now, we can argue the amount of the difference, but
there is a difference in the heat output between two 25 watt devices.

Read the thread before making yourself appear even dumber than you
already
have.

Hint: The issue was heat output, not light.

I am sensing that krw isn't really understanding what we have written.
He aparently has not thought about it.

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..


"Nate Nagel" wrote in message
...
On 10/17/2010 05:37 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:


Read the thread before making yourself appear even dumber than you
already
have.

Did you read his post?

Well, I guess we know who's not thinking. I won't be too hard on you,
son.

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..


wrote in message
news
Did you read his post?


Hint: The issue was heat output, not light.

Yes, indeed. To over-simplify, what he's saying is that that 25W
must
all go somewhere, either heat *or* light *or* a mixture of both.

It will *ALL* be heat.

Thus, a 25W incandescent makes a better *heater* than a 25W CFL.

No, the point is that light will become heat as soon as it isn't
reflected,
i.e. "instantaneously". There isn't a difference. 25W is 25W.

Do they "sound" black? If Italian helecopters go "wop, wop, wop" what
do black helecopters sound like?

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..


"ChairMan" wrote in message
om...
In ,
Stormin Mormon spewed forth:
Do you have government permission to ask that question? You could be
considered unpatriotic.

I hear the helicopters now and they're black

But, at least he thinks about things.

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..


wrote in message
...
On Sun, 17 Oct 2010 17:32:32 -0500, "ChairMan" wrote:

Up here, in the summer time we don't use lights much, and in the
winter we need the heat anyway - so what's wrong with incandescent
lighting? If I'm sitting reading in the evening and the lamp is
giving
both heat and light I can be comfortable with the thermostat at a
lower setting as the lamp produces radiant heating - warming me in
it's beam without having to heat the whole house.

Yup, thats what's nice about "choice"

Heretic!

Gee, it's so sad that you're not thinking.

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..


wrote in message
...

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.

I got that, thank you very much. The question being discussed here is
the *efficiency* of CFLs at producing heat vs. incandescents, no?

No. They are *exactly* the same. Both are 100% efficient at heating.

So
what's your answer? I'm still not sure, but it seems to me that
incandescents are more "efficient" in that way--in other words, more
of
their energy gets converted to heat than light, proportionally,
compared
with CFLs. Right?

No, all energy use results in heat; 100W in = 100W out. When the
light
strikes an object, that which doesn't get reflected heats the object.

Larry, I like how you think. Good job, mate.

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..


"Larry W" wrote in message
...
In article ,
zzzzzzzzzz wrote:

So
what's your answer? I'm still not sure, but it seems to me that
incandescents are more "efficient" in that way--in other words, more
of
their energy gets converted to heat than light, proportionally,
compared
with CFLs. Right?

No, all energy use results in heat; 100W in = 100W out. When the
light
strikes an object, that which doesn't get reflected heats the object.

A 25 watt CFL placed at a window will not heat the room it is in as
much
as a 25W bulb placed at the same window.


--
Better to be stuck up in a tree than tied to one.

Larry Wasserman - Baltimore Maryland - lwasserm(a)sdf.
lonestar.org

On 10/17/2010 10:00 PM, Stormin Mormon wrote:
Do they "sound" black? If Italian helecopters go "wop, wop, wop" what
do black helecopters sound like?


"Yo, Yo, Yo" silly man.

TDD

On Mon, 18 Oct 2010 02:50:22 +0000 (UTC),
(Larry W) wrote:

In article ,
wrote:
On Sun, 17 Oct 2010 17:12:23 -0700, David Nebenzahl
wrote:

On 10/17/2010 4:05 PM spake thus:

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.

I got that, thank you very much. The question being discussed here is
the *efficiency* of CFLs at producing heat vs. incandescents, no?

No. They are *exactly* the same. Both are 100% efficient at heating.

So
what's your answer? I'm still not sure, but it seems to me that
incandescents are more "efficient" in that way--in other words, more of
their energy gets converted to heat than light, proportionally, compared
with CFLs. Right?

No, all energy use results in heat; 100W in = 100W out. When the light
strikes an object, that which doesn't get reflected heats the object.

A 25 watt CFL placed at a window will not heat the room it is in as much
as a 25W bulb placed at the same window.

"When I wore a younger man's clothes I worked in oilfield camps in
the frozen north. The big tanks of propane which provided heat
for the trailers had insulated boxes under them containing lightbulbs
that were powered by the camp diesel generator which ran 24/7. The
heat from those bulbs kept the propane from turning into a gel and
not flowing to the heaters."

I'm sure they installed windows in those insulated boxes so that the light
bulbs could see outside.

On Sun, 17 Oct 2010 23:05:39 -0400, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:

Gee, it's so sad that you're not thinking.

You really should take some of your own advice sometime. Take mine first
though; read the thread.

On Sun, 17 Oct 2010 22:48:11 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 17 Oct 2010 17:12:23 -0700, David Nebenzahl
wrote:

On 10/17/2010 4:05 PM spake thus:

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.

I got that, thank you very much. The question being discussed here is
the *efficiency* of CFLs at producing heat vs. incandescents, no? So
what's your answer? I'm still not sure, but it seems to me that
incandescents are more "efficient" in that way--in other words, more of
their energy gets converted to heat than light, proportionally, compared
with CFLs. Right?
Marginally so, to moderately so, I would have to say. particularly in
a small space where light is absorbed - since light (visible
radiation) also turns to heat as it is absorbed.
Energy cannot be made or destroyed. Light is energy. So is heat. Just
different wavelengths or frequencies. When absorbed they are both the
same. 25 watts is 25 watts, basically.

Not basically, at all.

The question is how well that visible radiation is absorbed and turned
to heat????

It doesn't matter "how well". It *ALL* is, in quite short order. Light
travels fast. Really fast.

On Sun, 17 Oct 2010 22:59:35 -0400, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:

Well, I guess we know who's not thinking. I won't be too hard on you,
son.

You really should try it some time. Now go back and read the thread, then
come back with your tail between your legs.

On Sun, 17 Oct 2010 22:57:03 -0400, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:

I am sensing that krw isn't really understanding what we have written.
He aparently has not thought about it.

You obviously can't read.

On Sun, 17 Oct 2010 22:53:21 -0400, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:

More insulting, and no proof. I guess you don't have the facts on your
side. So sad. You may have another try, if you wish.

No, it's a fact. You're apparently illiterate. Clare gets it right - mostly.

On Sun, 17 Oct 2010 22:52:03 -0400, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:

That's pretty much my reasoning. However, the guy says I'm wrong. And
he's going to provide the evidence.

Evidence of what? That energy is not conserved?

On Sun, 17 Oct 2010 22:50:16 -0400, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:

I have thought about it. If you'd like me to change my mind, please
supply some proof. Just saying someone is wrong, is useless. Telling
someone to "think about it" is insulting.

I suppose it is insulting to have to be told to think. You should be
embarrassed.

In ,
Stormin Mormon spewed forth:

"ChairMan" wrote in message
om...
In ,
Stormin Mormon spewed forth:
Do you have government permission to ask that question? You could be
considered unpatriotic.

I hear the helicopters now and they're black

Do they "sound" black? If Italian helecopters go "wop, wop, wop" what
do black helecopters sound like?



wassup,wassup,wassup
mynigga,mynigga,mynigga
???

soon as I hit send I knew somone would ask that

In ,
zzzzzzzzzz spewed forth:
On Sun, 17 Oct 2010 17:32:32 -0500, "ChairMan" wrote:

In ,
spewed forth:
On Sat, 16 Oct 2010 12:57:16 -0500, "ChairMan" wrote:

In m,
DGDevin spewed forth:
"Jon Danniken" wrote in
message ...

I am currently using a 60W bulb for that exact purpose - to
provide heat in a small space.

Jon

When I wore a younger man's clothes I worked in oilfield camps in
the frozen north. The big tanks of propane which provided heat
for the trailers had insulated boxes under them containing
lightbulbs that were powered by the camp diesel generator which
ran 24/7. The heat from those bulbs kept the propane from
turning into a gel and not flowing to the heaters.
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.

but shouldn't the market be the one that effects the change and not
gvmt? I know lots of people don't like choice, but things are
getting ridiculous.

Up here, in the summer time we don't use lights much, and in the
winter we need the heat anyway - so what's wrong with incandescent
lighting? If I'm sitting reading in the evening and the lamp is
giving both heat and light I can be comfortable with the thermostat
at a lower setting as the lamp produces radiant heating - warming
me in it's beam without having to heat the whole house.

Yup, thats what's nice about "choice"

Heretic!

raising hand.....Present

In ,
Stormin Mormon spewed forth:

Up here, in the summer time we don't use lights much, and in the
winter we need the heat anyway - so what's wrong with incandescent
lighting? If I'm sitting reading in the evening and the lamp is
giving
both heat and light I can be comfortable with the thermostat at a
lower setting as the lamp produces radiant heating - warming me in
it's beam without having to heat the whole house.

Yup, thats what's nice about "choice"

Heretic!

But, at least he thinks about things.



that's not what my wife says

On 10/17/2010 6:05 PM zzzzzzzzzz spake thus:

On Sun, 17 Oct 2010 17:12:23 -0700, David Nebenzahl
wrote:

So what's your answer? I'm still not sure, but it seems to me that
incandescents are more "efficient" in that way--in other words,
more of their energy gets converted to heat than light,
proportionally, compared with CFLs. Right?

No, all energy use results in heat; 100W in = 100W out. When the light
strikes an object, that which doesn't get reflected heats the object.

Well, dang it, I guess I gotta admit you're right. All the energy will
(eventually) be converted to heat, once the light rays stop bouncing
around and are absorbed.

I guess the most one can say is there may be a difference in how the
heat is *distributed* between CFLs and incandescents, since the
incandescent will (initially) produce more of its energy as heat.


--
The fashion in killing has an insouciant, flirty style this spring,
with the flaunting of well-defined muscle, wrapped in flags.

- Comment from an article on Antiwar.com (http://antiwar.com)

On Sun, 17 Oct 2010 21:39:56 -0700, David Nebenzahl
wrote:

On 10/17/2010 6:05 PM zzzzzzzzzz spake thus:

On Sun, 17 Oct 2010 17:12:23 -0700, David Nebenzahl
wrote:

So what's your answer? I'm still not sure, but it seems to me that
incandescents are more "efficient" in that way--in other words,
more of their energy gets converted to heat than light,
proportionally, compared with CFLs. Right?

No, all energy use results in heat; 100W in = 100W out. When the light
strikes an object, that which doesn't get reflected heats the object.

Well, dang it, I guess I gotta admit you're right. All the energy will
(eventually) be converted to heat, once the light rays stop bouncing
around and are absorbed.

I guess the most one can say is there may be a difference in how the
heat is *distributed* between CFLs and incandescents, since the
incandescent will (initially) produce more of its energy as heat.

At 300000000m/s it takes a *large* box for it to ricochet around in there for
very long.

On 10/17/2010 9:53 PM zzzzzzzzzz spake thus:

On Sun, 17 Oct 2010 21:39:56 -0700, David Nebenzahl
wrote:

Well, dang it, I guess I gotta admit you're right. All the energy
will (eventually) be converted to heat, once the light rays stop
bouncing around and are absorbed.

At 300000000m/s it takes a *large* box for it to ricochet around in there for
very long.

T-shirt:

"186,000 miles per second? It's not just a good idea--IT'S THE LAW!"


--
The fashion in killing has an insouciant, flirty style this spring,
with the flaunting of well-defined muscle, wrapped in flags.

- Comment from an article on Antiwar.com (http://antiwar.com)

"Robert Green" wrote:

DerbyDad03" wrote in message
news:0a384117-c5a1-4c53-a7d7-

stuff snipped since this side thread has drifted

(My favorite was always "Space Monkey Mafia" )

--
Bobby G.

What I love doing is pointing out to my "kids" (18 - 24) how many of
"their" songs are remakes of songs from my generation. I love pointing
out to them that many of the artists that they listen to fit into one
of 2 groups:

1 - They don't know how to write quality music so they remix the great
songs from my generation.
2 - They know how to write quality music, but they also recognize
quality writing when they see it and give tribute by remixing it.

You're more charitable than I am. Remixing always equalled creative
bankruptcy to me, but I realize that's just a personal opinion.

Every so often there is an exception. For the most part I agree
with you- but a couple years ago I stumbled over Israel "IZ"
Kamakawiwo'ole's rendition of Over the Rainbow. For most of my
life it was my opinion that the most beautiful song ever sung was Judy
Garland's 'Over the rainbow' -- Izzy edges her out of #1;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V1bFr...eature=related


Jim

In article ,
"Robert Green" wrote:


You're more charitable than I am. Remixing always equalled creative
bankruptcy to me, but I realize that's just a personal opinion. That
doesn't mean there aren't great songs still being written as there are some
very talented songwriters still cranking away.

It depends on what you call remixing. If it is taking the same song
and redoing it in a different style, then that is far different from
taking the original and just playing with the tracks.
For example, I think there is equal creativity seen in these two
versions of Sympathy for the Devil:
Original Stones:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M1jUG...eature=related

Or this version from Blood, Sweat and Tears.:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EDH79...eature=related

And I hope you are not suggesting that Janis Joplin taking
Kristofferson's country-based ballad Me and Bobby McGee and turning it
into one of the ballsiest rock songs of all time.


Somehow I doubt that too many of the new songs they listen to will be
remixed by the next generation of musicians. If it's crap now, it'll
still be crap in 20 years.

But it will be kitschy crap 20 years from now, and that might be enough to
breathe new life into it.

I'm not putting down all music of today,
because there are a lot of talented writers/performers out there, and
I like some of the same stuff my kids do. However, when I see them
enjoying Eminem sampling "Big Brother and The Holding Company" or
Silvertide rocking Dylan's "Maggie's Farm", I have to point out to
them whose music they are listening to.

Silvertide? Is that what silverfish ride in on? (-: (I occasionally force
myself to watch shows like Entertainment Tonight and TMZ just to learn the
names and faces of the current generation of "stars." My generation seems
to be showing up mostly on the obituary page and that's too depressing. )-:

--
Bobby G.

--
"Even I realized that money was to politicians what the ecalyptus tree is to koala bears: food, water, shelter and something to crap on."
---PJ O'Rourke

On Oct 18, 7:34*am, Jim Elbrecht wrote:
"Robert Green" wrote:
DerbyDad03" wrote in message
news:0a384117-c5a1-4c53-a7d7-

stuff snipped since this side thread has drifted

(My favorite was always "Space Monkey Mafia" )

--
Bobby G.

What I love doing is pointing out to my "kids" (18 - 24) how many of
"their" songs are remakes of songs from my generation. I love pointing
out to them that many of the artists that they listen to fit into one
of 2 groups:

1 - They don't know how to write quality music so they remix the great
songs from my generation.
2 - They know how to write quality music, but they also recognize
quality writing when they see it and give tribute by remixing it.

You're more charitable than I am. *Remixing always equalled creative
bankruptcy to me, but I realize that's just a personal opinion. *

Every so often there is an exception. * * For the most part I agree
with you- but a couple years ago I stumbled over Israel "IZ"
Kamakawiwo'ole's rendition of Over the Rainbow. * * * * For most of my
life it was my opinion that the most beautiful song ever sung was Judy
Garland's 'Over the rainbow' -- Izzy edges her out of #1;http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V1bFr...eature=related

Edges her out...? His version takes her version, bends it over his
knee, spanks it and sends hers home to her mommy...and I like her
version!

First time I remember hearing that was in that Adam Sandler movie 50
First Dates. Excellent soundtrack movie, and that song was the
highlight. Thanks for posting it.

R