On 10/23/2010 10:09 AM, HeyBub wrote:
The Daring Dufas wrote:

Still, oil is a classic reason for starting a war. Hitler invaded
Russia for oil, the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor as a step to
gaining oil from the East Indies. War over oil happens all the time.


Is it your view that the war is more about stability in that region of
the world than about anything else?


Admittedly "stability" is a gamble. Of the fifty-odd majority-Muslim
countries in the world, only a very, very few could be called democracies
(Malaysia and Turkey come to mind). The rest are theocracies (Iran),
Oligarchies (Egypt), Monarchies (Kuwait, Jordan), out-and-out tyrannies
(Lybia), or simply anarchies (Sudan and Somalia).

Still, if any country has a chance for democracy, Iraq is probably highest
on the list. It has a well-educated, secular society and ample natural
wealth. Iraq is under the protective umbrella of the most powerful nation on
earth and (now) has no natural enemies.



I really think Saddam Hussein was on the verge of doing something
extremely stupid like attacking Israel. If he had, Israel could
have responded with nukes which would have led to other Arab states
joining the fray and using their nukes or WMD's. Israel showed a lot
of restraint during the first Gulf War, no doubt at the behest of
The United States. The Israeli Army would have ripped Iraq apart and
the whole region would have gone to war. I had a Middle Eastern fellow
tell me that the only person who could control Iraq was Saddam Hussein.
Extreme force seems to be the only thing that can be used to control
people of that culture.

TDD

On Fri, 22 Oct 2010 06:49:56 -0500, "HeyBub" wrote:

aemeijers wrote:
On 10/21/2010 9:51 PM, HeyBub wrote:
wrote:
On Thu, 21 Oct 2010 11:22:16 -0500,
wrote:

wrote:

We will never get there unless we start. How much did the first
heart transplant cost, and how well did it work compared to ones
done today?

Hmm. Has anyone started on a "brain transplant?" There are some
things that just cannot be done.


So there are currently no working photo voltaic solar panels? It
can't be done? Is that your argument?

No. My argument is "it is impossible to run this country/state/city
off of sunbeams."

The total radiation falling on the surface of the earth is about
1,300W/m^2. At 23 degrees of latitude. At noon. With no clouds.
Adjusting for latitude, clouds, hours of darkness, and assuming 50%
efficiency, it would take a solar collector farm the size of the Los
Angeles basin (1200 sq mi) to provide for the power needs of just
California (~50GW). Imagine the cost, time to construct, and maintenance
of a mechanical
apparatus 35 miles on a side. Heck, that's bigger than the pyramids!



People that grow flowers and such have been using solar power for
hundreds of years. They are called greenhouses. They open and close
vents and shades to fine-tune the temp as needed. A lot of the same
principles can be applied to residences and commercial spaces, thereby
reducing the electric/gas/oil they need to get by.

Agreed. But greenhouses and the like don't scale to the city level.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...912572,00.html

The real reason was to keep Winooski in, though.

On Wed, 27 Oct 2010 13:21:26 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 27 Oct 2010 12:44:13 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 27 Oct 2010 08:51:50 -0400, wrote:



Mall of America in Minnesota has no central heating plant. There is
spot heating in a few areas, such as the entrance, but the main mall,
located in the frozen land of Minnesota, doesn't require any help
other than solar and body heat of shoppers, to maintain comfort in
gigantic spaces with sky-high ceilings.


You also need to take into account the heat generated by all of the
electrical equipment, lights etc in that mall. That will be far more
than the 300 BTU per person you get from the shoppers.

Yeah, that must make up for the lack of a central heating system!
Obviously that's what keeps the mall at 65 degrees when the outside
temps are 30 or 40 below zero.

Many large commercial buildings use the lighting for heat. They don't get
turned off. Also note that the heat loss of a building goes up as the ~2/3s
power of the floorspace (larger building less heat per sq.ft.).

On Oct 27, 6:49*pm, "
wrote:
On Wed, 27 Oct 2010 13:21:26 -0400, wrote:
On Wed, 27 Oct 2010 12:44:13 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 27 Oct 2010 08:51:50 -0400, wrote:

Mall of America in Minnesota has no central heating plant. There is
spot heating in a few areas, such as the entrance, but the main mall,
located in the frozen land of Minnesota, doesn't require any help
other than solar and body heat of shoppers, to maintain comfort in
gigantic spaces with sky-high ceilings.

You also need to take into account the heat generated by all of the
electrical equipment, lights etc *in that mall. That will be far more
than the 300 BTU per person you get from the shoppers.

Yeah, that must make up for the lack of a central heating system!
Obviously that's what keeps the mall at 65 degrees when the outside
temps are 30 or 40 below zero.

Many large commercial buildings use the lighting for heat. *They don't get
turned off. *Also note that the heat loss of a building goes up as the ~2/3s
power of the floorspace (larger building less heat per sq.ft.).- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I'd be interested in seeing any hard facts about exactly how the Mall
of America, in it's entirety, is heated. From what I've found from a
bit of googling, as claimed, it does not have a "central heating
system". I've also seen it stated that it uses solar heating, ie
skylights for the "common areas". But that leaves the majority of
the mall, ie ALL the store floor space, which is probably 90%+ of the
project. How is that heated? Do we know that each store does not
have it's own conventional heating system? And whatever is heating
those stores, with wide open doors to the common area, a lot of the
common area heating is obviously coming from the stores.

In article
,
wrote:



I'd be interested in seeing any hard facts about exactly how the Mall
of America, in it's entirety, is heated. From what I've found from a
bit of googling, as claimed, it does not have a "central heating
system". I've also seen it stated that it uses solar heating, ie
skylights for the "common areas". But that leaves the majority of
the mall, ie ALL the store floor space, which is probably 90%+ of the
project. How is that heated? Do we know that each store does not
have it's own conventional heating system? And whatever is heating
those stores, with wide open doors to the common area, a lot of the
common area heating is obviously coming from the stores.

You googled but you didn't read the Wikipedia page?

"Mall of America has a gross area of 4,200,000 sq ft (390,000 m2), with
2,500,000 sq ft (232,000 m2) available as retail space.[4]"

"Although the common areas are unheated, the individual stores do have
heating systems. [3]"

Note that the sources for those statements are listed.

On Oct 28, 10:54*am, Smitty Two wrote:
In article
,

wrote:

I'd be interested in seeing any hard facts about exactly how the Mall
of America, in it's entirety, is heated. * From what I've found from a
bit of googling, as claimed, it does not have a "central heating
system". * I've also seen it stated that it uses solar heating, ie
skylights for the "common areas". * But that leaves the majority of
the mall, ie ALL the store floor space, which is probably 90%+ of the
project. * How is that heated? * Do we know that each store does not
have it's own conventional heating system? * And whatever is heating
those stores, with wide open doors to the common area, a lot of the
common area heating is obviously coming from the stores.

You googled but you didn't read the Wikipedia page?

"Mall of America has a gross area of 4,200,000 sq ft (390,000 m2), with
2,500,000 sq ft (232,000 m2) available as retail space.[4]"

"Although the common areas are unheated, the individual stores do have
heating systems. [3]"

Note that the sources for those statements are listed.

Well, then there you have it. Just as I suspected. That'a a far cry
from the posted claim:

"Mall of America in Minnesota has no central heating plant. There is
spot heating in a few areas, such as the entrance, but the main mall,
located in the frozen land of Minnesota, doesn't require any help
other than solar and body heat of shoppers, to maintain comfort in
gigantic spaces with sky-high ceilings. "

If Wikipedia is correct, then the overwhelming source of heat for the
mall is the individual heating systems in the stores.

On Oct 28, 1:46*pm, wrote:
On Thu, 28 Oct 2010 10:11:45 -0700 (PDT), wrote:
On Oct 28, 10:54*am, Smitty Two wrote:
In article
,

wrote:

I'd be interested in seeing any hard facts about exactly how the Mall
of America, in it's entirety, is heated. * From what I've found from a
bit of googling, as claimed, it does not have a "central heating
system". * I've also seen it stated that it uses solar heating, ie
skylights for the "common areas". * But that leaves the majority of
the mall, ie ALL the store floor space, which is probably 90%+ of the
project. * How is that heated? * Do we know that each store does not
have it's own conventional heating system? * And whatever is heating
those stores, with wide open doors to the common area, a lot of the
common area heating is obviously coming from the stores.

You googled but you didn't read the Wikipedia page?

"Mall of America has a gross area of 4,200,000 sq ft (390,000 m2), with
2,500,000 sq ft (232,000 m2) available as retail space.[4]"

"Although the common areas are unheated, the individual stores do have
heating systems. [3]"

Note that the sources for those statements are listed.

Well, then there you have it. *Just as I suspected. * That'a a far cry
from the posted claim:

"Mall of America in Minnesota has no central heating plant. There is
spot heating in a few areas, such as the entrance, but the main mall,
located in the frozen land of Minnesota, doesn't require any help
other than solar and body heat of shoppers, to maintain comfort in
gigantic spaces with sky-high ceilings. "

If Wikipedia is correct, then the overwhelming source of heat for the
mall is the individual heating systems in the stores.

You are out of your skull. The wikipedia article doesn't say anything
of the kind.

I'll leave it for others to figure out who's out of their skull. But
if the measure of that is what Wikipedia says, then I don't think
Smitty or I are out of our skulls, because Wikipedia says exactly what
Smitty quoted:

"Although the common areas are unheated, the individual stores do have
heating systems. [3]"




The wikipedia article is poorly written and highly inaccurate.

OK, I admit Wikipedia may not the best source. Where is your source
that says the whole place, stores and all are heated by passive solar
and people? The Mall of America's own website has numerous facts
listed about the mall:

http://www.mallofamerica.com/about_m...and-conditions
8 acres of skylights
..57 miles walking distance around one level,

etc

And all they have to say about heating/cooling is this:

"70 degrees inside the mall, no matter if it is spring, summer, or
fall."

Seems rather odd, if in fact it's some solar energy miracle machine.





SOME of the stores have small auxilary heaters for spot heating of
certain areas of their stores which need additional heat at times.
That is a very far cry from "the overwhelming source of heat for the
mall is the individual heating systems in the stores". which is simply
wrong. I think it's easy to imagine that the store owners might object
to paying to heat the entire mall from their little in-store heaters.

What they object too, or concede to as conditions of leasing is
irrelevant. If, in fact, the stores have their own heating systems,
then they aren't heating the entire mall. They are heating their own
stores and some of the heat which escapes through the typical mall
open doors on stores goes into the common space. Now, I don't now
the ratio, but at malls I've been to, the overwhelming space is
devoted to retail floor space and the common area is a much smaller
percentage. So, if some heat goes out the open doors from all the
stores, it could play a significant role in heating the rest of the
mall, which is the common area that has no central heating unit. To
each store individually, it wouldn't be a huge economic burden to
leasing.


Sort of like trying to heat your neighborhood by leaving the windows
on your house open. Pretty expensive.

Not at all like that. It would be more like heating the common areas
of an apartment building with the heat if all tenants left their doors
open.



Overall, the mall has to run air conditioning, even during the winter,
when the place overheats.

The mall has over 8 ACRES of skylights that use the greenhouse effect
to provide most of the heat. Body heat from people is also a big
contributor.

Each person gives off about as much heat as a 100 watt incandescent
light bulb. A LOT of people go to that mall.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


And does the place freeze over when they leave at night? Or when they
are closed for holidays?
Like I said, I'd like to know more. Just provide a credible reference
that supports those claims. Especially that they have to run AC in
the winter. So far, what I've seen on the web seems to be very
selective and doesn't even come close to giving a picture of the total
situation.

Here's a reference that quotes a Mall of America spokesperson and it
agrees with Wikipedia:

http://wcco.com/consumer/heating.cos....2.638318.html

"In reality, we don't heat the mall," said Anna Long, a spokesperson
for the Mall of America. "There's no central heating system which is
incredible if you think about it."

Shoppers are heating up the mall. The body heat of 40 million
visitors each year is one of three heating sources. Sunshine from the
skylights, which are seven and a half acres of glass and miles of
artificial lights help too.

The mall is typically 72 degrees in the winter.

"There's a lot of math that went into it," Long said. "I can't
probably give you details you need on that, but I can assure you there
were rooms of research went into it so this could work."

Individual stores must have their own heating systems, but during
future renovations, experts may find a way to harness the extra heat
produced.


So, I'd say it depends on what your definition of "heating the mall"
is. To most people, to claim that you're not heating the mall would
mean the whole thing, including the stores which are the majority of
the square footage. To say we don't heat the common areas is
apparently the truth and that's a very different and less dramatic
story. To use your analogy, it would be like me claiming I don't need
to heat my house, when in fact, it's the sun room that doesn't have
the heating unit. One would also have to wonder how much of the
miracle heat gain in the winter is then lost to increased cooling
needs in the summer. Sunshine still comes in through all those 8
acres of skylights, does it not?

In article ,
wrote:

The mall has over 8 ACRES of skylights that use the greenhouse effect
to provide most of the heat. Body heat from people is also a big
contributor.

Each person gives off about as much heat as a 100 watt incandescent
light bulb. A LOT of people go to that mall.

Another wikipedia excerpt:

"The majority of the heat is produced by lighting fixtures, other
electric devices, and people in the mall in sufficient amounts to keep
it comfortable.[5]"

Do you think those items are listed in order of magnitude, like
ingredients on a food label?

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

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

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

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

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

Once again, it DOESN'T MATTER if it's light or heat. Except what leaks out
the windows, is turned to useful heat *very* quickly.

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

It doesn't matter! Watts is watts.

On Fri, 29 Oct 2010 21:17:14 -0400, wrote:

On Fri, 29 Oct 2010 18:26:49 -0500, "
wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

Once again, it DOESN'T MATTER if it's light or heat. Except what leaks out
the windows, is turned to useful heat *very* quickly.

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

It doesn't matter! Watts is watts.

It matters greatly. See if you can figure out why you are wrong.

It is you who is wrong, dog.

Start with: A 130 watt florescent fixture puts out as much light as
(insert number)____ incandescent 100 watt light bulbs.

Doesn't matter. We're talking about the *HEAT* output. 100W is 100W.

And the light emitted does not magically turn into heat, either.

WRONG!

Put
your hand on a florescent tube and tell us how badly you are burned by
all that light "turning into heat *very* quickly"

Clueless.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Light does not magically convert to heat.

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

Light that is not reflected,
is absorbed.

....and heats.

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

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

On Oct 29, 8:03*am, wrote:
On Thu, 28 Oct 2010 20:33:01 -0400, wrote:
On Thu, 28 Oct 2010 17:35:31 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 28 Oct 2010 12:54:54 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

And does the place freeze over when they leave at night? *Or when they
are closed for holidays?

No, silly. The mall has huge amounts of thermal mass.

Let me know when the mall is ever closed.

The bottom line would actually be to compare their total energy bill
to other large enclosed malls on a square foot basis.

Sure! Just give me the names of 3 or 4 other malls the same size
located in similar climates!- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I'm still waiting for any credible reference that says the stores in
the mall do not have their own heating systems. I gave you a couple
that say they do in fact have their own heating systems. Besides
your own personal claim that these are limited to just small spot
heating, where's the proof?

I'm also waiting for an explanation of how this great energy savings
through solar heating via sunlights in the common mall area in winter
is not reversed in the summer with the need for more AC. In fact,
given the typical cost disparity between NG and electricity, it would
seem the entire economic gain could or more could be lost in summer.

And note, I'm not saying that passive solar can not be of benefit.
I'm must skeptical of many claims put forward as sound environmental
fact, when they are exagerated or don;t tell the whole story. Like
the "electric car" being put forth as some perfect green solution,
ignoring that the electricity still has to come from somewhere.

On Oct 30, 12:27*am, wrote:
On Fri, 29 Oct 2010 21:21:39 -0400, wrote:
On Fri, 29 Oct 2010 20:11:11 -0400, wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In article ,
wrote:

On Sat, 30 Oct 2010 04:18:05 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Oct 29, 8:03*am, wrote:
On Thu, 28 Oct 2010 20:33:01 -0400, wrote:
On Thu, 28 Oct 2010 17:35:31 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 28 Oct 2010 12:54:54 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

And does the place freeze over when they leave at night? *Or when they
are closed for holidays?

No, silly. The mall has huge amounts of thermal mass.

Let me know when the mall is ever closed.

The bottom line would actually be to compare their total energy bill
to other large enclosed malls on a square foot basis.

Sure! Just give me the names of 3 or 4 other malls the same size
located in similar climates!- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I'm still waiting for any credible reference that says the stores in
the mall do not have their own heating systems. I gave you a couple
that say they do in fact have their own heating systems. Besides
your own personal claim that these are limited to just small spot
heating, where's the proof?


I guess you'll just have to visit and see for yourself. Obviously
nothing I say will convince you.

My hometown is 42 miles from the mall. I have visited. But I still don't
know what heats it. Where are your references that substantiate your
claim that it is primarily skylights that heat the mall, and that the
statements in the wikipedia article are wrong?

On Sun, 31 Oct 2010 08:43:29 -0400, wrote:

On Fri, 29 Oct 2010 22:56:03 -0500, "
wrote:

On Fri, 29 Oct 2010 21:17:14 -0400, wrote:

On Fri, 29 Oct 2010 18:26:49 -0500, "
wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

Once again, it DOESN'T MATTER if it's light or heat. Except what leaks out
the windows, is turned to useful heat *very* quickly.

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

It doesn't matter! Watts is watts.

It matters greatly. See if you can figure out why you are wrong.

It is you who is wrong, dog.

Start with: A 130 watt florescent fixture puts out as much light as
(insert number)____ incandescent 100 watt light bulbs.

Doesn't matter. We're talking about the *HEAT* output. 100W is 100W.

And the light emitted does not magically turn into heat, either.

WRONG!

Put
your hand on a florescent tube and tell us how badly you are burned by
all that light "turning into heat *very* quickly"

Clueless.

And clueless you shall remain.

You're the one who doesn't believe in the Law of Conservation of Energy.
Clueless is your name.

Obviously a building using florescent lighting will use far, far,
fewer watts than the same one lit by incandescent lights.

That was *not* what you said. You claim that light does not turn into heat,
which is *false*.

It is not even close.

Moving the goalposts after being proven wrong. That is your style.

...

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

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

On Oct 30, 12:27*am, wrote:
On Fri, 29 Oct 2010 21:21:39 -0400, wrote:
On Fri, 29 Oct 2010 20:11:11 -0400, wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

When cornered, a dog can only attack wildly.

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

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

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

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

On Oct 30, 12:27*am, wrote:
On Fri, 29 Oct 2010 21:21:39 -0400, wrote:
On Fri, 29 Oct 2010 20:11:11 -0400, wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

When cornered, a dog can only attack wildly.

What an asshat you are.

What a liar you are.

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

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

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

Like W_Tom, you're absolutely clueless.

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

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

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

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

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

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

On Oct 30, 12:27*am, wrote:
On Fri, 29 Oct 2010 21:21:39 -0400, wrote:
On Fri, 29 Oct 2010 20:11:11 -0400, wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

When cornered, a dog can only attack wildly.

What an asshat you are.

What a liar you are.

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

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

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

Like W_Tom, you're absolutely clueless.

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

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

On Oct 31, 11:35*am, Smitty Two wrote:
In article ,
wrote:





On Sat, 30 Oct 2010 04:18:05 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Oct 29, 8:03*am, wrote:
On Thu, 28 Oct 2010 20:33:01 -0400, wrote:
On Thu, 28 Oct 2010 17:35:31 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 28 Oct 2010 12:54:54 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

And does the place freeze over when they leave at night? *Or when they
are closed for holidays?

No, silly. The mall has huge amounts of thermal mass.

Let me know when the mall is ever closed.

The bottom line would actually be to compare their total energy bill
to other large enclosed malls on a square foot basis.

Sure! Just give me the names of 3 or 4 other malls the same size
located in similar climates!- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I'm still waiting for any credible reference that says the stores in
the mall do not have their own heating systems. *I gave you a couple
that say they do in fact have their own heating systems. * Besides
your own personal claim that these are limited to just small spot
heating, where's the proof?

I guess you'll just have to visit and see for yourself. Obviously
nothing I say will convince you.

My hometown is 42 miles from the mall. I have visited. But I still don't
know what heats it. Where are your references that substantiate your
claim that it is primarily skylights that heat the mall, and that the
statements in the wikipedia article are wrong?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Exactly my thoughts. How by visiting the mall does one determine
whether or not the individual stores have a heating system that
consists of more than just spot heating? Let's forget about heat for
the moment. Clearly they need AC for summer and sa has claimed that
it gets so hot in the mall in winter that they must use AC then too.
So, the stores obviously will have HVAC ducting, vents, etc. and in
the malls I've been in, these tend to be in the ceilings and not
readily accessible. Do you bring a ladder with you when you go to
the mall and check what's coming out of the air vents? Or do you
ask for a tour of the store's HVAC system?

It sounds like sa's made a lot of assumptions here. What would help
convince me is some credible reference that says the stores do not
have their own conventional heating systems. We've provided some
references that say the stores do in fact, have their own individual
heating systems.

BTW, I'm still waiting for an explanation from sa of how the big heat
gain through acres of passive solar skylights in the common mall areas
roof is not largely or maybe even entirely reversed in summer by the
same sunlight pouring in and creating more heat. The one way this
could be done would be with some sort of shades used in summer to
limit the light. Those should be visible from a visit. Do they do
that?

And once again, I'm not saying that passive solar cannot be used
effectively to help heat a building. But I get skeptical of claims
which seem to exagerate what is actually going on.

On Oct 31, 11:31*pm, "
wrote:
On Sun, 31 Oct 2010 21:14:00 -0400, wrote:
On Sun, 31 Oct 2010 17:53:11 -0500, "
wrote:

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

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

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

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

On Oct 30, 12:27*am, wrote:
On Fri, 29 Oct 2010 21:21:39 -0400, wrote:
On Fri, 29 Oct 2010 20:11:11 -0400, wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

When cornered, a dog can only attack wildly.

What an asshat you are.

What a liar you are.

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

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

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

Like W_Tom, you're absolutely clueless.

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

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

- Show quoted text -

Unbelievable. Now, the basic laws of physics, which sa clearly does
not grasp, are religous beliefs? What specific statements have I made
that are NOT based on physics? On the other hand, sa has claimed that
light that comes out of a fixture in a store is not turned into heat
because it is "absorbed". And he can't grasp the fact that if one
compared the electricity usage for lighting of two buildings, one
would know almost exactly how much heat is being generated in each of
those buildings from wasted heat from lighting. It matters not a wit
that one building used incandescent and another flourescent. Sure,
you get more light with a lot less electricity from flourescent, but
by looking at the KWH of each building that goes to lighting, you know
almost exactly how much heat is being generated in both buildings.
The tiny fraction that isn't heat is due to light that escapes the
building through windows, etc. and for practical purposes, that is
negligible.

google passive homes, and see the tv show this NEW house.some 20,000
have been built nationwide. for about $150.00 per square foot.

by superinsulating homes and proper placement and design very low heat
cool homes are being built today, even in cold areas like maine...