"Vic Smith" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 10 May 2013 05:44:46 -0700 (PDT), TimR
wrote:

On Friday, May 10, 2013 12:42:52 AM UTC-4, The Daring Dufas wrote:
The darn ceiling fan is supposed to equalize room temperature, it would

defeat the purpose to have it turn off. o_O



TDD

Do people here ever trim a post? Sigh. At least most are bottom posting.

I do not believe ceiling fans actually do anything except make people
think they're more comfortable when they're not. It's psychological. So
as long as they're running when you're in the room, that's fine. When
you're not in the room, the motor is just adding heat.

Do you use ceiling fans? They work, but IME you have to feel the air
on your skin. I've had a couple that were pretty useless because they
didn't push enough air. A good ceiling fan is often the difference
between comfortable and sweat running down your nose. When you have
good ones where needed you can knock about 5 degrees off your HVAC
setting.
Big savings.

5 degrees sounds like a lot and I'll guess that humidity will make a
difference in the A/C setting too. Anyone else have an estimate?

I'd like to get some idea of fans vs. A/C settings to see if I might save
energy this summer by installing a fan rather than using the A/C so much.

Tomsic

On 05/10/2013 10:15 AM, Nate Nagel wrote:
On 05/10/2013 09:52 AM, Nate Nagel wrote:
On 04/28/2013 06:11 PM, Tomsic wrote:
"Nate Nagel" wrote in message
...

--- SNIP ---


Has anyone seen any independent testing that supports b?

It seems like they will...

http://www.lightingprize.org/

http://www.lightingprize.org/60watttest.stm

In June 2010, the next stage of evaluation began: long-term lumen
maintenance testing. The 200 samples were sent to Pacific Northwest
National Laboratory to be tested in a new high-temperature testing
apparatus specifically designed for the L Prize competition and built
with assistance from Orb Optronix. The test bed was maintained at
45°C to simulate actual operating conditions and the lamps were
operated continuously. A movable integrating sphere (light
measurement device) took spectral measurements on each lamp every 100
hours for the first 3,000 hours of operation, and every 168 hours
(weekly) thereafter. Data for the first 7,000 hours of operation were
used to predict lumen maintenance of the lamps at 25,000 hours. With
95 percent confidence, lumen maintenance is predicted to be 97.1
percent* at 25,000 hours, which significantly exceeds the 70 percent
L Prize requirement.

So apparently all samples were proven to last at least 7K hours without
failure; it's apparently too soon to say whether they'll actually
last 25K
hours plus or not but it's not looking bad.

I know it sounds like I'm really pushing these bulbs but I'm not
affiliated with Philips or DoE in any way, I'm just a consumer who's
discovered a product that I really like and am kind of excited
about. I
wouldn't pay $50 for one of these bulbs, mostly because I don't have
the
money to be shelling out $50 for the equivalent of something that I can
buy for $2 give or take (in the form of a traditional incandescent)
but at
$15 you can make the argument that it will save money on air
conditioning
and electrical power, plus then you don't have to feel the guilt of
running big incandescents - not that I have in years; at my last
house the
only incandescents were in seldom used hallways and in the living
room and
kitchen where there were dimmer switches and I could not find any
acceptable more efficient solution (and yes, I have to admit, I did
feel
somewhat guilty about those...)

I'm also a little surprised that this is a Philips product. My money
would have been on Cree a few years ago, but it appears that the
commonly
available Cree incandescent light bulb replacements don't have either
the
efficiency or CRI of the Philips bulb. I haven't seen any of them in
operation so I can't comment how they stack up subjectively, but
they're
about $13 retail, dimmer, and have lower CRI (similar to the common
Philips LED "bulbs" that are actually easy to obtain) and a quick
google
did not yield data on where they're made, so I'm just ASSuming
China. So
unless someone who's spent more time geeking out on this subject than I
has data to the contrary, my (non-professional) opinion is that it's
worth
a little extra effort to search out the Philips L-prize bulb in
particular. However, I wouldn't be surprised if the Cree and older
Philips LEDs were still subjectively more pleasing than a typical
CFL. I
have a Utilitech 9W LED bulb that I bought last year when Lowe's had
them
on sale for $9 or so just out of curiosity, and I do find it
preferable to
CFLs and will continue to use it - but I'm sure that the CRI is
probably
around 80 and its color temp is a little higher than many people would
probably like.

While I'm rambling on on the subject, I'm tempted to try to hack
together
an adapter that will allow two bulbs to act like a 3-way incandescent,
because the very lamp that prompted that geekery is a 3-way socket and
they seem to still be very common, especially for table lamps which
may be
used for both ambient light and also reading. It wouldn't actually
work
exactly like a 3-way as I'd be using two bulbs of equivalent light
output
rather than one appx. twice as bright as the other, but I hope that
that
changes in the future (or, if CRI is less important to you, you could
use
some of the Cree bulbs or older design Philips bulbs which are
available
in multiple lumen ratings.) Or maybe in a few years we'll be able to
get
high quality, high output 3-way LED bulbs? I can only hope so.

nate

--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

According to a Philips Lighting speaker that I heard at a conference
recently, the high price of their "L Prize" bulb is due to (1) it's
made-in-the-USA costs which were a requirement of the DOE who
sponsored the
L Prize competition (2) the high 90+ color rendering index requirement
and
(3) the projected sales which are expected to be less than "commodity"
LED
bulbs with poorer performance and shorter life.

I'm not surprised by that at all...

but the 90+ CRI is one of the main reasons that I'm excited about this
bulb as opposed to the majority of other offerings on the market (the
other being the un-fudged lumen output for a "60W equivalent")


Late last year, the California Energy Commission adopted a ruling that
set
up performance specifications similar to the L Prize bulb. They're
called
"California Quality" requirements. The plan is to have the utilities in
California rebate only California Quality bulbs next year and to make
those
rebates substanial. It's interesting that the DOE and the CEC both feel
that the quality of light (good color, high light output, long life) are
important if consumers are to accept them. Reading about all of the
poor
performing bulb products on this ng, including the sad stories about
CFLs,
it seems about time that we have quality products that offer value if
we're
ever to replace the energy-wasting incandescent bulbs.

Ayup, but I have a feeling that this bulb will quietly disappear after a
while. "California Quality" I think the L-prize fails because of
its poor power factor.

http://www.ledjournal.com/main/blogs...lity-led-bulb/



The Cree bulbs, which are the ones that HD is pushing now, seem
decent-ish but have a published CRI that doesn't meet the specs, and
some have reported a detectable flicker, BUT the do have power factor
correction. So there's apparently no "perfect" bulb on the market,
although the L-prize bulb with power factor correction would be pretty
darn close.

nate



found he

http://www.lightingfacts.com/products

looks like there is now exactly one other high CRI standard form factor
bulb on the market

http://lednovation.com/products/pdf/..._spec_revE.pdf

which does in fact also have a high power factor.

unfortunately, a web search reveals that it is expensive (shocker!) out
of stock at all of the few places I checked (I didn't spend a lot of
time on this though) and one amazon review mentioned an audible buzz.

But we're getting there...

nate


And this is all irrelevant anyway because as I feared, apparently the
L-prize bulb is no more. I don't have 100% confirmation yet but they're
out of stock everywhere and wikipedia is saying they've been
discontinued. I dropped a line to Philips asking where I could buy
them, but I suspect that this was a premium product being sold at or
below cost and once Philips sold enough to demonstrate that they could
make them they're going to now quietly drop them and concentrate on
similar but not quite as good products that they can make more profit on.

I got six, now I'm wishing I'd picked up more of them.

nate

--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

On Sat, 11 May 2013 17:48:17 -0400, "=" wrote:


5 degrees sounds like a lot and I'll guess that humidity will make a
difference in the A/C setting too. Anyone else have an estimate?


That's 5 degrees is just a guesstimate from me, and it's always
somewhat subjective. We have ceiling fans in most the rooms where you
sit or lay. Keep the AC set on 80. Sometimes we drop it to 78 when
humidity is high. I'm guessing I would need 75 to get the same
comfort level with no ceiling fans.

I'd like to get some idea of fans vs. A/C settings to see if I might save
energy this summer by installing a fan rather than using the A/C so much.


I use a 12" oscillating desk fan by my basement work area, so you
don't need a ceiling fan to test comfort level with moving air.
Main thing with ceiling fans is blade size and design, and motor
noise. I've got cheap paddle blade ones that move air well enough,
but are hummers.
My sister has some nice dead quiet ones in her Florida condo, with
smaller blades that move more air than mine. Shaped metal blades.
Probably a big cost difference.

On May 10, 11:42*am, "
wrote:
On May 10, 10:42*am, Harry K wrote:





On May 10, 6:59*am, bob haller wrote:

On May 10, 9:07*am, "
wrote:

On May 10, 8:44*am, TimR wrote:

On Friday, May 10, 2013 12:42:52 AM UTC-4, The Daring Dufas wrote:
The darn ceiling fan is supposed to equalize room temperature, it would

defeat the purpose to have it turn off. o_O

TDD

Do people here ever trim a post? *Sigh. *At least most are bottom posting.

I do not believe ceiling fans actually do anything except make people think they're more comfortable when they're not. *It's psychological.. *So as long as they're running when you're in the room, that's fine. *When you're not in the room, the motor is just adding heat.

Which is obviously wrong. *Is it just psychological that it feels
cooler
when a breeze is blowing? * Of course not. *Moving air increases
evaporation from the body and takes more heat away, it's an actual
physical process.

And as someone else pointed out, using a motion sensor on them
isn't going to allow them to be used in a bedroom, when someone
is sleeping. *If it's an optional one that can be used or not used
depending on the application, then it's a good idea. *If it's another
ram it down or throats mandate from govt, then it's a bad idea.

Ny best friends family runs many fans 24/7 in the summer even when no
one is home to keep the house cool. No mtter how much he tries to
explain it his family insists that a vacant home with fans running is
cooler than no fans........

All the fans do is add more heat

I suggested he just get AC since it might be cheaper to operate...

It isn't what the thermometer says, it is what it "feels" like. *A bit
too warm in the house? *I turn on the furnace
*fan and am comfortable again. *Eventually, it gets warm enough that I
have to use the AC of course but that usually comes hours after I
started that fractional horse fan. *Yes, I know, you will deny that
that works and refuse to even try it out. *I have been there before
with yu doubting thomases.

Harry K- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Count me as one of the doubters. With a ceiling fan you
get a cooling breeze, which is a direct effect. *It's blowing
right on you. * With a typical furnace
fan running you don't get a breeze, in fact that would be undesirable.
I guess if you had one area of the house that happened to be
significantly colder, then it might get you somewhere, but that
isn't the typical case......

As I said, doubters won't try it.

Yesterday with outside temp at 87 it got uncomfortable. Flipped on
the fan almost instant comfort. Of course you can explain that by the
ductwork running in basement and crawl space thus containing a fair
amount of cool air at the beginning. Does not explain why it was
still comfortable a couple hours latere.

Harry K

On Friday, May 10, 2013 2:42:12 PM UTC-4, wrote:
Count me as one of the doubters. With a ceiling fan you

get a cooling breeze, which is a direct effect. It's blowing

right on you. With a typical furnace

fan running you don't get a breeze, in fact that would be undesirable.

I guess if you had one area of the house that happened to be

significantly colder, then it might get you somewhere, but that

isn't the typical case......

I think it might even work in reverse.

If there's no air movement, you may get some stratification or at least a gradient with the hot air up near the ceiling and the cool air down at the bottom where you're sitting or lying.

Mix that up with the house fan, and it should end up all the same temperature. It would be the average temperature, very likely considerably warmer than the temperature that formerly was at the lower levels where you are.

The Daring Dufas posted for all of us...

And I know how to SNIP


I have a problem with those darn things in restrooms. The cursed things
turn the light out before I'm done dropping a load of readymix but I
have several flashlights on my person at all times when I'm out
somewhere, especially when I'm working. ^_^

TDD

Couldn't you work this out with a pencil?

Do you lose your place in the "magazine"?

Knowing your history I read that you have given up
on matches...

--
Tekkie

On Apr 26, 11:24 am, "Pete C." wrote:


So LED lamps are about 20% cheaper than CFL

For both LED and CFL, the main failue mechanism is the electronics
that are used to change the 120V to the higher, or lower, voltage
that these lamps actually use....
The light source themselves are very long lived. The electronics
are
not. A power spike that an incandescent can ignore can easily wipe
out the high voltage inverter in the CFL base, or the current
limiting
capacitor and reverse diode in the LED base.

You have to look at the entire assembly, and not just what the
manufactures publishes as "lamp life"..... You will NEVER get the
claimed numbers if you live in a place where there are power outages,
thunderstorms, or higher temperatures....

"Robert" wrote in message
...
On Apr 26, 11:24 am, "Pete C." wrote:


So LED lamps are about 20% cheaper than CFL

For both LED and CFL, the main failue mechanism is the electronics
that are used to change the 120V to the higher, or lower, voltage
that these lamps actually use....
The light source themselves are very long lived. The electronics
are
not. A power spike that an incandescent can ignore can easily wipe
out the high voltage inverter in the CFL base, or the current
limiting
capacitor and reverse diode in the LED base.

You have to look at the entire assembly, and not just what the
manufactures publishes as "lamp life"..... You will NEVER get the
claimed numbers if you live in a place where there are power outages,
thunderstorms, or higher temperatures....

The above is a good review of the situation. I can add that the rated life
for LED bulbs is still a made-up number based upon what the marketing
departments of the manufacturers feel they ought to say and the length of
warranty that the company wants to (or can afford to) honor. Rated life is
therefore set motr by the competitive environment, not by actual tested
performance.

But when just incandescent lamps were available, the situation was not much
different. Manufacturers have always been able to make incandescent bulbs
last for 1000 - 5000 hours and they design their products to trade off
performance against what they think they can sell. What they can't control
are the user's socket conditions which might subject the lamp to high
voltage, voltages surges or physical shock and vibration which can kill a
filament bulb in short order. As a lamp engineer told me once, "few
incandescent bulbs die a normal death where the filament evaporates until it
breaks. Usually, some jolt -- physical or electrical -- takes them out
early".

Tomsic

On Fri, 24 May 2013 10:48:56 -0400, "=" wrote:


"Robert" wrote in message
...
On Apr 26, 11:24 am, "Pete C." wrote:


So LED lamps are about 20% cheaper than CFL

For both LED and CFL, the main failue mechanism is the electronics
that are used to change the 120V to the higher, or lower, voltage
that these lamps actually use....
The light source themselves are very long lived. The electronics
are
not. A power spike that an incandescent can ignore can easily wipe
out the high voltage inverter in the CFL base, or the current
limiting
capacitor and reverse diode in the LED base.

You have to look at the entire assembly, and not just what the
manufactures publishes as "lamp life"..... You will NEVER get the
claimed numbers if you live in a place where there are power outages,
thunderstorms, or higher temperatures....

The above is a good review of the situation. I can add that the rated life
for LED bulbs is still a made-up number based upon what the marketing
departments of the manufacturers feel they ought to say and the length of
warranty that the company wants to (or can afford to) honor. Rated life is
therefore set motr by the competitive environment, not by actual tested
performance.

Which means that the number is set to make them look good, not as any
measure of reality. Added to this is the life of the LEDs themselves
are reasonably well known AT SOME TEMPERATURE. *IFF* the manufacturer
did their job in designing the heat sink, it may even mean something.
How do you know?

But when just incandescent lamps were available, the situation was not much
different. Manufacturers have always been able to make incandescent bulbs
last for 1000 - 5000 hours and they design their products to trade off
performance against what they think they can sell. What they can't control
are the user's socket conditions which might subject the lamp to high
voltage, voltages surges or physical shock and vibration which can kill a
filament bulb in short order. As a lamp engineer told me once, "few
incandescent bulbs die a normal death where the filament evaporates until it
breaks. Usually, some jolt -- physical or electrical -- takes them out
early".

Sure, but that's normal design and all well known. IME, incandescent
bulbs last much longer, in most fixtures (some are bulb eaters), than
the ratings. Comparing different technologies, and in particular how
they will respond in different applications, is worse than apples and
orangutans.

I am what one would call a "frugalista", and a retired engineer
to boot.
In my mancave, in the summer, I put in the 9W CFLs to
cut down on the air condx load. In the winter I put in
100w incandescents to normalize out the load on the electric
space heater...
In the summer, the light is free, in the winter, the extra heat is
free.
I probably save 2 or 3 dollars a year. But, just the feeling that
I am taking advantages of the two technologies, makes it
something I want to do....

I am a BIG fan of LED light sources. Up to now, the cost
tradeoff doesn't make it attractive for me for house lighting.
For flashlights, camp lanterns, emergency lighting --- I am
enthusiastic about it.....
Some day, maybe not too far off, they will be mass produced in
a way to make them more cost effective..... I'll be one of the
first in line for the conversion.... but not today.

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 24 May 2013 10:03:04 -0700 (PDT), Robert
wrote:

I am what one would call a "frugalista", and a retired engineer
to boot.
In my mancave, in the summer, I put in the 9W CFLs to
cut down on the air condx load. In the winter I put in
100w incandescents to normalize out the load on the electric
space heater...
In the summer, the light is free, in the winter, the extra heat is
free.
I probably save 2 or 3 dollars a year. But, just the feeling that
I am taking advantages of the two technologies, makes it
something I want to do....

I am a BIG fan of LED light sources. Up to now, the cost
tradeoff doesn't make it attractive for me for house lighting.
For flashlights, camp lanterns, emergency lighting --- I am
enthusiastic about it.....
Some day, maybe not too far off, they will be mass produced in
a way to make them more cost effective..... I'll be one of the
first in line for the conversion.... but not today.

There is an article in Time saying that just when it looked like
incandescently were dead, they are coming out with more efficient ones
that meet the guv'mint standard.

That's right. A company called ADLT has what they call a "2X Lamp" which is
a halogen incandescent but with substantially increased efficiency such that
it draws 50 watts but gives the output of a standard 100 watt bulb I think
it's rated for 1500 hours life, but I haven't seen a price or found a
retailer.

It sounds like a good idea, but I'm wondering if the LED train now has so
much momentum that consumers won't consider anything else when they think
high efficiency.

Tomsic

On Fri, 24 May 2013 10:03:04 -0700 (PDT), Robert
wrote:

I am what one would call a "frugalista", and a retired engineer
to boot.

I retired, too, (and have the pension to prove it but decided it
wasn't for me (yet). Design is too much fun. As an engineer, I
understand how to make economic decisions. The most expensive initial
expense isn't usually the best (economic) choice. I also know ugly.
CFLs are *ugly*.

In my mancave, in the summer, I put in the 9W CFLs to
cut down on the air condx load. In the winter I put in
100w incandescents to normalize out the load on the electric
space heater...

I turn lights off. Saves even more.

In the summer, the light is free, in the winter, the extra heat is
free.

Not free, but cheaper.

I probably save 2 or 3 dollars a year. But, just the feeling that
I am taking advantages of the two technologies, makes it
something I want to do....

Perhaps. I'd save nothing by replacing my incandescents with CFLs. I
hate them where I have them but they do save something.

I am a BIG fan of LED light sources. Up to now, the cost
tradeoff doesn't make it attractive for me for house lighting.
For flashlights, camp lanterns, emergency lighting --- I am
enthusiastic about it.....

I have never seen an LED flashlight I like. I have a couple that have
LED + tungsten. I never use the LEDs.

Some day, maybe not too far off, they will be mass produced in
a way to make them more cost effective..... I'll be one of the
first in line for the conversion.... but not today.

Perhaps. I still don't like the light and it's impossible to know
what you're really buying. Choice is good.