On Thu, 10 Jan 2008 09:47:54 +0000, David Hansen
wrote:

On Wed, 9 Jan 2008 20:33:08 +0100 someone who may be David in
Normandy wrote this:-

I've been disappointed with low energy bulbs. They
don't seem to last any longer than ordinary filament bulbs

They do in the houses I look after. Perhaps there is something with
your electricity supply, or you are getting the lamps from a
supermarket.

Would it make that much difference if we bought our Philips or Osram
lamps from the Lord High Bulbseller and Pittenweem of Skye ?

Or do the "Best" CFL's come from Muck or Eigg ?

DG

On Thu, 10 Jan 2008 12:18:49 -0000, "Mary Fisher"
wrote:


"David Hansen" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 9 Jan 2008 20:33:08 +0100 someone who may be David in
Normandy wrote this:-

I've been disappointed with low energy bulbs. They
don't seem to last any longer than ordinary filament bulbs

They do in the houses I look after. Perhaps there is something with
your electricity supply, or you are getting the lamps from a
supermarket.

They do in our house too. We mark each one with the date of start of use and
the source when we put them in a holder.

Mary, you deserve the Nobel prize for literacy for your efforts.

You are an Ace, a Paragon, and a Martyr all rolled into one.

We know that now so you don't need to tell us again.

But : What's a "Holder" and what is the significance of putting a CFL
into one ???

Of course that doesn't measure the number of hours used

In that, you are correct.

but we've found that they do last for many years.

We don't. Our experience is :

About 30% down from the manufacturers claim from brand new. (measured)

About 3 minutes to get to 90% of ultimate maximum output. (measured)

After 1 year ultimate maximum output down by nearly 50% (measured)

About 75% dead within much less than 18 months of service. (Recorded)

We've been replacing our conventional lamps with them for years.

Odd that. So the lamps you were previously using must also have a
lifetime measured in years. What kind of lamps were they ?


Halogens don't perform well.


Well mine aren't bad, and at least they aren't about to become
compulsory. Maybe there is a problem with the electricity in your
house or you buy them from a supermarket. Dynamo Hansen says/implies
these come into that category of things that are "A bad thing".

Our latest experiments are with LEDS, so far we're very please

Would it be too much to ask for you to kindly translate that last
sentence into standard English ?

but it's early days.

Of that, I'm sure.

Could you please at least give us an interim report into your results?

Even a rough listing of the "measurements" you made in your
"experiment" (power input/light output, beamwidth, colour
temperature, over a time frame would be a help. You wouldn't want
"the ones with willies" ;-) to steal a march on you would you,
just because they know what they are doing and have gone through the
training for it, and being doing it for years.

Trifling reason of course we all accept that.

Don't we everybody :-)))) ?

Oh, and BTW. Are you any further forward than you were in measuring
the solar heat gain achieved by your toy solar thermal water heating
system in December / January ?

Do you still have a "Deep Bath" in the morning and then fire up a
20/30 kWatt (?) boiler (the type of which you claim is irrelevant) to
do the washing up for 3 people via a 120 litre cylinder (?).

DG

"Derek Geldard" wrote in message
...

Our latest experiments are with LEDS, so far we're very please

Would it be too much to ask for you to kindly translate that last
sentence into standard English ?

A missing 'd' and a slight punctuation wobble is hardly enough to complain
about.

clive

"Man at B&Q" wrote in message
...
On Jan 10, 12:28 am, "OG" wrote:
"The Medway Handyman" wrote in
nder.co.uk... Mike
Scott wrote:
I'm curious. "Low energy" bulbs are very much in the news - but how
much extra energy is expended in their manufacture compared to a
standard incandescent? I assume it's more - so is there a real net
/overall/ saving over the bulb life? If so, how much?

Assuming that low energy bulbs are more efficient & give off less heat
for
a given amount of light, would you not have to replace that heat in
order
to maintain the same room temperature?

Yes but

§No buts about it.

If your room needs heating, use a heater and put it where the heat needs
to
be. It's madly inefficient to put a heater about 10 inches from the
ceiling

§Why? Give us the science.

what a stpid response.

Mark wrote:
"The Medway Handyman" wrote in
message .uk...
whisky-dave wrote:


If people got a couple of quid back for expended bulbs then that
would do far more to encourage true recycling. I remember the days
when you'd get money back on beer bottles. I imagined I could
become a millionaire from returning my empties but they stopped all
that. :-(

As kids we used to supplement our pocket money by returning 'deposit'
bottles. Very effective - we would scour the neighbourhood to
ensure no bottle escaped. Don't know why they don't do it now.


I can vaguely remember getting 3d for each empty Corona bottle. Was
that right?


Thats what I remember. You could buy quite a few sweets for 3d.


--
Dave - The Medway Handyman
www.medwayhandyman.co.uk
01634 717930
07850 597257

"Huge" wrote in message
...
On 2008-01-10, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

My own personal opinion is that the answers a-

Not very much
Its not hugely relevant
In many cases the disadvantages are NOT worth it.

Combine that with the enthusiasm displayed by the likes of Hansen, Mary
and
Hilary Benn (and other similar innumerates),

Isn't that an 'Ad Hominem' argument ? Basically this is a principle that
says 'person W believes XY or Z, but I don't like person W (for some reason
ABC) so if I say that person W is wrong I am excused giving a reason for
disagreeing with statements X, Y or Z'

For example,
I could say
"Because Hugo does not use a valid email address, any argument he/she puts
forward is stupid ",
but that would be a fallacious argument.

On Sat, 12 Jan 2008 00:46:17 -0000, "Clive George"
wrote:

"Derek Geldard" wrote in message
.. .

Our latest experiments are with LEDS, so far we're very please

Would it be too much to ask for you to kindly translate that last
sentence into standard English ?

A missing 'd' and a slight punctuation wobble is hardly enough to complain
about.

I wouldn't but the perpetrator is a veritable vixen for spelling
flames. As the observant can see in this thread. ;-)

I have a folder *full* of her wobbles.

I'll publish them here if you want.

It's 'cos she hasn't got a willy.

DG

On Sat, 12 Jan 2008 01:51:59 -0000, "OG"
wrote:


"Huge" wrote in message
...
On 2008-01-10, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

My own personal opinion is that the answers a-

Not very much
Its not hugely relevant
In many cases the disadvantages are NOT worth it.

Combine that with the enthusiasm displayed by the likes of Hansen, Mary
and
Hilary Benn (and other similar innumerates),

Isn't that an 'Ad Hominem' argument ?

No.

They are propounding innumerate arguments because they have a
secondary or tertiary agenda. Probably all different AFAICS.

Basically this is a principle that
says 'person W believes XY or Z, but I don't like person W (for some reason
ABC) so if I say that person W is wrong I am excused giving a reason for
disagreeing with statements X, Y or Z'

Not the case, I like Dynamo Hansen, (The great big lycra clad "Dynamo
on a push bike"). AFAICS He is informed and concerned even if his
opinions are malconstructed. He appears to consider my opinions with
respect.

Mary Fisher, well if I really wanted to hear somebody without training
or experience, totally and completely ignorant of the topic, and
totally denying anyone their right to ask for information (Because
*she* knows better, by definition, and has *spoken*) and totally
unqualified congratulate themselves on a daily basis ...

I'd shoot myself.


For example,
I could say
"Because Hugo does not use a valid email address, any argument he/she puts
forward is stupid ",
but that would be a fallacious argument.

Not a logical fallacy, just wrong.

DG

Mary Fisher wrote:
"whisky-dave" wrote in message
news:fm7q7i$995$1@qmul...
"Mary Fisher" wrote in message
t...
"Roger Mills" wrote in message
...
In an earlier contribution to this discussion,
Mary Fisher wrote:

"Roger Mills" wrote in message
...
Some rooms have low voltage halogen downlighters. What am I supposed
to replace *those* with?
There's no 'supposed' about it.

OK, so what *is* the situation? If these are to be banned, the 'powers
that be' have *hopefully* thought about a suitable replacement which
doesn't involve demolishing and re-building my house?
If the powers that be didn't enforce downlighting on you then they have
no responsibility to replace them.
I don't think that's a fair point though. I mean has anyone been forced to
use petrol
perhaps then we should ban it ;-)

Leaded petrol WAS banned.

Today's fuel; for cars - even the cars themselves - one day will be banned
ifonly by people, because there are better alternatives.
Dont be sillier than you have to be.

IC Cars will no more be banned than horses or steam engines are.
They will exist, in tiny numbers, like you, as a quaint relic of a
bygone age.

mick wrote:
On Fri, 11 Jan 2008 00:49:22 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

mick wrote:
On Thu, 10 Jan 2008 22:54:21 +0000, Andy Wade wrote:

mick wrote:

[...] and the power station has to generate 60W to light your 30W CFL
(although you are only charged for 30W).
That's a complete misunderstanding of the idea of power factor. The
[supply system] doesn't have to generate 60 W, nor burn fuel at a rate
equivalent to 60 watts worth of output. The (RMS) current drawn by
the lamp is the same as for 60 W resistive load, so resistive losses
in the cables are increased by a factor of four without power factor
correction. However the I^2*R losses due to current drawn by your
lighting load will pale into insignificance compared to that caused by
much heavier resistive loads (cookers, heaters, showers).


You sure about that? I oversimplified.

For a poor PF load the voltage and current are out of phase with each
other (how far depends on the PF PF=1 is in phase, PF=0 is 90deg out).
The generator is producing (and consuming fuel for) VA (real power).
However, domestic consumers pay by W (apparent power), not VA. So you
see 30W of load at the meter and can measure the AC RMS current into
the lamp, but the V and A waveforms are out of phase so the actual V*A
is greater than the W value. (W=VA*PF so a 30W (apparent power) lamp
with a PF of 0.5 will require 30/0.5=60VA input to power it)

Agreed that the distribution losses into poor PF loads also escalate
with I^2R.

Also agree that the % difference on your bill will be insignificant.
:-)


Substations have BANKS..ACRES of capacitors to correct for power factor,
so that the generators do NOT have to run widely differing VI phase
differences. Its not really clear what sort of PF a CFL is anyway..A
bridge rect and an electrolytic maybe? Or a half wave rect and an
electrolytic..I bet there is a lot of input ripple..its easy enough to
stabilise output ripple with an HF SMPS..anyway a bot of C across the
mains is good, as its in the reverse direction to all those motors and
things..there the current lags the voltage..with capacitors it tends to
lead a bit.

It doesn't work like that. You can't correct for distortion-induced power
factor problems by throwing caps at it. That usually results in worsening
the PF and setting up resonances in the system.


Resonaces at 50hz are what you want.

Actually.

A good combination of inductance and capacitance will do the trick.
Largely the load PF problem is an inductive on,. Having a few caps
around will make it all nice again..;-)

The Medway Handyman wrote:
mick wrote:
On Fri, 11 Jan 2008 10:12:34 +0000, Andrew Gabriel wrote:

snip
IIRC, the EU max permitted mercury in a CFL is 5mg, but that would
have been written some time ago, and advances have allowed less to
be used since then.

Good point. Another is that manufacturers have no interest at all in
using high quantities of mercury as it isn't a cheap metal to extract
or manage. I'm pretty certain that they are attempting to keep the
amount as low as possible.

Thats a good point too. Market forces - nobody is going to put more than
they absolutely have to into a bulb because of cost.

A while ago the tree huggers were all wittering on about excessive
fertiliser use. Like the hole in the ozone layer they seem to have
forgotton that now because they have global warming to witter on about.

No farmer would use more fertiliser than he had too because of the cost.
They are very sharp people IME.


Oh, but they did.

And huge amounts of herbicide and insecticide too. In those days of
heavy farm subsidies, yield per acre was the thing, and nothing but the
monoculture was allowoed to survive.

It wasn't til post 'Silent Spring' and the start of the eco movement
that agricultural consultants started going around with fancy graphs
indicating that yields were actually very little less with a sprinkling
of weeds, and a few bugs were OK, as long as the crops didn't get
infested. And the savings on chemistry was not offset by a reduction in
crop yield.

Thse days the margins are SO tight that they have to do cost benefit
analysis on everything.

I couldn't belive the combine. GPS to keep it in a straight line and a
moisture content meter to measure grain moisture..bring it off too
green, and it has to be dried, or it sprouts in the stores, or
rots..Expensive..

On 2008-01-11 12:27:05 +0000, "Bob Eager" said:

On Fri, 11 Jan 2008 12:06:17 UTC, "Mary Fisher"
wrote:

It's the power used when bulbs are switched on which is the cost to the
environment.

How naive.

It's naievete coupled with PC ********.

Today, while in the U.S., I listened to the newly regenerated Hillary
Clinton on NPR (National Public Radio). She has been criticised for
being a hard bitch and not sufficiently in tune emotionally with her
target audience. So out came the glycerine teardrops and on today's
roundup of news stories she announced that she and Bill had had an
energy audit and were swapping out all of the lightbulbs on their ranch
property for CFLs.

Now we know for certain that the whole CFL game is total bull**** -
that is if we didn't know it before.

Which gay, baby whales should we nuke for Jesus? ... or doesn't it
matter as long as they taste OK with mashed potatoes?

"Clive George" wrote in message
...
"Derek Geldard" wrote in message
...

Our latest experiments are with LEDS, so far we're very please

Would it be too much to ask for you to kindly translate that last
sentence into standard English ?

A missing 'd' and a slight punctuation wobble is hardly enough to complain
about.

clive

Isn't it flattering, though, to have one's posts read in such detail :-)

Thanks for posting this, Clive, I don't see original posts from that source.

Mary

Huge wrote:
On 2008-01-12, OG wrote:
"Huge" wrote in message
...
On 2008-01-10, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

My own personal opinion is that the answers a-

Not very much
Its not hugely relevant
In many cases the disadvantages are NOT worth it.
Combine that with the enthusiasm displayed by the likes of Hansen, Mary
and
Hilary Benn (and other similar innumerates),
Isn't that an 'Ad Hominem' argument ?

No.

Basically this is a principle that
says 'person W believes XY or Z, but I don't like person W (for some reason
ABC) so if I say that person W is wrong I am excused giving a reason for
disagreeing with statements X, Y or Z'

I know perfectly well what an "ad hominem" argument is, thanks.

You see, Dynamo Hansen, Mary and Benn *are* innumerate.


Who need Maths, when with God, it All Adds Up?


;-)

mick wrote:

snip
For a poor PF load the voltage and current are out of phase with each
other (how far depends on the PF PF=1 is in phase, PF=0 is 90deg out).
The generator is producing (and consuming fuel for) VA (real power).
However, domestic consumers pay by W (apparent power), not VA. So you see
30W of load at the meter and can measure the AC RMS current into the
lamp, but the V and A waveforms are out of phase so the actual V*A is
greater than the W value. (W=VA*PF so a 30W (apparent power) lamp with a
PF of 0.5 will require 30/0.5=60VA input to power it)


ITYM

VA = Apparent Power

W = Real Power

either that or you are proposing a change to the first law of
thermodynamics...

Let's be clear on this point. Domestic customers pay for the amount of
"heat + work done" by the electrical energy they consume, not by the
amount of current which flows or what power factor pertains to that current.

Rumble

On Fri, 11 Jan 2008 22:25:31 GMT someone who may be "The Medway
Handyman" wrote this:-

As kids we used to supplement our pocket money by returning 'deposit'
bottles. Very effective - we would scour the neighbourhood to ensure no
bottle escaped. Don't know why they don't do it now.

20p is the rate at the moment.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

In message , Derek Geldard
writes
On Sat, 12 Jan 2008 00:46:17 -0000, "Clive George"
wrote:

"Derek Geldard" wrote in message
. ..

Our latest experiments are with LEDS, so far we're very please

Would it be too much to ask for you to kindly translate that last
sentence into standard English ?

A missing 'd' and a slight punctuation wobble is hardly enough to complain
about.

I wouldn't but the perpetrator is a veritable vixen for spelling
flames. As the observant can see in this thread. ;-)

I have a folder *full* of her wobbles.

I'll publish them here if you want.

It's 'cos she hasn't got a willy.

Or a uterus - we had the story of that in graphic details some years ago

It's why she's so fit - she has nothing left to go wrong any more

--
geoff

On Sat, 12 Jan 2008 04:27:08 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

mick wrote:
On Fri, 11 Jan 2008 00:49:22 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

mick wrote:
On Thu, 10 Jan 2008 22:54:21 +0000, Andy Wade wrote:

mick wrote:

[...] and the power station has to generate 60W to light your 30W
CFL (although you are only charged for 30W).
That's a complete misunderstanding of the idea of power factor. The
[supply system] doesn't have to generate 60 W, nor burn fuel at a
rate equivalent to 60 watts worth of output. The (RMS) current
drawn by the lamp is the same as for 60 W resistive load, so
resistive losses in the cables are increased by a factor of four
without power factor correction. However the I^2*R losses due to
current drawn by your lighting load will pale into insignificance
compared to that caused by much heavier resistive loads (cookers,
heaters, showers).


You sure about that? I oversimplified.

For a poor PF load the voltage and current are out of phase with each
other (how far depends on the PF PF=1 is in phase, PF=0 is 90deg
out). The generator is producing (and consuming fuel for) VA (real
power). However, domestic consumers pay by W (apparent power), not
VA. So you see 30W of load at the meter and can measure the AC RMS
current into the lamp, but the V and A waveforms are out of phase so
the actual V*A is greater than the W value. (W=VA*PF so a 30W
(apparent power) lamp with a PF of 0.5 will require 30/0.5=60VA input
to power it)

Agreed that the distribution losses into poor PF loads also escalate
with I^2R.

Also agree that the % difference on your bill will be insignificant.
:-)


Substations have BANKS..ACRES of capacitors to correct for power
factor, so that the generators do NOT have to run widely differing VI
phase differences. Its not really clear what sort of PF a CFL is
anyway..A bridge rect and an electrolytic maybe? Or a half wave rect
and an electrolytic..I bet there is a lot of input ripple..its easy
enough to stabilise output ripple with an HF SMPS..anyway a bot of C
across the mains is good, as its in the reverse direction to all those
motors and things..there the current lags the voltage..with capacitors
it tends to lead a bit.

It doesn't work like that. You can't correct for distortion-induced
power factor problems by throwing caps at it. That usually results in
worsening the PF and setting up resonances in the system.


Resonaces at 50hz are what you want.

Actually.


But not on the harmonics (particularly the odd ones). That leads to silly
things like the neutral terminals burning off your transformers... :-)


A good combination of inductance and capacitance will do the trick.
Largely the load PF problem is an inductive on,. Having a few caps
around will make it all nice again..;-)

Ho yes.... but adding de-tuning inductors to your nice shiny PF caps (as
often becomes necessary on distribution systems) starts to get complex
and costly. Ever priced up for a multi-stage PF correction system? The
prices start to look like phone numbers. :-( AFAICT all non-PF
corrected CFLs are capacitive anyway, so as a minimum you need an
inductor in series with each to correct them. There are PF corrected ones
available now (I don't know about UK availability though), with this
built in. :-)


--
Mick (Working in a M$-free zone!)
Web: http://www.nascom.info http://mixpix.batcave.net

On Sat, 12 Jan 2008 16:34:09 +0000, Dave Osborne wrote:

mick wrote:

snip
For a poor PF load the voltage and current are out of phase with each
other (how far depends on the PF PF=1 is in phase, PF=0 is 90deg out).
The generator is producing (and consuming fuel for) VA (real power).
However, domestic consumers pay by W (apparent power), not VA. So you
see 30W of load at the meter and can measure the AC RMS current into
the lamp, but the V and A waveforms are out of phase so the actual V*A
is greater than the W value. (W=VA*PF so a 30W (apparent power) lamp
with a PF of 0.5 will require 30/0.5=60VA input to power it)


ITYM

VA = Apparent Power

W = Real Power

either that or you are proposing a change to the first law of
thermodynamics...


Hmm - might not be able to arrange that at short notice, so correction
happily accepted! :-)


Let's be clear on this point. Domestic customers pay for the amount of
"heat + work done" by the electrical energy they consume, not by the
amount of current which flows or what power factor pertains to that
current.


Correct. That's why we have kWh and not kVAh meters. ;-)


--
Mick (Working in a M$-free zone!)
Web: http://www.nascom.info http://mixpix.batcave.net

In message , The
Medway Handyman writes
Mark wrote:
"The Medway Handyman" wrote in
message .uk...
whisky-dave wrote:


If people got a couple of quid back for expended bulbs then that
would do far more to encourage true recycling. I remember the days
when you'd get money back on beer bottles. I imagined I could
become a millionaire from returning my empties but they stopped all
that. :-(

As kids we used to supplement our pocket money by returning 'deposit'
bottles. Very effective - we would scour the neighbourhood to
ensure no bottle escaped. Don't know why they don't do it now.


I can vaguely remember getting 3d for each empty Corona bottle. Was
that right?


Thats what I remember. You could buy quite a few sweets for 3d.

12 black jacks in fact

packet of smiths crisps (with proper blue salt twist) were a little too
expensive at 4d


--
geoff

On Fri, 11 Jan 2008 22:25:31 GMT The Medway Handyman wrote :
As kids we used to supplement our pocket money by returning
'deposit' bottles. Very effective - we would scour the
neighbourhood to ensure no bottle escaped. Don't know why they
don't do it now.

Not worth returning the bottles I guess. When I was visiting Zambia
in the late 1980s you paid more for the bottle (returnable) than
the contents!

When I was visiting New York I few years back, if I understood
correctly everyone selling drink cans was obliged to accept returns
for something like 1c per can. Not worth the average person's time,
but those who would otherwise be begging would collect up all the
discarded ones and return them.

--
Tony Bryer SDA UK 'Software to build on' http://www.sda.co.uk

On Sat, 12 Jan 2008 06:44:44 +0000 Andy Hall wrote :
So out came the glycerine teardrops and on today's roundup of
news stories she announced that she and Bill had had an energy
audit and were swapping out all of the lightbulbs on their ranch
property for CFLs.

If they talk to Dave he can probably give them some advice on wind
turbines.

--
Tony Bryer SDA UK 'Software to build on' http://www.sda.co.uk

"geoff" wrote in message
...

It's 'cos she hasn't got a willy.

Or a uterus - we had the story of that in graphic details some years ago

If you're talking about me you're wrong.

I have everything except a willy.

It's why she's so fit - she has nothing left to go wrong any more

It's already gone wrong and been repaired and certified perfct.

Mary

--
geoff

In message , Mary Fisher
writes

"geoff" wrote in message
...

It's 'cos she hasn't got a willy.

Or a uterus - we had the story of that in graphic details some years ago

If you're talking about me you're wrong.

I have everything except a willy.

It's why she's so fit - she has nothing left to go wrong any more

It's already gone wrong and been repaired and certified perfct.

You said you'd killfiled me ...
they never do, do they ?

--
geoff

"geoff" wrote in message
...
In message , Mary Fisher
writes

"geoff" wrote in message
...

It's 'cos she hasn't got a willy.

Or a uterus - we had the story of that in graphic details some years ago

If you're talking about me you're wrong.

I have everything except a willy.

It's why she's so fit - she has nothing left to go wrong any more

It's already gone wrong and been repaired and certified perfct.

You said you'd killfiled me ...
they never do, do they ?

Sorry, I had to have a new hd and all my kf folk escaped.

I'll do it now and thanks for reminding me.

Mary

--
geoff

In article , Derek Geldard
writes
On 09 Jan 2008 22:49:05 GMT, (Andrew
Gabriel) wrote:

They would be completely wrong for that.
Actually, the high colour temperature "daylight" tubes are
completely wrong for almost every application you can think
of.

Viewing X-ray films.

Quilting.

Setting the grey scale on colour monitors.

DG


Plants, matching colour when printing,and IMO reading.
--
Janet Tweedy
Dalmatian Telegraph
http://www.lancedal.demon.co.uk

"The Medway Handyman" wrote in message
.uk...
whisky-dave wrote:


If people got a couple of quid back for expended bulbs then that would
do far more to encourage true recycling. I remember the days when
you'd get money back on beer bottles. I imagined I could become a
millionaire from returning my empties but they stopped all that. :-(

As kids we used to supplement our pocket money by returning 'deposit'
bottles. Very effective - we would scour the neighbourhood to ensure no
bottle escaped. Don't know why they don't do it now.

Obvoiusly they'll be used as weapons nowadays.

"Tony Bryer" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 11 Jan 2008 13:18:19 -0000 Whisky-dave wrote :
A lot of the heat generated in a bulb is in the filament and doesn't
get passed on very far even though the glass gets quite hot, there's
not usualy enough air circulation to take theheat from the bulb.

If that were so, the bulb would just get hotter and hotter!

It does that's why you usually can't remove an incandescant bulb from it's
holder/socket until it's been off a while. Which isn't such a problem with
CFL or
LEDs.

whisky-dave wrote:
"Tony Bryer" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 11 Jan 2008 13:18:19 -0000 Whisky-dave wrote :
A lot of the heat generated in a bulb is in the filament and doesn't
get passed on very far even though the glass gets quite hot, there's
not usualy enough air circulation to take theheat from the bulb.
If that were so, the bulb would just get hotter and hotter!

It does that's why you usually can't remove an incandescant bulb from it's
holder/socket until it's been off a while. Which isn't such a problem with
CFL or
LEDs.



Oh dear. Oh dear oh dear.

So if the heat can't escape, how does it cool down, ever?

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
whisky-dave wrote:
"Tony Bryer" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 11 Jan 2008 13:18:19 -0000 Whisky-dave wrote :
A lot of the heat generated in a bulb is in the filament and
doesn't get passed on very far even though the glass gets quite
hot, there's not usualy enough air circulation to take theheat
from the bulb.
If that were so, the bulb would just get hotter and hotter!

It does that's why you usually can't remove an incandescant bulb
from it's holder/socket until it's been off a while. Which isn't
such a problem with CFL or
LEDs.



Oh dear. Oh dear oh dear.

So if the heat can't escape, how does it cool down, ever?

Didn't you know that all local fire services have now recommended the
banning of incandescent lamps due to the final demise of each bulb causing a
call for their services?

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
whisky-dave wrote:
"Tony Bryer" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 11 Jan 2008 13:18:19 -0000 Whisky-dave wrote :
A lot of the heat generated in a bulb is in the filament and doesn't
get passed on very far even though the glass gets quite hot, there's
not usualy enough air circulation to take theheat from the bulb.
If that were so, the bulb would just get hotter and hotter!

It does that's why you usually can't remove an incandescant bulb from
it's
holder/socket until it's been off a while. Which isn't such a problem
with CFL or
LEDs.



Oh dear. Oh dear oh dear.

So if the heat can't escape, how does it cool down, ever?

Where did I say it can't escape ?

whisky-dave wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
whisky-dave wrote:
"Tony Bryer" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 11 Jan 2008 13:18:19 -0000 Whisky-dave wrote :
A lot of the heat generated in a bulb is in the filament and doesn't
get passed on very far even though the glass gets quite hot, there's
not usualy enough air circulation to take theheat from the bulb.
If that were so, the bulb would just get hotter and hotter!
It does that's why you usually can't remove an incandescant bulb from
it's
holder/socket until it's been off a while. Which isn't such a problem
with CFL or
LEDs.



Oh dear. Oh dear oh dear.

So if the heat can't escape, how does it cool down, ever?

Where did I say it can't escape ?


He

"not usualy enough air circulation to take theheat from the bulb."

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
whisky-dave wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
whisky-dave wrote:
"Tony Bryer" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 11 Jan 2008 13:18:19 -0000 Whisky-dave wrote :
A lot of the heat generated in a bulb is in the filament and doesn't
get passed on very far even though the glass gets quite hot, there's
not usualy enough air circulation to take theheat from the bulb.
If that were so, the bulb would just get hotter and hotter!
It does that's why you usually can't remove an incandescant bulb from
it's
holder/socket until it's been off a while. Which isn't such a problem
with CFL or
LEDs.



Oh dear. Oh dear oh dear.

So if the heat can't escape, how does it cool down, ever?

Where did I say it can't escape ?


He

"not usualy enough air circulation to take theheat from the bulb."

Nowhere do I see the term the heat can't escape.
The heat can escape but not always from the glass bulb, some escapes
via the actual connector being metal and being a better conductor of heat
than the glass. Remmebr too that there's radiation , conduction and
convection
that can remove heat from anything.
Standard incandescent bulbs aren't the best option for heating. But I've
also used
photoflood lighting and you can get quite toasty standing in front of
those,
but there still not as good as a dedicated heater.

On Fri, 11 Jan 2008 17:15:01 -0000, "Mary Fisher"
wrote:

Leaded petrol WAS banned.

No it wasn't

http://www.leadedpetrol.co.uk/index.html


--