Maker Pro
Maker Pro

CON Ed - CONNING US with HIGH VOLTAGE!

B

Bob Adkins

Jan 1, 1970
0
As far as shock is concerned 120v kills more people than any other higher
voltage. The 128v danger is ridiculous.

OK, you give me a 128v shocker and I'll give you a 120v shocker and we'll
see which one of us loses control of his bowels first. :D

Or, we could just forget the shockers and play rochambeau instead. I'll go
first...

-- Bob
 
D

Derek Broughton

Jan 1, 1970
0
SATAN said:
A little information can be a dangerous thing.
LED's are less efficient than all but the smallest incandescent or halogen
lights. And they are far more inefficient than any fluorescent, mercury
vapor, metal halide, or sodium lamps. All the extra energy you waste will
put more mercury into the environment (from power generation) than you
could of ever obtained from all the mercury containing lights you could of
ever bought.

I can't let this pass without comment. You may well be right about the
efficiency of LED's, at least with regard to the amount of light output for
the input current. However, it depends what you want to do with the light.
Why use a string of 5W bulbs on a Christmas tree, when you can get the
effect with a 5W string of LEDs. A 1W LED can provide enough light to read
a book - so why use even a 4W CF? When I walk my dogs at night, I carry an
LED flashlight. It doesn't put out enough light to distinguish between a
skunk and a cat - but it puts out plenty of light to see "an animal" and
where to stoop-and-scoop, and I've been using it for six months so far
without changing batteries. My 6V incandescent flashlight probably emits
10 times the amount of light - but I changed batteries (much more expensive
than the ones in the LED light) every couple of months.
 
B

Bob Adkins

Jan 1, 1970
0
As I understand it, white LED's are not more efficient than
incandescents although they might be a bit more rugged and
last longer. The only way to get more efficiency is to go
with monochrome LED's and try to use a number of different
colors to add up to a white light. I don't know how effective
that method is.

Efficiency isn't everything.

LED's lend themselves to use anywhere and everywhere. When the interior
decorators and architects discover them, we will see some very creative uses
for them. Instead of large lights that light up 800 cubic feet of space, we
may see little clusters of LED's in places we never would have thought of.

CF and incandescent bulbs waste a large percentage of their lumens right
around ground zero. Even a 25w CF light is way too bright for human use
within 3 feet or more of the tube. That's ~50 cubic feet of the most
intensely lit area just wasted. Cleverly utilized LED's may eliminate most
of the bright spots some day, and bring bottom line cost close to CF's. Then
too, LED's are in their infancy. There will probably be a couple of major
improvements in LED technology in the coming 5 years that we can't even
imagine today.

Don't pay any attention to me. I think we can do better than 30-120 year-old
light bulb technology, and I'm probably too optimistic about LED's. :)

-- Bob
 
D

Dimitrios Tzortzakakis

Jan 1, 1970
0
In my bedroom I have a 220 V 60 W halogen light that I use for more than a
year.The 220 V halogen lamps are a recent discovery, and I think are a good
alternative to normal incadescent lamps, which I think are excellent for
most lighting conditions.We have here this german sockets, they are called
Schuko (from Schutz Kontakt, protected contact, which unlike the three
pronged ones are unlikely for someone to touch a live contact) but generally
in Europe there are no polarized sockets with the exception of industrial
applications, for 4-pole or 5-pole three-phase polarized receptacles and
plugs.In my garden I use a 42 volt transformer and special GE lamps,
incadescent of course.

--
Tzortzakakis Dimitrios
major in electrical engineering, freelance electrician
FH von Iraklion-Kreta, freiberuflicher Elektriker
dimtzort AT otenet DOT gr
Ï said:
| Quote:"But,
| until then, it will be incandescent for me."
| I agree with you.For heavily used light fixtures there are 220 V halogen
| bulbs in Europe which I think are excellent.Are there any for US 110 volts?

There are. I've seen available for purchase online halogen bulbs in a wide
range of voltages including: 110, 115, 120, 127, 130, 208, 220, 230, 240,
and even 277. But I favor low voltage halogen because that allows the use
of a thicker/shorter filament for a given wattage. Based on some general
observations (no scientific study), choosing wattage/voltage combinations
to get between 1 and 5 amps of current flowing in the filament is about the
right conditions for high temperature, long life, and better focusing of
light, given current metallurgy. I would probably want to make most lights
about 12 or 18 watts, and simply use more of them where more illumination
is needed. I will probably use 12 volts for most things indoors, and a mix
of 12 volt for small ground level mood lighting outdoors, and 240 or 277
volts for safety/security/flood lighting outdoors (a mix of HPS and MH).
In addition to NOT using fluorescent lighting indoors, I will also avoid
the use of the common Edison screw base, or any other kind of base where
it is possible to touch metal connected to one of the current carrying
conductors. I understand in Europe, these kinds of light sockets are on
the way out, anyway, especially in places like Germany where the plug-in
receptacles are non-polarized (and thus you cannot be sure which wire is
getting the grounded side).
http://ka9wgn.ham.org/ |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
 
D

Dimitrios Tzortzakakis

Jan 1, 1970
0
--
Tzortzakakis Dimitrios
major in electrical engineering, freelance electrician
FH von Iraklion-Kreta, freiberuflicher Elektriker
dimtzort AT otenet DOT gr
Ï "SATAN said:
A little information can be a dangerous thing.
LED's are less efficient than all but the smallest incandescent or halogen
lights. And they are far more inefficient than any fluorescent, mercury
vapor, metal halide, or sodium lamps. All the extra energy you waste will
put more mercury into the environment (from power generation) than you could
of ever obtained from all the mercury containing lights you could of ever
bought.
Air condition is far more inefficient than all the globe's incadescent
lights put together.If you want to save, use a fan instead.I do, even when
temperature exceeds 95 degrees.LEDs are semiconductors, are very efficient
since they don't emit heat and have a very long life.
Smaller wattage incandescent lighting like vacuum/halogen lights are far
more inefficient than their larger wattage counterparts. Generally, the
lower the wattage, the lower the overall efficiency. So you will just end up
with a very inefficient lighting system that causes more power to be wasted,
and more mercury to be dumped into the environment.
Why are lower wattage bulbs inefficient?Here, the lowest wattage incadescent
bulbs are 25 W, and are moderately warm even after hours.So, I should use an
150 W bulb, when a 60 W is bright enough?That doesn't make any sense.
robably use 12 volts for most things indoors, and a mix
If you don't want mercury, why are you talking about using metal halide, and
high pressure sodium lighting? MH, and HPS light bulbs have as much mercury
in them as mercury vapor lights. They just have other things added with the
mercury charge to change it's operating characteristics. (ie) halides and
sodium.
Metal halide lamps use a high voltage of 3.5 kV which is very dangerous to
non-qualified persons and are a real energy catastrophe since their lowest
wattage is 150 W.
And, in actuality, you will be dumping more mercury into the
environment with MH lights, than you would be with mercury vapor lights.
The MH lights have an outer tube of quartz which is almost diamond hard and
impossible to break with e.g. a hammer.
MV
bulbs last five times as long, so there is one fifth the mercury entering
the waste stream. And you won't notice any mercury savings from power usage
reduction. Because more power is wasted in making the additional MH
replacement bulbs, than is saved over the bulbs life from the increased
efficiency of the MH bulb over the MV one.

If you want mercury free outdoor lighting, then you have to go to low
pressure sodium.
This makes yellow light which is unsuitable for use other than street
lighting.
 
D

danny burstein

Jan 1, 1970
0
In said:
Why are lower wattage bulbs inefficient?Here, the lowest wattage incadescent
bulbs are 25 W, and are moderately warm even after hours.

I can't pull up the actual charts from this account, but as a general
rule, incandescent lamps are less efficient, as in lumens per watt, at
lower power ratings.

In other words, you'll get more lumens (and less immediate wasted heat)
from a 150 watt lamp than you will from two 75 watt ones.
 
I can't pull up the actual charts from this account, but as a general
rule, incandescent lamps are less efficient, as in lumens per watt, at
lower power ratings.

In other words, you'll get more lumens (and less immediate wasted heat)
from a 150 watt lamp than you will from two 75 watt ones.


Pure efficiency rated by watts to lumens is not really significant. If
you can live with less lumens (and watts) you will save money. If you
make up with the lower light by turning on more lights you won't save
money
 
N

N9WOS

Jan 1, 1970
0
Air condition is far more inefficient than all the globe's incadescent
lights put together.If you want to save, use a fan instead.I do, even when
temperature exceeds 95 degrees.LEDs are semiconductors, are very efficient
since they don't emit heat and have a very long life.

You haven't seen a LED of any size.
A luxeon star requires a good heat sink or it will fry it's self.
They have the best efficiency of any white LED, but they still don't match
fluorescents lights..

LED lights usually run 5 lumen/watt, for the normal ones to 25 lumen/watt
for the big $$$ ones.
(Some of the newest $$$$ white LED's are close to 35 lumen watt.)

Most incandescent lights runs about 10 to 25 lumen/watt. (10W vacuum to 400W
halogen )
So, unless you are using the most modern, and expensive LED, your light will
produce about the same amount of heat, for the same amount of light that an
incandescent will produce. The only type of incandescent a LED can replace
with good savings is a flashlight bulb. They usually run 0.5 to 5 lumen/watt

Mercury vapor lights run from 35 lumen per watt for 50W lights, up to 60
lumens per watt for 1000W lights.
It's low end is the top end of an LED's range.

Metal halide runs from 50 lumens-watt for 50W slow start to 125 lumen/watt
for instant start 1000W+ lights

Fluorescent lights usually runs around 60 to 100 lumen/watt.
(Some high output fluorescent lights are up to 150+ lumen watt.)
More than four times the light than LED's make per watt.

High pressure sodium runs about 76 lumens/watt for 50W to 150 lumens per
watt for 1000W.

Low pressure sodium runs about 100 lumens per watt to 175 lumens per watt.

But I favor low voltage halogen because that allows the
use
Why are lower wattage bulbs inefficient?Here, the lowest wattage
incadescent
bulbs are 25 W, and are moderately warm even after hours.So, I should use
an
150 W bulb, when a 60 W is bright enough?That doesn't make any sense.

You are twisting my words.
He mentioned using multiple low wattage lights instead of one big light.
If you don't need the light produced by that one big light, then you should
use a smaller light.
But you shouldn't use multiple smaller lights to replace the brightness of
one big one.
Metal halide lamps use a high voltage of 3.5 kV which is very dangerous to
non-qualified persons and are a real energy catastrophe since their lowest
wattage is 150 W.

Standard halide light sizes 50,70,100,150,175,250,400,1000

The local home depot, menards, and lowes stocks all sizes. From 50W, to
1000W

If your local hardware store doesn't have them, find a store that does.

There is two types of Metal halide lights. The slow start, which has a
starting system basically identical to mercury vapor lights, with same
voltages and everything. That is the original type of metal halide light. It
is basically identical in construction to a mercury vapor light, but with
the added halides in the arc tube. Starting voltages are around 200V to 300V
and running voltage is around 100V. They are so close than you can sometimes
put a metal halide bulb in a mercury vapor fixture and it will work. Bulb
life may suck though.

The second type is the instant start with no starting electrodes in the arc
tube. It basically relies on an electronic starter to produce a 1 to 4KV
voltage spike to initiate the ark, and then the ark voltage drops down to
100 or so volts.

The only downside of metal halide light is their life span. A mercury vapor
bulb usually has a reliable life span of 10+ years. Metal halide lights,
even though they are basically the same construction, have a usable life of
only about 2 years. The added halides deteriorate the arc tube quicker. If
you look at an old metal halide light, the ark tube will be solid black. And
that blackening blocks so much light, that the bulb basically has to be
replaced.
The MH lights have an outer tube of quartz which is almost diamond hard
and
impossible to break with e.g. a hammer.

Metal halide lights have the same quartz glass ark tube that mercury vapor
lights have.

If you are thinking of solid crystal quartz ark tubes, then you are thinking
of high/low pressure sodium lights. They are the types of high energy
discharge
light that uses solid quartz ark tubes.
 
N

N9WOS

Jan 1, 1970
0
arc tube. arc
ark, ark arc tube ark tube ark.

ark tubes,
ark tubes.

I did it again didn't I.
My dyslexic tendencies showing through again.

Once in a while, I switch a letter in a common word, with another like
sounding one, or leave a few out..
I can look right at it, and I don't even see the difference until after a
few minutes..
The first part of a paragraph has arc, then I transition to ark.
 
D

Dimitrios Tzortzakakis

Jan 1, 1970
0
Old greek proverb:no talking about appetite.If you like it, you can have it!

--
Tzortzakakis Dimitrios
major in electrical engineering, freelance electrician
FH von Iraklion-Kreta, freiberuflicher Elektriker
dimtzort AT otenet DOT gr
Ï said:
In sci.engr.electrical.compliance Dimitrios Tzortzakakis
| This makes yellow light which is unsuitable for use other than street
| lighting.

Actually, it works quite well for reading. The single spectral component
allows for sharp focus even with chromatic distortions.
http://ka9wgn.ham.org/ |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
 
D

Dimitrios Tzortzakakis

Jan 1, 1970
0
You are right, but they are much cheaper than compared compact fluorescent
or halogen, and here the former cost 9 euro and the latter 4 to 5 euro.

--
Tzortzakakis Dimitrios
major in electrical engineering, freelance electrician
FH von Iraklion-Kreta, freiberuflicher Elektriker
dimtzort AT otenet DOT gr
Ï "danny burstein said:
In <[email protected]> "Dimitrios Tzortzakakis"
Why are lower wattage bulbs inefficient?Here, the lowest wattage incadescent
bulbs are 25 W, and are moderately warm even after hours.

I can't pull up the actual charts from this account, but as a general
rule, incandescent lamps are less efficient, as in lumens per watt, at
lower power ratings.

In other words, you'll get more lumens (and less immediate wasted heat)
from a 150 watt lamp than you will from two 75 watt ones.
--
_____________________________________________________
Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key
[email protected]
[to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]
 
V

Vlad

Jan 1, 1970
0
You are right, but they are much cheaper than compared compact fluorescent
or halogen, and here the former cost 9 euro and the latter 4 to 5 euro.

I heat my house with electricity, consequently during winter months
any lamp that I used has 100% of efficiency.
Incandescent lights are a dime a dozen so I give preference to
incandescent lights when heat is desired.
During that period I am also very " wasteful" with light in order to
save energy.
If the thermostat for the house is set to a low temperature and the
light " travels" with the occupants I believe that I am saving energy.
It's like being on the sun on a Winter day.
The system can be made automatic by the use of "presence detectors".

Comments please.

Vlad
 
N

N9WOS

Jan 1, 1970
0
But... but... that is only *mild* dyslexia.. Instead of switching
the placement of two letters within the same word, you switched the
entire word by replacing a single letter. :-]

It seems, that for me, for a certain amount of time, a word or set of words
will change spelling. I can type a paragraph, read it, and everything looks
fine. Then a few minutes later, I look at it and go, "How the hell did I
make that typo?" Then I look on through the paragraph and find the typo
repeated over and over again!!!!!!!!

I have made it a habit to look for mix-ups like that, but I can go over the
sentence with a fine tooth comb, and nothing will look out of place, until a
little time has passed, and my brain stops crossing, mixing up, or changing
the spelling of a few words. Then I can just look at the sentence in
passing, and go "Crap, that's not right."

I will see "peace" and "piece" interchanged.
I will see "write" and "right" interchanged.
I will see "know" and "no" interchanged.

It is always just a couple letters at maximum, and the words always sound
the same.

Think of posting a large post for thousands to read, and then finding out
that I use "no" every time I should have used "know". "I no it will not
work"

Like the reply I posted. I used "ark" instead of "arc". I would say that if
I was talking about Noah's ark about that time, I would have probably been
talking about "Noah's arc"

A little while ago I posted something about satellites, and I used "arch"
every time I mentioned the satellite "arc". I found that kinda odd..
Normally I will leave stuff out, or mix stuff, not put letters in.

When I am mixing up a word, it doesn't affect my reading ability at all. I
have read thousands of books, and I have never had any problem with reading.
It only affects any word I type, or write down. I can read the normal
spelling of a word right beside my crossed spelling and I don't notice the
difference. I can be copying something verbatim, and everywhere I see "piece",
I will type or write "peace" and every thing looks perfectly fine!!!!!!!

I can look at page after page of schematics, or computer code, and draw out
page after page of schematics, and computer code, and I never make any
mistakes. Anything that doesn't involve words in a spoken sentence, and I am
fine. But if I have a simple sentence, I can't see the obvious fact that I
used "no" instead of "know". I even make mix-ups in the in line comments in
the computer code, but I never mix up the code that the comment is referring
to.

Like this post here. I caught myself trying to use the word "reed" instead
of "read" repeatedly. I know perfectly well that a "reed" is a wooden device
used in wood wind instruments. But when i wanted to write "I can type a
paragraph, read it, and everything looks fine" I wrote "reed it" It became
obvious though, when the spell checker kept complaining about the fact that
"reeding" was not a real word. "it doesn't affect my reeding ability."

I often cuss at myself, but it doesn't help much.
 
D

daestrom

Jan 1, 1970
0
Vlad said:
I heat my house with electricity, consequently during winter months
any lamp that I used has 100% of efficiency.
Incandescent lights are a dime a dozen so I give preference to
incandescent lights when heat is desired.
During that period I am also very " wasteful" with light in order to
save energy.
If the thermostat for the house is set to a low temperature and the
light " travels" with the occupants I believe that I am saving energy.
It's like being on the sun on a Winter day.
The system can be made automatic by the use of "presence detectors".

Comments please.

You don't mention where you are, or how cold it is in winter time. Heating
with resistance heating can be very expensive. Yes, in your situation the
heat generated by incandescent lamps isn't a 'waste' if you would just have
to replace that heat with your electric baseboard/furnace instead.

Depending on your climate, you could save a *lot* of money by switching to
another form of heating. Fossil fuel (NG or propane) can be much cheaper.
In the right climate, an air-source heat pump can also save a lot of money.

Your statements about the waste heat from lighting not really being a
'waste' are true, but only if you use resistance heating. And it is only
true during the heating season.

daestrom
 
N

N9WOS

Jan 1, 1970
0
Fluorescent lights usually runs around 60 to 100 lumen/watt.
(Some high output fluorescent lights are up to 150+ lumen watt.)
More than four times the light than LED's make per watt.

Correction.

Fluorescent lights usually runs around 60 to 100 lumen/watt.
(Some high output fluorescent lights are up to 105+ lumen watt.)
Three times the light that LED's make per watt.
 
G

Gunnar

Jan 1, 1970
0
Vlad said:
I heat my house with electricity, consequently during winter months
any lamp that I used has 100% of efficiency.
Incandescent lights are a dime a dozen so I give preference to
incandescent lights when heat is desired.

most people have the lights up high, sooo, the heat is up high. I would then
think 'heating" with light bulbs is "wasteful" with regards to even heat,
unless you have fans circulating the air, which add to energy consumption...
During that period I am also very " wasteful" with light in order to
save energy.

The lifetime of a baseboard heater is many times an incandescent light bulb.
You do not save an iota of energy, but pay more for that energy as your
"incandescent heater" breaks down more often than a baseboard heater.
If the thermostat for the house is set to a low temperature and the
light " travels" with the occupants I believe that I am saving energy.

Well, you save energy by setting a low temp on your thermostat :) But you
lose money by "heating' with your light bulbs, in my humble opinion.
It's like being on the sun on a Winter day.

Not quite, the sunlight is free, the light from your bulb is not...
The system can be made automatic by the use of "presence detectors".

Which adds to the cost of the system. If your heating was from an energy
source cheaper than electricity, switching off lights by detectors should
eventually pay for the cost of the detectors.
Comments please.

each situation is different with many variables. But I think your belief
that you save money by heating with incandescent light bulbs is flawed.
 
P

Pete J. Ahacich

Jan 1, 1970
0
Hi all:

What's up with the Sylvania daylight 13w CFs??? None of the Lowes in the
Daytona Beach area seem to have them. Have any of you noticed a diminished
supply of them in your area? Just curious.

pja
 
W

Jan 1, 1970
0
Matthew Beasley said:
Refering to ANSI C84.1, the standard for North American voltages, 114V to
126V under normal conditions is the acceptable range at the service. Under
abnormal conditions, the range is 108V to 127V. By this standard, 126 is OK
but 128 isn't.

The reason for having a range is to allow for voltage drop over the primary
and secondary lines that eventually feed your home or business.

If you live close to a substation or voltage regulator, your voltage will be
higher. If you live at the end of the line, your voltage will be lower.
Utilities try to insure that the last person on the line doesn't fall below
114 volts at the meter. During periods of high usage, that means that the
"automatic line compensation" equipment may be pumping out the high-voltage
equivalent of 126 volts in order to meet that end-of-line requirement. In
Southern California, periods of heavy A/C usage may even cause the 126 volt
limit to be exceeded at times - especially on 4kV feeders or long rural
circuits.

However, if the original poster is getting 128 volts day and night, summer
and winter, then something IS wrong. Many utilities will install a temporary
chart recorder at a meter to monitor the voltage if they can be convinced
it's not just a one-time occurance.

 
Top