http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living?hl=en
misc.consumers.frugal-living@googlegroups.com
Today's topics:
* Doorbell always uses electricity! - 2 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/3198294a289e9e57?hl=en
* Do you want your tax money to pay a forklift operator $103,000.00 a year - 2
messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/ddfc45ecb2d7616d?hl=en
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Doorbell always uses electricity!
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/3198294a289e9e57?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Fri, Nov 28 2008 6:57 pm
From: Jim Redelfs
In article <slrngiuorp.ln3.don@manx.misty.com>,
don@manx.misty.com (Don Klipstein) wrote:
> Lightbulbs are pretty efficient at home heating also
Indeed.
In my aforementioned electrically-heated home, I illuminated the
playroom in the basement with six, 100-watt incandescent lamps, each
with a bowl reflector.
During the heating season, I made little (if any) "bones" about it when
my young daughters left them on after vacating the room. The living
room floor, directly above, was always nice and toasty.
As the girls aged, I explained that they should try to turn them off to
save energy which equated to money, particularly when we weren't running
the heating plant. They "got it" and did quite well, remembering to
turn off the lamps when they left the room.
> - it's just a matter of where the heat goes.
Agreed.
As to your point that LIGHT becomes heat, I wonder how MUCH light would
be required to heat a given space? Velly interesting...
--
:)
JR
== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Fri, Nov 28 2008 10:44 pm
From: don@manx.misty.com (Don Klipstein)
In <jim.redelfs-9D70DE.20570328112008@news.west.cox.net>, Jim Redelfs
wrote in part towards the end in response to a prior posting of mine:
>
>As to your point that LIGHT becomes heat, I wonder how MUCH light would
>be required to heat a given space? Velly interesting...
Giving efficiency of lamps or for that matter almost every other
electrical load in a house approaching 100% for converting the electrical
energy consumed to heat, I would not be too concerned with how much of the
heat materializes after spending a few or several nanoseconds being in the
form of light along a path of electricity consumption becoming heat. I
would just consider the watts consumed by the electrical load and multiply
by 3.4 to get BTU/hour if that is what you want.
Should you want something more academic, as in watts or BTU/hour in a
given quantity of light:
The most common "official definition" (my words) of "visible light" is
"electromagnetic radiation" having wavelegths in the 400-700 nm range.
1 watt of such from most light sources used to illuminate homes has
about 240-300 lumens. A lumen is amount of photometric output that
illuminates 1 square foot to extent of 1 footcandle, or 1 square meter to
extent of 1 lux. A "USA-usual" 100 watt 120V "big-3 brand" lightbulb with
rated life expectancy of 750 hours and coiled-coil filament produces
1670-1750 lumens, and about 6.6 watts, maybe 6.7 watts of radiation of
wavelengths 400-700 nm.
Plenty of other "white light sources" produce radiation having roughly
240-320 lumens per watt of radiation of wavelength 240-320 nm, meaning 1
watt or 3.4 BTU/hour from 400-700-nm-"light" amounting to 240-320 lumens.
Keep in mind that along with that 6.6-6.7 watts of radiation in the
"official visible light range", the above 100W lightbulb produces plenty
of infrared. Something like around roughly ballpark 50 watts of infrared
radiated by the filament passes through the glass bulb. The glass bulb
typically radiates a few watts more infrared, maybe as much as 10 or a
dozen or so.
Since a 100 watt 120V lightbulb can produce something like 75 watts
combined of infrared and visible light with a trace of ultraviolet that is
mostly in the "non-tanning portion of UVA as in 'Blacklight Range' ",
when light output is 1710 lumens, each lumen of light escaping the fixture
*may* be associated with close to .044 watt of radiation that becomes heat
in the home after exiting the lightbulb in form of radiation (in addition
to heat from the fixture). .044 watt is about .15 BTU/hour.
But also since energy going into a lamp within a home experiences
well-approaching 100% efficiency of producing heat within the home, I
suggest that room or building heating effects result mainly from power
consumption of the light source rather than photometrics. At the usual
rate of about 3.4 BTU/hour per watt.
The biggest problem I hear now is as to how much home heating by lamps
is achieved at ceilings and how much of that is off-target by producing
heat above where it is wanted/needed!
- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Do you want your tax money to pay a forklift operator $103,000.00 a
year
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/ddfc45ecb2d7616d?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Fri, Nov 28 2008 9:27 pm
From: TruthTeller@nospam.net
Wrong asshole. I made a truthful statement about you -->and you're a
pettly little asshole who won't shut up about being called what you are
-->and asshole.
Its fucktards like you that caused the end of the republican party rule.
Smoke that asshole.
In <6pbm4uF7eqhjU1@mid.individual.net>, on 11/29/2008
at 01:02 PM, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> said:
>TruthTeller@nospam.net wrote
>> You lost this game moron.
>Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed fantasys, cretin.
>> Now take your meds and stop trolling.
>Never ever could bullshit its way out of a wet paper bag.
>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>>> TruthTeller@nospam.net wrote:
>>>> Once again goober:
>>
>>>> Are you a retard all day long, or does it come and like hot flashes?
>>
>>> Once again gobler:
>>
>>> How many assholes have you got ?
>>
>>
>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> said
>>>>> TruthTeller@nospam.net wrote
>>
>>>>>> I see you are not answering; are you a retard all day long or does
>>>>>> it comes and goes in hot flashes?
>>>>
>>>>>> I see you are not answering; how many assholes have you got ?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> In <6p9273F71qoaU1@mid.individual.net>, on 11/28/2008
>>>>>> at 01:09 PM, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> said:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> TruthTeller@nospam.net wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Are you a retard all day long goober, or does it come and go in
>>>>>>>> hot flashes?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Wota stunning line in rational argument you have there, child.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> said
>>>>>>>>> TruthTeller@nospam.net wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Wrong asshole.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> How many assholes have you got ?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The big three works make a couple of dollars more per
>>>>>>>>>> hour then other auto workers. The rest goes to pay the cost
>>>>>>>>>> of retireees. Learn to do homework goober. You might get to
>>>>>>>>>> move out of trailer you live in and watching rush limbrain
>>>>>>>>>> for your information.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> In <8cvri493g4djpi8417v5n6gitp7cqe76d0@4ax.com>, on 11/26/2008
>>>>>>>>>> at 08:55 PM, LeRoy Blue <leroyblue@billon.net> said:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 21 Nov 2008 23:57:10 GMT, TruthTeller@nospam.net
>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The problem is a Big 3 management failure. Not a worker
>>>>>>>>>>>> failure. Furthermore, you are using the total per hour labor
>>>>>>>>>>>> cost that is given out. That includes current workers and
>>>>>>>>>>>> retirees. Using it as a current worker number -- as you
>>>>>>>>>>>> guys are doing, is spinning the facts to suite the nonsense.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The problem will not be changed by whining.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The auto workers got where they are drawing a ridiculous wage
>>>>>>>>>>> and benefit package by collective whining (of course that
>>>>>>>>>>> will go swooooosh, right over your pointed head.)
== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Fri, Nov 28 2008 9:43 pm
From: don@manx.misty.com (Don Klipstein)
In article <FUOXk.1535$us6.1209@nwrddc01.gnilink.net>,
TruthTeller@nospam.net wrote:
>
>I see you are not answering; are you a retard all day long or does it
>comes and goes in hot flashes?
>
>In <6p9273F71qoaU1@mid.individual.net>, on 11/28/2008
> at 01:09 PM, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> said:
<I snip from there on basis of what I say below>
Rod Speed is a sub-troll so severe as to have a FAQ on him.
That FAQ may well be 15-20 years old but reasonably current, due to the
subtroll gaining merely a year or two of emotional maturity in that
stretch. So the subtroll has added a year or two of refinement to his
M.O. in the apparently decade or two since that apparently old FAQ on him
was written.
Merely plug into your favorite search engine "Rod Speed FAQ", with
quotation marks to indicate that such is a phrase.
One result I get, agreeing with many others, is:
http://www.wifi-forum.com/wf/showthread.php?t=78319
- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)
==============================================================================
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "misc.consumers.frugal-living"
group.
To post to this group, visit http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living?hl=en
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to misc.consumers.frugal-living+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
To change the way you get mail from this group, visit:
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/subscribe?hl=en
To report abuse, send email explaining the problem to abuse@googlegroups.com
==============================================================================
Google Groups: http://groups.google.com/?hl=en
