|
8.8 Earthquake in Japan |
type568
Member #8,381
March 2007
|
That would end the unclear energy usage
|
Matthew Leverton
Supreme Loser
January 1999
|
gnolam said: Also irrelevant. You can order a new sarcasm detector from me. I have three left in stock. Quote: the lumen values and light bulb equivalence values are grossly inflated They seem quite right to me. I use 13W bulbs. Maybe you crazy Europeans use 1W bulbs. Quote: as they take several minutes to warm up Mine light up instantly. USA really is #1. |
Thomas Fjellstrom
Member #476
June 2000
|
Yeah, even my old ass CFL bulbs only take a second to turn on. Now, that's a bit different if you're using one outside, and its -20c or so. Then it can take a few minutes for a normal CFL bulb to warm up. -- |
OICW
Member #4,069
November 2003
|
Some of them aren't even capable of shining outside at temperatures below 0°C. Sure, newer ones are able to start nearly as fast as normal light bulb, but they still don't produce good light spectrum. And still there are plenty of places where using CFL bulb is infeasible, yet the bureaucrats in Bruxells decided to outlaw lightbulbs. [My website][CppReference][Pixelate][Allegators worldwide][Who's online] |
Thomas Fjellstrom
Member #476
June 2000
|
I think you can get a full spectrum CFL. Not entirely sure though. I bought myself a couple full spectrum incandescent bulbs recently. They are nice. -- |
Matthew Leverton
Supreme Loser
January 1999
|
If everybody used CFL bulbs, we wouldn't need any of this unclear energy that Arthur speaks of. |
Dennis
Member #1,090
July 2003
|
If they have so many earthquakes over there, why don't they develop and engineer an earthquake driven power plant? It must be possible to catch, convert, store and use all that energy. Some genius just has to invent it. --- 0xDB | @dennisbusch_de --- |
type568
Member #8,381
March 2007
|
Dennis said: If they have so many earthquakes over there, why don't they develop and engineer an earthquake driven power plant? Absolute nonsense, but awesome!
|
Onewing
Member #6,152
August 2005
|
Perhaps I'm being a worry-wart, especially since the article I'm linking even says it's not a big deal, I'm still curious about the safety of my pregnant wife and the child. She drinks a lot of milk. A lot. Anyway, should I be observing closely what's happening to the radiation levels in milk (or when should I get concerned)? ------------ |
Arthur Kalliokoski
Second in Command
February 2005
|
IIRC from 30+ years ago, dairy products from the state of Michigan had to be destroyed in the '60's due to fallout from A-bomb tests contaminating the grass the dairy cattle ate with cobalt-90, which substitutes for calcium quite nicely, and you'll have this radioactive element in your bones for a lifetime, but not so slowly that it's harmless. It seems to me that a reactor core that melted its way to a concrete floor isn't nearly so dangerous as a 20 mile wide mushroom cloud thousands of miles closer. [EDIT] Quite a few 20 mile wide mushroom clouds. They all watch too much MSNBC... they get ideas. |
Thomas Fjellstrom
Member #476
June 2000
|
Onewing said: Perhaps I'm being a worry-wart, especially since the article I'm linking even says it's not a big deal, I'm still curious about the safety of my pregnant wife and the child. She drinks a lot of milk. Do you live next to the reactors in japan that are damaged? Or in an area that gets its milk from farmers around the reactors[1]? If your answer to those questions is false, then don't worry. Theres no way your milk will be affected. References
-- |
Onewing
Member #6,152
August 2005
|
Gotcha, cool beans. I'm cautious because she seems to flirt with Death every time she gets near anybody somewhat sick. What a whore. ------------ |
gnolam
Member #2,030
March 2002
|
What Thomas said. -- |
Arthur Kalliokoski
Second in Command
February 2005
|
I remember when I was in the 8th (?) grade or so, we had a Geiger counter to play with, and it said my left knee was considerably more radioactive than the rest of me. I was a bit worried at the time. They all watch too much MSNBC... they get ideas. |
Tobias Dammers
Member #2,604
August 2002
|
OK, light bulbs:
--- |
Thomas Fjellstrom
Member #476
June 2000
|
Tobias Dammers said: In cold areas, using low-energy bulbs is pretty much pointless. The energy you save on light also reduces the heating side effect of the bulb, which means you spend less on lighting and more on heating. I'm willing to bet that their efficiency is far less than the average furnace or space heater though, so really, its just wasting most of the heat. -- |
type568
Member #8,381
March 2007
|
Now how a simple heater can be of varying efficiency?
|
Matthew Leverton
Supreme Loser
January 1999
|
Tobias Dammers said: The energy you save on light also reduces the heating side effect of the bulb, which means you spend less on lighting and more on heating. If this point were valid, then you should use lightbulbs (or electricity) as your only source of heat. Quote: but it still takes them a whole friggin' time to reach their full brightness The bulbs here in the great USA apparently are superior. |
Johan Halmén
Member #1,550
September 2001
|
Matthew Leverton said: You can order a new sarcasm detector from me. I have three left in stock. Keep them isolated from your posts. Otherwise the warranty is void. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Years of thorough research have revealed that what people find beautiful about the Mandelbrot set is not the set itself, but all the rest. |
Vanneto
Member #8,643
May 2007
|
Tobias Dammers said: In cold areas, using low-energy bulbs is pretty much pointless. The energy you save on light also reduces the heating side effect of the bulb, which means you spend less on lighting and more on heating. I'm betting the money you save on electricity far outweighs the money you spend on the extra heating. In capitalist America bank robs you. |
Arthur Kalliokoski
Second in Command
February 2005
|
For a house using electrical resistance heating, bulbs would be just as efficient, except for disrupting the actual temperatures of particular rooms because of thermostat location. A house with a heat pump would see a rise in electrical usage due to the increased efficiency of heat pumps. For petroleum heated houses, no contest, bulbs are a terrible heating strategy. They all watch too much MSNBC... they get ideas. |
Bob
Free Market Evangelist
September 2000
|
Thomas Fjellstrom said: I'm willing to bet that their efficiency is far less than the average furnace or space heater though, so really, its just wasting most of the heat. It's been a long time since thermodynamics, but wouldn't that inefficiency result in heat dissipated (ie: the intended goal)? -- |
Arthur Kalliokoski
Second in Command
February 2005
|
Yes, but the point is that electrical resistance heating is far more expensive than alternatives. They all watch too much MSNBC... they get ideas. |
Thomas Fjellstrom
Member #476
June 2000
|
type568 said: Now how a simple heater can be of varying efficiency? Efficiency is basically the ratio of input to output in any given system. My forced air furnace, even though its 20+ years old, and probably running at 60% efficiency[1] is probably more efficient than the two 100W light bulbs I use to brighten up my living-room. At the very least, heating with gas here in alberta is far cheaper than using electricity, even with a proper electric heater. Short story, when my furnace died a couple months ago, I used my oven temporarily a couple times to bring the temperature up to a liveable level before the repair guy came. Turns out it cost me $20-40 for the few hours I had been using it for heat. It managed to slightly warm up my living room, which was nice, but wasn't worth $40. Especially since my furnace can do the same job with $1-4 in fuel. Bob said: It's been a long time since thermodynamics, but wouldn't that inefficiency result in heat dissipated (ie: the intended goal)? How long would it take a 100w lightbulb to heat my livingroom? And how much energy would it take as compared to my forced air natural gas powered furnace? Note that most light bulbs don't include a circulating mechanism, so its also going to take a long time for the heat to distribute itself in the room. References
-- |
Arthur Kalliokoski
Second in Command
February 2005
|
I remember back in 1998, I lived in a house heated by electrical resistance, and left my computer on all the time. This is how the conversation went (in February) Him: "You're leaving the computer on all the time! You're wasting electricity!" [EDIT] I suppose the extremely slight amount of electromagnetic radiations emanating from this computer could be considered to be wasted energy. I kept the case on though, and the resultant trapping of the electrical waves would just make the case warmer. They all watch too much MSNBC... they get ideas. |
|
|