Home  5  Books  5  GBEzine  5  News  5  HelpDesk  5  Register  5  GreenBuilding.co.uk
Not signed in (Sign In)

Categories



Green Building Bible, Fourth Edition
Green Building Bible, fourth edition (both books)
These two books are the perfect starting place to help you get to grips with one of the most vitally important aspects of our society - our homes and living environment.

PLEASE NOTE: A download link for Volume 1 will be sent to you by email and Volume 2 will be sent to you by post as a book.

Buy individually or both books together. Delivery is free!


powered by Surfing Waves




Vanilla 1.0.3 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.

Welcome to new Forum Visitors
Join the forum now and benefit from discussions with thousands of other green building fans and discounts on Green Building Press publications: Apply now.




  1.  
    I had an interesting conversation with a customer today. He claimed that the amount of electricity converted to light in a conventional light bulb is 2% maximum, the other 98% being converted to heat:shocked:

    Is he anywhere near right?
    • CommentAuthorchuckey
    • CommentTimeMay 5th 2009
     
    Yes. The way to look at it that with any "light" radiating thing (incandescent bulb, flouresent, LED etc) some power is radiated as visible light and some as infra-red light. The infra red component is proportionel to the emitters temperature to the forth power (double its temperature, sixteen times more I-R radiation). So with a filament glowing white hot (1500 deg C?) the I-R component is by far the largest. Compare this with a flourescent tube, its running considerabley cooler and its got its ballast choke inside that is just getting hot and wasting power, yet its overall efficiency is about five time that of an ordinary light bulb.
    Frank
    • CommentAuthorCWatters
    • CommentTimeMay 5th 2009
     
    See also..

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incandescent_light_bulb#Efficiency_comparisons
    • CommentAuthortony
    • CommentTimeMay 5th 2009
     
    What does he think happens to the other 2% ??? -- it is all converted to heat.
  2.  
    Posted By: tonyWhat does he think happens to the other 2% ??? -- it is all converted to heat.
    What about the light that escapes out of the windows? :wink:
    • CommentAuthortony
    • CommentTimeMay 6th 2009
     
    But that turns into heat too -- and we draw our curtains when the lights are on
    • CommentAuthorCWatters
    • CommentTimeMay 6th 2009
     
    Worth a read. The most efficient LED that could ever be made would be green...

    http://signweb.com/index.php/channel/12/id/3551

    The highest efficacy theoretically attainable (i.e., 100%) is 685 lumens per watt, the same which could be obtained if all the input power were converted to green light at a 555 nm wavelength, the number to which the human eye is most sensitive.

    The maximum theoretical efficacy of any white, light-producing source, one with its entire output power distributed uniformly (with respect to wavelength) in the visible region, is only 200 lumens per watt. Thus, by concentrating any light source’s output wavelength in close proximity to the 555 nm point, we can improve the efficacy beyond that possible with “perfect” white light, that comprising all visible wavelengths, with an equal amount of power in each wavelength.

    The efficacy of average present-day fluorescent lamps is about 60 to 70 lm/W, although some high-end ones rate higher. Comparatively, a typical incandescent light with15 lm/W efficacy is about 2% efficient -- 98% of its electrical power input becomes heat. An LED or CFL lamp, with 100lm/W, is about 14% efficient and 86% of its electrical power input converts to heat.

    Typically 98% of an incandescent lamp’s electrical power input converts into radiant heat and therefore designers discount heat removal; an LED emitting at 555 nm with 70lm/W, converts almost 90% into conductive heat, which must be removed for optimal lamp performance.

    If lighting engineers create a white light source where the electrical power input is uniformly distributed over all visible spectrum wavelengths, they would achieve the maximum theoretical efficacy of 200lm/W. The result is a white light source with perfect color rendering index (CRI).
    •  
      CommentAuthorPaulT
    • CommentTimeMay 6th 2009 edited
     
    Those numbers look right and confirm otther sources i have read.

    I am selling a GU10 low energy lighting system now and I demonstrate this by taking hold of a low energy bulb ***DO NOT DO THIS*** without losing skin off my fingers which would happen witha Halogen bulb (I have melted a fleece when working near such fittings).

    Interestingly another brand of low enrgy bulbs that are theoreticaly more efficient (costing Ă‚ÂŁ10 per bulb) are impossible to touch - Whilst just as bright (on my light meter) the heat output is a sure indication that they are not as efficient as claimed.

    (I usually use thermal imaging to check heat output from lighting systems, safer and an useful indicator)

    The most efficient indoor lights I have come across are T5 daylight 58W tubes at 95 lumens /Watt.

    External lights - Metal Halide and high pressure sodium get up to 120 lu/watts but in very large bulbs, although I have seen a Metal Halide GU10 spotlight with 3500 lumens output, at 50 W, not suitable for general use as looking at it would blind you! - lighting has to be usable and of the right quality!
  3.  
    Just curious, but does anyone know what the figures would be for gaslight?

    I'm hoping someone could prove that, after taking account of the power station efficiency, etc, it would be more efficient to light our homes with gaslight, then the common tungsten bulb.
  4.  
    Posted By: cloudy_thoughtsJust curious, but does anyone know what the figures would be for gaslight?
    I'm hoping someone could prove that, after taking account of the power station efficiency, etc, it would be more efficient to light our homes with gaslight, then the common tungsten bulb.


    I think it's unlikely as the operating temperature of a gaslight is much lower than a tungsten light (around 1000C versus 3000C for tungsten). The higher the temperature, the more energy is emitted in the visible spectrum rather than infra red. I would hazard a guess that it comes out exactly even :thumbup:

    Paul in Montreal.
    • CommentAuthorbillt
    • CommentTimeMay 7th 2009 edited
     
    Posted By: cloudy_thoughtsJust curious, but does anyone know what the figures would be for gaslight?


    According to wikipedias article on luminous efficacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminous_efficacy) candle light is 0.04% efficient and a gas mantle is 0.3% so it's not competitive even with normal tungsten lights.
  5.  
    Posted By: billtit's not competitive even with normal tungsten lights.

    What a shame.
  6.  
    I'm quite happy to use 2% efficient lightbulbs as I prefer not to make people sick:

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article6211261.ece

    It's still unclear whether the inevitable environmental pollution caused by fluorescent tubes will become a problem. I certainly would not fit CFLs in lamps that could be knocked over if there were young children in the house.

    T
    •  
      CommentAuthorfostertom
    • CommentTimeMay 8th 2009
     
    As CFLs work by exciting various metallic gasses incl. mercury to bathe us in their characteristic complex wave pattern, that's equivalent to taking e.g. mercury, certainly as a homeopathic remedy of uncontrolled potency, which may or not beneficiial or harmful; maybe also or alternatively mercury as the gross poison that it is.

    The effect of the chemical world that our immune systems have to navigate and auto-correct within, goes far deeper than simply imbibing by nose, mouth or skin contact - it includes radiation signatures (and even more subtle means, I could add) too. And don't give us the old guff about 'no detectable warming of brain cells by microwave power' because we're talking much more fundamental than that.
  7.  
    Tom.

    sunlight also contains the same characteristic mercury "complex wave patterns". Is this why sunlight causes skin cancer?

    Paul in Montreal.
    • CommentAuthorSimonH
    • CommentTimeMay 8th 2009
     
    <blockquote><cite>Posted By: tom.harrigan</cite>I'm quite happy to use 2% efficient lightbulbs as I prefer not to make people sick:

    <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article6211261.ece">http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article6211261.ece</a>

    It's still unclear whether the inevitable environmental pollution caused by fluorescent tubes will become a problem. I certainly would not fit CFLs in lamps that could be knocked over if there were young children in the house.

    T</blockquote>

    But what condistions and toxins do workers who make convenstional lightbulbs have to work in? Poor quality control and non existent human rights exists across the board - not just for CFLs!
    • CommentAuthorCWatters
    • CommentTimeMay 8th 2009 edited
     
    Posted By: fostertomAs CFLs work by exciting various metallic gasses incl. mercury to bathe us in their characteristic complex wave pattern, that's equivalent to taking e.g. mercury, certainly as a homeopathic remedy of uncontrolled potency, which may or not beneficiial or harmful; maybe also or alternatively mercury as the gross poison that it is.


    I believe all the heavy metals in the universe were originally formed in first generation stars. These seeded the sun with heavy metals (0.5% I think) so following that argument sunlight must be incredibly bad. The wave pattern (spectrum?) will be far more complex than from a CFL bulb.

    Tunsten (as used in ordinary light bulbs) has been implicated in cases of leukemia although wikipedia says the link is unproven, and as for the halogens well... anyone think they are good for you?

    Incidentally the coating on low E glass is also metalic.

    There is also the question of what happens when light is reflected off metals like chrome plated taps. Is that also bad homeopathically speaking?
    •  
      CommentAuthorfostertom
    • CommentTimeMay 8th 2009
     
    Posted By: Paul in Montrealsunlight also contains the same characteristic mercury "complex wave patterns". Is this why sunlight causes skin cancer
    Hi Paul - shall we re-run this one?!

    The fact that homeopathic medicine has worked for the last 300yrs, and so does the new breed of Resonance medicine (e.g. the Doc McCoy Startrek bleepers developed (Kosmed) for the Russian astronauts and widely used in ex-Soviet hospitals), is a big challenge to the habits of western scientific thinking. Principally the western assumption that effect is a function of density or concentration of the agent. E.g. that any harm from mobile phone use or other electromagnetics is roughly dependent on the duration and/or intensity of exposure. So all that's necessary is to prove that the intensity is insignificant, or to tackle any harm by technical efforts to reduce exposure.

    In homeopathy, a fundamental principle, amply proved empirically, is that 'potency' increases exponentially with successive dilution of the remedy, during preparation. Successive order-of-magnitude dilutions quickly result in a little soluble pill which in probability contains not a single molecule of the original active ingredient - and the higher that probability, the greater the potency of the preparation, in line with the well-proved medical effect of the original ingredient.

    Homeopathy rarely deals with named diseases, like common cold or cancer, but concentrates on fine observation of the symptoms of the case. Another principle is that, to treat symptoms resembling e.g. the effects of mercury poisoning, the remedy is a potentised (i.e. extremely diluted) preparation of mercury. Like treats like.

    So homeopathy shows that the effect (for good or bad) of a 'signal' does not correlate with its strength. A weak signal may be orders of magnitude more 'potent' than a strong one. It's true that at the level of gross poisoning, whether by an environmental chemical, or by radiation in the environment, reducing the pollutant does reduce the effect. But only up to a point. Once very low levels are reached, other bodily mechanisms of response kick in, involving resonance amplification (i.e. the body postulates a signal, and if it resonates with the incoming weak signal, amplification occurs - the principle of the MRI scanner and many other advanced amplification systems). Then effect increases as signal strength decreases.

    So this is a long way to say that just because something's naturally present in the environment, doesn't mean it's safe to inject more of the same, or do it in novel ways that may crucially influence the way the body 'reads' the signal, for better or worse. Rigid doctrinaire western science is utterly blind to this proposition, and on principle has no data on it, no 'handle' to deal with it. Not so in the east - such concepts are widely used at all levels, both traditionally, and in new science.
  8.  
    Posted By: fostertomIn homeopathy, a fundamental principle, amply proved empirically, is that 'potency' increases exponentially with successive dilution of the remedy, during preparation. Successive order-of-magnitude dilutions quickly result in a little soluble pill which in probability contains not a single molecule of the original active ingredient - and the higher that probability, the greater the potency of the preparation, in line with the well-proved medical effect of the original ingredient

    In other words, nothing works better.

    Not quite sure what all this has to do with light bulbs. I try to keep an open mind, but what you say goes against common observation. As you reduce the concentration of something the less the body feels it, whether it be taste, heat, light, feel. Once you divide something down to nothing I can't see how it can have any more or less effect than the 'nothing' from some other place, nor why 'nothing' is always good and never bad. Is it possible to have 'good' nothings and 'bad' nothings? If you have some 'nothing' how long does it last? Can I keep it in a jar, etc?
    •  
      CommentAuthorfostertom
    • CommentTimeMay 8th 2009 edited
     
    Posted By: cloudy_thoughtswhat you say goes against common observation. As you reduce the concentration of something the less the body feels it
    That's true, within the observable range. It's when things get tiny that it gets interesting.

    Posted By: cloudy_thoughtsOnce you divide something down to nothing
    It's not nothing, it's the trace or record of it, in the medium (i.e. water, thanks to its bizzare and unique properties), that carries the 'signal'.

    Posted By: cloudy_thoughtswhy 'nothing' is always good and never bad
    Who said that?

    Intentionality comes into it too.
  9.  
    Posted By: fostertomThe fact that homeopathic medicine has worked for the last 300yrs,

    For unix geeks, just do a sed -e s/homeopathic/placebo/g and everything still reads the same. Stating something as a "fact" does not make it so. Even Western medicine is subject to the placebo effect (e.g. antidepressants etc.). That's not to say such treatments don't work or are not effective, but to make the leap and say the emission spectrum of mercury is harmful because mercury is a poison is ludicrous. I'll concede the UV radiation tends to have negative health benefits, but that's true of UV in general, not just UV emissions that are part of the mercury spectrum. There's many UV emitters that are present in the solar atmosphere, not just mercury. It's funny how people start complaining about mercury in CFLs, but had nothing to say about mercury in traditional fluorescent lights (not that I find them particularly pleasant colour-wise).

    By the way, most white LEDs are, in fact, ultra-violet emitters with similar phosphors to those used in CFLs to give their white light output. I wonder if people will start complaining about the negative health benefits of these? I guess once that meme makes it into the media, there will be some people who claim to be affected.

    Paul in Montreal.
    • CommentAuthormarktime
    • CommentTimeMay 22nd 2009
     
    With respect, Tom, doesn't your brain fry when you re-read this?

    "In homeopathy, a fundamental principle, amply proved empirically, is that 'potency' increases exponentially with successive dilution of the remedy, during preparation. Successive order-of-magnitude dilutions quickly result in a little soluble pill which in probability contains not a single molecule of the original active ingredient - and the higher that probability, the greater the potency of the preparation, in line with the well-proved medical effect of the original ingredient."
  10.  
    Posted By: marktime which in probability contains not a single molecule of the original active ingredient - and the higher that probability, the greater the potency


    Doesn't that mean that everything that isn't an homeopathic preparation is effectively an infinitely effective homeopathic remedy?

    J :confused:
  11.  
    Posted By: James NortonDoesn't that mean that everything that isn't an homeopathic preparation is effectively an infinitely effective homeopathic remedy?

    No, I think something called Intentionality is used to explain that bit of doublethink
  12.  
    Is the road to hell is paved with good intentionality....?

    J

    PS What about the light bulbs?
    • CommentAuthorRobinB
    • CommentTimeMay 23rd 2009
     
    Lightbulbs ! Would it make sense if all lightbulbs were labelled with lumens rather than watts?

    When all lightbulbs were tungsten (or fluorescent tube) measuring by watts made more sense and I could judge pretty well how bright it would be. Personally I think CFLs overstate their output when the try to express is in tungsten-equivalent-watts and I have recently bought LED replacement for standard GU10 Ă‚ÂŁ6.99 instead of Ă‚ÂŁ1 for halogen and they are way too dim to be any use.

    Any suggestions please for high output, low energy, standard bayonet fitting bulbs e.g. 150W equivalent and up?
    • CommentAuthorCWatters
    • CommentTimeMay 23rd 2009
     
    Perhaps try some of these..

    http://ebulbshop.com/acatalog/Low_Energy_Pendants.html

    Note that some are larger diameter than others and it can be hard to find lampshades for those.
    • CommentAuthorMike George
    • CommentTimeMay 24th 2009 edited
     
    Posted By: RobinBLightbulbs ! Would it make sense if all lightbulbs were labelled with lumens rather than watts?


    Yes, and watts/lumen would make it all so easy to judge the best ones wouldn't it.
    • CommentAuthorralphd
    • CommentTimeMay 25th 2009
     
    Posted By: RobinBLightbulbs ! Would it make sense if all lightbulbs were labelled with lumens rather than watts?

    That's normal on this side of the pond. They usually have the color temperature or CRI as well.
    The most recent ones I purhcased were Globe brand, 13W, 800 lumens, soft white. The packaging says they output light equivalent to a 60W standard bulb. I paid about $10 for a pack of 6.

    -Ralph
    •  
      CommentAuthorjoe90
    • CommentTimeMay 26th 2009
     
    How efficient is the electric light bulb?

    From what I have read (and correct me if I am wrong) the ineffiecient % of the electricity used running a bulb is wasted in heat!. So If I build a passivehous its not wasted?. So for a new build can I use this as an argument with the planers and count the lighting load as part of the heat load calculations?
   
The Ecobuilding Buzz
Site Map    |   Home    |   View Cart    |   Pressroom   |   Business   |   Links   
Logout    

© Green Building Press