Bulbs first, flatscreens second, vacuum cleaners next?

[Flame Of Liberty]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

What the hell are you even talking about?

perhaps you are more familiar with the frog-in-the-boiling-water concept?
Canadians have been sitting in the water for so long they dont even their are cooked like a hard boiled egg.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by Slava

Right...I get that. Over what period of time do they use that wattage though? Is it an hour? I really have no idea.

I think you're misunderstanding the physics.

Power is measured in watts. It is the rate of energy use. It's (bad physics analogy ahead) like the spedometer in your car. If it says 80 km/h, you're going at that rate. Power is the rate you're using energy.

Energy is charged in kw*h units, which you would use if you used a device rated for 1 kw for one hour.

In SI units, Watt = 1 Joule/second, where Joule is a unit of energy.

[photon]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

That does matter. The time it takes to get your money back is an important part of your return. Would you pay $1.00 to get 1 cent per year back for the next 120 years? Probably not. The time value of money plays a part in a replacement analysis.

Well that's true, once something takes more than 5 years to pay for itself it's probably something I don't want to do since too much could change between now and then.

Originally Posted by bizaro86

On the other hand, if we're going to limit the discussion to higher quality CFLs, then we should use the higher price for the economic analysis.

True, so you could just put it in terms of hours.

So 60W vs 14W, $18 for 3 Phillips at Home Depot.

60W is 0.48 cents per hour
14W is 0.112 cents per hour
So a savings of 0.368 cents per hour
600 cents for the bulb
So the bulb will pay for itself in 1630 hours of use.

Or in terms of lifespan, as long as the CFL lasts more than twice as long as the incandescent in the same socket you are still ahead.

[Tinordi]

Originally Posted by Flame Of Liberty

perhaps you are more familiar with the frog-in-the-boiling-water concept?
Canadians have been sitting in the water for so long they dont even their are cooked like a hard boiled egg.

Because the EU is regulating minimum efficiency standards?

[jonesy]

Originally Posted by You Need a Thneed

^^^

let's say you have your bulbs on 8 hours a day on average. A 60W bulb would cost you ~$14 per year per bulb. A 6W LED replacement bulb will cost you $1.40 per year per bulb, and last 10 times as long. I picked up some 6W LED bulbs online for $10 a piece (on sale) a couple of months ago. At that price, I recoup the cost of the bulbs in less than a year, and considering my kitchen has four such bulbs, every year after that, I save $50 in electricity cost. That's just for ONE room in my house.

CFL bulbs absolutely do NOT last 10 years. That is the rub. That number is completely false advertising. They also have Mercury in them. The cost to 'recycle' them outweighs their advantage. CFL's are a fail. LED bulbs are the only hope, but as of yet they suffer from things, such as non instantaneous on time, capacitors dying in the drive circuits and worst of all, a very limited 'view angle.

[You Need a Thneed]

Originally Posted by Slava

Right...I get that. Over what period of time do they use that wattage though? Is it an hour? I really have no idea.

Power usage - i.e. "60W" - is not a function of time. The bulb would use 60 Watt seconds per second, or 60 watt hours (0.06 kWh) per hour.

Since the AC current in your house is 120 Volts (Volts is like the size of a water pipe), a 60 watt bulb will use 0.5 amps ( Amps is like how fast the water is flowing through the pipe) of power. (watts = volts x amps)

Watts, then, if relating to the pipe comparison, is a multiplier of how big the pipe is times how fast the water is flowing, or more simply, the volume of water going through the pipe at any one instant.

Someone with a little more of an electrical background could probably explain it better than I just did.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by photon

Well that's true, once something takes more than 5 years to pay for itself it's probably something I don't want to do since too much could change between now and then.

<snip>
So the bulb will pay for itself in 1630 hours of use.

If we set a five year minimum payout period to switch, which seems reasonable, and the bulb pays for itself in 1630 hours, you need to use it 53.5 minutes per day to make it pay.

(1630 hours/5/365*60minutes per hour)

That seems intuitively reasonable to me as an "answer." Since I use almost none of my lights more than 1 hour per day, I think I'll continue to buy incandescents for most outlets. Other people with different usage patterns might have a different course of action.

That also assumes you are not willing to pay extra for any potential environmental benefits. I'm not, but YMMV.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by You Need a Thneed

Someone with a little more of an electrical background could probably explain it better than I just did.

I took a try in post 82. Turns out its easier for me to learn physics than teach it.

[jonesy]

Originally Posted by You Need a Thneed

Power usage - i.e. "60W" - is not a function of time. The bulb would use 60 Watt seconds per second, or 60 watt hours (0.06 kWh) per hour.

Since the AC current in your house is 120 Volts (Volts is like the size of a water pipe), a 60 watt bulb will use 0.5 amps ( Amps is like how fast the water is flowing through the pipe) of power. (watts = volts x amps)

Watts, then, if relating to the pipe comparison, is a multiplier of how big the pipe is times how fast the water is flowing, or more simply, the volume of water going through the pipe at any one instant.

Someone with a little more of an electrical background could probably explain it better than I just did.

CFL bulbs are note purely resistive and have a power factor which ranges from 0.6 - 0.9 or so depending on the bulb. Non resistive loads can screw up the efficiency of power delivery in the grid.

[photon]

Originally Posted by Flame Of Liberty

perhaps you are more familiar with the frog-in-the-boiling-water concept?
Canadians have been sitting in the water for so long they dont even their are cooked like a hard boiled egg.

http://www.snopes.com/critters/wild/frogboil.asp

When your analogy isn't even true it doesn't hold much hope for the actual claim (which not sure what that is).

[You Need a Thneed]

Originally Posted by jonesy

CFL bulbs absolutely do NOT last 10 years. That is the rub. That number is completely false advertising. They also have Mercury in them. The cost to 'recycle' them outweighs their advantage. CFL's are a fail. LED bulbs are the only hope, but as of yet they suffer from things, such as non instantaneous on time, capacitors dying in the drive circuits and worst of all, a very limited 'view angle.

My post you quoted does not mention CFL bulbs. They do however, last longer than incandescents, the exact amount depends on how much you use them, and your useage pattern. LEDs don't have the same problems as CFLs with premature burning out, as usually it is the ballasts in CFLs that go. LEDs do not have ballasts, or even capacitors, as you say.

I don't know where you are getting that LED bulbs do not have an instantaneous on time. In reality, LED bulbs come on faster than even incandescents do.

Again, LED bulbs don't have capacitors. At the very least, they are far more reliable than CFLs, and certainly even more reliable than incandescents. They are also significantly more durable than CFLs and incandescents. Try dropping a CFL or a incandescent on the floor and trying to see if they still work.

The limited view angle can be an issue, but many LED bulbs throw light in most directions. You can get LED bulbs for different applications. In many fixtures, the light thrown backwards by a CFL or incandescent is nothing more than wasted light (i.e. pot lights and track lighting). Even in lamps, it not really a big deal, other than the lamp shade looking a little different.

[Flame Of Liberty]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

Because the EU is regulating minimum efficiency standards?

what efficiency standards? They are setting the max at 900w, regardless of thd efficiency of the electromotor.
There isnt a single thing left untouched by the all-regulating hand of the EU bureaucrat. Just another slice of salami, just another degree of celsius for the frog. Its not about the vacuums its about the sad fact that people dont even care about the regulation spreading everywhere.

[You Need a Thneed]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

I took a try in post 82. Turns out its easier for me to learn physics than teach it.

It should be said that both your "Watt = Joule per second", and my "Watt = Volts times amps" are correct.

[Rubicant]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

I think you're misunderstanding the physics.

Power is measured in watts. It is the rate of energy use. It's (bad physics analogy ahead) like the spedometer in your car. If it says 80 km/h, you're going at that rate. Power is the rate you're using energy.

Energy is charged in kw*h units, which you would use if you used a device rated for 1 kw for one hour.

In SI units, Watt = 1 Joule/second, where Joule is a unit of energy.

Physics teacher approves.

[Flame Of Liberty]

Originally Posted by photon

http://www.snopes.com/critters/wild/frogboil.asp

When your analogy isn't even true it doesn't hold much hope for the actual claim (which not sure what that is).

hey! I used the salami analogy

[jonesy]

Originally Posted by You Need a Thneed

My post you quoted does not mention CFL bulbs. They do however, last longer than incandescents, the exact amount depends on how much you use them, and your useage pattern. LEDs don't have the same problems as CFLs with premature burning out, as usually it is the ballasts in CFLs that go. LEDs do not have ballasts, or even capacitors, as you say.

I don't know where you are getting that LED bulbs do not have an instantaneous on time. In reality, LED bulbs come on faster than even incandescents do.

Again, LED bulbs don't have capacitors. At the very least, they are far more reliable than CFLs, and certainly even more reliable than incandescents. They are also significantly more durable than CFLs and incandescents. Try dropping a CFL or a incandescent on the floor and trying to see if they still work.

The limited view angle can be an issue, but many LED bulbs throw light in most directions. You can get LED bulbs for different applications. In many fixtures, the light thrown backwards by a CFL or incandescent is nothing more than wasted light (i.e. pot lights and track lighting). Even in lamps, it not really a big deal, other than the lamp shade looking a little different.

LED bulbs have high voltage caps in the drive circuit, that is what fails. An LED itself can be rated for 50,000 hours, but the capacitor is typically rated for 25,000 hours or less. The spec. they give is the LED, not the product as a whole. False advertising.

The on time is variable and goes up as the Capacitor degrades. It can be in the 100's of msec easily on a bulb with only a few hundred hours on it.

The angle is very important, try putting an LED bulb in a fixture with the bulb turned to the side. The amount of light projected down is about one third of an incandescant.

[photon]

Originally Posted by jonesy

LED bulbs are the only hope, but as of yet they suffer from things, such as non instantaneous on time, capacitors dying in the drive circuits and worst of all, a very limited 'view angle.

The bulb that won the first L Prize doesn't have any issue with on-time or view angle (part of the requirements of the L Prize). And any issue with capacitors drying would be from quality control or poor caps or poor design, not with the fact that it's LED. ETA: You already mention that above I see.

[You Need a Thneed]

Originally Posted by jonesy

LED bulbs have high voltage caps in the drive circuit, that is what fails. An LED itself can be rated for 50,000 hours, but the capacitor is typically rated for 25,000 hours or less. The spec. they give is the LED, not the product as a whole. False advertising.

The on time is variable and goes up as the Capacitor degrades. It can be in the 100's of msec easily on a bulb with only a few hundred hours on it.

The angle is very important, try putting an LED bulb in a fixture with the bulb turned to the side. The amount of light projected down is about one third of an incandescant.

Not really any different than the "false advertising" on CFL bulbs then. Either way, they are still easily the longest lasting bulb, by a significant margin.

For "on time" measurements, I'm not really concerned about the actual time. They are faster than incandescents are to reach full brightness. Of course, CFLs are way behind.

Angle is important, but that's why there are different bulbs for different applications. You can find an LED bulb that will be acceptable for virtually every application. However, in most cases, people will find that angle isn't as important as they thought it would be. We want light where we are looking, but don't necessarily need everything else in the room lit up.

[photon]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

Since I use almost none of my lights more than 1 hour per day, I think I'll continue to buy incandescents for most outlets. Other people with different usage patterns might have a different course of action.

Exactly, families with kids need more light as there's usually people in more rooms. Winter is long and light's needed after 5pm to do almost anything, some bulbs in my house get used probably only a few hours per year, while others get used half the day almost every day.

Originally Posted by bizaro86

That also assumes you are not willing to pay extra for any potential environmental benefits. I'm not, but YMMV.

Hence the need for legislation

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by jonesy

CFL bulbs are note purely resistive and have a power factor which ranges from 0.6 - 0.9 or so depending on the bulb. Non resistive loads can screw up the efficiency of power delivery in the grid.

That is interesting, thanks, didn't know that.

Does the power meter we get billed on measure real power or apparent power?