Quote:
Originally Posted by jambutty
I have never stated that the new LE bulbs are not cheaper to run. Indeed I have acknowledged that they are.
My point is that they are not as cost effective as the normal light bulb when you take into account the cost to buy and the life of each type, as I have already explained.
My other point is that a LE bulb rated at 60w but in fact uses 11w of energy is not quite as bright as a normal 60w bulb that uses 60w of energy. My proof being that with my calculator being a fixed distance from a light source needs to be closer to an LE bulb than it does to a normal bulb to work. All this spectrum stuff was introduced by Cyfr in some attempt to discredit my observations about my calculator.
|
Right i'll attempt again to explain it though my patience is thinning.
You can
*not* use a calculator to determine how good or 'bright' a light source is.
You can't do this because calculators work from light energy. They don't express how well you see things, they can only express how much energy is there in terms of light.
Light comes in all different colours, some we can see some we can't. The different types of light are all different wavelengths all with different energy levels.
I've explained how Low Energy lightbulbs work, and as a result of the way they work they emit a white light but with more focus on the lower end of the spectrum with shorter wavelengths (The Blues) where as filament bulbs focus more on the red side of the spectrum with longer wavelengths.
Solar cells do not simply work off any light. They only work off light with certain frequencies which happens to be the red end of the spectrum, hence they don't work as well with low energy bulbs because they give off more of the blue end of the spectrum which solar panels can't use.
However this
does not mean the low energy bulbs are less bright they simply emit a different side of the spectrum more strongly, if you could measure ALL the energy given off in terms of light im sure there would be enough to power your calculator properly, just not in its current form due to the inefficiency of solar cells.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Jambutty
The point about these LE bulbs that some people don’t seem to have considered is the amount of energy consumed in making them compared to making a normal bulb. It has to be more. If were to hazard a guess I would suggest that the net result will be that the normal light bulb is more energy/cost efficient than the new LE bulbs.
|
Don't make such enormous assumptions such as "The energy consumed in making them compared to a normal bulb has to be more" because at the very least its a very misguided statement. I don't know for fact how much energy is used to make either bulbs, but I know you also don't know. If you happen to be right, then i'm sure the benefits of lower energy consumption easily balance any additional manufacture energy. If you can prove otherwise then I would love to hear it, but so far it seems to be a complete bombshell of a statement without any tangible evidence.
At the end of the day you're welcome to continue using traditional lightbulbs without a bad conscience. However I would hope that the rest of the country are not as stubborn and help to reduce energy consumption for the better of everyone.