Accrington Web

Accrington Web (https://www.accringtonweb.com/forum/index.php)
-   General Chat (https://www.accringtonweb.com/forum/f69/)
-   -   New bulbs. (https://www.accringtonweb.com/forum/f69/new-bulbs-29124.html)

Neil 13-03-2007 18:26

Re: New bulbs.
 
Maybe he could try placing coloured filters over the solar cell and see the effect with both types of lamps.

Lampman 13-03-2007 18:33

Re: New bulbs.
 
B'Jesus I'm sorry I started this thread....headaching now!:confused:

Neil 13-03-2007 18:38

Re: New bulbs.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Lampman (Post 397203)
B'Jesus I'm sorry I started this thread....headaching now!:confused:

You are a trouble maker :D :D :D

entwisi 13-03-2007 19:45

Re: New bulbs.
 
and your a stir-rer sir!

or is it all that mercury in landfill thats got into Ossies water supply :D

Neil 13-03-2007 19:46

Re: New bulbs.
 
Maybe thats what is wrong with those that live around Whinny Hill :D

entwisi 13-03-2007 19:57

Re: New bulbs.
 
I think you need more than contaminated water to put up with the stink from "The Tip"

Neil 13-03-2007 20:02

Re: New bulbs.
 
It makes me laugh how the people in the new houses up there complain about the smell. Er hello you bought a house next to a tip what do you expect?

Ianto.W. 13-03-2007 20:31

Re: New bulbs.
 
What bugs me about this thread is the amount of times references are being made to qualify certain members arguments, is reference 'wikepedia' and the like, I myself have never visited these sites and rely only on past experience to back up my theory, so do not seek to pontificate from an encyclopedia on us old uns that have been there and done it. ;)

entwisi 13-03-2007 20:42

Re: New bulbs.
 
Past experience gained from where Ianto? At some point someone had to find that info out. be it a text book, or any other method, there is always a point of reference. an encyclopedia is just such a tool. wikipedia is just an open source version of such. They are just as valid (if not more so as there is no chinese proverb effect) as your past experience

Ianto.W. 13-03-2007 21:09

Re: New bulbs.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by entwisi (Post 397363)
Past experience gained from where Ianto? At some point someone had to find that info out. be it a text book, or any other method, there is always a point of reference. an encyclopedia is just such a tool. wikipedia is just an open source version of such. They are just as valid (if not more so as there is no chinese proverb effect) as your past experience

The piont is Ian these were not available to us old sparks, only to you bright sparks. A 6year apprenticeship many mistakes and 'belts' taught jambutty and myself the game, not a world wide web. You should bless the day that you and your fellow experts were born into the generation you are in.;)

andrewb 13-03-2007 21:17

Re: New bulbs.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Ianto.W. (Post 397339)
What bugs me about this thread is the amount of times references are being made to qualify certain members arguments, is reference 'wikepedia' and the like, I myself have never visited these sites and rely only on past experience to back up my theory, so do not seek to pontificate from an encyclopedia on us old uns that have been there and done it. ;)

I must confess I had to research the solar cell's working better with red light rather than blue on the internet but the rest of what i've wrote in this thread is knowledge I already had.

I spent quite a long time making sure I understood things correctly, and in terms of researching the solar panels I made sure that a number of sources mentioned it. I think the physics behind it is quite high level so its not the easiest thing to find, and I won't even attempt to try and learn it because, well, sometimes you need to accept things without fully understanding them. Something Jambutty isnt used to!

entwisi 14-03-2007 07:35

Re: New bulbs.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Ianto.W. (Post 397390)
The piont is Ian these were not available to us old sparks, only to you bright sparks. A 6year apprenticeship many mistakes and 'belts' taught jambutty and myself the game, not a world wide web. You should bless the day that you and your fellow experts were born into the generation you are in.;)

So when on an apprenticeship you didn't have some old lag to teach you? No one told you anything about it? There have been these things called books for quite some time now. I know you and Jambutty seem ancient :D but I'm sure books predate both of you. The only difference then to now is that I don't have to trail to the library, look through wjhat they had, search teh index, order a particular book and wait for it to be delivered. Now I click a few buttons and the info is there. The info itself has probably chanegd very little, just the ease of access to it.

I work in an environment where I'm at the bleeding edge of web technologies. I have to research whats happening and how it works just like you did when serving your time. only thing with me is that the stuff I research is in constant flux so you can't assume stuff you learnt about it 3 weeks ago is still valid or the best practice now of how its being used.

DeShark 14-03-2007 07:56

Re: New bulbs.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by jambutty (Post 397085)
Very true but how much heat does a torch with a blue filter over the lens produce that can have an affect on my calculator? Undoubtedly some infrared will filter through as well as will other spectral colours because the blue filter is unlikely to be a perfect blue.

The bottom line is that my calculator will be activated by light from any source and it is the brightness (or amount measured in lumins) of light falling on the solar panel that will determine at what point the calculator will become operative. Where the light comes from or what colour it is, is irrelevant. The blue end of the spectrum has more energy than the red end and therefore I conclude that more energy means a brighter light. With a 10% differential between the outer limits of the spectrum as shown by http://www.iee.cz/iwtpv04/6-Pociask.ppt slide number 32 it is hardly a major factor.

In any case the point being made applies to, presumably, a modern solar cell. My calculator is more than 20 years old.

The only way we could completely say that it's not just the IR that is responsible for power production in your calculator we'd need to block the infrared light from hitting the solar panel without blocking the visible As you can see at - http://members.misty.com/don/irfilter.html - it's not the cheapest nor easiest thing to do.

I hesitate to suggest it, but a sheet of glass may be a reasonable makeshift blocker of infrared light. Placing say your magnifying glass over the solar panel might wield some interesting results but it's nowhere near a perfect filter. What we could do instead is find a source which produces the same luminosity but doesn't emit as much infrared and see what effect that has. Which would be... a LE bulb. Luminosity and radiance are two different things. The incandescant bulb is more radiant but the two are both equally (as near as will make a difference to your calculator) luminous. I have to go though now cause I have a lecture soon.

Your argument about blue light = more energy = more power produced by the calculator is not correct as I pointed out. The blue photons are not able to produce an electron hole as they have *too much* energy and hence cannot be absorbed. You can research all this yourself I'm sure and show me a webpage or quote a textbook. Big library here I'm sure I'll find a copy. Nice debate, it's causing me to remember my quantum phys from a-level. As well as teaching me various things about solar panels and LE bulbs.

DeShark 14-03-2007 12:00

Re: New bulbs.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by DeShark (Post 397447)
Your argument about blue light = more energy = more power produced by the calculator is not correct as I pointed out. The blue photons are not able to produce an electron hole as they have *too much* energy and hence cannot be absorbed. You can research all this yourself I'm sure and show me a webpage or quote a textbook. Big library here I'm sure I'll find a copy. Nice debate, it's causing me to remember my quantum phys from a-level. As well as teaching me various things about solar panels and LE bulbs.

I was in quite a rush when I first wrote that and wasn't quite thinking straight. In fact, I was almost talking gibberish. It's hard to explain all this without explaining the structure of the atom, absorption of a photon by an atom, electron excitation, covalent bonding and the effect of an incident (incoming) photon on such a covalent material. Thus I'll have to simplify the model somewhat.

In a typical solar panel (The things haven't changed much since their invention except in the purity of the silicon produced), there is a layer of a semi-conduction material (silicon with impurities embedded). The atoms in this layer share electrons with each other and the lorentz forces (electro-magnetic) between nuclei and electrons will keep the atoms and electrons held together. The electrons can be either "localised" (restricted to move around one or two atoms) or "delocalised" (free to move around the whole structure). (Roughly speaking) When the electrons are delocalised, the material is conductive but when the electrons are localised, the material is an electric insulator. When a metal (conductor) is subjected to incoming photons of high enough energy the electrons are given the energy of the photon which increases their speed enough for them to leave the metal completely (aka The photo-electric effect). In a semi-conductor (such as silicon) the electrons are on the border of conducting and non-conducting.

You could say your solar panel is like Goldilocks. If a photon comes in with too little energy, the electrons are unable to move into a free state. They remain "bound" to the atom and do not conduct. If a photon comes in with too much energy, the energy cannot be given to the electron. The energy is converted to heat. The silicon layer heats up and does not conduct. If however, the energy is "just right", the silicon layer becomes conductive, the electrons can flow freely and an electric current is induced. This amount of energy which is "just right" is known as the "band-gap energy". As I said before, for silicon it's about 1.1 eV (electron-volts). This is infrared light.

I really can't spell it out any more.
The bottom line is that your calculator will NOT be activated by light from any source and it is NOT the brightness (or amount measured in lumins) of light falling on the solar panel that will determine at what point the calculator will become operative. It depends on the frequency of the light and how intense *that specific* frequency is.

Ianto.W. 14-03-2007 12:09

Re: New bulbs.
 
Quote:

entwisi. I know you and Jambutty seem ancient but I'm sure books predate both of you
I was quite amused by this statement Ian, I was also predated by the booze that prompted me to 'liven' this thread up. As a 15 year old we did not rewire houses we converted them from gaslight, everything was done with hand tools, not the electric type which we did not have anyway, flourescent lighting was very crude and heavy in those days, so yes books are about the only thing that predated us, just imagine fitting a switch to a stone wall without an electric drill.;)

entwisi 14-03-2007 12:46

Re: New bulbs.
 
Glad it amused you :D

BTW, I've had to use hand drills before now thanks.... My dad used to make me use a hand drill when he was teaching me to drill out broken cylinder head bolts so I would be more careful! :D

Ianto.W. 14-03-2007 13:03

Re: New bulbs.
 
That was his way of instilling some self dicipline into you, he must have a sense of humour as these bolts are high tensile, if he gave you a blunt drill you would be at it a long time. Off topic I know, the 'drill' we used was called a jumping bit which you struck with a hammer and spun at after each belt, a smaller version of the stardrill used for 'rawlbolts':D

andrewb 14-03-2007 15:51

Re: New bulbs.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by DeShark (Post 397478)


I was in quite a rush when I first wrote that and wasn't quite thinking straight. In fact, I was almost talking gibberish. It's hard to explain all this without explaining the structure of the atom, absorption of a photon by an atom, electron excitation, covalent bonding and the effect of an incident (incoming) photon on such a covalent material. Thus I'll have to simplify the model somewhat.

In a typical solar panel (The things haven't changed much since their invention except in the purity of the silicon produced), there is a layer of a semi-conduction material (silicon with impurities embedded). The atoms in this layer share electrons with each other and the lorentz forces (electro-magnetic) between nuclei and electrons will keep the atoms and electrons held together. The electrons can be either "localised" (restricted to move around one or two atoms) or "delocalised" (free to move around the whole structure). (Roughly speaking) When the electrons are delocalised, the material is conductive but when the electrons are localised, the material is an electric insulator. When a metal (conductor) is subjected to incoming photons of high enough energy the electrons are given the energy of the photon which increases their speed enough for them to leave the metal completely (aka The photo-electric effect). In a semi-conductor (such as silicon) the electrons are on the border of conducting and non-conducting.

You could say your solar panel is like Goldilocks. If a photon comes in with too little energy, the electrons are unable to move into a free state. They remain "bound" to the atom and do not conduct. If a photon comes in with too much energy, the energy cannot be given to the electron. The energy is converted to heat. The silicon layer heats up and does not conduct. If however, the energy is "just right", the silicon layer becomes conductive, the electrons can flow freely and an electric current is induced. This amount of energy which is "just right" is known as the "band-gap energy". As I said before, for silicon it's about 1.1 eV (electron-volts). This is infrared light.

I really can't spell it out any more.
The bottom line is that your calculator will NOT be activated by light from any source and it is NOT the brightness (or amount measured in lumins) of light falling on the solar panel that will determine at what point the calculator will become operative. It depends on the frequency of the light and how intense *that specific* frequency is.

Very well written, making it easy to understand (although does require some assumed knowledge to fully understand whats going on), but thats understandable because this isn't really the place to be teaching full modules :p

It backs up my argument very well, which I haven't been able to do as I didn't properly understand why the blue light didn't work, I just knew it didn't. However it's now much clearer to me, and most importantly Jambutty will now fully understand why his calculator fails to work as well under Low Energy lightbulbs of equal brightness! :D

Neil 14-03-2007 17:46

Re: New bulbs.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Cyfr (Post 397559)
most importantly Jambutty will now fully understand why his calculator fails to work as well under Low Energy lightbulbs of equal brightness! :D

I am not too sure on that. It mean having to admit he was wrong.
He will most likely think up some way around admitting it :rolleyes: :D

entwisi 14-03-2007 19:07

Re: New bulbs.
 
surely not our venerable Jambutty. he CAN'T be wrong, its not possible....


:D

andrewb 14-03-2007 19:09

Re: New bulbs.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Neil (Post 397593)
I am not too sure on that. It mean having to admit he was wrong.
He will most likely think up some way around admitting it :rolleyes: :D

Or maybe he'll abstain so hes not admitting hes wrong or further digging his hole! :p

Neil 14-03-2007 19:25

Re: New bulbs.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Cyfr (Post 397621)
Or maybe he'll abstain so hes not admitting hes wrong or further digging his hole! :p

He will reply, if not he will be biting his lip that hard he might die from loss of blood.

Ianto.W. 14-03-2007 21:33

Re: New bulbs.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Cyfr (Post 397621)
Or maybe he'll abstain so hes not admitting hes wrong or further digging his hole! :p

This thread gets more fun by the day, if you think for one second that 'the jambutty' will take this lying down in a hole you are sadly mistaken. Torpedoes on from all angles are on there way, you'd better believe it.:D

jambutty 14-03-2007 22:37

Re: New bulbs.
 
Well! Well! Well! I see that the kiddies have been out to play. Shouldn’t they all be tucked up in bed with a big fat dummy? Or maybe they’ve spit it out already.

Sorry to disappoint you but I don’t sit glued to my computer waiting for someone to make a post. I have a life!

No torpedoes Ianto.W. at least not at kiddies.

All this spectrum nonsense started in response to a simple observation of mine (post 30) with regard to LE and normal bulbs.
Quote:

I often use a solar powered calculator whilst sat at my computer and in the evenings with the curtains drawn and the light on top of the telly on, the light from it was sufficient to power my calculator. When I replaced the hot filament bulb with one of the low energy bulbs the light from it would not power my calculator unless I moved it at least two feet closer to the light. Ergo the new bulb did not produce the same amount of light as the hot filament one.
Then Less chipped in to recall that I had made my point in a previous thread http://www.accringtonweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=22924&highlight=energy+saving and claimed that in post 24 Cyfr had explained the reason why I had to place my calculator closer to an LE light to get it to work.

Quote:

Obviously 'energy saving' lightbulbs do what they say, and hence use less energy, so no, your calculator isn't going to get the same energy going to it, because as the name says, theres less energy being used, so less energy being given out.
That is in effect an agreement that my calculator would indeed need to be placed closer to an LE lamp to work. It was in that post where the light spectrum was introduced. Although heaven knows why because it was totally irrelevant to the issue.

In post #29 madhatter chipped in with “It isn't actually a full spectrum of the incandecent, but the flourecent concentrates more on the blue spectrum , the incandescent on the red.”
Thereafter the thread died off.

No explanation there Less just an agreement that an LE bulb sold as an equivalent to a 60w normal bulb gives off less light. But then that is what I had already stated.

Then in post #42 Cyfr chipped in asking what I meant by intensity and followed that up some nonsense about energy and light source. A solar panel doesn’t measure anything at all. It reacts to light. If there is enough it will power a calculator, if there isn’t it won’t. If at a set distance from one light source the calculator works and from another light source it doesn’t then it has to be because one light source is less bright than the other. It’s not rocket science!

Then he went on blathering about spectrums again. Then went on to state unequivocally that LE bulbs do give off less light than a normal bulb. If that is the case, and it is, then it is obvious that to get a calculator to work on both sources it has to be closer to the LE bulb than the normal one. I believe that is what I stated at the outset.

Then in post #44 Cyfr states; “You seem to think that because your calculator works better off a certain source then that source must be brighter. Which is incorrect as I have explained many times we only need certain parts of the spectrum for lights to work well. Therefore the energy saving lightbulbs only show the parts we need.”
Now isn’t that a contradiction? But in an attempt to justify the about turn Cyfr burbles on about the irrelevant spectrum colours.

Then to cap it all Cyfr in post #78 responded to a post by cashman that I was correct in my assertion about colours and it had no relevance. Then stone me if he didn’t immediately contradict himself and start arguing about colours. And in post #100 argues that the colour of light does matter. Not in powering a calculator it doesn’t. It would be nice if Cyfr made his mind up.

Then DeShark joined the debate with post #87 – “Hello all. Long time no see. Been at uni in manchester studying... physics. I just felt that the physics being used was sketchy at best.”
Seeing as it was Cyfr who first started to use physics to try and make his point it says a lot for the physics. Then DeShark seemed to get lost in infrared. Unless I am missing something how long has infrared been part of visible light?

In post #89 DeShark seemed to agree that my lighter would power my computer and then in post #114 stated: “I really can't spell it out any more. The bottom line is that your calculator will NOT be activated by light from any source and it is NOT the brightness (or amount measured in lumins) of light falling on the solar panel that will determine at what point the calculator will become operative. It depends on the frequency of the light and how intense *that specific* frequency is.”
Now come on DeShark you can’t have it both ways.

I think that DeShark is a chum of Cyfr who has been persuaded to join in the debate to back up Cyfr and they are both trying to confuse the issue with science in some puerile attempt to prove my observation wrong.

My calculator doesn’t care what colour of light falls on the solar panel just as long as it is visible light. What it does care about is HOW MUCH light. If there isn’t enough light it won’t work. To make it work you have to bring the calculator closer to the source of light until it does. The closer you get to a light source the brighter it is. Take a decent torch with a tight beam and shine it on a matchbox three feet away in a darkened room and observe how brightly lit it is. Then take the matchbox away to say 30 feet distance and shine the torchlight onto it. Observe how badly lit it is. Then do the same with a solar powered calculator. Close to the light source it will work and 30 feet away the chances are that it won’t.

And that is in effect what I stated at the outset. Just to refresh your memory I stated that in the evenings with the curtains drawn, when using my calculator at my computer the light from the 60w bulb in the table lamp on top of the TV activated it just fine. When I placed an LE bulb that was rated as an equivalent to a 60w normal bulb into the table lamp, to get my calculator to work I had to take it closer to the lamp. This suggested to me that the LE lamp did not give off as much light as a normal bulb. I then established that my supposition was correct by reading and quoting the data printed on the normal light bulb box and the boxes of two different wattage LE bulbs.

All someone has to do is to get a solar powered calculator and subject it to various light sources of different colours and brightness, known as light intensity, and observe what happens. A kid of five could do it and conclude what I have stated all along. So why can’t Cyfr do the same instead of meandering into pseudo science babble.
Quote:

and most importantly Jambutty will now fully understand why his calculator fails to work as well under Low Energy lightbulbs of equal brightness!
Isn’t that what I have been stating from the outset? Except I didn’t say brightness! I stated that the LE bulb was rated as an equivalent light output of a normal 60w bulb.

Incidentally a solar powered calculator either works or it doesn’t. There is no work as well Cyfr. However there is a point when it might take a second or two to start up in when the light isn’t all that good but once working it works until the light fades below its threshold.

The infinitesimal distance difference between various colours is nit picking in the extreme.

Now that should end this debate once and for all. Well it will be as far as I’m concerned.

andrewb 14-03-2007 22:58

Re: New bulbs.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by jambutty (Post 397683)
If at a set distance from one light source the calculator works and from another light source it doesn’t then it has to be because one light source is less bright than the other. It’s not rocket science!

Then he went on blathering about spectrums again. Then went on to state unequivocally that LE bulbs do give off less light than a normal bulb.

Cyfr burbles on about the irrelevant spectrum colours.

And in post #100 argues that the colour of light does matter. Not in powering a calculator it doesn’t.

and they are both trying to confuse the issue with science in some puerile attempt to prove my observation wrong.

My calculator doesn’t care what colour of light falls on the solar panel just as long as it is visible light.

why can’t Cyfr do the same instead of meandering into pseudo science babble.

Your whole post has a ton of mistakes, some of them I have quoted above.

Let me put it in a way you might understand:
The light colour matters. Its scientific fact. If you deny or dismiss it you are completely WRONG. You can not dismiss such an important factor as 'irrelevant' just because you deem it to be so. It is the key to understanding why your calculator needs to be closer to a LE lightbulb.

Understand the physics behind it, or admit you don't understand it, but don't dismiss it to try and make your incorrect argument right.


Quote:

Originally Posted by Jambutty
Then to cap it all Cyfr in post #78 responded to a post by cashman that I was correct in my assertion about colours and it had no relevance.

You posted information about the electromagnetic spectrum without ANY links to the subject matter which makes it irrelevant, or just plain wrong as you seemed to suggest that blue light has greater energy (true) so therefore it gives the calc additional power (false).

Im sure everyone else reading this thread, even if they don't understand the physics (because its not trivial) understands the point that i've been making over and over; Blue light does not work with solar panels in your calculator, where as red light does. Therefore this is why your calculator needs to be closer to LE lightbulbs. Its that simple.

You can't deny otherwise unless you want to go against the laws of physics.

Mancie 15-03-2007 02:50

Re: New bulbs.
 
DeShark,Cyfr,Jambutty.. do you realise the sort of carbon emmisions you have generated with your posts?.. long winded proffeser stuff.. you people contribute more damage to global warming everytime you post... keep it sort lads so we can all understand what your on about!

Lampman 15-03-2007 04:26

Re: New bulbs.
 
No let them carry on I am being re-educated!

SPUGGIE J 15-03-2007 08:13

Re: New bulbs.
 
Who would have thought that talking about a little common object such as a bulb could cause such conflict in a debate?

Lets put them forward for the local councils at least these 3 can debate.

DeShark 15-03-2007 09:03

Re: New bulbs.
 
It's not pseudo science. It's physics. Of course your lighter will power the calculator. It's hot. It emits IR. What Cyfr said about solar panels measuring energy was wrong. Clearly. That's why I chipped in. I wasn't expecting to prove anyone right nor wrong just clear things up.

Quote:

All someone has to do is to get a solar powered calculator and subject it to various light sources of different colours and brightness, known as light intensity
Intensity, Luminance, Radiance, "Brightness", etc, are all very well scientifically defined, but often interchanged in real life. Intensity and Radiance are about the total Energy per second emitted. Brightness and Luminance incorporate both the colour of the light (and the human eye's sensitivity to each colour) and how intense it is. Therefore a bulb which emits solely IR light is not bright. Nor is it luminescant. It doesn't emit any lumens. The incandescant bulb is almost certainly more radiant. It emits more energy per second but is just as bright (as near as makes no difference).

I hate to quote wikipedia but...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_c...harge_carriers

If you won't accept that the frequency/energy makes a difference I'm wasting my time. I'm not that bothered that you won't accept it. Even if you do accept it and don't tell me I'm not bothered. Argue til you're blue in the face but I've backed up my argument with sources. Your information is based on an experiment carried out by you - unobserved - without adequate scientific apparatus. No graphs. No sources of information for your theoretical beliefs. No written up report. As a result it's sketchy information at best.


Quote:

The infinitesimal distance difference between various colours is nit picking in the extreme.
What infinitesimal distance? We're on the scale of atoms and molecules here. It's a big difference between 500nm wavelength and 800nm wavelength!

DeShark 15-03-2007 09:22

Re: New bulbs.
 
Sorry about this but I think I've got my information wrong. In fact I'm almost sure I have. I just re-read the link to wikipedia I gave you and it says quite clearly that the difference in the energy of the incident photon and the band gap energy is converted into heat. Some of the energy of the incident photon produces electricity the rest causes heat. This is why the solar panels are so inefficient. If all of the energy were converted to electricity they'd be far more effective. However it's not. A large proportion is converted to heat.

I give in Jambutty. You're right. To generate electricity the incoming photons must have *higher* energy that the band gap energy (1.1 eV = infrared). Thus your argument is correct. It depends on the *number* of photons. This is not the luminousity of the light. Nor is it the intensity. It's the number of photons. It's difficult to say that the greater number of photons, the brighter the light. Just like it's hard to say the greater the number of coins in your pocket the more money you have.

Since the luminance/brightness is based on the eye's sensitivity to the light maybe you could just say which you think appears brighter. Your calculator's solar panel is not an adequate measure of brightness because it is not more sensitive to one wavelength of light to another, whereas your eye is.

Lampman 15-03-2007 09:27

Re: New bulbs.
 
Yes I was thinking that.:)

Ianto.W. 15-03-2007 10:20

Re: New bulbs.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Lampman (Post 397759)
Yes I was thinking that.:)

That was a superb reply Lampman, I think you deserve a little present for that, if it lets me.:D:D:D

Lampman 15-03-2007 12:38

Re: New bulbs.
 
Thanks Ianto,it's not 'til I read thread replies like these that I realise how in the dark I am!:rolleyes:

cashman 15-03-2007 13:50

Re: New bulbs.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Lampman (Post 397842)
Thanks Ianto,it's not 'til I read thread replies like these that I realise how in the dark I am!:rolleyes:

with you all the way there Lampman, BUT are we bothered?;)

SPUGGIE J 15-03-2007 13:58

Re: New bulbs.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by cashman (Post 397895)
with you all the way there Lampman, BUT are we bothered?;)

Errr lets see now; phone a friend, 50 - 50 ask the audience????

Less 15-03-2007 14:38

Re: New bulbs.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by SPUGGIE J (Post 397906)
Errr lets see now; phone a friend, 50 - 50 ask the audience????

Phone a friend? on accyweb? Don't be silly!:D

http://www.oneposter.com/UserData/Po...8252_thumb.JPG

Neil 15-03-2007 16:32

Re: New bulbs.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Lampman (Post 397842)
I realise how in the dark I am!:rolleyes:

Maybe you need to buy a larger wattage compact fluorescent lamp. They do give out less light than incandescent lamps you know. :rolleyes: :D

Less 15-03-2007 18:21

Re: New bulbs.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Neil (Post 397967)
Maybe you need to buy a larger wattage compact fluorescent lamp. They do give out less light than incandescent lamps you know. :rolleyes: :D

I'd heard it's nowt to do with the wattage, would you have a theory to back that statement up? Or is there a site that you could recommend where all the experts gather and have a friendly discussion about the pros and cons of each type of bulb?
:cool: (All the bulbs look a bit dim with these glasses on).
:)

andrewb 15-03-2007 19:47

Re: New bulbs.
 
I must say this thread has kept me well entertained for several nights now.

I've researched more in to it and am now more clear (well more clear than before) about it.

Fact:The colour of light matters. Therefore Jambutty is wrong.

This picture from newscientist perfectly illustrates it:

http://www.newscientist.com/data/ima...3145-1_255.jpg

As you can see, quite clearly, the purple and green bars are at the red end of the visible light spectrum, and they don't cover the blue end.
To rephrase that, it means red light can be used and absorbed but blue light can't.

I'll be honest, I don't perfectly understand why it is. I have struggled for many many hours trying to find out, but nowhere I have found explains every piece of the jigsaw, however I think it's ok to accept a respectable source such as newscientist without having to do all the proof myself, as I doubt this would be beneficial as it would be very hard for anybody to understand.

I might not write perfectly, and some of my writing might be open to attack by pedantic persons, but if things are read in context then usually people can understand what im getting at instead of picking at small mistakes I might have left in my English that could be 'interpreted' as me contradicting myself.

At the end of the day, I can't force Jambutty or anybody else who disagrees with physics that I, or any of the websites I have viewed are right.

Jambutty was right in one aspect, it appears the Energy Saving lightbulb that he posses gives out 21 less luminance, but thats 2.6%, it's negligible really, you can't notice the difference with your own eyes (well I certainly can't). To make a link between the solar powered calculator having to be much closer to work though, explaining brightness, is just simply wrong. As I have stated above and quoted a picture from newscientist, solar dosn't work off the majority of (blue) light given off by LE lightbulbs.

I have no doubt Jambuttys mile long speech where he pedantically analyzed my text will probably be his last post on the subject, because he doesn't want to accept defeat, but really, you can't argue with fact, the colour of light does matter.

Lampman 15-03-2007 20:22

Re: New bulbs.
 
Ye canna deny the flaws of critics!:D

Ianto.W. 15-03-2007 20:27

Re: New bulbs.
 
Liberal +amounts of jambutties= De-Shark bait guaranteed to trap even the elusive Jaws, pedanticaly speaking, goes to prove the elementary theory that bull**** baffles brains.;)

Lampman 15-03-2007 20:34

Re: New bulbs.
 
Now that I have a BS in(MASTERS DEGREE).

cashman 15-03-2007 21:54

Re: New bulbs.
 
anyone gotta light?:rofl38: :rofl38:

andrewb 30-03-2007 21:25

Re: New bulbs.
 
1 Attachment(s)
Look what I found in DeSharks flat last night

Less 30-03-2007 22:41

Re: New bulbs.
 
A pint glass filled with (I hope) wallpaper paste?
:p

andrewb 31-03-2007 00:06

Re: New bulbs.
 
It was a candle. :p

MargaretR 31-03-2007 00:10

Re: New bulbs.
 
I have used low energy bulbs since 1991. Then they were VERY expensive and took a while to get to full brilliance. On moving house 4 years ago I left them behind and I bought new stock.I am glad to say (I retyped 'delighted') that the technology had improved and the prices have come down, and they are available in all sizes except pygmy size (YES - even candle and small globe size!!!) It is worth the (now small) extra cost just to not need to keep changing a bulb. I have daylight spectrum bulbs in ceiling fittings to kid my brain that its Summer during long winter dark days and have to revert to the ordinary (non daylight) spectrum lights in table lamps in the evenings to convince my brain that it is not 12noon on a midsummer day when it is acually bedtime. I wouldnt be without them - what surprises me is that people dont want to lose the old tungsten bulbs - Perhaps the few that they have tried are the original old(er) bulky types which came out originally.
Try the latest tech ones and Im sure you will be 'converted'

MargaretR 31-03-2007 01:21

Re: New bulbs.
 
1 Attachment(s)
I have tried my best with a cheap webcam to show you 2 types of low energy bulbs I use.
The tape measure shows 4" & 5" - large bayonet & small bayonet fitting.


All times are GMT. The time now is 01:24.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.6.1
© 2003-2013 AccringtonWeb.com