[FRIAM] Naïve physics question
Steven A Smith
sasmyth at swcp.com
Wed Feb 15 19:54:53 EST 2017
Nick -
The thing that might not be obvious is that Frank's *electric* bill went
down. If he were heating *with* electricity, the difference might not
be as significant... I suspect his (gas?) heating bill is a similar
number of BTUs down, they are just cheaper BTUs than ones coming out of
electric resistive elements (including incandescent bulbs).
Also, ceiling fixture lighting tends to heat the *ceiling* which only
helps much with the overall heating of the space if you have a 2 story
house and you are talking about the ground floor lights. Unless you use
*heat lamps* with good reflectors directing the IR into the room (not
dissipating it in the fixture).
I actually buy 125W infrared bulbs to go into certain fixtures in my
house for the very reason you describe earlier... one of these as a
reading light over my shoulder (or hanging from my first floor ceiling)
not only adds BTUs to my house in general but increases the comfort in
the chair I am sitting in, allowing me to be comfortable even if the
space is lower than usual. My solar system works pretty well
throughout all the months except Dec/Jan and a little Nov/Feb, so during
those months I crank a lot of firewood through my woodstoves and put in
my IR bulbs in a few choice locations. I used to use an electric
mattress pad as well... The net cost of these was pretty small
compared to using electric space heating...
The rules of conservation of energy (physics not sociopolitical) are
pretty simple, but the detailed implications of *comfort* and
*economics* are a bit more subtle.
- Steve
On 2/15/17 10:20 AM, Nick Thompson wrote:
>
> Frank, ‘n all.
>
> It looks like I am… not to put too fine a point on it… */WRONG/* about
> this. I hate when that happens. It seems WILDLY counter intuitive to
> me, but so, I should admit, does most of physics.
>
> You are all going to have to explain it to me VERY patiently, perhaps
> over coffee, perhaps on Friday.
>
> Nick
>
> Nicholas S. Thompson
>
> Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
>
> Clark University
>
> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
> <http://home.earthlink.net/%7Enickthompson/naturaldesigns/>
>
> *From:*Friam [mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com] *On Behalf Of *Frank
> Wimberly
> *Sent:* Wednesday, February 15, 2017 1:54 AM
> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> <friam at redfish.com>
> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Naïve physics question
>
> Nick,
>
> Over the last 2 or 3 years I have replaced most of our incandescent
> light bulbs with equivalent (light output) LED bulbs. Our electric
> bill has gone down about 20% summer and winter.
>
> When I worked in the Robotics Institute I was leader of a project to
> put sensors all over a fluorescent lamp factory to increase yield.
> That is, to reduce the number of defective bulbs (out of millions).
> The Westinghouse engineers told us that certain large office buildings
> were optimized for minimum energy use for lighting and heat in a
> method that involved keeping the lights on all night. This, however,
> caused a public relations problem in that people who saw them lit up
> complained about their wasting energy.
>
> Frank
>
> Frank Wimberly
> Phone (505) 670-9918
>
> On Feb 15, 2017 1:37 AM, "Nick Thompson" <nickthompson at earthlink.net
> <mailto:nickthompson at earthlink.net>> wrote:
>
> All—
>
> Can I piggy back on to Gary’s question with one of my own. Much
> more naïve. Even tho I am an ardent conservationist, I believe
> that claims for energy saving from light bulbs that don’t spill
> heat only approach truth in the warmest parts of our country.
> Where yearly annual temperature average is less than human
> comfort, the cost from heat loss from incandescent bulbs is
> compensated by a diminishment in the cost of heating by other
> means. This works particularly well with a reading lamp, which is
> warming you while it lights you. Now in summer, the loss of heat
> from bulbs is actually a very bad thing because it has to be
> compensated for with airconditioning. But summers in most of the
> country are way shorter than winters.
>
> I am sure I am going to get some sort of a lecture on the second
> law, here. Spilled heat from inefficiently deployed light sources
> is STILL more expensive than heat directly extracted from gas or
> oil. Not sure how to think about that.
>
> Nick
>
> Nicholas S. Thompson
>
> Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
>
> Clark University
>
> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
> <http://home.earthlink.net/%7Enickthompson/naturaldesigns/>
>
> *From:*Friam [mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com
> <mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com>] *On Behalf Of *Robert J.
> Cordingley
> *Sent:* Tuesday, February 14, 2017 11:11 PM
> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> <friam at redfish.com <mailto:friam at redfish.com>>
> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Naïve physics question
>
> Seems like from a thermodynamics question you can first think of
> having two identical systems with identical energy inputs. Unless
> one of the systems is capable of storing energy in some form
> differently from the other the equilibrium temperatures should be
> the same.
>
> Now CFBs emit more of the their input energy as light which since
> the containers are transparent (presumably to the same light
> that's emitted, visible, UV, infrared) it will escape more easily.
> Incandescents generate a lot of heat for the same energy input
> which may not escape as easily as the light energy. It will depend
> on the thermal conductivity of the container's materials etc. If
> the CFB were 100% efficient all it's energy will leave immediately
> in a container that is 100 % transparent to its 'light' and show
> no temperature increase. If the incandescent's heat is transmitted
> as infrared energy at 100% efficiency along with any light then
> its temperature will show no increase either. So the answer may
> have more to do with the properties of the containers than the
> properties of the lights. Practically, I'd expect A to warm up
> more than B because B's light energy will escape more easily with
> materials we are familiar with.
>
> If both containers are opaque to all light (UV, visible and IR)
> and have the same thermal conductivity properties we are back to
> the first paragraph.
>
> 2c
>
> Robert C
>
> On 2/14/17 8:01 AM, Gary Schiltz wrote:
>
> Since there are some non-naïve, i.e. professional physicists,
> as well as just gererally smart people in FRIAM, I pose the
> following fun question. Given: two transparent, sealed
> containers filled with air - one contains an incandescent
> light bulb A that consumes 100 watts of energy; the other
> container contains a fluorescent light bulb B that also
> *consumes* 100 watts of energy. Since B is of a more efficient
> design, it will produce more light than A. Assuming the same
> color temperature light is produced by A and B, and ignoring
> any feedback effects of rising temperatures inside the
> respective containers, will the temperatures inside the
> containers reach the same temperature? Naïve physicist G (me)
> thinks that since more light is escaping from the container
> containing B, that its temperature will rise less. G also
> thinks that if the containers are opaque, that the
> temperatures will rise by the same amount. But G is besieged
> with doubts. Please help G.
>
>
>
> ============================================================
>
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
>
> to unsubscribehttp://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
>
> FRIAM-COMIChttp://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
>
> --
>
> Cirrillian
>
> Web Design & Development
>
> Santa Fe, NM
>
> http://cirrillian.com
>
> 281-989-6272 <tel:%28281%29%20989-6272> (cell)
>
> Member Design Corps of Santa Fe
>
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
>
>
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20170215/c508e8b3/attachment-0002.html>
More information about the Friam
mailing list