Friam

Naïve physics question

Classic

List

Threaded

9 messages Options

Gary Schiltz-4

Naïve physics question

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 unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

gepr

Re: Naïve physics question

I'm not a physicist ... or very smart. But it seems like what you're asking is if/whether there are any other paths, other than heat and light for energy to escape. If not, then you're right. If so, then not. But I suspect if there are any other escape paths, they will be larger in the incandescent bulb than the fluorescent bulb. And if that's the case, then the CFB would rise _more_, because the incandescent's hidden paths consume more energy than the CFB's hidden paths.

An example hidden path might be the decay of the filament? Absorption/reflection/dissipation rates of the opaque material? Perhaps some sort of "thermal mass" of the bulb or its coating(s)? Does the gas inside CFBs decay in any way? Etc. Regardless, I suspect it would be tiny in either case.

On 02/14/2017 07:01 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.

--
☣ glen

============================================================
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

uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen

Robert J. Cordingley

Re: Naïve physics question

In reply to this post by Gary Schiltz-4

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.

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 unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

-- 
Cirrillian 
Web Design & Development
Santa Fe, NM
http://cirrillian.com
281-989-6272 (cell)
Member Design Corps of Santa Fe

Nick Thompson

Re: Naïve physics question

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/

From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Robert J. Cordingley
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2017 11:11 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Naïve physics question

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.

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 unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

--

Cirrillian

Web Design & Development

Santa Fe, NM

http://cirrillian.com

281-989-6272 (cell)

Member Design Corps of Santa Fe

Frank Wimberly-2

Re: 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" <[hidden email]> 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/

From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Robert J. Cordingley
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2017 11:11 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
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 unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
-- 
Cirrillian 
Web Design & Development
Santa Fe, NM
http://cirrillian.com
<a href="tel:(281)%20989-6272" value="+12819896272" target="_blank">281-989-6272 (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

Gary Schiltz-4

Re: Naïve physics question

Robert, thanks for the answer. I think that the question for me boiled down to "is light a form of energy"? Of course, the naive physicist in me should have realized that of course it does, otherwise solar panels couldn't work. Re: conservation, I was partly asking the question from a different perspective: at times, I need to heat small spaces (like under cabinets) in order to keep them dry. Incandescent bulbs are nearly impossible to get here, plus they get really hot right at the bulb, thus presenting more of a fire hazard. So, as long as I keep the cabinets closed, the CF bulbs should work because the interior surfaces should absorb the light energy and be converted to heat.

On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 3:53 AM, Frank Wimberly <[hidden email]> wrote:

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" <[hidden email]> 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/

From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Robert J. Cordingley
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2017 11:11 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
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 unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
-- 
Cirrillian 
Web Design & Development
Santa Fe, NM
http://cirrillian.com
<a href="tel:(281)%20989-6272" value="+12819896272" target="_blank">281-989-6272 (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

Nick Thompson

Re: Naïve physics question

In reply to this post by Frank Wimberly-2

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/

From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Frank Wimberly
Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2017 1:54 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
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.

Frank

Frank Wimberly
Phone (505) 670-9918

On Feb 15, 2017 1:37 AM, "Nick Thompson" <[hidden email]> 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/

From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Robert J. Cordingley
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2017 11:11 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
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 unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
-- 
Cirrillian 
Web Design & Development
Santa Fe, NM
http://cirrillian.com
<a href="tel:(281)%20989-6272" target="_blank">281-989-6272 (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

Barry MacKichan

Re: Naïve physics question

In reply to this post by Gary Schiltz-4

An old North Carolina farmer (later confirmed by an advanced amateur
astronomer) to put two incandescent bulbs in series. The halving of the
voltage lowers the temp of the bulbs significantly, and at the lower
voltage, the bulbs last essentially forever. I have no idea what happens
if you do the same with CF bulbs.

--Barry

On 15 Feb 2017, at 9:18, Gary Schiltz wrote:

> Re: conservation, I was partly asking the question from a different
> perspective: at times, I need to heat small spaces (like under
> cabinets) in order to keep them dry. Incandescent bulbs are nearly
> impossible to get here, plus they get really hot right at the bulb,
> thus presenting more of a fire hazard. So, as long as I keep the
> cabinets closed, the CF bulbs should work because the interior
> surfaces should absorb the light energy and be converted to heat.

============================================================
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

Steve Smith

Re: Naïve physics question

In reply to this post by Nick Thompson

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/

From: Friam [[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Frank Wimberly
Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2017 1:54 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group [hidden email]
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" <[hidden email]> 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/

From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Robert J. Cordingley
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2017 11:11 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
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 unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
-- 
Cirrillian 
Web Design & Development
Santa Fe, NM
http://cirrillian.com
<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="tel:%28281%29%20989-6272" target="_blank">281-989-6272 (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