🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <3098@kitty.UUCP> larry@kitty.UUCP (Larry Lippman) writes:
>In article <1369@hudson.acc.virginia.edu>, smf7s@hudson.acc.virginia.edu (friedman steven michael) writes:
>
>> That is, how long does one need to keep a light on
>> continuously before it becomes more efficient to switch from
>> incandescent to fluorescent?
>
>	Sorry, but this is a non sequitor.
>
Well, now I remember reading somewhere once long ago and far away that the
fluorescent lamp has a limited number of starts, whereas the incandescent
doesn't, so a figure of 10 minutes was given - that is, the cost of starting
the fluorescent in terms of reducing lamp life balances the cost of leaving
it on in terms of power consumption.  All of which sounds pretty wishy-washy
now that I think about it.  And actually incandescents must have some limited
number of starts also, since the thermal shock of turn-on probably reduces
life somewhat.

Thanks, Larry, for your previous posting on the various circuits and
principles of fluorescents.  I'm an E.E. too, but of course they don't
teach that kind of thing in engine school (tho I too had to endure all
the polyphase rotating machinery as you mentioned).  There ought to be
a book on "The Way Things Work" written at the level of engineers.
Like, I didn't get any answer to my earlier question about microwave
ovens.  Which was that the only magnetrons I know anything about take
terribly high voltages to operate; and the microwave oven doesn't seem
heavy enough to contain that kind of power supply.

haynes@ucscc.ucsc.edu haynes@ucscc.bitnet ...ucbvax!ucscc!haynes

"Any clod can have the facts, but having opinions is an Art."
        Charles McCabe, San Francisco Chronicle