Prohibition of non-economic bulbs, it is confirmed!

Hi-tech electronic and computer equipment and Internet. Better use of electricity, help with the work and specifications, equipment selection. Presentations fixtures and plans. Waves and electromagnetic pollution.
User avatar
chatelot16
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 6960
Registration: 11/11/07, 17:33
Location: Angouleme
x 264

Re: after two years




by chatelot16 » 27/02/11, 01:59

hervit78 wrote:pollution from illuminated signs = estimated at 2 Tw / h in France (I put an H to please you) = 4 nuclear units
:P


it doesn't make me happy! you don't seem to understand the difference between division and multiplication!

1 liter is a volume, 1 liter per second l / s is a flow: division

in electricity the W or KW is not an energy (comparable to the volume) but a power (rather comparable to the flow): it is therefore by multiplying the power by the time that one makes the energy in Wh (under heard multiplication between W and h (it's not my fault if the maths have a not clear notation

once we understand that the energy is in Wh we can always divide the energy by time to make the power: in Wh / h: and of course 1 Wh / h = 1W quite simply!

and 1 kWh / year is also a power more simply expressed in W after having calculated how many hours there are per year

(365 x 24) kWh / year = 1 kW

writing kW / h is a serious proof of incompetence: it is also a means of not marking in commercial documents figures without any value since this unit is absolutely impossible and meaningless!
0 x
dedeleco
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 9211
Registration: 16/01/10, 01:19
x 10




by dedeleco » 27/02/11, 02:36

It is annoying the salad of the units between power and energy, treated as a speed in Km / h and it shows the lack of rigor of the thought of the interested party who makes salad by not thinking clearly and precisely , especially if an expert is immediately judged as a pseudo-expert !!!!

hervit78 declares:
4000 Kwh / year for gas heating (gas boiler elm 16 kw)

for which surface 20m2 or more ???
but no :
my house is 120 m² and is occupied by 5 inhabitants.s

or 4000/120 = 33KWh / (m2.year) much better than a new BBC house from 2012 to 50KWh / (m2.year) !!
So it is permissible to strongly doubt it and to wonder if there is not an error of a factor of 10 ???
to spend much more on heating than on lighting !!!

So please check his writings to eliminate incomprehensible salads !!

Finally in my personal case the fluorescent lamps last very much longer than the incandescent, checked many times and they light up as well !!
Do not put them in a lamp within 1m of your head or fear UV rays !!

Finally to gain even more, you have to take good quality LEDs (see on econology) if well mounted 50000 hours and more, 5 to 6 years 24 hours a day !!
0 x
Christophe
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 79117
Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
Location: Greenhouse planet
x 10972

Re: after two years




by Christophe » 27/02/11, 11:23

hervit78 wrote:pollution from illuminated signs = estimated at 2 Tw / h in France (I put an H to please you) = 4 nuclear units
:P


Anything ... and after that claims to be an energy expert? : Shock:

France produces around 550 TWh on 58 nuclear reactors ...
Each reactor therefore produces on average approximately 9.5 TWh per year.

On a 1.3 GW reactor this corresponds to a load factor of 9500 / 1.3 * 8740 = 84%.

When you show your arrogance see also here: https://www.econologie.com/forums/post195044.html#195044 the least thing is to ensure with the numbers ... A word to the wise ...

In fact I believe you confuse lighting and luminous signs which would stick with the figure of 40 TWh / year for public lighting so 4 reactors ...

In 1999, France consumed 41 TWh for lighting. About 60% of this energy is used by the tertiary sector. Public and road lighting consumes 10% of the total while the remaining 30% is absorbed by domestic lighting. It should be noted, however, that this latter sector has seen its consumption triple in twenty years (5 TWh in 1979, 14 TWh in 1999).


Lire: https://www.econologie.com/forums/eclairage- ... t2854.html

In all cases your "equivalence" is false ...
0 x
User avatar
Did67
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 20362
Registration: 20/01/08, 16:34
Location: Alsace
x 8685

Re: after two years




by Did67 » 27/02/11, 12:56

hervit78 wrote:[

I put an H to please you



If it's to make me happy, it's not worth it! And it's lowercase "h" then. [it's like that, there are rules for units: those derived from proper names = uppercase - Watt, Pascal, Joule ... - those derived from common names in lowercase: second, minute, hour, liter, meter ...]

It's just not to write bullshit. A fortiori, if you want to advise ... Will have to get started so as not to be ridiculous.

Example, I have in my cellar a 1000 W washing machine motor.

It has been there since I debossed my machine.

Power = 1 W
Consumption = 0 Wh (or Wh) since it turned 0 hours.

If I confuse the two, you can see that I can write anything! 1000 or 0 is not the same. Both are right.

That said: OK, it's not much. I cannot change the Champs-Élysées or the Eiffel Tower or the street lighting.

But at home, I can do a tiny little thing. I do it.

While others will always find abuse from others as a pretext for doing nothing (except moaning: I don't know if it's a rule, but I have the impression that the biggest "moaners" are the smallest "makers" !).

These are choices.
0 x
Alain G
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 3044
Registration: 03/10/08, 04:24
x 3




by Alain G » 27/02/11, 17:35

Christophe


We call it a slobber!

Will not last long our friend!
0 x
Stepping behind sometimes can strengthen friendship.
Criticism is good if added to some compliments.
Alain
aerialcastor
Grand Econologue
Grand Econologue
posts: 865
Registration: 10/05/09, 16:39
x 21




by aerialcastor » 27/02/11, 18:42

[that's how it is, there are rules for units: those derived from proper names = capital letter - Watt, Pascal, Joule ...- those derived from common names in lower case: second, minute]


Just history of quibbling for liters the abbreviation "L" is authorized and much more expensive than "l".

http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Litre#Symbole
0 x
Save a tree, eat a beaver.
It is no use to succeed in life, what it takes is to miss his death.
User avatar
Did67
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 20362
Registration: 20/01/08, 16:34
Location: Alsace
x 8685




by Did67 » 27/02/11, 22:47

I would not be doped: not a rule which has no exception!

But if one quibbles to quibble: the liter is not a unit of the SI, it is the m3 and its multiples.
0 x
User avatar
Forhorse
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 2485
Registration: 27/10/09, 08:19
Location: Perche Ornais
x 359




by Forhorse » 27/02/11, 23:27

It is, in my opinion, especially a story of computer typography.
Because according to the font, we can confuse a lowercase L and a capital ui.
Hence the use of L for liter.
0 x
bobono
Éconologue good!
Éconologue good!
posts: 355
Registration: 08/09/07, 16:58
Location: Brittany
x 1

electronic ballast




by bobono » 28/02/11, 12:10

Here is the 1st model of compact mini fluorescent with ballast and choke.

The electronic model is a rocker with 2 transistors
0 x
bobono
Éconologue good!
Éconologue good!
posts: 355
Registration: 08/09/07, 16:58
Location: Brittany
x 1

ballast




by bobono » 28/02/11, 12:12

Image

here is the photo
0 x

 


  • Similar topics
    Replies
    views
    Last message

Back to "Electricity, electronics and computers: Hi-tech, Internet, DIY, lighting, materials, and new"

Who is online ?

Users browsing this forum : No registered users and 218 guests