to the ancestor post:
your heating argument ("duh, summer") is retarded.
what you meant to say is, "using a lightbulb to heat your house is moronic. why don't you put your spaceheater inside a glass box, too?"
to ancestor and parent:
incandescents are not better lighting technology.
they are older, simpler technology, fine.
but as ancestor said (or tried to), you are purchasing a LIGHT bulb not a HEAT bulb.
parent: burning something is one of the LEAST efficient ways to create light. is that clear? let me name some better ways:
diode resistance (LED)
electron relaxation plus fluorescence (CFL)
those two technologies convert electricity into visible light.
they are imperfect (as all electrical systems) so do create some heat due to inefficiencies (as all electrical systems).
"incendiary" incandescent technologies burn a filament.
they create heat.
*as a side-effect*, a bit of light is created.
that's why 20watt CFLs are brighter than 60watt incandos.
so, parent post, "better" is the wrong word to use for a less efficient technology. much less efficient, BY DEFINITION.
sure, if you like pretty lights to put on your makeup, then maybe "less pretty" was the word you were going for.
I don't care if it only costs 27 cents more to use my lightbulb than it does for you to have a firepit lighting your bedroom.
we're scientists here and i'm willing to champion an efficient, correct technology while it is being perfected.
also, stop testing your lights with the same microwave for 15 years. i've never heard of a CFL interfering with a microwave.
and if you don't like things interfering with your precious radio, use ethernet instead of wifi, too.
must I continue?
Slashdot Mirror
to the ancestor post: your heating argument ("duh, summer") is retarded. what you meant to say is, "using a lightbulb to heat your house is moronic. why don't you put your spaceheater inside a glass box, too?" to ancestor and parent: incandescents are not better lighting technology. they are older, simpler technology, fine. but as ancestor said (or tried to), you are purchasing a LIGHT bulb not a HEAT bulb. parent: burning something is one of the LEAST efficient ways to create light. is that clear? let me name some better ways: diode resistance (LED) electron relaxation plus fluorescence (CFL) those two technologies convert electricity into visible light. they are imperfect (as all electrical systems) so do create some heat due to inefficiencies (as all electrical systems). "incendiary" incandescent technologies burn a filament. they create heat. *as a side-effect*, a bit of light is created. that's why 20watt CFLs are brighter than 60watt incandos. so, parent post, "better" is the wrong word to use for a less efficient technology. much less efficient, BY DEFINITION. sure, if you like pretty lights to put on your makeup, then maybe "less pretty" was the word you were going for. I don't care if it only costs 27 cents more to use my lightbulb than it does for you to have a firepit lighting your bedroom. we're scientists here and i'm willing to champion an efficient, correct technology while it is being perfected. also, stop testing your lights with the same microwave for 15 years. i've never heard of a CFL interfering with a microwave. and if you don't like things interfering with your precious radio, use ethernet instead of wifi, too. must I continue?