Re: Re: Do X10 Dimmers save electricity?

[Richard Malcolm-Smith <rich@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Paul Gordon wrote:

> Is it me misunderstanding fundamental principle's or does that table
not =
look immediately suspect to anyone?
>=20
> Specifically the efficiency column... - not sure just what is meant by
ef=
ficiency in this context, but surely no electrical device ever invented by
=
man is 100% (or more) efficient? - If so the multi-mega-million =A3=A3=A3=
=A3 prize for a working perpetual motion machine would have been claimed?
>=20
> Also, surely something being 120% efficient means that you get more
energ=
y out than you put in!! - Surely contrary to the laws of physics!??? - and
=
if it were true, then why not hook up a photocell to regenerate leccy off
t=
he light bulb and get free electricity!!!

What it means is that the light is producing more visable light per watt
wh=
en=20
overdriven then it does at normal brightness. This is similar to how
haloge=
ns=20
work, only they have the halogen gas in there to allow them to operate at
t=
he=20
higher temperatures without lasting more then a few hours.

What hasnt being mentioned in that table is that the colour of the lights
i=
s bad=20
at 100%, and only gets worse and worse as you dim them till when you are
at=
the=20
brightness that its almost off, its nolonger yellowy-white, but a
red-orang=
e.=20
Overdriven tungstan has a colour getting closer to white, but still a long
=
way=20
off what an LED or fluro can do. Some dichroics fix this by making the
refl=
ector=20
pass more of the yellow and reflect more of the blue, at the expense of=20
efficiancy however.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]