Password avoidance

On Sat, 13 Mar 2010 15:29:36 -0800, TOM <> wrote:

>Closer to the original off topic:
>http://michaelbluejay.com/electricity/myths.html

Excellent find, or maybe I'm just saying that because I'm in full
agreement with the various myths listed there.

On Sat, 13 Mar 2010 15:29:36 -0800, TOM <> wrote:

> Peter Foldes wrote:
> > Ken
> >
> > 35 yrs being an Electrician. The draw when you open a light switch with
> > a single 100 w bulb will be approximately +- 0.03 kvh at start up where
> > as the light staying open will draw 0.01 per kvh per every 10 hrs, Now
> > open and close the switch 10 times per day which will cause 0.30kvh
> > registration on the meter as compared to a bulb continuously burning for
> > a 24hr period as approximately .025. Same applies to any electrical
> > apparatus be it a light bulb or the computer plus adding the opening
> > surge and then the burning ( running) time
> > But I will try and find the documentation on this Ken and will get over
> > to you (right now the documentation is in my head and I do not have my
> > CA book at hand here so as to show a hard copy

> Closer to the original off topic:
> http://michaelbluejay.com/electricity/myths.html


Peter, any comments on this?


--
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP (Windows Desktop Experience) since 2003
Please Reply to the Newsgroup

"Peter Foldes" <> wrote in message
news:hngtic$srd$...
> Ken
>
> 35 yrs being an Electrician. The draw when you open a light switch with a
> single 100 w bulb will be approximately +- 0.03 kvh at start up where as
> the light staying open will draw 0.01 per kvh per every 10 hrs, Now open
> and close the switch 10 times per day which will cause 0.30kvh
> registration on the meter as compared to a bulb continuously burning for a
> 24hr period as approximately .025. Same applies to any electrical
> apparatus be it a light bulb or the computer plus adding the opening surge
> and then the burning ( running) time
> But I will try and find the documentation on this Ken and will get over to
> you (right now the documentation is in my head and I do not have my CA
> book at hand here so as to show a hard copy
>
> --
> Peter
>

Not to seem irrational or argumentative, but 24 years as an electronic tech
along with two side businesses dealing in electronics repair, plus google
showed me that the surge when starting a bulb lasts appx 1/2 cycle, or
1/120th of a second, plus only 10-15% of the energy consumed by an
incandescent bulb is turned into light, the rest is heat. So, if you'd have
to cycle your bulbs off and on an unbelievable amount of times a day and it
would only be equivalent to a few seconds of burn time at most. Fluorescents
are a little more economical, rule of thumb is if you are going to turn one
back on within 15 minutes, it's usually cheaper to leave it on, unless it's
in the high-usage part of the day when many utilities charge more for KWH of
consumption, then the rule of thumb is 5 minutes. Another offset in the
flourescent is the fact the bulbs, transformers and fixtures are quite a bit
more expensive, so shortening their life can account for a bit more monetary
loss by cycling. Information I found concerning computers was pretty much
the same, if it's going to be idle for more than 5 minutes, put it to sleep
or 10 minutes then turn it off and you will save energy.

http://www.energysavers.gov/your_hom.../mytopic=12280
http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...you-leave-room
http://green.yahoo.com/blog/the_cons...ur-lights.html
Original google was: turn lights off or leave on

To be fair, I did find articles to support your claim, but the number was
probably 10 to 1 against leaving them on. One article stated turning an
incandescent light on used as much power as leaving it on for 5 minutes.
This may sound reasonable, but I turned a cold bulb on and in less than a
minute it was too hot to touch so I doubt this data. Most articles, for and
against, agreed cycling electrical devices cuts down of their life, but the
savings in electricity outweigh the loss in life (which is minimal at best).
Finally, this subject came up when I was in college (for electronics) and
worked with a guy who was pursuing his Master Electrician's License. He
stated pretty much the same as you, so we worked it out in lab one day.
Don't have my references, but the data I remember is the same as the
articles I found this time, the surge duration is so short it takes a lot of
cycles to add up to a second of burn time.
Just my 2cents,
Dave

"Seth" <> wrote in message
news:hnhig9$ep8$...
> "Char Jackson" <> wrote in message
> news:...
>> On Sat, 13 Mar 2010 17:42:11 -0500, "Seth"
>> <> wrote:
>>
>>>"Char Jackson" <> wrote in message
>>>news:...
>>>> On Sat, 13 Mar 2010 15:46:16 -0500, "Peter Foldes" <>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Ken
>>>>>
>>>>>35 yrs being an Electrician. The draw when you open a light switch with
>>>>>a
>>>>>single 100
>>>>>w bulb will be approximately +- 0.03 kvh at start up where as the light
>>>>>staying open
>>>>>will draw 0.01 per kvh per every 10 hrs, Now open and close the switch
>>>>>10
>>>>>times per
>>>>>day which will cause 0.30kvh registration on the meter as compared to a
>>>>>bulb
>>>>>continuously burning for a 24hr period as approximately .025. Same
>>>>>applies
>>>>>to any
>>>>>electrical apparatus be it a light bulb or the computer plus adding the
>>>>>opening
>>>>>surge and then the burning ( running) time
>>>>>But I will try and find the documentation on this Ken and will get over
>>>>>to
>>>>>you
>>>>>(right now the documentation is in my head and I do not have my CA book
>>>>>at
>>>>>hand here
>>>>>so as to show a hard copy
>>>>
>>>> What unit of measure is kvh?
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>kilo volt hour. The way electricity is metered when determining how much
>>>you used and how much you need to pay for.
>>
>> Thanks, so that would be the semi-equivalent of kilo watt hour, our
>> unit of measure in the US. I'm really curious how voltage can be used
>> to measure power consumption.
>
> Actually now that you mention it, KWH was what I was thinking of. Hands
> faster than the mid sometimes.
>
> I saw KWH instead of KVH and automatically changed the "watt" to "volt" to
> match the acronym. Oops.
>
> But in looking up to see if there is an actual official listing for KVH,
> I'm not seeing one (at least not one that has anything to do with
> electricity). Did Peter mean to say KWH instead of KVH?
>

Either one can be converted into the other, but basically they are both a
measure of power, or watts (energy consumed). The energy consumed by devices
in your home are a combination of the voltage x the amperage, or current. In
short, it takes both factors to make the dial spin on your meter.
AFAIK, KWH indicates the number of Kilo (thousands) of Watts (power) you use
each Hour (time). KVH is an indicator of the same thing, but it takes a
formula to equate it to KWH. I think it takes less in KVH to equal the same
amount of power as indicated by KWH.
One of the electricians who participate here probably have a better handle
on this if I'm not including something or just plain wrong.
Dave

Dave

You do know the difference between a household 100v or a 347v commercial in the
amount of their usage

--
Peter

Please Reply to Newsgroup for the benefit of others
Requests for assistance by email can not and will not be acknowledged.

"Dave" <> wrote in message
news:...
>
>
> "Peter Foldes" <> wrote in message
> news:hngtic$srd$...
>> Ken
>>
>> 35 yrs being an Electrician. The draw when you open a light switch with a single
>> 100 w bulb will be approximately +- 0.03 kvh at start up where as the light
>> staying open will draw 0.01 per kvh per every 10 hrs, Now open and close the
>> switch 10 times per day which will cause 0.30kvh registration on the meter as
>> compared to a bulb continuously burning for a 24hr period as approximately .025.
>> Same applies to any electrical apparatus be it a light bulb or the computer plus
>> adding the opening surge and then the burning ( running) time
>> But I will try and find the documentation on this Ken and will get over to you
>> (right now the documentation is in my head and I do not have my CA book at hand
>> here so as to show a hard copy
>>
>> --
>> Peter
>>
>
> Not to seem irrational or argumentative, but 24 years as an electronic tech along
> with two side businesses dealing in electronics repair, plus google showed me that
> the surge when starting a bulb lasts appx 1/2 cycle, or 1/120th of a second, plus
> only 10-15% of the energy consumed by an incandescent bulb is turned into light,
> the rest is heat. So, if you'd have to cycle your bulbs off and on an unbelievable
> amount of times a day and it would only be equivalent to a few seconds of burn
> time at most. Fluorescents are a little more economical, rule of thumb is if you
> are going to turn one back on within 15 minutes, it's usually cheaper to leave it
> on, unless it's in the high-usage part of the day when many utilities charge more
> for KWH of consumption, then the rule of thumb is 5 minutes. Another offset in the
> flourescent is the fact the bulbs, transformers and fixtures are quite a bit more
> expensive, so shortening their life can account for a bit more monetary loss by
> cycling. Information I found concerning computers was pretty much the same, if
> it's going to be idle for more than 5 minutes, put it to sleep or 10 minutes then
> turn it off and you will save energy.
>
> http://www.energysavers.gov/your_hom.../mytopic=12280
> http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...you-leave-room
> http://green.yahoo.com/blog/the_cons...ur-lights.html
> Original google was: turn lights off or leave on
>
> To be fair, I did find articles to support your claim, but the number was probably
> 10 to 1 against leaving them on. One article stated turning an incandescent light
> on used as much power as leaving it on for 5 minutes. This may sound reasonable,
> but I turned a cold bulb on and in less than a minute it was too hot to touch so I
> doubt this data. Most articles, for and against, agreed cycling electrical devices
> cuts down of their life, but the savings in electricity outweigh the loss in life
> (which is minimal at best).
> Finally, this subject came up when I was in college (for electronics) and worked
> with a guy who was pursuing his Master Electrician's License. He stated pretty
> much the same as you, so we worked it out in lab one day. Don't have my
> references, but the data I remember is the same as the articles I found this time,
> the surge duration is so short it takes a lot of cycles to add up to a second of
> burn time.
> Just my 2cents,
> Dave

"Peter Foldes" <> wrote in message
news:hnjj9t$d8b$...
> Dave
>
> You do know the difference between a household 100v or a 347v commercial
> in the amount of their usage
>
> --
> Peter
>

I can't give you a scientific example of the differences between those two.
Off the top of my head I think you might be comparing single phase to a
multiple, like delta or y. I can say the usage, no matter what the supply,
is going to be dependant on the demand.
One final attempt at trying to not look stupid is that for the same device,
if it's capable of handling the higher voltage, usually the higher the
voltage, the lower the current so the lower the cost to use.
If that isn't what you're asking then you'll have to be more specific as
you're obviously in your area of expertise and out of mine.
Dave

On Sun, 14 Mar 2010 16:28:40 -0500, "Dave" <>
wrote:

>
>
>"Peter Foldes" <> wrote in message
>news:hnjj9t$d8b$...
>> Dave
>>
>> You do know the difference between a household 100v or a 347v commercial
>> in the amount of their usage
>>
>> --
>> Peter
>>
>
>I can't give you a scientific example of the differences between those two.
>Off the top of my head I think you might be comparing single phase to a
>multiple, like delta or y. I can say the usage, no matter what the supply,
>is going to be dependant on the demand.
>One final attempt at trying to not look stupid is that for the same device,
>if it's capable of handling the higher voltage, usually the higher the
>voltage, the lower the current so the lower the cost to use.

No, the cost will be the same regardless of the voltage. Usage is
measured in Watts. Watts are the product of voltage times current, so
if voltage goes up by a certain factor then current comes down by the
same factor. In the end, the Watts are the same, therefore the usage
and the cost are the same.

On Sun, 14 Mar 2010 16:09:07 -0500, "Dave" <>
wrote:

>
>
>"Seth" <> wrote in message
>news:hnhig9$ep8$...
>> "Char Jackson" <> wrote in message
>> news:...
>>> On Sat, 13 Mar 2010 17:42:11 -0500, "Seth"
>>> <> wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Char Jackson" <> wrote in message
>>>>news:...
>>>>> On Sat, 13 Mar 2010 15:46:16 -0500, "Peter Foldes" <>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Ken
>>>>>>
>>>>>>35 yrs being an Electrician. The draw when you open a light switch with
>>>>>>a
>>>>>>single 100
>>>>>>w bulb will be approximately +- 0.03 kvh at start up where as the light
>>>>>>staying open
>>>>>>will draw 0.01 per kvh per every 10 hrs, Now open and close the switch
>>>>>>10
>>>>>>times per
>>>>>>day which will cause 0.30kvh registration on the meter as compared to a
>>>>>>bulb
>>>>>>continuously burning for a 24hr period as approximately .025. Same
>>>>>>applies
>>>>>>to any
>>>>>>electrical apparatus be it a light bulb or the computer plus adding the
>>>>>>opening
>>>>>>surge and then the burning ( running) time
>>>>>>But I will try and find the documentation on this Ken and will get over
>>>>>>to
>>>>>>you
>>>>>>(right now the documentation is in my head and I do not have my CA book
>>>>>>at
>>>>>>hand here
>>>>>>so as to show a hard copy
>>>>>
>>>>> What unit of measure is kvh?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>kilo volt hour. The way electricity is metered when determining how much
>>>>you used and how much you need to pay for.
>>>
>>> Thanks, so that would be the semi-equivalent of kilo watt hour, our
>>> unit of measure in the US. I'm really curious how voltage can be used
>>> to measure power consumption.
>>
>> Actually now that you mention it, KWH was what I was thinking of. Hands
>> faster than the mid sometimes.
>>
>> I saw KWH instead of KVH and automatically changed the "watt" to "volt" to
>> match the acronym. Oops.
>>
>> But in looking up to see if there is an actual official listing for KVH,
>> I'm not seeing one (at least not one that has anything to do with
>> electricity). Did Peter mean to say KWH instead of KVH?
>>
>
>Either one can be converted into the other,

Sorry, I have to disagree. Voltage cannot be "converted" into usage.

>but basically they are both a
>measure of power, or watts (energy consumed). The energy consumed by devices
>in your home are a combination of the voltage x the amperage, or current. In
>short, it takes both factors to make the dial spin on your meter.
>AFAIK, KWH indicates the number of Kilo (thousands) of Watts (power) you use
>each Hour (time). KVH is an indicator of the same thing, but it takes a
>formula to equate it to KWH. I think it takes less in KVH to equal the same
>amount of power as indicated by KWH.
>One of the electricians who participate here probably have a better handle
>on this if I'm not including something or just plain wrong.

It's "just plain wrong".

On Sun, 14 Mar 2010 17:09:33 -0400, "Peter Foldes" <>
wrote:

>Dave
>
>You do know the difference between a household 100v or a 347v commercial in the
>amount of their usage

You do know the difference between voltage and current, right? Voltage
is not a measure of usage. Voltage is the quasi-constant that is
multiplied with the current to get Watts. Watts is the measure of
usage.

This discussion would have been a lot shorter if you had simply
admitted that you meant to type KWH instead of KVH. ;-)

Also, I have to admit I knew the answer when I initially asked about
"kvh" and what it referred to.

Dave wrote:
>
>
> "Peter Foldes" <> wrote in message
> news:hngtic$srd$...
>> Ken
>>
>> 35 yrs being an Electrician. The draw when you open a light switch
>> with a single 100 w bulb will be approximately +- 0.03 kvh at start up
>> where as the light staying open will draw 0.01 per kvh per every 10
>> hrs, Now open and close the switch 10 times per day which will cause
>> 0.30kvh registration on the meter as compared to a bulb continuously
>> burning for a 24hr period as approximately .025. Same applies to any
>> electrical apparatus be it a light bulb or the computer plus adding
>> the opening surge and then the burning ( running) time
>> But I will try and find the documentation on this Ken and will get
>> over to you (right now the documentation is in my head and I do not
>> have my CA book at hand here so as to show a hard copy
>>
>> --
>> Peter
>>
>
> Not to seem irrational or argumentative, but 24 years as an electronic
> tech along with two side businesses dealing in electronics repair, plus
> google showed me that the surge when starting a bulb lasts appx 1/2
> cycle, or 1/120th of a second, plus only 10-15% of the energy consumed
> by an incandescent bulb is turned into light, the rest is heat. So, if
> you'd have to cycle your bulbs off and on an unbelievable amount of
> times a day and it would only be equivalent to a few seconds of burn
> time at most. Fluorescents are a little more economical, rule of thumb
> is if you are going to turn one back on within 15 minutes, it's usually
> cheaper to leave it on, unless it's in the high-usage part of the day
> when many utilities charge more for KWH of consumption, then the rule of
> thumb is 5 minutes. Another offset in the flourescent is the fact the
> bulbs, transformers and fixtures are quite a bit more expensive, so
> shortening their life can account for a bit more monetary loss by
> cycling. Information I found concerning computers was pretty much the
> same, if it's going to be idle for more than 5 minutes, put it to sleep
> or 10 minutes then turn it off and you will save energy.
>
> http://www.energysavers.gov/your_hom.../mytopic=12280
>
> http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...you-leave-room
>
> http://green.yahoo.com/blog/the_cons...ur-lights.html
>
> Original google was: turn lights off or leave on
>
> To be fair, I did find articles to support your claim, but the number
> was probably 10 to 1 against leaving them on. One article stated turning
> an incandescent light on used as much power as leaving it on for 5
> minutes. This may sound reasonable, but I turned a cold bulb on and in
> less than a minute it was too hot to touch so I doubt this data. Most
> articles, for and against, agreed cycling electrical devices cuts down
> of their life, but the savings in electricity outweigh the loss in life
> (which is minimal at best).
> Finally, this subject came up when I was in college (for electronics)
> and worked with a guy who was pursuing his Master Electrician's License.
> He stated pretty much the same as you, so we worked it out in lab one
> day. Don't have my references, but the data I remember is the same as
> the articles I found this time, the surge duration is so short it takes
> a lot of cycles to add up to a second of burn time.
> Just my 2cents,
> Dave

I got to thinking about the lamps used on theater marques. I think they
last as long as the do because the switching cycle is short enough the
filament doesn't have to go through the expansion/contraction of a
household-type on/of cycle.

Probably wrong, but it sounds sort of logical to me... :>))
--
TOM - Vista, CA - USA