strange_complex: (TT Baby Helios)
I've been wondering recently about how energy-efficient it is to switch off a light when you know you're going to switch it back on in only a few minutes' time (e.g. because you are only popping out of the room to go to the loo), and also how much the situation varies depending on what type of light you are using.

Googling produced a few results, which is a start, although they don't seem entirely authoritative to me. So I'm reporting back on my findings here, a) in case anyone else has been wondering about the same issue, and b) in the hope that someone can point me towards more detailed and convincing information on the subject.

According to this page, the initial surge in an ordinary incandescent household light bulb "would probably burn up one-tenth of a second's worth of regular electric light burning - or maybe a second, absolute maximum". So in other words, you may as well turn off an ordinary bulb even if you know you'll be switching it back on in five minutes' time.

Regarding fluorescent lights (which are what I have in my office at work), The University of Alberta has apparently recently been trying to encourage its staff to save energy by turning off unused lights. They say, "Turning fluor(e)scent lights off and on causes some wear. Studies show that if you turn them off and on in periods of less than 20 minutes it reduces the beneficial effects. Incandescent lights - more common in homes and on desktops -- can be switched off even if the space is vacant for less than 20 minutes."

This, of course, is a slightly different issue - they are really talking about the life-time of the fluorescent tubes, not how much energy they use while being switched on as compared to while running normally. But I guess they must take up a fair amount of energy when they are produced in the first place, so conserving the tubes themselves is worth thinking about - although I would really like to know how the two things play off against one another. And of course the University of Alberta offer no link or reference to whatever 'studies' they are talking about.

Meanwhile, on the same issue the University of Virginia's 'How Things Work' page reckons by a much shorter time-frame: "Since turning an incandescent bulb on and off doesn't shorten the life of its filament significantly, you do well to turn it off whenever possible. The same isn't true of a fluorescent tube--turning it on ages its filaments significantly (due to sputtering processes) so you shouldn't turn a fluorescent lamp off if you plan to restart it in less than about 1 minute."

One minute? Twenty minutes? Those are quite different lengths of time! I guess either way my office lights are probably best left on while I'm nipping out to the loo or to pick something up from the staff room. But, as I say, it would be handy to have a more authoritative guide than this.

Bemused

Sunday, 24 December 2006 16:21
strange_complex: (Chrestomanci slacking in style)
Hmm - OK. I just Googled "bournville + carols + green" to find the starting time for the Christmas Eve lantern-lit carol event we've been going to for the last couple of years, only to find that my own journal is Google's number three hit for that query - above the parish church's official page which actually answered the question. Doesn't anyone else who goes blog the event?

Well, for anyone who finds themselves here as the result of a Google search: it starts at 6pm.

Today's been a pretty quiet day in the Goodman household, after last night's excitement. My Mum was apparently so hyped-up by it all when she went to bed, that she couldn't get to sleep for hours, but instead kept having the giggles over things which had happened at the party: one recorder player stopping and asking what on earth was going on when she found herself playing an unexpected (but perfectly correct) solo in the 'Amen' chorus; the piano-player making a swift and judicious change of key during at least two of the carols, and all the singers heaving a sigh of relief, as it had been far too low before; banter about whether the cracker-whistles were at 414 or 440 pitch (to which one joker replied, 'Both'); and the look on a whistle-player's face when she suddenly realised she was meant to have played her note in the Can-Can about 10 seconds ago.

We've been eating up left-overs, and watching a Channel 4 documentary (on Telewest's 'Teleport' service) about the Noble Whale of London Town - which basically concluded that the whale's death had probably been encouraged, if not actually caused as such, by a combination of changing climate and confusing man-made sound-signals. :-(

And now, I shall share pictures of domestic winter greenery which I also took yesterday with my digital camera:

Winter greenery )

strange_complex: (Default)
Particularly scientific academics at the moment, but it could develop further:

Google Scholar

It searches specifically for articles and books, linking you to the text of the article if publically available online, or allowing you to do a library search for it or search for references to it on the web if not. It also provides links to all web sites which have cited the work.

Could become a viable replacement for lots and lots of individual bibliographic databases if it develops successfully. I guess it all depends on how much demand for it there seems to be.

Oh, and can I be the only person who just wants the two 'o's in Google to be little eyes, with a mortar board balancing above them? Perhaps they considered it and decided it was too twee?

Profile

strange_complex: (Default)
strange_complex

October 2017

M T W T F S S
      1
2345678
910111213 14 15
16171819 2021 22
23242526272829
3031     

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Sunday, 22 October 2017 17:35
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios