Path: utzoo!dptcdc!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!ames!ncar!gatech!udel!udccvax1!anand
From: anand@vax1.acs.udel.EDU (Anand Iyengar)
Newsgroups: sci.electronics
Subject: Re: fluorescent vs. incandescent
Keywords: none
Message-ID: <3344@udccvax1.acs.udel.EDU>
Date: 17 Apr 89 20:00:38 GMT
References: <1369@hudson.acc.virginia.edu>
Reply-To: anand@vax1.acs.udel.EDU (Anand Iyengar)
Distribution: usa
Organization: The Lab Rats
Lines: 16

In article <1369@hudson.acc.virginia.edu> smf7s@hudson.acc.virginia.edu (friedman steven michael) writes:
>incandescent lights, but use a lot of power during start-up; whereas
>it costs nothing to flip an incandescent bulb on and off, but is more
>expensive to run over time.  My question is where do the efficiency
>curves meet?  That is, how long does one need to keep a light on
>continuously before it becomes more efficient to switch from

	What I've heard is that it's not so much the start-up cost, but
the wear on the tube from switching it on/off, versus the cost of the
power it uses.  About 7 years ago, I was told that flourescents should
not be turned off if they're going to be used in the next hour (that
was for a room full:  I'm assuming this scales...therefore it should be the
same for fewer lamps of the same wattage (40) ).  Anyone know about
sodium/mercury vapor?

							Anand.