Burn out 120V lamp on 120V circuit?
in [Design]
|
Prev: Project for New American Unix, Physics, Electronics, Metalworking - TUTORIAL VIDEOS
Next: H Bridge, NMOS AND PMOS DRIVER
From: bud-- on 12 Aug 2010 14:49 Paul E. Schoen wrote: > > "Don Klipstein" <don(a)manx.misty.com> wrote in message > news:slrni63jlf.b88.don(a)manx.misty.com... >> On 6/08/2010 4:03 AM, VWWall wrote in part: >> >>>>>> I haven't tried the experiment myself, since I don't have a suitable >>>>>> small motor available, and with 120V incandescent bulbs on the >>>>>> endangered species list, I don't care to sacrifice even one! >> >> The upcoming USA incandescent lamp ban scheduled to take effect in >> phases from 2012 to 2014 has a lot of exemptions. >> >> Exempted ones include tubular, flame shape, globe shape, rough service, >> reflector flood and spot, in general ones 25 watts or less, and ones >> producing more than 2600 lumens (nearly all incandescent lamps 200 watts >> or more and some 150 watt ones), and ones with a base other than "right >> hand" threaded E26 or E27 medium screw. >> >> I list these and other exemptions in: >> >> http://members.misty.com/don/incban.html > > That is very interesting (and a little disturbing). I did not realize > that an outright ban on incandescent lamps was set to be implemented > here in the US. Surprising. I have see it at least a couple times in the newspaper and at least a half dozen times in the newsgroups I follow. I suspect it has appeared here as an example of the socialist-government-takeover-of-America (except the socialist that signed the bill was Bush 2). The loon from Minnesota (Michelle Bachman) tried to make it a big issue (ignoring, of course, what the ban really did). > Even though I am a greenie and a Sierra Club member > since 1975, I really disagree with outright bans on products that may > not be as efficient as other technologies. If you look at Don's link (in addition to what he wrote above) the ban does not cover a whole lot of incandescents. And the 'banned' lamps are not banned if they meet efficiency standards. There may be some current incandescents that do. > The proper way to control > production and sale of something that is determined to be detrimental to > the environment, health, or other item of concern to society, is to tax > it appropriately and in accordance to how much damage it may cause and > the cost of remedying that damage. > > Incandescent lamps are not always inferior to more efficient > replacements. In winter, especially if a home uses electric heat, an > incandescent lamp is nearly 100% efficient if you factor in the heat as > a valuable output. If you are seated next to a warm incandescent lamp > you might even turn down the thermostat and allow the rest of the room > to be colder, resulting in a net saving. And many CFLs do not work well > in extreme cold, although they are OK down to most minimum temperatures > here in MD. Also, CFLs are more hazardous if they break or are put in > landfills rather than properly recycled. But LED lamps will probably > soon replace most CFLs. > > There are also ways to get around a ban of this type with so many > exceptions. What about stringing 10 automotive 12 VDC lamps in series > and mounting them on a standard Edison base? > > BTW, how long do you think a CFL will remain lit after it has broken? My > dog pulled a desk lamp with a CFL onto the floor and I saw that it > remained lit, but a large part of the lamp had broken. By the time I > pulled the plug it had probably remained lit for as long as 10 seconds. > When I saw that the bulb had broken and only two short tubes of glass > remained, I tried plugging it back in about 10 seconds later. It > actually lit again, for a couple of seconds, before going out for good. > > Paul
From: Jim Thompson on 12 Aug 2010 15:27 On Thu, 12 Aug 2010 13:49:36 -0500, bud-- <remove.budnews(a)isp.com> wrote: >Paul E. Schoen wrote: >> >> "Don Klipstein" <don(a)manx.misty.com> wrote in message >> news:slrni63jlf.b88.don(a)manx.misty.com... >>> On 6/08/2010 4:03 AM, VWWall wrote in part: >>> >>>>>>> I haven't tried the experiment myself, since I don't have a suitable >>>>>>> small motor available, and with 120V incandescent bulbs on the >>>>>>> endangered species list, I don't care to sacrifice even one! >>> >>> The upcoming USA incandescent lamp ban scheduled to take effect in >>> phases from 2012 to 2014 has a lot of exemptions. >>> >>> Exempted ones include tubular, flame shape, globe shape, rough service, >>> reflector flood and spot, in general ones 25 watts or less, and ones >>> producing more than 2600 lumens (nearly all incandescent lamps 200 watts >>> or more and some 150 watt ones), and ones with a base other than "right >>> hand" threaded E26 or E27 medium screw. >>> >>> I list these and other exemptions in: >>> >>> http://members.misty.com/don/incban.html >> >> That is very interesting (and a little disturbing). I did not realize >> that an outright ban on incandescent lamps was set to be implemented >> here in the US. > >Surprising. I have see it at least a couple times in the newspaper and >at least a half dozen times in the newsgroups I follow. I suspect it has >appeared here as an example of the >socialist-government-takeover-of-America (except the socialist that >signed the bill was Bush 2). The loon from Minnesota (Michelle Bachman) >tried to make it a big issue (ignoring, of course, what the ban really did). > >> Even though I am a greenie and a Sierra Club member >> since 1975, I really disagree with outright bans on products that may >> not be as efficient as other technologies. > >If you look at Don's link (in addition to what he wrote above) the ban >does not cover a whole lot of incandescents. And the 'banned' lamps are >not banned if they meet efficiency standards. There may be some current >incandescents that do. > >> The proper way to control >> production and sale of something that is determined to be detrimental to >> the environment, health, or other item of concern to society, is to tax >> it appropriately and in accordance to how much damage it may cause and >> the cost of remedying that damage. >> >> Incandescent lamps are not always inferior to more efficient >> replacements. In winter, especially if a home uses electric heat, an >> incandescent lamp is nearly 100% efficient if you factor in the heat as >> a valuable output. If you are seated next to a warm incandescent lamp >> you might even turn down the thermostat and allow the rest of the room >> to be colder, resulting in a net saving. And many CFLs do not work well >> in extreme cold, although they are OK down to most minimum temperatures >> here in MD. Also, CFLs are more hazardous if they break or are put in >> landfills rather than properly recycled. But LED lamps will probably >> soon replace most CFLs. >> >> There are also ways to get around a ban of this type with so many >> exceptions. What about stringing 10 automotive 12 VDC lamps in series >> and mounting them on a standard Edison base? >> >> BTW, how long do you think a CFL will remain lit after it has broken? My >> dog pulled a desk lamp with a CFL onto the floor and I saw that it >> remained lit, but a large part of the lamp had broken. By the time I >> pulled the plug it had probably remained lit for as long as 10 seconds. >> When I saw that the bulb had broken and only two short tubes of glass >> remained, I tried plugging it back in about 10 seconds later. It >> actually lit again, for a couple of seconds, before going out for good. >> >> Paul I understand that you can apply 110VAC to the shriveled useless testicles of a tree hugger and get a substantial amount of light (and noise) for as much as TWO MINUTES... then you get smoke ;-) ...Jim Thompson -- | James E.Thompson, CTO | mens | | Analog Innovations, Inc. | et | | Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus | | Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | | | Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat | | E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 | The Green Police are like watermelons... GREEN on the outside, RED on the inside. Test them as done in "Day of the Jackal"
From: Michael A. Terrell on 12 Aug 2010 18:03 Jim Thompson wrote: > > I understand that you can apply 110VAC to the shriveled useless > testicles of a tree hugger and get a substantial amount of light (and > noise) for as much as TWO MINUTES... then you get smoke ;-) Yes, but it smells like burning rope.
From: JosephKK on 12 Aug 2010 22:24 On Thu, 5 Aug 2010 20:47:31 -0700 (PDT), Greegor <greegor47(a)gmail.com> wrote: >Ok, So you're thinking that the motor is creating >some sort of inductive kick or something a bit like >a slower version of inductive kick caused by the >motor's flyweel effect and switching from a spinning >motor to a spinning generator? > >What kind of voltage do you suppose the >spinning generator effect could add to the circuit? > >Can't a 100W 120 Volt Incandescent light >bulb take a momentary surge of double or >triple the normal voltage? Quite a bit. Possibly 5 to 10 times line voltage. Very many small to household small to medium size induction motors include starter windings and some kind of starter circuit that disconnect that winding as the motor comes up to speed. It could have quite a kick, added to by transformer like issues as the main run windings also dump into the starter winding.
From: JosephKK on 12 Aug 2010 22:28
On Sat, 07 Aug 2010 07:50:50 -0400, Spehro Pefhany <speffSNIP(a)interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote: >On Sat, 7 Aug 2010 04:05:08 -0500, the renowned "Tim Williams" ><tmoranwms(a)charter.net> wrote: > >>Possible if the motor is large (high reactive current) and a suitable >>capacitor is placed across the lamp (thus resonating at 60Hz). >> >>Tim > >That's not a 2-terminal device though. And we should reject the >pathological case of a motor with a massive flywheel that is >"plugged". > >Best regards, >Spehro Pefhany Why? Is there _any_ evidence that that this is not the case? |