Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[Shop\-talk\]\s+tube\s+fluorescent\s+wattage\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[Shop\-talk\]\s+tube\s+fluorescent\s+wattage\s*$/: 14 ]

Total 14 documents matching your query.

1. [Shop-talk] tube fluorescent wattage (score: 1): Author: "old dirtbeard" <dirtbeard@pacbell.net>; Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2009 11:18:03 -0800; Hi shop talkers. All that compact fluorescent and tube fluorescent discussion got me thinking about the wattage consumed so I got the old Kill A Watt out and tested a two tube 4' fixture with solid-s; /html/shop-talk/2009-02/msg00123.html (8,575 bytes)
2. Re: [Shop-talk] tube fluorescent wattage (score: 1): Author: "Randall" <tr3driver@ca.rr.com>; Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2009 11:50:10 -0800; Regular start, rapid start or instant start? That is interesting. Thanks for the report. Me too. But it makes sense to me that old bulbs draw less current, so I'm still wondering how much power was; /html/shop-talk/2009-02/msg00125.html (8,358 bytes)
3. Re: [Shop-talk] tube fluorescent wattage (score: 1): Author: "Karl Vacek" <kvacek@ameritech.net>; Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2009 18:58:59 -0600; 75-watt incandescent bulbs are usually labeled as 77 initial watts nowadays - sounds right to me. Karl _______________________________________________ Support Team.Net http://www.team.net/donate.htm; /html/shop-talk/2009-02/msg00126.html (7,338 bytes)
4. Re: [Shop-talk] tube fluorescent wattage (score: 1): Author: Phil Nase <nases@verizon.net>; Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2009 22:19:27 -0500; Just a note to thank Randall and the rest of you frequent posters for all your professional responses to these posts. I barely understand most of the things you folks talk about but I wanted to thank; /html/shop-talk/2009-02/msg00127.html (9,942 bytes)
5. Re: [Shop-talk] tube fluorescent wattage (score: 1): Author: "Randall" <tr3driver@ca.rr.com>; Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2009 23:11:55 -0800; Not to worry, Phil, I have a hard time telling a debit from a credit and usually have to make accounts balance by drilling holes in them! Randall _______________________________________________ Supp; /html/shop-talk/2009-03/msg00000.html (6,007 bytes)
6. Re: [Shop-talk] tube fluorescent wattage (score: 1): Author: "Eric J Russell" <ejrussell@mebtel.net>; Date: Sun, 1 Mar 2009 10:30:33 -0500; The only thing I understand is the Smoke Theory of Electricity. http://www.peizhang.com/forfun/forfun_writings_smoke.htm Eric Russell Mebane, NC -- Original Message -- _______________________________; /html/shop-talk/2009-03/msg00001.html (6,806 bytes)
7. Re: [Shop-talk] tube fluorescent wattage (score: 1): Author: Doug Braun <doug@dougbraun.com>; Date: Sun, 1 Mar 2009 09:21:51 -0800 (PST); One of the things I read a few days ago about fluorescent bulbs said that some "Energy-saving" bulbs use less power, but their light output is lower, too, and the lumens-per-watt is often worse than; /html/shop-talk/2009-03/msg00002.html (7,673 bytes)
8. Re: [Shop-talk] tube fluorescent wattage (score: 1): Author: "Randall" <tr3driver@ca.rr.com>; Date: Sun, 1 Mar 2009 14:08:21 -0800; While I have not tried one myself, it's my understanding that the Kill-a-Watt meter measures both apparent and true RMS power. It has displays for watts, volt-amps, power factor, etc. Fairly easy to; /html/shop-talk/2009-03/msg00003.html (8,380 bytes)
9. Re: [Shop-talk] tube fluorescent wattage (score: 1): Author: Doug Braun <doug@dougbraun.com>; Date: Sun, 1 Mar 2009 16:43:37 -0800 (PST); That's a nice unit, then. I have a fairly cheesy power meter from Lacrosse, similar in style to the Kill-a-Watt, and it clearly does not consider power factor, just current as measured across a shunt; /html/shop-talk/2009-03/msg00004.html (9,124 bytes)
10. Re: [Shop-talk] tube fluorescent wattage (score: 1): Author: Peter Murray <peterwmurray@gmail.com>; Date: Sun, 22 Mar 2009 18:03:47 -0400; Doug (Shook)- Were your fluorescent tubes of the older T12 variety, or of the smaller T8 type? I have read (not measured) that the T8 tubes are more efficient than the T12. It almost sounds like you; /html/shop-talk/2009-03/msg00073.html (8,926 bytes)
11. Re: [Shop-talk] tube fluorescent wattage (score: 1): Author: Doug Braun <doug@dougbraun.com>; Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2009 05:32:12 -0700 (PDT); I recently got my TED unit upgraded with the USB computer interface. Here is a Web page that shows graphs of the power consumption it reports: http://dougbert.is-a-geek.com:8080/cacti/graph_view.php?; /html/shop-talk/2009-03/msg00074.html (9,435 bytes)
12. Re: [Shop-talk] tube fluorescent wattage (score: 1): Author: Rich White <rlwhitetr3b@hotmail.com>; Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2009 09:21:11 -0500; Did you get their software also or is catci doing all the work for you? Rich White St. Joseph, IL USA '63 TR3B TCF587L That ain't a scrap pile, that is my car! See it moves! a Web page that shows gr; /html/shop-talk/2009-03/msg00076.html (10,678 bytes)
13. Re: [Shop-talk] tube fluorescent wattage (score: 1): Author: Doug Braun <doug@dougbraun.com>; Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2009 07:55:54 -0700 (PDT); The TED is connected to a Linux box, so I never even took their software out of the envelope. Besides Cacti, there are some Perl and shell scripts to collect data from the unit. If any TED owner is i; /html/shop-talk/2009-03/msg00078.html (12,266 bytes)
14. Re: [Shop-talk] tube fluorescent wattage (score: 1): Author: "old dirtbeard" <dirtbeard@pacbell.net>; Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2009 21:05:50 -0700; Doug (Shook)- Were your fluorescent tubes of the older T12 variety, or of the smaller T8 type? I have read (not measured) that the T8 tubes are more efficient than the T12. It almost sounds like you; /html/shop-talk/2009-03/msg00101.html (10,287 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 14
Page: [1]