Talk:Electrical efficiency

message: Reversion from Sillybilly's vandalism - Stop it or you will be reported and blocked.
Also, stop making fraudulent claims of "Rampage" by others about your own vandalism.
This is your final warning stop it or you will be reported.
--Theo Pardilla 04:02, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandalism

message: Section title shortened from: ==Lighting efficiency inconsistencies - someone please correct them, being called a vandal, I have to get YOU to do it==
The incandescent light bulb article has different efficiency/efficacy numbers. On that page, LEDs have 8-15% efficiency (not 80-90%), incandescents 2-4% (not 10%), xenon arc lamps 4-22%. These numbers are obtained by dividing the lumens/watt with the maximum 683 lm/W possible. Of course almost lamps are near 100% efficient at heating a room, via thermal conduction+radiation - what doesn't get converted into visible light, gets converted into heat, and even visible light ultimately gets absorbed and converted into heat.
Where the 80-90% LED numbers are obtained from? (Radiojon did the incorrect correction) And what's that electric kettle remark doing there, by itself? It looks kind of silly, but when I look at earlier versions of the page, such as that just before Radiojon's edits, the electric kettle looks nice and meaningful next to the lightbulb efficiencies. How has this page, being such a small page, gotten so disintegrated? Sometimes I'm paranoid, and sense intent.
*The maximum efficiency is 683 lumens per watt, multiplied by the photoptic function for each wavelength (λ) of useful light (no UV or IR) which is output from the source.  That function is one of biology and frequency response of the average human eye.  The photoptic fucntion is only the maximum 1.0 at λ=555nm (in roughly the middle of the visible light spectrum), and then drops off quite a lot on either side, to near zero at the edges.  This means that the total weighted average across the dynamic range of the eye is close to 150 lumens per watt.  Dividing by this much more practical and realistic number will give the proper figures. – radiojon 13:55, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lighting efficiency inconsistencies 

message: (Lighting efficiency is a very difficult, complex subject, best avoided here as much as possible.)
I like this sentence: 'The term "efficiency" only makes sense in reference to the wanted effect.'  However, we need the reader to know that "Electrical efficiency" is mostly a limited, directly technical term.  Our world is full of transformers and other devices using and wasting energy when we think they are "off" (0% efficient, at best).  And there are so many devices that are "on", using energy, pointlessly, with no one around getting any use from them.  But all of that is rather beyond a simple concept of "Electrical efficiency" -- isn't it?
-69.87.202.184 17:29, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Narrow sense vs. broader system efficiency 

message: The article says that "an electric fire is 100% efficient in terms of converting electrical energy into heat." An electric fire is loud and bright, so either there's something important about the properties of an electric fire that I don't know or this statement is wrong. Either way, I think it requires a citation or deserves clarification. Rgiusti (talk) 18:43, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the statement. I seriously doubt that's correct. I anyone wants to add it back, just clarify and reference it. Rgiusti (talk) 18:50, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Electric fire