3 ms·
> not to mention their terrible power factor almost negated any efficiency improvements. A power factor is not what you think it is (has zero to do with effici
by zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago
> not to mention their terrible power factor almost negated any efficiency improvements.
A power factor is not what you think it is (has zero to do with efficiency).
- apcragg 9y agoI'm similarly skeptical that replacing 70 watt bulbs with 15 watt bulbs with poor power factors would end up being a wash. IR loses from the increase in reactive current would not cover the 55 watt gap.
- petre 9y agoWe moved from halogen directly to LED bulbs. Never liked CFLs mainly because of the mercury. I guess it's up to you to decide and educate others.
- zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y agoThere isn't even any reactive current, it's just a non-sinusoidal load current because there is a rectifier and capacitors for smoothing the rectified voltage at the input.
- exabrial 9y agoIn fact, it does. A lot of transmission energy is wasted as heat when powering devices with a terrible power factor. Replacing a 60w incandescent with a 15w device that has a .5 power factor isn't netting the environmental savings advertised.