I would like to be able to argue this intelligently, but don't know the correct terminology or 'science' behind it. If it's true, than how can this be argued? It seems to me that a burst of electricity at each turn on may increase the cost of per/timeframe usage, however maybe not with today's more energy efficient bulbs. Anyhow, is it true that it costs more to switch than to keep it on, and if so, is there a time when both equal out?
2006-11-14 08:01:46 · 6 answers · asked by C A 1 in Science & Mathematics ➔ Physics
it is cheaper to keep the lights on than to turn it off and on several times due to the surge of electrical energy used. when the light is on current flows at a even and moderate rate. but when it is turned on and off repeatedly more energy is required, because the constant flow of current has been disturbed(which creates a need to return to normal.) and the light company charge via electricity used.
2006-11-14 08:11:24 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
For any practical purpose, a home incandescent bulb uses constant energy per unit time. But the primary determinant of the lifetime of a fluorescent bulb is the number of times it is turned on. So if you include the energy to manufacture the bulb and get it to you, you'll probably break even around 10 minutes. If you calculate based on your cost for the energy and the bulb, the break-even time is over an hour or two.
2006-11-14 10:33:09 · answer #2 · answered by Frank N 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I don't buy that.
A light bulb uses X amount of energy per hour of use.
If you have it on for 12 hours, it uses 12X energy.
If you have it on for 2 hours three times, it uses 6X energy.
There is no huge energy draw required to start a light bulb, so there would not be a time they ever equal out.
If you were talking about a large electric motor, that may be a different story. But I doubt that it would use more than a few minutes of energy at most for startup.
2006-11-14 08:08:15 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
This is only true for fluorescent and neon lighting, not incandescent lighting . Start here to get the 'science' behind it. http://home.howstuffworks.com/question236.htm
Basically, incandescent lighting uses more energy to STAY on due to the heat required to produce the lighting effect. Fluorescent/neon lighting uses gasses that, once in motion (the cycle inside causes the illumination), requires much less energy to maintain. Therefore, it is cheaper to use the energy required to turn it on only once, then leave it on. Turn off all your 'lightbulbs' though, you don't want them using all those watts, and heating up the house at the same time.
2006-11-14 08:28:30 · answer #4 · answered by jesusisthe1foryou 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
may be true with flourescent style lamps, but I doubt it's true with incandescent type light bulbs, don't have any data to support this
2006-11-14 08:10:42 · answer #5 · answered by Nick F 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I have heard that it's because it takes more energy to turn it on
2006-11-14 08:08:45 · answer #6 · answered by futureastronaut1 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋