Preheating Conventionals?

ABSOLUTELY WRONG, of course heat can be converted to light or electricity or work. the resistance of the filament does not cause it to glow, I have boxes of resistors none of which are glowing, it is only when a filament is hot that it produces light.
If some poor physics student comes across Icewolfs theory and uses it in class, he or she will be seriously embarrassed.

Surfing though old threads I see....

Actually, the heat does not do any work. The electricity does the work. Heat is a byproduct. I will admit that I am wrong in saying heat does not cause the filament to glow, but the heat is not doing the work. The electricity meets resistance in the filament, the filament heats up and glows.

To get really technical about it, passing current through the filament causes electrons in the atoms of the metal to change energy states. When an electron drops from one shell to another it emits a photon. Get a lot of atoms excited and they emit lots of photons, thus you get light. At the same time, as with any resistor you generate heat as a byproduct.

NOw, it has been a long time since i have taken a physics course, but I don't think that this has changed.
 
The First Law basically says that energy or matter can neither be created nor destroyed. In terms of the machine, this meant that the total energy output (work by the machine) is equal to the heat supplied. In other words, the change in the internal energy of a closed system is equal to the heat added to the system minus the work done by the system. Because the system operates in the real world, some energy always escapes into the outside world, thus leading to both inefficiency and the Second Law, which was generated to cover the so-called flaw in the First Law.
This is Newtons first law of thermodynamics, and unlike Icewolfs law of thermodynamics, heat can absolutely do work, it is the heat measured in Watts which heats the filament and produces the light, no semantics can get around that absolute fact.
 
I run everything at 30 for a while, while getting ready, then do a s sub and lamp check.

Ahh! The preheat issue again!

Also, any visible output means that tungsten is vaporizing off of the filament,

So that's what makes a beam of light visible with no fog or haze? Because at a band concert last week I could see all the beams of lights from our Colortran Ellipsoidals' by the end of the night.
It gets REALLY hot in there during concerts.
 
I run everything at 30 for a while, while getting ready, then do a s sub and lamp check.



So that's what makes a beam of light visible with no fog or haze? Because at a band concert last week I could see all the beams of lights from our Colortran Ellipsoidals' by the end of the night.
It gets REALLY hot in there during concerts.

Actually, what you're seeing isn't vaporized filament, but rather a phenomenon we refer to as dust. ;)
 
I don't think that the argument between Icewolf and David Ashton is going to be resolved by silly old me. I have a feeling it will at the very least take a post from someone that they mutually respect and deem an expert in the field. All of that said, I do want to make some statements of my own. I feel that there is a bit of a semantic problem.

The First Law basically says that energy or matter can neither be created nor destroyed. In terms of the machine, this meant that the total energy output (work by the machine) is equal to the heat supplied. In other words, the change in the internal energy of a closed system is equal to the heat added to the system minus the work done by the system. Because the system operates in the real world, some energy always escapes into the outside world, thus leading to both inefficiency and the Second Law, which was generated to cover the so-called flaw in the First Law.

This statement, that David Ashton so blatantly plagiarized from this website Three Laws of Thermodynamics - Physics Planet .com
paragraph 5, I think is using the word heat to describe the internal energy of a system. It does not mean the kind of heat we are use to in everyday life. I.e. It does not follow that if you pointed a hair dryer at a motor, it would start turning.
Heat, work, and energy are all really the same thing in physics terms. They are all measured in Joules, or Newton-meters.
This leads to my second point,
This is Newtons first law of thermodynamics, and unlike Icewolfs law of thermodynamics, heat can absolutely do work, it is the heat measured in Watts which heats the filament and produces the light, no semantics can get around that absolute fact.
Heat is most absolutely not measured in watts. Like I said, heat is measured in Joules. Watts is the unit of measure of power, or a Joule per second. While related, you are completely disregarding time.

It is true that while electricity is flowing through the filament it is the resistance of the, in most cases we are talking about tungsten, that causes the filament to produce radiation. The wavelength of this radiation starts out fairly large and all that we (humans) perceive is heat. As more and more energy is pumped into the filament the radiation that is produced becomes of a higher and higher frequency and we feel it getting hotter and hotter. Up to a certain point, all of the radiation produced in infrared. After that point, the frequency of the radiation reaches the visible portion of the electromagnetic spectrum, which we refer to as light.
In actuality it is all the same thing, heat and light, we just refer to the heat as a waste, or byproduct, because it is the light that we are after.

As for your resistors, there are many different reasons why they don't light up. I feel silly even having to explain this, but one is because your resistors aren't in a vacuum (or gas such as halogen) envelop. The heat produced by the resistance will deteriorate the material long before they get hot enough to glow.

Please feel free to add any constructive criticism of how I described the process, but at least try to use proper definitions that can be found in any dictionary.

-Tim
 
quote"Heat is most absolutely not measured in watts."Oh yes it is ,it can be measured in Joules in the imperial system or horsepower, this is what seems to be totally not understood,Heat = work =electrical power =light =radio power. Not only are they interchangeable but the units they are measured in are also interchangeable.This is not my theory blame Mr Newton.
So many here work in schools, just wander over to the Physics dept and get an opinion.
 
I told you my post wasn't going to solve anything, but can I just ask that you please look up the term "watt" in a dictionary, any dictionary. It'll say something like, "the absolute meter-kilogram-second unit of power equal to the work done at the rate of one joule per second or to the power produced by a current of one ampere across a potential difference of one volt : 1⁄746 horsepower" (Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary). The important part being "at the rate of one joule per second". You cannot say that Watt=Joule and Watt=Joule/Second. Like I said before,
WATT IS A UNIT OF POWER, NOT ENERGY

I've totally forgotten what this thread was originally about...
-Tim
 
I admit to a slight slip there I should have said Joules = watts/time, a bit different from the new Icewolfian physics where heat does not exist.We all tend to shorten terms to make life easier.
 
I admit to a slight slip there I should have said Joules = watts/time,
While even this is wrong, it is Watts = Joules / Seconds OR Joules = Watts x Seconds, I understand what you are saying.
a bit different from the new Icewolfian physics where heat does not exist.We all tend to shorten terms to make life easier.
Icewolf never said that, or anything of the sort. What he said is simply that heat has no potential energy. That is not synonymous with not existing. It is not even synonymous to not having energy. There are 3 types of energy; kinetic, potential, and the rest, i.e. thermal, nuclear, solar, etc. Icewolf is simply stating that heat does not have any potential energy, but it does have thermal energy.

Ceding that I am right about the definition of "watt" still doesn't get you out of what you are saying, though. You stated that the heat makes a filament give off light. Let me try this again:
Let us assume our lamp is a closed system, in thermal equilibrium. When we apply a voltage (say 120v or 240v) across the two leads this creates an energy potential. When current is applied, we can say that energy (in the form of electrical energy) is being added to our closed system (the lamp). What happens to our added energy? If there was zero resistance in the filament (and wires of the system) then all of the energy would go straight through the filament and do it's business elsewhere, (like blow the fuse/circuit breaker), thus leaving the net energy of our system unchanged. However, like any system in the real world, there is resistance, in our case in the filament. When the energy reaches this resistance, it is converted (like I went through in my other post) to other form(s) of energy. This is the heat and light that we perceive. This electrical energy is added to the system and the radiation, both infrared (the heat we feel) and visible (the light we see) is given off so that the net energy of the system remains zero.

Now, hopefully, I will stop hijacking this thread :)
-Tim
 
I don't know if this was already mentioned. BUT!! how long before the star of the show should you do the preheat as to not let them cool down too quickly?
 
"This electrical energy is added to the system and the radiation, both infrared (the heat we feel) and visible (the light we see) is given off so that the net energy of the system remains zero."

I'm so sorry, I have slipped into a parallel universe with different laws of physics.Please carry on.
 
I'm so sorry, I have slipped into a parallel universe with different laws of physics.Please carry on.

That is meaningless. I am putting forth the effort and trying to get you to understand by going step by step and explaining. If you believe that something I have said is incorrect, then point it out and explain why it is incorrect. Simply stating, "I am right and you are wrong, ninner ninner ninner" is not an argument.

-Tim
 
Last edited:
I'm so sorry, I have slipped into a parallel universe with different laws of physics.Please carry on.
That is meaningless. I am putting forth the effort and trying to get you to understand by going step by step and explaining. If you believe that something I have said is incorrect, then point it out and explain why it is incorrect. Simply stating, "I am right and you are wrong, ninner ninner ninner" is not an argument.

-Tim

Input = Output...

So, David, apology accepted. We'll wait for your return in the real world.
 
Preheating lamps before a show is a very good idea. Whenever I design a show I make sure I program a cue that is set for dimmer/channel check. It's normally like cue .5, and has all the instuments up at about 25%. This allows the lamps to warm up, and also allows the lighting crew to check and make sure there are no burned out gels or instruments before each show.
 
I think there is a big difference between preheating before a show and preheating a unit before a cue. I don't remember who pointed it out earlier in this thread, but preheating before the show will not really help anything out aside from electricians doing a lamp check. Generally, I am coming in to the theatre an hour to an hour and-a-half before the half hour to do my channel check. If I warm the lights (which I do), by the time I get through 200+ channels in the show, that last light has cooled off again. The lamps just don't have enough thermal mass to stay warm.

So why do I warm the lights before my channel check? Probably because that is what I was taught to do in school and that is what a lot of people that I know do. Odds are it isn't going to really hurt anything, but it probably doesn't really help either (aside from allowing me to do a broadway check)

Now, preheating a fixture in the cue before it needs to come up can help you out up the dimmer curve. It can be especially useful if you have cues that bump larger fixtures up and on so that you see more of a bump than a fade. Have you ever bumped a cold 2K or 5K fresnel to full? It looks more like a fade because of the time it takes to warm up the filament. However, if you run the channel at 3-is percent then it won't give off much, if any, light but it will bump on much faster in the next cue. This works for many situations where you just need to be a little ahead on the dimmer curve to get a smooth fade. Some people even build this into their dimmer profiles for a show so that when you take a channel to zero it actually sits around 3%.
 
And why you should unplug lights before relamping...

Never force an interlock.

Always treat a firearm as if it were loaded.

Never trust (or believe) that your dimmers are off.

SAFETY FIRST! :angryoldman:
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back