By Tom Angleberger
Tom Angleberger
The New River Valley-based reporter answers your questions Mondays in his column, What's on Your Mind?
Recent columns
* Traffic question must yield to signs, not whim
* Stopping on highway ramps a hazard to drivers
* Exploring language use and abuse
* Readers recall fond memories of Lakeview Motor Lodge
* Curious readers ask questions; other readers have some answers
* Readers recall butter creams
Q: I learned as a teen in the '70s that fluorescent lights require a lot of power to start but very little to run, so that if you're going to return within eight hours to a room lighted with fluorescent lights, you ought to leave the lights on.
By contrast, incandescent lights do not require extra power to start but require a lot of power to run, so it's valuable to turn off incandescent lights whenever leaving a room, regardless of how soon you will return. What is the case with compact fluorescent lights?
Wayne Wilcox, Roanoke
A: Ah, the age-old question! Thomas Edison had barely invented the bulb before his mom asked him whether to turn off the bathroom light or leave it on for the next person.
As you noted, the answer changed when fluorescents were invented. With these new compact fluorescents, it has changed again.
The good news is that CFLs don't use all that much power when you cut them on.
'While there is a brief surge in energy use when a CFL is turned on, with today's starting technology, that surge usually lasts about a tenth of a second and consumes about as much energy as five seconds of normal operation,' states the U.S. Department of Energy.
So, you can flick off the lights without worrying about the power you'll use to flick them on again. But there's something else to consider.
'Frequently switching them on and off will shorten the life of the product,' according to General Electric.
So you'll save money on electricity, but possibly waste money on bulbs.
As you can see, the answer to Mrs. Edison's question now requires a complicated formula based on the cost of electricity, the price of bulbs and the length of time she spends in the tub.
Or, she could take the Energy Department's advice and put the CFLs in places where she'll normally use them for more than 15 minutes at a time.
Grammar Got Run Over by a Reindeer
Thanks to reader Elizabeth Myers for this very funny suggestion for our weekly grammar segment. I'll announce the winner next week.
Speaking of grandma, ever notice that the song says she 'got' run over, not that she 'was' run over?
That's Mary Ollendick's grammar grumble and she's taking aim at little old me.
In a recent column I wrote, 'You've still got time. ...'
'Why, oh why, do you need 'got?' ' wrote Ollendick, clearly driven to desperation by my sloppy grammar.
' 'Got' is a useless word -- just leave it out and your meaning is still perfectly clear. You don't need this word most of the time.'
She suggests I switch to 'You still have time. ...'
I'll be the first to admit that her version sounds a lot better than mine. In truth, I think the word 'got' sounds coarse and undignified.
I asked our grammar guru, retired English professor Virgil Cook, if I should turn over a new leaf.
'Yes, I would watch 'got' in very formal writing, but I wouldn't worry about it in your columns. I would guess that you have deliberately chosen an informal style for your columns. ... So long as you choose such a style, 'got' is acceptable.'
Got a question? Got an answer? Call Tom Angleberger at 777-6476 or send an e-mail to woym@roanoke.com. Don't forget to provide your full name, its proper spelling and your hometown.
Look for Tom Angleberger's column on Mondays."
Link
No comments:
Post a Comment