| >> | So a 100 watt halogen puts out more BTUs than a regular 100 watt
| >> incandescent bulb?
| >> Generally the halogen would be lower wattage, but
| >> they do seem to be much hotter. I don't have figures
| >> on it.
| > Both halogen and regular incandescent 100 watt bulbs would output 341
| > BTU/hr.
| Might be higher temperature?
It's misleading terminology. Watts and BTUs are
both just measures of energy. BTUs are often used
to express heat output, but a BTU is actually just
a measure of energy. He's just translating one term
to the other. It doesn't measure heat output,
or light output for that matter, just as a toaster
doesn't put out the same heat or light as a ceiling
fan/light fixture at the same power draw.
Here's a quote from Wikipedia:
"Halogen lamps get hotter than regular incandescent lamps because the heat
is concentrated on a smaller envelope surface, and because the surface is
closer to the filament. This high temperature is essential to their
operation. Because the halogen lamp operates at very high temperatures, it
can pose fire and burn hazards. In Australia, numerous house fires each year
are attributed to ceiling-mounted halogen downlights."
Halogen bulbs seem to be notably more efficient
than tradition incandescent. The 100w equivalents
I use are 72w, for example. But that's just efficiency
in converting energy to light. There's still 90%+-
energy that's wasted, presumably as heat. So a halogen
bulb might actually produce slightly less heat than a
traditional incandescent bulb, but they're tiny by
comparison. I remember when they first came out
there were a lot of problems with fires because "floor
sconces" were popular at the time -- 5'-6' high standing
lamps with a halogen bulb, pointing at the ceiling. There
were cases where curtains touched the bulbs and
quickly lit on fire.