CFLs - retrofitting low ESR capacitors
Sylvia Else
view to improving their turn-on performance - i.e. so that they reach
full brightness quickly?
Sylvia.
Jamie
already of low ESR types. If not, they should be.
Jamie
Jeff Urban
it is due to the fact that it takes time for the gas to get it up
completely. It may be possible to overshoot the target current/power
when first started to accelerate the process but this is very likely
to decrease the overall life of the CFLs.
Newr units do seem to perform better in that respect, but short of
replacing things with newer versions I think you will just have to be
patient.
J
larry moe 'n curly
because even many brand-new CFLs take time to reach full brightness,
especially when in the cold (even 75F). More likely, the circuitry
just doesn't compensate for the temperature of the fluorescent tube.
For example, here's the circuit board from the base of a failed
Maxlife brand CFL. The fluorescent tube connects at F1, F2, F3, and
F4, and notice on the far right is a space for a thermistor (PTC) that
connects between F1 and F4 on the other side, through a capacitor, C8,
that's also missing. The circuit board was built so it shorts across
C8. The big capacitor in the middle is rated 22uF, 200V, and Aishi is
considered a junk brand.
Another problem is opening up the CFL to get to the circuit board and
reattaching the cover because regular glues don't work, and you want a
strong bond that won't fail at high temperature.
.
http://imageshack.us/f/62/cflinside.jpg/
Trevor Wilson
issue with the gas in the tube and, to a lesser extent, the phosphor
coating. You can prove this for yourself, by measuring the light output of a
standard (iron ballast) fluoro. Light output gradually increases over a few
seconds (or minutes, depending on ambient temperature).
Don't sweat it anyway, LEDs will replace them in most applications very
soon. I've been mucking about with a couple of these recently:
http://www.dealextreme.com/p/12w-3500k-800lm-warm-white-led-emitter-metal-strip-12-14v-80310
It delivers almost double the light output of an 11 Watt T5 fluoro and is
far more compact, dimmable and has nicer colour temperature.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
Phil Allison
"Jamie" = Maynard A. Philbrook, radio ham KA1LPH and total fuckwit
> If you're referring to the inverter supply? I think those caps are
> already of low ESR types. If not, they should be.
.... Phil
Phil Allison
"Stupider than Anyone Else on Earth "
> Has anyone here tried retrofitting low ESR capacitors to CFLs with a view
> to improving their turn-on performance - i.e. so that they reach full
> brightness quickly?
They all vacated decades ago in acute embarrassment.
.... Phil
Phil Allison
"larry moe 'n curly"
Another problem is opening up the CFL to get to the circuit board and
reattaching the cover because regular glues don't work, and you want a
strong bond that won't fail at high temperature.
Silicone adhesive ( eg Silastic) will handle the case temp easily - can be
used to secure loose glass tubes in the case too.
.... Phil
Sylvia Else
prefer them.
Incandescents weren't given a lower colour temperature because people
preferred them, it was just the way they came out. If the first
practical domestic electric lights had been of daylight colour
temperature, I imagine that's what everyone would always have wanted,
and people would have given short shrift to this yellow rubbish.
However, I note that the led emitter strips are available in higher
colour temperatures.
Sylvia.
chrisj.doran%...@gtempaccount.com
wrote:
usually dies? I am amassing a collection of duds that didn't reach
anywhere near their promised lifetime (especially the more expensive
higher wattage ones) and I'm idly curious as to what use could be made
of them. From Larry's photo, there's quite a bit of electronics in
there, (which incidentally makes one wonder whether their lifetime
energy saving is really as high as is claimed, but that's another
matter).
Chris
David Eather
>
>
What ever you think of the question (stupid, incomplete, a waste of time
etc), she did NOT ask you. A question is not an excuse for you to insult
anyone. If you don't like it don't answer
Wild_Bill
which are typically over 6000K. My eyes adapt to the light very well,
although I rarely use direct lighting.. most of my CFLs are pointed upward
for bounce lighting.
The majority of incandescents give off a red light, and I've read that up to
90% of the output from incancescent lights is in the infrared region. For
folks that experience cold weather for half of the year, the infrared adds
to their comfort.
This is easily seen when using film photography as the color levels aren't
natural, but shifted so far that a blue filter is needed to achieve natural
colors.
Only the very early versions of CFLs I purchased were slow to reach full
output.. maybe I've just been lucky, but the ones I use every day come on
quickly.
I strongly suspect that widespread use of LED lighting will have a much more
severe impact on the environment that using incandescents.
The environutz are easily mislead.
I believe that the manufacture of LED lighting will use more energy and
create more pollutants than glass lamps ever did. The plastics and various
compounds used for component manufacturing will result in more irreversible
air and water contamination.
The extra slap in the face comes with the excessive plastic packaging the
CFLs are usually sold in.. when old glass lamps were generally packaged in
easily recycled paper products (even as litter, the paper breaks down to
something useful).
In addition to increased energy usage, the waste issue of CFLs and LED
lights presents more pollutants than a simple glass lamp ever did.
The LED lamps aren't going to last for an average of 10 years, not when
they'll be manufactured in China/India/etc by the lowest bidder, and using
lead-free solder and the cheapest components available.
The marketing hype and lip service are BS, as they generally always are.
The data is generally never presented in real-world terms, and there won't
be any significant data presented, such as the conversion of Las Vegas to
LED lighting.
The LED lamps that I've seen at stores won't fit in most common existing
lighting fixtures, and have a price of $30-40US. This will be a huge
unnecessary expense to an average homeowner due to a ban on incandescents.
--
Cheers,
WB
.............
"Sylvia Else" <syl...@not.here.invalid> wrote in message
news:9drjkh...@mid.individual.net...
larry moe 'n curly
and 5-year-old 14W Commercial Electric (now Home Depot's brand), and
both were glued. I opened them by carefully sawing around the
perimeter. I ended up using a fine-tooth coping saw because my Dremel
abrasive cutoff wheel gummed up with plastic. If the CFLs are snapped
together, how do we unsnap them?
I know silicone rubber glue can take the heat, but is it strong
enough? I worry about it coming loose when somebody screws in the
bulb, causing the bulb wires (magnet wire - only enamel insulation) to
short.
larry moe 'n curly
Trevor Wilson wrote:
>
> **The full brightness thing is not associated with the electronics. It's an
> issue with the gas in the tube and, to a lesser extent, the phosphor
> coating.
> Don't sweat it anyway, LEDs will replace them in most applications very
> soon. I've been mucking about with a couple of these recently:
TV with optical couplers for the composite video and audio, and the
picture brightness & contrast would change slightly when it warmed
up. There were also pots to adjust the couplers.
Trevor Wilson
> I also favor the light temperature of the daylight or sunlight CF
> lamps, which are typically over 6000K. My eyes adapt to the light
> very well, although I rarely use direct lighting.. most of my CFLs
> are pointed upward for bounce lighting.
>
> The majority of incandescents give off a red light, and I've read
> that up to 90% of the output from incancescent lights is in the
> infrared region.
For folks that experience cold weather for half of
> the year, the infrared adds to their comfort.
> This is easily seen when using film photography as the color levels
> aren't natural, but shifted so far that a blue filter is needed to
> achieve natural colors.
>
> Only the very early versions of CFLs I purchased were slow to reach
> full output.. maybe I've just been lucky, but the ones I use every
> day come on quickly.
>
> I strongly suspect that widespread use of LED lighting will have a
> much more severe impact on the environment that using incandescents.
> The environutz are easily mislead.
severe impact on the environment.
>
> I believe that the manufacture of LED lighting will use more energy
> and create more pollutants than glass lamps ever did.
the following:
* LEDs use a miniscule amount of silicon.
* Incandescent lamps use a very large amount of silicon
* LEDs can easily last 100 times longer than incandescent lamps.
* LEDs are at least 10 times more efficient than incandescents (and around 5
~ 6 times more efficient than halogens).
The plastics
> and various compounds used for component manufacturing will result in
> more irreversible air and water contamination.
pollution caused by the manufacture of semiconductors? Curious.
> The extra slap in the face comes with the excessive plastic packaging
> the CFLs are usually sold in.
downlights I purchased were packed in recycled cardboard. No plastic in
sight.
. when old glass lamps were generally
> packaged in easily recycled paper products (even as litter, the paper
> breaks down to something useful).
in a cardboard/plastic material. Far less enviroinmentally sensitive than
the LEDs and CFLs I bought.
> In addition to increased energy usage, the waste issue of CFLs and LED
> lights presents more pollutants than a simple glass lamp ever did.
extremely long life of CFLs and LEDs? (I have 19 CFLs in my home, 1
incandescent and a dozen halogens). In six years, I've replaced the
incandescent 2 times (VERY rarely used). I've replaced 10 halogens (rarely
used) and, except for two dropped CFLs, none have been replaced, despite
being used for upwards of 6 hours per day.
>
> The LED lamps aren't going to last for an average of 10 years,
have been for more than 10 years. The latest ones are brighter and should
last much longer.
not
> when they'll be manufactured in China/India/etc by the lowest bidder,
> and using lead-free solder and the cheapest components available.
> The marketing hype and lip service are BS, as they generally always
> are.
>
> The data is generally never presented in real-world terms, and there
> won't be any significant data presented, such as the conversion of
> Las Vegas to LED lighting.
>
> The LED lamps that I've seen at stores won't fit in most common
> existing lighting fixtures, and have a price of $30-40US. This will
> be a huge unnecessary expense to an average homeowner due to a ban on
> incandescents.
indeed. CFLs were expensive a few years back and now they cost barely more
than incandescents. They last many times longer and use far less energy.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
Trevor Wilson
> Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>
>> **The full brightness thing is not associated with the electronics.
>> It's an issue with the gas in the tube and, to a lesser extent, the
>> phosphor coating.
>
> So why do some CFLs keep the brightness more constant than others?
>
>> Don't sweat it anyway, LEDs will replace them in most applications
>> very soon. I've been mucking about with a couple of these recently:
>
> Aren't LEDs also temperature sensitive?
lighting manufacturer will take care of cooling.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
kreed
wrote:
any electrical problems, and would save power compared to an ironcore
ballast.
If you were going to do this and fit them in a standard batten, I
would replace the electrolytics with a decent name brand first as the
cheap caps are unlikely to last the many, many years that a typical
household batten does..
kreed
It would be a huge hassle to get the case apart, and back together
again, and I can't see it making any difference whatsoever.
All the CFL's I have here that have failed, it is always the tube that
is the cause. The electronics - including the filter capacitor are
always fine, so there isnt any point in replacing it even for
longevity reasons.
Sylvia Else
>
> Only the very early versions of CFLs I purchased were slow to reach full
> output.. maybe I've just been lucky, but the ones I use every day come
> on quickly.
take longer and longer to reach, or even approach, full brightness.
I had been under the impression from previous discussion that this was
attributed to the deteriorating ESR in cheap capacitors, but that view
doesn't seem to be getting any support here.
Sylvia.
Phil Allison
It would be a huge hassle to get the case apart, and back together
again,
All the CFL's I have here that have failed, it is always the tube that
is the cause. The electronics - including the filter capacitor are
always fine, so there isnt any point in replacing it even for
longevity reasons.
because the tube fails so quickly, like a few hundred up to 2000 hours at
most. I have a collection now of CFLs that are slow to come on, flicker or
have lost 40% of their light output.
The electronics will fail early if the CFL gets hot in use because it is
inside a small light fitting - like an Oyster or spherical ceiling lamp.
http://www.onlinelighting.com.au/images/products/Omega/Deluxe_Oyster_17_5cm.jpg
.... Phil
Arfa Daily
"Jeff Urban" <jurb...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:354e66f2-fad2-44d6...@f8g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...
:-)
Arfa
Arfa Daily
<chrisj.doran%proemai...@gtempaccount.com> wrote in message
news:dc808a62-5c4b-4fa4...@n12g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
hardcore for road building ... :-)
Arfa
Arfa Daily
"Sylvia Else" <syl...@not.here.invalid> wrote in message
news:9drjkh...@mid.individual.net...
humans are comfortable with, because it closely matches the colour and
spectrum of our sun. As I have said on here before, I for one, am not
comfortable with the light quality from CFLs, no matter what variety or
supposed colour temperature they are. I fully accept that this might be to
do with my eyes or brain or whatever, and that others don't feel that they
have the problem, but by the same token, I know many other people -
particularly over 50's like myself - that have the same difficulty with
them. Thus far, I have not been that impressed with the spectrum or light
quality from LEDs in a domestic setting either, but this technology is
currently moving and improving fast, so I'll keep an open mind on that at
the moment.
Arfa
Arfa Daily
"Wild_Bill" <wb_wi...@XSPAMyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Vg3eq.201926$k33....@en-nntp-13.dc1.easynews.com...
CFLs, but against LEDs because they will have a greater environmental impact
than incandescents did. Well yes. That is of course true, but the
manufacturing processes involved in a CFL lamp, are still many more than in
a LED lamp, with a correspondingly larger energy budget to make and ship all
those parts. Further, the CFLs have a higher disposal energy budget, because
they contain toxic chemicals that have to be recycled properly. Granted, LED
fixtures should probably also be recycled if only to regain the materials,
but at least they are not fundamentally toxic as CFLs are, and it would be
no great shakes from an environmental impact point of view, if they did
finish up in landfill. It's the fact that the green mist brigade only see
the "less power used" angle of CFLs, and not the hugely complex and
energy-thirsty manufacturing processes, that really gets up my nose.
Arfa
Phil Allison
"Arfa Daily"
> Best thing would just be to replace the CFLs with incandescent bulbs ...
them:
1. Full spectrum, warm colour light.
2. All examples use same, long proven technology and have near identical
characteristics.
3. Full dimmable with any dimmer.
4. Very fast on and no change in light output or colour during life.
5. Resistive load = ideal power factor and no RFI.
6. Life of lamp easily extended by use of dimmers out to many thousands of
hours.
7. Will operate normally in very cold and very hot environments.
8. Inherently water, steam and condensation proof.
9. No deterioration in storage, indefinite life in low use situations.
10. Fail in a safe, predictable manner with no smoke or fire hazard.
11. Multiple lamps up to rated load may be used on a circuit, CFLs require
circuits to be de-rated by 90%.
12. Can be used in any light fitting without loss of life span.
13. No Mercury hazard if broken or when disposed of.
14 No pollution hazard during manufacture or disposal.
15. No loss of life span when cycled on and off often as you like.
16. Much lower purchase cost that good quality CFLs.
Not one of the above is true for CFLs.
There are many ordinary lighting applications that typical CFLs cannot do at
all.
Banning regular incandescents from sale was green lunatic madness.
.... Phil
Arfa Daily
"Phil Allison" <phi...@tpg.com.au> wrote in message
news:9dst2k...@mid.individual.net...
here, Phil !
Arfa
Arfa Daily
"Trevor Wilson" <tre...@rageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
news:9dse5p...@mid.individual.net...
> the following:
<snip>
>
> * LEDs use a miniscule amount of silicon.
> * Incandescent lamps use a very large amount of silicon
Whereabouts ?
Arfa
Sylvia Else
approximately the same spectrum) is about 5800K, which is a lot higher
than the colour temperature of an incandescent.
The light from an incandescent is deficient in the blue end of the
spectrum, which makes blue-coloured objects look darker than they should.
Sylvia.
Phil Allison
"Arfa Daily"
"Trevor Wilson"
> <snip>
>>
>> * LEDs use a miniscule amount of silicon.
>> * Incandescent lamps use a very large amount of silicon
>
> Whereabouts ?
Glass is about 23% silicon by weight.
Got NOTHING to do with the very nasty polluting and carcinogenic processes
involved in making silicon semiconductors.
.... Phil
Sylvia Else
But we're never going to run out of silicon.
Sylvia.
Phil Allison
"Sylvia Else"
>
>>
>> I was given to understand that the colour of an incandescent bulb is
>> what humans are comfortable with, because it closely matches the colour
>> and spectrum of our sun.
>
> The sun's effective temperature (the blackbody temperature that gives
> approximately the same spectrum) is about 5800K, which is a lot higher
> than the colour temperature of an incandescent.
It varies from 11,000K on a overcasts day to less than 2000K at dawn and
dusk.
However, daylight ( like incandescent light ) has a smooth spectrum and the
human eye adjusts to the varying colour temps almost perfectly.
> The light from an incandescent is deficient in the blue end of the
> spectrum, which makes blue-coloured objects look darker than they should.
... Phil
Wild_Bill
of objects, and because I'm not bothered by the flicker of typical ceiling
fixture and smaller fluorescent (long) tubes (and I've put in a
half-century, too, and won't mind not being around after another one).
I don't particularly like the mercury vapor issue or the far-short lifetimes
of the CFLs. I haven't gotten over 2 years of service from the CFLs packaged
as 5-7 year lamps.. and I believe this same hoax is being perptetuated for
LEDs.
It's nothing new, and the same pitch always works because hardly anyone pays
attention to how effective new products actually are, as far as return on
investment.
The marketing hype is the same: These (product) will pay for themselves,
just look at these numbers.
The numbers are generally never accurate because they're based upon best
case scenarios (not increasing energy costs, etc).
I don't think there will be much to salvage from CFLs or LEDs in the way of
recycling.. what's worth anything inside them? I did notice that the new
LEDs lamps have heatsinks, so the metal might be recoverable.
What kind of apparatus makes it possible to recycle the acrylic from LEDs?
But without having the acrylic contaminated with gallium arsenide?
Chemical stripper followed by a process to clean the acrylic?
As I suspect proper recycling will most likely just mean "dumping in the
ocean", what cost effective use could there be for a used circuit board
populated with LEDs and a few common components?
In order for something to be recyclable, there needs to be a profit
associated with the recycled product.
The bullshit is madness.. just sayin'
--
Cheers,
WB
.............
"Arfa Daily" <arfa....@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:c3beq.1088$vN4...@newsfe12.ams2...
Wild_Bill
difference, I'll stick to my previous statement of maybe I'm just lucky..
that the ones I've been using light up quickly (but fail in less than half
the time stated on the packaging.. yep, lucky).
--
Cheers,
WB
.............
"Sylvia Else" <syl...@not.here.invalid> wrote in message
Trevor Wilson
light meter to monitor one lamp, in order to guage it's approximate life.
During the Winter, it takes a long time (about 1 minute) to reach full
brightness. In Summer, full brightness is reached in a few seconds. This has
not altered significantly in 6 years.
FWIW: The lamp is a 23 Watt Philips type. It is operated around 1.5 hours
per day and there has been a 5% fall in Lux over the past 6 years.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
Trevor Wilson
> I like CFLs in the high color temperatures (daylight) for the natural
> colors of objects, and because I'm not bothered by the flicker of
> typical ceiling fixture and smaller fluorescent (long) tubes (and
> I've put in a half-century, too, and won't mind not being around
> after another one).
> I don't particularly like the mercury vapor issue or the far-short
> lifetimes of the CFLs. I haven't gotten over 2 years of service from
> the CFLs packaged as 5-7 year lamps.. and I believe this same hoax is
> being perptetuated for LEDs.
* It's not a hoax. LEDs last a very long time. White ones, not so long. I
have some first generation white LEDs that are still working after a decade
of 24/7 operation. Light output is around 50% of new.
* I have CFLs that have been in service for around 10 years. The only two
failures I've experienced were mechanical (I dropped them).
* If you buy crap CFLs, you can expect poor service. I only buy premium
quality CFLs.
>
> It's nothing new, and the same pitch always works because hardly
> anyone pays attention to how effective new products actually are, as
> far as return on investment.
CFLs last a very long time.
> The marketing hype is the same: These (product) will pay for
> themselves, just look at these numbers.
> The numbers are generally never accurate because they're based upon
> best case scenarios (not increasing energy costs, etc).
>
> I don't think there will be much to salvage from CFLs or LEDs in the
> way of recycling.. what's worth anything inside them?
so they don't need to be recylced often. Incandescents are different. They
use a LOT of silicon, solder and some brass (or plated steel). Hardly any is
recoverable economically. And wait: It gets worse. Incandescents don't last
long. I get around 100 hours from my lone incandescent and around 300 hours
from hy halogens. Some of my CFLs have clocked up more than 5,000 hours and
are still chugging along.
I did notice
> that the new LEDs lamps have heatsinks, so the metal might be
> recoverable.
>
> What kind of apparatus makes it possible to recycle the acrylic from
> LEDs? But without having the acrylic contaminated with gallium
> arsenide? Chemical stripper followed by a process to clean the acrylic?
>
> As I suspect proper recycling will most likely just mean "dumping in
> the ocean", what cost effective use could there be for a used circuit
> board populated with LEDs and a few common components?
>
> In order for something to be recyclable, there needs to be a profit
> associated with the recycled product.
>
> The bullshit is madness.. just sayin'
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
Phil Allison
"Trevor Wilson"
> Incandescents are different. They use a LOT of silicon,
There is no "silicon" used make an incandescent lamp - just a few grams of
sand.
NO comparison exists with evil semiconductor manufacture.
> solder and some brass (or plated steel).
Kinda the most important bit.
And the base contact material is the same as used for CFLs.
Wot an IDIOT.
.... Phil
Wild_Bill
the owner about $20 per year to purchase.
Production of plastics pollutes, so does gallium arsenide, and mercury in
CFLs.
Were you born yesterday?
Just because the pollution takes place somewhere else doesn't mean it
doesn't effect all.
Ubuntu.
Some say that only about 1% of the water on this planet is drinkable,
although there's plenty that's contaminated with toxic chemicals and
disease.
Many people drink and bathe in poisonous, disease polluted water, but that
shouldn't concern you.
Who is dying from silicon?
Dealing with pollution means having the nasty shit made somewhere else..
like a poor country.
Proof? Where's the proof that the incandescent light bulb you bought was
packaged in plastic?
For how long have incandescents been packaged in paper products.. well over
100 years. Those paper packages are broken down, but old plastics continue
to pollute.
You going to burn those scrap plastics to generate more power? How about in
your town?
Obviously you haven't seen any reports of huge artificial island-like masses
in the oceans, made up of discarded plastic products/waste.
The "extremely" long life of CFLs and now LEDs is a projected number. As
I've mentioned elsewhere, I have yet to get over 2 years of life from those
"5-7 year" CFLs I've been buying for over a decade.
Did you eat a lot of lead paint as a child? It was banned and lead paint was
replaced it with a new latex paint.. which contained mercury.
You don't mention how many of those first-generation LEDs you're using, are
the only lighting in a room. Maybe you're referring to night lights, like
the ones that show where walls are when you're walking around in the dark.
So how many of those buggers does it take to light a room? I mean bright
enough so everything can be seen.
At night, so you can see the pattern in the carpet, or read a book or find a
pencil dropped under a table.
Like I stated before.. the new LED lamps I've seen won't fit many existing
light fixtures, so get ready to spend.
One way to insure that LED lighting won't be cheaper in the future is to ban
other types of lighting.. apparently you delight in being gullible.
--
Cheers,
WB
.............
Wild_Bill
internal temperatures in new designs of LED lighting which will be intended
to replace a common lamps of significant wattage.
Powerful LEDs also create heat, and when a lot of 'em are fit into a small
package, the heat will very likely be a reason for very short life from the
new technology.
Combining the lead-free solder with the cheapest manufacturer that exists
will probably reduce the projected (dreamed) lifetimes from 10 years to
maybe 2 years.
At about $30 each (and it's likely more of them will be needed to reach
comfortable lighting levels), the greatest benefit these lamps will have,
will be separating consumers from their money.
Anyone that's been servicing consumer electronic gear in the past several
decades has seen the impact that heat has on solder connections, and more
recently, the widespread failures of lead-free solders.
--
Cheers,
WB
.............
"larry moe 'n curly" <larrymo...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:d9a6113d-95d2-4a1f...@w21g2000yql.googlegroups.com...
Trevor Wilson
> Maybe you know of a heat pump that will illuminate a house, and only
> cost the owner about $20 per year to purchase.
either. Using lights to warm a home is insane. Pretty much like everything
else you've posted.
>
> Production of plastics pollutes, so does gallium arsenide, and
> mercury in CFLs.
some kind of pollution. That is why regulators ensure that the pollution
created is dealt with appropriately. Fortunately, LEDs last a VERY long time
and consume small amounts of material, so total pollution remains low.
> Were you born yesterday?
**Did the manufacturing process of computer you are presently using cause
zero pollution? Are you insane?
>
> Just because the pollution takes place somewhere else doesn't mean it
> doesn't effect all.
attempt to minimise pollution caused by large manufacturers of many
products. Are you?
> Ubuntu.
>
> Some say that only about 1% of the water on this planet is drinkable,
> although there's plenty that's contaminated with toxic chemicals and
> disease.
> Many people drink and bathe in poisonous, disease polluted water, but
> that shouldn't concern you.
active in trying to ensure that people less fortunate than I am are not
subject to pollution from large companies. Do you?
>
> Who is dying from silicon?
process. Combined with the extremely short life-span of incandescent lamps
and their monsterous inefficiency (Less than 5%) contributes to huge amounts
of CO2. CFLs and LEDs cause far less CO2 to be emitted, both in manufacture
and in operation over the life of the product. CO2 affects every human on
the planet.
>
> Dealing with pollution means having the nasty shit made somewhere
> else.. like a poor country.
>
> Proof? Where's the proof that the incandescent light bulb you bought
> was packaged in plastic?
> For how long have incandescents been packaged in paper products..
> well over 100 years. Those paper packages are broken down, but old
> plastics continue to pollute.
whilst the incandescent was packed in cardboard and plastic.
>
> You going to burn those scrap plastics to generate more power? How
> about in your town?
> Obviously you haven't seen any reports of huge artificial island-like
> masses in the oceans, made up of discarded plastic products/waste.
>
> The "extremely" long life of CFLs and now LEDs is a projected number.
my CFLs have failed. Not one. OTOH, I've replaced many incandescents over
the same period, despite the fact that they accrue VASTLY fewer hours of
use.
> As I've mentioned elsewhere, I have yet to get over 2 years of life
> from those "5-7 year" CFLs I've been buying for over a decade.
* Lying.
* Buying cheap, crappy CFLs
* Using them in enclosed fittings.
>
> Did you eat a lot of lead paint as a child? It was banned and lead
> paint was replaced it with a new latex paint.. which contained
> mercury.
>
> You don't mention how many of those first-generation LEDs you're
> using, are the only lighting in a room. Maybe you're referring to
> night lights, like the ones that show where walls are when you're
> walking around in the dark.
So how many of those buggers does it take
> to light a room?
I mean bright enough so everything can be seen.
> At night, so you can see the pattern in the carpet, or read a book or
> find a pencil dropped under a table.
> Like I stated before.. the new LED lamps I've seen won't fit many
> existing light fixtures, so get ready to spend.
completely new and different shapes.
>
> One way to insure that LED lighting won't be cheaper in the future is
> to ban other types of lighting.. apparently you delight in being
> gullible.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
Phil Allison
"Trevor Wilson"
> **The manufacture of glass, steel and tungsten is a very energy intensive
> process.
amounts of energy.
> Combined with the extremely short life-span of incandescent lamps
They often outlast CFLs in actual service.
> and their monsterous inefficiency (Less than 5%) contributes to huge
> amounts of CO2.
> CFLs and LEDs cause far less CO2 to be emitted,
> both in manufacture and in operation over the life of the produc.
** Absolute LIE.
Each CFLs use 50 times time more energy to make, plus a large amount of
poisonous chemical waste and then consume more energy too - if they last
their rated life.
Then they pollute the planet with Mercury and other heavy metal poisons.
No such issues with incandescents.
It is all a massive LIE .
... Phil
Trevor Wilson
> On 20/09/2011 1:11 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>> Sylvia Else wrote:
>>> Has anyone here tried retrofitting low ESR capacitors to CFLs with a
>>> view to improving their turn-on performance - i.e. so that they
>>> reach full brightness quickly?
>>>
>>> Sylvia.
>>
>> **The full brightness thing is not associated with the electronics.
>> It's an issue with the gas in the tube and, to a lesser extent, the
>> phosphor coating. You can prove this for yourself, by measuring the
>> light output of a standard (iron ballast) fluoro. Light output
>> gradually increases over a few seconds (or minutes, depending on
>> ambient temperature). Don't sweat it anyway, LEDs will replace them in
>> most applications
>> very soon. I've been mucking about with a couple of these recently:
>>
>> http://www.dealextreme.com/p/12w-3500k-800lm-warm-white-led-emitter-metal-strip-12-14v-80310
>>
>> It delivers almost double the light output of an 11 Watt T5 fluoro
>> and is far more compact, dimmable and has nicer colour temperature.
>>
>
> Having got used to the higher colour temperatures of CFLs, I find
> that I prefer them.
his/her own formulation for the phosphor coating. As a conseqence, the
colour balance will be slightly different for each. I find that different
lamps have different purposes. For my workbench, I need accurate colour
rendition (for checking colour codes on components) and I use 36 Watt, quad
phosphor lamps for that purpose. For other areas, I use different lamps.
>
> Incandescents weren't given a lower colour temperature because people
> preferred them, it was just the way they came out.
If the first
> practical domestic electric lights had been of daylight colour
> temperature, I imagine that's what everyone would always have wanted,
> and people would have given short shrift to this yellow rubbish.
>
> However, I note that the led emitter strips are available in higher
> colour temperatures.
increasing rapidly.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
Arfa Daily
glass spherical envelope for an incandescent, is unlikely to use more energy
than making a thick-walled tube wound into a convoluted double spiral. Many
of the other items contained in a CFL, also use very energy intensive
processes, and have to be carried out in many different factories, which
then brings the costs of moving workers around, keeping them warm and fed,
moving raw materials around, moving finished components around, and so on.
Just because all of these things are 'hidden', it doesn't make them any less
relevant. Looked at rationally, given the amount of components and
manufacturing processes involved, I would have thought that the simple
incandescent bulb, with its very few parts, consumed nothing like as much
energy overall to get from nothing to working in my house. Bear in mind
also, that very long-lived incandescents are available, and always were. Its
just that they cost more, and are not in the financial interests of the bulb
manufacturers, to promote.
Arfa
Arfa Daily
> "Sylvia Else"
> Arfa Daily wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> I was given to understand that the colour of an incandescent bulb is
>>> what humans are comfortable with, because it closely matches the colour
>>> and spectrum of our sun.
>>
>> The sun's effective temperature (the blackbody temperature that gives
>> approximately the same spectrum) is about 5800K, which is a lot higher
>> than the colour temperature of an incandescent.
>
> ** Daylight has no particular colour temp.
>
> It varies from 11,000K on a overcasts day to less than 2000K at dawn and
> dusk.
>
> However, daylight ( like incandescent light ) has a smooth spectrum and
> the human eye adjusts to the varying colour temps almost perfectly.
on my drive. The other day, it was raining, so he rigged a 'tent' over the
front, from a blue plastic tarp. When I first went under there with him,
everything had a very blue caste, as you would expect. I didn't notice any
adjustment / compensation going on in my brain, but it must have been,
because when I stepped out from under there a few minutes later, the whole
world was bright yellow. A few minutes later, all was back to normal. The
strange thing is that I don't seem to be able to adjust to CFL light in the
same way. It continues to have a sort of 'sick' quality for me. Even more
curious though, is that linear fluorescents don't seem to affect me in the
same way. I work under them all day, without issue.
>
Arfa
Michael A. Terrell
Trevor Wilson wrote:
>
> Wild_Bill wrote:
> > I also favor the light temperature of the daylight or sunlight CF
> > lamps, which are typically over 6000K. My eyes adapt to the light
> > very well, although I rarely use direct lighting.. most of my CFLs
> > are pointed upward for bounce lighting.
> >
> > The majority of incandescents give off a red light, and I've read
> > that up to 90% of the output from incancescent lights is in the
> > infrared region.
>
> **95% ~ 98% is far closer to reality. Halogens are somewhat more efficient.
>
> For folks that experience cold weather for half of
> > the year, the infrared adds to their comfort.
>
> **So do heat pumps, which are vastly more efficient.
Who makes 100 watt heat pumps, that will work at -40�?
--
You can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense.
Michael A. Terrell
Trevor Wilson wrote:
>
> **I do. I keep track of the life of my lamps. Incandescents don't last long.
still work. Some are over 100 years old. Cheap bulbs don't last, and
neither do those that are used improperly.
Michael A. Terrell
Sylvia Else wrote:
>
> Has anyone here tried retrofitting low ESR capacitors to CFLs with a
> view to improving their turn-on performance - i.e. so that they reach
> full brightness quickly?
105° or 125° replacements for longer life.
Jim Yanik
"daylight" CT is around 6500K,while incandescents are around 3000K.
Daylight is much "whiter" than incandescent light.
what makes fluorescent lamps yucky is their excess and spiky blue-green and
low red output,but newer CFLs have adjusted their phosphor mix to give a
better spectrum,and you can buy them in diffect CTs like 2700K,3200K,and
even higher.
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com
Jim Yanik
Ian Field
"Jeff Urban" <jurb...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:354e66f2-fad2-44d6...@f8g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...
> The low brighness when cold is not due to low PS voltages or current,
> it is due to the fact that it takes time for the gas to get it up
> completely.
Many years ago when CFLs were expensive enough to be worth attempting
repair, I had a batch with electro' failure being the most common cause.
The part in question being 4u7 400V which I didn't have any in stock (not
small enough to fit anyway) so as an experiment I superglued 5x 1uF X2
capacitors round the outside and wired them in - can't get much lower ESR
than that.
There was no noticeable improvement in the lamp's behaviour, other than it
lasted almost the claimed life expectancy before the tube gave out.
Ian Field
>
> "larry moe 'n curly"
>
> Another problem is opening up the CFL to get to the circuit board and
> reattaching the cover because regular glues don't work, and you want a
> strong bond that won't fail at high temperature.
>
>
> ** Most CFLs use no glue at all, the halves snap fit together.
>
> Silicone adhesive ( eg Silastic) will handle the case temp easily -
can be
> used to secure loose glass tubes in the case too.
Last time I looked that's what they stuck 'em in with in the first place.
Ian Field
Wild_Bill
When computers were being introduced for home use, other forms of
communication and/or creativity weren't banned.
I recall the "proposed" huge benefits of widespread computer use were going
to include:
-dramatically reduce paper usage and eliminate the necessity of an infinite
number of forms.
Then eveyone started buying printers for every reason imaginable, and using
computers to create and generate more forms.
Products with no real value.. phone books, magazines, catalogs.. still
paper, although many are digitized.
-reduce the size of government since there wouldn't be a need for as many
people to move around all those forms that would no longer be paper.
Didn't see that happen either.
-records will be more secure.
Hogwash.. after many disasters, there are reports of lost records which
aren't archived elsewhere.
Computers have increased corporate profits, but have done little to make
everyday life more comfortable or convenient for the people inhabiting the
planet.
Well, then there are the smart people that create a letterhead and a
worthless organization based upon their own misguided adgendas, to leech
money from others for a good cause.
-Make much more effective the use of our time (don't care for the "save
time" hoax, kinda like products that pay for themselves).
Yet everywhere people need to get in a line for a purchase or service, there
are still always lines and peope waiting.
Daily encounters with computers aren't really faster and more efficient,
they're actually more complicated.
You keep yapping about silicon, yet there are no reasons people die from
silicon.
Mercury, gallium arsenide and other toxic elements are actually contained
within new lighting technologies, but not in incandescent lamps.
Maybe you should start yapping about argon.
You might actually believe that "regulators ensure that the pollution
created is dealt with appropriately".
This is partially true, and generally always after the pollution has taken
place (often for a long time without detection), after the fact, and the
cleanup costs are generally always put on the citizens. The fines are
generally only symbolic.
You seem to think that someone should be impressed with the dozen-or-so
lighting devices you've commented on.
Your experience (real or not) is completely insignificant in the lighting
industry which includes hundreds of millions/billions of lighting devices
sold every year.
The incidence of failure of products from China is higher than it's ever
been for many of the people alive today. Many of these products don't even
function when new.
The race to the bottom as far as product quality goes, is based upon greed.
Very few products are manufactured today that are intended to last for 10
years, and that means very few consumer electronic devices.. of which many
don't last 2 years.
What this means is that your 10 year old LED example isn't even relative in
today's manufacturing practices.
The throw-away-society arrived while you weren't paying attention.
All that trash needs to go somewhere.
How many times can a $40 VCR be fixed?
So you go right ahead and get in line for those new, high quality, 10 year
life, $50 LED lighting devices.. then spend your time repairing them.
You're savig the planet and contributing to humanitarian causes. There
oughta be an award for that, Oh.. there is, it's called an inflated ego.
I don't dispute that an LED can last 10 years, only that in the present
manufacturing environment, a 40-100W LED lamp is going to be manufactured to
fail.
I have a lot of LED flashlights and portable lights and they work great for
seeing in the dark, or signaling such as panel indicators, but piss poor at
illuminating a room.
With LED flashlights, they seem to produce a lot of light when surrounded by
darkness, but they don't "throw" light very well at all.. and the reflector
becomes more important than the miniscule light source.
Reflectors take space, which defeats making a device compact.
Unless you live like people did in the early 1900s with one dim lamp per
room, LED home lighting is going to be very costly, both in terms of early
failures and replacing fixtures which won't accomodate the new designs.
Might also be a good time to change all interior items to white.. white
floors, walls, furniture, etc.
LED lighting might be great for a camper/caravan with 12V lighting circuits,
but I suspect there will be lots of problems with adapting 240 or 120VAC to
3V.
Power supplies introduce losses, spike/surge suppressors add to final cost.
Has anyone discovered a metal as good as/better than gold for those tiny
leads attached to LED (and IC) chips?
When gold loses it's value, LEDs will become cheaper to produce.
You keep parroting that incandescent lamps have short or extremely short
lifespans, which could be true of the cheap examples you bought, but they
don't cost anywhere near $50 each and aren't hazardous waste to end up in
the ground near water supplies. BTW, many thread bases of light bulbs today
are aluminum, as are the threaded sockets in many fixtures.
Incandescent light bulb costs have traditionally (for generations now) been
insignificant in the annual budget of home maintenance.. but that is going
to change, significantly.
Maybe everyone will need to keep a drawer/cupboard full of LED lamps to
insure their homes aren't dangerous to move around in.. cha-ching!
I'm not exaggerating my experiences with CFLs, but I can tell ya that a 10
year life for CFLs is not average or even close to common.
Almost all of my CFLs are/have been mounted base-down in open/ventilated
metal reflectors.. I've had 3 go into catastrophic failure, turning red hot
before I could react quickly to shut them off. The only warning was a few
blinks just prior to the failures.
You were the one that initiated the question of proof so I just played
along, because I knew your response was predictable.
I've presented proof.. these are my opinions.. no, seriously. They weren't
composed by some marketing firm.
**Irrelevant.. was your answer for how many of those LEDs it takes to
illuminate a room.
OK.. right.
My comments aren't arguments that my opinions are correct, so you go ahead
and argue all you want to.
--
Cheers,
WB
.............
Trevor Wilson
> Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>
>> **I do. I keep track of the life of my lamps. Incandescents don't
>> last long.
>
>
> There are some in the US that have been on 24/7 for decades, and
> still work. Some are over 100 years old.
They are simply under-run massively. IOW: Use a 280VAC rated lamp at 240VAC
and the thing will last MUCH longer. Of course, colour temperature edges
much closer towards the red and efficiency is absolute crap.
Cheap bulbs don't last,
> and neither do those that are used improperly.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
Trevor Wilson
> You really are a blue ribbon simpleton, Trev.
**Tell you what, dickhead: Try using some facts and logic to support your
arguments and you'll sound like you have a brain. So far, you just sound
like an idiot. You use insults in preference to common-sense, logic and hard
evidence. I will now give you a chance to redeem yourself.
>
> When computers were being introduced for home use, other forms of
> communication and/or creativity weren't banned.
**Blah, blah, blah. We're talking about incandescents, LEDs and CFLs. Stay
on topic.
>
> I recall the "proposed" huge benefits of widespread computer use were
> going to include:
>
> -dramatically reduce paper usage and eliminate the necessity of an
> infinite number of forms.
> Then eveyone started buying printers for every reason imaginable, and
> using computers to create and generate more forms.
> Products with no real value.. phone books, magazines, catalogs.. still
> paper, although many are digitized.
>
> -reduce the size of government since there wouldn't be a need for as
> many people to move around all those forms that would no longer be
> paper. Didn't see that happen either.
**Blah, blah, blah. We're talking about incandescents, LEDs and CFLs. Stay
on topic.
>
> -records will be more secure.
> Hogwash.. after many disasters, there are reports of lost records
> which aren't archived elsewhere.
>
> Computers have increased corporate profits, but have done little to
> make everyday life more comfortable or convenient for the people
> inhabiting the planet.
> Well, then there are the smart people that create a letterhead and a
> worthless organization based upon their own misguided adgendas, to
> leech money from others for a good cause.
**Blah, blah, blah. We're talking about incandescents, LEDs and CFLs. Stay
on topic.
>
> -Make much more effective the use of our time (don't care for the
> "save time" hoax, kinda like products that pay for themselves).
> Yet everywhere people need to get in a line for a purchase or
> service, there are still always lines and peope waiting.
> Daily encounters with computers aren't really faster and more
> efficient, they're actually more complicated.
**Blah, blah, blah. We're talking about incandescents, LEDs and CFLs. Stay
on topic.
>
> You keep yapping about silicon, yet there are no reasons people die
> from silicon.
**Huh? WTF are you talking about? I merely corrected your idiotic comments
about CFLs and LEDs.
>
> Mercury, gallium arsenide and other toxic elements are actually
> contained within new lighting technologies, but not in incandescent
> lamps.
**So? There are a large range of toxic elements in the computer you are
using, in the cell 'phone you may happen to use and just about every other
modern device. What's your point? Are you going to cease using your
computer? Please do so immediately. Give us a rest your incessant twaddle
and idiotic top-posting.
There are harmful chemicals in a great many products. Those chemicals need
to be dealt with correctly and appropriately.
> Maybe you should start yapping about argon.
>
> You might actually believe that "regulators ensure that the pollution
> created is dealt with appropriately".
> This is partially true, and generally always after the pollution has
> taken place (often for a long time without detection), after the
> fact, and the cleanup costs are generally always put on the citizens.
> The fines are generally only symbolic.
**Then why don't YOU start by not using your computer? Stop buying lead acid
batteries, NiCd batteries, any products that use leaded solder, any products
with tantalum capacitors contained within, anything using gold sourced from
Papua, petroleum products, anything using plastic, etc, etc. YOU should
follow your own advice.
>
> You seem to think that someone should be impressed with the
> dozen-or-so lighting devices you've commented on.
**No. I am citing fact. Nothing more. I have not experienced a CFL failure,
ever (other than misuse). Of course, I only purchase quality CFLs and I use
them correctly.
> Your experience (real or not) is completely insignificant in the
> lighting industry which includes hundreds of millions/billions of
> lighting devices sold every year.
**OK. Then YOU need to provide the data which shows how unreliable quality,
correctly operated CFLs are. My anecdotes are EXACTLY as irrelevant as
yours.
>
> The incidence of failure of products from China is higher than it's
> ever been for many of the people alive today. Many of these products
> don't even function when new.
**More twaddle. Some products are good. Some not so good. Just for yuks, I
thought I'd test your theory.
In the last 20-odd years, I've used a number of 'walk-about' telephones. A
couple were Panasonics, whilst others were from other manufacturers. Except
for the one I use right now, all were manufactured in Japan. They all
failed. Some last 4 or 5 years and some lasted less than a year. The one I
have beside me is 6 years old. It is made in China.
> The race to the bottom as far as product quality goes, is based upon
> greed. Very few products are manufactured today that are intended to
> last for 10 years, and that means very few consumer electronic
> devices.. of which many don't last 2 years.
**The nation with the worst reputation for quality (or domestic products) is
the USA, not China. Except Cree.
>
> What this means is that your 10 year old LED example isn't even
> relative in today's manufacturing practices.
**I'll let you know in another ten years. We'll see how long the ones I've
recently installed last.
> The throw-away-society arrived while you weren't paying attention.
> All that trash needs to go somewhere.
> How many times can a $40 VCR be fixed?
**As many times as you like. However, a $100.00 VCR is likely to last MUCH
longer than a $1,500.00 VCR manufactured in 1980.
>
> So you go right ahead and get in line for those new, high quality, 10
> year life, $50 LED lighting devices.. then spend your time repairing
> them.
**Cite your proof that the LEDs will fail prematurely.
You're savig the planet and contributing to humanitarian
> causes. There oughta be an award for that, Oh.. there is, it's called
> an inflated ego.
> I don't dispute that an LED can last 10 years, only that in the
> present manufacturing environment, a 40-100W LED lamp is going to be
> manufactured to fail.
**Prove it.
> I have a lot of LED flashlights and portable lights and they work
> great for seeing in the dark, or signaling such as panel indicators,
> but piss poor at illuminating a room.
**You have got to be the most pig-ignorant poster we've seen in quite a long
time. Light is light. It can be measured and quantified.
>
> With LED flashlights, they seem to produce a lot of light when
> surrounded by darkness, but they don't "throw" light very well at
> all.. and the reflector becomes more important than the miniscule
> light source. Reflectors take space, which defeats making a device
> compact.
**Just when I thought you were speaking complete bollocks, you surpass
yourself for abject stupidity. I direct you to a link, which shows what two,
identical power consumption torches can do. One is a 3 Watt halogen torch.
The other is a 3 Watt LED torch:
http://s1112.photobucket.com/albums/k497/Zaphod1000/
In case you have not worked it out, the right hand one is the halogen and
the left is the LED. The halogen was fitted with fresh batteries. I charged
the Lithium battery in the LED torch a month ago.
Now, please explain WTF you mean by LED torches not being able to "throw"
light very well. I can tell you that the torch whose beam you can see in the
photo is easily capable of lighting up stuff a couple of hundred Metres
away. The halogen doesn't have a snowball's chance in Hell.
>
> Unless you live like people did in the early 1900s with one dim lamp
> per room, LED home lighting is going to be very costly, both in terms
> of early failures and replacing fixtures which won't accomodate the
> new designs.
**So you keep claiming. Let's see you hard proof of your claims.
Might also be a good time to change all interior items
> to white.. white floors, walls, furniture, etc.
>
> LED lighting might be great for a camper/caravan with 12V lighting
> circuits, but I suspect there will be lots of problems with adapting
> 240 or 120VAC to 3V.
> Power supplies introduce losses, spike/surge suppressors add to final
> cost.
**Of course. Just like CFLs, there is an extra cost associated with LEDs.
However, the MASSIVE increase in efficiency and incredibly long life make up
for those issues.
>
> Has anyone discovered a metal as good as/better than gold for those
> tiny leads attached to LED (and IC) chips?
> When gold loses it's value, LEDs will become cheaper to produce.
**Blah, blah, blah. We're talking about incandescents, LEDs and CFLs. Stay
on topic.
>
> You keep parroting that incandescent lamps have short or extremely
> short lifespans, which could be true of the cheap examples you
> bought, but they don't cost anywhere near $50 each and aren't
> hazardous waste to end up in the ground near water supplies. BTW,
> many thread bases of light bulbs today are aluminum, as are the
> threaded sockets in many fixtures.
**A VERY large number of incandescent lamps were/are produced using lead
solder. Lead is toxic. And again: Proper disposal should be part of any
product's design. That includes CFLs, LEDs and incandescents.
>
> Incandescent light bulb costs have traditionally (for generations
> now) been insignificant in the annual budget of home maintenance..
> but that is going to change, significantly.
**Fortunately, the long life of CFLs and LEDs make that cost irrelevant.
However, let's examine that claim:
I use 23 Watt CFLs in a number of locations. They cost around AUS$5.00 each.
SO FAR, I have obtained around 3,500 hours of use, at minimal light
degradation. I fully expect a life of at least 7,000 ~ 10,000 hours from
these lamps. However, let's use the low end figure for calculation: 3,500
hours. $5.00 for 3,500 hours. Total powe4r consumption for that period =
80.5 kW/hours. At (say) $0.20/kW/hr = $16.10. Total running cost = $21.10.
In reality, the figure will be somewhat lower.
To replace that 23 Watt CFL, I need to use a (minimum) 100 Watt incandescent
(it's really more like 125 Watt, but I'm going easy on you). Let's say the
cost of a decent one was AUS$1.00. The BEST one can expect from a 100 lamp
is around 500 hours. Let's say 1,000 hours, because I'm feeling generous.
You'll need 3.5 lamps to equal one CFL. Total initial cost $3.50. Power
consumption for the period is 350kW/hours. At $0.20/kW/hr = $70.00. Total
running cost = $73.50.
CFL comfortably nails the incandescent.
My own experience with incandescents suggests that a 100 Watt incandescent
will likely last considerably less than 200 hours.
>
> Maybe everyone will need to keep a drawer/cupboard full of LED lamps
> to insure their homes aren't dangerous to move around in.. cha-ching!
**No need. LED last a very long time.
>
> I'm not exaggerating my experiences with CFLs, but I can tell ya that
> a 10 year life for CFLs is not average or even close to common.
**Then cite your proof.
>
> Almost all of my CFLs are/have been mounted base-down in
> open/ventilated metal reflectors.. I've had 3 go into catastrophic
> failure, turning red hot before I could react quickly to shut them
> off. The only warning was a few blinks just prior to the failures.
**Stop buying shitty CFLs.
>
> You were the one that initiated the question of proof so I just played
> along, because I knew your response was predictable.
> I've presented proof.. these are my opinions.. no, seriously. They
> weren't composed by some marketing firm.
**You have not provided proof. See my photo as something that represents
proof and shreds at least one of your dodgy and seriously deluded arguments.
>
> **Irrelevant.. was your answer for how many of those LEDs it takes to
> illuminate a room.
> OK.. right.
**I made no claim that the first generation LEDs that I was using could
light a room.
>
> My comments aren't arguments that my opinions are correct, so you go
> ahead and argue all you want to.
**Supply your proof and learn how to post properly.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
Trevor Wilson
Many of the other items contained in a CFL, also use
> very energy intensive processes, and have to be carried out in many
> different factories, which then brings the costs of moving workers
> around, keeping them warm and fed, moving raw materials around,
> moving finished components around, and so on. Just because all of
> these things are 'hidden', it doesn't make them any less relevant.
> Looked at rationally, given the amount of components and
> manufacturing processes involved, I would have thought that the
> simple incandescent bulb, with its very few parts, consumed nothing
> like as much energy overall to get from nothing to working in my
> house.
the energy consumed by the incandescent, over it's entire life vastly
exceeds the energy required to manufacture it. The CFL, by comparison, is a
massively more efficient device, with a much longer life span. Total energy
is likely to be far lower with the CFL. And no, I don't have the data, but I
imagine someone has done the maths.
Bear in mind also, that very long-lived incandescents are
> available, and always were. Its just that they cost more, and are not
> in the financial interests of the bulb manufacturers, to promote.
incandescents has been known for a long time - operate them at lower
Voltages, or use a carbon filament. Either way, colour temperature sucks and
efficiency is way down.
BTW: The discussion also involves LEDs. IMO, CFLs are an interim step. They
have far too many drawbacks to be a long term solution. Incandescents are,
of course, no solution at all.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
Phil Allison
"Ian Fuckwit Field"
> Last time I looked ..
** Impossible for anyone who has wanked themselves blind to look at
anything.
Michael A. Terrell
last.
Phil Allison
"Jim Yanksit"
> incandescent lamps color temps do NOT match that of the sun;
> "daylight" CT is around 6500K
** Daylight varies over a wide range of light intensity and colour.
OTOH, artificial light is constant and the eye adjusts.
> Daylight is much "whiter" than incandescent light.
Arfa Daily
>
> "Arfa Daily"
> "Trevor Wilson"
>> <snip>
>>>
>>> * LEDs use a miniscule amount of silicon.
>>> * Incandescent lamps use a very large amount of silicon
>>
>> Whereabouts ?
>
>
>
> Glass is about 23% silicon by weight.
So is that *all* glass ? I can't find any reference anywhere to silicon
being a component of bog-standard glass. Is it just naturally in there, and
if so, in what form ? Or is it put in there for some reason, and for what
purpose if so ?
>
> Got NOTHING to do with the very nasty polluting and carcinogenic
> processes involved in making silicon semiconductors.
>
>
Yes, where the silicon has been extracted from whatever ore it occurs in,
and then refined
> .... Phil
>
Arfa
Arfa Daily
"Jim Yanik" <jya...@abuse.gov> wrote in message
news:Xns9F67703D7720A...@216.168.3.44...
Arfa
Phil Allison
"Arfa Daily"
>> ** The TW charlatan is being a real clever dick.
>>
>> Glass is about 23% silicon by weight.
>
>
> So is that *all* glass ? I can't find any reference anywhere to silicon
> being a component of bog-standard glass.
Silica is SO2
Yawnnnnnnnn.....
....Phil
Arfa Daily
>
> BTW: The discussion also involves LEDs. IMO, CFLs are an interim step.
> They have far too many drawbacks to be a long term solution. Incandescents
> are, of course, no solution at all.
>
>
> --
> Trevor Wilson
> www.rageaudio.com.au
>
But actually, what exactly is the problem that we're trying to find a
solution to ? I saw some figures a few weeks ago that said that if every
single light bulb in the UK was changed to a CFL, the total saving in energy
would amount to the output of one small power station. I suppose that you
could argue that any saving is worth having, but I sometimes think that this
religion of 'green' has completely overtaken common sense, and in some
cases, the disadvantages of a substitute technology such as CFLs, needs to
be weighed against the perceived disadvantages of what it's trying to
replace. The problem with green technology is that its advocators are often
zealots, who seek to portray the alternatives that they are pedaling as the
only solution to a problem which often, only they see. They never tell the
full story behind these technologies, being selective in the extreme. CFLs
are a good example of this, where the *only* aspects that have been
promoted, are the fact that they consume less energy for the same amount of
light output as an 'equivalent' incandescent - and therein lies a can of
worms before we start - and that they are supposedly longer lived. The huge
amounts of manufacturing processes, and shipping energy for all the
component parts, and all the other hidden energy inputs, are politely
ignored. Not to mention the true disposal costs, if this is done properly.
No one really understands the real manufacturing costs either, because
governments are making sure that the true price is subsidised by collecting
additional 'green' taxes via the energy companies, from the likes of you and
I. If ever these subsidies are removed, CFLs will become a major expense to
a household, unless they use really crappy quality Chinese imports that give
poor light quality and poor starting characteristics, and are much shorter
lived than people are currently being persuaded is the case.
Arfa
Sjouke Burry
Glass is made from sand and a few other simple things.
No pollution,grind the glass, and (RE-)use it as sand.
Semiconducters on the other hand, have quite dirty production
methods,and eating globs of energy during the refining
stage(zone melting).
See the news about the solar cell factory(s) in China which have been
closed down....
Also, I bet there is more glass in a cfl, then in an incandescent.
The cfl's which failed me, all had the big capacitor burn out,except
one, where the tube shattered.
Last, hot semiconductors have the nasty habit of failing quickly,
so I kind of do not believe those stories about the very long lifetimes
for cfl an leds, heat kills quickly.
Once they are able to produce a lightsource which stays cool,
and is efficient, I will start believing those long lifetimes.
Dennis
http://psychcentral.com/lib/2007/does-masturbation-cause-blindness/
Trevor Wilson
>> BTW: The discussion also involves LEDs. IMO, CFLs are an interim
>> step. They have far too many drawbacks to be a long term solution.
>> Incandescents are, of course, no solution at all.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Trevor Wilson
>> www.rageaudio.com.au
>>
>
> But actually, what exactly is the problem that we're trying to find a
> solution to ?
* Around 5% efficient. At best.
* Have a short life-span.
* Suffer poor colour rendition.
If those problems can be solved, then thast would be a good thing.
I saw some figures a few weeks ago that said that if
> every single light bulb in the UK was changed to a CFL, the total
> saving in energy would amount to the output of one small power
> station.
For every 100 Watts of incandescent light that can be eliminated, a
significant amount of air conditioning costs can be eliminated. There's a
very good bunch of reasons why fluoros and other types of discharge lamps
are used in every office building, shopping centre and many other places in
most nations. They're efficient and they reduce demands on air conditioning.
And, consequently, on energy suppliers. Every Watt not dissipated, is a Watt
that does not need to be countered with an air conditioner. It adds up.
Having said all that, here in Australia, lighting is far less important than
heating, cooling and pool filtering in terms of total energy consumption. Do
a Google Earth on Sydney of Brisbane and count the number of pools. Each one
uses around 8kWhr of energy every day. Lighting, by comparison is no where
near as significant. Mostly. I just came back from a service call at a
neighbour's home. Every single part of the home was lit by halogen
downlights. These are an incredibly wasteful way to light a home, yet they
are very popular. The kitchen, alone had 6 X 50 Watt downlights.
I suppose that you could argue that any saving is worth
> having, but I sometimes think that this religion of 'green' has
> completely overtaken common sense, and in some cases, the
> disadvantages of a substitute technology such as CFLs, needs to be
> weighed against the perceived disadvantages of what it's trying to
> replace.
data, do you? The idiot who keeps claiming that CFLs are less reliable than
incadescents has yet to supply any data.
The problem with green technology is that its advocators are
> often zealots, who seek to portray the alternatives that they are
> pedaling as the only solution to a problem which often, only they
> see. They never tell the full story behind these technologies, being
> selective in the extreme. CFLs are a good example of this, where the
> *only* aspects that have been promoted, are the fact that they
> consume less energy for the same amount of light output as an
> 'equivalent' incandescent - and therein lies a can of worms before we
> start - and that they are supposedly longer lived.
size is:
19 CFLs.
1 incandescent
12 halogen incandescents
* In six years, none of the CFLs have failed. Several CFLs were transferred
from a previous residence and are at least 8 years old. One is operated at
least 4 hours per day. Most others see around 1 ~ 1.5 hours per day.
* My non-halogen incandescent has failed twice in 6 years. It's use is
severely restricted to less than 1 hour per week.
* The halogen downlights are used around 2 hours per week. I've replaced at
least a dozen halogens in the last 6 years.
The huge amounts
> of manufacturing processes, and shipping energy for all the component
> parts, and all the other hidden energy inputs, are politely ignored.
> Not to mention the true disposal costs, if this is done properly. No
> one really understands the real manufacturing costs either, because
> governments are making sure that the true price is subsidised by
> collecting additional 'green' taxes via the energy companies, from
> the likes of you and I.
low energy lamps. Yet. CFLs have been cheap for quite a few years. I pay
around 5 Bucks for high quality, 23 Watt, Philips branded lamps. There are
MUCH cheaper lamps available, but I don't buy them (anymore). Once bitten,
twice shy. If you examine my analysis of the running costs of incandescent
vs. CFLs, you'll see why CFLs are a MUCH better choice.
If ever these subsidies are removed, CFLs
> will become a major expense to a household, unless they use really
> crappy quality Chinese imports that give poor light quality and poor
> starting characteristics, and are much shorter lived than people are
> currently being persuaded is the case.
purchased for around 5 Bucks. Given the exceptionally long life and low
operating costs, there is simply no comparison.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
Phil Allison
"Arfa Daily"
** Stop trying to reason with TW.
The guy is one of the biggest all round lunatics and charlatans in
Australia.
He never listens and he never changes his views, no matter how wrong he is.
He is utterly autistic.
... Phil
Trevor Wilson
http://www.megavolt.co.il/Tips_and_info/bulbs_at_glance.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compact_fluorescent_lamp#Lifespan
http://www.designrecycleinc.com/led%20comp%20chart.html
http://www.gelighting.com/eu/resources/firstlight/module04/08.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamp_rerating
This is an interesting primer on the topic:
http://donklipstein.com/bulb1.html
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
Ian Field
"Dennis" <jon....@ithemorgue.com> wrote in message
news:f72dnVWBnKU8F-fT...@westnet.com.au...
Michael A. Terrell
Loss of blood to the brain, in Phil's case. :(
Michael A. Terrell
You can find websites that say anything you want them to. I do use
some CFLs where I don't have to stay for more than a few minutes and I
despise them. "DO NOT USE BASE UP!!!" That eliminates a lot of
fixtures. "DO NOT USE IN AN ENCLOSED SPACE!!!" There goes the outdoor
lights. I do not like the color temperature of CFLs, or a lot of other
light sources. LED Lights give me headaches. Go preach to your choir of
greenies.
Jim Yanik
>
>
> "Phil Allison" <phi...@tpg.com.au> wrote in message
> news:9dsttb...@mid.individual.net...
>>
>> "Arfa Daily"
>> "Trevor Wilson"
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>>
>>>> * LEDs use a miniscule amount of silicon.
>>>> * Incandescent lamps use a very large amount of silicon
>>>
>>> Whereabouts ?
>>
>>
>> ** The TW charlatan is being a real clever dick.
>>
>> Glass is about 23% silicon by weight.
glass is ~75% silicon dioxide.
compare a lamp envelope to a LED silicon substrate,and there's no doubt
about which has more silicon. At least to the rational folks.
>
>
> So is that *all* glass ? I can't find any reference anywhere to
> silicon being a component of bog-standard glass. Is it just naturally
> in there, and if so, in what form ? Or is it put in there for some
> reason, and for what purpose if so ?
Wiki is your friend.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silicon
>
>
>
>>
>> Got NOTHING to do with the very nasty polluting and carcinogenic
>> processes involved in making silicon semiconductors.
>>
>>
>
> Yes, where the silicon has been extracted from whatever ore it occurs
> in, and then refined
from Wiki;
Silicon is commercially prepared by the reaction of high-purity silica with
wood, charcoal, and coal, in an electric arc furnace using carbon
electrodes. At temperatures over 1,900 蚓 (3,450 蚌), the carbon reduces
the silica to silicon according to the following chemical equation:
(not semiconductor-grade Si,that uses trichlorosilane.)
>
>
>> .... Phil
>>
>
> Arfa
Jim Yanik
the manufacture of CFLs produces much more pollution than making
incandescent lamps. it probably outweighs any savings from the use of CFLs
over I-lamps.
you don't need -any- mercury in making I-lamps,nor do you need phosphors.
josephkk
Zone melting is no longer used (it was popular in the early Germanium
days). Today they react sand with Chlorine to get SiCl4 or with Hydrogen
to get SiH4 (silane). Then they use distillation to get to parts per
trillion purity. Maybe a dopant is added at this point. Then react it
back to pure metal. That then goes into a Cockrozski crystal puller.
Slice the boule into wafers and now the nasty chemicals start. Buffered
HF, arsine, borane and worse. And along the way a lot of energy.
josephkk
wrote:
>
>
>"Phil Allison" <phi...@tpg.com.au> wrote in message
>news:9dsu8k...@mid.individual.net...
>>
>> "Sylvia Else"
>> Arfa Daily wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> I was given to understand that the colour of an incandescent bulb is
>>>> what humans are comfortable with, because it closely matches the colour
>>>> and spectrum of our sun.
>>>
>>> The sun's effective temperature (the blackbody temperature that gives
>>> approximately the same spectrum) is about 5800K, which is a lot higher
>>> than the colour temperature of an incandescent.
>>
>> ** Daylight has no particular colour temp.
>>
>> It varies from 11,000K on a overcasts day to less than 2000K at dawn and
>> dusk.
>>
>> However, daylight ( like incandescent light ) has a smooth spectrum and
>> the human eye adjusts to the varying colour temps almost perfectly.
>
>
>
>As an interesting example, my son-in-law is currently working on an old Mini
>on my drive. The other day, it was raining, so he rigged a 'tent' over the
>front, from a blue plastic tarp. When I first went under there with him,
>everything had a very blue caste, as you would expect. I didn't notice any
>adjustment / compensation going on in my brain, but it must have been,
>because when I stepped out from under there a few minutes later, the whole
>world was bright yellow. A few minutes later, all was back to normal. The
>strange thing is that I don't seem to be able to adjust to CFL light in the
>same way. It continues to have a sort of 'sick' quality for me. Even more
>curious though, is that linear fluorescents don't seem to affect me in the
>same way. I work under them all day, without issue.
>>
>
>Arfa
Some of the early CFL had/have an excess of green in their spectrum. Not
so much of a problem today.
Arfa Daily
silica sand was was basically silicon dioxide. Although I suppose the name
is a bit of a giveaway, with hindsight ... :-)
Still, even so with that being the case, it's a bit of a distortion to liken
this compounded silicon which is there naturally, to the pure silicon that
has been processed out of the sand, for use in semiconductors.
Arfa
Arfa Daily
"Jim Yanik" <jya...@abuse.gov> wrote in message
news:Xns9F687DFAFBEA7...@216.168.3.44...
Yes. This is kind of my point. And when I was saying that 'background' items
like shipping costs are politely ignored, I was referring to the multiple
shipping operations that are required for the many components in a CFL, and
the many raw materials contained in those components, just to get all the
bits and pieces from the individual specialist manufacturers, to the places
where the lamps are assembled. In the case of an incandescent lamp, we are
talking a few components, simply made from a few raw materials. With a CFL,
we are talking semiconductors comprising silicon, dopant chemicals, plastic,
metal. Capacitors comprising metal foil, plastic, rubber, maybe paper, metal
leads and other chemicals in the electros. Coils comprising processed iron
powder, copper wire, insulation, copper foil, epoxy adhesive, steel
leadouts. Then there's the complex glass tube, and the chemical phosphors
and mercury vapour inside it. Tungsten electrodes. Then the pcb material
that its all mounted on. Lots of soldered joints. And then the plastic
enclosure for the ballast. And then the 'normal' bits that an incandescent
has anyway. Every single one of those components, and the manufacturing
processes for *their* component parts, involves energy input for the
process. They all need workers who have to be moved from their homes and
back again each day, They have to be heated / cooled, fed and watered, and
then lit as well. And when they've made their bits of the lamp, these have
to be shipped on somewhere else. These are the energy costs that the general
public are never made aware of. If they were, they might start to question
the perceived wisdom that they've been fed, that these things are actually
'green'.
If people want to use CFLs in the belief - mistaken in my opinion - that
they are in some way helping the world to use less energy, then that's fine.
If it's really the case, then CFLs will win out the day in the end. But I
think that it is utterly wrong that the existing technology has been banned
completely on thin evidence and a less than truthful declaration of the
energy required to make and dispose of the things, the only factor being
pushed, being the lower energy consumption when they are in use, as though
this is the be-all and end-all of their right to exist, and to be forced on
us.
The point that Trevor makes about aircon to mitigate the heat output of
incandescents, holds no water here in Northern Europe. Unlike in Australia,
it seldom becomes hot enough up here for more than a few days a year, that
aircon is needed. And that is only in the summer, when it's light for 16
hours of the day anyway, so there's not much lighting being used. OTOH, for
much of the year, it is cool or cold enough to require heating in houses,
and in this case, the complete opposite of Trevor's premise, is true, in
that the heat output from the incandescent light bulbs, serves to mitigate
heat input requirement, from the central heating system.
Arfa
Phil Allison
"Arfa Daily"
>
> The point that Trevor makes about aircon to mitigate the heat output of
> incandescents, holds no water here in Northern Europe.
** Or in Australia.
Householders do not turn their air con on because lamps are heating the
house up!!
Fraid the sun is the culprit in that crime.
Commercial buildings that have large amounts of lighting and air con ALL use
high efficiency lighting and have for decades.
The ONLY reason for banning incandescents is rabid green lunatics wanting to
stamp their tiny feet and make a point, forcing others to carry out their
mad ideas.
Same goes for effectively banning the use of iron core transformers in AC
adaptors.
In both cases, the lunatics legislated energy efficiency levels ( plus off
load consumptions ) such as to JUST eliminate the offending products and
allow ones a tiny bit more efficient to continue on sale.
No consideration was given to far more important issues that were involved
in the banning of such long proven and inherently safe products.
Purest lunacy.
.... Phil
Trevor Wilson
**Indeed. I just did a little research and found that some of these issues
HAVE been examined. The total manufacturing energy input for a typical CFL
is around 1.7kWhr. The total manufacturing energy input for a typical
incandescent is around 0.3kWhr. Considerably less. Or is it?
Let's put that into some kind of perspective:
A typical 100 Watt IC lasts for 1,000 hours (at best).
A typical 15 Watt CFL lasts for 5,000 hours (I've certainly exceeding that
figure quite comfortably).
Over 5,000 hours of use, the CFL has consumed 75kWhr + 1.7kWhr = 76.7kWhr.
IOW: The energy cost of manufacture is almost insignificant, even though is
a little higher than 5 incandescents.
Over 5,000 hours, the IC lamp has consumed 500kWhr + 1.5kWhr = 501.5kWhr.
I would argue that the energy cost of manufacture is a spurious argument.
The pollution cost is another matter entirely. During operation, coal fired
generators (like those here in Australia) emit mercury. A typical 100 Watt
lamp will cause the emission of around 10mg of mercury over it's life. 5
lamps (5,000 hours) will cause the release of 50mg or mercury. By
comparison, CFLs will cause the release of around 7.5mg of mercury + 4mg of
mercury contained within the envelope. If the lamp is disposed of correctly,
then the total mercury release will be 7.5mg. Far less than that of IC
lamps. Other nations, that employ different power generation schemes will
see different results.
And this does not take into pollution created at the point of manufacture.
That is an issue that should be dealt with locally.
>
> If people want to use CFLs in the belief - mistaken in my opinion -
> that they are in some way helping the world to use less energy, then
> that's fine.
**It's not a mistaken belief. It's a fact. CFLs use FAR less energy than
incandescents. From cradle to grave. Vastly, hugely less energy.
If it's really the case, then CFLs will win out the day
> in the end.
**By a massive margin, in fact.
But I think that it is utterly wrong that the existing
> technology has been banned completely on thin evidence and a less
> than truthful declaration of the energy required to make and dispose
> of the things, the only factor being pushed, being the lower energy
> consumption when they are in use, as though this is the be-all and
> end-all of their right to exist, and to be forced on us.
**Your opinion is duly noted. That comment is a political issue. I recall
EXACTLY the same arguments were made, here in Australia, when leaded petrol
was legislated out of existence. I susepct that, in 20 years, when we look
back at this whole discussion, it will appear to be a non-event. More
efficient lighting will be the standard, incandescents will be relegated to
specialised applications (oven lighting, etc) and the whole issue will be
viewed for what it really is - a storm in a teacup.
>
> The point that Trevor makes about aircon to mitigate the heat output
> of incandescents, holds no water here in Northern Europe. Unlike in
> Australia, it seldom becomes hot enough up here for more than a few
> days a year, that aircon is needed. And that is only in the summer,
> when it's light for 16 hours of the day anyway, so there's not much
> lighting being used. OTOH, for much of the year, it is cool or cold
> enough to require heating in houses, and in this case, the complete
> opposite of Trevor's premise, is true, in that the heat output from
> the incandescent light bulbs, serves to mitigate heat input
> requirement, from the central heating system.
**So? Northern Europe is not the whole world. Vast swathes of this planet
consume vast amounts of energy for air conditioning. Northern Europe is a
small player in that respect. Worse, CO2 emissions from Northern Europe
impact on those regions where a small amount of warming will lead to serious
problems. We only have one place that we can all live. We all need to work
together.
And, just to reinforce the point: I do not consider lighting to be a major
problem in power consumption (and, therefore, CO2 emissions). Nor do I
consider appliances that use auxiliary power to be a major issue either.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
Phil Allison
"Trevor Wilson"
> Let's put that into some kind of perspective:
** Translation = a fictitious pack of lies.
> A typical 100 Watt IC lasts for 1,000 hours (at best).
** Might also last 25 years in a low use app.
> A typical 15 Watt CFL lasts for 5,000 hours
** No way is the light from a 15W CFL the same as a 100W lamp.
Try a 27 watt CFL.
> Over 5,000 hours of use,
** In average domestic us, the life is more lie 2000 hrs at best before the
output falls too much and it has to be replaced.
the CFL has consumed 75kWhr + 1.7kWhr = 76.7kWhr.
** CFL = 54 kWh, 100W lamp = 200 kWh.
> IOW: The energy cost of manufacture is almost insignificant, even though
> is a little higher than 5 incandescents.
** A made up number.
The real number is more like 50 times.
> **It's not a mistaken belief. It's a fact. CFLs use FAR less energy than
> incandescents. From cradle to grave. Vastly, hugely less energy.
** Bollocks.
Reducing domestic lighting consumption has NO effect on the amount of coal
being burned in power stations.
Cos the domestic lighting load is all at night time when the coal powered
generators have excess capacity - in NSW much of that excess is sent to the
Snowy to pump water up hill to help with peaks loads during the day. In that
process up to 60% of the power generated is lost in transmission lines and
pumping.
.... Phil
Arfa Daily
to make those components, and so many processes to extracting, refining and
making appropriate the constituents *of* those components, that I think it
is probably an impossible task to analyse the total energy budget of making
one of these things, with any accuracy. There will probably also be a degree
of deliberate distortion downwards to those figures by the greenies that
would produce them, to make them look better. On the other hand, an
incandescent bulb uses - what - seven, eight maybe components, each of which
could be totally accurately pinned down on their production energy costs.
Bear in mind that the processes to produce the components are also very
simple and straightforward, unlike the processes required to make the
components of a CFL.
>
> Let's put that into some kind of perspective:
>
> A typical 100 Watt IC lasts for 1,000 hours (at best).
> A typical 15 Watt CFL lasts for 5,000 hours (I've certainly exceeding that
> figure quite comfortably).
that sort of life from CFLs. I have used all sorts over the years, from
cheap to expensive, and have never obtained anything like that length of
service from any of them, with the exception of some very early ones that I
installed in a day nursery that we once owned. They were Dulux globe CFLs
and very expensive. We owned that nursery for twelve years, and most of them
were still going when we sold it, so I don't dispute that it is possible to
make long-lasting CFLs. I just don't think that overall, taken across the
whole raft of qualities and costs, they are doing it any more. However, I
have a lot of low voltage halogen downlighters in my house, that I put in
more than ten years ago. Of the eight located above the stairwell, and the
further five along the upstairs corridor, only one has failed in all that
time, and that was only a few months ago. Maybe, like you with your CFLs, I
have been lucky with these halogens. Here in the UK, there have been
governmental drives to push CFLs, by heavily subsidising the cost of them,
and in some cases, almost giving them away in supermarkets, and in others
*actually* giving them away. With the best will in the world, these are
cheap crap, so that is what the general public are having foisted on them as
a result of the drive to try to get people to actually want them, and is
probably why the general experience is that they don't last anything like as
long as the figures that they would try to have us believe. Also, those
figures are only good - if at all- when the ballast is properly cooled,
which means having the lamp in service the 'right' way up. Unfortunately,
many lamp fixtures that they go in, don't do this, and luminaires enclose
them completely. Incandescents didn't care about this, of course.
>
> Over 5,000 hours of use, the CFL has consumed 75kWhr + 1.7kWhr = 76.7kWhr.
> IOW: The energy cost of manufacture is almost insignificant, even though
> is a little higher than 5 incandescents.
>
> Over 5,000 hours, the IC lamp has consumed 500kWhr + 1.5kWhr = 501.5kWhr.
>
> I would argue that the energy cost of manufacture is a spurious argument.
manufacturing energy budget. As I have said, I do not because of the
complexity of arriving at a figure. Plus you also need to factor in the full
energy cost of recycling the toxins contained within it at the end of its
service life. There is zero cost for this with an incandescent, as it does
not contain anything potentially harmful to the environment.
>
> The pollution cost is another matter entirely. During operation, coal
> fired generators (like those here in Australia) emit mercury. A typical
> 100 Watt lamp will cause the emission of around 10mg of mercury over it's
> life. 5 lamps (5,000 hours) will cause the release of 50mg or mercury. By
> comparison, CFLs will cause the release of around 7.5mg of mercury + 4mg
> of mercury contained within the envelope. If the lamp is disposed of
> correctly, then the total mercury release will be 7.5mg. Far less than
> that of IC lamps. Other nations, that employ different power generation
> schemes will see different results.
of 5000 hours across the board. And that is the important thing. *All* CFLs
need to achieve that figure for the calculations to be valid, and that ain't
never gonna happen, as long as there are cheapo Chinese ones flooding the
market. In any case, in Europe, coal fired power stations have been on the
decline for many years. Most are now gas or nuclear
>
> And this does not take into pollution created at the point of manufacture.
> That is an issue that should be dealt with locally.
>
>>
>> If people want to use CFLs in the belief - mistaken in my opinion -
>> that they are in some way helping the world to use less energy, then
>> that's fine.
>
> **It's not a mistaken belief. It's a fact. CFLs use FAR less energy than
> incandescents. From cradle to grave. Vastly, hugely less energy.
angle that's been exploited by the greenies, to try to gain them widespread
acceptance. Personally, I believe that the situation is far less clear than
this rather simplistic assumption, when you factor in the *true* costs.
Almost certainly, they use less energy if you accept the simple picture, get
the projected life from them, and believe the equivalence figures for light
output, that they put on the boxes. And again, on this score, I understand
that they are now trying to legislate over here, to mark the boxes in lumens
or some such, probably because users are starting to doubt the quoted
equivalence figures. In reality, if you have a genuine like for like in
terms of light output, factor in the *real* costs of producing,
transporting, and disposing of properly at the end, and get the more typical
average service life of 2000 hours from them, then the saving becomes much
less significant, and for me, insufficient reason to ban me from using
incandescents.
>
> If it's really the case, then CFLs will win out the day
>> in the end.
>
> **By a massive margin, in fact.
that I cannot buy the bulbs I want any more, because they have banned them
to make sure that I can't. If it was still incandescents vs CFLs on a level
playing field, the take up of CFLs would be much less, which was the reason
in the first place that they found it necessary to legislate to force people
to use them.
>
> But I think that it is utterly wrong that the existing
>> technology has been banned completely on thin evidence and a less
>> than truthful declaration of the energy required to make and dispose
>> of the things, the only factor being pushed, being the lower energy
>> consumption when they are in use, as though this is the be-all and
>> end-all of their right to exist, and to be forced on us.
>
> **Your opinion is duly noted. That comment is a political issue. I recall
> EXACTLY the same arguments were made, here in Australia, when leaded
> petrol was legislated out of existence. I susepct that, in 20 years, when
> we look back at this whole discussion, it will appear to be a non-event.
> More efficient lighting will be the standard, incandescents will be
> relegated to specialised applications (oven lighting, etc) and the whole
> issue will be viewed for what it really is - a storm in a teacup.
a different issue entirely, with very clear motives and outcomes. You would
have to be brain dead not to understand that putting huge quantities of lead
into the atmosphere at ground level and in a form that people could breathe,
is bad in every way. Removing lead from petrol had little if any impact on
the general public, because it was already possible to build engines that
had no requirement for lead in their fuel, without compromising performance.
It was, unlike CFLs, a classic example of a genuine *replacement*
technology, which suffered no disadvantages over the technology that it was
replacing. There was not even any need to challenge this bit of legislation,
because the advantages were very clear to see in large cities the world
over. Even if you clung on to your car that needed leaded petrol, this was
still available at the pumps for some years after unleaded came in, and
after it was finally removed from sale, there was still LRP (lead
replacement petrol) available for some long time after that. Finally, if you
still wanted to run your vintage engine, this could be achieved in most
cases by the simple expedient of altering the ignition timing, and in the
worst case, reducing the compression ratio a little, by fitting a thicker
head gasket. CFLs are nothing like this. They are a substitute technology
which is unable to replace incandescents in a number of areas - such as
decorative light fittings - and having many other shortcomings in comparison
to incandescents, in exchange for the dubious possibility that they in some
way help to save the planet.
>
>>
>> The point that Trevor makes about aircon to mitigate the heat output
>> of incandescents, holds no water here in Northern Europe. Unlike in
>> Australia, it seldom becomes hot enough up here for more than a few
>> days a year, that aircon is needed. And that is only in the summer,
>> when it's light for 16 hours of the day anyway, so there's not much
>> lighting being used. OTOH, for much of the year, it is cool or cold
>> enough to require heating in houses, and in this case, the complete
>> opposite of Trevor's premise, is true, in that the heat output from
>> the incandescent light bulbs, serves to mitigate heat input
>> requirement, from the central heating system.
>
> **So? Northern Europe is not the whole world. Vast swathes of this planet
> consume vast amounts of energy for air conditioning. Northern Europe is a
> small player in that respect. Worse, CO2 emissions from Northern Europe
> impact on those regions where a small amount of warming will lead to
> serious problems. We only have one place that we can all live. We all need
> to work together.
made a very clear statement that a disadvantage of incandescents was that
they generated heat that needed the use of aircon plant to remove. I merely
stated that this is not the case in Northern Europe, where aircon is not
common in the first place, and where the exact opposite of what you contend,
is true. In the case of what you are stating, we are talking a double whammy
in that the lights waste energy in producing heat, and then your
energy-thirsty aircon plant has to be used to waste a bit more removing that
heat. Here, the heat is not 'wasted' for much of the year, as it partially
mitigates the required heating input from the central heating. 50 watts of
heat pouring off a lightbulb into my living room, is 50 watts that my
heating system has not got to put into my radiators. I fail to see what your
point is regarding Northern Europe against 'vast swathes of the planet etc'.
The population density of Northern Europe is much higher overall than that
of many of these vast swathes that you refer to, so the fact that we don't
use huge amounts of energy for aircon, equates to a much lower energy
requirement per person, taken overall.
>
> And, just to reinforce the point: I do not consider lighting to be a major
> problem in power consumption (and, therefore, CO2 emissions). Nor do I
> consider appliances that use auxiliary power to be a major issue either.
the job of providing even-intensity pleasing-quality light, to everyone's
satisfaction ??
Arfa
>
>
> --
> Trevor Wilson
> www.rageaudio.com.au
>
Jeff Liebermann
wrote:
>the manufacture of CFLs produces much more pollution than making
>incandescent lamps. it probably outweighs any savings from the use of CFLs
>over I-lamps.
>you don't need -any- mercury in making I-lamps,nor do you need phosphors.
good thing. However, to put that in perspective, the coal that we use
to generate most of our electricity has an estimated 75 tons of
mercury mixed in, each year, two thirds of which is belched into the
atmosphere. If you include the mercury emissions from generating the
power needed to run an incandescent lamp, the CFL lamp dumps 1/4th the
mercury into the environment as the incandescent.
<http://www.cflknowhow.org/cfl-mercury-information.html>
Permit me to point out that US domestic and commerical electricity
consumption has been increasing quite constantly at the rate of about
1.5%/year. If there were any energy savings from the existing CFL
lamps in service, it would have appeared as a drop in the consumption
trend. It's a bit tricky to use, but you can dig the history and
trends out of:
<http://www.eia.gov/oiaf/aeo/tablebrowser/#release=AEO2011>
Tungsten, as used in incandescent lamps, may not be all that
environmentally correct:
<http://pubs.acs.org/cen/science/87/8703sci2.html>
There's not much known about the effects of tungsten in the
environment, but it is becoming yet another thing to worry about.
I wouldn't worry much about phosphorus as we're scheduled to run out
in 50-100 years.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_phosphorus>
--
Jeff Liebermann je...@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558
Arfa Daily
"Jeff Liebermann" <je...@cruzio.com> wrote in message
news:cofq77href6m5ud4m...@4ax.com...
Europe - for instance, we operate just 14 here in the UK now. France has
none, I believe. Apparently, the vast majority of increase in CO2 emissions,
and use of coal to fire power plants, is coming from India and China. These
are both technologically competent nations, who are ignoring any
responsibility they might have to reduce emissions. So why does that mean
that I have to suffer a 'pissing into the wind' replacement for technology
that I am happy with, so they can carry on regardless ?
http://www.engineerlive.com/Power-Engineer/Focus_on_Coal/Coal-fired_power_plants_capacity_to_grow_by_35_per_cent_in_next_10_years/21600/
Arfa
Trevor Wilson
able to place some trust in those who do their investigations into such
things. Anyway, let's assume that the investigators have made an error
amounting to 100%. Even with such an error, CFLs leave ICs in their dust.
Let's assume that the investigators are completely inept and they have made
an error amounting to 1,000%. Even with an energy input figure of 17kW, CFLs
leave ICs for dead.
There will probably also be a degree of deliberate
> distortion downwards to those figures by the greenies that would
> produce them, to make them look better.
have an axe to grind either way. Bad assumption. If you can supply your
alternate data, please feel free to do so. Here is my reference:
http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Compact_Fluorescent_Lighting_(CFL)_Downsides
On the other hand, an
> incandescent bulb uses - what - seven, eight maybe components, each
> of which could be totally accurately pinned down on their production
> energy costs. Bear in mind that the processes to produce the
> components are also very simple and straightforward, unlike the
> processes required to make the components of a CFL.
It's not impossible to pin down the cost of manufacturing the relatively
small number of components in a CFL. Car manufacturers routinely do just
that, for what is a dramatically more complex device.
>
>
>>
>> Let's put that into some kind of perspective:
>>
>> A typical 100 Watt IC lasts for 1,000 hours (at best).
>> A typical 15 Watt CFL lasts for 5,000 hours (I've certainly
>> exceeding that figure quite comfortably).
>
> I have to say that in my experience, you have been extremely lucky to
> get that sort of life from CFLs.
the suckers in service. If I had (say) 2 in service and not experienced a
failure, then I might agree with you. I have NINETEEN of them in and around
my home. And, FWIW: several of them are not installed according to
manufacturer's instructions. They are surviving nicely.
I have used all sorts over the
> years, from cheap to expensive, and have never obtained anything like
> that length of service from any of them, with the exception of some
> very early ones that I installed in a day nursery that we once owned.
> They were Dulux globe CFLs and very expensive. We owned that nursery
> for twelve years, and most of them were still going when we sold it,
> so I don't dispute that it is possible to make long-lasting CFLs. I
> just don't think that overall, taken across the whole raft of
> qualities and costs, they are doing it any more.
confirm. The damned things are so incredibly long lasting that I simply have
not had to purchase replacements. In fact, I fully expect LEDs to be
appropriately priced by the time I need to make any changes.
However, I have a
> lot of low voltage halogen downlighters in my house, that I put in
> more than ten years ago. Of the eight located above the stairwell,
> and the further five along the upstairs corridor, only one has failed
> in all that time, and that was only a few months ago. Maybe, like you
> with your CFLs, I have been lucky with these halogens.
to increase efficiency. The SMPS seem to deliver a pretty accurate Voltage,
so I doubt that is an issue. As an aside, my mother has a number of 12 Volt
halogens in her kitchen. I receive at least 2 calls per year to replace
blown lamps. I believe that low Voltage halogen downlights are an utterly
evil blight on society. They are OK for directing light into specific areas,
but are hopeless at lighting a space, relatively inneficient and they don't
last very long.
Here in the
> UK, there have been governmental drives to push CFLs, by heavily
> subsidising the cost of them, and in some cases, almost giving them
> away in supermarkets, and in others *actually* giving them away.
give the things away for a couple of years. I snagged a few, but found the
colour temperature horrible and the lamps were clearly cheap rubbish. The
Philips lamps I buy are regularly sold for around $5.00 each. That's for a
23 Watt lamp, that, IME, has a life of AT LEAST 3,500 hours (I expect at
least double that figure) and, after 6 years of operation, is registering
less than a 5% fall in light output. Whichever way you slice it, that is
exceptional value for money.
With
> the best will in the world, these are cheap crap, so that is what the
> general public are having foisted on them as a result of the drive to
> try to get people to actually want them, and is probably why the
> general experience is that they don't last anything like as long as
> the figures that they would try to have us believe. Also, those
> figures are only good - if at all- when the ballast is properly
> cooled, which means having the lamp in service the 'right' way up.
> Unfortunately, many lamp fixtures that they go in, don't do this, and
> luminaires enclose them completely. Incandescents didn't care about
> this, of course.
serious damage to the plaster ceiling in the process. The fitting survived
fine, as it was designed to cope. The plaster was not. A CFL solved the
problem.
>
>
>>
>> Over 5,000 hours of use, the CFL has consumed 75kWhr + 1.7kWhr =
>> 76.7kWhr. IOW: The energy cost of manufacture is almost
>> insignificant, even though is a little higher than 5 incandescents.
>>
>> Over 5,000 hours, the IC lamp has consumed 500kWhr + 1.5kWhr =
>> 501.5kWhr. I would argue that the energy cost of manufacture is a
>> spurious
>> argument.
>
> Only possibly, if you feel you are able to trust the figures for
> manufacturing energy budget.
kilometre.
As I have said, I do not because of the
> complexity of arriving at a figure. Plus you also need to factor in
> the full energy cost of recycling the toxins contained within it at
> the end of its service life. There is zero cost for this with an
> incandescent, as it does not contain anything potentially harmful to
> the environment.
disposed of. Again, this is not an impossibly costly exercise. Thos whacky
Swedes managed 75% recycling back in 2007.
http://www.enerlin.enea.it/outcomes/rep_recycling.pdf
Like all such things, the rates of recylcing will increase and the cost will
decrease over time.
>
>
>>
>> The pollution cost is another matter entirely. During operation, coal
>> fired generators (like those here in Australia) emit mercury. A
>> typical 100 Watt lamp will cause the emission of around 10mg of
>> mercury over it's life. 5 lamps (5,000 hours) will cause the release
>> of 50mg or mercury. By comparison, CFLs will cause the release of
>> around 7.5mg of mercury + 4mg of mercury contained within the
>> envelope. If the lamp is disposed of correctly, then the total
>> mercury release will be 7.5mg. Far less than that of IC lamps. Other
>> nations, that employ different power generation schemes will see
>> different results.
>
> Again, these figures are only meaningful if you genuinely achieve a
> figure of 5000 hours across the board. And that is the important
> thing. *All* CFLs need to achieve that figure for the calculations to
> be valid, and that ain't never gonna happen, as long as there are
> cheapo Chinese ones flooding the market. In any case, in Europe, coal
> fired power stations have been on the decline for many years. Most
> are now gas or nuclear
cite an average of 750 - 1,000 hours for their standard IC lamps. These can
be made to last longer, but at the cost of efficiency. Fundamentally,
however, I take issue with your constant reference to cheap, crappy lamps. I
have CONSISTENTLY stated that I refer only to quality lamps (like Philips).
It would be like you trying to argue that automobiles are fundamentally
unsafe, unreliable and uneconomical, by using ONLY Tata automobiles as your
reference. You should be using Toyota, Honda, Mecedes, Hyundai and the
others as part of your reference.
No more talk of cheap, shitty lamps please. Whilst they are are available
and fools will buy them, they are not representative of state of the art in
quality or longevity.
>
>
>>
>> And this does not take into pollution created at the point of
>> manufacture. That is an issue that should be dealt with locally.
>>
>>>
>>> If people want to use CFLs in the belief - mistaken in my opinion -
>>> that they are in some way helping the world to use less energy, then
>>> that's fine.
>>
>> **It's not a mistaken belief. It's a fact. CFLs use FAR less energy
>> than incandescents. From cradle to grave. Vastly, hugely less energy.
>
>
> On the face of it, they appear to, and as I said before, that is the
> *only* angle that's been exploited by the greenies, to try to gain
> them widespread acceptance.
disposal of CFLs.
Personally, I believe that the situation
> is far less clear than this rather simplistic assumption, when you
> factor in the *true* costs.
Almost certainly, they use less energy if
> you accept the simple picture, get the projected life from them, and
> believe the equivalence figures for light output, that they put on
> the boxes. And again, on this score, I understand that they are now
> trying to legislate over here, to mark the boxes in lumens or some
> such, probably because users are starting to doubt the quoted
> equivalence figures. In reality, if you have a genuine like for like
> in terms of light output, factor in the *real* costs of producing,
> transporting, and disposing of properly at the end, and get the more
> typical average service life of 2000 hours from them, then the saving
> becomes much less significant, and for me, insufficient reason to ban
> me from using incandescents.
supplort your notion that QUALITY CFLs manage an average of 2,000 hours? Are
you aware of any consumer legal action against Philips? After Philips cite a
6,000 hour life for their product. Here in Australia, the penalties are
severe for companies engaged in misleading advertising of that nature.
Recently, LG was penalised several hundred thousand Dollars for making
misleading claims about the efficiency of their refrigerators. I'm certain
the legislators would be happy to tackle Philips, if you can supply solid
supporting evidence to back your claims (about QUALITY CFLs).
>
>
>>
>> If it's really the case, then CFLs will win out the day
>>> in the end.
>>
>> **By a massive margin, in fact.
>
>
> Distorted by the fact that CFLs are effectively government sponsored,
cost approximately 5 times as much as an equivalent IC lamp. They last 5
times longer and use 1/5th as much energy.
his might prove an intgeresting read for you:
http://www.choice.com.au/consumer-action/sustainability/energy-efficiency/compact-fluorescent-lightbulbs.aspx
> and that I cannot buy the bulbs I want any more, because they have
> banned them to make sure that I can't. If it was still incandescents
> vs CFLs on a level playing field, the take up of CFLs would be much
> less, which was the reason in the first place that they found it
> necessary to legislate to force people to use them.
fools. They'll choose the cheapest, upfront solution, without regard to
longevity or running costs.
>
>
>>
>> But I think that it is utterly wrong that the existing
>>> technology has been banned completely on thin evidence and a less
>>> than truthful declaration of the energy required to make and dispose
>>> of the things, the only factor being pushed, being the lower energy
>>> consumption when they are in use, as though this is the be-all and
>>> end-all of their right to exist, and to be forced on us.
>>
>> **Your opinion is duly noted. That comment is a political issue. I
>> recall EXACTLY the same arguments were made, here in Australia, when
>> leaded petrol was legislated out of existence. I susepct that, in 20
>> years, when we look back at this whole discussion, it will appear to
>> be a non-event. More efficient lighting will be the standard,
>> incandescents will be relegated to specialised applications (oven
>> lighting, etc) and the whole issue will be viewed for what it really
>> is - a storm in a teacup.
>
>
> I fail to see how you equate leaded petrol to the situation with
> CFLs. It is a different issue entirely, with very clear motives and
> outcomes. You would have to be brain dead not to understand that
> putting huge quantities of lead into the atmosphere at ground level
> and in a form that people could breathe, is bad in every way.
excessive warming of this planet.
> Removing lead from petrol had little if any impact on the general
> public, because it was already possible to build engines that had no
> requirement for lead in their fuel, without compromising performance.
production systems, costing millions of Dollars to cope. Most automobiles
suffered a performance fall when switched to unleaded fuel. Those who
retained their leaded fuel autos have to use expensive additives to
compensate.
> It was, unlike CFLs, a classic example of a genuine *replacement*
> technology, which suffered no disadvantages over the technology that
> it was replacing.
There was not even any need to challenge this bit
> of legislation, because the advantages were very clear to see in
> large cities the world over. Even if you clung on to your car that
> needed leaded petrol, this was still available at the pumps for some
> years after unleaded came in, and after it was finally removed from
> sale, there was still LRP (lead replacement petrol) available for
> some long time after that. Finally, if you still wanted to run your
> vintage engine, this could be achieved in most cases by the simple
> expedient of altering the ignition timing, and in the worst case,
> reducing the compression ratio a little, by fitting a thicker head
> gasket.
operation of valves (seats). The simple expedient of altering timing is only
for making up for differences in octane, not lead.
CFLs are nothing like this. They are a substitute technology
> which is unable to replace incandescents in a number of areas - such
> as decorative light fittings - and having many other shortcomings in
> comparison to incandescents, in exchange for the dubious possibility
> that they in some way help to save the planet.
Europe. Fancy lamps, oven lamps and others are still available. For those
who refuse to change, halogen replacements are still available.
temperatures are too low, heat pumps (aka: air conditioners) are a far more
efficient method of heating a home than resistive heating.
>
>>
>> And, just to reinforce the point: I do not consider lighting to be a
>> major problem in power consumption (and, therefore, CO2 emissions).
>> Nor do I consider appliances that use auxiliary power to be a major
>> issue either.
>
>
> So why do you support the banning of a proven simple technology,
> which did the job of providing even-intensity pleasing-quality light,
> to everyone's satisfaction ??
* IC lamps are NOT to everyone's satisfaction. I have ONLY used fluoro
lighting in my workshop for the last 40 years.
* IC lamps are unreliable and wasteful of energy.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
Arfa Daily
>
> On the other hand, an
>> incandescent bulb uses - what - seven, eight maybe components, each
>> of which could be totally accurately pinned down on their production
>> energy costs. Bear in mind that the processes to produce the
>> components are also very simple and straightforward, unlike the
>> processes required to make the components of a CFL.
>
> **Your point being?
>
> It's not impossible to pin down the cost of manufacturing the relatively
> small number of components in a CFL. Car manufacturers routinely do just
> that, for what is a dramatically more complex device.
pollution from industrial processes. Any fool can say "this transistor costs
us 20 cents. This capacitor costs us 5 cents" and so on. But it's an awful
lot more complex to start looking into the energy budget for refining the
silicon. For turning the silicon into P and N types. For refining the
plastic from the oil. For getting the oil out of the ground. For getting the
iron ore out of the ground. For refining the iron out of the ore, and then
converting it to steel. Transporting all the constituents. Manufacturing
them into a transistor. Then shipping that transistor to the CFL maker. And
on and on. And that's just one component out of a considerable number - see
http://www.pavouk.org/hw/lamp/en_index.html
My point obviously being that in comparison, an incandescent has a very few
constituent parts, all of which are simple, and have simple well defined
manufacturing processes, that could easily be energy budgeted.
>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Let's put that into some kind of perspective:
>>>
>>> A typical 100 Watt IC lasts for 1,000 hours (at best).
>>> A typical 15 Watt CFL lasts for 5,000 hours (I've certainly
>>> exceeding that figure quite comfortably).
>>
>> I have to say that in my experience, you have been extremely lucky to
>> get that sort of life from CFLs.
>
> **Luck has nothing to do with it. I only buy quality CFLs and I have 19 of
> the suckers in service. If I had (say) 2 in service and not experienced a
> failure, then I might agree with you. I have NINETEEN of them in and
> around my home. And, FWIW: several of them are not installed according to
> manufacturer's instructions. They are surviving nicely.
>
> I have used all sorts over the
>> years, from cheap to expensive, and have never obtained anything like
>> that length of service from any of them, with the exception of some
>> very early ones that I installed in a day nursery that we once owned.
>> They were Dulux globe CFLs and very expensive. We owned that nursery
>> for twelve years, and most of them were still going when we sold it,
>> so I don't dispute that it is possible to make long-lasting CFLs. I
>> just don't think that overall, taken across the whole raft of
>> qualities and costs, they are doing it any more.
>
> **I confess that I have not purchased a CFL for several years, so I can't
> confirm. The damned things are so incredibly long lasting that I simply
> have not had to purchase replacements. In fact, I fully expect LEDs to be
> appropriately priced by the time I need to make any changes.
of control electronics in them to make them run from AC line voltage, then
as long as they are not subsidised, they are never going to get as cheap as
incandescents, or have as low an energy budget to produce. Whilst there have
been some major advances in recent years in the light output and efficiency
of LEDs , they still have relatively poor colour rendition qualities for
home use, and still struggle to produce even omni-directional light as is
required for general lighting, due to the fact that the light is produced at
a flat surface. As to not experiencing the same longevity as you with my
CFLs, I thought that I carefully explained that I have purchased all
qualities of the things, and have not found the expensive 'quality' names to
be any longer lived than the cheapos. This seems to be the findings of
others on here, as well.
<snip>
>> are now gas or nuclear
>
> **Philips cite 6,000 hours for their lamps. Most manufacturers of IC lamps
> cite an average of 750 - 1,000 hours for their standard IC lamps. These
> can be made to last longer, but at the cost of efficiency. Fundamentally,
> however, I take issue with your constant reference to cheap, crappy lamps.
> I have CONSISTENTLY stated that I refer only to quality lamps (like
> Philips). It would be like you trying to argue that automobiles are
> fundamentally unsafe, unreliable and uneconomical, by using ONLY Tata
> automobiles as your reference. You should be using Toyota, Honda, Mecedes,
> Hyundai and the others as part of your reference.
>
> No more talk of cheap, shitty lamps please. Whilst they are are available
> and fools will buy them, they are not representative of state of the art
> in quality or longevity.
cheap crappy ones are available, *most* people - not just "fools" as you so
disparagingly refer to them - will buy them over the expensive quality ones,
because they don't understand the difference, as we do. It's human nature to
buy cheap, which is why the Chinese are doing so well on the back of
world-wide sales of cheap - and often crap quality - electronic goods,
offered for sale through all our nations' supermarkets. This is where the
whole thing breaks down as an argument about the eco validity of any of this
technology. The manufacturers of the cheap CFLs are in it purely to make
money. They have no concern at all for the 'green' credentials of their
products, except in as much as they will sell in their millions,
irrespective of their quality, just because the *are* CFLs. So whilst it is
true what you say in that the cheapo ones are not representative of the
state of the art, unfortunately, they *are* representative of what is being
sold in quantity to the general public, and their contribution to the
validity of the discussion, cannot be ignored until *all* CFLs that are
offered for sale, are indeed representative of the state of the art. I'm
sorry if that offends your sensibilities, but it *is* part of the overall
equation. In fact, your analogy with the cars, is self-defeating, because
you could look at it from the other angle, and say that if you take say BMW
as your reference, then all other cheaper makes are invalid because they are
not 'state of the art', and people who buy them are fools. The cheaper makes
will always be bought by the general public, because not everyone can afford
the safety and performance of a BMW, just like not everyone can afford to
pay £5 or whatever for a bulb to replace an incandescent that they are used
to paying 50 pence for. If there is a CFL costing 50 pence on the shelf
alongside the £5 one, you tell me, which one are most uninformed people
going to buy ? And it is for precisely this reason that the whole CFL thing,
taken on a world-wide basis, falls apart.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> And this does not take into pollution created at the point of
>>> manufacture. That is an issue that should be dealt with locally.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> If people want to use CFLs in the belief - mistaken in my opinion -
>>>> that they are in some way helping the world to use less energy, then
>>>> that's fine.
>>>
>>> **It's not a mistaken belief. It's a fact. CFLs use FAR less energy
>>> than incandescents. From cradle to grave. Vastly, hugely less energy.
>>
>>
>> On the face of it, they appear to, and as I said before, that is the
>> *only* angle that's been exploited by the greenies, to try to gain
>> them widespread acceptance.
>
> **Incorrect. ALL green groups have expressed reservations about the proper
> disposal of CFLs.
pollution point of view, yes, but insignificant compared to the
manufacturing energy budgets and pollution-causing manufacturing processes,
that are NEVER mentioned by these groups, because they never even consider
these 'hidden' aspects.
>
>
> Personally, I believe that the situation
>> is far less clear than this rather simplistic assumption, when you
>> factor in the *true* costs.
>
> **Fair enough. Cite these "true" costs you speak of. Numbers please.
inputs and pollution outputs for the hundreds of processes involved. And
when I say "costs", I am not talking monetary ones, as I explained earlier.
As I said, I am sure that it is just too complicated a situation to ever be
able to arrive at a real figure, but no matter how much you don't want to
believe it, you have to accept that there *are* many hundreds of process
steps and transport steps involved in CFL manufacture, compared to
incandescent manufacture, which *must* add up to a very significant amount,
that is being totally ignored in making the 'green' case for the things.
Whether it can be accurately quantified or not, if you stop and think about
it, it is common sense.
>
> Almost certainly, they use less energy if
>> you accept the simple picture, get the projected life from them, and
>> believe the equivalence figures for light output, that they put on
>> the boxes. And again, on this score, I understand that they are now
>> trying to legislate over here, to mark the boxes in lumens or some
>> such, probably because users are starting to doubt the quoted
>> equivalence figures. In reality, if you have a genuine like for like
>> in terms of light output, factor in the *real* costs of producing,
>> transporting, and disposing of properly at the end, and get the more
>> typical average service life of 2000 hours from them, then the saving
>> becomes much less significant, and for me, insufficient reason to ban
>> me from using incandescents.
>
> **My CFLs are averaging far more than 2,000 hours. Do you have any data to
> supplort your notion that QUALITY CFLs manage an average of 2,000 hours?
> Are you aware of any consumer legal action against Philips? After Philips
> cite a 6,000 hour life for their product. Here in Australia, the penalties
> are severe for companies engaged in misleading advertising of that nature.
> Recently, LG was penalised several hundred thousand Dollars for making
> misleading claims about the efficiency of their refrigerators. I'm certain
> the legislators would be happy to tackle Philips, if you can supply solid
> supporting evidence to back your claims (about QUALITY CFLs).
people *actually* buy ...
>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> If it's really the case, then CFLs will win out the day
>>>> in the end.
>>>
>>> **By a massive margin, in fact.
>>
>>
>> Distorted by the fact that CFLs are effectively government sponsored,
>
> **Not in Australia. They compete in the market, like any other product.
> They cost approximately 5 times as much as an equivalent IC lamp. They
> last 5 times longer and use 1/5th as much energy.
>
> his might prove an intgeresting read for you:
>
> http://www.choice.com.au/consumer-action/sustainability/energy-efficiency/compact-fluorescent-lightbulbs.aspx
>
>> and that I cannot buy the bulbs I want any more, because they have
>> banned them to make sure that I can't. If it was still incandescents
>> vs CFLs on a level playing field, the take up of CFLs would be much
>> less, which was the reason in the first place that they found it
>> necessary to legislate to force people to use them.
>
> **I agree with that. Most people are, fundamentally, greedy, self-serving,
> fools. They'll choose the cheapest, upfront solution, without regard to
> longevity or running costs.
utterly destroy your own ...
>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> But I think that it is utterly wrong that the existing
>>>> technology has been banned completely on thin evidence and a less
>>>> than truthful declaration of the energy required to make and dispose
>>>> of the things, the only factor being pushed, being the lower energy
>>>> consumption when they are in use, as though this is the be-all and
>>>> end-all of their right to exist, and to be forced on us.
>>>
>>> **Your opinion is duly noted. That comment is a political issue. I
>>> recall EXACTLY the same arguments were made, here in Australia, when
>>> leaded petrol was legislated out of existence. I susepct that, in 20
>>> years, when we look back at this whole discussion, it will appear to
>>> be a non-event. More efficient lighting will be the standard,
>>> incandescents will be relegated to specialised applications (oven
>>> lighting, etc) and the whole issue will be viewed for what it really
>>> is - a storm in a teacup.
>>
>>
>> I fail to see how you equate leaded petrol to the situation with
>> CFLs. It is a different issue entirely, with very clear motives and
>> outcomes. You would have to be brain dead not to understand that
>> putting huge quantities of lead into the atmosphere at ground level
>> and in a form that people could breathe, is bad in every way.
>
> **As is feeding excessive CO2 into the atmosphere. Too much CO2 is causing
> excessive warming of this planet.
reputable scientists who believe otherwise.
>
>> Removing lead from petrol had little if any impact on the general
>> public, because it was already possible to build engines that had no
>> requirement for lead in their fuel, without compromising performance.
>
> **That was not the case here in Australia. Manufacturers had to alter
> their production systems, costing millions of Dollars to cope. Most
> automobiles suffered a performance fall when switched to unleaded fuel.
> Those who retained their leaded fuel autos have to use expensive additives
> to compensate.
fuel. For sure, there had to be some modification to the production and
design processes, but these occur for the manufacturers every time they
bring out a new model or engine. The monetary costs of doing this are
factored into a new design, so will actually not have been any particularly
burdensome problem for the manufacturers. Drops in performance of existing
engines when converted to run on unleaded fuel were actually fairly minor,
and most people here, at least, did not even bother converting because
leaded petrol was available alongside unleaded, for a reasonable time
period. Back when all this happened, cars were not that long-lived anyway,
so unless you had only just bought a new one, it was no great shakes that
the next one you bought would be produced with an unleaded petrol engine,
already designed in. The manufacturers knew this was coming, and had plenty
of time to carry out the required design alterations, and actually to
amortise the costs in their existing production, in readiness for the
legislation.
>
>
>> It was, unlike CFLs, a classic example of a genuine *replacement*
>> technology, which suffered no disadvantages over the technology that
>> it was replacing.
>
> **Not here in Australia. Costs rose for buyers.
>
> There was not even any need to challenge this bit
>> of legislation, because the advantages were very clear to see in
>> large cities the world over. Even if you clung on to your car that
>> needed leaded petrol, this was still available at the pumps for some
>> years after unleaded came in, and after it was finally removed from
>> sale, there was still LRP (lead replacement petrol) available for
>> some long time after that. Finally, if you still wanted to run your
>> vintage engine, this could be achieved in most cases by the simple
>> expedient of altering the ignition timing, and in the worst case,
>> reducing the compression ratio a little, by fitting a thicker head
>> gasket.
>
> **Incorrect. Leaded fuel vehicles require an additive to allow correct
> operation of valves (seats). The simple expedient of altering timing is
> only for making up for differences in octane, not lead.
>
> CFLs are nothing like this. They are a substitute technology
>> which is unable to replace incandescents in a number of areas - such
>> as decorative light fittings - and having many other shortcomings in
>> comparison to incandescents, in exchange for the dubious possibility
>> that they in some way help to save the planet.
>
> **Specialised IC lamps are still available in Australia. I don't know
> about Europe. Fancy lamps, oven lamps and others are still available. For
> those who refuse to change, halogen replacements are still available.
candle any more. You haven't been able to get pearlised bulbs of any
description for a long time. Truly specialised ones for ovens etc are still
available, because it is simply impossible to replace them with anything
else. Halogen 'Apollo nose-cones' are still available at the moment, and
capsule halogens still are, but only in clear envelopes, which are pretty
useless compared to frosted ones. I was looking around the other day to see
if I could still find any halogen replacements (the type where a halogen
capsule bulb is incorporated into a 'traditional' shaped incandescent
envelope), and the only ones of those that I could find were clear. These
give a very harsh light, whereas the pearlised ones, gave a very nice even
light
>
>>
Arfa
TonyS
[snipped an awful lot]
> **Perhaps. I swapped out all my iron transformers for SMPS some years ago,
> to increase efficiency. The SMPS seem to deliver a pretty accurate Voltage,
> so I doubt that is an issue. As an aside, my mother has a number of 12 Volt
> halogens in her kitchen. I receive at least 2 calls per year to replace
> blown lamps. I believe that low Voltage halogen downlights are an utterly
> evil blight on society. They are OK for directing light into specific areas,
> but are hopeless at lighting a space, relatively inneficient and they don't
> last very long.
with a pine-lined cathedral ceiling, I have 4 halogens. They are well
placed above the critical spots where I need good lighting.
The 35W lamps from Ikea are just as bright as the old 50W. (Even the 20W
ones could be an option now).
I run them on electronic ballasts and on a trailing edge dimmer, for a
soft background light when the kitchen's closed:)
The dimmer has a soft start switch, very nice!
I have had no 35W lamps failing after 3 years which equates to an
estimated 2000 hrs on full power, and the dimming hasn't done any harm
to them.
I have, for now, substituted 2 of the halogens with LED lights from Deal
Extreme (MR16 4-LED 360-Lumen 3500K Warm White Light Bulb (12V)
Item Number 39027 49.5mm, $8.30) which consume only 6W (6W instead of 35
is a strong argument). They are bright enough but the yellowish colour
really needs to get used to. I don't know if I will keep them or get
some more white ones instead. Maybe someone has tried some more and
different ones? Let us know what you think. There is just too many too
chose from.
Tony
[snipped even more]
Jeff Liebermann
<arfa....@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>But as I said, coal fired plants have been declining over the years in
>Europe - for instance, we operate just 14 here in the UK now. France has
>none, I believe.
misleading as coal fired power plants come in all shapes and sizes.
It's not the number, but the generation capacity that's important. In
the US, we built 10 new plants in 2010 for a total new capacity of
1.6GW (gigawatts). However, if you include decomissioned plants, the
net loss in capacity in 2010 was about -4.6GW lost. Most of the loss
was balanced by a transition to federally subsidized wind power. In
2010, there was also the cancellation of 10 additional plants mostly
due to legislative or EPA restriction. For example, California has a
ban on new coal plants (SB1368). Europe is doing much the same.
<http://www.netl.doe.gov/coal/refshelf/ncp.pdf>
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_phase_out>
If the EPA gets its way, it's likely that most of the older US coal
plants will need to close to meet emission requirements.
<http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Existing_U.S._Coal_Plants>
The loss of -4.6GW of coal generation capacity is not going to make
much of a dent in the mercury emissions. At this time, the US gets
about 45% of about 4 trillion kw-hr of electricity from coal. A few
gigawatts of capacity here and there isn't going to change much.
<http://www.eia.gov/coal/>
Note that capacity loss is usually balanced by burning more coal to
produce more electricity at other plants. Therefore, closing a plant
does NOT constitute an overall decrease in emissions. Only a decrease
in generated mw-hr can decrease emissions.
If you accept my coal generation logic at face value, every product
that uses electricity also dumps mercury into the environment. For
example, my electric water heater would be considered a major
contributor to coal based environmental pollution and far more
significant than a CFL lamp. While this doesn't do anything to help
one decide between CFL and incandescent, it does highlight some
priorities on the process.
>Apparently, the vast majority of increase in CO2 emissions,
>and use of coal to fire power plants, is coming from India and China.
comes from burning coal. There are technologies that drastically
reduce coal fired plant emissions. They're expensive, messy, use huge
amounts of water, and are being largely ignored by the larger plants.
Not so with the smaller plants, a few of which use one or more
technologies.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_coal_technology>
As far as I can tell, neither India or China are doing clean coal
plants.
>These
>are both technologically competent nations, who are ignoring any
>responsibility they might have to reduce emissions. So why does that mean
>that I have to suffer a 'pissing into the wind' replacement for technology
>that I am happy with, so they can carry on regardless ?
economies will collapse without the generated power, which makes it
one of many "necessary evils".
Mick DaDik
> I have, for now, substituted 2 of the halogens with LED lights from Deal
> Extreme (MR16 4-LED 360-Lumen 3500K Warm White Light Bulb (12V)
> Item Number 39027 49.5mm, $8.30) which consume only 6W (6W instead of 35
> is a strong argument). They are bright enough but the yellowish colour
> really needs to get used to. I don't know if I will keep them or get
> some more white ones instead. Maybe someone has tried some more and
> different ones? Let us know what you think. There is just too many too
> chose from.
I have replaced 6 x 50w Halgens in our kitchen with 6 x these ones 3.8w each
http://www.dealextreme.com/p/mr16-3-8w-60-led-6500k-360-lumen-light-bulb-white-12v-30825
and I have to say I am happy on several fronts.
firstly it consumes only 23w compared to 300w of the originals.
secondly they run cool not burning hot
thirdly the light is WHITE not yellow and floods the kitchen rather than
being directional like the halogens were.
Our ceilings are 9ft and the halogens created a bright area that was
very narrow and left deep shadows to the sides of the area...
These LEDs `flood' the whole area and in effect create a daylight
environment much more pleasing to me.
I will add that whilst they ran on AC 12V they had a slight flicker I
found disturbing so I now run them off 12Vdc and they are great.
mick
kreed
>
> read more »
As for cheap CFL, we used to buy those 4 packs for about $7.50 from
Bunnings. probably 1 out of 10 would fail after a few months, but the
others have gone for about 3 years so far (50 bought all up). I also
noticed that since the light bulbs have been banned, the cheap CFL's
have all but disappeared and its hard to find any that are under the
$3-4 mark. Most also have this sickening "warm white" light, rather
than the proper "cool white" or "daylight" that is normal with fluros.
I still have some GE CFL ones I bought about 2002 that are working.
Most though last nowhere near as long as incandescents though and they
do not like a lot of the light fittings used in typical Australian
homes.
They either face down, or don't have enough ventilation, or simply
don't fit in them
The one advantage they have over incandescents is that they are not
affected by vibration.
TonyS
They are a bit more expensive, but worth a try.
(Even though with Deal Extreme I never know for sure if I get what's in
the description.)
Tony
Trevor Wilson
> <snip>
>
>>
>> On the other hand, an
>>> incandescent bulb uses - what - seven, eight maybe components, each
>>> of which could be totally accurately pinned down on their production
>>> energy costs. Bear in mind that the processes to produce the
>>> components are also very simple and straightforward, unlike the
>>> processes required to make the components of a CFL.
>>
>> **Your point being?
>>
>> It's not impossible to pin down the cost of manufacturing the
>> relatively small number of components in a CFL. Car manufacturers
>> routinely do just that, for what is a dramatically more complex
>> device.
>
>
> But we're not talking cost here. We're talking energy budgets and
> planetary pollution from industrial processes.
costed, WRT energy consumption. They need to be in such a cut-throat market.
Any fool can say "this
> transistor costs us 20 cents. This capacitor costs us 5 cents" and so
> on. But it's an awful lot more complex to start looking into the
> energy budget for refining the silicon.
are very good at these sorts of things. That's why companies employ them.
For turning the silicon into
> P and N types. For refining the plastic from the oil. For getting the
> oil out of the ground. For getting the iron ore out of the ground.
> For refining the iron out of the ore, and then converting it to
> steel. Transporting all the constituents. Manufacturing them into a
> transistor. Then shipping that transistor to the CFL maker. And on
> and on. And that's just one component out of a considerable number -
> see
> http://www.pavouk.org/hw/lamp/en_index.html
>
> My point obviously being that in comparison, an incandescent has a
> very few constituent parts, all of which are simple, and have simple
> well defined manufacturing processes, that could easily be energy
> budgeted.
complexity.
bet it is lower than CFLs. Moreover, since a large chunk of the energy cost
involves the cost of aluminium, since that aluminium is infinitely
recyclable, the total energy cost would likely be very competitive.
Whilst there have been some major advances in
> recent years in the light output and efficiency of LEDs , they still
> have relatively poor colour rendition qualities for home use, and
> still struggle to produce even omni-directional light as is required
> for general lighting, due to the fact that the light is produced at a
> flat surface.
on what I need to do. The low Voltage halogens provide excellent, high
intensity light, but with poor dispersion. I also use an 11 Watt T5 fluoro
for day-to-day bench work. I recently purchased some of these:
http://www.dealextreme.com/feedbacks/BrowseReviews.dx/sku.80310
Not only is light output almost double that of the fluoro (measured with a
light meter), but it does so on-axis and all off-axis positions too (easily
100+ degrees of spread). Colour temperature is very close to that of the
halogens. I already have a number applications planned for them. I don't
know how long they'll last. Further: I've been buying these things for many
years (at least 10 years):
http://www.ledsales.com.au/catalog/index.php?main_page=index&cPath=148_190
They're inexpensive, good quality, long lasting and have a respectably wide
light spread.
Of course, there has been the venerable Luxeon emitters, which are available
in up to 120 degree spread and have been for many years.
As to not experiencing the same longevity as you with
> my CFLs, I thought that I carefully explained that I have purchased
> all qualities of the things, and have not found the expensive
> 'quality' names to be any longer lived than the cheapos. This seems
> to be the findings of others on here, as well.
http://www.choice.com.au/reviews-and-tests/household/energy-and-water/saving-energy/compact-fluorescent-lightbulbs.aspx
"After 6000 hours (December 2010), several good performers were still going
strong. All had dimmed since the start of our test, but the best performers
had dimmed comparatively little - if you had one of these in your home, its
gradual dimming over three (or more) years would probably not be
noticeable."
The test involved a large mnumber of lamps. Quite a different scenario to
yours and mine.
They have no concern at all for the 'green' credentials
> of their products, except in as much as they will sell in their
> millions, irrespective of their quality, just because the *are* CFLs.
> So whilst it is true what you say in that the cheapo ones are not
> representative of the state of the art, unfortunately, they *are*
> representative of what is being sold in quantity to the general
> public, and their contribution to the validity of the discussion,
> cannot be ignored until *all* CFLs that are offered for sale, are
> indeed representative of the state of the art. I'm sorry if that
> offends your sensibilities, but it *is* part of the overall equation.
quality manufacturers of automobiles, like Hyundai, Honda and Toyota, there
are also a number of manufacturers of crap automobiles, like Chery and Tata.
A prospective buyer has access to the same information about these vehicles
that I do and anyone who buys a Tata or a Chery does so in the knowledge
that they are crap automobiles. Same deal with CFLs. I've made the mistake
of buying some cheap CFLs. I will not do so again.
> In fact, your analogy with the cars, is self-defeating, because you
> could look at it from the other angle, and say that if you take say
> BMW as your reference, then all other cheaper makes are invalid
> because they are not 'state of the art', and people who buy them are
> fools.
reputation for reliability, average fuel economy, ordinary stylinbg (IMO),
expensive spare parts and are no safer than (say) a Toyota/Lexus. Even a
Hyundai can probably beat the BMW in a number of areas. Particularly price.
The cheaper makes will always be bought by the general public,
> because not everyone can afford the safety and performance of a BMW,
legendary for it's greed WRT spare parts, service and a host of other issues
(here in Australia).
> just like not everyone can afford to pay £5 or whatever for a bulb to
> replace an incandescent that they are used to paying 50 pence for.
The quality CFL costs around AUS$5.00, not 5 Quid.
A quality, 100 Watt, (1,000 hour) IC lamp used to cost around AUS$1.00. The
replacement halogens are more expensive (about $3.50).
If UK residents are paying 5 Quid for quality, government subsidised CFLs,
then there is something seriously wrong with the system. We can land them
way across the other side of the planet (mine were made in China) for less
than you can buy them.
If
> there is a CFL costing 50 pence on the shelf alongside the £5 one,
> you tell me, which one are most uninformed people going to buy ?
for CFLs. Our prices are much lower and there's no subsidies.
And
> it is for precisely this reason that the whole CFL thing, taken on a
> world-wide basis, falls apart.
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> And this does not take into pollution created at the point of
>>>> manufacture. That is an issue that should be dealt with locally.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> If people want to use CFLs in the belief - mistaken in my opinion
>>>>> - that they are in some way helping the world to use less energy,
>>>>> then that's fine.
>>>>
>>>> **It's not a mistaken belief. It's a fact. CFLs use FAR less energy
>>>> than incandescents. From cradle to grave. Vastly, hugely less
>>>> energy.
>>>
>>>
>>> On the face of it, they appear to, and as I said before, that is the
>>> *only* angle that's been exploited by the greenies, to try to gain
>>> them widespread acceptance.
>>
>> **Incorrect. ALL green groups have expressed reservations about the
>> proper disposal of CFLs.
>
>
> But that is actually another comparatively minor issue. Important
> from the pollution point of view, yes, but insignificant compared to
> the manufacturing energy budgets and pollution-causing manufacturing
> processes, that are NEVER mentioned by these groups, because they
> never even consider these 'hidden' aspects.
>
>
>>
>>
>> Personally, I believe that the situation
>>> is far less clear than this rather simplistic assumption, when you
>>> factor in the *true* costs.
>>
>> **Fair enough. Cite these "true" costs you speak of. Numbers please.
>
>
>
> I cannot give numbers,
cannot counter my data, then we must accept that mine is the most accurate
available. Your 'gut feel' doesn't count.
because there are none that FULLY analyse ALL
> energy inputs and pollution outputs for the hundreds of processes
> involved. And when I say "costs", I am not talking monetary ones, as
> I explained earlier. As I said, I am sure that it is just too
> complicated a situation to ever be able to arrive at a real figure,
> but no matter how much you don't want to believe it, you have to
> accept that there *are* many hundreds of process steps and transport
> steps involved in CFL manufacture, compared to incandescent
> manufacture, which *must* add up to a very significant amount,
compared to an IC lamp.
that
> is being totally ignored in making the 'green' case for the things.
> Whether it can be accurately quantified or not, if you stop and think
> about it, it is common sense.
energy costs of production of the two lamps.
>
>
>>
>> Almost certainly, they use less energy if
>>> you accept the simple picture, get the projected life from them, and
>>> believe the equivalence figures for light output, that they put on
>>> the boxes. And again, on this score, I understand that they are now
>>> trying to legislate over here, to mark the boxes in lumens or some
>>> such, probably because users are starting to doubt the quoted
>>> equivalence figures. In reality, if you have a genuine like for like
>>> in terms of light output, factor in the *real* costs of producing,
>>> transporting, and disposing of properly at the end, and get the more
>>> typical average service life of 2000 hours from them, then the
>>> saving becomes much less significant, and for me, insufficient
>>> reason to ban me from using incandescents.
>>
>> **My CFLs are averaging far more than 2,000 hours. Do you have any
>> data to supplort your notion that QUALITY CFLs manage an average of
>> 2,000 hours? Are you aware of any consumer legal action against
>> Philips? After Philips cite a 6,000 hour life for their product.
>> Here in Australia, the penalties are severe for companies engaged in
>> misleading advertising of that nature. Recently, LG was penalised
>> several hundred thousand Dollars for making misleading claims about
>> the efficiency of their refrigerators. I'm certain the legislators
>> would be happy to tackle Philips, if you can supply solid supporting
>> evidence to back your claims (about QUALITY CFLs).
>
>
> See my earlier comments regarding quality CFLs versus the reality of
> what people *actually* buy ...
considerably less than that claimed. Here in Australia (and, presumably, in
Europe) such data must be able to be justified to consumer regulators.
Severe fines can result for manufacturers who fail to live up to the claims
of their products. AFIK, Philips has not been fined for their longevity
claims. Moreover, the article I directed you to has indicated that most
samples were very reliable.
>
>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> If it's really the case, then CFLs will win out the day
>>>>> in the end.
>>>>
>>>> **By a massive margin, in fact.
>>>
>>>
>>> Distorted by the fact that CFLs are effectively government
>>> sponsored,
>>
>> **Not in Australia. They compete in the market, like any other
>> product. They cost approximately 5 times as much as an equivalent IC
>> lamp. They last 5 times longer and use 1/5th as much energy.
>>
>> his might prove an intgeresting read for you:
>>
>> http://www.choice.com.au/consumer-action/sustainability/energy-efficiency/compact-fluorescent-lightbulbs.aspx
>>
>>> and that I cannot buy the bulbs I want any more, because they have
>>> banned them to make sure that I can't. If it was still incandescents
>>> vs CFLs on a level playing field, the take up of CFLs would be much
>>> less, which was the reason in the first place that they found it
>>> necessary to legislate to force people to use them.
>>
>> **I agree with that. Most people are, fundamentally, greedy,
>> self-serving, fools. They'll choose the cheapest, upfront solution,
>> without regard to longevity or running costs.
>
>
> I don't understand this. By saying that, you make my case for me, and
> utterly destroy your own ...
Upfront. That, of course, is the short-sighted approach.
>
>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> But I think that it is utterly wrong that the existing
>>>>> technology has been banned completely on thin evidence and a less
>>>>> than truthful declaration of the energy required to make and
>>>>> dispose of the things, the only factor being pushed, being the
>>>>> lower energy consumption when they are in use, as though this is
>>>>> the be-all and end-all of their right to exist, and to be forced
>>>>> on us.
>>>>
>>>> **Your opinion is duly noted. That comment is a political issue. I
>>>> recall EXACTLY the same arguments were made, here in Australia,
>>>> when leaded petrol was legislated out of existence. I susepct
>>>> that, in 20 years, when we look back at this whole discussion, it
>>>> will appear to be a non-event. More efficient lighting will be the
>>>> standard, incandescents will be relegated to specialised
>>>> applications (oven lighting, etc) and the whole issue will be
>>>> viewed for what it really is - a storm in a teacup.
>>>
>>>
>>> I fail to see how you equate leaded petrol to the situation with
>>> CFLs. It is a different issue entirely, with very clear motives and
>>> outcomes. You would have to be brain dead not to understand that
>>> putting huge quantities of lead into the atmosphere at ground level
>>> and in a form that people could breathe, is bad in every way.
>>
>> **As is feeding excessive CO2 into the atmosphere. Too much CO2 is
>> causing excessive warming of this planet.
>
>
> That is by no means proven in science.
www.ipcc.ch
Read AR4 IN FULL. If you feel that AR4 is in error, then you should submit a
page by page rebuttal.
Only in the media.
**Er, nope. SCIENCE has released the data. The media publishes whatever
their editorial people or owners tell them to. Scientists cite data.
There are
> many reputable scientists who believe otherwise.
are employed by the fossil fuel industry who publish cherry-picked and
misleading information. In fact, a goodly amount is nothing but lies.
>
>
>>
>>> Removing lead from petrol had little if any impact on the general
>>> public, because it was already possible to build engines that had no
>>> requirement for lead in their fuel, without compromising
>>> performance.
>>
>> **That was not the case here in Australia. Manufacturers had to alter
>> their production systems, costing millions of Dollars to cope. Most
>> automobiles suffered a performance fall when switched to unleaded
>> fuel. Those who retained their leaded fuel autos have to use
>> expensive additives to compensate.
>
>
> There is little difference between engines that burn leaded and
> unleaded fuel.
Corida Turbo. The leaded version delivered 110kW with premium leaded fuel.
The unleaded version delivered 90kW with premium unleaded.
For sure, there had to be some modification to the
> production and design processes, but these occur for the
> manufacturers every time they bring out a new model or engine. The
> monetary costs of doing this are factored into a new design, so will
> actually not have been any particularly burdensome problem for the
> manufacturers.
heads, whilst another just gave up and imported (at huge cost) Japanese
alloy head engines, rather than tooling up.
Drops in performance of existing engines when
> converted to run on unleaded fuel were actually fairly minor, and
> most people here, at least, did not even bother converting because
> leaded petrol was available alongside unleaded, for a reasonable time
> period. Back when all this happened, cars were not that long-lived
> anyway, so unless you had only just bought a new one, it was no great
> shakes that the next one you bought would be produced with an
> unleaded petrol engine, already designed in. The manufacturers knew
> this was coming, and had plenty of time to carry out the required
> design alterations, and actually to amortise the costs in their
> existing production, in readiness for the legislation.
>
>
>>
>>
>>> It was, unlike CFLs, a classic example of a genuine *replacement*
>>> technology, which suffered no disadvantages over the technology that
>>> it was replacing.
>>
>> **Not here in Australia. Costs rose for buyers.
>>
>> There was not even any need to challenge this bit
>>> of legislation, because the advantages were very clear to see in
>>> large cities the world over. Even if you clung on to your car that
>>> needed leaded petrol, this was still available at the pumps for some
>>> years after unleaded came in, and after it was finally removed from
>>> sale, there was still LRP (lead replacement petrol) available for
>>> some long time after that. Finally, if you still wanted to run your
>>> vintage engine, this could be achieved in most cases by the simple
>>> expedient of altering the ignition timing, and in the worst case,
>>> reducing the compression ratio a little, by fitting a thicker head
>>> gasket.
>>
>> **Incorrect. Leaded fuel vehicles require an additive to allow
>> correct operation of valves (seats). The simple expedient of
>> altering timing is only for making up for differences in octane, not
>> lead.
>
>
> The lead was in the petrol as an anti-knock agent, as I recall
>
>
>>
>> CFLs are nothing like this. They are a substitute technology
>>> which is unable to replace incandescents in a number of areas - such
>>> as decorative light fittings - and having many other shortcomings in
>>> comparison to incandescents, in exchange for the dubious possibility
>>> that they in some way help to save the planet.
>>
>> **Specialised IC lamps are still available in Australia. I don't know
>> about Europe. Fancy lamps, oven lamps and others are still
>> available. For those who refuse to change, halogen replacements are
>> still available.
>
> Nope. Pretty much all outlawed here.
http://www.homebase.co.uk/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/Browse?storeId=10151&langId=110&c_2=2%7Ccat_16849318%7CLight+Bulbs%7C14418038&c_1=1%7Ccategory_root%7CLighting%7C16849318&c_3=3|cat_14418038|Globes|14327548
And:
http://www.homebase.co.uk/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/Browse?storeId=10151&langId=110&c_2=2%7Ccat_16849318%7CLight+Bulbs%7C14418038&c_1=1%7Ccategory_root%7CLighting%7C16849318&c_3=3|cat_14418038|Candle+Light+Bulbs|14327550
And:
http://www.homebase.co.uk/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/Browse?storeId=10151&langId=110&c_2=2%7Ccat_16849318%7CLight+Bulbs%7C14418038&c_1=1%7Ccategory_root%7CLighting%7C16849318&c_3=3|cat_14418038|Standard%2FGLS+Bulbs|14327554
You can't get a proper golf ball
> or candle any more. You haven't been able to get pearlised bulbs of
> any description for a long time. Truly specialised ones for ovens etc
> are still available, because it is simply impossible to replace them
> with anything else. Halogen 'Apollo nose-cones' are still available
> at the moment, and capsule halogens still are, but only in clear
> envelopes, which are pretty useless compared to frosted ones. I was
> looking around the other day to see if I could still find any halogen
> replacements (the type where a halogen capsule bulb is incorporated
> into a 'traditional' shaped incandescent envelope), and the only ones
> of those that I could find were clear. These give a very harsh light,
> whereas the pearlised ones, gave a very nice even light
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
Phil Allison
"kreed"
** FFS - learn how to trim !!
>The one advantage they have over incandescents is that they are not
> affected by vibration.
But most CFLs are easily damaged by it.
After time, the glue fails and the glass tubes or spirals come loose from
the plastic case.
Then with vibration or handling, the feed wires break.
There simply is no quality control and a myriad of things to go wrong.
And the Chinese are making them.
.... Phil
Phil Allison
"Trevor Wilson"
> **I suggest you read this:
>
> http://www.choice.com.au/reviews-and-tests/household/energy-and-water/saving-energy/compact-fluorescent-lightbulbs.aspx
** A laughably worthless test, not in any way related to normal use.
Something the rabid green lunatics at Choice are FAMOUS for !!!
Look at the pic - all the CFLs are suspended in mid air !!
No light fittings, not even a ceiling above them.
The room is air conditioned too.
And NO on /off cycling at all !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Not ONE of the KNOWN issues with CFLs will be revealed in such a test.
BTW:
One reason that Choice did not cycle the CFLs is that they found it VERY
difficult to do.
If you try to switch on 10 or more CFLs at once, it will trip the lighting
circuit breaker ( 8 amp) regularly - with over 200 it will not even be
possible at all.
CFLs have large inrush surges, up to 20 amps peak or more for long enough to
active the magnetic trip on lighting breakers.
Looks like the CFLs in that test were powered from a wall outlet (ie using a
16 amp breaker) and brought on in groups of 10 ( using several multi-way
power boards) until they were all lit and left like that for 12 months.
Total Bollocks.
The other green lunatic drivel quoted in the article makes me wanna puke.
.... Phil
kreed
> "kreed"
>
> ** FFS - learn how to trim !!
>
> >The one advantage they have over incandescents is that they are not
> > affected by vibration.
>
> ** Low voltage incandescents are genuinely not affected.
>
was referring to standard 240v domestic ones
> But most CFLs are easily damaged by it.
>
> After time, the glue fails and the glass tubes or spirals come loose from
> the plastic case.
>
> Then with vibration or handling, the feed wires break.
>
> There simply is no quality control and a myriad of things to go wrong.
>
> And the Chinese are making them.
>
> .... Phil
Yes, that is the worst part. Also means that they can claim anything
and not deliver and be immune. Would love to see anyone manufacturing
in Australia try that and get away with it.
kreed
> "Trevor Wilson"
>
> > **I suggest you read this:
>
>
> ** A laughably worthless test, not in any way related to normal use.
>
> Something the rabid green lunatics at Choice are FAMOUS for !!!
>
> Look at the pic - all the CFLs are suspended in mid air !!
>
> No light fittings, not even a ceiling above them.
>
> The room is air conditioned too.
>
> And NO on /off cycling at all !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> Not ONE of the KNOWN issues with CFLs will be revealed in such a test.
>
Not only that, but by the time the 9000 hours (375 days @ 24H a day)
was up, most of the CFL bulbs tested would have been obsolete and
would have been superseded by other designs, or sourced from another
Chinese manufacturer who was now the cheapest, and while they may look
the same, they would likely use a different circuit, and probably
different parts as well - again sourced from who is now the cheapest
supplier.
Economic crisis would make this situation worse, with companies
involved closing and downsizing all over the place.
It would be like doing longevity tests on motherboards or hard drives.
None of the units tested would still be current or on sale by the time
the test was finished.
> BTW:
>
> One reason that Choice did not cycle the CFLs is that they found it VERY
> difficult to do.
>
> If you try to switch on 10 or more CFLs at once, it will trip the lighting
> circuit breaker ( 8 amp) regularly - with over 200 it will not even be
> possible at all.
>
> CFLs have large inrush surges, up to 20 amps peak or more for long enough to
> active the magnetic trip on lighting breakers.
>
> Looks like the CFLs in that test were powered from a wall outlet (ie using a
> 16 amp breaker) and brought on in groups of 10 ( using several multi-way
> power boards) until they were all lit and left like that for 12 months.
>
> Total Bollocks.
>
> The other green lunatic drivel quoted in the article makes me wanna puke.
>
> .... Phil
You would have loved 4 corners last week then, I had never seen such
blatant propaganda in support of the Gillard government and the carbon
tax.
Phil Allison
"kreed"
> But most CFLs are easily damaged by it.
>
> After time, the glue fails and the glass tubes or spirals come loose from
> the plastic case.
>
> Then with vibration or handling, the feed wires break.
>
> There simply is no quality control and a myriad of things to go wrong.
>
> And the Chinese are making them.
Yes, that is the worst part. Also means that they can claim anything
and not deliver and be immune.
** Absolute nonsense.
Importers are liable for false advertising in exactly the same way that
manufacturers are.
The claims I see on CFL packs are vague and very limited or non existent.
Egs
What the fuck does " non dimmable " mean ??
What does " not suitable for wet environments " mean ??
IMO, the people making the FALSE CLAIMS are the stinking greenies.
.... Phil
William Sommerwerck
> What the fuck does "non-dimmable" mean?
It means the manufacturer does not >>claim<< "dimmability".
In practice, at least some CFLs are dimmable that don't claim to be -- for
example, the top-rated Home Depot lamps are.
> IMO, the people making the FALSE CLAIMS are the stinking greenies.
I can think of one false claim -- that using less electricity puts less CO2
into the air. This is true if reduced consumption results in building fewer
hydrocarbon-powered electric plants. But, given load levelling across the
grid, and the need to run the steam generators at a constant level, I assume
there's little or no variation in the amount of CO2 put out by any one
plant.
I'm very much in favor of reduced CO2 emissions, and the development of
cheap, sustainable energy. But our society's basic problem is that we use
too much of everything, and generate too much waste of all sorts.
Portland General Electric is currently running an ad thanking its customers
for the "virtual" power plants said customers have "built" by using less
electricity.
Phil Allison
William Sommerwanker = FUCKWIT "
> "Phil Allison"
>
>> What the fuck does "non-dimmable" mean?
>
> It means the manufacturer does not >>claim<< "dimmability".
** But all CFLs are dimmable.
>> IMO, the people making the FALSE CLAIMS are the stinking greenies.
>
> And those false claims would be...?
** All of them.
The main one being that they can replace any incandescent bulb.
The makers make no such claim.
> I can think of one false claim -- that using less electricity puts less
> CO2
> into the air.
** False.
The makers make no such claim.
> I'm very much in favor of reduced CO2 emissions,
** Then, FFS - kill yourself.
Arfa Daily
Well, I guess we're never going to agree on any aspect of this. You seem
predisposed to take the wrong way, a number of points that I have repeatedly
made, but ho-hum, it's been an interesting line of chat, and at least it
hasn't descended into a screaming match as is so often the case in these
discussions :-)
As to the bulbs you have found online, I must admit that I hadn't managed to
come up with the eco halogens in a pearl envelope - if indeed they actually
have got one when the item is in your hand. All the rest of the ones that
you found, have clear envelopes, as I said, because the pearl envelopes have
been banned, though Christ knows for what eco-bollox reasons. I have a bar
of 4 R50 spots in the room I am in right now, and another two as wall
mounted uplighters in my lounge. These used to do a lovely job of providing
targeted light in the computer room, and accent light in the lounge, or
reduced light for TV watching, when they had a pearlised front. Since they
banned the pearlised ones, the clear-fronted version that is now the only
one available, looks awful. Instead of a nice even light - the whole purpose
of pearlising in the first place - you now get a harsh uneven set of rings
of light wherever they are pointing, and images of the filament. Trust me,
it is now very hard to find to find any light bulbs here, with the correct
physical size and glass properties, to make them acceptable in decorative
light fittings.
And not all CFLs are subsidised. Only the ones that are dirt cheap in the
first place. Then subsidised via the power companies under government
direction, via green taxes levied through our energy bills. These taxes are
also been extracted from us and wasted on the useless windmills and other
eyesore technologies, that are also excuses for companies to make obscene
amounts of money from the green mist hysteria that prevails now throughout
the civilised world. So, we have a cheap crappy CFL that is being made even
cheaper by the false price that's being set on it, to get people to buy
them. If you look at energy saving lightbulbs on the Homebase site that you
linked to, you will see that the 'quality' CFLs that you refer to, are all
up in the £3.50 to £5 bracket, as I said. Then, B&Q are flogging cheapo
subsidised ones for between 10 pence and a quid. Which ones, in the cash
strapped times that we are currently suffering, are most people going to
buy, given that they can no longer buy what they *really* want ?
Anyway, enough time spent on this now. Been enjoyable.
Arfa
Jeff Liebermann
<arfa....@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>Anyway, enough time spent on this now. Been enjoyable.
>Arfa
Humor me for a moment. Take a digital camera photo of your favorite
CFL lamp. Turn off all the other sources of light. What color do you
get? Here's mine:
<http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/crud/FEIT-23w.jpg>
See a problem perhaps?
Extra credit. Find various sheets of blank paper with an assortment
of brightness from about 85 to 105. Photograph those using either a
CFL lamp and an incandescent lamp source. What colors do you get?
(Note that the 105 brightness contains phosphors resulting in the
reflected light actually being brighter than the incident light).
You might want to buy a cheap LED UV flashlight and a diffraction
grating, for more fun with lighting.
<http://www.scientificsonline.com/holographic-diffraction-grating-film-10036.html>
Rich Webb
wrote:
>On Sun, 25 Sep 2011 17:54:07 +0100, "Arfa Daily"
><arfa....@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
>>Anyway, enough time spent on this now. Been enjoyable.
>>Arfa
>
>Humor me for a moment. Take a digital camera photo of your favorite
>CFL lamp. Turn off all the other sources of light. What color do you
>get? Here's mine:
><http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/crud/FEIT-23w.jpg>
>See a problem perhaps?
>
>Extra credit. Find various sheets of blank paper with an assortment
>of brightness from about 85 to 105. Photograph those using either a
>CFL lamp and an incandescent lamp source. What colors do you get?
>(Note that the 105 brightness contains phosphors resulting in the
>reflected light actually being brighter than the incident light).
>
>You might want to buy a cheap LED UV flashlight and a diffraction
>grating, for more fun with lighting.
><http://www.scientificsonline.com/holographic-diffraction-grating-film-10036.html>
<http://www.scientificsonline.com/precision-economy-spectrometer.html>
which includes a nm scale. Some examples of what it shows at
<http://home.comcast.net/~mcculloch-brown/astro/spectrostar.html>
--
Rich Webb Norfolk, VA