Anyone moved to LED Lighting?
John Perry
All incandescent and fluorescent bulbs are out and in their place are
100 GU10 LED lights that consume 3W each. Not all lights are on at
the same time. I have put them in fire cowls that normally house 50W
halogen bulbs, but since these lights give off very little heat, the
cowls can be covered with fibreglass and can be unventilated.
I'm very impressed with the results and have decided not to use X-10
to control them.
Comments?
jcrare
them here last year. One was a 120V 4W Lumoform. The others were different
types of 12V MR16 bulbs for the landscape lighting. The one with 9 SMD LEDs
worked the best.
All produced an impressive amount of light for the wattage. However, the
narrow spectrum didn't render colors very well. Even though they were
supposed to be "warm white", the landscape lights turned our red gravel
gray. The Lumoform did somewhat better, but it was a horrendous noise
source sitting almost exactly at 120KHz. It pretty much killed any X10
control on its circuit. That has since been moved to a desk lamp powered
through a XPPF filter.
I have since converted all the landscape lighting to 12V MR16 CFLs made by
Feit. While they pull slightly more power than the LEDs (5W versus 3-4W),
the color is improved, and the wide beamwidth works much better in the
landscape lights. They also cost only about 1/3 as much as the better MR16
LED bulb.
In summary, LED lighting may be the wave of the future, but in my testing
they did not do as well as much less expensive CFLs.
Jeff
"John Perry" <jpn...@nospam.redoak.co.uk> wrote in message
news:uf6ic55daj4lobne1...@4ax.com...
Josepi
alt.energy.renewable) a few years ago doing there own testing and found that
white LEDs were less efficient than white incandescent bulbs. When pushed to
a decent brilliance LEDs had a short life also.
"jcrare" <no...@getlost.com> wrote in message
news:rU9ym.148$KZ1...@en-nntp-03.dc1.easynews.com...
Robert Green
Sure. Have you tried them with X-10? If so, what were the issues? What
will you be using instead?
--
Bobby G.
Robert L Bass
>
> Sure. Have you tried them with X-10?...
From the gentleman's first post: "I'm very impressed with the results and have
decided not to use X-10 to control them."
--
Regards,
Robert L Bass
==============================>
Bass Home Electronics
DIY Alarm and Home Automation Store
http://www.bassburglaralarms.com
Sales & Service 941-870-2310
Fax 941-870-3252
==============================>
John Perry
No, not using them with X-10 as they use so little power. The best
ones I have found are 78LED and 12 SMD LED devices; 12 GU10s light my
study very well. I use warm LEDS in all rooms except one where I am
using daylight LEDs. Also, no failures in 20 GU10 LEDS installed 2
years ago. We have 116 GU10 LEDS in the house using no more than 3W
each and never more than 33% on at a time. A significant cost saving.
John Perry
<Sa...@BassBurglarAlarms.com> wrote:
>"Robert Green" wrote:
>>
>> Sure. Have you tried them with X-10?...
>
>From the gentleman's first post: "I'm very impressed with the results and have
>decided not to use X-10 to control them."
Reason is, no cost saving to control them. I have tries CFLs, but
they get too warm; the LEDs run virtually cold.
Robert L Bass
>
> Reason is, no cost saving to control them. I have tries CFLs, but they get
> too warm; the LEDs run virtually cold.
Understood. I only reiterated the original post because Booby G asked if
you'd tried them with X10. For me it's a non-issue as I don't care for X10.
There are some here who use it extensively and are very pleased with it. I
had bad experience with it years ago and have not bothered with it since.
Josepi
test found white LEDS to be much less efficient than CFLs. IN fact people
found white LEDS to be less inefficient than incandescent bulbs.
I understand some new technologies have changed that in the last few years.
I would be interested in what technology you are using and what the colour,
brightness and efficiencies are if you are aware. You seem happy with them
so they must be half decent.
"John Perry" <jpn...@nospam.redoak.co.uk> wrote in message
news:on4me5plinjq3h212...@4ax.com...
> Reason is, no cost saving to control them. I have tries CFLs, but
> they get too warm; the LEDs run virtually cold.
Tom Stiller
"Josepi" <JRM@invalid..com> wrote:
> Do you have any efficiency specs onthese unit you are using? Some previous
> test found white LEDS to be much less efficient than CFLs. IN fact people
> found white LEDS to be less inefficient than incandescent bulbs.
>
Less inefficient is *not* a bad thing (tm)
--
Tom Stiller
PGP fingerprint = 5108 DDB2 9761 EDE5 E7E3 7BDA 71ED 6496 99C0 C7CF
Joseoi
Is that a biodeisel nickname?
"Tom Stiller" <tom_s...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:tom_stiller-279C...@news.individual.net...
JeffVolp
lighting. Even thought I bought warm white bulbs, the narrow spectrum
turned our red landscape rocks gray. And the relatively narrow beamwidth
didn't work quite as well as the 20W halogens. The one with 9 surface mount
LEDs did the best. I also tried a 120V 4W Lumoform inside. It worked well
for 4 watts. However, it did get too hot to touch, and radiated a lot of
noise right at 121KHz. That pretty much killed X10 control on that circuit
until it was isolated with a X10 filter.
Early this year I ran across a 5W 12V MR16 CFL made by Feit, and I tried a
couple of those in the landscape lights. The broad beamwidth and warm color
worked better than the LEDs. They also cost less than half as much as the
better LED bulbs at that time. (The LED bulbs have dropped significantly in
price since then.)
I replaced all the 20W halogens with the 5W Feit CFLs. There have been a
few early failures with one lot (2 right out of the package), but they have
been very good with the warranty service. The CFLs are a better match for
my application, especially because of the wide beamwidth. Only time will
tell whether they are more cost effective than the LEDs.
Jeff
"Josepi" <JRM@invalid..com> wrote in message
news:Y%OGm.1368$XP2...@newsfe17.iad...
Robert Green
news:7d0Hm.95514$Ca6.4620@en-
<stuff snipped>
> I replaced all the 20W halogens with the 5W Feit CFLs. There have been a
> few early failures with one lot (2 right out of the package), but they
have
> been very good with the warranty service.
They ought to be with a failure rate like that! I think it's just a matter
of time before CFL's join 8 tracks tape players, hydrogen filled zeppelins
and biofuels in the "Museum of Things that Seemed like a Good Idea at the
Time." There are some obvious reasons.
First, the fabrication costs. As the failure rate you've experienced shows,
CFLs are complicated to manufacture compared to other light sources, and
they still aren't getting it quite right. LED lamps are still in their
infancy, especially high-enough powered ones to replace incandescent bulbs.
Eventually, when LED technology matures, it's always going to be cheaper to
manufacture a solid state device with very few parts than a CFL. Why?
CFL's have intricately curved delicate glass tubes that need to be filled
with gas, phospor coatings and a teensy little bit of poison. Then it all
gets shoe-horned into a package that's *still* not small enough to fit a lot
of fixtures, particularly higher wattage ones. LEDs are well-positioned to
come out way ahead of CFLs, cost-wise.
Second, since LED light is "colder" than CFL's, it should work in places
where excess heat generation is a problem. They should help in places where
the bulbs mount base up and the electronics bay of the lamp gets cooked by
the heat rising from the glass tube. LED lamps are much smaller and will
fit in places where CFL bulbs give people fits.
Third, their performance should be better at low temperatures than CFLs.
Tube darkening and flickering should pretty much disappear with LEDs. They
will probably not suffer from the dimming problems that afflict CFLs either.
The last time I checked, even the nVision bulbs that work so well with X-10
seem to lose a considerable amount of brightness once they've been running
for a while.
Fourth, LEDs don't contain any mercury and that's going to become a much
more significant issue in the future because mercury contamination levels
are on the rise. The sad fact is that Americans are notoriously bad
recyclers. While I'm sure you recycle properly, Jeff, as I imagine most
people here do, the rest of the country doesn't have a very good track
record when it comes to recycling. Part of the problem is that not too many
people know there's mercury in these bulbs or what its effects are. Not
many people know that the term " "mad as a hatter" has to do with mercury
poisoning:
http://orf.od.nih.gov/Environmental+Protection/Mercury+Free/
and that mercury levels found in humans is increasing at alarming rates.
The National Research Council (NRC) issued a report that estimates that as
many as 60,000 newborns babies a year are now at risk for adverse
neurodevelopmental effects from dietary mercury in the US. Source:
http://www.nap.edu/books/0309071402/html/.
> The CFLs are a better match for my application, especially because of the
wide
> beamwidth. Only time will tell whether they are more cost effective than
the LEDs.
One of the problems with testing and price comparing LEDs is that they are
such a fast-moving target. By the time you're able to compare lifespans,
LEDs will probably have taken another quantum leap in efficiency and
affordability. While CFL's are a relatively mature technology, LEDs are
still taking off. When the economies of scale in manufacturing kick in,
LEDs will in all likelihood seriously undercut CFL's price-wise. Even now,
significant price drops in LED lights are becoming commonplace and I expect
that trend to continue until they become much cheaper than CFLs.
It's also hard to make a fair price comparision at this point because power
companies have been "underwriting" (taking money from all their customers
and handing it over to light bulb makers) the cost of many CFL bulbs.
There's a movement afoot in some states (that still have viable, unco-opted
public service commissions) to stop that particular involuntary
redistribution of wealth:
"C.F.L.s subsidized by California ratepayers are "being resold on eBay
all over the
country and even in Canada," said Mindy Spatt, spokesperson for the
Utility Reform
Network. "The utility companies need to do more to provide real, on the
ground savings
to consumers, not just dump a few thousand light bulbs imported from
China at Home
Depot. Source:
http://greeninc.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/28/as-cfl-sales-fall-more-incentives-urged/
Even if most of the factors above didn't exist, the mercury in each bulb is
the final nail in the coffin. Yes, I know the mercury in CFLs is *supposed*
to be counter-balanced by mercury NOT going up the stack of coal-fired
plants. But there are two major fallacies in that argument.
One is that old plants *are* being forced to scrub mercury at the stack,
thus changing the equation.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2007-10-29-mercury-cover_N.htm
Once we clean up the dirty smokestacks, the mercury in CFLs won't be
"offset" anymore, it will just be a brand new vector of mercury poisoning.
Not everything new is good or better by default. Take, for instance,
aluminum wiring in the home. When first introduced, it promised to be a
great money saver. When analyzed over the long run, it had to basically be
banned in homes because it caused a serious uptick in house fires.
And how about that miracle substance asbestos? Oops. Turns out to cause
really nasty cancers. Yet before anyone knew, it was in brakes, insulation,
clothing and even in the Micronite filters of Kent cigarettes!!
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7757969
Thousands of people died every year for decades before the truth got out.
It's disasters like these that should make us think before we spread a
potent neurotoxin like mercury to hell and back in a product found in every
home in America. I grow especially nervous when I hear CFL's touted as the
same sort of "miracle" product. I guess since we're involved in another
Vietnam-like brush war and on the brink of another world-wide Great
Depression the plain truth is we rarely learn from our mistakes, even those
as serious as asbestos, meaningless wars and financial collapse.
Which brings us to the second fallacy, the indirect v. the direct approach.
Indirect approaches often have some serious blowback. Politicians assured
us deregulating electricity pricing was going to result in lower prices for
everyone as an indirect result of increased competition. Anyone out there
notice any serious reductions in their rate per kilowatt hour? I haven't.
My rates have just about tripled in 5 years. And in California, where the
power companies learned how to take generators off line (for alleged
"maintenance") to limit supply, the effects were even worse.
Credit default swaps were *supposed* protect against losses investors might
face when buying collateralized debt obligations. I leave it to the reader
to figure out how well that indirect approach to limiting risk worked out
for the average citizen. There's a reason why Rube Goldberg contraptions
are so funny. We *know* that humans have a general tendency to
over-complicate solutions. Anyone who doubts that just has to look at how
the government is "fixing" the mortgage crisis by giving boxcar loads of
money to the people who caused it in the first place. That's derangedly
direct. And woefully wrong. As wrong as the plan to reduce mercury by
*adding* it to disposable items found in every home and business in the
country and hoping some magical tradeoff occurs. The proper course of
action is to force power plants to clean up their emissions.
And there's worse to come with the carbon trading systems. Just like mixing
prime and subprime mortgages, the result will be to mix up polluters and
non-polluters in a system so complex, so confusing and so corrupt that it
will make the banking debacle look like a rounding error. Yeah, I want to
let Charles "you mean everybody doesn't get interest free jumbo mortgages
like me?" Rangel decide which firms get big exemptions right out of the
starting gate.
On the plus side, though, a lot more people have become aware of the "deal
with the devil" tradeoff of CFLs. Hardly a green site on the web lavishes
the praise they once did on CFLs and amny now admit that adding mercury to
commonplace household goods is NOT the solution. Many are casting a more
hopeful eye towards LEDs.
What troubles me the most are the folks that insist that every little
milliwatt we save of electricity is a good thing, but ignore every little
bit of mercury that gets into the environment as nothing to worry about. If
"a little is a lot" in one case, why not the other?
I suspect by the time the "mandate" forcing consumers to switch off
incandescent bulbs arrives, Congress will have little choice but to extend
the deadline or repeal the law altogether as more and more people realize
the dangers involved. The mercury content issue will give them the "cover"
they need to back down from the mandate.
http://greeninc.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/28/as-cfl-sales-fall-more-incentives-urged/
has this to say about the surprisingly low penetration of CFLs in the US
marketplace:
" . . . in regions where C.F.L. campaigns have been heaviest, 75 percent
of screw-
based sockets still contain incandescents. Nationally, about 90 percent
of residential
sockets are still occupied by incandescents, D.O.E. has reported."
--
Bobby G.
Jeff Volp
essentially the same production and noise issues as CFLs. That Lumform 4W
MR16 LED gets too hot to touch, and is a very strong radiator of 121KHz
powerline noise.
I read a lot about LEDs before trying those initial 12V MR16 landscape
lights. The DOE CALiPER reports on Solid-State Lighting indicate that
reliability and brightness fall-off are major problems for LED lighting.
Progress is being made, and eventually another technology will supercede
CFLs. From my limited testing, the LEDs aren't there yet. There is a
brighter 12V MR16 LED available now, but it costs 3X as much as the Feit
CFLs. It is hard to justify replacing an inexpensive halogen with a $20 LED
having unknown longevity.
People harp on the mercury used in CFLs. Mercury has been used in
fluorescent lighting for decades. One report I read said the mercury used
in fluorescent bulbs is much less than the amount that would have been
released into the environment by burning coal to produce an equivalent
amount of incandescent light. As we move away from carbon based fuels, that
tradeoff will diminish. And it is even better with LEDs. But do we know
for sure that trace elements used in LED production will not also turn out
to be harmful to the environment?
There are companies working on a new generation of lighting. One is still
based on CFL technology. Only time will tell whether one of these becomes
dominant in the marketplace.
Jeff
Robert L Bass
>
>> I replaced all the 20W halogens with the 5W Feit CFLs.
>
It does not show any such thing. The only thing proven is that there have
some early problems with one manufacturer's products and that the manufacturer
has behaved responsibly.
You and Houston been rather outspoken in your opposition to all things CFL for
some time. Like Dave, any negative information becomes the justification for
a lengthy discourse of the evils of CFLs. The reality is that CFLs do reduce
overall mercury contamination in the air and that is a good thing. They cost
more initially than conventional lights but life cost with quality units is
less than incandescents.
Speaking of incandescents, I just installed two 3-way lights in reading lamps
because a family member bought a package for her use. Out of 2 units, one
failed within 3 days. If I were as strongly opposed to incandescent lighting
as you are to CFLs I'd now have to post a 500-word essay on how complicated to
manufacture they obviously are, how all that packaging is filling the
landfills, etc., etc.
Give it a rest, Bobby. CFLs are here to stay at least for the foreseeable
future and all things considered, that's a good thing.
Eric
news:kridnfL7or867m3X...@giganews.com...
> "Robert Green" wrote:
>>
>>> I replaced all the 20W halogens with the 5W Feit CFLs.
>>
>> As the failure rate you've experienced shows, CFLs are complicated to manufacture compared to
>> other light sources...
>
> It does not show any such thing. The only thing proven is that there have some early problems
> with one manufacturer's products and that the manufacturer has behaved responsibly.
>
> You and Houston been rather outspoken in your opposition to all things CFL for some time. Like
> Dave, any negative information becomes the justification for a lengthy discourse of the evils of
> CFLs. The reality is that CFLs do reduce overall mercury contamination in the air and that is a
> good thing. They cost more initially than conventional lights but life cost with quality units is
> less than incandescents.
>
> Speaking of incandescents, I just installed two 3-way lights in reading lamps because a family
> member bought a package for her use. Out of 2 units, one failed within 3 days. If I were as
> strongly opposed to incandescent lighting as you are to CFLs I'd now have to post a 500-word essay
> on how complicated to manufacture they obviously are, how all that packaging is filling the
> landfills, etc., etc.
>
> Give it a rest, Bobby. CFLs are here to stay at least for the foreseeable future and all things
> considered, that's a good thing.
>
> --
>
> Regards,
> Robert L Bass
>
You missed one of the most important problems with incandescents: when they break, the vacuum they
contain sucks in valuable air we need to breathe.
Oh the humanity!
;^)
Eric Law
Robert L Bass
>
> You missed one of the most important problems with incandescents:
> when they break, the vacuum they contain sucks in valuable air we
> need to breathe.
>
> Oh the humanity!
Hysterical!! :^)
--
Regards,
Robert L Bass
==============================>
Josepi
"Robert L Bass" <Sa...@BassBurglarAlarms.com> wrote in message
news:H8KdneG4Ut2PAWzX...@giganews.com...
Robert L Bass
>
> Is he saying that incandescents are not atmospheric pressure neutral?
I think he's just having some fun with the silliness of this protracted
discussion. :^)
--
Regards,
Robert L Bass
==============================>
Josepi
Here's one to retort to some of the greenwashing going on today.
Don't clean your copper conductors. The copper oxide is where the green
energy travels.
"Robert L Bass" <Sa...@BassBurglarAlarms.com> wrote in message
news:qpidne3427162W_X...@giganews.com...
John Perry
16 LED units using 2W, and totally inadequate.
48 LED units imported from China; they had a greenish hue, but
inadequate brightness and too green/blue.
60 LED warm lights that give the right colour balance, but not really
bright enough. No failures in 2 years, we use some for background
lighting.
60 LED daylight units that are too white/bright. No failures in 2
years.
78 LED warm units, these are easily bright enough and equivalent to
20W halogens. We use around 40 of these.
78 LED daylight units, again easily bright enough, but too white and
un-natural.
12 LED SMD warm; these are excellent, very bright and we use about 40
of these. These are slightly brighter and whiter than the 78 LED warm
units.
12 LED SMD daylight; these are excellent, very bright and we use them
in the kitchen.
16 LED colour changing; we use these at Christmas time for fun.
No interference with X-10 so far, but I think they are killing the
signal between my wireless weather station and external sensors.
Sorry for the delay in replying.
The units barely get warm, and use less energy than CFLs as the CFLs
get hot.
All GU10s are in fire cowls, but covered with fibreglass with no
cut-outs as required for halogen. If 50W halogen units are put in our
housings, we would have a serious fire risk.
--
John Perry
Josepi
is there some other format used?
Testing has shown white LEDs to be less efficient than CFLs and hardly much
more efficient than incandescent lighting. Apparently there was a technology
change a few years back that I am not familair with. I believe these use a
phophourescent screen technology to re-emit the light in the colour desired.
"John Perry" <jpn...@nospam.redoak.co.uk> wrote in message
news:ip26g5pbol5n8ackj...@4ax.com...
Robert L Bass
>
> Am I correct in assuming you have over 200 fixtures...
When the gentleman said "16 LED units" that probably meant one or more "16-LED"
units. Without the hyphen that one line could easily be interpreted as
referring to 16 different devices.
Josepi
I really missed the punctuation on that one...LOL
Thanx Robert
"Robert L Bass" <Sa...@BassBurglarAlarms.com> wrote in message
news:W4-dndsAULKpspnW...@giganews.com...
Christopher Glaeser
> 100 GU10 LED lights that consume 3W each.
All my outdoor lights are now LED. The lights for the steps were 20W
halogen and had to be replaced constantly. The new LEDs are mult-LED MR16
and have been running every night for the past three years without
replacement. The 18W Malibu were also constantly being replaced. I found a
muli-LED bayonett replacement and all 15 have been runing for two years
without any problems. The LED candelabras for the house lights are pricy
(about $20 per bulb, $60 per fixture) but they are pretty. The incandecent
would burn forever, and the LED replacements have been doing fine as well.
In summary, the halogens and Malibus were constantly burning out, and the
candleabras were doing fine. The LED replacements are all doing fine. Out
of 30 outdoor fixtures, I have yet to replace even one LED.
Indoors is mostly R40 CFL. I am constatly purchasing several 3-packs at
Costco because they don't last very long. I purchased three relatively
expensive R38 9-LED lights. The come on quickly (the CFL are slow to warm)
and have a good amount of light, but the light is too directional which
casts a harsher shadow, and the color is too narrow and greenish. Looking
forward to improved LED R38 lights that will last for ten years, but for
now, the light quality is too low. The outdoors looks nice, though.
Best,
Christopher
Josepi
years and never has one burned out, indoors and outdoors.
The dimming unit I have in my garage seems to come on full brilliance even
at -25C in the winter. The cheap ones take minutes to even see by at 8C.
"Christopher Glaeser" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:MJWdnTb4KvVgQJnW...@giganews.com...
Christopher Glaeser
> outdoors.
Which R40 do you recommend?
Best,
Christopher
John Perry
LOL, maybe I should have used 16-LED etc. I have in total 116 GU10
fixtures.
I have to disagree the "testing"; can you cite where the results are?
The fact is incandescent are too hot to touch; CFLs get very warm and
LEDs are hardly warm to the touch. So relying on the "Law of
conservation of energy" LEDs should be more efficient.
I have certainly noticed that LEDS are much better now than they were
2 years ago; your statement may well have been true then.
I'll probably put some photos up on my site later, but not until our
new heat pump based ventilation and heat recovery system gets
installed next week.
--
John Perry
Josepi
still get much hotter.
Bad argument and evaluation for efficiency. CFLS have a much larger surface
area. (eg. fluorescent tubes stay much cooler despite higher wattages). LEDs
do not get that warm as they don't produce enough light to bother with used
singly. If I used a 15 watt incandescent it wouldn't get that warm either
with heat sinc on it.
Are your units the phosporescent type of LED units?
"John Perry" <jpn...@nospam.redoak.co.uk> wrote in message
news:lqvag59p65t7kpefg...@4ax.com...
Josepi
reason. They are only rated about half of the unjacketed bulbs.
I have used almost any brand I could find. Mostly, the only ones that have
problems are the ones found in the dollar stores.
"Christopher Glaeser" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:y7ydnYSWor5B9pjW...@giganews.com...
Josepi
did his own testing a few years ago, here are some interesting websites
disclosing parameters. The original page I refer to discussed why white LEDs
were not so efficient as the natural coloured ones but, this was based on
old technology being a few years ago.
Wikipedia discusses some of the improvements increasing LED efficiency
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light-emitting_diode
This is an interesting website promoting LED lighting based on it's long
term economy and demonstrates that LEDs are only close to CFLs and much less
than Sodium and other yukky lighting methods
http://www.ecoledlighting.com/docs/LEDEfficiencyComparison.pdf
Here is another website that discusses why LEDs are not what the "EPA" tests
show for MPG.
http://msklighting.com/wordpress/2009/08/26/led-lighting-about-efficiency/
With a little research of your own I would be sure you could find much more
data and how it is accomplished to promote their products.
"John Perry" <jpn...@nospam.redoak.co.uk> wrote in message
news:lqvag59p65t7kpefg...@4ax.com...
Robert Green
news:HxCHm.141327$8m4....@en-nntp-07.dc1.easynews.com...
> Except for the "intricately curved delicate glass tubes", 120V LEDs have
> essentially the same production and noise issues as CFLs.
That's a pretty big exception. As a guy who custom builds electronics by
hand, I am sure that you realize that even one delicate step in a process,
say soldering an SMD component to a circuit board by hand, can cause your
reject rate to soar. Take a look at some of the spiral shapes of bulbs and I
think you'll realize that it takes some significant heat and tooling to
create narrow but even diameter glass tubes that then must be twisted into
spiral shape, uniformly coated internally with phosphor, primed with
mercury, and then sealed and capped with electrodes. Forgive me for taking
a technical note and turning it into polemic, but this is an important
issue.
Even if LED and CFL production costs were equal, manufacturing CFL's means
increasing the mining for mercury and causing much more of the neurotoxin to
enter the world at large. It may very well turn out that CFLs looked good
on paper but turned out not to be so good when all costs are computed, just
like biofuels.
While one dot of mercury might not seem so bad, almost 300 million CFL's
were sold in the United States last year (or so says the New York Times in a
Feb. 17, 2008, editorial). But what worries me is the even more staggering
figure that CFL's are currently used in only 10% to 20% of the fixtures in
residential home. That could extrapolate into perhaps 3 *billion* CFL's
getting deployed after the mandate's phased in. Even when you talk about
micrograms per bulbs, that's a lot of mercury going into landfills,
incinerators and eventually, the bloodstream of newborn babies.
> That Lumform 4W MR16 LED gets too hot to touch, and is a very strong
> radiator of 121KHz powerline noise.
Both technologies have shortcomings, agreed, but fluorescent technology has
been around for a much longer time than LEDs and if such CFL problems had
solutions, one would expect them to be uncovered by now. Some say
fluorescents began in 1856 when Heinrich Geissler created a *mercury* <g>
vacuum pump that was much more efficient than any other of the time. When
current was applied through the "Geissler tube", it glowed. Commercial
fluorescents didn't really hit the market in force until after their debut
by GE at the 1939 World's Fair.
Either way, that's a long head start for fluorescents to just now be almost
neck and neck with LEDs, a nascent technology that's only really been a home
lighting contender for 10 years at most. Because it's difficult to sustain
an arc in a fluorescent tube at low power levels, CFLs will probably never
equal tungsten or LED lights when it comes to smooth, linear dimming.
My contention is that these subtle, but persistent CFL flaws (size,
incompatibility with existing timers, photocell-controlled lamps, dimmers,
X-10 and the like) mean that LEDs *have* to rule to roost, eventually.
Competition is a fascinating thing, summed up by the old joke punchline: "I
don't have to outrun the bear, I just have to outrun you!" Even very
slight-seeming advantages can add up to a killer blow over the long haul.
The CFL is running hard, but true LED "cold light" will win the race, even
over a characteristic as lowly as higher resistance to breakage. All the
studies I've seen say LEDs have much greater "room to grow" in both
efficiency and cheaper production costs than CFLs and should surpass them
very soon in both categories.
> I read a lot about LEDs before trying those initial 12V MR16 landscape
> lights. The DOE CALiPER reports on Solid-State Lighting indicate that
> reliability and brightness fall-off are major problems for LED lighting.
I agree completely. The current landscape of LED offerings is hauntingly
reminiscent of the introduction of CFLs. Cheap, crappy products and
hyper-expensive products dominated the landscape; the early adopters who
tried them rejected them and developed long-lasting negative attitudes
towards them. This has acted as quite a drag on their acceptance.
The reports of CFL penetration say time and time again that people who try
them and have issues like a smoky, stinky burnout are much more reluctant to
try them a second time. My wife hates both the occasional very spectacular
stinky burn-up and the frequent flickering and has had me stock up on
incandescents for her sewing room and all the hallway and critical short
on/off time lights that never last as long as the makers claim.
As for reliability, that's not so clear cut. Take for instance an LED
traffic light. Made up of many LED elements, they are far more reliable on
the whole than the tungsten bulbs they replace. CFL's are so wimpy, they
need not even apply for this job! An LED element failure in a stop or tail
light still leaves a lot of other LEDs elements to continue to shine. Since
the LEDs can produce incredibly pure red light, there's no energy loss
involved in filtering white light to get the red color.
> Progress is being made, and eventually another technology will supercede
> CFLs. From my limited testing, the LEDs aren't there yet.
Agreed. But they're close enough that the mercury element should make the
decision between the two a no-brainer, at least if someone *really* cares
about the environment. It's bad reasoning to believe that putting mercury in
perhaps 3 billion consumer bulbs will magically offset mercury in smokestack
exhausts. That's especially true now because the Feds are finally getting
off their butts and invoking the *right* solution: enforcing mercury
emission laws. Once that happens, the tradeoff fails.
Far worse, we've created a brand-new mercury dispersal system that reaches
every corner of the country, even areas where they get most of their
electricity from dams or other non-coal sources and there was never any
value to the trade-off to begin with. Do you really want grandkids with
lifelong neurological problems because you want to save on your electric
bill? Or your light bulb costs? Or because the color of the light isn't
quite right? I don't.
What worries me the most is the cost of remediation if we eventually find
that many more than 630,000 newborns a year have mercury levels way above
recommendations. Lots of folks here know the incredible costs and issues
involved in removing asbestos or lead paint from a home. Mercury abatement
has the potential to make removing those two hazards look like child's play.
Who will pay for the care of kids born with brain damage because we didn't
realize CFL's were such a hazard? We will. With yet more tax dollars.
Like climate change, these processes take time and I suspect that mercury is
only now entering the environment from pre-ban alkaline batteries that went
into dumps years ago. What happens when the CFL bulbs start getting to dumps
in big numbers? We just don't know, and so we should consider how deeply we
get into something that could make the US one giant Superfund site. We put
deposit requirements on innocuous glass soda bottles but not on "special
needs recycling" hazardous material bearing CFL's. That's idiotic. When the
choice was just CFL v. incandescent, the tradeoff worked, but now there's a
serious new contender, the LED, and it's far greener than the CFL because it
uses no mercury.
On the whole, people have a hard time evaluating the threat of materials
like mercury and carcinogens like asbestos and TCE because the cause and
effect are sometimes years, even decades, apart. But the cancer statistics,
state by state prove that certain areas produce statistically meaningful
clusters of deaths. Sadly, those clusters tend to be in areas with large
manufacturing operations.
http://www3.cancer.gov/atlasplus/new.html
We already know that trace amounts of mercury can be very toxic, especially
to the fetuses of pregnant women. They have been told each year that it's
increasingly less safe for them to eat any fish at all. As far back as 2004,
the EPA raised a red flag:
"E.P.A. Raises Estimate of Babies Affected by Mercury Exposure - More than
one child in six born in the United States could be at risk for
developmental disorders because of mercury exposure in the mother's womb,
according to revised estimates released last week by Environmental
Protection Agency scientists. The agency doubled its estimate, equivalent to
630,000 of the 4 million babies born each year, because recent research has
shown that mercury tends to concentrate in the blood in the umbilical cord
of pregnant women." Source:
> There is a brighter 12V MR16 LED available now, but it costs 3X as much as
the Feit
> CFLs. It is hard to justify replacing an inexpensive halogen with a $20
LED
> having unknown longevity.
It's not hard to justify if there's a hidden downside to CFLs: poisoning the
next generation of Americans. Efficiency and longevity of LEDs has been
increasing greatly in just the past few years. Here's a study done by
Carnagie Mellon:
http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/publications/pdfs/ssl/matthews_chicago09.pdf
They concur that LED lighting still has a long way to go, but that it's
closing ground fast and it's going to very rapidly overtake CFLs in nearly
every category when those eventual improvements arrive. That only makes
sense since commercial fluorescent technology is at least 70 years old.
CFL's may be a new form factor, but the technology is considered by some to
outdate the tungsten filament bulb.
Stokes at Cambridge discovered electrical fluorescence in 1852, which by
some accounts makes it well over 150 years old. That's a lot of time for the
damn things to remain so buggy compared to a simple incandescent bulb. And
it's precisely why they'll fail against LEDs. One of the most cynical
touches in the film "Blade Runner" is Harrison Ford having to flick the
glass bulb of a future fluorescent bulb to get it to come on. It's a
prediction that even in the future, those damn fluorescent bulbs will not
have improved very much.
> People harp on the mercury used in CFLs. Mercury has been used in
> fluorescent lighting for decades.
Yes, that's true. Asbestos also saw incredibly widespread use before people
realized it was a potent carcinogen. Use for decades really doesn't mean
safe. It takes a long time for waste in dumps to percolate. It takes even
longer for experts to "put it all together" as in the case of asbestos,
whose use continued many years after its lethal effects were *very* well
known. There's already a lot of mercury seeping into the ground in
landfills. While most of the environmental mercury currently does appear to
come from power plant emissions, those are relatively easy fixes. Why didn't
Obama and Congress spend the stimulus money on scrubbing dirty power plant
stacks and not on million dollar "retention" bonuses for fat cat bankers?
While most mercury in CFL's appears just a trifling few milligrams, some
sources claim that 5mg of mercury can contaminate 6,000 gallons of drinking
water. This site talks about some of the common sense things we so easily
overlook:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23694819/
"It's kind of ironic that on the one hand, the agency [EPA] is saying, 'Don'
t worry, it's a very small amount of mercury.' Then they have a whole page
of [instructions] how to handle the situation if you break one . . ."
When you start to talk about 2 or 3 billion light bulbs, that 5mg (or even
1mg in the newer bulbs) becomes a significant amount in the aggregate.
Couple that to Americans and their incredibly low recycling compliance (last
I checked it was 6% or so), it's very likely to spell serious trouble,
especially if the conclusion that only 5mg of mercury can contaminate 6,000
gallons of water proves true. I haven't read the paper they're referring to,
but based on EPA's schizoid recommendations on CFLs, I have no reason to
doubt it.
> One report I read said the mercury used in fluorescent bulbs is much less
than the
> amount that would have been released into the environment by burning coal
to
> produce an equivalent amount of incandescent light.
That's only because the EPA under Bush was basically prevented from cleaning
up the dirtiest of the coal plants. Didn't the "indirect approach" of the
Feds giving money to the banks that created the financial meltdown have
little effect on the foreclosure rate? That should tell us that indirect
methods tend to be political creations that can't be relied upon. Clean up
the stacks and the alleged tradeoff that people so frequently tout turns
into nothing more that a new vector for getting toxic mercury into every
garbage dump in America.
Do we really want to condemn 10's of thousands or more children to living
with birth defects because we want lower electric bills or we want a
slightly warmer-colored light no matter what the environmental cost? Not me.
It's bad enough that we're laying the cost of the bailout, two failed wars
and a fraud-riddled Medicare system on them. Must we poison them, too?
> As we move away from carbon based fuels, that tradeoff will diminish.
>And it is even better with LEDs. But do we know for sure that trace
> elements used in LED production will not also turn out
> to be harmful to the environment?
The Mellon study referenced above, among others, looked at those very
questions by examining every step of the process and how much power it used.
Look on page 25 for the graph that compares production costs of CFL,
incandescent and LEDs. Scientists are a lot better at accounting for the
real costs of items these days, looking at the entire life cycle of a
product to determine what it costs, money and environmental hazard-wise, to
produce items like LEDs and CFLs.
A lot of Pacific ocean mercury comes from the stacks of the Chinese coal
plants powering the manufacture of CFL bulbs. The US stood poised to lead
the world in developing LED technology, but instead, we're shoring up banks
that caused the mess we're in.
Ironically, those banks, with lots of help from the same Congress that's
mandating the new bulbs, have turned that wonderful, "seems like a good
idea" invention called the credit card into the near downfall of the world's
economy. Not every new idea is a good idea and some of them, like giving
women estrogen to prevent breast cancer, turned out to be EXACTLY the wrong
thing to do. Actual studies, rather than "feel good, should work" guesses
showed that the treatments actually increased the risk of breast cancer and
they were stopped.
Nothing I've seen in the literature so far suggests that LED bulbs contain
anything as near as toxic as mercury. In the past LEDs contained arsenic
compounds, but most of the newer diodes do not. Because the world is
generally awakening to the idea that little amounts of poison add up, Apple
stopped using arsenic in its LCD panels in 2008. Remember, LEDs fulfill the
same promise as CFLs of reduced power plant emissions, but they do it
without the insane tradeoff of involving a known deadly poison whose levels
are so high pregnant women are told not to eat tuna.
> There are companies working on a new generation of lighting. One is still
> based on CFL technology. Only time will tell whether one of these becomes
> dominant in the marketplace.
Sometimes, the marketplace isn't the best determiner of what's good for
society. That lesson seems abundantly clear in the aftermath of the current
financial mess we're in. If we know that mercury is toxic and that
scientists believe great improvements in LEDs are coming, does it make sense
to push a bad technology like CFLs forward by government mandate? This is
toxic stuff and George Orwell wouldn't be surprised at how easily we now
swallow big lies like "adding mercury will take away mercury." Here's how
the indirect solution is working out in the real world:
<"MONDAY, Aug. 24 (HealthDay News) -- A study involving more than 6,000
American women suggests that blood levels of mercury are accumulating over
time, with a big rise noted over the past decade.
"Using data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's
National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), a researcher from
the University of California, Los Angeles, found that while inorganic
mercury was detected in the blood of 2 percent of women aged 18 to 49 in the
1999-2000 NHANES survey, that level rose to 30 percent of women by
2005-2006."> Source:
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/news/fullstory_88506.html
From two to thirty percent in just five years is an OUTRAGEOUS jump and it's
a clear indication that something's very, very wrong with the current way of
doing business. But we never seem to learn that some problems can mushroom
incredibly quickly and go way out of control. Human mercury levels in women
of childbearing age has jumped from nearly insignificant to nearly 30% of
all such women.
Pretending that adding more mercury in the form of CFL's to every home and
garbage dump in America will reverse that trend is just not credible. I'm
very sadly *not* surprised, though, because what I've seen pass for truth in
the last ten years is pretty scary. Rumor becomes instant fact, especially
when people want to believe something's true. There was an article in the
news the other days about how Congressmen from both parties put items in the
record that had been written by lawyers working for the drug lobby.
I believe that instead of counting on CFLs we should clean up the mercury
spewing coal power plants (here and in China) and put some serious DOE
research money into improving LEDs to the point where they easily surpass
CFLs. I just saw an item about Sharp's new dimmable AND color tunable LED
light bulbs, two areas where CFLs fall pretty short.
http://sharp-world.com/corporate/news/090611_2.html
"The models DL-L401N/L LED Lamps offer extremely economical operation, and
can be run for approximately 11 hours at a cost of only one yen!" (-:
(That;'s $0.011 US)
It just doesn't make sense to so fully embrace a poisonous technology when a
very close substitute is available, and its cost is dropping almost daily as
light output is increasing. It would drop even more if people's dollars went
to supporting a rapidly evolving technology with great promise like LEDs
instead of buying into the mostly bottomed-out CFL technology that requires
toxic materials to operate.
Fortunately, the "deal with the devil" involving CFL's is getting more and
more exposure:
http://www.google.com/search?q=cfl+mercury+problem
and I believe that the mercury issue alone will be enough to doom CFL's and
in very short order. If the EPA finds it to be a serious source of human
mercury contamination (something they may be forced to do should the trace
amounts of mercury in Americans continue to climb) they could easily ban the
sale of CFLs just the way they are banning incandescents. I don't believe
that's a very far-fetched scenario based on experience with chemicals like
chlordane and DDT:
Installed my first set of Philips LED "stumble lights" today! They are
surprisingly warm white and put out almost enough light to light up the
stairway with a single four diode strip. I'll probably use two or even four
since they can be slaved together, run off very low voltage and have built
in motion sensors. It's qualities like these that will spell doom for
CFL's, the eight-track of home lighting.
Sorry for the length, but there's a lot about CFLs and mercury that people
need to consider.
So, Jeff, how will your XTB products help me overcome the issues I'm going
to doubtless face in switching from CFLs to LEDs? (-: I made an
interesting discovery the other day. One of the nVision CFL bulbs that had
been flashing madly when off when connected to an X-10 module suddenly
stopped flashing.
--
Bobby G.
xpost to comp.home.automation,alt.home.repair
Bob Villa
> "Jeff Volp" <JeffV...@msn.com> wrote in message
>
>
>
> > There is a brighter 12V MR16 LED available now, but it costs 3X as much as
> the Feit
> > CFLs. It is hard to justify replacing an inexpensive halogen with a $20
> LED
> > having unknown longevity.
>
> It's not hard to justify if there's a hidden downside to CFLs: poisoning the
> next generation of Americans. Efficiency and longevity of LEDs has been
> increasing greatly in just the past few years. Here's a study done by
> Carnagie Mellon:
>
>
> Installed my first set of Philips LED "stumble lights" today! They are
> surprisingly warm white and put out almost enough light to light up the
> stairway with a single four diode strip. I'll probably use two or even four
> since they can be slaved together, run off very low voltage and have built
> in motion sensors. It's qualities like these that will spell doom for
> CFL's, the eight-track of home lighting.
>
> Sorry for the length, but there's a lot about CFLs and mercury that people
> need to consider.
>
> So, Jeff, how will your XTB products help me overcome the issues I'm going
> to doubtless face in switching from CFLs to LEDs? (-: I made an
> interesting discovery the other day. One of the nVision CFL bulbs that had
> been flashing madly when off when connected to an X-10 module suddenly
> stopped flashing.
>
> --
> Bobby G.
>
> xpost to comp.home.automation,alt.home.repair
Why not write a book while you're at it! 8^)
bob_v
Chuck
exposed to florescence bulbs. People with immune problems (arthritis or
lupus or fibromyalgia) react badly to the CFL type bulbs. They emit
ultra violet light like the sun does.
ShadowTek
just to make a simple reply.
Josepi
"Bob Villa" <pheeh...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:01385353-8908-4e7e...@p28g2000vbi.googlegroups.com...
Why not write a book while you're at it! 8^)
bob_v
On Nov 20, 3:02 am, "Robert Green" <robert_green1...@yah00.com> wrote:
> "Jeff Volp" <JeffV...@msn.com> wrote in message
>
<huge post snipped out>
Josepi
fluorescents, of the right colour.
How can UV from the sun affect these maladities? Sun exposure usually
affects many maladities in a good way. Breast cancer is one that is
statistically reduced, big time.
The flickering of fluorescents was always blamed for some problems but the
sun doesn't flicker at 120Hz.
"Chuck" <cbac...@attt.net> wrote in message
news:he643p$h5d$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
Percival P. Cassidy
> I will stay with old fashion bulbs as long as I can. My wife can't be
> exposed to florescence bulbs. People with immune problems (arthritis or
> lupus or fibromyalgia) react badly to the CFL type bulbs. They emit
> ultra violet light like the sun does.
I have arthritis, and my rheumatologist has never suggested that I avoid
fluorescent lighting.
Nevertheless, I am trying to replace CFLs by LEDs -- but for the energy
savings, not for anything related to health.
Perce
Stormin Mormon
--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.
"ShadowTek" <Shad...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:slrnhgdaik.m...@shadowtek.localdomain.
xxxx xxxxxxx xxx, you people don't have to quote every xxxx
Kurt Ullman
"Josepi" <J...@inv.alid.com> wrote:
> How can UV from the sun affect these maladities? Sun exposure usually
> affects many maladities in a good way. Breast cancer is one that is
> statistically reduced, big time.
>
Was wondering the same things. About the only thing I could think of
was that some medications make you more sensitive to UV radiation and
thus more susceptible to sun burn. But I haven't seen anything in 25
years of nursing to support that as a problem outside the sun or tanning
booths.
--
To find that place where the rats don't race
and the phones don't ring at all.
If once, you've slept on an island.
Scott Kirby "If once you've slept on an island"
Stormin Mormon
cost of the bulbs. I doubt there is any real savings. Either
to your wallet, or to the planet, by converting to LED light
indoors.
--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.
"Percival P. Cassidy" <Nob...@NotMyISP.net> wrote in message
news:he6an3$vmj$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
Bob Villa
> Good fucking god, you people don't have to quote every damn line of text
> just to make a simple reply.
ESAD, FH
Josepi
"Stormin Mormon" <cayoung61**spamblock##@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:he6bb3$4o6$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
Josepi
Thanx for trimming.
"Bob Villa" <pheeh...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:a181d3c4-1aa1-4f93...@v30g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
ESAD, FH
Josepi
bulbs. On top of all that the more efficient ***white*** LED bulbs are made
with phospours, similiar to CFL bulbs. I beleive the mercury is not there as
the electrical energy is converted, the first time, by LED technology.
"Stormin Mormon" <cayoung61**spamblock##@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:he6bfq$5vi$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
Josepi
including the inverters or other lossy type gadgets to accomodate different
types of bulbs? Have you actually measured the "equivalent" light output or
does it just look about the same? Brilliance is a logarithmic scale and can
be very deceiving to the human eye.
Trouble with the lab measurements is they are not usually dated when
completed and the technology advances quite rapidly.
<sa...@dog.com> wrote in message
news:likdg5pklad59j26q...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 12:27:09 -0500, "Josepi" <J...@inv.alid.com> wrote:
>
>>LEDs are still reported to only be slightly more efficient than
>>incandescent
>>bulbs.
>
> Say WHAT?
>
> I have replaced all of the incandescent lamps on my sailboat ,
> including the navigation lights. The LED's use 1/10th the power for
> the same amount of light. That's not a random number - a typical light
> that drew 2 amps gets replaced by an LED that is a little brighter and
> draws slightly less than .2 amps.
>
> On a cruising sailboat, you have to keep careful track of your
> electrical budget.
>
Robert L Bass
> Duh!
>
> I really missed the punctuation on that one...LOL
When I first read the post, I tholught the same thing -- *lots* of lights. Then
I read it again and thought... Duh! :^)
--
Regards,
Robert L Bass
==============================>
Bass Home Electronics
DIY Alarm and Home Automation Store
http://www.bassburglaralarms.com
Sales & Service 941-870-2310
Fax 941-870-3252
==============================>
Robert L Bass
>
> The dimming unit I have in my garage seems to come on
*Minus* 25?? You need to move to Sarasota, friend. :^)
Regards,
Robert
JimH
> LEDs are still reported to only be slightly more efficient than incandescent
> bulbs.
I know my LED flashlight can run for hours and hours, while the
incandescent flashlight burns through batteries quickly while providing
less light.
Dave Houston
various types of lighting.
http://www.mge.com/home/appliances/lighting/comparison.htm
John Perry
the 12 SMD devices are no bright that they are blinding when looked at
from 1-2 metres away.
GU10 Halogens get so hot, they cannot be touched for minutes after
being switched off. GU10 CFLs also get quite warm; GU10 LEDs that
give out similar light to CFLs are significantly cooler.
John Perry
couple of capacitors and other small SMD components. They certainly
do not have the inductors and other complex electronics used to strike
the CFLs.
Gordon Burditt
>the 12 SMD devices are no bright that they are blinding when looked at
>from 1-2 metres away.
Something that is "blinding when looked at from 1-2 metres away"
is "no bright"? What is "yes bright"? The sun from 1-2 metres away?
Robert L Bass
>
> "Jeff Volp" wrote:
>>
>> Except for the "intricately curved delicate glass tubes"...
>
> That's a pretty big exception. As a guy who custom
> builds electronics by hand, I am sure that you realize
> that even one delicate step in a process, say
> soldering an SMD component to a circuit board by
That's misleading at best, Robert. None of the processes are done by hand,
except packaging and that step is largely the same for either type of product.
Once the patterns have been made and accepted, the glass tubes are made by
machines. Modern plants use robotic systems to "blow" the glass tubes.
Electronic circuit boards for inexpensive devices like CFL's are not made by
hand any more either.
Here's a link to a CFL-manufacturing firm. There's no one soldering anything.
No one is blowing glass either. That's another fully automated process done
elsewhere. Circuit boards are assembled on a robotic line and dip-soldered en
masse. The final product is then assembled on fully automated systems. You
won't find a single person using a soldering iron. This kind of robotic
assembly is nothing new either. Manufacturers in the alarm industry have been
using it for better than 20 years. Heck, computer system makers such as
MOD-COMP (now defunct, I think) were using automated manufacturing systems 35 or
more years ago.
http://www.lightsindia.com/products.html#cfl-manufacturing-machine
> Take a look at some of the spiral shapes of bulbs and I
> think you'll realize that it takes some significant heat and
> tooling to create narrow but even diameter glass tubes...
That is all supposition, Bobby. You don't know to what temperature glass for
CFL's is heated let alone if it's greater than, less than or the same as in
making incandescent bulbs. You clutter the discussion with wild guesses, then
argue the merits of CFL's as though whatever you suppose is established fact.
That is disingenuous and does nothing to help readers discern the benefits or
negatoives of CFL's.
Here's a link to an article on CFL-Haters (I didn't realize there were enough of
them around that they need to be categorized) :^)
http://green.yahoo.com/blog/ecogeek/927/the-four-types-of-cfl-haters-and-what-to-tell-them.html
> that then must be twisted into spiral shape...
> ... Forgive me for taking a technical note and
> turning it into polemic, but this is an important
> issue.
If that were what you did, I'd happily forgive. Unfortunately, you have built a
fire of guesses and wishes as fact, then shoveled personal preference into the
mix. Now you stand back and warn, "See, this stuff burns very hot."
> Even if LED and CFL production costs were equal,
> manufacturing CFL's means increasing the mining
> for mercury and causing much more of the neurotoxin
> to enter the world at large....
That is pure, unadulterated, male bovine excrement. CFL's cost more to build so
they cost more than incandescent bulbs. In the process of making them, more
people are employed (not exactly a bad thing given the current economic
situation). The benefits are twofold.
(1) Quality CFL's last long enough to repay the investment by not buying many
more incandescents *and* by using less electricity.
(2) Using less electricity means burning less coal. This reduces mercury
contamination far more than the small amount of mercury in the bulbs themselves.
Furthermore, the mercury in used CFL's can be recycled. A number of
manufacturers are now accepting used bulbs back from the public, as well as from
institutional users. That which is not recycled goes into land fills where a
small percentage may eventually seep back into the earth. By comparison, the
mercury emitted by coal burning electrical plants goes directly into the
atmsphere and from there enters the food chain.
> It may very well turn out that CFLs looked good
> on paper but turned out not to be so good when
> all costs are computed, just like biofuels.
It *may* be that CFL's will be just one step on the path to restoring the
environment. More likely, they will be one of many methods in simultaneous use
as various technologies develop. Only time will tell. Meanwhile, there's
nothing better that performs effectively at a reasonable cost so CFL's should be
used wherever possible. It's the right thing to do.
> While one dot of mercury might not seem so bad,
> almost 300 million CFL's were sold in the United
> States last year...
Without knowing how big the "dot" is and how much mercury they *don't* use by
reducing electric consumption, that proves nothing. If you want to understand
the real affect of mercury in CFL's vs coal, you must first you learn how much
they introduce into landfills. Then you have you learn what portion of it gets
out of the landfills (in all likelihood, the major portion does not re-enter the
environment but I can't prove that; it's supposition). Next you have to measure
the amount of mercury *not* introduced because CFLs use less power. Finally,
you have to quantify the effect of mercury sent directly into the air from
electric usage.
Do all that. Report back next week. There will be a quiz on Tuesday. :^)
Stormin Mormon
real life, whoever it is that plays Larry the cable guy.
I had some trouble with my cable recentl. I called for a
tech to come out, and Dennis was the one who arried. Tall
guy in his twenties, seems to know hs stuff. As he looked to
find the power plug, he pulled a three D-cell Mag out of his
back pocket, with a practiced motion.
I noticed it was a LED bulb mag. Asked about that, and he
told me a little about it. Formerly was a filament bub mag,
and he bought the LED bulb only, and put that in. He said
it's a lot better on batteries. I asked about that, and this
is what he told me.
One time he was in a crawl space, and forgot and left it in
the crawl space. Turned on. It was the wekend, and he was
able to get back to recover his light, three days later. The
light was still on, having run for three days all the time.
he says he was able to use it for about a week after that,
on the same batteries, before having to replace the
batteries.
I'm totally amazed. He sounded like he was telling the
truth. Wow! That's a long time on one set of batteries.
--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.
--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.
"JimH" <Ji...@invalid.net> wrote in message
news:tsDNm.19420$ET3....@newsfe17.iad...
Stormin Mormon
requoting it, either.
--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.
"Josepi" <J...@inv.alid.com> wrote in message
news:bgANm.39767$%j4.1...@newsfe18.iad...
sa...@dog.com
Lets not overlook the fact that florescent lights have been around for
a Looooooong time. The traditional tubes that light the entire world
of retail, manufacturing, hospitals, schools, public buildings,
offices, etc, are each much bigger and contain a lot more mercury tha
a CFL. No one ever really got upset about those. and In fact, they are
still being used to light the world, and CFL haters don't seem to know
they exist.
The only thing "new" about CFL's is their size and shape. Otherwise,
its' VERY old technology.
Bob Villa
>
> news:tsDNm.19420$ET3....@newsfe17.iad...
>
> Josepi wrote:
> > LEDs are still reported to only be slightly more efficient
> > than incandescent
> > bulbs.
>
> I know my LED flashlight can run for hours and hours, while
> the
> incandescent flashlight burns through batteries quickly
> while providing
> less light.
Just think...when they perfect LEDs for headlights...we won't have to
yell at the wife for draining down the battery!
bob_v
Nate Nagel
3W Task Force light kicks a Mag-Lite's ass BTW) bike head/taillights,
truck taillights and traffic lights but it is so difficult to find good
ones for home lighting and/or retrofitting into car taillights?
nate
Stormin Mormon wrote:
> Sadly, wasn't Lary this time. Though, he must be a hoot in
> real life, whoever it is that plays Larry the cable guy.
>
> I had some trouble with my cable recentl. I called for a
> tech to come out, and Dennis was the one who arried. Tall
> guy in his twenties, seems to know hs stuff. As he looked to
> find the power plug, he pulled a three D-cell Mag out of his
> back pocket, with a practiced motion.
>
> I noticed it was a LED bulb mag. Asked about that, and he
> told me a little about it. Formerly was a filament bub mag,
> and he bought the LED bulb only, and put that in. He said
> it's a lot better on batteries. I asked about that, and this
> is what he told me.
>
> One time he was in a crawl space, and forgot and left it in
> the crawl space. Turned on. It was the wekend, and he was
> able to get back to recover his light, three days later. The
> light was still on, having run for three days all the time.
> he says he was able to use it for about a week after that,
> on the same batteries, before having to replace the
> batteries.
>
> I'm totally amazed. He sounded like he was telling the
> truth. Wow! That's a long time on one set of batteries.
>
--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel
Chuck
Lupus and fibromyalgia. Probably tomorrow.
Robert L Bass
>
> Think you could trim your post to post a snipe, in future?
Here's a brief comment on CFL's from the US Energy
Star program:
"CFLs save consumers money in the long run, as these
bulbs draw far less power (resulting in lower electric bills),
and they last longer (so they don't need to be replaced
nearly as often). But they also work to save the environment
by lessening greenhouse gases. If every American home
replaced just one standard incandescent light bulb with a
long-lasting CFL, the resultant energy savings would
eliminate greenhouse gases equal to the emissions of
800,000 cars..."
Robert L Bass
>
> Cue Twilight Zone theme...
Indeed. That one bent the needle on the bullshitometer.
The Daring Dufas
> I will stay with old fashion bulbs as long as I can. My wife can't be
> exposed to florescence bulbs. People with immune problems (arthritis or
> lupus or fibromyalgia) react badly to the CFL type bulbs. They emit
> ultra violet light like the sun does.
Does your wife have some form of Cutaneous porphyria?
TDD
Stormin Mormon
That kind of thing.
--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.
"Bob Villa" <pheeh...@gmail.com>
wrote in message
news:62c50e82-ff75-4569...@o31g2000vbi.googlegroups.com...
Stormin Mormon
in back of stores, that fluorescent tubes are disposed
differently than rest of the trash. So, there is some effort
to contain the mercury.
--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.
<sa...@dog.com> wrote in message
news:p0beg5hhm1u5ap7q1...@4ax.com...
Stormin Mormon
Would be nice to see fairly priced LED replace for household
bulbs. I've not seen them yet.
--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.
"Nate Nagel" <njn...@roosters.net>
wrote in message news:he7b0...@news7.newsguy.com...
Joe Pfeiffer
Interesting point on the graph is how much better linear fluorescent
can be than CF... also that metal halide basically starts where LED
leaves off.
--
As we enjoy great advantages from the inventions of others, we should
be glad of an opportunity to serve others by any invention of ours;
and this we should do freely and generously. (Benjamin Franklin)
Joe Pfeiffer
> What I don't understand is why LEDs are so excellent in flashlights
> (the 3W Task Force light kicks a Mag-Lite's ass BTW) bike
> head/taillights, truck taillights and traffic lights but it is so
> difficult to find good ones for home lighting and/or retrofitting into
> car taillights?
Haven't looked into home LED home lighting yet, but the basic problem
with car taillights is that the fixture is designed for a point source
and the "replacements" are anything but. An LED taillight assembly (as
you can see on many cars and trucks today), designed for LEDs, works
great.
Unfortunately, the "replacements" are bought by idiots looking for a kewl
effect, who have no idea that they might as well just leave the wiring
harness unplugged for all the good their taillights do them --
frequently the other end of the car has headlights with blue glass
('cause blue is brighter) hidden behind a smoked glass shield.
Robert L Bass
>
> I've seen LED replacments for tail lights. Any
> good? Dunno. Would be nice to see fairly
> priced LED replace for household bulbs. I've
> not seen them yet.
The brake light on my M109R consists of an array of *very* bright LEDs. I added
a flasher module to make it even more noticeable. In SW Florida you need all
the protection you can get, especially during snow-bird season. :^)
aemeijers
> "Josepi" wrote:
>>
>> Think you could trim your post to post a snipe, in future?
>
> Here's a brief comment on CFL's from the US Energy
> Star program:
>
> "CFLs save consumers money in the long run, as these bulbs draw far less
> power (resulting in lower electric bills), and they last longer (so they
> don't need to be replaced nearly as often). But they also work to save
> the environment by lessening greenhouse gases. If every American home
> replaced just one standard incandescent light bulb with a long-lasting
> CFL, the resultant energy savings would eliminate greenhouse gases equal
> to the emissions of 800,000 cars..."
>
Not saying that CFL's aren't a good thing. But press releases full of
SWAG numbers like that irritate me. Way too many uncontrolled variables
for them to come up with a hard number. How many hours a day is this
'one bulb per house' supposed to be on and what wattage? What type of
cars are those 80,000 cars, and how many hours a day are they lit up,
and at what speeds? And so on and so on...
--
aem sends....
Josepi
"aemeijers" <aeme...@att.net> wrote in message
news:5JednVG8gMZ_w5rW...@giganews.com...
Josepi
"Gordon Burditt" <gordon...@burditt.org> wrote in message
news:lI2dncLE9b-gt5rW...@posted.internetamerica...
Josepi
silly comment used to attempt to disguise it. I will assume the rest is
bullshit then too, for now.
<sa...@dog.com> wrote in message
news:a0tdg5dml5j6kq0ki...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 14:36:32 -0500, "Josepi" <J...@inv.alid.com> wrote:
>
>>Not according to testing labs that have made lumen mesurements. Are you
>>including the inverters or other lossy type gadgets to accomodate
>>different
>>types of bulbs?
>
> No inverters or "lossy gadgets" involved, other than what is built
> into the base of the lamps. The draw measured includes any and all
> parts of the assembly.
>
>>Have you actually measured the "equivalent" light output or
>>does it just look about the same?
>
> Measured. Nav lights have to meet strict legal requirements and be
> certified.
>
>>Brilliance is a logarithmic scale and can
>>be very deceiving to the human eye.
>>
>
> You really can't stand being wrong, can you?
>
>>Trouble with the lab measurements is they are not usually dated when
>>completed and the technology advances quite rapidly.
>>
>
> Sorry that you have such a hard time with reality.
>
>
>
>><sa...@dog.com> wrote in message
>>news:likdg5pklad59j26q...@4ax.com...
>>> On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 12:27:09 -0500, "Josepi" <J...@inv.alid.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>LEDs are still reported to only be slightly more efficient than
>>>>incandescent
>>>>bulbs.
>>>
Josepi
LOL
"Robert L Bass" <Sa...@BassBurglarAlarms.com> wrote in message
news:qd6dndWkqtVWn5rW...@giganews.com...
> "Josepi" wrote:
>>
>> The dimming unit I have in my garage seems to come on
>> full brilliance even at -25C in the winter...
>
> *Minus* 25?? You need to move to Sarasota, friend. :^)
>
> Regards,
> Robert
Robert L Bass
>
> Not saying that CFL's aren't a good thing. But press
> releases full of SWAG numbers like that irritate me.
It wasn't actually a press release, but that's not important.
> Way too many uncontrolled variables for them to
> come up with a hard number. How many hours a
> day is this 'one bulb per house' supposed to be on
> and what wattage?
I don't know but if I were to guess, I'd suppose the figures are based on
"average" usage -- something that could be calculated by surveying a fair number
of homes.
> What type of cars are those 80,000 cars, and how
> many hours a day are they lit up, and at what
> speeds? And so on and so on...
That kind of information is always being sought by various surveys. If you ask
enough people what they drive, how many hours a week, etc., you can get a fairly
good picture of what the "average" driver does. That the report gave a figure
is nothing surprising. One could question the manner of surveys used if the
methods are known. Short of that, the best thing you can do is try to determine
whether the poll takers have an axe to grind. That's one reason I challenge
comments from Bobby Green and Dave Houston. Both are always "on a mission" and
neither seems above bending the facts to fit what they've already decided. That
isn't meant to imply that both are dishonest. Bobby has an opinion and he sees
as "facts" whatever ideas he comes up with in support of his ideas. Houston is
much worse -- he flat out lies.
OK, that's my quota of nastiness for this week. Time to be nice... :^)
Robert L Bass
>
> When they talk about saving Watts then we know they are informed...LOL
Did someone use that expression in this thread? If so I didn't notice.
Robert L Bass
>
> ... I will assume the rest is bullshit then too, for now.
There's a lot of that going around these days. :^)
sa...@dog.com
<cayoung61**spamblock##@hotmail.com> wrote:
>I've seen LED replacments for tail lights. Any good? Dunno.
>Would be nice to see fairly priced LED replace for household
>bulbs. I've not seen them yet.
A lot of new cars already come equipped with LED tail Lights. They are
very bright, and if one LED fails, you still have a lot of light. The
only thing I don't like about them on my car is that there is no
warmth generated to de-ice the lenses in winter. Tail light lenses are
plastic, so there is a limit to how much you can do to clear them with
an ice scraper without scratching them.
sa...@dog.com
>Apparently you don't understand the scale used for illumination by your
>silly comment used to attempt to disguise it. I will assume the rest is
>bullshit then too, for now.
>
Go back to sleep.
Stormin Mormon
on snow birds, or are they a nussiance creature, and you're
encourged to shoot all you want?
--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.
"Robert L Bass" <Sa...@BassBurglarAlarms.com> wrote in
message
news:x4-dnVEZsrHpwJrW...@giganews.com...
Nate Nagel
Right, my original comment was referring to retrofitting
LEDs in an older vehicle. Nothing good seems to be available there, at
least not in a plug and play (or nearly so) solution.
nate
Josepi
the media use this expression
"Saving Watts"
It clearly demonstrates ignorance of power and energy and belittles the
whole intent of any programme using it.
"Robert L Bass" <Sa...@BassBurglarAlarms.com> wrote in message
news:7OGdnYXhCpHo5prW...@giganews.com...
Josepi
can be clearly shown from history, here, that a hidden agenda may be lurking
in your demonstration.
pot, kettle? LOL
"Robert L Bass" <Sa...@BassBurglarAlarms.com> wrote in message
news:zuqdnZdk2e9N55rW...@giganews.com...
Josepi
"Say Watt?"
<sa...@dog.com> wrote in message
news:idpfg5lq2rf3lr11f...@4ax.com...
Josepi
However LED lights are very focused and play on the human vision system to
compete with the effectiveness of incandescents.
Many incandescent tail lights have taken a lesson in efficiency also and
many of the so-called LED taillights on vehicles are actually incandescent
bulbs. Take a closer look and you will see many peanut bulbs in a reflector
with small pockets.
When will we see back-up LED lights on vehicles? Not likely in the near
future. The total luminence is not there to illuminate an area. Something
LEDs have failed at, to date.
<sa...@dog.com> wrote in message
news:blofg55k14g42agc9...@4ax.com...
Congoleum Breckenridge
> LED tail light are not "very bright". The illumination is very poor.
>
> However LED lights are very focused and play on the human vision system to
> compete with the effectiveness of incandescents.
>
> Many incandescent tail lights have taken a lesson in efficiency also and
> many of the so-called LED taillights on vehicles are actually incandescent
> bulbs. Take a closer look and you will see many peanut bulbs in a reflector
> with small pockets.
>
> When will we see back-up LED lights on vehicles? Not likely in the near
> future. The total luminence is not there to illuminate an area. Something
> LEDs have failed at, to date.
I've seen LED back up lights on a couple of newer Luxury cars.
BTW, The 2009 Cadillac Escalade Platinum has LED headlights.
sa...@dog.com
wrote:
I've seen plenty of direct replacements for 1157 incandescents,
complete with standard bayonet base.
sa...@dog.com
>LED tail light are not "very bright". The illumination is very poor.
>
Once again, you are COMPLETELY wrong. The only thing in this
conversation that is not very bright, is you.
>However LED lights are very focused and play on the human vision system to
>compete with the effectiveness of incandescents.
>
>Many incandescent tail lights have taken a lesson in efficiency also and
>many of the so-called LED taillights on vehicles are actually incandescent
>bulbs. Take a closer look and you will see many peanut bulbs in a reflector
>with small pockets.
>
Once again, you are COMPLETELY wrong. Just so I could say I knew for
certain, I just went out and looked again. LED's, dopey. Nine in each
tail/brakelight. Looked in the manual and in the list of replacement
bulbs, there is nothing listed for tail lights. They are not expected
to need replacement in the lifetime of the vehicle. If they are
damaged in an accident, you replace the whole light array as an
assembly.
Game, Set, Match
>When will we see back-up LED lights on vehicles? Not likely in the near
>future. The total luminence is not there to illuminate an area. Something
>LEDs have failed at, to date.
>
Once again, you are COMPLETELY wrong. Have someone (who can read) look
up the word "array" in a dictionary and explain it to you.
sa...@dog.com
Careful. You'll make Josepi's head explode.
Josepi
at the back of your scrap yard? Show me the money.
At least if you are going to use over 2348 (your figures) different nyms
you should attempt to change your stupid insult style of words. It would
make trolling and stalking much more effective for you.
**sigh** The newbies.
You can run but you can never hide. Better luck next time.
<sa...@dog.com> wrote in message
news:h05gg5tbv60uolhic...@4ax.com...
Josepi
Apparently the Lexus (2008) used LEDs for low beam headlights. Here is an
exepr from a sirte discussing that. The heigh heat put out by LED
inefficiency is a problem.
---------------------------------------------
Automotive headlamp applications using light-emitting diodes (LEDs) have
been undergoing very active development since 2004.[38][39] The first
series-production LED headlamps were factory-installed on the Lexus LS 600h
/ LS 600h L starting with the 2008 models. Low beam, front position light
and sidemarker functions are performed by LEDs; high beam and turn signal
functions use filament bulbs. The headlamp is supplied by Koito. Full-LED
headlamps supplied by AL-Automotive Lighting were fitted on the 2008 V10
Audi R8 sports car except in North America. The Hella headlamps on the 2009
Cadillac Escalade Platinum became the first U.S. market all-LED headlamps.
Present designs give performance between halogen and HID headlamps,[40] with
system power consumption slightly lower than other headlamps, longer
lifespans and more flexible design possibilities.[41][42] As LED technology
continues to evolve, the performance of LED headlamps is predicted to
improve to approach, meet, and perhaps one day surpass that of HID
headlamps.[43]
The limiting factors with LED headlamps presently include high system
expense, regulatory delays and uncertainty, and logistical issues created by
LED operating characteristics. LEDs are commonly considered to be low-heat
devices due to the public's familiarity with small, low-output LEDs used for
electronic control panels and other applications requiring only modest
amounts of light. However, LEDs actually produce a significant amount of
heat per unit of light output. Rather than being emitted together with the
light as is the case with conventional light sources, an LED's heat is
produced at the rear of the emitters. The cumulative heat of numerous
high-output LEDs operating for prolonged periods poses thermal-management
challenges for plastic headlamp housings. In addition, this heat buildup
materially reduces the light output of the emitters themselves. LEDs are
quite temperature sensitive, with many types producing at 30 �C (86 �F) only
60% of the rated light output they produce at an emitter junction
temperature 16 �C (61 �F). Prolonged operation above the maximum junction
temperature will permanently degrade the LEDs and ultimately shorten the
device's life. The need to keep LED junction temperatures low at high power
levels always requires additional thermal management measures such as
heatsinks and exhaust fans which are typically quite expensive.
Additional facets of the thermal issues with LED headlamps reveal themselves
in cold ambient temperatures. Many types of LEDs produce at ?12 �C (10 �F)
up to 160% of their 16 �C (61 �F) rated output. The temperature-dependency
of LED's light output creates serious challenges for the engineering and
regulation of automotive lighting devices, which are in some cases required
to produce intensities within a range smaller than the variation in LED
output with temperatures normally experienced in automotive service.
Cold weather also brings another thermal-management conundrum: Not only must
heat be removed from the rear of the headlamp so that the housing does not
deform or melt and the emitters' output does not drop excessively, but heat
must in addition be effectively applied to thaw snow and ice from the front
lenses, which are not heated by the comparatively small amount of infared
radiation emitted forward with the light from LEDs.
LEDs are increasingly being adopted for signalling functions such as parking
lamps, brake lamps and turn signals as well as daytime running lamps, as in
those applications they offer significant advantages over filament bulbs
with fewer engineering challenges than headlamps pose.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"Congoleum Breckenridge" <conb...@home.com> wrote in message
news:4B080FFD...@home.com...
Nate Nagel
I've tried a couple out of curiosity, they range from "OK but about half
the apparent brightness of a 1034 or 1157" or "so dim you'd have to be
insane to even think about using them." Nothing actually "acceptable."
None of the vendors of same are willing to put in their documentation a
comparison of brightness between their "bulbs" and a standard 1034/1157.
sa...@dog.com
>You base your whole argument and insults on the back of some vehicle parked
>at the back of your scrap yard? Show me the money.
>
>At least if you are going to use over 2348 (your figures) different nyms
>you should attempt to change your stupid insult style of words. It would
>make trolling and stalking much more effective for you.
>
> **sigh** The newbies.
>
>You can run but you can never hide. Better luck next time.
>
Now you have become pretty much incoherent. I have been on usenet
since... well, a very long time. I have changed my nym maybe 5 or so
times in 20 or so years. I only use one at a time, usually for many
years, before changing to another.
And you remain completely wrong on everyting else, too. Now the list
of things you are confused about is just longer.
sa...@dog.com
wrote:
I haven't tried them myself, as my cars already have LED tail and
brake lights. My greatest experience is in use of LED's to replace
interior lights in yachts, as well as Navigation lights, which have
very strict requirements set by the government. They have to be
visible for a specified distance, and in specific arcs of coverage,
both vertical and horizontal. They need to have full brightness in the
specified coverage parameters. Obviously single LED's won't do that,
which seems to completely stymie Josepi. The simple answer is that
most LED replacements for incandesent bulbs in almost ANY application
other than indicator lights on a panel, are accomplished by use of
arrays of LED's, not a single LED.
The Daring Dufas
The only problem with high output LED lights is the need for cooling.
Like most semiconductor technologies, excessive heat will damage them.
The Cadillac LED headlights have built in cooling fans.
TDD
Robert L Bass
>
> The only thing I don't like about them on my
> car is that there is no warmth generated to
That's a problem we don't have to deal with in Sarasota. :^)
Robert L Bass
>
> More appropriately, your most intelligent argument should have been
>
> "Say Watt?"
Heh, heh, heh... :^)