"R!" writes:

Seán O'Leathlóbhair wrote in
oups.com:

snip


I also have qualms about the overall value of these bulbs. They are
complex devices and I have not heard of any schemes for recycling or
safe disposal. It is very hard, as an end user, to judge the pros and
cons. From a selfish point of view, I can look at the cost to me.
The low energy bulbs cost considerably more. The hope is that the
longer lifetime and lower energy use compensate for this. The longer
lifetime seems to be linked to the physical size. The larger ones do
indeed seem to have a long life. The first ever ones I bought, about
15 years ago, are still working but they are huge by modern
standards. The larger of the newer ones have a good life time but I
have had a few failures. The small new ones, which are required for
some applications, seem to have a noticeably shorter life time. In
this case, is not so obvious that I am spending less on the bulbs than
on incandescent ones. Also, I find the energy saving not as great as
claimed. I usually don't find them as bright as the claimed
equivalents. I guess that the equivalence claims are true in some
sense but not in my subjective judgment. If I replace an incandescent
bulb with a low energy with the same claimed equivalent power, it
usually looks dimmer. I often have to buy one step up from the
claimed equivalent power and hence make a smaller saving. An
exception to this last point is the one that inspired this thread. It
actually seems brighter than the incandescent that it replaced despite
having the same claimed equivalent power. Of course, I have no idea
of the life time yet.

On the heating point that same raise. I am aware that the heat from
the incandescent bulbs will be slightly reducing the heat required
from other sources. However, even here in the UK, I am not running
the heating all the time, and electricity costs me more per joule than
gas. Even when using the heating, I like the cooler running of the
low energy bulbs, I hope that it reduces the fire risk in some of the
cramped places that bulbs are used. I have seen lamp shades scorched
quite worryingly by incandescent bulbs (even when within the stated
limits of the shade). I have never seen this with a low energy bulb.
Finally, not everyone lives in a cold country. I have a house in the
Philippines, there heating is unknown but air conditioning is
desirable. The stray heat from incandescent bulbs is a double waste
since it is increasing the load on the air conditioning.

I have dropped the long list of apparently irrelevant groups.

--
Seán Ó Leathlóbhair



I think CFL's just don't wash..

I have bought several in various price ranges...

The really cheep ones only last about 3 months...

The medium priced ones last about 1 year to 18 months.

The one I paid the most for has been going for about 5 years.

Based on this it only makes sense to buy the longest lasting ones...

At $22.00 US I could buy aproximately 88, 60W 120V lamps.

Which gives me 88,000 hours of light.

The life of the lamp that has lated five years was promoted at

30,000 hours...

So that makes the inital cost about 1.5 times as much as the standard
bulb.

Cost of 60W incandescent lamp: $0.25 cents.
Cost of electricity to run a 1000 hour 60W lamp over its life at 10
cents/kWh: $6.
Total cost over life: $6.25.

Cost of electricity and lamps to run 60W lamps over 30,000 hours: $187.50.

Cost of 60W equivalent CFL + electricity over 30,000 hours assuming it
uses 25 percent of the power of a 60 W incandescent lamp: $22 + $45 = $67.

Around here, good quality spiral CFLs with 5,000 to 8,000 hour claimed
lifetimes cost around $5-6 in hardware stores (much less at large home
centers).

But even at $6, a 60 W equivalent CFL just about pays for itself if it
only lasts slightly longer than one incandecent lamp. They typically
last much longer - guessing 2 or 3 years of normal use which is probably
close to their claimed 5,000 to 8,000 hour life.

I also use 2, 100w 120 lamps as a heat source to keep the water pipes
from freezing in really cold weather...

I haven't figured out a safer or more economical way to heat a 5' x 5'
pump house.

Now, if you're really using the waste heat of the incandescent lamp - which
accounts for around 95 percent of the power used - then the savings will
not be as great. But although resistance heating is 100 percent efficient
as far as conversion of power to heat is concerned, heat pumps and even
gas or oil ends up being cheaper.

Of course, if it's hot and you need to run the A/C, you're paying twice!

--- sam | Sci.Electronics.Repair FAQ: http://www.repairfaq.org/
Repair | Main Table of Contents: http://www.repairfaq.org/REPAIR/
+Lasers | Sam's Laser FAQ: http://www.repairfaq.org/sam/lasersam.htm
| Mirror Sites: http://www.repairfaq.org/REPAIR/F_mirror.html

Important: Anything sent to the email address in the message header above is
ignored unless my full name AND either lasers or electronics is included in the
subject line. Or, you can contact me via the Feedback Form in the FAQs.

"Seán O'Leathlóbhair" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Jun 26, 10:25 pm, webpa wrote:
On Jun 25, 8:03 am, Seán O'Leathlóbhair wrote:





I am not sure if this is an appropriate group for this question. If
not, please suggest a better one.

I have a light in the house which I have wanted to switch to a low
energy bulb for a long time. The hold up was that I needed a very
small bulb. At last, I have found a small enough bulb but something
odd occurred as soon as I put it in.

When it is switched on, it works as expected.

When it is switched off, it blinks every few seconds. So, I guess
that there must be a problem with the switch If it is passing nothing
then it would seem impossible for the bulb to do anything. I did not
notice any problem with the previous incandescent bulb but I guess
that if the switch is leaking a tiny amount, the filament would glow
too little to be seen.

I have a few questions:

What is going on? Is a tiny current leaking, building up a charge in
a capacitor somewhere until a sufficient voltage builds up to spark in
the bulb and discharge the capacitor, and then the cycle repeats.

Is it safe?

Will it wear out the bulb very fast?

Is it likely to be enough to replace the switch? (Actually three
switches can turn this bulb on and off).

Might I have to replace the wiring? (Much harder than just replacing
the switches)

--
Seán Ó Leathlóbhair

You have a more complicated circuit than you think. If you have 3
switches, each capable of turning the lamp on and off irrespective of
the positions of the other two switches, then the switches are not
directly connected to the lamp. The switches are connected to a (-n
electromechanical) relay or a solid-state relay. The relay provides
power to the lamp...the switches control the relay. I suspect leakage
somewhere in wiring between the switch(s) and the relay...which, if
solid-state, may require only a few milliamps to trip the relay.
Could also be that the control relay is defective somehow.

More complicated than the common two switch set-up but not necessarily
that complicated. I have not traced the wiring to be sure how this
particular installation works but I am reasonably sure that it does
not involve a relay. I have researched how it may work and I have
described that elsewhere in the thread. The switches need to be more
complicated than typical. They need two inputs and two outputs. Each
input is always connected to one of the outputs but the connections
are reversed when the switch is changed. The live goes to one input
of the first switch. The two outputs of the first switch are
connected to the two inputs of the second. This continues through as
many switches as you wish. Finally one output of the last switch is
connected to the bulb. The neutral is connected normally. So, if any
switch is changed, the live will go down the other wire through the
rest of the system. Since only one output of the last switch is
connected to the bulb, if it was on, it goes off but of it was off it
goes on. This set-up is rare in the UK but the necessary switches are
available, I have seen them in my local hardware shop. They can be
used for the more typical two switch set-up by simply ignoring one of
the terminals. I have read that this set-up is more commonly used in
some other countries such as Spain.

--
Seán Ó Leathlóbhair


And here is the way it's done - no magic, no relays or electronic control
circuits - just switches and wire ...

http://www.electrical-online.com/4waydiagram.htm

or

http://www.wfu.edu/~matthews/courses...itchesTut.html

Arfa

Arfa Daily wrote:

"Richard Crowley" wrote in message
...

"Eeyore" wrote in message
...


Serge Auckland wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote
Serge Auckland wrote:

Quite apart from the problems of disposing of old CFLs, I question
the
whole principle of Low Energy lighting. If you have a conventional
bulb,
much
of the energy output is in the form of heat, which will help heat the
room,

and consequently will reduce the need for other heating, central or
otherwise.

That's sort of fine if you want extra heat. Often as not you don't.

If the central heating is on, then you are, by definition, needing extra
heat. The heat output from lighting will mean that the room thermostat
(or
radiator valves) will turn off that bit sooner.

Not really.

The heat from most lamps hangs around at ceiling level. It does sod all
to warm
a room.

I suggest you compare sitting in front of a 1kw bar electric fire to
switching
on ten 100w light bulbs to see how true that is.

Look at all the energy that is wasted producing light! :-)


What happens to all the 'waste' heat produced in vacuum "filled" bulbs that
used to be, if not still are, produced for garden use ?

What vacuum ?


It can't be radiated
into the atmosphere, as the envelope is substantially cold to the touch.
Does the fact that it must be hanging around in the vicinity of the
filament, modify the power consumption of the lamp compared to its light
output ? Does this make it a low(er) energy lamp? Why does the heat from the
anode of a power tube readily radiate across the vacuum, but the heat from
the filament of a vacuum light bulb seems not to? d;~}

Both do. It's called infra red radiation.

There's also conduction too.

Graham

"webpa" schreef in bericht
ps.com...
On Jun 25, 8:03 am, Seán O'Leathlóbhair wrote:
I am not sure if this is an appropriate group for this question. If
not, please suggest a better one.

I have a light in the house which I have wanted to switch to a low
energy bulb for a long time. The hold up was that I needed a very
small bulb. At last, I have found a small enough bulb but something
odd occurred as soon as I put it in.

When it is switched on, it works as expected.

When it is switched off, it blinks every few seconds. So, I guess
that there must be a problem with the switch If it is passing nothing
then it would seem impossible for the bulb to do anything. I did not
notice any problem with the previous incandescent bulb but I guess
that if the switch is leaking a tiny amount, the filament would glow
too little to be seen.

I have a few questions:

What is going on? Is a tiny current leaking, building up a charge in
a capacitor somewhere until a sufficient voltage builds up to spark in
the bulb and discharge the capacitor, and then the cycle repeats.

Is it safe?

Will it wear out the bulb very fast?

Is it likely to be enough to replace the switch? (Actually three
switches can turn this bulb on and off).

Might I have to replace the wiring? (Much harder than just replacing
the switches)

--
Seán Ó Leathlóbhair

| You have a more complicated circuit than you think. If you have 3
| switches, each capable of turning the lamp on and off irrespective of
| the positions of the other two switches, then the switches are not
| directly connected to the lamp. The switches are connected to a (-n
| electromechanical) relay or a solid-state relay. The relay provides
| power to the lamp...the switches control the relay. I suspect leakage
| somewhere in wiring between the switch(s) and the relay...which, if
| solid-state, may require only a few milliamps to trip the relay.
| Could also be that the control relay is defective somehow...

Don't think so. The first course on lighting installation I learned about
crossswitches already. They could be used to turn on and off a lamp from one
to three or more places. Effectively they are dpdt switches. You can of
course use it for spst or simply on/off switching. Next possibility is using
it for spdt like the well known two switches landing light. When you need
more switches the dpdt switches are required.

o--+----+ o----+----+----o
+--o--__ | +-o--__ | | __--o--+
hot | o--)--+ o--+-)--+-)----o |
--+ | | | | | | | .-.
| | | | | | | +--( X )---
| o--+ | o--+ | | +---o | '-' neutral
+--o--__ +---o--__ | | __--o---+
o-----+ o----+ +-----o

Three switch landing light using dpdt switches. The right and left switches
are wired for spdt.


o-----+ o-----+
+--o--__ | +-o--__ |
hot o--+ o--+--)--+ o--+--)-------o .-. neutral
--o--__ | | | | __--o--( X )---
o--+ o--+ | o--+ +-------o '-'
spdt +--o--__ +----o--__ | spdt
o-----+ o-----+
dpdt dpdt

Four switch landing light. You can repeat the dpdt- or crosswitch as often
as you need.

created by Andy´s ASCII-Circuit v1.24.140803 Beta www.tech-chat.de

petrus bitbyter

R! wrote:
Seán O'Leathlóbhair wrote in
oups.com:

snip

I also have qualms about the overall value of these bulbs. They are
complex devices and I have not heard of any schemes for recycling or
safe disposal. It is very hard, as an end user, to judge the pros and
cons. From a selfish point of view, I can look at the cost to me.
The low energy bulbs cost considerably more. The hope is that the
longer lifetime and lower energy use compensate for this. The longer
lifetime seems to be linked to the physical size. The larger ones do
indeed seem to have a long life. The first ever ones I bought, about
15 years ago, are still working but they are huge by modern
standards. The larger of the newer ones have a good life time but I
have had a few failures. The small new ones, which are required for
some applications, seem to have a noticeably shorter life time. In
this case, is not so obvious that I am spending less on the bulbs than
on incandescent ones. Also, I find the energy saving not as great as
claimed. I usually don't find them as bright as the claimed
equivalents. I guess that the equivalence claims are true in some
sense but not in my subjective judgment. If I replace an incandescent
bulb with a low energy with the same claimed equivalent power, it
usually looks dimmer. I often have to buy one step up from the
claimed equivalent power and hence make a smaller saving. An
exception to this last point is the one that inspired this thread. It
actually seems brighter than the incandescent that it replaced despite
having the same claimed equivalent power. Of course, I have no idea
of the life time yet.

On the heating point that same raise. I am aware that the heat from
the incandescent bulbs will be slightly reducing the heat required
from other sources. However, even here in the UK, I am not running
the heating all the time, and electricity costs me more per joule than
gas. Even when using the heating, I like the cooler running of the
low energy bulbs, I hope that it reduces the fire risk in some of the
cramped places that bulbs are used. I have seen lamp shades scorched
quite worryingly by incandescent bulbs (even when within the stated
limits of the shade). I have never seen this with a low energy bulb.
Finally, not everyone lives in a cold country. I have a house in the
Philippines, there heating is unknown but air conditioning is
desirable. The stray heat from incandescent bulbs is a double waste
since it is increasing the load on the air conditioning.

I have dropped the long list of apparently irrelevant groups.

--
Seán Ó Leathlóbhair



I think CFL's just don't wash..

I have bought several in various price ranges...

The really cheep ones only last about 3 months...

The medium priced ones last about 1 year to 18 months.

The one I paid the most for has been going for about 5 years.

Based on this it only makes sense to buy the longest lasting ones...

At $22.00 US I could buy aproximately 88, 60W 120V lamps.

Which gives me 88,000 hours of light.

The life of the lamp that has lated five years was promoted at

30,000 hours...

So that makes the inital cost about 1.5 times as much as the standard
bulb.

I also use 2, 100w 120 lamps as a heat source to keep the water pipes
from freezing in really cold weather...

I haven't figured out a safer or more economical way to heat a 5' x 5'
pump house.

Hi...

May I respectfully suggest you look into car battery warmer blankets
as a possibly more efficient/reliable source of heat for your
water pipes?

Take care.

Ken

"Eeyore" wrote in message
...


Arfa Daily wrote:

"Richard Crowley" wrote in message
...

"Eeyore" wrote in message
...


Serge Auckland wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote
Serge Auckland wrote:

Quite apart from the problems of disposing of old CFLs, I question
the
whole principle of Low Energy lighting. If you have a conventional
bulb,
much
of the energy output is in the form of heat, which will help heat
the
room,

and consequently will reduce the need for other heating, central
or
otherwise.

That's sort of fine if you want extra heat. Often as not you don't.

If the central heating is on, then you are, by definition, needing
extra
heat. The heat output from lighting will mean that the room
thermostat
(or
radiator valves) will turn off that bit sooner.

Not really.

The heat from most lamps hangs around at ceiling level. It does sod
all
to warm
a room.

I suggest you compare sitting in front of a 1kw bar electric fire to
switching
on ten 100w light bulbs to see how true that is.

Look at all the energy that is wasted producing light! :-)


What happens to all the 'waste' heat produced in vacuum "filled" bulbs
that
used to be, if not still are, produced for garden use ?

What vacuum ?


It can't be radiated
into the atmosphere, as the envelope is substantially cold to the touch.
Does the fact that it must be hanging around in the vicinity of the
filament, modify the power consumption of the lamp compared to its light
output ? Does this make it a low(er) energy lamp? Why does the heat from
the
anode of a power tube readily radiate across the vacuum, but the heat
from
the filament of a vacuum light bulb seems not to? d;~}

Both do. It's called infra red radiation.

There's also conduction too.

Graham


Agreed that *should* be the case, but the fact is that the envelope of a
vacuum light bulb remains substantially cold in use, whilst a 6L6's envelope
will take the skin off your fingertips after a few minutes use ...

Arfa

"Half a Brain Daily"


Agreed that *should* be the case, but the fact is that the envelope of a
vacuum light bulb remains substantially cold in use,


** Only true if the bulb is made from a special grade of quartz glass with
very low IR absorption.

Eg: " Infrasil ".


whilst a 6L6's envelope will take the skin off your fingertips after a few
minutes use ...


** Made with IR absorbing glass, as are nearly all light bulbs.

Some low powered lamps and most "pilot " bulbs are vacuum lamps and they get
damn hot.



....... Phil

Arfa Daily wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote
Arfa Daily wrote:

Why does the heat from the anode of a power tube readily radiate across the
vacuum, but the heat from the filament of a vacuum light bulb seems not
to? d;~}

Both do. It's called infra red radiation.

There's also conduction too.


Agreed that *should* be the case, but the fact is that the envelope of a
vacuum light bulb remains substantially cold in use, whilst a 6L6's envelope
will take the skin off your fingertips after a few minutes use ...

What lighbulbs have *vacuums* in the bulb ? It's normally filled with a
non-reactive gas mixture.

Graham

Sam Goldwasser wrote:

Cost of 60W incandescent lamp: $0.25 cents.

On what planet is that ?

More like £0.45 here.


Cost of electricity to run a 1000 hour 60W lamp over its life at 10
cents/kWh: $6.

£6

Total cost over life: $6.25.

£6.45

Cost of electricity and lamps to run 60W lamps over 30,000 hours: $187.50.

£193.50


Cost of 60W equivalent CFL + electricity over 30,000 hours assuming it
uses 25 percent of the power of a 60 W incandescent lamp: $22

£ 1.95 for qty 5, 6000 hr Philips bulbs

+ $45

£45

= $67.

£ 46.95


Around here, good quality spiral CFLs with 5,000 to 8,000 hour claimed
lifetimes cost around $5-6 in hardware stores (much less at large home
centers).

£ 0.39 @ Morrisons for Philips.

So £ 193.50 for incandescents vs £ 46.95 for CFLs.

Graham

On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 23:42:41 GMT, "Arfa Daily"
put finger to keyboard and composed:

Just another little spanner in the works. When the governments try to
actually introduce the ban on incandescents, will it just be on
'conventional' spheres, or will they try to do it for halogen and spot
decorative lamps as well? I would think that there is a huge useage of these
lamps now, since all the big DIY warehouses started selling both fancy light
fittings with multiple halogens in them, and cheap ceiling downlighter kits,
with 3 or 5 halogens in them. I have two light fittings in my lounge with
five 20 watt halogens in each, plus two 60 watt spots. Over my stairs, I
have five ceiling downlighters, and then another five along the upstairs
corridor. There are another three in the main bedroom, and four in the
shower room. If these lamps get banned as well, then I'm either going to
have a lot of useless holes in the ceiling, or going to have to replace them
with poor colourmatch LED fixtures ...

Arfa

The July 2007 issue of Silicon Chip magazine has an article entitled
"A LED to replace 50W halogens?"

It talks about Osram's soon to be released "Ostar Lighting LED" which
is rated for 1000 lumens. A 50W halogen produces 900lm.

http://www.reuk.co.uk/Osram-Ostar-Lighting-LED.htm

- Franc Zabkar
--
Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email.

"Phil Allison" wrote in message
...

"Half a Brain Daily"


Agreed that *should* be the case, but the fact is that the envelope of a
vacuum light bulb remains substantially cold in use,


** Only true if the bulb is made from a special grade of quartz glass with
very low IR absorption.

Eg: " Infrasil ".


whilst a 6L6's envelope will take the skin off your fingertips after a
few minutes use ...


** Made with IR absorbing glass, as are nearly all light bulbs.

Some low powered lamps and most "pilot " bulbs are vacuum lamps and they
get damn hot.



...... Phil



Ok, I'll buy that.

Arfa

"Franc Zabkar" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 23:42:41 GMT, "Arfa Daily"
put finger to keyboard and composed:

Just another little spanner in the works. When the governments try to
actually introduce the ban on incandescents, will it just be on
'conventional' spheres, or will they try to do it for halogen and spot
decorative lamps as well? I would think that there is a huge useage of
these
lamps now, since all the big DIY warehouses started selling both fancy
light
fittings with multiple halogens in them, and cheap ceiling downlighter
kits,
with 3 or 5 halogens in them. I have two light fittings in my lounge with
five 20 watt halogens in each, plus two 60 watt spots. Over my stairs, I
have five ceiling downlighters, and then another five along the upstairs
corridor. There are another three in the main bedroom, and four in the
shower room. If these lamps get banned as well, then I'm either going to
have a lot of useless holes in the ceiling, or going to have to replace
them
with poor colourmatch LED fixtures ...

Arfa

The July 2007 issue of Silicon Chip magazine has an article entitled
"A LED to replace 50W halogens?"

It talks about Osram's soon to be released "Ostar Lighting LED" which
is rated for 1000 lumens. A 50W halogen produces 900lm.

http://www.reuk.co.uk/Osram-Ostar-Lighting-LED.htm

- Franc Zabkar
--
Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email.

Interesting Franc. Stuff like this keps dropping through my door too. I saw
one the other day, where the LED chips are arranged around a sort of 'tree'
to try to make it semi omni-directional, like an incandescent. However, good
as that new LED halogen look-alike that you have pointed us to look at is,
in terms of light output, I think that the real downside is contained in the
first line where it tells us that it produces " ...... of cold white light."
There is a shop in my village that has similar LED halogen replacements in
their window display, and I have a friend who has fitted LED downlighters to
his computer shop. Both look absolutely awful in terms of colour rendition
and how they make other things look - particularly people ! I think that
although this might ultimately be the better way to go over CFL's, the LED
manufacturers are still going to have to do a lot of work to improve the
colour rendition characteristics to make them acceptable by the general
public. I wonder if there will be exemptions, like for photography lamps, or
studio or theatre lighting lamps ?

Arfa

"Eeyore" wrote in message
...


Arfa Daily wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote
Arfa Daily wrote:

Why does the heat from the anode of a power tube readily radiate
across the
vacuum, but the heat from the filament of a vacuum light bulb seems
not
to? d;~}

Both do. It's called infra red radiation.

There's also conduction too.


Agreed that *should* be the case, but the fact is that the envelope of a
vacuum light bulb remains substantially cold in use, whilst a 6L6's
envelope
will take the skin off your fingertips after a few minutes use ...

What lighbulbs have *vacuums* in the bulb ? It's normally filled with a
non-reactive gas mixture.

Graham


Maplins do a candle bulb that's vacuum filled. Also, see info on vacuum
bulbs at

http://members.misty.com/don/bulb1.html

Arfa

On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 00:53:03 GMT Ken Weitzel wrote in
Message id: Pxigi.65556$xq1.31095@pd7urf1no:

Hi...

May I respectfully suggest you look into car battery warmer blankets
as a possibly more efficient/reliable source of heat for your
water pipes?

There is also a pipe wrap that you plug into an outlet:
http://www.amazon.com/Easy-Heat-AHB-...017353-9213620

Spehro Pefhany wrote in
:

http://members.misty.com/don/bulb1.html

That is such a good read I've seen bits of postings by him in the
LaserFAQ, but I never followed up enough to know how much good stuff he
wrote.

On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 02:19:52 GMT, the renowned Eeyore
wrote:



Arfa Daily wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote
Arfa Daily wrote:

Why does the heat from the anode of a power tube readily radiate across the
vacuum, but the heat from the filament of a vacuum light bulb seems not
to? d;~}

Both do. It's called infra red radiation.

There's also conduction too.


Agreed that *should* be the case, but the fact is that the envelope of a
vacuum light bulb remains substantially cold in use, whilst a 6L6's envelope
will take the skin off your fingertips after a few minutes use ...

What lighbulbs have *vacuums* in the bulb ? It's normally filled with a
non-reactive gas mixture.

Graham

Many high voltage/low power bulbs are vacuum, IIRC. Don Klipstein says
break-even is 6-10W/cm of filament.

http://members.misty.com/don/bulb1.html


Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com

"Serge Auckland" wrote in
message
"Arfa Daily" wrote in message
...

"JANA" wrote in message
...
If the switch that is series with the light bulb has a
night light in it, the current pass of the night light
will cause the CFL to flicker.

Fallicy #1 - all CFL's are the same. Right now, they are a moving target as
the designs of their electronics packages becomes more sophisticated and
purpose-driven.

Regular CFL's cannot be used on standard light dimmers
and many of the electronic timers. This is a big
inconvenience for many people.

Dimmable CFL's are available in enough different wattages to be useful in a
wide variety of applications.

When regular lamps become unavailable, I can see a lot
of problems with these new types of lamps. The biggest
one will be the pollution from their
disposal. They use mercury, phosphors, and many types
of materials that are
very harmful for the environment. There is also the
electronics circuit board, which contain components
that have the same recycling problem as used
in most electronics. Even though they last longer, when
they are eventually
put out in to the garbage, they will eventually end up
in the land fills. They are going to be a very big
problem compared to the simple light bulb that was made
of simple glass and metals.

True that disposal is more critical especially because of the the mercury.
However, I've seen situations where CFL's outlast incadescents by 20:1.


Regular light bulb materials are about 85% recyclable.
There are almost no
materials in these that are bad for the environment.
Most CFL's materials are not recyclable, and their
materials are very polluting.

They are both primarily made up of glass, which is recylcliable.

It looks very strong that the government is pushing the
CFL's to save some
electricity to sell to large industry. This is the only
answer that is logical. There are NO green house gasses
from using regular light bulbs. When more electricity
is sold to industry, the pollution problems from its
generation will actually increase, unless the
generation is from water power, or nuclear power.

This is a very flawed argument. Industry is going to get the power they
need. They don't buy power for the fun of it.

These are my (well known) views also, but I fear we are
squeaking like little lost mice in the dark ...

Mixed bag.

Quite apart from the problems of disposing of old CFLs, I
question the whole principle of Low Energy lighting.

In the summer, less heat means less need for air conditioning. In the
winter, less heat from electricity for lighting may have to be offset to
keep the rooms at the same temperature, but space heating often comes from
more efficient sources. Electricity generation has about 70% waste back at
the generating plant, plus significant losses due to transmission and
distribution. Natural gas doesn't have the 70% conversion cost, but it does
have some losses in transmission and distribution.

If
you have a conventional bulb, much of the energy output
is in the form of heat, which will help heat the room,
and consequently will reduce the need for other heating,
central or otherwise.

Only surely true in the winter. Even in the winter, space heating generally
comes by a more efficient path that was detailed above.

Putting in a low-energy lamp mean
that there is less heat being put into the room, and
consequently, more heat has to be supplied externally.

Clearly not true at all if you are cooling the room, which is true in maybe
90% of the US in the summer.

"Arny Krueger"

Fallicy #1 - all CFL's are the same.

** No-one said that.

Total red herring anyhow.


Dimmable CFL's are available in enough different wattages to be useful in
a wide variety of applications.


** Shame they are prohibitively more expensive and hard to find.


True that disposal is more critical especially because of the the
mercury. However, I've seen situations where CFL's outlast incadescents by
20:1.


** Non sequitur - most folk have seen the reverse far more often.


They are both primarily made up of glass, which is recylcliable.


** Nice " selecting the evidence " fallacy.


Only surely true in the winter. Even in the winter, space heating
generally comes by a more efficient path that was detailed above.


** More example selecting.

Homes in Australia are mostly all electric.


Clearly not true at all if you are cooling the room, which is true in
maybe 90% of the US in the summer.


** Domestic lighting is only used at night, when a little extra heat is
mostly welcome.

Reducing night time electricity demand by a few percent ( all changing bulbs
to CFLs can manage ) has no effect on coal usage or CO2 production.

There is no overall economic or CO2 advantage to be had by making CFL use
compulsory.

There are serious hazards risks in so doing - particularly home fires
which are notoriously fatal.

Bad idea, dreamt up by ego tripping, greenie ****wits.



......... Phil

Phil Allison wrote:

Homes in Australia are mostly all electric.

That'll make using less energy easy then.

Is there a lot of coal generated electricity and if so is the coal of local
origin ?

Graham

"Arfa Daily" wrote in message


Agreed that *should* be the case, but the fact is that
the envelope of a vacuum light bulb remains substantially
cold in use,

Maybe a really low-wattage bulb. But at 50 watts and up, you won't
comfortably unscrew a hot bulb with your bare fingers.

whilst a 6L6's envelope will take the skin
off your fingertips after a few minutes use ...
Arfa

On Jun 26, 5:25 pm, webpa wrote:
On Jun 25, 8:03 am, Seán O'Leathlóbhair wrote:





I am not sure if this is an appropriate group for this question. If
not, please suggest a better one.

I have a light in the house which I have wanted to switch to a low
energy bulb for a long time. The hold up was that I needed a very
small bulb. At last, I have found a small enough bulb but something
odd occurred as soon as I put it in.

When it is switched on, it works as expected.

When it is switched off, it blinks every few seconds. So, I guess
that there must be a problem with the switch If it is passing nothing
then it would seem impossible for the bulb to do anything. I did not
notice any problem with the previous incandescent bulb but I guess
that if the switch is leaking a tiny amount, the filament would glow
too little to be seen.

I have a few questions:

What is going on? Is a tiny current leaking, building up a charge in
a capacitor somewhere until a sufficient voltage builds up to spark in
the bulb and discharge the capacitor, and then the cycle repeats.

Is it safe?

Will it wear out the bulb very fast?

Is it likely to be enough to replace the switch? (Actually three
switches can turn this bulb on and off).

Might I have to replace the wiring? (Much harder than just replacing
the switches)

--
Seán Ó Leathlóbhair

You have a more complicated circuit than you think. If you have 3
switches, each capable of turning the lamp on and off irrespective of
the positions of the other two switches, then the switches are not
directly connected to the lamp. The switches are connected to a (-n
electromechanical) relay or a solid-state relay. The relay provides
power to the lamp...the switches control the relay. I suspect leakage
somewhere in wiring between the switch(s) and the relay...which, if
solid-state, may require only a few milliamps to trip the relay.
Could also be that the control relay is defective somehow...- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Nope...

A simple 4-way switch system.

http://www.handymanwire.com/articles/3wayswitch.html

No relays involved, and any single switch can turn On/Off irrespective
of the others (at any one time).

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

"Phil Allison" wrote:

Dimmable CFL's are available in enough different wattages to be
useful in a wide variety of applications.

** Shame they are prohibitively more expensive and hard to find.

I've so far only seen the 3-way variety. Not the ones dimmable by triac
(the normal infinitetly variable dimmers we are used to, that only work
with incandescent bulbs).

True that disposal is more critical especially because of the the
mercury. However, I've seen situations where CFL's outlast
incadescents by 20:1.

** Non sequitur - most folk have seen the reverse far more often.

Most folks? I would suspect infant mortality if the fluorescent has
anywhere close to as short a life as an incandescent. Mine have lasted
for years and years in every case.

Only surely true in the winter. Even in the winter, space heating
generally comes by a more efficient path that was detailed above.

** More example selecting.

Well, heating a room, in summer, even at night, is not generally a good
thing. And it's certainly true that electic resistive heat is not very
efficient. So on both counts, the heat from incadescent bulbs is hardly
a "feature."

Reducing night time electricity demand by a few percent ( all changing
bulbs to CFLs can manage ) has no effect on coal usage or CO2
production.

There is no overall economic or CO2 advantage to be had by making CFL
use compulsory.

So far, compulsory is only in Australia. But I'd say that light bulbs
constitute a large load, especially in homes that use gas for their
furnace and kitchen. In such homes, only heavy appliances or hair dryers
require more than 100 watts or so, yet for light bulbs, that's common.
And there are many light bulbs.

At night, with bulbs lit, a typical home probably uses the equivalent of
one or two hair dryers, kept running constantly for hours and hours.
Hardly a trivial load. Makes a lot more sense to clamp down on that
load, than to get all compulsive about DTV set-top boxes, as the EU has
done.

Bert

Arfa Daily wrote:

...snip...


Maplins do a candle bulb that's vacuum filled. Also, see info on vacuum
bulbs at

http://members.misty.com/don/bulb1.html

Arfa

"Vacuum filled," oh how I enjoy that one. It evokes the image of
someone pouring stuff form this bottle of "vacuum" into each
light bulb.

However, I do believe it might be a bit more proper to say the
bulbs are (or have been) evacuated. G

[ Sorry, the pedantic devil made me do this. ]


Later...

Ron Capik
--

Ron Capik wrote in
:

"Vacuum filled," oh how I enjoy that one. It evokes the image of
someone pouring stuff form this bottle of "vacuum" into each
light bulb.


Hell yes, and as we know that nature (allegedly) abhors a vaccuum, that
someone will really have to press the stuff in there hard.

"Albert Manfredi"
"Phil Allison"


True that disposal is more critical especially because of the the
mercury. However, I've seen situations where CFL's outlast incadescents
by 20:1.

** Non sequitur - most folk have seen the reverse far more often.

Most folks?


** Yes.

( snip dumb remark)


Reducing night time electricity demand by a few percent ( all changing
bulbs to CFLs can manage ) has no effect on coal usage or CO2 production.

There is no overall economic or CO2 advantage to be had by making CFL use
compulsory.

So far, compulsory is only in Australia.


** You are very ignorant.

The EU has announced an impending ban on incandescent lamps in the next two
years or so.

Same goes for Australia, New Zealand and some US states.


But I'd say that light bulbs constitute a large load,


** Domestic use light bulbs do not.


At night, with bulbs lit, a typical home probably uses the equivalent of
one or two hair dryers, kept running constantly for hours and hours.
Hardly a trivial load.


** The major loads in a home are water heaters, fridges, stoves and air
conditioners.

Indoor light bulbs that are only used at night and only when needed are a
small load.




....... Phil

"Ron Capik" wrote in message
...
Arfa Daily wrote:

...snip...


Maplins do a candle bulb that's vacuum filled. Also, see info on vacuum
bulbs at

http://members.misty.com/don/bulb1.html

Arfa

"Vacuum filled," oh how I enjoy that one. It evokes the image of
someone pouring stuff form this bottle of "vacuum" into each
light bulb.

However, I do believe it might be a bit more proper to say the
bulbs are (or have been) evacuated. G

[ Sorry, the pedantic devil made me do this. ]


Later...

Ron Capik
--


It's one of those 'odd ones' isn't it ? Obviously "filled" is not the right
word, and "evacuated" seems a bit 'scientific'. The references to these
bulbs tend to call them "vacuum filled", so I just went along with that ...
;-)

Arfa

Arfa Daily wrote:

"Ron Capik" wrote in message
...
Arfa Daily wrote:

...snip...


Maplins do a candle bulb that's vacuum filled. Also, see info on vacuum
bulbs at

http://members.misty.com/don/bulb1.html

Arfa

"Vacuum filled," oh how I enjoy that one. It evokes the image of
someone pouring stuff form this bottle of "vacuum" into each
light bulb.

However, I do believe it might be a bit more proper to say the
bulbs are (or have been) evacuated. G

[ Sorry, the pedantic devil made me do this. ]


Later...

Ron Capik
--


It's one of those 'odd ones' isn't it ? Obviously "filled" is not the right
word, and "evacuated" seems a bit 'scientific'. The references to these
bulbs tend to call them "vacuum filled", so I just went along with that ...
;-)

Arfa

Ahh, that so reminds me of the winning definition of "politically correct."
"" Political Correctness is a doctrine fostered by a delusional, illogical
minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media,
which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a
turd by the clean end.""

So do take care as to what end of the vacuum you fill with. G


Later...

Ron Capik
--

Phil Allison wrote:

"Albert Manfredi"
"Phil Allison"


There is no overall economic or CO2 advantage to be had by making CFL use
compulsory.

So far, compulsory is only in Australia.

** You are very ignorant.

The EU has announced an impending ban on incandescent lamps in the next two
years or so.

There is as yet no Directive.

I've seem some sensible moves towards banning just 'inefficient' incandescents
i.e standard tungsten filament types. It would be crazy to eliminate halogens.

Graham

CFLs are useful in some applications; I use them, but they aren't for
everything. Pity that the typically scientifically clueless politicians are
attempting to take yet another decision from us. Freedom goes chip, chip,
chip.

I would like to see a "dust to dust" comparison of typical incandescents
with CFLs and see just what the total resource balance is from raw
materials, to manufacturing, to total average operational lifetime and
finally, disposal.

CFLs have some glass (coated with some kind of fluorescent material),
plastic and metal bases, and electronics. They are considerably more
complicated to dispose of cleanly than a simple glass bulb with a bit of
metal in it.

"Karl Uppiano"
CFLs are useful in some applications; I use them, but they aren't for
everything. Pity that the typically scientifically clueless politicians
are attempting to take yet another decision from us. Freedom goes chip,
chip, chip.

I would like to see a "dust to dust" comparison of typical incandescents
with CFLs and see just what the total resource balance is from raw
materials, to manufacturing, to total average operational lifetime and
finally, disposal.

CFLs have some glass (coated with some kind of fluorescent material),
plastic and metal bases, and electronics. They are considerably more
complicated to dispose of cleanly than a simple glass bulb with a bit of
metal in it.


** You left out the *BIG* one.

All CFLs ( in common with all fluoros) contain mercury - claimed to be
about 10 mg of the highly toxic stuff in each one.

The EU is about to completely ban the import and export of mercury using the
RoHS legislation, excepting only certain approved uses - like bloody
billions of CFLs in private homes !!

Insane.



......... Phil

Phil Allison wrote:

"Karl Uppiano"
CFLs are useful in some applications; I use them, but they aren't for
everything. Pity that the typically scientifically clueless politicians
are attempting to take yet another decision from us. Freedom goes chip,
chip, chip.

I would like to see a "dust to dust" comparison of typical incandescents
with CFLs and see just what the total resource balance is from raw
materials, to manufacturing, to total average operational lifetime and
finally, disposal.

CFLs have some glass (coated with some kind of fluorescent material),
plastic and metal bases, and electronics. They are considerably more
complicated to dispose of cleanly than a simple glass bulb with a bit of
metal in it.

** You left out the *BIG* one.

All CFLs ( in common with all fluoros) contain mercury - claimed to be
about 10 mg of the highly toxic stuff in each one.

More like 4mg.

Philips is now using 2mg IIRC.

Graham

"Phil Allison" wrote in message
...

"Karl Uppiano"
CFLs are useful in some applications; I use them, but they aren't for
everything. Pity that the typically scientifically clueless politicians
are attempting to take yet another decision from us. Freedom goes chip,
chip, chip.

I would like to see a "dust to dust" comparison of typical incandescents
with CFLs and see just what the total resource balance is from raw
materials, to manufacturing, to total average operational lifetime and
finally, disposal.

CFLs have some glass (coated with some kind of fluorescent material),
plastic and metal bases, and electronics. They are considerably more
complicated to dispose of cleanly than a simple glass bulb with a bit of
metal in it.


** You left out the *BIG* one.

All CFLs ( in common with all fluoros) contain mercury - claimed to be
about 10 mg of the highly toxic stuff in each one.

What is the mercury used for?

The EU is about to completely ban the import and export of mercury using
the RoHS legislation, excepting only certain approved uses - like
bloody billions of CFLs in private homes !!

If it weren't for the disastrous unintended consequences, most legislation
would have no effect at all.

Insane.

Perhaps, but they'll think they made a difference when solar cycle begins to
decline again, and the planet starts to cool off again.

"Karl Uppiano"
"Phil Allison"

CFLs have some glass (coated with some kind of fluorescent material),
plastic and metal bases, and electronics. They are considerably more
complicated to dispose of cleanly than a simple glass bulb with a bit of
metal in it.


** You left out the *BIG* one.

All CFLs ( in common with all fluoros) contain mercury - claimed to be
about 10 mg of the highly toxic stuff in each one.

What is the mercury used for?


** You stupid or something ??

What the hell do you think a fluoro light really is ?

Go look it up - fool.



........ Phil

"Phil Allison" wrote in message
...

"Karl Uppiano"
"Phil Allison"

CFLs have some glass (coated with some kind of fluorescent material),
plastic and metal bases, and electronics. They are considerably more
complicated to dispose of cleanly than a simple glass bulb with a bit
of metal in it.


** You left out the *BIG* one.

All CFLs ( in common with all fluoros) contain mercury - claimed to be
about 10 mg of the highly toxic stuff in each one.

What is the mercury used for?


** You stupid or something ??

What the hell do you think a fluoro light really is ?

Go look it up - fool.

You sure wasted a hell of a lot of spit saying "it's a mercury vapor light".
Asshole.

"Karl Up Himself ****wit Piano"


CFLs have some glass (coated with some kind of fluorescent material),
plastic and metal bases, and electronics. They are considerably more
complicated to dispose of cleanly than a simple glass bulb with a bit
of metal in it.


** You left out the *BIG* one.

All CFLs ( in common with all fluoros) contain mercury - claimed to
be about 10 mg of the highly toxic stuff in each one.

What is the mercury used for?


** You stupid or something ??

What the hell do you think a fluoro light really is ?

Go look it up - fool.

You sure wasted a hell of a lot of spit saying "it's a mercury vapor
light".


** Proves what a know nothing IDIOT you are, yet again.

**** OFF !!

Asshole.



......... Phil

Ron Capik wrote:
"Vacuum filled," oh how I enjoy that one. It evokes the image of
someone pouring stuff form this bottle of "vacuum" into each
light bulb.

However, I do believe it might be a bit more proper to say the
bulbs are (or have been) evacuated. G

As long as you don't say something vacuous...

--
We can't possibly imprison 300 million Americans for not paying their
taxes, so let's grant all of them amnesty NOW!

"Phil Allison" wrote in message
...

"Karl Up Himself ****wit Piano"


CFLs have some glass (coated with some kind of fluorescent material),
plastic and metal bases, and electronics. They are considerably more
complicated to dispose of cleanly than a simple glass bulb with a bit
of metal in it.


** You left out the *BIG* one.

All CFLs ( in common with all fluoros) contain mercury - claimed to
be about 10 mg of the highly toxic stuff in each one.

What is the mercury used for?


** You stupid or something ??

What the hell do you think a fluoro light really is ?

Go look it up - fool.

You sure wasted a hell of a lot of spit saying "it's a mercury vapor
light".


** Proves what a know nothing IDIOT you are, yet again.

**** OFF !!

Asshole.

Does anybody know what the hell set this guy off? I asked a simple question,
not really prepared for an ad-hominem attack. I figured I wasn't the only
person on these NG that might benefit from what I thought was probably a
simple answer.

I did look it up, and after wading through article after article repeating
the exact same environmentalist hand-wringing about how toxic this naturally
occurring metal is, I finally found an explanation of its role in
fluorescent lamps:

Fluorescent lamps *are* mercury vapor lamps, although the vapor pressure in
fluorescents is different from the bright blue-white lamps traditionally
called "mercury vapor lamps". The electric arc in the tube excites the
electrons in the mercury vapor atoms so that when they drop back to their
base level, they emit photons, primarily in the ultraviolet energy range,
which strike the phosphor coating on the inside of the tube, exciting the
electrons in the phosphor atoms so that when they drop back to their base
level, they emit visible photons. Any number of gases could be used inside
the tube, but mercury has been used traditionally in fluorescent lamps. Some
newer lamps use less mercury, in favor of alternative elements. Of course
there are trade-offs, such as cost and performance.

My original question about mercury basically had to do with current
practices: Whether it was, in fact, the gas of choice for CFLs. I thought it
might be possible that it had some other use that I was not aware of. I
guess I crossed some invisible line by asking about it.

"Karl Up Himself ****wit Piano"


What is the mercury used for?


** You stupid or something ??

What the hell do you think a fluoro light really is ?

Go look it up - fool.

You sure wasted a hell of a lot of spit saying "it's a mercury vapor
light".


** Proves what a know nothing IDIOT you are, yet again.

**** OFF !!

Asshole.

Does anybody know what the hell set this guy off?


** Calling me an "asshole" for exposing you as a blatant FAKE did it.



Fluorescent lamps *are* mercury vapor lamps, although the vapor pressure
in fluorescents is different from the bright blue-white lamps
traditionally called "mercury vapor lamps". The electric arc in the tube
excites the electrons in the mercury vapor atoms so that when they drop
back to their base level, they emit photons, primarily in the ultraviolet
energy range, which strike the phosphor coating on the inside of the tube,
exciting the electrons in the phosphor atoms so that when they drop back
to their base level, they emit visible photons. Any number of gases could
be used inside the tube,


** Long as there is plenty of mercury vapour - ASSHOLE.

Proves what a know nothing IDIOT you are, yet again.

**** OFF !!

Google Groper Asshole.

Learn to spell anytime, too.





......... Phil

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
However, I've seen situations where CFL's outlast incadescents by 20:1.

Wow, I 'm jealous. I've given up on them after using about 20 or 30 over the
last 10 years. None lasted any longer than a cheap incandescent, most lasted
less, a few even DOA. But the kicker is that a standard fluoro tube always
lasts me ten times as long, in the same application, give a better spread of
light, and the same power savings.
The choice is simple in most cases AFAIC, and it's certainly not compact
fluoro's.

This is a very flawed argument. Industry is going to get the power they
need.

Not if the increase in generating capacity continues to lag the increase in
demand, as it is doing in many areas of Australia since privatisation.
However industry commonly uses standard fluoro tubes already, so them
changing to compact fluoro's would be a backward step. And the power savings
from residential properties is only going to be a small percentage of total
power use. A typical case of governments pretending to do something about a
problem, while it continues to get worse.

They don't buy power for the fun of it.

Nobody does. Blackouts/brownouts still happen.

MrT.

"Eeyore" wrote in message
...
Homes in Australia are mostly all electric.

Depends on state. Most space/water heating in Victoria is natural gas.
Queensland/NT use a lot of solar hot water, with minimal requirement for
space heating. Cooling is their obvious demand, which of course is electric,
ignoring passive insulation etc.

That'll make using less energy easy then.

Is there a lot of coal generated electricity and if so is the coal of
local
origin ?

Yes, mostly. Some hydro electricity, and some gas fired electricity. A
miniscule amount of solar and wind electricity, but that is increasing.
No nuclear yet.

MrT.