"N_Cook" wrote in message
...
one reply got into print

* The Guardian,
* Thursday April 10 2008

Getting the lead out

Thank you for publishing the article on tin whiskers (Within a whisker of
failure, April 3). Too much attention has been given to well-meaning
people
who are pushing the environmental agenda but with very little science
behind
what they are trying to achieve. Some of the green community captured the
public attention and pushed through the no lead on electronics, when there
was not sufficient test data available (actually there was a lot of data
on
US military aircraft). Now we are finding the problems of having a
political
agenda and not one based on science and facts.
Steven Adamson, IMAPS president and Asymtek market manager


--
Diverse Devices, Southampton, England
electronic hints and repair briefs , schematics/manuals list on
http://home.graffiti.net/diverse:graffiti.net/



Very nicely put by Mr Adamson and, whilst The Guardian is not one of my
favourite rags, all credit to them for at least publishing a reply that
swims against the tide, and does not tow the government line ... It's good
to see some 'alternative' views finally making themselves heard in the
public domain !

Arfa

William Sommerwerck wrote:
Whenever I see references to amalgam fillings in this context,
I always wonder just how 'real' the improvement in perceived
well-being is. I don't doubt that you feel better now you have
had them removed, but I really wonder how much of that is
because you *expected* to feel better, because that's why
you were having them removed?

It's been shown that amalgam fillings release mercury vapor only when you
grind down hard on them. They're otherwide inert.

I grind my teeth a lot at night, and my mercury fillings never rasp found
twinkle fertilizer instilled doric plate.

--
"Theoretically, there is nothing that can stop the government from taxing 100%
of income so long as the people get benefits from the government commensurate
with their income which is taxed." -- Barack Obama

Archimedes' Lever wrote:
On 10 Apr 2008 08:18:32 GMT, Jay Ts
wrote:

I put it right there in front of you: They measure ELECTRIC POTENTIAL
otherwise known as "VOLTAGE", between a filling and a reference point.

TOATAL BULL****, you ****ing idiot!

I've already done as much as I can to help this guy,
who obviously can not live up to the name he is using.
Instead of discussing the matter respectfully, and
abiding by Usenet "netiquette", he is just attacking
me personally.

If anything, I admit that discussing this topic in
a group related to electronics is highly inappropriate,
and I feel *very* embarrassed that I unwittingly led the
discussion in this direction. I hope to wind this
down soon.

I've posted enough links to Wikipedia that anyone who has
interest can just go read them, and learn much more than I
have to offer on my own. And don't knock my little story
without checking out the reader's comments to Dr. Huggins'
book on Amazon.com if you haven't already. If those things
don't do it for you, I don't think anything will ... and
that's perfectly ok with me! Enjoy your own reality however
you prefer it.

Jay Ts
--
To contact me, use this web page:
http://www.jayts.com/contact.php

Jay Ts wrote:

I've already done as much as I can to help this guy,
who obviously can not live up to the name he is using.
Instead of discussing the matter respectfully, and
abiding by Usenet "netiquette", he is just attacking
me personally.


Haven't you figured out that you are playing with the resident SED
troll?


--
aioe.org is home to cowards and terrorists

Add this line to your news proxy nfilter.dat file
* drop Path:*aioe.org!not-for-mail to drop all aioe.org traffic.

http://improve-usenet.org/index.html


Use any search engine other than Google till they stop polluting USENET
with porn and junk commercial SPAM

In article ,
says...

Jay Ts wrote:

I've already done as much as I can to help this guy,
who obviously can not live up to the name he is using.
Instead of discussing the matter respectfully, and
abiding by Usenet "netiquette", he is just attacking
me personally.


Haven't you figured out that you are playing with the resident SED
troll?

"The"???

--
Keith

krw wrote:

In article ,
says...

Jay Ts wrote:

I've already done as much as I can to help this guy,
who obviously can not live up to the name he is using.
Instead of discussing the matter respectfully, and
abiding by Usenet "netiquette", he is just attacking
me personally.


Haven't you figured out that you are playing with the resident SED
troll?

"The"???


Ok, the HEAD troll. Happy now? ;-)


--
aioe.org is home to cowards and terrorists

Add this line to your news proxy nfilter.dat file
* drop Path:*aioe.org!not-for-mail to drop all aioe.org traffic.

http://improve-usenet.org/index.html


Use any search engine other than Google till they stop polluting USENET
with porn and junk commercial SPAM

In article ,
says...

krw wrote:

In article ,
says...

Jay Ts wrote:

I've already done as much as I can to help this guy,
who obviously can not live up to the name he is using.
Instead of discussing the matter respectfully, and
abiding by Usenet "netiquette", he is just attacking
me personally.


Haven't you figured out that you are playing with the resident SED
troll?

"The"???


Ok, the HEAD troll. Happy now? ;-)

Ok, but that makes Junior the ASS troll.

--
Keith

[previous discussion of mercury, not lead in solder, snipped]

Arfa Daily wrote:
Hmmm. Your passion for this subject is clear. I do, however, remain
unconvinced that this is anything other than placebo effect, which has
been shown in proper clinical trials, to be an extremely powerful
entity.

I totally understand, and if things had gone just a little
differently in my life, I might have written something very
similar to what you did just above.

Aside from appearances, I really don't want to try to convince
people. If anything, my motivation for writing on the topic
of heavy metal toxicity here is to share my personal experiences,
and maybe help others.

The _last_ thing I want is for people to read my posts, and
immediately decide, based solely on what I wrote, to go get
their mercury fillings removed. Or for that matter, make any
huge change in their lifestyle. If that happened, it would
_seriously_ disturb me. I do not want to have that much
responsibility over anyone else's life. I would very likely
decide to stop posting stuff online for at least 2 years,
while I tried to figure out what went wrong and how to avoid
it ever happening again in the future.

I am not such an expert, and my own story is not compelling
enough, that I alone can or should have any effect such as that.
But some people might want to look into the subject more, and
suspect that some health issue may be related to heavy metals
in their body, and carefully explore options.

If you could show me a
study that didn't call on hearsay and personal anecdotal evidence, and
that could show that a body's mercury content decreased, or at least
arrested in its upward climb after such fillings had been removed, then
I might be more inclined to accept that there's something in it. Can you
show any such study conducted under proper scientific protocols ?

If you're looking for something like that, then you need to consult an
expert on the subject. You might be able to find something through
those Wikipedia links I posted yesterday. I was really surprised
at how much has happened in this area since I first learned about it.

I don't think I can do better discussing this subject than post
the links, as I said in my other post today. If this thread doesn't
go any farther for me, I want to at least thank all the people who
disagreed with me, even "Archimedes", for pushing me to find the
additional information that supports what I had earlier written.

I'm wise enough to know that there is a completely different side
to the matter. Someone else can take the position that mercury is
safe, and some people have even argued that it has benefits, and
supported that position with scientific research. This amazes me,
but the bottom line is that if you believe or believe in something,
and decide that it is "what's real", it will at least seem real
to you, and the darned thing about it is that you'll perceive all
sorts of evidence to support your reality. So I try to respect
other people in their views (even Archimedes, although that's
definitely a challenge).

Peace to everyone,

Jay Ts
--
To contact me, use this web page:
http://www.jayts.com/contact.php

krw wrote:

In article ,
says...

krw wrote:

In article ,
says...

Jay Ts wrote:

I've already done as much as I can to help this guy,
who obviously can not live up to the name he is using.
Instead of discussing the matter respectfully, and
abiding by Usenet "netiquette", he is just attacking
me personally.


Haven't you figured out that you are playing with the resident SED
troll?

"The"???


Ok, the HEAD troll. Happy now? ;-)

Ok, but that makes Junior the ASS troll.


A reputation he has worked very hard to maintain, too.


--
aioe.org is home to cowards and terrorists

Add this line to your news proxy nfilter.dat file
* drop Path:*aioe.org!not-for-mail to drop all aioe.org traffic.

http://improve-usenet.org/index.html


Use any search engine other than Google till they stop polluting USENET
with porn and junk commercial SPAM

Michael A. Terrell wrote:
Jay Ts wrote:

I've already done as much as I can to help this guy, who obviously can
not live up to the name he is using. Instead of discussing the matter
respectfully, and abiding by Usenet "netiquette", he is just attacking
me personally.

Haven't you figured out that you are playing with the resident SED
troll?

Sorry, I'm new here. But yes, it's quite obvious
at this point.

Jay Ts
--
To contact me, use this web page:
http://www.jayts.com/contact.php

On 10 Apr 2008 22:48:41 GMT, Jay Ts
wrote:

Archimedes' Lever wrote:
On 10 Apr 2008 08:18:32 GMT, Jay Ts
wrote:

I put it right there in front of you: They measure ELECTRIC POTENTIAL
otherwise known as "VOLTAGE", between a filling and a reference point.

TOATAL BULL****, you ****ing idiot!

I've already done as much as I can to help this guy,
who obviously can not live up to the name he is using.
Instead of discussing the matter respectfully, and
abiding by Usenet "netiquette", he is just attacking
me personally.

If anything, I admit that discussing this topic in
a group related to electronics is highly inappropriate,
and I feel *very* embarrassed that I unwittingly led the
discussion in this direction. I hope to wind this
down soon.

I've posted enough links to Wikipedia that anyone who has
interest can just go read them, and learn much more than I
have to offer on my own. And don't knock my little story
without checking out the reader's comments to Dr. Huggins'
book on Amazon.com if you haven't already. If those things
don't do it for you, I don't think anything will ... and
that's perfectly ok with me! Enjoy your own reality however
you prefer it.

---
Read this:

http://www.quackwatch.com/01Quackery...s/mercury.html

JF

"John Fields" wrote in message
...
On 10 Apr 2008 22:48:41 GMT, Jay Ts
wrote:

Archimedes' Lever wrote:
On 10 Apr 2008 08:18:32 GMT, Jay Ts
wrote:

I put it right there in front of you: They measure ELECTRIC POTENTIAL
otherwise known as "VOLTAGE", between a filling and a reference point.

TOATAL BULL****, you ****ing idiot!

I've already done as much as I can to help this guy,
who obviously can not live up to the name he is using.
Instead of discussing the matter respectfully, and
abiding by Usenet "netiquette", he is just attacking
me personally.

If anything, I admit that discussing this topic in
a group related to electronics is highly inappropriate,
and I feel *very* embarrassed that I unwittingly led the
discussion in this direction. I hope to wind this
down soon.

I've posted enough links to Wikipedia that anyone who has
interest can just go read them, and learn much more than I
have to offer on my own. And don't knock my little story
without checking out the reader's comments to Dr. Huggins'
book on Amazon.com if you haven't already. If those things
don't do it for you, I don't think anything will ... and
that's perfectly ok with me! Enjoy your own reality however
you prefer it.

---
Read this:

http://www.quackwatch.com/01Quackery...s/mercury.html

JF

Yes, that's more like it. At least it cites relevant research, which
*appears* to have been carried out by scientific people using proper
methodology.

Arfa

On 11 Apr 2008 00:53:54 GMT, Jay Ts
wrote:

Michael A. Terrell wrote:
Jay Ts wrote:

I've already done as much as I can to help this guy, who obviously can
not live up to the name he is using. Instead of discussing the matter
respectfully, and abiding by Usenet "netiquette", he is just attacking
me personally.

Haven't you figured out that you are playing with the resident SED
troll?

Sorry, I'm new here. But yes, it's quite obvious
at this point.
Jay Ts

On behalf of those that are able to debate a subject on its merits,
instead of spewing profanity laced drivel, I would like to thank you
for taking the time to detail your experiences. I find them rather
interesting reading.

I'm undecided on the amalgam issue, but do recognize that some people
are more sensitive to toxins than others. What works for some, may
not work for everyone. Congratulations on your recovery.

I blundered across this article on how much of the methyl mercury
found in the water supply may come from dentists working with mercury:
http://www.scienceblog.com/cms/dental-chair-possible-source-neurotoxic-mercury-waste-15747.html

One of my customers is manufacturer of dental apparatus and a former
dentist. I once asked him for his position on the mercury issue. The
answer was something like "total useless". However, when I asked why,
I got an interesting answer. At the time, there was a surplus of
dentists. The leading dental colleges were controlling admissions.
Americans in general were getting better dental care, fewer cavities,
and fewer profits. Dental insurance plans were becoming part of
employee health insurance plans. Dentists were looking for ways to
"fill the dentist chair". He theorized that filling replacement was
one expensive way to do that. I tend to agree, having been
propositioned by my current dentist. As this procedure is NOT covered
by dental insurance plans, the hourly rate can be astronomical.

Recently, hard times have caused many companies to limit employee
benefits. Usually the dental insurance is the first to go. The
result is that many poorer families do not visit the dentist as often.
There is also a large (illegal) immigrant population that generally
lacks dental care. This article sorta hints at the problem:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/11/business/11decay.html?em&ex=1192248000&en=39838c7fa5c22b6f& ei=5087

Thanks again.
--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

In article ,
says...
On 11 Apr 2008 00:53:54 GMT, Jay Ts
wrote:

Michael A. Terrell wrote:
Jay Ts wrote:

I've already done as much as I can to help this guy, who obviously can
not live up to the name he is using. Instead of discussing the matter
respectfully, and abiding by Usenet "netiquette", he is just attacking
me personally.

Haven't you figured out that you are playing with the resident SED
troll?

Sorry, I'm new here. But yes, it's quite obvious
at this point.

Jay Ts


Except for the fact that the person that wrote that horse**** is the
troll.

Is THAT why you wear a different pair of you mommy's stockings every
day?

All I did was call you stupid.

....and you live with stupid!

The truth hurts, eh?

You couldn't stand the truth, Dimbulb.

--
Keith

I quit that radio + phonograph room because they SUCK!
cuhulin

On Wed, 09 Apr 2008 16:21:23 -0700, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

place than the living hell they came from. Eventually, space travel
will be mundane enough for the carpetbaggers, bureaucrats,
politicians, hookers, pimps, salesmen, and the rest of the trash that
constitutes civilization.

What is it you don't like about hookers? Too much like true Free Market
Capitalism? ;-)

Thanks,
Rich

Rich Grise wrote:

On Wed, 09 Apr 2008 16:21:23 -0700, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

place than the living hell they came from. Eventually, space travel
will be mundane enough for the carpetbaggers, bureaucrats,
politicians, hookers, pimps, salesmen, and the rest of the trash that
constitutes civilization.

What is it you don't like about hookers? Too much like true Free Market
Capitalism? ;-)


If you have to pay for it you're doing something wrong.


--
aioe.org is home to cowards and terrorists

Add this line to your news proxy nfilter.dat file
* drop Path:*aioe.org!not-for-mail to drop all aioe.org traffic.

http://improve-usenet.org/index.html


Use any search engine other than Google till they stop polluting USENET
with porn and junk commercial SPAM

In article ,
says...
On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 15:57:50 -0400, krw wrote:

In article ,
says...
On 11 Apr 2008 00:53:54 GMT, Jay Ts
wrote:

Michael A. Terrell wrote:
Jay Ts wrote:

I've already done as much as I can to help this guy, who obviously can
not live up to the name he is using. Instead of discussing the matter
respectfully, and abiding by Usenet "netiquette", he is just attacking
me personally.

Haven't you figured out that you are playing with the resident SED
troll?

Sorry, I'm new here. But yes, it's quite obvious
at this point.

Jay Ts


Except for the fact that the person that wrote that horse**** is the
troll.

Is THAT why you wear a different pair of you mommy's stockings every
day?

You're an idiot. You're a goddamned idiot.

From you, that's a supreme compliment.

All I did was call you stupid.

...and you live with stupid!

You're a goddamned idiot.

Look in the mirror, Dimbulb.

The truth hurts, eh?

You couldn't stand the truth, Dimbulb.

You wouldn't know... You do not know what the truth is.

IKYABWAI

--
Keith

On Wed, 09 Apr 2008 18:45:28 +1200, Terry Given
wrote:

Jay Ts wrote:
Smitty Two wrote:

Terry Given wrote:


these are great, they look fantastic, unity power factor, dimmable, and
last 50,000 hours.

Yeah, and they're only $145 each:

http://www.lampsplus.com/products/s_lr6/


And only 650 lumens, which is less than a 60 watt incandescent (890
lumens). I'm using 4 27 watt (100 watt equivalent) 6500K CFLs to
light my work room, so to replace them with those LED bulbs, it
would cost ... oh, forget it, I don't even want to do the math!
No way.

and how many lumens come out of your fixture with the 890 lumen lamp in it?

CFLs are terrible for that. they are measured in the light sphere sans
fixture, which can make a tremendous difference. easily 20-30%.


Oh, and the LR6 bulbs are spotlights, which is a no-go just by itself.
And they aren't daylight balanced (5500-6500K), another definite no-go.


they are not bulbs. They are light fittings with integral lamps. that
alters the C-B calcs substantially.

I think it's still going to be a while until 100-watt equivalent,
daylight balanced LED bulbs are available with an "ouchless"
startup cost, and I'm not holding my breath waiting. Just hoping
that it will happen, and won't be awfully long.

Jay Ts

its a total cost of ownership thing. efficiency wise they pay for
themselves (I have seen the ROI calcs but cant recall them) in a few years.

the main market is for people who dont change their own lightbulbs (eg
companies) where it costs a lot to get a single lamp changed, so they
often get a sparky to change all lamps whether or not they need it, eg
annually or bi-annually. And if its in say a tall atrium and you need
scissor lifts, these things pay themselves off in less than the
lifgetime of a single incandescent, CFL or flouro.

Cheers
Terry

For street lighting, warehouse lighting, and industrial lighting there
is a competing technology: Induction lighting. Typical lamp/bulb life
50,000 to 75,000 hours. Twice the life and better luminous efficacy
at a 50% surcharge compared to HID lighting. It is starting to get a
lot of notice. Oh, and better electrical efficiency, takes about half
the power for the same amount of light.

"JosephKK" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 09 Apr 2008 18:45:28 +1200, Terry Given
wrote:

Jay Ts wrote:
Smitty Two wrote:

Terry Given wrote:


these are great, they look fantastic, unity power factor, dimmable, and
last 50,000 hours.

Yeah, and they're only $145 each:

http://www.lampsplus.com/products/s_lr6/


And only 650 lumens, which is less than a 60 watt incandescent (890
lumens). I'm using 4 27 watt (100 watt equivalent) 6500K CFLs to
light my work room, so to replace them with those LED bulbs, it
would cost ... oh, forget it, I don't even want to do the math!
No way.

and how many lumens come out of your fixture with the 890 lumen lamp in
it?

CFLs are terrible for that. they are measured in the light sphere sans
fixture, which can make a tremendous difference. easily 20-30%.


Oh, and the LR6 bulbs are spotlights, which is a no-go just by itself.
And they aren't daylight balanced (5500-6500K), another definite no-go.


they are not bulbs. They are light fittings with integral lamps. that
alters the C-B calcs substantially.

I think it's still going to be a while until 100-watt equivalent,
daylight balanced LED bulbs are available with an "ouchless"
startup cost, and I'm not holding my breath waiting. Just hoping
that it will happen, and won't be awfully long.

Jay Ts

its a total cost of ownership thing. efficiency wise they pay for
themselves (I have seen the ROI calcs but cant recall them) in a few
years.

the main market is for people who dont change their own lightbulbs (eg
companies) where it costs a lot to get a single lamp changed, so they
often get a sparky to change all lamps whether or not they need it, eg
annually or bi-annually. And if its in say a tall atrium and you need
scissor lifts, these things pay themselves off in less than the
lifgetime of a single incandescent, CFL or flouro.

Cheers
Terry

For street lighting, warehouse lighting, and industrial lighting there
is a competing technology: Induction lighting. Typical lamp/bulb life
50,000 to 75,000 hours. Twice the life and better luminous efficacy
at a 50% surcharge compared to HID lighting. It is starting to get a
lot of notice. Oh, and better electrical efficiency, takes about half
the power for the same amount of light.

I don't know how much take-up of this technology there has been in the UK.
It does beg the question of how much trouble it could cause, if a single
streetlamp or warehouse luminaire went 'rogue'. Already, I see fellow hams
bleating all the time about HF bands interference problems from rogue CFLs,
and SMPS's and PLT and so on. Imagine the potential for interference if a
high power streetlight ballast, feeding an induction lamp 50ft up a pole,
started radiating on 13 odd megs. Or a factory one 50ft up in the ceiling
.... :-)

Arfa

more printed followup
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/apr/17/1
# The Guardian,
# Thursday April 17 2008
Tin woes solder on

Congratulations on the very interesting article on tin whiskers (Within a
whisker of failure, April 3). You may be interested to hear of another
phenomenon associated with lead-free solders in electronics, known as tin
pest. Research was carried out into the allotropy of tin 80 years ago. Tin
pest was found to occur by a process of nucleation and growth of "grey" tin
(a form found below 13C), and was very slow - often requiring years to
complete. Since the transition from "white" to "grey" tin involved a 27%
increase in volume, its formation was restricted to the surface. Recently,
tin pest has been reported in bulk samples of lead-free solder alloys
following a few years' exposure at -18C, the usual freezer temperature.

To date it has not been observed on actual joints. But lead-free
interconnections have been in service for a relatively short time. Although
we do not know whether it is necessary to shut the stable door, we should
make more effort to understand and control tin pest formation. Only time
will tell whether it represents a real problem in electronics.
Professor Bill Plumbridge
Faculty of Technology
The Open University



--
Diverse Devices, Southampton, England
electronic hints and repair briefs , schematics/manuals list on
http://home.graffiti.net/diverse:graffiti.net/

On Sat, 12 Apr 2008 09:22:41 GMT, "Arfa Daily"
wrote:


"JosephKK" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 09 Apr 2008 18:45:28 +1200, Terry Given
wrote:

Jay Ts wrote:
Smitty Two wrote:

Terry Given wrote:


these are great, they look fantastic, unity power factor, dimmable, and
last 50,000 hours.

Yeah, and they're only $145 each:

http://www.lampsplus.com/products/s_lr6/


And only 650 lumens, which is less than a 60 watt incandescent (890
lumens). I'm using 4 27 watt (100 watt equivalent) 6500K CFLs to
light my work room, so to replace them with those LED bulbs, it
would cost ... oh, forget it, I don't even want to do the math!
No way.

and how many lumens come out of your fixture with the 890 lumen lamp in
it?

CFLs are terrible for that. they are measured in the light sphere sans
fixture, which can make a tremendous difference. easily 20-30%.


Oh, and the LR6 bulbs are spotlights, which is a no-go just by itself.
And they aren't daylight balanced (5500-6500K), another definite no-go.


they are not bulbs. They are light fittings with integral lamps. that
alters the C-B calcs substantially.

I think it's still going to be a while until 100-watt equivalent,
daylight balanced LED bulbs are available with an "ouchless"
startup cost, and I'm not holding my breath waiting. Just hoping
that it will happen, and won't be awfully long.

Jay Ts

its a total cost of ownership thing. efficiency wise they pay for
themselves (I have seen the ROI calcs but cant recall them) in a few
years.

the main market is for people who dont change their own lightbulbs (eg
companies) where it costs a lot to get a single lamp changed, so they
often get a sparky to change all lamps whether or not they need it, eg
annually or bi-annually. And if its in say a tall atrium and you need
scissor lifts, these things pay themselves off in less than the
lifgetime of a single incandescent, CFL or flouro.

Cheers
Terry

For street lighting, warehouse lighting, and industrial lighting there
is a competing technology: Induction lighting. Typical lamp/bulb life
50,000 to 75,000 hours. Twice the life and better luminous efficacy
at a 50% surcharge compared to HID lighting. It is starting to get a
lot of notice. Oh, and better electrical efficiency, takes about half
the power for the same amount of light.

I don't know how much take-up of this technology there has been in the UK.
It does beg the question of how much trouble it could cause, if a single
streetlamp or warehouse luminaire went 'rogue'. Already, I see fellow hams
bleating all the time about HF bands interference problems from rogue CFLs,
and SMPS's and PLT and so on. Imagine the potential for interference if a
high power streetlight ballast, feeding an induction lamp 50ft up a pole,
started radiating on 13 odd megs. Or a factory one 50ft up in the ceiling
... :-)

Arfa


In the US they have to meet FCC radiated and conducted emission
standards. Thus the CFLs going rouge probably only statistically meet
those standards, such is part of the nature of regulation.

"JosephKK" wrote in message
news
On Sat, 12 Apr 2008 09:22:41 GMT, "Arfa Daily"
wrote:


"JosephKK" wrote in message
. ..
On Wed, 09 Apr 2008 18:45:28 +1200, Terry Given
wrote:

Jay Ts wrote:
Smitty Two wrote:

Terry Given wrote:


these are great, they look fantastic, unity power factor, dimmable,
and
last 50,000 hours.

Yeah, and they're only $145 each:

http://www.lampsplus.com/products/s_lr6/


And only 650 lumens, which is less than a 60 watt incandescent (890
lumens). I'm using 4 27 watt (100 watt equivalent) 6500K CFLs to
light my work room, so to replace them with those LED bulbs, it
would cost ... oh, forget it, I don't even want to do the math!
No way.

and how many lumens come out of your fixture with the 890 lumen lamp in
it?

CFLs are terrible for that. they are measured in the light sphere sans
fixture, which can make a tremendous difference. easily 20-30%.


Oh, and the LR6 bulbs are spotlights, which is a no-go just by itself.
And they aren't daylight balanced (5500-6500K), another definite
no-go.


they are not bulbs. They are light fittings with integral lamps. that
alters the C-B calcs substantially.

I think it's still going to be a while until 100-watt equivalent,
daylight balanced LED bulbs are available with an "ouchless"
startup cost, and I'm not holding my breath waiting. Just hoping
that it will happen, and won't be awfully long.

Jay Ts

its a total cost of ownership thing. efficiency wise they pay for
themselves (I have seen the ROI calcs but cant recall them) in a few
years.

the main market is for people who dont change their own lightbulbs (eg
companies) where it costs a lot to get a single lamp changed, so they
often get a sparky to change all lamps whether or not they need it, eg
annually or bi-annually. And if its in say a tall atrium and you need
scissor lifts, these things pay themselves off in less than the
lifgetime of a single incandescent, CFL or flouro.

Cheers
Terry

For street lighting, warehouse lighting, and industrial lighting there
is a competing technology: Induction lighting. Typical lamp/bulb life
50,000 to 75,000 hours. Twice the life and better luminous efficacy
at a 50% surcharge compared to HID lighting. It is starting to get a
lot of notice. Oh, and better electrical efficiency, takes about half
the power for the same amount of light.

I don't know how much take-up of this technology there has been in the UK.
It does beg the question of how much trouble it could cause, if a single
streetlamp or warehouse luminaire went 'rogue'. Already, I see fellow hams
bleating all the time about HF bands interference problems from rogue
CFLs,
and SMPS's and PLT and so on. Imagine the potential for interference if a
high power streetlight ballast, feeding an induction lamp 50ft up a pole,
started radiating on 13 odd megs. Or a factory one 50ft up in the ceiling
... :-)

Arfa


In the US they have to meet FCC radiated and conducted emission
standards. Thus the CFLs going rouge probably only statistically meet
those standards, such is part of the nature of regulation.

They have to meet strict emission regulations here too, which I'm sure for
the most part, when in full working order, they do. The problems arise when
the crappy little filter caps in the front end of the switching driver for
the tubes, go open circuit or high ESR, due no doubt to the unventillated
enclosure in the bottom of the lamp, that the electronics sit in, running
very hot. Once that cap has failed, the inverter radiates like a *******,
swamping the airways with broadband hash. It's bad enough when one goes
rogue like this, 6 foot off the deck in someone's driveway light outside
their house. Think what it would be like if one went bad 50 foot up in the
air ...

Arfa

"N_Cook" wrote in message
...
more printed followup
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/apr/17/1
# The Guardian,
# Thursday April 17 2008
Tin woes solder on

Congratulations on the very interesting article on tin whiskers (Within a
whisker of failure, April 3). You may be interested to hear of another
phenomenon associated with lead-free solders in electronics, known as tin
pest. Research was carried out into the allotropy of tin 80 years ago. Tin
pest was found to occur by a process of nucleation and growth of "grey"
tin
(a form found below 13C), and was very slow - often requiring years to
complete. Since the transition from "white" to "grey" tin involved a 27%
increase in volume, its formation was restricted to the surface. Recently,
tin pest has been reported in bulk samples of lead-free solder alloys
following a few years' exposure at -18C, the usual freezer temperature.

To date it has not been observed on actual joints. But lead-free
interconnections have been in service for a relatively short time.
Although
we do not know whether it is necessary to shut the stable door, we should
make more effort to understand and control tin pest formation. Only time
will tell whether it represents a real problem in electronics.
Professor Bill Plumbridge
Faculty of Technology
The Open University



--
Diverse Devices, Southampton, England
electronic hints and repair briefs , schematics/manuals list on
http://home.graffiti.net/diverse:graffiti.net/



'Plumb' -ridge. What an appropriate name for someone versed in lead matters
! Seriously though, I'm really glad that the scientific establishment is
finally making some anti lead-free noise, and backing up with genuine
science, what we lowly service engineers have been trying to tell the world,
since the first day that this hateful material was foisted on us by self
serving bureaucrats with a politically 'green' agenda ...

Arfa

On Thu, 17 Apr 2008 23:50:18 GMT, "Arfa Daily"
wrote:


"JosephKK" wrote in message
news
On Sat, 12 Apr 2008 09:22:41 GMT, "Arfa Daily"
wrote:


"JosephKK" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 09 Apr 2008 18:45:28 +1200, Terry Given
wrote:

Jay Ts wrote:
Smitty Two wrote:

Terry Given wrote:


these are great, they look fantastic, unity power factor, dimmable,
and
last 50,000 hours.

Yeah, and they're only $145 each:

http://www.lampsplus.com/products/s_lr6/


And only 650 lumens, which is less than a 60 watt incandescent (890
lumens). I'm using 4 27 watt (100 watt equivalent) 6500K CFLs to
light my work room, so to replace them with those LED bulbs, it
would cost ... oh, forget it, I don't even want to do the math!
No way.

and how many lumens come out of your fixture with the 890 lumen lamp in
it?

CFLs are terrible for that. they are measured in the light sphere sans
fixture, which can make a tremendous difference. easily 20-30%.


Oh, and the LR6 bulbs are spotlights, which is a no-go just by itself.
And they aren't daylight balanced (5500-6500K), another definite
no-go.


they are not bulbs. They are light fittings with integral lamps. that
alters the C-B calcs substantially.

I think it's still going to be a while until 100-watt equivalent,
daylight balanced LED bulbs are available with an "ouchless"
startup cost, and I'm not holding my breath waiting. Just hoping
that it will happen, and won't be awfully long.

Jay Ts

its a total cost of ownership thing. efficiency wise they pay for
themselves (I have seen the ROI calcs but cant recall them) in a few
years.

the main market is for people who dont change their own lightbulbs (eg
companies) where it costs a lot to get a single lamp changed, so they
often get a sparky to change all lamps whether or not they need it, eg
annually or bi-annually. And if its in say a tall atrium and you need
scissor lifts, these things pay themselves off in less than the
lifgetime of a single incandescent, CFL or flouro.

Cheers
Terry

For street lighting, warehouse lighting, and industrial lighting there
is a competing technology: Induction lighting. Typical lamp/bulb life
50,000 to 75,000 hours. Twice the life and better luminous efficacy
at a 50% surcharge compared to HID lighting. It is starting to get a
lot of notice. Oh, and better electrical efficiency, takes about half
the power for the same amount of light.

I don't know how much take-up of this technology there has been in the UK.
It does beg the question of how much trouble it could cause, if a single
streetlamp or warehouse luminaire went 'rogue'. Already, I see fellow hams
bleating all the time about HF bands interference problems from rogue
CFLs,
and SMPS's and PLT and so on. Imagine the potential for interference if a
high power streetlight ballast, feeding an induction lamp 50ft up a pole,
started radiating on 13 odd megs. Or a factory one 50ft up in the ceiling
... :-)

Arfa


In the US they have to meet FCC radiated and conducted emission
standards. Thus the CFLs going rouge probably only statistically meet
those standards, such is part of the nature of regulation.

They have to meet strict emission regulations here too, which I'm sure for
the most part, when in full working order, they do. The problems arise when
the crappy little filter caps in the front end of the switching driver for
the tubes, go open circuit or high ESR, due no doubt to the unventillated
enclosure in the bottom of the lamp, that the electronics sit in, running
very hot. Once that cap has failed, the inverter radiates like a *******,
swamping the airways with broadband hash. It's bad enough when one goes
rogue like this, 6 foot off the deck in someone's driveway light outside
their house. Think what it would be like if one went bad 50 foot up in the
air ...

Arfa


Please explain under what situations would a cfl be mounted 50 feet
above ground.

"JosephKK" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 17 Apr 2008 23:50:18 GMT, "Arfa Daily"
wrote:


"JosephKK" wrote in message
news
On Sat, 12 Apr 2008 09:22:41 GMT, "Arfa Daily"
wrote:


"JosephKK" wrote in message
m...
On Wed, 09 Apr 2008 18:45:28 +1200, Terry Given
wrote:

Jay Ts wrote:
Smitty Two wrote:

Terry Given wrote:


these are great, they look fantastic, unity power factor, dimmable,
and
last 50,000 hours.

Yeah, and they're only $145 each:

http://www.lampsplus.com/products/s_lr6/


And only 650 lumens, which is less than a 60 watt incandescent (890
lumens). I'm using 4 27 watt (100 watt equivalent) 6500K CFLs to
light my work room, so to replace them with those LED bulbs, it
would cost ... oh, forget it, I don't even want to do the math!
No way.

and how many lumens come out of your fixture with the 890 lumen lamp
in
it?

CFLs are terrible for that. they are measured in the light sphere sans
fixture, which can make a tremendous difference. easily 20-30%.


Oh, and the LR6 bulbs are spotlights, which is a no-go just by
itself.
And they aren't daylight balanced (5500-6500K), another definite
no-go.


they are not bulbs. They are light fittings with integral lamps. that
alters the C-B calcs substantially.

I think it's still going to be a while until 100-watt equivalent,
daylight balanced LED bulbs are available with an "ouchless"
startup cost, and I'm not holding my breath waiting. Just hoping
that it will happen, and won't be awfully long.

Jay Ts

its a total cost of ownership thing. efficiency wise they pay for
themselves (I have seen the ROI calcs but cant recall them) in a few
years.

the main market is for people who dont change their own lightbulbs (eg
companies) where it costs a lot to get a single lamp changed, so they
often get a sparky to change all lamps whether or not they need it, eg
annually or bi-annually. And if its in say a tall atrium and you need
scissor lifts, these things pay themselves off in less than the
lifgetime of a single incandescent, CFL or flouro.

Cheers
Terry

For street lighting, warehouse lighting, and industrial lighting there
is a competing technology: Induction lighting. Typical lamp/bulb life
50,000 to 75,000 hours. Twice the life and better luminous efficacy
at a 50% surcharge compared to HID lighting. It is starting to get a
lot of notice. Oh, and better electrical efficiency, takes about half
the power for the same amount of light.

I don't know how much take-up of this technology there has been in the
UK.
It does beg the question of how much trouble it could cause, if a single
streetlamp or warehouse luminaire went 'rogue'. Already, I see fellow
hams
bleating all the time about HF bands interference problems from rogue
CFLs,
and SMPS's and PLT and so on. Imagine the potential for interference if
a
high power streetlight ballast, feeding an induction lamp 50ft up a
pole,
started radiating on 13 odd megs. Or a factory one 50ft up in the
ceiling
... :-)

Arfa


In the US they have to meet FCC radiated and conducted emission
standards. Thus the CFLs going rouge probably only statistically meet
those standards, such is part of the nature of regulation.

They have to meet strict emission regulations here too, which I'm sure for
the most part, when in full working order, they do. The problems arise
when
the crappy little filter caps in the front end of the switching driver for
the tubes, go open circuit or high ESR, due no doubt to the unventillated
enclosure in the bottom of the lamp, that the electronics sit in, running
very hot. Once that cap has failed, the inverter radiates like a *******,
swamping the airways with broadband hash. It's bad enough when one goes
rogue like this, 6 foot off the deck in someone's driveway light outside
their house. Think what it would be like if one went bad 50 foot up in the
air ...

Arfa


Please explain under what situations would a cfl be mounted 50 feet
above ground.

Block of flats ? Might be 100 feet up in the air or more in that case. When
the EU morons responsible for all this eco-******** legislation finally ban
incandescents in the UK, as they have stated that they will in short order,
then tower blocks will be full of CFLs, as there will be no alternative, yes
?

Originally, when we got onto lighting being 50 foot up in the air, we were
talking about induction lighting in street lamps and factory ceiling lights.
The point was that these devices use high frequency generators to couple the
energy into the lamps, and these generators follow similar design principles
to the tube driver inverters in CFLs. Thus, if low power CFL inverters go
bad, and create the RF havoc that they sometimes do at just a few feet off
the ground, then imagine how bad the situation would be if the high power HF
generator for an induction lamp, 50 foot up a pole, when similarly bad. With
my thinking now ...?

Arfa

On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 01:18:25 GMT, "Arfa Daily"
wrote:


"JosephKK" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 17 Apr 2008 23:50:18 GMT, "Arfa Daily"
wrote:


"JosephKK" wrote in message
news On Sat, 12 Apr 2008 09:22:41 GMT, "Arfa Daily"
wrote:


"JosephKK" wrote in message
om...
On Wed, 09 Apr 2008 18:45:28 +1200, Terry Given
wrote:

Jay Ts wrote:
Smitty Two wrote:

Terry Given wrote:


these are great, they look fantastic, unity power factor, dimmable,
and
last 50,000 hours.

Yeah, and they're only $145 each:

http://www.lampsplus.com/products/s_lr6/


And only 650 lumens, which is less than a 60 watt incandescent (890
lumens). I'm using 4 27 watt (100 watt equivalent) 6500K CFLs to
light my work room, so to replace them with those LED bulbs, it
would cost ... oh, forget it, I don't even want to do the math!
No way.

and how many lumens come out of your fixture with the 890 lumen lamp
in
it?

CFLs are terrible for that. they are measured in the light sphere sans
fixture, which can make a tremendous difference. easily 20-30%.


Oh, and the LR6 bulbs are spotlights, which is a no-go just by
itself.
And they aren't daylight balanced (5500-6500K), another definite
no-go.


they are not bulbs. They are light fittings with integral lamps. that
alters the C-B calcs substantially.

I think it's still going to be a while until 100-watt equivalent,
daylight balanced LED bulbs are available with an "ouchless"
startup cost, and I'm not holding my breath waiting. Just hoping
that it will happen, and won't be awfully long.

Jay Ts

its a total cost of ownership thing. efficiency wise they pay for
themselves (I have seen the ROI calcs but cant recall them) in a few
years.

the main market is for people who dont change their own lightbulbs (eg
companies) where it costs a lot to get a single lamp changed, so they
often get a sparky to change all lamps whether or not they need it, eg
annually or bi-annually. And if its in say a tall atrium and you need
scissor lifts, these things pay themselves off in less than the
lifgetime of a single incandescent, CFL or flouro.

Cheers
Terry

For street lighting, warehouse lighting, and industrial lighting there
is a competing technology: Induction lighting. Typical lamp/bulb life
50,000 to 75,000 hours. Twice the life and better luminous efficacy
at a 50% surcharge compared to HID lighting. It is starting to get a
lot of notice. Oh, and better electrical efficiency, takes about half
the power for the same amount of light.

I don't know how much take-up of this technology there has been in the
UK.
It does beg the question of how much trouble it could cause, if a single
streetlamp or warehouse luminaire went 'rogue'. Already, I see fellow
hams
bleating all the time about HF bands interference problems from rogue
CFLs,
and SMPS's and PLT and so on. Imagine the potential for interference if
a
high power streetlight ballast, feeding an induction lamp 50ft up a
pole,
started radiating on 13 odd megs. Or a factory one 50ft up in the
ceiling
... :-)

Arfa


In the US they have to meet FCC radiated and conducted emission
standards. Thus the CFLs going rouge probably only statistically meet
those standards, such is part of the nature of regulation.

They have to meet strict emission regulations here too, which I'm sure for
the most part, when in full working order, they do. The problems arise
when
the crappy little filter caps in the front end of the switching driver for
the tubes, go open circuit or high ESR, due no doubt to the unventillated
enclosure in the bottom of the lamp, that the electronics sit in, running
very hot. Once that cap has failed, the inverter radiates like a *******,
swamping the airways with broadband hash. It's bad enough when one goes
rogue like this, 6 foot off the deck in someone's driveway light outside
their house. Think what it would be like if one went bad 50 foot up in the
air ...

Arfa


Please explain under what situations would a cfl be mounted 50 feet
above ground.

Block of flats ? Might be 100 feet up in the air or more in that case. When
the EU morons responsible for all this eco-******** legislation finally ban
incandescents in the UK, as they have stated that they will in short order,
then tower blocks will be full of CFLs, as there will be no alternative, yes
?

Originally, when we got onto lighting being 50 foot up in the air, we were
talking about induction lighting in street lamps and factory ceiling lights.
The point was that these devices use high frequency generators to couple the
energy into the lamps, and these generators follow similar design principles
to the tube driver inverters in CFLs. Thus, if low power CFL inverters go
bad, and create the RF havoc that they sometimes do at just a few feet off
the ground, then imagine how bad the situation would be if the high power HF
generator for an induction lamp, 50 foot up a pole, when similarly bad. With
my thinking now ...?

Arfa


Most of those will be converted to HID lighting or induction lighting
instead of cfl over the longevity characteristics.

"JosephKK" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 01:18:25 GMT, "Arfa Daily"
wrote:


"JosephKK" wrote in message
. ..
On Thu, 17 Apr 2008 23:50:18 GMT, "Arfa Daily"
wrote:


"JosephKK" wrote in message
news On Sat, 12 Apr 2008 09:22:41 GMT, "Arfa Daily"
wrote:


"JosephKK" wrote in message
news:06b004htd49j569u0ttk8sin5p39dc2llv@4ax. com...
On Wed, 09 Apr 2008 18:45:28 +1200, Terry Given
wrote:

Jay Ts wrote:
Smitty Two wrote:

Terry Given wrote:


these are great, they look fantastic, unity power factor,
dimmable,
and
last 50,000 hours.

Yeah, and they're only $145 each:

http://www.lampsplus.com/products/s_lr6/


And only 650 lumens, which is less than a 60 watt incandescent
(890
lumens). I'm using 4 27 watt (100 watt equivalent) 6500K CFLs to
light my work room, so to replace them with those LED bulbs, it
would cost ... oh, forget it, I don't even want to do the math!
No way.

and how many lumens come out of your fixture with the 890 lumen lamp
in
it?

CFLs are terrible for that. they are measured in the light sphere
sans
fixture, which can make a tremendous difference. easily 20-30%.


Oh, and the LR6 bulbs are spotlights, which is a no-go just by
itself.
And they aren't daylight balanced (5500-6500K), another definite
no-go.


they are not bulbs. They are light fittings with integral lamps.
that
alters the C-B calcs substantially.

I think it's still going to be a while until 100-watt equivalent,
daylight balanced LED bulbs are available with an "ouchless"
startup cost, and I'm not holding my breath waiting. Just hoping
that it will happen, and won't be awfully long.

Jay Ts

its a total cost of ownership thing. efficiency wise they pay for
themselves (I have seen the ROI calcs but cant recall them) in a few
years.

the main market is for people who dont change their own lightbulbs
(eg
companies) where it costs a lot to get a single lamp changed, so
they
often get a sparky to change all lamps whether or not they need it,
eg
annually or bi-annually. And if its in say a tall atrium and you
need
scissor lifts, these things pay themselves off in less than the
lifgetime of a single incandescent, CFL or flouro.

Cheers
Terry

For street lighting, warehouse lighting, and industrial lighting
there
is a competing technology: Induction lighting. Typical lamp/bulb
life
50,000 to 75,000 hours. Twice the life and better luminous efficacy
at a 50% surcharge compared to HID lighting. It is starting to get
a
lot of notice. Oh, and better electrical efficiency, takes about
half
the power for the same amount of light.

I don't know how much take-up of this technology there has been in the
UK.
It does beg the question of how much trouble it could cause, if a
single
streetlamp or warehouse luminaire went 'rogue'. Already, I see fellow
hams
bleating all the time about HF bands interference problems from rogue
CFLs,
and SMPS's and PLT and so on. Imagine the potential for interference
if
a
high power streetlight ballast, feeding an induction lamp 50ft up a
pole,
started radiating on 13 odd megs. Or a factory one 50ft up in the
ceiling
... :-)

Arfa


In the US they have to meet FCC radiated and conducted emission
standards. Thus the CFLs going rouge probably only statistically meet
those standards, such is part of the nature of regulation.

They have to meet strict emission regulations here too, which I'm sure
for
the most part, when in full working order, they do. The problems arise
when
the crappy little filter caps in the front end of the switching driver
for
the tubes, go open circuit or high ESR, due no doubt to the
unventillated
enclosure in the bottom of the lamp, that the electronics sit in,
running
very hot. Once that cap has failed, the inverter radiates like a
*******,
swamping the airways with broadband hash. It's bad enough when one goes
rogue like this, 6 foot off the deck in someone's driveway light outside
their house. Think what it would be like if one went bad 50 foot up in
the
air ...

Arfa


Please explain under what situations would a cfl be mounted 50 feet
above ground.

Block of flats ? Might be 100 feet up in the air or more in that case.
When
the EU morons responsible for all this eco-******** legislation finally
ban
incandescents in the UK, as they have stated that they will in short
order,
then tower blocks will be full of CFLs, as there will be no alternative,
yes
?

Originally, when we got onto lighting being 50 foot up in the air, we were
talking about induction lighting in street lamps and factory ceiling
lights.
The point was that these devices use high frequency generators to couple
the
energy into the lamps, and these generators follow similar design
principles
to the tube driver inverters in CFLs. Thus, if low power CFL inverters go
bad, and create the RF havoc that they sometimes do at just a few feet off
the ground, then imagine how bad the situation would be if the high power
HF
generator for an induction lamp, 50 foot up a pole, when similarly bad.
With
my thinking now ...?

Arfa


Most of those will be converted to HID lighting or induction lighting
instead of cfl over the longevity characteristics.

?????????

Arfa

"Archimedes' Lever" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 15:17:37 GMT, "Arfa Daily"
wrote:


"John Fields" wrote in message
. ..
On 10 Apr 2008 22:48:41 GMT, Jay Ts
wrote:

Archimedes' Lever wrote:
On 10 Apr 2008 08:18:32 GMT, Jay Ts
wrote:

I put it right there in front of you: They measure ELECTRIC POTENTIAL
otherwise known as "VOLTAGE", between a filling and a reference point.

TOATAL BULL****, you ****ing idiot!

I've already done as much as I can to help this guy,
who obviously can not live up to the name he is using.
Instead of discussing the matter respectfully, and
abiding by Usenet "netiquette", he is just attacking
me personally.

If anything, I admit that discussing this topic in
a group related to electronics is highly inappropriate,
and I feel *very* embarrassed that I unwittingly led the
discussion in this direction. I hope to wind this
down soon.

I've posted enough links to Wikipedia that anyone who has
interest can just go read them, and learn much more than I
have to offer on my own. And don't knock my little story
without checking out the reader's comments to Dr. Huggins'
book on Amazon.com if you haven't already. If those things
don't do it for you, I don't think anything will ... and
that's perfectly ok with me! Enjoy your own reality however
you prefer it.

---
Read this:

http://www.quackwatch.com/01Quackery...s/mercury.html

JF

Yes, that's more like it. At least it cites relevant research, which
*appears* to have been carried out by scientific people using proper
methodology.

Arfa


The fact is that the amalgam used by the dentists uses the Mercury to
bind the other metals together covalently.

As the dentist presses the silver amalgam into the filling cavity, the
mercury squeezes out and is recaptured by the dentist.. This means that
your fillings are like 95% Silver, and a few percent of other metals, and
less than one percent of metallic form Mercury.

NOT A HEALTH HAZARD.

My feeling too ...

Arfa

On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 08:44:11 GMT, "Arfa Daily"
wrote:


"JosephKK" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 01:18:25 GMT, "Arfa Daily"
wrote:


"JosephKK" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 17 Apr 2008 23:50:18 GMT, "Arfa Daily"
wrote:


"JosephKK" wrote in message
news On Sat, 12 Apr 2008 09:22:41 GMT, "Arfa Daily"
wrote:


"JosephKK" wrote in message
news:06b004htd49j569u0ttk8sin5p39dc2llv@4ax .com...
On Wed, 09 Apr 2008 18:45:28 +1200, Terry Given
wrote:

Jay Ts wrote:
Smitty Two wrote:

Terry Given wrote:


these are great, they look fantastic, unity power factor,
dimmable,
and
last 50,000 hours.

Yeah, and they're only $145 each:

http://www.lampsplus.com/products/s_lr6/


And only 650 lumens, which is less than a 60 watt incandescent
(890
lumens). I'm using 4 27 watt (100 watt equivalent) 6500K CFLs to
light my work room, so to replace them with those LED bulbs, it
would cost ... oh, forget it, I don't even want to do the math!
No way.

and how many lumens come out of your fixture with the 890 lumen lamp
in
it?

CFLs are terrible for that. they are measured in the light sphere
sans
fixture, which can make a tremendous difference. easily 20-30%.


Oh, and the LR6 bulbs are spotlights, which is a no-go just by
itself.
And they aren't daylight balanced (5500-6500K), another definite
no-go.


they are not bulbs. They are light fittings with integral lamps.
that
alters the C-B calcs substantially.

I think it's still going to be a while until 100-watt equivalent,
daylight balanced LED bulbs are available with an "ouchless"
startup cost, and I'm not holding my breath waiting. Just hoping
that it will happen, and won't be awfully long.

Jay Ts

its a total cost of ownership thing. efficiency wise they pay for
themselves (I have seen the ROI calcs but cant recall them) in a few
years.

the main market is for people who dont change their own lightbulbs
(eg
companies) where it costs a lot to get a single lamp changed, so
they
often get a sparky to change all lamps whether or not they need it,
eg
annually or bi-annually. And if its in say a tall atrium and you
need
scissor lifts, these things pay themselves off in less than the
lifgetime of a single incandescent, CFL or flouro.

Cheers
Terry

For street lighting, warehouse lighting, and industrial lighting
there
is a competing technology: Induction lighting. Typical lamp/bulb
life
50,000 to 75,000 hours. Twice the life and better luminous efficacy
at a 50% surcharge compared to HID lighting. It is starting to get
a
lot of notice. Oh, and better electrical efficiency, takes about
half
the power for the same amount of light.

I don't know how much take-up of this technology there has been in the
UK.
It does beg the question of how much trouble it could cause, if a
single
streetlamp or warehouse luminaire went 'rogue'. Already, I see fellow
hams
bleating all the time about HF bands interference problems from rogue
CFLs,
and SMPS's and PLT and so on. Imagine the potential for interference
if
a
high power streetlight ballast, feeding an induction lamp 50ft up a
pole,
started radiating on 13 odd megs. Or a factory one 50ft up in the
ceiling
... :-)

Arfa


In the US they have to meet FCC radiated and conducted emission
standards. Thus the CFLs going rouge probably only statistically meet
those standards, such is part of the nature of regulation.

They have to meet strict emission regulations here too, which I'm sure
for
the most part, when in full working order, they do. The problems arise
when
the crappy little filter caps in the front end of the switching driver
for
the tubes, go open circuit or high ESR, due no doubt to the
unventillated
enclosure in the bottom of the lamp, that the electronics sit in,
running
very hot. Once that cap has failed, the inverter radiates like a
*******,
swamping the airways with broadband hash. It's bad enough when one goes
rogue like this, 6 foot off the deck in someone's driveway light outside
their house. Think what it would be like if one went bad 50 foot up in
the
air ...

Arfa


Please explain under what situations would a cfl be mounted 50 feet
above ground.

Block of flats ? Might be 100 feet up in the air or more in that case.
When
the EU morons responsible for all this eco-******** legislation finally
ban
incandescents in the UK, as they have stated that they will in short
order,
then tower blocks will be full of CFLs, as there will be no alternative,
yes
?

Originally, when we got onto lighting being 50 foot up in the air, we were
talking about induction lighting in street lamps and factory ceiling
lights.
The point was that these devices use high frequency generators to couple
the
energy into the lamps, and these generators follow similar design
principles
to the tube driver inverters in CFLs. Thus, if low power CFL inverters go
bad, and create the RF havoc that they sometimes do at just a few feet off
the ground, then imagine how bad the situation would be if the high power
HF
generator for an induction lamp, 50 foot up a pole, when similarly bad.
With
my thinking now ...?

Arfa


Most of those will be converted to HID lighting or induction lighting
instead of cfl over the longevity characteristics.

?????????

Arfa


Most street lighting is HPS currently with a normal ballast, there are
some MH lamps with normal ballasts. LED street lighting is being
experimented with. Caltrans in using induction lighting on signs and
may branch out into other uses. Since induction lighting is targeted
at hard to maintain locations in commercial and industrial settings
there are design differences from household CFL where cheap is the
dominant factor. Where we will see CFL is on smaller apartment
buildings with penny-pinching owners / managers.

"JosephKK" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 08:44:11 GMT, "Arfa Daily"
wrote:


"JosephKK" wrote in message
. ..
On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 01:18:25 GMT, "Arfa Daily"
wrote:


"JosephKK" wrote in message
m...
On Thu, 17 Apr 2008 23:50:18 GMT, "Arfa Daily"
wrote:


"JosephKK" wrote in message
newsaje04ddaritvg2u96m558rkndr8jq2hh0@4ax. com...
On Sat, 12 Apr 2008 09:22:41 GMT, "Arfa Daily"
wrote:


"JosephKK" wrote in message
news:06b004htd49j569u0ttk8sin5p39dc2llv@4a x.com...
On Wed, 09 Apr 2008 18:45:28 +1200, Terry Given
wrote:

Jay Ts wrote:
Smitty Two wrote:

Terry Given wrote:


these are great, they look fantastic, unity power factor,
dimmable,
and
last 50,000 hours.

Yeah, and they're only $145 each:

http://www.lampsplus.com/products/s_lr6/


And only 650 lumens, which is less than a 60 watt incandescent
(890
lumens). I'm using 4 27 watt (100 watt equivalent) 6500K CFLs to
light my work room, so to replace them with those LED bulbs, it
would cost ... oh, forget it, I don't even want to do the math!
No way.

and how many lumens come out of your fixture with the 890 lumen
lamp
in
it?

CFLs are terrible for that. they are measured in the light sphere
sans
fixture, which can make a tremendous difference. easily 20-30%.


Oh, and the LR6 bulbs are spotlights, which is a no-go just by
itself.
And they aren't daylight balanced (5500-6500K), another definite
no-go.


they are not bulbs. They are light fittings with integral lamps.
that
alters the C-B calcs substantially.

I think it's still going to be a while until 100-watt
equivalent,
daylight balanced LED bulbs are available with an "ouchless"
startup cost, and I'm not holding my breath waiting. Just hoping
that it will happen, and won't be awfully long.

Jay Ts

its a total cost of ownership thing. efficiency wise they pay for
themselves (I have seen the ROI calcs but cant recall them) in a
few
years.

the main market is for people who dont change their own lightbulbs
(eg
companies) where it costs a lot to get a single lamp changed, so
they
often get a sparky to change all lamps whether or not they need
it,
eg
annually or bi-annually. And if its in say a tall atrium and you
need
scissor lifts, these things pay themselves off in less than the
lifgetime of a single incandescent, CFL or flouro.

Cheers
Terry

For street lighting, warehouse lighting, and industrial lighting
there
is a competing technology: Induction lighting. Typical lamp/bulb
life
50,000 to 75,000 hours. Twice the life and better luminous
efficacy
at a 50% surcharge compared to HID lighting. It is starting to
get
a
lot of notice. Oh, and better electrical efficiency, takes about
half
the power for the same amount of light.

I don't know how much take-up of this technology there has been in
the
UK.
It does beg the question of how much trouble it could cause, if a
single
streetlamp or warehouse luminaire went 'rogue'. Already, I see
fellow
hams
bleating all the time about HF bands interference problems from
rogue
CFLs,
and SMPS's and PLT and so on. Imagine the potential for interference
if
a
high power streetlight ballast, feeding an induction lamp 50ft up a
pole,
started radiating on 13 odd megs. Or a factory one 50ft up in the
ceiling
... :-)

Arfa


In the US they have to meet FCC radiated and conducted emission
standards. Thus the CFLs going rouge probably only statistically
meet
those standards, such is part of the nature of regulation.

They have to meet strict emission regulations here too, which I'm sure
for
the most part, when in full working order, they do. The problems arise
when
the crappy little filter caps in the front end of the switching driver
for
the tubes, go open circuit or high ESR, due no doubt to the
unventillated
enclosure in the bottom of the lamp, that the electronics sit in,
running
very hot. Once that cap has failed, the inverter radiates like a
*******,
swamping the airways with broadband hash. It's bad enough when one
goes
rogue like this, 6 foot off the deck in someone's driveway light
outside
their house. Think what it would be like if one went bad 50 foot up in
the
air ...

Arfa


Please explain under what situations would a cfl be mounted 50 feet
above ground.

Block of flats ? Might be 100 feet up in the air or more in that case.
When
the EU morons responsible for all this eco-******** legislation finally
ban
incandescents in the UK, as they have stated that they will in short
order,
then tower blocks will be full of CFLs, as there will be no alternative,
yes
?

Originally, when we got onto lighting being 50 foot up in the air, we
were
talking about induction lighting in street lamps and factory ceiling
lights.
The point was that these devices use high frequency generators to couple
the
energy into the lamps, and these generators follow similar design
principles
to the tube driver inverters in CFLs. Thus, if low power CFL inverters
go
bad, and create the RF havoc that they sometimes do at just a few feet
off
the ground, then imagine how bad the situation would be if the high
power
HF
generator for an induction lamp, 50 foot up a pole, when similarly bad.
With
my thinking now ...?

Arfa


Most of those will be converted to HID lighting or induction lighting
instead of cfl over the longevity characteristics.

?????????

Arfa


Most street lighting is HPS currently with a normal ballast, there are
some MH lamps with normal ballasts. LED street lighting is being
experimented with. Caltrans in using induction lighting on signs and
may branch out into other uses. Since induction lighting is targeted
at hard to maintain locations in commercial and industrial settings
there are design differences from household CFL where cheap is the
dominant factor. Where we will see CFL is on smaller apartment
buildings with penny-pinching owners / managers.

Ah, OK. I see what you're saying now. I guess that LED lighting is going to
become the standard when they can get them high enough powered. This can't
be too far away, as I see that car manufacturers are starting to experiment
with LED headlights. Already, Audi seem to have LED front running lights,
set into the headlight units, and some of the front lamps used on bicycles
now output enough light to see the road ahead. A local night club had
coloured floodlights on the front of the building, which were LED based, and
I was amazed at just how good a job they did.

Elektor magazine carried out an interesting project last month. They took a
DLP video projector with a standard expensive HID lamp and colour wheel, and
canibalised it to fit an array of red, green and blue Luxeon LEDs in its
place. They then programmed up a cheap microcontroller to emulate the
rotation of the colour wheel, by switching the colours of the LEDs with 3
FETs. They also fed a colour sync signal from the micro to the original
optical sync pickup, so that the LED switching remained synced to the DLP
chip drive. Colour balance was achieved by tweaking the 'on' times of the
LED colours, in software.

The conclusion was that although not as bright as the original HID lamp, the
projector did produce a perfectly useable picture, which proved what they
set out to, which was that it was perfectly possible to use LEDs in place of
a lamp, and that it would be just as good, once they had got the luminous
output up just a bit more.

Arfa

and some balancing comment
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/apr/24/2
# The Guardian,
# Thursday April 24 2008
A whisker of doubt

I believe there are several inaccuracies in Kurt Jacobsen's article (Within
a whisker of failure, April 3). He cites the Swatch watch company as
recalling a "huge batch" of watches that amounted to a financial loss, when
in fact Swatch was denied its request for a RoHS exemption, as another
supplier makes lead-free quartz movements it could use with no whisker
issues. Also, Swatch makes no mention of a recall in its EU request. The
nuclear power plant failure example and others are also misleading, as these
were failures due to pure-tin formulations that predate RoHS. The new
formulations reduce these issues. Here's a good article that refutes the
"gloom and doom" predictions: tinyurl.com/4wxmkz.
Marcus England, by email


--
Diverse Devices, Southampton, England
electronic hints and repair briefs , schematics/manuals list on
http://home.graffiti.net/diverse:graffiti.net/

"N_Cook" wrote in message
...
and some balancing comment
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/apr/24/2
# The Guardian,
# Thursday April 24 2008
A whisker of doubt

I believe there are several inaccuracies in Kurt Jacobsen's article
(Within
a whisker of failure, April 3). He cites the Swatch watch company as
recalling a "huge batch" of watches that amounted to a financial loss,
when
in fact Swatch was denied its request for a RoHS exemption, as another
supplier makes lead-free quartz movements it could use with no whisker
issues. Also, Swatch makes no mention of a recall in its EU request. The
nuclear power plant failure example and others are also misleading, as
these
were failures due to pure-tin formulations that predate RoHS. The new
formulations reduce these issues. Here's a good article that refutes the
"gloom and doom" predictions: tinyurl.com/4wxmkz.
Marcus England, by email


--
Diverse Devices, Southampton, England
electronic hints and repair briefs , schematics/manuals list on
http://home.graffiti.net/diverse:graffiti.net/



Hmmm. Have you ever come across any solder that's pure tin ? It would take a
blowtorch to melt it. Also, there is plenty of research that shows that the
lead in tin-lead solder alloy, mitigates the growth of tin whiskers, whereas
copper doesn't. And anyway, none of the whisker issues alter the fact that
the bloody stuff just doesn't make reliable joints on many component forms,
as anyone involved at the sharp end, would attest to ...

The article that Mr England cites, does not instil a great deal more
confidence in me. Whilst it may be true that *some* cellular phones have
been manufactured in lead-free since 2001, this 'fact' tells us nothing
about the long-term reliability of them, as most are owned primarily as a
fashion statement - even amongst 'mature' businessmen - and only
secondarily as a communications device. This, as well as the fact that the
battery only lasts a short while, dictates that it is replaced on a yearly
basis, which is encouraged by the cellular operators, when they give the
latest all singing and dancing models away, as an incentive to stick with
their network.

Further, this is just one single low power device, As all of us involved in
electronic service work know, there are many other consumer devices such as
TV sets, DVD players, HiFi, microwave ovens etc which, unlike cellphones,
contain large power components and connectors, which do not enjoy good long
term - or often even short term - reliability, when jointed using lead-free
solders. This in no way supports the statement in the article that :-

"This field data indicates the reliability of lead-free assemblies is equal
to, or better than, tin-lead soldered assemblies".

You simply can't make statements like that based on a single product group,
and claim them to have blanket validity.

The further statement ....

"While laboratory studies suggest lead-free solder does not perform as well
in high-stress applications, such as might occur in a ‘drop test', many
applications with these types of concerns (i.e. military) are currently
exempted from RoHS. Meanwhile, alloy developmental work to address lead-free
shortcomings is already underway."

..... contains three areas of concern in that (1) lead-free solder does not
perform *as well* ... (2) some applications e.g. military have concerns
about this, and (3) that it is accepted that the technology has shortcomings
that need to be addressed.

Further, I also have a problem with the first paragraph in the article :-

"Most people incorrectly think the primary intent of RoHS is to protect the
environment. In truth, the fundamental purpose of RoHS is to make recycling
EEE easier and safer."

Protection of the environment was the ticket on which RoHS in general - and
this substitute lead-free technology in particular - was originally sold to
an unsuspecting world. It seems to me that those who make up this
eco-legislation (as they go along, I suspect) are now discovering the error
of their original concept as to why the mature and proven lead solder
technology needed replacing, and are now seeking to bury that error in a
different concept altogether. I can't remember ever before seeing any
reference anywhere to RoHS being primarily to improve the ease and safety of
WEEE recycling, rather than as an environmental issue.

So, far from this article "refuting the gloom and doom", I think it serves
only to further highlight the well known shortcomings of lead-free solder
technology, and unfortunately for Mr England's case, I don't believe that
his letter holds a candle to the two from the other side of the coin, which
preceded it.

Arfa

Arfa Daily wrote in message
...

"N_Cook" wrote in message
...
and some balancing comment
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/apr/24/2
# The Guardian,
# Thursday April 24 2008
A whisker of doubt

Protection of the environment was the ticket on which RoHS in general -
and
this substitute lead-free technology in particular - was originally sold
to
an unsuspecting world. It seems to me that those who make up this
eco-legislation (as they go along, I suspect) are now discovering the
error
of their original concept as to why the mature and proven lead solder
technology needed replacing, and are now seeking to bury that error in a
different concept altogether. I can't remember ever before seeing any
reference anywhere to RoHS being primarily to improve the ease and safety
of
WEEE recycling, rather than as an environmental issue.

So, far from this article "refuting the gloom and doom", I think it serves
only to further highlight the well known shortcomings of lead-free solder
technology, and unfortunately for Mr England's case, I don't believe that
his letter holds a candle to the two from the other side of the coin,
which
preceded it.

Arfa



What exactly can be recycled from say a PC?
As far as I can see the steel casing and perhaps some copper if it is not
too widely distributed , fragmented, needing human separation and plastic
separation environmental problems.
RoHS for recycling implies component level recycling - recycling 3 to 10
year old pc ICs - pull the other one.
Failing that, recycling processed sand and hard plastic after desoldering,
very unlikely. Leaves just the solder itself, which is just as recyclable
with or without lead presumably .

--
Diverse Devices, Southampton, England
electronic hints and repair briefs , schematics/manuals list on
http://home.graffiti.net/diverse:graffiti.net/

"N_Cook" wrote in message
...
Arfa Daily wrote in message
...

"N_Cook" wrote in message
...
and some balancing comment
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/apr/24/2
# The Guardian,
# Thursday April 24 2008
A whisker of doubt

Protection of the environment was the ticket on which RoHS in general -
and
this substitute lead-free technology in particular - was originally sold
to
an unsuspecting world. It seems to me that those who make up this
eco-legislation (as they go along, I suspect) are now discovering the
error
of their original concept as to why the mature and proven lead solder
technology needed replacing, and are now seeking to bury that error in a
different concept altogether. I can't remember ever before seeing any
reference anywhere to RoHS being primarily to improve the ease and safety
of
WEEE recycling, rather than as an environmental issue.

So, far from this article "refuting the gloom and doom", I think it
serves
only to further highlight the well known shortcomings of lead-free solder
technology, and unfortunately for Mr England's case, I don't believe that
his letter holds a candle to the two from the other side of the coin,
which
preceded it.

Arfa



What exactly can be recycled from say a PC?
As far as I can see the steel casing and perhaps some copper if it is not
too widely distributed , fragmented, needing human separation and plastic
separation environmental problems.
RoHS for recycling implies component level recycling - recycling 3 to 10
year old pc ICs - pull the other one.
Failing that, recycling processed sand and hard plastic after desoldering,
very unlikely. Leaves just the solder itself, which is just as recyclable
with or without lead presumably .

--
Diverse Devices, Southampton, England
electronic hints and repair briefs , schematics/manuals list on
http://home.graffiti.net/diverse:graffiti.net/



That would appear to me to be the nub of the matter, so it sounds as though
you agree with me that this 'ease of recycling' thing is a subtle shift of
tack to better handle the changing wind direction ...

I know that they do recover gold from gold-plated connectors and IC pins,
but other than that, I agree that there's not a lot that can be recycled
from a purely practical point of view in terms of cost-effectiveness, both
from purely monetary and energy budget considerations.

Arfa

Arfa Daily wrote:

I know that they do recover gold from gold-plated connectors

A couple of microns ?

and IC pins

Since when have "IC pins" had gold on them ?


but other than that, I agree that there's not a lot that can be recycled

Indeed and it seems almost no-one in Europe wants to touch the stuff. Trying to
'recycle' electronics pcbs strikes me as an utter waste of time. What do end up
with of any use ? Nothing !

Graham

Arfa Daily wrote:

"N_Cook" wrote in message
...

What exactly can be recycled from say a PC?
As far as I can see the steel casing and perhaps some copper if it is not
too widely distributed , fragmented, needing human separation and plastic
separation environmental problems.
RoHS for recycling implies component level recycling - recycling 3 to 10
year old pc ICs - pull the other one.
Failing that, recycling processed sand and hard plastic after desoldering,
very unlikely. Leaves just the solder itself, which is just as recyclable
with or without lead presumably .

That would appear to me to be the nub of the matter, so it sounds as though
you agree with me that this 'ease of recycling' thing is a subtle shift of
tack to better handle the changing wind direction ...

I know that they do recover gold from gold-plated connectors and IC pins,
but other than that, I agree that there's not a lot that can be recycled
from a purely practical point of view in terms of cost-effectiveness, both
from purely monetary and energy budget considerations.

Arfa


There is a process where they grind up scrap PC boards, then use acid
to remove the metal. The remaining Fiberglas is washed, then used with
new fiberglass and epoxy to make things like bathtubs, or fiberglass
boats. The plastic is common grades of thermoplastic, which has been
recycled, for decades. It is shredded, melted, and 're-pelletized',
making it ready to use for new injection molding. Western Electric
started reusing their scrap plastic when they stopped making telephones
with bakelite cases and handsets.


--
http://improve-usenet.org/index.html


Use any search engine other than Google till they stop polluting USENET
with porn and junk commercial SPAM

If you have broadband, your ISP may have a NNTP news server included in
your account: http://www.usenettools.net/ISP.htm

"Eeyore" wrote in message
...


Arfa Daily wrote:

I know that they do recover gold from gold-plated connectors

A couple of microns ?

and IC pins

Since when have "IC pins" had gold on them ?

Since they put about a million of them on the bottom of a big chunk of
ceramic, called it a processor chip, and then tried to persuade all those
pins to make a good electrical connection via a ZIF socket ...

I saw a TV programme about a facility in the UK that recycles computers, and
removes the gold from various bits and pieces at a 'secret' location, and I
was astounded by the amounts of gold that were recovered, that not only made
this worth it from a recycling point of view, but also extremely financially
lucrative for the company doing it.

Take a look at this link for more facts than I could give you

http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs060-01/fs060-01.pdf

Arfa

Eeyore wrote:

snip


Since when have "IC pins" had gold on them ?


Since perhaps 1960 when cerdips first appeared and for
milspec packages of various sorts. Not so much after
1979 or so.

Michael

On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 08:35:27 GMT, "Arfa Daily"
wrote:


"JosephKK" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 08:44:11 GMT, "Arfa Daily"
wrote:


"JosephKK" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 01:18:25 GMT, "Arfa Daily"
wrote:


"JosephKK" wrote in message
om...
On Thu, 17 Apr 2008 23:50:18 GMT, "Arfa Daily"
wrote:


"JosephKK" wrote in message
newsaje04ddaritvg2u96m558rkndr8jq2hh0@4ax .com...
On Sat, 12 Apr 2008 09:22:41 GMT, "Arfa Daily"
wrote:


"JosephKK" wrote in message
news:06b004htd49j569u0ttk8sin5p39dc2llv@4 ax.com...
On Wed, 09 Apr 2008 18:45:28 +1200, Terry Given
wrote:

Jay Ts wrote:
Smitty Two wrote:

Terry Given wrote:


these are great, they look fantastic, unity power factor,
dimmable,
and
last 50,000 hours.

Yeah, and they're only $145 each:

http://www.lampsplus.com/products/s_lr6/


And only 650 lumens, which is less than a 60 watt incandescent
(890
lumens). I'm using 4 27 watt (100 watt equivalent) 6500K CFLs to
light my work room, so to replace them with those LED bulbs, it
would cost ... oh, forget it, I don't even want to do the math!
No way.

and how many lumens come out of your fixture with the 890 lumen
lamp
in
it?

CFLs are terrible for that. they are measured in the light sphere
sans
fixture, which can make a tremendous difference. easily 20-30%.


Oh, and the LR6 bulbs are spotlights, which is a no-go just by
itself.
And they aren't daylight balanced (5500-6500K), another definite
no-go.


they are not bulbs. They are light fittings with integral lamps.
that
alters the C-B calcs substantially.

I think it's still going to be a while until 100-watt
equivalent,
daylight balanced LED bulbs are available with an "ouchless"
startup cost, and I'm not holding my breath waiting. Just hoping
that it will happen, and won't be awfully long.

Jay Ts

its a total cost of ownership thing. efficiency wise they pay for
themselves (I have seen the ROI calcs but cant recall them) in a
few
years.

the main market is for people who dont change their own lightbulbs
(eg
companies) where it costs a lot to get a single lamp changed, so
they
often get a sparky to change all lamps whether or not they need
it,
eg
annually or bi-annually. And if its in say a tall atrium and you
need
scissor lifts, these things pay themselves off in less than the
lifgetime of a single incandescent, CFL or flouro.

Cheers
Terry

For street lighting, warehouse lighting, and industrial lighting
there
is a competing technology: Induction lighting. Typical lamp/bulb
life
50,000 to 75,000 hours. Twice the life and better luminous
efficacy
at a 50% surcharge compared to HID lighting. It is starting to
get
a
lot of notice. Oh, and better electrical efficiency, takes about
half
the power for the same amount of light.

I don't know how much take-up of this technology there has been in
the
UK.
It does beg the question of how much trouble it could cause, if a
single
streetlamp or warehouse luminaire went 'rogue'. Already, I see
fellow
hams
bleating all the time about HF bands interference problems from
rogue
CFLs,
and SMPS's and PLT and so on. Imagine the potential for interference
if
a
high power streetlight ballast, feeding an induction lamp 50ft up a
pole,
started radiating on 13 odd megs. Or a factory one 50ft up in the
ceiling
... :-)

Arfa


In the US they have to meet FCC radiated and conducted emission
standards. Thus the CFLs going rouge probably only statistically
meet
those standards, such is part of the nature of regulation.

They have to meet strict emission regulations here too, which I'm sure
for
the most part, when in full working order, they do. The problems arise
when
the crappy little filter caps in the front end of the switching driver
for
the tubes, go open circuit or high ESR, due no doubt to the
unventillated
enclosure in the bottom of the lamp, that the electronics sit in,
running
very hot. Once that cap has failed, the inverter radiates like a
*******,
swamping the airways with broadband hash. It's bad enough when one
goes
rogue like this, 6 foot off the deck in someone's driveway light
outside
their house. Think what it would be like if one went bad 50 foot up in
the
air ...

Arfa


Please explain under what situations would a cfl be mounted 50 feet
above ground.

Block of flats ? Might be 100 feet up in the air or more in that case.
When
the EU morons responsible for all this eco-******** legislation finally
ban
incandescents in the UK, as they have stated that they will in short
order,
then tower blocks will be full of CFLs, as there will be no alternative,
yes
?

Originally, when we got onto lighting being 50 foot up in the air, we
were
talking about induction lighting in street lamps and factory ceiling
lights.
The point was that these devices use high frequency generators to couple
the
energy into the lamps, and these generators follow similar design
principles
to the tube driver inverters in CFLs. Thus, if low power CFL inverters
go
bad, and create the RF havoc that they sometimes do at just a few feet
off
the ground, then imagine how bad the situation would be if the high
power
HF
generator for an induction lamp, 50 foot up a pole, when similarly bad.
With
my thinking now ...?

Arfa


Most of those will be converted to HID lighting or induction lighting
instead of cfl over the longevity characteristics.

?????????

Arfa


Most street lighting is HPS currently with a normal ballast, there are
some MH lamps with normal ballasts. LED street lighting is being
experimented with. Caltrans in using induction lighting on signs and
may branch out into other uses. Since induction lighting is targeted
at hard to maintain locations in commercial and industrial settings
there are design differences from household CFL where cheap is the
dominant factor. Where we will see CFL is on smaller apartment
buildings with penny-pinching owners / managers.

Ah, OK. I see what you're saying now. I guess that LED lighting is going to
become the standard when they can get them high enough powered. This can't
be too far away, as I see that car manufacturers are starting to experiment
with LED headlights.

I have more than one co-worker with a car with LED headlights.
Infinity, Lexus, BMW and others do this already.

Already, Audi seem to have LED front running lights,
set into the headlight units, and some of the front lamps used on bicycles
now output enough light to see the road ahead.

I have LED bicycle headlights myself.

A local night club had
coloured floodlights on the front of the building, which were LED based, and
I was amazed at just how good a job they did.

Elektor magazine carried out an interesting project last month. They took a
DLP video projector with a standard expensive HID lamp and colour wheel, and
canibalised it to fit an array of red, green and blue Luxeon LEDs in its
place. They then programmed up a cheap microcontroller to emulate the
rotation of the colour wheel, by switching the colours of the LEDs with 3
FETs. They also fed a colour sync signal from the micro to the original
optical sync pickup, so that the LED switching remained synced to the DLP
chip drive. Colour balance was achieved by tweaking the 'on' times of the
LED colours, in software.

The conclusion was that although not as bright as the original HID lamp, the
projector did produce a perfectly useable picture, which proved what they
set out to, which was that it was perfectly possible to use LEDs in place of
a lamp, and that it would be just as good, once they had got the luminous
output up just a bit more.

Arfa


And the last is a nice change from jumbotrons.