Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
Electronics Repair (sci.electronics.repair) Discussion of repairing electronic equipment. Topics include requests for assistance, where to obtain servicing information and parts, techniques for diagnosis and repair, and annecdotes about success, failures and problems. |
Reply |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#41
Posted to aus.electronics,sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
CFLs - retrofitting low ESR capacitors
Sylvia Else wrote:
On 20/09/2011 1:11 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote: Sylvia Else wrote: Has anyone here tried retrofitting low ESR capacitors to CFLs with a view to improving their turn-on performance - i.e. so that they reach full brightness quickly? Sylvia. **The full brightness thing is not associated with the electronics. It's an issue with the gas in the tube and, to a lesser extent, the phosphor coating. You can prove this for yourself, by measuring the light output of a standard (iron ballast) fluoro. Light output gradually increases over a few seconds (or minutes, depending on ambient temperature). Don't sweat it anyway, LEDs will replace them in most applications very soon. I've been mucking about with a couple of these recently: http://www.dealextreme.com/p/12w-350...p-12-14v-80310 It delivers almost double the light output of an 11 Watt T5 fluoro and is far more compact, dimmable and has nicer colour temperature. Having got used to the higher colour temperatures of CFLs, I find that I prefer them. **CFLs are not so different to regular fluoros. Each manufacturer has his/her own formulation for the phosphor coating. As a conseqence, the colour balance will be slightly different for each. I find that different lamps have different purposes. For my workbench, I need accurate colour rendition (for checking colour codes on components) and I use 36 Watt, quad phosphor lamps for that purpose. For other areas, I use different lamps. Incandescents weren't given a lower colour temperature because people preferred them, it was just the way they came out. **Well, yes. If the first practical domestic electric lights had been of daylight colour temperature, I imagine that's what everyone would always have wanted, and people would have given short shrift to this yellow rubbish. However, I note that the led emitter strips are available in higher colour temperatures. **They are available in a wide range of colour temperatures. The range is increasing rapidly. -- Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au |
#42
Posted to aus.electronics,sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
OT CFLs - retrofitting low ESR capacitors
"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message ... Wild_Bill wrote: Maybe you know of a heat pump that will illuminate a house, and only cost the owner about $20 per year to purchase. **I don't. And YOU don't know of a lamp that can heat a house (or cool one) either. Using lights to warm a home is insane. Pretty much like everything else you've posted. Production of plastics pollutes, so does gallium arsenide, and mercury in CFLs. **No one disputes that. Production of almost any manufactured item causes some kind of pollution. That is why regulators ensure that the pollution created is dealt with appropriately. Fortunately, LEDs last a VERY long time and consume small amounts of material, so total pollution remains low. Were you born yesterday? **Did the manufacturing process of computer you are presently using cause zero pollution? Are you insane? Just because the pollution takes place somewhere else doesn't mean it doesn't effect all. **I am well aware of that. I am also a supporter of organisations that attempt to minimise pollution caused by large manufacturers of many products. Are you? Ubuntu. Some say that only about 1% of the water on this planet is drinkable, although there's plenty that's contaminated with toxic chemicals and disease. Many people drink and bathe in poisonous, disease polluted water, but that shouldn't concern you. **Like I said: I contribute financially to several organisations that are active in trying to ensure that people less fortunate than I am are not subject to pollution from large companies. Do you? Who is dying from silicon? **The manufacture of glass, steel and tungsten is a very energy intensive process. Combined with the extremely short life-span of incandescent lamps and their monsterous inefficiency (Less than 5%) contributes to huge amounts of CO2. CFLs and LEDs cause far less CO2 to be emitted, both in manufacture and in operation over the life of the product. CO2 affects every human on the planet. I don't have actual figures, Trevor, but it makes sense that making a thin glass spherical envelope for an incandescent, is unlikely to use more energy than making a thick-walled tube wound into a convoluted double spiral. Many of the other items contained in a CFL, also use very energy intensive processes, and have to be carried out in many different factories, which then brings the costs of moving workers around, keeping them warm and fed, moving raw materials around, moving finished components around, and so on. Just because all of these things are 'hidden', it doesn't make them any less relevant. Looked at rationally, given the amount of components and manufacturing processes involved, I would have thought that the simple incandescent bulb, with its very few parts, consumed nothing like as much energy overall to get from nothing to working in my house. Bear in mind also, that very long-lived incandescents are available, and always were. Its just that they cost more, and are not in the financial interests of the bulb manufacturers, to promote. Arfa |
#43
Posted to aus.electronics,sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
CFLs - retrofitting low ESR capacitors
"Phil Allison" wrote in message ... "Sylvia Else" Arfa Daily wrote: I was given to understand that the colour of an incandescent bulb is what humans are comfortable with, because it closely matches the colour and spectrum of our sun. The sun's effective temperature (the blackbody temperature that gives approximately the same spectrum) is about 5800K, which is a lot higher than the colour temperature of an incandescent. ** Daylight has no particular colour temp. It varies from 11,000K on a overcasts day to less than 2000K at dawn and dusk. However, daylight ( like incandescent light ) has a smooth spectrum and the human eye adjusts to the varying colour temps almost perfectly. As an interesting example, my son-in-law is currently working on an old Mini on my drive. The other day, it was raining, so he rigged a 'tent' over the front, from a blue plastic tarp. When I first went under there with him, everything had a very blue caste, as you would expect. I didn't notice any adjustment / compensation going on in my brain, but it must have been, because when I stepped out from under there a few minutes later, the whole world was bright yellow. A few minutes later, all was back to normal. The strange thing is that I don't seem to be able to adjust to CFL light in the same way. It continues to have a sort of 'sick' quality for me. Even more curious though, is that linear fluorescents don't seem to affect me in the same way. I work under them all day, without issue. Arfa |
#44
Posted to aus.electronics,sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
CFLs - retrofitting low ESR capacitors
Trevor Wilson wrote: Wild_Bill wrote: I also favor the light temperature of the daylight or sunlight CF lamps, which are typically over 6000K. My eyes adapt to the light very well, although I rarely use direct lighting.. most of my CFLs are pointed upward for bounce lighting. The majority of incandescents give off a red light, and I've read that up to 90% of the output from incancescent lights is in the infrared region. **95% ~ 98% is far closer to reality. Halogens are somewhat more efficient. For folks that experience cold weather for half of the year, the infrared adds to their comfort. **So do heat pumps, which are vastly more efficient. Who makes 100 watt heat pumps, that will work at -40°? -- You can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense. |
#45
Posted to aus.electronics,sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
CFLs - retrofitting low ESR capacitors
Trevor Wilson wrote: **I do. I keep track of the life of my lamps. Incandescents don't last long. There are some in the US that have been on 24/7 for decades, and still work. Some are over 100 years old. Cheap bulbs don't last, and neither do those that are used improperly. -- You can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense. |
#46
Posted to aus.electronics,sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
CFLs - retrofitting low ESR capacitors
Sylvia Else wrote: Has anyone here tried retrofitting low ESR capacitors to CFLs with a view to improving their turn-on performance - i.e. so that they reach full brightness quickly? It won't make any difference but if the capacitors are failing, use 105° or 125° replacements for longer life. -- You can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense. |
#47
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
CFLs - retrofitting low ESR capacitors
"Arfa Daily" wrote in
: "Sylvia Else" wrote in message ... On 20/09/2011 1:11 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote: Sylvia Else wrote: Has anyone here tried retrofitting low ESR capacitors to CFLs with a view to improving their turn-on performance - i.e. so that they reach full brightness quickly? Sylvia. **The full brightness thing is not associated with the electronics. It's an issue with the gas in the tube and, to a lesser extent, the phosphor coating. You can prove this for yourself, by measuring the light output of a standard (iron ballast) fluoro. Light output gradually increases over a few seconds (or minutes, depending on ambient temperature). Don't sweat it anyway, LEDs will replace them in most applications very soon. I've been mucking about with a couple of these recently: http://www.dealextreme.com/p/12w-350...-led-emitter-m etal-strip-12-14v-80310 It delivers almost double the light output of an 11 Watt T5 fluoro and is far more compact, dimmable and has nicer colour temperature. Having got used to the higher colour temperatures of CFLs, I find that I prefer them. Incandescents weren't given a lower colour temperature because people preferred them, it was just the way they came out. If the first practical domestic electric lights had been of daylight colour temperature, I imagine that's what everyone would always have wanted, and people would have given short shrift to this yellow rubbish. However, I note that the led emitter strips are available in higher colour temperatures. Sylvia. I was given to understand that the colour of an incandescent bulb is what humans are comfortable with, because it closely matches the colour and spectrum of our sun. As I have said on here before, I for one, am not comfortable with the light quality from CFLs, no matter what variety or supposed colour temperature they are. I fully accept that this might be to do with my eyes or brain or whatever, and that others don't feel that they have the problem, but by the same token, I know many other people - particularly over 50's like myself - that have the same difficulty with them. Thus far, I have not been that impressed with the spectrum or light quality from LEDs in a domestic setting either, but this technology is currently moving and improving fast, so I'll keep an open mind on that at the moment. Arfa incandescent lamps color temps do NOT match that of the sun; "daylight" CT is around 6500K,while incandescents are around 3000K. Daylight is much "whiter" than incandescent light. what makes fluorescent lamps yucky is their excess and spiky blue-green and low red output,but newer CFLs have adjusted their phosphor mix to give a better spectrum,and you can buy them in diffect CTs like 2700K,3200K,and even higher. -- Jim Yanik jyanik at localnet dot com |
#48
Posted to aus.electronics,sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
CFLs - retrofitting low ESR capacitors
"Arfa Daily" wrote in
: "Trevor Wilson" wrote in message ... the following: snip * LEDs use a miniscule amount of silicon. * Incandescent lamps use a very large amount of silicon Whereabouts ? Arfa the glass envelope. -- Jim Yanik jyanik at localnet dot com |
#49
Posted to aus.electronics,sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
CFLs - retrofitting low ESR capacitors
"Jeff Urban" wrote in message ... The low brighness when cold is not due to low PS voltages or current, it is due to the fact that it takes time for the gas to get it up completely. Many years ago when CFLs were expensive enough to be worth attempting repair, I had a batch with electro' failure being the most common cause. The part in question being 4u7 400V which I didn't have any in stock (not small enough to fit anyway) so as an experiment I superglued 5x 1uF X2 capacitors round the outside and wired them in - can't get much lower ESR than that. There was no noticeable improvement in the lamp's behaviour, other than it lasted almost the claimed life expectancy before the tube gave out. |
#50
Posted to aus.electronics,sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
CFLs - retrofitting low ESR capacitors
"Phil Allison" wrote in message ... "larry moe 'n curly" Another problem is opening up the CFL to get to the circuit board and reattaching the cover because regular glues don't work, and you want a strong bond that won't fail at high temperature. ** Most CFLs use no glue at all, the halves snap fit together. Silicone adhesive ( eg Silastic) will handle the case temp easily - can be used to secure loose glass tubes in the case too. Last time I looked that's what they stuck 'em in with in the first place. |
#51
Posted to aus.electronics,sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
CFLs - retrofitting low ESR capacitors
|
#52
Posted to aus.electronics,sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
OT CFLs - retrofitting low ESR capacitors
You really are a blue ribbon simpleton, Trev.
When computers were being introduced for home use, other forms of communication and/or creativity weren't banned. I recall the "proposed" huge benefits of widespread computer use were going to include: -dramatically reduce paper usage and eliminate the necessity of an infinite number of forms. Then eveyone started buying printers for every reason imaginable, and using computers to create and generate more forms. Products with no real value.. phone books, magazines, catalogs.. still paper, although many are digitized. -reduce the size of government since there wouldn't be a need for as many people to move around all those forms that would no longer be paper. Didn't see that happen either. -records will be more secure. Hogwash.. after many disasters, there are reports of lost records which aren't archived elsewhere. Computers have increased corporate profits, but have done little to make everyday life more comfortable or convenient for the people inhabiting the planet. Well, then there are the smart people that create a letterhead and a worthless organization based upon their own misguided adgendas, to leech money from others for a good cause. -Make much more effective the use of our time (don't care for the "save time" hoax, kinda like products that pay for themselves). Yet everywhere people need to get in a line for a purchase or service, there are still always lines and peope waiting. Daily encounters with computers aren't really faster and more efficient, they're actually more complicated. You keep yapping about silicon, yet there are no reasons people die from silicon. Mercury, gallium arsenide and other toxic elements are actually contained within new lighting technologies, but not in incandescent lamps. Maybe you should start yapping about argon. You might actually believe that "regulators ensure that the pollution created is dealt with appropriately". This is partially true, and generally always after the pollution has taken place (often for a long time without detection), after the fact, and the cleanup costs are generally always put on the citizens. The fines are generally only symbolic. You seem to think that someone should be impressed with the dozen-or-so lighting devices you've commented on. Your experience (real or not) is completely insignificant in the lighting industry which includes hundreds of millions/billions of lighting devices sold every year. The incidence of failure of products from China is higher than it's ever been for many of the people alive today. Many of these products don't even function when new. The race to the bottom as far as product quality goes, is based upon greed. Very few products are manufactured today that are intended to last for 10 years, and that means very few consumer electronic devices.. of which many don't last 2 years. What this means is that your 10 year old LED example isn't even relative in today's manufacturing practices. The throw-away-society arrived while you weren't paying attention. All that trash needs to go somewhere. How many times can a $40 VCR be fixed? So you go right ahead and get in line for those new, high quality, 10 year life, $50 LED lighting devices.. then spend your time repairing them. You're savig the planet and contributing to humanitarian causes. There oughta be an award for that, Oh.. there is, it's called an inflated ego. I don't dispute that an LED can last 10 years, only that in the present manufacturing environment, a 40-100W LED lamp is going to be manufactured to fail. I have a lot of LED flashlights and portable lights and they work great for seeing in the dark, or signaling such as panel indicators, but **** poor at illuminating a room. With LED flashlights, they seem to produce a lot of light when surrounded by darkness, but they don't "throw" light very well at all.. and the reflector becomes more important than the miniscule light source. Reflectors take space, which defeats making a device compact. Unless you live like people did in the early 1900s with one dim lamp per room, LED home lighting is going to be very costly, both in terms of early failures and replacing fixtures which won't accomodate the new designs. Might also be a good time to change all interior items to white.. white floors, walls, furniture, etc. LED lighting might be great for a camper/caravan with 12V lighting circuits, but I suspect there will be lots of problems with adapting 240 or 120VAC to 3V. Power supplies introduce losses, spike/surge suppressors add to final cost. Has anyone discovered a metal as good as/better than gold for those tiny leads attached to LED (and IC) chips? When gold loses it's value, LEDs will become cheaper to produce. You keep parroting that incandescent lamps have short or extremely short lifespans, which could be true of the cheap examples you bought, but they don't cost anywhere near $50 each and aren't hazardous waste to end up in the ground near water supplies. BTW, many thread bases of light bulbs today are aluminum, as are the threaded sockets in many fixtures. Incandescent light bulb costs have traditionally (for generations now) been insignificant in the annual budget of home maintenance.. but that is going to change, significantly. Maybe everyone will need to keep a drawer/cupboard full of LED lamps to insure their homes aren't dangerous to move around in.. cha-ching! I'm not exaggerating my experiences with CFLs, but I can tell ya that a 10 year life for CFLs is not average or even close to common. Almost all of my CFLs are/have been mounted base-down in open/ventilated metal reflectors.. I've had 3 go into catastrophic failure, turning red hot before I could react quickly to shut them off. The only warning was a few blinks just prior to the failures. You were the one that initiated the question of proof so I just played along, because I knew your response was predictable. I've presented proof.. these are my opinions.. no, seriously. They weren't composed by some marketing firm. **Irrelevant.. was your answer for how many of those LEDs it takes to illuminate a room. OK.. right. My comments aren't arguments that my opinions are correct, so you go ahead and argue all you want to. -- Cheers, WB .............. |
#53
Posted to aus.electronics,sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
CFLs - retrofitting low ESR capacitors
Michael A. Terrell wrote:
Trevor Wilson wrote: **I do. I keep track of the life of my lamps. Incandescents don't last long. There are some in the US that have been on 24/7 for decades, and still work. Some are over 100 years old. **Indeed. The ways to get incandescents to last a long time are well known. They are simply under-run massively. IOW: Use a 280VAC rated lamp at 240VAC and the thing will last MUCH longer. Of course, colour temperature edges much closer towards the red and efficiency is absolute crap. Cheap bulbs don't last, and neither do those that are used improperly. **Not so different to CFLs and LEDs. Funny about that. -- Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au |
#54
Posted to aus.electronics,sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
OT CFLs - retrofitting low ESR capacitors
Wild_Bill wrote:
You really are a blue ribbon simpleton, Trev. **Tell you what, dickhead: Try using some facts and logic to support your arguments and you'll sound like you have a brain. So far, you just sound like an idiot. You use insults in preference to common-sense, logic and hard evidence. I will now give you a chance to redeem yourself. When computers were being introduced for home use, other forms of communication and/or creativity weren't banned. **Blah, blah, blah. We're talking about incandescents, LEDs and CFLs. Stay on topic. I recall the "proposed" huge benefits of widespread computer use were going to include: -dramatically reduce paper usage and eliminate the necessity of an infinite number of forms. Then eveyone started buying printers for every reason imaginable, and using computers to create and generate more forms. Products with no real value.. phone books, magazines, catalogs.. still paper, although many are digitized. -reduce the size of government since there wouldn't be a need for as many people to move around all those forms that would no longer be paper. Didn't see that happen either. **Blah, blah, blah. We're talking about incandescents, LEDs and CFLs. Stay on topic. -records will be more secure. Hogwash.. after many disasters, there are reports of lost records which aren't archived elsewhere. Computers have increased corporate profits, but have done little to make everyday life more comfortable or convenient for the people inhabiting the planet. Well, then there are the smart people that create a letterhead and a worthless organization based upon their own misguided adgendas, to leech money from others for a good cause. **Blah, blah, blah. We're talking about incandescents, LEDs and CFLs. Stay on topic. -Make much more effective the use of our time (don't care for the "save time" hoax, kinda like products that pay for themselves). Yet everywhere people need to get in a line for a purchase or service, there are still always lines and peope waiting. Daily encounters with computers aren't really faster and more efficient, they're actually more complicated. **Blah, blah, blah. We're talking about incandescents, LEDs and CFLs. Stay on topic. You keep yapping about silicon, yet there are no reasons people die from silicon. **Huh? WTF are you talking about? I merely corrected your idiotic comments about CFLs and LEDs. Mercury, gallium arsenide and other toxic elements are actually contained within new lighting technologies, but not in incandescent lamps. **So? There are a large range of toxic elements in the computer you are using, in the cell 'phone you may happen to use and just about every other modern device. What's your point? Are you going to cease using your computer? Please do so immediately. Give us a rest your incessant twaddle and idiotic top-posting. There are harmful chemicals in a great many products. Those chemicals need to be dealt with correctly and appropriately. Maybe you should start yapping about argon. You might actually believe that "regulators ensure that the pollution created is dealt with appropriately". This is partially true, and generally always after the pollution has taken place (often for a long time without detection), after the fact, and the cleanup costs are generally always put on the citizens. The fines are generally only symbolic. **Then why don't YOU start by not using your computer? Stop buying lead acid batteries, NiCd batteries, any products that use leaded solder, any products with tantalum capacitors contained within, anything using gold sourced from Papua, petroleum products, anything using plastic, etc, etc. YOU should follow your own advice. You seem to think that someone should be impressed with the dozen-or-so lighting devices you've commented on. **No. I am citing fact. Nothing more. I have not experienced a CFL failure, ever (other than misuse). Of course, I only purchase quality CFLs and I use them correctly. Your experience (real or not) is completely insignificant in the lighting industry which includes hundreds of millions/billions of lighting devices sold every year. **OK. Then YOU need to provide the data which shows how unreliable quality, correctly operated CFLs are. My anecdotes are EXACTLY as irrelevant as yours. The incidence of failure of products from China is higher than it's ever been for many of the people alive today. Many of these products don't even function when new. **More twaddle. Some products are good. Some not so good. Just for yuks, I thought I'd test your theory. In the last 20-odd years, I've used a number of 'walk-about' telephones. A couple were Panasonics, whilst others were from other manufacturers. Except for the one I use right now, all were manufactured in Japan. They all failed. Some last 4 or 5 years and some lasted less than a year. The one I have beside me is 6 years old. It is made in China. The race to the bottom as far as product quality goes, is based upon greed. Very few products are manufactured today that are intended to last for 10 years, and that means very few consumer electronic devices.. of which many don't last 2 years. **The nation with the worst reputation for quality (or domestic products) is the USA, not China. Except Cree. What this means is that your 10 year old LED example isn't even relative in today's manufacturing practices. **I'll let you know in another ten years. We'll see how long the ones I've recently installed last. The throw-away-society arrived while you weren't paying attention. All that trash needs to go somewhere. How many times can a $40 VCR be fixed? **As many times as you like. However, a $100.00 VCR is likely to last MUCH longer than a $1,500.00 VCR manufactured in 1980. So you go right ahead and get in line for those new, high quality, 10 year life, $50 LED lighting devices.. then spend your time repairing them. **Cite your proof that the LEDs will fail prematurely. You're savig the planet and contributing to humanitarian causes. There oughta be an award for that, Oh.. there is, it's called an inflated ego. I don't dispute that an LED can last 10 years, only that in the present manufacturing environment, a 40-100W LED lamp is going to be manufactured to fail. **Prove it. I have a lot of LED flashlights and portable lights and they work great for seeing in the dark, or signaling such as panel indicators, but **** poor at illuminating a room. **You have got to be the most pig-ignorant poster we've seen in quite a long time. Light is light. It can be measured and quantified. With LED flashlights, they seem to produce a lot of light when surrounded by darkness, but they don't "throw" light very well at all.. and the reflector becomes more important than the miniscule light source. Reflectors take space, which defeats making a device compact. **Just when I thought you were speaking complete ********, you surpass yourself for abject stupidity. I direct you to a link, which shows what two, identical power consumption torches can do. One is a 3 Watt halogen torch. The other is a 3 Watt LED torch: http://s1112.photobucket.com/albums/k497/Zaphod1000/ In case you have not worked it out, the right hand one is the halogen and the left is the LED. The halogen was fitted with fresh batteries. I charged the Lithium battery in the LED torch a month ago. Now, please explain WTF you mean by LED torches not being able to "throw" light very well. I can tell you that the torch whose beam you can see in the photo is easily capable of lighting up stuff a couple of hundred Metres away. The halogen doesn't have a snowball's chance in Hell. Unless you live like people did in the early 1900s with one dim lamp per room, LED home lighting is going to be very costly, both in terms of early failures and replacing fixtures which won't accomodate the new designs. **So you keep claiming. Let's see you hard proof of your claims. Might also be a good time to change all interior items to white.. white floors, walls, furniture, etc. LED lighting might be great for a camper/caravan with 12V lighting circuits, but I suspect there will be lots of problems with adapting 240 or 120VAC to 3V. Power supplies introduce losses, spike/surge suppressors add to final cost. **Of course. Just like CFLs, there is an extra cost associated with LEDs. However, the MASSIVE increase in efficiency and incredibly long life make up for those issues. Has anyone discovered a metal as good as/better than gold for those tiny leads attached to LED (and IC) chips? When gold loses it's value, LEDs will become cheaper to produce. **Blah, blah, blah. We're talking about incandescents, LEDs and CFLs. Stay on topic. You keep parroting that incandescent lamps have short or extremely short lifespans, which could be true of the cheap examples you bought, but they don't cost anywhere near $50 each and aren't hazardous waste to end up in the ground near water supplies. BTW, many thread bases of light bulbs today are aluminum, as are the threaded sockets in many fixtures. **A VERY large number of incandescent lamps were/are produced using lead solder. Lead is toxic. And again: Proper disposal should be part of any product's design. That includes CFLs, LEDs and incandescents. Incandescent light bulb costs have traditionally (for generations now) been insignificant in the annual budget of home maintenance.. but that is going to change, significantly. **Fortunately, the long life of CFLs and LEDs make that cost irrelevant. However, let's examine that claim: I use 23 Watt CFLs in a number of locations. They cost around AUS$5.00 each. SO FAR, I have obtained around 3,500 hours of use, at minimal light degradation. I fully expect a life of at least 7,000 ~ 10,000 hours from these lamps. However, let's use the low end figure for calculation: 3,500 hours. $5.00 for 3,500 hours. Total powe4r consumption for that period = 80.5 kW/hours. At (say) $0.20/kW/hr = $16.10. Total running cost = $21.10. In reality, the figure will be somewhat lower. To replace that 23 Watt CFL, I need to use a (minimum) 100 Watt incandescent (it's really more like 125 Watt, but I'm going easy on you). Let's say the cost of a decent one was AUS$1.00. The BEST one can expect from a 100 lamp is around 500 hours. Let's say 1,000 hours, because I'm feeling generous. You'll need 3.5 lamps to equal one CFL. Total initial cost $3.50. Power consumption for the period is 350kW/hours. At $0.20/kW/hr = $70.00. Total running cost = $73.50. CFL comfortably nails the incandescent. My own experience with incandescents suggests that a 100 Watt incandescent will likely last considerably less than 200 hours. Maybe everyone will need to keep a drawer/cupboard full of LED lamps to insure their homes aren't dangerous to move around in.. cha-ching! **No need. LED last a very long time. I'm not exaggerating my experiences with CFLs, but I can tell ya that a 10 year life for CFLs is not average or even close to common. **Then cite your proof. Almost all of my CFLs are/have been mounted base-down in open/ventilated metal reflectors.. I've had 3 go into catastrophic failure, turning red hot before I could react quickly to shut them off. The only warning was a few blinks just prior to the failures. **Stop buying ****ty CFLs. You were the one that initiated the question of proof so I just played along, because I knew your response was predictable. I've presented proof.. these are my opinions.. no, seriously. They weren't composed by some marketing firm. **You have not provided proof. See my photo as something that represents proof and shreds at least one of your dodgy and seriously deluded arguments. **Irrelevant.. was your answer for how many of those LEDs it takes to illuminate a room. OK.. right. **I made no claim that the first generation LEDs that I was using could light a room. My comments aren't arguments that my opinions are correct, so you go ahead and argue all you want to. **Supply your proof and learn how to post properly. -- Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au |
#55
Posted to aus.electronics,sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
OT CFLs - retrofitting low ESR capacitors
Arfa Daily wrote:
"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message ... Wild_Bill wrote: Maybe you know of a heat pump that will illuminate a house, and only cost the owner about $20 per year to purchase. **I don't. And YOU don't know of a lamp that can heat a house (or cool one) either. Using lights to warm a home is insane. Pretty much like everything else you've posted. Production of plastics pollutes, so does gallium arsenide, and mercury in CFLs. **No one disputes that. Production of almost any manufactured item causes some kind of pollution. That is why regulators ensure that the pollution created is dealt with appropriately. Fortunately, LEDs last a VERY long time and consume small amounts of material, so total pollution remains low. Were you born yesterday? **Did the manufacturing process of computer you are presently using cause zero pollution? Are you insane? Just because the pollution takes place somewhere else doesn't mean it doesn't effect all. **I am well aware of that. I am also a supporter of organisations that attempt to minimise pollution caused by large manufacturers of many products. Are you? Ubuntu. Some say that only about 1% of the water on this planet is drinkable, although there's plenty that's contaminated with toxic chemicals and disease. Many people drink and bathe in poisonous, disease polluted water, but that shouldn't concern you. **Like I said: I contribute financially to several organisations that are active in trying to ensure that people less fortunate than I am are not subject to pollution from large companies. Do you? Who is dying from silicon? **The manufacture of glass, steel and tungsten is a very energy intensive process. Combined with the extremely short life-span of incandescent lamps and their monsterous inefficiency (Less than 5%) contributes to huge amounts of CO2. CFLs and LEDs cause far less CO2 to be emitted, both in manufacture and in operation over the life of the product. CO2 affects every human on the planet. I don't have actual figures, Trevor, but it makes sense that making a thin glass spherical envelope for an incandescent, is unlikely to use more energy than making a thick-walled tube wound into a convoluted double spiral. **Intuitively, that would be a reasonable assumption. Many of the other items contained in a CFL, also use very energy intensive processes, and have to be carried out in many different factories, which then brings the costs of moving workers around, keeping them warm and fed, moving raw materials around, moving finished components around, and so on. Just because all of these things are 'hidden', it doesn't make them any less relevant. **I agree. Looked at rationally, given the amount of components and manufacturing processes involved, I would have thought that the simple incandescent bulb, with its very few parts, consumed nothing like as much energy overall to get from nothing to working in my house. **I don't know how much energy is involved with each device, but I'll betcha the energy consumed by the incandescent, over it's entire life vastly exceeds the energy required to manufacture it. The CFL, by comparison, is a massively more efficient device, with a much longer life span. Total energy is likely to be far lower with the CFL. And no, I don't have the data, but I imagine someone has done the maths. Bear in mind also, that very long-lived incandescents are available, and always were. Its just that they cost more, and are not in the financial interests of the bulb manufacturers, to promote. **And, they are vastly less efficient. The technology to build long lasting incandescents has been known for a long time - operate them at lower Voltages, or use a carbon filament. Either way, colour temperature sucks and efficiency is way down. BTW: The discussion also involves LEDs. IMO, CFLs are an interim step. They have far too many drawbacks to be a long term solution. Incandescents are, of course, no solution at all. -- Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au |
#56
Posted to aus.electronics,sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
CFLs - retrofitting low ESR capacitors
"Ian ****wit Field" Last time I looked .. ** Impossible for anyone who has wanked themselves blind to look at anything. |
#57
Posted to aus.electronics,sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
CFLs - retrofitting low ESR capacitors
Trevor Wilson wrote: Michael A. Terrell wrote: Trevor Wilson wrote: **I do. I keep track of the life of my lamps. Incandescents don't last long. There are some in the US that have been on 24/7 for decades, and still work. Some are over 100 years old. **Indeed. The ways to get incandescents to last a long time are well known. They are simply under-run massively. IOW: Use a 280VAC rated lamp at 240VAC and the thing will last MUCH longer. Of course, colour temperature edges much closer towards the red and efficiency is absolute crap. Cheap bulbs don't last, and neither do those that are used improperly. **Not so different to CFLs and LEDs. Funny about that. Still doesn't prove your lame assed claim that incandescents don't last. -- You can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense. |
#58
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
CFLs - retrofitting low ESR capacitors
"Jim Yanksit" incandescent lamps color temps do NOT match that of the sun; ** Irrelevant. "daylight" CT is around 6500K ** Daylight varies over a wide range of light intensity and colour. OTOH, artificial light is constant and the eye adjusts. Daylight is much "whiter" than incandescent light. ** See above. |
#59
Posted to aus.electronics,sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
CFLs - retrofitting low ESR capacitors
"Phil Allison" wrote in message ... "Arfa Daily" "Trevor Wilson" snip * LEDs use a miniscule amount of silicon. * Incandescent lamps use a very large amount of silicon Whereabouts ? ** The TW charlatan is being a real clever dick. Glass is about 23% silicon by weight. So is that *all* glass ? I can't find any reference anywhere to silicon being a component of bog-standard glass. Is it just naturally in there, and if so, in what form ? Or is it put in there for some reason, and for what purpose if so ? Got NOTHING to do with the very nasty polluting and carcinogenic processes involved in making silicon semiconductors. Yes, where the silicon has been extracted from whatever ore it occurs in, and then refined .... Phil Arfa |
#60
Posted to aus.electronics,sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
CFLs - retrofitting low ESR capacitors
"Jim Yanik" wrote in message 4... "Arfa Daily" wrote in : "Trevor Wilson" wrote in message ... the following: snip * LEDs use a miniscule amount of silicon. * Incandescent lamps use a very large amount of silicon Whereabouts ? Arfa the glass envelope. -- Jim Yanik jyanik at localnet dot com See my question regarding this, elsewhere in the thread Arfa |
#61
Posted to aus.electronics,sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
CFLs - retrofitting low ESR capacitors
"Arfa Daily" ** The TW charlatan is being a real clever dick. Glass is about 23% silicon by weight. So is that *all* glass ? I can't find any reference anywhere to silicon being a component of bog-standard glass. ** Glass is 75% Silica - aka beach sand. Silica is SO2 Yawnnnnnnnn..... .....Phil |
#62
Posted to aus.electronics,sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
OT CFLs - retrofitting low ESR capacitors
BTW: The discussion also involves LEDs. IMO, CFLs are an interim step. They have far too many drawbacks to be a long term solution. Incandescents are, of course, no solution at all. -- Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au But actually, what exactly is the problem that we're trying to find a solution to ? I saw some figures a few weeks ago that said that if every single light bulb in the UK was changed to a CFL, the total saving in energy would amount to the output of one small power station. I suppose that you could argue that any saving is worth having, but I sometimes think that this religion of 'green' has completely overtaken common sense, and in some cases, the disadvantages of a substitute technology such as CFLs, needs to be weighed against the perceived disadvantages of what it's trying to replace. The problem with green technology is that its advocators are often zealots, who seek to portray the alternatives that they are pedaling as the only solution to a problem which often, only they see. They never tell the full story behind these technologies, being selective in the extreme. CFLs are a good example of this, where the *only* aspects that have been promoted, are the fact that they consume less energy for the same amount of light output as an 'equivalent' incandescent - and therein lies a can of worms before we start - and that they are supposedly longer lived. The huge amounts of manufacturing processes, and shipping energy for all the component parts, and all the other hidden energy inputs, are politely ignored. Not to mention the true disposal costs, if this is done properly. No one really understands the real manufacturing costs either, because governments are making sure that the true price is subsidised by collecting additional 'green' taxes via the energy companies, from the likes of you and I. If ever these subsidies are removed, CFLs will become a major expense to a household, unless they use really crappy quality Chinese imports that give poor light quality and poor starting characteristics, and are much shorter lived than people are currently being persuaded is the case. Arfa |
#63
Posted to aus.electronics,sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
CFLs - retrofitting low ESR capacitors
Arfa Daily wrote:
"Phil Allison" wrote in message ... "Arfa Daily" "Trevor Wilson" snip * LEDs use a miniscule amount of silicon. * Incandescent lamps use a very large amount of silicon Whereabouts ? ** The TW charlatan is being a real clever dick. Glass is about 23% silicon by weight. So is that *all* glass ? I can't find any reference anywhere to silicon being a component of bog-standard glass. Is it just naturally in there, and if so, in what form ? Or is it put in there for some reason, and for what purpose if so ? Got NOTHING to do with the very nasty polluting and carcinogenic processes involved in making silicon semiconductors. Yes, where the silicon has been extracted from whatever ore it occurs in, and then refined .... Phil Arfa Silicon and oxygen together make sand. Glass is made from sand and a few other simple things. No pollution,grind the glass, and (RE-)use it as sand. Semiconducters on the other hand, have quite dirty production methods,and eating globs of energy during the refining stage(zone melting). See the news about the solar cell factory(s) in China which have been closed down.... Also, I bet there is more glass in a cfl, then in an incandescent. The cfl's which failed me, all had the big capacitor burn out,except one, where the tube shattered. Last, hot semiconductors have the nasty habit of failing quickly, so I kind of do not believe those stories about the very long lifetimes for cfl an leds, heat kills quickly. Once they are able to produce a lightsource which stays cool, and is efficient, I will start believing those long lifetimes. |
#64
Posted to aus.electronics,sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
CFLs - retrofitting low ESR capacitors
"Phil Allison" wrote in message ... "Ian ****wit Field" Last time I looked .. ** Impossible for anyone who has wanked themselves blind to look at anything. Bull**** Phil, it's a myth; http://psychcentral.com/lib/2007/doe...use-blindness/ |
#65
Posted to aus.electronics,sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
OT CFLs - retrofitting low ESR capacitors
Arfa Daily wrote:
BTW: The discussion also involves LEDs. IMO, CFLs are an interim step. They have far too many drawbacks to be a long term solution. Incandescents are, of course, no solution at all. -- Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au But actually, what exactly is the problem that we're trying to find a solution to ? **Let see. Incandescents a * Around 5% efficient. At best. * Have a short life-span. * Suffer poor colour rendition. If those problems can be solved, then thast would be a good thing. I saw some figures a few weeks ago that said that if every single light bulb in the UK was changed to a CFL, the total saving in energy would amount to the output of one small power station. **I'll take your word for it. That does not tell the entire story though. For every 100 Watts of incandescent light that can be eliminated, a significant amount of air conditioning costs can be eliminated. There's a very good bunch of reasons why fluoros and other types of discharge lamps are used in every office building, shopping centre and many other places in most nations. They're efficient and they reduce demands on air conditioning. And, consequently, on energy suppliers. Every Watt not dissipated, is a Watt that does not need to be countered with an air conditioner. It adds up. Having said all that, here in Australia, lighting is far less important than heating, cooling and pool filtering in terms of total energy consumption. Do a Google Earth on Sydney of Brisbane and count the number of pools. Each one uses around 8kWhr of energy every day. Lighting, by comparison is no where near as significant. Mostly. I just came back from a service call at a neighbour's home. Every single part of the home was lit by halogen downlights. These are an incredibly wasteful way to light a home, yet they are very popular. The kitchen, alone had 6 X 50 Watt downlights. I suppose that you could argue that any saving is worth having, but I sometimes think that this religion of 'green' has completely overtaken common sense, and in some cases, the disadvantages of a substitute technology such as CFLs, needs to be weighed against the perceived disadvantages of what it's trying to replace. **Fair enough, but we have not seen any real data yet. I don't have the data, do you? The idiot who keeps claiming that CFLs are less reliable than incadescents has yet to supply any data. The problem with green technology is that its advocators are often zealots, who seek to portray the alternatives that they are pedaling as the only solution to a problem which often, only they see. They never tell the full story behind these technologies, being selective in the extreme. CFLs are a good example of this, where the *only* aspects that have been promoted, are the fact that they consume less energy for the same amount of light output as an 'equivalent' incandescent - and therein lies a can of worms before we start - and that they are supposedly longer lived. **IME, they are certainly MUCH longer lived. By a dramatic amount. My sample size is: 19 CFLs. 1 incandescent 12 halogen incandescents * In six years, none of the CFLs have failed. Several CFLs were transferred from a previous residence and are at least 8 years old. One is operated at least 4 hours per day. Most others see around 1 ~ 1.5 hours per day. * My non-halogen incandescent has failed twice in 6 years. It's use is severely restricted to less than 1 hour per week. * The halogen downlights are used around 2 hours per week. I've replaced at least a dozen halogens in the last 6 years. The huge amounts of manufacturing processes, and shipping energy for all the component parts, and all the other hidden energy inputs, are politely ignored. **Are they? I'm pretty certain that shipping costs are taken into account. Not to mention the true disposal costs, if this is done properly. No one really understands the real manufacturing costs either, because governments are making sure that the true price is subsidised by collecting additional 'green' taxes via the energy companies, from the likes of you and I. **Not me. Here in Australia, there are no subsidies or special treatment for low energy lamps. Yet. CFLs have been cheap for quite a few years. I pay around 5 Bucks for high quality, 23 Watt, Philips branded lamps. There are MUCH cheaper lamps available, but I don't buy them (anymore). Once bitten, twice shy. If you examine my analysis of the running costs of incandescent vs. CFLs, you'll see why CFLs are a MUCH better choice. If ever these subsidies are removed, CFLs will become a major expense to a household, unless they use really crappy quality Chinese imports that give poor light quality and poor starting characteristics, and are much shorter lived than people are currently being persuaded is the case. **********. There are no subsidies in Australia and qualility CFLs can be purchased for around 5 Bucks. Given the exceptionally long life and low operating costs, there is simply no comparison. -- Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au |
#66
Posted to aus.electronics,sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
OT CFLs - retrofitting low ESR capacitors
"Arfa Daily" ** Stop trying to reason with TW. The guy is one of the biggest all round lunatics and charlatans in Australia. He never listens and he never changes his views, no matter how wrong he is. He is utterly autistic. .... Phil |
#67
Posted to aus.electronics,sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
CFLs - retrofitting low ESR capacitors
Michael A. Terrell wrote:
Trevor Wilson wrote: Michael A. Terrell wrote: Trevor Wilson wrote: **I do. I keep track of the life of my lamps. Incandescents don't last long. There are some in the US that have been on 24/7 for decades, and still work. Some are over 100 years old. **Indeed. The ways to get incandescents to last a long time are well known. They are simply under-run massively. IOW: Use a 280VAC rated lamp at 240VAC and the thing will last MUCH longer. Of course, colour temperature edges much closer towards the red and efficiency is absolute crap. Cheap bulbs don't last, and neither do those that are used improperly. **Not so different to CFLs and LEDs. Funny about that. Still doesn't prove your lame assed claim that incandescents don't last. **I don't need to prove it. It has been well documented: http://www.megavolt.co.il/Tips_and_i...at_glance.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compact..._lamp#Lifespan http://www.designrecycleinc.com/led%20comp%20chart.html http://www.gelighting.com/eu/resourc...dule04/08.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamp_rerating This is an interesting primer on the topic: http://donklipstein.com/bulb1.html -- Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au |
#68
Posted to aus.electronics,sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
CFLs - retrofitting low ESR capacitors
"Dennis" wrote in message ... "Phil Allison" wrote in message ... "Ian ****wit Field" Last time I looked .. ** Impossible for anyone who has wanked themselves blind to look at anything. Bull**** Phil, it's a myth; http://psychcentral.com/lib/2007/doe...use-blindness/ It causes deafness - philthy never listens to anyone. |
#69
Posted to aus.electronics,sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
CFLs - retrofitting low ESR capacitors
Ian Field wrote: "Dennis" wrote in message ... "Phil Allison" wrote in message ... "Ian ****wit Field" Last time I looked .. ** Impossible for anyone who has wanked themselves blind to look at anything. Bull**** Phil, it's a myth; http://psychcentral.com/lib/2007/doe...use-blindness/ It causes deafness - philthy never listens to anyone. Loss of blood to the brain, in Phil's case. -- You can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense. |
#70
Posted to aus.electronics,sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
CFLs - retrofitting low ESR capacitors
Trevor Wilson wrote: Michael A. Terrell wrote: Trevor Wilson wrote: Michael A. Terrell wrote: Trevor Wilson wrote: **I do. I keep track of the life of my lamps. Incandescents don't last long. There are some in the US that have been on 24/7 for decades, and still work. Some are over 100 years old. **Indeed. The ways to get incandescents to last a long time are well known. They are simply under-run massively. IOW: Use a 280VAC rated lamp at 240VAC and the thing will last MUCH longer. Of course, colour temperature edges much closer towards the red and efficiency is absolute crap. Cheap bulbs don't last, and neither do those that are used improperly. **Not so different to CFLs and LEDs. Funny about that. Still doesn't prove your lame assed claim that incandescents don't last. **I don't need to prove it. It has been well documented: http://www.megavolt.co.il/Tips_and_i...at_glance.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compact..._lamp#Lifespan http://www.designrecycleinc.com/led%20comp%20chart.html http://www.gelighting.com/eu/resourc...dule04/08.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamp_rerating This is an interesting primer on the topic: http://donklipstein.com/bulb1.html You can find websites that say anything you want them to. I do use some CFLs where I don't have to stay for more than a few minutes and I despise them. "DO NOT USE BASE UP!!!" That eliminates a lot of fixtures. "DO NOT USE IN AN ENCLOSED SPACE!!!" There goes the outdoor lights. I do not like the color temperature of CFLs, or a lot of other light sources. LED Lights give me headaches. Go preach to your choir of greenies. -- You can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense. |
#71
Posted to aus.electronics,sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
CFLs - retrofitting low ESR capacitors
"Arfa Daily" wrote in
: "Phil Allison" wrote in message ... "Arfa Daily" "Trevor Wilson" snip * LEDs use a miniscule amount of silicon. * Incandescent lamps use a very large amount of silicon Whereabouts ? ** The TW charlatan is being a real clever dick. Glass is about 23% silicon by weight. glass is ~75% silicon dioxide. compare a lamp envelope to a LED silicon substrate,and there's no doubt about which has more silicon. At least to the rational folks. So is that *all* glass ? I can't find any reference anywhere to silicon being a component of bog-standard glass. Is it just naturally in there, and if so, in what form ? Or is it put in there for some reason, and for what purpose if so ? Wiki is your friend. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silicon Got NOTHING to do with the very nasty polluting and carcinogenic processes involved in making silicon semiconductors. Yes, where the silicon has been extracted from whatever ore it occurs in, and then refined from Wiki; Silicon is commercially prepared by the reaction of high-purity silica with wood, charcoal, and coal, in an electric arc furnace using carbon electrodes. At temperatures over 1,900 °C (3,450 °F), the carbon reduces the silica to silicon according to the following chemical equation: (not semiconductor-grade Si,that uses trichlorosilane.) .... Phil Arfa -- Jim Yanik jyanik at localnet dot com |
#72
Posted to aus.electronics,sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
OT CFLs - retrofitting low ESR capacitors
"Arfa Daily" wrote in
: BTW: The discussion also involves LEDs. IMO, CFLs are an interim step. They have far too many drawbacks to be a long term solution. Incandescents are, of course, no solution at all. -- Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au But actually, what exactly is the problem that we're trying to find a solution to ? I saw some figures a few weeks ago that said that if every single light bulb in the UK was changed to a CFL, the total saving in energy would amount to the output of one small power station. I suppose that you could argue that any saving is worth having, but I sometimes think that this religion of 'green' has completely overtaken common sense, and in some cases, the disadvantages of a substitute technology such as CFLs, needs to be weighed against the perceived disadvantages of what it's trying to replace. The problem with green technology is that its advocators are often zealots, who seek to portray the alternatives that they are pedaling as the only solution to a problem which often, only they see. They never tell the full story behind these technologies, being selective in the extreme. CFLs are a good example of this, where the *only* aspects that have been promoted, are the fact that they consume less energy for the same amount of light output as an 'equivalent' incandescent - and therein lies a can of worms before we start - and that they are supposedly longer lived. The huge amounts of manufacturing processes, and shipping energy for all the component parts, and all the other hidden energy inputs, are politely ignored. Not to mention the true disposal costs, if this is done properly. No one really understands the real manufacturing costs either, because governments are making sure that the true price is subsidised by collecting additional 'green' taxes via the energy companies, from the likes of you and I. If ever these subsidies are removed, CFLs will become a major expense to a household, unless they use really crappy quality Chinese imports that give poor light quality and poor starting characteristics, and are much shorter lived than people are currently being persuaded is the case. Arfa the manufacture of CFLs produces much more pollution than making incandescent lamps. it probably outweighs any savings from the use of CFLs over I-lamps. you don't need -any- mercury in making I-lamps,nor do you need phosphors. -- Jim Yanik jyanik at localnet dot com |
#73
Posted to aus.electronics,sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
CFLs - retrofitting low ESR capacitors
On Thu, 22 Sep 2011 02:39:42 +0200, Sjouke Burry
wrote: Arfa Daily wrote: "Phil Allison" wrote in message ... "Arfa Daily" "Trevor Wilson" snip * LEDs use a miniscule amount of silicon. * Incandescent lamps use a very large amount of silicon Whereabouts ? ** The TW charlatan is being a real clever dick. Glass is about 23% silicon by weight. So is that *all* glass ? I can't find any reference anywhere to silicon being a component of bog-standard glass. Is it just naturally in there, and if so, in what form ? Or is it put in there for some reason, and for what purpose if so ? Got NOTHING to do with the very nasty polluting and carcinogenic processes involved in making silicon semiconductors. Yes, where the silicon has been extracted from whatever ore it occurs in, and then refined .... Phil Arfa Silicon and oxygen together make sand. Glass is made from sand and a few other simple things. No pollution,grind the glass, and (RE-)use it as sand. Semiconducters on the other hand, have quite dirty production methods,and eating globs of energy during the refining stage(zone melting). Zone melting is no longer used (it was popular in the early Germanium days). Today they react sand with Chlorine to get SiCl4 or with Hydrogen to get SiH4 (silane). Then they use distillation to get to parts per trillion purity. Maybe a dopant is added at this point. Then react it back to pure metal. That then goes into a Cockrozski crystal puller. Slice the boule into wafers and now the nasty chemicals start. Buffered HF, arsine, borane and worse. And along the way a lot of energy. See the news about the solar cell factory(s) in China which have been closed down.... Also, I bet there is more glass in a cfl, then in an incandescent. The cfl's which failed me, all had the big capacitor burn out,except one, where the tube shattered. Last, hot semiconductors have the nasty habit of failing quickly, so I kind of do not believe those stories about the very long lifetimes for cfl an leds, heat kills quickly. Once they are able to produce a lightsource which stays cool, and is efficient, I will start believing those long lifetimes. |
#74
Posted to aus.electronics,sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
CFLs - retrofitting low ESR capacitors
On Wed, 21 Sep 2011 10:17:15 +0100, "Arfa Daily"
wrote: "Phil Allison" wrote in message ... "Sylvia Else" Arfa Daily wrote: I was given to understand that the colour of an incandescent bulb is what humans are comfortable with, because it closely matches the colour and spectrum of our sun. The sun's effective temperature (the blackbody temperature that gives approximately the same spectrum) is about 5800K, which is a lot higher than the colour temperature of an incandescent. ** Daylight has no particular colour temp. It varies from 11,000K on a overcasts day to less than 2000K at dawn and dusk. However, daylight ( like incandescent light ) has a smooth spectrum and the human eye adjusts to the varying colour temps almost perfectly. As an interesting example, my son-in-law is currently working on an old Mini on my drive. The other day, it was raining, so he rigged a 'tent' over the front, from a blue plastic tarp. When I first went under there with him, everything had a very blue caste, as you would expect. I didn't notice any adjustment / compensation going on in my brain, but it must have been, because when I stepped out from under there a few minutes later, the whole world was bright yellow. A few minutes later, all was back to normal. The strange thing is that I don't seem to be able to adjust to CFL light in the same way. It continues to have a sort of 'sick' quality for me. Even more curious though, is that linear fluorescents don't seem to affect me in the same way. I work under them all day, without issue. Arfa Some of the early CFL had/have an excess of green in their spectrum. Not so much of a problem today. |
#75
Posted to aus.electronics,sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
CFLs - retrofitting low ESR capacitors
"Jim Yanik" wrote in message 4... "Arfa Daily" wrote in : "Phil Allison" wrote in message ... "Arfa Daily" "Trevor Wilson" snip * LEDs use a miniscule amount of silicon. * Incandescent lamps use a very large amount of silicon Whereabouts ? ** The TW charlatan is being a real clever dick. Glass is about 23% silicon by weight. glass is ~75% silicon dioxide. compare a lamp envelope to a LED silicon substrate,and there's no doubt about which has more silicon. At least to the rational folks. So is that *all* glass ? I can't find any reference anywhere to silicon being a component of bog-standard glass. Is it just naturally in there, and if so, in what form ? Or is it put in there for some reason, and for what purpose if so ? Wiki is your friend. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silicon Got NOTHING to do with the very nasty polluting and carcinogenic processes involved in making silicon semiconductors. Yes, where the silicon has been extracted from whatever ore it occurs in, and then refined from Wiki; Silicon is commercially prepared by the reaction of high-purity silica with wood, charcoal, and coal, in an electric arc furnace using carbon electrodes. At temperatures over 1,900 °C (3,450 °F), the carbon reduces the silica to silicon according to the following chemical equation: (not semiconductor-grade Si,that uses trichlorosilane.) .... Phil Arfa -- Jim Yanik Ah. OK. I never was much of a chemist at school. I didn't realise that silica sand was was basically silicon dioxide. Although I suppose the name is a bit of a giveaway, with hindsight ... :-) Still, even so with that being the case, it's a bit of a distortion to liken this compounded silicon which is there naturally, to the pure silicon that has been processed out of the sand, for use in semiconductors. Arfa |
#76
Posted to aus.electronics,sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
OT CFLs - retrofitting low ESR capacitors
"Jim Yanik" wrote in message 4... "Arfa Daily" wrote in : BTW: The discussion also involves LEDs. IMO, CFLs are an interim step. They have far too many drawbacks to be a long term solution. Incandescents are, of course, no solution at all. -- Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au But actually, what exactly is the problem that we're trying to find a solution to ? I saw some figures a few weeks ago that said that if every single light bulb in the UK was changed to a CFL, the total saving in energy would amount to the output of one small power station. I suppose that you could argue that any saving is worth having, but I sometimes think that this religion of 'green' has completely overtaken common sense, and in some cases, the disadvantages of a substitute technology such as CFLs, needs to be weighed against the perceived disadvantages of what it's trying to replace. The problem with green technology is that its advocators are often zealots, who seek to portray the alternatives that they are pedaling as the only solution to a problem which often, only they see. They never tell the full story behind these technologies, being selective in the extreme. CFLs are a good example of this, where the *only* aspects that have been promoted, are the fact that they consume less energy for the same amount of light output as an 'equivalent' incandescent - and therein lies a can of worms before we start - and that they are supposedly longer lived. The huge amounts of manufacturing processes, and shipping energy for all the component parts, and all the other hidden energy inputs, are politely ignored. Not to mention the true disposal costs, if this is done properly. No one really understands the real manufacturing costs either, because governments are making sure that the true price is subsidised by collecting additional 'green' taxes via the energy companies, from the likes of you and I. If ever these subsidies are removed, CFLs will become a major expense to a household, unless they use really crappy quality Chinese imports that give poor light quality and poor starting characteristics, and are much shorter lived than people are currently being persuaded is the case. Arfa the manufacture of CFLs produces much more pollution than making incandescent lamps. it probably outweighs any savings from the use of CFLs over I-lamps. you don't need -any- mercury in making I-lamps,nor do you need phosphors. -- Jim Yanik Yes. This is kind of my point. And when I was saying that 'background' items like shipping costs are politely ignored, I was referring to the multiple shipping operations that are required for the many components in a CFL, and the many raw materials contained in those components, just to get all the bits and pieces from the individual specialist manufacturers, to the places where the lamps are assembled. In the case of an incandescent lamp, we are talking a few components, simply made from a few raw materials. With a CFL, we are talking semiconductors comprising silicon, dopant chemicals, plastic, metal. Capacitors comprising metal foil, plastic, rubber, maybe paper, metal leads and other chemicals in the electros. Coils comprising processed iron powder, copper wire, insulation, copper foil, epoxy adhesive, steel leadouts. Then there's the complex glass tube, and the chemical phosphors and mercury vapour inside it. Tungsten electrodes. Then the pcb material that its all mounted on. Lots of soldered joints. And then the plastic enclosure for the ballast. And then the 'normal' bits that an incandescent has anyway. Every single one of those components, and the manufacturing processes for *their* component parts, involves energy input for the process. They all need workers who have to be moved from their homes and back again each day, They have to be heated / cooled, fed and watered, and then lit as well. And when they've made their bits of the lamp, these have to be shipped on somewhere else. These are the energy costs that the general public are never made aware of. If they were, they might start to question the perceived wisdom that they've been fed, that these things are actually 'green'. If people want to use CFLs in the belief - mistaken in my opinion - that they are in some way helping the world to use less energy, then that's fine. If it's really the case, then CFLs will win out the day in the end. But I think that it is utterly wrong that the existing technology has been banned completely on thin evidence and a less than truthful declaration of the energy required to make and dispose of the things, the only factor being pushed, being the lower energy consumption when they are in use, as though this is the be-all and end-all of their right to exist, and to be forced on us. The point that Trevor makes about aircon to mitigate the heat output of incandescents, holds no water here in Northern Europe. Unlike in Australia, it seldom becomes hot enough up here for more than a few days a year, that aircon is needed. And that is only in the summer, when it's light for 16 hours of the day anyway, so there's not much lighting being used. OTOH, for much of the year, it is cool or cold enough to require heating in houses, and in this case, the complete opposite of Trevor's premise, is true, in that the heat output from the incandescent light bulbs, serves to mitigate heat input requirement, from the central heating system. Arfa |
#77
Posted to aus.electronics,sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
OT CFLs - retrofitting low ESR capacitors
"Arfa Daily" The point that Trevor makes about aircon to mitigate the heat output of incandescents, holds no water here in Northern Europe. ** Or in Australia. Householders do not turn their air con on because lamps are heating the house up!! Fraid the sun is the culprit in that crime. Commercial buildings that have large amounts of lighting and air con ALL use high efficiency lighting and have for decades. The ONLY reason for banning incandescents is rabid green lunatics wanting to stamp their tiny feet and make a point, forcing others to carry out their mad ideas. Same goes for effectively banning the use of iron core transformers in AC adaptors. In both cases, the lunatics legislated energy efficiency levels ( plus off load consumptions ) such as to JUST eliminate the offending products and allow ones a tiny bit more efficient to continue on sale. No consideration was given to far more important issues that were involved in the banning of such long proven and inherently safe products. Purest lunacy. ..... Phil |
#78
Posted to aus.electronics,sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
OT CFLs - retrofitting low ESR capacitors
Arfa Daily wrote:
"Jim Yanik" wrote in message 4... "Arfa Daily" wrote in : BTW: The discussion also involves LEDs. IMO, CFLs are an interim step. They have far too many drawbacks to be a long term solution. Incandescents are, of course, no solution at all. -- Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au But actually, what exactly is the problem that we're trying to find a solution to ? I saw some figures a few weeks ago that said that if every single light bulb in the UK was changed to a CFL, the total saving in energy would amount to the output of one small power station. I suppose that you could argue that any saving is worth having, but I sometimes think that this religion of 'green' has completely overtaken common sense, and in some cases, the disadvantages of a substitute technology such as CFLs, needs to be weighed against the perceived disadvantages of what it's trying to replace. The problem with green technology is that its advocators are often zealots, who seek to portray the alternatives that they are pedaling as the only solution to a problem which often, only they see. They never tell the full story behind these technologies, being selective in the extreme. CFLs are a good example of this, where the *only* aspects that have been promoted, are the fact that they consume less energy for the same amount of light output as an 'equivalent' incandescent - and therein lies a can of worms before we start - and that they are supposedly longer lived. The huge amounts of manufacturing processes, and shipping energy for all the component parts, and all the other hidden energy inputs, are politely ignored. Not to mention the true disposal costs, if this is done properly. No one really understands the real manufacturing costs either, because governments are making sure that the true price is subsidised by collecting additional 'green' taxes via the energy companies, from the likes of you and I. If ever these subsidies are removed, CFLs will become a major expense to a household, unless they use really crappy quality Chinese imports that give poor light quality and poor starting characteristics, and are much shorter lived than people are currently being persuaded is the case. Arfa the manufacture of CFLs produces much more pollution than making incandescent lamps. it probably outweighs any savings from the use of CFLs over I-lamps. you don't need -any- mercury in making I-lamps,nor do you need phosphors. -- Jim Yanik Yes. This is kind of my point. And when I was saying that 'background' items like shipping costs are politely ignored, I was referring to the multiple shipping operations that are required for the many components in a CFL, and the many raw materials contained in those components, just to get all the bits and pieces from the individual specialist manufacturers, to the places where the lamps are assembled. In the case of an incandescent lamp, we are talking a few components, simply made from a few raw materials. With a CFL, we are talking semiconductors comprising silicon, dopant chemicals, plastic, metal. Capacitors comprising metal foil, plastic, rubber, maybe paper, metal leads and other chemicals in the electros. Coils comprising processed iron powder, copper wire, insulation, copper foil, epoxy adhesive, steel leadouts. Then there's the complex glass tube, and the chemical phosphors and mercury vapour inside it. Tungsten electrodes. Then the pcb material that its all mounted on. Lots of soldered joints. And then the plastic enclosure for the ballast. And then the 'normal' bits that an incandescent has anyway. Every single one of those components, and the manufacturing processes for *their* component parts, involves energy input for the process. They all need workers who have to be moved from their homes and back again each day, They have to be heated / cooled, fed and watered, and then lit as well. And when they've made their bits of the lamp, these have to be shipped on somewhere else. These are the energy costs that the general public are never made aware of. If they were, they might start to question the perceived wisdom that they've been fed, that these things are actually 'green'. **Indeed. I just did a little research and found that some of these issues HAVE been examined. The total manufacturing energy input for a typical CFL is around 1.7kWhr. The total manufacturing energy input for a typical incandescent is around 0.3kWhr. Considerably less. Or is it? Let's put that into some kind of perspective: A typical 100 Watt IC lasts for 1,000 hours (at best). A typical 15 Watt CFL lasts for 5,000 hours (I've certainly exceeding that figure quite comfortably). Over 5,000 hours of use, the CFL has consumed 75kWhr + 1.7kWhr = 76.7kWhr. IOW: The energy cost of manufacture is almost insignificant, even though is a little higher than 5 incandescents. Over 5,000 hours, the IC lamp has consumed 500kWhr + 1.5kWhr = 501.5kWhr. I would argue that the energy cost of manufacture is a spurious argument. The pollution cost is another matter entirely. During operation, coal fired generators (like those here in Australia) emit mercury. A typical 100 Watt lamp will cause the emission of around 10mg of mercury over it's life. 5 lamps (5,000 hours) will cause the release of 50mg or mercury. By comparison, CFLs will cause the release of around 7.5mg of mercury + 4mg of mercury contained within the envelope. If the lamp is disposed of correctly, then the total mercury release will be 7.5mg. Far less than that of IC lamps. Other nations, that employ different power generation schemes will see different results. And this does not take into pollution created at the point of manufacture. That is an issue that should be dealt with locally. If people want to use CFLs in the belief - mistaken in my opinion - that they are in some way helping the world to use less energy, then that's fine. **It's not a mistaken belief. It's a fact. CFLs use FAR less energy than incandescents. From cradle to grave. Vastly, hugely less energy. If it's really the case, then CFLs will win out the day in the end. **By a massive margin, in fact. But I think that it is utterly wrong that the existing technology has been banned completely on thin evidence and a less than truthful declaration of the energy required to make and dispose of the things, the only factor being pushed, being the lower energy consumption when they are in use, as though this is the be-all and end-all of their right to exist, and to be forced on us. **Your opinion is duly noted. That comment is a political issue. I recall EXACTLY the same arguments were made, here in Australia, when leaded petrol was legislated out of existence. I susepct that, in 20 years, when we look back at this whole discussion, it will appear to be a non-event. More efficient lighting will be the standard, incandescents will be relegated to specialised applications (oven lighting, etc) and the whole issue will be viewed for what it really is - a storm in a teacup. The point that Trevor makes about aircon to mitigate the heat output of incandescents, holds no water here in Northern Europe. Unlike in Australia, it seldom becomes hot enough up here for more than a few days a year, that aircon is needed. And that is only in the summer, when it's light for 16 hours of the day anyway, so there's not much lighting being used. OTOH, for much of the year, it is cool or cold enough to require heating in houses, and in this case, the complete opposite of Trevor's premise, is true, in that the heat output from the incandescent light bulbs, serves to mitigate heat input requirement, from the central heating system. **So? Northern Europe is not the whole world. Vast swathes of this planet consume vast amounts of energy for air conditioning. Northern Europe is a small player in that respect. Worse, CO2 emissions from Northern Europe impact on those regions where a small amount of warming will lead to serious problems. We only have one place that we can all live. We all need to work together. And, just to reinforce the point: I do not consider lighting to be a major problem in power consumption (and, therefore, CO2 emissions). Nor do I consider appliances that use auxiliary power to be a major issue either. -- Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au |
#79
Posted to aus.electronics,sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
OT CFLs - retrofitting low ESR capacitors
"Trevor Wilson" Let's put that into some kind of perspective: ** Translation = a fictitious pack of lies. A typical 100 Watt IC lasts for 1,000 hours (at best). ** Might also last 25 years in a low use app. A typical 15 Watt CFL lasts for 5,000 hours ** No way is the light from a 15W CFL the same as a 100W lamp. Try a 27 watt CFL. Over 5,000 hours of use, ** In average domestic us, the life is more lie 2000 hrs at best before the output falls too much and it has to be replaced. the CFL has consumed 75kWhr + 1.7kWhr = 76.7kWhr. ** CFL = 54 kWh, 100W lamp = 200 kWh. IOW: The energy cost of manufacture is almost insignificant, even though is a little higher than 5 incandescents. ** A made up number. The real number is more like 50 times. **It's not a mistaken belief. It's a fact. CFLs use FAR less energy than incandescents. From cradle to grave. Vastly, hugely less energy. ** ********. Reducing domestic lighting consumption has NO effect on the amount of coal being burned in power stations. Cos the domestic lighting load is all at night time when the coal powered generators have excess capacity - in NSW much of that excess is sent to the Snowy to pump water up hill to help with peaks loads during the day. In that process up to 60% of the power generated is lost in transmission lines and pumping. ..... Phil |
#80
Posted to aus.electronics,sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
OT CFLs - retrofitting low ESR capacitors
Yes. This is kind of my point. And when I was saying that 'background' items like shipping costs are politely ignored, I was referring to the multiple shipping operations that are required for the many components in a CFL, and the many raw materials contained in those components, just to get all the bits and pieces from the individual specialist manufacturers, to the places where the lamps are assembled. In the case of an incandescent lamp, we are talking a few components, simply made from a few raw materials. With a CFL, we are talking semiconductors comprising silicon, dopant chemicals, plastic, metal. Capacitors comprising metal foil, plastic, rubber, maybe paper, metal leads and other chemicals in the electros. Coils comprising processed iron powder, copper wire, insulation, copper foil, epoxy adhesive, steel leadouts. Then there's the complex glass tube, and the chemical phosphors and mercury vapour inside it. Tungsten electrodes. Then the pcb material that its all mounted on. Lots of soldered joints. And then the plastic enclosure for the ballast. And then the 'normal' bits that an incandescent has anyway. Every single one of those components, and the manufacturing processes for *their* component parts, involves energy input for the process. They all need workers who have to be moved from their homes and back again each day, They have to be heated / cooled, fed and watered, and then lit as well. And when they've made their bits of the lamp, these have to be shipped on somewhere else. These are the energy costs that the general public are never made aware of. If they were, they might start to question the perceived wisdom that they've been fed, that these things are actually 'green'. **Indeed. I just did a little research and found that some of these issues HAVE been examined. The total manufacturing energy input for a typical CFL is around 1.7kWhr. The total manufacturing energy input for a typical incandescent is around 0.3kWhr. Considerably less. Or is it? The thing is, there are so many components to a CFL, and so many processes to make those components, and so many processes to extracting, refining and making appropriate the constituents *of* those components, that I think it is probably an impossible task to analyse the total energy budget of making one of these things, with any accuracy. There will probably also be a degree of deliberate distortion downwards to those figures by the greenies that would produce them, to make them look better. On the other hand, an incandescent bulb uses - what - seven, eight maybe components, each of which could be totally accurately pinned down on their production energy costs. Bear in mind that the processes to produce the components are also very simple and straightforward, unlike the processes required to make the components of a CFL. Let's put that into some kind of perspective: A typical 100 Watt IC lasts for 1,000 hours (at best). A typical 15 Watt CFL lasts for 5,000 hours (I've certainly exceeding that figure quite comfortably). I have to say that in my experience, you have been extremely lucky to get that sort of life from CFLs. I have used all sorts over the years, from cheap to expensive, and have never obtained anything like that length of service from any of them, with the exception of some very early ones that I installed in a day nursery that we once owned. They were Dulux globe CFLs and very expensive. We owned that nursery for twelve years, and most of them were still going when we sold it, so I don't dispute that it is possible to make long-lasting CFLs. I just don't think that overall, taken across the whole raft of qualities and costs, they are doing it any more. However, I have a lot of low voltage halogen downlighters in my house, that I put in more than ten years ago. Of the eight located above the stairwell, and the further five along the upstairs corridor, only one has failed in all that time, and that was only a few months ago. Maybe, like you with your CFLs, I have been lucky with these halogens. Here in the UK, there have been governmental drives to push CFLs, by heavily subsidising the cost of them, and in some cases, almost giving them away in supermarkets, and in others *actually* giving them away. With the best will in the world, these are cheap crap, so that is what the general public are having foisted on them as a result of the drive to try to get people to actually want them, and is probably why the general experience is that they don't last anything like as long as the figures that they would try to have us believe. Also, those figures are only good - if at all- when the ballast is properly cooled, which means having the lamp in service the 'right' way up. Unfortunately, many lamp fixtures that they go in, don't do this, and luminaires enclose them completely. Incandescents didn't care about this, of course. Over 5,000 hours of use, the CFL has consumed 75kWhr + 1.7kWhr = 76.7kWhr. IOW: The energy cost of manufacture is almost insignificant, even though is a little higher than 5 incandescents. Over 5,000 hours, the IC lamp has consumed 500kWhr + 1.5kWhr = 501.5kWhr. I would argue that the energy cost of manufacture is a spurious argument. Only possibly, if you feel you are able to trust the figures for manufacturing energy budget. As I have said, I do not because of the complexity of arriving at a figure. Plus you also need to factor in the full energy cost of recycling the toxins contained within it at the end of its service life. There is zero cost for this with an incandescent, as it does not contain anything potentially harmful to the environment. The pollution cost is another matter entirely. During operation, coal fired generators (like those here in Australia) emit mercury. A typical 100 Watt lamp will cause the emission of around 10mg of mercury over it's life. 5 lamps (5,000 hours) will cause the release of 50mg or mercury. By comparison, CFLs will cause the release of around 7.5mg of mercury + 4mg of mercury contained within the envelope. If the lamp is disposed of correctly, then the total mercury release will be 7.5mg. Far less than that of IC lamps. Other nations, that employ different power generation schemes will see different results. Again, these figures are only meaningful if you genuinely achieve a figure of 5000 hours across the board. And that is the important thing. *All* CFLs need to achieve that figure for the calculations to be valid, and that ain't never gonna happen, as long as there are cheapo Chinese ones flooding the market. In any case, in Europe, coal fired power stations have been on the decline for many years. Most are now gas or nuclear And this does not take into pollution created at the point of manufacture. That is an issue that should be dealt with locally. If people want to use CFLs in the belief - mistaken in my opinion - that they are in some way helping the world to use less energy, then that's fine. **It's not a mistaken belief. It's a fact. CFLs use FAR less energy than incandescents. From cradle to grave. Vastly, hugely less energy. On the face of it, they appear to, and as I said before, that is the *only* angle that's been exploited by the greenies, to try to gain them widespread acceptance. Personally, I believe that the situation is far less clear than this rather simplistic assumption, when you factor in the *true* costs. Almost certainly, they use less energy if you accept the simple picture, get the projected life from them, and believe the equivalence figures for light output, that they put on the boxes. And again, on this score, I understand that they are now trying to legislate over here, to mark the boxes in lumens or some such, probably because users are starting to doubt the quoted equivalence figures. In reality, if you have a genuine like for like in terms of light output, factor in the *real* costs of producing, transporting, and disposing of properly at the end, and get the more typical average service life of 2000 hours from them, then the saving becomes much less significant, and for me, insufficient reason to ban me from using incandescents. If it's really the case, then CFLs will win out the day in the end. **By a massive margin, in fact. Distorted by the fact that CFLs are effectively government sponsored, and that I cannot buy the bulbs I want any more, because they have banned them to make sure that I can't. If it was still incandescents vs CFLs on a level playing field, the take up of CFLs would be much less, which was the reason in the first place that they found it necessary to legislate to force people to use them. But I think that it is utterly wrong that the existing technology has been banned completely on thin evidence and a less than truthful declaration of the energy required to make and dispose of the things, the only factor being pushed, being the lower energy consumption when they are in use, as though this is the be-all and end-all of their right to exist, and to be forced on us. **Your opinion is duly noted. That comment is a political issue. I recall EXACTLY the same arguments were made, here in Australia, when leaded petrol was legislated out of existence. I susepct that, in 20 years, when we look back at this whole discussion, it will appear to be a non-event. More efficient lighting will be the standard, incandescents will be relegated to specialised applications (oven lighting, etc) and the whole issue will be viewed for what it really is - a storm in a teacup. I fail to see how you equate leaded petrol to the situation with CFLs. It is a different issue entirely, with very clear motives and outcomes. You would have to be brain dead not to understand that putting huge quantities of lead into the atmosphere at ground level and in a form that people could breathe, is bad in every way. Removing lead from petrol had little if any impact on the general public, because it was already possible to build engines that had no requirement for lead in their fuel, without compromising performance. It was, unlike CFLs, a classic example of a genuine *replacement* technology, which suffered no disadvantages over the technology that it was replacing. There was not even any need to challenge this bit of legislation, because the advantages were very clear to see in large cities the world over. Even if you clung on to your car that needed leaded petrol, this was still available at the pumps for some years after unleaded came in, and after it was finally removed from sale, there was still LRP (lead replacement petrol) available for some long time after that. Finally, if you still wanted to run your vintage engine, this could be achieved in most cases by the simple expedient of altering the ignition timing, and in the worst case, reducing the compression ratio a little, by fitting a thicker head gasket. CFLs are nothing like this. They are a substitute technology which is unable to replace incandescents in a number of areas - such as decorative light fittings - and having many other shortcomings in comparison to incandescents, in exchange for the dubious possibility that they in some way help to save the planet. The point that Trevor makes about aircon to mitigate the heat output of incandescents, holds no water here in Northern Europe. Unlike in Australia, it seldom becomes hot enough up here for more than a few days a year, that aircon is needed. And that is only in the summer, when it's light for 16 hours of the day anyway, so there's not much lighting being used. OTOH, for much of the year, it is cool or cold enough to require heating in houses, and in this case, the complete opposite of Trevor's premise, is true, in that the heat output from the incandescent light bulbs, serves to mitigate heat input requirement, from the central heating system. **So? Northern Europe is not the whole world. Vast swathes of this planet consume vast amounts of energy for air conditioning. Northern Europe is a small player in that respect. Worse, CO2 emissions from Northern Europe impact on those regions where a small amount of warming will lead to serious problems. We only have one place that we can all live. We all need to work together. I'm having a bit of trouble picking the bones out of that one, Trevor. You made a very clear statement that a disadvantage of incandescents was that they generated heat that needed the use of aircon plant to remove. I merely stated that this is not the case in Northern Europe, where aircon is not common in the first place, and where the exact opposite of what you contend, is true. In the case of what you are stating, we are talking a double whammy in that the lights waste energy in producing heat, and then your energy-thirsty aircon plant has to be used to waste a bit more removing that heat. Here, the heat is not 'wasted' for much of the year, as it partially mitigates the required heating input from the central heating. 50 watts of heat pouring off a lightbulb into my living room, is 50 watts that my heating system has not got to put into my radiators. I fail to see what your point is regarding Northern Europe against 'vast swathes of the planet etc'. The population density of Northern Europe is much higher overall than that of many of these vast swathes that you refer to, so the fact that we don't use huge amounts of energy for aircon, equates to a much lower energy requirement per person, taken overall. And, just to reinforce the point: I do not consider lighting to be a major problem in power consumption (and, therefore, CO2 emissions). Nor do I consider appliances that use auxiliary power to be a major issue either. So why do you support the banning of a proven simple technology, which did the job of providing even-intensity pleasing-quality light, to everyone's satisfaction ?? Arfa -- Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Retrofitting interior doors - pre-hung? | Home Repair | |||
retrofitting a basement | UK diy | |||
FA: Last chance on Servo to go retrofitting Card | Metalworking | |||
Retrofitting wooden drawe | Home Repair |