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 |
#81
Posted to aus.electronics,sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
OT CFLs - retrofitting low ESR capacitors
On Thu, 22 Sep 2011 11:21:50 -0500, Jim Yanik
wrote: the manufacture of CFLs produces much more pollution than making incandescent lamps. it probably outweighs any savings from the use of CFLs over I-lamps. you don't need -any- mercury in making I-lamps,nor do you need phosphors. True. Dumping 4 tons of mercury into landfills every year is not a good thing. However, to put that in perspective, the coal that we use to generate most of our electricity has an estimated 75 tons of mercury mixed in, each year, two thirds of which is belched into the atmosphere. If you include the mercury emissions from generating the power needed to run an incandescent lamp, the CFL lamp dumps 1/4th the mercury into the environment as the incandescent. http://www.cflknowhow.org/cfl-mercury-information.html Permit me to point out that US domestic and commerical electricity consumption has been increasing quite constantly at the rate of about 1.5%/year. If there were any energy savings from the existing CFL lamps in service, it would have appeared as a drop in the consumption trend. It's a bit tricky to use, but you can dig the history and trends out of: http://www.eia.gov/oiaf/aeo/tablebrowser/#release=AEO2011 Tungsten, as used in incandescent lamps, may not be all that environmentally correct: http://pubs.acs.org/cen/science/87/8703sci2.html There's not much known about the effects of tungsten in the environment, but it is becoming yet another thing to worry about. I wouldn't worry much about phosphorus as we're scheduled to run out in 50-100 years. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_phosphorus -- Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558 |
#82
Posted to aus.electronics,sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
OT CFLs - retrofitting low ESR capacitors
"Jeff Liebermann" wrote in message ... On Thu, 22 Sep 2011 11:21:50 -0500, Jim Yanik wrote: the manufacture of CFLs produces much more pollution than making incandescent lamps. it probably outweighs any savings from the use of CFLs over I-lamps. you don't need -any- mercury in making I-lamps,nor do you need phosphors. True. Dumping 4 tons of mercury into landfills every year is not a good thing. However, to put that in perspective, the coal that we use to generate most of our electricity has an estimated 75 tons of mercury mixed in, each year, two thirds of which is belched into the atmosphere. If you include the mercury emissions from generating the power needed to run an incandescent lamp, the CFL lamp dumps 1/4th the mercury into the environment as the incandescent. http://www.cflknowhow.org/cfl-mercury-information.html Permit me to point out that US domestic and commerical electricity consumption has been increasing quite constantly at the rate of about 1.5%/year. If there were any energy savings from the existing CFL lamps in service, it would have appeared as a drop in the consumption trend. It's a bit tricky to use, but you can dig the history and trends out of: http://www.eia.gov/oiaf/aeo/tablebrowser/#release=AEO2011 Tungsten, as used in incandescent lamps, may not be all that environmentally correct: http://pubs.acs.org/cen/science/87/8703sci2.html There's not much known about the effects of tungsten in the environment, but it is becoming yet another thing to worry about. I wouldn't worry much about phosphorus as we're scheduled to run out in 50-100 years. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_phosphorus -- Jeff Liebermann But as I said, coal fired plants have been declining over the years in Europe - for instance, we operate just 14 here in the UK now. France has none, I believe. Apparently, the vast majority of increase in CO2 emissions, and use of coal to fire power plants, is coming from India and China. These are both technologically competent nations, who are ignoring any responsibility they might have to reduce emissions. So why does that mean that I have to suffer a '****ing into the wind' replacement for technology that I am happy with, so they can carry on regardless ? http://www.engineerlive.com/Power-En...0_years/21600/ Arfa |
#83
Posted to aus.electronics,sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
OT CFLs - retrofitting low ESR capacitors
Arfa Daily wrote:
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. **I believe that may well be an over-statement. At some point, we have to be able to place some trust in those who do their investigations into such things. Anyway, let's assume that the investigators have made an error amounting to 100%. Even with such an error, CFLs leave ICs in their dust. Let's assume that the investigators are completely inept and they have made an error amounting to 1,000%. Even with an energy input figure of 17kW, CFLs leave ICs for dead. There will probably also be a degree of deliberate distortion downwards to those figures by the greenies that would produce them, to make them look better. **You're making the assumption that those who have investigated the matter, have an axe to grind either way. Bad assumption. If you can supply your alternate data, please feel free to do so. Here is my reference: http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directo...L)_Downs ides On the other hand, an incandescent bulb uses - what - seven, eight maybe components, each of which could be totally accurately pinned down on their production energy costs. Bear in mind that the processes to produce the components are also very simple and straightforward, unlike the processes required to make the components of a CFL. **Your point being? It's not impossible to pin down the cost of manufacturing the relatively small number of components in a CFL. Car manufacturers routinely do just that, for what is a dramatically more complex device. Let's put that into some kind of perspective: A typical 100 Watt IC lasts for 1,000 hours (at best). A typical 15 Watt CFL lasts for 5,000 hours (I've certainly exceeding that figure quite comfortably). I have to say that in my experience, you have been extremely lucky to get that sort of life from CFLs. **Luck has nothing to do with it. I only buy quality CFLs and I have 19 of the suckers in service. If I had (say) 2 in service and not experienced a failure, then I might agree with you. I have NINETEEN of them in and around my home. And, FWIW: several of them are not installed according to manufacturer's instructions. They are surviving nicely. I have used all sorts over the years, from cheap to expensive, and have never obtained anything like that length of service from any of them, with the exception of some very early ones that I installed in a day nursery that we once owned. They were Dulux globe CFLs and very expensive. We owned that nursery for twelve years, and most of them were still going when we sold it, so I don't dispute that it is possible to make long-lasting CFLs. I just don't think that overall, taken across the whole raft of qualities and costs, they are doing it any more. **I confess that I have not purchased a CFL for several years, so I can't confirm. The damned things are so incredibly long lasting that I simply have not had to purchase replacements. In fact, I fully expect LEDs to be appropriately priced by the time I need to make any changes. 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. **Perhaps. I swapped out all my iron transformers for SMPS some years ago, to increase efficiency. The SMPS seem to deliver a pretty accurate Voltage, so I doubt that is an issue. As an aside, my mother has a number of 12 Volt halogens in her kitchen. I receive at least 2 calls per year to replace blown lamps. I believe that low Voltage halogen downlights are an utterly evil blight on society. They are OK for directing light into specific areas, but are hopeless at lighting a space, relatively inneficient and they don't last very long. 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. **There are no subsidies in Australia for CFls, though the government did give the things away for a couple of years. I snagged a few, but found the colour temperature horrible and the lamps were clearly cheap rubbish. The Philips lamps I buy are regularly sold for around $5.00 each. That's for a 23 Watt lamp, that, IME, has a life of AT LEAST 3,500 hours (I expect at least double that figure) and, after 6 years of operation, is registering less than a 5% fall in light output. Whichever way you slice it, that is exceptional value for money. With the best will in the world, these are cheap crap, so that is what the general public are having foisted on them as a result of the drive to try to get people to actually want them, and is probably why the general experience is that they don't last anything like as long as the figures that they would try to have us believe. Also, those figures are only good - if at all- when the ballast is properly cooled, which means having the lamp in service the 'right' way up. Unfortunately, many lamp fixtures that they go in, don't do this, and luminaires enclose them completely. Incandescents didn't care about this, of course. **Perhaps. In my last home, I used a 150 Watt IC lamp and managed to do serious damage to the plaster ceiling in the process. The fitting survived fine, as it was designed to cope. The plaster was not. A CFL solved the problem. Over 5,000 hours of use, the CFL has consumed 75kWhr + 1.7kWhr = 76.7kWhr. IOW: The energy cost of manufacture is almost insignificant, even though is a little higher than 5 incandescents. Over 5,000 hours, the IC lamp has consumed 500kWhr + 1.5kWhr = 501.5kWhr. I would argue that the energy cost of manufacture is a spurious argument. Only possibly, if you feel you are able to trust the figures for manufacturing energy budget. **Do the math with a figure of 17kWhr. The CFL is STILL ahead by a country kilometre. As I have said, I do not because of the complexity of arriving at a figure. Plus you also need to factor in the full energy cost of recycling the toxins contained within it at the end of its service life. There is zero cost for this with an incandescent, as it does not contain anything potentially harmful to the environment. **Not entirely true, but you point is well made. CFLs MUST be properly disposed of. Again, this is not an impossibly costly exercise. Thos whacky Swedes managed 75% recycling back in 2007. http://www.enerlin.enea.it/outcomes/rep_recycling.pdf Like all such things, the rates of recylcing will increase and the cost will decrease over time. The pollution cost is another matter entirely. During operation, coal fired generators (like those here in Australia) emit mercury. A typical 100 Watt lamp will cause the emission of around 10mg of mercury over it's life. 5 lamps (5,000 hours) will cause the release of 50mg or mercury. By comparison, CFLs will cause the release of around 7.5mg of mercury + 4mg of mercury contained within the envelope. If the lamp is disposed of correctly, then the total mercury release will be 7.5mg. Far less than that of IC lamps. Other nations, that employ different power generation schemes will see different results. Again, these figures are only meaningful if you genuinely achieve a figure of 5000 hours across the board. And that is the important thing. *All* CFLs need to achieve that figure for the calculations to be valid, and that ain't never gonna happen, as long as there are cheapo Chinese ones flooding the market. In any case, in Europe, coal fired power stations have been on the decline for many years. Most are now gas or nuclear **Philips cite 6,000 hours for their lamps. Most manufacturers of IC lamps cite an average of 750 - 1,000 hours for their standard IC lamps. These can be made to last longer, but at the cost of efficiency. Fundamentally, however, I take issue with your constant reference to cheap, crappy lamps. I have CONSISTENTLY stated that I refer only to quality lamps (like Philips). It would be like you trying to argue that automobiles are fundamentally unsafe, unreliable and uneconomical, by using ONLY Tata automobiles as your reference. You should be using Toyota, Honda, Mecedes, Hyundai and the others as part of your reference. No more talk of cheap, ****ty lamps please. Whilst they are are available and fools will buy them, they are not representative of state of the art in quality or longevity. And this does not take into pollution created at the point of manufacture. That is an issue that should be dealt with locally. If people want to use CFLs in the belief - mistaken in my opinion - that they are in some way helping the world to use less energy, then that's fine. **It's not a mistaken belief. It's a fact. CFLs use FAR less energy than incandescents. From cradle to grave. Vastly, hugely less energy. On the face of it, they appear to, and as I said before, that is the *only* angle that's been exploited by the greenies, to try to gain them widespread acceptance. **Incorrect. ALL green groups have expressed reservations about the proper disposal of CFLs. Personally, I believe that the situation is far less clear than this rather simplistic assumption, when you factor in the *true* costs. **Fair enough. Cite these "true" costs you speak of. Numbers please. Almost certainly, they use less energy if you accept the simple picture, get the projected life from them, and believe the equivalence figures for light output, that they put on the boxes. And again, on this score, I understand that they are now trying to legislate over here, to mark the boxes in lumens or some such, probably because users are starting to doubt the quoted equivalence figures. In reality, if you have a genuine like for like in terms of light output, factor in the *real* costs of producing, transporting, and disposing of properly at the end, and get the more typical average service life of 2000 hours from them, then the saving becomes much less significant, and for me, insufficient reason to ban me from using incandescents. **My CFLs are averaging far more than 2,000 hours. Do you have any data to supplort your notion that QUALITY CFLs manage an average of 2,000 hours? Are you aware of any consumer legal action against Philips? After Philips cite a 6,000 hour life for their product. Here in Australia, the penalties are severe for companies engaged in misleading advertising of that nature. Recently, LG was penalised several hundred thousand Dollars for making misleading claims about the efficiency of their refrigerators. I'm certain the legislators would be happy to tackle Philips, if you can supply solid supporting evidence to back your claims (about QUALITY CFLs). If it's really the case, then CFLs will win out the day in the end. **By a massive margin, in fact. Distorted by the fact that CFLs are effectively government sponsored, **Not in Australia. They compete in the market, like any other product. They cost approximately 5 times as much as an equivalent IC lamp. They last 5 times longer and use 1/5th as much energy. his might prove an intgeresting read for you: http://www.choice.com.au/consumer-ac...ightbulbs.aspx and that I cannot buy the bulbs I want any more, because they have banned them to make sure that I can't. If it was still incandescents vs CFLs on a level playing field, the take up of CFLs would be much less, which was the reason in the first place that they found it necessary to legislate to force people to use them. **I agree with that. Most people are, fundamentally, greedy, self-serving, fools. They'll choose the cheapest, upfront solution, without regard to longevity or running costs. But I think that it is utterly wrong that the existing technology has been banned completely on thin evidence and a less than truthful declaration of the energy required to make and dispose of the things, the only factor being pushed, being the lower energy consumption when they are in use, as though this is the be-all and end-all of their right to exist, and to be forced on us. **Your opinion is duly noted. That comment is a political issue. I recall EXACTLY the same arguments were made, here in Australia, when leaded petrol was legislated out of existence. I susepct that, in 20 years, when we look back at this whole discussion, it will appear to be a non-event. More efficient lighting will be the standard, incandescents will be relegated to specialised applications (oven lighting, etc) and the whole issue will be viewed for what it really is - a storm in a teacup. I fail to see how you equate leaded petrol to the situation with CFLs. It is a different issue entirely, with very clear motives and outcomes. You would have to be brain dead not to understand that putting huge quantities of lead into the atmosphere at ground level and in a form that people could breathe, is bad in every way. **As is feeding excessive CO2 into the atmosphere. Too much CO2 is causing excessive warming of this planet. Removing lead from petrol had little if any impact on the general public, because it was already possible to build engines that had no requirement for lead in their fuel, without compromising performance. **That was not the case here in Australia. Manufacturers had to alter their production systems, costing millions of Dollars to cope. Most automobiles suffered a performance fall when switched to unleaded fuel. Those who retained their leaded fuel autos have to use expensive additives to compensate. It was, unlike CFLs, a classic example of a genuine *replacement* technology, which suffered no disadvantages over the technology that it was replacing. **Not here in Australia. Costs rose for buyers. There was not even any need to challenge this bit of legislation, because the advantages were very clear to see in large cities the world over. Even if you clung on to your car that needed leaded petrol, this was still available at the pumps for some years after unleaded came in, and after it was finally removed from sale, there was still LRP (lead replacement petrol) available for some long time after that. Finally, if you still wanted to run your vintage engine, this could be achieved in most cases by the simple expedient of altering the ignition timing, and in the worst case, reducing the compression ratio a little, by fitting a thicker head gasket. **Incorrect. Leaded fuel vehicles require an additive to allow correct operation of valves (seats). The simple expedient of altering timing is only for making up for differences in octane, not lead. CFLs are nothing like this. They are a substitute technology which is unable to replace incandescents in a number of areas - such as decorative light fittings - and having many other shortcomings in comparison to incandescents, in exchange for the dubious possibility that they in some way help to save the planet. **Specialised IC lamps are still available in Australia. I don't know about Europe. Fancy lamps, oven lamps and others are still available. For those who refuse to change, halogen replacements are still available. 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. **Apart from those places where geo-thermal energy is common, or temperatures are too low, heat pumps (aka: air conditioners) are a far more efficient method of heating a home than resistive heating. And, just to reinforce the point: I do not consider lighting to be a major problem in power consumption (and, therefore, CO2 emissions). Nor do I consider appliances that use auxiliary power to be a major issue either. So why do you support the banning of a proven simple technology, which did the job of providing even-intensity pleasing-quality light, to everyone's satisfaction ?? **Points: * IC lamps are NOT to everyone's satisfaction. I have ONLY used fluoro lighting in my workshop for the last 40 years. * IC lamps are unreliable and wasteful of energy. -- Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au |
#84
Posted to aus.electronics,sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
OT CFLs - retrofitting low ESR capacitors
snip
On the other hand, an incandescent bulb uses - what - seven, eight maybe components, each of which could be totally accurately pinned down on their production energy costs. Bear in mind that the processes to produce the components are also very simple and straightforward, unlike the processes required to make the components of a CFL. **Your point being? It's not impossible to pin down the cost of manufacturing the relatively small number of components in a CFL. Car manufacturers routinely do just that, for what is a dramatically more complex device. But we're not talking cost here. We're talking energy budgets and planetary pollution from industrial processes. Any fool can say "this transistor costs us 20 cents. This capacitor costs us 5 cents" and so on. But it's an awful lot more complex to start looking into the energy budget for refining the silicon. For turning the silicon into P and N types. For refining the plastic from the oil. For getting the oil out of the ground. For getting the iron ore out of the ground. For refining the iron out of the ore, and then converting it to steel. Transporting all the constituents. Manufacturing them into a transistor. Then shipping that transistor to the CFL maker. And on and on. And that's just one component out of a considerable number - see http://www.pavouk.org/hw/lamp/en_index.html My point obviously being that in comparison, an incandescent has a very few constituent parts, all of which are simple, and have simple well defined manufacturing processes, that could easily be energy budgeted. Let's put that into some kind of perspective: A typical 100 Watt IC lasts for 1,000 hours (at best). A typical 15 Watt CFL lasts for 5,000 hours (I've certainly exceeding that figure quite comfortably). I have to say that in my experience, you have been extremely lucky to get that sort of life from CFLs. **Luck has nothing to do with it. I only buy quality CFLs and I have 19 of the suckers in service. If I had (say) 2 in service and not experienced a failure, then I might agree with you. I have NINETEEN of them in and around my home. And, FWIW: several of them are not installed according to manufacturer's instructions. They are surviving nicely. I have used all sorts over the years, from cheap to expensive, and have never obtained anything like that length of service from any of them, with the exception of some very early ones that I installed in a day nursery that we once owned. They were Dulux globe CFLs and very expensive. We owned that nursery for twelve years, and most of them were still going when we sold it, so I don't dispute that it is possible to make long-lasting CFLs. I just don't think that overall, taken across the whole raft of qualities and costs, they are doing it any more. **I confess that I have not purchased a CFL for several years, so I can't confirm. The damned things are so incredibly long lasting that I simply have not had to purchase replacements. In fact, I fully expect LEDs to be appropriately priced by the time I need to make any changes. Well, good luck with that one. As long as they have to keep putting any kind of control electronics in them to make them run from AC line voltage, then as long as they are not subsidised, they are never going to get as cheap as incandescents, or have as low an energy budget to produce. Whilst there have been some major advances in recent years in the light output and efficiency of LEDs , they still have relatively poor colour rendition qualities for home use, and still struggle to produce even omni-directional light as is required for general lighting, due to the fact that the light is produced at a flat surface. As to not experiencing the same longevity as you with my CFLs, I thought that I carefully explained that I have purchased all qualities of the things, and have not found the expensive 'quality' names to be any longer lived than the cheapos. This seems to be the findings of others on here, as well. snip are now gas or nuclear **Philips cite 6,000 hours for their lamps. Most manufacturers of IC lamps cite an average of 750 - 1,000 hours for their standard IC lamps. These can be made to last longer, but at the cost of efficiency. Fundamentally, however, I take issue with your constant reference to cheap, crappy lamps. I have CONSISTENTLY stated that I refer only to quality lamps (like Philips). It would be like you trying to argue that automobiles are fundamentally unsafe, unreliable and uneconomical, by using ONLY Tata automobiles as your reference. You should be using Toyota, Honda, Mecedes, Hyundai and the others as part of your reference. No more talk of cheap, ****ty lamps please. Whilst they are are available and fools will buy them, they are not representative of state of the art in quality or longevity. Well no. That is an unfair slant in favour of the CFL argument. As long as cheap crappy ones are available, *most* people - not just "fools" as you so disparagingly refer to them - will buy them over the expensive quality ones, because they don't understand the difference, as we do. It's human nature to buy cheap, which is why the Chinese are doing so well on the back of world-wide sales of cheap - and often crap quality - electronic goods, offered for sale through all our nations' supermarkets. This is where the whole thing breaks down as an argument about the eco validity of any of this technology. The manufacturers of the cheap CFLs are in it purely to make money. They have no concern at all for the 'green' credentials of their products, except in as much as they will sell in their millions, irrespective of their quality, just because the *are* CFLs. So whilst it is true what you say in that the cheapo ones are not representative of the state of the art, unfortunately, they *are* representative of what is being sold in quantity to the general public, and their contribution to the validity of the discussion, cannot be ignored until *all* CFLs that are offered for sale, are indeed representative of the state of the art. I'm sorry if that offends your sensibilities, but it *is* part of the overall equation. In fact, your analogy with the cars, is self-defeating, because you could look at it from the other angle, and say that if you take say BMW as your reference, then all other cheaper makes are invalid because they are not 'state of the art', and people who buy them are fools. The cheaper makes will always be bought by the general public, because not everyone can afford the safety and performance of a BMW, just like not everyone can afford to pay £5 or whatever for a bulb to replace an incandescent that they are used to paying 50 pence for. If there is a CFL costing 50 pence on the shelf alongside the £5 one, you tell me, which one are most uninformed people going to buy ? And it is for precisely this reason that the whole CFL thing, taken on a world-wide basis, falls apart. And this does not take into pollution created at the point of manufacture. That is an issue that should be dealt with locally. If people want to use CFLs in the belief - mistaken in my opinion - that they are in some way helping the world to use less energy, then that's fine. **It's not a mistaken belief. It's a fact. CFLs use FAR less energy than incandescents. From cradle to grave. Vastly, hugely less energy. On the face of it, they appear to, and as I said before, that is the *only* angle that's been exploited by the greenies, to try to gain them widespread acceptance. **Incorrect. ALL green groups have expressed reservations about the proper disposal of CFLs. But that is actually another comparatively minor issue. Important from the pollution point of view, yes, but insignificant compared to the manufacturing energy budgets and pollution-causing manufacturing processes, that are NEVER mentioned by these groups, because they never even consider these 'hidden' aspects. Personally, I believe that the situation is far less clear than this rather simplistic assumption, when you factor in the *true* costs. **Fair enough. Cite these "true" costs you speak of. Numbers please. I cannot give numbers, because there are none that FULLY analyse ALL energy inputs and pollution outputs for the hundreds of processes involved. And when I say "costs", I am not talking monetary ones, as I explained earlier. As I said, I am sure that it is just too complicated a situation to ever be able to arrive at a real figure, but no matter how much you don't want to believe it, you have to accept that there *are* many hundreds of process steps and transport steps involved in CFL manufacture, compared to incandescent manufacture, which *must* add up to a very significant amount, that is being totally ignored in making the 'green' case for the things. Whether it can be accurately quantified or not, if you stop and think about it, it is common sense. Almost certainly, they use less energy if you accept the simple picture, get the projected life from them, and believe the equivalence figures for light output, that they put on the boxes. And again, on this score, I understand that they are now trying to legislate over here, to mark the boxes in lumens or some such, probably because users are starting to doubt the quoted equivalence figures. In reality, if you have a genuine like for like in terms of light output, factor in the *real* costs of producing, transporting, and disposing of properly at the end, and get the more typical average service life of 2000 hours from them, then the saving becomes much less significant, and for me, insufficient reason to ban me from using incandescents. **My CFLs are averaging far more than 2,000 hours. Do you have any data to supplort your notion that QUALITY CFLs manage an average of 2,000 hours? Are you aware of any consumer legal action against Philips? After Philips cite a 6,000 hour life for their product. Here in Australia, the penalties are severe for companies engaged in misleading advertising of that nature. Recently, LG was penalised several hundred thousand Dollars for making misleading claims about the efficiency of their refrigerators. I'm certain the legislators would be happy to tackle Philips, if you can supply solid supporting evidence to back your claims (about QUALITY CFLs). See my earlier comments regarding quality CFLs versus the reality of what people *actually* buy ... If it's really the case, then CFLs will win out the day in the end. **By a massive margin, in fact. Distorted by the fact that CFLs are effectively government sponsored, **Not in Australia. They compete in the market, like any other product. They cost approximately 5 times as much as an equivalent IC lamp. They last 5 times longer and use 1/5th as much energy. his might prove an intgeresting read for you: http://www.choice.com.au/consumer-ac...ightbulbs.aspx and that I cannot buy the bulbs I want any more, because they have banned them to make sure that I can't. If it was still incandescents vs CFLs on a level playing field, the take up of CFLs would be much less, which was the reason in the first place that they found it necessary to legislate to force people to use them. **I agree with that. Most people are, fundamentally, greedy, self-serving, fools. They'll choose the cheapest, upfront solution, without regard to longevity or running costs. I don't understand this. By saying that, you make my case for me, and utterly destroy your own ... But I think that it is utterly wrong that the existing technology has been banned completely on thin evidence and a less than truthful declaration of the energy required to make and dispose of the things, the only factor being pushed, being the lower energy consumption when they are in use, as though this is the be-all and end-all of their right to exist, and to be forced on us. **Your opinion is duly noted. That comment is a political issue. I recall EXACTLY the same arguments were made, here in Australia, when leaded petrol was legislated out of existence. I susepct that, in 20 years, when we look back at this whole discussion, it will appear to be a non-event. More efficient lighting will be the standard, incandescents will be relegated to specialised applications (oven lighting, etc) and the whole issue will be viewed for what it really is - a storm in a teacup. I fail to see how you equate leaded petrol to the situation with CFLs. It is a different issue entirely, with very clear motives and outcomes. You would have to be brain dead not to understand that putting huge quantities of lead into the atmosphere at ground level and in a form that people could breathe, is bad in every way. **As is feeding excessive CO2 into the atmosphere. Too much CO2 is causing excessive warming of this planet. That is by no means proven in science. Only in the media. There are many reputable scientists who believe otherwise. Removing lead from petrol had little if any impact on the general public, because it was already possible to build engines that had no requirement for lead in their fuel, without compromising performance. **That was not the case here in Australia. Manufacturers had to alter their production systems, costing millions of Dollars to cope. Most automobiles suffered a performance fall when switched to unleaded fuel. Those who retained their leaded fuel autos have to use expensive additives to compensate. There is little difference between engines that burn leaded and unleaded fuel. For sure, there had to be some modification to the production and design processes, but these occur for the manufacturers every time they bring out a new model or engine. The monetary costs of doing this are factored into a new design, so will actually not have been any particularly burdensome problem for the manufacturers. Drops in performance of existing engines when converted to run on unleaded fuel were actually fairly minor, and most people here, at least, did not even bother converting because leaded petrol was available alongside unleaded, for a reasonable time period. Back when all this happened, cars were not that long-lived anyway, so unless you had only just bought a new one, it was no great shakes that the next one you bought would be produced with an unleaded petrol engine, already designed in. The manufacturers knew this was coming, and had plenty of time to carry out the required design alterations, and actually to amortise the costs in their existing production, in readiness for the legislation. It was, unlike CFLs, a classic example of a genuine *replacement* technology, which suffered no disadvantages over the technology that it was replacing. **Not here in Australia. Costs rose for buyers. There was not even any need to challenge this bit of legislation, because the advantages were very clear to see in large cities the world over. Even if you clung on to your car that needed leaded petrol, this was still available at the pumps for some years after unleaded came in, and after it was finally removed from sale, there was still LRP (lead replacement petrol) available for some long time after that. Finally, if you still wanted to run your vintage engine, this could be achieved in most cases by the simple expedient of altering the ignition timing, and in the worst case, reducing the compression ratio a little, by fitting a thicker head gasket. **Incorrect. Leaded fuel vehicles require an additive to allow correct operation of valves (seats). The simple expedient of altering timing is only for making up for differences in octane, not lead. The lead was in the petrol as an anti-knock agent, as I recall CFLs are nothing like this. They are a substitute technology which is unable to replace incandescents in a number of areas - such as decorative light fittings - and having many other shortcomings in comparison to incandescents, in exchange for the dubious possibility that they in some way help to save the planet. **Specialised IC lamps are still available in Australia. I don't know about Europe. Fancy lamps, oven lamps and others are still available. For those who refuse to change, halogen replacements are still available. Nope. Pretty much all outlawed here. You can't get a proper golf ball or candle any more. You haven't been able to get pearlised bulbs of any description for a long time. Truly specialised ones for ovens etc are still available, because it is simply impossible to replace them with anything else. Halogen 'Apollo nose-cones' are still available at the moment, and capsule halogens still are, but only in clear envelopes, which are pretty useless compared to frosted ones. I was looking around the other day to see if I could still find any halogen replacements (the type where a halogen capsule bulb is incorporated into a 'traditional' shaped incandescent envelope), and the only ones of those that I could find were clear. These give a very harsh light, whereas the pearlised ones, gave a very nice even light Arfa |
#85
Posted to aus.electronics,sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
OT CFLs - retrofitting low ESR capacitors
On 25/09/2011 8:03 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
[snipped an awful lot] **Perhaps. I swapped out all my iron transformers for SMPS some years ago, to increase efficiency. The SMPS seem to deliver a pretty accurate Voltage, so I doubt that is an issue. As an aside, my mother has a number of 12 Volt halogens in her kitchen. I receive at least 2 calls per year to replace blown lamps. I believe that low Voltage halogen downlights are an utterly evil blight on society. They are OK for directing light into specific areas, but are hopeless at lighting a space, relatively inneficient and they don't last very long. I think there is a place for halogen spot lights. In my kitchen area, with a pine-lined cathedral ceiling, I have 4 halogens. They are well placed above the critical spots where I need good lighting. The 35W lamps from Ikea are just as bright as the old 50W. (Even the 20W ones could be an option now). I run them on electronic ballasts and on a trailing edge dimmer, for a soft background light when the kitchen's closed The dimmer has a soft start switch, very nice! I have had no 35W lamps failing after 3 years which equates to an estimated 2000 hrs on full power, and the dimming hasn't done any harm to them. I have, for now, substituted 2 of the halogens with LED lights from Deal Extreme (MR16 4-LED 360-Lumen 3500K Warm White Light Bulb (12V) Item Number 39027 49.5mm, $8.30) which consume only 6W (6W instead of 35 is a strong argument). They are bright enough but the yellowish colour really needs to get used to. I don't know if I will keep them or get some more white ones instead. Maybe someone has tried some more and different ones? Let us know what you think. There is just too many too chose from. Tony [snipped even more] |
#86
Posted to aus.electronics,sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
OT CFLs - retrofitting low ESR capacitors
On Sat, 24 Sep 2011 11:02:28 +0100, "Arfa Daily"
wrote: But as I said, coal fired plants have been declining over the years in Europe - for instance, we operate just 14 here in the UK now. France has none, I believe. There are about 600 coal plants in the US. The numbers are a bit misleading as coal fired power plants come in all shapes and sizes. It's not the number, but the generation capacity that's important. In the US, we built 10 new plants in 2010 for a total new capacity of 1.6GW (gigawatts). However, if you include decomissioned plants, the net loss in capacity in 2010 was about -4.6GW lost. Most of the loss was balanced by a transition to federally subsidized wind power. In 2010, there was also the cancellation of 10 additional plants mostly due to legislative or EPA restriction. For example, California has a ban on new coal plants (SB1368). Europe is doing much the same. http://www.netl.doe.gov/coal/refshelf/ncp.pdf http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_phase_out If the EPA gets its way, it's likely that most of the older US coal plants will need to close to meet emission requirements. http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Existing_U.S._Coal_Plants The loss of -4.6GW of coal generation capacity is not going to make much of a dent in the mercury emissions. At this time, the US gets about 45% of about 4 trillion kw-hr of electricity from coal. A few gigawatts of capacity here and there isn't going to change much. http://www.eia.gov/coal/ Note that capacity loss is usually balanced by burning more coal to produce more electricity at other plants. Therefore, closing a plant does NOT constitute an overall decrease in emissions. Only a decrease in generated mw-hr can decrease emissions. If you accept my coal generation logic at face value, every product that uses electricity also dumps mercury into the environment. For example, my electric water heater would be considered a major contributor to coal based environmental pollution and far more significant than a CFL lamp. While this doesn't do anything to help one decide between CFL and incandescent, it does highlight some priorities on the process. Apparently, the vast majority of increase in CO2 emissions, and use of coal to fire power plants, is coming from India and China. Yep. Something like 90% of the really obnoxious atmospheric pollution comes from burning coal. There are technologies that drastically reduce coal fired plant emissions. They're expensive, messy, use huge amounts of water, and are being largely ignored by the larger plants. Not so with the smaller plants, a few of which use one or more technologies. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_coal_technology As far as I can tell, neither India or China are doing clean coal plants. These are both technologically competent nations, who are ignoring any responsibility they might have to reduce emissions. So why does that mean that I have to suffer a '****ing into the wind' replacement for technology that I am happy with, so they can carry on regardless ? I don't have an answer to the "why". Most likely, both countries economies will collapse without the generated power, which makes it one of many "necessary evils". -- Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558 |
#87
Posted to aus.electronics,sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
OT CFLs - retrofitting low ESR capacitors
Hi Tony,
I have, for now, substituted 2 of the halogens with LED lights from Deal Extreme (MR16 4-LED 360-Lumen 3500K Warm White Light Bulb (12V) Item Number 39027 49.5mm, $8.30) which consume only 6W (6W instead of 35 is a strong argument). They are bright enough but the yellowish colour really needs to get used to. I don't know if I will keep them or get some more white ones instead. Maybe someone has tried some more and different ones? Let us know what you think. There is just too many too chose from. I have replaced 6 x 50w Halgens in our kitchen with 6 x these ones 3.8w each http://www.dealextreme.com/p/mr16-3-...hite-12v-30825 and I have to say I am happy on several fronts. firstly it consumes only 23w compared to 300w of the originals. secondly they run cool not burning hot thirdly the light is WHITE not yellow and floods the kitchen rather than being directional like the halogens were. Our ceilings are 9ft and the halogens created a bright area that was very narrow and left deep shadows to the sides of the area... These LEDs `flood' the whole area and in effect create a daylight environment much more pleasing to me. I will add that whilst they ran on AC 12V they had a slight flicker I found disturbing so I now run them off 12Vdc and they are great. mick |
#88
Posted to aus.electronics,sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
OT CFLs - retrofitting low ESR capacitors
On Sep 25, 11:52*am, "Arfa Daily" wrote:
snip On the other hand, an incandescent bulb uses - what - seven, eight maybe components, each of which could be totally accurately pinned down on their production energy costs. Bear in mind that the processes to produce the components are also very simple and straightforward, unlike the processes required to make the components of a CFL. **Your point being? It's not impossible to pin down the cost of manufacturing the relatively small number of components in a CFL. Car manufacturers routinely do just that, for what is a dramatically more complex device. But we're not talking cost here. We're talking energy budgets and planetary pollution from industrial processes. Any fool can say "this transistor costs us 20 cents. This capacitor costs us 5 cents" and so on. But it's an awful lot more complex to start looking into the energy budget for refining the silicon. For turning the silicon into P and N types. For refining the plastic from the oil. For getting the oil out of the ground. For getting the iron ore out of the ground. For refining the iron out of the ore, and then converting it to steel. Transporting all the constituents. Manufacturing them into a transistor. Then shipping that transistor to the CFL maker. And on and on. And that's just one component out of a considerable number - see http://www.pavouk.org/hw/lamp/en_index.html My point obviously being that in comparison, an incandescent has a very few constituent parts, all of which are simple, and have simple well defined manufacturing processes, that could easily be energy budgeted. Let's put that into some kind of perspective: A typical 100 Watt IC lasts for 1,000 hours (at best). A typical 15 Watt CFL lasts for 5,000 hours (I've certainly exceeding that figure quite comfortably). I have to say that in my experience, you have been extremely lucky to get that sort of life from CFLs. **Luck has nothing to do with it. I only buy quality CFLs and I have 19 of the suckers in service. If I had (say) 2 in service and not experienced a failure, then I might agree with you. I have NINETEEN of them in and around my home. And, FWIW: several of them are not installed according to manufacturer's instructions. They are surviving nicely. I have used all sorts over the years, from cheap to expensive, and have never obtained anything like that length of service from any of them, with the exception of some very early ones that I installed in a day nursery that we once owned. They were Dulux globe CFLs and very expensive. We owned that nursery for twelve years, and most of them were still going when we sold it, so I don't dispute that it is possible to make long-lasting CFLs. I just don't think that overall, taken across the whole raft of qualities and costs, they are doing it any more. **I confess that I have not purchased a CFL for several years, so I can't confirm. The damned things are so incredibly long lasting that I simply have not had to purchase replacements. In fact, I fully expect LEDs to be appropriately priced by the time I need to make any changes. Well, good luck with that one. As long as they have to keep putting any kind of control electronics in them to make them run from AC line voltage, then as long as they are not subsidised, they are never going to get as cheap as incandescents, or have as low an energy budget to produce. Whilst there have been some major advances in recent years in the light output and efficiency of LEDs , they still have relatively poor colour rendition qualities for home use, and still struggle to produce even omni-directional light as is required for general lighting, due to the fact that the light is produced at a flat surface. As to not experiencing the same longevity as you with my CFLs, I thought that I carefully explained that I have purchased all qualities of the things, and have not found the expensive 'quality' names to be any longer lived than the cheapos. This seems to be the findings of others on here, as well. snip are now gas or nuclear **Philips cite 6,000 hours for their lamps. Most manufacturers of IC lamps cite an average of 750 - 1,000 hours for their standard IC lamps. These can be made to last longer, but at the cost of efficiency. Fundamentally, however, I take issue with your constant reference to cheap, crappy lamps. I have CONSISTENTLY stated that I refer only to quality lamps (like Philips). It would be like you trying to argue that automobiles are fundamentally unsafe, unreliable and uneconomical, by using ONLY Tata automobiles as your reference. You should be using Toyota, Honda, Mecedes, Hyundai and the others as part of your reference. No more talk of cheap, ****ty lamps please. Whilst they are are available and fools will buy them, they are not representative of state of the art in quality or longevity. Well no. That is an unfair slant in favour of the CFL argument. As long as cheap crappy ones are available, *most* people - not just "fools" as you so disparagingly refer to them - will buy them over the expensive quality ones, because they don't understand the difference, as we do. It's human nature to buy cheap, which is why the Chinese are doing so well on the back of world-wide sales of cheap - and often crap quality - electronic goods, offered for sale through all our nations' supermarkets. This is where the whole thing breaks down as an argument about the eco validity of any of this technology. The manufacturers of the cheap CFLs are in it purely to make money. They have no concern at all for the 'green' credentials of their products, except in as much as they will sell in their millions, irrespective of their quality, just because the *are* CFLs. So whilst it is true what you say in that the cheapo ones are not representative of the state of the art, unfortunately, they *are* representative of what is being sold in quantity to the general public, and their contribution to the validity of the discussion, cannot be ignored until *all* CFLs that are offered for sale, are indeed representative of the state of the art. I'm sorry if that offends your sensibilities, but it *is* part of the overall equation. In fact, your analogy with the cars, is self-defeating, because you could look at it from the other angle, and say that if you take say BMW as your reference, then all other cheaper makes are invalid because they are not 'state of the art', and people who buy them are fools. The cheaper makes will always be bought by the general public, because not everyone can afford the safety and performance of a BMW, just like not everyone can afford to pay £5 or whatever for a bulb to replace an incandescent that they are used to paying 50 pence for. If there is a CFL costing 50 pence on the shelf alongside the £5 one, you tell me, which one are most uninformed people going to buy ? And it is for precisely this reason that the whole CFL thing, taken on a world-wide basis, falls apart. And this does not take into pollution created at the point of manufacture. That is an issue that should be dealt with locally. If people want to use CFLs in the belief - mistaken in my opinion - that they are in some way helping the world to use less energy, then that's fine. **It's not a mistaken belief. It's a fact. CFLs use FAR less energy than incandescents. From cradle to grave. Vastly, hugely less energy. On the face of it, they appear to, and as I said before, that is the *only* angle that's been exploited by the greenies, to try to gain them widespread acceptance. **Incorrect. ALL green groups have expressed reservations about the proper disposal of CFLs. But that is actually another comparatively minor issue. Important from the pollution point of view, yes, but insignificant compared to the manufacturing energy budgets and pollution-causing manufacturing processes, that are NEVER mentioned by these groups, because they never even consider these 'hidden' aspects. Personally, I believe that the situation is far less clear than this rather simplistic assumption, when you factor in the *true* costs. **Fair enough. Cite these "true" costs you speak of. Numbers please. I cannot give numbers, because there are none that FULLY analyse ALL energy inputs and pollution outputs for the hundreds of processes involved. And when I say "costs", I am not talking monetary ones, as I explained earlier. |
#89
Posted to aus.electronics,sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
OT CFLs - retrofitting low ESR capacitors
On 25/09/2011 2:37 PM, Mick DaDik wrote:
Hi Tony, I have, for now, substituted 2 of the halogens with LED lights from Deal Extreme (MR16 4-LED 360-Lumen 3500K Warm White Light Bulb (12V) Item Number 39027 49.5mm, $8.30) which consume only 6W (6W instead of 35 is a strong argument). They are bright enough but the yellowish colour really needs to get used to. I don't know if I will keep them or get some more white ones instead. Maybe someone has tried some more and different ones? Let us know what you think. There is just too many too chose from. I have replaced 6 x 50w Halgens in our kitchen with 6 x these ones 3.8w each http://www.dealextreme.com/p/mr16-3-...hite-12v-30825 and I have to say I am happy on several fronts. firstly it consumes only 23w compared to 300w of the originals. secondly they run cool not burning hot thirdly the light is WHITE not yellow and floods the kitchen rather than being directional like the halogens were. Our ceilings are 9ft and the halogens created a bright area that was very narrow and left deep shadows to the sides of the area... These LEDs `flood' the whole area and in effect create a daylight environment much more pleasing to me. I will add that whilst they ran on AC 12V they had a slight flicker I found disturbing so I now run them off 12Vdc and they are great. mick Thanks Mick. They are a bit more expensive, but worth a try. (Even though with Deal Extreme I never know for sure if I get what's in the description.) Tony |
#90
Posted to aus.electronics,sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
OT CFLs - retrofitting low ESR capacitors
"kreed" ** FFS - learn how to trim !! The one advantage they have over incandescents is that they are not affected by vibration. ** Low voltage incandescents are genuinely not affected. But most CFLs are easily damaged by it. After time, the glue fails and the glass tubes or spirals come loose from the plastic case. Then with vibration or handling, the feed wires break. There simply is no quality control and a myriad of things to go wrong. And the Chinese are making them. ..... Phil |
#91
Posted to aus.electronics,sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
OT CFLs - retrofitting low ESR capacitors
"Trevor Wilson" **I suggest you read this: http://www.choice.com.au/reviews-and...ightbulbs.aspx ** A laughably worthless test, not in any way related to normal use. Something the rabid green lunatics at Choice are FAMOUS for !!! Look at the pic - all the CFLs are suspended in mid air !! No light fittings, not even a ceiling above them. The room is air conditioned too. And NO on /off cycling at all !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Not ONE of the KNOWN issues with CFLs will be revealed in such a test. BTW: One reason that Choice did not cycle the CFLs is that they found it VERY difficult to do. If you try to switch on 10 or more CFLs at once, it will trip the lighting circuit breaker ( 8 amp) regularly - with over 200 it will not even be possible at all. CFLs have large inrush surges, up to 20 amps peak or more for long enough to active the magnetic trip on lighting breakers. Looks like the CFLs in that test were powered from a wall outlet (ie using a 16 amp breaker) and brought on in groups of 10 ( using several multi-way power boards) until they were all lit and left like that for 12 months. Total ********. The other green lunatic drivel quoted in the article makes me wanna puke. ..... Phil |
#92
Posted to aus.electronics,sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
OT CFLs - retrofitting low ESR capacitors
On Sep 25, 5:55*pm, "Phil Allison" wrote:
"kreed" ** FFS * - *learn how to trim !! The one advantage they have over incandescents is that they are not affected by vibration. ** Low voltage incandescents are genuinely not affected. That is true (IE, automotive bulbs) , but to clarify to everyone, I was referring to standard 240v domestic ones But most CFLs are easily damaged by it. After time, the glue fails and the glass tubes or spirals come loose from the plastic case. Then with vibration or handling, the feed wires break. There simply is no quality control and a myriad of things to go wrong. And the Chinese are making them. .... *Phil Yes, that is the worst part. Also means that they can claim anything and not deliver and be immune. Would love to see anyone manufacturing in Australia try that and get away with it. |
#93
Posted to aus.electronics,sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
OT CFLs - retrofitting low ESR capacitors
On Sep 25, 6:20*pm, "Phil Allison" wrote:
"Trevor Wilson" **I suggest you read this: http://www.choice.com.au/reviews-and...ergy-and-water... ** A laughably worthless test, not in any way related to normal use. Something the rabid green lunatics at Choice are FAMOUS *for *!!! Look at the pic *- *all the CFLs are suspended in mid air !! No light fittings, not even a ceiling above them. The room is air conditioned too. And *NO *on /off *cycling at all *!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Not *ONE *of the *KNOWN *issues with CFLs will be revealed in such a test. Not only that, but by the time the 9000 hours (375 days @ 24H a day) was up, most of the CFL bulbs tested would have been obsolete and would have been superseded by other designs, or sourced from another Chinese manufacturer who was now the cheapest, and while they may look the same, they would likely use a different circuit, and probably different parts as well - again sourced from who is now the cheapest supplier. Economic crisis would make this situation worse, with companies involved closing and downsizing all over the place. It would be like doing longevity tests on motherboards or hard drives. None of the units tested would still be current or on sale by the time the test was finished. BTW: One reason that Choice did not cycle the CFLs is that they found it *VERY difficult to do. If you try to switch on 10 or more CFLs at once, it will trip the lighting circuit breaker ( 8 amp) regularly *- * with over 200 it will not even be possible at all. CFLs have large inrush surges, up to 20 amps peak or more for long enough to active the magnetic trip on lighting breakers. Looks like the CFLs in that test were powered from a wall outlet (ie using a 16 amp breaker) and brought on in groups of 10 ( using several multi-way power boards) until they were all lit and left like that for 12 months. Total ********. The other green lunatic drivel quoted in the article makes me wanna puke. .... Phil You would have loved 4 corners last week then, I had never seen such blatant propaganda in support of the Gillard government and the carbon tax. |
#94
Posted to aus.electronics,sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
OT CFLs - retrofitting low ESR capacitors
"kreed" But most CFLs are easily damaged by it. After time, the glue fails and the glass tubes or spirals come loose from the plastic case. Then with vibration or handling, the feed wires break. There simply is no quality control and a myriad of things to go wrong. And the Chinese are making them. Yes, that is the worst part. Also means that they can claim anything and not deliver and be immune. ** Absolute nonsense. Importers are liable for false advertising in exactly the same way that manufacturers are. The claims I see on CFL packs are vague and very limited or non existent. Egs What the **** does " non dimmable " mean ?? What does " not suitable for wet environments " mean ?? IMO, the people making the FALSE CLAIMS are the stinking greenies. .... Phil |
#95
Posted to aus.electronics,sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
OT CFLs - retrofitting low ESR capacitors
"Phil Allison" wrote in message
... What the **** does "non-dimmable" mean? It means the manufacturer does not claim "dimmability". In practice, at least some CFLs are dimmable that don't claim to be -- for example, the top-rated Home Depot lamps are. IMO, the people making the FALSE CLAIMS are the stinking greenies. And those false claims would be...? I can think of one false claim -- that using less electricity puts less CO2 into the air. This is true if reduced consumption results in building fewer hydrocarbon-powered electric plants. But, given load levelling across the grid, and the need to run the steam generators at a constant level, I assume there's little or no variation in the amount of CO2 put out by any one plant. I'm very much in favor of reduced CO2 emissions, and the development of cheap, sustainable energy. But our society's basic problem is that we use too much of everything, and generate too much waste of all sorts. Portland General Electric is currently running an ad thanking its customers for the "virtual" power plants said customers have "built" by using less electricity. |
#96
Posted to aus.electronics,sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
OT CFLs - retrofitting low ESR capacitors
William Sommer****** = ****WIT " "Phil Allison" What the **** does "non-dimmable" mean? It means the manufacturer does not claim "dimmability". ** But all CFLs are dimmable. IMO, the people making the FALSE CLAIMS are the stinking greenies. And those false claims would be...? ** All of them. The main one being that they can replace any incandescent bulb. The makers make no such claim. I can think of one false claim -- that using less electricity puts less CO2 into the air. ** False. The makers make no such claim. I'm very much in favor of reduced CO2 emissions, ** Then, FFS - kill yourself. |
#97
Posted to aus.electronics,sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
OT CFLs - retrofitting low ESR capacitors
Well, I guess we're never going to agree on any aspect of this. You seem predisposed to take the wrong way, a number of points that I have repeatedly made, but ho-hum, it's been an interesting line of chat, and at least it hasn't descended into a screaming match as is so often the case in these discussions :-) As to the bulbs you have found online, I must admit that I hadn't managed to come up with the eco halogens in a pearl envelope - if indeed they actually have got one when the item is in your hand. All the rest of the ones that you found, have clear envelopes, as I said, because the pearl envelopes have been banned, though Christ knows for what eco-bollox reasons. I have a bar of 4 R50 spots in the room I am in right now, and another two as wall mounted uplighters in my lounge. These used to do a lovely job of providing targeted light in the computer room, and accent light in the lounge, or reduced light for TV watching, when they had a pearlised front. Since they banned the pearlised ones, the clear-fronted version that is now the only one available, looks awful. Instead of a nice even light - the whole purpose of pearlising in the first place - you now get a harsh uneven set of rings of light wherever they are pointing, and images of the filament. Trust me, it is now very hard to find to find any light bulbs here, with the correct physical size and glass properties, to make them acceptable in decorative light fittings. And not all CFLs are subsidised. Only the ones that are dirt cheap in the first place. Then subsidised via the power companies under government direction, via green taxes levied through our energy bills. These taxes are also been extracted from us and wasted on the useless windmills and other eyesore technologies, that are also excuses for companies to make obscene amounts of money from the green mist hysteria that prevails now throughout the civilised world. So, we have a cheap crappy CFL that is being made even cheaper by the false price that's being set on it, to get people to buy them. If you look at energy saving lightbulbs on the Homebase site that you linked to, you will see that the 'quality' CFLs that you refer to, are all up in the £3.50 to £5 bracket, as I said. Then, B&Q are flogging cheapo subsidised ones for between 10 pence and a quid. Which ones, in the cash strapped times that we are currently suffering, are most people going to buy, given that they can no longer buy what they *really* want ? Anyway, enough time spent on this now. Been enjoyable. Arfa |
#98
Posted to aus.electronics,sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
OT CFLs - retrofitting low ESR capacitors
On Sun, 25 Sep 2011 17:54:07 +0100, "Arfa Daily"
wrote: Anyway, enough time spent on this now. Been enjoyable. Arfa Humor me for a moment. Take a digital camera photo of your favorite CFL lamp. Turn off all the other sources of light. What color do you get? Here's mine: http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/crud/FEIT-23w.jpg See a problem perhaps? Extra credit. Find various sheets of blank paper with an assortment of brightness from about 85 to 105. Photograph those using either a CFL lamp and an incandescent lamp source. What colors do you get? (Note that the 105 brightness contains phosphors resulting in the reflected light actually being brighter than the incident light). You might want to buy a cheap LED UV flashlight and a diffraction grating, for more fun with lighting. http://www.scientificsonline.com/holographic-diffraction-grating-film-10036.html -- Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558 |
#99
Posted to aus.electronics,sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
OT CFLs - retrofitting low ESR capacitors
On Sun, 25 Sep 2011 10:20:24 -0700, Jeff Liebermann
wrote: On Sun, 25 Sep 2011 17:54:07 +0100, "Arfa Daily" wrote: Anyway, enough time spent on this now. Been enjoyable. Arfa Humor me for a moment. Take a digital camera photo of your favorite CFL lamp. Turn off all the other sources of light. What color do you get? Here's mine: http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/crud/FEIT-23w.jpg See a problem perhaps? Extra credit. Find various sheets of blank paper with an assortment of brightness from about 85 to 105. Photograph those using either a CFL lamp and an incandescent lamp source. What colors do you get? (Note that the 105 brightness contains phosphors resulting in the reflected light actually being brighter than the incident light). You might want to buy a cheap LED UV flashlight and a diffraction grating, for more fun with lighting. http://www.scientificsonline.com/holographic-diffraction-grating-film-10036.html Or, from the same source (as well as Amazon, etc.) this thing http://www.scientificsonline.com/precision-economy-spectrometer.html which includes a nm scale. Some examples of what it shows at http://home.comcast.net/~mcculloch-brown/astro/spectrostar.html -- Rich Webb Norfolk, VA |
#100
Posted to aus.electronics,sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
OT CFLs - retrofitting low ESR capacitors
"Jeff Liebermann = Nut case " Humor me for a moment. ** Be better to put idiots like you in straight jackets. Take a digital camera photo of your favorite CFL lamp. Turn off all the other sources of light. What color do you get? ** Irrelevant, totally. Here's mine: http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/crud/FEIT-23w.jpg See a problem perhaps? ** Nope. ..... Phil |
#101
Posted to aus.electronics,sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
OT CFLs - retrofitting low ESR capacitors
Arfa Daily wrote:
Well, I guess we're never going to agree on any aspect of this. You seem predisposed to take the wrong way, a number of points that I have repeatedly made, but ho-hum, it's been an interesting line of chat, and at least it hasn't descended into a screaming match as is so often the case in these discussions :-) **Provided there is some respect on both sides and an attempt to undestand the other POV, I see no reason why a screaming match is necessary. I no longer waste my time with those who choose to insult, rather than present a cogent argument. It's better for my health. Your comments about prices of CFLs have me intrigued. I did some more research. Here are some prices in the US: http://www.homedepot.com/webapp/wcs/...ghlight-_-CFLs Prices appear to be somewhat lower than Australia and dramatically lower than in the UK. I suggest that you should be complaining about CFL prices in the UK. Clearly, something is seriously awry. I accept personal preferences for ICs are valid. I accept that personal preferences against CFLs are also valid. I also accept the testing done by Choice and others, that prove the efficiency aspects of CFLs are significantly in advance of ICs. I accept, in the abscence of evidence to the contrary, that CFLs have a manufacturing energy cost that is approximately 6 times that of ICs. Having said all that, there is one aspect of our discussion that I find deeply troubling. You're a smart guy. Yet you appear to be willing to reject the overwhelming bulk of good, solid science that has shown that rising CO2 levels are causing the present warming we find ourselves experiencing. You appear to be rejecting the science, in preference for the hysterical ravings of those who have clear links to the fossil fuel industry. OTH, the scientists who study and report on global warming, for the most part, do not have links to the alternative energy business. They do what a good scientist should do - report the science without regard to political or business bias. Consider the NASA and EPA scientists who were issuing very clear warnings to President Bush. Bush was a rabid global warming denier. We had the same thing here in Australia. During the Howard government years, Australia's premier scientific body (the CSIRO) was issuing clear reports to the government that anthropogenic global warming was going to cause serious problems for Australia and the rest of the planet. Yet the Howard government was aligned with the Bush government, in that denial of the science was the order of the day. In fact, the leftover ministers of the Howard government are still denying the science, even today. Most are religious loonies, so no one takes much ntice anymore. Please do some reading on the topic. Unlike the present discussion on CFLs (which is really a bit of a distraction), it is a very important issue. -- Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au |
#102
Posted to aus.electronics,sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
OT CFLs - retrofitting low ESR capacitors
Phil Allison screeched: ** Be better to put idiots like you in straight jackets. Who the hell let you out of yours? -- You can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense. |
#103
Posted to aus.electronics,sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
OT CFLs - retrofitting low ESR capacitors
Humor me for a moment.
** Be better to put idiots like you in straight jackets. Strait-jacket, Phil, not straight. |
#104
Posted to aus.electronics,sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
OT CFLs - retrofitting low ESR capacitors
"William Sommer****** the ****wit PEDANT " ** Be better to put idiots like you in straightjackets. Correct spelling. |
#105
Posted to aus.electronics,sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
OT CFLs - retrofitting low ESR capacitors
"Phil Allison" wrote in message
... "William Sommer****** the ****wit PEDANT " ** Be better to put idiots like you in straightjackets. Correct spelling. I did correct the spelling. You didn't have to ask again. "Strait" means "narrow" -- the jacket greatly restricts its wearer's movements. It does not hold the wearer "straight" -- quite the opposite. |
#106
Posted to aus.electronics,sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
OT CFLs - retrofitting low ESR capacitors
"William Sommer****** the ****wit PEDANT " ** Be better to put idiots like you in straightjackets. Correct spelling. I did correct the spelling. ** No, you ****ing ****WIT. The spelling IS correct !!!!!! Pedantry is a mental illness. |
#107
Posted to aus.electronics,sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
OT CFLs - retrofitting low ESR capacitors
On Sep 26, 8:28*am, "Trevor Wilson" wrote:
Arfa Daily wrote: Well, I guess we're never going to agree on any aspect of this. You seem predisposed to take the wrong way, a number of points that I have repeatedly made, but ho-hum, it's been an interesting line of chat, and at least it hasn't descended into a screaming match as is so often the case in these discussions *:-) **Provided there is some respect on both sides and an attempt to undestand the other POV, I see no reason why a screaming match is necessary. I no longer waste my time with those who choose to insult, rather than present a cogent argument. It's better for my health. Your comments about prices of CFLs have me intrigued. I did some more research. Here are some prices in the US: http://www.homedepot.com/webapp/wcs/...gation?storeId... Prices appear to be somewhat lower than Australia and dramatically lower than in the UK. I suggest that you should be complaining about CFL prices in the UK. Clearly, something is seriously awry. I accept personal preferences for ICs are valid. I accept that personal preferences against CFLs are also valid. I also accept the testing done by Choice and others, that prove the efficiency aspects of CFLs are significantly in advance of ICs. I accept, in the abscence of evidence to the contrary, that CFLs have a manufacturing energy cost that is approximately 6 times that of ICs. Having said all that, there is one aspect of our discussion that I find deeply troubling. You're a smart guy. Yet you appear to be willing to reject the overwhelming bulk of good, solid science that has shown that rising CO2 levels are causing the present warming we find ourselves experiencing. You appear to be rejecting the science, in preference for the hysterical ravings of those who have clear links to the fossil fuel industry. OTH, the scientists who study and report on global warming, for the most part, do not have links to the alternative energy business. They do what a good scientist should do - report the science without regard to political or business bias. Consider the NASA and EPA scientists who were issuing very clear warnings to President Bush. Bush was a rabid global warming denier. We had the same thing here in Australia. During the Howard government years, Australia's premier scientific body (the CSIRO) was issuing clear reports to the government that anthropogenic global warming was going to cause serious problems for Australia and the rest of the planet. Yet the Howard government was aligned with the Bush government, in that denial of the science was the order of the day. In fact, the leftover ministers of the Howard government are still denying the science, even today. Most are religious loonies, so no one takes much ntice anymore. On the contrary - few believe in it anymore at least in Australia. This fraud has been thoroughly exposed for what it is and it is great to see. Did you know that the head of the CSIRO is a former bankster, from the same company that wants to be australia's carbon banker and there is another sitting on the board there? The banksters cooked up this scam and funded and promoted it behind the scenes over many years as the next big cash cow for themselves, and to set up more control over the people. In other words you and your business pays the tax, and the big connected *******s get exemptions and you are driven under and they end up with a monopoly and can charge what they want. This is how the world works. Scientists - like most other people in this world get jobs, pay and research funding based on following the corporate line, and/or party line, at least to the general public. Thats just how real life works in this thoroughly corrupted world. Please do some reading on the topic. Unlike the present discussion on CFLs (which is really a bit of a distraction), it is a very important issue. -- Trevor Wilsonwww.rageaudio.com.au |
#108
Posted to aus.electronics,sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
OT CFLs - retrofitting low ESR capacitors
"Phil Allison" wrote in message
... "William Sommer****** the ****wit PEDANT " ** Be better to put idiots like you in straightjackets. Correct spelling. I did correct the spelling. ** No, you ****ing ****WIT. The spelling IS correct !!!!!! Pedantry is a mental illness. Phil...YOU are a mental illness. |
#109
Posted to aus.electronics,sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
OT CFLs - retrofitting low ESR capacitors
kreed wrote:
On Sep 26, 8:28 am, "Trevor Wilson" wrote: Arfa Daily wrote: Well, I guess we're never going to agree on any aspect of this. You seem predisposed to take the wrong way, a number of points that I have repeatedly made, but ho-hum, it's been an interesting line of chat, and at least it hasn't descended into a screaming match as is so often the case in these discussions :-) **Provided there is some respect on both sides and an attempt to undestand the other POV, I see no reason why a screaming match is necessary. I no longer waste my time with those who choose to insult, rather than present a cogent argument. It's better for my health. Your comments about prices of CFLs have me intrigued. I did some more research. Here are some prices in the US: http://www.homedepot.com/webapp/wcs/...gation?storeId... Prices appear to be somewhat lower than Australia and dramatically lower than in the UK. I suggest that you should be complaining about CFL prices in the UK. Clearly, something is seriously awry. I accept personal preferences for ICs are valid. I accept that personal preferences against CFLs are also valid. I also accept the testing done by Choice and others, that prove the efficiency aspects of CFLs are significantly in advance of ICs. I accept, in the abscence of evidence to the contrary, that CFLs have a manufacturing energy cost that is approximately 6 times that of ICs. Having said all that, there is one aspect of our discussion that I find deeply troubling. You're a smart guy. Yet you appear to be willing to reject the overwhelming bulk of good, solid science that has shown that rising CO2 levels are causing the present warming we find ourselves experiencing. You appear to be rejecting the science, in preference for the hysterical ravings of those who have clear links to the fossil fuel industry. OTH, the scientists who study and report on global warming, for the most part, do not have links to the alternative energy business. They do what a good scientist should do - report the science without regard to political or business bias. Consider the NASA and EPA scientists who were issuing very clear warnings to President Bush. Bush was a rabid global warming denier. We had the same thing here in Australia. During the Howard government years, Australia's premier scientific body (the CSIRO) was issuing clear reports to the government that anthropogenic global warming was going to cause serious problems for Australia and the rest of the planet. Yet the Howard government was aligned with the Bush government, in that denial of the science was the order of the day. In fact, the leftover ministers of the Howard government are still denying the science, even today. Most are religious loonies, so no one takes much ntice anymore. On the contrary - few believe in it anymore at least in Australia. **The dribblers don't count. People who lack a decent education are not representative of thinking adults. Nor are religious loonies like Alan Jones, Christopher Monckton and George Pell. This fraud has been thoroughly exposed for what it is and it is great to see. **Fraud? Do tell. Please provide your peer-reviewed science that proves that the CSIRO, the IPCC, NASA, the US EPA, the British Academy of Science, the US National Academy of Sciences, The German Academy of Science, The Australian Bureu of Meteorology, The UK MET, The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, The Netherlands Academey of Sciences and a host of other organisations. So, over to you: Supply your peer-reviewed science which proves that all these guys (and many, many other respected scientific organisations) have it so terribly wrong. Did you know that the head of the CSIRO is a former bankster, from the same company that wants to be australia's carbon banker and there is another sitting on the board there? **So? CSIRO has been successful at commercialising many of it's developments over the years. It makes perfect sense to have people with commercial skills on the board. The scientists report the science. The board does not. The banksters cooked up this scam and funded and promoted it behind the scenes over many years as the next big cash cow for themselves, and to set up more control over the people. **Did they? Prove it. In other words you and your business pays the tax, and the big connected *******s get exemptions and you are driven under and they end up with a monopoly and can charge what they want. This is how the world works. **Sure. It's how it has always worked. Nothing to do with global warming though. Excessive CO2 emissions are driving the temperature of this planet faster than at any time in the last 600,000 years. Nothing to do with taxation, politics or the opinions of religious nutters. Scientists - like most other people in this world get jobs, pay and research funding based on following the corporate line, and/or party line, at least to the general public. **Is that so? Care to explain why the scientists at the CSIRO reported to the Howard (AGW denying) government that AGW was a real problem? Care to explain why the scientists at NASA and the US EPA were reporting to the Bush (AGW denying) government that AGW was a real problem? According to your twisted logic, the scientists at all three organisations should have reported what their political masters wanted. To their credit, the scientists did what all reputable scientists do - they reported the facts. Thats just how real life works in this thoroughly corrupted world. **OK. Prove it. -- Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au |
#110
Posted to aus.electronics,sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
OT CFLs - retrofitting low ESR capacitors
On Mon, 26 Sep 2011 08:10:12 +1000, "Phil Allison"
wrote: "Jeff Liebermann = Nut case " Humor me for a moment. ** Be better to put idiots like you in straight jackets. Hmmm... I was looking for a suitable costume for Halloween. That's an American tradition, where we dress up in scary costumes and terrorize people like you. Incidentally, I really enjoy being accused of marginal sanity. It demonstrates that you're paying attention. Take a digital camera photo of your favorite CFL lamp. Turn off all the other sources of light. What color do you get? ** Irrelevant, totally. Your brain self correct for color variations. Take a photo under fluorescent tube lamps and you'll get a greenish tint (unless you have a camera that automagically does color corrections). Your eyes can be fooled. Your camera cannot, as it shows the true color. Here's mine: http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/crud/FEIT-23w.jpg See a problem perhaps? ** Nope. Hint: It's yellow. It should be white or at least more like white than a mix of red and green. I suspect that might be what is giving Arfa problems. Photographing various CFL lamps, and selecting one that is closest to white might be a fix. I just found the package. It's a FEIT BPCE13T cheapo bulb. About $1US as subsidized by PG&E (the local power utility). http://energy-star-lighting.findthebest.com/detail/573/Conserv-Energy 2700K which makes it a "warm white". .... Phil -- Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558 |
#111
Posted to aus.electronics,sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
OT CFLs - retrofitting low ESR capacitors
Trevor Wilson wrote:
**Fraud? Do tell. Please provide your peer-reviewed science that proves that the CSIRO, the IPCC, NASA, the US EPA, the British Academy of Science, the US National Academy of Sciences, The German Academy of Science, The Australian Bureu of Meteorology, The UK MET, The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, The Netherlands Academey of Sciences and a host of other organisations. **Should read: "....Sciences and a host of other organisations are wrong." -- Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au |
#112
Posted to aus.electronics,sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
OT CFLs - retrofitting low ESR capacitors
On Mon, 26 Sep 2011 09:36:51 +1000, "Phil Allison"
wrote: "William Sommer****** the ****wit PEDANT " ** Be better to put idiots like you in straightjackets. Correct spelling. I did correct the spelling. ** No, you ****ing ****WIT. The spelling IS correct !!!!!! Pedantry is a mental illness. You're doing exactly the same thing. |
#113
Posted to aus.electronics,sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
OT CFLs - retrofitting low ESR capacitors
"Jeßus = TROLL " You're doing exactly the same thing. ** Nonsense. **** off - you ****ing retard. |
#114
Posted to aus.electronics,sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
OT CFLs - retrofitting low ESR capacitors
On Mon, 26 Sep 2011 12:10:59 +1000, "Phil Allison"
wrote: "Jeßus = TROLL " You're doing exactly the same thing. ** Nonsense. **** off - you ****ing retard. Me, ****ing retards? Bimbos perhaps... I'll cop to that much at least. Have a great day Phil! |
#115
Posted to aus.electronics,sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
OT CFLs - retrofitting low ESR capacitors
Many people (balanced and otherwise) often state that recycled this-n-that
are great for the planet, yet those people have no idea where the power comes from for the recycling facilities.. often coal generation. Cars are still a huge air pollution contributor, but much worse are the freighters operating on bunker oil, which pollute much more significantly than all the worlds' autos. Bunker oil is likely the filthiest fuel ever used, and is what freighter ships use to transport most of the crap goods being produced these days. So, as manufacturing of common products leaves one continent, more imported goods are being transported from across the vast oceans. When the low quality goods quickly fail, they're transported again by more internal combustion engines to landfills and placed in the ground beside fresh water resources. Just because trash trucks operate in your neighborhood every week doesn't mean the landfill is local. Here in Pennsylvania, the landfills have been accepting waste from more than 12 other states, and it's easy to see that PA doesn't have 12 bordering states.. so trash is trucked or transported across/thru entire states to be dumped here. As I've said for a number of years, job opportunities with real job security are in the waste industry. The cheap crap products that keep pouring into my, and your, country every day have to be disposed of. The biggest hoax of the last 50+ years is that products are cheaper because they're made elsewhere (poor countries), instead of domestically. The actual truth is that it's more profitable to have goods made elsewhere, which involves much more than cheap labor.. it involves behind-closed-doors deal making and power, influence and favoritism (our favorite communist nation which holds huge domestic business debts). China and other countries accept some of our waste products, then recycle them with coal-generated power, then ship those products globally with bunker oil.. so the recycled products have real-world costs that don't end up in the cost effectiveness evaluations.. but keep perpetuating the recycled-is-good mentality. The total net gain is a loss. LED and CFL lighting aren't the solutions, they only distract attention. -- Cheers, WB .............. "Jeff Liebermann" wrote in message ... There are about 600 coal plants in the US. The numbers are a bit misleading as coal fired power plants come in all shapes and sizes. It's not the number, but the generation capacity that's important. In the US, we built 10 new plants in 2010 for a total new capacity of 1.6GW (gigawatts). However, if you include decomissioned plants, the net loss in capacity in 2010 was about -4.6GW lost. Most of the loss was balanced by a transition to federally subsidized wind power. In 2010, there was also the cancellation of 10 additional plants mostly due to legislative or EPA restriction. For example, California has a ban on new coal plants (SB1368). Europe is doing much the same. http://www.netl.doe.gov/coal/refshelf/ncp.pdf http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_phase_out If the EPA gets its way, it's likely that most of the older US coal plants will need to close to meet emission requirements. http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Existing_U.S._Coal_Plants The loss of -4.6GW of coal generation capacity is not going to make much of a dent in the mercury emissions. At this time, the US gets about 45% of about 4 trillion kw-hr of electricity from coal. A few gigawatts of capacity here and there isn't going to change much. http://www.eia.gov/coal/ Note that capacity loss is usually balanced by burning more coal to produce more electricity at other plants. Therefore, closing a plant does NOT constitute an overall decrease in emissions. Only a decrease in generated mw-hr can decrease emissions. If you accept my coal generation logic at face value, every product that uses electricity also dumps mercury into the environment. For example, my electric water heater would be considered a major contributor to coal based environmental pollution and far more significant than a CFL lamp. While this doesn't do anything to help one decide between CFL and incandescent, it does highlight some priorities on the process. Yep. Something like 90% of the really obnoxious atmospheric pollution comes from burning coal. There are technologies that drastically reduce coal fired plant emissions. They're expensive, messy, use huge amounts of water, and are being largely ignored by the larger plants. Not so with the smaller plants, a few of which use one or more technologies. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_coal_technology As far as I can tell, neither India or China are doing clean coal plants. I don't have an answer to the "why". Most likely, both countries economies will collapse without the generated power, which makes it one of many "necessary evils". -- Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558 |
#116
Posted to aus.electronics,sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
OT CFLs - retrofitting low ESR capacitors
"Rich Webb" wrote in message ... On Sun, 25 Sep 2011 10:20:24 -0700, Jeff Liebermann wrote: On Sun, 25 Sep 2011 17:54:07 +0100, "Arfa Daily" wrote: Anyway, enough time spent on this now. Been enjoyable. Arfa Humor me for a moment. Take a digital camera photo of your favorite CFL lamp. Turn off all the other sources of light. What color do you get? Here's mine: http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/crud/FEIT-23w.jpg See a problem perhaps? Extra credit. Find various sheets of blank paper with an assortment of brightness from about 85 to 105. Photograph those using either a CFL lamp and an incandescent lamp source. What colors do you get? (Note that the 105 brightness contains phosphors resulting in the reflected light actually being brighter than the incident light). You might want to buy a cheap LED UV flashlight and a diffraction grating, for more fun with lighting. http://www.scientificsonline.com/holographic-diffraction-grating-film-10036.html Or, from the same source (as well as Amazon, etc.) this thing http://www.scientificsonline.com/precision-economy-spectrometer.html which includes a nm scale. Some examples of what it shows at http://home.comcast.net/~mcculloch-brown/astro/spectrostar.html -- Rich Webb Norfolk, VA Some interesting findings there. Today, this dropped into my email http://www.ledlighting-eetimes.com/e...s_id=222907475 Looks as though it might address some of the points I made, particularly in regard to the (typically) non-omnidirectional light from a LED lamp. I had long wondered why the cooling core for the LEDs was not made spherical, so that the light would be omni. Arfa |
#117
Posted to aus.electronics,sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
OT CFLs - retrofitting low ESR capacitors
Arfa Daily wrote:
"Rich Webb" wrote in message ... On Sun, 25 Sep 2011 10:20:24 -0700, Jeff Liebermann wrote: On Sun, 25 Sep 2011 17:54:07 +0100, "Arfa Daily" wrote: Anyway, enough time spent on this now. Been enjoyable. Arfa Humor me for a moment. Take a digital camera photo of your favorite CFL lamp. Turn off all the other sources of light. What color do you get? Here's mine: http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/crud/FEIT-23w.jpg See a problem perhaps? Extra credit. Find various sheets of blank paper with an assortment of brightness from about 85 to 105. Photograph those using either a CFL lamp and an incandescent lamp source. What colors do you get? (Note that the 105 brightness contains phosphors resulting in the reflected light actually being brighter than the incident light). You might want to buy a cheap LED UV flashlight and a diffraction grating, for more fun with lighting. http://www.scientificsonline.com/holographic-diffraction-grating-film-10036.html Or, from the same source (as well as Amazon, etc.) this thing http://www.scientificsonline.com/precision-economy-spectrometer.html which includes a nm scale. Some examples of what it shows at http://home.comcast.net/~mcculloch-brown/astro/spectrostar.html -- Rich Webb Norfolk, VA Some interesting findings there. Today, this dropped into my email http://www.ledlighting-eetimes.com/e...s_id=222907475 Looks as though it might address some of the points I made, particularly in regard to the (typically) non-omnidirectional light from a LED lamp. I had long wondered why the cooling core for the LEDs was not made spherical, so that the light would be omni. Arfa Sounds good,It would cost me about aud $2000 for lamps for this house |
#118
Posted to aus.electronics,sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
OT CFLs - retrofitting low ESR capacitors
Your point wrt LEDs only having limited directional output is important, for
most of the commonly available types. It was easily seen that filament lighting was omnidirectional, and very evenly dispersed by internal coatings applied to the envelopes. The common T-1-3/4 LED is essentially good for a panel indicator, not a space illuminating/lighting device. Even the more powerful 1W and larger devices wouldn't throw any light if not for the lenses and a good reflector, The reflector area needs to be about 30-50x that of the LED lens to throw much light for any distance (counterproductive for a compact design).. and then the results are a bright spot surrounded by a much dimmer halo. Also, the higher output devices need to be attached to heatsinks. The EE Times article image is half-assed, at best, and where do they get writers/reporters today? They can't provide a link to go directly to the manufacturers' products that they report on, but instead only provide a link so you can go look it up yourself. http://www.osram.com/osram_com/News/..._Advanced.html This fuzzy image looks like an artist created it.. it might be expected that the actual construction materials are clear.. I just hope it's not glass, because every simpleton already knows that glass production is destroying the planet. It sorta looks like a hemisphere of LEDs and a reflector/diffuser over it. There doesn't appear to be any obtrusive heat sinking like the flying saucer shapes I've seen in the stores lately. There you have it.. these lights will pay for themselves. Step right up, folks. This here is a new Dimension. The listed efficiency of a 75W incandescent is shown as Zero.. but it's actually 100% or more when it's turned off, and it might only cost $1 (although I regularly see them for lower prices). So, maybe this is the root issue, that people today are too GD lazy to turn off lights when they're not being used (doesn't matter that the govt has strongly recommended it, for years now). If the efficiency of a 75W IC lamp is zero, then watt about a 100W.. minus 25? It's already been established that the heating value (of the mostly infrared light) from IC lamps will reduce home heating system loads. The Chinese (government-backed) factories could likely tool up within a couple of weeks to closely copy this lamp, or a looky-like the same, and flood the market. Since few people are aware of the disclaimer that comes with nearly every poduct produced today (and for recent decades).. "Specifications subject to change". Might wanna get the extended warranty on these new lights.. the "limited" package warranty might look like swiss cheese. One of my curiosities will be how tolerant the new LED lamps will be of line voltage spikes/surges, regardless of what the predicted lifetimes are. -- Cheers, WB .............. "Arfa Daily" wrote in message ... Today, this dropped into my email http://www.ledlighting-eetimes.com/e...s_id=222907475 Looks as though it might address some of the points I made, particularly in regard to the (typically) non-omnidirectional light from a LED lamp. I had long wondered why the cooling core for the LEDs was not made spherical, so that the light would be omni. Arfa |
#119
Posted to aus.electronics,sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
OT CFLs - retrofitting low ESR capacitors
Wild_Bill wrote:
Your point wrt LEDs only having limited directional output is important, for most of the commonly available types. **Wrong. Luxeon emitters have been available for many years, with a 120 degree spread. It was easily seen that filament lighting was omnidirectional, and very evenly dispersed by internal coatings applied to the envelopes. The common T-1-3/4 LED is essentially good for a panel indicator, not a space illuminating/lighting device. Even the more powerful 1W and larger devices wouldn't throw any light if not for the lenses and a good reflector, **Nor does ANY light source, you nong. You may also care to note that I posted photographs that disproved your last nonsensical claim about such things. You failed to acknowledge this fact. The reflector area needs to be about 30-50x that of the LED lens to throw much light for any distance (counterproductive for a compact design).. **Here is a photo of the two torches from my previous posting: http://s1112.photobucket.com/albums/k497/Zaphod1000/ Look at the size difference. Look at the amount of light "thrown" by each torch onto a dark wall. Which is greater? Which is the more useful, more portable torch? When will you cease making insane, unsupportable statements? and then the results are a bright spot surrounded by a much dimmer halo. **The results are what the designers want them to be. Also, the higher output devices need to be attached to heatsinks. **So? The CPU in my computer must be attached to a heat sink. It ain't rocket science. If I dropped both torches, whilst swtiched on, the LED torch has a much better chance of survival. The EE Times article image is half-assed, at best, and where do they get writers/reporters today? **This would be a pot, kettle, balck kind of moment. Your half-arsed comments are now entering into legend. Shall we review them? They can't provide a link to go directly to the manufacturers' products that they report on, but instead only provide a link so you can go look it up yourself. http://www.osram.com/osram_com/News/..._Advanced.html This fuzzy image looks like an artist created it.. it might be expected that the actual construction materials are clear.. I just hope it's not glass, because every simpleton already knows that glass production is destroying the planet. It sorta looks like a hemisphere of LEDs and a reflector/diffuser over it. There doesn't appear to be any obtrusive heat sinking like the flying saucer shapes I've seen in the stores lately. There you have it.. these lights will pay for themselves. Step right up, folks. This here is a new Dimension. The listed efficiency of a 75W incandescent is shown as Zero. **No, it is not. Read the cite again. CAREFULLY. Don't try to interpret what is written. .. but it's actually 100% or more when it's turned off, and it might only cost $1 (although I regularly see them for lower prices). **Sheer idiocy. So, maybe this is the root issue, that people today are too GD lazy to turn off lights when they're not being used (doesn't matter that the govt has strongly recommended it, for years now). If the efficiency of a 75W IC lamp is zero, **The efficiency of a 75 Watt IC almps is NOT zero. It is something like 2% ~ 5%. then watt about a 100W.. minus 25? It's already been established that the heating value (of the mostly infrared light) from IC lamps will reduce home heating system loads. **They MIGHT. In Winter AND if the lamps are placed floor level and/or if there are some air circulation systems in place. Either way, using IC lamps for heating is hit and miss, at best. Heat pumps are dramatically more efficient. By as much as 400%, in fact. The Chinese (government-backed) factories could likely tool up within a couple of weeks to closely copy this lamp, or a looky-like the same, and flood the market. Since few people are aware of the disclaimer that comes with nearly every poduct produced today (and for recent decades).. "Specifications subject to change". Might wanna get the extended warranty on these new lights.. the "limited" package warranty might look like swiss cheese. One of my curiosities will be how tolerant the new LED lamps will be of line voltage spikes/surges, regardless of what the predicted lifetimes are. **Any sensible designer takes such things into account. My halogen downlights are operated via similar technology to that which drives LEDs. They're reasonably well protected against damage. -- Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au |
#120
Posted to aus.electronics,sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
OT CFLs - retrofitting low ESR capacitors
Trevor Wilson wrote:
**Here is a photo of the two torches from my previous posting: http://s1112.photobucket.com/albums/k497/Zaphod1000/ Look at the size difference. **The halogen torch is on the left. -- 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 |