"Chunlei Guo, associate professor of optics at the University of Rochester,
.... have been able to squeeze out fluorescent-like energy performance from
an incandescent light bulb. The breakthrough boils down to a laser
treatment of the bulb's tungsten filament, a processing step which could one
day become a standard in the light bulb industry."

Too late. Incandescent bulbs will soon be illegal.

http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=15289

On Jun 2, 4:20*pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
"Chunlei Guo, associate professor of optics at the University of Rochester,
... have been able to squeeze out fluorescent-like energy performance from
an incandescent light bulb. *The breakthrough boils down to a laser
treatment of the bulb's tungsten filament, a processing step which could one
day become a standard in the light bulb industry."

Too late. Incandescent bulbs will soon be illegal.

http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=15289

From that article:
"The pulse lasts a mere femtosecond, and delivers as much power as the
entire grid of North America into a needle point size spot."

Huh? I think they left out one of the units or something, and if they
didn't I don't see how using that much energy to modify the filaments
could save energy on a production scale.

R

On 6/2/2009 2:32 PM RicodJour spake thus:

On Jun 2, 4:20 pm, "HeyBub" wrote:

"Chunlei Guo, associate professor of optics at the University of Rochester,
... have been able to squeeze out fluorescent-like energy performance from
an incandescent light bulb. The breakthrough boils down to a laser
treatment of the bulb's tungsten filament, a processing step which could one
day become a standard in the light bulb industry."

Too late. Incandescent bulbs will soon be illegal.

http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=15289

From that article:
"The pulse lasts a mere femtosecond, and delivers as much power as the
entire grid of North America into a needle point size spot."

Huh? I think they left out one of the units or something, and if they
didn't I don't see how using that much energy to modify the filaments
could save energy on a production scale.

Read the comments below the article: lots of sloppy "science" in the text.

I forwarded this article to my pointy-headed scientist friend. Curious
to see what he has to say about this.


--
Found--the gene that causes belief in genetic determinism

David Nebenzahl wrote:
On 6/2/2009 2:32 PM RicodJour spake thus:

On Jun 2, 4:20 pm, "HeyBub" wrote:

"Chunlei Guo, associate professor of optics at the University of
Rochester,
... have been able to squeeze out fluorescent-like energy performance
from
an incandescent light bulb. The breakthrough boils down to a laser
treatment of the bulb's tungsten filament, a processing step which
could one
day become a standard in the light bulb industry."

Too late. Incandescent bulbs will soon be illegal.

http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=15289

From that article:
"The pulse lasts a mere femtosecond, and delivers as much power as the
entire grid of North America into a needle point size spot."

Huh? I think they left out one of the units or something, and if they
didn't I don't see how using that much energy to modify the filaments
could save energy on a production scale.

Read the comments below the article: lots of sloppy "science" in the text.

I forwarded this article to my pointy-headed scientist friend. Curious
to see what he has to say about this.



If I was interpreting the article correctly, I believe that what they
were saying was that they were putting a massive amount of energy into
the filament over a very short timescale. so quite possibly the total
kWh used to "modify" a filament may be very reasonable, but the current
drawn for that brief instant would be quite massive. nothing that
couldn't be handled with a hugeass bank of capacitors.

Now whether, overall, it's worth it... or if it really works... remains
to be seen. An interesting read, if nothing else. I'd certainly be
inclined to buy a hotrodded incandescent bulb over a CFL given similar
energy consumption (including the energy used in production)

nate

--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

In article , HeyBub wrote:
"Chunlei Guo, associate professor of optics at the University of Rochester,
... have been able to squeeze out fluorescent-like energy performance from
an incandescent light bulb. The breakthrough boils down to a laser
treatment of the bulb's tungsten filament, a processing step which could one
day become a standard in the light bulb industry."

Too late. Incandescent bulbs will soon be illegal.

http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=15289

The upcoming USA Federal 2012/2014 incandescent ban has lots of
exceptions and loopholes, including an exception for meeting or exceeding
an energy efficiency standard that a few incandescents on the market using
"HIR" technology already meet. The one in the above article exceeds that
standard and would be allowed.

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

Meanwhile, the article mentions an incandescent producing as much light
as a 100 watt "regular incandescent" (my words) with "less than 60 watts".
26 watt CFLs achieve such light output.

- Don Klipstein )

On Jun 2, 5:32*pm, RicodJour wrote:
On Jun 2, 4:20*pm, "HeyBub" wrote:

"Chunlei Guo, associate professor of optics at the University of Rochester,
... have been able to squeeze out fluorescent-like energy performance from
an incandescent light bulb. *The breakthrough boils down to a laser
treatment of the bulb's tungsten filament, a processing step which could one
day become a standard in the light bulb industry."

Too late. Incandescent bulbs will soon be illegal.

http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=15289

From that article:
"The pulse lasts a mere femtosecond, and delivers as much power as the
entire grid of North America into a needle point size spot."

Huh? *I think they left out one of the units or something, and if they
didn't I don't see how using that much energy to modify the filaments
could save energy on a production scale.

R

A femtosecond is 10 raised to the -15 power. So, while it's a lot of
power, it lasts for such a short time, that it's not much energy at
all. If it was any significant amount of energy, it would vaporize
the entire filament, not just change it.

On Jun 2, 6:01*pm, Nate Nagel wrote:
David Nebenzahl wrote:
On 6/2/2009 2:32 PM RicodJour spake thus:

On Jun 2, 4:20 pm, "HeyBub" wrote:

"Chunlei Guo, associate professor of optics at the University of
Rochester,
... have been able to squeeze out fluorescent-like energy performance
from
an incandescent light bulb. *The breakthrough boils down to a laser
treatment of the bulb's tungsten filament, a processing step which
could one
day become a standard in the light bulb industry."

Too late. Incandescent bulbs will soon be illegal.

http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=15289

From that article:
"The pulse lasts a mere femtosecond, and delivers as much power as the
entire grid of North America into a needle point size spot."

Huh? *I think they left out one of the units or something, and if they
didn't I don't see how using that much energy to modify the filaments
could save energy on a production scale.

Read the comments below the article: lots of sloppy "science" in the text.

wrote:
On Jun 2, 6:01 pm, Nate Nagel wrote:
David Nebenzahl wrote:
On 6/2/2009 2:32 PM RicodJour spake thus:
On Jun 2, 4:20 pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
"Chunlei Guo, associate professor of optics at the University of
Rochester,
... have been able to squeeze out fluorescent-like energy performance
from
an incandescent light bulb. The breakthrough boils down to a laser
treatment of the bulb's tungsten filament, a processing step which
could one
day become a standard in the light bulb industry."
Too late. Incandescent bulbs will soon be illegal.
http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=15289
From that article:
"The pulse lasts a mere femtosecond, and delivers as much power as the
entire grid of North America into a needle point size spot."
Huh? I think they left out one of the units or something, and if they
didn't I don't see how using that much energy to modify the filaments
could save energy on a production scale.
Read the comments below the article: lots of sloppy "science" in the text.
I forwarded this article to my pointy-headed scientist friend. Curious
to see what he has to say about this.
If I was interpreting the article correctly, I believe that what they
were saying was that they were putting a massive amount of energy into
the filament over a very short timescale. so quite possibly the total
kWh used to "modify" a filament may be very reasonable, but the current
drawn for that brief instant would be quite massive. nothing that
couldn't be handled with a hugeass bank of capacitors.

Now whether, overall, it's worth it... or if it really works... remains
to be seen. An interesting read, if nothing else. I'd certainly be
inclined to buy a hotrodded incandescent bulb over a CFL given similar
energy consumption (including the energy used in production)

nate

--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.http://members.cox.net/njnagel- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


The real problem here is that they didn't do anywhere what the
headline claimed. According to the facts in the article, they can
produce an incandescent bulb that produces the light of a 100W one
while using only 60W. While a major improvement, that's still
almost 3X the 23W of a CFL. MAybe they think they can get there
with further refinement, but it isn't so yet.

True, but there are applications where an incandescent is more
appropriate than a CFL (hallway lights, outdoor lighting, etc.) so
improvements in incandescent technology combined with the use of CFLs
where appropriate can only reduce our overall energy use.

Plus, an incandescent can be dimmed out of the box; only a few expensive
CFLs can. More savings - why use more light than you need? Use bright
bulbs in all your fixtures but dim them down to a comfortable level.
Bulbs will last darn near forever, and you can adjust the light level
from needing a little to make up for an overcast day to much brighter on
a dark night.

I for one welcome our new energy-saving incandescent overlords :P

nate

--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

On Jun 2, 7:11*pm, wrote:
On Jun 2, 5:32*pm, RicodJour wrote:



On Jun 2, 4:20*pm, "HeyBub" wrote:

"Chunlei Guo, associate professor of optics at the University of Rochester,
... have been able to squeeze out fluorescent-like energy performance from
an incandescent light bulb. *The breakthrough boils down to a laser
treatment of the bulb's tungsten filament, a processing step which could one
day become a standard in the light bulb industry."

Too late. Incandescent bulbs will soon be illegal.

http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=15289

From that article:
"The pulse lasts a mere femtosecond, and delivers as much power as the
entire grid of North America into a needle point size spot."

Huh? *I think they left out one of the units or something, and if they
didn't I don't see how using that much energy to modify the filaments
could save energy on a production scale.


A femtosecond is 10 raised to the -15 power. * So, while it's a lot of
power, it lasts for such a short time, that it's not much energy at
all. * If it was any significant amount of energy, it would vaporize
the entire filament, not just change it.

I know what a femtosecond is, even though I've never actually measured
one (I have a cheap watch). The article said that for that
femtosecond the power output to convert the filament was as much power
as the entire NA power grid puts out (assumedly for the same
femtosecond). Multiply that femtosecond power requirement by how many
bulbs produced in {insert time period here} and a lot of those decimal
point zeros fall off and the energy spent to save energy might be
quite large indeed.

It's a crappy article written about something very interesting.

R

On Jun 2, 8:08*pm, Nate Nagel wrote:

Plus, an incandescent can be dimmed out of the box; only a few expensive
CFLs can. *More savings - why use more light than you need? *Use bright
bulbs in all your fixtures but dim them down to a comfortable level.

Wasting 'light' or energy? I wonder if most people realize that the
older dimmer switches used a resistor and the potentially-saved energy
is just dissipated as heat - they don't save energy. The newer ones
chop up the sine wave and do save energy, so if someone is trying to
be energy efficient they will need to upgrade those old dimmers along
with the bulbs.

R

On Jun 2, 9:43*pm, RicodJour wrote:
On Jun 2, 8:08*pm, Nate Nagel wrote:



Plus, an incandescent can be dimmed out of the box; only a few expensive
CFLs can. *More savings - why use more light than you need? *Use bright
bulbs in all your fixtures but dim them down to a comfortable level.

Wasting 'light' or energy? *I wonder if most people realize that the
older dimmer switches used a resistor and the potentially-saved energy
is just dissipated as heat - they don't save energy. *The newer ones
chop up the sine wave and do save energy, so if someone is trying to
be energy efficient they will need to upgrade those old dimmers along
with the bulbs.

R

There aren't many resistance based dimmers around that need to be
replaced. The triac semiconductor type have been the only thing
you find for the common switch replacement applications for at least
several decade.

On Jun 2, 9:19*pm, RicodJour wrote:
On Jun 2, 7:11*pm, wrote:





On Jun 2, 5:32*pm, RicodJour wrote:

On Jun 2, 4:20*pm, "HeyBub" wrote:

"Chunlei Guo, associate professor of optics at the University of Rochester,
... have been able to squeeze out fluorescent-like energy performance from
an incandescent light bulb. *The breakthrough boils down to a laser
treatment of the bulb's tungsten filament, a processing step which could one
day become a standard in the light bulb industry."

Too late. Incandescent bulbs will soon be illegal.

http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=15289

From that article:
"The pulse lasts a mere femtosecond, and delivers as much power as the
entire grid of North America into a needle point size spot."

Huh? *I think they left out one of the units or something, and if they
didn't I don't see how using that much energy to modify the filaments
could save energy on a production scale.

A femtosecond is 10 raised to the -15 power. * So, while it's a lot of
power, it lasts for such a short time, that it's not much energy at
all. * If it was any significant amount of energy, it would vaporize
the entire filament, not just change it.

I know what a femtosecond is, even though I've never actually measured
one (I have a cheap watch). *The article said that for that
femtosecond the power output to convert the filament was as much power
as the entire NA power grid puts out (assumedly for the same
femtosecond). *Multiply that femtosecond power requirement by how many
bulbs produced in {insert time period here} and a lot of those decimal
point zeros fall off and the energy spent to save energy might be
quite large indeed.

Even if you multiply somthing that is 15 zeros small by a hundred or a
thousand, it still isn;t going to be a number that amounts to any
extraordinary amount of energy.

Let's say you make 1000 bulbs a second, which would be a hell of a
nice production rate. The total generating capacity of NA, which is
certainly more than the actual grid usage, is about 1 tera watt. Now
let's figure out how much energy in KWH it actually takes to hit each
one of those 1000 bulbs with that laser pulse:

1.0 E12 total NA capacity in watts

Convert to Kwatts:

1.0 E9 KW

Which would be 1.0 E9 KWHours if the pulse lasted an hour, but it only
lasts a femtosecond, divide that by 3600 to get to seconds

2.8 E5 KWH

then by 10 E15 to get to a femtosecond:

2.8 E-10

then multiply by 1000 bulbs:

2.8 E-7 KWH is the energy it actually takes to hit those 1000 bulbs
made in one second.

In an hour it would use:

1.0 E-3 which is 1 thousandth of a KWH of energy, or 1 watt hour.
Clearly an amount insignificant even compared to household usage.

On 6/2/2009 6:00 PM, Don Klipstein wrote:

http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=15289

The upcoming USA Federal 2012/2014 incandescent ban has lots of
exceptions and loopholes, including an exception for meeting or exceeding
an energy efficiency standard that a few incandescents on the market using
"HIR" technology already meet. The one in the above article exceeds that
standard and would be allowed.

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

So I'm going to have to get light fixtures that are non-standard
halogens that suck up more energy, or deal with CFL's that give me a
headache. Nice choice.

On Jun 3, 9:49*am, Ryan P wrote:

* So I'm going to have to get light fixtures that are non-standard
halogens that suck up more energy, or deal with CFL's that give me a
headache. *Nice choice. *

CFLs give you a headache...? Why? If it's the color of the light,
they make different types. The flicker on fluorescent tubes bothers
me, but I've never noticed a flicker on a CFL.

R

RicodJour wrote:
On Jun 3, 9:49 am, Ryan P wrote:

So I'm going to have to get light fixtures that are non-standard
halogens that suck up more energy, or deal with CFL's that give me a
headache. Nice choice.

CFLs give you a headache...? Why? If it's the color of the light,
they make different types. The flicker on fluorescent tubes bothers
me, but I've never noticed a flicker on a CFL.

A CFL *IS* a fluorescent tube.

On 6/3/2009 9:20 AM, RicodJour wrote:

CFLs give you a headache...? Why? If it's the color of the light,
they make different types. The flicker on fluorescent tubes bothers
me, but I've never noticed a flicker on a CFL.


The "daylight" CFL's are the only ones that I can tolerate, and I
generally find them far more fatiguing than regular incandescent bulbs.
Do they make them with an incandescent-like glow? That might help.


Although, besides that, I admit I just don't really like the
technology that much, beyond the wattage savings. Maybe its
psychological.

I refuse to put them in anywhere that I need "quick" light, like in
hallways, the kitchen, motion-activated yard lights, etc, because it
takes :30-:60 to achieve full brightness. And that's under normal
(60-80 degree) temperatures. The yard light (I have a two-light flood,
one is incandescent, the other is a CFL) takes a good 2 minutes to warm
up in the winter.

RicodJour wrote:
On Jun 3, 9:49 am, Ryan P wrote:
So I'm going to have to get light fixtures that are non-standard
halogens that suck up more energy, or deal with CFL's that give me a
headache. Nice choice.

CFLs give you a headache...? Why? If it's the color of the light,
they make different types. The flicker on fluorescent tubes bothers
me, but I've never noticed a flicker on a CFL.

R

I will sometimes notice a flicker effect with standard
fluorescent lamps that use magnetic ballasts but not
those with electronic ballasts like CFL's. Here's a
website with some information about the reasons for
perceived flicker of fluorescent lights:

http://www.ccohs.ca/oshanswers/ergon...g_flicker.html

http://tinyurl.com/727gj

TDD

On Jun 3, 11:27*am, "HeyBub" wrote:
RicodJour wrote:

CFLs give you a headache...? *Why? * If it's the color of the light,
they make different types. *The flicker on fluorescent tubes bothers
me, but I've never noticed a flicker on a CFL.

A CFL *IS* a fluorescent tube.

You know exactly what I meant, but thanks for the unnecessary
clarification anyway.

R

On Jun 3, 12:48*pm, Ryan P wrote:
On 6/3/2009 9:20 AM, RicodJour wrote:

CFLs give you a headache...? *Why? * If it's the color of the light,
they make different types. *The flicker on fluorescent tubes bothers
me, but I've never noticed a flicker on a CFL.

* *The "daylight" CFL's are the only ones that I can tolerate, and I
generally find them far more fatiguing than regular incandescent bulbs.
* Do they make them with an incandescent-like glow? *That might help.

* *Although, besides that, I admit I just don't really like the
technology that much, beyond the wattage savings. *Maybe its
psychological. *

We're all psycho to some degree, right? There are fluorescent lights
that people generally find easier on their eyes.
http://www.fullspectrumsolutions.com...ctrum_3_ct.htm

* *I refuse to put them in anywhere that I need "quick" light, like in
hallways, the kitchen, motion-activated yard lights, etc, because it
takes :30-:60 to achieve full brightness. *And that's under normal
(60-80 degree) temperatures. *The yard light (I have a two-light flood,
one is incandescent, the other is a CFL) takes a good 2 minutes to warm
up in the winter.

If you have a problem with a quick light, it is actually _you_ that
are moving too quickly. Flip the switch and take a couple of minutes
to open the door and step outside. See? The fluorescent is shining
brightly!

R

On 6/3/2009 12:19 PM, RicodJour wrote:
On Jun 3, 12:48 pm, Ryan wrote:

The "daylight" CFL's are the only ones that I can tolerate, and I
generally find them far more fatiguing than regular incandescent bulbs.
Do they make them with an incandescent-like glow? That might help.

Although, besides that, I admit I just don't really like the
technology that much, beyond the wattage savings. Maybe its
psychological.

We're all psycho to some degree, right? There are fluorescent lights
that people generally find easier on their eyes.
http://www.fullspectrumsolutions.com...ctrum_3_ct.htm

I'll have to take a look at those. Thanks!

(60-80 degree) temperatures. The yard light (I have a two-light flood,
one is incandescent, the other is a CFL) takes a good 2 minutes to warm
up in the winter.

If you have a problem with a quick light, it is actually _you_ that
are moving too quickly. Flip the switch and take a couple of minutes
to open the door and step outside. See? The fluorescent is shining
brightly!

Darn it! I fell into the trap of blaming everything else BUT myself! lol

In ,
RicodJour wrote:

On Jun 2, 8:08*pm, Nate Nagel wrote:

Plus, an incandescent can be dimmed out of the box; only a few expensive
CFLs can. *More savings - why use more light than you need? *Use bright
bulbs in all your fixtures but dim them down to a comfortable level.

Wasting 'light' or energy? I wonder if most people realize that the
older dimmer switches used a resistor and the potentially-saved energy
is just dissipated as heat - they don't save energy. The newer ones
chop up the sine wave and do save energy, so if someone is trying to
be energy efficient they will need to upgrade those old dimmers along
with the bulbs.

Dimmers based on resistors are nowadays only slightly more common than
hairy eggs.

The real energy efficiency problem with dimming incandescents is that
they produce light less efficiently when dimmed. Typically, an
incandescent consuming half its rated wattage produces about 20% of full
light output.

If you are usually dimming them, you will probably save by using fewer
bulbs or lower wattage ones - especially fewer, as long as the
illumination pattern is satisfactory. (Higher wattage incandescents tend
to be slightly to somewhat more efficient than lower wattage ones.)

- Don Klipstein )

In article , Ryan P wrote:
On 6/2/2009 6:00 PM, Don Klipstein wrote:

http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=15289

The upcoming USA Federal 2012/2014 incandescent ban has lots of
exceptions and loopholes, including an exception for meeting or exceeding
an energy efficiency standard that a few incandescents on the market using
"HIR" technology already meet. The one in the above article exceeds that
standard and would be allowed.

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

So I'm going to have to get light fixtures that are non-standard
halogens that suck up more energy,

Or non-standard halogens that use less energy, including ones that
resemble and are interchangeable with "A19" incandescents with E26/E27
bases. Such as Philips Halogena Energy Saver. A 70 watt one produces
nearly as much light as a "standard" 100W incandescent. A 40 watt one
produces close to as much light as a "standard" 60 watt incandescent.

or deal with CFL's that give me a headache. Nice choice.

- Don Klipstein )

In ,
RicodJour wrote:

On Jun 3, 12:48*pm, Ryan P wrote:
On 6/3/2009 9:20 AM, RicodJour wrote:

CFLs give you a headache...? *Why? * If it's the color of the light,
they make different types. *The flicker on fluorescent tubes bothers
me, but I've never noticed a flicker on a CFL.

* *The "daylight" CFL's are the only ones that I can tolerate, and I
generally find them far more fatiguing than regular incandescent bulbs.
* Do they make them with an incandescent-like glow? *That might help.

* *Although, besides that, I admit I just don't really like the
technology that much, beyond the wattage savings. *Maybe its
psychological. *

We're all psycho to some degree, right? There are fluorescent lights
that people generally find easier on their eyes.
http://www.fullspectrumsolutions.com...ctrum_3_ct.htm

My experience is that lights with the daylight-like color of "full
spectrum" (whether they are or not) look stark and dreary at typical home
illumination levels.
Also, less light (by photometric units) is produced for a given amount
of electricity when color rendering index gets past the maximum of the
common triphosphor technology (mid 80's).

One more thing - there is no industry-accepted definition of "full
spectrum".

- Don Klipstein )

On Jun 3, 5:53*pm, (Don Klipstein) wrote:
RicodJour wrote:
On Jun 2, 8:08*pm, Nate Nagel wrote:

Plus, an incandescent can be dimmed out of the box; only a few expensive
CFLs can. *More savings - why use more light than you need? *Use bright
bulbs in all your fixtures but dim them down to a comfortable level.

Wasting 'light' or energy? *I wonder if most people realize that the
older dimmer switches used a resistor and the potentially-saved energy
is just dissipated as heat - they don't save energy. *The newer ones
chop up the sine wave and do save energy, so if someone is trying to
be energy efficient they will need to upgrade those old dimmers along
with the bulbs.

* Dimmers based on resistors are nowadays only slightly more common than
hairy eggs.

C'mon over to my neck of the woods and I'll serve you up some hairy
eggs, then. There are plenty of older houses around here with old
wiring, old fixtures, and old dimmers. I run into old knob and tube
stuff on occasion. When I tell the owner how old the wiring is, they
tend to freak out a bit.

R

On Jun 3, 6:02*pm, (Don Klipstein) wrote:
In ,



RicodJour wrote:
On Jun 3, 12:48*pm, Ryan P wrote:
On 6/3/2009 9:20 AM, RicodJour wrote:

CFLs give you a headache...? *Why? * If it's the color of the light,
they make different types. *The flicker on fluorescent tubes bothers
me, but I've never noticed a flicker on a CFL.

* *The "daylight" CFL's are the only ones that I can tolerate, and I
generally find them far more fatiguing than regular incandescent bulbs..
* Do they make them with an incandescent-like glow? *That might help.

* *Although, besides that, I admit I just don't really like the
technology that much, beyond the wattage savings. *Maybe its
psychological. *

We're all psycho to some degree, right? *There are fluorescent lights
that people generally find easier on their eyes.
http://www.fullspectrumsolutions.com...ctrum_3_ct.htm

* My experience is that lights with the daylight-like color of "full
spectrum" (whether they are or not) look stark and dreary at typical home
illumination levels.
* Also, less light (by photometric units) is produced for a given amount
of electricity when color rendering index gets past the maximum of the
common triphosphor technology (mid 80's).

* One more thing - there is no industry-accepted definition of "full
spectrum".

Well, your experience is not my experience, and there seem to be quite
a number of people that like/love the things. I'm kind of surprised
that you feel the full spectrum light is harsh. I find it easier on
the eyes. I'm also not sure what you mean by dreary - dreary to me
usually means there's not enough light, as in gloomy, so I don't know
how it could be both harsh and dreary.

Check out the Verilux brand. Their products usually get four and five
stars on Amazon. My Dad bought their reading lamp and liked it so
much that he now buys them and gives them as gifts. The Verilux CFL
seems to be a hole in their line-up, though. It doesn't get good
reviews.

The Litetronics Neolite CFL also gets some good reviews, though I have
no firsthand experience with them. I do like the fact that there's
far less mercury in their CFL than the average.
http://www.consumersearch.com/light-...ics-neolite-t2

Don, what do you do anyway? You seem to have a particular affinity
for lighting topics.

R

From that article:
"The pulse lasts a mere femtosecond, and delivers as much power as the
entire grid of North America into a needle point size spot."

Huh? I think they left out one of the units or something, and if they
didn't I don't see how using that much energy to modify the filaments
could save energy on a production scale.

It's not all that much "energy" but a small amount of energy put forth in
very (very) short time.

Note that materials that tend to absorb a certain frequency/color of light
also tend to more efficiently radiate that frequency/color more
"efficiently" when heated. I guess the idea is that the bulb can radiate
the same amount of light at a lower temperature.

That would reduce heat loss by convection (there is some gas in the bulb)
and conduction via the leads. But a lower temperature might lower the
"color temperature." Of hand, I can't see whether the reduction in color
temperature will help efficiency. I know that incadescent "photo flood"
lamps are consided to be efficient but they pay for that efficiency with
short life.

On Jun 4, 12:39*am, "John Gilmer" wrote:
From that article:

"The pulse lasts a mere femtosecond, and delivers as much power as the
entire grid of North America into a needle point size spot."

Huh? *I think they left out one of the units or something, and if they
didn't I don't see how using that much energy to modify the filaments
could save energy on a production scale.

It's not all that much "energy" but a small amount of energy put forth in
very (very) short time.

Yep, so it would seem. Trader did the math which I was too lazy to
do, but there was something about that article that bothered me. It
was poorly written and maybe I'm hung up on that, but I don't know, it
seemed to me to read like one of those studies funded by RJ Reynolds
that found you could smoke like a chimney and it wouldn't cause
cancer. You know, bull****.

The number crunching Trader did was based on some assumptions that
were off a bit. How many light bulbs do you think you have in your
house? I'm sure I have well over a hundred. There are 13 in the room
I'm in. There must be many billions of bulbs in the US. Frankly I
wasn't interested enough to do the math, but there are still questions
due to the lame ass writing in that article. "As much power as the
entire NA grid"...does that include nuke, coal, wind, the whole
shebang? Trader used 1 terawatt and said that was certainly more than
the NA grid. I'm not sure what the NA number is, but the worldwide
consumption estimate was 15 terawatts in 2006, with the US consuming
25%.

Anyway, I'm all for efficiency as long as it is real efficiency and
doesn't come with serious "side effects". The mercury in CFLs being
one of them.

R

On Jun 3, 5:53 pm, (Don Klipstein) wrote:

RicodJour wrote:

Wasting 'light' or energy? I wonder if most people realize that
the older dimmer switches used a resistor and the
potentially-saved energy is just dissipated as heat - they don't
save energy. The newer ones chop up the sine wave and do save
energy, so if someone is trying to be energy efficient they will
need to upgrade those old dimmers along with the bulbs.

Dimmers based on resistors are nowadays only slightly more common than
hairy eggs.

C'mon over to my neck of the woods and I'll serve you up some hairy
eggs, then. There are plenty of older houses around here with old
wiring, old fixtures, and old dimmers. I run into old knob and tube
stuff on occasion. When I tell the owner how old the wiring is, they
tend to freak out a bit.

I work on lots of houses that still have (and are still using) knob &
tube wiring. But invariably if there's a dimmer switch, it's the
"modren" triac type, not some kind of ancient rheostat.


--
Found--the gene that causes belief in genetic determinism

Don Klipstein wrote:
In
,
RicodJour wrote:

On Jun 3, 12:48 pm, Ryan P wrote:
On 6/3/2009 9:20 AM, RicodJour wrote:

CFLs give you a headache...? Why? If it's the color of the light,
they make different types. The flicker on fluorescent tubes bothers
me, but I've never noticed a flicker on a CFL.

The "daylight" CFL's are the only ones that I can tolerate, and I
generally find them far more fatiguing than regular incandescent
bulbs. Do they make them with an incandescent-like glow? That might
help.

Although, besides that, I admit I just don't really like the
technology that much, beyond the wattage savings. Maybe its
psychological.

We're all psycho to some degree, right? There are fluorescent lights
that people generally find easier on their eyes.
http://www.fullspectrumsolutions.com...ctrum_3_ct.htm

My experience is that lights with the daylight-like color of "full
spectrum" (whether they are or not) look stark and dreary at typical
home illumination levels.
Also, less light (by photometric units) is produced for a given
amount of electricity when color rendering index gets past the
maximum of the common triphosphor technology (mid 80's).

One more thing - there is no industry-accepted definition of "full
spectrum".


My dentist has four DIFFERENT fluorescent bulbs in his overhead. When asked,
he said that the different "colors" helps him get the right shading for his
work.

Hmmm.

I replaced three of the four incandescent bulbs above the bathroom mirror
with as wildly different (white) colors as I could find and my then-current
squeeze said she could do a better job of applying makeup.

Looked the same to me, but for just a few bucks, she VERY enthusiastically
expressed her gratitude.

In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:

I replaced three of the four incandescent bulbs above the bathroom mirror
with as wildly different (white) colors as I could find and my then-current
squeeze said she could do a better job of applying makeup.

Looked the same to me, but for just a few bucks, she VERY enthusiastically
expressed her gratitude.

How much did you pay for the bulbs? 25 cents each? So create some sexy
packaging and hyped-up marketing copy and sell "make-up light kits" on
ebay for $37.50 each. With FREE SHIPPING !!!!!

On Jun 4, 2:24*am, David Nebenzahl wrote:

I work on lots of houses that still have (and are still using) knob &
tube wiring. But invariably if there's a dimmer switch, it's the
"modren" triac type, not some kind of ancient rheostat.

This is interesting - there seems to be some confusion. Maybe you can
help me.

I wrote: "so if someone is trying to be energy efficient they will
need to upgrade those old dimmers along with the bulbs." How is it
that people are reading that and construing it to mean that I said all
dimmers were the older type and needed to be replaced? Right. I
didn't.

Your experiences differ from mine on working on old houses. This does
not surprise me.

R

In ,
RicodJour wrote in part:

Anyway, I'm all for efficiency as long as it is real efficiency and
doesn't come with serious "side effects". The mercury in CFLs being
one of them.

Replacing incandescents with CFLs, where CFLs work well (not fridges or
motion sensor lights), actually gives a net reduction of mercury
contribution to the environment by reducing coal burning. On average, the
coal saved by using a CFL in place of an incandescent has more mercury
than the CFL has.

Meanwhile, there are safe ways to dispose of dead CFLs. Last time I
heard, Home Depot accepts them. Also, for local legal requirements as
well as for good ways to get rid of them, there is www.lamprecycle.org

- Don Klipstein )

On Jun 4, 9:49*am, (Don Klipstein) wrote:
RicodJour wrote in part:

Anyway, I'm all for efficiency as long as it is real efficiency and
doesn't come with serious "side effects". *The mercury in CFLs being
one of them.

* Replacing incandescents with CFLs, where CFLs work well (not fridges or
motion sensor lights), actually gives a net reduction of mercury
contribution to the environment by reducing coal burning. *On average, the
coal saved by using a CFL in place of an incandescent has more mercury
than the CFL has.

Yes, I understand that part, but it's the disposal I'm talking
about...well, that and the fact that I am not getting the claimed life
out of the CFLs I've been buying, so that skews the calculation.

* Meanwhile, there are safe ways to dispose of dead CFLs. *Last time I
heard, Home Depot accepts them. *Also, for local legal requirements as
well as for good ways to get rid of them, there is www.lamprecycle.org

Right. I collect the dead bulbs and bring them in, but I'm sure most
people just toss them in the trash.

R

Don Klipstein wrote:
In ,
RicodJour wrote in part:

Anyway, I'm all for efficiency as long as it is real efficiency and
doesn't come with serious "side effects". The mercury in CFLs being
one of them.

Replacing incandescents with CFLs, where CFLs work well (not fridges
or motion sensor lights), actually gives a net reduction of mercury
contribution to the environment by reducing coal burning. On
average, the coal saved by using a CFL in place of an incandescent
has more mercury than the CFL has.

There's much more Tungsten in a discarded incandescent bulb than there is
Mercury in a discarded CFL. Where's the outrage?



Meanwhile, there are safe ways to dispose of dead CFLs. Last time I
heard, Home Depot accepts them. Also, for local legal requirements as
well as for good ways to get rid of them, there is www.lamprecycle.org



Dilbert: "I have recycle bins for paper and metal. But you only have one
container."
Janitor: (silence)
Dilbert: "So I'm thinking you make two trips. Right?"
Janitor: (silence)
Dilbert: "Oh, I see. You resort them on the loading dock. Right?"
Janitor: (silence)

Smitty Two wrote:
In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:

I replaced three of the four incandescent bulbs above the bathroom
mirror with as wildly different (white) colors as I could find and
my then-current squeeze said she could do a better job of applying
makeup.

Looked the same to me, but for just a few bucks, she VERY
enthusiastically expressed her gratitude.

How much did you pay for the bulbs? 25 cents each? So create some sexy
packaging and hyped-up marketing copy and sell "make-up light kits" on
ebay for $37.50 each. With FREE SHIPPING !!!!!

Oooh! Good idea!

Right now I'm selling bullet clocks. I buy a quartz wall clock from Walmart
for $3.50, paste some colored prints of bullets (.50 cal & .30 cal) over the
hands, and sell for the result for $15.00.

I'm working on another design: It's a full-figured, grinning, President
Obama with his arms as clock-hands while displaying the "V" sign with his
fingers.

I'm trying to finish the project while his popularity is still in
double-digits.

My first promotion will be to the people who bought the bullet clocks.

On 6/4/2009 6:13 AM RicodJour spake thus:

On Jun 4, 2:24 am, David Nebenzahl wrote:

I work on lots of houses that still have (and are still using) knob &
tube wiring. But invariably if there's a dimmer switch, it's the
"modren" triac type, not some kind of ancient rheostat.

This is interesting - there seems to be some confusion. Maybe you can
help me.

Well, you wrote, and I quote:

There are plenty of older houses around here with old
wiring, old fixtures, and old dimmers.

As you noted, our experiences differ: I've *never* seen an old (i.e.,
non-triac) dimmer in a house with old wiring and old fixtures. And I've
worked on plenty such houses (in the SF Bay Area). Maybe it's a
geographical difference.


--
Found--the gene that causes belief in genetic determinism

On Jun 4, 1:45*pm, David Nebenzahl wrote:

Well, you wrote, and I quote:

* *There are plenty of older houses around here with old
* *wiring, old fixtures, and old dimmers.

As you noted, our experiences differ: I've *never* seen an old (i.e.,
non-triac) dimmer in a house with old wiring and old fixtures. And I've
worked on plenty such houses (in the SF Bay Area). Maybe it's a
geographical difference.

As most things in construction - probably.

Unfortunately the trend around here now is for people to buy a nice
older home, knock it down and put up an over-sized McMansion. Some a-
holes knocked down a house from 1693. That's not a typo. Another one
had two houses and a beautiful storybook cottage on the property and
the owner refused to let it become a historic landmark (even though
one house was from the late 1700's) as they had "plans" for it and
didn't want their hands tied. Their plans went up in smoke with the
bankruptcy, the judge (who I swear someone got to) sold it for a
pittance to a lawyer (who is now in jail) and the lawyer promptly
knocked down all three houses and took down about two hundred trees.
The only think the building department could get him on was for
"unlicensed demolition". He started building a monstrosity before he
got put in the pokey, it languished uncompleted for years, and just
was completed a couple of years ago.

R

On Thu, 4 Jun 2009 11:34:12 -0500, "HeyBub"
wrote:

Smitty Two wrote:
In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:

I replaced three of the four incandescent bulbs above the bathroom
mirror with as wildly different (white) colors as I could find and
my then-current squeeze said she could do a better job of applying
makeup.

Looked the same to me, but for just a few bucks, she VERY
enthusiastically expressed her gratitude.

How much did you pay for the bulbs? 25 cents each? So create some sexy
packaging and hyped-up marketing copy and sell "make-up light kits" on
ebay for $37.50 each. With FREE SHIPPING !!!!!

Oooh! Good idea!

Right now I'm selling bullet clocks. I buy a quartz wall clock from Walmart
for $3.50, paste some colored prints of bullets (.50 cal & .30 cal) over the
hands, and sell for the result for $15.00.

I'm working on another design: It's a full-figured, grinning, President
Obama with his arms as clock-hands while displaying the "V" sign with his
fingers.

I'm trying to finish the project while his popularity is still in
double-digits.

My first promotion will be to the people who bought the bullet clocks.

The bullet-clock people would be more likely to buy a clock showing
"W" holding up a MISSION ACCOMPLISHED sign or one showing Cheney
blowing the jaw off of a hunting friend while waterboading some
terrorists.

I think they'd also be good candidates for Satan Filters and Jesus
Amplifiers. Get a bunch of cable connectors from Radio Shack. Paint
some black with various satanic symbols. That's the Satan Filter.
Paint the other one heavenly gold. That's the Jesus amplifier. Tell
people to put them on the cable TV line coming into their house.

In ,
RicodJour wrote:

On Jun 4, 9:49*am, (Don Klipstein) wrote:
RicodJour wrote in part:

Anyway, I'm all for efficiency as long as it is real efficiency and
doesn't come with serious "side effects". *The mercury in CFLs being
one of them.

* Replacing incandescents with CFLs, where CFLs work well (not fridges or
motion sensor lights), actually gives a net reduction of mercury
contribution to the environment by reducing coal burning. *On average, the
coal saved by using a CFL in place of an incandescent has more mercury
than the CFL has.

Yes, I understand that part, but it's the disposal I'm talking
about...well, that and the fact that I am not getting the claimed life
out of the CFLs I've been buying, so that skews the calculation.

* Meanwhile, there are safe ways to dispose of dead CFLs. *Last time I
heard, Home Depot accepts them. *Also, for local legal requirements as
well as for good ways to get rid of them, there is www.lamprecycle.org

Right. I collect the dead bulbs and bring them in, but I'm sure most
people just toss them in the trash.

Although the calculation is affected by CFLs failing to meet claimed
life expectancy, they otherwise reduce mercury contribution to the
environment even if all of their mercury goes into the environment.

Meanwhile, I have a lot of experience with CFLs - not only mine, but
also ones other than mine. My experience is that average life expectancy
is not short by much.

Short life expectancy mostly occurs when:

* CFLs not rated for small enclosed fixtures, especially if over 15 watts,
are used in small enclosed fixtures.

* CFLs not rated for use in recessed ceiling fixtures, especially if over
18 watts (over 14 watts if spiral), are used in recessed ceiling fixtures.

* CFLs are used where on-time is brief, such as motion sensor lights and
restrooms used mainly for short trips.

* The CFLs are dollar store stool specimens. I have also had bad
experience with Lights of America until I pretty much stopped using them
in 2001.
Better to get one having the "Energy Star" logo or one of a "Big 3"
brand (GE, Philips, Sylvania), preferably both.
You may want one of the many now coming with a limited warranty (save
both the receipt and packake UPC code, and something to trace which bulb
each is for).

- Don Klipstein )