.... so since our communal aerial went phut, I've been messing about with
aerial positioning to get the best signal (we're in a valley) and
cursing Mr Plod as tetra-type interference pops up on the screen every
evening. Today I was trying to work out what was wrong with my son's
computer, and suddenly SWMBO calls up that the interference has just
come on - did you just turn anything on?

We had.

The landing light.

It appears the OSRAM CFL is shoving out significant quantities of
broadband RF!

Never heard of a tungsten filament doing that...

Andy

"Andy Champ" wrote in message
. uk...
... so since our communal aerial went phut, I've been messing about with
aerial positioning to get the best signal (we're in a valley) and cursing
Mr Plod as tetra-type interference pops up on the screen every evening.
Today I was trying to work out what was wrong with my son's computer, and
suddenly SWMBO calls up that the interference has just come on - did you
just turn anything on?

We had.

The landing light.

It appears the OSRAM CFL is shoving out significant quantities of
broadband RF!

Never heard of a tungsten filament doing that...

Andy

But then a tungsten filament lamp hasn't got a fundamentally dirty
switchmode power supply made from the crappiest 'just about adequate when
new' components, jammed into an unventilated base enclosure, guaranteed to
fry the main filter cap ...

Go take a look at

http://www.pavouk.org/hw/lamp/en_index.html

for an interesting insight into these hateful pieces of eco-crap.

Arfa

On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 00:16:16 +0100 someone who may be "Arfa Daily"
wrote this:-

http://www.pavouk.org/hw/lamp/en_index.html

for an interesting insight into these hateful pieces of eco-crap.

The first sentence of which is, "Compact fluorescent lamps have some
benefits in comparison with classic light bulbs. It is lower power
consumption (to 80%) and much longer lifetime (5 to 15 times).
Disadvantages are longer starts mainly at more expensive types,
impossibility to use darker and price."

Of the disadvantages, the first is no longer a problem as many lamps
start rapidly enough to be used anywhere. The second disadvantage
is, I assume, impossibility to dim. That is no longer a problem as
dimmable lamps are now being put on the market. That just leaves the
price, which is not a problem if one considers life cycle costs,
they are cheaper to buy and operate than the equivalent classic
light bulbs.

Thanks for pointing out that page. It demolishes your assertion.



--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

On 2008-06-13 08:36:18 +0100, David Hansen
said:

On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 00:16:16 +0100 someone who may be "Arfa Daily"
wrote this:-

http://www.pavouk.org/hw/lamp/en_index.html

for an interesting insight into these hateful pieces of eco-crap.

The first sentence of which is, "Compact fluorescent lamps have some
benefits in comparison with classic light bulbs. It is lower power
consumption (to 80%) and much longer lifetime (5 to 15 times).
Disadvantages are longer starts mainly at more expensive types,
impossibility to use darker and price."

Of the disadvantages, the first is no longer a problem as many lamps
start rapidly enough to be used anywhere. The second disadvantage
is, I assume, impossibility to dim. That is no longer a problem as
dimmable lamps are now being put on the market. That just leaves the
price, which is not a problem if one considers life cycle costs,
they are cheaper to buy and operate than the equivalent classic
light bulbs.

There is also the point that the light produced is appalling in terms
of quality and that the claimed equivalent outputs are woefully over
optimistic. The so called energy savings (even assuming that that were
necessary in the first place) can therefore not be what is claimed by
the manufacturers.

Alternatively, "hateful pieces of eco-crap" is a way of summarising it
very well without the technical detail.

I notice that the Chinese are opening another four coal power stations
this month.

In the meantime, let's all nuke the disabled gay baby whales for Jesus.

"David Hansen" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 00:16:16 +0100 someone who may be "Arfa Daily"
wrote this:-

http://www.pavouk.org/hw/lamp/en_index.html

for an interesting insight into these hateful pieces of eco-crap.

The first sentence of which is, "Compact fluorescent lamps have some
benefits in comparison with classic light bulbs. It is lower power
consumption (to 80%) and much longer lifetime (5 to 15 times).
Disadvantages are longer starts mainly at more expensive types,
impossibility to use darker and price."

Of the disadvantages, the first is no longer a problem as many lamps
start rapidly enough to be used anywhere. The second disadvantage
is, I assume, impossibility to dim. That is no longer a problem as
dimmable lamps are now being put on the market. That just leaves the
price, which is not a problem if one considers life cycle costs,
they are cheaper to buy and operate than the equivalent classic
light bulbs.

Thanks for pointing out that page. It demolishes your assertion.



--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

Some people just go out of their way to 'catch the wrong drift'. I intended
you to look at the mass of electronics crammed into the base of these
things, and to look at the fundamentally unfiltered front end of the
circuitry. Obviously, as you understand diddly squat about electronics, this
went right over your head ...

The eco-advantages of these things are extremely questionable, given that
they use multiple manufacturing processes compared to incandescents. This
involves many more factories and workers, much more shipping around the
globe of an item which is heavier than an incandescent, and is also bulkier
due to the additional packaging required (which also has to be disposed of).
Then throw in the fact that they use toxic mercury compounds, and need to be
disposed of properly. The claimed lifetimes for them are seldom achieved in
practice, due to the inverter in the base failing from heat stress. This is
especially true when they are fitted to enclosed luminaires or other similar
fittings. Some actually warn against this on the box. The theory of the
manufacturing and shipping energy budgets being more than offset by the
lifetime of them, and their reduced power consumption, then doesn't work out
quite so cleverly ...

With the best will in the world, these things do not start instantly as an
incandescent does, nor do they produce properly useable light for the first
15 seconds at least, and longer in the cold. The quality of the light is is
such that reading under them is at best uncomfortable, and with the CRI that
some of them have, near impossible. I have a good quality one in one of my
toilets. For the first 20 seconds, the light it produces is like a candle
shining through a bottle of ****, after which, it ramps up until it is like
standing on Venus with the sun at your back.

They are not a replacement for incandescents. They are a substitute - and
not a very good one at that. The promotion of them to the point where they
are supposedly going to be mandated, is as much political as practical.
Everyone in euro-politics is trying to make their mark by jumping on the
eco-******** bandwagon, and these lamps are as good an example as you will
find.

Arfa

Andy Hall wrote:

Of the disadvantages, the first is no longer a problem as many lamps
start rapidly enough to be used anywhere. The second disadvantage
is, I assume, impossibility to dim. That is no longer a problem as
dimmable lamps are now being put on the market. That just leaves the
price, which is not a problem if one considers life cycle costs,
they are cheaper to buy and operate than the equivalent classic
light bulbs.

There is also the point that the light produced is appalling in terms of
quality and that the claimed equivalent outputs are woefully over
optimistic. The so called energy savings (even assuming that that were
necessary in the first place) can therefore not be what is claimed by
the manufacturers.



Herein is the problem. Matters like these very often lead to invective
instead of listening and thinking.

Very few topics are completely black and white. The environment is very,
very grey, partly because it is so new we have not had the chance to
develop common-sense and experience and partly because it is highly
complex. Things that seem right turn out to be wrong. The law of
unforeseen consequences. For example bio-fuel. Though, in fact, very
often the consequences were foreseen by the informed and clever but they
were ignored or shouted down. I was teaching about global warming and
the greenhouse effect decades ago.

Lamps are a good example. 'They are a good thing and we must all be
forced to use them.' Well not quite. The lamps are not as efficient as
made out. You cannot use a lamp with one-fifth the power rating and get
the same light output. The light from high colour-temperature lamps is
harsh and horrible and the warm ones do not produce as much light.
Turning them on and off is not a good idea so you leave them on.

The fitting are really bad. I made the mistake of buying some
wall-lights with the new square bases. Discovered too late that I
couldn't buy lower rated lamps for them so they are too bright. These
are the only types so far that can be dimmed (not mine though). Dimming
is going to be a key matter to be solved.

That said, I have now changed all my lamps to LE apart from bathroom
ones which are switched on and off frequently. My electricity bill has
gone down despite price rises. Of course we must all use less energy and
lighting is one way of many. People should not be forced, and they
should be informed of both the good and bad points. When someone tries
to force me to do something I dig my heels in and I do the opposite.
This hateful government has forced much too much on us already. I don't
want to see people becoming antagonistic towards energy saving because
of government intrusion. They will do it because they can see the sense
in it.

Peter Scott

On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 11:51:11 +0100 someone who may be Peter Scott
wrote this:-

Very few topics are completely black and white. The environment is very,
very grey, partly because it is so new we have not had the chance to
develop common-sense and experience and partly because it is highly
complex.

Agreed.

Turning them on and off is not a good idea

No longer true, though there was something to be said for it with
the earliest such lamps. Not just because of the possibility of
failure but also because of the long warming up time.

so you leave them on.

Some of my energy saving lamps have been turned on and off for short
periods for something like a decade. No sign of them flagging yet.

The fitting are really bad. I made the mistake of buying some
wall-lights with the new square bases. Discovered too late that I
couldn't buy lower rated lamps for them so they are too bright. These
are the only types so far that can be dimmed (not mine though).

New lamps became available, I guess, towards the end of last year
which are continuously dimmable.

http://www.lightbulbs-direct.com/browse_category.asp?Mode=prods&PGID=109
is one supplier.




--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 11:41:51 +0100 someone who may be "Arfa Daily"
wrote this:-

Thanks for pointing out that page. It demolishes your assertion.

Some people just go out of their way to 'catch the wrong drift'. I intended
you to look at the mass of electronics crammed into the base of these
things, and to look at the fundamentally unfiltered front end of the
circuitry. Obviously, as you understand diddly squat about electronics, this
went right over your head ...

Yawn. Proof by assertion. Huff and puff as much as you like, the
page will still continue to demolish your assertion.



--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

On Jun 13, 10:41 pm, "Arfa Daily" wrote:

I have a good quality one in one of my
toilets. For the first 20 seconds, the light it produces is like a candle
shining through a bottle of ****, after which, it ramps up until it is like
standing on Venus with the sun at your back.

That's a feature not a bug. When you stagger out to the toilet in the
middle of the night, your lamp gives your eyes time to adjust to the
light, instead of that painful instant brightness of incandescent
lamps.

In article , Arfa Daily wrote:
Go take a look at

http://www.pavouk.org/hw/lamp/en_index.html

Fascinating. I'd never have thought anybody would bother to repair a
light bulb. And I love the translation (from Chinese?); it's like
poetry, or a form of Unwinese. You know what it's saying but the words
are just different enough to keep you on your toes.

"When the pipe serve out, electronics is usually destroyed too".

"Lamp is usually compounded of two parts. One is plastic cover with
holes for pipe and bills. Tube is agglutinated to it".

"Both plastic parts are clicked to himself and sometimes glued".

Rod.

"David Hansen" wrote in message
...
snip Huff and puff as much as you like

Hansen the trains-potting, eco-w*nker, is talking about himself
again...

What do you NOT understand about the *facts* that these CHLs are MORE
polluting than any incandescent are (we are talking about *whole of
life* here and not just running costs). How many people, once the
eco-vote seekers in HMG/politics make CFLs mandatory, are going to
dispose of these CFLs correctly and not just dump them in the
house-hold waste or out of a car window in the countryside, after all
the FL tube (strip) light has been around for decades but the vast
majority of people still dispose of them in general rubbish (some even
break them up to do so...) so what chance for the correct disposal of
the CFL?... :~(

On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 12:42:07 +0100 someone who may be ":Jerry:"
wrote this:-

Hansen the trains-potting, eco-w*nker, is talking about himself
again...

Excellent, a personal attack. Generally the resort of those who have
no better arguments.



--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

"David Hansen" wrote in message
...
snip
no better arguments.

We know that you don't and any valid arguments, it's also obvious that
you have failed answer to the facts presented...

In article en.co.uk,
Roderick Stewart writes:
In article , Arfa Daily wrote:
Go take a look at

http://www.pavouk.org/hw/lamp/en_index.html

Fascinating. I'd never have thought anybody would bother to repair a
light bulb.

Oh dear, I've got a box just like that one...
http://www.cucumber.demon.co.uk/lights/diy/
http://www.cucumber.demon.co.uk/lights/diy2/

Actually, I haven't reused the control gear from a CFL for some
time now as discrete electronic control gear units have become
more readily available at half-way reasonable prices, and I've
switched to using those as you'll see from the second (more
recent) web page.

However, I just had a 7 year old IKEA CFL die (an ES version of
the 20W IKEA one shown in the first picture). It was one of many
I bought at the same time. They've all lasted ages in heavy use,
except for one very early electronics failure. I transplanted the
almost unused tube from that early failure into the one whose tube
just died, and it's working again! It was a kind of challenge,
having saved away the dead lamp for just this purpose many years
back. The cost of CFL's now certainly doesn't merit this though!

--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]

On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 12:56:46 +0100 someone who may be ":Jerry:"
wrote this:-

We know that you don't and any valid arguments, it's also obvious that
you have failed answer to the facts presented...

Yawn.



--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

David Hansen wrote:


No longer true, though there was something to be said for it with
the earliest such lamps. Not just because of the possibility of
failure but also because of the long warming up time.

so you leave them on.

Some of my energy saving lamps have been turned on and off for short
periods for something like a decade. No sign of them flagging yet.


Right, there's one more lamp going in. Thanks


The fitting are really bad. I made the mistake of buying some
wall-lights with the new square bases. Discovered too late that I
couldn't buy lower rated lamps for them so they are too bright. These
are the only types so far that can be dimmed (not mine though).

New lamps became available, I guess, towards the end of last year
which are continuously dimmable.

But I thought they either needed fittings with control gear built-in or
required a rather clumsy operation of the on-off switch. I rejected
these because I have four wall-lights off one switch and didn't see them
all dimming to the same brightness. Is there any indication of whether
dimming them reduces their consumption significantly, unlike tunsten?


http://www.lightbulbs-direct.com/browse_category.asp?Mode=prods&PGID=109
is one supplier.



Yes I've sen that one

Peter Scott

"David Hansen" wrote in message
...
snip
Yawn.


Yes, you are a boring old fart Hansen, it's also obvious that you have
no 'eco-answer' for the truth about CFLs and their real damage to the
environment.

On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 13:52:48 +0100 someone who may be Peter Scott
wrote this:-

New lamps became available, I guess, towards the end of last year
which are continuously dimmable.

But I thought they either needed fittings with control gear built-in or
required a rather clumsy operation of the on-off switch.

The first dimmable ones without separate control gear could be
dimmed to one of four levels with a standard dimmer. The next ones
were continuously dimmable, but by flicking the switch on and off in
a particular way. From memory one got the thing rising or falling
and then flicked the switch to stop it. The lamp then remembered the
last setting and would come on at that brightness the next time.

Neither design was particularly appealing, but they showed the way.
The latest lamps are continuously dimmable from a standard dimmer,
though are only available in some types at the moment.

Is there any indication of whether
dimming them reduces their consumption significantly, unlike tunsten?

No idea about that. The consumption is already low so there may not
be much scope to reduce it further.



--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 13:59:27 +0100 someone who may be ":Jerry:"
wrote this:-

Yes, you are a boring old fart Hansen, it's also obvious that you have
no 'eco-answer' for the truth about CFLs and their real damage to the
environment.

Yawn. Another personal attack too.

Do keep it up, it tells us a lot about your arguments.

You may have the last word, if you wish.



--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

"David Hansen" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 13:59:27 +0100 someone who may be ":Jerry:"
wrote this:-

Yes, you are a boring old fart Hansen, it's also obvious that you
have
no 'eco-answer' for the truth about CFLs and their real damage to
the
environment.

Yawn.

How about trying to answer the points raised?....

In article ,
David Hansen writes:
On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 13:52:48 +0100 someone who may be Peter Scott
wrote this:-

New lamps became available, I guess, towards the end of last year
which are continuously dimmable.

But I thought they either needed fittings with control gear built-in or
required a rather clumsy operation of the on-off switch.

The first dimmable ones without separate control gear could be
dimmed to one of four levels with a standard dimmer. The next ones
were continuously dimmable, but by flicking the switch on and off in
a particular way. From memory one got the thing rising or falling
and then flicked the switch to stop it. The lamp then remembered the
last setting and would come on at that brightness the next time.

Neither design was particularly appealing, but they showed the way.
The latest lamps are continuously dimmable from a standard dimmer,
though are only available in some types at the moment.

120V ones have been available in the US for years. It's a bit
anoying that they've not made it over here earlier. (I haven't
actually seen any of them over here yet.)

Is there any indication of whether
dimming them reduces their consumption significantly, unlike tunsten?

No idea about that. The consumption is already low so there may not
be much scope to reduce it further.

I would expect dimming would reduce consumption more significantly
than it does tungsten. A few factors I might guess at which could
be relevant (emphasise _guess_, as I haven't examined any of these
dimmable CFL retrofit lamps)...

Half the heat loss from a fluorescent is from inefficiency inherent
in the way the phosphor works relating to quantum physics. This will
drop linearly with light output, which is very much better than heat
loss from a filament lamp, which doesn't drop anything like as much
as the light output.

At lower light levels, it may be necessary to heat the tube filaments
to maintain thermionic emission. This would waste a little extra heat.
It could be that manufacturers avoid this by not allowing dimming to
such low levels.

Where heating tube filaments is used, it might be that simplistic
circuitry heats them all the time, raising the consumption at full
light output over that of a non-dimmable CFL.

Operating fluorescents dimmed wears them out faster (contrary to
filament lamps where the opposite is the case). This effect is
magnified even more significantly if you dim them during their first
100 or so hours of operation.

Another option for dimming is a cold cathode CFL. These are inherently
less efficient than regular flourescents with filamanets employing
thermionic emission, which again would raise consumption over that of
a non-dimming CFL. However, they don't need filament heating and are
instant-on, but in many dimmable ballast designs, they are modulated
at 100Hz just like conventional fluorescents on magnetic control gear.
Cold cathode CFL's with appropriately designed electrodes can have
much longer lives, even when dimmed.

Another possibility would be electrodeless fluorescents (such as the
GE Genura, although that's not dimmable). These would seem to avoid
many of the disadvantages with both types of electrode fluorescents,
but I don't know if there are new issues with dimming them. However,
they haven't made it onto the consumer market in the UK, although
there are quite a number of Chinese manufacturers who now design and
manufacture them in various styles.

--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]

In article ,
":Jerry:" writes:

How about trying to answer the points raised?....

Your points cannot be answered because they are too imprecise.
For example, you say they are more poluting, but I've no idea
what you mean by polution. For example, you might be considering
CO2 as a polutent, whereas I might not; you might be considering
glass as a polutent, whereas I might not, etc.
If you want a reasoned response, you need to make a reasoned
point in the first place.

--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]

David Hansen wrote:


Neither design was particularly appealing, but they showed the way.
The latest lamps are continuously dimmable from a standard dimmer,
though are only available in some types at the moment.

Is there any indication of whether
dimming them reduces their consumption significantly, unlike tunsten?

No idea about that. The consumption is already low so there may not
be much scope to reduce it further.



Damn! I didn't realise that standard dimmers could be used on any low
energy lamps. Just replaced mine with switches. I'll certainly follow up
the idea of dimmables for some of my lamps. I guess you are right about
not worrying too much about energy use when dimmed. I now light a whole
large room, with much greater variety because of needing more lamps, for
a little over what it cost me for one wall light. I am sure that lamp
makers are investigating all kinds of technologies.

Another way to reduce consumption is to use a video projector instead of
a TV. Mine makes a 2.3 m wide picture using 170 watts. My old 32" screen
looks like a postage stamp now.

Peter Scott

"Andrew Gabriel" wrote in message
...
In article ,
":Jerry:" writes:

How about trying to answer the points raised?....

Your points cannot be answered because they are too imprecise.

Rubbish.

For example, you say they are more poluting, but I've no idea
what you mean by polution. For example, you might be considering
CO2 as a polutent, whereas I might not; you might be considering
glass as a polutent, whereas I might not, etc.
If you want a reasoned response, you need to make a reasoned
point in the first place.


I made it quite clear that I was talking about 'whole of life'
pollution, the fact that the eco-warriors refuse to answer such
questions is that to do so truthfully would blow the 'eco-need' for
CFLs (and many other anti-pollution devices, such as catalytic
converters) right out of the water. Yes, CFLs use less electricity in
use than conventional tungsten filament bulbs but CFLs cause more
pollution in their (whole) manufacturing and disposal process. The
reason why the makers of CFLs - like LCD TVs - have pushed these
products, and in the case of the CFL jumped onto the CC/GW band-wagon,
is because they can make more money from selling CFLs than they can
from TFL. The expected life cycle of CFLs is also a lie (for both the
reasons already given elsewhere and as follows), yes they can (like
TFL) be made to last a considerable period of time but this will never
happen for the same reason that the ever-lasting TFL bulb was never
put into production (although fully developed many years ago), simply
because to do so would be signing the death-nail for the industry...

The manufactures, eco-warriors and politicians might have won the
argument but they sure as hell have not won the debate - and never
will because the *eco-facts* are simply against them.

In article ,
":Jerry:" writes:

"Andrew Gabriel" wrote in message
...
In article ,
":Jerry:" writes:

How about trying to answer the points raised?....

Your points cannot be answered because they are too imprecise.

Rubbish.

For example, you say they are more poluting, but I've no idea
what you mean by polution. For example, you might be considering
CO2 as a polutent, whereas I might not; you might be considering
glass as a polutent, whereas I might not, etc.
If you want a reasoned response, you need to make a reasoned
point in the first place.


I made it quite clear that I was talking about 'whole of life'
pollution,

Yes, but you've still failed to identify what you regard
as the relevant polutents, so how can anyone else say if
they agree or disagree with you, when they probably don't
have the same view of what the polutents are?

--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]

"Andrew Gabriel" wrote in message
...
In article ,
":Jerry:" writes:

snip

I made it quite clear that I was talking about 'whole of life'
pollution,

Yes, but you've still failed to identify what you regard
as the relevant polutents,snip

Are you saying that you (and others) spout on about how eco-friendly
these CFL bulbs are but have no idea as to what they are made from and
how they are made, how can you claim that they are eco-friendly
then?!...

In article ,
":Jerry:" writes:

"Andrew Gabriel" wrote in message
...
In article ,
":Jerry:" writes:

snip

I made it quite clear that I was talking about 'whole of life'
pollution,

Yes, but you've still failed to identify what you regard
as the relevant polutents,snip

Are you saying that you (and others) spout on about how eco-friendly
these CFL bulbs are but have no idea as to what they are made from and
how they are made, how can you claim that they are eco-friendly
then?!...



--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]

In article ,
":Jerry:" writes:

"Andrew Gabriel" wrote in message
...
In article ,
":Jerry:" writes:

snip

I made it quite clear that I was talking about 'whole of life'
pollution,

Yes, but you've still failed to identify what you regard
as the relevant polutents,snip

Are you saying that you (and others) spout on about how eco-friendly
these CFL bulbs are but have no idea as to what they are made from and
how they are made, how can you claim that they are eco-friendly
then?!...

No, I don't seem to have said that anywhere.
Conveniently, you have included exactly what I did say above.
Try reading it again, and then have a go at answering the
question, if you can.

--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]

"Andrew Gabriel" wrote in message
...
In article ,
":Jerry:" writes:

"Andrew Gabriel" wrote in message
...
In article ,
":Jerry:" writes:

snip

I made it quite clear that I was talking about 'whole of life'
pollution,

Yes, but you've still failed to identify what you regard
as the relevant polutents,snip

Are you saying that you (and others) spout on about how
eco-friendly
these CFL bulbs are but have no idea as to what they are made from
and
how they are made, how can you claim that they are eco-friendly
then?!...

No, I don't seem to have said that anywhere.
Conveniently, you have included exactly what I did say above.
Try reading it again, and then have a go at answering the
question, if you can.


Liar.

In message , ":Jerry:"
writes

"David Hansen" wrote in message
.. .
snip Huff and puff as much as you like

Hansen the trains-potting, eco-w*nker, is talking about himself
again...

What do you NOT understand about the *facts* that these CHLs are MORE
polluting than any incandescent are (we are talking about *whole of
life* here and not just running costs). How many people, once the
eco-vote seekers in HMG/politics make CFLs mandatory, are going to
dispose of these CFLs correctly and not just dump them in the
house-hold waste or out of a car window in the countryside, after all
the FL tube (strip) light has been around for decades but the vast
majority of people still dispose of them in general rubbish (some even
break them up to do so...) so what chance for the correct disposal of
the CFL?... :~(

Which has made me think (err...)

Already, under WEEE, no company can legally dispose of such a CFL


--
geoff

"Andrew Gabriel" wrote in message
...
In article ,
":Jerry:" writes:

"Andrew Gabriel" wrote in message
...
In article ,
":Jerry:" writes:

How about trying to answer the points raised?....

Your points cannot be answered because they are too imprecise.

Rubbish.

For example, you say they are more poluting, but I've no idea
what you mean by polution. For example, you might be considering
CO2 as a polutent, whereas I might not; you might be considering
glass as a polutent, whereas I might not, etc.
If you want a reasoned response, you need to make a reasoned
point in the first place.


I made it quite clear that I was talking about 'whole of life'
pollution,

Yes, but you've still failed to identify what you regard
as the relevant polutents, so how can anyone else say if
they agree or disagree with you, when they probably don't
have the same view of what the polutents are?

--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]

OK then. Let's take a look at what goes into one of these lamps, and then
you can tell us if you don't agree.

A glass envelope. The tungsten lamp has one of these, and so do some of the
CFLs, so nothing different there. Both have a brass or steel base, and a
couple of connection points in lead free solder. The incandescent has a
tungsten filament, supported on some steel wires. The CFL has tungsten
electrodes / filaments within the discharge tube, and some connecting wires,
so we'll call that quits between them. The incandescent has a filling of an
inert and fundamentally safe gas. And that's where it starts to get
different.

The discharge tube. This is a complicated structure made from glass formed
into a tube. It may have a 'simple' or 'convoluted' form, both of which
require considerable manufacturing process, and use of intense heat energy.
The inside of the tube has to be coated with a combination of phosphors that
have to be chemically extracted and purified or synthesized by a different
company, and shipped to the discharge tube manufacturer, where they have to
be mixed, liquified, and baked on. The tube has to then be filled with a
toxic mercury compound that had to be extracted, purified and shipped to the
discharge tube manufacturer.

The drive electronics. Diodes. These had to be manufactured using purified
silicon which had to be mined and extracted from the ore and then doped with
toxic chemicals such as antimony or arsenic. The diode thus created then had
to have steel wires bonded to it, and then be encapsulated in plastic. The
steel wire had to be manufactured and shipped to the semiconductor
manufacturer. The plastic had to be manufactured from oil that had to be
extracted, refined, and shipped to the plastic manufacturer. The steel wires
had to be hot dipped in solder, which had to be manufactured from tin and
copper, both of which had to be mined and extracted and purified, before
being shipped to the solder manufacturer, who then had to ship his product
to the semiconductor manufacturer. Ditto all of the above for the switching
element (FET or whatever)

Resistors. These had to be made from depositing refined carbon, which had to
be manufactured and shipped to the resistor manufacturer, onto a ceramic
substrate that had to made from clay, which had to be extracted, and then
fired to make it hard, before shipping to the resistor manufacturer. The
resistor element then had to have brass cups and steel wires (remember
them?) bonded to it, before the whole lot was encased in a hard enamel, and
then had value stripes painted on.

Capacitors. The aluminium electrolytic manufacturer had to have aluminium
foil, aluminium sheet, paper soaked in boric acid, steel wire, a rubber bung
and a plastic sleeve with printing on, and solder to make his product. The
film capacitors had to be made with aluminium foil, plastic film, steel
wires, plastic or hard enamel dip, solder, and a printing process.

Inductors. The inductor manufacturer had to use powdered iron, copper wire,
which had to be manufactured from copper ore mined and refined and processed
into wire then covered with a plastic coating, before being shipped to the
inductor manufacturer, plastic insulation film, copper strip, plastic
insulation sleeve, steel wire pins and solder to manufacture his product.

PCB. The PCB material had to be manufactured from glass fibre and coated
with copper and photoresistive chemicals, before being shipped to the board
manufacturer, who then had to put it through a photographic process, before
subjecting it to a cocktail of caustic etching chemicals, which have to be
disposed of when worn out, then cutting the board up into small pieces, and
drilling holes in it. At some point, the etched board is also cleaned and
has a chemical solder resist applied to it, and finally is roller tinned
with solder.

All of these components then have to be shipped to the electronic ballast
manufacturer, who has to assemble them into the printed circuit board,
before subjecting it to a wave or flow soldering process, using solder that
had to be manufactured and shipped to him. The completed boards then have to
be packaged, and shipped to the lamp manufacturer, who then has to assemble
the board into the base he's had made elsewhere and shipped to him, and then
fit the discharge tube, and the external envelope if used. The end result is
a lamp that weighs four times what an incandescent does, and that has to be
packed in a cardboard box that is bulkier and twice as heavy as that used
for an incandescent, so even more manufacturing and processing of wood pulp
used there.

Every one of the factories involved has workers that have to be kept warm,
dry and fed, and have to get from their homes to the factory, and back
again. That requires petrol, diesel, electricity, all of which has to be
mined, extracted, refined, generated and so on. All of these processes
release large quantities of CO2 and other carbon compounds and particulates
into the atmosphere. All of the component parts require multiple shipping
operations to the various sub-manufacturers, and this involves ships with
diesel engines, jet aero engines, and diesel truck engines, all of which
throw out CO2 and other assorted nasties.

Given all of this, I cannot understand how anyone can believe that CFLs as a
substitute for incandescents, are better in terms of energy budget and
manufacturing / shipping pollutant generation than the humble light bulbs we
already have. It's all very well saying that all of this is offset by the
reduced energy consumption throughout it's supposedly long life, but that's
an awfully hard one to swallow.

Arfa

"Arfa Daily" wrote in message
...
OK then. Let's take a look at what goes into one of these lamps, and then
you can tell us if you don't agree.

A glass envelope. The tungsten lamp has one of these, and so do some of
the CFLs, so nothing different there. Both have a brass or steel base, and
a couple of connection points in lead free solder. The incandescent has a
tungsten filament, supported on some steel wires. The CFL has tungsten
electrodes / filaments within the discharge tube, and some connecting
wires, so we'll call that quits between them. The incandescent has a
filling of an inert and fundamentally safe gas. And that's where it starts
to get different.

The discharge tube. This is a complicated structure made from glass formed
into a tube. It may have a 'simple' or 'convoluted' form, both of which
require considerable manufacturing process, and use of intense heat
energy. The inside of the tube has to be coated with a combination of
phosphors that have to be chemically extracted and purified or synthesized
by a different company, and shipped to the discharge tube manufacturer,
where they have to be mixed, liquified, and baked on. The tube has to then
be filled with a toxic mercury compound that had to be extracted, purified
and shipped to the discharge tube manufacturer.

The drive electronics. Diodes. These had to be manufactured using purified
silicon which had to be mined and extracted from the ore and then doped
with toxic chemicals such as antimony or arsenic. The diode thus created
then had to have steel wires bonded to it, and then be encapsulated in
plastic. The steel wire had to be manufactured and shipped to the
semiconductor manufacturer. The plastic had to be manufactured from oil
that had to be extracted, refined, and shipped to the plastic
manufacturer. The steel wires had to be hot dipped in solder, which had to
be manufactured from tin and copper, both of which had to be mined and
extracted and purified, before being shipped to the solder manufacturer,
who then had to ship his product to the semiconductor manufacturer. Ditto
all of the above for the switching element (FET or whatever)

Resistors. These had to be made from depositing refined carbon, which had
to be manufactured and shipped to the resistor manufacturer, onto a
ceramic substrate that had to made from clay, which had to be extracted,
and then fired to make it hard, before shipping to the resistor
manufacturer. The resistor element then had to have brass cups and steel
wires (remember them?) bonded to it, before the whole lot was encased in a
hard enamel, and then had value stripes painted on.

Capacitors. The aluminium electrolytic manufacturer had to have aluminium
foil, aluminium sheet, paper soaked in boric acid, steel wire, a rubber
bung and a plastic sleeve with printing on, and solder to make his
product. The film capacitors had to be made with aluminium foil, plastic
film, steel wires, plastic or hard enamel dip, solder, and a printing
process.

Inductors. The inductor manufacturer had to use powdered iron, copper
wire, which had to be manufactured from copper ore mined and refined and
processed into wire then covered with a plastic coating, before being
shipped to the inductor manufacturer, plastic insulation film, copper
strip, plastic insulation sleeve, steel wire pins and solder to
manufacture his product.

PCB. The PCB material had to be manufactured from glass fibre and coated
with copper and photoresistive chemicals, before being shipped to the
board manufacturer, who then had to put it through a photographic process,
before subjecting it to a cocktail of caustic etching chemicals, which
have to be disposed of when worn out, then cutting the board up into small
pieces, and drilling holes in it. At some point, the etched board is also
cleaned and has a chemical solder resist applied to it, and finally is
roller tinned with solder.

All of these components then have to be shipped to the electronic ballast
manufacturer, who has to assemble them into the printed circuit board,
before subjecting it to a wave or flow soldering process, using solder
that had to be manufactured and shipped to him. The completed boards then
have to be packaged, and shipped to the lamp manufacturer, who then has to
assemble the board into the base he's had made elsewhere and shipped to
him, and then fit the discharge tube, and the external envelope if used.
The end result is a lamp that weighs four times what an incandescent does,
and that has to be packed in a cardboard box that is bulkier and twice as
heavy as that used for an incandescent, so even more manufacturing and
processing of wood pulp used there.

Every one of the factories involved has workers that have to be kept warm,
dry and fed, and have to get from their homes to the factory, and back
again. That requires petrol, diesel, electricity, all of which has to be
mined, extracted, refined, generated and so on. All of these processes
release large quantities of CO2 and other carbon compounds and
particulates into the atmosphere. All of the component parts require
multiple shipping operations to the various sub-manufacturers, and this
involves ships with diesel engines, jet aero engines, and diesel truck
engines, all of which throw out CO2 and other assorted nasties.

Given all of this, I cannot understand how anyone can believe that CFLs as
a substitute for incandescents, are better in terms of energy budget and
manufacturing / shipping pollutant generation than the humble light bulbs
we already have. It's all very well saying that all of this is offset by
the reduced energy consumption throughout it's supposedly long life, but
that's an awfully hard one to swallow.

Brilliant.

Bill

On Sat, 14 Jun 2008 01:16:07 UTC, "Arfa Daily"
wrote:


"Andrew Gabriel" wrote in message
...
In article ,
":Jerry:" writes:

"Andrew Gabriel" wrote in message
...
In article ,
":Jerry:" writes:

How about trying to answer the points raised?....

Your points cannot be answered because they are too imprecise.

Rubbish.

For example, you say they are more poluting, but I've no idea
what you mean by polution. For example, you might be considering
CO2 as a polutent, whereas I might not; you might be considering
glass as a polutent, whereas I might not, etc.
If you want a reasoned response, you need to make a reasoned
point in the first place.


I made it quite clear that I was talking about 'whole of life'
pollution,

Yes, but you've still failed to identify what you regard
as the relevant polutents, so how can anyone else say if
they agree or disagree with you, when they probably don't
have the same view of what the polutents are?

--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]

OK then. Let's take a look at what goes into one of these lamps, and then
you can tell us if you don't agree.

A glass envelope. The tungsten lamp has one of these, and so do some of the
CFLs, so nothing different there. Both have a brass or steel base, and a
couple of connection points in lead free solder. The incandescent has a
tungsten filament, supported on some steel wires. The CFL has tungsten
electrodes / filaments within the discharge tube, and some connecting wires,
so we'll call that quits between them. The incandescent has a filling of an
inert and fundamentally safe gas. And that's where it starts to get
different.

The discharge tube. This is a complicated structure made from glass formed
into a tube. It may have a 'simple' or 'convoluted' form, both of which
require considerable manufacturing process, and use of intense heat energy.
The inside of the tube has to be coated with a combination of phosphors that
have to be chemically extracted and purified or synthesized by a different
company, and shipped to the discharge tube manufacturer, where they have to
be mixed, liquified, and baked on. The tube has to then be filled with a
toxic mercury compound that had to be extracted, purified and shipped to the
discharge tube manufacturer.

The drive electronics. Diodes. These had to be manufactured using purified
silicon which had to be mined and extracted from the ore and then doped with
toxic chemicals such as antimony or arsenic. The diode thus created then had
to have steel wires bonded to it, and then be encapsulated in plastic. The
steel wire had to be manufactured and shipped to the semiconductor
manufacturer. The plastic had to be manufactured from oil that had to be
extracted, refined, and shipped to the plastic manufacturer. The steel wires
had to be hot dipped in solder, which had to be manufactured from tin and
copper, both of which had to be mined and extracted and purified, before
being shipped to the solder manufacturer, who then had to ship his product
to the semiconductor manufacturer. Ditto all of the above for the switching
element (FET or whatever)

Resistors. These had to be made from depositing refined carbon, which had to
be manufactured and shipped to the resistor manufacturer, onto a ceramic
substrate that had to made from clay, which had to be extracted, and then
fired to make it hard, before shipping to the resistor manufacturer. The
resistor element then had to have brass cups and steel wires (remember
them?) bonded to it, before the whole lot was encased in a hard enamel, and
then had value stripes painted on.

Capacitors. The aluminium electrolytic manufacturer had to have aluminium
foil, aluminium sheet, paper soaked in boric acid, steel wire, a rubber bung
and a plastic sleeve with printing on, and solder to make his product. The
film capacitors had to be made with aluminium foil, plastic film, steel
wires, plastic or hard enamel dip, solder, and a printing process.

Inductors. The inductor manufacturer had to use powdered iron, copper wire,
which had to be manufactured from copper ore mined and refined and processed
into wire then covered with a plastic coating, before being shipped to the
inductor manufacturer, plastic insulation film, copper strip, plastic
insulation sleeve, steel wire pins and solder to manufacture his product.

PCB. The PCB material had to be manufactured from glass fibre and coated
with copper and photoresistive chemicals, before being shipped to the board
manufacturer, who then had to put it through a photographic process, before
subjecting it to a cocktail of caustic etching chemicals, which have to be
disposed of when worn out, then cutting the board up into small pieces, and
drilling holes in it. At some point, the etched board is also cleaned and
has a chemical solder resist applied to it, and finally is roller tinned
with solder.

All of these components then have to be shipped to the electronic ballast
manufacturer, who has to assemble them into the printed circuit board,
before subjecting it to a wave or flow soldering process, using solder that
had to be manufactured and shipped to him. The completed boards then have to
be packaged, and shipped to the lamp manufacturer, who then has to assemble
the board into the base he's had made elsewhere and shipped to him, and then
fit the discharge tube, and the external envelope if used. The end result is
a lamp that weighs four times what an incandescent does, and that has to be
packed in a cardboard box that is bulkier and twice as heavy as that used
for an incandescent, so even more manufacturing and processing of wood pulp
used there.

Every one of the factories involved has workers that have to be kept warm,
dry and fed, and have to get from their homes to the factory, and back
again. That requires petrol, diesel, electricity, all of which has to be
mined, extracted, refined, generated and so on. All of these processes
release large quantities of CO2 and other carbon compounds and particulates
into the atmosphere. All of the component parts require multiple shipping
operations to the various sub-manufacturers, and this involves ships with
diesel engines, jet aero engines, and diesel truck engines, all of which
throw out CO2 and other assorted nasties.

Given all of this, I cannot understand how anyone can believe that CFLs as a
substitute for incandescents, are better in terms of energy budget and
manufacturing / shipping pollutant generation than the humble light bulbs we
already have. It's all very well saying that all of this is offset by the
reduced energy consumption throughout it's supposedly long life, but that's
an awfully hard one to swallow.

Good post (which I have no hesitation in quoting in full).

And then there's the disposal issue - particularly the mercury, and some
parts of the electronics.

--
The information contained in this post is copyright the
poster, and specifically may not be published in, or used by
http://www.diybanter.com

Arfa,

I do think you have raised some good questions. But I feel compelled to
question the energy content/usage.

Thinking *only* about the energy issues in creating and running lamps.
Let us play with some simplistic figures.

Assume:
CFL costs £1.
Tungsten costs 25p.
The costs of the lamps cover all the energy required to create and
distribute them.
A 40W CFL gives similar illumination to 100W tungsten.
Electricity is 5p per unit.
Let us continue being simplistic and assume that *all* that cost is for
extra energy usage. (Obviously, if some of that extra cost is going
towards resistors, steel wires, etc. that reduces the amount available
for energy costs.)

(Feel free to rework this with any figures you care to use.)

So we have 75p to cover the cost increment of the CFL.

Run that lamp for 1000 hours.

Running costs are 300p less for the CFL. So it ends up costing 225p less
than the tungsten for the 1000 hours of usage.

So, are we paying an extortionately high rate for the electicity we use
to run them? Or did the energy used to create the CFLs come extra cheap?

(Of course, according to CFL manufacturers, we still have another 7000
hours of usage from the CFL lamp. Whereas we would expect to have to
change the tungsten any day now...)

--
Rod

Hypothyroidism is a seriously debilitating condition with an insidious
onset.
Although common it frequently goes undiagnosed.
www.thyromind.info www.thyroiduk.org www.altsupportthyroid.org

"Rod" wrote in message
...
Arfa,

I do think you have raised some good questions. But I feel compelled to
question the energy content/usage.

Thinking *only* about the energy issues in creating and running lamps. Let
us play with some simplistic figures.

Assume:
CFL costs £1.
Tungsten costs 25p.
The costs of the lamps cover all the energy required to create and
distribute them.
A 40W CFL gives similar illumination to 100W tungsten.
Electricity is 5p per unit.
Let us continue being simplistic and assume that *all* that cost is for
extra energy usage. (Obviously, if some of that extra cost is going
towards resistors, steel wires, etc. that reduces the amount available for
energy costs.)

(Feel free to rework this with any figures you care to use.)

So we have 75p to cover the cost increment of the CFL.

Run that lamp for 1000 hours.

Running costs are 300p less for the CFL. So it ends up costing 225p less
than the tungsten for the 1000 hours of usage.

So, are we paying an extortionately high rate for the electicity we use to
run them? Or did the energy used to create the CFLs come extra cheap?

(Of course, according to CFL manufacturers, we still have another 7000
hours of usage from the CFL lamp. Whereas we would expect to have to
change the tungsten any day now...)

--
Rod

Hypothyroidism is a seriously debilitating condition with an insidious
onset.
Although common it frequently goes undiagnosed.
www.thyromind.info www.thyroiduk.org www.altsupportthyroid.org

Yes, that is, on the surface, a persuasive argument, and is the one that is
usually put forward by the advocates of CFL technology. (Please understand
that I am not trying to 'put you down' on this, in any way). It may have
more validity than I give it credit for, but I 'feel' that it is rather too
simplistic a view. A bit like saying that if you eat fat, you will get fat,
when we all know that there are many other factors involved.

It's fairly easy to put figures on the running versus purchasing costs, but
much harder to place value on the manufacturing pollution costs, which tend
to just get lost in the smoke that's going up their chimnies, and that the
mirrors are reflecting ...

I also think that the prices that we are seeing on these things, are
fundamentally unrealistic. The cost of them a few years back, when they were
an interesting piece of substitute technology, rather than a catch-all
eco-replacement for incandescents, is probably more realistic. For sure, the
takeup on them will ensure that the production costs (material-wise) come
down due to the well known principle of economy of scale, but I still don't
believe that £1 each is a 'true' retail figure for them.

Clearly, there are subsidies going on in the background somewhere, and these
must be politically instigated and managed. For instance, Tesco were
selling these lamps for 1p each a few weeks back, and Waitrose were giving
them away with your shopping. Now neither of these companies are stupid, and
no matter how eco-friendly their credentials, the bottom line is that they
have a primary responsibility to make a profit for their shareholders.
Clearly, selling these lamps for 1p, or even giving them away, cannot
possibly be justified as a valid business strategy from a purely monetary
angle, so somewhere along the line, Tesco and Waitrose must have been
getting the 'right' money for them, as indeed were the manufacturers. I
guess this may well be through some kind of government subsidy put in place
to promote their use, and get people 'smoothed' into using them, before
mandating their use in the not-too-distant future. If this is the case, then
we are probably paying rather more than £1 for them, through our taxes, and
possibly, will have to pay more when we have no choice but to buy them.

The numbers on Rod's justification may yet work even if incorporated into
the much wider picture that I am trying to convey, but it's almost
impossible to factor in all of the manufacturing issues that I highlighted
in the original post, and arrive at a valid proof one way or the other. I'm
not an analyst in this field, and I tend to find that trying to get my head
around the myriad factors is a bit like trying to comprehend the infinity of
space. But also, I can see that it's not as black and white as the advocates
of the technology would have us believe, and there's a lot of green politics
and empire building involved as well.

As for what others have said about mandating these things, I agree
wholeheartedly. It should not be forced upon people as a knee-jerk reaction
by eco-factions within government, to perceived ecological threats which
actually have as many scientifically qualified detractors as advocates, but
whose voices are quieter, because of not having a government sponsored
research position, and wanting to hang on to the credibility and job that
they already have (it's virtually treasonous heresy to speak out against the
global warming faction in the scientific community).

Going back for a moment to the practicality of these lamps. I find it
extremely difficult to read under them, and my eyes are not what you would
call 'bad'. I would be reluctant to install them in my dear old mum's house,
as her eyesight is failing, and she needs instant bright light in a room, to
avoid any accidents. As far as the CRI goes, no matter how much the
manufacturers work at this, and no matter how close they get the colour
temperature to an incandescent, the CRI remains around the 80% mark. This
gives the light a 'strange' and 'sick' quality, which is not very pleasant -
to me at least. The light from an incandescent lamp is spectrally similar to
that of the sun, which is why we feel 'at ease' under it. It is simply
biologically programmed into our genes, and any other type of light
experienced in an 'at rest' condition, is basically 'wrong' to us. In their
place, I don't have a particular problem with the light from these lamps.
They are ideal in places where the light is left on for long periods, or is
not critical for lifestyle, but as a total substitute for incandescent
light, for me, they are a non-starter.

Just so that you understand where I am coming from on all this. I am not an
eco-warrior, and find much of what is foisted on us in legislation in the
name of the great god "Green", unmitigated nonsense, created as a political
platform for individuals and departments to make their names from.

I remain unconvinced by, although open minded to, the concept that global
warming is mainly caused by activities of man, and is not primarily as a
result of cyclic climate variations that have always been present in the
planet's weather system, and over which we have little control. For
instance, 40 years ago, they were telling us that we were entering a mini
ice-age again ... I don't doubt that the pollutants that we put into the
atmosphere are not a good thing, but I struggle to accept that they are
having as profound an effect as the eco-warriors would have us believe.
There is plenty of evidence that there have been similar levels of CO2 in
the atmosphere in the past, long before industrialisation and man-made or
released pollutants could have had any effect. Long before man even existed,
in fact.

I am not, however, an anti-eco evangelist either. I can see the value of not
deliberately polluting the environment, and not going out of our way to
waste energy or materials that could be recycled without any practical
energy budget downside, but I like to think that I have a balanced view,
that looks at both sides of the coin, and arrives at an informed decision
that suits my lifestyle, and impacts in a minimal way on those around me,
and those who will follow. I strongly disagree with the way that our
government, and the increasingly intrusive euro-government, are trying to
force their will on us in these matters, and I will continue to put opposing
views into the public domain, where I feel appropriate.

Without trying to be patronising to anyone, my post regarding the
manufacturing processes, was designed to show that an awful lot more goes on
in the background before you arrive with the two lamp types on the
supermarket shelves, than the average Joe with no concept of how these lamps
work, understands. It also aimed to show that there is a lot more at issue
with regard to manufacturing and shipping costs, both montary and
ecologically, than is addressed by the lifetime / running costs arguments
that are always trotted out as the justification for wanting to mandate
their use.

Sorry it's a long one and a bit OT, but it seemed like an interesting thread
to pursue from a 'chat over a pint' perspective ... d;~}

Arfa

Arfa,

Your response is definitely worth my time reading. Thanks for taking my
"energy only" post as intended, as a genuine questioning of the realities.

In terms of colour temperature and CRI - I am frequently reminded of the
ghastly light given out by ordinary fluorescents back in the 1960s. But,
at their very best, I actually prefer them to traditional tungsten in
many situations. But not the ordinary 2700K supermarket specials. We
have a few that were highly recommended for photography - and I do like
them. I find ordinary tungsten (and the CFLs intended to approximate to
them) definitely too yellow and dull-seeming.

When it comes to energy usage, I have to question how much difference
the actual lamps make. I was in a brand new branch of M&S yesterday.
Going over to the side of the store with the food hall, you could feel a
coldness metres away. Inside, it was freezing. All the open shelves were
cascading very cold air down onto the floor. At the same time, warm,
even hot, air was blasting out of vents around the department - most
especially the bakery unit. (Of course, the noise level in there
rivalled a factory.) The lighting in the entire store is truly
impressive - probably better suited to a film set than a shop. You could
probably light half the town if the wasted energy were redirected. :-)

And in this part of the world, "they" have started a progam of switching
off street lighting - mostly those which are not fully built-up - to
save money. Madness - spend a fortune installing the lighting (and all
the associated pollution) and then not use it. (In some places they have
installed LED cats-eyes.)

--
Rod

Hypothyroidism is a seriously debilitating condition with an insidious
onset.
Although common it frequently goes undiagnosed.
www.thyromind.info www.thyroiduk.org www.altsupportthyroid.org

In article ,
"Arfa Daily" writes:

OK then. Let's take a look at what goes into one of these lamps, and then
you can tell us if you don't agree.

Given all of this, I cannot understand how anyone can believe that CFLs as a
substitute for incandescents, are better in terms of energy budget and
manufacturing / shipping pollutant generation than the humble light bulbs we
already have. It's all very well saying that all of this is offset by the
reduced energy consumption throughout it's supposedly long life, but that's
an awfully hard one to swallow.

Thanks for an excellent posting, which I've trimmed only to save space.

Having looked down your list of polutents, there are none there that
concern me. To pick up on a few of the more commonly mentioned ones...
CO2 and global warming -- I'm not a subscriber to the current popularist
theory, so I don't feel a need to reduce my CO2 footprint at all costs
(but see below).
Mercury -- The quantities involved in CFLs for domestic use are not
significant. If you are Mr. Average, you have the same amount of
mercury in your body as there are in 1000 CFLs. The larger quantities
used in commercial fluorescent lighting are already being effectively
recovered, and have been for years.
Energy use in manufacture - that's entirely encompassed in the
manufacturing costs (which are very much less than the purchase price).
Given they are sold for a profit for £1, and heavily taxed on import
to the EU (in the misguided attempt to protect Philips), the manufacture
cost is probably of the order 20p, and the energy cost some fraction of
that.

So I have dismissed the commonly quoted reasons for both using and
avoiding CFL's, because I think they're all irrelevant, yet I am clearly
an enthusiast for them. Why?

My number one reason is energy usage, not for anything to do with
carbon emissions, but because viable energy is in increasingly
short supply in the world. Some of this is due to finite resources
running out, and/or demand outstripping supply, and some is due to
a severe dereliction of duty of politicians to have anticipated
this in time to do anything sensible about it, when it's been
obvious to many of us for years. Ultimately, I suspect world
shortage of energy (or prices unaffordable to many) could well be
the trigger for the next world war, and many would argue it has
already been the cause for some current wars.

--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]

"Andrew Gabriel" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Arfa Daily" writes:

OK then. Let's take a look at what goes into one of these lamps, and then
you can tell us if you don't agree.

Given all of this, I cannot understand how anyone can believe that CFLs
as a
substitute for incandescents, are better in terms of energy budget and
manufacturing / shipping pollutant generation than the humble light bulbs
we
already have. It's all very well saying that all of this is offset by the
reduced energy consumption throughout it's supposedly long life, but
that's
an awfully hard one to swallow.

Thanks for an excellent posting, which I've trimmed only to save space.

Having looked down your list of polutents, there are none there that
concern me. To pick up on a few of the more commonly mentioned ones...
CO2 and global warming -- I'm not a subscriber to the current popularist
theory, so I don't feel a need to reduce my CO2 footprint at all costs
(but see below).
Mercury -- The quantities involved in CFLs for domestic use are not
significant. If you are Mr. Average, you have the same amount of
mercury in your body as there are in 1000 CFLs. The larger quantities
used in commercial fluorescent lighting are already being effectively
recovered, and have been for years.
Energy use in manufacture - that's entirely encompassed in the
manufacturing costs (which are very much less than the purchase price).
Given they are sold for a profit for £1, and heavily taxed on import
to the EU (in the misguided attempt to protect Philips), the manufacture
cost is probably of the order 20p, and the energy cost some fraction of
that.

So I have dismissed the commonly quoted reasons for both using and
avoiding CFL's, because I think they're all irrelevant, yet I am clearly
an enthusiast for them. Why?

My number one reason is energy usage, not for anything to do with
carbon emissions, but because viable energy is in increasingly
short supply in the world. Some of this is due to finite resources
running out, and/or demand outstripping supply, and some is due to
a severe dereliction of duty of politicians to have anticipated
this in time to do anything sensible about it, when it's been
obvious to many of us for years. Ultimately, I suspect world
shortage of energy (or prices unaffordable to many) could well be
the trigger for the next world war, and many would argue it has
already been the cause for some current wars.

--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]

Thanks for taking the time and trouble to post an informed and considered
reply. I can take on board most of what you say. As I said in my previous
post, I too am unconvinced about the ability of man to significantly affect
the levels of CO2 prevalent in the atmosphere. I read somewhere a while
back, that in fact water vapour in the atmosphere has a much greater
greenhouse effect than CO2. Did you catch the excellent CH4 documentary "The
Great Global Warming Swindle" a while back? Very thought provoking. If you
didn't, I believe it is available to view on YouTube.

Arfa

In message , Arfa Daily
writes

"Andrew Gabriel" wrote in message
. ..
In article ,
"Arfa Daily" writes:

OK then. Let's take a look at what goes into one of these lamps, and then
you can tell us if you don't agree.

Given all of this, I cannot understand how anyone can believe that CFLs
as a
substitute for incandescents, are better in terms of energy budget and
manufacturing / shipping pollutant generation than the humble light bulbs
we
already have. It's all very well saying that all of this is offset by the
reduced energy consumption throughout it's supposedly long life, but
that's
an awfully hard one to swallow.

Thanks for an excellent posting, which I've trimmed only to save space.

Having looked down your list of polutents, there are none there that
concern me. To pick up on a few of the more commonly mentioned ones...
CO2 and global warming -- I'm not a subscriber to the current popularist
theory, so I don't feel a need to reduce my CO2 footprint at all costs
(but see below).
Mercury -- The quantities involved in CFLs for domestic use are not
significant. If you are Mr. Average, you have the same amount of
mercury in your body as there are in 1000 CFLs. The larger quantities
used in commercial fluorescent lighting are already being effectively
recovered, and have been for years.
Energy use in manufacture - that's entirely encompassed in the
manufacturing costs (which are very much less than the purchase price).
Given they are sold for a profit for £1, and heavily taxed on import
to the EU (in the misguided attempt to protect Philips), the manufacture
cost is probably of the order 20p, and the energy cost some fraction of
that.

So I have dismissed the commonly quoted reasons for both using and
avoiding CFL's, because I think they're all irrelevant, yet I am clearly
an enthusiast for them. Why?

My number one reason is energy usage, not for anything to do with
carbon emissions, but because viable energy is in increasingly
short supply in the world. Some of this is due to finite resources
running out, and/or demand outstripping supply, and some is due to
a severe dereliction of duty of politicians to have anticipated
this in time to do anything sensible about it, when it's been
obvious to many of us for years. Ultimately, I suspect world
shortage of energy (or prices unaffordable to many) could well be
the trigger for the next world war, and many would argue it has
already been the cause for some current wars.

--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]

Thanks for taking the time and trouble to post an informed and considered
reply. I can take on board most of what you say. As I said in my previous
post, I too am unconvinced about the ability of man to significantly affect
the levels of CO2 prevalent in the atmosphere. I read somewhere a while
back, that in fact water vapour in the atmosphere has a much greater
greenhouse effect than CO2. Did you catch the excellent CH4 documentary "The
Great Global Warming Swindle" a while back? Very thought provoking. If you
didn't, I believe it is available to view on YouTube.

ISTR it was fairly comprehensively debunked

--
geoff

"Andrew Gabriel" wrote in message
...
My number one reason is energy usage, not for anything to do with
carbon emissions, but because viable energy is in increasingly
short supply in the world. Some of this is due to finite resources
running out,

Surprisingly, an item in yesterday's Times (could have been Thursday's)
showed (if taken as the truth) that oil reserves are greater now than they
have ever been. An impressive graphic had been produced to illustrate this.
And there was the oil 'expert' from the US on the telly last week who said
that the oil would never run out because of all the low grade reserves as
yet untouched. It will get very expensive, yes, but ultimately replacements
will come in a various price points. This leads me to this morning's item in
the Times (page 56 I think) which describes two apparently very promising
means of producing crude via genetic engineering.

Bill