T i m wrote:

Also, any woman, with their excess of colour receptors (or whatever it
is that makes them see more colours than us guys) not liking the
colour of something can find / action a solution for themselves. ;-)

Women don't actually see more colours than men. They just attach more
significance to them.

(And why I blatantly refuse to answer any of the 'Do these shoes go
with this top' type questions, ever).

The usual non-commital reply in such situations is "Yes, dear.".

"T i m" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 10 Sep 2010 09:55:28 +0100, "Arfa Daily"
wrote:


I immediately removed the CFL, and committed it to the junk box, where it
can languish until I decide to use it for lighting the loft, or to chuck
it.
I took a standard 60 watt incandescent bulb from another little-used
fitting, and put that in the hallway instead. "Ah", said the daughter,
"that's better" ! And you know what else ? It was ... Much better ...

So, you tried to do some painting under the light of a CFL and you
were confused by the result ... ?

Where did I ever say that ... ? It is you who seems confused, my friend ...



Whenever I'm doing any decorating I fit some f-off big incandescent's
in a couple of places and take the shades off and make very sure I
have /plenty/ of light to work by (or better still, real daylight).


It was done in daylight, and until we bought the new shade, there was a
naked 100 watt pearl light bulb in a hanging pendant fitting. Prior to that,
we had a 60 watt clear in the previous lampshade, which was not going to
suit the new one we bought, because it would be totally visible, and would
look really pony in a clear type. The new shade was rated max 60 watts, so I
either needed a 60 watt pearl diffused bulb, which nowhere sells any more,
or a P.O.S. CFL pretend pearl light bulb, a spiral or other tube-knot type
again not being decoratively valid for the type of new shade.



But then I take them out and am happy with CFL's (including life span,
brightness, start-up-time, energy consumption, price and running
temperature) for the rest of the time.


Lucky you. I hope you never pick any colours that the CFLs don't have
spectrum content for then.


Oh, and if our daughter didn't like the colour of the decor ... ;-)

Cheers, T i m


But her not liking the colour of the decor was not the point, and was
actually a valid observation, because the colours were not the same - not
even matched - as they were under daylight or tungsten light. Under the
dreadful CFL light, the colours were drab, muted, and decidedly sickly
green. Actually not nice, or as intended. Under proper light, she had no
problem with our choice of colours or the matching of them.

Arfa

"Ronald Raygun" wrote in message
...
T i m wrote:

On Fri, 10 Sep 2010 09:55:28 +0100, "Arfa Daily"
wrote:

I immediately removed the CFL, and committed it to the junk box, where it
can languish until I decide to use it for lighting the loft, or to chuck
it. I took a standard 60 watt incandescent bulb from another little-used
fitting, and put that in the hallway instead. "Ah", said the daughter,
"that's better" ! And you know what else ? It was ... Much better ...

So, you tried to do some painting under the light of a CFL and you
were confused by the result ... ?

Whenever I'm doing any decorating I fit some f-off big incandescent's
in a couple of places and take the shades off and make very sure I
have /plenty/ of light to work by (or better still, real daylight).

But then I take them out and am happy with CFL's (including life span,
brightness, start-up-time, energy consumption, price and running
temperature) for the rest of the time.

I think you've misunderstood the thrust of what Arfa was saying.

You seem to think the problem was that he painted *by* the light of a
CFL and consequently got the thickness not quite right or uniform.

I don't think that's the case. They probably did the painting itself
by daylight, and the finished job looks great in daylight, and since
they know it's OK, they don't particularly notice that at night, by CFL
illumination, the colour balances look a bit odd. But the daughter,
seeing it for the first time in the evening by CFL illumination, spotted
the apparently poor colour balance immediately, and it was corrected
by deploying a "proper" lightbulb.

Basically all he's saying is that CFLs have (or at least *his* CFL has)
such a bad colour spectrum that it messes about with our perception of
colours.


Prezackerly understood and restated, thank you ! :-)

Arfa

On Fri, 10 Sep 2010 12:23:33 +0100, "Arfa Daily"
wrote:


So, you tried to do some painting under the light of a CFL and you
were confused by the result ... ?

Where did I ever say that ... ? It is you who seems confused, my friend ...

So it seems. ;-(



Whenever I'm doing any decorating I fit some f-off big incandescent's
in a couple of places and take the shades off and make very sure I
have /plenty/ of light to work by (or better still, real daylight).


It was done in daylight, and until we bought the new shade, there was a
naked 100 watt pearl light bulb in a hanging pendant fitting. Prior to that,
we had a 60 watt clear in the previous lampshade, which was not going to
suit the new one we bought, because it would be totally visible, and would
look really pony in a clear type. The new shade was rated max 60 watts, so I
either needed a 60 watt pearl diffused bulb, which nowhere sells any more,
or a P.O.S. CFL pretend pearl light bulb, a spiral or other tube-knot type
again not being decoratively valid for the type of new shade.

OK, well I don't really 'get' some of this looks stuff but I
understand for many it's an issue.



But then I take them out and am happy with CFL's (including life span,
brightness, start-up-time, energy consumption, price and running
temperature) for the rest of the time.


Lucky you. I hope you never pick any colours that the CFLs don't have
spectrum content for then.

shrug


Oh, and if our daughter didn't like the colour of the decor ... ;-)


But her not liking the colour of the decor was not the point, and was
actually a valid observation, because the colours were not the same - not
even matched - as they were under daylight or tungsten light.

I know, now, however ...

Under the
dreadful CFL light, the colours were drab, muted, and decidedly sickly
green. Actually not nice, or as intended. Under proper light, she had no
problem with our choice of colours or the matching of them.

I know this is a bit off track but how do you cope with the colour of
your car by streetlight, or the wallpaper when lit by the moonlight
etc? I guess what I'm saying is ... no, it doesn't matter, I just
don't get it. ;-)

I need a light in the room, CFL's provide low cost, low energy, low
heat (so I can just lay one on a shelf for example) light and that's
all I need them to do. Many have also saved me money and I understand
may help to offset the peak energy demands of the country.

To help you understand my POV a little. A friend suggested 'I did
something with the bonnet of my car' (because the PO had some work
done on it and the lacquer seems to have reacted with the paint and is
all peeling off). I asked him that should I spend /any/ time or money
doing said work, would it make the car faster, more economical, more
valuable or reduce the cost of my TAX or insurance and that if the
answer to any of that was 'no' then he was welcome to fix it himself.
;-)

Luckily we are all different. ;-)

Cheers, T i m

"Ronald Raygun" wrote in message
...
T i m wrote:

Also, any woman, with their excess of colour receptors (or whatever it
is that makes them see more colours than us guys) not liking the
colour of something can find / action a solution for themselves. ;-)

Women don't actually see more colours than men.

Some do, AFAIK no men have the extra receptors that some women have.

On 7 Sep, 09:58, "Arfa Daily" wrote:

Presumably, pearls have been banned in the EU because a small amount
extra of the consumed power, results in heat rather than light.

I thought the ban on pearl (and not clear) was down to the assumption,
right or wrong, that such bulbs use could be replaced by CFLs whereas
those circumstances that require point-source light as obtained from
clear bulbs, such as chandeliers and other fittings with 'decorative'
aspects (flickering candle bulbs etc) would be allowed to continue...
for the time being of course!

Mathew

On 7 Sep, 12:40, David Hansen wrote:
On Tue, 7 Sep 2010 09:58:53 +0100 someone who may be "Arfa Daily"
wrote this:-

There's money to be made for sure, as so many people still hate CFLs.

A loud but small group claim they hate CFLs, the silent majority get
on fine with them.

We're a great fan of incandescent lighting, particularly the use of
'soft' bulbs with dimmers, and so for years we have disregarded the
use of CFLs given the colour rendition, startup times and size where,
in our opinion, they've not performed well at all.

However, when shopping recently for some replacement 40W 'golf ball'
bulbs for some table lamps in the conservatory I decided to drop my
prejudices and go for CFLs. I found some Philips Softone golf-ball
CFLs which looked to be just the ticket - okay I couldn't dim them but
they were something like 32W equivalent so it was worth a shot,
particular as our incandescents were also Philips softone...

So disappointed. Gutted in fact. Perhaps my expectations were too high
but I was really expecting to be pleased with them as I'd hoped that
as the years had gone by these things had got better. Not only were
they slow to start (I noted on the box afterwards they reach 60%
output within 10-80 seconds!) but the colour rendition was awful - our
ginger cat looked quite ill! I'd hoped that the softone aspect,
particularly given that were from the same brand as I'd used
previously for the incandescents, would have made them okay but there
weren't. To be fair they were better than I'd seen previously from
CFLs but still made the room look 'cold'.

My girlfriend was unaware of my experiment but immediately spotted I'd
been up to something and asked what on Earth I'd done with the lights.
Okay, so any variation from the norm would likely have been noticed so
that doesn't mean much, however suffice to say she demanded they be
removed and so back to the shop they've gone.

Should I persevere, or is this as good as they get?

Mathew

On 10 Sep, 16:33, Mathew Newton wrote:

Should I persevere, or is this as good as they get?

P.S. I'm talking about the bulbs, not the girlfriend ...!

Mathew

On 10/09/2010 12:09, Ronald Raygun wrote:
T i m wrote:

Also, any woman, with their excess of colour receptors (or whatever it
is that makes them see more colours than us guys) not liking the
colour of something can find / action a solution for themselves. ;-)

Women don't actually see more colours than men. They just attach more
significance to them.

By and large, women have better colour vision - more receptors. A few
women may have four colour vision.

Men, OTH, have better night vision. Mostly. Something to do with
picking berries vs hunting?


(And why I blatantly refuse to answer any of the 'Do these shoes go
with this top' type questions, ever).

The usual non-commital reply in such situations is "Yes, dear.".


I'm with you there!

Andy

On Fri, 10 Sep 2010 13:34:38 +0100, dennis@home wrote:

"Ronald Raygun" wrote in message
...
T i m wrote:

Also, any woman, with their excess of colour receptors (or whatever it
is that makes them see more colours than us guys) not liking the
colour of something can find / action a solution for themselves. ;-)

Women don't actually see more colours than men.

Some do, AFAIK no men have the extra receptors that some women have.


and all women have the extra emitters that men don't have.
--
Peter.
The gods will stay away
whilst religions hold sway

"Mathew Newton" wrote in message
...
On 7 Sep, 09:58, "Arfa Daily" wrote:

Presumably, pearls have been banned in the EU because a small amount
extra of the consumed power, results in heat rather than light.

I thought the ban on pearl (and not clear) was down to the assumption,
right or wrong, that such bulbs use could be replaced by CFLs whereas
those circumstances that require point-source light as obtained from
clear bulbs, such as chandeliers and other fittings with 'decorative'
aspects (flickering candle bulbs etc) would be allowed to continue...
for the time being of course!

Mathew

That may well be true, Matthew. I'd never actually seen a reason written
down, so had assumed that the ban had at least a smidgen of basis in
science, which is why I came up with the heat / energy wastage thoughts. I
suppose that with anything coming out of the EC machine, I should have known
better ...

As to your experience with the CFL golf balls, you only seem to be seeing
what most of the rest of us are (although some on here claim that they
either can't see a difference, or don't care about it). The dreadful devices
seem only to have evolved in the number of different types of 'real' bulb
that they are now trying to emulate. Other than that, they are still slow to
wind up to their full output, and have a poor colour spectrum, which as you
observed for yourself, made your poor old moggie look sick. And my new
hallway decor look like it had been done by a colour blind madman on crack.

But my biggest problem with them is that my eyes are not what they were. Not
anything particularly wrong with them, according to my optician, just normal
age related deterioration. This alone causes me to really struggle to read
under them. I have no trouble at all reading under daylight, tungsten light
of any description, or even linear flourescent light. Just under those
bloody things. I would be interested to hear if anyone else finds the same
thing.

Arfa

Arfa Daily wrote:

I have no trouble at all reading under
daylight, tungsten light of any description, or even linear flourescent
light. Just under those bloody things. I would be interested to hear if
anyone else finds the same thing.

Ignoring the fact that CFLs are acceptable to some of us, but not to
others, most of the anti-CFL brigade seem to say they have no truck with
linear fluorescent, what are the differences between "normal"
fluorescents and CFLs?

I'd expect the phosphors to be similar giving them distinct spectrum
lines (which I can *see* them when I notice a CFL reflected at an obtuse
angle against the AR coating of my specs), the CFL will be driven in the
kilohertz range rather than at mains frequency, and the linear
fluorescent will obviously be a diffuse strip rather than a diffuse
point source ... but how do these differences account for such a huge
difference in how people perceive CFLs ...

On Sat, 11 Sep 2010 02:42:34 +0100, "Arfa Daily"
wrote:


As to your experience with the CFL golf balls, you only seem to be seeing
what most of the rest of us are (although some on here claim that they
either can't see a difference, or don't care about it). The dreadful devices
seem only to have evolved in the number of different types of 'real' bulb
that they are now trying to emulate. Other than that, they are still slow to
wind up to their full output,

We have a disparate range of makes, types and sizes here and have only
'noticed' this slow start thing that seems to exist for you on all
such devices (assuming who haven't bout just the same make and model
etc g) is on a 7w mini es CFL 'spot' that we have in a clamp on desk
lamp, bought from Ikea.

does some experiments

Interesting. Turning this lamp on for the first time in ages (the 1 x
11W CFL we have laying on a bit of foil on a high shelf is normally
enough in this lounge g) I see several stages (well, now I can see
at all, blinded by the light).

Switch on and it instantly 'comes on'. I can't say 'lights up' as it
wasn't lit up as such. About .5s later it does 'light up' but only at
probably 1/10 brightness. About 1 second after that it looks like it
comes on properly and if you weren't looking into it as I was just now
you might think it was actually at full brightness. However, these
lamps seem to be made in two layers where there is one nearer the
inside (parallel to the plane of the other 'glass' and the other outer
layer on top, nearer the glass). Now the outer section of CFL seemed
to grow to full brightness over the next 10 or so seconds (like water
soaking into a cloth). I couldn't watch it to full completion and
still can't see properly after typing all this (with one finger).

However, this is the only CFL we have that seems to exhibit this
behaviour (or the others do but are not aware of it etc) and in this
lamp such is actually quite pleasant (ie, we don't use it as a torch
so the gradual ramp-up is actually quite sexy). ;-)

A thought on eyes in general then. A few years ago we went
motorcycling round the back lanes in Norfolk with a mate and both mate
and (my) missus said they were following the lights on the trailer I
was towing behind my bike as they 'couldn't see' much else clearly.
Maybe my night vision is 'above average' for a 54 year old and why I
HATE being blinded by cars fitted with HID lamps while I wait at a
roundabout or they follow me too close.

It seems the CFL 'light' thing is a Marmite one?

Cheers, T i m

On 11/09/10 02:42, Arfa Daily wrote:


But my biggest problem with them is that my eyes are not what they were.
Not anything particularly wrong with them, according to my optician,
just normal age related deterioration. This alone causes me to really
struggle to read under them. I have no trouble at all reading under
daylight, tungsten light of any description, or even linear flourescent
light. Just under those bloody things. I would be interested to hear if
anyone else finds the same thing.

Arfa

I do take one thing back. I said the Prolites are very good and they do
seem to be the best and brightest CFL *I* have come across (not
withstanding other people's experience with the same blowing up - not a
problem I've had).

But I have noticed that while they are great for plumbing and wiring
work, I've had some difficulty painting a light green wall with them (3
such bulbs, all 25-30W).

Cutting in to the white ceiling it is very hard to see where the green
ends and the white begins. And it's equally hard to see what I've
covered painting over a white mist coat.

I guess it's because they are strong emitters in the green part of the
spectrum?

So - there you go...

I'll see if B&Q have got any BC halogens.

Tim

On 10/09/10 23:01, Andy Champ wrote:

By and large, women have better colour vision - more receptors. A few
women may have four colour vision.

Is that red, green, blue and "not expensive enough"?

In article ,
Andy Burns wrote:
Ignoring the fact that CFLs are acceptable to some of us, but not to
others, most of the anti-CFL brigade seem to say they have no truck with
linear fluorescent, what are the differences between "normal"
fluorescents and CFLs?

Linear fluorescents have a big choice of tubes - at least in the common
sizes - and if you want a decent continuous spectrum light output you can
find them. CFLs seem to be made only down to a price.

--
*A dog's not just for Christmas, it's alright on a Friday night too*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"Tim Watts" wrote in message
...
On 11/09/10 02:42, Arfa Daily wrote:


But my biggest problem with them is that my eyes are not what they were.
Not anything particularly wrong with them, according to my optician,
just normal age related deterioration. This alone causes me to really
struggle to read under them. I have no trouble at all reading under
daylight, tungsten light of any description, or even linear flourescent
light. Just under those bloody things. I would be interested to hear if
anyone else finds the same thing.

Arfa

I do take one thing back. I said the Prolites are very good and they do
seem to be the best and brightest CFL *I* have come across (not
withstanding other people's experience with the same blowing up - not a
problem I've had).

But I have noticed that while they are great for plumbing and wiring work,
I've had some difficulty painting a light green wall with them (3 such
bulbs, all 25-30W).

Cutting in to the white ceiling it is very hard to see where the green
ends and the white begins. And it's equally hard to see what I've covered
painting over a white mist coat.

I guess it's because they are strong emitters in the green part of the
spectrum?

So - there you go...

I'll see if B&Q have got any BC halogens.

Tim

Yes indeed. No matter what supposed colour they are, they still seem to have
a predominance of green in their spectrum, which is what I think gives the
light that sort of 'sick' quality. I sometimes walk around the village at
night, and it is very easy to spot the windows that have CFL lit rooms
behind them, over those that are using tungsten.

Arfa

"Andy Burns" wrote in message
...
Arfa Daily wrote:

I have no trouble at all reading under
daylight, tungsten light of any description, or even linear flourescent
light. Just under those bloody things. I would be interested to hear if
anyone else finds the same thing.

Ignoring the fact that CFLs are acceptable to some of us, but not to
others, most of the anti-CFL brigade seem to say they have no truck with
linear fluorescent, what are the differences between "normal" fluorescents
and CFLs?

I'd expect the phosphors to be similar giving them distinct spectrum lines
(which I can *see* them when I notice a CFL reflected at an obtuse angle
against the AR coating of my specs), the CFL will be driven in the
kilohertz range rather than at mains frequency, and the linear fluorescent
will obviously be a diffuse strip rather than a diffuse point source ...
but how do these differences account for such a huge difference in how
people perceive CFLs ...


It's a mystery to me as well. I have a number of linear flourescents around
the house and in my workshop that I work in all day. The kitchen and utility
room both have them. The tubes that are fitted are a mish-mash of colours
including "white", "warm white" and "daylight". I have absolutely no truck
with the colour or quality of light from any of them. I could not, in all
honesty, describe the light from any of them as being 'sick' or having a
tendency towards green. I don't believe that the drive frequency has
anything at all to do with spectrum either, as modern linear ballasts are
also actually high frequency driver circuits. So it has to be a phosphor
thing I think. It is my feeling that linear flourescent colours don't look
'right' in a small bulb structure, so instead of using phosphors of those
colours, the manufacturers use tricolour mixes to try to emulate the colour
of tungsten lighting. Unfortunately, these phosphors don't produce the same
spectrum.

But here's a thought that just came to me. About 15 years ago, we owned a
children's day nursery, which we ran in a Victorian school that we bought.
Your typical infant or junior school that the older ones of us all went to.
The ceilings were very high, and each room had about 12 light fittings that
were very long pendants. In such large rooms, to get enough light in the
winter, it was necessary to use 100 watt bulbs. This had the dual downside
of of being expensive to run at 1200 watts for 10 hours a day in each room,
and the heat of 100 watt bulbs burning for that length of time every day,
had a tendency to burn out the light fittings every few months. So we
started fitting some CFLs that were called 'Dulux EL Globes'. These things
were the size of a large orange perhaps, and white. I can't remember what
the power rating of them was, but they easily achieved the same overall
light level in the room, as the tungsten lamps had. They started pretty much
instantly as I recall, but still took a while to achieve full running
brightness. But here's the thing. Although it cost us a lot of money to
equip all the rooms with them in the first place - I seem to recall that
they were about a tenner apiece - I only remember having to replace a couple
for failing over the years that we were still there afterward. And the
colour of the light was excellent. I wonder whatever happened to that brand
and type. Anyone else remember them ?

Arfa

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Arfa Daily" wrote:

Other than that, they are still slow to wind up to
their full output, ...

We have some that, when you first turn them on, you'd hardly know you'd
done it. However I just yesterday replaced a dead 60W tungsten with a new
tubular one (see pic at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cfl_lamp to see what
I mean, top right) which when turned on flickers briefly, and then comes
on nearly at full whack, within a second. It then winds up to full
brightness over about 20 sec. I don't see this as an issue. SWMBO,
however, does.

--
Tim



I'm right with your missus on that one. That delay between flicking the
light switch, and actually getting light, drives ne up the wall. We have one
in our downstairs loo, and have had for a long time. Every time I go in
there and flick the light switch on, a thought rushes through my head, and
that is "**** - the bulb's gone" and that is followed a hundred milliseconds
later by "oh no it hasn't ..." For some reason, the expectation of instant
light is so deeply ingrained in me, that I just can't shake it. I also hate
that 'warmup' period. It just isn't right.

Arfa

On Thu, 09 Sep 2010 08:57:20 +0100 someone who may be Mark
wrote this:-

http://www.tlc-direct.co.uk/Products/MGGB7BC.html and
http://www.tlc-direct.co.uk/Products/LAMLS11BC.html will go into
just about anything a GLS lamp would fit in.

These are very expensive and probably only available from specialists.

The second one is £2.75 + VAT and delivery from that supplier, but
they are also available in shops.

The first one is more expensive. I have seen Megaman lamps in shops,
but don't recall seeing that model in the shops. However, that
proves nothing as I look for light bulbs very infrequently these
days as they last so long. You may be pleased to know that my
outside dusk to dawn one failed yesterday. It has lasted about a
decade.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000...#pt3-pb3-l1g54

On Thu, 09 Sep 2010 09:11:05 +0100 someone who may be Mark
wrote this:-

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

And the ear.

Indeed. The bird song (and to some extent lambs) is beautiful to
listen to and is louder than the sound of the wind farms I have
visited.

Not my experience. When going on a walk in the countryside I heard
(or felt) a very disturbing low pitch sound well before I could even
see any wind turbines. As I approached it got worse and I left the
area as quickly as possible.

Really? I'll indulge you, what wind farms are you referring to?


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000...#pt3-pb3-l1g54

On Thu, 9 Sep 2010 09:50:21 +0100 someone who may be "Arfa Daily"
wrote this:-

It wasn't me who came up with those figures.

But you were happy to quote them ...

Yes, and I'm happy to do so. However, your criticism, such as it
was, should be directed to David JC MacKay rather than me.

I'm sure that there are figures out there, but it is doubtful whether any
would actually be *truly* accurate,

All well researched sets of figures will tell one the limits of
confidence one can have in the figures. Just about all research says
that more research is needed to make it more accurate.

But that's still millions and millions being collected in to subsidise a
substitute technology that has not, despite what you think and say, been
well received over the last 30 years by the general public at large.

There are plenty of surveys looking at public opinion, such as
http://www.bwea.com/media/news/goodneighbours.html


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000...#pt3-pb3-l1g54

In article , Arfa Daily
scribeth thus


"Tim Streater" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Arfa Daily" wrote:

Other than that, they are still slow to wind up to
their full output, ...

We have some that, when you first turn them on, you'd hardly know you'd
done it. However I just yesterday replaced a dead 60W tungsten with a new
tubular one (see pic at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cfl_lamp to see what
I mean, top right) which when turned on flickers briefly, and then comes
on nearly at full whack, within a second. It then winds up to full
brightness over about 20 sec. I don't see this as an issue. SWMBO,
however, does.

--
Tim



I'm right with your missus on that one. That delay between flicking the
light switch, and actually getting light, drives ne up the wall. We have one
in our downstairs loo, and have had for a long time. Every time I go in
there and flick the light switch on, a thought rushes through my head, and
that is "**** - the bulb's gone"

I'd have thought you'd be more worried as to whether or not you were
going the -hit- the intended target;')....

--
Tony Sayer

On Thu, 09 Sep 2010 20:55:45 +0100 someone who may be Andy Champ
wrote this:-

Personally I don't find the odd turbine or two unnattractive. I have
doubts over the numbers required through - the UK peak consumption is
something over 60GW, which means (surely I've got this wrong?) 30,000 of
those 2MW units, each of which is as tall as St Paul's Cathedral.

Your "argument" is based on generating all electricity from wind
turbines. A straw man.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000...#pt3-pb3-l1g54

On 12 Sep,
"Arfa Daily" wrote:

I'm right with your missus on that one. That delay between flicking the
light switch, and actually getting light, drives ne up the wall. We have
one in our downstairs loo, and have had for a long time. Every time I go
in there and flick the light switch on, a thought rushes through my head,
and that is "**** - the bulb's gone" and that is followed a hundred
milliseconds later by "oh no it hasn't ..." For some reason, the
expectation of instant light is so deeply ingrained in me, that I just
can't shake it. I also hate that 'warmup' period. It just isn't right.

I had that trouble with the 5' linear frourescent (with electronic starter)
in the utility room. You could go in looking for something, and come out
again before the light had come on.

Since replacing it with a CFL (6000k from CPC) it has instantly started and
given excellent service with no complaints.

--
B Thumbs
Change lycos to yahoo to reply

On 11/09/2010 11:35, Tim Watts wrote:
On 10/09/10 23:01, Andy Champ wrote:

By and large, women have better colour vision - more receptors. A few
women may have four colour vision.

Is that red, green, blue and "not expensive enough"?

We, of course, being mere men can't see the 4th colour. I think it may
be called "platinum"

Seriously though...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetrachromacy

Not the best wiki article, but gives an idea.

Andy

On 12/09/2010 15:06, David Hansen wrote:
On Thu, 09 Sep 2010 20:55:45 +0100 someone who may be Andy Champ
wrote this:-

Personally I don't find the odd turbine or two unnattractive. I have
doubts over the numbers required through - the UK peak consumption is
something over 60GW, which means (surely I've got this wrong?) 30,000 of
those 2MW units, each of which is as tall as St Paul's Cathedral.

Your "argument" is based on generating all electricity from wind
turbines. A straw man.



What large scale non-fossil technologies are available?

Andy

In message , Tim
Streater writes
In article ,
Andy Champ wrote:

On 12/09/2010 15:06, David Hansen wrote:
On Thu, 09 Sep 2010 20:55:45 +0100 someone who may be Andy Champ
wrote this:-

Personally I don't find the odd turbine or two unnattractive. I have
doubts over the numbers required through - the UK peak consumption is
something over 60GW, which means (surely I've got this wrong?) 30,000 of
those 2MW units, each of which is as tall as St Paul's Cathedral.

Your "argument" is based on generating all electricity from wind
turbines. A straw man.
What large scale non-fossil technologies are available?

Nuclear is the only one.

There's wave power

get the pope to continually drive around and harness everyone's right
arm


--
geoff

On Sun, 12 Sep 2010 22:37:07 +0100, geoff wrote:

In message , Tim
Streater writes
In article , Andy Champ
wrote:

On 12/09/2010 15:06, David Hansen wrote:
On Thu, 09 Sep 2010 20:55:45 +0100 someone who may be Andy Champ
wrote this:-

Personally I don't find the odd turbine or two unnattractive. I
have doubts over the numbers required through - the UK peak
consumption is something over 60GW, which means (surely I've got
this wrong?) 30,000 of those 2MW units, each of which is as tall as
St Paul's Cathedral.

Your "argument" is based on generating all electricity from wind
turbines. A straw man.
What large scale non-fossil technologies are available?

Nuclear is the only one.

There's wave power

get the pope to continually drive around and harness everyone's right
arm

Or just harness dennis's right arm...

--
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
http://www.mirrorservice.org

*lightning protection* - a w_tom conductor

On 12 Sep, 22:19, Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
*Andy Champ wrote:

On 12/09/2010 15:06, David Hansen wrote:
On Thu, 09 Sep 2010 20:55:45 +0100 someone who may be Andy Champ
*wrote this:-

Personally I don't find the odd turbine or two unnattractive. *I have
doubts over the numbers required through - the UK peak consumption is
something over 60GW, which means (surely I've got this wrong?) 30,000 of
those 2MW units, each of which is as tall as St Paul's Cathedral.

Your "argument" is based on generating all electricity from wind
turbines. A straw man.

What large scale non-fossil technologies are available?

Nuclear is the only one.

--
Tim

"That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed,
nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted" *-- *Bill of Rights 1689

Problem is nuclear is fossil fueled , Uranium isn`t mined in the UK,
Australia, South Africa and er, possibly soon, Afghanistan...

Fast breeders and fusion that works are all so much science fiction at
moment, but dream big

http://www.nature.com/news/2010/1005...l/465532a.html

Ok just presuurisd water, uderstood technology , power stations
standardised `to the wallpaper and the carpets` , wrong European
Presurised Reactor, massively overbudget and overtime in two locations
and no one is ordering any mo

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/9521db40-b...44feab49a.html

Windmill, wave and solar are all non fossil and look good against this
sort of competition ;-)

Cheers
Adam

Adam Aglionby wrote:

Windmill, wave and solar are all non fossil and look good against this
sort of competition ;-)

sigh Horsefeathers.

On Sun, 12 Sep 2010 16:38:33 -0700 (PDT) someone who may be Adam
Aglionby wrote this:-

Ok just presuurisd water, uderstood technology , power stations
standardised `to the wallpaper and the carpets` , wrong European
Presurised Reactor, massively overbudget and overtime in two locations

Yes, it is slightly amusing. The first two "standardised" reactors
are in fact somewhat different.

It is beginning to look like the AGR, where a series of
"standardised" reactors to reduce costs became a series of
individual reactors.


Since the first commercial wind farm opened at Delabole in 1991 wind
has gone from nothing to 4.756 GW http://www.bwea.com/statistics/.

At the average UK capacity factor of 30% that is equivalent to plant
of 1.43 GW operating continuously.

In 2009 nuclear had a capacity factor of 65.4%
http://www.decc.gov.uk/assets/decc/Statistics/publications/dukes/311-dukes-2010-ch5.pdf
table 5.10. So to get the equivalent of 1.43 GW plant operating
continuously one needs 2.19 GW installed. That's roughly a Sizewell
B http://british-energy.com/pagetemplate.php?pid=96 and a
Dungeness B http://british-energy.com/pagetemplate.php?pid=91.

An additional 1.123 GW of wind is under construction (same source).

It looks like wave and tidal are about to start the same rise as
wind has had. Meanwhile hydro is now being developed again, the idea
that there are no more sites having been exploded.


There has been no law to stop nuclear plants being built, but the
privatised operators have not built any. Since Sizewell B opened in
1995 no new nuclear generation has been built in the UK.



--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000...#pt3-pb3-l1g54

An additional 1.123 GW of wind is under construction (same source).



It looks like wave and tidal are about to start the same rise as
wind has had. Meanwhile hydro is now being developed again, the idea
that there are no more sites having been exploded.

But the returns from all of these 'interesting' technologies - in this
country at least - are so small as to be difficult to justify against the
manufacturing and maintenance budgets. To say nothing of the aesthetic
impact.




There has been no law to stop nuclear plants being built, but the
privatised operators have not built any. Since Sizewell B opened in
1995 no new nuclear generation has been built in the UK.


Due in no small part to the continued lobbying of the environmental
anti-nuclear brigade, and governments too gutless to stand up to them.

Much to the continued political and financial joy of the Frogs and Ruskies,
of course ...

We seriously need to get much more independent of other countries again for
our own energy needs, and the only sensible and quick way to do this, is to
start a nuclear building program again.

Arfa




--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000...#pt3-pb3-l1g54

"David Hansen" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 12 Sep 2010 16:38:33 -0700 (PDT) someone who may be Adam
Aglionby wrote this:-

Ok just presuurisd water, uderstood technology , power stations
standardised `to the wallpaper and the carpets` , wrong European
Presurised Reactor, massively overbudget and overtime in two locations

Yes, it is slightly amusing. The first two "standardised" reactors
are in fact somewhat different.

It is beginning to look like the AGR, where a series of
"standardised" reactors to reduce costs became a series of
individual reactors.


Since the first commercial wind farm opened at Delabole in 1991 wind
has gone from nothing to 4.756 GW http://www.bwea.com/statistics/.

How many GW hours?
It doesn't really matter what the peak is.
I can get 4.756 GW from a pp3 battery and a capacitor.


At the average UK capacity factor of 30% that is equivalent to plant
of 1.43 GW operating continuously.

Rubbish.
Where does this mythical 30% come from?

Adam Aglionby wrote:
On 13 Sep, 10:01, Tim Streater wrote:
In article
,
Adam Aglionby wrote:

On 12 Sep, 22:19, Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
Andy Champ wrote:
What large scale non-fossil technologies are available?
Nuclear is the only one.
Problem is nuclear is fossil fueled ,
In what sense?

In that you need a continued supply of a mined resource to continue to
generate.


well, yes and no.

It's complicated by the various breeder reactions available.

Advanced nuclear reactors might be taking all sorts of feedstocks apart
from enriched uranium, or plutonium.

And 'fossil' refers precisely to the remains of organic (carbon based)
life, which Uranium aint.



Non local resource at that, which is a concern re, security.


Again, its a lot handier to stockpile fissile material than coal gas or oil.

Sustainable energy doesn't work effectively anyway, so you have to use
some form or raided energy source that Nature has concentrated a bit
better than a light breeze over Blackopool.

Did you have another definition of fossil fuel?


Yes. See above.

Fast breeders seem to work, near as I can tell.

Not as commercial generating plants unfortunately.


They can though. Its just they are more expensive to build than a
straight uranium reactor, and no one ever had the need to use them
before other than in weapons programs.



You'll be lucky to get 25% of our national energy requirements from
these three. And to get there will cost considerably more than funding
ITER.

Thing is ITER is eating everyone else`s research budget, if results
were guaranteed, 10 X power out than power in, funding would be easy.


Oh THAT is guranteed! The problem is, making it work.

The exact reverse from sustainable energy, which guarantees to require
huge plant to produce almost nothing in usable form, but can be made to
work.

On Mon, 13 Sep 2010 09:28:04 +0100 someone who may be "Arfa Daily"
wrote this:-

But the returns from all of these 'interesting' technologies - in this
country at least - are so small as to be difficult to justify against the
manufacturing and maintenance budgets. To say nothing of the aesthetic
impact.

The tides and waves off Scotland, chiefly off the north and north
west, could generate 1/5 of UK annual electricity use.
http://www.scottishrenewables.com//default.aspx?documentid=ba51c1cf-626d-4ee7-9782-228192eb3623

There are certainly difficulties to be overcome with regard to the
weather, but these are challenges rather than insoluble problems. As
we see with wind, challenging environments bring great rewards too

"The excellent wind regime found in Shetland makes the Burradale
windfarm the most productive, in terms of capacity factor, in the
UK. The average capacity factor of the turbines since the windfarm
was opened in the year 2000 is over 52%. This average was surpassed
in 2005 with a recorded capacity factor of 57.9%."

http://www.hi-energy.org.uk/Region/shetlandislands.html

The aesthetic impact of tidal generation is almost zero. Most of the
equipment is under water and that which is not will generally not be
easy to see from land. Wave machines will largely be too far away
from land to be seen.

Hydro has been working quietly away for over a century. The 1896
installation at Foyers was revamped in the early 1970s to produce a
conventional hydro scheme and a pumped storage scheme
http://www.scottish-southern.co.uk/sseinternet/assets/569CABFE-1165-4ED8-9419-CF3B5A64BC98.pdf.

That version of "Power from the Glens" doesn't mention what the
earlier version of the booklet did, that only half the schemes
identified by the NoSHEB were built. In the past few years
construction of hydro schemes has started again, though that got off
to a faltering start with the closure of Glendoe
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/highlands_and_islands/8205094.stm.
That problem should be sorted in 2011 though. Other hydro schemes
are being planned, including more pumped storage (converting Sloy to
pumped storage).

The aesthetic impact of hydro can be severe if badly designed. I
wouldn't have approved the various early schemes for Glen Affric,
which were awful. However, few people object to the power station in
Pitlochry and the artificial loch which feeds it. Rather it is an
attraction. The scheme which was eventually built in Glen Affric is
a superb example of how to blend the man made with beautiful second-
to-none scenery.

There has been no law to stop nuclear plants being built, but the
privatised operators have not built any. Since Sizewell B opened in
1995 no new nuclear generation has been built in the UK.

Due in no small part to the continued lobbying of the environmental
anti-nuclear brigade,

Thank goodness for them. However, their power is relatively weak
compared to the taxpayer funded lobbying of the nuclear bunch. See
the previous government's gyrations for a good example.

We seriously need to get much more independent of other countries again for
our own energy needs, and the only sensible and quick way to do this, is to
start a nuclear building program again.

There are no uranium mines in the UK. Were we foolish enough to
embark on a nuclear programme then that would increase our
dependency on other countries. Some of these other countries are
(usually) friendly to the UK, such as Australia and Canada, others
are not [1].

On the other hand renewables reduce our dependence on other
countries. The fuel is either grown here like biomass [2], or is
international like the tides. You could argue that wind turbines are
largely built elsewhere. That is our own fault, our early lead in
wind turbines was not developed, due to nuclear lobby influence in
government. The same cause stopped Salter's duck, the first useful
wave machine, being developed. The story with wave isn't as sad as
with wind though, we may have clawed our lead back. Let's not make
the same mistake with tidal.


[1] in a report for the SD Commission the Atomic Energy Authority
indicated that in their view uranium supplies would be a problem in
the short/medium term but less of a problem in the longer term. I'm
not convinced by their longer term assumptions, but their report
does draw attention to the fact that nuclear is not the quick fix
proponents claim.

[2] biomass on a large scale is not sustainable, but on a small
scale it is. There are also plans to import "biomass" from around
the world, which is not sustainable either.




--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000...#pt3-pb3-l1g54

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
...
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Adam Aglionby wrote:

Not as commercial generating plants unfortunately.

They can though. Its just they are more expensive to build than a
straight uranium reactor, and no one ever had the need to use them before
other than in weapons programs.

Largely because uranium was cheap enough.

Mining isn't an issue, we have enough plutonium to keep our reactors going
for decades.
We are using plutonium as a fuel now and have been for years.

"David Hansen" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 13 Sep 2010 13:24:09 +0100 someone who may be Tim Streater
wrote this:-

The normal definition relates to fuels created out of organic material,
previously living material, laid down in geological times since the
planet was created.

Uranium and other minerals (e.g. other metals such as iron, tungsten,
etc) are what was left in the earth's crust after it solidified. Not
fossil at all.

Iron and tungsten are not used as fuels. Uranium is and it seems
sensible to me to consider it along with other fuels which are dug
out of the ground, no matter what definition some may use. I can see
why nuclear enthusiasts hate the comparison, but it is a valid one.

Just as valid as claiming all re-newables except tidal are solar energy
then.

"Come climate change all the wind will move somewhere there are no wind
turbines", Murphy.
"We won't have enough rain to run hydro electric", Murphy.
"It will be too hot/cold to grow enough bio fuels", Murphy.
"Murphy is an optimist", Patrick.

David Hansen wrote:

On Mon, 13 Sep 2010 13:24:09 +0100 someone who may be Tim Streater
wrote this:-

The normal definition relates to fuels created out of organic material,
previously living material, laid down in geological times since the
planet was created.

Uranium and other minerals (e.g. other metals such as iron, tungsten,
etc) are what was left in the earth's crust after it solidified. Not
fossil at all.

Iron and tungsten are not used as fuels. Uranium is and it seems
sensible to me to consider it along with other fuels which are dug
out of the ground, no matter what definition some may use. I can see
why nuclear enthusiasts hate the comparison, but it is a valid one.

No it isn't a perticularly valid one, because the primary environmental
reason fossil fuels are considered bad is the CO2 their combustion
generates, not the impact of the fact they need to be mined.

That's not to say the impact of any mining activity should be neglected,
but the amount of mining activity per usefully extractable kWh of energy
must be pretty negligible for uranium, when compared with carbon fuels.

It is said, and I don't know how much truth there is in it, that the
amount of energy needed to build and install a windmill is quite high
in relation to the amount of energy it will produce during its lifetime.
That makes them much less "green" than at first sight they might seem.
And think of all the iron ore which needs to be mined to make them.

geoff wrote:

Steve, do you ever go near Chieri?

Oddly enough, yes. It's over 400 miles from home, but sometimes we drive
via the Frejus tunnel and past Torino on the A21 which means we pass
within 15km as we drive through Villanova d'Asti. Never been there and
the closes places that I have stopped to there are Bardonecchia and
Marengo.

Umm this isn't going to turn into "Would you mind towing a SCUD missile
launcher back to the UK" is it?

I'm not sure when the next time I'll go that way will be. Probably later
this year, trying very hard to not get caught in a blizzard.