El grupo al cual envías entradas es un grupo Usenet. Si envías mensajes a este grupo, cualquier usuario de Internet podrá ver tu dirección de correo electrónico
> Except for the "intricately curved delicate glass tubes", 120V LEDs have > essentially the same production and noise issues as CFLs.
That's a pretty big exception. As a guy who custom builds electronics by hand, I am sure that you realize that even one delicate step in a process, say soldering an SMD component to a circuit board by hand, can cause your reject rate to soar. Take a look at some of the spiral shapes of bulbs and I think you'll realize that it takes some significant heat and tooling to create narrow but even diameter glass tubes that then must be twisted into spiral shape, uniformly coated internally with phosphor, primed with mercury, and then sealed and capped with electrodes. Forgive me for taking a technical note and turning it into polemic, but this is an important issue.
Even if LED and CFL production costs were equal, manufacturing CFL's means increasing the mining for mercury and causing much more of the neurotoxin to enter the world at large. It may very well turn out that CFLs looked good on paper but turned out not to be so good when all costs are computed, just like biofuels.
While one dot of mercury might not seem so bad, almost 300 million CFL's were sold in the United States last year (or so says the New York Times in a Feb. 17, 2008, editorial). But what worries me is the even more staggering figure that CFL's are currently used in only 10% to 20% of the fixtures in residential home. That could extrapolate into perhaps 3 *billion* CFL's getting deployed after the mandate's phased in. Even when you talk about micrograms per bulbs, that's a lot of mercury going into landfills, incinerators and eventually, the bloodstream of newborn babies.
> That Lumform 4W MR16 LED gets too hot to touch, and is a very strong > radiator of 121KHz powerline noise.
Both technologies have shortcomings, agreed, but fluorescent technology has been around for a much longer time than LEDs and if such CFL problems had solutions, one would expect them to be uncovered by now. Some say fluorescents began in 1856 when Heinrich Geissler created a *mercury* <g> vacuum pump that was much more efficient than any other of the time. When current was applied through the "Geissler tube", it glowed. Commercial fluorescents didn't really hit the market in force until after their debut by GE at the 1939 World's Fair.
Either way, that's a long head start for fluorescents to just now be almost neck and neck with LEDs, a nascent technology that's only really been a home lighting contender for 10 years at most. Because it's difficult to sustain an arc in a fluorescent tube at low power levels, CFLs will probably never equal tungsten or LED lights when it comes to smooth, linear dimming.
My contention is that these subtle, but persistent CFL flaws (size, incompatibility with existing timers, photocell-controlled lamps, dimmers, X-10 and the like) mean that LEDs *have* to rule to roost, eventually. Competition is a fascinating thing, summed up by the old joke punchline: "I don't have to outrun the bear, I just have to outrun you!" Even very slight-seeming advantages can add up to a killer blow over the long haul. The CFL is running hard, but true LED "cold light" will win the race, even over a characteristic as lowly as higher resistance to breakage. All the studies I've seen say LEDs have much greater "room to grow" in both efficiency and cheaper production costs than CFLs and should surpass them very soon in both categories.
> I read a lot about LEDs before trying those initial 12V MR16 landscape > lights. The DOE CALiPER reports on Solid-State Lighting indicate that > reliability and brightness fall-off are major problems for LED lighting.
I agree completely. The current landscape of LED offerings is hauntingly reminiscent of the introduction of CFLs. Cheap, crappy products and hyper-expensive products dominated the landscape; the early adopters who tried them rejected them and developed long-lasting negative attitudes towards them. This has acted as quite a drag on their acceptance.
The reports of CFL penetration say time and time again that people who try them and have issues like a smoky, stinky burnout are much more reluctant to try them a second time. My wife hates both the occasional very spectacular stinky burn-up and the frequent flickering and has had me stock up on incandescents for her sewing room and all the hallway and critical short on/off time lights that never last as long as the makers claim.
As for reliability, that's not so clear cut. Take for instance an LED traffic light. Made up of many LED elements, they are far more reliable on the whole than the tungsten bulbs they replace. CFL's are so wimpy, they need not even apply for this job! An LED element failure in a stop or tail light still leaves a lot of other LEDs elements to continue to shine. Since the LEDs can produce incredibly pure red light, there's no energy loss involved in filtering white light to get the red color.
> Progress is being made, and eventually another technology will supercede > CFLs. From my limited testing, the LEDs aren't there yet.
Agreed. But they're close enough that the mercury element should make the decision between the two a no-brainer, at least if someone *really* cares about the environment. It's bad reasoning to believe that putting mercury in perhaps 3 billion consumer bulbs will magically offset mercury in smokestack exhausts. That's especially true now because the Feds are finally getting off their butts and invoking the *right* solution: enforcing mercury emission laws. Once that happens, the tradeoff fails.
Far worse, we've created a brand-new mercury dispersal system that reaches every corner of the country, even areas where they get most of their electricity from dams or other non-coal sources and there was never any value to the trade-off to begin with. Do you really want grandkids with lifelong neurological problems because you want to save on your electric bill? Or your light bulb costs? Or because the color of the light isn't quite right? I don't.
What worries me the most is the cost of remediation if we eventually find that many more than 630,000 newborns a year have mercury levels way above recommendations. Lots of folks here know the incredible costs and issues involved in removing asbestos or lead paint from a home. Mercury abatement has the potential to make removing those two hazards look like child's play. Who will pay for the care of kids born with brain damage because we didn't realize CFL's were such a hazard? We will. With yet more tax dollars.
Like climate change, these processes take time and I suspect that mercury is only now entering the environment from pre-ban alkaline batteries that went into dumps years ago. What happens when the CFL bulbs start getting to dumps in big numbers? We just don't know, and so we should consider how deeply we get into something that could make the US one giant Superfund site. We put deposit requirements on innocuous glass soda bottles but not on "special needs recycling" hazardous material bearing CFL's. That's idiotic. When the choice was just CFL v. incandescent, the tradeoff worked, but now there's a serious new contender, the LED, and it's far greener than the CFL because it uses no mercury.
On the whole, people have a hard time evaluating the threat of materials like mercury and carcinogens like asbestos and TCE because the cause and effect are sometimes years, even decades, apart. But the cancer statistics, state by state prove that certain areas produce statistically meaningful clusters of deaths. Sadly, those clusters tend to be in areas with large manufacturing operations.
We already know that trace amounts of mercury can be very toxic, especially to the fetuses of pregnant women. They have been told each year that it's increasingly less safe for them to eat any fish at all. As far back as 2004, the EPA raised a red flag:
"E.P.A. Raises Estimate of Babies Affected by Mercury Exposure - More than one child in six born in the United States could be at risk for developmental disorders because of mercury exposure in the mother's womb, according to revised estimates released last week by Environmental Protection Agency scientists. The agency doubled its estimate, equivalent to 630,000 of the 4 million babies born each year, because recent research has shown that mercury tends to concentrate in the blood in the umbilical cord of pregnant women." Source:
> There is a brighter 12V MR16 LED available now, but it costs 3X as much as the Feit > CFLs. It is hard to justify replacing an inexpensive halogen with a $20 LED > having unknown longevity.
It's not hard to justify if there's a hidden downside to CFLs: poisoning the next generation of Americans. Efficiency and longevity of LEDs has been increasing greatly in just the past few years. Here's a study done by Carnagie Mellon:
They concur that LED lighting still has a long way to go, but that it's closing ground fast and it's going to very rapidly overtake CFLs in nearly every category when those eventual improvements arrive. That only makes sense since commercial fluorescent technology is at least 70 years old. CFL's may be a new form factor, but the technology is considered by some to outdate the tungsten filament bulb.
Stokes at Cambridge discovered electrical fluorescence in 1852, which by some accounts makes it well over 150 years old. That's a lot of time for the damn things to remain so buggy compared to a simple incandescent bulb. And it's precisely why they'll fail against LEDs. One of the most cynical touches in the film "Blade Runner" is
...
> > Except for the "intricately curved delicate glass tubes", 120V LEDs have > > essentially the same production and noise issues as CFLs.
> That's a pretty big exception. As a guy who custom builds electronics by > hand, I am sure that you realize that even one delicate step in a process, > say soldering an SMD component to a circuit board by hand, can cause your > reject rate to soar. Take a look at some of the spiral shapes of bulbs and I > think you'll realize that it takes some significant heat and tooling to > create narrow but even diameter glass tubes that then must be twisted into > spiral shape, uniformly coated internally with phosphor, primed with > mercury, and then sealed and capped with electrodes. Forgive me for taking > a technical note and turning it into polemic, but this is an important > issue.
> Even if LED and CFL production costs were equal, manufacturing CFL's means > increasing the mining for mercury and causing much more of the neurotoxin to > enter the world at large. It may very well turn out that CFLs looked good > on paper but turned out not to be so good when all costs are computed, just > like biofuels.
> While one dot of mercury might not seem so bad, almost 300 million CFL's > were sold in the United States last year (or so says the New York Times in a > Feb. 17, 2008, editorial). But what worries me is the even more staggering > figure that CFL's are currently used in only 10% to 20% of the fixtures in > residential home. That could extrapolate into perhaps 3 *billion* CFL's > getting deployed after the mandate's phased in. Even when you talk about > micrograms per bulbs, that's a lot of mercury going into landfills, > incinerators and eventually, the bloodstream of newborn babies.
> > That Lumform 4W MR16 LED gets too hot to touch, and is a very strong > > radiator of 121KHz powerline noise.
> Both technologies have shortcomings, agreed, but fluorescent technology has > been around for a much longer time than LEDs and if such CFL problems had > solutions, one would expect them to be uncovered by now. Some say > fluorescents began in 1856 when Heinrich Geissler created a *mercury* <g> > vacuum pump that was much more efficient than any other of the time. When > current was applied through the "Geissler tube", it glowed. Commercial > fluorescents didn't really hit the market in force until after their debut > by GE at the 1939 World's Fair.
> Either way, that's a long head start for fluorescents to just now be almost > neck and neck with LEDs, a nascent technology that's only really been a home > lighting contender for 10 years at most. Because it's difficult to sustain > an arc in a fluorescent tube at low power levels, CFLs will probably never > equal tungsten or LED lights when it comes to smooth, linear dimming.
> My contention is that these subtle, but persistent CFL flaws (size, > incompatibility with existing timers, photocell-controlled lamps, dimmers, > X-10 and the like) mean that LEDs *have* to rule to roost, eventually. > Competition is a fascinating thing, summed up by the old joke punchline: "I > don't have to outrun the bear, I just have to outrun you!" Even very > slight-seeming advantages can add up to a killer blow over the long haul. > The CFL is running hard, but true LED "cold light" will win the race, even > over a characteristic as lowly as higher resistance to breakage. All the > studies I've seen say LEDs have much greater "room to grow" in both > efficiency and cheaper production costs than CFLs and should surpass them > very soon in both categories.
> > I read a lot about LEDs before trying those initial 12V MR16 landscape > > lights. The DOE CALiPER reports on Solid-State Lighting indicate that > > reliability and brightness fall-off are major problems for LED lighting.
> I agree completely. The current landscape of LED offerings is hauntingly > reminiscent of the introduction of CFLs. Cheap, crappy products and > hyper-expensive products dominated the landscape; the early adopters who > tried them rejected them and developed long-lasting negative attitudes > towards them. This has acted as quite a drag on their acceptance.
> The reports of CFL penetration say time and time again that people who try > them and have issues like a smoky, stinky burnout are much more reluctant to > try them a second time. My wife hates both the occasional very spectacular > stinky burn-up and the frequent flickering and has had me stock up on > incandescents for her sewing room and all the hallway and critical short > on/off time lights that never last as long as the makers claim.
> As for reliability, that's not so clear cut. Take for instance an LED > traffic light. Made up of many LED elements, they are far more reliable on > the whole than the tungsten bulbs they replace. CFL's are so wimpy, they > need not even apply for this job! An LED element failure in a stop or tail > light still leaves a lot of other LEDs elements to continue to shine. Since > the LEDs can produce incredibly pure red light, there's no energy loss > involved in filtering white light to get the red color.
> > Progress is being made, and eventually another technology will supercede > > CFLs. From my limited testing, the LEDs aren't there yet.
> Agreed. But they're close enough that the mercury element should make the > decision between the two a no-brainer, at least if someone *really* cares > about the environment. It's bad reasoning to believe that putting mercury in > perhaps 3 billion consumer bulbs will magically offset mercury in smokestack > exhausts. That's especially true now because the Feds are finally getting > off their butts and invoking the *right* solution: enforcing mercury > emission laws. Once that happens, the tradeoff fails.
> Far worse, we've created a brand-new mercury dispersal system that reaches > every corner of the country, even areas where they get most of their > electricity from dams or other non-coal sources and there was never any > value to the trade-off to begin with. Do you really want grandkids with > lifelong neurological problems because you want to save on your electric > bill? Or your light bulb costs? Or because the color of the light isn't > quite right? I don't.
> What worries me the most is the cost of remediation if we eventually find > that many more than 630,000 newborns a year have mercury levels way above > recommendations. Lots of folks here know the incredible costs and issues > involved in removing asbestos or lead paint from a home. Mercury abatement > has the potential to make removing those two hazards look like child's play. > Who will pay for the care of kids born with brain damage because we didn't > realize CFL's were such a hazard? We will. With yet more tax dollars.
> Like climate change, these processes take time and I suspect that mercury is > only now entering the environment from pre-ban alkaline batteries that went > into dumps years ago. What happens when the CFL bulbs start getting to dumps > in big numbers? We just don't know, and so we should consider how deeply we > get into something that could make the US one giant Superfund site. We put > deposit requirements on innocuous glass soda bottles but not on "special > needs recycling" hazardous material bearing CFL's. That's idiotic. When the > choice was just CFL v. incandescent, the tradeoff worked, but now there's a > serious new contender, the LED, and it's far greener than the CFL because it > uses no mercury.
> On the whole, people have a hard time evaluating the threat of materials > like mercury and carcinogens like asbestos and TCE because the cause and > effect are sometimes years, even decades, apart. But the cancer statistics, > state by state prove that certain areas produce statistically meaningful > clusters of deaths. Sadly, those clusters tend to be in areas with large > manufacturing operations.
> We already know that trace amounts of mercury can be very toxic, especially > to the fetuses of pregnant women. They have been told each year that it's > increasingly less safe for them to eat any fish at all. As far back as 2004, > the EPA raised a red flag:
> "E.P.A. Raises Estimate of Babies Affected by Mercury Exposure - More than > one child in six born in the United States could be at risk for > developmental disorders because of mercury exposure in the mother's womb, > according to revised estimates released last week by Environmental > Protection Agency scientists. The agency doubled its estimate, equivalent to > 630,000 of the 4 million babies born each year, because recent research has > shown that mercury tends to concentrate in the blood in the umbilical cord > of pregnant women." Source:
> > There is a brighter 12V MR16 LED available now, but it costs 3X as much as > the Feit > > CFLs. It is hard to justify replacing an inexpensive halogen with a $20 > LED > > having unknown longevity.
> It's not hard to justify if there's a hidden downside to CFLs: poisoning the > next generation of Americans. Efficiency and longevity of LEDs has been > increasing greatly in just the past few years. Here's a study done by > Carnagie Mellon:
> They concur that LED lighting still has a long way to go, but that it's > closing ground fast and it's going to very rapidly overtake CFLs in nearly > every category when those eventual improvements arrive. That only makes > sense since commercial fluorescent technology is at least 70 years old. > CFL's may be a new form factor, but the technology is considered by some to > outdate the
Robert Green wrote: > "Jeff Volp" <JeffV...@msn.com> wrote in message > news:HxCHm.141327$8m4.28654@en-nntp-07.dc1.easynews.com... >> Except for the "intricately curved delicate glass tubes", 120V LEDs have >> essentially the same production and noise issues as CFLs.
> That's a pretty big exception. As a guy who custom builds electronics by > hand, I am sure that you realize that even one delicate step in a process, > say soldering an SMD component to a circuit board by hand, can cause your > reject rate to soar. Take a look at some of the spiral shapes of bulbs and I > think you'll realize that it takes some significant heat and tooling to > create narrow but even diameter glass tubes that then must be twisted into > spiral shape, uniformly coated internally with phosphor, primed with > mercury, and then sealed and capped with electrodes. Forgive me for taking > a technical note and turning it into polemic, but this is an important > issue.
> Even if LED and CFL production costs were equal, manufacturing CFL's means > increasing the mining for mercury and causing much more of the neurotoxin to > enter the world at large. It may very well turn out that CFLs looked good > on paper but turned out not to be so good when all costs are computed, just > like biofuels.
> While one dot of mercury might not seem so bad, almost 300 million CFL's > were sold in the United States last year (or so says the New York Times in a > Feb. 17, 2008, editorial). But what worries me is the even more staggering > figure that CFL's are currently used in only 10% to 20% of the fixtures in > residential home. That could extrapolate into perhaps 3 *billion* CFL's > getting deployed after the mandate's phased in. Even when you talk about > micrograms per bulbs, that's a lot of mercury going into landfills, > incinerators and eventually, the bloodstream of newborn babies.
>> That Lumform 4W MR16 LED gets too hot to touch, and is a very strong >> radiator of 121KHz powerline noise.
> Both technologies have shortcomings, agreed, but fluorescent technology has > been around for a much longer time than LEDs and if such CFL problems had > solutions, one would expect them to be uncovered by now. Some say > fluorescents began in 1856 when Heinrich Geissler created a *mercury* <g> > vacuum pump that was much more efficient than any other of the time. When > current was applied through the "Geissler tube", it glowed. Commercial > fluorescents didn't really hit the market in force until after their debut > by GE at the 1939 World's Fair.
> Either way, that's a long head start for fluorescents to just now be almost > neck and neck with LEDs, a nascent technology that's only really been a home > lighting contender for 10 years at most. Because it's difficult to sustain > an arc in a fluorescent tube at low power levels, CFLs will probably never > equal tungsten or LED lights when it comes to smooth, linear dimming.
> My contention is that these subtle, but persistent CFL flaws (size, > incompatibility with existing timers, photocell-controlled lamps, dimmers, > X-10 and the like) mean that LEDs *have* to rule to roost, eventually. > Competition is a fascinating thing, summed up by the old joke punchline: "I > don't have to outrun the bear, I just have to outrun you!" Even very > slight-seeming advantages can add up to a killer blow over the long haul. > The CFL is running hard, but true LED "cold light" will win the race, even > over a characteristic as lowly as higher resistance to breakage. All the > studies I've seen say LEDs have much greater "room to grow" in both > efficiency and cheaper production costs than CFLs and should surpass them > very soon in both categories.
>> I read a lot about LEDs before trying those initial 12V MR16 landscape >> lights. The DOE CALiPER reports on Solid-State Lighting indicate that >> reliability and brightness fall-off are major problems for LED lighting.
> I agree completely. The current landscape of LED offerings is hauntingly > reminiscent of the introduction of CFLs. Cheap, crappy products and > hyper-expensive products dominated the landscape; the early adopters who > tried them rejected them and developed long-lasting negative attitudes > towards them. This has acted as quite a drag on their acceptance.
> The reports of CFL penetration say time and time again that people who try > them and have issues like a smoky, stinky burnout are much more reluctant to > try them a second time. My wife hates both the occasional very spectacular > stinky burn-up and the frequent flickering and has had me stock up on > incandescents for her sewing room and all the hallway and critical short > on/off time lights that never last as long as the makers claim.
> As for reliability, that's not so clear cut. Take for instance an LED > traffic light. Made up of many LED elements, they are far more reliable on > the whole than the tungsten bulbs they replace. CFL's are so wimpy, they > need not even apply for this job! An LED element failure in a stop or tail > light still leaves a lot of other LEDs elements to continue to shine. Since > the LEDs can produce incredibly pure red light, there's no energy loss > involved in filtering white light to get the red color.
>> Progress is being made, and eventually another technology will supercede >> CFLs. From my limited testing, the LEDs aren't there yet.
> Agreed. But they're close enough that the mercury element should make the > decision between the two a no-brainer, at least if someone *really* cares > about the environment. It's bad reasoning to believe that putting mercury in > perhaps 3 billion consumer bulbs will magically offset mercury in smokestack > exhausts. That's especially true now because the Feds are finally getting > off their butts and invoking the *right* solution: enforcing mercury > emission laws. Once that happens, the tradeoff fails.
> Far worse, we've created a brand-new mercury dispersal system that reaches > every corner of the country, even areas where they get most of their > electricity from dams or other non-coal sources and there was never any > value to the trade-off to begin with. Do you really want grandkids with > lifelong neurological problems because you want to save on your electric > bill? Or your light bulb costs? Or because the color of the light isn't > quite right? I don't.
> What worries me the most is the cost of remediation if we eventually find > that many more than 630,000 newborns a year have mercury levels way above > recommendations. Lots of folks here know the incredible costs and issues > involved in removing asbestos or lead paint from a home. Mercury abatement > has the potential to make removing those two hazards look like child's play. > Who will pay for the care of kids born with brain damage because we didn't > realize CFL's were such a hazard? We will. With yet more tax dollars.
> Like climate change, these processes take time and I suspect that mercury is > only now entering the environment from pre-ban alkaline batteries that went > into dumps years ago. What happens when the CFL bulbs start getting to dumps > in big numbers? We just don't know, and so we should consider how deeply we > get into something that could make the US one giant Superfund site. We put > deposit requirements on innocuous glass soda bottles but not on "special > needs recycling" hazardous material bearing CFL's. That's idiotic. When the > choice was just CFL v. incandescent, the tradeoff worked, but now there's a > serious new contender, the LED, and it's far greener than the CFL because it > uses no mercury.
> On the whole, people have a hard time evaluating the threat of materials > like mercury and carcinogens like asbestos and TCE because the cause and > effect are sometimes years, even decades, apart. But the cancer statistics, > state by state prove that certain areas produce statistically meaningful > clusters of deaths. Sadly, those clusters tend to be in areas with large > manufacturing operations.
> We already know that trace amounts of mercury can be very toxic, especially > to the fetuses of pregnant women. They have been told each year that it's > increasingly less safe for them to eat any fish at all. As far back as 2004, > the EPA raised a red flag:
> "E.P.A. Raises Estimate of Babies Affected by Mercury Exposure - More than > one child in six born in the United States could be at risk for > developmental disorders because of mercury exposure in the mother's womb, > according to revised estimates released last week by Environmental > Protection Agency scientists. The agency doubled its estimate, equivalent to > 630,000 of the 4 million babies born each year, because recent research has > shown that mercury tends to concentrate in the blood in the umbilical cord > of pregnant women." Source:
>> There is a brighter 12V MR16 LED available now, but it costs 3X as much as > the Feit >> CFLs. It is hard to justify replacing an inexpensive halogen with a $20 > LED >> having unknown longevity.
> It's not hard to justify if there's a hidden downside to CFLs: poisoning the > next generation of Americans. Efficiency and longevity of LEDs has been > increasing greatly in just the past few years. Here's a study done by > Carnagie Mellon:
> They concur that LED lighting still has a long way to go, but that it's > closing ground fast and it's going to very rapidly overtake CFLs in nearly > every category when those eventual improvements arrive. That only makes > sense since commercial fluorescent technology is at least 70 years old. > CFL's may be a new form factor, but the technology is considered by some to > outdate the tungsten
Interesting. Everything I have ever heard says the opposite about fluorescents, of the right colour.
How can UV from the sun affect these maladities? Sun exposure usually affects many maladities in a good way. Breast cancer is one that is statistically reduced, big time.
The flickering of fluorescents was always blamed for some problems but the sun doesn't flicker at 120Hz.
> I will stay with old fashion bulbs as long as I can. My wife can't be > exposed to florescence bulbs. People with immune problems (arthritis or > lupus or fibromyalgia) react badly to the CFL type bulbs. They emit ultra > violet light like the sun does.
Chuck wrote: > I will stay with old fashion bulbs as long as I can. My wife can't be > exposed to florescence bulbs. People with immune problems (arthritis or > lupus or fibromyalgia) react badly to the CFL type bulbs. They emit > ultra violet light like the sun does.
I have arthritis, and my rheumatologist has never suggested that I avoid fluorescent lighting.
Nevertheless, I am trying to replace CFLs by LEDs -- but for the energy savings, not for anything related to health.
"Josepi" <J...@inv.alid.com> wrote: > How can UV from the sun affect these maladities? Sun exposure usually > affects many maladities in a good way. Breast cancer is one that is > statistically reduced, big time.
Was wondering the same things. About the only thing I could think of was that some medications make you more sensitive to UV radiation and thus more susceptible to sun burn. But I haven't seen anything in 25 years of nursing to support that as a problem outside the sun or tanning booths.
-- To find that place where the rats don't race and the phones don't ring at all. If once, you've slept on an island. Scott Kirby "If once you've slept on an island"
With the energy required to manufacture LED bulbs. And the cost of the bulbs. I doubt there is any real savings. Either to your wallet, or to the planet, by converting to LED light indoors.
-- Christopher A. Young Learn more about Jesus www.lds.org .
> -- > Christopher A. Young > Learn more about Jesus > www.lds.org > .
> "ShadowTek" <Shadow...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message > news:slrnhgdaik.m2q.ShadowTek@shadowtek.localdomain. > xxxx xxxxxxx xxx, you people don't have to quote every xxxx > line of text > just to make a simple reply.
LEDs are still reported to only be slightly more efficient than incandescent bulbs. On top of all that the more efficient ***white*** LED bulbs are made with phospours, similiar to CFL bulbs. I beleive the mercury is not there as the electrical energy is converted, the first time, by LED technology.
"Stormin Mormon" <cayoung61**spambloc...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> With the energy required to manufacture LED bulbs. And the > cost of the bulbs. I doubt there is any real savings. Either > to your wallet, or to the planet, by converting to LED light > indoors.
> -- > Christopher A. Young > Learn more about Jesus > www.lds.org > .
Robert Green wrote: > The reports of CFL penetration say time and time again that people > who try them and have issues like a smoky, stinky burnout are much > more reluctant to try them a second time. My wife hates both the > occasional very spectacular stinky burn-up and the frequent > flickering and has had me stock up on incandescents for her sewing > room and all the hallway and critical short on/off time lights that > never last as long as the makers claim.
We installed CFLs everywhere in our home four years ago when we completely rewired the house, and so far the only complaint we have is the supposed five-year life of these lights is problematic--some originals are still going strong, others only lasted a year or two--quality control in mfg. I suppose. But we've had no "stinky burnout" and the only flickering we've seen is on some outdoor floods used in security fixtures. What we did immediately notice was a significant reduction in our electricity bill. Our local hardware store and community center both collect CFLs (and batteries) for proper disposal, so getting rid of dead ones is no problem.
I expect LED lighting to come on strong, we've even noticed LED stage-lighting in nightclubs lately. But so far we're pleased with CFLs, and since we don't just toss them in the trash when they're dead hopefully the mercury in them isn't finding its way into the environment (although I'd like to know more about how the CFLs we leave at the hardware store are disposed of).
Not according to testing labs that have made lumen mesurements. Are you including the inverters or other lossy type gadgets to accomodate different types of bulbs? Have you actually measured the "equivalent" light output or does it just look about the same? Brilliance is a logarithmic scale and can be very deceiving to the human eye.
Trouble with the lab measurements is they are not usually dated when completed and the technology advances quite rapidly.
> On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 12:27:09 -0500, "Josepi" <J...@inv.alid.com> wrote:
>>LEDs are still reported to only be slightly more efficient than >>incandescent >>bulbs.
> Say WHAT?
> I have replaced all of the incandescent lamps on my sailboat , > including the navigation lights. The LED's use 1/10th the power for > the same amount of light. That's not a random number - a typical light > that drew 2 amps gets replaced by an LED that is a little brighter and > draws slightly less than .2 amps.
> On a cruising sailboat, you have to keep careful track of your > electrical budget.
"Josepi" <J...@inv.alid.com> wrote: >LEDs are still reported to only be slightly more efficient than incandescent >bulbs. On top of all that the more efficient ***white*** LED bulbs are made >with phospours, similiar to CFL bulbs. I beleive the mercury is not there as >the electrical energy is converted, the first time, by LED technology.
The electronics used to control my SMD GU10 LEDS seem to consist of a couple of capacitors and other small SMD components. They certainly do not have the inductors and other complex electronics used to strike the CFLs.
On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 14:36:32 -0500, "Josepi" <J...@inv.alid.com> wrote: >Not according to testing labs that have made lumen mesurements. Are you >including the inverters or other lossy type gadgets to accomodate different >types of bulbs? Have you actually measured the "equivalent" light output or >does it just look about the same? Brilliance is a logarithmic scale and can >be very deceiving to the human eye.
>Trouble with the lab measurements is they are not usually dated when >completed and the technology advances quite rapidly.
>>>LEDs are still reported to only be slightly more efficient than >>>incandescent >>>bulbs.
>> Say WHAT?
>> I have replaced all of the incandescent lamps on my sailboat , >> including the navigation lights. The LED's use 1/10th the power for >> the same amount of light. That's not a random number - a typical light >> that drew 2 amps gets replaced by an LED that is a little brighter and >> draws slightly less than .2 amps.
>> On a cruising sailboat, you have to keep careful track of your >> electrical budget.
>> Except for the "intricately curved delicate glass tubes"...
> That's a pretty big exception. As a guy who custom > builds electronics by hand, I am sure that you realize > that even one delicate step in a process, say > soldering an SMD component to a circuit board by > hand...
That's misleading at best, Robert. None of the processes are done by hand, except packaging and that step is largely the same for either type of product. Once the patterns have been made and accepted, the glass tubes are made by machines. Modern plants use robotic systems to "blow" the glass tubes. Electronic circuit boards for inexpensive devices like CFL's are not made by hand any more either.
Here's a link to a CFL-manufacturing firm. There's no one soldering anything. No one is blowing glass either. That's another fully automated process done elsewhere. Circuit boards are assembled on a robotic line and dip-soldered en masse. The final product is then assembled on fully automated systems. You won't find a single person using a soldering iron. This kind of robotic assembly is nothing new either. Manufacturers in the alarm industry have been using it for better than 20 years. Heck, computer system makers such as MOD-COMP (now defunct, I think) were using automated manufacturing systems 35 or more years ago.
> Take a look at some of the spiral shapes of bulbs and I > think you'll realize that it takes some significant heat and > tooling to create narrow but even diameter glass tubes...
That is all supposition, Bobby. You don't know to what temperature glass for CFL's is heated let alone if it's greater than, less than or the same as in making incandescent bulbs. You clutter the discussion with wild guesses, then argue the merits of CFL's as though whatever you suppose is established fact. That is disingenuous and does nothing to help readers discern the benefits or negatoives of CFL's.
Here's a link to an article on CFL-Haters (I didn't realize there were enough of them around that they need to be categorized) :^)
> that then must be twisted into spiral shape... > ... Forgive me for taking a technical note and > turning it into polemic, but this is an important > issue.
If that were what you did, I'd happily forgive. Unfortunately, you have built a fire of guesses and wishes as fact, then shoveled personal preference into the mix. Now you stand back and warn, "See, this stuff burns very hot."
> Even if LED and CFL production costs were equal, > manufacturing CFL's means increasing the mining > for mercury and causing much more of the neurotoxin > to enter the world at large....
That is pure, unadulterated, male bovine excrement. CFL's cost more to build so they cost more than incandescent bulbs. In the process of making them, more people are employed (not exactly a bad thing given the current economic situation). The benefits are twofold.
(1) Quality CFL's last long enough to repay the investment by not buying many more incandescents *and* by using less electricity.
(2) Using less electricity means burning less coal. This reduces mercury contamination far more than the small amount of mercury in the bulbs themselves. Furthermore, the mercury in used CFL's can be recycled. A number of manufacturers are now accepting used bulbs back from the public, as well as from institutional users. That which is not recycled goes into land fills where a small percentage may eventually seep back into the earth. By comparison, the mercury emitted by coal burning electrical plants goes directly into the atmsphere and from there enters the food chain.
> It may very well turn out that CFLs looked good > on paper but turned out not to be so good when > all costs are computed, just like biofuels.
It *may* be that CFL's will be just one step on the path to restoring the environment. More likely, they will be one of many methods in simultaneous use as various technologies develop. Only time will tell. Meanwhile, there's nothing better that performs effectively at a reasonable cost so CFL's should be used wherever possible. It's the right thing to do.
> While one dot of mercury might not seem so bad, > almost 300 million CFL's were sold in the United > States last year...
Without knowing how big the "dot" is and how much mercury they *don't* use by reducing electric consumption, that proves nothing. If you want to understand the real affect of mercury in CFL's vs coal, you must first you learn how much they introduce into landfills. Then you have you learn what portion of it gets out of the landfills (in all likelihood, the major portion does not re-enter the environment but I can't prove that; it's supposition). Next you have to measure the amount of mercury *not* introduced because CFLs use less power. Finally, you have to quantify the effect of mercury sent directly into the air from electric usage.
Do all that. Report back next week. There will be a quiz on Tuesday. :^)
--
Regards, Robert L Bass
==============================> Bass Home Electronics DIY Alarm and Home Automation Store http://www.bassburglaralarms.com Sales & Service 941-870-2310 Fax 941-870-3252 ==============================>
Sadly, wasn't Lary this time. Though, he must be a hoot in real life, whoever it is that plays Larry the cable guy.
I had some trouble with my cable recentl. I called for a tech to come out, and Dennis was the one who arried. Tall guy in his twenties, seems to know hs stuff. As he looked to find the power plug, he pulled a three D-cell Mag out of his back pocket, with a practiced motion.
I noticed it was a LED bulb mag. Asked about that, and he told me a little about it. Formerly was a filament bub mag, and he bought the LED bulb only, and put that in. He said it's a lot better on batteries. I asked about that, and this is what he told me.
One time he was in a crawl space, and forgot and left it in the crawl space. Turned on. It was the wekend, and he was able to get back to recover his light, three days later. The light was still on, having run for three days all the time. he says he was able to use it for about a week after that, on the same batteries, before having to replace the batteries.
I'm totally amazed. He sounded like he was telling the truth. Wow! That's a long time on one set of batteries.
-- Christopher A. Young Learn more about Jesus www.lds.org .
-- Christopher A. Young Learn more about Jesus www.lds.org .
>>> Except for the "intricately curved delicate glass tubes"...
>> That's a pretty big exception. As a guy who custom >> builds electronics by hand, I am sure that you realize >> that even one delicate step in a process, say >> soldering an SMD component to a circuit board by >> hand...
>That's misleading at best, Robert. None of the processes are done by hand, >except packaging and that step is largely the same for either type of product. >Once the patterns have been made and accepted, the glass tubes are made by >machines. Modern plants use robotic systems to "blow" the glass tubes. >Electronic circuit boards for inexpensive devices like CFL's are not made by >hand any more either.
>Here's a link to a CFL-manufacturing firm. There's no one soldering anything. >No one is blowing glass either. That's another fully automated process done >elsewhere. Circuit boards are assembled on a robotic line and dip-soldered en >masse. The final product is then assembled on fully automated systems. You >won't find a single person using a soldering iron. This kind of robotic >assembly is nothing new either. Manufacturers in the alarm industry have been >using it for better than 20 years. Heck, computer system makers such as >MOD-COMP (now defunct, I think) were using automated manufacturing systems 35 or >more years ago.
>> Take a look at some of the spiral shapes of bulbs and I >> think you'll realize that it takes some significant heat and >> tooling to create narrow but even diameter glass tubes...
>That is all supposition, Bobby. You don't know to what temperature glass for >CFL's is heated let alone if it's greater than, less than or the same as in >making incandescent bulbs. You clutter the discussion with wild guesses, then >argue the merits of CFL's as though whatever you suppose is established fact. >That is disingenuous and does nothing to help readers discern the benefits or >negatoives of CFL's.
>Here's a link to an article on CFL-Haters (I didn't realize there were enough of >them around that they need to be categorized) :^)
>> ... Forgive me for taking a technical note and >> turning it into polemic, but this is an important >> issue.
>If that were what you did, I'd happily forgive. Unfortunately, you have built a >fire of guesses and wishes as fact, then shoveled personal preference into the >mix. Now you stand back and warn, "See, this stuff burns very hot."
>> Even if LED and CFL production costs were equal, >> manufacturing CFL's means increasing the mining >> for mercury and causing much more of the neurotoxin >> to enter the world at large....
>That is pure, unadulterated, male bovine excrement. CFL's cost more to build so >they cost more than incandescent bulbs. In the process of making them, more >people are employed (not exactly a bad thing given the current economic >situation). The benefits are twofold.
>(1) Quality CFL's last long enough to repay the investment by not buying many >more incandescents *and* by using less electricity.
>(2) Using less electricity means burning less coal. This reduces mercury >contamination far more than the small amount of mercury in the bulbs themselves. >Furthermore, the mercury in used CFL's can be recycled. A number of >manufacturers are now accepting used bulbs back from the public, as well as from >institutional users. That which is not recycled goes into land fills where a >small percentage may eventually seep back into the earth. By comparison, the >mercury emitted by coal burning electrical plants goes directly into the >atmsphere and from there enters the food chain.
>> It may very well turn out that CFLs looked good >> on paper but turned out not to be so good when >> all costs are computed, just like biofuels.
>It *may* be that CFL's will be just one step on the path to restoring the >environment. More likely, they will be one of many methods in simultaneous use >as various technologies develop. Only time will tell. Meanwhile, there's >nothing better that performs effectively at a reasonable cost so CFL's should be >used wherever possible. It's the right thing to do.
>> While one dot of mercury might not seem so bad, >> almost 300 million CFL's were sold in the United >> States last year...
>Without knowing how big the "dot" is and how much mercury they *don't* use by >reducing electric consumption, that proves nothing. If you want to understand >the real affect of mercury in CFL's vs coal, you must first you learn how much >they introduce into landfills. Then you have you learn what portion of it gets >out of the landfills (in all likelihood, the major portion does not re-enter the >environment but I can't prove that; it's supposition). Next you have to measure >the amount of mercury *not* introduced because CFLs use less power. Finally, >you have to quantify the effect of mercury sent directly into the air from >electric usage.
>Do all that. Report back next week. There will be a quiz on Tuesday. :^)
Lets not overlook the fact that florescent lights have been around for a Looooooong time. The traditional tubes that light the entire world of retail, manufacturing, hospitals, schools, public buildings, offices, etc, are each much bigger and contain a lot more mercury tha a CFL. No one ever really got upset about those. and In fact, they are still being used to light the world, and CFL haters don't seem to know they exist.
The only thing "new" about CFL's is their size and shape. Otherwise, its' VERY old technology.
<cayoung61**spambloc...@hotmail.com> wrote: > Sadly, wasn't Lary this time. Though, he must be a hoot in > real life, whoever it is that plays Larry the cable guy.
> I had some trouble with my cable recentl. I called for a > tech to come out, and Dennis was the one who arried. Tall > guy in his twenties, seems to know hs stuff. As he looked to > find the power plug, he pulled a three D-cell Mag out of his > back pocket, with a practiced motion.
> I noticed it was a LED bulb mag. Asked about that, and he > told me a little about it. Formerly was a filament bub mag, > and he bought the LED bulb only, and put that in. He said > it's a lot better on batteries. I asked about that, and this > is what he told me.
> One time he was in a crawl space, and forgot and left it in > the crawl space. Turned on. It was the wekend, and he was > able to get back to recover his light, three days later. The > light was still on, having run for three days all the time. > he says he was able to use it for about a week after that, > on the same batteries, before having to replace the > batteries.
> I'm totally amazed. He sounded like he was telling the > truth. Wow! That's a long time on one set of batteries.
> -- > Christopher A. Young > Learn more about Jesus > www.lds.org > .
> -- > Christopher A. Young > Learn more about Jesus > www.lds.org > .
> Josepi wrote: > > LEDs are still reported to only be slightly more efficient > > than incandescent > > bulbs.
> I know my LED flashlight can run for hours and hours, while > the > incandescent flashlight burns through batteries quickly > while providing > less light.
Just think...when they perfect LEDs for headlights...we won't have to yell at the wife for draining down the battery!
What I don't understand is why LEDs are so excellent in flashlights (the 3W Task Force light kicks a Mag-Lite's ass BTW) bike head/taillights, truck taillights and traffic lights but it is so difficult to find good ones for home lighting and/or retrofitting into car taillights?
Stormin Mormon wrote: > Sadly, wasn't Lary this time. Though, he must be a hoot in > real life, whoever it is that plays Larry the cable guy.
> I had some trouble with my cable recentl. I called for a > tech to come out, and Dennis was the one who arried. Tall > guy in his twenties, seems to know hs stuff. As he looked to > find the power plug, he pulled a three D-cell Mag out of his > back pocket, with a practiced motion.
> I noticed it was a LED bulb mag. Asked about that, and he > told me a little about it. Formerly was a filament bub mag, > and he bought the LED bulb only, and put that in. He said > it's a lot better on batteries. I asked about that, and this > is what he told me.
> One time he was in a crawl space, and forgot and left it in > the crawl space. Turned on. It was the wekend, and he was > able to get back to recover his light, three days later. The > light was still on, having run for three days all the time. > he says he was able to use it for about a week after that, > on the same batteries, before having to replace the > batteries.
> I'm totally amazed. He sounded like he was telling the > truth. Wow! That's a long time on one set of batteries.
|
