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.
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.
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.
No inverters or "lossy gadgets" involved, other than what is built into the base of the lamps. The draw measured includes any and all parts of the assembly.
Measured. Nav lights have to meet strict legal requirements and be certified.
You really can't stand being wrong, can you?
Sorry that you have such a hard time with reality.
I know my LED flashlight can run for hours and hours, while the incandescent flashlight burns through batteries quickly while providing less light.
-- John Perry
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.
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) :^)
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."
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* 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.
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. :^)
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.
I can't remember what he tried to say. Don't bother requoting it, either.
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.
Just think...when they perfect LEDs for headlights...we won't have to yell at the wife for draining down the battery!
bob_v
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?nate
Storm> Sadly, wasn't Lary this time. Though, he must be a hoot in
I will post the info I have on the harm that UV does to folks that have Lupus and fibromyalgia. Probably tomorrow.
Here's a brief comment on CFL's from the US Energy Star program:
"CFLs save consumers money in the long run, as these bulbs draw far less power (resulting in lower electric bills), and they last longer (so they don't need to be replaced nearly as often). But they also work to save the environment by lessening greenhouse gases. If every American home replaced just one standard incandescent light bulb with a long-lasting CFL, the resultant energy savings would eliminate greenhouse gases equal to the emissions of
800,000 cars..."
Indeed. That one bent the needle on the bullshitometer.
Does your wife have some form of Cutaneous porphyria?
TDD
The reference I have found relates to Lupus. I was somewhat incorrect saying it also affected RA and Fibro. Her Dr. had said that folks with auto immune problems should avoid UV. Since she has Lupus and Fibro, (auto-immune diseases) I assumed it caused problems for both. Since RA is also an auto-immune disease, I again assumed that uv might be a problem. The Dr. was addressing just the Lupus. Here is the reference I found for Lupus:
She can only be in Walmart or HD for a few minutes. Then she has a very bad reaction. Any time outside she must be wearing a sun hat (blocks UV's). Sorry if I rattled anybodies cage. Chuck
I'm not sure if it's CFL envy, or what. But I've seen signs in back of stores, that fluorescent tubes are disposed differently than rest of the trash. So, there is some effort to contain the mercury.
That, or timer. Five minutes afer the key is turned off. That kind of thing.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.