Anyone moved to LED Lighting?

Page 13 of 16  


The principle is different.
A prism refracts (bends) different wavelengths of light unequally.
A diffraction grating works with diffraction - light hitting or grazing small objects is bent or even reflected into random directions or a range of random directions. The grating has a large number of equally-spaced grooves. That causes the light to go only where the various paths (one for each groove) have distance from light source to destination differ from each other in length by only whole numbers of wavelengths, so that constructive interference occurs.
The effect remains similar to that of a prism. The biggest functional differences between a prism and a diffraction grating are:
1. It can be tricky or necessary to use additional optics to get a well-spread-out spectrum of good quality. A diffraction grating all by itself easily produces a nice spectrum.
2. With a prism, the violet end of the spectrum tends to get stretched outand the red end tends to get squished. Variation of refractive index of transparent materials with change in wavelength tends to be greater at shorter wavelengths than at longer wavelengths.
3. Some gratings are of reflective type. A CD or DVD is an example of a reflective grating.
Some "spindle packs" of recordable CDs or DVDs have a clear one at the top and sometimes the clear one has the grooves - and that makes that thing an example of a transmissive diffraction grating.
- Don Klipstein ( snipped-for-privacy@misty.com)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Thanx for the information. I have never experiemented with light much. This would make interesting studies with all the lighting spectrum hype and lighting technologies being launched.
We'll see what the compalints about ESL lighting are once it becomes more common.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Nothing like having to go around and change to the other set of light bulbs, twice a year. How would you know when to perform such change?
--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
LOL. Yup, economic OCD is difficult.
Nothing like having to go around and change to the other set of light bulbs, twice a year. How would you know when to perform such change?
--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Josepi wrote:

Simply install two lighting systems, and use the appropriate switches in summer or winter. Even better, automate the system so that the same switches will power the correct set of fixtures based on the outside temperature. (That makes it on topic for an automation news group.)
Now, for a question... I installed a 4 inch recessed light for an accent over a statue. I'd like to find an LED light that can screw into the fixture, and that has a focused light beam so that it will limit illumination to the statue. Ant suggestions?
-- Jim
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Walmart just introduced a line of LED lamps at cheaper prices than I have seen, so far. There was about a dozen different bulbs, I saw. The largest was 5 watts in a PAR38.
Nothing like having to go around and change to the other set of light bulbs, twice a year. How would you know when to perform such change?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Walmart just introduced a line of LED lamps at cheaper prices than I have seen, so far. There was about a dozen different bulbs, I saw. The largest was 5 watts in a PAR38.
Nothing like having to go around and change to the other set of light bulbs, twice a year. How would you know when to perform such change?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Sometimes just leaving things alone is much more economical than making complex solutions to resolve perceived economic problems.
I remember the new Energy Star usage ratings the US announced a few years ago. Some people were getting randy about the huge losses in a freezer and how we were stupid for not throwing out all our old appliances. Turns out the $10 dollars per year, wasted, would never be paid for, in most of our lifetimes, by throwing out my 30 year old freezer with no insulation in the lid. OTOH Canada has had Energy Star usage tags and programmes for more than 30 years now.
The whole package has to be considered and determined.
Nothing like having to go around and change to the other set of light bulbs, twice a year. How would you know when to perform such change?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

All too often, 30 yearold fridges consume more like $6-$10 per month more than new ones.
- Don Klipstein ( snipped-for-privacy@misty.com)

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Feel free to rename all the character sets, if desired. Some may even understand part of your messages.
I have never seen anybody use a quotation symbol for marking lines. Quotation marks usually mean a quotation from a previous piece of text. I think that would be why they are called that.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

What - you want to be the first in my roughly 14 years of heavy experience in Usenet suggesting that I need to accomodate you despite lack of need to accomodate likewise anyone before you in probably over a thousand posted responses to others?

I give better odds for them to understand mine than to understand yours, at the rate you are going.

Yet, you appear to be unaware of the Usenet convention of having the number of quotation symbols at beginning of each quoted line reflecting the level of quotation. Otherwise, you appear to be fighting such established convention.
- Don Klipstein ( snipped-for-privacy@misty.com)

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
How is this?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

You choose yet-another non-standard quotation symbol other than the standard "greater than" one.
I at this moment wonder how you managed to quote my signature 3 times consecutavely with same degree of notation of quotation.
(I am posting interleaved as opposed to top-posting)
I sign off for this posting here, due following in interleaved-style being almost snippable with notation as being good for such. Except for your being yet to be able to be able to get this quotation stuff well enough to not repeat my signature to stated 3 times at the end with same level of noted level of quotation.
- Don Klipstein ( snipped-for-privacy@misty.com)

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 04:24:56 +0000 (UTC), snipped-for-privacy@manx.misty.com (Don Klipstein) wrote:

When you argue with an idiot on usenet, there is the danger that after the first few exchanges, no one can remember which was the idiot.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@dog.com wrote:

It's easy to remember WHO, it's just hard to tell from the non-standart attributation marks.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

WHOOSH!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

the
Ouch! Don't tell me after all the intelligent posts you've made, that you actually buy into that "new math" version of reality? Don, you're breaking my heart!
A few questions as we work through the contention that adding a new vector for mercury distrubution decreases its environmental release.
1) How does that tradeoff work with hydroelectric, nuclear, solar or wind power?
It doesn't.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sources_of_electricity_in_the_USA_2006.png
shows that less than half of the US's energy comes from coal. So the tradeoff only works for half of the US's power plants. For the other half, it represents a new vector for mercury poisoning that didn't exist before the CFL revolution.
2) Why don't we install scrubbers on the few hundred power plants that are the major emitters of mercury instead of relying on Rube Goldberg tradeoffs like distributing mercury in billions of light bulbs?
Because Big Power doesn't want to dig into corporate profits to clean up their power plants when they can convince people that these tradeoffs are workable. The smartest guys in the room also told us that credit default swaps would reduce trading risks. I guess we know how that worked out.
3) Does this tradeoff take into account that light bulbs are mostly used at night, when the generator turbines are running anyway, and would be generating X amount of "baseload" power anyway?
No, all we see are equations that say CFLs use less electricity than tungsten bulbs, so therefore they must result in equally less emissions. If the home lighting load is 7% of the total electrical use, what does a reduction in that small number really amount to? Is it enough to enable plants to shut down a generator? I've never seen the "adding mercury to subtract mercury" theorists ever get into the real mechanics of electricity generation to demonstrate exactly how the process works. I don't think many people are familiar with the "baseload" concept of power generation and why the all the claims of CFLs reducing emissions have to be taken with a large grain of salt:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_load_power_plant
These plants are on line 24x7 generating power whether anyone uses it or not. I've not seen one CFL "savings equation" take the baseload function into account. Why? Because it would quite obviously show that much of the alleged emission reductions claimed are in people's heads, not at the smoke stacks.
4) Does it take into account the addition of mercury to environments where most of the energy developed is from hydro or nuclear power?
No. CFL bulbs are poised to bring significant mercury pollution issues to areas where there isn't any mercury pollution from nearby coal plants because there AREN'T any nearby coal plants.
5) Does this alleged tradeoff work when you substitute LEDs for tungsten bulbs?
Yes. LEDs provide the same alleged reduction in emissions, and they do it WITHOUT adding mercury to hundreds of thousands of homes in billions of light bulbs. If anyone really cares about the environment, they won't poison it further by using mercury-laced CFL bulbs instead of LEDs.
6) Are CFL bulb makers serious about recycling used bulbs?
Hell no. We have deposit laws for mostly inert glass soda bottles but NOT environmentally hazardous CFL bulbs. Studies estimate that perhaps as few as 10% of all CFL bulbs get recycled.
7) Do people get suckered by quick fixes and miracle cures?
Absolutely. Take a look at the dietary supplement industry. Study after study shows that supplements can actually be quite harmful but folks buy and ingest them by the billion-dollar load. As for quick cures, Congress bought into the TARP, didn't it? Adding mercury to reduce mercury doesn't pass the common sense "sniff" test. And it shouldn't, it's a devil's bargain, one of many we're foisting on the next generation.
8) What happens when power plant smokestacks all get proper scrubbing equipment?
The alleged tradeoff falls flat on its face, leaving us with a gigantic mercury-laced CFL distribution network and nothing to counterbalance it.
The problem with CFLs is that the deeper one delves into this diabolical bargain, the worse things look. The savings are weak to begin with, and they're offset by the potential damage mercury poisoning can do. Sadly, we've shown time and time again that short term gains are considered way ahead of any long term costs. Look at Congress if you doubt that assertion. (-:
The right way to control emissions is by controlling the emitters. Pollutants need to be trapped at the smokestack that creates them, not on the shelves of Wal-Mart through a complex, poorly understood "tradeoff." Like a skilled magician, Big Power has managed to use misdirection to great advantage. Instead of clamoring for them to reduce the poison in their emissions, we've bought into a complex scheme to reduce pollutants by adding them to commonplace consumables.
It's a fool's game, just like Obama's claim that the war in Afghanistan is necessary to deny terrorists a place to plan their next attack. The second worst terrorist attack on the US came from within. Are we going to bomb all the states the Timothy McVeigh lived in so that we prevent other terrorists like him from "having a base of operations?" That would be stupid, but we've apparently bought into the plan, I suspect it's because there aren't too many critical thinkers left in the US press willing to say: "Mr. President, how does attacking Afghanistan prevent Al-Queda from basing its operations in Pakistan, Somalia, Yemen, Indonesia or any other spot in the world?"
-- Bobby G.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Robert Green wrote:

I would like to see the owners of power companies appear in a big news conference and announce to the country "We have seen the light!" pun intended, "We are going to shut down all of those nasty, polluting, CO2 emitting coal fired power plants in six months. This should give people and industry who receive electricity from coal, time enough to obtain power from other sources. The Democrats and your President are right, coal is a terrible thing to use as fuel and we were greedy. No more, we are shutting down those horrible coal burning power plants to protect all the cute little furry animals, butterflies, flowers and trees for the children. Stopping Global Warming, er, Climate Change and protecting The Environment is the most important thing in the whole world and we must act immediately. We apologise to any industry, hospital, school or other organization including all the individual citizens who may be inconvenienced by the lack of electricity but we all must sacrifice for the greater good. We promise that your government and leaders will not go without electrical power so they may (cough) continue to serve you. God bless America and its people!"
TDD
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 03:18:55 -0500, "Robert Green"

Do you have ANY idea how long florescent's have been in wide use? Where do you see them? How about ALL large buildings being almost completely lit with full sized florescent's which contain FAR more mercury than CFL's? When you flip the typical light switch in a home, maybe 1-4 lights are powered up. When you flip a switch in a supermarket, there may be hundreds of lights lit up. All Florescent.
Any idea why they use florescent's ?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It 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.