Anyone moved to LED Lighting?

Page 15 of 16  

On Sat, 2 Jan 2010 07:05:12 -0500, "Robert Green"

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

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"Robert Green" wrote:

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.
http://www.lightsindia.com/products.html#cfl-manufacturing-machine

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) :^)
http://green.yahoo.com/blog/ecogeek/927/the-four-types-of-cfl-haters-and-what-to-tell-them.html

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. :^)
--

Regards,
Robert L Bass
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 18:48:53 -0500, "Robert L Bass"

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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
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.
--
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
This appears to be an article written as a student project.
http://footprint.mit.edu/energy/apres.html
However if you'll scroll down you'll see an interesting table, with more than just luments per watt. It also includes dollars per lumen and lifetime numbers. I didn't see the reference.
There is an interesting one liner at the end, giving lumens per watt of a laser at about 700. Dunno where that data came from.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
TimR wrote:

This thing has a couple items wrong. Not only do no lasers get anywhere near 700, but the chart also states incorrectly that xenon achieves 400. Xenon is doeing very well for xenon when it achieves 60.
The maximum possible is 683 - for a 100% efficient source of monochromatic light at the yellow-green wavelength at which human photopic vision is most sensitive.
- Don Klipstein ( snipped-for-privacy@misty.com)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"Don Klipstein" wrote:

That is correct but if you're trying to convince Bobby Green, forget it. He began with the premises that CFL's are bad and refuses to see anything that proves otherwise. That "dining room table" phrase comes to mind.

True. All of the evidence supports that.
--

Regards,
Robert L Bass
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"Robert L Bass" wrote:

Doh! Make that "premise" -- not premises. :^)
Robert
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
This all may be replaced soon with ESL bulbs. I know they have been talking about this for along time. Time will see if it is vapourware, like so many other tech announcements.
http://www.vu1.com/technology/technology.htm

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 11/21/2009 9:28 PM Don Klipstein spake thus:

You know, we've only heard you say this here about, oh, 117,000 times.
Your assertion (about CFLs resulting in less mercury contamination) contains a *major* fallacy. It implies that when one use a CFL instead of an incandescent light bulb, the electricity somehow, magically turns "cleaner", with less mercury emitted.
If you run a CFL, your electricity *still* comes from the same mercury-spewing coal-fired power plant. You're just using less of it than if you use an incandescent bulb.
Now, it's true that if *enough* people used CFLs, *and* if the resulting power savings were enough for the power companies to say, "Hey, let's start shutting down our dirty old coal-fired power plants", then one could truly say that the use of CFLs reduces mercury emissions. But that hasn't happened yet. Nowhere near it. They're still burning lots of coal, and planning on building even *more* coal-fired plants.
--
I am a Canadian who was born and raised in The Netherlands. I live on
Planet Earth on a spot of land called Canada. We have noisy neighbours.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 16:33:47 -0800, David Nebenzahl

Oh, I think you can count on the fact that there will be fewer new coal burning power plants built. CFL's will certainly be able to take credit for some of that. And, in fact, existing power plants in some areas may be able to take part of their capacity offline resulting in fewer mercury emissions as well.
None of this really addresses either energy consumtion or pollution, though. The underlying problem for both is TOO MANY PEOPLE.
We don't need more generating capacity, or new sources of energy. We need to reverse population growth, and stop spending so much money and effort on making people live longer.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 20:53:22 -0500, snipped-for-privacy@dog.com wrote:
[snip]

True, there are TOO MANY PEOPLE. No energy-efficient light is going to solve that problem.
--
Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.us
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Nebenzahl wrote:

Yes, less mercury is emitted, because you use 70-75% less electricity.

That does get power companies to crank down their plants. The nukes and hydropower will be the last ones to crank down, because their load-related operating costs are low. (Most of the cost of nukes is unrelated to load.)

CFLs are merely slowing demand growth. Most of the incandescents that can be replaced with CFLs are not yet replaced with CFLs, the population is growing, along with use of larger TV sets. If all CFLs were replaced with incandescents of same light output, the situation would be even worse.
<SNIP from here>
- Don Klipstein ( snipped-for-privacy@misty.com)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Many CFLs are a third harmonic problem for the electrical distribution grid. Some claim this may have been resolved in later designs but many don't know the difference between power factor and third harmonics, either.
Transformers must use different designs to help eliminate third harmonics from these nasty bulbs (including HID lamps) and it still depends on balanced three phase harmonic distribution at about 6-10 million dollars per transformer. These nasty little glitches will make love to your furnace and fridge motor. Now who's saving money?...LOL
(fuck your bottom confusion. It's not worth educating some)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

However, total RMS current of low-power-factor CFLs including the part from 3rd harmonic is less than that of same-light-output incandescents.

That is an issue that was known at least as far back as the mid 1980's.

These glitches have little effect on RMS voltage or difference between total RMS voltage and fundamental-frequency-component-thereof delivered to motors in nearly all industrial applications and even more totally in residential applications.

I advise to know Usenet, its conventions and ettiquette!
(At least you added a quotation symbol per line of material that was already previously quoted in the article that you responded to, although itappears to me that you chose a non-standard one)
- Don Klipstein ( snipped-for-privacy@misty.com)

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
You have no idea what you are talking about here, do you?
Geeesh. It's getting boring teasing the village idiot, now
<PLONK>
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@www.giganews.uk.> wrote:

configure your newsreader properly?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 12/26/2009 6:47 PM Don Klipstein spake thus:

Here's what I meant to write in my earlier message but forgot to.
In *theory*, everything you say is true. In practice, I doubt it.
Think about it. Let's say I, and my neighbors, and a good chunk of the electric customers hereabouts reduce their usage by installing CFLs. So far as our *lighting* usage goes, we're using 70-75% less juice (to use your figure). But that doesn't mean that we're reducing our *total* usage by that much: me, I've got an electric water heater and an electric dryer, so what they suck up pretty much swamps any savings I get from CFLs. But no matter; let's say for the sake of discussion that I (we) have significantly reduced our electricity usage.
That doesn't *necessarily* translate to the same amount of reduction in electric power plant generation. Think about it: it's not as if there are giant rheostats on coal-fired generators that the electric company can use to calibrate their generating capacity to meet the load. They can basically take a generating unit off-line or put it on-line. So even though we use CFLs like the good citizens we are, that still doesn't mean that we're reducing the amount of coal being shoveled in the front end by the same amount (and reducing mercury emissions as well).
--
I am a Canadian who was born and raised in The Netherlands. I live on
Planet Earth on a spot of land called Canada. We have noisy neighbours.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Site Timeline

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.