Well, since we are totally changing the topic of this thread. LOL
CFLs may not be the perfect answer but perhaps you can subsidize the electrical power generators for us and keep with the incandescents? My energy comnsumption was about 27kWh per day until I started using CFLs.
LEDs are too expensive, too dim, from what I have seen so far and not much more efficient than incandescents. On top of all that they are current sensitive devices and require a ballast that consumes power and makes heat. This shortens the life of an LED andf makes maintainence more costly.
The new phosphour types may be a btter answer, if you don't mind glowing in the dark.
Also the supply chain to make a CFL is huge and deep, involving much mining, manufacturing, chemical refining, and shipping.
An incandescent consisting of 5 low-tech parts is way cheaper to make in terms of total carbon footprint just to get it on a store shelf.
Nobody ever seems to consider that the CFL is already playing catch up with the incandescent next to it on the store shelf in terms of carbon usage, even before anyone has applied current to said bulbs yet. But CFL's do provide more jobs to make all the various parts.
I guess its not an issue considering it seems everything else you plug in these days is also "in standby".
If the greenies were serious then they'd regulate back that little thing called an on/off switch that actually was wired in series with said device line cord.
I've got a vacation home with an ancient and expensive temperature sensing setup that I installed 20 years ago. This looks like a nice way to upgrade so I just bought one. I'm a VB programmer, but have never done any cgi stuff, and the manufacturers 'void warantee' blurb scares me. Does anyone know of the existance or whereabouts of some sample temperature sensor cgi code? Google didn't help.
Thanks in advance for any information.
John S.
__________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature database 4580 (20091106) __________
The only thing I've thought of before is it might be useful to be able to remotely unplug a device to protect against lightning - but I'm not sure that any relay-based setup is going to really give adequate protection there, anyway... (and there are still other paths, such as the network, to worry about)
| One gotcha I found with one of my home systems is that WOL doesn't work if | the power's been off (power cut, breaker, 'hard' switch on the back of the | PSU etc.) - the first time after a total power-off I need to hit the | switch on the front of the machine; it won't respond to WOL events. Once | it's been on via the front switch once, shutdown-WOL cycles work normally. | | I'm not sure if that's a widespread problem (or even a goofy intentional | 'feature'), or if I've just got crap firmware :-)
I've noticed that the BIOS options available to control behavior after a full power loss vary widely. On some systems there are no choices at all. Others allow you to select on, off, or even previous state. Some systems that don't appear to have useful options in this area _do_ have clock-based power-on so you can sort of get a similar effect if you want the machine back up eventually. I wonder where the options and state are stored. If the are in the CMOS is that accessible from sleep mode or do they have to power up to determine whether or not to power up?
Wake On Lan uses a small amount of power, considerably less than standby and sleep modes, to listen to the network for a wake up signal. That's the point of WOL.
Without Provocation, "Dave Houston" spat the following trash on the floor:
I never said anything about PC standby power. I have disagreed with you on several issues and that has caused you to attack me personally on various occasions like this one. Once when you complained on your website about health-related financial issues I even tried to offer you help. Your response was to attack me publicly and accuse me of trying to steal whatever it was you were working on. You're a real case, Houston.
Mr. Hult has repeatedly shown you to be wrong on numerous issues. Your response is the same -- attack personally because you haven't the ability to win a debate on the merits.
All of that has no bearing on the discussion at hand. The issue being considered was web enabled temperature and humidity monitoring. This has since morphed into a discussion on booting a PC via the Internet or a LAN.
According to Mr. Houston, any attempt at reducing electrical usage is a "fool's errand" unless it's controlled by X10 (private joke).
Be careful, friend. Disagreeing with Mr. Houston, even playfully, can cause him to think bad things about you. He's been known to get very angry and... and... and say mean things. :^)
I agree that CFL's are more complex than incandescant bulbs. The bit about mining, chemical refining, etc., might be a bit of a stretch. Two things are certain though. CFL's use significantly less power for their output than incandescant lamps. In doing so they reduce demand for energy and that means we burn a little less coal every time we turn one on. That, in turn, means less pollution.
I agree that CFL's are not a perfect answer, but until someone comes up with a suitable, reliable alternative, I'll continue using them.
That's an interesting theory but unless you can provide statistics to back it up, I'll have to consider it just that -- one man's theory. I'm not saying you're wrong yet.
Well, I count over 35 parts average in the 14 CFL schematics here with some ballasts having 50 parts:
formatting link
formatting link
formatting link
formatting link
Along with a fair amount of copper wire coils (mining), mercury (mining) etc.
Factories to make the diodes, capacitors, resistors, semiconductors, inductors, phosphors, non-inert gasses, glass, fuses, etc. and the various sub-components and chemicals inside those parts too. And drastically larger amount of energy consumed for the various parts.
As opposed to 5 or 6 very non-complex elemental-like parts in an incandescent, tungsten, aluminum, brass, glass, inert gasses, and machinery to put it together thats been around for over a hundred years.
The question is can the CFL recover the obviously larger amount of waste it caused just to get it to the shelf, than the path the simple incandescent followed to get there next to it?
If it could then, then I agree its a good thing, but based on the fact that many of my CFL's have not lasted as long as my incandescents I have to wonder. Also does one even bother to add in the cost of a resistor factory (which would be making resistors anyway)? All things manufactured have a deeper cost, I just see the incandescent having a very low manufacturing cost (in terms of environmental impact) than a CFL. If the CFL can recoup that over its life is what I question.
CFLs will save money, assuming they last as long as promised but they won't reduce carbon as much as many other, easier approaches like efficiency mandates for TVs and other electric appliances, improving generation efficiency and upgrading the power grid.
And they w>CFLs may not be the perfect answer but perhaps you can subsidize the
I understand what you are saying about the manufacturing process but have to ask one thing.
Do you ride a horse or drive a car?
Well, I count over 35 parts average in the 14 CFL schematics here with some ballasts having 50 parts:
formatting link
formatting link
formatting link
formatting link
Along with a fair amount of copper wire coils (mining), mercury (mining) etc.
Factories to make the diodes, capacitors, resistors, semiconductors, inductors, phosphors, non-inert gasses, glass, fuses, etc. and the various sub-components and chemicals inside those parts too. And drastically larger amount of energy consumed for the various parts.
As opposed to 5 or 6 very non-complex elemental-like parts in an incandescent, tungsten, aluminum, brass, glass, inert gasses, and machinery to put it together thats been around for over a hundred years.
The question is can the CFL recover the obviously larger amount of waste it caused just to get it to the shelf, than the path the simple incandescent followed to get there next to it?
If it could then, then I agree its a good thing, but based on the fact that many of my CFL's have not lasted as long as my incandescents I have to wonder. Also does one even bother to add in the cost of a resistor factory (which would be making resistors anyway)? All things manufactured have a deeper cost, I just see the incandescent having a very low manufacturing cost (in terms of environmental impact) than a CFL. If the CFL can recoup that over its life is what I question.
By statistics I was not referring to parts count. Do you have actual statistics pertaining to the environmental impact of CFL's vs. incandescant bulbs?
The problem isn't how many parts there are. It's how much energy it consumes. In that regard CFL's are way ahead. Again, they're not perfect and they may not be the long-term choice. But for the time being, CFL's give much more light using much less energy, thus ergo much less coal and therefor, do less harm to the planet.
For me personally it wouldn't be that much of an issue as I don't expect to be around long enough to see the worst consequences of what humans are doing. However, I think we all have a responsibility to do whatever we can to reduce our "footprint".
Even considering what you've mentioned so far, it's not a given that CFL's create that much waste. Further, it's certain that using conventional bulbs causes much harm.
That is a valid point. I have not tested a lot of makes but the ones I have in place have not given me any problems to date. Only time will tell.
Probably not. Companies that make resistors make othert things as well and would still be present even if CFL's were never introduced.
Ford's Model A cost a lot less to build than a Prius. Care to guess which one is more destructive to the environment (when actually operating)? :^)
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.