On Fri, 11 Jan 2008 05:50:47 -0800 (PST) someone who may be snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com wrote this:-
I don't recall claiming that it was written by the BBC. Feel free to tell us where I did.
As the article points out, the mercury in the lamp can be recycled.
Excellent, more personal attacks. Do keep them up.
It does in an enclosed space, which is why that's not advocated.
Mary
I not with interest you completely ignore the figures I gave. Based on the authoritive article written by someone not from the BBC, normal incandescent lamps produce less than half the mercury pollution of CFLs.
T
Fortunately for me I was backed up, all be it unwittingly, by someone else.
T
Viewing X-ray films.
Quilting.
Setting the grey scale on colour monitors.
DG
As kids we used to supplement our pocket money by returning 'deposit' bottles. Very effective - we would scour the neighbourhood to ensure no bottle escaped. Don't know why they don't do it now.
Thats a good point too. Market forces - nobody is going to put more than they absolutely have to into a bulb because of cost.
A while ago the tree huggers were all wittering on about excessive fertiliser use. Like the hole in the ozone layer they seem to have forgotton that now because they have global warming to witter on about.
No farmer would use more fertiliser than he had too because of the cost. They are very sharp people IME.
I can vaguely remember getting 3d for each empty Corona bottle. Was that right?
mark
Can't see it would be worth flying it back to Mexico to be re-filled.
But then these 'ere Greenpissers will skin turds for ha'pennies.
Hello Mary,
We know you're there.
DG
Would it make that much difference if we bought our Philips or Osram lamps from the Lord High Bulbseller and Pittenweem of Skye ?
Or do the "Best" CFL's come from Muck or Eigg ?
DG
Mary, you deserve the Nobel prize for literacy for your efforts.
You are an Ace, a Paragon, and a Martyr all rolled into one.
We know that now so you don't need to tell us again.
But : What's a "Holder" and what is the significance of putting a CFL into one ???
In that, you are correct.
We don't. Our experience is :
About 30% down from the manufacturers claim from brand new. (measured)
About 3 minutes to get to 90% of ultimate maximum output. (measured)
After 1 year ultimate maximum output down by nearly 50% (measured)
About 75% dead within much less than 18 months of service. (Recorded)
Odd that. So the lamps you were previously using must also have a lifetime measured in years. What kind of lamps were they ?
Well mine aren't bad, and at least they aren't about to become compulsory. Maybe there is a problem with the electricity in your house or you buy them from a supermarket. Dynamo Hansen says/implies these come into that category of things that are "A bad thing".
Would it be too much to ask for you to kindly translate that last sentence into standard English ?
Of that, I'm sure.
Could you please at least give us an interim report into your results?
Even a rough listing of the "measurements" you made in your "experiment" (power input/light output, beamwidth, colour temperature, over a time frame would be a help. You wouldn't want "the ones with willies" ;-) to steal a march on you would you, just because they know what they are doing and have gone through the training for it, and being doing it for years.
Trifling reason of course we all accept that.
Don't we everybody :-)))) ?
Oh, and BTW. Are you any further forward than you were in measuring the solar heat gain achieved by your toy solar thermal water heating system in December / January ?
Do you still have a "Deep Bath" in the morning and then fire up a
20/30 kWatt (?) boiler (the type of which you claim is irrelevant) to do the washing up for 3 people via a 120 litre cylinder (?).DG
A missing 'd' and a slight punctuation wobble is hardly enough to complain about.
clive
§No buts about it.
§Why? Give us the science.
what a stpid response.
Thats what I remember. You could buy quite a few sweets for 3d.
Isn't that an 'Ad Hominem' argument ? Basically this is a principle that says 'person W believes XY or Z, but I don't like person W (for some reason ABC) so if I say that person W is wrong I am excused giving a reason for disagreeing with statements X, Y or Z'
For example, I could say "Because Hugo does not use a valid email address, any argument he/she puts forward is stupid ", but that would be a fallacious argument.
I wouldn't but the perpetrator is a veritable vixen for spelling flames. As the observant can see in this thread. ;-)
I have a folder *full* of her wobbles.
I'll publish them here if you want.
It's 'cos she hasn't got a willy.
DG
No.
They are propounding innumerate arguments because they have a secondary or tertiary agenda. Probably all different AFAICS.
Not the case, I like Dynamo Hansen, (The great big lycra clad "Dynamo on a push bike"). AFAICS He is informed and concerned even if his opinions are malconstructed. He appears to consider my opinions with respect.
Mary Fisher, well if I really wanted to hear somebody without training or experience, totally and completely ignorant of the topic, and totally denying anyone their right to ask for information (Because
*she* knows better, by definition, and has *spoken*) and totally unqualified congratulate themselves on a daily basis ...I'd shoot myself.
Not a logical fallacy, just wrong.
DG
Dont be sillier than you have to be.
IC Cars will no more be banned than horses or steam engines are. They will exist, in tiny numbers, like you, as a quaint relic of a bygone age.
Resonaces at 50hz are what you want.
Actually.
A good combination of inductance and capacitance will do the trick. Largely the load PF problem is an inductive on,. Having a few caps around will make it all nice again..;-)
Oh, but they did.
And huge amounts of herbicide and insecticide too. In those days of heavy farm subsidies, yield per acre was the thing, and nothing but the monoculture was allowoed to survive.
It wasn't til post 'Silent Spring' and the start of the eco movement that agricultural consultants started going around with fancy graphs indicating that yields were actually very little less with a sprinkling of weeds, and a few bugs were OK, as long as the crops didn't get infested. And the savings on chemistry was not offset by a reduction in crop yield.
Thse days the margins are SO tight that they have to do cost benefit analysis on everything.
I couldn't belive the combine. GPS to keep it in a straight line and a moisture content meter to measure grain moisture..bring it off too green, and it has to be dried, or it sprouts in the stores, or rots..Expensive..
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.