Re: OT Re: CFLs - retrofitting low ESR capacitors

Do you have a question? Post it now! No Registration Necessary

Translate This Thread From English to

Threaded View
Quoted text here. Click to load it

**I don't. And YOU don't know of a lamp that can heat a house (or cool one)
either. Using lights to warm a home is insane. Pretty much like everything
else you've posted.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

**No one disputes that. Production of almost any manufactured item causes
some kind of pollution. That is why regulators ensure that the pollution
created is dealt with appropriately. Fortunately, LEDs last a VERY long time
and consume small amounts of material, so total pollution remains low.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

**Did the manufacturing process of computer you are presently using cause
zero pollution? Are you insane?

Quoted text here. Click to load it

**I am well aware of that. I am also a supporter of organisations that
attempt to minimise pollution caused by large manufacturers of many
products. Are you?

Quoted text here. Click to load it

**Like I said: I contribute financially to several organisations that are
active in trying to ensure that people less fortunate than I am are not
subject to pollution from large companies. Do you?

Quoted text here. Click to load it

**The manufacture of glass, steel and tungsten is a very energy intensive
process. Combined with the extremely short life-span of incandescent lamps
and their monsterous inefficiency (Less than 5%) contributes to huge amounts
of CO2. CFLs and LEDs cause far less CO2 to be emitted, both in manufacture
and in operation over the life of the product. CO2 affects every human on
the planet.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

**Like I said before.....

Quoted text here. Click to load it

**Geez! You think I keep the packaging? Get real.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

**Like I said before: Both the LEDs and the CFLs were packed in cardboard,
whilst the incandescent was packed in cardboard and plastic.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

**WFT are you smoking?

Quoted text here. Click to load it

**Incorrect.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

**No. It is a REAL number, verified by many users. Myself included. NONE of
my CFLs have failed. Not one. OTOH, I've replaced many incandescents over
the same period, despite the fact that they accrue VASTLY fewer hours of
use.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

**You're either:

* Lying.
* Buying cheap, crappy CFLs
* Using them in enclosed fittings.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

**Strawman.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

**I'm referring to first generation white LEDs.

 So how many of those buggers does it take
Quoted text here. Click to load it

**Irrelevant. They have lasted extremely well.

I mean bright enough so everything can be seen.
Quoted text here. Click to load it

**And, on the other side of the coin, modern LEDs can be manufactured into
completely new and different shapes.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

**I delight in arguing with idiots like you.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au



Re: OT Re: CFLs - retrofitting low ESR capacitors

"Trevor Wilson"

Quoted text here. Click to load it


** OTOH -   the amounts used to make one light bulb are tiny and so use tiny
amounts of energy.


Quoted text here. Click to load it

** They can last 100 years in low or no use.

    They often outlast CFLs in actual service.


Quoted text here. Click to load it

** Bollocks.


Quoted text here. Click to load it


**  Per lamp, it is far MORE  than an incandecsent.


Quoted text here. Click to load it


** Absolute LIE.

Each CFLs use 50 times time more energy to make, plus a large amount of
poisonous chemical waste and then consume more energy too -  if they last
their rated life.

Then they pollute the planet with Mercury and other heavy metal poisons.

No such issues with incandescents.

It is all a massive LIE .




...  Phil






Re: OT Re: CFLs - retrofitting low ESR capacitors


Quoted text here. Click to load it


I don't have actual figures, Trevor, but it makes sense that making a thin
glass spherical envelope for an incandescent, is unlikely to use more energy
than making a thick-walled tube wound into a convoluted double spiral. Many
of the other items contained in a CFL, also use very energy intensive
processes, and have to be carried out in many different factories, which
then brings the costs of moving workers around, keeping them warm and fed,
moving raw materials around, moving finished components around, and so on.
Just because all of these things are 'hidden', it doesn't make them any less
relevant. Looked at rationally, given the amount of components and
manufacturing processes involved, I would have thought that the simple
incandescent bulb, with its very few parts, consumed nothing like as much
energy overall to get from nothing to working in my house. Bear in mind
also, that very long-lived incandescents are available, and always were. Its
just that they cost more, and are not in the financial interests of the bulb
manufacturers, to promote.

Arfa


Re: OT Re: CFLs - retrofitting low ESR capacitors
Quoted text here. Click to load it

**Intuitively, that would be a reasonable assumption.

 Many of the other items contained in a CFL, also use
Quoted text here. Click to load it

**I agree.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

**I don't know how much energy is involved with each device, but I'll betcha
the energy consumed by the incandescent, over it's entire life vastly
exceeds the energy required to manufacture it. The CFL, by comparison, is a
massively more efficient device, with a much longer life span. Total energy
is likely to be far lower with the CFL. And no, I don't have the data, but I
imagine someone has done the maths.


 Bear in mind also, that very long-lived incandescents are
Quoted text here. Click to load it

**And, they are vastly less efficient. The technology to build long lasting
incandescents has been known for a long time - operate them at lower
Voltages, or use a carbon filament. Either way, colour temperature sucks and
efficiency is way down.

BTW: The discussion also involves LEDs. IMO, CFLs are an interim step. They
have far too many drawbacks to be a long term solution. Incandescents are,
of course, no solution at all.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au



Re: OT Re: CFLs - retrofitting low ESR capacitors

Quoted text here. Click to load it

But actually, what exactly is the problem that we're trying to find a
solution to ? I saw some figures a few weeks ago that said that if every
single light bulb in the UK was changed to a CFL, the total saving in energy
would amount to the output of one small power station. I suppose that you
could argue that any saving is worth having, but I sometimes think that this
religion of 'green' has completely overtaken common sense, and in some
cases, the disadvantages of a substitute technology such as CFLs, needs to
be weighed against the perceived disadvantages of what it's trying to
replace. The problem with green technology is that its advocators are often
zealots, who seek to portray the alternatives that they are pedaling as the
only solution to a problem which often, only they see. They never tell the
full story behind these technologies, being selective in the extreme. CFLs
are a good example of this, where the *only* aspects that have been
promoted, are the fact that they consume less energy for the same amount of
light output as an 'equivalent' incandescent - and therein lies a can of
worms before we start - and that they are supposedly longer lived. The huge
amounts of manufacturing processes, and shipping energy for all the
component parts, and all the other hidden energy inputs, are politely
ignored. Not to mention the true disposal costs, if this is done properly.
No one really understands the real manufacturing costs either, because
governments are making sure that the true price is subsidised by collecting
additional 'green' taxes via the energy companies, from the likes of you and
I. If ever these subsidies are removed, CFLs will become a major expense to
a household, unless they use really crappy quality Chinese imports that give
poor light quality and poor starting characteristics, and are much shorter
lived than people are currently being persuaded is the case.

Arfa


Re: OT Re: CFLs - retrofitting low ESR capacitors
Quoted text here. Click to load it

**Let see. Incandescents are:

* Around 5% efficient. At best.
* Have a short life-span.
* Suffer poor colour rendition.

If those problems can be solved, then thast would be a good thing.

 I saw some figures a few weeks ago that said that if
Quoted text here. Click to load it

**I'll take your word for it. That does not tell the entire story though.
For every 100 Watts of incandescent light that can be eliminated, a
significant amount of air conditioning costs can be eliminated. There's a
very good bunch of reasons why fluoros and other types of discharge lamps
are used in every office building, shopping centre and many other places in
most nations. They're efficient and they reduce demands on air conditioning.
And, consequently, on energy suppliers. Every Watt not dissipated, is a Watt
that does not need to be countered with an air conditioner. It adds up.

Having said all that, here in Australia, lighting is far less important than
heating, cooling and pool filtering in terms of total energy consumption. Do
a Google Earth on Sydney of Brisbane and count the number of pools. Each one
uses around 8kWhr of energy every day. Lighting, by comparison is no where
near as significant. Mostly. I just came back from a service call at a
neighbour's home. Every single part of the home was lit by halogen
downlights. These are an incredibly wasteful way to light a home, yet they
are very popular. The kitchen, alone had 6 X 50 Watt downlights.

 I suppose that you could argue that any saving is worth
Quoted text here. Click to load it

**Fair enough, but we have not seen any real data yet. I don't have the
data, do you? The idiot who keeps claiming that CFLs are less reliable than
incadescents has yet to supply any data.


 The problem with green technology is that its advocators are
Quoted text here. Click to load it

**IME, they are certainly MUCH longer lived. By a dramatic amount. My sample
size is:

19 CFLs.
1 incandescent
12 halogen incandescents

* In six years, none of the CFLs have failed. Several CFLs were transferred
from a previous residence and are at least 8 years old. One is operated at
least 4 hours per day. Most others see around 1 ~ 1.5 hours per day.
* My non-halogen incandescent has failed twice in 6 years. It's use is
severely restricted to less than 1 hour per week.
* The halogen downlights are used around 2 hours per week. I've replaced at
least a dozen halogens in the last 6 years.

 The huge amounts
Quoted text here. Click to load it

**Are they? I'm pretty certain that shipping costs are taken into account.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

**Not me. Here in Australia, there are no subsidies or special treatment for
low energy lamps. Yet. CFLs have been cheap for quite a few years. I pay
around 5 Bucks for high quality, 23 Watt, Philips branded lamps. There are
MUCH cheaper lamps available, but I don't buy them (anymore). Once bitten,
twice shy. If you examine my analysis of the running costs of incandescent
vs. CFLs, you'll see why CFLs are a MUCH better choice.

 If ever these subsidies are removed, CFLs
Quoted text here. Click to load it

**Bollocks. There are no subsidies in Australia and qualility CFLs can be
purchased for around 5 Bucks. Given the exceptionally long life and low
operating costs, there is simply no comparison.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au



Re: OT Re: CFLs - retrofitting low ESR capacitors

"Arfa Daily"


** Stop trying to reason with TW.

The guy is one of the biggest all round lunatics and charlatans in
Australia.

He never listens and he never changes his views, no matter how wrong he is.

He is utterly autistic.



...  Phil







Re: OT Re: CFLs - retrofitting low ESR capacitors

Quoted text here. Click to load it

the manufacture of CFLs produces much more pollution than making
incandescent lamps. it probably outweighs any savings from the use of CFLs
over I-lamps.
you don't need -any- mercury in making I-lamps,nor do you need phosphors.


--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
We've slightly trimmed the long signature. Click to see the full one.
Re: OT Re: CFLs - retrofitting low ESR capacitors


Quoted text here. Click to load it


Yes. This is kind of my point. And when I was saying that 'background' items
like shipping costs are politely ignored, I was referring to the multiple
shipping operations that are required for the many components in a CFL, and
the many raw materials contained in those components, just to get all the
bits and pieces from the individual specialist manufacturers, to the places
where the lamps are assembled. In the case of an incandescent lamp, we are
talking a few components, simply made from a few raw materials. With a CFL,
we are talking semiconductors comprising silicon, dopant chemicals, plastic,
metal. Capacitors comprising metal foil, plastic, rubber, maybe paper, metal
leads and other chemicals in the electros. Coils comprising processed iron
powder, copper wire, insulation, copper foil, epoxy adhesive, steel
leadouts. Then there's the complex glass tube, and the chemical phosphors
and mercury vapour inside it. Tungsten electrodes. Then the pcb material
that its all mounted on. Lots of soldered joints. And then the plastic
enclosure for the ballast. And then the 'normal' bits that an incandescent
has anyway. Every single one of those components, and the manufacturing
processes for *their* component parts, involves energy input for the
process. They all need workers who have to be moved from their homes and
back again each day, They have to be heated / cooled, fed and watered, and
then lit as well. And when they've made their bits of the lamp, these have
to be shipped on somewhere else. These are the energy costs that the general
public are never made aware of. If they were, they might start to question
the perceived wisdom that they've been fed, that these things are actually
'green'.

If people want to use CFLs in the belief - mistaken in my opinion - that
they are in some way helping the world to use less energy, then that's fine.
If it's really the case, then CFLs will win out the day in the end. But I
think that it is utterly wrong that the existing technology has been banned
completely on thin evidence and a less than truthful declaration of the
energy required to make and dispose of the things, the only factor being
pushed, being the lower energy consumption when they are in use, as though
this is the be-all and end-all of their right to exist, and to be forced on
us.

The point that Trevor makes about aircon to mitigate the heat output of
incandescents, holds no water here in Northern Europe. Unlike in Australia,
it seldom becomes hot enough up here for more than a few days a year, that
aircon is needed. And that is only in the summer, when it's light for 16
hours of the day anyway, so there's not much lighting being used. OTOH, for
much of the year, it is cool or cold enough to require heating in houses,
and in this case, the complete opposite of Trevor's premise, is true, in
that the heat output from the incandescent light bulbs, serves to mitigate
heat input requirement, from the central heating system.

Arfa


Re: OT Re: CFLs - retrofitting low ESR capacitors

"Arfa Daily"
Quoted text here. Click to load it

** Or in Australia.

Householders do not turn their air con on because lamps are heating the
house up!!

Fraid the sun is the culprit in that crime.

Commercial buildings that have large amounts of lighting and air con ALL use
high efficiency lighting and have for decades.

The ONLY reason for banning incandescents is rabid green lunatics wanting to
stamp their tiny feet and make a point, forcing others to carry out their
mad ideas.

Same goes for effectively banning the use of iron core transformers in AC
adaptors.

In both cases, the lunatics legislated energy efficiency levels ( plus off
load consumptions ) such as to  JUST  eliminate the offending products and
allow ones a tiny bit more efficient to continue on sale.

No consideration was given to far more important issues that were involved
in the banning of such long proven and inherently safe products.

Purest lunacy.



....  Phil










Re: OT Re: CFLs - retrofitting low ESR capacitors
Quoted text here. Click to load it


**Indeed. I just did a little research and found that some of these issues
HAVE been examined. The total manufacturing energy input for a typical CFL
is around 1.7kWhr. The total manufacturing energy input for a typical
incandescent is around 0.3kWhr. Considerably less. Or is it?

Let's put that into some kind of perspective:

A typical 100 Watt IC lasts for 1,000 hours (at best).
A typical 15 Watt CFL lasts for 5,000 hours (I've certainly exceeding that
figure quite comfortably).

Over 5,000 hours of use, the CFL has consumed 75kWhr + 1.7kWhr = 76.7kWhr.
IOW: The energy cost of manufacture is almost insignificant, even though is
a little higher than 5 incandescents.

Over 5,000 hours, the IC lamp has consumed 500kWhr + 1.5kWhr = 501.5kWhr.

I would argue that the energy cost of manufacture is a spurious argument.

The pollution cost is another matter entirely. During operation, coal fired
generators (like those here in Australia) emit mercury. A typical 100 Watt
lamp will cause the emission of around 10mg of mercury over it's life. 5
lamps (5,000 hours) will cause the release of 50mg or mercury. By
comparison, CFLs will cause the release of around 7.5mg of mercury + 4mg of
mercury contained within the envelope. If the lamp is disposed of correctly,
then the total mercury release will be 7.5mg. Far less than that of IC
lamps. Other nations, that employ different power generation schemes will
see different results.

And this does not take into pollution created at the point of manufacture.
That is an issue that should be dealt with locally.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

**It's not a mistaken belief. It's a fact. CFLs use FAR less energy than
incandescents. From cradle to grave. Vastly, hugely less energy.

 If it's really the case, then CFLs will win out the day
Quoted text here. Click to load it

**By a massive margin, in fact.

 But I think that it is utterly wrong that the existing
Quoted text here. Click to load it

**Your opinion is duly noted. That comment is a political issue. I recall
EXACTLY the same arguments were made, here in Australia, when leaded petrol
was legislated out of existence. I susepct that, in 20 years, when we look
back at this whole discussion, it will appear to be a non-event. More
efficient lighting will be the standard, incandescents will be relegated to
specialised applications (oven lighting, etc) and the whole issue will be
viewed for what it really is - a storm in a teacup.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

**So? Northern Europe is not the whole world. Vast swathes of this planet
consume vast amounts of energy for air conditioning. Northern Europe is a
small player in that respect. Worse, CO2 emissions from Northern Europe
impact on those regions where a small amount of warming will lead to serious
problems. We only have one place that we can all live. We all need to work
together.

And, just to reinforce the point: I do not consider lighting to be a major
problem in power consumption (and, therefore, CO2 emissions). Nor do I
consider appliances that use auxiliary power to be a major issue either.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au



Re: OT Re: CFLs - retrofitting low ESR capacitors

"Trevor Wilson"

Quoted text here. Click to load it

** Translation  =   a fictitious pack of lies.


Quoted text here. Click to load it

** Might also last 25 years in a low use app.


Quoted text here. Click to load it


** No way is the light from a 15W CFL the same as a 100W lamp.

    Try a 27 watt CFL.


Quoted text here. Click to load it

** In average domestic us, the life is more lie 2000 hrs at best before the
output falls too much and it has to be replaced.


the CFL has consumed 75kWhr + 1.7kWhr = 76.7kWhr.


** CFL = 54 kWh,  100W lamp  = 200 kWh.


Quoted text here. Click to load it

** A made up number.

  The real number is more like 50 times.


Quoted text here. Click to load it

** Bollocks.

Reducing domestic lighting consumption has NO effect on the amount of coal
being burned in power stations.

Cos the domestic lighting  load is all at night time when the coal powered
generators have excess capacity -  in NSW much of that excess is sent to the
Snowy to pump water up hill to help with peaks loads during the day. In that
process up to 60% of the power generated is lost in transmission lines and
pumping.



....  Phil



Re: OT Re: CFLs - retrofitting low ESR capacitors

Quoted text here. Click to load it


The thing is, there are so many components to a CFL, and so many processes
to make those components, and so many processes to extracting, refining and
making appropriate the constituents *of* those components, that I think it
is probably an impossible task to analyse the total energy budget of making
one of these things, with any accuracy. There will probably also be a degree
of deliberate distortion downwards to those figures by the greenies that
would produce them, to make them look better. On the other hand, an
incandescent bulb uses - what - seven, eight maybe components, each of which
could be totally accurately pinned down on their production energy costs.
Bear in mind that the processes to produce the components are also very
simple and straightforward, unlike the processes required to make the
components of a CFL.


Quoted text here. Click to load it

I have to say that in my experience, you have been extremely lucky to get
that sort of life from CFLs. I have used all sorts over the years, from
cheap to expensive, and have never obtained anything like that length of
service from any of them, with the exception of some very early ones that I
installed in a day nursery that we once owned. They were Dulux globe CFLs
and very expensive. We owned that nursery for twelve years, and most of them
were still going when we sold it, so I don't dispute that it is possible to
make long-lasting CFLs. I just don't think that overall, taken across the
whole raft of qualities and costs, they are doing it any more. However, I
have a lot of low voltage halogen downlighters in my house, that I put in
more than ten years ago. Of the eight located above the stairwell, and the
further five along the upstairs corridor, only one has failed in all that
time, and that was only a few months ago. Maybe, like you with your CFLs, I
have been lucky with these halogens. Here in the UK, there have been
governmental drives to push CFLs, by heavily subsidising the cost of them,
and in some cases, almost giving them away in supermarkets, and in others
*actually* giving them away. With the best will in the world, these are
cheap crap, so that is what the general public are having foisted on them as
a result of the drive to try to get people to actually want them, and is
probably why the general experience is that they don't last anything like as
long as the figures that they would try to have us believe. Also, those
figures are only good - if at all- when the ballast is properly cooled,
which means having the lamp in service the 'right' way up. Unfortunately,
many lamp fixtures that they go in, don't do this, and luminaires enclose
them completely. Incandescents didn't care about this, of course.


Quoted text here. Click to load it

Only possibly, if you feel you are able to trust the figures for
manufacturing energy budget. As I have said, I do not because of the
complexity of arriving at a figure. Plus you also need to factor in the full
energy cost of recycling the toxins contained within it at the end of its
service life. There is zero cost for this with an incandescent, as it does
not contain anything potentially harmful to the environment.


Quoted text here. Click to load it

Again, these figures are only meaningful if you genuinely achieve a figure
of 5000 hours across the board. And that is the important thing. *All* CFLs
need to achieve that figure for the calculations to be valid, and that ain't
never gonna happen, as long as there are cheapo Chinese ones flooding the
market. In any case, in Europe, coal fired power stations have been on the
decline for many years. Most are now gas or nuclear


Quoted text here. Click to load it


On the face of it, they appear to, and as I said before, that is the *only*
angle that's been exploited by the greenies, to try to gain them widespread
acceptance. Personally, I believe that the situation is far less clear than
this rather simplistic assumption, when you factor in the *true* costs.
Almost certainly, they use less energy if you accept the simple picture, get
the projected life from them, and believe the equivalence figures for light
output, that they put on the boxes. And again, on this score, I understand
that they are now trying to legislate over here, to mark the boxes in lumens
or some such, probably because users are starting to doubt the quoted
equivalence figures. In reality, if you have a genuine like for like in
terms of light output, factor in the *real* costs of producing,
transporting, and disposing of properly at the end, and get the more typical
average service life of 2000 hours from them, then the saving becomes much
less significant, and for me, insufficient reason to ban me from using
incandescents.


Quoted text here. Click to load it


Distorted by the fact that CFLs are effectively government sponsored, and
that I cannot buy the bulbs I want any more, because they have banned them
to make sure that I can't. If it was still incandescents vs CFLs on a level
playing field, the take up of CFLs would be much less, which was the reason
in the first place that they found it necessary to legislate to force people
to use them.


Quoted text here. Click to load it


I fail to see how you equate leaded petrol to the situation with CFLs. It is
a different issue entirely, with very clear motives and outcomes. You would
have to be brain dead not to understand that putting huge quantities of lead
into the atmosphere at ground level and in a form that people could breathe,
is bad in every way. Removing lead from petrol had little if any impact on
the general public, because it was already possible to build engines that
had no requirement for lead in their fuel, without compromising performance.
It was, unlike CFLs, a classic example of a genuine *replacement*
technology, which suffered no disadvantages over the technology that it was
replacing. There was not even any need to challenge this bit of legislation,
because the advantages were very clear to see in large cities the world
over. Even if you clung on to your car that needed leaded petrol, this was
still available at the pumps for some years after unleaded came in, and
after it was finally removed from sale, there was still LRP (lead
replacement petrol) available for some long time after that. Finally, if you
still wanted to run your vintage engine, this could be achieved in most
cases by the simple expedient of altering the ignition timing, and in the
worst case, reducing the compression ratio a little, by fitting a thicker
head gasket. CFLs are nothing like this. They are a substitute technology
which is unable to replace incandescents in a number of areas - such as
decorative light fittings - and having many other shortcomings in comparison
to incandescents, in exchange for the dubious possibility that they in some
way help to save the planet.


Quoted text here. Click to load it



I'm having a bit of trouble picking the bones out of that one, Trevor. You
made a very clear statement that a disadvantage of incandescents was that
they generated heat that needed the use of aircon plant to remove. I merely
stated that this is not the case in Northern Europe, where aircon is not
common in the first place, and where the exact opposite of what you contend,
is true. In the case of what you are stating, we are talking a double whammy
in that the lights waste energy in producing heat, and then your
energy-thirsty aircon plant has to be used to waste a bit more removing that
heat. Here, the heat is not 'wasted' for much of the year, as it partially
mitigates the required heating input from the central heating. 50 watts of
heat pouring off a lightbulb into my living room, is 50 watts that my
heating system has not got to put into my radiators. I fail to see what your
point is regarding Northern Europe against 'vast swathes of the planet etc'.
The population density of Northern Europe is much higher overall than that
of many of these vast swathes that you refer to, so the fact that we don't
use huge amounts of energy for aircon, equates to a much lower energy
requirement per person, taken overall.

Quoted text here. Click to load it


So why do you support the banning of a proven simple technology, which did
the job of providing even-intensity pleasing-quality light, to everyone's
satisfaction ??


Arfa

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Re: OT Re: CFLs - retrofitting low ESR capacitors
Quoted text here. Click to load it

**I believe that may well be an over-statement. At some point, we have to be
able to place some trust in those who do their investigations into such
things. Anyway, let's assume that the investigators have made an error
amounting to 100%. Even with such an error, CFLs leave ICs in their dust.
Let's assume that the investigators are completely inept and they have made
an error amounting to 1,000%. Even with an energy input figure of 17kW, CFLs
leave ICs for dead.


 There will probably also be a degree of deliberate
Quoted text here. Click to load it

**You're making the assumption that those who have investigated the matter,
have an axe to grind either way. Bad assumption. If you can supply your
alternate data, please feel free to do so. Here is my reference:

http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Compact_Fluorescent_Lighting_ (CFL)_Downsides


 On the other hand, an
Quoted text here. Click to load it

**Your point being?

It's not impossible to pin down the cost of manufacturing the relatively
small number of components in a CFL. Car manufacturers routinely do just
that, for what is a dramatically more complex device.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

**Luck has nothing to do with it. I only buy quality CFLs and I have 19 of
the suckers in service. If I had (say) 2 in service and not experienced a
failure, then I might agree with you. I have NINETEEN of them in and around
my home. And, FWIW: several of them are not installed according to
manufacturer's instructions. They are surviving nicely.

 I have used all sorts over the
Quoted text here. Click to load it

**I confess that I have not purchased a CFL for several years, so I can't
confirm. The damned things are so incredibly long lasting that I simply have
not had to purchase replacements. In fact, I fully expect LEDs to be
appropriately priced by the time I need to make any changes.

 However, I have a
Quoted text here. Click to load it

**Perhaps. I swapped out all my iron transformers for SMPS some years ago,
to increase efficiency. The SMPS seem to deliver a pretty accurate Voltage,
so I doubt that is an issue. As an aside, my mother has a number of 12 Volt
halogens in her kitchen. I receive at least 2 calls per year to replace
blown lamps. I believe that low Voltage halogen downlights are an utterly
evil blight on society. They are OK for directing light into specific areas,
but are hopeless at lighting a space, relatively inneficient and they don't
last very long.

 Here in the
Quoted text here. Click to load it

**There are no subsidies in Australia for CFls, though the government did
give the things away for a couple of years. I snagged a few, but found the
colour temperature horrible and the lamps were clearly cheap rubbish. The
Philips lamps I buy are regularly sold for around $5.00 each. That's for a
23 Watt lamp, that, IME, has a life of AT LEAST 3,500 hours (I expect at
least double that figure) and, after 6 years of operation, is registering
less than a 5% fall in light output. Whichever way you slice it, that is
exceptional value for money.

With
Quoted text here. Click to load it

**Perhaps. In my last home, I used a 150 Watt IC lamp and managed to do
serious damage to the plaster ceiling in the process. The fitting survived
fine, as it was designed to cope. The plaster was not. A CFL solved the
problem.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

**Do the math with a figure of 17kWhr. The CFL is STILL ahead by a country
kilometre.

 As I have said, I do not because of the
Quoted text here. Click to load it

**Not entirely true, but you point is well made. CFLs MUST be properly
disposed of. Again, this is not an impossibly costly exercise. Thos whacky
Swedes managed 75% recycling back in 2007.

http://www.enerlin.enea.it/outcomes/rep_recycling.pdf

Like all such things, the rates of recylcing will increase and the cost will
decrease over time.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

**Philips cite 6,000 hours for their lamps. Most manufacturers of IC lamps
cite an average of 750 - 1,000 hours for their standard IC lamps. These can
be made to last longer, but at the cost of efficiency. Fundamentally,
however, I take issue with your constant reference to cheap, crappy lamps. I
have CONSISTENTLY stated that I refer only to quality lamps (like Philips).
It would be like you trying to argue that automobiles are fundamentally
unsafe, unreliable and uneconomical, by using ONLY Tata automobiles as your
reference. You should be using Toyota, Honda, Mecedes, Hyundai and the
others as part of your reference.

No more talk of cheap, shitty lamps please. Whilst they are are available
and fools will buy them, they are not representative of state of the art in
quality or longevity.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

**Incorrect. ALL green groups have expressed reservations about the proper
disposal of CFLs.


 Personally, I believe that the situation
Quoted text here. Click to load it

**Fair enough. Cite these "true" costs you speak of. Numbers please.

 Almost certainly, they use less energy if
Quoted text here. Click to load it

**My CFLs are averaging far more than 2,000 hours. Do you have any data to
supplort your notion that QUALITY CFLs manage an average of 2,000 hours? Are
you aware of any consumer legal action against Philips? After Philips cite a
6,000 hour life for their product. Here in Australia, the penalties are
severe for companies engaged in misleading advertising of that nature.
Recently, LG was penalised several hundred thousand Dollars for making
misleading claims about the efficiency of their refrigerators. I'm certain
the legislators would be happy to tackle Philips, if you can supply solid
supporting evidence to back your claims (about QUALITY CFLs).

Quoted text here. Click to load it

**Not in Australia. They compete in the market, like any other product. They
cost approximately 5 times as much as an equivalent IC lamp. They last 5
times longer and use 1/5th as much energy.

his might prove an intgeresting read for you:

http://www.choice.com.au/consumer-action/sustainability/energy-efficiency/compact-fluorescent-lightbulbs.aspx

Quoted text here. Click to load it

**I agree with that. Most people are, fundamentally, greedy, self-serving,
fools. They'll choose the cheapest, upfront solution, without regard to
longevity or running costs.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

**As is feeding excessive CO2 into the atmosphere. Too much CO2 is causing
excessive warming of this planet.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

**That was not the case here in Australia. Manufacturers had to alter their
production systems, costing millions of Dollars to cope. Most automobiles
suffered a performance fall when switched to unleaded fuel. Those who
retained their leaded fuel autos have to use expensive additives to
compensate.


Quoted text here. Click to load it

**Not here in Australia. Costs rose for buyers.

 There was not even any need to challenge this bit
Quoted text here. Click to load it

**Incorrect. Leaded fuel vehicles require an additive to allow correct
operation of valves (seats). The simple expedient of altering timing is only
for making up for differences in octane, not lead.

 CFLs are nothing like this. They are a substitute technology
Quoted text here. Click to load it

**Specialised IC lamps are still available in Australia. I don't know about
Europe. Fancy lamps, oven lamps and others are still available. For those
who refuse to change, halogen replacements are still available.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

**Apart from those places where geo-thermal energy is common, or
temperatures are too low, heat pumps (aka: air conditioners) are a far more
efficient method of heating a home than resistive heating.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

**Points:

* IC lamps are NOT to everyone's satisfaction. I have ONLY used fluoro
lighting in my workshop for the last 40 years.
* IC lamps are unreliable and wasteful of energy.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au



Re: OT Re: CFLs - retrofitting low ESR capacitors
<snip>

Quoted text here. Click to load it


But we're not talking cost here. We're talking energy budgets and planetary
pollution from industrial processes. Any fool can say "this transistor costs
us 20 cents. This capacitor costs us 5 cents" and so on. But it's an awful
lot more complex to start looking into the energy budget for refining the
silicon. For turning the silicon into P and N types. For refining the
plastic from the oil. For getting the oil out of the ground. For getting the
iron ore out of the ground. For refining the iron out of the ore, and then
converting it to steel. Transporting all the constituents. Manufacturing
them into a transistor. Then shipping that transistor to the CFL maker. And
on and on. And that's just one component out of a considerable number - see

http://www.pavouk.org/hw/lamp/en_index.html

My point obviously being that in comparison, an incandescent has a very few
constituent parts, all of which are simple, and have simple well defined
manufacturing processes, that could easily be energy budgeted.


Quoted text here. Click to load it

Well, good luck with that one. As long as they have to keep putting any kind
of control electronics in them to make them run from AC line voltage, then
as long as they are not subsidised, they are never going to get as cheap as
incandescents, or have as low an energy budget to produce. Whilst there have
been some major advances in recent years in the light output and efficiency
of LEDs , they still have relatively poor colour rendition qualities for
home use, and still struggle to produce even omni-directional light as is
required for general lighting, due to the fact that the light is produced at
a flat surface. As to not experiencing the same longevity as you with my
CFLs, I thought that I carefully explained that I have purchased all
qualities of the things, and have not found the expensive 'quality' names to
be any longer lived than the cheapos. This seems to be the findings of
others on here, as well.

<snip>

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Well no. That is an unfair slant in favour of the CFL argument. As long as
cheap crappy ones are available, *most* people - not just "fools" as you so
disparagingly refer to them - will buy them over the expensive quality ones,
because they don't understand the difference, as we do. It's human nature to
buy cheap, which is why the Chinese are doing so well on the back of
world-wide sales of cheap - and often crap quality - electronic goods,
offered for sale through all our nations' supermarkets. This is where the
whole thing breaks down as an argument about the eco validity of any of this
technology. The manufacturers of the cheap CFLs are in it purely to make
money. They have no concern at all for the 'green' credentials of their
products, except in as much as they will sell in their millions,
irrespective of their quality, just because the *are* CFLs. So whilst it is
true what you say in that the cheapo ones are not representative of the
state of the art, unfortunately, they *are* representative of what is being
sold in quantity to the general public, and their contribution to the
validity of the discussion, cannot be ignored until *all* CFLs that are
offered for sale, are indeed representative of the state of the art. I'm
sorry if that offends your sensibilities, but it *is* part of the overall
equation. In fact, your analogy with the cars, is self-defeating, because
you could look at it from the other angle, and say that if you take say BMW
as your reference, then all other cheaper makes are invalid because they are
not 'state of the art', and people who buy them are fools. The cheaper makes
will always be bought by the general public, because not everyone can afford
the safety and performance of a BMW, just like not everyone can afford to
pay 5 or whatever for a bulb to replace an incandescent that they are used
to paying 50 pence for. If there is a CFL costing 50 pence on the shelf
alongside the 5 one, you tell me, which one are most uninformed people
going to buy ? And it is for precisely this reason that the whole CFL thing,
taken on a world-wide basis, falls apart.
Quoted text here. Click to load it


But that is actually another comparatively minor issue. Important from the
pollution point of view, yes, but insignificant compared to the
manufacturing energy budgets and pollution-causing manufacturing processes,
that are NEVER mentioned by these groups, because they never even consider
these 'hidden' aspects.


Quoted text here. Click to load it



I cannot give numbers, because there are none that FULLY analyse ALL energy
inputs and pollution outputs for the hundreds of processes involved. And
when I say "costs", I am not talking monetary ones, as I explained earlier.
As I said, I am sure that it is just too complicated a situation to ever be
able to arrive at a real figure, but no matter how much you don't want to
believe it, you have to accept that there *are* many hundreds of process
steps and transport steps involved in CFL manufacture, compared to
incandescent manufacture, which *must* add up to a very significant amount,
that is being totally ignored in making the 'green' case for the things.
Whether it can be accurately quantified or not, if you stop and think about
it, it is common sense.


Quoted text here. Click to load it


See my earlier comments regarding quality CFLs versus the reality of what
people *actually* buy ...


Quoted text here. Click to load it
http://www.choice.com.au/consumer-action/sustainability/energy-efficiency/compact-fluorescent-lightbulbs.aspx
Quoted text here. Click to load it


I don't understand this. By saying that, you make my case for me, and
utterly destroy your own ...


Quoted text here. Click to load it


That is by no means proven in science. Only in the media. There are many
reputable scientists who believe otherwise.


Quoted text here. Click to load it


There is little difference between engines that burn leaded and unleaded
fuel. For sure, there had to be some modification to the production and
design processes, but these occur for the manufacturers every time they
bring out a new model or engine. The monetary costs of doing this are
factored into a new design, so will actually not have been any particularly
burdensome problem for the manufacturers. Drops in performance of existing
engines when converted to run on unleaded fuel were actually fairly minor,
and most people here, at least, did not even bother converting because
leaded petrol was available alongside unleaded, for a reasonable time
period. Back when all this happened, cars were not that long-lived anyway,
so unless you had only just bought a new one, it was no great shakes that
the next one you bought would be produced with an unleaded petrol engine,
already designed in. The manufacturers knew this was coming, and had plenty
of time to carry out the required design alterations, and actually to
amortise the costs in their existing production, in readiness for the
legislation.



Quoted text here. Click to load it


The lead was in the petrol as an anti-knock agent, as I recall


Quoted text here. Click to load it

Nope. Pretty much all outlawed here. You can't get a proper golf ball or
candle any more. You haven't been able to get pearlised bulbs of any
description for a long time. Truly specialised ones for ovens etc are still
available, because it is simply impossible to replace them with anything
else. Halogen 'Apollo nose-cones' are still available at the moment, and
capsule halogens still are, but only in clear envelopes, which are pretty
useless compared to frosted ones. I was looking around the other day to see
if I could still find any halogen replacements (the type where a halogen
capsule bulb is incorporated into a 'traditional' shaped incandescent
envelope), and the only ones of those that I could find were clear. These
give a very harsh light, whereas the pearlised ones, gave a very nice even
light
Quoted text here. Click to load it


Arfa


Re: OT Re: CFLs - retrofitting low ESR capacitors
Quoted text here. Click to load it

As for cheap CFL, we used to buy those 4 packs for about $7.50 from
Bunnings.  probably 1 out of 10 would fail after a few months, but the
others have gone for about 3 years so far  (50 bought all up).  I also
noticed that since the light bulbs have been banned, the cheap CFL's
have all but disappeared and its hard to find any that are under the
$3-4 mark.  Most also have this sickening "warm white" light, rather
than the proper "cool white" or "daylight" that is normal with fluros.

I still have some GE CFL ones I bought about 2002 that are working.
Most though last nowhere near as long as incandescents though and they
do not like a lot of the light fittings used in typical Australian
homes.
They either face down, or don't have enough ventilation, or simply
don't fit in them

The one advantage they have over incandescents is that they are not
affected by vibration.

Re: OT Re: CFLs - retrofitting low ESR capacitors

"kreed"

** FFS   -  learn how to trim !!

Quoted text here. Click to load it


** Low voltage incandescents are genuinely not affected.

But most CFLs are easily damaged by it.

After time, the glue fails and the glass tubes or spirals come loose from
the plastic case.

Then with vibration or handling, the feed wires break.

There simply is no quality control and a myriad of things to go wrong.

And the Chinese are making them.



....  Phil



Re: OT Re: CFLs - retrofitting low ESR capacitors
Quoted text here. Click to load it
That is true (IE, automotive bulbs) , but to clarify to everyone, I
was referring to standard 240v domestic ones

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Yes, that is the worst part. Also means that they can claim anything
and not deliver and be immune.  Would love to see anyone manufacturing
in Australia try that and get away with it.


Re: OT Re: CFLs - retrofitting low ESR capacitors

"kreed"

Quoted text here. Click to load it


Yes, that is the worst part. Also means that they can claim anything
and not deliver and be immune.


** Absolute nonsense.

Importers are liable for false advertising in exactly the same way that
manufacturers are.

The claims I see on CFL packs are vague and very limited or non existent.

Egs

What the fuck does  " non dimmable " mean ??

What does " not suitable for wet environments "   mean ??

IMO, the people making the  FALSE  CLAIMS  are the stinking greenies.



 ....  Phil



Re: OT Re: CFLs - retrofitting low ESR capacitors

Quoted text here. Click to load it

It means the manufacturer does not >>claim<< "dimmability".

In practice, at least some CFLs are dimmable that don't claim to be -- for
example, the top-rated Home Depot lamps are.


Quoted text here. Click to load it

And those false claims would be...?

I can think of one false claim -- that using less electricity puts less CO2
into the air. This is true if reduced consumption results in building fewer
hydrocarbon-powered electric plants. But, given load levelling across the
grid, and the need to run the steam generators at a constant level, I assume
there's little or no variation in the amount of CO2 put out by any one
plant.

I'm very much in favor of reduced CO2 emissions, and the development of
cheap, sustainable energy. But our society's basic problem is that we use
too much of everything, and generate too much waste of all sorts.

Portland General Electric is currently running an ad thanking its customers
for the "virtual" power plants said customers have "built" by using less
electricity.



Site Timeline