Re: Ban the bulb.

What's really great is the fire hazard created by cheap chinese made crap CFLs, and the dispoal hazard when they die (which they do, as frequently as incandescent bulbs). Then add in the hazard of an accidently broken light (by your kids, for example) with the likely inhallation of mercury vapors, and what do you have: a future socialist liberal democrat!

"Ken S. Tucker" wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@k9g2000vbo.googlegroups.com:

The reason behind CFL's is of course the green nuts. The majority of which have the intellegence of a pea.

Without strict testing for PF compliance its likely that a CFL would require just as much power from the utility as a standard bulb which is a benign resistive load. Factor in the addtional cost, the hazourdous chemicals etc. and its probably a net loss enviromentally. But I guess it sounds good for the wing nuts when a politician bans bulbs. I've read test where PF was 0.5 this was a while ago though maybe its improved now?

Oh and lets not forget where the majority of these CFL's are manufactured China. You can use your imagination as to the quality of material etc on the majority of them. I dont use them; here in Canada bulbs arent banned yet!

.That would be illegal to sell. . .Supporting electronics for CFL and LED bulbs generate heat also. Most .manufacturers are aiming for high efficience (low heat ratio), but .easy enough to do high heating bulbs. Nothing prevent you from .selling low efficience (high heat) LED bulbs.

Yer stupid.

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: snipped-for-privacy@netfront.net ---

It's just a joke. Can't take a stupid joke?

.It's just a joke. Can't take a stupid joke?

Ok, LOL.

I thought you were imitating a liberal.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Yeah, I have a dream too. )-;

Thanks, Rich

Feh. I've spent a total of about thirty bucks on "long-life" CFLs, and I've never seen one last as long as a "REAL" light bulb.

They're crap, but all government mandates are crap - I wish there was some way to get people to clue up. )-;

Thanks, Rich

Sigh. I remember a time when "the lunatics have taken over the asylum" was actually a joke!

Thanks, Rich

It's somewhat akin to the "low-flush" toilets. A normal toilet takes three and a half gallons (a number of which I am quite skeptical) to flush. A "low flush" toilet takes 1.6 gallons, but it's impossible to get a complete flush, so people end up flushing twice (3.2 G) or three times (4.8 G).

It's like injecting an offset into the wrong summing point of a huge PID system, with approx. 6,000,000,000 summing points. The law of unintended consequences.

Unfortunately, it seems that too many voters have immunized themselves against clue.

Thanks, Rich

??? If you use electronic ballasts there is very little to no reduction of lifetime. I have CFL's in my office (Phillips ofcourse). They are on for several hours every day and get switched on/off at least twice a day. I didn't need to replace any of the tubes for the last 12 years (thats getting close to 20k hours)! And it doesn't seem like I need to replace the tubes real soon.

It's a mentality of "cheaper is better" without looking at the long term.

Filament bulbs - Moderate life and efficiency with high pressure Xenon/halogen fill. What most people buy are extremely inefficient low pressure argon bulbs.

CFL - Very efficient and long life. What most people buy have a build quality that lasts for a year or less.

LED - Efficiency can be better or worse than CFL, extremely long life. What most people buy are made of quality control rejected LEDs with power supplies every bit as unreliable as those in CFLs. A few businesses and bicyclists buy quality LED illumination.

HID - Efficient with good life. Nobody is willing to pay the minimum cost needed to make them work in homes. A few people pay to use them for high quality automotive and photographic lighting.

So, ditch that one and get a low-flush toilet that isn't broken-as- designed. Toto and Kohler are reliable brands...

A lot of it has to do with the plumbing downstream of the toilet in older homes. The specs have changed to accommodate the newer toilets. No brand is going to fix old plumbing.

Isn't this kind of the opposite of an answer? If your pipes can accommodate (pardon the pun) a 3.5 gallon flush, what keeps them from handling 1.6?

Thanks, Rich

Restrictions don't allow a full flush with less water; lower velocity.

I thought I read it was worse than that.

The embarassing thing about electrolytics is, their ripple ratings are so low that you can't even use them at 60Hz supply with more than a certain amount of ripple. The only way to reduce ripple is to add more caps, which necessarily worsens power factor. Kind of ironic, but the peaky RMS current is distributed among more caps, or one bigger cap, which *can* handle the ripple.

The nasty thing about CFLs is, they have to accommodate this, plus the inverter ripple, plus the lamp heat (which is by conduction only if you're lucky -- look at how many fixtures have sideways or upside-down bulbs in them, yeech!). Add all that in, plus undersized caps, dubious electrolytes and consumer pricing, and you've got a genuine bad product.

Tim

"Tim Williams is Full of S*it"

There is NO real issue with the PF being around 0.5 to 0.6 either.

..... Phil

Using incandescent bulbs results in far more mercury in the atmosphere due to the increased energy usage (most of the US' supply is from coal, which contains significant amounts of mercury).

Inhaling mercury vapour is a non-issue unless you spend your life doing it (e.g. dentistry, or working in a Chinese CFL factory).

FWIW, the CFL in my home office is usually on 16 hours/day, 7 days a week, and lasts 3-4 years, which works out at around 20,000 hours. That's a table lamp; hanging lamps tend to do worse due (the "2D" shape is better, if it will fit the shade).

You couldn't make a CFL with power factor *that* bad if you tried. Remember that reactive power isn't actually power: it only increases actual power consumption insofar as it increases transmission losses.

Not if you produce most of your electricity from coal. In that case, CFLs reduce total mercury emissions significantly (although they transfer them from the air to the water).

To the extent that CFLs in landfill are a problem, the problem is with people who feel entitled to discard whatever they want as household waste, rather than using more appropriate mechanisms.