Prev: Sony HT-5500D receiver problems
Next: Would you buy this?
From: William Sommerwerck on 5 Feb 2010 12:38
>> From a practical point of view, I'm not sure this makes much sense.
>> Most (but not all) electronic products are fairly energy-efficient.
>> Furthermore, the biggest single "use" of electricity in a home is
>> waste -- not turning things off when they aren't being used. Mandating
>> lower power consumption for electronic devices will have only a small
>> effect on usage.

>> It would make more sense to outlaw incandescent lamps.

> actually,that's something in which gov't has no business being involved.
> (one of many....)
> If consumers want to use incandescents, it's their business, not the
gov'ts.
> Who wants government to tell them how to live?
> You want that, MOVE somewhere else.

Where would you have moved during WWII when there was rationing?

This country needs to become energy-independent, for political as well as
practical reasons.


From: William Sommerwerck on 5 Feb 2010 12:40
>> It would make more sense to outlaw incandescent lamps.

> Except it wouldn't. There are many applications where CFLs will not
> work well or at all...and my "dim bulb tester" is one of those. The
> way things are going, I may have to buy a lifetime supply of
> incandescent bulbs for it, and hope that I got enough.

> Fridge, oven and quite possibly microwave oven bulbs are another,
> along with chandeliers. My oven light went out recently, and I really
> wondered about putting a CFL in there--but it occured to me that
> potentially toxic decomposition of the bulb's casing could occur in
> that kind of heat, and it would do the electronics no good at all.

Most of the proposed legislation acknowledges that incandescent lamps are
required for certain uses.


From: William R. Walsh on 5 Feb 2010 12:43
Hi!

> I'm not sure of that.  I think many devices can't *conveniently*
> be turned off.  E.g., all these devices with their own wall warts,
> TV's, computers and LCD's that "pretend" to be sleeping (but still
> use a fair bit of power).

Some devices like that consume a shockingly high amount of power when
on "standby". I've heard of devices that can sit around "doing
nothing" and use 50 watts!

> Has anyone done a study to determine the TCO of CF's vs.
> incandescent?

I'm not aware of one.

> Including manufacturing and disposal costs?  Our experience with
> them has been abysmal -- often less than a year or two (I think we
> have replaced 5 already).  Granted, during operation, they use
> less energy.  But, if replacements have to be produced more
> often, then the savings aren't what they seem (even if the
> replacement costs the customer "nothing")

I find most of their lifetimes to be poor...sometimes dramatically
WORSE than incandescent bulbs. While at first I hated the idea of
throwing away a perfectly good set of bulb-driving electronics, the
reality seems to be more along the lines of the electronics going out
before the bulb does--or bulb failure toasting the electronics
(sometimes quite dramatically). I just love the smell of burnt parts!

If you're going to do fluorescent lighting, you might as well do it
right. Put up a purpose built fixture if possible and use that. The
lifetime of tubes--even in the cheap and nasty fixtures--would put
almost any CFL to shame.

There has been one exception to this: back when CFLs first started
hitting the market, we put one in an outside porch socket. That was
either very late 2001 or early-2002. Since that time, that one bulb
has been baked, frozen, covered in bugs, wetted with rain and all
that. We had to cut the outer plastic diffuser off when it yellowed to
the point where light could no longer be seen through it. It was
frequently forgotten about and left to burn 24/7.

Only about a week or so ago did it finally die. It was a Sylvania
bulb...and I cannot say that it failed to deliver good value for the
price paid!

William
From: GregS on 5 Feb 2010 13:05
In article <2a9d5271-31e1-4654-b116-a7f77641b834(a)o5g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>, "William R. Walsh" <wm_walsh(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>Hi!
>
>> I'm not sure of that. =A0I think many devices can't *conveniently*
>> be turned off. =A0E.g., all these devices with their own wall warts,
>> TV's, computers and LCD's that "pretend" to be sleeping (but still
>> use a fair bit of power).
>
>Some devices like that consume a shockingly high amount of power when
>on "standby". I've heard of devices that can sit around "doing
>nothing" and use 50 watts!
>
>> Has anyone done a study to determine the TCO of CF's vs.
>> incandescent?
>
>I'm not aware of one.
>
>> Including manufacturing and disposal costs? =A0Our experience with
>> them has been abysmal -- often less than a year or two (I think we
>> have replaced 5 already). =A0Granted, during operation, they use
>> less energy. =A0But, if replacements have to be produced more
>> often, then the savings aren't what they seem (even if the
>> replacement costs the customer "nothing")
>
>I find most of their lifetimes to be poor...sometimes dramatically
>WORSE than incandescent bulbs. While at first I hated the idea of
>throwing away a perfectly good set of bulb-driving electronics, the
>reality seems to be more along the lines of the electronics going out
>before the bulb does--or bulb failure toasting the electronics
>(sometimes quite dramatically). I just love the smell of burnt parts!
>
>If you're going to do fluorescent lighting, you might as well do it
>right. Put up a purpose built fixture if possible and use that. The
>lifetime of tubes--even in the cheap and nasty fixtures--would put
>almost any CFL to shame.
>
>There has been one exception to this: back when CFLs first started
>hitting the market, we put one in an outside porch socket. That was
>either very late 2001 or early-2002. Since that time, that one bulb
>has been baked, frozen, covered in bugs, wetted with rain and all
>that. We had to cut the outer plastic diffuser off when it yellowed to
>the point where light could no longer be seen through it. It was
>frequently forgotten about and left to burn 24/7.


When CFL's hit the market in 1990,,,, I started to use them.
I love them. Thats 20 years experiance.


greg
>Only about a week or so ago did it finally die. It was a Sylvania
>bulb...and I cannot say that it failed to deliver good value for the
>price paid!
>
>William
From: William Sommerwerck on 5 Feb 2010 13:46
> For the most part, whats on the market now as "affordable" is Chinese
> junk that does NOT live up to the promise of long life.
> Why are many so cheap? because they use as CHEAP of components as they
> can. Kind of like the capacitor fiasco with the stolen formula.
> Cheap components don't last.

True. But they draw a heck of a lot less power.

I used cheap CFL from Home Despot, and I would never go back to tungsten
lighting. They come on "instantly" (faster than tungsten), have a pleasing
color balance, and last about 2000 hours. For around $2 a lamp. Not bad.


First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4
Prev: Sony HT-5500D receiver problems
Next: Would you buy this?