Prev: Sony HT-5500D receiver problems
Next: Would you buy this?
From: Michael A. Terrell on 5 Feb 2010 14:07

"William R. Walsh" wrote:
>
> 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.


That plastic is there to prevent the lamp from spewing broken glass
and mercury if it breaks. Someone could be hurt pretty bad if it
exploded. As far as I'm concerned, it failed when the light output
dropped by 50%.


> 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


--
Greed is the root of all eBay.
From: UCLAN on 5 Feb 2010 15:01
Jim Yanik wrote:

>>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.

I certainly hope that you're not referring to the U.S. government. One of
the major responsibilities of the U.S. federal government is to protect the
nation against foreign threats. The dependence on foreign oil can be viewed
as a threat to this country. In a high percentage of uses, the inefficiency
of incandescent bulbs increases our use of foreign oil. In that respect, it
is the U.S. federal government's business being involved.

I suppose you believe drugs such as heroin and/or crystal meth should be
legalized, as nobody wants the government telling us how to live, eh?
From: William R. Walsh on 5 Feb 2010 15:29
Hi!

> That plastic is there to prevent the lamp from spewing broken
> glass and mercury if it breaks.

I don't fully agree with that. Speaking as someone who has dropped or
otherwise broken both regular fluorescent tubes and CFLs, I can say
that a CFL really doesn't put off all that good of a show. The glass
shatters and that's the end of it.

The tubes, on the other end, come across as loud as a gun going off if
you're not expecting it (and it will still take you by surprise even
if you knew it was going to break). I've actually seen the glass from
tubes being thrown quite far--and yet they operate in free air without
people being concerned at least some of the time.

Mercury? Well, that's hazardous for sure, but the amount is miniscule.
I certainly make sure to clean up the area where the tube or CFL
broke, but I don't worry about it much afterwards. I'm not overly
concerned about this problem.

Nearly all CFLs in this part of the world are sold as bare "squiggle"
tubes. A diffuser or covering is rare. This lamp had one, for whatever
reason. This plastic cover was far from being sealed--the lamp and its
electronics had to get cool air somehow.

> Someone could be hurt pretty bad if it exploded.

The fixture in question was fully enclosed, with only a few places
where the fit and finish didn't quite work out being open.

> As far as I'm concerned, it failed when the light output
> dropped by 50%.

I disagree with that too. :-) The actual lighting part was still
working *fine*. Damage from the sun--and maybe even the emissions of
the bulb--caused the clear plastic to become dark brown.

Now I'm a resourceful sort (although usually not in any way that would
result in anyone being in any sort of danger) and I hate to throw away
anything that still works and can repaired to be useful again. When
you look at most CFLs and see that they have no protection between
user and bulb, it stands to reason that this bulb wouldn't strictly
require that plastic cover. And it didn't.

William
From: William Sommerwerck on 6 Feb 2010 08:36
>>> This country needs to become energy-independent, for political as
>>> well as practical reasons.

>> Build nukes. We know they work,reliably and 24/7/365.Very
>> practical,too. However,if you want to install your own wind
>> to turbines,or to invest in a business venture, fine. No need for gov't
>> mandate anything.
>> If you want a government-controlled economy, MOVE elsewhere.

And what if private industry doesn't make the right decisions -- those that
benefit society as a whole, rather than the stockholders? Do you really
believe that individual selfishness always produces the best results?


> there's also no reason we shouldn't be drilling in ANWR and
> other places. and building new refineries and pipelines.
> That's where our energy-independence falls down.

Big Oil and Big Coal are doing everything it can to delay alternate energy,
so that it can reap the most profits.

I've never understood the "logic" of allowing private interests to exploit
public resources for private gain.


From: Jim Yanik on 6 Feb 2010 12:55
"William Sommerwerck" <grizzledgeezer(a)comcast.net> wrote in
news:hkjr96$e7p$1(a)news.eternal-september.org:

>>>> This country needs to become energy-independent, for political as
>>>> well as practical reasons.
>
>>> Build nukes. We know they work,reliably and 24/7/365.Very
>>> practical,too. However,if you want to install your own wind
>>> to turbines,or to invest in a business venture, fine. No need for
>>> gov't mandate anything.
>>> If you want a government-controlled economy, MOVE elsewhere.
>
> And what if private industry doesn't make the right decisions -- those
> that benefit society as a whole, rather than the stockholders? Do you
> really believe that individual selfishness always produces the best
> results?
>
>
>> there's also no reason we shouldn't be drilling in ANWR and
>> other places. and building new refineries and pipelines.
>> That's where our energy-independence falls down.
>
> Big Oil and Big Coal are doing everything it can to delay alternate
> energy, so that it can reap the most profits.

"Big Oil and Big Coal"...
conspiracy theory.
Perhaps you believe in the 100 MPG carburetor.

(BTW,it was the environutz who blocked building transmission lines for a
wind farm,and the Mass. Cape Cod wind farm project itself.)

And "alternate Energy" is NOT PRACTICAL.
If it were,somebody would be developing it.....without gov't subsidies.
>
> I've never understood the "logic" of allowing private interests to
> exploit public resources for private gain.
>


because they do it more efficiently than gov't.
Gov't can't even run the Senate and House lunchrooms,nor the US Post Office
or Amtrack.

Gov't would not even know about those "public resources" if it weren't for
private industry.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4
Prev: Sony HT-5500D receiver problems
Next: Would you buy this?