Re: Strange problem with low energy light bulb

[[email protected]]

http://sound.westhost.com/articles/incandescent.htm

You are an idiot. A propagandized, thoughtless, reactionary, severly
limited idiot. But an idiot nonetheless.

Check some of those so-called "facts" in that article and then spend a
wee bit of time at Snopes.com

With specific reference to the clean-up tripe.

http://www.snopes.com/medical/toxins/cfl.asp

That sets the tone on the overall credibilty of the article... A
little knowledge and a few facts and you too can distort reality...

God help you. Most especially as you clearly cannot help yourself.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

 

[Phil Allison]

Peter Wieck = fuckwit YANK ****


** Just ignore the above totally autistic YANK psychopath.


The basic truths about CFLs are all documented here.

The public is being massively LIED to by all involved.

Much of the info on the page below is my material.


http://sound.westhost.com/articles/incandescent.htm





........ Phil

 

[[email protected]]

Much of the info on the page below is my material.

Phil:

You are proud of this?

It is as cogent, accurate and thoughtful as your manners are fit for
polite society. Just like knowledge, a little truth badly distorted is
a very dangerous thing.

There is a school of thought that fanatics are the worst possible
advocates for a cause as they are ideologically unable to accept
anything that is counter to their closely held beliefs. You are a
fanatic, and no help to your cause as anything looks reasonable by
comparison.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

 

[Eeyore]

:

d) The French have enough guts to use Breeder Reactors

They have none in use any more.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superphénix

They only ever had the one in use at any time IIRC.

Graham

 

[Arny Krueger]

Now, a PL-type lamp typically has a 20,000 hour life, but
one must purchase a separate ballast. As it happens, many
PL-type ballasts and lamps may be dimmed as well.

PL is the preferable means for building a dimmable fluorescent, compared to
CFL.

Circumstances were such that I had about a year's experience with using
dimmable CFLs before the first time I worked with a dimmable PL. The PLs
have superior performance because they can more easily maintain constant
power to the filaments when the lamp is dimmed. IME dimmable PLs are the
most consistently dimmable lights there are.

So, a 200% increase in Very-First-Cost will give an additional
167% of service-life, and a much-reduced long- term
maintenance cost as the ballast is purchased only once...
and it may be dimmed.

I am mystified why dimmable CFLs are still relatively hard to find.
Admittedly, dimmable CFLs of a year ago were kinda flakey at lower light
levels. They still aren't as optimal as the PLs, but their range of useful
illumination is not all that different from say, halogens. One strong
advantage of both dimmable CFLs and PLs is that their light's spectra
remains more constant across a wide range of brightness levels.

 

[Phil Allison]

Peter Wieck = CRIMINAL fuckwit YANK MORON



** Just ignore the above, totally autistic YANK psychopath.



The basic truths about CFLs are all documented here.

The public is being massively LIED to by all involved.

Much of the info on the page below is my material.

http://sound.westhost.com/articles/incandescent.htm





........ Phil

 

[Straw Man]

Phil doodled his poodle with his tiny limp noodle.
Discovered by his wife, she ended his life.

 

[dizzy]

Not really.

The heat from most lamps hangs around at ceiling level. It does sod all to warm
a room.

Wrong.

 

[Eeyore]

Wrong.

Not wrong.

Graham

 

[Phil Allison]

"Eeysore ASD retarded MORON"

Not wrong.

** Its a whole lot worse that just wrong.

It is massively asinine, autistic fuckwit think.

The only kind the Graham Stevenson menace ever does.




........ Phil

 

[Mr.T]

The basic premise is "Life-time Costs". I will not use your "most
common 60W incandescent" as my basis, but rather the 100W lamp as it
lends itself to round numbers.

Do you need a new calculator, or is that necessary for your argument?

Assumptions:
I will ignore the Chinese-Junque mass-market crap just as I avoid
those same sources for incandescent lamps.

Which is silly because I find the 40 cent incandescents last just fine since
there is so little to get wrong.
The same does not apply to CFL's though.

c) I will point to where I obtain my lamps, and the cost, and the
published service-life, mean-average lumens and so forth.

First mistake. To be a real comparison you have to make *measurements* of
your own. Not accept blindly the bullshit offered by manufacturers.

My source
will, without question, accept and replace without cost any lamp that
fails within the specified lifetime.

Lucky you.

d) The cost of electricity from PECO at present at our location, RS-1
rate is ~$0.145/kwh, delivered. That is 1000 wats for one hour.

e) Tungsten-filament lamps are about 6% efficient (and that is being
generous as they age), so in 100 watts, 6 are emitted as visible
light, 94 as heat.

f) CLF/PL lamps are ~23% - ~26% efficient depending on ballast losses.
We will use 23% as it most favors Phil. So, that means a 28 watt CFL
will give as much visible light as a 100 watt tungsten-filament lamp.

One needs to compare the actual lumens emmitted over the life of the lamp,
rather than use *possible* efficiency figures.

g) We will ignore halogen lamps for any number of reasons, mostly
because excepting miniature LV reading-type lamps, they are not
commonly used for general lighting.

Unfortunately they are used in large numbers in Australia.

We purchase, in our house, either this:
http://www.grainger.com/Grainger/items/1E563
or the "75-watt" version thereof. The specifications are given for
fair comparison to:
http://www.grainger.com/Grainger/items/5V600
So. It will take sixteen (16) 100-watt lamps to equal one (1) CLF
lamp.

What the hell happened to the....
"a 28 watt CFL will give as much visible light as a 100 watt
tungsten-filament lamp"

Since one inc. bulb is often used in a centre mounted light fitting, now do
the figures for a single 100W bulb and a single 28watt CFL using actual
measured lifetimes and measured lumens, using various on/off duty cycles for
comparison.

<snip irrelevant figures which bear no relationship to his initial
assumptions.>

MrT.

 

[Mr.T]

Put more simply, the equation in favor of CFL/PL Lamps only

..... happens if you compare 16 globes with one CFL to try and make your case


MrT.

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

Not wrong.

Graham

Then you've never been in a TV studio, Donkey.


--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

 

[Mr.T]

Then you've never been in a TV studio

Hey you're both partly right. As it generates heat, it will add *something*
to the room temperature. But if the fitting is at ceiling height, and since
hot air rises, it is not an efficient way to warm the part of the room that
humans inhabit. And if you don't have ceiling insulation, it will do even
less.
It's normally considered far better to place electric radiant heaters at
floor level, and relatively close to humans.

Of course the radiant heat from studio lamps is far greater than normal
domestic bulbs, but I wouldn't want to be paying for the electricity they
use either.
Even bathroom heat lamps are mirror backed to project the heat downwards,
and they are a pretty inefficient heating method regardless. Fortunately
they are only designed to be used for short periods.

MrT.

 

[Lostgallifreyan]

Not wrong.

Graham

Yes it is. Most of the heat is radiant. Just because the intensity falls
off fourfold per unit distance doesn't mean the energy vanishes. Even if
you consider the ceiling covering nearly half of the volume through which
heat tries to radiate through, the shallow angle of incidence means that
most of that reflects to join the rest to warm the walls and anything else
it can reach. The small amount of heat above the lamp is from convection,
and keeping the bulb clean will help to let the heat radiate more
efficiently and usefully.

Cieling heat isn't useless in heating a room anyway. While I think it IS a
bit daft, I remember a house I visited a few times as a kid, it had a low
temperature heater in the entire ceiling of one room. It was very low-grade
heat, but it still warned the room. I felt it on my face when I looked up
at it. Less so while sitting, but not much, because the area was so large.
Similarly, a lightbulb radiating across a ceiling adds heat usefully to the
whole room. More in fact (proportionally), because more of it is radiated
than conducted away above.

 

[Lostgallifreyan]

It's normally considered far better to place electric radiant heaters at
floor level, and relatively close to humans.

It is, and it's not wise. It places stresses on the body, strong enough to
make it ill. I remember getting into the strong localised heat one winter.
I ended up shivering if I moved away to another room, even if moving out of
the direct radiance. Going outside felt terrible. I had headaches and flu-
like symptoms. It was one of the more stupid experiments I ever tried.

It's far better to live with a well-spread heat source that doesn't cause
strong changes. That way the body can maintain thermal equilibrium and stay
safe, the immune system strengthens, and going outside is an easy extension
of internal activity. It makes it easier to get used to wider extremes.

If I have to use a radiant heater, I point it at distant furnishings at low
level but not at me. Most times I now rely on convection and low-grade
radiation from electrical devices, relying on their waste heat and on good
home insulation but also good ventilation. In short, anything that produces
heat but no strong thermal gradients. I've found it the most healthy way to
get heating done. A single strong lamp in the centre of the ceiling fits
into that well enough.

 

[Eeyore]

Then you've never been in a TV studio, Donkey.

It's a hell of a lot hotter up where the lamps are.

Besides, TV spotlights are hardly a valid comparison with ordinary domestic lighting.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

Even bathroom heat lamps are mirror backed to project the heat downwards,
and they are a pretty inefficient heating method regardless. Fortunately
they are only designed to be used for short periods.

I have one of those. It's quite nice in the winter.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

Eeyore wrote


Yes it is. Most of the heat is radiant.

Which means most of it ends up where it won't warm YOU.

Graham

 

[Lostgallifreyan]

Which means most of it ends up where it won't warm YOU.

Don't be daft, I don't exist in a vaccuum! I already posted, at LENGTH,
that it's healthier to avoid excessive thermal gradients focussed on our
own bodies. I'm sure you disagree, but by now that's because it's me saying
it, isn't it? Nothing to do with actual science.