CFLs - retrofitting low ESR capacitors

[Phil Allison]

"Trevor Wilson"

**I suggest you read this:

http://www.choice.com.au/reviews-an...ng-energy/compact-fluorescent-lightbulbs.aspx

** A laughably worthless test, not in any way related to normal use.

Something the rabid green lunatics at Choice are FAMOUS for !!!

Look at the pic - all the CFLs are suspended in mid air !!

No light fittings, not even a ceiling above them.

The room is air conditioned too.

And NO on /off cycling at all !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Not ONE of the KNOWN issues with CFLs will be revealed in such a test.


BTW:

One reason that Choice did not cycle the CFLs is that they found it VERY
difficult to do.

If you try to switch on 10 or more CFLs at once, it will trip the lighting
circuit breaker ( 8 amp) regularly - with over 200 it will not even be
possible at all.

CFLs have large inrush surges, up to 20 amps peak or more for long enough to
active the magnetic trip on lighting breakers.

Looks like the CFLs in that test were powered from a wall outlet (ie using a
16 amp breaker) and brought on in groups of 10 ( using several multi-way
power boards) until they were all lit and left like that for 12 months.

Total Bollocks.

The other green lunatic drivel quoted in the article makes me wanna puke.



..... Phil

 

[Phil Allison]

"kreed"

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.

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 **** does " non dimmable " mean ??

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

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



.... Phil

 

[William Sommerwerck]

What the **** does "non-dimmable" mean?

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.

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

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.

 

[Phil Allison]

William Sommerwanker = FUCKWIT "

"Phil Allison"


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

** But all CFLs are dimmable.

And those false claims would be...?

** All of them.

The main one being that they can replace any incandescent bulb.

The makers make no such claim.

I can think of one false claim -- that using less electricity puts less
CO2
into the air.

** False.

The makers make no such claim.

I'm very much in favor of reduced CO2 emissions,

** Then, FFS - kill yourself.

 

[Rich Webb]

Humor me for a moment. Take a digital camera photo of your favorite
CFL lamp. Turn off all the other sources of light. What color do you
get? Here's mine:
<http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/crud/FEIT-23w.jpg>
See a problem perhaps?

Extra credit. Find various sheets of blank paper with an assortment
of brightness from about 85 to 105. Photograph those using either a
CFL lamp and an incandescent lamp source. What colors do you get?
(Note that the 105 brightness contains phosphors resulting in the
reflected light actually being brighter than the incident light).

You might want to buy a cheap LED UV flashlight and a diffraction
grating, for more fun with lighting.
<http://www.scientificsonline.com/holographic-diffraction-grating-film-10036.html>

Or, from the same source (as well as Amazon, etc.) this thing
<http://www.scientificsonline.com/precision-economy-spectrometer.html>
which includes a nm scale. Some examples of what it shows at
<http://home.comcast.net/~mcculloch-brown/astro/spectrostar.html>

 

[Phil Allison]

"Jeff Liebermann = Nut case "

Humor me for a moment.

** Be better to put idiots like you in straight jackets.

Take a digital camera photo of your favorite
CFL lamp. Turn off all the other sources of light. What color do you
get?

** Irrelevant, totally.


Here's mine:

<http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/crud/FEIT-23w.jpg>
See a problem perhaps?

** Nope.



..... Phil

 

[Trevor Wilson]

Well, I guess we're never going to agree on any aspect of this. You
seem predisposed to take the wrong way, a number of points that I
have repeatedly made, but ho-hum, it's been an interesting line of
chat, and at least it hasn't descended into a screaming match as is
so often the case in these discussions

**Provided there is some respect on both sides and an attempt to undestand
the other POV, I see no reason why a screaming match is necessary. I no
longer waste my time with those who choose to insult, rather than present a
cogent argument. It's better for my health.

Your comments about prices of CFLs have me intrigued. I did some more
research. Here are some prices in the US:

http://www.homedepot.com/webapp/wcs...Electrical-_-LightBulbs-_-CatHighlight-_-CFLs

Prices appear to be somewhat lower than Australia and dramatically lower
than in the UK. I suggest that you should be complaining about CFL prices in
the UK. Clearly, something is seriously awry.

I accept personal preferences for ICs are valid. I accept that personal
preferences against CFLs are also valid. I also accept the testing done by
Choice and others, that prove the efficiency aspects of CFLs are
significantly in advance of ICs. I accept, in the abscence of evidence to
the contrary, that CFLs have a manufacturing energy cost that is
approximately 6 times that of ICs.

Having said all that, there is one aspect of our discussion that I find
deeply troubling. You're a smart guy. Yet you appear to be willing to reject
the overwhelming bulk of good, solid science that has shown that rising CO2
levels are causing the present warming we find ourselves experiencing. You
appear to be rejecting the science, in preference for the hysterical ravings
of those who have clear links to the fossil fuel industry. OTH, the
scientists who study and report on global warming, for the most part, do not
have links to the alternative energy business. They do what a good scientist
should do - report the science without regard to political or business bias.
Consider the NASA and EPA scientists who were issuing very clear warnings to
President Bush. Bush was a rabid global warming denier. We had the same
thing here in Australia. During the Howard government years, Australia's
premier scientific body (the CSIRO) was issuing clear reports to the
government that anthropogenic global warming was going to cause serious
problems for Australia and the rest of the planet. Yet the Howard government
was aligned with the Bush government, in that denial of the science was the
order of the day. In fact, the leftover ministers of the Howard government
are still denying the science, even today. Most are religious loonies, so no
one takes much ntice anymore.

Please do some reading on the topic. Unlike the present discussion on CFLs
(which is really a bit of a distraction), it is a very important issue.

 

[William Sommerwerck]

Humor me for a moment.

** Be better to put idiots like you in straight jackets.

Strait-jacket, Phil, not straight.

 

[Phil Allison]

"William Sommerwanker the Fuckwit PEDANT "


** Be better to put idiots like you in straightjackets.


Correct spelling.

 

[William Sommerwerck]

"William Sommerwanker the Fuckwit PEDANT "

** Be better to put idiots like you in straightjackets.

Correct spelling.

I did correct the spelling. You didn't have to ask again.

"Strait" means "narrow" -- the jacket greatly restricts its wearer's
movements. It does not hold the wearer "straight" -- quite the opposite.

 

[Phil Allison]

"William Sommerwanker the Fuckwit PEDANT "

I did correct the spelling.

** No, you fucking FUCKWIT.

The spelling IS correct !!!!!!

Pedantry is a mental illness.

 

[William Sommerwerck]

"William Sommerwanker the Fuckwit PEDANT "


** No, you fucking FUCKWIT.

The spelling IS correct !!!!!!

Pedantry is a mental illness.

Phil...YOU are a mental illness.

 

[Trevor Wilson]

On the contrary - few believe in it anymore at least in Australia.

**The dribblers don't count. People who lack a decent education are not
representative of thinking adults. Nor are religious loonies like Alan
Jones, Christopher Monckton and George Pell.

This fraud has been thoroughly exposed for what it is and it is great
to see.

**Fraud? Do tell. Please provide your peer-reviewed science that proves that
the CSIRO, the IPCC, NASA, the US EPA, the British Academy of Science, the
US National Academy of Sciences, The German Academy of Science, The
Australian Bureu of Meteorology, The UK MET, The Royal Swedish Academy of
Sciences, The Netherlands Academey of Sciences and a host of other
organisations.

So, over to you: Supply your peer-reviewed science which proves that all
these guys (and many, many other respected scientific organisations) have it
so terribly wrong.


Did you know that the head of the CSIRO is a former bankster,

from the same company that wants to be australia's carbon banker and
there is another sitting on the board there?

**So? CSIRO has been successful at commercialising many of it's developments
over the years. It makes perfect sense to have people with commercial skills
on the board. The scientists report the science. The board does not.

The banksters cooked up

this scam and funded and promoted it behind the scenes over many years
as the next big cash cow for themselves, and to set up more control
over the people.

**Did they? Prove it.

In other words you and your business pays the tax,

and the big connected bastards get exemptions and you are driven under
and they end up with a monopoly and can charge what they want. This is
how the world works.

**Sure. It's how it has always worked. Nothing to do with global warming
though. Excessive CO2 emissions are driving the temperature of this planet
faster than at any time in the last 600,000 years. Nothing to do with
taxation, politics or the opinions of religious nutters.

Scientists - like most other people in this world get jobs, pay and
research funding based on following the corporate line, and/or party
line, at least to the general public.

**Is that so? Care to explain why the scientists at the CSIRO reported to
the Howard (AGW denying) government that AGW was a real problem? Care to
explain why the scientists at NASA and the US EPA were reporting to the Bush
(AGW denying) government that AGW was a real problem? According to your
twisted logic, the scientists at all three organisations should have
reported what their political masters wanted. To their credit, the
scientists did what all reputable scientists do - they reported the facts.

Thats just how real life works

in this thoroughly corrupted world.

**OK. Prove it.

 

[Trevor Wilson]

**Fraud? Do tell. Please provide your peer-reviewed science that
proves that the CSIRO, the IPCC, NASA, the US EPA, the British
Academy of Science, the US National Academy of Sciences, The German
Academy of Science, The Australian Bureu of Meteorology, The UK MET,
The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, The Netherlands Academey of
Sciences and a host of other organisations.

**Should read:

"....Sciences and a host of other organisations are wrong."

 

[Jeßus]

"William Sommerwanker the Fuckwit PEDANT "




** No, you fucking FUCKWIT.

The spelling IS correct !!!!!!

Pedantry is a mental illness.

You're doing exactly the same thing.

 

[Phil Allison]

"Jeßus = TROLL "

You're doing exactly the same thing.

** Nonsense.

Piss off - you fucking retard.

 

[Jeßus]

"Jeßus = TROLL "



** Nonsense.

Piss off - you fucking retard.

Me, fucking retards? Bimbos perhaps... I'll cop to that much at least.
Have a great day Phil!

 

[F Murtz]

Some interesting findings there. Today, this dropped into my email

http://www.ledlighting-eetimes.com/...ndescent-lamp.html?cmp_id=7&news_id=222907475


Looks as though it might address some of the points I made, particularly
in regard to the (typically) non-omnidirectional light from a LED lamp.
I had long wondered why the cooling core for the LEDs was not made
spherical, so that the light would be omni.

Arfa

Sounds good,It would cost me about aud $2000 for lamps for this house

 

[Trevor Wilson]

Your point wrt LEDs only having limited directional output is
important, for most of the commonly available types.

**Wrong. Luxeon emitters have been available for many years, with a 120
degree spread.

It was easily seen that filament lighting was omnidirectional, and
very evenly dispersed by internal coatings applied to the envelopes.

The common T-1-3/4 LED is essentially good for a panel indicator, not
a space illuminating/lighting device.
Even the more powerful 1W and larger devices wouldn't throw any light
if not for the lenses and a good reflector,

**Nor does ANY light source, you nong. You may also care to note that I
posted photographs that disproved your last nonsensical claim about such
things. You failed to acknowledge this fact.


The reflector area needs

to be about 30-50x that of the LED lens to throw much light for any
distance (counterproductive for a compact design)..

**Here is a photo of the two torches from my previous posting:

http://s1112.photobucket.com/albums/k497/Zaphod1000/

Look at the size difference. Look at the amount of light "thrown" by each
torch onto a dark wall. Which is greater? Which is the more useful, more
portable torch?

When will you cease making insane, unsupportable statements?


and then the

results are a bright spot surrounded by a much dimmer halo.

**The results are what the designers want them to be.

Also, the higher output devices need to be attached to heatsinks.

**So? The CPU in my computer must be attached to a heat sink. It ain't
rocket science. If I dropped both torches, whilst swtiched on, the LED torch
has a much better chance of survival.

The EE Times article image is half-assed, at best, and where do they
get writers/reporters today?

**This would be a pot, kettle, balck kind of moment. Your half-arsed
comments are now entering into legend. Shall we review them?


They can't provide a link to go directly

to the manufacturers' products that they report on, but instead only
provide a link so you can go look it up yourself.

http://www.osram.com/osram_com/News...110825_Parathom_Pro_Classic_A75_Advanced.html

This fuzzy image looks like an artist created it.. it might be
expected that the actual construction materials are clear.. I just
hope it's not glass, because every simpleton already knows that glass
production is destroying the planet.
It sorta looks like a hemisphere of LEDs and a reflector/diffuser
over it. There doesn't appear to be any obtrusive heat sinking like
the flying saucer shapes I've seen in the stores lately.
There you have it.. these lights will pay for themselves. Step right
up, folks.
This here is a new Dimension.

The listed efficiency of a 75W incandescent is shown as Zero.

**No, it is not. Read the cite again. CAREFULLY. Don't try to interpret what
is written.

.. but

it's actually 100% or more when it's turned off, and it might only
cost $1 (although I regularly see them for lower prices).

**Sheer idiocy.

So, maybe this is the root issue, that people today are too GD lazy
to turn off lights when they're not being used (doesn't matter that
the govt has strongly recommended it, for years now).

If the efficiency of a 75W IC lamp is zero,

**The efficiency of a 75 Watt IC almps is NOT zero. It is something like 2%
~ 5%.


then watt about a 100W..

minus 25?
It's already been established that the heating value (of the mostly
infrared light) from IC lamps will reduce home heating system loads.

**They MIGHT. In Winter AND if the lamps are placed floor level and/or if
there are some air circulation systems in place. Either way, using IC lamps
for heating is hit and miss, at best. Heat pumps are dramatically more
efficient. By as much as 400%, in fact.

The Chinese (government-backed) factories could likely tool up within
a couple of weeks to closely copy this lamp, or a looky-like the
same, and flood the market.

Since few people are aware of the disclaimer that comes with nearly
every poduct produced today (and for recent decades)..
"Specifications subject to change".

Might wanna get the extended warranty on these new lights.. the
"limited" package warranty might look like swiss cheese.

One of my curiosities will be how tolerant the new LED lamps will be
of line voltage spikes/surges, regardless of what the predicted
lifetimes are.

**Any sensible designer takes such things into account. My halogen
downlights are operated via similar technology to that which drives LEDs.
They're reasonably well protected against damage.

 

[Trevor Wilson]

**Here is a photo of the two torches from my previous posting:

http://s1112.photobucket.com/albums/k497/Zaphod1000/

Look at the size difference.

**The halogen torch is on the left.