Red Alert on Green Bulbs

[Clifford Heath]

MEGAMAN® employs AMALGAM in the creation of our lamps, an eco-friendlier
and safer alternative to liquid mercury. Prevents the release of toxic
mercury during the manufacturing process. Even if the lamp cracks,
mercury is not released in indoor areas making MEGAMAN® CFLs safer to
use. Reduces environment pollution.

I will comment on this one though. Amalgam (as used in fillings)
is basically "an alloy with a liquid metal". It forms when a
solid metal dissolves into the liquid. Just as all alloys have
physical properties very different from the individual metals,
so too do alloys; and there are as many different mercury amalgams
as there are alloys of, say, aluminium. Some are very stable,
such as the mercury/silver amalgam used in fillings, and prevent
the mercury being leached out. This clearly isn't what CFLs are
using, since the fluorescence relies on mercury vapour. So if
the lamp is catastrophically broken (the extra containment is
breached too), the mercury *will* escape. You'll note they don't
claim otherwise. Carefully written!

What I suspect their amalgam does is to allow the mercury to
condense and form an amalgam with a *very thin* layer of some
other metal *when the lamp is cold*, and evaporate from the
surface on heating (which would further slow the start time).
As long as the safety containment isn't breached while the lamp
is hot, that should dramatically reduce the hazard. There's no
doubt a patent that describes it in detail.

All up, I think that many of the objections raised in this thread
are true of early CFLs, but have largely been addressed by this
manufacturer, at least. I know nothing more about them, and so far,
haven't purchased any of their products, nor do I know whether
other manufacturers have similar features. I do believe I care
enough about the issues to make sure I buy CFLs with these features
however. They're clearly working hard to address real concerns.

Clifford Heath.

 

[Fran]

Utter RUBBISH. I though you had more sense.

This only applies to EXPENSIVE CFLs that have a covering 'bulb' over the tube.
This also reduces their efficiency.

Not greatly

Note that the efficiency of CFLs is commonly misrepresented as FIVE timesthat of
incandescents.

4-6 is the usual lumens per watt input calculus.

It is no such thing. The comparison is being made with Softone
(tm) bulbs instead of good old GLS types that most of us use. Compared toGLS,
CFL is only at best 4 x as efficient. Add the polymer outer and probably only 3 x
as good.

Defects are slow 'warm-up' time especially in cold conditions and short life
under short duration on/off conditions like the light in the loo or dunnyif you
prefer.

That hasn't been my experience. I've been tracking my use of my
consumables (including light bulbs) since the late 1990s. Even in the
areas you specify (the porch, toilet, garage, bathroom), the average
time for CFLs over the last four years I've been using them has been
157 weeks -- which compares pretty well with the 123 weeks for
incandescents. Moreover, incandescents have a 5-6% initial failure
rate. I used to buy them a dozen at a time, handle them very carefully
and store them for that inconvenient moment, but it was common for at
least one in the batch to not operate at all. That has never happened
with a CFL I've bought, yet.

Yes. I use them but intelligently. No-one should be FORCED to use them and the
general public don't understand they can't be dimmed either. This has already led
to several house fires. Luckily no-one has been killed by a CFL yet AFAIKbut it
will only take time.

But you have to look at the total picture. CFLs reduce per capita
energy demand and this in turn reduces emissions, not just of mercury
but much else that is toxic to humans. Incandescents are killing and
injuring people already, and have been for years. CFLs reduce this and
save money.

It's perfectly sensible policy to restrain people from injuring
others, especially if this can be done in a way that doesn't impose
any serious burden in cost or inconvenience. Admittedly, the move to
CFLs in Australia was effected by a conservartive government, but I
don't see that as a reason to oppose it.

An Orwellian step too far IMHO.

Hmmm ... You're insulting Orwell now


Fran

 

[Fran]

Utter RUBBISH. I though you had more sense.

This only applies to EXPENSIVE CFLs that have a covering 'bulb' over the tube.
This also reduces their efficiency.

Not greatly

Note that the efficiency of CFLs is commonly misrepresented as FIVE times that of
incandescents.

4-6 is the usual lumens per watt input calculus.

It is no such thing. The comparison is being made with Softone
(tm) bulbs instead of good old GLS types that most of us use. Compared to GLS,
CFL is only at best 4 x as efficient. Add the polymer outer and probably only 3 x
as good.

Defects are slow 'warm-up' time especially in cold conditions and short life
under short duration on/off conditions like the light in the loo or dunny if you
prefer.

That hasn't been my experience. I've been tracking my use of my
consumables (including light bulbs) since the late 1990s. Even in the
areas you specify (the porch, toilet, garage, bathroom), the average
time for CFLs over the last four years I've been using them has been
157 weeks -- which compares pretty well with the 123 weeks for
incandescents. Moreover, incandescents have a 5-6% initial failure
rate. I used to buy them a dozen at a time, handle them very carefully
and store them for that inconvenient moment, but it was common for at
least one in the batch to not operate at all. That has never happened
with a CFL I've bought, yet.

Yes. I use them but intelligently. No-one should be FORCED to use them and the
general public don't understand they can't be dimmed either. This has already led
to several house fires. Luckily no-one has been killed by a CFL yet AFAIK but it
will only take time.

But you have to look at the total picture. CFLs reduce per capita
energy demand and this in turn reduces emissions, not just of mercury
but much else that is toxic to humans. Incandescents are killing and
injuring people already, and have been for years. CFLs reduce this and
save money.

It's perfectly sensible policy to restrain people from injuring
others, especially if this can be done in a way that doesn't impose
any serious burden in cost or inconvenience. Admittedly, the move to
CFLs in Australia was effected by a conservartive government, but I
don't see that as a reason to oppose it.

An Orwellian step too far IMHO.

Hmmm ... You're insulting Orwell now


Fran

 

[Phil Allison]

"Fran"


That hasn't been my experience.


** Your alleged " experience " is not a valid point.

The collective experiences of many others outweigh it totally.


CFLs reduce per capita
energy demand and this in turn reduces emissions,


** Massive false assumption.

A switch using CFLs in domestic premises will not reduce coal consumption in
Australia one bit.


Incandescents are killing and
injuring people already, and have been for years.


** Totally silly claim.



....... Phil

 

[F Murtz]

Not greatly



4-6 is the usual lumens per watt input calculus.


That hasn't been my experience. I've been tracking my use of my
consumables (including light bulbs) since the late 1990s. Even in the
areas you specify (the porch, toilet, garage, bathroom), the average
time for CFLs over the last four years I've been using them has been
157 weeks -- which compares pretty well with the 123 weeks for
incandescents. Moreover, incandescents have a 5-6% initial failure
rate. I used to buy them a dozen at a time, handle them very carefully
and store them for that inconvenient moment, but it was common for at
least one in the batch to not operate at all. That has never happened
with a CFL I've bought, yet.


But you have to look at the total picture. CFLs reduce per capita
energy demand and this in turn reduces emissions, not just of mercury
but much else that is toxic to humans. Incandescents are killing and
injuring people already, and have been for years.

I give in, how?
Somebody been eating them?

CFLs reduce this and

 

[Alan Rutlidge]

" Fran is a FUCKING LIAR "

** Two more BLATANT LIES !!!

** Make it three BLATANT LIES !!!
Fran is nothing short of a CRIMINAL PSYCHOPATH.

Likely posting from the Green Ward of some mental hospital.




.... Phil

Yeah, well the last comment kind of sums up where you should be Philthy.
Your psycho suggestions of stabbing Fran clearly indicate your twisted
outlook and state of extremely poor mental health.
In other words - you are one sick puppy.

 

[Alan Rutlidge]

Mr.T wrote


Or just ensure that no politician gets any say what so ever on anything
you do.



No politician controls mine.


Corse you dont do anything like that yourself, eh ?



Nothing like the truth, actually.


Corse thats nothing like black and white, eh ?



Mindlessly silly. That stuff happens regardless.

And hardly any of it is done by scientists anyway.



Corse thats nothing like black and white, eh ?


Corse thats nothing like black and white, eh ?

ROFLMAO
Just check out all the pre-programmed RodBot responses.
I wonder how many times the pathetic RodBot has used exactly the same
automatically generated phrases over and over again?
It's like listening to a recording. Like a Pavlov's dog, ring the bell and
he comes a barking with the usual mindless drivel. Sigh........

 

[Fran]

I give in, how?
Somebody been eating them?

It was a response in kind to Grahame's comment about CFls not killing
anyone yet ...

If you're going to affect ignorance about what I meant, even though
you read the passage, then I'm not interested.

Fran

 

[Fran]

Yeah, well the last comment kind of sums up where you should be Philthy.
Your psycho suggestions of stabbing Fran clearly indicate your twisted
outlook and state of extremely poor mental health.
In other words - you are one sick puppy

The most fanatical sections of the anti-environmental fringe often
lend uis an insight into the misanthropy that taints the whole
movement for business as usual.

Most of his fellow travellers would be shocked, but in the end, what
they are saying is that they are relaxed about jeopardising the
capacity of the biosphere to sustain human wellbeing, which must, at
best, fatally prejudice the wellbeing of tens of millions of people.
Phil, in suggesting I commit mass murder and then suicide or suffer
murder, is just taking their ethics to a logical conclusion.

Fran

 

[Rod Speed]

Some terminal fuckwit that got the bums rush from the
biggest sheltered workshop in the entire fucking country,
Alan Rutlidge desperately attempted to bullshit and lie
its way out of its predicament and fooled absolutely
no one at all, as always.

 

[kreed]

"Fran"

That hasn't been my experience.

** Your alleged " experience "  is not a valid point.

The collective experiences of many others outweigh it totally.

CFLs reduce per capita
energy demand and this in turn reduces emissions,

** Massive false assumption.

A switch using CFLs in domestic premises will not reduce coal consumptionin
Australia one bit.

Incandescents are killing and
injuring people already, and have been for years.

**  Totally silly claim.

......   Phil

Unbelievably silly claim.


I would strongly suggest that the incandescent light bulb has SAVED,
prolonged and enriched countless millions of lives since it was first
invented, and brought light to many places that were impossible
before.

Apart from removing the obvious fire hazard of illuminating with
flames, whether it be by candle, gas, oil, kerosine or wood, its
allowed safe lighting (that doesn't consume oxygen or create soot
where its used) in many dangerous areas where flames are a definite no-
no or just not possible to be used. (operating theatres, aircraft,
space ships, laboratories, food manufacturing, areas where there are
explosives or other potentially unstable/dangerous materials being
made or stored - factories where there is fine dust like granaries
(explosion hazard) places where flammable liquids/gases are stored or
refined).

Other applications i can think of where it directly helps save lives -
portable search and rescue gear such as portable high power torches,
searchlights, are hard to imagine being practical without the
incandescent light bulb - even now.

While someone who knows a bit more about it might like to correct me,
The overhead surgical lamps used in operating theatres would surely
be incandescent or quartz halogen (same thing).

----------------------------------------


How are incandescent bulbs killing people ?

Only ways I can think of is via electrocution, such as using a NAKED /
EXPOSED mains powered bulb as illumination to work on a car, on a tin
roof etc, the bulb breaking and the "active" live filament stem coming
into contact with the car body / roof etc. and making it "live".
(anyone doing this is just asking for trouble)

A metal car body would be particularly lethal under this scenario, as
the tyres being rubber would insulate, and the only path to ground
would be through whoever is standing on the ground (terra firma) and
touching the car body.

Alternately someone could step on it, crush it and contact the live
filament stem that way, or try and remove a smashed bulb from a light
socket without the power being off.
(this could be hard to determine in a situation where a bulb is on a 2
way switch arrangement)


These problems can be cured by simply using a safe enclosure (such as
an automotive inspection lamp housing) for the bulb and an ELCB
(safety switch).

I will admit a CFL would be a lot safer in these conditions, as long
as the plastic base isnt broken (as there are high DC voltages inside)


The other scenarios are physical injuries, glass cuts etc, but I don't
see that as relevant as just about any seemingly "innocent" everyday
object in the average home can kill or injure when used in the wrong
way, or in the hands of a dickhead.


About the only way to 100% solve this problem is lock the dickhead in
a padded rubber room. this could also have the pleasant side effect of
making a lot of society's problems vanish.

 

[kreed]

I recall reading it in a general piece on the conversion from
incandescents, and the bulbs themselves don't feel cold and glass like
in the way incandescents did.

And really, why would you use glass when you can use a polymer?

More on CFLs

|||
CFLs are lauded by environmentalists because they require far less
electrical power than their incandescent counterparts. A 26-watt CFL
bulb produces the same lumens as a 100-watt incandescent bulb.
Assuming that you keep one of those bulbs aglow for six hours a day,
switching to a CFL will save you 126 kilowatt-hours of electricity per
year, which translates to 170 pounds of carbon dioxide emissions on
average. Now, how many bulbs do you have in your house? Twenty?
Thirty? Replace them all and you could conceivably (assuming six-hour-
a-day use throughout the building) reduce your annual CO2 output by
upward of 2.3 metric tons—about 10 percent of the average American
household's annual carbon footprint.

...

The irony of CFLs is that they actually reduce overall mercury
emissions in the long run. Despite recent improvements in the
industry's technology, the burning of coal to produce electricity
emits roughly 0.023 milligrams of mercury per kilowatt-hour. Over a
year, then, using a 26-watt CFL in the average American home (where
half of the electricity comes from coal) will result in the emission
of 0.66 milligrams of mercury. For 100-watt incandescent bulbs, which
produce the identical amount of light, the figure is 2.52 milligrams.

Ah, but what if your CFL bulb shatters? First off, don't panic: Unless
you plan on picking up the glass with bare hands and then licking it,
you're almost certainly safe from harm.

Even a broken CFL bulb won't leak too much toxic metal. According to
the EPA, just 6.8 percent of the mercury in a CFL bulb—that's at most
0.34 milligrams—is released if it shatters. OSHA's permissible
exposure limit for mercury vapor in the workplace is 0.1 milligrams
per cubic meter, so you'd have to break that bulb in an extremely
cramped space for there to be an appreciable hazard.

http://www.slate.com/id/2183606/pagenum/all/#page_

|||

Fran

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

here are some facts on CFL vs other forms of lighting.

 

[kreed]

I give in, how?
Somebody been eating them?

Or using as a "marital aid" ??




Being forced to choose between the 2, I would ingest the materials of
an incandescent bulb over the CFL. (leaving out the factor like
physical cuts from glass, sharp metal edges etc.) without a doubt.

Except for the small amount of solder (which if not lead-free solder
could possibly lead to lead poisoning?) used on the base terminals
(which is also used on the CFL, as well as plenty inside), I cant
think of much in a household incandescent light bulb that could harm
your body or digestive system, it would just pass straight through.

some of the chemicals used in the CFL electronic components, Phosphor
(carcinogenic) in the tube etc are definitely not safe to ingest, and
are no doubt poisonous.

 

[Rod Speed]

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

here are some facts on CFL vs other forms of lighting.

Nothing like facts, mostly really gross errors instead.

Like

it turns out that dimmers are a far bigger issue that first imagined. What happens in houses where
dimmers are fitted? These must be removed completely, not simply set to maximum and left there.

That is just plain wrong and completely pig ignorant.

 

[Phil Allison]

"Rod Speed"

Nothing like facts, mostly really gross errors instead.

** There is not one "gross error".

Like

it turns out that dimmers are a far bigger issue that first imagined.
What happens in houses where
dimmers are fitted? These must be removed completely, not simply set to
maximum and left there.

That is just plain wrong...

** It is an absolute fact !!!!

Standard CFLs must NOT be used with a common triac dimmer EVEN when the
dimmer control knob is set to max position - or else they will quickly
burn out, catch fire and /or destroy the dimmer.

Reasons and copious evidence were supplied in the article.

Nothing like facts ever comes from you.

You bull-shitting fuckwit.




....... Phil

 

[John Tserkezis]

** It is an absolute fact !!!!

You read about it on the internet, so it must be true?

Standard CFLs must NOT be used with a common triac dimmer EVEN when the
dimmer control knob is set to max position - or else they will quickly
burn out, catch fire and /or destroy the dimmer.

Reasons and copious evidence were supplied in the article.

You have to read between the lines, but it makes the assumption that at full
setting, the dimmer triggers the triacs some time after the start of the
cycle. Enough to cause a problem. The only time I've seen that was on a very
early model dimmer decades ago (quite dimmer than a raw mechanical switch). I
haven't seen anything like that after that.

The article also implies that it's ALWAYS going to be a problem.

And that's not true. Even more so for switched on/off systems that don't
dim. They switch even earlier into the cycle.

At a stretch, for a sloppily designed traditional el-cheapo dimmer, (triac,
diac etc, plenty of examples on the 'net) it could be seen that even on 'full
brightness' there is some lag inherently built into the design that means the
triac would fire some time after the cycle start, more than it could anyway.
This has never been a problem with incandescents, in fact, derating them
like that would increase their life, with a minimal even almost unnoticeable
change in brightness.
However, the question is, would this cause enough of a problem with CFLs,
that they're going to burn out?

On some, perhaps. On others no difference at all. The proportion of one
over the other may be debatable, but that's not the point:

The problem I have with the article, is it paints with a huge brush of
horror and destruction across the board of ANY dimmer.

And that's most certainly not true.

Wouldn't have even thought of purely switched triacs. The lag there is
minimal, all that the low end of the voltage scale, and certainly of no
consequence.
In fact, the only problem that's brought up with triacs, is the turn-on
current of the device in question - and that's "fixable" buy throwing a higher
rated triac at it (if that's an option).
Either way, I don't see CFLs being a problem in this area anyway.

 

[Alan Rutlidge]

Some terminal fuckwit that got the bums rush from the
biggest sheltered workshop in the entire fucking country,
Alan Rutlidge desperately attempted to bullshit and lie
its way out of its predicament and fooled absolutely
no one at all, as always.

The RodBot - right on cue as predicted.

 

[Rod Speed]

Phil Allison wrote

Rod Speed wrote

There is not one "gross error".

You're lying, as always.

It is an absolute fact !!!!

You're lying, as always.

Standard CFLs must NOT be used with a common triac dimmer EVEN when the dimmer control knob is set to max
sition - or else they will quickly burn out, catch fire and /or destroy the dimmer.

Pity about the dimmable CFLs, you silly little pig ignorant pathological liar.

Reasons and copious evidence were supplied in the article.

Pity it completely ignored the dimmable CFLs, you silly little pig ignorant pathological liar.

<reams of your rabid psychotic raving flushed where it belongs>

 

[Rod Speed]

Some terminal fuckwit that got the bums rush from the
biggest sheltered workshop in the entire fucking country,
Alan Rutlidge desperately attempted to bullshit and lie
its way out of its predicament and fooled absolutely
no one at all, as always.

 

[kreed]

Phil Allison wrote


You're lying, as always.


You're lying, as always.


Pity about the dimmable CFLs, you silly little pig ignorant pathological liar.


Pity it completely ignored the dimmable CFLs, you silly little pig ignorant pathological liar.

<reams of your rabid psychotic raving flushed where it belongs>

Read this recent thread on "dimmable" CFL that is entitled:

"How many CFLs does it take to ...."

This is a quick link to the google archive
http://groups.google.com.au/group/aus.electronics/browse_frm/thread/fc5aaf7f9af82e49?hl=en#