Slashdot Mirror


Light Bulb Replacements

LoveOO writes Boston.com has a story about three companies which are trying to replace the Light bulb. I say it's about time and what about hydrogen powered vehicles? Two things that annoy me are filling the gas tank and changing light bulbs. It's time we did alot less of both."

60 of 976 comments (clear)

  1. 'Cause.. by CausticWindow · · Score: 4, Funny

    Filling the gas tank is so much worse than filling the hydrogen tank?

    Je ne comprende pas.

    --
    How small a thought it takes to fill a whole life
    1. Re:'Cause.. by glenmark · · Score: 5, Informative
      Hydrogen-powered vehicles are needed so we don't depend on fossil fuels (a limited resource), and to reduce pollution. You still gotta replace the batteries or fill the tank, tho. :)
      And guess what our primary source of hydrogen is right now: natural gas. More economical and energy efficient than extracting it from water via electrolysis. Either way, it all goes back to traditional energy sources.
      --
      *** Quantum Mechanics: The Dreams of Which Stuff is Made ***
    2. Re:'Cause.. by s20451 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Hydrogen is not that explosive. In many ways a hydrogen powered vehicle would be safer than a gasoline powered vehicle. Since hydrogen is a gas, it tends not to stick around in one place once it leaks. It also tends to be less volatile than gasoline. Check out this page.

      Most people assume that hydrogen is disproportionately dangerous because of the Hindenburg disaster. The fact is that if gasoline powered engines were invented today, gasoline is volatile enough that they would be considered too unsafe to be approved.

      --
      Toronto-area transit rider? Rate your ride.
    3. Re:'Cause.. by toasted_calamari · · Score: 5, Informative

      Whats even wrose is when some idoit with a SUV full of hydrogen plows info a parked car and turns downtown into a mushroom cloud.

      that probably wouldn't happen. Contrary to popular belief, Hydrogen isn't very dangerous. Although it is extremely flammable, A hydrogen fire will be extremely short lived and burn straight up as the hydrogen rises rapidly, as opposed to a gasolene fire, which will burn for a comparativly long time and flows over the ground.

      additionally, most hydrogen fuel cell designs involve storing the hydrogen in some stable form, such as chemically bound to a metal compound. When a small electric current is run across the metal, the hydrogen is released in small amounts. Its not like the back of your SUV would have a huge compressed hydrogen tank in it.

      Im sure the subject of the hidenburg (sp?) will occur in this thread, so i should probably mention that recent studies on that explosion point to the cause of the huge red fire being not the hydrogen itself, but the skin of the airship which was coated with an extremely flammable material chemically similar to solid rocket fuel. Witnesses at the scene reported seeing a large red flame erupt from the airship. Hydrogen burns with an almost invisible blue flame, and would have exploded above the airship as the hydrogen escaped. It is likely that the fire was started when an electrical discharge ignited the skin of the airship, and that the hydrogen had little to do with the outcome, i.e, a similar result would have occured if helium was used instead.

    4. Re:'Cause.. by xdroop · · Score: 5, Informative

      Hydrogen was innocent in the Hindenburg disaster. The root cause of the explosion was static electricity arcing off the panels of the blimp, which had been coated with a substance NASA uses as propellant in space shuttle solid rocket boosters.

      --
      you should read everything on the internet as if it had "but I'm probably talking out of my ass" appended to it.
    5. Re:'Cause.. by Rick_T · · Score: 4, Informative

      > Hydrogen is not that explosive, maybe, but it is
      > highly flammable.

      It's not the flammability that's the hazard associated with pressurized gas cylinders (like hydrogen). It's the pressure. Heck, a *helium* cylinder can kill you if mishandled.

      --
      -- Rick
    6. Re:'Cause.. by orzetto · · Score: 5, Informative

      Hydrogen cannot explode in a "mushroom cloud", since that is typical of H-bombs, that require an A-bomb as a detonator. Now, if the other car had an A-bomb onboard, this might have a far-fetched possibility to happen.

      However H2 is pretty safe. It is ultralight, which means that, if it has a clean path to the sky, it will not accumulate as gasoline fumes; that's why nobody on the Hindenburg died because of hydrogen (Yeah, nobody). Some were killed by the explosion in the diesel engines, others were so scared by the flames above them that they jumped out of the gondola - crashing in the ground 100 meters below, but all those who remained in the gondola survived the crash landing. That's because the hydrogen flames went straight upwards, while in a gasoline fire you have liquid gasoline running all over the place.

      The real safety issue with H2 is that it fires very easily. You need a spark to ignite a mixture of air and methane, while static electricity is enough for hydrogen and air. Normal atmosphere in a windy day is normally enough. That's sometimes actually a Good Thing, because hydrogen is lit way before it can accumulate in large quantities.

      --
      Victims of 9/11: <3000. Traffic in the US: >30,000/y
    7. Re:'Cause.. by John+Biggabooty · · Score: 5, Funny

      If they replaced the bulbs for the lighted signs on the sides of the Goodyear Blimp with leds, would we call it a Led Zeppelin?

      --
      That's Bigboo TAY! TAY!
    8. Re:'Cause.. by einer · · Score: 4, Insightful

      but... he's saying that you have to burn stuff that produces carbon monoxide... to produce the hydrogen.

      So. Yeah. Producing (and therefore consuming) hydrogen adds to the net level of CO.

    9. Re:'Cause.. by quasi_steller · · Score: 4, Informative

      You don't "burn" the hydrogen in a hydrogen powered car, and you don't "burn" the natural gas to produce hydrogen. Natural gas is composed of hydrocarbons (natural gas consists of only hydrogen and carbon atoms; granted it is probably not pure, so there might be trace elements in there). The natural gas is put through a chemical process to extract the hydrogen. This chemical process need not produce CO. (In fact burning hydrocarbons only produces CO when incomplete combustion takes place--the chemical reaction doesn't complete properly in an internal combustion engine. Any factory that produces hydrogen doesn't need to produce CO, if it does, it can capture that CO and combine it with O to produce CO2 which is much safer on the enviroment)

      --
      ...interesting if true.
    10. Re:'Cause.. by Thing+1 · · Score: 4, Informative
      Here's a car that beats Porsches and Ferraris -- and should cost somewhere in between them. It goes 0-60 in 4.1 seconds, and gets the equivalent of 70 mpg.

      An article on it beating the other cards is here.

      --
      I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
  2. Brilliant Idea! by jhendow · · Score: 5, Funny

    But if we get rid of the lightbulb what will appear over my head next time of think of something?

    1. Re:Brilliant Idea! by TonyMillion · · Score: 4, Funny

      more importantly,

      what happened to people who had amazing ideas BEFORE lightbulbs were invented?

    2. Re:Brilliant Idea! by Gzip+Christ · · Score: 5, Funny
      But if we get rid of the lightbulb what will appear over my head next time of think of something?
      Darl McBride holding a cease and decist order for thinking about "his" intellectual property.
    3. Re:Brilliant Idea! by Verteiron · · Score: 5, Funny

      The lamp lit. And before there were lamps, the fire lit.

      And the fire lighting was the first bright idea.

      --
      End of lesson. You may press the button.
    4. Re:Brilliant Idea! by macdaddy357 · · Score: 4, Funny

      All those how many _______ does it take to screw in a light bulb jokes would be gone, too. Could comedy survive without them?

      --
      How ya like dat?
    5. Re:Brilliant Idea! by cK-Gunslinger · · Score: 4, Funny

      Exactly! I also wonder if someone had the original idea for Post-it Notes, but didn't have anything to jot it down on...

  3. Solution. by secondsun · · Score: 4, Funny

    Two things that annoy me are filling the gas tank and changing light bulbs. It's time we did alot less of both.

    Do them both at the same time, sooner or later you won't have to do either ever again.

    --
    There is nothing wrong with being gay. It's getting caught where the trouble lies.
  4. Doesn't take much time... by JohnGrahamCumming · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Two things that annoy me are filling the gas tank and changing light bulbs

    OK. So how much time are you spending changing light bulbs per year? And was the total time spent submitting this news story longer?

    To be honest I don't think that changing light bulbs is a major household time sink. (Different story of course for people who deal with traffic lights, and hence the move to LEDs). I must spend minutes per year changing light bulbs, I waste far more time replying to /. articles complaining about people worrying about optimizing the wrong sort of time wasting activities. Oh wait...

    John.

    1. Re:Doesn't take much time... by marsu_k · · Score: 5, Insightful

      > OK. So how much time are you spending changing light bulbs per year?

      Not much. But if regular bulbs everywhere would be replaced by less energy-consuming alternatives... there's a point to it, especially when you concider the recent news.

    2. Re:Doesn't take much time... by mboedick · · Score: 5, Interesting

      It also decreases lightbulb sales. It's just like many other things (consumer electronics, computer parts, shoes, clothes, etc.) that are basically designed to break after a certain amount of time.

      Before this mentality took over in the 1950's, things were made to last forever and had a really sturdy, well-crafted feel to them. A lot of stuff from this period still works perfectly today.

  5. Color.... by c_jonescc · · Score: 4, Informative

    Last I looked into white LEDs there was still a color problem. The light comes out just a bit too blue. At the time, it was impossible to get a truer white in a single 'bulb'.

    --
    Getting diabetes AND salmonella would be a bad weekend.
    1. Re:Color.... by dprice · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Last I looked into white LEDs there was still a color problem. The light comes out just a bit too blue. At the time, it was impossible to get a truer white in a single 'bulb'.

      I bought an LED desk lamp that has an array of about 100 LEDs. To get around the bluish color problem, about a third of the LEDs are orange to make the light warmer colored. Unfortunately it is still not quite like incandescents or flourescents. The light from the lamp still makes skin tones look sickly bluish gray. It's very bright for only using 5 Watts. I believe that flourescent lights are still more efficient, but there is a certain coolness factor of having an LED lamp.

      If anyone is interested, here is a link to the PDF of the GALAXe LED desk lamp

    2. Re:Color.... by iabervon · · Score: 4, Informative

      The real issue with the color output from LEDs is not that the color is wrong (since you can change that by changing the portions of different color output), but that they produce thin lines of spectrum, rather than the black body curves that incandescents produce. While your eyes can't tell the difference directly (since you only have three different colors of perception), surfaces respond differently to different wavelengths in such a way that light that looks the same to you makes surfaces look different. This means that LED light looks artificial in a way that incandescent light does not.

      The only way of getting a wide spectrum of light is to have an object glow with heat, where the energy released per photon varies chaotically, rather than using a process that outputs individual photons which will only produce light at the wavelengths that correspond to energy gaps. Glowing with heat is lower efficiency than emitting individual photons.

      I suspect that LEDs will become more popular in step with paint formulas that look good (and look right) under LED light, and also with people coming to expect LED light more.

  6. Heard of Flourescence? by jeffmeden · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I don't know about you, but im realizing the same benefits as they claim you get from LEDs, but my bulbs cost a whopping $2 for a lamp bulb and $3 for a fixture bulb. Flourescent! Cheap, no heat, hard(er) to break. Think about it.

    Jeff

    1. Re:Heard of Flourescence? by jandrese · · Score: 4, Informative

      The problem with the flourescents on the market right now is size. All of the screw in varieties have big fat bases that interfere with a lot of lamp designs. The 75 watt equivelent and higher bulbs are also longer than traditioanl light bulbs, which causes problems in globe lamps and anything else where the bulb must fit into a small area.

      On the other hand, the modern bulbs are really good about lighting up right away, not flickering, and not dying prematurely--hopefully (unlike some of the early screw type flourescents).

      One word of advice from me to Slashdot: Don't buy the "Lights of America" brand, they're nothing but trouble.

      --

      I read the internet for the articles.
    2. Re:Heard of Flourescence? by TClevenger · · Score: 4, Informative
      One word of advice from me to Slashdot: Don't buy the "Lights of America" brand, they're nothing but trouble.

      Agreed. I bought 10 of them, and 5 were dead within 2 months. Most of the others are seeing serious discoloration around the base of the bulb. These are in open air, so I don't think the fixture is causing overheating. Stick with the better brands.

    3. Re:Heard of Flourescence? by DeadSea · · Score: 5, Informative
      I have also found flourescents that have the same form factor as the typical 60 watt bulb (but use only 15watts of power at the same brightness).

      In the last few years, several of my gripes about flourescents are no more:

      1. Upfront Cost: They now cost very little, they have come down from $20 per bulb to $2 per bulb. You no longer have to make an "investment" to go flourescent.
      2. Size: They used to be bigger, They now fit everywhere a regular bulb fits.
      3. Speed of Light: Old flourescents often tooks several seconds to turn on and up to 15 minutes to get to full brightness. Newer ones come on almost instantaneously (300ms maybe) and are plenty bright right away. While they aren't on par yet, its good enough for me.
      There is still one area in which I don't use flourescents. Dimmable lights. That means they don't go in my living and dining rooms where I want to dim the lights for TV or a nice dinner. It makes it hard to use them with X10 as well, since all X10 is dimmable. There are some that are dimmable, but they tend to be more expensive and I haven't tried them.
  7. Patent abusing scum by 26199 · · Score: 4, Informative

    Well, I'm damn sure Color Kinetics isn't getting any of my money. From the article:

    The company holds 19 patents related to the control of LED lighting systems, and has filed for more than 100 additional patents. "We spend about a million dollars a year filing patents," says chief executive George Mueller. The company has two full-time patent lawyers in-house, and also works with the Boston firm of Wolf, Greenfield & Sacks.

    And:

    It'll be interesting to see whether Color Kinetics can exact a licensing fee from anyone who blends colored LEDs. Says Simms: "We haven't invested the fortune that we have in intellectual property without planning to defend it."

    I'm not going to rant about this, because you've all heard it before. So I'll just sit here and fume silently...

    1. Re:Patent abusing scum by EmagGeek · · Score: 4, Interesting

      "It'll be interesting to see whether Color Kinetics can exact a licensing fee from anyone who blends colored LEDs. Says Simms: "We haven't invested the fortune that we have in intellectual property without planning to defend it."

      No, they can't. The big outdoor big-screen TV's at the race track in Saratoga NY use this. One Red, one Green, and one Blue LED for each pixel. Been done, prior art, now go crawl back into the hole from which you came, you dirty low-life patent weasel :)

    2. Re:Patent abusing scum by alkali · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Unclear to me how this constitutes patent abuse. If someone is investing major resources in R&D and coming up with nonobvious inventions, it seems entirely proper for that person to seek patent protection.

    3. Re:Patent abusing scum by bigpat · · Score: 4, Interesting

      "The company holds 19 patents related to the control of LED lighting systems, and has filed for more than 100 additional patents."

      How is controlling an LED lighting system any different than controlling a regular lighting system? The answer is that it is not. This company is a patent scammer. I think they are using a tried an true formula:

      1) hear about new technology
      2) figure out what existing methods are analogous in new technology (real complicated stuff like oh they emit light too so how about we invent special "LED switches")
      3) Patent said "novel" invention.
      4) Threaten to sue all the real companies that actually want to make stuff and sell it.
      5) profit.

  8. Hyrdogen... by BJZQ8 · · Score: 5, Informative

    Hyrdrogen "clean" fuel is a misnomer...since the hydrogen you get from one of these California H2 stations is made from natural gas, and not electrolysis. You end up using fossil fuels just the same. Maybe some day we can switch to from-water hydrogen...but where are we going to get those petawatts of electricity to do that? Nuclear power? We can't agree on a place to get rid of our waste. Solar? It takes energy to produce those acres of panels, and you are displacing wildlife in the process. Microwave from satellites? Just wait until that satellite malfunctions and carves a 500-foot-wide trench through Manhattan. There is no "clean" solution here.

  9. Use Compact Flourescents for Lighting! by tbmaddux · · Score: 4, Informative
    Compact flourescent bulbs produce the same light level (in lumens) and consume 25% of the power (in watts). They also last tens of thousands of hours as opposed to hundreds of hours. And you can buy them today for 1/10th the price quoted by John Fan in the original article.

    LEDs have their places where you need something bright and compact that can be turned on and off quickly. I like the new LED flashlights, brake lights, and street lights. But use flourescents for lighting, please, and use them today.

    --
    Can't you see that everyone is buying station wagons?
  10. The thing is... by Sheetrock · · Score: 4, Insightful
    If you do the math, the regular old light bulb is still most efficient overall when compared to fluorescents or neobulbs. The amount of energy, resources, and pollution that goes into something has to be taken into account if you're really looking at reducing your impact on the environment.

    Additionally, you can't go wrong with nuclear power if you're looking at least polluting power sources. Many people look at solar as if its some sort of panacea, but the amount of energy that goes into making a tile is far more than you'll ever get out of it -- turns out that at the end of the day the thing everybody's been complaining about is the best option because all the pollution is contained.

    --

    Try not. Do or do not, there is no try.
    -- Dr. Spock, stardate 2822-3.




    1. Re:The thing is... by tyrann98 · · Score: 4, Informative

      From an environmental perspective and from an economic perspective compact fluorescents win out. While their initial cost may be higher, they use only 25% of the electricity of an incandescent light bulb and last ten times as long. Plus, the incandescent puts out much more heat leading to increased air conditioning load.

      I recently did some calculations to see if save any money. Quebec already has one of the lowest electricity costs in North America at 5.97 cents per kWhr (above 30kWh per day). People in other places save even more!


      Compact Fluorescent (10000 hr, 23 W)
      ===================
      Initial bulb $10 + Electricity $13.73 = $23.73

      Incandescent Light Bulb (1000hr, 100W)
      =======================
      10 bulbs $5 + Electricity $59.70 = $64.70


      Plus, you save on the environmental cost of the packaging. I have also read that although CFL contain mercury, more mercury is released due to coal burning than for the equivalent 10 incandescent light bulbs.

      http://www.nema.org/lamprecycle/epafactsheet-cfl .p df

  11. The problem is cost by toddestan · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The thing is, no matter how cheap they make LED lightbulbs, I doubt they'll ever get as cheap as the incandescent bulb, as the incandescent bulb is just plain out cheaper to make as it is much more simple. Therefore, the Wal-mart crowds will still buy the standard bulbs for years to come.

    What they should do if they want people to adopt these new bulbs is make it so all lightbulb packages have to display the average cost of the lightbulb over its lifetime. People may see that the LED or flourescent lights sitting on the shelf right now cost a lot more and don't buy them, but I bet they will when they see on the box that the bulb over it's lifetime costs a fraction as much in electricity used.

  12. Electrical issues by jgerry · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I have always suspected that many electrical issues, including frequently blown light bulbs, are caused by dirty power. What I really want isn't better light bulbs, it's better power. Everything would operate better and/or longer if the power coming out of the sockets wasn't so random and dirty. Ever look at a standard 120V AC on an oscilliscope? Nasty.

    Does anyone know of a whole-house solution for providing clean, voltage-regulated power to an entire house? I probably have $50K+ of computers, music equipment, home theatre, etc, and all of it would be better off with clean power.

    We have whole-house solutions for water filtering, air filtering, so where's my whole-house solution for clean power (and maybe even whole-house UPS?)

    1. Re:Electrical issues by Malc · · Score: 4, Interesting

      You'll have to filter every outlet. You don't want your microwave oven messing up your clean power supply now, do you? Personally, I would prefer to see a jump to 240V as it seems more robust. I never once saw the lights go dim when in the UK due to hair dryer or iron or vacuum cleaner - then again, they have more stringent wiring requirements and separate ring mains for everything.

  13. LED traffic signals by frostyboy · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I must say that Color Kinetics gear rocks. Their color-mixing LED arrays not only look cool, but are a neat toy to program for fancy light shows.

    Also on the LED front, the city where I currently reside (champaign, IL) recently passed funding and a proposal to replace all of the old incandescent traffic signals with LED arrays. Should cost a lot of money originally, but will save big on electricity bills in the long run. Here is an interesing EPA EnergyStar paper talking about the potential energy savings that cities can get from this technology -- 1 Million kWh and nearly $70,000 per year per 100 intersections! Also, LED based traffic signals are (IMHO) easier to see both at night and during the day.

    One complaint from a study is that the green traffic lights are actually too bright.

    worlds oldest currently operating college webcam
    --
    Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my disk????
  14. How many Slashdotters does it take... by bazik · · Score: 4, Funny

    How many Slashdotters does it take to change a light bulb?

    1 to change the light bulb and to post that the light bulb has been changed 14 to share similar experiences of changing light bulbs and how the light bulb could have been changed differently 7 to caution about the dangers of changing light bulbs 27 to point out spelling/grammar errors in posts about changing light bulbs 53 to flame the spell checkers 41 to correct spelling/grammar flames 6 to argue over whether it's "lightbulb" or "light bulb" ... another 6 to condemn those 6 as anal-retentive 2 industry professionals to inform the group that the proper term is "lamp" 15 know-it-alls who claim *they* were in the industry, and that "light bulb" is perfectly correct 156 to email the participant's ISPs complaining that they are in violation of their "acceptable use policy" 109 to post that this forum is not about light bulbs and to please take this discussion to a lightbulb forum 203 to demand that cross posting to hardware forum, off-topic forum, and lightbulb forum about changing light bulbs be stopped 111 to defend the posting to this forum saying that we all use light bulbs and therefore the posts *are* relevant to this forum 306 to debate which method of changing light bulbs is superior, where to buy the best light bulbs, what brand of light bulbs work best for this technique and what brands are faulty 27 to post URL's where one can see examples of different light bulbs 14 to post that the URL's were posted incorrectly and then post the corrected URL's 3 to post about links they found from the URL's that are relevant to this group which makes light bulbs relevant to this group 33 to link all posts to date, quote them in their entirety including all headers and signatures, and add "Me too" 12 to post to the group that they will no longer post because they cannot handle the light bulb controversy 19 to quote the "Me too's" to say "Me three" 4 to suggest that posters request the light bulb FAQ 44 to ask what is a "FAQ" 4 to say "didn't we go through this already a short time ago?" 143 to say "do a Google search on light bulbs before posting questions about light bulbs", 43 to post "In Soviet Russia we dont change light bulbs", 67 to reply "You insensitive clod, I prefer candles!" and 1 forum lurker to respond to the original post 6 months from now and start it all over again

    --


    --
    One by one the penguins steal my sanity...
    1. Re:How many Slashdotters does it take... by WebMasterJoe · · Score: 5, Funny

      You forgot one more slashdotter to preview the post, and realize that there was no formatting. I probably would have given you a +1 mod, but then I considered giving a -1 for such an eyestrain, now I've finally settled on responding to let you know why you're not getting modded up (at least by me).

      --
      I really hate signatures, but go to my website.
  15. Re:Hydrogen - The future of Buzzword Energy by EmagGeek · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Ahh, good point, but you ahve to admit that it DOES HELP to move the combustion phase farther up the chain - because a power company can use oil or coal much more efficiently than your car can. A gas-fired power plant that produces hydrogen will probably be 5 or so times more efficient than your car is at extracting energy from fuel.

  16. Cleaner Production by nurb432 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The production of H2 in a plant is much cleaner then what you would think. In a controlled large scale system, you can make it pretty efficient and as a result run relatively cleaner.

    Not saying its 100% clean, but its a net gain of 'clean', when you take into account the filth cars spew out using carbon based fuels directly..

    And no, I'm not a tree hugger.. I LOVE my car.. but I also realize what it spits out the back end due to its fuel..

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  17. Re:Mousetrap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    They built a better mousetrap back in the late 50's. The device was very good at killing mice, somewhere in the neighborhood of the high 90 percent. Anyway, the problem ended up being price. The improved mousetrap cost 3 times more than the old standard version. So when the new and improved mouse trap caught a mouse, and they often did, the housewife was faced with the dilemma of either prying the dead mouse body from the trap, or throwing the whole thing away. Long story short, they weren't about to touch the dead mouse body. And, they must have felt that at three times the price, they couldn't afford to keep buying the improved mouse trap and throwing it away. So after becoming an instant market success, the improved mouse trap flopped. Lessons from business marketing 101.

  18. Lightbulb replacements discouraged by Jeff+Archambeault · · Score: 5, Interesting

    My father still tells the tale of the paint he saw in the '50-'60's that would eliminate light bulbs. I believe it was low voltage, so you just paint a surface, attach an electode (probably paint-over an electrode or 2 already anchored to the wall) and get as much light as needed with different sized surfaces. This way, entire ceilings or small spots could be used as illuminating sources. Liquid LED?

    I'm sure GE had something to do with the product never seeing the "light of day" (um...yeah).

    --

    Plus ca change, plus c'est les memes choses.

  19. Also... by jridley · · Score: 4, Informative

    Fluorescent bulbs contain mercury, and are rarely disposed of properly. Here's a stat I just found on the web (so it must be true) ...discarded [fluorescent] bulbs release approximately 2-4 tons of mercury per year in the United States...

    (this is just the ones that are improperly disposed of and break)

  20. Re:Terrible color and they often don't fit. by rainwalker · · Score: 5, Informative

    I don't know when the last time you bought a compact flourescent light is, but here in the year 2003 I know for sure that 2 of your 3 problems are solved.

    1. They often don't fit in a light fixture.

    I recently bought some GE compact flourescent bulbs for our kitchen, which were $8 for two "60W" bulbs. They are *exactly* the same size as the incadescents they are replacing, including the base, which is only ~1" in diameter, only draw 15W, and are ~15% brighter than a 60W incandescent.

    3. They make everyone look slightly green.

    I have no idea what you are talking about here. Our compact flourescent lights have a much more pleasing spectrum than the yellow incandescents, and are very close to the full-spectrum lights we use around the house.

    I don't use X10, and so can't answer to that, but please don't post outdated nonsense.

  21. Sunbeam by repetty · · Score: 4, Informative

    >> 3. They make everyone look slightly green

    Keep shopping.

    I, too, hated the funky color flourescent lights produced. Then, about a year ago, I discovered that Sunbeam sold screw-in flourescent lights that emit light indistinguishable from incandescents (to my pretty picky eyes).

    I originally bought them from Target but stopped by a few days ago for the first time in a long time and learned that the don't sell them anymore. Oh, the wonders of the American marketing machine.

    Not all flourscent lights are the same. Find the Sunbeams.

    --Richard

  22. Re:Hydrogen Power by MasonMcD · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I think one of the general enthusiasms regardless of the fact that it will still require fossil fuels, is that with a generation plant using fossil fuels, the effluent is restricted to one location. With proper scrubbers and whatnot, even with the same discharge, it beats the distributed polluting scheme of gas-burning cars.

  23. Re:Mousetrap by tomhudson · · Score: 5, Funny

    Plus, the cat was cheaper, almost 100% effective, made its' own replacements, and if it got run over, big deal, it was only a cat.

  24. Don't LEDs last forever? by jridley · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I've got a lot of pretty old LED stuff. I've never seen one burn out. From what I know of how they pump photons, I'm not sure how you would burn them out other than running them outside of spec.

    Why does the article say "lasts up to 10 times longer"? Are they figuring on the probability of losing them to surges or accidents? Or is there something I don't know about LEDs?

    1. Re:Don't LEDs last forever? by Idarubicin · · Score: 4, Informative
      I've got a lot of pretty old LED stuff. I've never seen one burn out. From what I know of how they pump photons, I'm not sure how you would burn them out other than running them outside of spec.

      LEDs will fade slowly with time, thought it's a very slow process for diodes operated at low levels.

      LEDs contain an interface between two semiconductor layers; it is around this interface that light is generated. Electrons crossing this interface can occasionally kick atoms back and forth over this boundary. Eventually, enough cross-contamination will occur to dim and then extinguish the LED. This does take a long time. Note also that this process is accelerated at high temperatures.

      --
      ~Idarubicin
  25. Re:Mousetrap by devphaeton · · Score: 5, Funny

    Actually, i find that the Sears 1/2hp ShopVac makes for some fun anti-rodent stakeouts. Set the cheese in the end of the intake hose, sit quietly and wait across the room holding the switch on the powerstrip.

    Vaccuum cleaners make good fly swatters too.

    Yes my parents had a party the day i was old enough to move out.

    --


    do() || do_not(); // try();
  26. Bike Lights by Ugodown · · Score: 4, Informative

    I've been looking at bike light lately and I must say that the LED ones are quite impressive. Only three LEDs can compare with a normal bike light bulb, and the new models coming out are going to have five. And the fact that the LED lights 'burn' for about 100 hrs where a bulb would go for about 3.5hrs, makes LED lights very, very attractive.

    --
    --- to swing on the spiral...
  27. The Real Deal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Ok the real deal is that Incandesents are a bad idea for a number of reasons: High power consumption, heat pollution(Remember what happened to the pearsons puppeteers?), frequent breakdown(by the way this offsets any energy savings from their production simplicity since even a florescent will outlast 5 or 6 and an LED could outlast 10 to 20). Note: In situations of unclean electricity or poor wiring the bult in control electronics in florescents helps mitigate the problems and they will outlast a incandescent by such a huge factor as to be not worth calculating. I had a socket that kept blowing bulbs every couple weeks from the surges when the switch was hit. I switched in a florescent and its been running for over a year and a half now.

    Florescents are your best bet stop gap and I hear that Ikea sells them for the best price available anywhere and they are consistently coming down in price everywhere.

    LED's are the Grail. They are extremely minimalist in raw resources( a transistor and a plastic shell that will outlast 5 or 6 FLORESCENTS), they beat even florescents in energy consuption by a factor of 4 or more, solid state so droppage or shock damage are not a factor. Color is easy to fix and as for price... Who here paid 10 large(this means $10,000USD in case your not in the know) for a laptop in 1993? Ok now how many shelled out $700 this year? LED's are Diodes just like the ones the computer industry has been perfecting for decades. The price will fall. Alot.

    Sidenote: All transistors and diodes produces photons as a byproduct Your computer is (depending on its transistor density, since the wavelength of the photons are dependent on the size of the transistor) currently pumping out microwave and radio energy. Since they are not optomized for this effect as LED's are they amount is reletively small and most is absorbed into the chips structure and converted to heat.

  28. Re:Nonsense? by angle_slam · · Score: 4, Informative
    Ask any photographer why digital cameras have special "flourescent light" settings and why film cameras often use a special filter for flourescent lights.

    Not quite true. Flourescent bulbs come in a variety of different color temperatures. Incandescent bulbs are typically around 2800 K. You can get flourescent bulbs at around 3000K, at 4100 K, and at 5000K (close to daylight, which is 5500K). There are also many specialty bulbs (such as Ott-Lite) that give "true color" from flourescent bulbs. It is practically impossible to get true color from incandescent bulbs.

  29. Re:Guys, this is history..! by usotsuki · · Score: 4, Informative

    Heh.

    I'm migrating from incandescent lights to small fluorescent light bulbs that screw into the same fixtures.

    A 3.5W bulb will light a closet.
    A 5W bulb will light a small room.
    A 15W bulb will light a living room.
    A 25W bulb will light a kitchen.

    Compare to 4-7W for a typical nightlight, 15W to light a typical closet 40W to light a small room, 60-75W to light a larger room, 75-100W to light one's kitchen, and that's about 20-80% power savings over incandescent lights. I've been doing this for almost 10 years now.

    -uso.

    --
    Dreams, dreams, don't doubt dreams, dreaming children's dreaming dreams. Sailor Moon SS
  30. this reminded me of a txt i saw on a bbs once by gordlea · · Score: 5, Funny

    The Dark Sucker Theory

    For years, it has been believed that electric bulbs emit light,
    but recent information has proved otherwise. Electric bulbs don't
    emit light; they suck dark. Thus, we call these bulbs Dark Suckers.
    The Dark Sucker Theory and the existence of dark suckers prove
    that dark has mass and is heavier than light.
    First, the basis of the Dark Sucker Theory is that electric bulbs
    suck dark. For example, take the Dark Sucker in the room you are in.
    There is much less dark right next to it than there is elsewhere. The
    larger the Dark Sucker, the greater its capacity to suck dark.
    Dark Suckers in the parking lot have a much greater capacity to suck
    dark than the ones in this room.
    So with all things, Dark Suckers don't last forever. Once they are
    full of dark, they can no longer suck. This is proven by the dark spot
    on a full Dark Sucker.
    A candle is a primitive Dark Sucker. A new candle has a white wick.
    You can see that after the first use, the wick turns black, representing
    all the dark that has been sucked into it. If you put a pencil next to
    the wick of an operating candle, it will turn black. This is because
    it got in the way of the dark flowing into the candle. One of the
    disadvantages of these primitive Dark Suckers is their limited range.
    There are also portable Dark Suckers. In these, the bulbs can't
    handle all the dark by themselves and must be aided by a Dark Storage
    Unit. When the Dark Storage Unit is full, it must be either emptied
    or replaced before the portable Dark Sucker can operate again.
    Dark has mass. When dark goes into a Dark Sucker, friction from
    the mass generates heat. Thus, it is not wise to touch an operating
    Dark Sucker. Candles present a special problem as the mass must travel
    into a solid wick instead of through clear glass. This generates a
    great amount of heat and therefore it's not wise to touch an operating
    candle.
    Also, dark is heavier than light. If you were to swim just below
    the surface of the lake, you would see a lot of light. If you were to
    slowly swim deeper and deeper, you would notice it getting darker and
    darker. When you get really deep, you would be in total darkness. This
    is because the heavier dark sinks to the bottom of the lake and the
    lighter light floats at the top. The is why it is called light.
    Finally, we must prove that dark is faster than light. If you were
    to stand in a lit room in front of a closed, dark closet, and slowly
    opened the closet door, you would see the light slowly enter the closet.
    But since dark is so fast, you would not be able to see the dark leave
    the closet.
    Next time you see an electric bulb, remember that it is a Dark Sucker.

    --

    Choose yer poison: Prophets or Profits

  31. Not exactly.... by raygundan · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I keep seeing people say this, but it just isn't true. The reason stuff from the 50's seems to be well-built and last forever is because the crap is already broken and gone. All that's left is the good stuff. In another 53 years, nobody will remember the $40 VCRs that died in two years. But there will be people hanging onto commercial video-editing decks that really were built to last. And everyone will run around saying things like "i wish they built things as well as they did back in 2003!"