Slashdot Mirror
Incandescent Bulbs Return To the Cutting Edge
lee1 writes "A law in the US that is due to take effect in 2012 mandates such tough efficiency
standards for lightbulbs that it has been assumed, until recently, that
it would kill off the incandescent bulb. Instead, the law has become a
case study of the way government regulation can inspire technical
innovation. For example, new incandescent technology from Philips that
seals the traditional filament inside a small capsule (which itself is
contained within the familiar bulb). The capsule has a coating that
reflects heat back to the filament, where it is partially converted to
light. The sophisticated ($5.00) bulbs are about 30% more efficient than the
old-fashioned ($0.25) kind, and should last about three times as long.
So they are less economical than compact fluorescents, but should emit a
more pleasing spectrum, not contain mercury, and, one supposes, present
the utility company with a more desirable power factor."
There was an article a month or so ago about how this guy used lasers to (I'm guessing) increase the surface area on the filament, thus increasing efficiency by something like 40%.
http://www.rochester.edu/news/show.php?id=3385
Maybe both can be used for a super-lightbulb?
-xed
and compact fluorescents are still more economical? why should we change then?
just because of a more pleasing spectrum? The "mercury" issue should be easily solved by disposing the bulbs in the correct way (i.e. recycle).
- Human knowledge belongs to the world
The moment I find these in stores I am IMMEDIATELY buying a few and replacing every bulb attached to a dimmer switch in my house. Ask anyone with a light dimmer who switched to CFL's, and this'll immediately be their biggest caveat with the tech.
I live in Edmonton Alberta, Canada where 8 months of winter is fairly common. Here our old incandescent bulbs have 100% efficiency because the heat generated does not go to waste :-)
I guess that would make them safer to eat.
Stick a halogen light bulb inside an incandescent light bulb. That's what they sell around here to replace incandescent bulbs once they're no longer sold. Nice spectrum, no warm-up time, longer lifetime than the incandescent bulb it replaces, 30% less energy used compared to the incandescent.
I hope anti-government deregulation fanatics read articles like this to understand the benefits of proper government regulation. Unfortunately, I suspect they'll find a way to misinterpret it, as all party zealots do.
flouro bulbs always break a lot quicker than conventional bulbs. I have found this in at least the last 6 houses I have lived in, so it's no good blaming it on the electrics as some had been newly rewired etc. How does this impact the 'energy savings'? I bet that it more than undoes the good done by using them! Never mind the cost!
If you live somewhere cold, the heat output is useful.
You would find less overall electricity usage by switching to CFL and using the difference in power to run a heat pump. Worst case scenario, the ground doesn't have any heat to give you and your pump defaults to standard resistance heating, which is where you are now. All other scenarios are improvements on that.
Unless, of course, you're not currently using electric resistance heating as your main heat supply. In which case, by answering the question, "why not," you will also know why you're not saving anything by relying on your lamps as auxiliary heat.
Can you be Even More Awesome?!
It is called a halogen light bulb. Nothing new, they just put halogen light bulbs inside a regular light bulb. Some innovation my ass.
As long as the new bulbs cost more than the old ones + their total consumption in electricity over their lifespan this is a net loss.
MP3 Search Engine
We can take the energy savings much further. We only need light where we look, so some advanced eye-tracking/prediction system can help here. Also think about the savings on highways (only need light where there are cars). We might even use some kind of advanced night-vision goggles/contact lenses, and get rid of the lighting problem altogether :-)
Looks like the Hamburger Pimp found another hustle.
I'm sorry but this so called new technology is a farce. 30% improvement in efficiency over 5% efficiency is still just 8% overall. At $5 apiece, which is way more then a CFL, which goes around $2.5 to $3.3 apiece, and it's 75% efficiency, I'm going for CFL.
Gotta tell ya, I replaced all the lights in my house with the newer fluorescent bulbs, both white and warm, over a year ago and I can now no longer stand the light output of the incandescent bulbs; it seems too harsh. Go figure. I guess humans just adapt.
The white light works very well in rooms like the bathroom, toilet, shed and kitchen. The warmer lights almost everywhere else. People really need to stop throwing tantrums.
.
LED are already here, costs still high but they beat flourescents bulbs in life span and energy consume, and lightup instantaneously.
As someone with dimmers, this is great news. I just hope they aren't pulling the expected lifetime figure out of their arse. I've used tried using CFL's (on non dimmers!) for about 6 years on/off, they're less reliable, despite the claims, than a simple incandescent in my experience. They seem to last about 70% as long, regardless of the brand/size.
Factor in their massively increased manufacturing/disposal cost, increased size/weight (affects transport efficiency) alongside their shorter life span (in my exp) and I think they're far, far, worse for the environment and terrible value for money.
But hey, environmentalists and politicians couldn't give a shit about reality - they just like having bandwagons to sneer at us from. The solution isn't more complicated bulbs it's putting a lid on the hippies and building more reactors asap.
Look up PIR in the bulb catalogs. They've been making these for a while. They shape the internal glass envelope and coat its inside surface such that it reflects a portion of the waste-heat (infrared) energy back towards the filament. In the steady-state, this changes the ratio of spectrum of energy emitted from the bulb (slightly increasing the percentage released in the visible band). Compared to fluorescent, especially the new T2 designs, its still pretty pathetic.
HOWEVER, if you've got a car and can't afford to install HID headlight conversions, there are PIR halogens available. They provide a little bit more output.
The "daylight" style ccfls are the only thing I will ever use the rest of my life...ever. This story is irrelevant... so why am I posting? I don't know. Deal with it. (Actually, I blame alcohol)
I got tired of incandescent bulbs failing, and the low light output of CFLs. I just installed a couple of high output fluorescent tubes in the dungeon, and now it's much easier to see what you're doing. People need to just get over this "warm" light nonsense.
Once again the marketing droids will have to go to work to say the same thing, only differently:
Light comes outta dis bulb. :>
How many different "sunlight equivelant" and "efficient" and similar-sounding ways can you say that?
--- For a good time mail uce@ftc.gov
It wouldnt take much effort for CFL lights to have IR detectors and be able to see remotes setting volume up/down.
But im sure that $0.20 cost feature will end up being blown up to $10 margins so then no one will buy it.
Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
this has been around in 12V DC bulbs for years, it's just a halogen lamp with reflective IR coating.
they do cheat abi about the 30% savings though:
EAN: 4008321917300
Typen-Bezeichnung: Osram Classic A 42W 64543 ES E27 matt Halogen Energy Saver fr
Lampenleistung: 42 W
Lichtstrom: 630 lm
vs:
EAN: 4050300005485
Typen-Bezeichnung: Osram CLASSIC A CLAS A FR 60W 230V E27 matt
Lampenleistung: 60 W
Lichtstrom: 710 lm
you do the math. ;)
(maybe they consider their classic bulb higher then average as well, compared to a really old bulb
also worth to note that here in germany you can get them for around 2EUR (under 3USD).
++ c.
ps: sorry to add an offtopic rant here, but the engine to write comments here truely sucks!
(why cant i control white space? and why is this thing so damn slow?)
What ever happened to microwave lighting that I saw on TV over a decade ago that was going to kick ass???
and where is my flying car and VR sex slave.
o.. and why does my car from 1997 get the same MPG as all the new ones that don't have massive arrays of lead acid battery's?
The light bulb is lame. I want my damn sharks with flipp'en lasers and you need to get off my LAN son....
GE developed a product over a decade ago called Halogen Infra Red or HIR.
Essentially a halogen bulb capsule with an Infra Red reflective coating on the inside that reflected the IR energy back onto the filament thus increasing the output.
This was all packaged into various outer shapes and fittings, like sealed beams for work lamps, headlights and par 38 etc.
It worked well and allowed for less power to be consumed and the life of the lamps was better than conventional.
The article claims that it would be cheaper, and brighter than a compact-fluorescent, and the manufacturing process is simple. Additionally, the nature of the way they're increasing the light output allows for selective modification of certain areas of the spectrum; increasing certain parts of the spectrum and decrease other parts would make for a cleaner, notably whiter light.
But does anyone really follow these guidelines in reality? I've broken a couple of CFL bulbs in the paste and certainly not bothered going to this extent. Just picked up the big bits, wrapped them in news paper, shoved in bin. Then hoovered up the rest and picked out another bulb. Does the amount of mercury in CFL really warrant such drastic cleaning procedures? I've certainly not seen any mention of precautions like this on the boxes of them. In fact I think I've only ever read such about procedures here...
This was cutting edge technology... in the 1950s. The 'new' technology being presented here is just a high voltage halogen light bulb packaged in the traditional bayonet or Edison screw format. I am amazed that anyone is calling this 'cutting edge'.
Philips sells Polish made halogen light bulbs here in Australia for around $3 each (US$2.40) while Osrams are slightly cheaper. These consume 30% less power (70w instead of 100w) with double the lifetime of a traditional light bulb.
I love CFLs as nothing in a reasonable price range is as efficient. The payback period is only a few months. However, CFLs take a little while to heat up (up to 30 seconds) and don't react well to frequent power cycling. Therefore I use 240v halogens in bayonet format in some circumstances.
Government regulation causes more problems than it solves. California's "deregulated" energy market was regulqated so that there was no incentive to provide reliable excess capacity.
Deleted
CFL bulbs have a real horrible effect on anyone who uses shortwave/am radio.
In fact, just about every piece of electronics does, computers, cable, even if the TV is off, the remote control receiver emits RF interference, for this reason I use a small 15 watt incandescent bulb near the radio and turn off nearby lighting. (without a dimmer.. for the same reasons)
Whats really frustrating are those switching complicated power supplies, absolute hell on reception. People who listen to FM exclusively probably don't notice these effects.
The dial lights of these older radios were designed to be incandescent, if companies make fangled bulbs, I worry what this will do for such applications.
One would hope that such bulbs are tested for RF interference, sounds like heat reflection won't cause problems, but.. anything in the bulb designed to assist in the heat reflection might.
People who think shortwave is irrelevant need only look at whats been going on in Iran and China lately.. we NEED to keep shortwave radio alive, it's the only viable way to get past the censors.
In many or most countries, coal is the dominant fuel for electricity generation. Coal is chock full of mercury (and other nasty stuff besides). Use more electricity, as with this Philips bulb compared to CFLs, and there's more mercury released into the environment.
The last major gas mileage increase in North American cars came as a result of legislation.
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
On the other hand, mercury is toxic forever. It never, ever, becomes safe, no matter how long you wait. When the glass breaks it'll poison you just as well in a million years as it does today.
No, no, you're missing the beauty of it. Instead of using normal mercury, there should be a mandate for light bulbs to use mercury-194, which has a half-life of 444 years. A perfectly-manageable timeframe for waste storage.
Another cool thing is that the bulb lights up without even being plugged in. It actually generates energy rather than consuming it.
But here's the really cool thing: according to Wikipedia, Hg-194 decays by electron capture into Au-194. That's right, in 400 years half of the mercury in your light bulb will have turned to gold. Replace all of your household lamps with Hg-194 compact fluorescents, and you won't even want to throw your burned-out light bulbs away in the first place!
It's amazing how many seemingly-intractable environmental problems would go away if people would just think outside the box a little.
People with reduced vision often prefer incandescent light bulbs (at least that is what I have heard). The reason is that they can see better with these bulbs. It must be due to the difference in light spectra between the incandescent and CFLs. Hopefully these new inventions will allow people with reduced vision to see brightly after 2012;-)
A TOTAL ban on incandescent lamps? I think not. You can't put CFL's in the 'fridge. They won't work in ovens. They don't work worth a damn
with dimmers (I've tried several "dimmable" CLF's, they have a range of maybe 20%). Until they make CFL's or way cheaper LED bulbs equal to 60-100W incandescent lamps that work with a dimmer, I'll keep the "Edison bulbs" in my dimmable fixtures, even If I have to buy black market lamps from Korea.
Cripes, the infamous light bulb efficiency gimmick again. What's next, we gonna tie light bulb usage to Global Warming?
Seriously, any of you ever actually take a measurement of your electric usage in your house? Instead of screwing with 60W of light you use really only part of the day, take a look at your A/C unit. Older A/C units under 10 SEER drawing 20A or more will suck $80 - $120/month out of your wallet while new ones will draw less than 1/2 of that (7 - 10A). A dryer that runs 2 hours a day (not hard for a family of four) will run over $30/month pulling 20A. Own a pool? Average 1HP pump will suck another $25 - $35/month from your wallet if you run it according to what you've heard is "the norm". Geek running a server farm out of your home powered 24/7? Had a measly el-cheapo Dell headless tower that ran me $10/month by itself.
Point here is there's a HELL of a lot MORE we can fine tune and adjust lifestyles around to save a hell of a lot more than that 60W light bulb that you don't even turn off when you leave a room anyway.
Technology for Al Gores sake is not always necessary.
Yeah, these new incandescents are 30% more efficient, but my CFLs are 400% more efficient than the latest "normal" bulbs they compete with. They're therefore 3x as efficient as these new incandescents. And these new ones, at $5 apiece, cost 8.75x what my CFLs cost in a box of 12. The CFLs will last something like 10 years, instead of about 2 for incandescents (maybe 5 for these new, less hot ones). But at such high efficiency, the CFLs add very little heat to the room to be cooled with my air conditioning - even more overall system efficiency. As for the spectrum, my CFLs side by side a new GE incandescent at the same luminosity show the CFL with a slightly yellower light, which is the "warm" light we like to associate with homey incandescent.
If we didn't have good CFLs, these new incandescents would be welcome. They might have some applications, given their small size, and cheap dimmability (dimmable CFLs cost 2-3x as much, last half as long, at least during their own early days). But within a couple years LEDs with 1300-1900 lumens will cost less than CFLs now, and can run directly on DC power - thereby increasing solar PV efficiency driving them by eliminating the 30-50% now lost on DC/AC/DC conversion. The LEDs will have a more tunable spectrum, last longer, and fit smaller fixtures, with even less heat inefficiency to cool (or disperse in enclosures).
CFLs today, LEDs tomorrow. Incandescents in movies about the 20th Century.
--
make install -not war
For now. But since we can build clustered LED's with multiple light spectrums, we could within a few years build a LED "bulb" that could be just as warm as an incandescent light bulb but it'll use only 1-2 watts of power compared to 40 watts of power for the incandescent equivalent.
The LED GU-10 bulbs I use at home are ~3w each and use a single LED which, AFAIU, is effectively equivalent to a fluorescent in that the LED itself is probably blue and which, in turn, excites phosphors.
These seem to produce far better lighting than the GU-10 models that contain multiple low-power LEDs. Having said that, the ones I have (which are a few years old now) are a bit too blue.
Wow. I just never pictured having the govt. tell me what to do with every aspect of my life. What's next...what days of the week I can wash clothes or water my lawn?
Landscape Irrigation Water Restrictions...
If you're implying that the federal govt. cleans up after current power plants, I'd say that was none of their business either. Where exactly in the constitution is that a mandated power of the federal govt?
Some power plants are near state lines where the wind is likely to blow pollutants across state lines. Releasing such pollutants is arguably "commerce [...] among the several States" that the U.S. Constitution explicitly gives the Congress power to regulate.
If they were interested in cleaner power, then why not relax laws and restrictions put in place back in the Carter administration and allow nuclear tech to proliferate
The Congress is also worried about not getting the United States blown up.
Not just more pleasing, but more healthy too... My eyes get tired a lot more easily under fluorescents, just as an example. A lot of people get migraines, etc. I'm not saying fluorescents aren't good for some uses, but taking away all other choices is not right either.
Is it really the fluorescents that are causing a problem or is it the algorithm in your signature 8P.
10 FILL MUG WITH COFFEE ......
Why do that when you can get a more energy efficient 30,000 hour LED bulb for 15 bucks?
Granted, they do not offer LED bulbs in the standard form factor in the States yet. But track lighting? LEDs.
You'd think they'd have accidentally stumbled across more efficient means of making incandescent bulbs while researching methods planned obsolescence in their bulbs. Edison's bulb is still working, but the ones sold in stores burn out within a year? Call me cynical, but the tech to lake long-lasting bulbs has been around for over a century.
The market was willing to except cheap, crappy little bulbs because they burn out infrequently enough that no one realizes just how much they spend on them over the years, but frequently enough that you spend more on those crappy cheapo bulbs than if the manufacturers actually sold more expensive, quality long-lasting bulbs.
If it weren't for the emergence of a competing technology, we'd still be suffering through the annoyance of those dinky bulbs and there'd be no calls for further innovation. Makes you wonder what other household items are crap due to technological complacency.
The poor Power Factor rating of CFLs means that the power grid must provide more energy to start them. The consumer may save money at home, but unless the power factor of CFLs can be improved, the electrical grid itself will have to be upgraded if we all switch to CFLs.
But there's no "if" because governments have already legislated the elimination of incandescent bulbs!
An explanation of the power factor (search for the heading "Power
Factor and Switching")
http://irc.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/pubs/cp/lig3_e.html
More summaries of problems:
http://www.cours.polymtl.ca/inf1040/2008automne/Olivier_CanadianReviewDec2007.pdf
http://sound.westhost.com/articles/incandescent.htm
Current research:
http://qnc.queensu.ca/story_loader.php?id=49db90a6e3e3d
Search for "power factor":
http://www.bchydro.com/powersmart/technology_tips/buying_guides/lighting/compact_fluorescent_lamps.html
Here, you'll see that the "requirement" for "Energy Star" labelling is
a power factor of only 0.50!
http://oee.nrcan.gc.ca/residential/business/manufacturers/specifications/compact-flour.cfm?attr=12
Rich And Stupid is not so bad as Working For Rich And Stupid.
Great light output, color temperature, and reasonably long life. Good for places I like a LOT of light, (kitchen and bathroom). Maybe they are new in the states but they have existed for over 10 years in Europe. (Long enough that you can get assorted Asian knockoffs as well as the standard Phillips, Osram etc).
You would find less overall electricity usage by switching to CFL and using the difference in power to run a heat pump. Worst case scenario, the ground doesn't have any heat to give you and your pump defaults to standard resistance heating, which is where you are now.
You have to practise a little bit on your worst-case scenarios: Worst case scenario for heat pumps is "destroys entire town". Yes, really.
This is of course not a general reason not to install heat pumps, but just a gentle remainder to check before drilling deep holes. Well, not so gentle for the inhabitants of Staufen.
What is so bad about mercury? Our science school teacher had a beaker in class and we took turns playing with the stuff - pouring it through our fingers and such. He did warn us not to eat though.... I tried and it taste a little better than lead paint chips.
You can never shift the burden away from the Taxpayers for a utility. By definition a Utility is needed by all (or so close to all as to be insignificantly different). Any increase in overhead (Fuel, Taxes, Regulations, Environmental Stewardship, Waste handling, etc) will be passed on to the consumer to pay as part of their utility bill.
Cap and Trade will make my electric bill go up, not decrease the profits or pay of executives at the power company. Now, I'd be willing to eat that cost if everyone else were going to have to as well, but that won't be the case. Manufacturers that can, will move their power intensive operations over seas to countries that don't participate in the cap and trade system. It'll save them money, lose the US jobs, and drive down the business of companies that cannot/willnot relocate somewhere else.
This is the fundamental aspect of business that many in washington do not understand. Any move you make to increase operating costs in the US will simply result in the gradual movement of those industries affect to other countries that are less expensive to operate in.
Unless you can get the UN to jam this system down the throats of every industrialized manufacturing country, it's just going to make the US economy worse while helping the economy somewhere else. Not a big problem while the US was booming, but definitely counter productive under the current situation.
Bureaucracy expands to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy.-Oscar Wilde
The "rule of thumb" for the old, straight tube florescent bulbs bulbs was to only turn them off if you weren't going to be needing the light again for at least fifteen minutes. This is due to the start up energy costs to establish the initial arc in the gas. First question: Do CFLs have the same or similar start up costs? If so, it would seem that old style incandescent bulbs should still be used where the light is frequently turned on and off and, typically, the light only remains on for short periods of time (e.g., a bathroom light, closet light, refrigerator light, etc.). Second question: Is this "leave it on" period different for CFLs?
Cheers,
Dave
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither safety nor liberty.
Ben
Assuming that, like most people, your TV is off for a much larger percentage of the day than on (while you're at work, school, sleeping, etc.)
It appears you haven't been in households that use the TV as a babysitter for the single-digit-year-old children.
Lighting is less than 6% of energy footprint. CFL's are 10x more expensive than incandescents, contain mercury, don't last as long as advertised (in fact, in my house they only last as long as incandescents) and cast a bare sickly palette. CFL's are just a waste of money. Perhaps there is an ideal living space where CFL's last the full 5 years, don't make walls look grey/blue and cost less than five bucks a pop (.88 for four incandescents at kroger).
I took the money I had allocated towards CFL's and put it into insulation with a higher R-value. Heating and cooling expenses are down 10%. Far more savings in energy and money than CFL's, and my reading lamp doesn't suck the contrast off the page I'm looking at anymore.
That is a total crock and just an example of an ecocommunist crusader trying to defend imposing their ideas of whats good for you.
So, what you are saying is that your tastes in light color, temperature and flicker vary from the tastes of myself and others. And, since you find a solution suitable to YOUR taste, everyone else needs to just accept your preference and not resist it being forced upon them.
Now, imagine your life forced to live by MY taste without regard for your own. How will you feel when I say STFU to you?
People that use more power already pay more $$ for their electric bills. Why do we need more taxes?
Because the power companies introduce an externality when they emit pollutants. Cap and trade is intended to monetize this externality in order to bring it under market control.
I think I'm going to stick with my full-spectrum calibrated daylight CFLs for a bit longer, thanks. ;[ Since I'm sure a 'more pleasant' spectrum has more to do with some sort of psychotic reaction to new technology and less to do with color-correct viewing or 'real light' as I like to call it.
Friend: "The NIC is misconfigured..." Me: "No prob, I'll just telnet in and fix it." *Silence*
Instead, the law has become a case study of the way government regulation can inspire technical innovation.
Just as new diseases can inspire medical innovation.
Prov 9:8 Do not rebuke mockers or they will hate you; rebuke the wise and they will love you.
I bought bulbs while on vacation in England a few years back. They are made stronger due to the electricity differences. I have not replaced a single English light bulb in the 3 years since my trip. I don't care if they are .25 or $5 the less I am in the dark or on the step stool the better.
"I'm talking about Fat Man. "Breeder" reactors reprocess fuel into a form that could be diverted to make nuclear warheads."
In case you hadn't already noticed, the US already has enough warheads to destroy most of the planet a number of times over - do you think they're going to build even more just because some new nuclear power stations have opened FFS??
Jeez, how to people like you manage to dress yourselves in the morning...
They can "ban" something all they want, manufacturers will still make them because people will still want them and will find a way to get them.
Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
Hello slashdotters, I too live in Edmonton, but unlike the above poster I am not so stupid as to think that the heat generated by an incandescent bulb is useful. First of all, most bulbs are located at the CEILING of the home, and heat rises, it doesn't sink. Secondly, as a method of converting energy into heat, incandescent bulbs suck. You would be better off switching to all-fluorescent bulbs and then buying an electric space heater with a fan. You'd end up using the same amount of electricity, but your house would actually be warmer in a useful way.
1,982 lamps/bulbs recycled
a total of
495.1 kg of glass
5.85 kg of metal
7.4 kg of phosphor
0.073 kg of mercury = 73 g = 2.575 oz
That's what is generated from 4 buildings in one year.
- My question is: Can Slashdot be Slashdotted? -
There are all kinds of ways to alter the spectrum of the light coming from a CFL bulb. For example, just use frosted glass. They even have CFL bulbs with warmer tints to the glass. I find that argument bullshit. Now the mercury factor and "real" wattage equivalency issues are another story altogether. If an efficient way was developed to recycle the bulbs, the savings could still be really good when compared to traditional filament bulbs. I use CFL bulbs on my security lighting and really like them.
How about making the reflective envelope elliptical in cross section, putting the filament at one focus and a yttrium "mantle" filament at the 2nd focus? If I've wikigoogled the facts right, the filament is heated to around 6000degC, and a mantle will glow at around 2000degC. Reflecting heat onto the filament raises its temp, making it a more efficient light emitter - but doesn't increase the light emitting surface area. But maybe with a second filament, more heat energy would be converted to light than is gained by the increased efficiency of the method in the article?
Or maybe just wrap the tungsten filament with yttrium - larger surface area to glow, but lower conductivity than the filament (~10x higher resistance than tungsten) so it doesn't increase current much.
Being an astronomy nut, I was actually pretty stoked to read about the proposed ban on incandescents. Low/High pressure sodium lights are easily filtered out when viewing or imaging the night sky. Incandescents however emit light across such a broad spectrum that it simply cannot be filtered out. Even using very narrow emission line filters (e.g. 3-5nm) filters doesn't cut it.
The street lamps near my house are low pressure sodium, but I live in an area where the local inhabitants insist on keeping their homes lit up like it's broad daylight. I figured at least my suffering was coming to somewhat of an end in the near future. I guess now I'll have to buy lightbulbs for all of my closest neighbours. Alas.
Incredible. Summary gives the credit of this innovation to the government?
> the law has become a case study of the way government regulation can
> inspire technical innovation
So, the 300 million people in the market say they want incandescent. Government says no, they aren't "energy efficient enough", according to a few hundred people in DC. An industry attempts to survive by pouring money into research that they didn't do before because it didn't make sense and would only drive up consumer costs. Now they have a solution that will cost more but at least it exists.
And the credit to this innovation goes to government?
This is typical of the leftist bias. Laud the benefits and don't talk at all about the cost. In the head of the submitter, everything is black-and-white, good-or-bad and there is no need to analyze whether this is worth the cost.
Don't judge fluorescent tubes by the cheap crap that most offices use. You can get tubes of various colour temperatures and various CRI (Colour Rendering Index) values.
The Philips TL950 (available at Home Depot in some places) is a T8 bulb with a colour temperature of 5000K and a CRI of 98. It looks great. If you want a slightly warmer light, the TL930 has a colour temp of 3000K.
Keep in mind that the $5 cost is to offset come costs of this new technology, and I expect the costs to drop dramatically if the technology sees some uptake. After all, it doesn't LOOK that expensive to manufacture.
Please, tepples, do a little bit of research. Learn a little bit about the design of nuclear power plants
I suspect the GP is referring to the potential for nuclear power technology to be diverted into weapons building, not to the probability we will be blown up by malfunctioning plants themselves, and while this risk can be mitigated if you're careful about regulation, it can't really be dismissed as nonsense.
Tweet, tweet.
This is just a halogen bulb, right?
Hahaha... good call ;)
I drink loads of coffee at home too, under my natural light from the window or my incandescents, and have no problems.
10 FILL MUG WITH COFFEE
20 DRINK COFFEE
30 GOTO 10
And a heat pump has an effective efficiency greater than 100%, so your bulb is still a waste.
It's a marketing breakthrough.
A technological breakthrough would be a lamp that is 30% more efficient, costs 1/2 as much as the standard lamp, and lasts 10x as long.
Luminous efficiency is the ratio of light emitted to power consumed. Luminous efficacy also incorporates the eye's response to the emitted spectrum.
Luminous efficacy isn't the appropriate measure here, unless you're completely unconcerned about color. If you want "white" light, you've got to emit red and blue wavelengths, which give lousy luminous efficacy, along with green, which gives great efficacy. The eye isn't nearly as sensitive to red or blue as it is to green light, but without them, you can't get to white.
The maximum possible luminous efficacy for a "white" light, something approximating sunlight, is around 15 percent. That assumes 100% wall-plug efficiency -- every watt of electric energy that comes in gets converted to a watt of visible light. So, if you've got 11% luminous efficacy in a white light, that translates to 75% efficiency.
If you want to get the maximum possible luminous efficacy -- the "brightest" light for a given amount of power -- get a fluorescent bulb with a pure-green or blue-green phosphor. Then you can get 50-75% true luminous efficacy, but your dinner won't look very appetizing, and neither will your date.
It's probably not Energy Star 3.0. The meter reads 0 watts when powered off, compared to a half watt for the CRT. Still, figure in watching TV for even 1 hour a day swamps the power draw while off. So yes, energy usage while on needs to be considered, especially since they've gotten the offline so good.
I mostly measured the power draw on a lark, it's better for the environment and my wallet at this point if I keep the TV for a good long while like I did with the CRT. 10 years for a TV isn't bad at all - especially considering I only had 1 TV, and other than curiosity the 32" has stayed unplugged since I got the LCD. I mostly got it because I wanted at least 36" to keep from sacrificing (effective)height while going to the widescreen form factor, and they happened to be selling the 42" for a price that made it cheaper than most 36" sets.
I was shocked at the power usage though, I thought CRTs were supposed to be big energy wasters compared to LCD - and here my 42" screen uses more juice per effective in^2 than the old 32". I was avoiding plasma because I KNOW it uses a lot more power - we have some screens at work used for status displays(I know, not good for them), and they're effective space heaters.
I don't read AC A human right
I've been meaning to get the store to create my stash of hundreds of conventional/cheap light bulbs that I'll store in my attic -- enough to last two to four decades. I can't stand CFLs and 2/3s of the fixtures in my house have conventional dimmers which helps with the lifetime of a standard bulb. I figure the stash will also help the resale value of my house when I leave them for the new owner as well in a decade or two. By then they should be a rare commodity.
Of course with things going they way they are in this country I envision a "Fahrenheit 451" scenario where jack booted government agents one day storm my house to relieve me of may light bulb stash. Do you think prison time will be associated with being caught with such contraband, or will it just be a stint at a re-education camp?
Without attempting to be too cruel, I regret to inform you: ...umm remove my fillings and then ...
THIS IS SHEER IDIOCY.
I use a couple of hi-tech devices myself- they are called a "dustpan" and a "broom". The broken glass is then carefully dumped into a "garbage can". (Those glass shard are dangerous)
Small horror story:
A coupla weeks ago, I chipped a tooth that already had a large mercury amalgam filing in it.
Thank goodness I saved the old filling.
The tooth was soon repaired by my dentist, with alas, another big gob of... the dreaded MERCURY! (plus some silver)
Migod! Do you know? There is more mercury IN JUST ONE OF MY TOOTH FILLINGS than all the CFLs ever used in my home!
Now- Mr. Science, what do I do with the old tooth filling?
1. Toss it down the toilet?
2. Dump it Into the garbage? (when no one is looking)
3.Recycling? (Problem: it's too hard for recycling guys to even see the minute amount of mercury- they just see glass and metal)
Or-
4. Can I mail it to you? Pretty please?
I'M SURE you will know what to do with it!
But if not, I have a suggestion or two for you .
Now-
What worries me more, is when I die and am cremated. What happens to all my Mercury fillings?
More than ten thousand CFLs! AIIEEE!!
Should I perhaps if I can beforehand, warn the mourners to hold their breaths? Or warn the undertaker? Or did he already
GOTO 1
.
- aqk
F U
You should have just given it to your dentist. Since he has to deal with larger amounts of mercury than you, he probably has proper ways to dispose of the stuff. The second alternative would be to look for a place that disposes of hazardous waste. Where I live, there's just an extra can at the recycling center that you can put everything potentially hazardous in.
Amalgam fillings suck, by the way. Not only are they releasing minute amounts of mercury, they're also thermally conductive (since they're metal), which makes cold and hot foods a real pain in the neck if you have one or more deep fillings. And they're ugly as hell. I've had mine replaced with plastic ones when the old fillings wore out, and I haven't looked back ever since. By pure coincidence, I'm catching much fewer colds and throat infections than I used to when I had my mouth full of amalgam fillings, but I'm sure that not being exposed to a poisonous heavy metal all the time anymore has nothing to do with that.
I wrote this at 06:00 CST, so if I copied someone else's post sorry, and no I didn't realize it was his birthday til later today. Nikola Tesla patented this light, flourescent, halogen, mercury, neon, etc in the 1800's. He even had lights that used only one, and some with no wires at all. Also created an "earthquake machine", and lots of other truly amazing devices. Same as the "new discovery" of transmitting electrical power wirelessly. Amazing how our science is dribbled out of a faucet whenever it is convenient or expedient to large corporations. Tesla basically set George Westinghouse up with AC power. Tesla (not the rock band) also invented the FAX, Super Scalar Technology, The AC power system (polyphasic), remote controlled vehicles, etc. Amazing how few people have heard of him, yet his legacy surrounds us daily. Amazing in 110 years, we haven't discovered anything. No diseases cured in almost 50 years (like Chris Rock comedy bit talks about). TV was invented in the 1920's by Philo T. Farnsworth (a Nebraska High School Student). Where do things like this go today? Makes you wonder doesn't it? Jim
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." - Arthur C. Clarke