Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
On 21/01/2020 6:07 am, Robert Baer wrote:
piglet wrote:
On 19/01/2020 2:32 am, Sylvia Else wrote:
The main issue I had with them was their tendency to take longer and
longer to reach maximum brightness as they aged. I think this was
more due to excessive economy in the electrolytic capacitors used in
their manufacture rather than an inherent limitation.
Sometimes the electrolytic is just fine and the problem is mercury
vapor loss due to combining with electrodes or phosphor poisoning. Gas
mixture and phosphor quality varied a lot between manufacturers.
 Isn't mercury banned,and illegal?
Undesirable certainly and with many legal restrictions but the word
"illegal" is possibly inaccurate.
Dentists are still placing mercury amalgam fillings. One of the biggest
causes of mercury release is burning coal with traces of mercury ore
embedded. But volcanoes do that too - should we declare volcanoes illegal?
John Doe wrote:
That history seems strange considering the fact the first consumer
CFLs were inferior technology, resembling early technology LED
flashlights. If the technology had been around so long, they would
have been ready for prime time the day they were first made
available to consumers.
 CFLs were based on a few lies.
 Mainly based on "economy" and "efficiency" and "power savings".
 CFLs were technically illegal as they used banned mercury.
 That was ignored: lie #1 big time.
 They take a fair amount of varied electronic components, so "economy"
becomes a lie.
 "Power savings" and "efficiency" become untrue in the extended sense,
due to all of the energy poured into the making of those components as
well as the manufacturing of the CFLs.
 Incandescents take very little variety of materials to make,and
rather low technology ("simple" comes to mind).
upsidedown@downunder.com wrote:
It should be noted that the phosphors in LEDs are subjected to
radiation densities tens of times larger compared to sunlight and we
all know what exposing some materials to sunlight for a few years will
do to some materials.
Inorganic phosphors are super stable.
On 21/01/2020 6:07 am, Robert Baer wrote:
piglet wrote:
On 19/01/2020 2:32 am, Sylvia Else wrote:
The main issue I had with them was their tendency to take longer and
longer to reach maximum brightness as they aged. I think this was
more due to excessive economy in the electrolytic capacitors used in
their manufacture rather than an inherent limitation.
Sylvia.
Sometimes the electrolytic is just fine and the problem is mercury
vapor loss due to combining with electrodes or phosphor poisoning.
Gas mixture and phosphor quality varied a lot between manufacturers.
piglet
  Isn't mercury banned,and illegal?
Undesirable certainly and with many legal restrictions but the word
"illegal" is possibly inaccurate.
Dentists are still placing mercury amalgam fillings. One of the biggest
causes of mercury release is burning coal with traces of mercury ore
embedded. But volcanoes do that too - should we declare volcanoes illegal?
piglet
On Tuesday, January 21, 2020 at 1:07:16 AM UTC-5, Robert Baer wrote:
piglet wrote:
On 19/01/2020 2:32 am, Sylvia Else wrote:
The main issue I had with them was their tendency to take longer and
longer to reach maximum brightness as they aged. I think this was more
due to excessive economy in the electrolytic capacitors used in their
manufacture rather than an inherent limitation.
Sylvia.
Sometimes the electrolytic is just fine and the problem is mercury vapor
loss due to combining with electrodes or phosphor poisoning. Gas mixture
and phosphor quality varied a lot between manufacturers.
piglet
Isn't mercury banned,and illegal?
No.
Wake up, kid.
On Tuesday, January 21, 2020 at 8:22:50 PM UTC+11, piglet wrote:
On 21/01/2020 6:07 am, Robert Baer wrote:
piglet wrote:
On 19/01/2020 2:32 am, Sylvia Else wrote:
The main issue I had with them was their tendency to take longer and
longer to reach maximum brightness as they aged. I think this was
more due to excessive economy in the electrolytic capacitors used in
their manufacture rather than an inherent limitation.
Sometimes the electrolytic is just fine and the problem is mercury
vapor loss due to combining with electrodes or phosphor poisoning. Gas
mixture and phosphor quality varied a lot between manufacturers.
 Isn't mercury banned,and illegal?
Undesirable certainly and with many legal restrictions but the word
"illegal" is possibly inaccurate.
Dentists are still placing mercury amalgam fillings. One of the biggest
causes of mercury release is burning coal with traces of mercury ore
embedded. But volcanoes do that too - should we declare volcanoes illegal?
We could declare them illegal, but they wouldn't pay any attention.
Yes, they are particularly ignorant.
On 21/01/2020 6:04 am, Robert Baer wrote:
John Doe wrote:
That history seems strange considering the fact the first consumer
CFLs were inferior technology, resembling early technology LED
flashlights. If the technology had been around so long, they would
have been ready for prime time the day they were first made
available to consumers.
  CFLs were based on a few lies.
  Mainly based on "economy" and "efficiency" and "power savings".
  CFLs were technically illegal as they used banned mercury.
  That was ignored: lie #1 big time.
  They take a fair amount of varied electronic components, so
"economy" becomes a lie.
  "Power savings" and "efficiency" become untrue in the extended
sense, due to all of the energy poured into the making of those
components as well as the manufacturing of the CFLs.
  Incandescents take very little variety of materials to make,and
rather low technology ("simple" comes to mind).
Ironically it seems it could have been the case that despite containing
mercury CFLs release *less* mercury into the environment than
incandescent lamps containing none - when the electricity is generated
by coal burning.
Twenty years ago when CFLs were taking off an average coal burning
station released approx 36ug Hg per kWh generated. So a 20W CFL during
its 5000 hour life would use 100kWh and cause mercury emissions of 3.6mg
(and another 4mg if the tube wasn't recycled) by contrast five 100W
tuungsten bulbs buring for each 1000 hours would use 500kWh and cause
18mg of mercury emissions. Even where coal amounted to only 50% of
electricity generation mix the above example shifts to CFL 5.8mg vs
incandescent 9mg.
Today many advanced countries' coal burning power plant has mercury
removal of the flue gases and emissions are below 3ug per kWh so that
curious anomaly may no longer exist.
piglet
Thanks for the numbers.
* Bad twisted logic.On Tuesday, January 21, 2020 at 1:05:00 AM UTC-5, Robert Baer wrote:
John Doe wrote:
That history seems strange considering the fact the first consumer
CFLs were inferior technology, resembling early technology LED
flashlights. If the technology had been around so long, they would
have been ready for prime time the day they were first made
available to consumers.
CFLs were based on a few lies.
Mainly based on "economy" and "efficiency" and "power savings".
CFLs were technically illegal as they used banned mercury.
That was ignored: lie #1 big time.
They take a fair amount of varied electronic components, so "economy"
becomes a lie.
"Power savings" and "efficiency" become untrue in the extended sense,
due to all of the energy poured into the making of those components as
well as the manufacturing of the CFLs.
Incandescents take very little variety of materials to make,and
rather low technology ("simple" comes to mind).
Your premise is faulty. If the total energy in making and using CFL lights were higher than making and using incandescent lights it would be apparent in the total costs. Since it is clear that CFLs have a lower cost per hour of illumination, your claim about energy savings must be false, unless you are going to say there is something else making incandescents more expensive to use.
* That "argument" (inexpensive to make electronics) is too generic to beSince you don't seem to understand that it is very inexpensive to make electronics inexpensively with a variety of components, I would have to assume you don't actually work in electronics.
Absolutely! Volcanoes also increase pollution, contribute to globalOn 21/01/2020 6:07 am, Robert Baer wrote:
piglet wrote:
On 19/01/2020 2:32 am, Sylvia Else wrote:
The main issue I had with them was their tendency to take longer and
longer to reach maximum brightness as they aged. I think this was
more due to excessive economy in the electrolytic capacitors used in
their manufacture rather than an inherent limitation.
Sylvia.
Sometimes the electrolytic is just fine and the problem is mercury
vapor loss due to combining with electrodes or phosphor poisoning.
Gas mixture and phosphor quality varied a lot between manufacturers.
piglet
  Isn't mercury banned,and illegal?
Undesirable certainly and with many legal restrictions but the word
"illegal" is possibly inaccurate.
Dentists are still placing mercury amalgam fillings. One of the biggest
causes of mercury release is burning coal with traces of mercury ore
embedded. But volcanoes do that too - should we declare volcanoes illegal?
piglet
Rick C wrote:
On Tuesday, January 21, 2020 at 1:05:00 AM UTC-5, Robert Baer wrote:
John Doe wrote:
That history seems strange considering the fact the first consumer
CFLs were inferior technology, resembling early technology LED
flashlights. If the technology had been around so long, they would
have been ready for prime time the day they were first made
available to consumers.
CFLs were based on a few lies.
Mainly based on "economy" and "efficiency" and "power savings".
CFLs were technically illegal as they used banned mercury.
That was ignored: lie #1 big time.
They take a fair amount of varied electronic components, so "economy"
becomes a lie.
"Power savings" and "efficiency" become untrue in the extended sense,
due to all of the energy poured into the making of those components as
well as the manufacturing of the CFLs.
Incandescents take very little variety of materials to make,and
rather low technology ("simple" comes to mind).
Your premise is faulty. If the total energy in making and using CFL lights were higher than making and using incandescent lights it would be apparent in the total costs. Since it is clear that CFLs have a lower cost per hour of illumination, your claim about energy savings must be false, unless you are going to say there is something else making incandescents more expensive to use.
* Bad twisted logic.
It is known that the CFL costs are higher - by the retail price being
higher.
"lower cost per hour of illumination" is NOT related to costs of
manufacture.
Since you don't seem to understand that it is very inexpensive to make electronics inexpensively with a variety of components, I would have to assume you don't actually work in electronics.
* That "argument" (inexpensive to make electronics) is too generic to be
acceptable.
The repetition certainly does not help.
Rick C wrote:
On Tuesday, January 21, 2020 at 1:05:00 AM UTC-5, Robert Baer wrote:
John Doe wrote:
That history seems strange considering the fact the first consumer
CFLs were inferior technology, resembling early technology LED
flashlights. If the technology had been around so long, they would
have been ready for prime time the day they were first made
available to consumers.
CFLs were based on a few lies.
Mainly based on "economy" and "efficiency" and "power savings".
CFLs were technically illegal as they used banned mercury.
That was ignored: lie #1 big time.
They take a fair amount of varied electronic components, so "economy"
becomes a lie.
"Power savings" and "efficiency" become untrue in the extended sense,
due to all of the energy poured into the making of those components as
well as the manufacturing of the CFLs.
Incandescents take very little variety of materials to make,and
rather low technology ("simple" comes to mind).
Your premise is faulty. If the total energy in making and using CFL lights were higher than making and using incandescent lights it would be apparent in the total costs. Since it is clear that CFLs have a lower cost per hour of illumination, your claim about energy savings must be false, unless you are going to say there is something else making incandescents more expensive to use.
* Bad twisted logic.
It is known that the CFL costs are higher - by the retail price being
higher.
"lower cost per hour of illumination" is NOT related to costs of
manufacture.
Since you don't seem to understand that it is very inexpensive to make electronics inexpensively with a variety of components, I would have to assume you don't actually work in electronics.
* That "argument" (inexpensive to make electronics) is too generic to be
acceptable.
The repetition certainly does not help.
Rick C wrote:
Robert Baer wrote:
Isn't mercury banned,and illegal?
No.
Wake up, kid.
https://www.epa.gov/mercury/environmental-laws-apply-mercury
https://www.epa.gov/mercury
On 21/01/2020 6:04 am, Robert Baer wrote:
John Doe wrote:
That history seems strange considering the fact the first consumer
CFLs were inferior technology, resembling early technology LED
flashlights. If the technology had been around so long, they would
have been ready for prime time the day they were first made
available to consumers.
 CFLs were based on a few lies.
 Mainly based on "economy" and "efficiency" and "power savings".
 CFLs were technically illegal as they used banned mercury.
 That was ignored: lie #1 big time.
 They take a fair amount of varied electronic components, so "economy"
becomes a lie.
 "Power savings" and "efficiency" become untrue in the extended sense,
due to all of the energy poured into the making of those components as
well as the manufacturing of the CFLs.
 Incandescents take very little variety of materials to make,and
rather low technology ("simple" comes to mind).
Ironically it seems it could have been the case that despite containing
mercury CFLs release *less* mercury into the environment than
incandescent lamps containing none - when the electricity is generated
by coal burning.
Twenty years ago when CFLs were taking off an average coal burning
station released approx 36ug Hg per kWh generated. So a 20W CFL during
its 5000 hour life would use 100kWh and cause mercury emissions of 3.6mg
(and another 4mg if the tube wasn't recycled) by contrast five 100W
tuungsten bulbs buring for each 1000 hours would use 500kWh and cause
18mg of mercury emissions. Even where coal amounted to only 50% of
electricity generation mix the above example shifts to CFL 5.8mg vs
incandescent 9mg.
Today many advanced countries' coal burning power plant has mercury
removal of the flue gases and emissions are below 3ug per kWh so that
curious anomaly may no longer exist.
piglet
On 21/1/20 7:05 am, tabbypurr wrote:
On Sunday, 19 January 2020 00:35:47 UTC, Clifford Heath wrote:
On 19/1/20 5:34 am, Robert Baer wrote:
 CFLs were technically illegal as they used banned mercury.
Better fluorescents used a thing that condensed the mercury vapour when
cold so it was less of an environmental hazard. So perhaps the
regulation was bypassed that way.
CH
I guess you're referring to amalgam, which was used to regulate vapour pressure. The mercury condensed when cold in all CFLs.
Yes, that. All CFL's here? Under what regulatory system? Not all the
ones sold here had amalgams.
On Monday, January 20, 2020 at 4:14:57 PM UTC-5, Phil Hobbs wrote:
tabbypurr wrote:
On Sunday, 19 January 2020 01:42:25 UTC, Phil Hobbs wrote:
BITD you could get good bulbs at the supermarket. With newer LED bulbs,
that happy state may be returning. Not in the CFL period, however.
whose fault was that? Either supermarkets or end users or mfrs for not making the issue clearer on the box, or more likely some of all 3.
The government's, for forcing us all to buy their crap.
You mean making it illegal to purposelessly wasting energy and adding carbon to the atmosphere? Yeah, governments suck don't they! I bet you wish you could drive at whatever speed you want too, eh?
Robert Baer <robertbaer@localnet.com> wrote:
Rick C wrote:
Robert Baer wrote:
Isn't mercury banned,and illegal?
No.
Wake up, kid.
https://www.epa.gov/mercury/environmental-laws-apply-mercury
https://www.epa.gov/mercury
According to that, it is neither banned nor illegal.
Must not be able to read..
On Tuesday, 21 January 2020 10:02:42 UTC, Clifford Heath wrote:
On 21/1/20 7:05 am, tabbypurr wrote:
On Sunday, 19 January 2020 00:35:47 UTC, Clifford Heath wrote:
On 19/1/20 5:34 am, Robert Baer wrote:
 CFLs were technically illegal as they used banned mercury.
Better fluorescents used a thing that condensed the mercury vapour when
cold so it was less of an environmental hazard. So perhaps the
regulation was bypassed that way.
CH
I guess you're referring to amalgam, which was used to regulate vapour pressure. The mercury condensed when cold in all CFLs.
Yes, that. All CFL's here? Under what regulatory system? Not all the
ones sold here had amalgams.
use whole sentences
On 22/1/20 5:39 pm, tabbypurr wrote:
On Tuesday, 21 January 2020 10:02:42 UTC, Clifford Heath wrote:
On 21/1/20 7:05 am, tabbypurr wrote:
On Sunday, 19 January 2020 00:35:47 UTC, Clifford Heath wrote:
On 19/1/20 5:34 am, Robert Baer wrote:
 CFLs were technically illegal as they used banned mercury..
Better fluorescents used a thing that condensed the mercury vapour when
cold so it was less of an environmental hazard. So perhaps the
regulation was bypassed that way.
CH
I guess you're referring to amalgam, which was used to regulate vapour pressure. The mercury condensed when cold in all CFLs.
Yes, that. All CFL's here? Under what regulatory system? Not all the
ones sold here had amalgams.
use whole sentences
Under what regulatory regime was it the case that "The mercury condensed
when cold in all CFLs." - with emphasis on *all"?
I don't believe it was the case here. To aid your weak comprehension,
I'll reiterate "Not all the ones sold here had amalgams."
CH
On Monday, 20 January 2020 21:17:58 UTC, Rick C wrote:
On Monday, January 20, 2020 at 4:14:57 PM UTC-5, Phil Hobbs wrote:
tabbypurr wrote:
On Sunday, 19 January 2020 01:42:25 UTC, Phil Hobbs wrote:
BITD you could get good bulbs at the supermarket. With newer LED bulbs,
that happy state may be returning. Not in the CFL period, however..
whose fault was that? Either supermarkets or end users or mfrs for not making the issue clearer on the box, or more likely some of all 3.
The government's, for forcing us all to buy their crap.
You mean making it illegal to purposelessly wasting energy and adding carbon to the atmosphere? Yeah, governments suck don't they! I bet you wish you could drive at whatever speed you want too, eh?
There are numerous ways it's legal to waste energy & pollute. Why should lightbulbs be somehow different? There were valid reasons at times for not using CFLs.
On Tuesday, 21 January 2020 12:07:45 UTC, piglet wrote:
On 21/01/2020 6:04 am, Robert Baer wrote:
John Doe wrote:
That history seems strange considering the fact the first consumer
CFLs were inferior technology, resembling early technology LED
flashlights. If the technology had been around so long, they would
have been ready for prime time the day they were first made
available to consumers.
 CFLs were based on a few lies.
 Mainly based on "economy" and "efficiency" and "power savings".
 CFLs were technically illegal as they used banned mercury.
 That was ignored: lie #1 big time.
 They take a fair amount of varied electronic components, so "economy"
becomes a lie.
 "Power savings" and "efficiency" become untrue in the extended sense,
due to all of the energy poured into the making of those components as
well as the manufacturing of the CFLs.
 Incandescents take very little variety of materials to make,and
rather low technology ("simple" comes to mind).
Ironically it seems it could have been the case that despite containing
mercury CFLs release *less* mercury into the environment than
incandescent lamps containing none - when the electricity is generated
by coal burning.
Twenty years ago when CFLs were taking off an average coal burning
station released approx 36ug Hg per kWh generated. So a 20W CFL during
its 5000 hour life would use 100kWh and cause mercury emissions of 3.6mg
(and another 4mg if the tube wasn't recycled) by contrast five 100W
tuungsten bulbs buring for each 1000 hours would use 500kWh and cause
18mg of mercury emissions. Even where coal amounted to only 50% of
electricity generation mix the above example shifts to CFL 5.8mg vs
incandescent 9mg.
Today many advanced countries' coal burning power plant has mercury
removal of the flue gases and emissions are below 3ug per kWh so that
curious anomaly may no longer exist.
piglet
OTOH the mercury from broken CFLs was released inside the home vs outdoors with coal