OT: Wow, compact fluorescent light bulbs already obsolete

[Rick C]

On Wednesday, January 22, 2020 at 5:13:40 AM UTC-5, tabb...@gmail.com wrote:

On Wednesday, 22 January 2020 07:15:59 UTC, Clifford Heath wrote:
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

I think you'll find mercury is almost 100% liquid at room temp. Absence of amalgam doesn't change that, nor does any regulatory regime have anything to do with it afai am aware.

So is water... except for the vapor. Water vapor is no different than mercury vapor, both have a partial pressure.

--

Rick C.

---+ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
---+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Wednesday, January 22, 2020 at 9:13:40 PM UTC+11, tabb...@gmail.com wrote:

On Wednesday, 22 January 2020 07:15:59 UTC, Clifford Heath wrote:
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."

I think you'll find mercury is almost 100% liquid at room temp. Absence of amalgam doesn't change that, nor does any regulatory regime have anything to do with it afai am aware.

NT isn't aware of much. The vapour pressure of mercury over an amalgam is lower than that over liquid mercury, in the same sort of way that the vapour pressure of water over brine is lower than that over pure water.

In real life there's enough sulphur around (mostly as very low levels of H2S) that the vapour pressure of mercury in spaces where there are occasional mercury droplets around is about 0.5% of the equilibrium vapour pressure.

You've got to have an appreciable free surface of mercury, and something stirring it, to get dangerous levels of mercury vapour.

That did happen often enough to produce quite a few horror stories, but the paper mill where my father worked had flowing mercury electrodes in the electrolytic cells that generate their sodium hydroxide, and it didn't kill anybody or make them sick. The plant was well ventilated, and everybody involved knew all about mercury poisoning.

As a graduate student in 1963 I had to read Alfred Stock's book on manipulating chemicals under vacuum (which did involved using mercury.

Back in 1923 Stock got a bad case of mercury poisoning, and the book did go into the subject in some detail.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Stock

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

On Wednesday, 22 January 2020 11:43:19 UTC, Bill Sloman wrote:

On Wednesday, January 22, 2020 at 9:13:40 PM UTC+11, tabb...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, 22 January 2020 07:15:59 UTC, Clifford Heath wrote:
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."

I think you'll find mercury is almost 100% liquid at room temp. Absence of amalgam doesn't change that, nor does any regulatory regime have anything to do with it afai am aware.

NT isn't aware of much. The vapour pressure of mercury over an amalgam is lower than that over liquid mercury, in the same sort of way that the vapour pressure of water over brine is lower than that over pure water.

In real life there's enough sulphur around (mostly as very low levels of H2S) that the vapour pressure of mercury in spaces where there are occasional mercury droplets around is about 0.5% of the equilibrium vapour pressure..

You've got to have an appreciable free surface of mercury, and something stirring it, to get dangerous levels of mercury vapour.

That did happen often enough to produce quite a few horror stories, but the paper mill where my father worked had flowing mercury electrodes in the electrolytic cells that generate their sodium hydroxide, and it didn't kill anybody or make them sick. The plant was well ventilated, and everybody involved knew all about mercury poisoning.

As a graduate student in 1963 I had to read Alfred Stock's book on manipulating chemicals under vacuum (which did involved using mercury.

Back in 1923 Stock got a bad case of mercury poisoning, and the book did go into the subject in some detail.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Stock

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

These might be of interest...

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6047466/

https://www.letsrecycle.com/news/latest-news/weee-recycler-fined-140000-over-mercury-exposure/

John

 

[Clifford Heath]

On 22/1/20 10:43 pm, Bill Sloman wrote:

On Wednesday, January 22, 2020 at 9:13:40 PM UTC+11, tabb...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, 22 January 2020 07:15:59 UTC, Clifford Heath wrote:
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.
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."

I think you'll find mercury is almost 100% liquid at room temp. Absence of amalgam doesn't change that, nor does any regulatory regime have anything to do with it afai am aware.

The vapour pressure of mercury over an amalgam is lower than that over liquid mercury

Exactly, thanks for explaining to NT. So when the CFLs end up under a
bulldozer in the dump, there is less contamination from the amalgam.
It's more likely to get securely buried than it it was liquid.

 

On Wednesday, 22 January 2020 11:35:18 UTC, Rick C wrote:

On Wednesday, January 22, 2020 at 1:32:55 AM UTC-5, tabby wrote:

When do you feel the need to use a light bulb that is shorter lived and uses more power than one that lasts much longer and uses a quarter or less of the power?

the only time now is when using them to limit inrush current. CFLs & LEDs are no use for that. When the ban struck, a lot of people were still using light fittings that couldn't use CFLs, so wanted to use filaments.

> What is all the drama bout? Why are people so into "old guy" mode??? "You kids, get off my lawn!!!"

There's just no valid basis to ban people from using lightbulbs. It's entirely political. Hardly surprising it has proven unpopular.


NT

 

On Wednesday, 22 January 2020 21:29:50 UTC, Clifford Heath wrote:

On 22/1/20 10:43 pm, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Wednesday, January 22, 2020 at 9:13:40 PM UTC+11, tabby wrote:
On Wednesday, 22 January 2020 07:15:59 UTC, Clifford Heath wrote:
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.
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."

I think you'll find mercury is almost 100% liquid at room temp. Absence of amalgam doesn't change that, nor does any regulatory regime have anything to do with it afai am aware.

The vapour pressure of mercury over an amalgam is lower than that over liquid mercury
Exactly, thanks for explaining to NT. So when the CFLs end up under a
bulldozer in the dump, there is less contamination from the amalgam.
It's more likely to get securely buried than it it was liquid.

CFLs are collected separately, though I don't know what they do with them.
What you say doesn't change the point that they release mercury in the home to a far greater extent than coal power. Whether that's a problem is unsurprisingly debated.


NT

 

[Rick C]

On Friday, January 24, 2020 at 4:08:10 AM UTC-5, tabb...@gmail.com wrote:

On Wednesday, 22 January 2020 11:35:18 UTC, Rick C wrote:
On Wednesday, January 22, 2020 at 1:32:55 AM UTC-5, tabby wrote:

When do you feel the need to use a light bulb that is shorter lived and uses more power than one that lasts much longer and uses a quarter or less of the power?

the only time now is when using them to limit inrush current. CFLs & LEDs are no use for that. When the ban struck, a lot of people were still using light fittings that couldn't use CFLs, so wanted to use filaments.

What is all the drama bout? Why are people so into "old guy" mode??? "You kids, get off my lawn!!!"

There's just no valid basis to ban people from using lightbulbs. It's entirely political. Hardly surprising it has proven unpopular.

There's no ban.

https://bulbcenter.com/products/philips-229799-100-watt-a19-frost-2-500-life-hours-1-470-lumens-130-volt?variant=28775311736896&currency=USD

If you want them, you can get them.

Just quit making stuff up, ok?

--

Rick C.

--+- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
--+- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[Rick C]

On Friday, January 24, 2020 at 4:11:29 AM UTC-5, tabb...@gmail.com wrote:

On Wednesday, 22 January 2020 21:29:50 UTC, Clifford Heath wrote:
On 22/1/20 10:43 pm, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Wednesday, January 22, 2020 at 9:13:40 PM UTC+11, tabby wrote:
On Wednesday, 22 January 2020 07:15:59 UTC, Clifford Heath wrote:
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.
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."

I think you'll find mercury is almost 100% liquid at room temp. Absence of amalgam doesn't change that, nor does any regulatory regime have anything to do with it afai am aware.

The vapour pressure of mercury over an amalgam is lower than that over liquid mercury
Exactly, thanks for explaining to NT. So when the CFLs end up under a
bulldozer in the dump, there is less contamination from the amalgam.
It's more likely to get securely buried than it it was liquid.

CFLs are collected separately, though I don't know what they do with them..
What you say doesn't change the point that they release mercury in the home to a far greater extent than coal power. Whether that's a problem is unsurprisingly debated.

I don't see any basis for that claim. I've had many CFL lights and never has one broken in the home. They burn out, but no breakage of the glass that I can remember. Maybe the mercury is making me loose my memory?

--

Rick C.

--++ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
--++ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Friday, January 24, 2020 at 8:11:29 PM UTC+11, tabb...@gmail.com wrote:

On Wednesday, 22 January 2020 21:29:50 UTC, Clifford Heath wrote:
On 22/1/20 10:43 pm, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Wednesday, January 22, 2020 at 9:13:40 PM UTC+11, tabby wrote:
On Wednesday, 22 January 2020 07:15:59 UTC, Clifford Heath wrote:
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.
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."

I think you'll find mercury is almost 100% liquid at room temp. Absence of amalgam doesn't change that, nor does any regulatory regime have anything to do with it afai am aware.

The vapour pressure of mercury over an amalgam is lower than that over liquid mercury
Exactly, thanks for explaining to NT. So when the CFLs end up under a
bulldozer in the dump, there is less contamination from the amalgam.
It's more likely to get securely buried than it it was liquid.

CFLs are collected separately, though I don't know what they do with them..
What you say doesn't change the point that they release mercury in the home to a far greater extent than coal power. Whether that's a problem is unsurprisingly debated.

Releasing mercury into the domestic environment is never a good idea.

A compact fluorescent lamp contains about 4 milligrams of mercury (on average).

https://earth911.com/home-garden/broken-cfl-clean-up/

The barometer hanging on my living room wall contains about a thousand times more - it's not a traditional design, which would contain even more.

It's not something to get wildly excited about.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Friday, January 24, 2020 at 8:08:10 PM UTC+11, tabb...@gmail.com wrote:

On Wednesday, 22 January 2020 11:35:18 UTC, Rick C wrote:
On Wednesday, January 22, 2020 at 1:32:55 AM UTC-5, tabby wrote:

When do you feel the need to use a light bulb that is shorter lived and uses more power than one that lasts much longer and uses a quarter or less of the power?

the only time now is when using them to limit inrush current. CFLs & LEDs are no use for that. When the ban struck, a lot of people were still using light fittings that couldn't use CFLs, so wanted to use filaments.

What is all the drama bout? Why are people so into "old guy" mode??? "You kids, get off my lawn!!!"

There's just no valid basis to ban people from using lightbulbs. It's entirely political. Hardly surprising it has proven unpopular.

There's certainly a reasonable justification for discouraging people from wasting energy.

When the electricity that is being used unnecessarily in incandescent light-bulbs that generate fewer lumens per watt than CFLs is being generated by burning fossil carbon the justification is even more obvious.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

On Friday, 24 January 2020 12:36:41 UTC, Bill Sloman wrote:

Releasing mercury into the domestic environment is never a good idea.

A compact fluorescent lamp contains about 4 milligrams of mercury (on average).

https://earth911.com/home-garden/broken-cfl-clean-up/

The barometer hanging on my living room wall contains about a thousand times more - it's not a traditional design, which would contain even more.

It's not something to get wildly excited about.

Scary, he's being mostly reasonable. BSSBS is sure to follow.

 

On Friday, 24 January 2020 12:27:40 UTC, Bill Sloman wrote:

On Friday, January 24, 2020 at 8:08:10 PM UTC+11, tabby wrote:
On Wednesday, 22 January 2020 11:35:18 UTC, Rick C wrote:
On Wednesday, January 22, 2020 at 1:32:55 AM UTC-5, tabby wrote:

When do you feel the need to use a light bulb that is shorter lived and uses more power than one that lasts much longer and uses a quarter or less of the power?

the only time now is when using them to limit inrush current. CFLs & LEDs are no use for that. When the ban struck, a lot of people were still using light fittings that couldn't use CFLs, so wanted to use filaments.

What is all the drama bout? Why are people so into "old guy" mode??? "You kids, get off my lawn!!!"

There's just no valid basis to ban people from using lightbulbs. It's entirely political. Hardly surprising it has proven unpopular.

There's certainly a reasonable justification for discouraging people from wasting energy.

discourage, sure. Ban, no.
And is is presumptive to call it wasting energy in the many cases where the choice was use filament versus get & fit a new luminaire.

 

On Friday, 24 January 2020 09:40:35 UTC, Rick C wrote:

On Friday, January 24, 2020 at 4:11:29 AM UTC-5, tabby wrote:
On Wednesday, 22 January 2020 21:29:50 UTC, Clifford Heath wrote:
On 22/1/20 10:43 pm, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Wednesday, January 22, 2020 at 9:13:40 PM UTC+11, tabby wrote:
On Wednesday, 22 January 2020 07:15:59 UTC, Clifford Heath wrote:
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.
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."

I think you'll find mercury is almost 100% liquid at room temp. Absence of amalgam doesn't change that, nor does any regulatory regime have anything to do with it afai am aware.

The vapour pressure of mercury over an amalgam is lower than that over liquid mercury
Exactly, thanks for explaining to NT. So when the CFLs end up under a
bulldozer in the dump, there is less contamination from the amalgam.
It's more likely to get securely buried than it it was liquid.

CFLs are collected separately, though I don't know what they do with them.
What you say doesn't change the point that they release mercury in the home to a far greater extent than coal power. Whether that's a problem is unsurprisingly debated.

I don't see any basis for that claim.

Well you're free to work out how much of the mercury realased within homes is absorbed & ditto for that released from power station chimneys. Not going to be the same %age are they.

> I've had many CFL lights and never has one broken in the home. They burn out, but no breakage of the glass that I can remember. Maybe the mercury is making me loose my memory?

In the rest of the world they did sometimes get broken.


NT

 

On Friday, 24 January 2020 09:38:01 UTC, Rick C wrote:

On Friday, January 24, 2020 at 4:08:10 AM UTC-5, tabby wrote:
On Wednesday, 22 January 2020 11:35:18 UTC, Rick C wrote:
On Wednesday, January 22, 2020 at 1:32:55 AM UTC-5, tabby wrote:

When do you feel the need to use a light bulb that is shorter lived and uses more power than one that lasts much longer and uses a quarter or less of the power?

the only time now is when using them to limit inrush current. CFLs & LEDs are no use for that. When the ban struck, a lot of people were still using light fittings that couldn't use CFLs, so wanted to use filaments.

What is all the drama bout? Why are people so into "old guy" mode??? "You kids, get off my lawn!!!"

There's just no valid basis to ban people from using lightbulbs. It's entirely political. Hardly surprising it has proven unpopular.

There's no ban.

https://bulbcenter.com/products/philips-229799-100-watt-a19-frost-2-500-life-hours-1-470-lumens-130-volt?variant=28775311736896&currency=USD

If you want them, you can get them.

Just quit making stuff up, ok?

that's in America you twerp.

 

[Rick C]

On Friday, January 24, 2020 at 1:11:14 PM UTC-5, tabb...@gmail.com wrote:

On Friday, 24 January 2020 09:38:01 UTC, Rick C wrote:
On Friday, January 24, 2020 at 4:08:10 AM UTC-5, tabby wrote:
On Wednesday, 22 January 2020 11:35:18 UTC, Rick C wrote:
On Wednesday, January 22, 2020 at 1:32:55 AM UTC-5, tabby wrote:

When do you feel the need to use a light bulb that is shorter lived and uses more power than one that lasts much longer and uses a quarter or less of the power?

the only time now is when using them to limit inrush current. CFLs & LEDs are no use for that. When the ban struck, a lot of people were still using light fittings that couldn't use CFLs, so wanted to use filaments.

What is all the drama bout? Why are people so into "old guy" mode??? "You kids, get off my lawn!!!"

There's just no valid basis to ban people from using lightbulbs. It's entirely political. Hardly surprising it has proven unpopular.

There's no ban.

https://bulbcenter.com/products/philips-229799-100-watt-a19-frost-2-500-life-hours-1-470-lumens-130-volt?variant=28775311736896&currency=USD

If you want them, you can get them.

Just quit making stuff up, ok?

that's in America you twerp.

From the web site...
Contact Us
ADDRESS:
6330 N Andrews Ave
#177
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33309

Why is it you just can't seem to bother with reading something useful instead of believing the stuff you make up???

--

Rick C.

-+-- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
-+-- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

On Saturday, 25 January 2020 00:12:39 UTC, Bill Sloman wrote:

On Saturday, January 25, 2020 at 5:34:46 AM UTC+11, tabb...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, 24 January 2020 12:27:40 UTC, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Friday, January 24, 2020 at 8:08:10 PM UTC+11, tabby wrote:
On Wednesday, 22 January 2020 11:35:18 UTC, Rick C wrote:
On Wednesday, January 22, 2020 at 1:32:55 AM UTC-5, tabby wrote:

When do you feel the need to use a light bulb that is shorter lived and uses more power than one that lasts much longer and uses a quarter or less of the power?

the only time now is when using them to limit inrush current. CFLs & LEDs are no use for that. When the ban struck, a lot of people were still using light fittings that couldn't use CFLs, so wanted to use filaments.

What is all the drama bout? Why are people so into "old guy" mode??? "You kids, get off my lawn!!!"

There's just no valid basis to ban people from using lightbulbs. It's entirely political. Hardly surprising it has proven unpopular.

There's certainly a reasonable justification for discouraging people from wasting energy.

discourage, sure. Ban, no.

A ban is a pretty effective way of discouraging people. It's not going to be entirely effective, and people who desperately need a filament bulb don't have to buy them from the shops.

discouraging & banning are obviously different things

And is is presumptive to call it wasting energy in the many cases where the choice was use filament versus get & fit a new luminaire.

Wasting energy is quite specific. It may be impractical to avoid wasting the energy, but using a filament lamp is still wasteful, even if you can justify it to yourself.

filament bulbs waste energy. Replacing fittings also uses energy.

> And people like NT are great at inventing justification.

And you are 100% not worth continuing to discuss with. You are full of twisted superstupidity, rolled up with your narcissistic toxic trolling. Goodbye you loser.

 

On Friday, 24 January 2020 22:22:15 UTC, Rick C wrote:

On Friday, January 24, 2020 at 1:11:14 PM UTC-5, tabby wrote:
On Friday, 24 January 2020 09:38:01 UTC, Rick C wrote:
On Friday, January 24, 2020 at 4:08:10 AM UTC-5, tabby wrote:
On Wednesday, 22 January 2020 11:35:18 UTC, Rick C wrote:
On Wednesday, January 22, 2020 at 1:32:55 AM UTC-5, tabby wrote:

When do you feel the need to use a light bulb that is shorter lived and uses more power than one that lasts much longer and uses a quarter or less of the power?

the only time now is when using them to limit inrush current. CFLs & LEDs are no use for that. When the ban struck, a lot of people were still using light fittings that couldn't use CFLs, so wanted to use filaments.

What is all the drama bout? Why are people so into "old guy" mode??? "You kids, get off my lawn!!!"

There's just no valid basis to ban people from using lightbulbs. It's entirely political. Hardly surprising it has proven unpopular.

There's no ban.

https://bulbcenter.com/products/philips-229799-100-watt-a19-frost-2-500-life-hours-1-470-lumens-130-volt?variant=28775311736896&currency=USD

If you want them, you can get them.

Just quit making stuff up, ok?

that's in America you twerp.

From the web site...
Contact Us
ADDRESS:
6330 N Andrews Ave
#177
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33309

Why is it you just can't seem to bother with reading something useful instead of believing the stuff you make up???

The lightbulb ban is not something I made up, google it for all the info. Silly twerp.

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Saturday, January 25, 2020 at 5:34:46 AM UTC+11, tabb...@gmail.com wrote:

On Friday, 24 January 2020 12:27:40 UTC, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Friday, January 24, 2020 at 8:08:10 PM UTC+11, tabby wrote:
On Wednesday, 22 January 2020 11:35:18 UTC, Rick C wrote:
On Wednesday, January 22, 2020 at 1:32:55 AM UTC-5, tabby wrote:

When do you feel the need to use a light bulb that is shorter lived and uses more power than one that lasts much longer and uses a quarter or less of the power?

the only time now is when using them to limit inrush current. CFLs & LEDs are no use for that. When the ban struck, a lot of people were still using light fittings that couldn't use CFLs, so wanted to use filaments.

What is all the drama bout? Why are people so into "old guy" mode??? "You kids, get off my lawn!!!"

There's just no valid basis to ban people from using lightbulbs. It's entirely political. Hardly surprising it has proven unpopular.

There's certainly a reasonable justification for discouraging people from wasting energy.

discourage, sure. Ban, no.

A ban is a pretty effective way of discouraging people. It's not going to be entirely effective, and people who desperately need a filament bulb don't have to buy them from the shops.

> And is is presumptive to call it wasting energy in the many cases where the choice was use filament versus get & fit a new luminaire.

Wasting energy is quite specific. It may be impractical to avoid wasting the energy, but using a filament lamp is still wasteful, even if you can justify it to yourself.

And people like NT are great at inventing justification.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Saturday, January 25, 2020 at 5:36:31 AM UTC+11, tabb...@gmail.com wrote:

On Friday, 24 January 2020 12:36:41 UTC, Bill Sloman wrote:

Releasing mercury into the domestic environment is never a good idea.

A compact fluorescent lamp contains about 4 milligrams of mercury (on average).

https://earth911.com/home-garden/broken-cfl-clean-up/

The barometer hanging on my living room wall contains about a thousand times more - it's not a traditional design, which would contain even more.

It's not something to get wildly excited about.

Scary, he's being mostly reasonable. BSSBS is sure to follow.

I'm bound to post something that NT disagrees with soon. He does believe an amazing amount of nonsense, and has this urge to pose as an authority while posting it - he's a pretentious clown, as I seem to have mentioned before, and constitutionally incapable of realising just how silly his pontifications can look to the even marginally better informed, who are numerous.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Saturday, January 25, 2020 at 11:34:41 AM UTC+11, tabb...@gmail.com wrote:

On Saturday, 25 January 2020 00:12:39 UTC, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Saturday, January 25, 2020 at 5:34:46 AM UTC+11, tabb...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, 24 January 2020 12:27:40 UTC, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Friday, January 24, 2020 at 8:08:10 PM UTC+11, tabby wrote:
On Wednesday, 22 January 2020 11:35:18 UTC, Rick C wrote:
On Wednesday, January 22, 2020 at 1:32:55 AM UTC-5, tabby wrote:

When do you feel the need to use a light bulb that is shorter lived and uses more power than one that lasts much longer and uses a quarter or less of the power?

the only time now is when using them to limit inrush current. CFLs & LEDs are no use for that. When the ban struck, a lot of people were still using light fittings that couldn't use CFLs, so wanted to use filaments.

What is all the drama bout? Why are people so into "old guy" mode??? "You kids, get off my lawn!!!"

There's just no valid basis to ban people from using lightbulbs. It's entirely political. Hardly surprising it has proven unpopular.

There's certainly a reasonable justification for discouraging people from wasting energy.

discourage, sure. Ban, no.

A ban is a pretty effective way of discouraging people. It's not going to be entirely effective, and people who desperately need a filament bulb don't have to buy them from the shops.

discouraging & banning are obviously different things

Obviously. "Discouraging" is aimed at changing consumer behaviour, and banning is aimed at changing supplier behaviour. Different means to a common end.

And is is presumptive to call it wasting energy in the many cases where the choice was use filament versus get & fit a new luminaire.

Wasting energy is quite specific. It may be impractical to avoid wasting the energy, but using a filament lamp is still wasteful, even if you can justify it to yourself.

filament bulbs waste energy. Replacing fittings also uses energy.

The cost of a filament bulb is generally quite a bit lower than the cost of the energy it uses over its lifetime. The amount of energy invested in fabricating a fitting which could accommodate a different light source can be quite low, but what you buy is also driven by aesthetics, so it really doesn't come into it.

And people like NT are great at inventing justification.

And you are 100% not worth continuing to discuss with. You are full of twisted superstupidity, rolled up with your narcissistic toxic trolling. Goodbye you loser.

NT describes himself with exquisite precision - not usually his strong suite.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney