Toshiba TV29C90 problem; Image fades to black...

[Wild_Bill]

You really are a blue ribbon simpleton, Trev.

When computers were being introduced for home use, other forms of
communication and/or creativity weren't banned.

I recall the "proposed" huge benefits of widespread computer use were going
to include:

-dramatically reduce paper usage and eliminate the necessity of an infinite
number of forms.
Then eveyone started buying printers for every reason imaginable, and using
computers to create and generate more forms.
Products with no real value.. phone books, magazines, catalogs.. still
paper, although many are digitized.

-reduce the size of government since there wouldn't be a need for as many
people to move around all those forms that would no longer be paper.
Didn't see that happen either.

-records will be more secure.
Hogwash.. after many disasters, there are reports of lost records which
aren't archived elsewhere.

Computers have increased corporate profits, but have done little to make
everyday life more comfortable or convenient for the people inhabiting the
planet.
Well, then there are the smart people that create a letterhead and a
worthless organization based upon their own misguided adgendas, to leech
money from others for a good cause.

-Make much more effective the use of our time (don't care for the "save
time" hoax, kinda like products that pay for themselves).
Yet everywhere people need to get in a line for a purchase or service, there
are still always lines and peope waiting.
Daily encounters with computers aren't really faster and more efficient,
they're actually more complicated.

You keep yapping about silicon, yet there are no reasons people die from
silicon.

Mercury, gallium arsenide and other toxic elements are actually contained
within new lighting technologies, but not in incandescent lamps.
Maybe you should start yapping about argon.

You might actually believe that "regulators ensure that the pollution
created is dealt with appropriately".
This is partially true, and generally always after the pollution has taken
place (often for a long time without detection), after the fact, and the
cleanup costs are generally always put on the citizens. The fines are
generally only symbolic.

You seem to think that someone should be impressed with the dozen-or-so
lighting devices you've commented on.
Your experience (real or not) is completely insignificant in the lighting
industry which includes hundreds of millions/billions of lighting devices
sold every year.

The incidence of failure of products from China is higher than it's ever
been for many of the people alive today. Many of these products don't even
function when new.
The race to the bottom as far as product quality goes, is based upon greed.
Very few products are manufactured today that are intended to last for 10
years, and that means very few consumer electronic devices.. of which many
don't last 2 years.

What this means is that your 10 year old LED example isn't even relative in
today's manufacturing practices.
The throw-away-society arrived while you weren't paying attention.
All that trash needs to go somewhere.
How many times can a $40 VCR be fixed?

So you go right ahead and get in line for those new, high quality, 10 year
life, $50 LED lighting devices.. then spend your time repairing them.
You're savig the planet and contributing to humanitarian causes. There
oughta be an award for that, Oh.. there is, it's called an inflated ego.

I don't dispute that an LED can last 10 years, only that in the present
manufacturing environment, a 40-100W LED lamp is going to be manufactured to
fail.
I have a lot of LED flashlights and portable lights and they work great for
seeing in the dark, or signaling such as panel indicators, but piss poor at
illuminating a room.

With LED flashlights, they seem to produce a lot of light when surrounded by
darkness, but they don't "throw" light very well at all.. and the reflector
becomes more important than the miniscule light source.
Reflectors take space, which defeats making a device compact.

Unless you live like people did in the early 1900s with one dim lamp per
room, LED home lighting is going to be very costly, both in terms of early
failures and replacing fixtures which won't accomodate the new designs.
Might also be a good time to change all interior items to white.. white
floors, walls, furniture, etc.

LED lighting might be great for a camper/caravan with 12V lighting circuits,
but I suspect there will be lots of problems with adapting 240 or 120VAC to
3V.
Power supplies introduce losses, spike/surge suppressors add to final cost.

Has anyone discovered a metal as good as/better than gold for those tiny
leads attached to LED (and IC) chips?
When gold loses it's value, LEDs will become cheaper to produce.

You keep parroting that incandescent lamps have short or extremely short
lifespans, which could be true of the cheap examples you bought, but they
don't cost anywhere near $50 each and aren't hazardous waste to end up in
the ground near water supplies. BTW, many thread bases of light bulbs today
are aluminum, as are the threaded sockets in many fixtures.

Incandescent light bulb costs have traditionally (for generations now) been
insignificant in the annual budget of home maintenance.. but that is going
to change, significantly.

Maybe everyone will need to keep a drawer/cupboard full of LED lamps to
insure their homes aren't dangerous to move around in.. cha-ching!

I'm not exaggerating my experiences with CFLs, but I can tell ya that a 10
year life for CFLs is not average or even close to common.

Almost all of my CFLs are/have been mounted base-down in open/ventilated
metal reflectors.. I've had 3 go into catastrophic failure, turning red hot
before I could react quickly to shut them off. The only warning was a few
blinks just prior to the failures.

You were the one that initiated the question of proof so I just played
along, because I knew your response was predictable.
I've presented proof.. these are my opinions.. no, seriously. They weren't
composed by some marketing firm.

**Irrelevant.. was your answer for how many of those LEDs it takes to
illuminate a room.
OK.. right.

My comments aren't arguments that my opinions are correct, so you go ahead
and argue all you want to.

--
Cheers,
WB
..............

 

[Trevor Wilson]

Michael A. Terrell wrote:

Trevor Wilson wrote:

**I do. I keep track of the life of my lamps. Incandescents don't
last long.


There are some in the US that have been on 24/7 for decades, and
still work. Some are over 100 years old.

**Indeed. The ways to get incandescents to last a long time are well known.
They are simply under-run massively. IOW: Use a 280VAC rated lamp at 240VAC
and the thing will last MUCH longer. Of course, colour temperature edges
much closer towards the red and efficiency is absolute crap.

Cheap bulbs don't last,

and neither do those that are used improperly.

**Not so different to CFLs and LEDs. Funny about that.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[Trevor Wilson]

Wild_Bill wrote:

You really are a blue ribbon simpleton, Trev.

**Tell you what, dickhead: Try using some facts and logic to support your
arguments and you'll sound like you have a brain. So far, you just sound
like an idiot. You use insults in preference to common-sense, logic and hard
evidence. I will now give you a chance to redeem yourself.

When computers were being introduced for home use, other forms of
communication and/or creativity weren't banned.

**Blah, blah, blah. We're talking about incandescents, LEDs and CFLs. Stay
on topic.

I recall the "proposed" huge benefits of widespread computer use were
going to include:

-dramatically reduce paper usage and eliminate the necessity of an
infinite number of forms.
Then eveyone started buying printers for every reason imaginable, and
using computers to create and generate more forms.
Products with no real value.. phone books, magazines, catalogs.. still
paper, although many are digitized.

-reduce the size of government since there wouldn't be a need for as
many people to move around all those forms that would no longer be
paper. Didn't see that happen either.

**Blah, blah, blah. We're talking about incandescents, LEDs and CFLs. Stay
on topic.

-records will be more secure.
Hogwash.. after many disasters, there are reports of lost records
which aren't archived elsewhere.

Computers have increased corporate profits, but have done little to
make everyday life more comfortable or convenient for the people
inhabiting the planet.
Well, then there are the smart people that create a letterhead and a
worthless organization based upon their own misguided adgendas, to
leech money from others for a good cause.

**Blah, blah, blah. We're talking about incandescents, LEDs and CFLs. Stay
on topic.

-Make much more effective the use of our time (don't care for the
"save time" hoax, kinda like products that pay for themselves).
Yet everywhere people need to get in a line for a purchase or
service, there are still always lines and peope waiting.
Daily encounters with computers aren't really faster and more
efficient, they're actually more complicated.

**Blah, blah, blah. We're talking about incandescents, LEDs and CFLs. Stay
on topic.

You keep yapping about silicon, yet there are no reasons people die
from silicon.

**Huh? WTF are you talking about? I merely corrected your idiotic comments
about CFLs and LEDs.

Mercury, gallium arsenide and other toxic elements are actually
contained within new lighting technologies, but not in incandescent
lamps.

**So? There are a large range of toxic elements in the computer you are
using, in the cell 'phone you may happen to use and just about every other
modern device. What's your point? Are you going to cease using your
computer? Please do so immediately. Give us a rest your incessant twaddle
and idiotic top-posting.

There are harmful chemicals in a great many products. Those chemicals need
to be dealt with correctly and appropriately.

Maybe you should start yapping about argon.

You might actually believe that "regulators ensure that the pollution
created is dealt with appropriately".
This is partially true, and generally always after the pollution has
taken place (often for a long time without detection), after the
fact, and the cleanup costs are generally always put on the citizens.
The fines are generally only symbolic.

**Then why don't YOU start by not using your computer? Stop buying lead acid
batteries, NiCd batteries, any products that use leaded solder, any products
with tantalum capacitors contained within, anything using gold sourced from
Papua, petroleum products, anything using plastic, etc, etc. YOU should
follow your own advice.

You seem to think that someone should be impressed with the
dozen-or-so lighting devices you've commented on.

**No. I am citing fact. Nothing more. I have not experienced a CFL failure,
ever (other than misuse). Of course, I only purchase quality CFLs and I use
them correctly.

Your experience (real or not) is completely insignificant in the
lighting industry which includes hundreds of millions/billions of
lighting devices sold every year.

**OK. Then YOU need to provide the data which shows how unreliable quality,
correctly operated CFLs are. My anecdotes are EXACTLY as irrelevant as
yours.

The incidence of failure of products from China is higher than it's
ever been for many of the people alive today. Many of these products
don't even function when new.

**More twaddle. Some products are good. Some not so good. Just for yuks, I
thought I'd test your theory.

In the last 20-odd years, I've used a number of 'walk-about' telephones. A
couple were Panasonics, whilst others were from other manufacturers. Except
for the one I use right now, all were manufactured in Japan. They all
failed. Some last 4 or 5 years and some lasted less than a year. The one I
have beside me is 6 years old. It is made in China.

The race to the bottom as far as product quality goes, is based upon
greed. Very few products are manufactured today that are intended to
last for 10 years, and that means very few consumer electronic
devices.. of which many don't last 2 years.

**The nation with the worst reputation for quality (or domestic products) is
the USA, not China. Except Cree.

What this means is that your 10 year old LED example isn't even
relative in today's manufacturing practices.

**I'll let you know in another ten years. We'll see how long the ones I've
recently installed last.

The throw-away-society arrived while you weren't paying attention.
All that trash needs to go somewhere.
How many times can a $40 VCR be fixed?

**As many times as you like. However, a $100.00 VCR is likely to last MUCH
longer than a $1,500.00 VCR manufactured in 1980.

So you go right ahead and get in line for those new, high quality, 10
year life, $50 LED lighting devices.. then spend your time repairing
them.

**Cite your proof that the LEDs will fail prematurely.

You're savig the planet and contributing to humanitarian

causes. There oughta be an award for that, Oh.. there is, it's called
an inflated ego.
I don't dispute that an LED can last 10 years, only that in the
present manufacturing environment, a 40-100W LED lamp is going to be
manufactured to fail.

**Prove it.

I have a lot of LED flashlights and portable lights and they work
great for seeing in the dark, or signaling such as panel indicators,
but piss poor at illuminating a room.

**You have got to be the most pig-ignorant poster we've seen in quite a long
time. Light is light. It can be measured and quantified.

With LED flashlights, they seem to produce a lot of light when
surrounded by darkness, but they don't "throw" light very well at
all.. and the reflector becomes more important than the miniscule
light source. Reflectors take space, which defeats making a device
compact.

**Just when I thought you were speaking complete bollocks, you surpass
yourself for abject stupidity. I direct you to a link, which shows what two,
identical power consumption torches can do. One is a 3 Watt halogen torch.
The other is a 3 Watt LED torch:

http://s1112.photobucket.com/albums/k497/Zaphod1000/

In case you have not worked it out, the right hand one is the halogen and
the left is the LED. The halogen was fitted with fresh batteries. I charged
the Lithium battery in the LED torch a month ago.

Now, please explain WTF you mean by LED torches not being able to "throw"
light very well. I can tell you that the torch whose beam you can see in the
photo is easily capable of lighting up stuff a couple of hundred Metres
away. The halogen doesn't have a snowball's chance in Hell.

Unless you live like people did in the early 1900s with one dim lamp
per room, LED home lighting is going to be very costly, both in terms
of early failures and replacing fixtures which won't accomodate the
new designs.

**So you keep claiming. Let's see you hard proof of your claims.

Might also be a good time to change all interior items

to white.. white floors, walls, furniture, etc.

LED lighting might be great for a camper/caravan with 12V lighting
circuits, but I suspect there will be lots of problems with adapting
240 or 120VAC to 3V.
Power supplies introduce losses, spike/surge suppressors add to final
cost.

**Of course. Just like CFLs, there is an extra cost associated with LEDs.
However, the MASSIVE increase in efficiency and incredibly long life make up
for those issues.

Has anyone discovered a metal as good as/better than gold for those
tiny leads attached to LED (and IC) chips?
When gold loses it's value, LEDs will become cheaper to produce.

**Blah, blah, blah. We're talking about incandescents, LEDs and CFLs. Stay
on topic.

You keep parroting that incandescent lamps have short or extremely
short lifespans, which could be true of the cheap examples you
bought, but they don't cost anywhere near $50 each and aren't
hazardous waste to end up in the ground near water supplies. BTW,
many thread bases of light bulbs today are aluminum, as are the
threaded sockets in many fixtures.

**A VERY large number of incandescent lamps were/are produced using lead
solder. Lead is toxic. And again: Proper disposal should be part of any
product's design. That includes CFLs, LEDs and incandescents.

Incandescent light bulb costs have traditionally (for generations
now) been insignificant in the annual budget of home maintenance..
but that is going to change, significantly.

**Fortunately, the long life of CFLs and LEDs make that cost irrelevant.
However, let's examine that claim:

I use 23 Watt CFLs in a number of locations. They cost around AUS$5.00 each.
SO FAR, I have obtained around 3,500 hours of use, at minimal light
degradation. I fully expect a life of at least 7,000 ~ 10,000 hours from
these lamps. However, let's use the low end figure for calculation: 3,500
hours. $5.00 for 3,500 hours. Total powe4r consumption for that period =
80.5 kW/hours. At (say) $0.20/kW/hr = $16.10. Total running cost = $21.10.
In reality, the figure will be somewhat lower.

To replace that 23 Watt CFL, I need to use a (minimum) 100 Watt incandescent
(it's really more like 125 Watt, but I'm going easy on you). Let's say the
cost of a decent one was AUS$1.00. The BEST one can expect from a 100 lamp
is around 500 hours. Let's say 1,000 hours, because I'm feeling generous.
You'll need 3.5 lamps to equal one CFL. Total initial cost $3.50. Power
consumption for the period is 350kW/hours. At $0.20/kW/hr = $70.00. Total
running cost = $73.50.

CFL comfortably nails the incandescent.

My own experience with incandescents suggests that a 100 Watt incandescent
will likely last considerably less than 200 hours.

Maybe everyone will need to keep a drawer/cupboard full of LED lamps
to insure their homes aren't dangerous to move around in.. cha-ching!

**No need. LED last a very long time.

I'm not exaggerating my experiences with CFLs, but I can tell ya that
a 10 year life for CFLs is not average or even close to common.

**Then cite your proof.

Almost all of my CFLs are/have been mounted base-down in
open/ventilated metal reflectors.. I've had 3 go into catastrophic
failure, turning red hot before I could react quickly to shut them
off. The only warning was a few blinks just prior to the failures.

**Stop buying shitty CFLs.

You were the one that initiated the question of proof so I just played
along, because I knew your response was predictable.
I've presented proof.. these are my opinions.. no, seriously. They
weren't composed by some marketing firm.

**You have not provided proof. See my photo as something that represents
proof and shreds at least one of your dodgy and seriously deluded arguments.

**Irrelevant.. was your answer for how many of those LEDs it takes to
illuminate a room.
OK.. right.

**I made no claim that the first generation LEDs that I was using could
light a room.

My comments aren't arguments that my opinions are correct, so you go
ahead and argue all you want to.

**Supply your proof and learn how to post properly.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[Trevor Wilson]

Arfa Daily wrote:

"Trevor Wilson" <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
news:9dt97uFguqU1@mid.individual.net...
Wild_Bill wrote:
Maybe you know of a heat pump that will illuminate a house, and only
cost the owner about $20 per year to purchase.

**I don't. And YOU don't know of a lamp that can heat a house (or
cool one) either. Using lights to warm a home is insane. Pretty much
like everything else you've posted.


Production of plastics pollutes, so does gallium arsenide, and
mercury in CFLs.

**No one disputes that. Production of almost any manufactured item
causes some kind of pollution. That is why regulators ensure that
the pollution created is dealt with appropriately. Fortunately, LEDs
last a VERY long time and consume small amounts of material, so
total pollution remains low.

Were you born yesterday?

**Did the manufacturing process of computer you are presently using
cause zero pollution? Are you insane?


Just because the pollution takes place somewhere else doesn't mean
it doesn't effect all.

**I am well aware of that. I am also a supporter of organisations
that attempt to minimise pollution caused by large manufacturers of
many products. Are you?

Ubuntu.

Some say that only about 1% of the water on this planet is
drinkable, although there's plenty that's contaminated with toxic
chemicals and disease.
Many people drink and bathe in poisonous, disease polluted water,
but that shouldn't concern you.

**Like I said: I contribute financially to several organisations
that are active in trying to ensure that people less fortunate than
I am are not subject to pollution from large companies. Do you?


Who is dying from silicon?

**The manufacture of glass, steel and tungsten is a very energy
intensive process. Combined with the extremely short life-span of
incandescent lamps and their monsterous inefficiency (Less than 5%)
contributes to huge amounts of CO2. CFLs and LEDs cause far less CO2
to be emitted, both in manufacture and in operation over the life of
the product. CO2 affects every human on the planet.


I don't have actual figures, Trevor, but it makes sense that making a
thin glass spherical envelope for an incandescent, is unlikely to use
more energy than making a thick-walled tube wound into a convoluted
double spiral.

**Intuitively, that would be a reasonable assumption.

Many of the other items contained in a CFL, also use

very energy intensive processes, and have to be carried out in many
different factories, which then brings the costs of moving workers
around, keeping them warm and fed, moving raw materials around,
moving finished components around, and so on. Just because all of
these things are 'hidden', it doesn't make them any less relevant.

**I agree.

Looked at rationally, given the amount of components and
manufacturing processes involved, I would have thought that the
simple incandescent bulb, with its very few parts, consumed nothing
like as much energy overall to get from nothing to working in my
house.

**I don't know how much energy is involved with each device, but I'll betcha
the energy consumed by the incandescent, over it's entire life vastly
exceeds the energy required to manufacture it. The CFL, by comparison, is a
massively more efficient device, with a much longer life span. Total energy
is likely to be far lower with the CFL. And no, I don't have the data, but I
imagine someone has done the maths.


Bear in mind also, that very long-lived incandescents are

available, and always were. Its just that they cost more, and are not
in the financial interests of the bulb manufacturers, to promote.

**And, they are vastly less efficient. The technology to build long lasting
incandescents has been known for a long time - operate them at lower
Voltages, or use a carbon filament. Either way, colour temperature sucks and
efficiency is way down.

BTW: The discussion also involves LEDs. IMO, CFLs are an interim step. They
have far too many drawbacks to be a long term solution. Incandescents are,
of course, no solution at all.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[Phil Allison]

"Ian Fuckwit Field"

Last time I looked ..

** Impossible for anyone who has wanked themselves blind to look at
anything.

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

Trevor Wilson wrote:

Michael A. Terrell wrote:
Trevor Wilson wrote:

**I do. I keep track of the life of my lamps. Incandescents don't
last long.


There are some in the US that have been on 24/7 for decades, and
still work. Some are over 100 years old.

**Indeed. The ways to get incandescents to last a long time are well known.
They are simply under-run massively. IOW: Use a 280VAC rated lamp at 240VAC
and the thing will last MUCH longer. Of course, colour temperature edges
much closer towards the red and efficiency is absolute crap.

Cheap bulbs don't last,
and neither do those that are used improperly.

**Not so different to CFLs and LEDs. Funny about that.

Still doesn't prove your lame assed claim that incandescents don't
last.


--
You can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense.

 

[Phil Allison]

"Jim Yanksit"

incandescent lamps color temps do NOT match that of the sun;

** Irrelevant.

"daylight" CT is around 6500K

** Daylight varies over a wide range of light intensity and colour.

OTOH, artificial light is constant and the eye adjusts.

Daylight is much "whiter" than incandescent light.

** See above.

 

[Arfa Daily]

"Phil Allison" <phil_a@tpg.com.au> wrote in message
news:9dsttbF2n3U1@mid.individual.net...

"Arfa Daily"
"Trevor Wilson"

snip

* LEDs use a miniscule amount of silicon.
* Incandescent lamps use a very large amount of silicon

Whereabouts ?


** The TW charlatan is being a real clever dick.

Glass is about 23% silicon by weight.

So is that *all* glass ? I can't find any reference anywhere to silicon
being a component of bog-standard glass. Is it just naturally in there, and
if so, in what form ? Or is it put in there for some reason, and for what
purpose if so ?

Got NOTHING to do with the very nasty polluting and carcinogenic
processes involved in making silicon semiconductors.

Yes, where the silicon has been extracted from whatever ore it occurs in,
and then refined

.... Phil

Arfa

 

[Arfa Daily]

"Jim Yanik" <jyanik@abuse.gov> wrote in message
news:Xns9F67703D7720Ajyaniklocalnetcom@216.168.3.44...

"Arfa Daily" <arfa.daily@ntlworld.com> wrote in
news:bfbeq.813$Jq5.386@newsfe02.ams2:



"Trevor Wilson" <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
news:9dse5pFcrmU1@mid.individual.net...
the following:


snip

* LEDs use a miniscule amount of silicon.
* Incandescent lamps use a very large amount of silicon

Whereabouts ?

Arfa




the glass envelope.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com

See my question regarding this, elsewhere in the thread

Arfa

 

[Phil Allison]

"Arfa Daily"

** The TW charlatan is being a real clever dick.

Glass is about 23% silicon by weight.


So is that *all* glass ? I can't find any reference anywhere to silicon
being a component of bog-standard glass.

** Glass is 75% Silica - aka beach sand.

Silica is SO2

Yawnnnnnnnn.....



.....Phil

 

[Arfa Daily]

BTW: The discussion also involves LEDs. IMO, CFLs are an interim step.
They have far too many drawbacks to be a long term solution. Incandescents
are, of course, no solution at all.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

But actually, what exactly is the problem that we're trying to find a
solution to ? I saw some figures a few weeks ago that said that if every
single light bulb in the UK was changed to a CFL, the total saving in energy
would amount to the output of one small power station. I suppose that you
could argue that any saving is worth having, but I sometimes think that this
religion of 'green' has completely overtaken common sense, and in some
cases, the disadvantages of a substitute technology such as CFLs, needs to
be weighed against the perceived disadvantages of what it's trying to
replace. The problem with green technology is that its advocators are often
zealots, who seek to portray the alternatives that they are pedaling as the
only solution to a problem which often, only they see. They never tell the
full story behind these technologies, being selective in the extreme. CFLs
are a good example of this, where the *only* aspects that have been
promoted, are the fact that they consume less energy for the same amount of
light output as an 'equivalent' incandescent - and therein lies a can of
worms before we start - and that they are supposedly longer lived. The huge
amounts of manufacturing processes, and shipping energy for all the
component parts, and all the other hidden energy inputs, are politely
ignored. Not to mention the true disposal costs, if this is done properly.
No one really understands the real manufacturing costs either, because
governments are making sure that the true price is subsidised by collecting
additional 'green' taxes via the energy companies, from the likes of you and
I. If ever these subsidies are removed, CFLs will become a major expense to
a household, unless they use really crappy quality Chinese imports that give
poor light quality and poor starting characteristics, and are much shorter
lived than people are currently being persuaded is the case.

Arfa

 

[Sjouke Burry]

Arfa Daily wrote:

"Phil Allison" <phil_a@tpg.com.au> wrote in message
news:9dsttbF2n3U1@mid.individual.net...
"Arfa Daily"
"Trevor Wilson"
snip
* LEDs use a miniscule amount of silicon.
* Incandescent lamps use a very large amount of silicon
Whereabouts ?

** The TW charlatan is being a real clever dick.

Glass is about 23% silicon by weight.


So is that *all* glass ? I can't find any reference anywhere to silicon
being a component of bog-standard glass. Is it just naturally in there, and
if so, in what form ? Or is it put in there for some reason, and for what
purpose if so ?



Got NOTHING to do with the very nasty polluting and carcinogenic
processes involved in making silicon semiconductors.



Yes, where the silicon has been extracted from whatever ore it occurs in,
and then refined


.... Phil


Arfa

Silicon and oxygen together make sand.

Glass is made from sand and a few other simple things.
No pollution,grind the glass, and (RE-)use it as sand.
Semiconducters on the other hand, have quite dirty production
methods,and eating globs of energy during the refining
stage(zone melting).
See the news about the solar cell factory(s) in China which have been
closed down....

Also, I bet there is more glass in a cfl, then in an incandescent.

The cfl's which failed me, all had the big capacitor burn out,except
one, where the tube shattered.

Last, hot semiconductors have the nasty habit of failing quickly,
so I kind of do not believe those stories about the very long lifetimes
for cfl an leds, heat kills quickly.
Once they are able to produce a lightsource which stays cool,
and is efficient, I will start believing those long lifetimes.

 

[Dennis]

"Phil Allison" <phil_a@tpg.com.au> wrote in message
news:9dvbhgFrhaU1@mid.individual.net...

"Ian Fuckwit Field"


Last time I looked ..


** Impossible for anyone who has wanked themselves blind to look at
anything.



Bullshit Phil, it's a myth;

http://psychcentral.com/lib/2007/does-masturbation-cause-blindness/

 

[Trevor Wilson]

Arfa Daily wrote:

BTW: The discussion also involves LEDs. IMO, CFLs are an interim
step. They have far too many drawbacks to be a long term solution.
Incandescents are, of course, no solution at all.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au


But actually, what exactly is the problem that we're trying to find a
solution to ?

**Let see. Incandescents are:

* Around 5% efficient. At best.
* Have a short life-span.
* Suffer poor colour rendition.

If those problems can be solved, then thast would be a good thing.

I saw some figures a few weeks ago that said that if

every single light bulb in the UK was changed to a CFL, the total
saving in energy would amount to the output of one small power
station.

**I'll take your word for it. That does not tell the entire story though.
For every 100 Watts of incandescent light that can be eliminated, a
significant amount of air conditioning costs can be eliminated. There's a
very good bunch of reasons why fluoros and other types of discharge lamps
are used in every office building, shopping centre and many other places in
most nations. They're efficient and they reduce demands on air conditioning.
And, consequently, on energy suppliers. Every Watt not dissipated, is a Watt
that does not need to be countered with an air conditioner. It adds up.

Having said all that, here in Australia, lighting is far less important than
heating, cooling and pool filtering in terms of total energy consumption. Do
a Google Earth on Sydney of Brisbane and count the number of pools. Each one
uses around 8kWhr of energy every day. Lighting, by comparison is no where
near as significant. Mostly. I just came back from a service call at a
neighbour's home. Every single part of the home was lit by halogen
downlights. These are an incredibly wasteful way to light a home, yet they
are very popular. The kitchen, alone had 6 X 50 Watt downlights.

I suppose that you could argue that any saving is worth

having, but I sometimes think that this religion of 'green' has
completely overtaken common sense, and in some cases, the
disadvantages of a substitute technology such as CFLs, needs to be
weighed against the perceived disadvantages of what it's trying to
replace.

**Fair enough, but we have not seen any real data yet. I don't have the
data, do you? The idiot who keeps claiming that CFLs are less reliable than
incadescents has yet to supply any data.


The problem with green technology is that its advocators are

often zealots, who seek to portray the alternatives that they are
pedaling as the only solution to a problem which often, only they
see. They never tell the full story behind these technologies, being
selective in the extreme. CFLs are a good example of this, where the
*only* aspects that have been promoted, are the fact that they
consume less energy for the same amount of light output as an
'equivalent' incandescent - and therein lies a can of worms before we
start - and that they are supposedly longer lived.

**IME, they are certainly MUCH longer lived. By a dramatic amount. My sample
size is:

19 CFLs.
1 incandescent
12 halogen incandescents

* In six years, none of the CFLs have failed. Several CFLs were transferred
from a previous residence and are at least 8 years old. One is operated at
least 4 hours per day. Most others see around 1 ~ 1.5 hours per day.
* My non-halogen incandescent has failed twice in 6 years. It's use is
severely restricted to less than 1 hour per week.
* The halogen downlights are used around 2 hours per week. I've replaced at
least a dozen halogens in the last 6 years.

The huge amounts

of manufacturing processes, and shipping energy for all the component
parts, and all the other hidden energy inputs, are politely ignored.

**Are they? I'm pretty certain that shipping costs are taken into account.

Not to mention the true disposal costs, if this is done properly. No
one really understands the real manufacturing costs either, because
governments are making sure that the true price is subsidised by
collecting additional 'green' taxes via the energy companies, from
the likes of you and I.

**Not me. Here in Australia, there are no subsidies or special treatment for
low energy lamps. Yet. CFLs have been cheap for quite a few years. I pay
around 5 Bucks for high quality, 23 Watt, Philips branded lamps. There are
MUCH cheaper lamps available, but I don't buy them (anymore). Once bitten,
twice shy. If you examine my analysis of the running costs of incandescent
vs. CFLs, you'll see why CFLs are a MUCH better choice.

If ever these subsidies are removed, CFLs

will become a major expense to a household, unless they use really
crappy quality Chinese imports that give poor light quality and poor
starting characteristics, and are much shorter lived than people are
currently being persuaded is the case.

**Bollocks. There are no subsidies in Australia and qualility CFLs can be
purchased for around 5 Bucks. Given the exceptionally long life and low
operating costs, there is simply no comparison.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[Phil Allison]

"Arfa Daily"


** Stop trying to reason with TW.

The guy is one of the biggest all round lunatics and charlatans in
Australia.

He never listens and he never changes his views, no matter how wrong he is.

He is utterly autistic.



.... Phil

 

[Trevor Wilson]

Michael A. Terrell wrote:

Trevor Wilson wrote:

Michael A. Terrell wrote:
Trevor Wilson wrote:

**I do. I keep track of the life of my lamps. Incandescents don't
last long.


There are some in the US that have been on 24/7 for decades, and
still work. Some are over 100 years old.

**Indeed. The ways to get incandescents to last a long time are well
known. They are simply under-run massively. IOW: Use a 280VAC rated
lamp at 240VAC and the thing will last MUCH longer. Of course,
colour temperature edges much closer towards the red and efficiency
is absolute crap.

Cheap bulbs don't last,
and neither do those that are used improperly.

**Not so different to CFLs and LEDs. Funny about that.


Still doesn't prove your lame assed claim that incandescents don't
last.

**I don't need to prove it. It has been well documented:

http://www.megavolt.co.il/Tips_and_info/bulbs_at_glance.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compact_fluorescent_lamp#Lifespan

http://www.designrecycleinc.com/led%20comp%20chart.html

http://www.gelighting.com/eu/resources/firstlight/module04/08.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamp_rerating

This is an interesting primer on the topic:

http://donklipstein.com/bulb1.html


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[Ian Field]

"Dennis" <jon.dough@ithemorgue.com> wrote in message
news:f72dnVWBnKU8F-fTnZ2dnUVZ_gudnZ2d@westnet.com.au...

"Phil Allison" <phil_a@tpg.com.au> wrote in message
news:9dvbhgFrhaU1@mid.individual.net...

"Ian Fuckwit Field"


Last time I looked ..


** Impossible for anyone who has wanked themselves blind to look at
anything.



Bullshit Phil, it's a myth;

http://psychcentral.com/lib/2007/does-masturbation-cause-blindness/

It causes deafness - philthy never listens to anyone.

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

Ian Field wrote:

"Dennis" <jon.dough@ithemorgue.com> wrote in message
news:f72dnVWBnKU8F-fTnZ2dnUVZ_gudnZ2d@westnet.com.au...

"Phil Allison" <phil_a@tpg.com.au> wrote in message
news:9dvbhgFrhaU1@mid.individual.net...

"Ian Fuckwit Field"


Last time I looked ..


** Impossible for anyone who has wanked themselves blind to look at
anything.



Bullshit Phil, it's a myth;

http://psychcentral.com/lib/2007/does-masturbation-cause-blindness/

It causes deafness - philthy never listens to anyone.

Loss of blood to the brain, in Phil's case.


--
You can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense.

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

Trevor Wilson wrote:

Michael A. Terrell wrote:
Trevor Wilson wrote:

Michael A. Terrell wrote:
Trevor Wilson wrote:

**I do. I keep track of the life of my lamps. Incandescents don't
last long.


There are some in the US that have been on 24/7 for decades, and
still work. Some are over 100 years old.

**Indeed. The ways to get incandescents to last a long time are well
known. They are simply under-run massively. IOW: Use a 280VAC rated
lamp at 240VAC and the thing will last MUCH longer. Of course,
colour temperature edges much closer towards the red and efficiency
is absolute crap.

Cheap bulbs don't last,
and neither do those that are used improperly.

**Not so different to CFLs and LEDs. Funny about that.


Still doesn't prove your lame assed claim that incandescents don't
last.

**I don't need to prove it. It has been well documented:

http://www.megavolt.co.il/Tips_and_info/bulbs_at_glance.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compact_fluorescent_lamp#Lifespan

http://www.designrecycleinc.com/led%20comp%20chart.html

http://www.gelighting.com/eu/resources/firstlight/module04/08.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamp_rerating

This is an interesting primer on the topic:

http://donklipstein.com/bulb1.html

You can find websites that say anything you want them to. I do use
some CFLs where I don't have to stay for more than a few minutes and I
despise them. "DO NOT USE BASE UP!!!" That eliminates a lot of
fixtures. "DO NOT USE IN AN ENCLOSED SPACE!!!" There goes the outdoor
lights. I do not like the color temperature of CFLs, or a lot of other
light sources. LED Lights give me headaches. Go preach to your choir of
greenies.


--
You can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense.

 

[Jim Yanik]

"Arfa Daily" <arfa.daily@ntlworld.com> wrote in
news:b6veq.4435$4%.1004@newsfe18.ams2:

"Phil Allison" <phil_a@tpg.com.au> wrote in message
news:9dsttbF2n3U1@mid.individual.net...

"Arfa Daily"
"Trevor Wilson"

snip

* LEDs use a miniscule amount of silicon.
* Incandescent lamps use a very large amount of silicon

Whereabouts ?


** The TW charlatan is being a real clever dick.

Glass is about 23% silicon by weight.

glass is ~75% silicon dioxide.

compare a lamp envelope to a LED silicon substrate,and there's no doubt
about which has more silicon. At least to the rational folks.

So is that *all* glass ? I can't find any reference anywhere to
silicon being a component of bog-standard glass. Is it just naturally
in there, and if so, in what form ? Or is it put in there for some
reason, and for what purpose if so ?

Wiki is your friend.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silicon

Got NOTHING to do with the very nasty polluting and carcinogenic
processes involved in making silicon semiconductors.



Yes, where the silicon has been extracted from whatever ore it occurs
in, and then refined

from Wiki;
Silicon is commercially prepared by the reaction of high-purity silica with
wood, charcoal, and coal, in an electric arc furnace using carbon
electrodes. At temperatures over 1,900 °C (3,450 °F), the carbon reduces
the silica to silicon according to the following chemical equation:

(not semiconductor-grade Si,that uses trichlorosilane.)

.... Phil


Arfa

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com