Toshiba TV29C90 problem; Image fades to black...

[Phil Allison]

"kreed"

** FFS - learn how to trim !!

The one advantage they have over incandescents is that they are not
affected by vibration.

** Low voltage incandescents are genuinely not affected.

But most CFLs are easily damaged by it.

After time, the glue fails and the glass tubes or spirals come loose from
the plastic case.

Then with vibration or handling, the feed wires break.

There simply is no quality control and a myriad of things to go wrong.

And the Chinese are making them.



..... Phil

 

[Phil Allison]

"Trevor Wilson"

**I suggest you read this:

http://www.choice.com.au/reviews-and-tests/household/energy-and-water/saving-energy/compact-fluorescent-lightbulbs.aspx

** A laughably worthless test, not in any way related to normal use.

Something the rabid green lunatics at Choice are FAMOUS for !!!

Look at the pic - all the CFLs are suspended in mid air !!

No light fittings, not even a ceiling above them.

The room is air conditioned too.

And NO on /off cycling at all !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Not ONE of the KNOWN issues with CFLs will be revealed in such a test.


BTW:

One reason that Choice did not cycle the CFLs is that they found it VERY
difficult to do.

If you try to switch on 10 or more CFLs at once, it will trip the lighting
circuit breaker ( 8 amp) regularly - with over 200 it will not even be
possible at all.

CFLs have large inrush surges, up to 20 amps peak or more for long enough to
active the magnetic trip on lighting breakers.

Looks like the CFLs in that test were powered from a wall outlet (ie using a
16 amp breaker) and brought on in groups of 10 ( using several multi-way
power boards) until they were all lit and left like that for 12 months.

Total Bollocks.

The other green lunatic drivel quoted in the article makes me wanna puke.



..... Phil

 

[Phil Allison]

"kreed"

But most CFLs are easily damaged by it.

After time, the glue fails and the glass tubes or spirals come loose from
the plastic case.

Then with vibration or handling, the feed wires break.

There simply is no quality control and a myriad of things to go wrong.

And the Chinese are making them.

Yes, that is the worst part. Also means that they can claim anything
and not deliver and be immune.


** Absolute nonsense.

Importers are liable for false advertising in exactly the same way that
manufacturers are.

The claims I see on CFL packs are vague and very limited or non existent.

Egs

What the fuck does " non dimmable " mean ??

What does " not suitable for wet environments " mean ??

IMO, the people making the FALSE CLAIMS are the stinking greenies.



.... Phil

 

[kreed]

On Sep 25, 11:52 am, "Arfa Daily" <arfa.da...@ntlworld.com> wrote:

snip



On the other hand, an
incandescent bulb uses - what - seven, eight maybe components, each
of which could be totally accurately pinned down on their production
energy costs. Bear in mind that the processes to produce the
components are also very simple and straightforward, unlike the
processes required to make the components of a CFL.

**Your point being?

It's not impossible to pin down the cost of manufacturing the relatively
small number of components in a CFL. Car manufacturers routinely do just
that, for what is a dramatically more complex device.

But we're not talking cost here. We're talking energy budgets and planetary
pollution from industrial processes. Any fool can say "this transistor costs
us 20 cents. This capacitor costs us 5 cents" and so on. But it's an awful
lot more complex to start looking into the energy budget for refining the
silicon. For turning the silicon into P and N types. For refining the
plastic from the oil. For getting the oil out of the ground. For getting the
iron ore out of the ground. For refining the iron out of the ore, and then
converting it to steel. Transporting all the constituents. Manufacturing
them into a transistor. Then shipping that transistor to the CFL maker. And
on and on. And that's just one component out of a considerable number - see

http://www.pavouk.org/hw/lamp/en_index.html

My point obviously being that in comparison, an incandescent has a very few
constituent parts, all of which are simple, and have simple well defined
manufacturing processes, that could easily be energy budgeted.





Let's put that into some kind of perspective:

A typical 100 Watt IC lasts for 1,000 hours (at best).
A typical 15 Watt CFL lasts for 5,000 hours (I've certainly
exceeding that figure quite comfortably).

I have to say that in my experience, you have been extremely lucky to
get that sort of life from CFLs.

**Luck has nothing to do with it. I only buy quality CFLs and I have 19 of
the suckers in service. If I had (say) 2 in service and not experienced a
failure, then I might agree with you. I have NINETEEN of them in and
around my home. And, FWIW: several of them are not installed according to
manufacturer's instructions. They are surviving nicely.

I have used all sorts over the
years, from cheap to expensive, and have never obtained anything like
that length of service from any of them, with the exception of some
very early ones that I installed in a day nursery that we once owned.
They were Dulux globe CFLs and very expensive. We owned that nursery
for twelve years, and most of them were still going when we sold it,
so I don't dispute that it is possible to make long-lasting CFLs. I
just don't think that overall, taken across the whole raft of
qualities and costs, they are doing it any more.

**I confess that I have not purchased a CFL for several years, so I can't
confirm. The damned things are so incredibly long lasting that I simply
have not had to purchase replacements. In fact, I fully expect LEDs to be
appropriately priced by the time I need to make any changes.

Well, good luck with that one. As long as they have to keep putting any kind
of control electronics in them to make them run from AC line voltage, then
as long as they are not subsidised, they are never going to get as cheap as
incandescents, or have as low an energy budget to produce. Whilst there have
been some major advances in recent years in the light output and efficiency
of LEDs , they still have relatively poor colour rendition qualities for
home use, and still struggle to produce even omni-directional light as is
required for general lighting, due to the fact that the light is produced at
a flat surface. As to not experiencing the same longevity as you with my
CFLs, I thought that I carefully explained that I have purchased all
qualities of the things, and have not found the expensive 'quality' names to
be any longer lived than the cheapos. This seems to be the findings of
others on here, as well.

snip

are now gas or nuclear

**Philips cite 6,000 hours for their lamps. Most manufacturers of IC lamps
cite an average of 750 - 1,000 hours for their standard IC lamps. These
can be made to last longer, but at the cost of efficiency. Fundamentally,
however, I take issue with your constant reference to cheap, crappy lamps.
I have CONSISTENTLY stated that I refer only to quality lamps (like
Philips). It would be like you trying to argue that automobiles are
fundamentally unsafe, unreliable and uneconomical, by using ONLY Tata
automobiles as your reference. You should be using Toyota, Honda, Mecedes,
Hyundai and the others as part of your reference.

No more talk of cheap, shitty lamps please. Whilst they are are available
and fools will buy them, they are not representative of state of the art
in quality or longevity.

Well no. That is an unfair slant in favour of the CFL argument. As long as
cheap crappy ones are available, *most* people - not just "fools" as you so
disparagingly refer to them - will buy them over the expensive quality ones,
because they don't understand the difference, as we do. It's human nature to
buy cheap, which is why the Chinese are doing so well on the back of
world-wide sales of cheap - and often crap quality - electronic goods,
offered for sale through all our nations' supermarkets. This is where the
whole thing breaks down as an argument about the eco validity of any of this
technology. The manufacturers of the cheap CFLs are in it purely to make
money. They have no concern at all for the 'green' credentials of their
products, except in as much as they will sell in their millions,
irrespective of their quality, just because the *are* CFLs. So whilst it is
true what you say in that the cheapo ones are not representative of the
state of the art, unfortunately, they *are* representative of what is being
sold in quantity to the general public, and their contribution to the
validity of the discussion, cannot be ignored until *all* CFLs that are
offered for sale, are indeed representative of the state of the art. I'm
sorry if that offends your sensibilities, but it *is* part of the overall
equation. In fact, your analogy with the cars, is self-defeating, because
you could look at it from the other angle, and say that if you take say BMW
as your reference, then all other cheaper makes are invalid because they are
not 'state of the art', and people who buy them are fools. The cheaper makes
will always be bought by the general public, because not everyone can afford
the safety and performance of a BMW, just like not everyone can afford to
pay Ł5 or whatever for a bulb to replace an incandescent that they are used
to paying 50 pence for. If there is a CFL costing 50 pence on the shelf
alongside the Ł5 one, you tell me, which one are most uninformed people
going to buy ? And it is for precisely this reason that the whole CFL thing,
taken on a world-wide basis, falls apart.





And this does not take into pollution created at the point of
manufacture. That is an issue that should be dealt with locally.

If people want to use CFLs in the belief - mistaken in my opinion -
that they are in some way helping the world to use less energy, then
that's fine.

**It's not a mistaken belief. It's a fact. CFLs use FAR less energy
than incandescents. From cradle to grave. Vastly, hugely less energy.

On the face of it, they appear to, and as I said before, that is the
*only* angle that's been exploited by the greenies, to try to gain
them widespread acceptance.

**Incorrect. ALL green groups have expressed reservations about the proper
disposal of CFLs.

But that is actually another comparatively minor issue. Important from the
pollution point of view, yes, but insignificant compared to the
manufacturing energy budgets and pollution-causing manufacturing processes,
that are NEVER mentioned by these groups, because they never even consider
these 'hidden' aspects.



Personally, I believe that the situation
is far less clear than this rather simplistic assumption, when you
factor in the *true* costs.

**Fair enough. Cite these "true" costs you speak of. Numbers please.

I cannot give numbers, because there are none that FULLY analyse ALL energy
inputs and pollution outputs for the hundreds of processes involved. And
when I say "costs", I am not talking monetary ones, as I explained earlier.
As I said, I am sure that it is just too complicated a situation to ever be
able to arrive at a real figure, but no matter how much you don't want to
believe it, you have to accept that there *are* many hundreds of process
steps and transport steps involved in CFL manufacture, compared to
incandescent manufacture, which *must* add up to a very significant amount,
that is being totally ignored in making the 'green' case for the things.
Whether it can be accurately quantified or not, if you stop and think about
it, it is common sense.



Almost certainly, they use less energy if
you accept the simple picture, get the projected life from them, and
believe the equivalence figures for light output, that they put on
the boxes. And again, on this score, I understand that they are now
trying to legislate over here, to mark the boxes in lumens or some
such, probably because users are starting to doubt the quoted
equivalence figures. In reality, if you have a genuine like for like
in terms of light output, factor in the *real* costs of producing,
transporting, and disposing of properly

...

read more ť

As for cheap CFL, we used to buy those 4 packs for about $7.50 from
Bunnings. probably 1 out of 10 would fail after a few months, but the
others have gone for about 3 years so far (50 bought all up). I also
noticed that since the light bulbs have been banned, the cheap CFL's
have all but disappeared and its hard to find any that are under the
$3-4 mark. Most also have this sickening "warm white" light, rather
than the proper "cool white" or "daylight" that is normal with fluros.

I still have some GE CFL ones I bought about 2002 that are working.
Most though last nowhere near as long as incandescents though and they
do not like a lot of the light fittings used in typical Australian
homes.
They either face down, or don't have enough ventilation, or simply
don't fit in them

The one advantage they have over incandescents is that they are not
affected by vibration.

 

[kreed]

On Sep 25, 5:55 pm, "Phil Allison" <phi...@tpg.com.au> wrote:

"kreed"

** FFS   -  learn how to trim !!

The one advantage they have over incandescents is that they are not
affected by vibration.

** Low voltage incandescents are genuinely not affected.

That is true (IE, automotive bulbs) , but to clarify to everyone, I

was referring to standard 240v domestic ones

But most CFLs are easily damaged by it.

After time, the glue fails and the glass tubes or spirals come loose from
the plastic case.

Then with vibration or handling, the feed wires break.

There simply is no quality control and a myriad of things to go wrong.

And the Chinese are making them.

....  Phil

Yes, that is the worst part. Also means that they can claim anything
and not deliver and be immune. Would love to see anyone manufacturing
in Australia try that and get away with it.

 

[kreed]

On Sep 25, 6:20 pm, "Phil Allison" <phi...@tpg.com.au> wrote:

"Trevor Wilson"

**I suggest you read this:

http://www.choice.com.au/reviews-and-tests/household/energy-and-water...

** A laughably worthless test, not in any way related to normal use.

Something the rabid green lunatics at Choice are FAMOUS  for  !!!

Look at the pic  -  all the CFLs are suspended in mid air !!

No light fittings, not even a ceiling above them.

The room is air conditioned too.

And  NO  on /off  cycling at all  !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Not  ONE  of the  KNOWN  issues with CFLs will be revealed in such a test.

Not only that, but by the time the 9000 hours (375 days @ 24H a day)
was up, most of the CFL bulbs tested would have been obsolete and
would have been superseded by other designs, or sourced from another
Chinese manufacturer who was now the cheapest, and while they may look
the same, they would likely use a different circuit, and probably
different parts as well - again sourced from who is now the cheapest
supplier.

Economic crisis would make this situation worse, with companies
involved closing and downsizing all over the place.


It would be like doing longevity tests on motherboards or hard drives.
None of the units tested would still be current or on sale by the time
the test was finished.

BTW:

One reason that Choice did not cycle the CFLs is that they found it  VERY
difficult to do.

If you try to switch on 10 or more CFLs at once, it will trip the lighting
circuit breaker ( 8 amp) regularly  -   with over 200 it will not even be
possible at all.

CFLs have large inrush surges, up to 20 amps peak or more for long enough to
active the magnetic trip on lighting breakers.

Looks like the CFLs in that test were powered from a wall outlet (ie using a
16 amp breaker) and brought on in groups of 10 ( using several multi-way
power boards) until they were all lit and left like that for 12 months.

Total Bollocks.

The other green lunatic drivel quoted in the article makes me wanna puke.

.... Phil

You would have loved 4 corners last week then, I had never seen such
blatant propaganda in support of the Gillard government and the carbon
tax.

 

[William Sommerwerck]

"Phil Allison" <phil_a@tpg.com.au> wrote in message
news:9e889vF3iuU1@mid.individual.net...

What the fuck does "non-dimmable" mean?

It means the manufacturer does not >>claim<< "dimmability".

In practice, at least some CFLs are dimmable that don't claim to be -- for
example, the top-rated Home Depot lamps are.

IMO, the people making the FALSE CLAIMS are the stinking greenies.

And those false claims would be...?

I can think of one false claim -- that using less electricity puts less CO2
into the air. This is true if reduced consumption results in building fewer
hydrocarbon-powered electric plants. But, given load levelling across the
grid, and the need to run the steam generators at a constant level, I assume
there's little or no variation in the amount of CO2 put out by any one
plant.

I'm very much in favor of reduced CO2 emissions, and the development of
cheap, sustainable energy. But our society's basic problem is that we use
too much of everything, and generate too much waste of all sorts.

Portland General Electric is currently running an ad thanking its customers
for the "virtual" power plants said customers have "built" by using less
electricity.

 

[Phil Allison]

William Sommerwanker = FUCKWIT "

"Phil Allison"

What the fuck does "non-dimmable" mean?

It means the manufacturer does not >>claim<< "dimmability".

** But all CFLs are dimmable.

IMO, the people making the FALSE CLAIMS are the stinking greenies.

And those false claims would be...?

** All of them.

The main one being that they can replace any incandescent bulb.

The makers make no such claim.

I can think of one false claim -- that using less electricity puts less
CO2
into the air.

** False.

The makers make no such claim.

I'm very much in favor of reduced CO2 emissions,

** Then, FFS - kill yourself.

 

[Arfa Daily]

Well, I guess we're never going to agree on any aspect of this. You seem
predisposed to take the wrong way, a number of points that I have repeatedly
made, but ho-hum, it's been an interesting line of chat, and at least it
hasn't descended into a screaming match as is so often the case in these
discussions

As to the bulbs you have found online, I must admit that I hadn't managed to
come up with the eco halogens in a pearl envelope - if indeed they actually
have got one when the item is in your hand. All the rest of the ones that
you found, have clear envelopes, as I said, because the pearl envelopes have
been banned, though Christ knows for what eco-bollox reasons. I have a bar
of 4 R50 spots in the room I am in right now, and another two as wall
mounted uplighters in my lounge. These used to do a lovely job of providing
targeted light in the computer room, and accent light in the lounge, or
reduced light for TV watching, when they had a pearlised front. Since they
banned the pearlised ones, the clear-fronted version that is now the only
one available, looks awful. Instead of a nice even light - the whole purpose
of pearlising in the first place - you now get a harsh uneven set of rings
of light wherever they are pointing, and images of the filament. Trust me,
it is now very hard to find to find any light bulbs here, with the correct
physical size and glass properties, to make them acceptable in decorative
light fittings.

And not all CFLs are subsidised. Only the ones that are dirt cheap in the
first place. Then subsidised via the power companies under government
direction, via green taxes levied through our energy bills. These taxes are
also been extracted from us and wasted on the useless windmills and other
eyesore technologies, that are also excuses for companies to make obscene
amounts of money from the green mist hysteria that prevails now throughout
the civilised world. So, we have a cheap crappy CFL that is being made even
cheaper by the false price that's being set on it, to get people to buy
them. If you look at energy saving lightbulbs on the Homebase site that you
linked to, you will see that the 'quality' CFLs that you refer to, are all
up in the Ł3.50 to Ł5 bracket, as I said. Then, B&Q are flogging cheapo
subsidised ones for between 10 pence and a quid. Which ones, in the cash
strapped times that we are currently suffering, are most people going to
buy, given that they can no longer buy what they *really* want ?

Anyway, enough time spent on this now. Been enjoyable.

Arfa

 

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Sun, 25 Sep 2011 17:54:07 +0100, "Arfa Daily"
<arfa.daily@ntlworld.com> wrote:

Anyway, enough time spent on this now. Been enjoyable.
Arfa

Humor me for a moment. Take a digital camera photo of your favorite
CFL lamp. Turn off all the other sources of light. What color do you
get? Here's mine:
<http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/crud/FEIT-23w.jpg>
See a problem perhaps?

Extra credit. Find various sheets of blank paper with an assortment
of brightness from about 85 to 105. Photograph those using either a
CFL lamp and an incandescent lamp source. What colors do you get?
(Note that the 105 brightness contains phosphors resulting in the
reflected light actually being brighter than the incident light).

You might want to buy a cheap LED UV flashlight and a diffraction
grating, for more fun with lighting.
<http://www.scientificsonline.com/holographic-diffraction-grating-film-10036.html>


--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

 

[Rich Webb]

On Sun, 25 Sep 2011 10:20:24 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>
wrote:

On Sun, 25 Sep 2011 17:54:07 +0100, "Arfa Daily"
arfa.daily@ntlworld.com> wrote:

Anyway, enough time spent on this now. Been enjoyable.
Arfa

Humor me for a moment. Take a digital camera photo of your favorite
CFL lamp. Turn off all the other sources of light. What color do you
get? Here's mine:
http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/crud/FEIT-23w.jpg
See a problem perhaps?

Extra credit. Find various sheets of blank paper with an assortment
of brightness from about 85 to 105. Photograph those using either a
CFL lamp and an incandescent lamp source. What colors do you get?
(Note that the 105 brightness contains phosphors resulting in the
reflected light actually being brighter than the incident light).

You might want to buy a cheap LED UV flashlight and a diffraction
grating, for more fun with lighting.
http://www.scientificsonline.com/holographic-diffraction-grating-film-10036.html

Or, from the same source (as well as Amazon, etc.) this thing
<http://www.scientificsonline.com/precision-economy-spectrometer.html>
which includes a nm scale. Some examples of what it shows at
<http://home.comcast.net/~mcculloch-brown/astro/spectrostar.html>

--
Rich Webb Norfolk, VA

 

[Phil Allison]

"Jeff Liebermann = Nut case "

Humor me for a moment.

** Be better to put idiots like you in straight jackets.

Take a digital camera photo of your favorite
CFL lamp. Turn off all the other sources of light. What color do you
get?

** Irrelevant, totally.


Here's mine:

http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/crud/FEIT-23w.jpg
See a problem perhaps?

** Nope.



..... Phil

 

[Trevor Wilson]

Arfa Daily wrote:

Well, I guess we're never going to agree on any aspect of this. You
seem predisposed to take the wrong way, a number of points that I
have repeatedly made, but ho-hum, it's been an interesting line of
chat, and at least it hasn't descended into a screaming match as is
so often the case in these discussions

**Provided there is some respect on both sides and an attempt to undestand
the other POV, I see no reason why a screaming match is necessary. I no
longer waste my time with those who choose to insult, rather than present a
cogent argument. It's better for my health.

Your comments about prices of CFLs have me intrigued. I did some more
research. Here are some prices in the US:

http://www.homedepot.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/Navigation?storeId=10051&N=542102+90401&langId=-1&catalogId=10053&cm_sp=Electrical-_-LightBulbs-_-CatHighlight-_-CFLs

Prices appear to be somewhat lower than Australia and dramatically lower
than in the UK. I suggest that you should be complaining about CFL prices in
the UK. Clearly, something is seriously awry.

I accept personal preferences for ICs are valid. I accept that personal
preferences against CFLs are also valid. I also accept the testing done by
Choice and others, that prove the efficiency aspects of CFLs are
significantly in advance of ICs. I accept, in the abscence of evidence to
the contrary, that CFLs have a manufacturing energy cost that is
approximately 6 times that of ICs.

Having said all that, there is one aspect of our discussion that I find
deeply troubling. You're a smart guy. Yet you appear to be willing to reject
the overwhelming bulk of good, solid science that has shown that rising CO2
levels are causing the present warming we find ourselves experiencing. You
appear to be rejecting the science, in preference for the hysterical ravings
of those who have clear links to the fossil fuel industry. OTH, the
scientists who study and report on global warming, for the most part, do not
have links to the alternative energy business. They do what a good scientist
should do - report the science without regard to political or business bias.
Consider the NASA and EPA scientists who were issuing very clear warnings to
President Bush. Bush was a rabid global warming denier. We had the same
thing here in Australia. During the Howard government years, Australia's
premier scientific body (the CSIRO) was issuing clear reports to the
government that anthropogenic global warming was going to cause serious
problems for Australia and the rest of the planet. Yet the Howard government
was aligned with the Bush government, in that denial of the science was the
order of the day. In fact, the leftover ministers of the Howard government
are still denying the science, even today. Most are religious loonies, so no
one takes much ntice anymore.

Please do some reading on the topic. Unlike the present discussion on CFLs
(which is really a bit of a distraction), it is a very important issue.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

Phil Allison screeched:

** Be better to put idiots like you in straight jackets.

Who the hell let you out of yours?


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

 

[William Sommerwerck]

Humor me for a moment.

** Be better to put idiots like you in straight jackets.

Strait-jacket, Phil, not straight.

 

[Phil Allison]

"William Sommerwanker the Fuckwit PEDANT "


** Be better to put idiots like you in straightjackets.


Correct spelling.

 

[William Sommerwerck]

"Phil Allison" <phil_a@tpg.com.au> wrote in message
news:9e9rgoFe7sU1@mid.individual.net...

"William Sommerwanker the Fuckwit PEDANT "

** Be better to put idiots like you in straightjackets.

Correct spelling.

I did correct the spelling. You didn't have to ask again.

"Strait" means "narrow" -- the jacket greatly restricts its wearer's
movements. It does not hold the wearer "straight" -- quite the opposite.

 

[Phil Allison]

"William Sommerwanker the Fuckwit PEDANT "

** Be better to put idiots like you in straightjackets.

Correct spelling.

I did correct the spelling.

** No, you fucking FUCKWIT.

The spelling IS correct !!!!!!

Pedantry is a mental illness.

 

[William Sommerwerck]

"Phil Allison" <phil_a@tpg.com.au> wrote in message
news:9e9s8pFj59U1@mid.individual.net...

"William Sommerwanker the Fuckwit PEDANT "

** Be better to put idiots like you in straightjackets.

Correct spelling.

I did correct the spelling.


** No, you fucking FUCKWIT.

The spelling IS correct !!!!!!

Pedantry is a mental illness.

Phil...YOU are a mental illness.

 

[Phil Allison]

"William Sommerwanker the Fuckwit PEDANT "

** Be better to put idiots like you in straightjackets.

Correct spelling.

I did correct the spelling.

** No, you fucking FUCKWIT.

The spelling IS correct !!!!!!

Pedantry is a mental illness.