JHZR2
Staff member
oilyriser: that would be me and would explain why!
Thanks!
JMH
Thanks!
JMH
New florescent lights good...
- Thread starter Pablo
- Start date
- Status
JHZR2
Staff member
oilyriser: that would be me and would explain why!
Thanks!
JMH
Thanks!
JMH
Well, lucky for me I have less than super vision because I simply love CFL. The packages that state "warm" are typically in the 2700K-3000K which is what we're used to with incandescents. The bluish appearance comes from bulbs in the 4000K+ color temp range.
As mentioned in addition to the lower wattage per lumen with CFLs, only 10% of the energy is lost to heat (it’s the reverse for incandescent) so keeping cool is easier in warmer climates.
It's a no-brainer for non-super-vision people to replace commonly used bulbs with CFLs
As mentioned in addition to the lower wattage per lumen with CFLs, only 10% of the energy is lost to heat (it’s the reverse for incandescent) so keeping cool is easier in warmer climates.
It's a no-brainer for non-super-vision people to replace commonly used bulbs with CFLs
Two Big Lots! stores in my area have compact fluorescents, three pack for $5. Great deal.
I don't like them in areas that I spend a lot of time in, like the living room or bedroom. The color of the light hurts my eyes after a while. But for halls, closets and porch lights, they are great.
I don't like them in areas that I spend a lot of time in, like the living room or bedroom. The color of the light hurts my eyes after a while. But for halls, closets and porch lights, they are great.
The color depends on the individual lamp spec. Get a warm color with a high CRI( Color renduring index,).
Most people dont like Fluorescent because they are use to the cheap cool white 4100 color temp and low 70 CRI.
ALso wouldnt worry about disposal of idividual lamps and HG in the trash. Most will pass the federal TCLP test for disposal Hg leachate.
Most people dont like Fluorescent because they are use to the cheap cool white 4100 color temp and low 70 CRI.
ALso wouldnt worry about disposal of idividual lamps and HG in the trash. Most will pass the federal TCLP test for disposal Hg leachate.
Good Wiki article. They make the case that using CFLs results in a net reduction of mercury pollution because of the reduced electricity usage (provided by coal powered plants). Thoughts? [Regardless, I think it would still be way better to recycle them.]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compact_fluorescent_lamp
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compact_fluorescent_lamp
Strings
A incandescent lamp will have a efficacy of about
13 lumens per watt, lumens is light output/ watts is power consumed.
A fluorescent lamp will have 80 lumens per watt for a 4 ft T8 roughly 6 times the efficiency.
I have an article from back in the 80's when I worked on a project to reduce Hg dosing in lamps.
Basically about 2 tons of Hg was used at the time for all devices which require HG, this included batteries, thermostats, switches, lamps etc.
20,000 tons was(probably still is) emmitted from power generation using coal, since most Hg is in low levels in coal deposits and is emited in vapor state from the stacks.
Hg in liquid state isnt really toxic, and wont leach into the water table if disposed a landfill.
If burned in a trash incinerator, then the vapoer will be emitted. I have patent on a lamp design which will allow the lamp to pass a federal TCLP test so you can simply junk the lamp in a landfill.
The laws to eliminate thermometers etc are kind of ridiculous, since the amount of Hg is so small
and the real contamination comes from power generation which is never adressed.
Do you know where the term "Mad as a hatter" is derived??
Back when they used hot liquid pools of Hg to make
Derbys, and whoever stood above the hot pool breathed in all the vapors, then you would have a problem.
A incandescent lamp will have a efficacy of about
13 lumens per watt, lumens is light output/ watts is power consumed.
A fluorescent lamp will have 80 lumens per watt for a 4 ft T8 roughly 6 times the efficiency.
I have an article from back in the 80's when I worked on a project to reduce Hg dosing in lamps.
Basically about 2 tons of Hg was used at the time for all devices which require HG, this included batteries, thermostats, switches, lamps etc.
20,000 tons was(probably still is) emmitted from power generation using coal, since most Hg is in low levels in coal deposits and is emited in vapor state from the stacks.
Hg in liquid state isnt really toxic, and wont leach into the water table if disposed a landfill.
If burned in a trash incinerator, then the vapoer will be emitted. I have patent on a lamp design which will allow the lamp to pass a federal TCLP test so you can simply junk the lamp in a landfill.
The laws to eliminate thermometers etc are kind of ridiculous, since the amount of Hg is so small
and the real contamination comes from power generation which is never adressed.
Do you know where the term "Mad as a hatter" is derived??
Back when they used hot liquid pools of Hg to make
Derbys, and whoever stood above the hot pool breathed in all the vapors, then you would have a problem.
I started using them several years ago and have been very happy with the savings and the light quality. Good stuff.
It appears that GE has a TCLP certification program for their products. link to GE site You're right on about the mercury levels and the leaching thing.
But why would some companies be able to make "non TCLP compliant" lights? Is complying with the federal TCLP standards in this case mandatory or voluntary on the part of the producer? (Are there any penalties/benefits with non-compliance/compliance?)
But why would some companies be able to make "non TCLP compliant" lights? Is complying with the federal TCLP standards in this case mandatory or voluntary on the part of the producer? (Are there any penalties/benefits with non-compliance/compliance?)
It is voluntary, it only means that they dont have to be treated as hazardous waste and can be disposed of in a landfill.
Lets put it this way, many treehuggers love to have the rational that the manufacturer should somehow pay to reclaim or recycle. in reality assuming they would do so and charge you say another 2$ per lamp to do this would you??
I didnt think so, the disposal cost would be as much as the original cost of the lamp and there really isnt an infrastucture to do so for household lamp waste stream.
Large customers group relamp at about 70% of rated life, and large outifts come in, and collect all the spent lamps and install new ones, then it is economical to have the lamps reclaimed.
The CFL have come a long way since I worked on them back in the mid-80's. They are a good way to cut your electric bill, and if they are of good quality(many are not) the electronic portion will last as long as the cathodes.
Lets put it this way, many treehuggers love to have the rational that the manufacturer should somehow pay to reclaim or recycle. in reality assuming they would do so and charge you say another 2$ per lamp to do this would you??
I didnt think so, the disposal cost would be as much as the original cost of the lamp and there really isnt an infrastucture to do so for household lamp waste stream.
Large customers group relamp at about 70% of rated life, and large outifts come in, and collect all the spent lamps and install new ones, then it is economical to have the lamps reclaimed.
The CFL have come a long way since I worked on them back in the mid-80's. They are a good way to cut your electric bill, and if they are of good quality(many are not) the electronic portion will last as long as the cathodes.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
