powerdesal Posted January 19, 2009 Author Share Posted January 19, 2009 The hail storm just hit Normandy, now stopped but thunder in distance Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
powerdesal Posted January 19, 2009 Author Share Posted January 19, 2009 particularly with condensing boilers since they are only efficient when running for some time.And at full load Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilko Posted January 20, 2009 Share Posted January 20, 2009 I thought this was interestng in the ST last Sunday.http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/india_knight/article5488884.ecewilko Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chancer Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 I do my bit by only using the illumination necessary for the task in hand by having dimmer switches controlling all my tugsten lighting, they are only turned up high for reading/report writing etc on glomy dys or evenings, the rest of the time they are at a very low setting although perhaps using more current than a compact flourescent.The problem is compact flourescents cannot be used with a dimmer switch so no doubt tey will meke them illegal as well.I wonder what the queen will do with all the candle bulbs in her chandeliers?I am soon to register as an autoentrepeneur under the category of E-bay exporter of incandescent ampoules [:)] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil & Pat Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 [quote user="J.Rs gone native"]I wonder what the queen will do with all the candle bulbs in her chandeliers?[/quote]Ever heard of Crown Immunity? [:D] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Théière Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 Confound your Non matching quotes bolix.JR, new design of some compact flourescents can be used with a dimmer.New generation LED's also looking very good, I saw the first descent LED flood light the other week but it does produce heat as did the new GU10 stlye downlighters. Much better than their predessors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AnOther Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 [quote user="teapot"]Confound your Non matching quotes bolix.[/quote]Just take the apostrophe out so J'R becomes JR, as easy as hanging plasterboard [;-)] [:D] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brianagain Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 Gluestick said: - In any case, low energy lightbulbs are not very efficient: I am trying two out right now in my office where I am writing this. I have swopped two 60 W incandescent lamps for two allegedly "Similar" light output 11W jobs: they are useless!In the corridor, I am trying out a 14 W lamp in replacement for one 100 w bulb: it is useless!120W replaced by 22W represents a net saving of 98W so I am not sure how a "not very efficient" calculation makes mathematical sense. Surely a saving in energy consumption means a saving in running costs. A subjective view (they are useless!) regarding the illumination levels provided is exactly that.Gluestick said - Government Knee Jerks driven by the slavering environmentalists won't hack it, I'm afraidDescribing environmentalists as "slavering" hardly adds to a constructive discussion.Brian (again)« la bière c’est de l’amitié liquide » - Ronny Coutteure Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andyh4 Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 But the fact is Brian that Europeans are having these bulbs foisted on them and there is no effective recycling/collection system in place. Where I am in France I have to drive a round trip of 45km to dispose of a bulb. In Germany I would have to wait up to six months before I can dispose of them in a special one day (3 hour) disposal marathon. So what do you think is going to happen to all of these bulbs? Probably the same as happens to a lot of recyclable tin cans and the like in our commune - straight in the bin. Mercury is extremely poisonous, builds up in the food chain and causes severe mental defects - I could think of several people who might already be suspected as having been poisoned.[:)] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patmobile Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 [quote user="andyh4"] But the fact is Brian that Europeans are having these bulbs foisted on them and there is no effective recycling/collection system in place. Where I am in France I have to drive a round trip of 45km to dispose of a bulb. In Germany I would have to wait up to six months before I can dispose of them in a special one day (3 hour) disposal marathon.So what do you think is going to happen to all of these bulbs?[/quote]The trick is to install these bulbs all at once, making a careful note of their life expectancy. You then wait the appropriate number of years without any bulb failures, then, just as the bulbs are about to reach the end of their service lives, YOU SELL THE HOUSE!EASY!Patrick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pierre ZFP Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 Would that work?Everbody knows that when you sell a house in France you take with you everthing that is not nailed down (and even then ....)so you would take the bulbs too [:D] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cendrillon Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 Wilko wrote the following post at 20/01/2009 17:15: I thought this was interestng in the ST last Sunday.http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/india_knight/article5488884.ecewilkoInteresting article, thanks for posting that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patmobile Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 [quote user="Pierre ZFP"]Would that work?Everbody knows that when you sell a house in France you take with you everthing that is not nailed down (and even then ....)so you would take the bulbs too [:D][/quote].......but then you would be responsible for their proper disposal - so leave them as a bonus for the purchaser. You're going to buy a whole new lot for your new house and repeat the exercise 7 years later, anyway.Patrick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mint Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 Patmobile wrote: The trick is to install these bulbs all at once, making a careful note of their life expectancy. You then wait the appropriate number of years without any bulb failures, then, just as the bulbs are about to reach the end of their service lives, YOU SELL THE HOUSE!EASY!Patrick Yes, as easy as changing your car once you've filled the ashtrays.[:)] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AnOther Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 The point gluey was making Brian, and which you obviously missed completely, was they are not efficient in getting the job done i.e. providing adequate and/or suitable light, he was not questioning the mathematics which any simpleton can work out but unfortunately the sums fail to tell the full story.It may be that on balance the overall environmental impact of low energy bulbs is lower than that of traditional incandescents, personally I remain to be wholly convinced, but concentrating solely on electrical efficiency is disingenuous as again it only tells part of the tale, a part which conveniently suits the agendas of 'slavering environmentalists'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gluestick Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 Many thanks, Little Ern.You beat me to it!Efficiency, of course, is all about getting work done. Dreadful grammar!For example, I could pull three plug leads from my four cylinder car: and indeed, it would use far less fuel.Or, I could remove three engines from a four-engined airplane.Again, if it were to be possible to take off, it would burn less fuel: but not be able to carry passengers and crew and luggage.Insofar as the "energy saving" bulbs are concerned, put simply, they do not work!They fail to generate sufficient practical light for a work environment.Indeed, I have even tried one in the UK house: upper landing. Positively dangerous!The 100 watt equivalent as it says on the tin, fails to safely light the stairs: and this is not helped by the one I also fitted in the downstairs hall.Add the cost and ecological impact of both manufacture and disposal and I am convinced this was a miss-step.I have carefully and with care watched successive waves of environmentalists and read their blurb: yes, alternative "Green" energy is a wonderful concept.Yes, we need to do something: yes, I accepted there was a problem way back in the early 70s, when I first started thinking about hollistic global pollution.Unfortunately, unless most World socio-economic systems have to grind to an almost instant halt and hit the buffers, what is needed is step-change, rather than paradigm shift: and perhaps more critically, a gradual phased transition.Thus far I have yet to read any strategic plan which lays out such an initiative.As I said before, more research was needed: probably both LEDs and various current developments in applying small electrical charge to a range of materials in order to make them fluoresce offers the real solution.Using mercury was not a sensible "Solution": other than for those manufacturing the bulbs, of course! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brianagain Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 Gluestick and ErnieSorry to be a pain but perhaps we are confusing efficiency (quantitative) with effectiveness (quality). Brian (again) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AnOther Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 Semantics Brian but bad grammar or not I think the basis of Gluey's critique was pretty clear.You can call it what you like but on the premise that a bulb's single purpose in life is to provide light in like for like terms, claimed energy equivalent-v-real watts that is, in far too many applications they simple fail to cut the mustard.Personally I find the hyperbole surrounding their promotion faintly Kafkaesque [blink] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gluestick Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 [quote user="brianagain"]Gluestick and ErnieSorry to be a pain but perhaps we are confusing efficiency (quantitative) with effectiveness (quality). Brian (again)[/quote]Leaving aside the semenatics, Brian (again), improved efficiency, in terms of work, surely means the delivery of identical energy, for less power input.Since the Low Energy bulbs clearly fail to deliver the desired light output, in terms of useful (i.e. usable) light, then they are clearly less efficient.Clearly if we were to express this in an ultimate and scientific manner, then we would have to express the usable light output not just in Lumens or Candlepower, Foot Candles, LUX, ........................... at al.However, then we have to define the Radiance and Luminance of the light source, per se.Thus we must surely, express the efficiency of comparitive light sources in relative terms of Watts Per Lumen/Candlepower/whatever delivered.Then, we must express the wavelength and type of light and its polarisation.And finally, its effectiveness. Back to Radiance and Luminence. Lumen/Lux (respectively) per Watt.My own (considerable) experience of fluorescent tubes, is that one 80 watt tube struggles to provide as much useful light as one 100 watt incandescent filament bulb.This is in both commercial workshop and office environments.For me, put simply, they don't bloody work![:D] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brianagain Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 [quote user="powerdesal"]I have just been involved in a 'discussion' (argument) regarding the value of low energy lightbulbs ...Discuss.....[/quote]Actually so far I don't think I have expressed a personal view regarding low energy lightbulbs other than providing a response to Steve's original post (plus a dig at the daily mail).However, I have installed these at home and am happy to enjoy a slightly lower bill for electricity and, apart from a slow start on the older ones, find that they are more than adequate, especially in areas such as the outside porch - that said, my wife does not like their immediate effectiveness. Living in the west country there is no major problem when recycling; any that fail are put aside to go to our local recycling centre (there are 18 in Somerset that accept them) every few months along with batteries, tetrapaks, etc. (hardly a chore). The WEEE directive means that this should be available throughout Europe. My only recent experience is in Freiburg, but that of course is hardly a typical European city.Back in the dark ages (1960s in the FAA) when calibrating aneroid aircraft instruments we often blew the mercury out of the top of the test equipment and had to chase it around the bench tops by hand before cleaning it through a chamois cloth - all done without any protective equipment.Brian (again)« la bière c’est de l’amitié liquide » - Ronny Coutteure Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
josa Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 I have changed all the bulbs in my house for the new ones. Where they were 60 watt I have changed them to the "equivalent" of 100 watt and also have probably added at least 50% more light fittings (table lamps/uplighters etc) as the light given out is too little to read by for my poor old eyes. Not sure if overall I have done anything for the enviroment but at least I can claim to be green!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gluestick Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 [quote]Back in the dark ages (1960s in the FAA) when calibrating aneroid aircraft instruments we often blew the mercury out of the top of the test equipment and had to chase it around the bench tops by hand before cleaning it through a chamois cloth - all done without any protective equipment.Brian (again)« la bière c’est de l’amitié liquide » - Ronny Coutteure[/quote]At school, in the early 50s, it was common in physics classes to be given a small bowl of mercury and be encouraged by the master, to float pennies on the top and even to coat pennies with mercury as an amalgum.These then went straight into sweaty little pockets........................... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Théière Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 It has been a popular option to fill our heads with mercury amalgum for years and they are still doing it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AnOther Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 Back in the late 80's I worked for a while with Trinity House.The rotating light assemblies in their lighthouses float on a pool of mercury something like 2m in dia x 1cm deep and we used to routinely change that with no more preparation or protection than if it were oil or water.Never had any ill effect on me, all three of my heads and my 17 fingers still function perfectly [blink] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gluestick Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 I also well remember well Chemistry lessons, heating Mercurous Oxide in tiny crucibles over the mandatory bunson burner: the fumes must have been horrendous!No fume cupboards, safety glasses, breathing apparatus in those days.Must be sheer hell if you sneeze, Little Ern: working out which nose to blow![:D] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now