|
Worshipping at the altar of Gaia...
|
Worshipping at the altar of Gaia...
Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/ar....html?ITO=1490 Next up - candle power as in real candles. :) To get the same output you will have to increase the number of bulbs or leave them on all of the time in both cases using more electricity. We tried to use the florescent bulbs but abandon them. You would come into the kitchen for a glass of milk and cookies. By the time you had drunk the milk and finished the cookies the florescent bulbs would be at their peak brightness, just in time to turn them off and go back to bed. Florescent bulbs are like the double flush toilets, that were legislated several years ago. They take less water but you have to flush them twice every time you use them to get them clean. |
Worshipping at the altar of Gaia...
On Wed, 02 Sep 2009 08:11:22 -0400, Tom Francis - SWSports
wrote: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/ar....html?ITO=1490 Next up - candle power as in real candles. :) Whatever you do, don't use those damn compact flourescent bulbs in anything with a circuit board, timer, or dimmer switch. I found that out the hard way when the Casablanca guy came out to fix my fan. -- Calling an Illegal Alien an "Undocumented Worker" is like calling a Crack Dealer an "Unlicensed Pharmacist" John H |
Worshipping at the altar of Gaia...
Keith Nuttle wrote:
Tom Francis - SWSports wrote: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/ar....html?ITO=1490 Next up - candle power as in real candles. :) To get the same output you will have to increase the number of bulbs or leave them on all of the time in both cases using more electricity. We tried to use the florescent bulbs but abandon them. You would come into the kitchen for a glass of milk and cookies. By the time you had drunk the milk and finished the cookies the florescent bulbs would be at their peak brightness, just in time to turn them off and go back to bed. Florescent bulbs are like the double flush toilets, that were legislated several years ago. They take less water but you have to flush them twice every time you use them to get them clean. Not if you buy a good one. And CFB's have come a long way. AND they last forever! |
Worshipping at the altar of Gaia...
John H. wrote:
On Wed, 02 Sep 2009 08:11:22 -0400, Tom Francis - SWSports wrote: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/ar....html?ITO=1490 Next up - candle power as in real candles. :) Whatever you do, don't use those damn compact flourescent bulbs in anything with a circuit board, timer, or dimmer switch. I found that out the hard way when the Casablanca guy came out to fix my fan. -- You can use them just fine with a dimmer if you use dimmable CFBs. |
Worshipping at the altar of Gaia...
"JustWait" wrote in message
... In article , Not if you buy a good one. And CFB's have come a long way. AND they last forever! Yeah, just like the Mercury in the land fills.. Have you read about the area of China surrounding the plants where they make these things? Yet again, there are those pesky facts getting in the way. It takes much more mercury to make the standard light bulb than the is in the new ones. If you don't believe me, look it up. The new ones are a win-win for everything. -- Nom=de=Plume |
Worshipping at the altar of Gaia...
"NotNow" wrote in message
... John H. wrote: On Wed, 02 Sep 2009 08:11:22 -0400, Tom Francis - SWSports wrote: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/ar....html?ITO=1490 Next up - candle power as in real candles. :) Whatever you do, don't use those damn compact flourescent bulbs in anything with a circuit board, timer, or dimmer switch. I found that out the hard way when the Casablanca guy came out to fix my fan. -- You can use them just fine with a dimmer if you use dimmable CFBs. Yup... got two myself... work fine. -- Nom=de=Plume |
Worshipping at the altar of Gaia...
On Sep 2, 12:45*pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
"NotNow" wrote in message ... John H. wrote: On Wed, 02 Sep 2009 08:11:22 -0400, Tom Francis - SWSports wrote: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/ar...EL-HANLON-Maki.... Next up - candle power as in real candles. *:) Whatever you do, don't use those damn compact flourescent bulbs in anything with a circuit board, timer, or dimmer switch. I found that out the hard way when the Casablanca guy came out to fix my fan. -- You can use them just fine with a dimmer if you use dimmable CFBs. Yup... got two myself... work fine. -- Nom=de=Plume I changed over to those things in my shop. Oh, they say you save energy, but when you look at the price of them compared to regular light bulbs there's much more expensive to buy. But then again, changing out cheap light bulbs every time you turn around is no fun either. Speaking of. It seems that when I was a kid in the 60's changing out incandescants was actually fairly rare. Now they dont last for spit. |
Worshipping at the altar of Gaia...
Tim wrote:
On Sep 2, 12:45 pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "NotNow" wrote in message ... John H. wrote: On Wed, 02 Sep 2009 08:11:22 -0400, Tom Francis - SWSports wrote: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/ar...EL-HANLON-Maki... Next up - candle power as in real candles. :) Whatever you do, don't use those damn compact flourescent bulbs in anything with a circuit board, timer, or dimmer switch. I found that out the hard way when the Casablanca guy came out to fix my fan. -- You can use them just fine with a dimmer if you use dimmable CFBs. Yup... got two myself... work fine. -- Nom=de=Plume I changed over to those things in my shop. Oh, they say you save energy, but when you look at the price of them compared to regular light bulbs there's much more expensive to buy. But then again, changing out cheap light bulbs every time you turn around is no fun either. Speaking of. It seems that when I was a kid in the 60's changing out incandescants was actually fairly rare. Now they dont last for spit. The power co-op out here in ruralville hands out these bulbs when they come to replace your thermostats. I already had some in various fixtures, including a pair of ceiling fans. Using them has been uneventful. |
Worshipping at the altar of Gaia...
JustWait wrote:
In article , says... Keith Nuttle wrote: Tom Francis - SWSports wrote: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/ar....html?ITO=1490 Next up - candle power as in real candles. :) To get the same output you will have to increase the number of bulbs or leave them on all of the time in both cases using more electricity. We tried to use the florescent bulbs but abandon them. You would come into the kitchen for a glass of milk and cookies. By the time you had drunk the milk and finished the cookies the florescent bulbs would be at their peak brightness, just in time to turn them off and go back to bed. Florescent bulbs are like the double flush toilets, that were legislated several years ago. They take less water but you have to flush them twice every time you use them to get them clean. Not if you buy a good one. And CFB's have come a long way. AND they last forever! Yeah, just like the Mercury in the land fills.. Have you read about the area of China surrounding the plants where they make these things? Well, if their government gave a **** that wouldn't be a problem. There's been mercury in landfills from many sources for many years. |
Worshipping at the altar of Gaia...
On Sep 2, 1:44*pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
"JustWait" wrote in message ... In article , Not if you buy a good one. And CFB's have come a long way. AND they last forever! Yeah, just like the Mercury in the land fills.. Have you read about the area of China surrounding the plants where they make these things? Yet again, there are those pesky facts getting in the way. It takes much more mercury to make the standard light bulb than the is in the new ones. If you don't believe me, look it up. The new ones are a win-win for everything. -- Nom=de=Plume As usual, you're confused; that's completely false. Mercury is not used in the manufacturing of incandescent bulbs. There have been studies that suggest that using CFBs saves enough energy to offset the amount of mercury they contain... but that depends on ALL the energy being consumed as having been produced by coal-burning power plants. Burning coal releases mercury, so the power saved (and mercury not released) by using CFBs is supposed to offset the mercury content of the CFB. If some of your power comes from another source (nuclear, hydro) then this argument goes away. As the maximum saving is around 7%, it doesn't take much to wipe that away. |
Worshipping at the altar of Gaia...
As usual, I'm not confused. Fossil fuels have mercury as a by-product. It is
produced in the manufacture not used, my bad. Then, I see you went on to confirm, exactly my argument. Thanks! "Jack" wrote in message ... Yet again, there are those pesky facts getting in the way. It takes much more mercury to make the standard light bulb than the is in the new ones. If you don't believe me, look it up. The new ones are a win-win for everything. -- Nom=de=Plume As usual, you're confused; that's completely false. Mercury is not used in the manufacturing of incandescent bulbs. There have been studies that suggest that using CFBs saves enough energy to offset the amount of mercury they contain... but that depends on ALL the energy being consumed as having been produced by coal-burning power plants. Burning coal releases mercury, so the power saved (and mercury not released) by using CFBs is supposed to offset the mercury content of the CFB. If some of your power comes from another source (nuclear, hydro) then this argument goes away. As the maximum saving is around 7%, it doesn't take much to wipe that away. -- Nom=de=Plume |
Worshipping at the altar of Gaia...
On Sep 2, 4:41*pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
As usual, I'm not confused. Fossil fuels have mercury as a by-product. It is produced in the manufacture not used, my bad. Then, I see you went on to confirm, exactly my argument. Thanks! Then you went on to prove my point... your "bad" indeed. You wrote "It takes much more mercury to make the standard light bulb than the is in the new ones." Nothing ambiguous there... you were dead wrong. However, if you're now trying to spin it to say that mercury is produced in the manufacturing process while making incandescents, that won't fly either. Mercury is likewise produced during the manufacturing of CFBs. No savings there. The mercury savings, as I pointed out, is in the *use* of the two types of bulbs. As I already noted, the savings is due to less energy being used by the CFB, but that only is when the energy is produced by coal. Take that away, and the CFB, because it *contains* mercury, is the worst polluter. Hope that helps! "Jack" wrote in message ... Yet again, there are those pesky facts getting in the way. It takes much more mercury to make the standard light bulb than the is in the new ones. If you don't believe me, look it up. The new ones are a win-win for everything. -- Nom=de=Plume As usual, you're confused; that's completely false. *Mercury is not used in the manufacturing of incandescent bulbs. There have been studies that suggest that using CFBs saves enough energy to offset the amount of mercury they contain... but that depends on ALL the energy being consumed as having been produced by coal-burning power plants. *Burning coal releases mercury, so the power saved (and mercury not released) by using CFBs is supposed to offset the mercury content of the CFB. *If some of your power comes from another source (nuclear, hydro) then this argument goes away. *As the maximum saving is around 7%, it doesn't take much to wipe that away. -- Nom=de=Plume |
Worshipping at the altar of Gaia...
"Jack" wrote in message
... Then you went on to prove my point... your "bad" indeed. You wrote "It takes much more mercury to make the standard light bulb than the is in the new ones." Nothing ambiguous there... you were dead wrong. It does take more mercury, since it's a byproduct of the process. Sorry if that destroys an argument that original bulbs are better. Since we're replacing old bulbs with new, we should also move toward renewable energy, since that's clearly a problem. -- Nom=de=Plume |
Worshipping at the altar of Gaia...
On Sep 2, 8:08*pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
"Jack" wrote in message ... Then you went on to prove my point... your "bad" indeed. *You wrote "It takes much more mercury to make the standard light bulb than the is in the new ones." *Nothing ambiguous there... you were dead wrong. It does take more mercury, since it's a byproduct of the process. Sorry if that destroys an argument that original bulbs are better. Since we're replacing old bulbs with new, we should also move toward renewable energy, since that's clearly a problem. My, you have a short little attention span. It does *not* take more mercury, since both the incandescent and CFB have similar glass, metal, and plastic content. In fact, it's a near certainty that the CFB takes *more* energy, and therefore mercury, to produce, since it is more complex, with more plastic and metal content than the old tech bulb. Oh, and IT CONTAINS RAW MERCURY! Now, snap to attention... I never stated that the old bulbs were "better", I just correctly stated that the mercury argument is false, and that you obviously didn't understand it when you tried to bring it up. Renewable energy? Another thread. Now you can go back to sleep, bumper sticker slogan boy. |
Worshipping at the altar of Gaia...
|
Worshipping at the altar of Gaia...
"Jack" wrote in message
... My, you have a short little attention span. It does *not* take more mercury, since both the incandescent and CFB have similar glass, metal, and plastic content. In fact, it's a near certainty that the CFB takes *more* energy, and therefore mercury, to produce, since it is more complex, with more plastic and metal content than the old tech bulb. Oh, and IT CONTAINS RAW MERCURY! What exactly do you think is the mercury that gets spewed into the atmoshere?? Non-raw mercury?? Now, snap to attention... I never stated that the old bulbs were "better", I just correctly stated that the mercury argument is false, and that you obviously didn't understand it when you tried to bring it up. No. You just are supporting the argument. Renewable energy? Another thread. Assuming you don't relate the two items, which are closely interrelated. Now you can go back to sleep, bumper sticker slogan boy. Only when I'm tired, and don't call me a boy. Clearly, you know nothing about me. -- Nom=de=Plume |
Worshipping at the altar of Gaia...
On Sep 2, 9:04*pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
"Jack" wrote in message ... My, you have a short little attention span. *It does *not* take more mercury, since both the incandescent and CFB have similar glass, metal, and plastic content. *In fact, it's a near certainty that the CFB takes *more* energy, and therefore mercury, to produce, since it is more complex, with more plastic and metal content than the old tech bulb. *Oh, and IT CONTAINS RAW MERCURY! What exactly do you think is the mercury that gets spewed into the atmoshere?? Non-raw mercury?? Non-sequitur. Fact is, it takes more energy to manufacture the CFB, so that releases more mercury into the atmosphere. Couple that with the fact that the standard bulb contains no mercury, and the CFB contains mercury, and you're just wrong. Now, snap to attention... I never stated that the old bulbs were "better", I just correctly stated that the mercury argument is false, and that you obviously didn't understand it when you tried to bring it up. No. You just are supporting the argument. No. Your grey matter is failing you. Horse, water, drink. Giddyup. |
Worshipping at the altar of Gaia...
"Jack" wrote in message
... What exactly do you think is the mercury that gets spewed into the atmoshere?? Non-raw mercury?? Non-sequitur. Fact is, it takes more energy to manufacture the CFB, so that releases more mercury into the atmosphere. Couple that with the fact that the standard bulb contains no mercury, and the CFB contains mercury, and you're just wrong. You said "RAW" mercury. As opposed to... Now, snap to attention... I never stated that the old bulbs were "better", I just correctly stated that the mercury argument is false, and that you obviously didn't understand it when you tried to bring it up. No. You just are supporting the argument. No. Your grey matter is failing you. Horse, water, drink. Giddyup. Rein yourself in... The water might not be potable. -- Nom=de=Plume |
Worshipping at the altar of Gaia...
On Sep 2, 11:04*pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
"Jack" wrote in message ... What exactly do you think is the mercury that gets spewed into the atmoshere?? Non-raw mercury?? Non-sequitur. *Fact is, it takes more energy to manufacture the CFB, so that releases more mercury into the atmosphere. *Couple that with the fact that the standard bulb contains no mercury, and the CFB contains mercury, and you're just wrong. You said "RAW" mercury. As opposed to... Non-sequitur again. As opposed to mercury that the device in question doesn't contain. Derived mercury. Drive-by mercury. Collateral mercury. In the end, the CFB contains mercury directly, and the old tech bulb does not. But can you address the issue at hand? The fact that it takes more energy to manufacture the CFB, so that process releases more mercury into the atmosphere. Couple that with the fact that the standard bulb contains no mercury, and the CFB contains mercury, and you're just wrong? It's obvious you don't have the engineering chops to grasp all of this. It's apparent in your initial incorrect presentation of the mercury issue, and your dancing around it since you were called on your mistake. That's OK, some are not cut out for the mental heavy lifting. You shouldn't be too ashamed. That's why the pundits put this bumper-sticker stuff out there... for the sheeple to have something to hang on to. It worked for you. And it got BO elected. It's highly successful stuff. |
Worshipping at the altar of Gaia...
"Jack" wrote in message
... On Sep 2, 11:04 pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "Jack" wrote in message ... What exactly do you think is the mercury that gets spewed into the atmoshere?? Non-raw mercury?? Non-sequitur. Fact is, it takes more energy to manufacture the CFB, so that releases more mercury into the atmosphere. Couple that with the fact that the standard bulb contains no mercury, and the CFB contains mercury, and you're just wrong. You said "RAW" mercury. As opposed to... Non-sequitur again. As opposed to mercury that the device in question doesn't contain. Derived mercury. Drive-by mercury. Collateral mercury. In the end, the CFB contains mercury directly, and the old tech bulb does not. Hate to break it to you, but mercury is an element. So, it seems you're the one who's doing a little bitty jig. It's obvious you don't have the engineering chops to grasp all of this. It's apparent in your initial incorrect presentation of the mercury issue, and your dancing around it since you were called on your mistake. That's OK, some are not cut out for the mental heavy lifting. You shouldn't be too ashamed. That's why the pundits put this bumper-sticker stuff out there... for the sheeple to have something to hang on to. It worked for you. And it got BO elected. It's highly successful stuff. So personal attacks are all you're left with.. not a convincing argument. -- Nom=de=Plume |
Worshipping at the altar of Gaia...
On Sep 3, 2:08*pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
"Jack" wrote in message ... On Sep 2, 11:04 pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "Jack" wrote in message ... What exactly do you think is the mercury that gets spewed into the atmoshere?? Non-raw mercury?? Non-sequitur. Fact is, it takes more energy to manufacture the CFB, so that releases more mercury into the atmosphere. Couple that with the fact that the standard bulb contains no mercury, and the CFB contains mercury, and you're just wrong. You said "RAW" mercury. As opposed to... Non-sequitur again. *As opposed to mercury that the device in question doesn't contain. *Derived mercury. *Drive-by mercury. *Collateral mercury. *In the end, the CFB contains mercury directly, and the old tech bulb does not. Hate to break it to you, but mercury is an element. So, it seems you're the one who's doing a little bitty jig. So is Plutonium and Europium, but it's highly unlikely that either type of bulb contain anything but trace amounts of them, and why does it matter? You still won't, or can't, come to grips with the real issue here. It's obvious you don't have the engineering chops to grasp all of this. *It's apparent in your initial incorrect presentation of the mercury issue, and your dancing around it since you were called on your mistake. *That's OK, some are not cut out for the mental heavy lifting. *You shouldn't be too ashamed. *That's why the pundits put this bumper-sticker stuff out there... for the sheeple to have something to hang on to. *It worked for you. *And it got BO elected. It's highly successful stuff. So personal attacks are all you're left with.. not a convincing argument. Hey, you're the one that heard or read a ditty about CFBs, then totally got the gist of it wrong. I've presented clearly stated arguments that you don't address, instead you simply dance around. Either what I wrote about you above is accurate, or you're choosing not to address that which proves your statements wrong. In either case you get what you deserve. see ya |
Worshipping at the altar of Gaia...
On Thu, 3 Sep 2009 11:28:46 -0700 (PDT), Jack
wrote: Hey, you're the one that heard or read a ditty about CFBs, then totally got the gist of it wrong. I've presented clearly stated arguments that you don't address, instead you simply dance around. Either what I wrote about you above is accurate, or you're choosing not to address that which proves your statements wrong. In either case you get what you deserve. This is a pretty good overview, though I won't vouch for it. Good picture of all the crap in a CFL. http://thewatt.com/node/175 I read elsewhere that even if you broke all the CFL bulbs they'd put less mercury in the environment than burning coal for incandescents. Won't vouch for that either. l don't think I have any incandescents left in the house or garage. The biggest failure with this crap is having enough recycling dropoffs. Around here it's at least a 10 mile drive to get rid of hazardous waste, and they're open only certain days/months. --Vic |
Worshipping at the altar of Gaia...
"Jack" wrote in message
... Hate to break it to you, but mercury is an element. So, it seems you're the one who's doing a little bitty jig. So is Plutonium and Europium, but it's highly unlikely that either type of bulb contain anything but trace amounts of them, and why does it matter? You still won't, or can't, come to grips with the real issue here. Nice strawman argument. So personal attacks are all you're left with.. not a convincing argument. Hey, you're the one that heard or read a ditty about CFBs, then totally got the gist of it wrong. I've presented clearly stated arguments that you don't address, instead you simply dance around. Either what I wrote about you above is accurate, or you're choosing not to address that which proves your statements wrong. In either case you get what you deserve. Like I said. You certainly don't know and shouldn't presume to know what I "deserve." -- Nom=de=Plume |
Worshipping at the altar of Gaia...
"Vic Smith" wrote in message
... On Thu, 3 Sep 2009 11:28:46 -0700 (PDT), Jack wrote: Hey, you're the one that heard or read a ditty about CFBs, then totally got the gist of it wrong. I've presented clearly stated arguments that you don't address, instead you simply dance around. Either what I wrote about you above is accurate, or you're choosing not to address that which proves your statements wrong. In either case you get what you deserve. This is a pretty good overview, though I won't vouch for it. Good picture of all the crap in a CFL. http://thewatt.com/node/175 I read elsewhere that even if you broke all the CFL bulbs they'd put less mercury in the environment than burning coal for incandescents. Won't vouch for that either. l don't think I have any incandescents left in the house or garage. The biggest failure with this crap is having enough recycling dropoffs. Around here it's at least a 10 mile drive to get rid of hazardous waste, and they're open only certain days/months. --Vic Here's the manufacturing canard... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compact_fluorescent_lamp -- Nom=de=Plume |
Worshipping at the altar of Gaia...
On Thu, 3 Sep 2009 13:17:23 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote: Here's the manufacturing canard... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compact_fluorescent_lamp From this I found that Home Depot takes them for recycling. Good to know. I bet most people just toss them in the garbage though. --Vic |
Worshipping at the altar of Gaia...
On Sep 3, 4:14*pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
"Jack" wrote in message ... Hate to break it to you, but mercury is an element. So, it seems you're the one who's doing a little bitty jig. So is Plutonium and Europium, but it's highly unlikely that either type of bulb contain anything but trace amounts of them, and why does it matter? *You still won't, or can't, come to grips with the real issue here. Nice strawman argument. So personal attacks are all you're left with.. not a convincing argument. |
Worshipping at the altar of Gaia...
On Sep 3, 2:57*pm, Vic Smith wrote:
On Thu, 3 Sep 2009 11:28:46 -0700 (PDT), Jack wrote: Hey, you're the one that heard or read a ditty about CFBs, then totally got the gist of it wrong. *I've presented clearly stated arguments that you don't address, instead you simply dance around. Either what I wrote about you above is accurate, or you're choosing not to address that which proves your statements wrong. *In either case you get what you deserve. This is a pretty good overview, though I won't vouch for it. Good picture of all the crap in a CFL.http://thewatt.com/node/175 I read elsewhere that even if you broke all the CFL bulbs they'd put less mercury in the environment than burning coal for incandescents. Won't vouch for that either. l don't think I have any incandescents left in the house or garage. The biggest failure with this crap is having enough recycling dropoffs. *Around here it's at least a 10 mile drive to get rid of hazardous waste, and they're open only certain days/months. Yup. The big problem with that energy/mercury breakdown is that for it to be true, you have to get *all* your electricity from coal. The big breaktrough will likely be LED lighting technology. CFB is too dirty. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:56 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com