"JosephKK" <quiettechblue@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:oaje04ddaritvg2u96m558rkndr8jq2hh0@4ax.com...
On Sat, 12 Apr 2008 09:22:41 GMT, "Arfa Daily"
arfa.daily@ntlworld.com> wrote:


"JosephKK" <quiettechblue@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:06b004htd49j569u0ttk8sin5p39dc2llv@4ax.com...
On Wed, 09 Apr 2008 18:45:28 +1200, Terry Given <my_name@ieee.org
wrote:

Jay Ts wrote:
Smitty Two wrote:

Terry Given <my_name@ieee.org> wrote:


these are great, they look fantastic, unity power factor, dimmable,
and
last 50,000 hours.

Yeah, and they're only $145 each:

http://www.lampsplus.com/products/s_lr6/


And only 650 lumens, which is less than a 60 watt incandescent (890
lumens). I'm using 4 27 watt (100 watt equivalent) 6500K CFLs to
light my work room, so to replace them with those LED bulbs, it
would cost ... oh, forget it, I don't even want to do the math!
No way.

and how many lumens come out of your fixture with the 890 lumen lamp in
it?

CFLs are terrible for that. they are measured in the light sphere sans
fixture, which can make a tremendous difference. easily 20-30%.


Oh, and the LR6 bulbs are spotlights, which is a no-go just by itself.
And they aren't daylight balanced (5500-6500K), another definite
no-go.


they are not bulbs. They are light fittings with integral lamps. that
alters the C-B calcs substantially.

I think it's still going to be a while until 100-watt equivalent,
daylight balanced LED bulbs are available with an "ouchless"
startup cost, and I'm not holding my breath waiting. Just hoping
that it will happen, and won't be awfully long.

Jay Ts

its a total cost of ownership thing. efficiency wise they pay for
themselves (I have seen the ROI calcs but cant recall them) in a few
years.

the main market is for people who dont change their own lightbulbs (eg
companies) where it costs a lot to get a single lamp changed, so they
often get a sparky to change all lamps whether or not they need it, eg
annually or bi-annually. And if its in say a tall atrium and you need
scissor lifts, these things pay themselves off in less than the
lifgetime of a single incandescent, CFL or flouro.

Cheers
Terry

For street lighting, warehouse lighting, and industrial lighting there
is a competing technology: Induction lighting. Typical lamp/bulb life
50,000 to 75,000 hours. Twice the life and better luminous efficacy
at a 50% surcharge compared to HID lighting. It is starting to get a
lot of notice. Oh, and better electrical efficiency, takes about half
the power for the same amount of light.

I don't know how much take-up of this technology there has been in the UK.
It does beg the question of how much trouble it could cause, if a single
streetlamp or warehouse luminaire went 'rogue'. Already, I see fellow hams
bleating all the time about HF bands interference problems from rogue
CFLs,
and SMPS's and PLT and so on. Imagine the potential for interference if a
high power streetlight ballast, feeding an induction lamp 50ft up a pole,
started radiating on 13 odd megs. Or a factory one 50ft up in the ceiling
... :-)

Arfa


In the US they have to meet FCC radiated and conducted emission
standards. Thus the CFLs going rouge probably only statistically meet
those standards, such is part of the nature of regulation.

They have to meet strict emission regulations here too, which I'm sure for
the most part, when in full working order, they do. The problems arise when
the crappy little filter caps in the front end of the switching driver for
the tubes, go open circuit or high ESR, due no doubt to the unventillated
enclosure in the bottom of the lamp, that the electronics sit in, running
very hot. Once that cap has failed, the inverter radiates like a bastard,
swamping the airways with broadband hash. It's bad enough when one goes
rogue like this, 6 foot off the deck in someone's driveway light outside
their house. Think what it would be like if one went bad 50 foot up in the
air ...

Arfa

On Thu, 17 Apr 2008 23:50:18 GMT, "Arfa Daily"
arfa.daily@ntlworld.com> wrote:


"JosephKK" <quiettechblue@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:oaje04ddaritvg2u96m558rkndr8jq2hh0@4ax.com...
On Sat, 12 Apr 2008 09:22:41 GMT, "Arfa Daily"
arfa.daily@ntlworld.com> wrote:


"JosephKK" <quiettechblue@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:06b004htd49j569u0ttk8sin5p39dc2llv@4ax.com...
On Wed, 09 Apr 2008 18:45:28 +1200, Terry Given <my_name@ieee.org
wrote:

Jay Ts wrote:
Smitty Two wrote:

Terry Given <my_name@ieee.org> wrote:


these are great, they look fantastic, unity power factor, dimmable,
and
last 50,000 hours.

Yeah, and they're only $145 each:

http://www.lampsplus.com/products/s_lr6/


And only 650 lumens, which is less than a 60 watt incandescent (890
lumens). I'm using 4 27 watt (100 watt equivalent) 6500K CFLs to
light my work room, so to replace them with those LED bulbs, it
would cost ... oh, forget it, I don't even want to do the math!
No way.

and how many lumens come out of your fixture with the 890 lumen lamp
in
it?

CFLs are terrible for that. they are measured in the light sphere sans
fixture, which can make a tremendous difference. easily 20-30%.


Oh, and the LR6 bulbs are spotlights, which is a no-go just by
itself.
And they aren't daylight balanced (5500-6500K), another definite
no-go.


they are not bulbs. They are light fittings with integral lamps. that
alters the C-B calcs substantially.

I think it's still going to be a while until 100-watt equivalent,
daylight balanced LED bulbs are available with an "ouchless"
startup cost, and I'm not holding my breath waiting. Just hoping
that it will happen, and won't be awfully long.

Jay Ts

its a total cost of ownership thing. efficiency wise they pay for
themselves (I have seen the ROI calcs but cant recall them) in a few
years.

the main market is for people who dont change their own lightbulbs (eg
companies) where it costs a lot to get a single lamp changed, so they
often get a sparky to change all lamps whether or not they need it, eg
annually or bi-annually. And if its in say a tall atrium and you need
scissor lifts, these things pay themselves off in less than the
lifgetime of a single incandescent, CFL or flouro.

Cheers
Terry

For street lighting, warehouse lighting, and industrial lighting there
is a competing technology: Induction lighting. Typical lamp/bulb life
50,000 to 75,000 hours. Twice the life and better luminous efficacy
at a 50% surcharge compared to HID lighting. It is starting to get a
lot of notice. Oh, and better electrical efficiency, takes about half
the power for the same amount of light.

I don't know how much take-up of this technology there has been in the
UK.
It does beg the question of how much trouble it could cause, if a single
streetlamp or warehouse luminaire went 'rogue'. Already, I see fellow
hams
bleating all the time about HF bands interference problems from rogue
CFLs,
and SMPS's and PLT and so on. Imagine the potential for interference if
a
high power streetlight ballast, feeding an induction lamp 50ft up a
pole,
started radiating on 13 odd megs. Or a factory one 50ft up in the
ceiling
... :-)

Arfa


In the US they have to meet FCC radiated and conducted emission
standards. Thus the CFLs going rouge probably only statistically meet
those standards, such is part of the nature of regulation.

They have to meet strict emission regulations here too, which I'm sure for
the most part, when in full working order, they do. The problems arise
when
the crappy little filter caps in the front end of the switching driver for
the tubes, go open circuit or high ESR, due no doubt to the unventillated
enclosure in the bottom of the lamp, that the electronics sit in, running
very hot. Once that cap has failed, the inverter radiates like a bastard,
swamping the airways with broadband hash. It's bad enough when one goes
rogue like this, 6 foot off the deck in someone's driveway light outside
their house. Think what it would be like if one went bad 50 foot up in the
air ...

Arfa


Please explain under what situations would a cfl be mounted 50 feet
above ground.

"JosephKK" <quiettechblue@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:2h2l0454htk5e5t1u94li87d7q310u0fn4@4ax.com...
On Thu, 17 Apr 2008 23:50:18 GMT, "Arfa Daily"
arfa.daily@ntlworld.com> wrote:


"JosephKK" <quiettechblue@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:oaje04ddaritvg2u96m558rkndr8jq2hh0@4ax.com...
On Sat, 12 Apr 2008 09:22:41 GMT, "Arfa Daily"
arfa.daily@ntlworld.com> wrote:


"JosephKK" <quiettechblue@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:06b004htd49j569u0ttk8sin5p39dc2llv@4ax.com...
On Wed, 09 Apr 2008 18:45:28 +1200, Terry Given <my_name@ieee.org
wrote:

Jay Ts wrote:
Smitty Two wrote:

Terry Given <my_name@ieee.org> wrote:


these are great, they look fantastic, unity power factor, dimmable,
and
last 50,000 hours.

Yeah, and they're only $145 each:

http://www.lampsplus.com/products/s_lr6/


And only 650 lumens, which is less than a 60 watt incandescent (890
lumens). I'm using 4 27 watt (100 watt equivalent) 6500K CFLs to
light my work room, so to replace them with those LED bulbs, it
would cost ... oh, forget it, I don't even want to do the math!
No way.

and how many lumens come out of your fixture with the 890 lumen lamp
in
it?

CFLs are terrible for that. they are measured in the light sphere sans
fixture, which can make a tremendous difference. easily 20-30%.


Oh, and the LR6 bulbs are spotlights, which is a no-go just by
itself.
And they aren't daylight balanced (5500-6500K), another definite
no-go.


they are not bulbs. They are light fittings with integral lamps. that
alters the C-B calcs substantially.

I think it's still going to be a while until 100-watt equivalent,
daylight balanced LED bulbs are available with an "ouchless"
startup cost, and I'm not holding my breath waiting. Just hoping
that it will happen, and won't be awfully long.

Jay Ts

its a total cost of ownership thing. efficiency wise they pay for
themselves (I have seen the ROI calcs but cant recall them) in a few
years.

the main market is for people who dont change their own lightbulbs (eg
companies) where it costs a lot to get a single lamp changed, so they
often get a sparky to change all lamps whether or not they need it, eg
annually or bi-annually. And if its in say a tall atrium and you need
scissor lifts, these things pay themselves off in less than the
lifgetime of a single incandescent, CFL or flouro.

Cheers
Terry

For street lighting, warehouse lighting, and industrial lighting there
is a competing technology: Induction lighting. Typical lamp/bulb life
50,000 to 75,000 hours. Twice the life and better luminous efficacy
at a 50% surcharge compared to HID lighting. It is starting to get a
lot of notice. Oh, and better electrical efficiency, takes about half
the power for the same amount of light.

I don't know how much take-up of this technology there has been in the
UK.
It does beg the question of how much trouble it could cause, if a single
streetlamp or warehouse luminaire went 'rogue'. Already, I see fellow
hams
bleating all the time about HF bands interference problems from rogue
CFLs,
and SMPS's and PLT and so on. Imagine the potential for interference if
a
high power streetlight ballast, feeding an induction lamp 50ft up a
pole,
started radiating on 13 odd megs. Or a factory one 50ft up in the
ceiling
... :-)

Arfa


In the US they have to meet FCC radiated and conducted emission
standards. Thus the CFLs going rouge probably only statistically meet
those standards, such is part of the nature of regulation.

They have to meet strict emission regulations here too, which I'm sure for
the most part, when in full working order, they do. The problems arise
when
the crappy little filter caps in the front end of the switching driver for
the tubes, go open circuit or high ESR, due no doubt to the unventillated
enclosure in the bottom of the lamp, that the electronics sit in, running
very hot. Once that cap has failed, the inverter radiates like a bastard,
swamping the airways with broadband hash. It's bad enough when one goes
rogue like this, 6 foot off the deck in someone's driveway light outside
their house. Think what it would be like if one went bad 50 foot up in the
air ...

Arfa


Please explain under what situations would a cfl be mounted 50 feet
above ground.

Block of flats ? Might be 100 feet up in the air or more in that case. When
the EU morons responsible for all this eco-bollocks legislation finally ban
incandescents in the UK, as they have stated that they will in short order,
then tower blocks will be full of CFLs, as there will be no alternative, yes
?

Originally, when we got onto lighting being 50 foot up in the air, we were
talking about induction lighting in street lamps and factory ceiling lights.
The point was that these devices use high frequency generators to couple the
energy into the lamps, and these generators follow similar design principles
to the tube driver inverters in CFLs. Thus, if low power CFL inverters go
bad, and create the RF havoc that they sometimes do at just a few feet off
the ground, then imagine how bad the situation would be if the high power HF
generator for an induction lamp, 50 foot up a pole, when similarly bad. With
my thinking now ...?

Arfa

"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:jpmuv3d1an98pgo1d1gvsm7euppe7s9bd5@4ax.com...
On 10 Apr 2008 22:48:41 GMT, Jay Ts <UseWebsiteToReply@example.com
wrote:

Archimedes' Lever wrote:
On 10 Apr 2008 08:18:32 GMT, Jay Ts <UseWebsiteToReply@example.com
wrote:

I put it right there in front of you: They measure ELECTRIC POTENTIAL
otherwise known as "VOLTAGE", between a filling and a reference point.

TOATAL BULLSHIT, you fucking idiot!

I've already done as much as I can to help this guy,
who obviously can not live up to the name he is using.
Instead of discussing the matter respectfully, and
abiding by Usenet "netiquette", he is just attacking
me personally.

If anything, I admit that discussing this topic in
a group related to electronics is highly inappropriate,
and I feel *very* embarrassed that I unwittingly led the
discussion in this direction. I hope to wind this
down soon.

I've posted enough links to Wikipedia that anyone who has
interest can just go read them, and learn much more than I
have to offer on my own. And don't knock my little story
without checking out the reader's comments to Dr. Huggins'
book on Amazon.com if you haven't already. If those things
don't do it for you, I don't think anything will ... and
that's perfectly ok with me! Enjoy your own reality however
you prefer it.

---
Read this:

http://www.quackwatch.com/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/mercury.html

JF

Yes, that's more like it. At least it cites relevant research, which
*appears* to have been carried out by scientific people using proper
methodology.

Arfa

On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 01:18:25 GMT, "Arfa Daily"
arfa.daily@ntlworld.com> wrote:


"JosephKK" <quiettechblue@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:2h2l0454htk5e5t1u94li87d7q310u0fn4@4ax.com...
On Thu, 17 Apr 2008 23:50:18 GMT, "Arfa Daily"
arfa.daily@ntlworld.com> wrote:


"JosephKK" <quiettechblue@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:oaje04ddaritvg2u96m558rkndr8jq2hh0@4ax.com...
On Sat, 12 Apr 2008 09:22:41 GMT, "Arfa Daily"
arfa.daily@ntlworld.com> wrote:


"JosephKK" <quiettechblue@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:06b004htd49j569u0ttk8sin5p39dc2llv@4ax.com...
On Wed, 09 Apr 2008 18:45:28 +1200, Terry Given <my_name@ieee.org
wrote:

Jay Ts wrote:
Smitty Two wrote:

Terry Given <my_name@ieee.org> wrote:


these are great, they look fantastic, unity power factor,
dimmable,
and
last 50,000 hours.

Yeah, and they're only $145 each:

http://www.lampsplus.com/products/s_lr6/


And only 650 lumens, which is less than a 60 watt incandescent
(890
lumens). I'm using 4 27 watt (100 watt equivalent) 6500K CFLs to
light my work room, so to replace them with those LED bulbs, it
would cost ... oh, forget it, I don't even want to do the math!
No way.

and how many lumens come out of your fixture with the 890 lumen lamp
in
it?

CFLs are terrible for that. they are measured in the light sphere
sans
fixture, which can make a tremendous difference. easily 20-30%.


Oh, and the LR6 bulbs are spotlights, which is a no-go just by
itself.
And they aren't daylight balanced (5500-6500K), another definite
no-go.


they are not bulbs. They are light fittings with integral lamps.
that
alters the C-B calcs substantially.

I think it's still going to be a while until 100-watt equivalent,
daylight balanced LED bulbs are available with an "ouchless"
startup cost, and I'm not holding my breath waiting. Just hoping
that it will happen, and won't be awfully long.

Jay Ts

its a total cost of ownership thing. efficiency wise they pay for
themselves (I have seen the ROI calcs but cant recall them) in a few
years.

the main market is for people who dont change their own lightbulbs
(eg
companies) where it costs a lot to get a single lamp changed, so
they
often get a sparky to change all lamps whether or not they need it,
eg
annually or bi-annually. And if its in say a tall atrium and you
need
scissor lifts, these things pay themselves off in less than the
lifgetime of a single incandescent, CFL or flouro.

Cheers
Terry

For street lighting, warehouse lighting, and industrial lighting
there
is a competing technology: Induction lighting. Typical lamp/bulb
life
50,000 to 75,000 hours. Twice the life and better luminous efficacy
at a 50% surcharge compared to HID lighting. It is starting to get
a
lot of notice. Oh, and better electrical efficiency, takes about
half
the power for the same amount of light.

I don't know how much take-up of this technology there has been in the
UK.
It does beg the question of how much trouble it could cause, if a
single
streetlamp or warehouse luminaire went 'rogue'. Already, I see fellow
hams
bleating all the time about HF bands interference problems from rogue
CFLs,
and SMPS's and PLT and so on. Imagine the potential for interference
if
a
high power streetlight ballast, feeding an induction lamp 50ft up a
pole,
started radiating on 13 odd megs. Or a factory one 50ft up in the
ceiling
... :-)

Arfa


In the US they have to meet FCC radiated and conducted emission
standards. Thus the CFLs going rouge probably only statistically meet
those standards, such is part of the nature of regulation.

They have to meet strict emission regulations here too, which I'm sure
for
the most part, when in full working order, they do. The problems arise
when
the crappy little filter caps in the front end of the switching driver
for
the tubes, go open circuit or high ESR, due no doubt to the
unventillated
enclosure in the bottom of the lamp, that the electronics sit in,
running
very hot. Once that cap has failed, the inverter radiates like a
bastard,
swamping the airways with broadband hash. It's bad enough when one goes
rogue like this, 6 foot off the deck in someone's driveway light outside
their house. Think what it would be like if one went bad 50 foot up in
the
air ...

Arfa


Please explain under what situations would a cfl be mounted 50 feet
above ground.

Block of flats ? Might be 100 feet up in the air or more in that case.
When
the EU morons responsible for all this eco-bollocks legislation finally
ban
incandescents in the UK, as they have stated that they will in short
order,
then tower blocks will be full of CFLs, as there will be no alternative,
yes
?

Originally, when we got onto lighting being 50 foot up in the air, we were
talking about induction lighting in street lamps and factory ceiling
lights.
The point was that these devices use high frequency generators to couple
the
energy into the lamps, and these generators follow similar design
principles
to the tube driver inverters in CFLs. Thus, if low power CFL inverters go
bad, and create the RF havoc that they sometimes do at just a few feet off
the ground, then imagine how bad the situation would be if the high power
HF
generator for an induction lamp, 50 foot up a pole, when similarly bad.
With
my thinking now ...?

Arfa


Most of those will be converted to HID lighting or induction lighting
instead of cfl over the longevity characteristics.

On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 15:17:37 GMT, "Arfa Daily" <arfa.daily@ntlworld.com
wrote:


"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:jpmuv3d1an98pgo1d1gvsm7euppe7s9bd5@4ax.com...
On 10 Apr 2008 22:48:41 GMT, Jay Ts <UseWebsiteToReply@example.com
wrote:

Archimedes' Lever wrote:
On 10 Apr 2008 08:18:32 GMT, Jay Ts <UseWebsiteToReply@example.com
wrote:

I put it right there in front of you: They measure ELECTRIC POTENTIAL
otherwise known as "VOLTAGE", between a filling and a reference point.

TOATAL BULLSHIT, you fucking idiot!

I've already done as much as I can to help this guy,
who obviously can not live up to the name he is using.
Instead of discussing the matter respectfully, and
abiding by Usenet "netiquette", he is just attacking
me personally.

If anything, I admit that discussing this topic in
a group related to electronics is highly inappropriate,
and I feel *very* embarrassed that I unwittingly led the
discussion in this direction. I hope to wind this
down soon.

I've posted enough links to Wikipedia that anyone who has
interest can just go read them, and learn much more than I
have to offer on my own. And don't knock my little story
without checking out the reader's comments to Dr. Huggins'
book on Amazon.com if you haven't already. If those things
don't do it for you, I don't think anything will ... and
that's perfectly ok with me! Enjoy your own reality however
you prefer it.

---
Read this:

http://www.quackwatch.com/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/mercury.html

JF

Yes, that's more like it. At least it cites relevant research, which
*appears* to have been carried out by scientific people using proper
methodology.

Arfa


The fact is that the amalgam used by the dentists uses the Mercury to
bind the other metals together covalently.

As the dentist presses the silver amalgam into the filling cavity, the
mercury squeezes out and is recaptured by the dentist.. This means that
your fillings are like 95% Silver, and a few percent of other metals, and
less than one percent of metallic form Mercury.

NOT A HEALTH HAZARD.

"JosephKK" <quiettechblue@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:jqsn049m1ve2npm58ohnj1cgq7k9si972m@4ax.com...
On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 01:18:25 GMT, "Arfa Daily"
arfa.daily@ntlworld.com> wrote:


"JosephKK" <quiettechblue@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:2h2l0454htk5e5t1u94li87d7q310u0fn4@4ax.com...
On Thu, 17 Apr 2008 23:50:18 GMT, "Arfa Daily"
arfa.daily@ntlworld.com> wrote:


"JosephKK" <quiettechblue@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:oaje04ddaritvg2u96m558rkndr8jq2hh0@4ax.com...
On Sat, 12 Apr 2008 09:22:41 GMT, "Arfa Daily"
arfa.daily@ntlworld.com> wrote:


"JosephKK" <quiettechblue@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:06b004htd49j569u0ttk8sin5p39dc2llv@4ax.com...
On Wed, 09 Apr 2008 18:45:28 +1200, Terry Given <my_name@ieee.org
wrote:

Jay Ts wrote:
Smitty Two wrote:

Terry Given <my_name@ieee.org> wrote:


these are great, they look fantastic, unity power factor,
dimmable,
and
last 50,000 hours.

Yeah, and they're only $145 each:

http://www.lampsplus.com/products/s_lr6/


And only 650 lumens, which is less than a 60 watt incandescent
(890
lumens). I'm using 4 27 watt (100 watt equivalent) 6500K CFLs to
light my work room, so to replace them with those LED bulbs, it
would cost ... oh, forget it, I don't even want to do the math!
No way.

and how many lumens come out of your fixture with the 890 lumen lamp
in
it?

CFLs are terrible for that. they are measured in the light sphere
sans
fixture, which can make a tremendous difference. easily 20-30%.


Oh, and the LR6 bulbs are spotlights, which is a no-go just by
itself.
And they aren't daylight balanced (5500-6500K), another definite
no-go.


they are not bulbs. They are light fittings with integral lamps.
that
alters the C-B calcs substantially.

I think it's still going to be a while until 100-watt equivalent,
daylight balanced LED bulbs are available with an "ouchless"
startup cost, and I'm not holding my breath waiting. Just hoping
that it will happen, and won't be awfully long.

Jay Ts

its a total cost of ownership thing. efficiency wise they pay for
themselves (I have seen the ROI calcs but cant recall them) in a few
years.

the main market is for people who dont change their own lightbulbs
(eg
companies) where it costs a lot to get a single lamp changed, so
they
often get a sparky to change all lamps whether or not they need it,
eg
annually or bi-annually. And if its in say a tall atrium and you
need
scissor lifts, these things pay themselves off in less than the
lifgetime of a single incandescent, CFL or flouro.

Cheers
Terry

For street lighting, warehouse lighting, and industrial lighting
there
is a competing technology: Induction lighting. Typical lamp/bulb
life
50,000 to 75,000 hours. Twice the life and better luminous efficacy
at a 50% surcharge compared to HID lighting. It is starting to get
a
lot of notice. Oh, and better electrical efficiency, takes about
half
the power for the same amount of light.

I don't know how much take-up of this technology there has been in the
UK.
It does beg the question of how much trouble it could cause, if a
single
streetlamp or warehouse luminaire went 'rogue'. Already, I see fellow
hams
bleating all the time about HF bands interference problems from rogue
CFLs,
and SMPS's and PLT and so on. Imagine the potential for interference
if
a
high power streetlight ballast, feeding an induction lamp 50ft up a
pole,
started radiating on 13 odd megs. Or a factory one 50ft up in the
ceiling
... :-)

Arfa


In the US they have to meet FCC radiated and conducted emission
standards. Thus the CFLs going rouge probably only statistically meet
those standards, such is part of the nature of regulation.

They have to meet strict emission regulations here too, which I'm sure
for
the most part, when in full working order, they do. The problems arise
when
the crappy little filter caps in the front end of the switching driver
for
the tubes, go open circuit or high ESR, due no doubt to the
unventillated
enclosure in the bottom of the lamp, that the electronics sit in,
running
very hot. Once that cap has failed, the inverter radiates like a
bastard,
swamping the airways with broadband hash. It's bad enough when one goes
rogue like this, 6 foot off the deck in someone's driveway light outside
their house. Think what it would be like if one went bad 50 foot up in
the
air ...

Arfa


Please explain under what situations would a cfl be mounted 50 feet
above ground.

Block of flats ? Might be 100 feet up in the air or more in that case.
When
the EU morons responsible for all this eco-bollocks legislation finally
ban
incandescents in the UK, as they have stated that they will in short
order,
then tower blocks will be full of CFLs, as there will be no alternative,
yes
?

Originally, when we got onto lighting being 50 foot up in the air, we were
talking about induction lighting in street lamps and factory ceiling
lights.
The point was that these devices use high frequency generators to couple
the
energy into the lamps, and these generators follow similar design
principles
to the tube driver inverters in CFLs. Thus, if low power CFL inverters go
bad, and create the RF havoc that they sometimes do at just a few feet off
the ground, then imagine how bad the situation would be if the high power
HF
generator for an induction lamp, 50 foot up a pole, when similarly bad.
With
my thinking now ...?

Arfa


Most of those will be converted to HID lighting or induction lighting
instead of cfl over the longevity characteristics.

?????????

Arfa

On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 08:44:11 GMT, "Arfa Daily"
arfa.daily@ntlworld.com> wrote:


"JosephKK" <quiettechblue@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:jqsn049m1ve2npm58ohnj1cgq7k9si972m@4ax.com...
On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 01:18:25 GMT, "Arfa Daily"
arfa.daily@ntlworld.com> wrote:


"JosephKK" <quiettechblue@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:2h2l0454htk5e5t1u94li87d7q310u0fn4@4ax.com...
On Thu, 17 Apr 2008 23:50:18 GMT, "Arfa Daily"
arfa.daily@ntlworld.com> wrote:


"JosephKK" <quiettechblue@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:oaje04ddaritvg2u96m558rkndr8jq2hh0@4ax.com...
On Sat, 12 Apr 2008 09:22:41 GMT, "Arfa Daily"
arfa.daily@ntlworld.com> wrote:


"JosephKK" <quiettechblue@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:06b004htd49j569u0ttk8sin5p39dc2llv@4ax.com...
On Wed, 09 Apr 2008 18:45:28 +1200, Terry Given <my_name@ieee.org
wrote:

Jay Ts wrote:
Smitty Two wrote:

Terry Given <my_name@ieee.org> wrote:


these are great, they look fantastic, unity power factor,
dimmable,
and
last 50,000 hours.

Yeah, and they're only $145 each:

http://www.lampsplus.com/products/s_lr6/


And only 650 lumens, which is less than a 60 watt incandescent
(890
lumens). I'm using 4 27 watt (100 watt equivalent) 6500K CFLs to
light my work room, so to replace them with those LED bulbs, it
would cost ... oh, forget it, I don't even want to do the math!
No way.

and how many lumens come out of your fixture with the 890 lumen
lamp
in
it?

CFLs are terrible for that. they are measured in the light sphere
sans
fixture, which can make a tremendous difference. easily 20-30%.


Oh, and the LR6 bulbs are spotlights, which is a no-go just by
itself.
And they aren't daylight balanced (5500-6500K), another definite
no-go.


they are not bulbs. They are light fittings with integral lamps.
that
alters the C-B calcs substantially.

I think it's still going to be a while until 100-watt
equivalent,
daylight balanced LED bulbs are available with an "ouchless"
startup cost, and I'm not holding my breath waiting. Just hoping
that it will happen, and won't be awfully long.

Jay Ts

its a total cost of ownership thing. efficiency wise they pay for
themselves (I have seen the ROI calcs but cant recall them) in a
few
years.

the main market is for people who dont change their own lightbulbs
(eg
companies) where it costs a lot to get a single lamp changed, so
they
often get a sparky to change all lamps whether or not they need
it,
eg
annually or bi-annually. And if its in say a tall atrium and you
need
scissor lifts, these things pay themselves off in less than the
lifgetime of a single incandescent, CFL or flouro.

Cheers
Terry

For street lighting, warehouse lighting, and industrial lighting
there
is a competing technology: Induction lighting. Typical lamp/bulb
life
50,000 to 75,000 hours. Twice the life and better luminous
efficacy
at a 50% surcharge compared to HID lighting. It is starting to
get
a
lot of notice. Oh, and better electrical efficiency, takes about
half
the power for the same amount of light.

I don't know how much take-up of this technology there has been in
the
UK.
It does beg the question of how much trouble it could cause, if a
single
streetlamp or warehouse luminaire went 'rogue'. Already, I see
fellow
hams
bleating all the time about HF bands interference problems from
rogue
CFLs,
and SMPS's and PLT and so on. Imagine the potential for interference
if
a
high power streetlight ballast, feeding an induction lamp 50ft up a
pole,
started radiating on 13 odd megs. Or a factory one 50ft up in the
ceiling
... :-)

Arfa


In the US they have to meet FCC radiated and conducted emission
standards. Thus the CFLs going rouge probably only statistically
meet
those standards, such is part of the nature of regulation.

They have to meet strict emission regulations here too, which I'm sure
for
the most part, when in full working order, they do. The problems arise
when
the crappy little filter caps in the front end of the switching driver
for
the tubes, go open circuit or high ESR, due no doubt to the
unventillated
enclosure in the bottom of the lamp, that the electronics sit in,
running
very hot. Once that cap has failed, the inverter radiates like a
bastard,
swamping the airways with broadband hash. It's bad enough when one
goes
rogue like this, 6 foot off the deck in someone's driveway light
outside
their house. Think what it would be like if one went bad 50 foot up in
the
air ...

Arfa


Please explain under what situations would a cfl be mounted 50 feet
above ground.

Block of flats ? Might be 100 feet up in the air or more in that case.
When
the EU morons responsible for all this eco-bollocks legislation finally
ban
incandescents in the UK, as they have stated that they will in short
order,
then tower blocks will be full of CFLs, as there will be no alternative,
yes
?

Originally, when we got onto lighting being 50 foot up in the air, we
were
talking about induction lighting in street lamps and factory ceiling
lights.
The point was that these devices use high frequency generators to couple
the
energy into the lamps, and these generators follow similar design
principles
to the tube driver inverters in CFLs. Thus, if low power CFL inverters
go
bad, and create the RF havoc that they sometimes do at just a few feet
off
the ground, then imagine how bad the situation would be if the high
power
HF
generator for an induction lamp, 50 foot up a pole, when similarly bad.
With
my thinking now ...?

Arfa


Most of those will be converted to HID lighting or induction lighting
instead of cfl over the longevity characteristics.

?????????

Arfa


Most street lighting is HPS currently with a normal ballast, there are
some MH lamps with normal ballasts. LED street lighting is being
experimented with. Caltrans in using induction lighting on signs and
may branch out into other uses. Since induction lighting is targeted
at hard to maintain locations in commercial and industrial settings
there are design differences from household CFL where cheap is the
dominant factor. Where we will see CFL is on smaller apartment
buildings with penny-pinching owners / managers.

and some balancing comment
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/apr/24/2
# The Guardian,
# Thursday April 24 2008
A whisker of doubt

I believe there are several inaccuracies in Kurt Jacobsen's article
(Within
a whisker of failure, April 3). He cites the Swatch watch company as
recalling a "huge batch" of watches that amounted to a financial loss,
when
in fact Swatch was denied its request for a RoHS exemption, as another
supplier makes lead-free quartz movements it could use with no whisker
issues. Also, Swatch makes no mention of a recall in its EU request. The
nuclear power plant failure example and others are also misleading, as
these
were failures due to pure-tin formulations that predate RoHS. The new
formulations reduce these issues. Here's a good article that refutes the
"gloom and doom" predictions: tinyurl.com/4wxmkz.
Marcus England, by email


--
Diverse Devices, Southampton, England
electronic hints and repair briefs , schematics/manuals list on
http://home.graffiti.net/diverse:graffiti.net/

"N_Cook" <diverse@tcp.co.uk> wrote in message
news:fuqt78$7io$1@registered.motzarella.org...
and some balancing comment
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/apr/24/2
# The Guardian,
# Thursday April 24 2008
A whisker of doubt

Protection of the environment was the ticket on which RoHS in general -
and
this substitute lead-free technology in particular - was originally sold
to
an unsuspecting world. It seems to me that those who make up this
eco-legislation (as they go along, I suspect) are now discovering the
error
of their original concept as to why the mature and proven lead solder
technology needed replacing, and are now seeking to bury that error in a
different concept altogether. I can't remember ever before seeing any
reference anywhere to RoHS being primarily to improve the ease and safety
of
WEEE recycling, rather than as an environmental issue.

So, far from this article "refuting the gloom and doom", I think it serves
only to further highlight the well known shortcomings of lead-free solder
technology, and unfortunately for Mr England's case, I don't believe that
his letter holds a candle to the two from the other side of the coin,
which
preceded it.

Arfa

Arfa Daily <arfa.daily@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:J4aQj.15796$244.10875@newsfe1-win.ntli.net...

"N_Cook" <diverse@tcp.co.uk> wrote in message
news:fuqt78$7io$1@registered.motzarella.org...
and some balancing comment
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/apr/24/2
# The Guardian,
# Thursday April 24 2008
A whisker of doubt

Protection of the environment was the ticket on which RoHS in general -
and
this substitute lead-free technology in particular - was originally sold
to
an unsuspecting world. It seems to me that those who make up this
eco-legislation (as they go along, I suspect) are now discovering the
error
of their original concept as to why the mature and proven lead solder
technology needed replacing, and are now seeking to bury that error in a
different concept altogether. I can't remember ever before seeing any
reference anywhere to RoHS being primarily to improve the ease and safety
of
WEEE recycling, rather than as an environmental issue.

So, far from this article "refuting the gloom and doom", I think it
serves
only to further highlight the well known shortcomings of lead-free solder
technology, and unfortunately for Mr England's case, I don't believe that
his letter holds a candle to the two from the other side of the coin,
which
preceded it.

Arfa



What exactly can be recycled from say a PC?
As far as I can see the steel casing and perhaps some copper if it is not
too widely distributed , fragmented, needing human separation and plastic
separation environmental problems.
RoHS for recycling implies component level recycling - recycling 3 to 10
year old pc ICs - pull the other one.
Failing that, recycling processed sand and hard plastic after desoldering,
very unlikely. Leaves just the solder itself, which is just as recyclable
with or without lead presumably .

--
Diverse Devices, Southampton, England
electronic hints and repair briefs , schematics/manuals list on
http://home.graffiti.net/diverse:graffiti.net/



That would appear to me to be the nub of the matter, so it sounds as though

I know that they do recover gold from gold-plated connectors

and IC pins

but other than that, I agree that there's not a lot that can be recycled

"N_Cook" <diverse@tcp.co.uk> wrote in message
news:furuqe$k84$1@registered.motzarella.org...

What exactly can be recycled from say a PC?
As far as I can see the steel casing and perhaps some copper if it is not
too widely distributed , fragmented, needing human separation and plastic
separation environmental problems.
RoHS for recycling implies component level recycling - recycling 3 to 10
year old pc ICs - pull the other one.
Failing that, recycling processed sand and hard plastic after desoldering,
very unlikely. Leaves just the solder itself, which is just as recyclable
with or without lead presumably .

That would appear to me to be the nub of the matter, so it sounds as though
you agree with me that this 'ease of recycling' thing is a subtle shift of
tack to better handle the changing wind direction ...

I know that they do recover gold from gold-plated connectors and IC pins,
but other than that, I agree that there's not a lot that can be recycled
from a purely practical point of view in terms of cost-effectiveness, both
from purely monetary and energy budget considerations.

Arfa

Arfa Daily wrote:

I know that they do recover gold from gold-plated connectors

A couple of microns ?

and IC pins

Since when have "IC pins" had gold on them ?