Ouch...

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/28/technology/28led.html

Oh, sorry, no, mindless pap that undermines other technologies without
good arguments.

T.

How about a little panic on the other side:http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/07/27/eco.flourescent/

+ Garbage trucks spreading mercury gas all over town.
+ Mercury from electrical generators stay at those locations and
doesn't blow all around the world.
+ The answer is magnetic ballasts?

No wonder the public is confused!

-----------
RickR

On Jul 28, 1:52 pm, RickR <r... at (no spam) silhouettelights.com> wrote:

How about a little panic on the other side:http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/07/27/eco.flourescent/

+ Garbage trucks spreading mercury gas all over town.
+ Mercury from electrical generators stay at those locations and
doesn't blow all around the world.
+ The answer is magnetic ballasts?

No wonder the public is confused!

-----------
RickR

Wow, more confusion. A better answer is that electronic CFLs are just
fine, if you don't go for integrated CFLs, in fact, going entirely non-
integrated, requiring installed electronic control gears instead of
allowing cheap luminaires with medium bases would be far more
effective.

That professor's maths sucks by the way. 10,000 hours is only 1.15
years if the lamps run 24/7. That situation applies to a tiny percent
of all lamps in situations where integrated CFLs might be used. The
vast majority of locations which run 24/7 run more appropriate lamps -
metal halide, linear fluorescent, etcetera.

Also, surely the issue as to whether these are damaging in landfill
has more to do with whether the city offers sensible recycling. In
Hong Kon where he's based, most people are apartment dwellers. That
means you could mandate a lamp drop in every apartment building and do
a monthly collection.

What bugs me with a lot of these analyses is confusing the present
environment of maintenance with what is targetable in the future.

Also, LEDs shouldn't get off as clean - sure they don't contain
mercury, but what pollution do they pump into the environment around
the plants that make them? Certainly computer chip manufacturers have
a history of terrible pollution problems and they aren't doing
anything much different than LED manufacturers.

Thomas

On Jul 28, 4:53 pm, Thomas Paterson <t_p_pater... at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote:





On Jul 28, 1:52 pm, RickR <r... at (no spam) silhouettelights.com> wrote:

How about a little panic on the other side:http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/07/27/eco.flourescent/

+ Garbage trucks spreading mercury gas all over town.
+ Mercury from electrical generators stay at those locations and
doesn't blow all around the world.
+ The answer is magnetic ballasts?

No wonder the public is confused!

-----------
RickR

Wow, more confusion.  A better answer is that electronic CFLs are just
fine, if you don't go for integrated CFLs, in fact, going entirely non-
integrated, requiring installed electronic control gears instead of
allowing cheap luminaires with medium bases would be far more
effective.

That professor's maths sucks by the way.  10,000 hours is only 1.15
years if the lamps run 24/7.  That situation applies to a tiny percent
of all lamps in situations where integrated CFLs might be used.  The
vast majority of locations which run 24/7 run more appropriate lamps -
metal halide, linear fluorescent, etcetera.

Also, surely the issue as to whether these are damaging in landfill
has more to do with whether the city offers sensible recycling.  In
Hong Kon where he's based, most people are apartment dwellers.  That
means you could mandate a lamp drop in every apartment building and do
a monthly collection.

What bugs me with a lot of these analyses is confusing the present
environment of maintenance with what is targetable in the future.

Also, LEDs shouldn't get off as clean - sure they don't contain
mercury, but what pollution do they pump into the environment around
the plants that make them?  Certainly computer chip manufacturers have
a history of terrible pollution problems and they aren't doing
anything much different than LED manufacturers.

Thomas

Fluorescents, CFL included, have  TCLP standards.
(http://www.ehso.com/cssepa/TCLP.htm)
Does anyone know if LED technology has the same standards when
processing silicone for use with LEDs?

HR- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On Jul 27, 6:20 pm, Thomas Paterson <t_p_pater... at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote:
Ouch...

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/28/technology/28led.html

Oh, sorry, no, mindless pap that undermines other technologies without
good arguments.

T.

Yes, undoubtedly the press coverage is lopsided towards LEDs. They
could figuratively be referred to as the Obama's of the lighting
world. I heard the times refused to publish an article from the
fluorescent guys. Perhaps you could get Fox News to start a media
fairness campaign for balanced coverage in the lighting world. (Just
joking around here)

Some of the traditional technologies are catching on how to fight back
though as evidenced by the PR release for daybrite
http://news.thomasnet.com/fullstory/818840.

They are at least using the language of the LED hypers and putting up
some good numbers to boot.

How about a little panic on the other side:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/07/27/eco.flourescent/

+ Garbage trucks spreading mercury gas all over town.
+ Mercury from electrical generators stay at those locations and
doesn't blow all around the world.
+ The answer is magnetic ballasts?

No wonder the public is confused!

-----------
RickR