Connect with us

Constitutionality of light bulb ban questioned - Environmental Protection Agency must be called for

Discussion in 'Electrical Engineering' started by dpb, Jun 20, 2008.

Scroll to continue with content
  1. Dan Lanciani

    Dan Lanciani Guest

    | On 22 Jun 2008 17:16:51 GMT, [email protected]*com (Dan Lanciani) wrote:
    |
    | >|
    | >|
    | >| > In the past few years I've noticed that the commodity F40 and F96 tubes
    | >| > at the home centers are once again 40W and 75W respectively, so I assume
    | >| > they all now qualify for the good color rendering (or other) exemption
    | >| > from the requirements. (Or are they lying about the wattage?)
    | >| >
    | >| > Dan Lanciani
    | >| > [email protected]*com
    | >|
    | >|
    | >| Trichromatic phosphor blends are much more common these days and a lot
    | >| cheaper than they used to be, so you can easily get 40W high CRI lamps.
    | >
    | >And 75W F96 tubes, though they cost a little more than the dirt cheap CW
    | >versions did. I guess this is great if you like a high color rendering
    | >index, but I'm still not clear on how it ultimately helped with energy
    | >conservation or efficiency. Now if they had gone on to produce 34W F40
    | >and 60W F96 tubes that put out as much light as the older 40W and 75W
    | >versions I could see the justification for the higer costs, ballast
    | >replacements, and such in the meantime. But as it is, aren't we pretty
    | >much back where we started (from an energy usage point of view)?
    | >
    | > Dan Lanciani
    | > [email protected]*com
    |
    |
    | Hi Dan,
    |
    | Twenty or thirty years ago, a conventional two-tube F96T12 fixture
    | would draw about 180-watts. Today, with 60-watt lamps and energy
    | saving magnetic ballasts, that number falls closer to 135 or
    | 140-watts, so there's been at least some improvement.

    I get kind of confused when several variables change at once. :(
    Assume that I use the same ballasts I was using 20-30 years ago
    and also assume that I don't like the lower illumination from the
    60W tubes so I use the current more expensive 75W tubes. (Both
    assumptions happen to reflect reality. :) How does my energy usage
    today compare to my usage when I could get the cheap 75W cool white
    tubes?

    | In terms of operating efficacy, a 75-watt Sylvania F96T12/D41/ECO
    | (4,100K/70 CRI) is rated at 6,420 initial lumens and powered by a
    | standard magnetic-core ballast (0.88 BF), we obtain about 63 lumens
    | from each watt. A 60-watt Sylvania F96T12/D41/SS/ECO (4,100K/70 CRI)
    | at 5,600 initial lumens and driven by a newer energy saving magnetic
    | ballast would bump that up to perhaps 71 or 72 lumens per watt.

    Can I get energy saving magnetic ballasts to drive 75W tubes at higher
    efficiency or do they depend on using the 60W tubes?

    Dan Lanciani
    [email protected]*com
     

  2. Hi Dan,

    If your 75-watt replacement tubes are driven by the fixture's original
    ballast, wattage remains the same -- again, about 180-watts in total.


    You can; as is true of your current ballast, energy saving magnetic
    ballasts are compatible with both 60 and 75-watt lamps. However, if
    you plan to replace the ballast, you might as well switch to an
    electronic version and pop in a couple T8 tubes; the benefits are:

    * 40% energy savings (110-watts versus 180-watts)
    * 50% longer lamp life (18,000 hours versus 12,000 hours)
    * cooler operation (potentially helpful in warmer climates)
    * silent operation (no annoying ballast hum)
    * no flicker (important if you work with some types of machinery)
    * typically better colour rendering (improved light quality)
    * better lumen maintenance (more light over the life of the tube)
    * typically better cold weather performance (starting down to 0F)
    * better long-term availability of replacement lamps (???)

    A 75-watt F96T12 + standard magnetic ballast is the technical
    equivalent of a 1978 Ford Granada. It may have been considered a good
    performer in its day (** snicker **), but thirty years later we've
    thankfully moved the goal posts a little further.

    Cheers,
    Paul
     
  3. Guest

    | For all the panty-waists out there who whine about CFLs containing
    | mercury and, in particular, those who oppose the use of energy saving
    | lamps and advocate the construction of more coal-fired plants instead:
    |
    | http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/24/business/24recycling.html?ref=environment

    What about long tube fluorescent lights that I also refuse to put in my home
    for the same reason?

    Will they come out and do a full EPA-grade cleanup if a CFL (or FL) breaks?
     
  4. Guest

    | On 21 Jun 2008 15:04:27 GMT, wrote:
    |
    |>|>What about ophidian lights? I've always used the standard base ones for this.
    |>|>I suppose I could substitute a plant light or a small infrared.
    |>|>
    |>|>I was going to switch to low-voltage lamps for task lights, anyway, so I guess
    |>|>for the most part this doesn't really affect me.
    |>|>
    |>|>We need a law that taxes or just outright bans importation of cheap CFLs.
    |>|
    |>| Hi Phil,
    |>|
    |>| I'm not sure what wattage lamp you use, but if its light output
    |>| exceeds 2,600 lumens, it falls outside this legislation. For example,
    |>| a 150-watt Osram Sylvania A21 incandescent is rated at 2,780 lumens
    |>| (clear) and 2,640 lumens (soft white).
    |>
    |>So just run this on one of this half-wave rectifying dimmers to cut the
    |>power in half and you have a nice warm 40 watt light that uses 75 watts.
    |
    | Hi Phil,
    |
    | Alternatively, if you don't require that much light, you could simply
    | opt for a halogen lamp of a lesser wattage; e.g., a 40-watt Halogen?
    | ES provides the same amount of light as a conventional 60-watt
    | incandescent and lasts up to four times longer.
    |
    | If you're still contemplating a low-voltage solution, Philip's IRC
    | MR16 are some of the best available.
    |
    | See:
    | http://www.nam.lighting.philips.com/us/ecatalog/halogen/pdf/p-5758.pdf

    5000 hours? Not all that good. Half will be burned out in 3 years of
    regular use (about 5 hours a day).

    I've been considering both MR16 (GU5.3 12v) and MR11 (what pin for 6v?)
    for various lighting fixtures in the home I'll be building. I may opt
    for the smaller ones so I can select the illumination level by turning
    selected lights on and off rather than dimming. My original idea was
    to go with 6 volt 12 watt lights if those are available in MR11 or some
    other kind of halogen form factor.

    What I don't like about these lights is the pitch of the facet in the
    reflector. I would like the pitch to be about 10 to 20 times smaller.
    A frosted glass would, of course, help, too.
     
  5. Guest

    | wrote:
    |> In alt.engineering.electrical Jeff Strickland <>
    |> wrote:
    |>
    |>
    |>
    |>
    |> There certainly will be environmentalists that will come up with
    |> something.
    |
    |> As an environmentalists myself, I do object more to extending the
    |> drilling for oil. I'm in favor of building nuclear power plants
    |> (under certain conditions, such as stronger regulations and regular
    |> inspections, including by academic people, with public reports ...
    |> and they must also be built reasonably close to the areas of power
    |> demand, with consideration for risks like earthquakes, so the ones
    |> powering California might have to be built in Utah with some big DC
    |> feeders). I'm in favor of building solar farms (provided they are
    |> not built in such a way as to shadow natural needs for light ...
    |> desert spaces should be OK). I'm in favor of building wind farms.
    |
    | Wind farms and solar farms won't work and can't be made to work (except for
    | limited applications). The amount of sunlight falling on the earth is about
    | 700w/m^2. At the equator. At noon. With no clouds. Assuming 50% efficiency
    | for solar conversion panels, and adjusting for latitude, weather, and
    | nightfall, it would take a solar collector farm the size of the Los Angeles
    | basin (~1200 sq miles) to supply power for California (peak 50gw). Not
    | counting the cost to erect such a monster, consider the cost to maintain it.
    | Plus, all of Los Angeles would be in the dark. Which, when one thinks on it,
    | might not be such a bad idea...

    I'm not expecting these energy sources to be the complete supply (at least
    not for a few decades). But I do believe we need to build them, anyway,
    to help supplement the carbon-extraction process we depend on now.


    |> My objection for oil and gas extraction in general (so my goal is to
    |> see less of it used, not more) is to avoid releasing more carbon that
    |> has been naturally sequestered. Also, known oil reserves won't last
    |> for too many more decades or centuries (pinning down the exact figure
    |> is hard, but it's definitely not going to last a thousand years at
    |> the rate we are growing in our use).
    |
    | What difference does it make if we release more carbon? At the current level
    | of 0.003% of the atmosphere, a doubling would be virtually undetecable -
    | except for plants who would say "Yum!"

    You really think that?


    |> To the extent we can make the effort to reduce the need for oil/gas,
    |> then whatever else we do (drilling more reserves or not), it is that
    |> much less we end up depending on politically unstable or even
    |> criminal governments who
    |> are the current suppliers.
    |>
    |
    | It's like the Chicago cops and the gangsters: The cops need the gangster's
    | payoffs and the gangsters need the cops to not make too many problems. We're
    | at the mercy of the oil tyrants, but they need our money. It's a balance of
    | terror.

    Huh?

    We don't want to depend on others for our oil. We do depend on them now and
    it's a component of why we are at the mercy of their pricing. THEIR greatest
    fear is that WE don't want their oil anymore.
     
  6. Guest

    | Don Klipstein wrote:
    |> In article <>, HeyBub
    |> wrote in part:
    |>
    |>> What difference does it make if we release more carbon? At the
    |>> current level of 0.003% of the atmosphere,
    |>
    |> Make that .038% by volume, .0575% by weight.
    |
    |
    | Ah, right. Thanks for the correction.
    |
    |>
    |>> a doubling would be virtually undetecable -
    |>> except for plants who would say "Yum!"
    |>
    |> Current level of CO2 accounts for anywhere from 9 to 26% of
    |> current "greenhouse effect" (warming of the planet from a level that
    |> would exist if not for any greenhouse gases at all including water
    |> vapor).
    |
    |
    |>
    |> How well have plants fared now that atmospheric CO2 content is about
    |> 36% above pre-industrial-revolution levels? It appears to me that the
    |> limiting factors are water, daylight and favorable temperatures more
    |> than CO2 content in the atmosphere.
    |
    | 36% above pre-industrial-revolution levels mean that the former levels
    | constituted about 0.029% of the atmosphere. So, during the time that CO2
    | levels increased beyond a level detectable to an agrarian society, we've
    | gone to the moon, eradicated many diseases, trebled our life expectancy, and
    | invented pop-top beer containers.

    Life expectancy has actually turned the corner and is going back down.
     

  7. Hi Phil,

    A Philips F32T8XLL contains 1.7 mg of Hg and has a rated life of
    36,000 hours when operated on instant start ballasts (3 hours per
    start). It provides roughly the same amount of light as two 100-watt
    soft white incandescent lamps (~ 3,000 lumens). With ballast losses,
    we might peg its power consumption at about 30-watts (0.88 BF).

    Over the life of this lamp, it would consume 1,080 kWh, whereas the
    two equivalent incandescents would total 7,200 kWh -- a difference, in
    this case, of some 6,100 kWh.

    Although it varies by state, if we use the U.S. national average, the
    generation of those additional 6,100 kWhs would release 80 mg of Hg
    into the environment. At least with the fluorescent lamp, the 1.7 mg
    contained within can be recycled or properly disposed in a secure
    landfill (thereby potentially reducing our exposure to 0 mg) whereas
    the 80 mg of Hg released from the burning of coal indiscriminately
    pollutes our air, land and water.

    Cheers,
    Paul
     

  8. Hi Phil,

    In the context of a regular A19 incandescent lamp with a nominal life
    of 750 hours to 1,500 hours, 5,000 hours strikes me as pretty good
    (since our original conversation pertained to standard household
    incandescents, I limited our options to incandescent and halogen light
    sources).

    If long life is important, some of the new Philips T8s fluorescents
    have a rated service life of up to 46,000 hours but, then, as you
    indicated in another thread you refuse to use linear fluorescents in
    your home due to potential concerns related to Hg. On that basis, I
    presume we can rule out metal halide as well.

    Cheers,
    Paul
     
  9. Roy

    Roy Guest

    Date: Tue, Jun 24, 2008, 4:26pm (EDT+4) From:
    In alt.engineering.electrical Paul M. Eldridge
    | For all the panty-waists out there who whine about CFLs containing |
    mercury and, in particular, those who oppose the use of energy saving |
    lamps and advocate the construction of more coal-fired plants instead:
    |
    |
    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/24/business/24recycling.html?ref=environment
    What about long tube fluorescent lights that I also refuse to put in my
    home for the same reason?
    Will they come out and do a full EPA-grade cleanup if a CFL (or FL)
    breaks?
    --
    |WARNING: Due to extreme spam, googlegroups.com is blocked. Due to
    ignorance | |         by the abuse department, bellsouth.net is
    blocked. If you post to | |         Usenet from these places,
    find another Usenet provider ASAP.       | | Phil Howard KA9WGN
    (email for humans: first name in lower case at ipal.net) |
    ---------------------------------
    I went to a trade show a few years ago and I saw several companies had a
    maintenance program that included removing fluorescent tubes, they had a
    rig with a drum & a device on top with a hole, you'd stick the tubes in
    & shredder the bulbs, then you can conveniently take out and disposed
    the scrads in a bag...

    This is probably good for Factories or Large Building operations.I don't
    know the name and costs but if someone is interested I can look it up in
    my files....

    Roy Q.T. ~ US/NCU ~ E.E. Technician
    [have tools, will travel]
     
  10. krw

    krw Guest

    How about nukes instead?
    Would rather read the National Enquirer.
     
  11. krw

    krw Guest

    I agree somewhat[*], but that wasn't my point.

    [*] This isn't a binary decision. The note-holders can be left to
    choke in their own sludge. Buy up the mortgages from the failing
    mortgage holders for nothing, turn around and sell them for more
    than they're worth. It might take a while, but the real estate
    market *will* come back. When it does, the Fed makes out like a
    bandit. In the mean time, let the people (the ones who actually
    occupy the houses) stay for the $$ on the original note. There are
    a billion ways to skin this cat, making sure the next guy doesn't
    take useless paper and perhaps turning this sow's ear around.
    Where do you draw that line? ...other than the obvious fraud
    involved.
    You can jail them for fraud. How do you jail them for bad financial
    decisions? Your answer is too simple to be of use.
    What do you propose to make illegal that isn't already?
    They may have merit but are irrelevant to the point being raised in
    this thread. IOW, a strawman (or red herring - take your pick).
     
  12. krw

    krw Guest

    Actually, it was 704K, but no one told Billy. ;-)
     
  13. krw

    krw Guest

    >,
    says...
    It's easy to say that the next generation will meet their
    obligations. The Congress has been doing just that with Social
    Security for two generations already.
     
  14. Sure, why not? Rates will drop like a stone and we'll be awash in so
    much of the stuff that we'll run space heaters in our refrigerators
    just to keep it from spilling out on the floor.
    <Biting hand> <Gawd, this is killing me...>

    Cheers,
    Paul
     
  15. krw

    krw Guest

    I see you would rather make a fool of yourself than discuss the
    issue.
    You succeed rather well at your wishes. You are indeed a fool.
     
  16. So, what about nukes? What is it that you're asking? I'll check back
    with you after I finish watching Bill O'Reilly. Thank you.

    Cheers,
    Paul
     
  17. Dan Lanciani

    Dan Lanciani Guest

    | On 24 Jun 2008 03:16:08 GMT, [email protected]*com (Dan Lanciani) wrote:
    |
    | >| On 22 Jun 2008 17:16:51 GMT, [email protected]*com (Dan Lanciani) wrote:
    | >|
    | >| Hi Dan,
    | >|
    | >| Twenty or thirty years ago, a conventional two-tube F96T12 fixture
    | >| would draw about 180-watts. Today, with 60-watt lamps and energy
    | >| saving magnetic ballasts, that number falls closer to 135 or
    | >| 140-watts, so there's been at least some improvement.
    | >
    | >I get kind of confused when several variables change at once. :(
    | >Assume that I use the same ballasts I was using 20-30 years ago
    | >and also assume that I don't like the lower illumination from the
    | >60W tubes so I use the current more expensive 75W tubes. (Both
    | >assumptions happen to reflect reality. :) How does my energy usage
    | >today compare to my usage when I could get the cheap 75W cool white
    | >tubes?
    |
    |
    | Hi Dan,
    |
    | If your 75-watt replacement tubes are driven by the fixture's original
    | ballast, wattage remains the same -- again, about 180-watts in total.
    |
    |
    | >| In terms of operating efficacy, a 75-watt Sylvania F96T12/D41/ECO
    | >| (4,100K/70 CRI) is rated at 6,420 initial lumens and powered by a
    | >| standard magnetic-core ballast (0.88 BF), we obtain about 63 lumens
    | >| from each watt. A 60-watt Sylvania F96T12/D41/SS/ECO (4,100K/70 CRI)
    | >| at 5,600 initial lumens and driven by a newer energy saving magnetic
    | >| ballast would bump that up to perhaps 71 or 72 lumens per watt.
    | >
    | >Can I get energy saving magnetic ballasts to drive 75W tubes at higher
    | >efficiency or do they depend on using the 60W tubes?
    |
    |
    | You can; as is true of your current ballast, energy saving magnetic
    | ballasts are compatible with both 60 and 75-watt lamps.

    Can you recommend a specific part? Mine are actually single tube fixtures
    so this would be for one F96T12 tube. I'm assuming that energy saving
    magnetic ballasts save energy by putting out less heat rather than, say,
    by not driving the tube as hard. Is there any downside at all to using them?

    | However, if
    | you plan to replace the ballast, you might as well switch to an
    | electronic version and pop in a couple T8 tubes;

    I tried electronic ballasts at one point but they generated too much
    RFI (interfering with, IIRC, low-band VHF television and AM radio)
    and they also caused problems for my X10 (power line control) devices.
    Based on more recent experience with neighbors' CFLs and even the
    "electronic transformer" on a reading lamp I'm a little skeptical
    about the value of the FCC label. :( Can I do anything useful with
    T8 tubes and magnetic ballasts?

    Dan Lanciani
    [email protected]*com
     

  18. Hi Dan,

    There's really no downside as such, but not a whole lot of up either
    given that with the exception of the limited watts saved all the other
    limitations previously noted still apply. I'm afraid I can't
    recommend a specific part because I use electronic ballasts
    exclusively, but hopefully others in this group can offer their
    recommendations.

    I haven't personally encountered any of the issues you mention and my
    firm installed several hundred of these ballasts at a major defence
    contractor, including their test labs where they use highly sensitive
    bench equipment (FWIW, we use only Osram Sylvania's Quictronic
    ballasts). I might suggest trying one out to see how it works, and if
    you're not completely satisfied exchange it for an ES magnetic;
    alternatively, give Sylvania a call at 1-800-LIGHTBULB and relay your
    concerns to them directly prior to making your purchase. Good luck!

    Cheers,
    Paul
     
  19. Anyone who expresses a preference for the /National Enquirer/ over the
    NYT *is* a certified fool.


    --
    "Wikipedia ... it reminds me ... of dogs barking idiotically through
    endless nights. It is so bad that a sort of grandeur creeps into it.
    It drags itself out of the dark abyss of pish, and crawls insanely up
    the topmost pinnacle of posh. It is rumble and bumble. It is flap and
    doodle. It is balder and dash."

    - With apologies to H. L. Mencken
     
Ask a Question
Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?
You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.
Electronics Point Logo
Continue to site
Quote of the day

-