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. daestrom

    daestrom Guest

    I like that! :)

    There is a lot of truth there too. The desire for backward compatibility
    (or at least compatibility with the majority of commercial software already
    out there) has *got* to be holding a lot of innovation back. Sure, some
    high priced applications can be recompiled for a different architecture, but
    at what cost?

    daestrom
     
  2. daestrom

    daestrom Guest

    I've found tubes that are especially low mercury. So low, they are approved
    for common trash disposal.

    daestrom
     

  3. Hi daestrom,

    That's correct. In virtually all jurisdictions, lamps that pass
    federal TCLP (Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure) regulations
    can be disposed in the regular household trash just like any other
    light bulb.

    Cheers,
    Paul
     
  4. Stephen B.

    Stephen B. Guest

    The drum crushers I have seen had full filtration to capture the
    mercury vapors.
    At least in NYS, and probabubly more places, the moment the bulb is
    crushed it becomes a Hazordus Waste, meaning forms, procedures and
    regulations; but if kept hole they can be shiped out to be recycled as
    "universal waste" avoiding all the red tape and expence.
     
  5. krw

    krw Guest

    That is not the problem at all. The real problem is "toxic CDOs"
    and the margins the people who rolled these instruments used. Add
    in any *slight* downturn and you have a instant busted bank. Like
    the crash above, the margins on these real estate budles is quite
    low (as low as 3%, AIUI). A *minute* downturn and it's in negative
    territory. When you start getting defaults...
    True, but not really this issue.
    That is definitely true. There is no end to silly season anymore.
     
  6. Guest

    | In article <>,
    | says...
    |> daestrom wrote:
    |> >
    |> > Any of this sound familiar? Just replace 'broker' with 'mortgage
    |> > broker' and 'stock' with 'real-estate'.
    |> >
    |> > After the crash, stricter regulations were put in place about buying
    |> > on margin and most people got smarter about buying on margin. Probably a
    |> > similar thing will happen now with mortgages.
    |> >
    |>
    |> Won't happen.
    |>
    |> If stricter rules were employed in the mortgage market, those traditionally
    |> deprived, downtrodden, and discriminated against couldn't afford a home
    |> beyond their means. Further, segregated and gated communities would remain
    |> off-limits to other classes of citizens.
    |
    | That is not the problem at all. The real problem is "toxic CDOs"
    | and the margins the people who rolled these instruments used. Add
    | in any *slight* downturn and you have a instant busted bank. Like
    | the crash above, the margins on these real estate budles is quite
    | low (as low as 3%, AIUI). A *minute* downturn and it's in negative
    | territory. When you start getting defaults...

    Then the banks start cutting back on loans and the demand side of the
    supply/demand ratio drops, leading to even lower prices, more upside-
    down mortgages, more defaults, etc.


    |> The minions that determine the final regulations are committed to equality
    |> of outcome.
    |
    | True, but not really this issue.

    it will affect the direction of the solution. The solution used in the
    stock market can't be the same as used in the housing market because of
    this.


    |> Whatever laws the legislative branch writes or whatever rules are
    |> implemented by political appointees, the silliness will prevail.
    |
    | That is definitely true. There is no end to silly season anymore.

    Unfortunately, this is true way too often.
     
  7. Guest

    | On 25 Jun 2008 15:08:35 GMT, wrote:
    |
    |>
    |>| As with the halogens I identified above, incandescent lamp life is
    |>| based on the same 50 per cent rule -- that is an industry-wide
    |>| standard. For a graphical representation of this, see page 2 of:
    |>|
    |>| http://www.sylvania.com/content/display.scfx?id=003694068
    |>
    |>Then something's out of whack somewhere. I see far more than 50% of bulbs
    |>last beyond 750 hours of usage. That didn't catch my attention before as I
    |>did not assume something like the 50% basis.
    |
    |
    | Hi Phil,
    |
    | A couple possible explanations. One is that although a standard
    | 100-watt incandescent has a nominal service life of 750 hours, the 25,
    | 40 and 60-watt versions are typically rated at 1,000 hours. Secondly,
    | manufacturers have been introducing products that are shifting the
    | balance between higher lumen output and longer life further towards
    | the latter, so you may have noticed the elogic lamps in the above link
    | have a rated life of anywhere from 1,125 hours (95-watt) to 2,250 in
    | the case of the 40-watt equivalent. Line voltage and the use of
    | dimmers can also dramatically affect lamp life.

    I looked at my spare lightbulb supply today. Most did not have boxes. But
    one set still did. These are 25-watt and show 2500 hours.

    http://phil.ipal.org/usenet/aee/2008-06-26/s6301196.jpg

    So I guess I should raise the issue not specifically about 5000 hours, but
    about the 50% basis.


    | If you're extremely fussy about spectral distribution, I don't see any
    | clear winners. Philip's new MasterColour Elite ceramic metal halide
    | lamps are arguably the very best the industry has to offer; you can
    | see its distribution graph on page 2 of the following spec sheet and
    | draw your own conclusions.
    |
    | See:
    | http://www.nam.lighting.philips.com/us/ecatalog/hid/pdf/p-5899.pdf
    |
    | The spectral performance of their TL930 and TL950 lamps can be found
    | here:
    |
    | http://www.nam.lighting.philips.com/us/ecatalog/fluor/pdf/P-5037-D.pdf

    I have not seen good light from MH lamps, either.

    A better fluorescent formulation could fix FL lamps. But it would require so
    many different compounds to make an even spectrum that it would most likely
    be prohibitively expensive. I have found that LEDs come in enough discrete
    wavelengths that this might work. But they degrade at different rates over
    time, and keeping it in color balance would be hard.
     
  8. Guest

    | In article <>,
    | says...
    |>
    |> David Nebenzahl wrote:
    |> >
    |> > On 6/24/2008 4:49 PM krw spake thus:
    |> >
    |> > > In article <>,
    |> > > says...
    |> > >
    |> > > I see you would rather make a fool of yourself than discuss the
    |> > > issue.
    |> > >
    |> > >>>> http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/24/business/24recycling.html?ref=environment
    |> > >>>
    |> > >>>Would rather read the National Enquirer.
    |> >
    |> > Anyone who expresses a preference for the /National Enquirer/ over the
    |> > NYT *is* a certified fool.
    |>
    |>
    |> Not really. You always know the National Enquirer is lying, but you
    |> aren't always sure with the NYT.
    |
    | You're quite sure with the NYT too, but it's a lot less
    | entertaining.

    Actually, the NYT has been known to "dilute" their publication with some
    truthful articles from time to time.
     
  9. krw

    krw Guest

    Exactly, but it needn't go that far to leave banks, and such,
    bankrupt. All it takes is a 3% real estate decline and the value of
    the instrument is negative. Real estate declining to 97% of its
    value from the peak of a bubble isn't much of a "downturn".
    The real problem is that the toxic CDOs have invaded the stock
    market, as well. Banks are required (after the '29 crash) to keep
    much higher margins. The stock (bond) market isn't under such
    restrictions with CDOs. That's why you have money that was borrowed
    30 times. Banks can't do that.
     
  10. If a modern tube has done a full lifetime, most of the mercury has
    already been captured by the phosphor, glass, and the tube electrodes.
    Indeed, one of the failure reasons for modern tubes low mercury
    content tubes is they've run out of mercury vapor in the gas. This is
    a consequence of much more accurately dosing the mercury content, to
    limit the environmental impact.

    But in the UK, the companies which come and collect used fluorescent
    tubes break them up on the back of the truck and draw any gas released
    through filters. I presume one of these is a zinc powder filter
    (mercury is absorbed into zinc, with which it forms an amalgam
    which does not readily release the mercury again).
     
  11. Guest

    | But in the UK, the companies which come and collect used fluorescent
    | tubes break them up on the back of the truck and draw any gas released
    | through filters. I presume one of these is a zinc powder filter
    | (mercury is absorbed into zinc, with which it forms an amalgam
    | which does not readily release the mercury again).

    Is there a process in which this mercury can be economically recovered for
    re-use?
     
  12. I've no idea, but I would guess there's far too little mercury
    there for recovery to be economic. The amount of mercury in a
    CFL is about 1/1000th of the amount of mercury in the average
    person. It might be recovered only from the point of view of
    token cleaning up the waste, rather than producing any viable
    mercury for reuse. Mercury used in lamps has to be very pure
    (it's triple distilled), and it could well be that getting any
    mercury you did recover back clean enough isn't possible.
    Like I said, this is just guesswork though.
     
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

-