Maker Pro
Maker Pro

More on lead-free junk solder

Based on the article in that link, how can you say that ? Yes, OK, the
amount of mercury is not hazardous to the point of needing a toxic waste
cleanup team after a single breakage, but the article never stops discussing
the hazardous nature of the CFLs, their toxic contents, and the special
facilities to dispose of them safely. ' Do not use a vacuum cleaner' it
says. 'Secure the broken bits in a plastic bag and seal up' it says. 'Open
the windows' it says. If that makes the safety angle bullshit in comparison
to incandescents, then you and I have very different understandings of that
word ...

Arfa- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -
Mpffffff.... The BS is in the requirement for a HazMat team. Not
"normal precautions". As it happens, you are in far more danger from
mouse droppings (Hanta Virus) and their mishandling, some of the salts
used in the coating inside incandescent lamps (phosphor salts amongst
others), beryllium coatings on HID lamps... even the toxic build up of
Triclosan in mothers' milk, insecticides and many other materials and
chemicals commonly found in the house.

So, if something contains a potentially toxic chemical or substance,
one simply does not lean into the punch and spread it all over
creation in ignorance.

One needs to learn that the opposite of "Black" is not necessarily
"White"... but simply "not black". William of Occam figured this out
in the 14th century, it still has not gotten through to the general
population. We live in a world where polar opposites are almost life-
necessity, and one is either "with" or "against" on any given point,
process, belief or system, where anything but certainty is viewed with
deep suspicion... and >your< necessities are madness and mine are
truth and reason. It ain't necessarily so.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA
 
A

Arfa Daily

Jan 1, 1970
0
Mpffffff.... The BS is in the requirement for a HazMat team. Not
"normal precautions". As it happens, you are in far more danger from
mouse droppings (Hanta Virus) and their mishandling, some of the salts
used in the coating inside incandescent lamps (phosphor salts amongst
others), beryllium coatings on HID lamps... even the toxic build up of
Triclosan in mothers' milk, insecticides and many other materials and
chemicals commonly found in the house.

So, if something contains a potentially toxic chemical or substance,
one simply does not lean into the punch and spread it all over
creation in ignorance.

One needs to learn that the opposite of "Black" is not necessarily
"White"... but simply "not black". William of Occam figured this out
in the 14th century, it still has not gotten through to the general
population. We live in a world where polar opposites are almost life-
necessity, and one is either "with" or "against" on any given point,
process, belief or system, where anything but certainty is viewed with
deep suspicion... and >your< necessities are madness and mine are
truth and reason. It ain't necessarily so.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

Well Peter, I'm more confused than ever now ... I think that the original
reference to governments getting involved referred to the pseudo-science
that they force on us in the name of green - such as the lead free solder,
the eco light bulbs and so on. I agree with you that a hazardous waste team
is not required to clean up a broken CFL, and that it is just sensationalist
bull, perpetrated by some hack who has read that these devices contain toxic
chemicals - it's the aforementioned government pseudo-science from the other
side as well, if you like. But surely the article that you pointed at
doesn't really support your (apparent?) view that these things are not
dangerous per se ? It seems to put the view that compared to incandescents,
these things are dangerous, if not singly, then in terms of disposing of
them in quantity. You must accept, surely, that if lead which is firmly
chemically locked up in solder, and does not leech as a result of water, is
hysterically banned for eco disposal reasons, then a fragile bulb which
contains *free* mercury and phosphors, and which the governments are trying
to force on us instead of 'inefficient' incandescents, must pose a much more
serious disposal threat ? Or am I understanding you wrongly ? In the next
breath, you seem to be supporting the view that these things are potentially
dangerous. It might just be the old American English / English English thing
again. Two nations separated by a common language, and all that ...! d;~}

Didn't W. of Occam advocate 'keeping it simple' ( black and white ... ?? )
and 'limited responsible government' ?

Arfa
 
Well Peter, I'm more confused than ever now ... I think that the original
reference to governments getting involved referred to the pseudo-science
that they force on us in the name of green - such as the lead free solder,
the eco light bulbs and so on. I agree with you that a hazardous waste team
is not required to clean up a broken CFL, and that it is just sensationalist
bull, perpetrated by some hack who has read that these devices contain toxic
chemicals - it's the aforementioned government pseudo-science from the other
side as well, if you like. But surely the article that you pointed at
doesn't really support your (apparent?) view that these things are not
dangerous per se ? It seems to put the view that compared to incandescents,
these things are dangerous, if not singly, then in terms of disposing of
them in quantity. You must accept, surely, that if lead which is firmly
chemically locked up in solder, and does not leech as a result of water, is
hysterically banned for eco disposal reasons, then a fragile bulb which
contains *free* mercury and phosphors, and which the governments are trying
to force on us instead of 'inefficient' incandescents, must pose a much more
serious disposal threat ? Or am I understanding you wrongly ? In the next
breath, you seem to be supporting the view that these things are potentially
dangerous. It might just be the old American English / English English thing
again. Two nations separated by a common language, and all that ...! d;~}

Didn't W. of Occam advocate 'keeping it simple' ( black and white ... ?? )
and 'limited responsible government' ?

Arfa- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Mpfffff.... GRUMP!

OK.... Lead in solder is not "firmly chemically locked up" by any
means. These days, rain is approximately as acidic as household
vinegar or lemon juice, both of which will do a quick number on solder
in terms of releasing lead. Lead in uncounted tons has been released
into the atmosphere for a near-50 year period in the form of tetra-
ethyl lead in gasoline. THAT has wound up (and still winds up) in our
food supply as it is leached out of soils and into food grown where it
has been deposited. Lead from solder is leached out of landfills and
into ground water anywhere there is acid rain... do you know of
anywhere there is *not* acid rain?

Now, let's get into CFL/PL type lamps (I prefer PL-types as the
ballast stays with the fixture and only the tube is changed... first-
cost is slightly higher but long-term costs are much cheaper) vs.
incandescent lamps, and life-cycle costs. But let's stick to CFL lamps
here.

Assume for the purposes of this discussion: Incandescent lamp at 100
watts lasts 1000 hours, weighs about 4 ounces of which mostly glass,
some aluminum, a wee bit of copper-coated steel wire, a tiny bit of
tungsten, some phosphor or alumina coating, and a dab of solder at
each connection (lead-free, of course). Assume that a CFL/PL lamp at
23 watts will last 15,000 hours (more in reality but let's go with the
manufacturer's typical ratings). It weighs about 8 ounces, includes
some copper, aluminum, glass, about 5mg of mercury and so forth.

Some brutal realities: Most of the electricity generated in the world
today comes from coal, with nuclear being about 16%. In the US it goes
this way:
Year-to-date, 50.2 percent of the Nation's electric power was
generated at coal-fired plants. Nuclear plants contributed 20.6
percent, 17.4 percent was generated at natural gas-fired plants, and
2.2 percent was generated at petroleum-fired plants. Conventional
hydroelectric power provided 6.7 percent of the total, while other
renewables (primarily biomass, but also geothermal, solar, and wind)
and other miscellaneous energy sources generated the remaining
electric power. And the US has an unusually high number of nuclear
plants by world comparison (though by percentage less than France or
Japan for example).

Coal, when burnt, gives off considerable amounts of mercury. THAT
mercury is spewed into the atmosphere with only limited means of
control. Sure, coal plants attempt to control for particulates, use
limestone beds to control acidity, but the mercury goes out as the
technology to control it while better than before is still limited.

So, we have a lamp that will burn 1,500,000 watts of power and
generate 60 ounces of waste vs. a lamp that will burn 345,000 watts of
power and generate about 8 ounces of waste in the same time-span. The
mercury released generating the additional power will far exceed the
amount of mercury in the lamp itself (don't take my word for it, look
it up for yourself). And the mercury in the lamp is in an identifiable
container with understood requirements for disposal, not spewed willy-
nilly wherever the wind might blow.

Come on guys and gals, get a grip.

William of Occam was famous for his "razor" of course. But he did have
a few cautionary tales about excess simplicity and his "law of
parsimony": That is: if one were to come across the results of a chess
game at its end, it the simplest explanation would be that the pieces
were simply placed in those positions. Not quite reality. But "Black
and White" taken as arguments would have driven him straight up the
wall, across the ceiling and had him twirling all the while. What he
was doing was attempting to break down that sort of limited thinking
where the only opposite to "black" would be white. His position was
that if you wanted Black, anything that was not black was not what you
wanted. Period.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA
 
A

Arfa Daily

Jan 1, 1970
0
Mpfffff.... GRUMP!

OK.... Lead in solder is not "firmly chemically locked up" by any
means. These days, rain is approximately as acidic as household
vinegar or lemon juice, both of which will do a quick number on solder
in terms of releasing lead. Lead in uncounted tons has been released
into the atmosphere for a near-50 year period in the form of tetra-
ethyl lead in gasoline. THAT has wound up (and still winds up) in our
food supply as it is leached out of soils and into food grown where it
has been deposited. Lead from solder is leached out of landfills and
into ground water anywhere there is acid rain... do you know of
anywhere there is *not* acid rain?

Now, let's get into CFL/PL type lamps (I prefer PL-types as the
ballast stays with the fixture and only the tube is changed... first-
cost is slightly higher but long-term costs are much cheaper) vs.
incandescent lamps, and life-cycle costs. But let's stick to CFL lamps
here.

Assume for the purposes of this discussion: Incandescent lamp at 100
watts lasts 1000 hours, weighs about 4 ounces of which mostly glass,
some aluminum, a wee bit of copper-coated steel wire, a tiny bit of
tungsten, some phosphor or alumina coating, and a dab of solder at
each connection (lead-free, of course). Assume that a CFL/PL lamp at
23 watts will last 15,000 hours (more in reality but let's go with the
manufacturer's typical ratings). It weighs about 8 ounces, includes
some copper, aluminum, glass, about 5mg of mercury and so forth.

Some brutal realities: Most of the electricity generated in the world
today comes from coal, with nuclear being about 16%. In the US it goes
this way:
Year-to-date, 50.2 percent of the Nation's electric power was
generated at coal-fired plants. Nuclear plants contributed 20.6
percent, 17.4 percent was generated at natural gas-fired plants, and
2.2 percent was generated at petroleum-fired plants. Conventional
hydroelectric power provided 6.7 percent of the total, while other
renewables (primarily biomass, but also geothermal, solar, and wind)
and other miscellaneous energy sources generated the remaining
electric power. And the US has an unusually high number of nuclear
plants by world comparison (though by percentage less than France or
Japan for example).

Coal, when burnt, gives off considerable amounts of mercury. THAT
mercury is spewed into the atmosphere with only limited means of
control. Sure, coal plants attempt to control for particulates, use
limestone beds to control acidity, but the mercury goes out as the
technology to control it while better than before is still limited.

So, we have a lamp that will burn 1,500,000 watts of power and
generate 60 ounces of waste vs. a lamp that will burn 345,000 watts of
power and generate about 8 ounces of waste in the same time-span. The
mercury released generating the additional power will far exceed the
amount of mercury in the lamp itself (don't take my word for it, look
it up for yourself). And the mercury in the lamp is in an identifiable
container with understood requirements for disposal, not spewed willy-
nilly wherever the wind might blow.

Come on guys and gals, get a grip.

William of Occam was famous for his "razor" of course. But he did have
a few cautionary tales about excess simplicity and his "law of
parsimony": That is: if one were to come across the results of a chess
game at its end, it the simplest explanation would be that the pieces
were simply placed in those positions. Not quite reality. But "Black
and White" taken as arguments would have driven him straight up the
wall, across the ceiling and had him twirling all the while. What he
was doing was attempting to break down that sort of limited thinking
where the only opposite to "black" would be white. His position was
that if you wanted Black, anything that was not black was not what you
wanted. Period.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA
Ok, I am seeing your position now with regard to the numbers, and of
lifetime energy useage and disposal issues. However, to some extent, this is
taking the "black and white" view in that no account is taken of the
additional energy budget in manufacturing, shipping and assembling all of
the additional components required in a CFL over an incandescent, as well as
the processes to refine the mercury and phosphors required, and
manufacturing the much more complex glass structures that these units employ
(complex tubing inside a 'globe' in many cases). You must also add to this,
the manufacturing and disposal costs of the much more elaborate protective
packaging that they come in, and the added energy budget of shipping
something that weighs twice as much as an incandescent, around the world.
Also add in the energy budget for specialist handling and disposal at life
end, and take out from the incandescent lamp, the energy contribution that
it makes to heating the premises that it is employed in anywhere in the
world that has a temperate or substantially 'cold' climate. Whilst all of
these factors may still not make the balance equal, they do tend to be
ignored by advocates of the technology, and would, I am sure, make a
significant difference to the 'preferred' figures, if properly factored into
the equation.

As far as 'opposites' go, it is largely a matter of semantics, and
philosophical debate. Black is the opposite of white in purely physical
terms, in that black represents the absence of any wavelengths of visible
light reaching the eye, whereas white represents the presence of all visible
light. Trying to show that there is no such thing as a true opposite is an
old schoolboy debating society chestnut that we have probably all taken part
in. Philosophical debate can show anything that you want it to. If you have
"black", and then something else that is not "white", then what you have is
not an 'opposite'. It is just what it says - something else ... :)

Arfa
 
A

Arfa Daily

Jan 1, 1970
0
Arfa Daily said:
Ok, I am seeing your position now with regard to the numbers, and of
lifetime energy useage and disposal issues. However, to some extent, this
is taking the "black and white" view in that no account is taken of the
additional energy budget in manufacturing, shipping and assembling all of
the additional components required in a CFL over an incandescent, as well
as the processes to refine the mercury and phosphors required, and
manufacturing the much more complex glass structures that these units
employ (complex tubing inside a 'globe' in many cases). You must also add
to this, the manufacturing and disposal costs of the much more elaborate
protective packaging that they come in, and the added energy budget of
shipping something that weighs twice as much as an incandescent, around
the world. Also add in the energy budget for specialist handling and
disposal at life end, and take out from the incandescent lamp, the energy
contribution that it makes to heating the premises that it is employed in
anywhere in the world that has a temperate or substantially 'cold'
climate. Whilst all of these factors may still not make the balance equal,
they do tend to be ignored by advocates of the technology, and would, I am
sure, make a significant difference to the 'preferred' figures, if
properly factored into the equation.

As far as 'opposites' go, it is largely a matter of semantics, and
philosophical debate. Black is the opposite of white in purely physical
terms, in that black represents the absence of any wavelengths of visible
light reaching the eye, whereas white represents the presence of all
visible light. Trying to show that there is no such thing as a true
opposite is an old schoolboy debating society chestnut that we have
probably all taken part in. Philosophical debate can show anything that
you want it to. If you have "black", and then something else that is not
"white", then what you have is not an 'opposite'. It is just what it
says - something else ... :)

Arfa
This site would suggest that acid rain is nothing like as strong as lemon
juice or vinegar, being closer to milk

http://www.plugged-in.org/what_is_acid_rain2.html

Arfa
 
K

Ken G.

Jan 1, 1970
0
I have some lead free solder here . It works ok on circuit boards when
you quicky apply it on clean work .

I work on alot of antique radio tube stuff . This solder does not do
well on old tarnished wire or connections well at all
 
As far as 'opposites' go, it is largely a matter of semantics, and
philosophical debate. Black is the opposite of white in purely physical
terms, in that black represents the absence of any wavelengths of visible
light reaching the eye, whereas white represents the presence of all visible
light. Trying to show that there is no such thing as a true opposite is an
old schoolboy debating society chestnut that we have probably all taken part
in. Philosophical debate can show anything that you want it to. If you have
"black", and then something else that is not "white", then what you have is
not an 'opposite'. It is just what it says - something else ... :)

Opposite vs. Polar Opposite. Occam's position was that something
either "was" or "was not". There is no subsantive or substantial
difference in quality between something that IS NOT, and the Polar
Opposite of what IS if only what IS is desired or required. So, puce,
ecru, sienna, magenta or any other color may as well be Black if White
is desired or required, and for all the difference it makes.

Getting more into life-cycle costs, now you are discussing incremental
costs as the cost of heating and fusing glass and transporting a given
volume (and unless transport is by air, the nature of these items is
by volume, not weight), and the labor in assembly. One more reason I
prefer PL-type lamps as the subsantial difference in the making of the
ballast is paid only once. But anyway... I can purchase a Euro-made
CFL from a local industral supplier (23 watts ~ 100 watts
incandescent) for about $5. A Chinese version for about $2 at Home
Depot. Both makers and sellers are making a profit. The labor in
Europe will be about 4X the cost of the labor in China, but as these
lamps are largely made and packed on highly automated machines, that
is negligible in the grand scheme of things. So, 1,500,000/1000 =
1,500kw of electricity. Which, at $0.14/kwh = $210 in operating costs.
If I purchase Hungarian "Action Tungsram" Lamps at 2/$1.00, and use 15
lamps, that will cost me $7.50. If I purchase GE or Sylvania US-made
lamps, that will cost me $15. So, my operating & purchase cost is $218
for round figures. For the PL/CFL at $5, and using 325kw, it is $50.36
assuming I purchase Euro-lamps. Add even $10 for "correct" disposal as
a future consideration.

Heat in a cold climate: An incandescent puts out about 6 watts of
light for 100 watts of power. So, 94 watts in heat. A CFL puts out the
same 6 watts of light at 23 watts of power. 1 watt = 3.413 BTU.

94 watts waste heat (summer and winter) will contribute 321 BTUH. One
gallon of #2 fuel oil = 130,000BTU. Or, the lamp contribute 1/405th of
the heat value of a gallon of fuel. At $3/gallon, that comes to
$0.00704 of saved fuel. However, the lamp burnt $0.01344 worth of
power to save that fuel. Not a good balance. Even at $3/gallon where
fuel (around here) is hovering around $2.25/gallon. Let's not discuss
the fuel burnt at the power-plant as that makes the trade-off even
worse. Gas or propane, the balance is yet worse. Only with electricity
is the balance nearly equal, and would be equal whether CFL/PL or
incandescent.

Of course, in the summertime, now one is burning electricity to remove
this waste heat.

Think it through, the numbers are implacable and pretty horrific in
reality.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA
 
A

Arfa Daily

Jan 1, 1970
0
Opposite vs. Polar Opposite. Occam's position was that something
either "was" or "was not". There is no subsantive or substantial
difference in quality between something that IS NOT, and the Polar
Opposite of what IS if only what IS is desired or required. So, puce,
ecru, sienna, magenta or any other color may as well be Black if White
is desired or required, and for all the difference it makes.

Getting more into life-cycle costs, now you are discussing incremental
costs as the cost of heating and fusing glass and transporting a given
volume (and unless transport is by air, the nature of these items is
by volume, not weight), and the labor in assembly. One more reason I
prefer PL-type lamps as the subsantial difference in the making of the
ballast is paid only once. But anyway... I can purchase a Euro-made
CFL from a local industral supplier (23 watts ~ 100 watts
incandescent) for about $5. A Chinese version for about $2 at Home
Depot. Both makers and sellers are making a profit. The labor in
Europe will be about 4X the cost of the labor in China, but as these
lamps are largely made and packed on highly automated machines, that
is negligible in the grand scheme of things. So, 1,500,000/1000 =
1,500kw of electricity. Which, at $0.14/kwh = $210 in operating costs.
If I purchase Hungarian "Action Tungsram" Lamps at 2/$1.00, and use 15
lamps, that will cost me $7.50. If I purchase GE or Sylvania US-made
lamps, that will cost me $15. So, my operating & purchase cost is $218
for round figures. For the PL/CFL at $5, and using 325kw, it is $50.36
assuming I purchase Euro-lamps. Add even $10 for "correct" disposal as
a future consideration.

Heat in a cold climate: An incandescent puts out about 6 watts of
light for 100 watts of power. So, 94 watts in heat. A CFL puts out the
same 6 watts of light at 23 watts of power. 1 watt = 3.413 BTU.

94 watts waste heat (summer and winter) will contribute 321 BTUH. One
gallon of #2 fuel oil = 130,000BTU. Or, the lamp contribute 1/405th of
the heat value of a gallon of fuel. At $3/gallon, that comes to
$0.00704 of saved fuel. However, the lamp burnt $0.01344 worth of
power to save that fuel. Not a good balance. Even at $3/gallon where
fuel (around here) is hovering around $2.25/gallon. Let's not discuss
the fuel burnt at the power-plant as that makes the trade-off even
worse. Gas or propane, the balance is yet worse. Only with electricity
is the balance nearly equal, and would be equal whether CFL/PL or
incandescent.

Of course, in the summertime, now one is burning electricity to remove
this waste heat.

Think it through, the numbers are implacable and pretty horrific in
reality.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA
The figures look impressive in your favour, but it's actually very difficult
to equate energy budget to monetary costs. Every process involved is very
inefficient, including transport. How do you arrive, for instance, at the
transport energy cost only being a real factor if we are talking air ? A
ship with x tons of cargo on board, will use less fuel than if it was
carrying 2x tons. If 2x tons won't fit on there, because its volume is
greater, then it will be necessary to either use a bigger ship, or do the
run twice. Either way, something that's heavier for the same physical
volume, will cost more energy to ship, no matter what the method - yes ?
Many factories are involved in making the constituent parts of a CFL
compared to an incandescent. All of those factories have to be lit and
heated. The workers have to be fed, and have to get to work, and back home
again. All of these factors contribute to the manufacturing energy budget.

I guess that we are never going to even come close to being together on this
one ... Still, it's been an interesting exchange, and has stimulated me, at
least, to look from some slightly different angles at the whole thing.

Arfa
 
B

bz

Jan 1, 1970
0
I guess that we are never going to even come close to being together on
this one ... Still, it's been an interesting exchange, and has
stimulated me, at least, to look from some slightly different angles at
the whole thing.

Don't forget moral and ethical responsibility for every coal miner's death,
etc., costs of environmental damage, species exterpated, replacing the stored
fossile energy that is being consumed at ever increasing rates. Figure in
the cost of restoring the environment to pristine conditions and recreating
all the species that have been wiped out.




--
bz 73 de N5BZ k

please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an
infinite set.

[email protected] remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap
 
J

Jerry Peters

Jan 1, 1970
0
Mpfffff.... GRUMP!

OK.... Lead in solder is not "firmly chemically locked up" by any
means. These days, rain is approximately as acidic as household
vinegar or lemon juice, both of which will do a quick number on solder
in terms of releasing lead. Lead in uncounted tons has been released
into the atmosphere for a near-50 year period in the form of tetra-
ethyl lead in gasoline. THAT has wound up (and still winds up) in our
food supply as it is leached out of soils and into food grown where it
has been deposited. Lead from solder is leached out of landfills and
into ground water anywhere there is acid rain... do you know of
anywhere there is *not* acid rain?

Now, let's get into CFL/PL type lamps (I prefer PL-types as the
ballast stays with the fixture and only the tube is changed... first-
cost is slightly higher but long-term costs are much cheaper) vs.
incandescent lamps, and life-cycle costs. But let's stick to CFL lamps
here.

Assume for the purposes of this discussion: Incandescent lamp at 100
watts lasts 1000 hours, weighs about 4 ounces of which mostly glass,
some aluminum, a wee bit of copper-coated steel wire, a tiny bit of
tungsten, some phosphor or alumina coating, and a dab of solder at
each connection (lead-free, of course). Assume that a CFL/PL lamp at
23 watts will last 15,000 hours (more in reality but let's go with the
manufacturer's typical ratings). It weighs about 8 ounces, includes
some copper, aluminum, glass, about 5mg of mercury and so forth.

Some brutal realities: Most of the electricity generated in the world
today comes from coal, with nuclear being about 16%. In the US it goes
this way:
Year-to-date, 50.2 percent of the Nation's electric power was
generated at coal-fired plants. Nuclear plants contributed 20.6
percent, 17.4 percent was generated at natural gas-fired plants, and
2.2 percent was generated at petroleum-fired plants. Conventional
hydroelectric power provided 6.7 percent of the total, while other
renewables (primarily biomass, but also geothermal, solar, and wind)
and other miscellaneous energy sources generated the remaining
electric power. And the US has an unusually high number of nuclear
plants by world comparison (though by percentage less than France or
Japan for example).

Coal, when burnt, gives off considerable amounts of mercury. THAT
mercury is spewed into the atmosphere with only limited means of
control. Sure, coal plants attempt to control for particulates, use
limestone beds to control acidity, but the mercury goes out as the
technology to control it while better than before is still limited.

So, we have a lamp that will burn 1,500,000 watts of power and
generate 60 ounces of waste vs. a lamp that will burn 345,000 watts of
power and generate about 8 ounces of waste in the same time-span. The
mercury released generating the additional power will far exceed the
amount of mercury in the lamp itself (don't take my word for it, look
it up for yourself). And the mercury in the lamp is in an identifiable
container with understood requirements for disposal, not spewed willy-
nilly wherever the wind might blow.

Come on guys and gals, get a grip.

William of Occam was famous for his "razor" of course. But he did have
a few cautionary tales about excess simplicity and his "law of
parsimony": That is: if one were to come across the results of a chess
game at its end, it the simplest explanation would be that the pieces
were simply placed in those positions. Not quite reality. But "Black
and White" taken as arguments would have driven him straight up the
wall, across the ceiling and had him twirling all the while. What he
was doing was attempting to break down that sort of limited thinking
where the only opposite to "black" would be white. His position was
that if you wanted Black, anything that was not black was not what you
wanted. Period.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA
My point about the article was the hysteria about a _very_ tiny amount
of mercury and ludicrousness of calling in a hazmat team for a broken
CFL. Flourescent tubes have been in use, especially in commercial
settings, including hospitals and schools for at least 50 years. In
all that time I have a _very_ difficult time believing that no
flourescent tubes were broken or that any special precautions were
taken when cleaning up the ensuing mess, other than the normal
precautions involved when dealing with broken glass.
The same hysteria is now happening for lead, in some states, I
believe, you need special "lead abatement" contractors when deaing
whit lead paint.
And of course it's part of the idea that we can make life risk free.

Jerry
 

Rain here in Pennsylvania runs from about 4.0 in the west to 4.5 in
the east. Commercial vinegars run from 4.0 to 2.3, commercial lemon
juices about 4.0, natural lemon juice from about 2.2 to 4.2. In any
case, 4.1 to 4.5 will do a number on tin/lead solder in fairly short
order, and depending on the specific components (nitrogen or sulphur
oxides, or both) in the rain.

Things may be different across the pond, but with all the coal plants
in Ohio and western/central PA, acid rain here is a major deal.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA
 
The figures look impressive in your favour, but it's actually very difficult
to equate energy budget to monetary costs. Every process involved is very
inefficient, including transport. How do you arrive, for instance, at the
transport energy cost only being a real factor if we are talking air ? A
ship with x tons of cargo on board, will use less fuel than if it was
carrying 2x tons. If 2x tons won't fit on there, because its volume is
greater, then it will be necessary to either use a bigger ship, or do the
run twice. Either way, something that's heavier for the same physical
volume, will cost more energy to ship, no matter what the method - yes ?
Many factories are involved in making the constituent parts of a CFL
compared to an incandescent. All of those factories have to be lit and
heated. The workers have to be fed, and have to get to work, and back home
again. All of these factors contribute to the manufacturing energy budget.

I guess that we are never going to even come close to being together on this
one ... Still, it's been an interesting exchange, and has stimulated me, at
least, to look from some slightly different angles at the whole thing.

Arfa- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You keep stopping at the hairy edge of the actuality. It will take 15
incandescent lamps to equal one (1) CFL/PL lamp. So, 15 x the ships to
transport them if imported. 15 x the trucks if domestic. Even if you
calculate strictly on weight, you are calculating on 60 oz. of
material transported vs. 8, so only ~7 x. Both ways.

Think it _ALL THE WAY_ through life-cycle costs.

BTW, the very best oil burner is ~80% efficient. But we are neglecting
peripheral efficiencies here. Were you to calculate all of those, the
numbers would be even more obvious. Gas burners run to 94% or so.
Electricity is 100%, delivery losses neglected as with all of the
figures above.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA
 
A

Arfa Daily

Jan 1, 1970
0
You keep stopping at the hairy edge of the actuality. It will take 15
incandescent lamps to equal one (1) CFL/PL lamp. So, 15 x the ships to
transport them if imported. 15 x the trucks if domestic. Even if you
calculate strictly on weight, you are calculating on 60 oz. of
material transported vs. 8, so only ~7 x. Both ways.

Think it _ALL THE WAY_ through life-cycle costs.

BTW, the very best oil burner is ~80% efficient. But we are neglecting
peripheral efficiencies here. Were you to calculate all of those, the
numbers would be even more obvious. Gas burners run to 94% or so.
Electricity is 100%, delivery losses neglected as with all of the
figures above.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

OK, I need to think some more on this one. Maybe we're all looking at this
wrongly. Perhaps we should be looking to LEDs to replace incandescents. The
advances in this technology over the last 2 years has been astounding. I
would surmise that LED lighting modules are not a lot more complicated to
make than incandescents. Properly treated, the LEDs themselves now have
lives in excess of 100,000 hours, and can be made in virtually any colour
you like, so it should be possible to get a 100% match to an incandescent.
Even the drive requirements are becoming simpler, with cheap integrated
solutions becoming available. One of my magazines even detailed a LED module
for direct connection to 230v AC in last month's edition. At least these
devices produce instant light of a constant colour temperature, and are
virtually independent of ambient temperature. I would even venture that watt
for lumen, they are even more efficient than CFLs ?? Certainly more robust
physically, I would have thought, with any potentially harmful substances
very tightly locked away in the chemical composition of the chip, as well as
physically in the package.

Arfa
 
S

Smitty Two

Jan 1, 1970
0
Assume that a CFL/PL lamp at
23 watts will last 15,000 hours (more in reality but let's go with the
manufacturer's typical ratings).

Don't know about the rest of the planet, but here in California, if you
buy ten compact fluorescents one day, three of them will be burned out
by the next day, and only one of them will live as long as an
incandescent. Why? Because once they became fashionable, they started
making them out of recycled toilet paper.
 
I

Ian Jackson

Jan 1, 1970
0
In message said:
Yep... and the wave of the future. Sadly LEDs to-date are severely
restricted in spectra, such that the ones suitable for most reading
purposes are nearly all in the blue-to-LFUV range and would give the
typical user a headache in short order as well as being nearly red/
green blind. They also have very limited 'cool-down' (much as
fluorescents in the past) such that they blink at whatever the AC
frequency or chopped DC Frequency. This is easily solved via a DC
supply, but the spectrum needs considerable work. I see multiple LEDs
in a diffuser to compensate for the above, but then voltages become
tricky. Nothing that time and care cannot solve. And once the
technology is solved, they will be quite cheap to manufacture.

Give it 3-4 years. About the expected life of the present generation
of CFL/PL lamps.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

Severe hiccup in the system? Peter's last posting (above) was received
here 13 times!
Ian.
--
 
A

Arfa Daily

Jan 1, 1970
0
Smitty Two said:
Don't know about the rest of the planet, but here in California, if you
buy ten compact fluorescents one day, three of them will be burned out
by the next day, and only one of them will live as long as an
incandescent. Why? Because once they became fashionable, they started
making them out of recycled toilet paper.

I would say that this is a fair comment here too. There are stores currently
selling these things for 49 pence each - around a dollar give or take. Now I
don't care what the economies of scale are, either these things are being
quietly subsidised to get them on the market in bulk, or they are, as you
say, being made out of recycled toilet paper ...

Arfa
 
A

Arfa Daily

Jan 1, 1970
0
Ian Jackson said:
Severe hiccup in the system? Peter's last posting (above) was received
here 13 times!
Ian.
And here. Interestingly, my OE didn't put the "watched thread" coloured
marker on the header, as though it was a new thread, which of course it
couldn't have been as it has the same name. It had also placed the thirteen
entries at the bottom of the thread, and then yours at the bottom of that,
with the header correctly highlighted ... There's some odd things going on
on here at the moment.

Arfa
 
C

clifto

Jan 1, 1970
0
Smitty said:
Gentlemen, I'm going to dissent on this one. Global warming is
absolutely real, and poses absolutely catastrophic consequences. The
alarmists may have cried wolf one too many times in the past, but this
one is rock solid.

The coming ice age will negate the effects of global warming.
 
C

clifto

Jan 1, 1970
0
Surely it will.... but the operative term is "eventually".

The world's best scientists told us it would be here before the year 2000.
So it's got to get here plenty soon enough to make a difference.
 
Top