Re: Strange problem with low energy light bulb

[JANA]

If the switch that is series with the light bulb has a night light in it,
the current pass of the night light will cause the CFL to flicker.

If the CFL is connected to a switch that is electronic, the small leakage of
the electronics will cause the CFL to flicker or in some cases to not turn
off.

Regular CFL's cannot be used on standard light dimmers and many of the
electronic timers. This is a big inconvenience for many people.

When regular lamps become unavailable, I can see a lot of problems with
these new types of lamps. The biggest one will be the pollution from their
disposal. They use mercury, phosphors, and many types of materials that are
very harmful for the environment. There is also the electronics circuit
board, which contain components that have the same recycling problem as used
in most electronics. Even though they last longer, when they are eventually
put out in to the garbage, they will eventually end up in the land fills.
They are going to be a very big problem compared to the simple light bulb
that was made of simple glass and metals.

Regular light bulb materials are about 85% recyclable. There are almost no
materials in these that are bad for the environment. Most CFL's materials
are not recyclable, and their materials are very polluting.

It looks very strong that the government is pushing the CFL's to save some
electricity to sell to large industry. This is the only answer that is
logical. There are NO green house gasses from using regular light bulbs.
When more electricity is sold to industry, the pollution problems from its
generation will actually increase, unless the generation is from water
power, or nuclear power.

--

JANA
_____


I am not sure if this is an appropriate group for this question. If
not, please suggest a better one.

I have a light in the house which I have wanted to switch to a low
energy bulb for a long time. The hold up was that I needed a very
small bulb. At last, I have found a small enough bulb but something
odd occurred as soon as I put it in.

When it is switched on, it works as expected.

When it is switched off, it blinks every few seconds. So, I guess
that there must be a problem with the switch If it is passing nothing
then it would seem impossible for the bulb to do anything. I did not
notice any problem with the previous incandescent bulb but I guess
that if the switch is leaking a tiny amount, the filament would glow
too little to be seen.

I have a few questions:

What is going on? Is a tiny current leaking, building up a charge in
a capacitor somewhere until a sufficient voltage builds up to spark in
the bulb and discharge the capacitor, and then the cycle repeats.

Is it safe?

Will it wear out the bulb very fast?

Is it likely to be enough to replace the switch? (Actually three
switches can turn this bulb on and off).

Might I have to replace the wiring? (Much harder than just replacing
the switches)

 

[Blash]

JANA wrote on 6/26/07 7:50 AM:

If the switch that is series with the light bulb has a night light in it,
the current pass of the night light will cause the CFL to flicker.

<<SNIP>>

Couldn't you think of any more newsgroups to cross-post to???
24hoursupport.helpdesk,
aus.electronics,
misc.invest.stocks,
rec.audio.tech,
sci.electronics.basics,
sci.electronics.components,
sci.electronics.repair,
sci.engr.television.advanced

 

[Arfa Daily]

If the switch that is series with the light bulb has a night light in it,
the current pass of the night light will cause the CFL to flicker.

If the CFL is connected to a switch that is electronic, the small leakage
of
the electronics will cause the CFL to flicker or in some cases to not turn
off.

Regular CFL's cannot be used on standard light dimmers and many of the
electronic timers. This is a big inconvenience for many people.

When regular lamps become unavailable, I can see a lot of problems with
these new types of lamps. The biggest one will be the pollution from
their
disposal. They use mercury, phosphors, and many types of materials that
are
very harmful for the environment. There is also the electronics circuit
board, which contain components that have the same recycling problem as
used
in most electronics. Even though they last longer, when they are
eventually
put out in to the garbage, they will eventually end up in the land fills.
They are going to be a very big problem compared to the simple light bulb
that was made of simple glass and metals.

Regular light bulb materials are about 85% recyclable. There are almost no
materials in these that are bad for the environment. Most CFL's materials
are not recyclable, and their materials are very polluting.

It looks very strong that the government is pushing the CFL's to save some
electricity to sell to large industry. This is the only answer that is
logical. There are NO green house gasses from using regular light bulbs.
When more electricity is sold to industry, the pollution problems from its
generation will actually increase, unless the generation is from water
power, or nuclear power.

These are my (well known) views also, but I fear we are squeaking like
little lost mice in the dark ...

The general public are not told - and would not understand anyway - the
wider implications of these knee-jerk government interventions in our lives.
All too often, they are poorly thought through, and are dreamed up as a
response to the latest bit of pseudo science to hit the news stands. At the
moment, anything with the words 'green' or 'eco' or 'environment' or 'global
warming' are fair game for this sort of nonsense, and to add to its
'validity' in the public's eyes, they've already started inventing new bits
of techno-babble like 'carbon footprint' and 'carbon offsetting' to justify
what amounts to little more than opinions by a vociferous band of scientists
getting paid large amounts of money and credibility ratings, to promote the
government line. As you say, these CFLs are just trading one form of alleged
pollution, for another definite one ...

Arfa

Arfa

 

[Serge Auckland]

These are my (well known) views also, but I fear we are squeaking like
little lost mice in the dark ...

The general public are not told - and would not understand anyway - the
wider implications of these knee-jerk government interventions in our
lives. All too often, they are poorly thought through, and are dreamed up
as a response to the latest bit of pseudo science to hit the news stands.
At the moment, anything with the words 'green' or 'eco' or 'environment'
or 'global warming' are fair game for this sort of nonsense, and to add to
its 'validity' in the public's eyes, they've already started inventing new
bits of techno-babble like 'carbon footprint' and 'carbon offsetting' to
justify what amounts to little more than opinions by a vociferous band of
scientists getting paid large amounts of money and credibility ratings, to
promote the government line. As you say, these CFLs are just trading one
form of alleged pollution, for another definite one ...

Arfa

Arfa

Quite apart from the problems of disposing of old CFLs, I question the whole
principle of Low Energy lighting. If you have a conventional bulb, much of
the energy output is in the form of heat, which will help heat the room, and
consequently will reduce the need for other heating, central or otherwise.
Putting in a low-energy lamp mean that there is less heat being put into the
room, and consequently, more heat has to be supplied externally. The only
way that Low Energy lighting makes a positive difference is if people change
their lamps when they stop using external heating. As in Northern Europe we
usually have to have our heating on for at least 7 months of the year,
typically 8 months, low energy lighting doesn't make a lot of sense. Also,
how much energy does it take to make a low-energy lamp compared with a
conventional one? When this is factored in, together with the extra energy
required to dispose of it safely, I doubt very much whether low-energy
lighting helps at all.

S.

 

[Eeyore]

Quite apart from the problems of disposing of old CFLs, I question the whole
principle of Low Energy lighting. If you have a conventional bulb, much of
the energy output is in the form of heat, which will help heat the room, and
consequently will reduce the need for other heating, central or otherwise.

That's sort of fine if you want extra heat. Often as not you don't.

The other downside of your idea is that electricity is more costly than other
heat sources (often by a large amount).

No, that's no excuse for low efficiency lighting.

Graham

 

[David]

"Eeyore"
<[email protected]>
wrote in message

That's sort of fine if you want extra
heat. Often as not you don't.

The other downside of your idea is
that electricity is more costly than
other
heat sources (often by a large
amount).

No, that's no excuse for low
efficiency lighting.

Graham

While I generally agree with your
comment above, there is still a lot of
hype on this topic because people (an
especially politicians) fail to consider
the total energy equation. This is
especially true here in the U.S. where
ethanol is a big topic. The public does
not realize that the savings are
relatively small. The BTU content/unit
volume is about 70% of gasoline (lower
miles/gallon), it takes a lot of energy
to make it (fertilizer, fuel for
planting, cultivating, harvesting,
distilling), the diversion of corn to
ethanol is driving up prices for animal
feed and therefore milk and meat, and if
all corn was turned into ethanol you may
divert 3% of the total energy use in
this country. If it was not subsidized
by the taxpayers, no one would use it.
The 3% number is higher if you only
consider the energy from oil, but we are
looking for solutions for the CO2
problem and you have to count all fossil
fuels including natural gas and coal.
Where are we going to get the holy grail
of hydrogen for our cars? Yes, it takes
energy to create it. Solar cells for
home use are another myth. It takes more
energy to produce the solar panels,
batteries, and all of the auxiliary
equipment than the system will ever
generate. Large scale applications in
areas with high solar illumination have
a much better equation. I could go on,
but you get the idea.

The switch to more efficient lighting is
a good conversation measure, but the
energy production area is where the hype
sets in. In general energy use is
directly proportional to population and
standard of living. The best way to save
energy to reduce one or both of those.
Alternatively we could create the
necessary energy form nuclear power
which has essentially zero carbon
emissions.

David

 

[Eeyore]

While I generally agree with your
comment above, there is still a lot of
hype on this topic because people (an
especially politicians) fail to consider
the total energy equation. This is
especially true here in the U.S. where
ethanol is a big topic. The public does
not realize that the savings are
relatively small. The BTU content/unit
volume is about 70% of gasoline (lower
miles/gallon), it takes a lot of energy
to make it (fertilizer, fuel for
planting, cultivating, harvesting,
distilling), the diversion of corn to
ethanol is driving up prices for animal
feed and therefore milk and meat, and if
all corn was turned into ethanol you may
divert 3% of the total energy use in
this country.

The idea of making ethanol fuel from corn is unique to the USA. I hear ADM
regularly named as the culprit here.

Far better to use feedstock that doesn't require intensive agriculture.

Is your newsreader set to a line length of about 30 chars or so btw ?

Graham

 

[Serge Auckland]

That's sort of fine if you want extra heat. Often as not you don't.

If the central heating is on, then you are, by definition, needing extra
heat. The heat output from lighting will mean that the room thermostat (or
radiator valves) will turn off that bit sooner.

The other downside of your idea is that electricity is more costly than
other
heat sources (often by a large amount).

Agreed , but cost isn't part of my argument, energy usage is. The end to end
energy costs of low energy lighting, that is, the energy to make them, use
them and dispose of them compared with conventional filament lighting isn't
at all clear. I have not seen any such figures published, only for the
energy consumption in use, which is clearly lower, but again, the energy
re-use as heat doesn't seem to be taken into account in any calculation I've
seen..

No, that's no excuse for low efficiency lighting.

Graham

It's not an excuse, but to me the case isn't completely made. In my own
home, any light that is on for more than an hour a day is a low energy
light, but that's more an act of faith on my part rather than a soundly
calculated decision.

S.

 

[Lostgallifreyan]

That's sort of fine if you want extra heat. Often as not you don't.

The other downside of your idea is that electricity is more costly
than other heat sources (often by a large amount).

No, that's no excuse for low efficiency lighting.

It wasn't an excuse, it was a reason, and a good one, there was more to his
point than you quoted. Most times light is used, heat is also wanted. Where
it isn't, you use a light source that doesn't add heat, and there are
several choices. LED's in outdoor and tunnel and other places where people
don't need to spend time keeping warm, or any of the other types already in
use, but that's not where people spend most of their time.

The current availability of CFL's is no excuse to risk vast pollution and
ebergy use in manufacture for all the general domestic uses that also need
heat, and this is true before you begin to consider all the dimmers that
must be replaced and thrown away.

If you're looking for excuses, at least look in the right place. Trying to
force an end to the incandescent lamp to satify a political expedient is
not engineering, but an excuse. No matter how people heat their homes, the
important thing is not to let it all out of the roofs, doors and windows,
it's less important where it comes from.

 

[hr(bob) [email protected]]

It wasn't an excuse, it was a reason, and a good one, there was more to his
point than you quoted. Most times light is used, heat is also wanted. Where
it isn't, you use a light source that doesn't add heat, and there are
several choices. LED's in outdoor and tunnel and other places where people
don't need to spend time keeping warm, or any of the other types already in
use, but that's not where people spend most of their time.

The current availability of CFL's is no excuse to risk vast pollution and
ebergy use in manufacture for all the general domestic uses that also need
heat, and this is true before you begin to consider all the dimmers that
must be replaced and thrown away.

If you're looking for excuses, at least look in the right place. Trying to
force an end to the incandescent lamp to satify a political expedient is
not engineering, but an excuse. No matter how people heat their homes, the
important thing is not to let it all out of the roofs, doors and windows,
it's less important where it comes from.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Let's get back to the original poster's problem.

 

[Lostgallifreyan]

Let's get back to the original poster's problem.

Fine by me. I never saw the original problem in the group I saw this appear
in, it's migrated just a tad. Look at the number groups it's posted to...

 

[Ray King]

I think our polititions are afraid to tell the American public how
fast/serious the worlds energy is being depleated. The mercury issue can be
solved as suerage is now. This could be fixed overnight.
Almost all of the CFLs will be made in Asia. Not many are made in the US
now. Asia competes with Europe. The US is not in the running. The best CFL
is now Philips.
Ray

 

[Albert Manfredi]

Most times light is used, heat is also wanted.

I suppose that depends where you live. In many parts of the populated
world, heating and cooling seasons are roughly even in length.

Also, even in heating seasons, the heat generated by light bulbs is not
necessarily efficiently generated or distributed. Resistive heating is
hardly the most efficient way to heat your home or office.

Where
it isn't, you use a light source that doesn't add heat, and there are
several choices. LED's in outdoor and tunnel and other places where
people
don't need to spend time keeping warm, or any of the other types
already in
use, but that's not where people spend most of their time.

LEDs will become a good option. From what I've read so far, their
efficiency will be very similar to that of fluorescents, both requiring
a little more than 1/5 as much energy as incandescent bulbs, for a given
lumens level.

The current availability of CFL's is no excuse to risk vast pollution
and
ebergy use in manufacture for all the general domestic uses that also
need
heat, and this is true before you begin to consider all the dimmers
that
must be replaced and thrown away.

I agree with this. The disposal of these things will create a pollution
problem. One mitigating factor is that one of these will last many years
as opposed to months, in normal use. But the disposal problem is
definitely an issue, and it also applies to hybrid cars or all-electric
cars.

You try to fix one problem and risk creating an even bigger one.

Bert

 

[Eeyore]

Eeyore wrote

It wasn't an excuse, it was a reason, and a good one, there was more to his
point than you quoted. Most times light is used, heat is also wanted.

I disagree totally. Furthermore an incandescent lamp adds heat at ceiling level
usually where it is useless for warming a room.

Where
it isn't, you use a light source that doesn't add heat, and there are
several choices. LED's in outdoor and tunnel and other places where people
don't need to spend time keeping warm, or any of the other types already in
use, but that's not where people spend most of their time.

LED lamps are currently hugely expensive and the light they create is even
wierder than CFLs. No, CFLs do fine at this.

The current availability of CFL's is no excuse to risk vast pollution and
ebergy use in manufacture for all the general domestic uses that also need
heat, and this is true before you begin to consider all the dimmers that
must be replaced and thrown away.

If you're looking for excuses, at least look in the right place. Trying to
force an end to the incandescent lamp to satify a political expedient is
not engineering, but an excuse. No matter how people heat their homes, the
important thing is not to let it all out of the roofs, doors and windows,
it's less important where it comes from.

I happen to disagree with simply 'banning incandescent bulbs' but that's more
from a libertarian perspective than anything else.

Banning incandescents totally would also have the effect of banning modern high
efficiency halogens too, some of which currently can be twice as efficient as
standard tungsten incandescents and both Philips and GE have plans to improve
this figure further still.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

I think our polititions are afraid to tell the American public how
fast/serious the worlds energy is being depleated.

How about you tell me ?

I'm all ears.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

"Eeyore" wrote

If the central heating is on, then you are, by definition, needing extra
heat. The heat output from lighting will mean that the room thermostat (or
radiator valves) will turn off that bit sooner.

Not really.

The heat from most lamps hangs around at ceiling level. It does sod all to warm
a room.

I suggest you compare sitting in front of a 1kw bar electric fire to switching
on ten 100w light bulbs to see how true that is.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

But the disposal problem [of CFLs] is definitely an issue, and it also applies
to hybrid cars or all-electric cars.

Why would 'disposal' of electric or hybrid cars be a problem ?

The batteries would obviously be recycled, they're far too valuable to throw
away, as would electric motors too I expect for their copper content. I'd have
thought by the time they're commonplace, there ought to be very good car
recycling facilities in place.

Graham

 

[Richard Crowley]

Not really.

The heat from most lamps hangs around at ceiling level. It does sod all to
warm
a room.

I suggest you compare sitting in front of a 1kw bar electric fire to
switching
on ten 100w light bulbs to see how true that is.

Look at all the energy that is wasted producing light!

 

[Arfa Daily]

Not really.

The heat from most lamps hangs around at ceiling level. It does sod all to
warm
a room.

I suggest you compare sitting in front of a 1kw bar electric fire to
switching
on ten 100w light bulbs to see how true that is.

Graham

I'm not so sure about that. Go to downtown Vegas and walk under the entrance
awnings of some of the 'legacy' casinos that still have incandescent
lighting rather than LEDs, and then tell me that it doesn't feel like having
an electric fire a few feet over your head ...

Arfa

 

[Arfa Daily]

Look at all the energy that is wasted producing light!

What happens to all the 'waste' heat produced in vacuum "filled" bulbs that
used to be, if not still are, produced for garden use ? It can't be radiated
into the atmosphere, as the envelope is substantially cold to the touch.
Does the fact that it must be hanging around in the vicinity of the
filament, modify the power consumption of the lamp compared to its light
output ? Does this make it a low(er) energy lamp? Why does the heat from the
anode of a power tube readily radiate across the vacuum, but the heat from
the filament of a vacuum light bulb seems not to? d;~}

Arfa