The "goal" of using less energy is not "evil".

The implementation may be evil, but that is quite separate from the goal.

I suspect that lighting technologies would have eventually overtaken the incandescent bulb - at least in warmer climates - because there's no point to a light source that produces far more heat than light once more efficient and cost-effective alternatives are developed. Yes, there are still people using candles to light their homes instead of those "newfangled Edison things", but that's no longer the norm. Lighting accounts for something like 10-20% of the average home energy budget (if sources are to be believed). Reducing that usage by half reduces overall domestic energy usage by 5-10%. That's not the solution to the meaning of life and the universe and everything - but it's a pretty substantial start, and as energy prices rise, the efficiency becomes more persuasive.

This one took me on a bit of a research safari.

Turns out there are (at least) two different types of CFLs. The one I was aware of simply steps up the voltage to ionize the mercury vapor causing release of photons of two specific spectral lines, which strike phosphors on the inside of the tube and - voila! Light.

But it turns out there's a second type of CFL that doesn't have electrodes. Instead, it creates a high frequency (1-100MHz) emf field that ionizes the mercury. The advantage is: No electrodes to fail. These are "long life" bulbs.

I also came across some other interesting tidbits of information. As I already knew, the light created by CFLs is actually UV, it strikes the phosphors on the inside surface of the tube which then reradiate the energy in the visible region of the spectrum. Which raises the question of UV leakage? Cataracts anyone? It turns out that the phosphors are also poisonous, so it's not just the mercury vapor. And I didn't realize that fluorescent lights in general had to have both fluorescent and phosphorescent properties. Since the field reverses 120 times per second, the fluorescent output rises and falls with the sine wave. But by adding phosphorescence, the light is "carried over" during these "dark" spots.

And this is interesting: In regard to the "dirty electricity" bulbs, the harmonic production can potentially damage (over time) the power company transformers (or so it is claimed). This means CFLs of the second type may increase maintenance costs - and hence, the cost of electricity. In general, because all fluorescent lamps involve use of inductive elements, the power factor of the source will probably have to be adjusted. It's not a big deal when a few lights add to the inductive load. But over the next few years as every house converts most lights to CFL (if that happens) the PF could become an issue for power companies. Too, these types of bulbs have EMI filters that shunt the unwanted harmonics to ground, so the problem may never manifest itself to an observable extent. Since the "dirty" bulbs have to convert AC to DC to drive an oscillator, there may actually be useful components in defunct bulbs for the electronics experimenter (like mosfets/hexfets and tranformers - components you can use to build your own low-current power supplies).

Circline fluorescents turn out be be one of the best tradeoffs between power, efficiency, longevity of all fluorescent lamps. These are the circular fluorescents (6"-16" in diameter) or the type you generally find in articulated magnifier lights and in ceiling fixtures. Who knew?

Interestingly, HID lights, metal hydride and sodium vapor are among the most efficient. NaV is pretty "orange", but the metal hydride lights look interesting. Think "football stadium" lights. Also, "HID headlights" on some cars. High temperature seems to be a factor for home use.

As for the health effects of CFLs (related to the hf emf) at a guess, if you're not terrified of your cell phone, there's probably little to worry about in that regard. It turns out that the caution regarding interference comes from the fact that television, AM radio and FM radio all occupy parts of the 1-100 MHz band. If a bulb is "transmitting" in the band, it could easily interfere with nearby receivers. But "nearby" is most likely a relative term. If you put a lamp on top of your AM radio, you're more likely to have problems than if you put it a few feet away.

Incidentally, I received my Sylvania 60W bulbs today. It's a little discouraging. They're ratd at 855 lumens at 130VAC, but carry the caveat, "This product is designed for 130 volts. When used on the normal line voltage of 120V, the light output and energy efficiency are noticeably reduced." The 120V ratings (on the bottom of the box) indicate light production of 665 lumens... a reduction of about 22%. Given the non-linear response of the human eye, I don't expect this to be a big deal... but it galls a bit.

There are things LED tvs can't do that CRTs could.

I knew there was talk of it. I didn't think they'd get away with it with his veto in the White House, however.

Why I should trust that progressive more than others... I can't answer.

Thus polluting the air in your living room, depositing soot on your drapes, television, furniture and any snacks you may be munching, while risking a chimney fire if you don't have the deposits cleaned from your flue liner.

But building the things was always an entertaining experience.

There was one person we built a fireplace for. Oh, he was big on energy efficiency and weather sealing and all that.

We built the fireplace as he requested... days later he demanded we come back because the darn thing wouldn't draw.

He started a fire in the firebox to demonstrate...
My father just walked over to the nearest window and opened it a crack.

The fire burst into life.

Fireplaces are not exactly energy efficient, and when you're not using them, even with a damper and fire doors, you lose heat up the flue.

If you have a fireplace, and your incandescent bulbs are making that much heat... just open the damper and let the heat be drawn outside.
No need for air conditioning.

But is made up for in needing more lights in the room to be able to see adequately.

o.O

When you can just use incandescent bulbs to do the same thing? Talk about inefficiency.

The *goal* of CFLs is evil. To force people to use a technology other than one they choose freely, in furtherance of a hoax perpetuated to fill the coffers of various political cliques.

I've a stack of 100 watt bulbs in my closet. I'd like to get more if I can. But I have no use for dim bulbs like 60 watters.

The number one power sucker in a typical home is heating, whether to warm the house, dry your clothes or cook your food.

Microwaves have actually been proposed for heating homes (and would probably have been implemented had not people started cooking their meals with them at around the same time). Probably workable to dry clothes as well.

"Dirty Electricity"? Explain.

Oh, don't get me wrong. I absolutely agree that the government is out of control. I think some of those pulling the strings even see "THE END" writ large in the very near future. But I don't think they really know what to do about it. The Fed's QE is nothing but a trillion-dollar-a-year inflation program. The Chinese are starting to make noises about it "not being in their interest" to continue loaning us money. Between those two items alone, we can expect the Feral Government to have dollars that won't buy as much, and if the Chinese stop making loans, not nearly enough money to cover FG spending.

So what happens when the FG budget gets cut by 25%? Forget the congressional wrangling over what amounts to less than 1% of the budget - what happens when they have to slash 25%? If China won't loan money, who will? And at what price?

The Fed's policies MUST drive up inflation. That makes money more expensive - loans have to pay higher interest rates. But if that happens, the interest rate on the $17 trillion we already owe will eventually (sooner than later) reset and service on the debt will balloon. We've already seen interest rates at 21% within the past 50 years. Do the math! What happens if interest rates go to HALF that level? 10.5% of $17 trillion is $1.785 trillion. At present, the Feral Government takes in about $2.5 trillion from all sources! So between no one loaning us more money, and the crushing weight of debt service, the end result is slashing of the FG budget by ~77%.

So imagine the result when all the welfare recipients get their money slashed by 70% or more. When every Federal worker is looking at a bite of 70% being taken out of their paycheck. No money to pay the troops. No money to spy on Americans. No FBI, DEA, ATF, OSHA. No ability to control Americans - and a significant portion of the populace that is angry and desperate because they no longer get Federal candy in the mail. And don't forget inflation. Those dollars that are dispensed won't buy what they did just a short time before.

Most of the Federales who will be called upon to control Americans can't shoot for shit. They're cannon fodder. But it does explain the 1.6 BILLION rounds of hollow-point ammo recently purchased. It can't be used by the military. It's not suitable for training (because it's 2x as expensive as FMJ) and it's 5 times the amount needed to shoot every American.

I don't doubt that the political elite is desperate to maintain control. I think it adequately explains all the surveillance programs, the ammo purchases, the expanding federal police, the NDAA indefinite detention, the murdering of Americans without due process via drone strike.

My point is simply that the reason Obama can't send his brown shirts to attack and terrorize the citizenry is because they'd get shot all to shit. It's one thing to send two dozen cops to overwhelm the inhabitants of a single dwelling. It's quite a different matter when everyone in the neighborhood is willing to fight back.

I think the next American Revolution will be a violent one. It may not last long. Perhaps the enforcers will quickly learn that there's no point in dying for their political masters. But I don't doubt that at some point Obama will sick the dogs on the American People.

Which is why there's no problem if you take all the bulbs down to your local EPA office and smash them on the floor in the lobby...

Certainly there will be specific applications for equipment. Quite frankly I hadn't thought about the runway light thing.

But, my living room doesn't have any planes landing in it. I run air conditioning in the summer and think electricity is an obscenely expensive way to heat.

So, I've opted for LED lights. It's nice to be able to turn them down low and warm with the fireplace going.

Probably not a workable plan. There are almost 300 million firearms in private hands in this Country - probably the only factor that is saving us from someone like King Obama. If just 3% of gun owners shot back and actually took out someone in the military or a police unit there would be no more military personnel or police anywhere in the Country. That's an advantage the Jews didn't have.

Unless, of course, you're HEATING your home.

I thought the post about the failure of LED runway and street lights informative. Seems snow just kinda covers them up. With the incandescents? Not so much.

As usual, the government can't act without screwing things up.

It gets into the air that gets into your house.

If you are concerned skip the CFL step and go directly to LEDs.

Using less electricity with CFLs or LEDs will reduce that amount.

Yes, we need more wind, nuclear, and hydro power.

But they are in living rooms and other places that are air conditioned. When the cooler LEDs are used it saves on air conditioning.

Never heard of someone putting a air conditioner in their chicken coop before.