On 11/30/2010 10:50 AM, Michael Coslo wrote:
> On Nov 30, 2010, at 10:17 AM, doc@kd4e.com wrote:
>
>
>> It has made sure that GE, who was losing in the incandescent bulb
>> market, had the corner on the CFL market.
>>
>> Other than that it's like the just-confessed latest revelation of
>> Al Gore's self-serving dishonesty on grain-alcohol, a "solution"
>> with undisclosed new problems.
>
> As we all know, all problems are the fault of liberals. But we need to have
> that pointed out as often as possible. And this RFI group should do it with
> every post, cuz' its the right place don'tya think?. 8^)
>
> Anyhow, before we burn anyone at the stake, the CFL market is in it's
> early-middle stages, and will probably end up being a dead end technology
> anyhow. 20 years from now, I doubt you'll find a CFL anywhere. Fragile bulbs,
> mercury issues, and quality control problems.
It's my understanding that the CFL is an interim measure, just as is
Ethanol in gas. At least that is the way they were presented.
I've not had problems with CFLs other than the short life of the early
ones I've already mentioned. Alcohol is inefficient, and CFLs (like
all fluorescents) contain mercury which is considered undesirable.
However the no one gets excited about a broken fluorescent tube which is
much larger than any CFL I've seen so I think the worry over broken CFLs
is blown a bit out of proportion. OTOH I think the concern will be for
LEDs and their required power supplies which have the potential (no pun
intended) to create much more noise than CFLs , particularly as they
come into general use, likely raising the background noise considerably.
Once LEDs become viable both in the economic sense and environmentally
(RFI) the CFLs which are toxic and use more power than the LEd will
likely become relatively scarce as their use drops, just as is the use
of incandescents. OTOH I'd expect the CFL to out and out disappear
while the incandescents will likely be around in small numbers for a
very long time.
BTW the coal fired power plants are reputed to put out more mercury (by
several times) for the energy used by a CFL than the amount of mercury
contained in the CFL.
> Like it or not, LED lighting is probably the wave of the future. What does
> this mean? It means that the weak link in the system is going to be the power
> supply in the bulb, it means that probably bulb price will go up. I give
> about 50-50 odds that we might see something else,
Possibly a different form of LEd, but I'd still expect to see the price
of LEDs reduced to at or below the price of CFLs.
Large arrays for large output of a broad spectrum contain many LEDs
which could be placed in series requiring less voltage drop.
> and that will be a separate and low voltage line run to the lighting
> systems. Running 120 volts just to be stepped down to a few volts is
> technically stupid, and probably a liberal idea anyhow. This is a system
> already in use in off the grid, low voltage solar or wind powered systems.
>
> I've seen some LED lights that give off a nice warm color, not unlike a good
> tungsten bulb.
I use full spectrum lights and have grown used to the color temp, which
used in conjunction with the warm color, or incandescents make the warm
colors and incandescents looks sickly.
> It's coming folks, just like tube technology replaced coherers, and RF
> alternators. And some bemoaned their passing too.
I'm looking forward to the maturing of LEDs that do not create RFI, give
a full, or at least pleasing spectrum, and are not expensive.
73
Roger (K8RI)
_______________________________________________
RFI mailing list
RFI@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rfi
|