Re: N:Vision CFL's

["Robert Green" <ROBERT_GREEN1963@xxxxxxxxx>]

"Marc_F_Hult" <MFHult@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:bria0351tue3v354oo0v0k72vjpjipecp1@xxxxxxxxxx
> On Sat, 24 Mar 2007 05:42:11 -0400, "Robert Green"
> <ROBERT_GREEN1963@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> <7JidnR3oxIIFb5nbnZ2dnUVZ_qLinZ2d@xxxxxxx>:
>
> >It seems that the cost equations are still being worked on!
>
> Not really. The _data_ used in the equations is changing to reflect
changes
> in the actual characteristics of actual CFLs in use. The form of the
> equation, by and large, stays the same.

I was referring to what happens in areas that use no coal.  It complicates
the mercury equation in Norway, at least.  They were putting no mercury in
the environment before but the use of CFL bulbs gives them a recycling
issue.  I was also thinking about what John said about CFL's tending to be
used during off peak hours, and those are typically not fueled by coal as
much as other sources.  I don't believe there's really solid data on
recycling yet, either, since so many bulbs are new.  We don't know if their
owners will recycle them responsibly.  Those unknowable events are still in
the future and can't really be "solved for" can they?

> The complete absence of meaning _data_ and subsequent numerical analysis
> ("equations") in CHA is what has changed through several actual analyses
of
> actual costs and benefits of actual CFLs in actual use in an actual home
> (like mine).

Did you mean "meaningful?"  (-:  There's no doubt in my mind that
circumstances dictate certain decisions.  If someone's using so little juice
they're being charged extra, they aren't going to see much benefit.  If
someone like me sees the highest bill they've ever seen for electricity,
it's going to mean CFL's *have* to come on line.

> The CHA CFL naysayers (as in "CFLS are a really bad idea") post vague,
false
> information because up-to-date, real data does not support the conclusions
> they want to promote. Here's an analogy they would understand: "They bet
> against the winning horse and are trying to sell you their losing tickets
> after the race is over".

I prefer to think it's merely a case of YMMV.  For the sake of peace as much
as anything else.

> >There are lots of competing claims, the most interesting among them being
> >CFL equivalency ratings are overblown.  A poster to the discussion at
> >wikipedia says that his tests show that CFL's claimed to be equivalent to
a
> >100W lightbulb are actually noticeably dimmer.
>
> There is lotsa junk out there. Buy junk; get taken.

This is something I intend to test, and believe that can be tested rather
easily.  More importantly it can be tested with standardized equipment
(assuming neither your 'scope card nor my Luna Pro have dematerialized) and
visually with a simple underexposed photograph of both sources side by side
as I explained elsewhere.

--
Bobby G.