Re: N:Vision CFL's

[Marc_F_Hult <MFHult@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Sat, 24 Mar 2007 17:16:44 -0400, "Robert Green"
<ROBERT_GREEN1963@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
<3ZidnaDujIH7CJjbnZ2dnUVZ_qzinZ2d@xxxxxxx>:

>"Slammer" <mjinks@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>news:B-2dnUU9Tty5DJjbnZ2dnUVZ_q-vnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> "Robert Green" <ROBERT_GREEN1963@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>>
>> >> >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.
>> >
>>
>> I'd like to point out that all these bulbs, for sale in the USA, are
>> subject to and must
>> comply with the FTC Lamp Label Rules. These specify a voltage of 120VAC
>> and output in AVERAGE INITIAL lumens, power consumed in AVERAGE INITIAL
>> wattage and life of each lamp in hours.
>
>Rated life is subjective for a number of reasons, as average lifetime
>lumens.  If bulbs are subjected to dimmers, they may fail prematurely, far
>before their rated life.  Lots of CFL's will be run from lots of PIR and
>lots of dimmer controllers simply because those devices are already out
>there.

Bobby: Let me repeat the factoid that I previously parroted from Lutron:

" 1.5 dimmers per US household"

Pleaser review your statement above and construct even the simplest
conceptual model, and then develop even the simplest mathematical
relationship of that model, and then use even flat-out guesses of the
constants and variables -- but assuming 1.5 dimmers per US household --- and
ask yourself if what you assert here is significant or ...or what?

>If their mid-life useful light output drops enough for a consumer to
>notice, it may be retired long before the testing says it ought to have
>been.  If these conditions occur on a large scale, the amount of mercury
>that ends up in landfills and the net cost to society to clean it up may be
>seriously understated.

"to clean it up" ???

Do you had any concept of the many many many (conceptual ) orders of
magnitude more difficult it is to 'clean up' the atmospherically transported
mercury from coal that causes by far the single biggest reason for fish
consumption advisories in inland US water than the mercury neatly contained
in a CFL in vastly smaller and less environmentally mobile environment that
is a modern landfill?

And when was the last time you heard of a _modern_ landfill being "cleaned
up" ?

(The last time a mercury advisory from atmospherically transported mercury
was in effect near where you live -- almost regardless of where you live in
the US -- is right now , and yesterday, and tomorrow, and next year , and
last year, and unfortunately, probably next decade and next ...

>Hopefully my lightmeter will show up eventually so I can see for myself.  So
>far, to my IR cam at the front door, the CFL seems noticeably dimmer.  I'm
>assuming that's because the tungsten bulb has a much, much higher IR output
>than the CFL bulb.

Two different meters, with different spectral sensitivities, could produce
two very different results. This is part of why you might choose to use a
supplemental filter such as a IR/UV cutoff filter from Edmund Scientific with
your Luna Pro. The Zone VI modification to the Pentax spotmeter I used partly
addresses this because the modification largely consists in additional
internal filtration to reduce light energy from components of light not
visible to the human eye (using modern panchromatic film as a surrogate and
target) and re calibration to account for those filters.

...Marc
Marc_F_Hult
www.ECOntrol.org