Re: N:Vision CFL's

[Marc_F_Hult <MFHult@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Sat, 24 Mar 2007 17:14:10 -0400, "Robert Green"
<ROBERT_GREEN1963@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
<3ZidnaHujIH4CJjbnZ2dnUVZ_qzinZ2d@xxxxxxx>:
>
>"Marc_F_Hult" <MFHult@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>news:m3ea03t9ttsh4q2bb3g3m8hdkic903aiv6@xxxxxxxxxx
>> On Sat, 24 Mar 2007 05:42:11 -0400, "Robert Green"
>> <ROBERT_GREEN1963@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>> <7JidnR3oxIIFb5nbnZ2dnUVZ_qLinZ2d@xxxxxxx>:
>>
>> [Mercury discussion unrelated to subject deleted]
>
>[More that just "mercury" discussion unrelated to subject restored!!!!]
>
><<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.

First a response to the substance of the discussion in brief:  As I posted in
part earlier, this is incorrect in part:

1)  because Norway had (eg) conventional fluorescents and High-Intensity
Discharge (HID) lamps before it had CFLs. Old fluorescents have more mercury
per lumen than  CFLs. So the assertion that "they were putting no mercury in
the environment before " is flat-out wrong even if only looking at the source
component from lighting.

2)  Norway has been the atmospheric dumping ground for Europe's mercury-laden
soot for centuries. Their soil and aquatic environments are loaded with
mercury.

3) and there are other sources in Norway including thermometers, thermostats,
and a sunken Nazi U-boat with 65 metric tons aboard.

Also,

4) CFLs sequestered in a landfills are inconsequential compared to what is
mobile in aquatic and atmospheric and soil environments already.  And Norway
has mandatory recycling already,  but might ban CFLs anyway.

5) CFLs are easier to recycle correctly than long fluorescents

6) CFLs can be put into a contain to prevent breakage or otherwise contain
the mercury so that if they are land-filled, the mercury is less mobile.

Time permitting I will post more, intended to be useful to others under an
appropriate subject.

(My principal area of expertise for 20 years was the mobilization,  transport
and fate of environmental pollutants but not specifically mercury. While not
central to my research I was invited and nominally chaired a working session
at the Second International Environmental Geochemistry meeting in Upsala
Sweden on trace metals in the environment including mercury in the late 80's.
I was obviously much more up-to-date on trace metals in Scandinavia then.)

>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?>>
>
>Is snipping what you do when you're stumped with an answer about the unknown
>future costs involved in recycling?  How can you compute the cost of adding
>more mercury to the environment when you don't know where it will end up
>until it does?

ROTFL  As you will see when time permits me to respond fully, my problem was
quite the opposite of being "stumped".

The original post  dealt with many different topics that did not relate
specifically to " N:Vision CFL's "

To be useful (and that is the intention), a new subject and a well-posed
intro to the subject is preferred and netiquette tradition. A "subject that
is informative" is also usenet tradition. Brevity is also usenet tradition.
But you posted an exceptional long initial post with a myriad of different
topics.

Hence the triage in which I responded first to other parts of your
multi-topic, very long post. Very simple. very customary. Not stumped.

Snipping to isolate the part that I am/was responding to in any particular
post is normal and customary and recommended in usenet and what I did in this
case.

I will answer more of the question above in a separate post when time
permitted.

What is *not* normal and customary in my experience is for someone to start a
post with one topic in the subject and then immediately launch into an
entirely different topic. Usenet custom and common sense suggest that the
subject should inform the reader of the content.

I tried to be helpful. C'est tout.

" [Mercury discussion unrelated to subject deleted] " is a simple, accurate,
explanatory statement using simple declarative language.

If you could read the words in the tone and tenor written and intended, you
would not have any problem with them.

I used to do a lot of technical review and the statement used would have
completely acceptable and non-confrontational in that context by folks
accustomed to being reviewed.

>> >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.  This is something I mean
>> to test since I "scored" a number of the N-Vision CFL's at Home Depot
>> tonight:
>>
>> How many watts does your refrigerator use?
>
>What's it to you, bub?  I'm not here to do your bidding.  You're confused
>about how things work around here.

"bub" ?

Actually, my understanding of how usenet works is/was supposed to work is
pretty good and tracks long-standing netiquette.

When folks post a request for help (as you did in the refrigerator thread),
and others respond helpfully, it is/was customary for the poster to summarize
when so requested. Look at your favorite newsgroup netiquette source.

It is both rude and a violation of usenet tradition in my opinion  to ask for
help, post incorrect data, and then refuse to correct or summarize -- as you
have done with the refrigerator threads.

>You get ignored by most clear thinking people when you go into your harpie
>mode as you just have.

There is no "harpie mode". Go to the top and re-read. In fact there is no
'modality'. Read it out loud, say,  in a friendly, lilting British accent <no
joke intended>.  The 'modality' is entirely owing to _your_ perception.

>I'm sure DW's wondering how he got his head handed to him for having an
>opinion that wasn't exactly yours.

Your imagery does not fit the circumstances.

>You *are* a hoot. But perhaps not the way you think.

Feeling is mutual ;-)  "Future of Home Automation is ..."  except that
many/most of your assertions in that other thread you started are flat-out
false and you weren't willing correct them so someone else had to clean up
the misinformation you left behind. Jist my opinion, but firmly held.

>> We were treated to hundreds and  hundreds of lines of posts on this topic
>> with lottsa discussion. Follow-up?

Yup. As it stands, you have (eg) posted the assertion that your ancient
refrigerator only uses X watts. And you have also posted that you
re-measured. This is a simple plain-language request that you post the data.
Why do you resist correcting the record ? It isn't for my benefit!  It is so
others are not mislead (I am not). When you did summarize recently a thread
in another context, it was acknowledged. Good job <this is not bile, not
snide, just plain English>.

My experience with you has been than when you post misinformation,  rather
than correcting it, you first disappear into a cloud of ink like a squid into
its own camouflage and then, with respect to the topic, disappear altogether.
>Adults had intelligent discussion (in a discussion group, figure that!) and
>my problem got solved.  We both know you're looking for information to harp
>on.

What context are you talking about? "Harp"? How does getting the facts right,
instead of wrong, constitute "harping"? You are creating a record. Is it
right and useful? If not, what do you do to correct it? If you don't , who
will? If no one does, how useful will usenet be?

The analogy I use is pollution. Does my/your/anyone's uncorrected information
pollute usenet? If so who cleans it up? If it isn't cleaned up, what happens
to the usefulness?

>What do you honestly think your chances of getting information from me
>or ANYONE when your ill intent is showing as plain as the tattoos on
>Brittany's skull?  That's bizarre behavior, buddy.  I've been told than
>unappropriate social response can be a sign of Alzheimer's or Asberger's
>Syndrome.  Normally I just ignore you when you get bilious, but if there's a
>medical reason I would feel badly if I didn't note that I see disturbing
>symptoms.

LOL. No need for you to be defensive ;-) You wrote a subject title about a
specific brand of CFLs and then what? forgot and posted about Norwegian
energy supplies?

Not bilious, no ill intent,and certainly not vicious as you were trying to be
in the paragraph above.

>> Summary? Results?
>>
>> >I'll have to dig out my Gossen Luna Pro lightmeter so I can
>> >make some meaningful measurement if the CHA research committee stipulates
>> it to be accurate enough for the purpose!  (-:
>>
>> Spectral response of the meter is important esp wrt fluorescents. The
>> spectra of  5500K and 3500K n:vision compact fluorescents are here:
>
>And now you go from attack mode back to "how ya doing bub" mode as if there
>was no perceptible change in tenor.  That's just spooky and it's always
>where I start another 30 day rip.  Thanks for the pointer to N-Vision.  No
>thanks for the bile.

No bile, no attack mode. If you go back to the beginning of this post, and
re-read it without the assumption of "bile", you will find that there is no
bile in it. The 'modality' is in your perception.

Let's turn this around to see if it helps.  Now I see now by the context in
your _second_ use of "bub" that you don't use "bub" in an insulting way,
right?  I thought that you did the first time you used "bub" it to address
me.

See how you can be misunderstood (too:-) ?

HTH ... Marc
Marc_F_Hult
www.ECOntrol.org