Re: Web Enabled Time/Temp/Humidity and I/O Controller

["Josepi" <JRM@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I understand what you are saying about the manufacturing process but have to
ask one thing.

Do you ride a horse or drive a car?

"RickH" <passport@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:9249a1b1-fb36-4fbc-b830-9db34a807a71@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Nov 7, 1:09 am, "Robert L Bass" <Sa...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
> "RickH" wrote:
>
> > Also the supply chain to make a CFL is huge and deep, involving much
> > mining,
> > manufacturing, chemical refining, and shipping...
>
> I agree that CFL's are more complex than incandescant bulbs. The bit about
> mining, chemical refining, etc., might be a bit of a stretch. Two things
> are
> certain though. CFL's use significantly less power for their output than
> incandescant lamps. In doing so they reduce demand for energy and that
> means we
> burn a little less coal every time we turn one on. That, in turn, means
> less
> pollution.
>
> I agree that CFL's are not a perfect answer, but until someone comes up
> with a
> suitable, reliable alternative, I'll continue using them.
>
> > Nobody ever seems to consider that the CFL is already
> > playing catch up with the incandescent next to it on the
> > store shelf in terms of carbon usage...
>
> That's an interesting theory but unless you can provide statistics to back
> it
> up, I'll have to consider it just that -- one man's theory. I'm not saying
> you're wrong yet.
>
> --
>
> Regards,
> Robert L Bass
>
> ==============================>
> Bass Home Electronics
> DIY Alarm and Home Automation Storehttp://www.bassburglaralarms.com
> Sales & Service 941-870-2310
> Fax 941-870-3252
> ==============================>


Well, I count over 35 parts average in the 14 CFL schematics here with
some ballasts having 50 parts:

http://www.pavouk.org/hw/lamp/en_index.html


http://www.kellerstudio.de/repairfaq/sam/cflamp2.pdf

http://www.irf.com/technical-info/designtp/irplcfl1.pdf

http://www.kellerstudio.de/repairfaq/sam/cflamp1.pdf


Along with a fair amount of copper wire coils (mining), mercury
(mining) etc.

Factories to make the diodes, capacitors, resistors, semiconductors,
inductors, phosphors, non-inert gasses, glass, fuses, etc. and the
various sub-components and chemicals inside those parts too.  And
drastically larger amount of energy consumed for the various parts.

As opposed to 5 or 6 very non-complex elemental-like parts in an
incandescent, tungsten, aluminum, brass, glass, inert gasses, and
machinery to put it together thats been around for over a hundred
years.

The question is can the CFL recover the obviously larger amount of
waste it caused just to get it to the shelf, than the path the simple
incandescent followed to get there next to it?

If it could then, then I agree its a good thing, but based on the fact
that many of my CFL's have not lasted as long as my incandescents I
have to wonder.  Also does one even bother to add in the cost of a
resistor factory (which would be making resistors anyway)?  All things
manufactured have a deeper cost, I just see the incandescent having a
very low manufacturing cost (in terms of environmental impact) than a
CFL.  If the CFL can recoup that over its life is what I question.