Re: VU1 ESL bulbs with HA dimmers?

[Marc_F_Hult <MFHult@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 10:49:04 GMT, nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxx (Dave Houston) wrote in
message  <4abc9b71.4437296@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>:

>This is getting interesting. Today's NYT has an article on a new 60W
>equivalent LED bulb from Philips that has the same color as a 60W
>incandescent. It doesn't say anything about heat, power factor or
>compatibility with existing dimmers and, while it has no specific cost
>numbers, indicates it _might_ eventually sell for $20-25. (That may be
>wishful thinking.)
>
>     http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/25/technology/25bulb.html?hp
>
>I especially liked this paragraph about the Energy Department...
>
>"At first, the department set no standards for compact fluorescent bulbs and
>inferior products flooded the market. Consumers rebelled against the bulbs?
>shortcomings: the light output from compact fluorescent bulbs was cold and
>unpleasant, their life was much shorter than claimed, many were large and
>undimmable, they would not work in cold environments and they contained
>polluting mercury."
>
>They didn't note that many of the CFLs also put out about half as much light
>as claimed, even when new.

ROTFL: But the article does say that " We test LED bulbs today that they're
equivalent to 40 watts but are really like 20 watt bulbs". New product same
story.

Fox-like, Dave continues to purposely distort and selectively report in order
to support his misguided claim that CFL's were a "bad idea" and that nothing
had changed in 10 years.

In fact,  many issues with early CFLs were largely the same as with _all_
fluorescent lamps and have largely been resolved. The early exaggerated
claims for CFL output are now paralleled by exaggerated claims for LEDs. This
is the nature of an unregulated marketplace that has next to nothing to do
intrinsically with CFLs ( or LEDs or widgets).

>But, otherwise, they made most of the points that
>I made here when the big push for CFLs first began.

No.  Most importantly, Dave said that CFLs were a "bad idea" and that nothing
had changed in 10 years and maligned the very folks working to test, and
regulate and refine CFLs into the better product that they evolved into.

What the NY Times article does state is that "the department considers the
INTRODUCTION [emphasis added] of compact fluorescents, today's alternative to
standard bulbs, to have been in a debacle. At first, the department set no
standards for compact fluorescent bulbs and inferior products flooded the
market."

In my experience, it is human nature for the first of otherwise comparable
changes to encounter more resistance than subsequent, similar changes. The
introduction of LEDs -- and all of _its_ problems -- will have an easier time
of it because CFLs -- and regular fluorescents before CFLs -- paved the way.

And FACT is that all reduction in energy use and CO2 emissions and reduced
mercury pollution that has occurred in the last 15 years because of the use
of CFLs would not have occurred is we were still waiting for the perfect
alternative. All it takes is a trip or two outside the US to see the enormous
popularity of CFLs around the world and the great benefits that they provide.
Those are all actual benefits that actually would have been lost if the
naysayers and hyper-critics had prevailed.

... Marc
_F_Hult
www.ECOntrol.org