So cfls work ok in ideal conditions.

They work well in a variety of conditions.

 

On the performance of different types of lighting, here is a good document written by engineers who understand the subject:

http://www.oneeffect.com/public/Lighting-Standards/sll handbook INTERNATIONAL.pdf

Table 3.5 is an interesting summary.

I think CFLs have become a target because many are ideologically opposed to the phase out of incandescent bulbs (which have niche roles but really are a primitive way to make most of our artificial light). Buying a CFL though is more like buying an appliance, if you buy the cheapest at the supermarket, it's like buying a really cheap piece of electronics at the supermarket - who is surprised when that fails. The existence of cheap and low quality CFLs, coupled with the incompatibility with poorly vented light fittings (which probably chewed up incandescents as well), results in folks wasting money - which can fuel ideological rants against a reasonable technology.

Read the document, quality CFLs used (and disposed) appropriately are excellent value for money and good for the environment. Some of my first CFLs didn't last long, now, in a house with over a hundred lights, I rarely change a bulb.

 

Funny thing is, LEDs generate waste heat too, lots of it. They are more efficient sure, but ya gotta vent them somehow.

I would like to be a green user, but the problem is the corporate hype that has gotten into it.

I dislike government regulations even more, given the level of corruption and money to be made by various mandates. The only way a goverment can really do this reasonably is to fund research, of the type that releases real facts, not corporate hype. A fantasy, I know.

 

I dislike government regulations even more, given the level of corruption and money to be made by various mandates.

Amen to that, and the stunning level of ignorance and stupidity among those handing down those mandates. It's like watching a train wreck in slow motion.

 

. It's like watching a train wreck in slow motion.

Yeah, and you're ON the train!

 

Amen to that, and the stunning level of ignorance and stupidity among those handing down those mandates. It's like watching a train wreck in slow motion.

Stupidity is very much the right word. I understand that people that seek elective office are going to tend toward a degree of greed and power hunger. But it amazes me how fundamentally stupid so many of our elective officials are -- as well as the people around them. Like one of the former senators from my state that literally thought that 3/5 was more than 2/3 and went on a multistate talk-show tour touting how his bill, which required a 3/5 majority vote to raise taxes, was much stronger than the opposition's bill that only required a 2/3 majority. It wasn't a slip, either. He stated it several times and, later, I looked up both bills and he was stating the requirements of each bill correctly. Yet neither he nor anyone on his staff (nor any of the talk show hosts he had already been on the air with) spotted the problem when they put together his talking points. I called in and first asked if I was correct in my understanding of the numbers, and he confirmed that I was. I then asked if he was claiming that it would be harder to raise taxes under his bill because it would be harder to get the 3/5 majority than it would be to get a 2/3 majority, and he said it would. Then, when I said, "Even though 3/5 is 60% and 2/3 is basically 67%?", he just stammered and said, "The point is that it would be very difficult to raise taxes under my bill."

This level of math illiteracy has been demonstrated by our elected officials time and time again, so is it really surprising that they vote as though they are clueless? It's because they ARE clueless!

And this doesn't even begin to touch on the senator that was concerned that stationing more troops on Guam might cause the island to capsize! Or the representative the past week or so who, when asked to comment on a specific House Resolution, responded that that was a Senate matter.

 

Welcome to All About Politics. Hope to find a technical forum some day soon.

 

If you think that's too political, click on the red triangle. That's what moderators are for.

Personally, this is Off Topic and I do some of my best ignorance and stupidity in this section.

 

Welcome to All About Politics. Hope to find a technical forum some day soon.

Let us know if you find one.

 

That's what moderators are for.

Yeah, thanks for clearing that up. I stay confused on that subject. At least have the good form to split the politics from the technical discussion. It's indescribably awesome to have a discussion about technology without all the compulsory political BS.

 

Let us know if you find one.

Actually I have. The ASIC, FPGA, Soc forum on Linked In has wonderful technical discussions berefit of politics.

 

At least have the good form to split the politics from the technical discussion. It's indescribably awesome to have a discussion about technology without all the compulsory political BS.

May I suggest one of the other sections of AAC? We have Chat, Projects, and about 7 other forums that stay on subject almost all the time.

 

Shutting this thread down for obvious reasons.

However, the bulb comparison discussion should be in the General Electronics Chat to begin with. I don't have time right now to do the sorting and moving and probably won't have until late at night.
So if another moderator gets to do it before me, be my guest.