kickstarter farmer laboratory: CFLs at 30 seconds

Started by paul wheaton, October 11, 2011, 11:24:50 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

paul wheaton

It's been up about an hour and it is already 26% funded.  Wow.

So I started making another video (lots of you have probably seen gobs of my videos), but the equipment I bought turned out to be lame.  The good stuff is gonna cost more than I'm willing to spend.  A bunch of people pushed me to kickstarter. 

I think the video I made for the campaign turned out really cool.

http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/paulwheaton/farmer-laboratory-light-bulbs-at-30-seconds?ref=live


NM_Shooter

Will be watching with interest!

I'm not a fan of CFTs.  Too expensive, environmentally dangerous, bad color content. 

The biggest argument that I have heard against residential incandescent, is that they put off heat.  Well, 6 months out of the year, I welcome that heat.  The other 6 months of the year, it still is not a big issue. 

LEDs are not a whole lot better, as they have a wear out curve that is pretty aggressive. 

That reminds me... I gotta start stocking up on incandescent bulbs!
"Officium Vacuus Auctorita"


paul wheaton

progress report:  two CFLs are now dead.

In response to a point that I seem to be having trouble making, I made this weird little story I call "Mr. Stinkypants and the CFL"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ta2ozf_uJJ8

--

Sign up for my daily-ish email, or my devious plots for world domination:  http://www.richsoil.com/email.jsp



NM_Shooter

"Officium Vacuus Auctorita"

waggin

Very enlightening  ::) ...thanks Paul!  I subscribed to your channel and will look forward to looking through your other videos.
If the women don't find you handsome, they should at least find you handy. (Red Green)


Windpower


the long version


[embed=425,349]<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/Y1xt4nEvipg" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>[/embed]
Often, our ignorance is not as great as our reluctance to act on what we know.

Ajax

Paul,
What's the purpose of this?  I'm not sure I understand why you'd design an experiment that will significantly shorten the life of a CFL and then trumpet the results when that exact thing happens.

It's simply a known fact that frequent on/off cycles shortens CFL life.
Ajax .... What an ass.
muldoon

paul wheaton

It is, indeed, a simple fact.  One that is swept under the carpet so thoroughly, that I am frequently told that not only is it not  a fact - but that the opposite is "obivously" true.  because if what I claim were true, it would be known to all - and printed on the box. 

How many times have we heard that CFLs use less energy?  While I agree that from the perspective of the purchase at the store and forward, it does, indeed use less energy.  They also put out less light.  I think how little light they put out is less known.

They also make people sick:  both while they are working, and after they are dead. 

The shysters have tried to spin things to say that when you count in the amount of pollution from coal plants ....   well, I've thoroughly debunked that load of horse potatoes in my CFL article.

Ajax

Quote from: paul wheaton on December 20, 2011, 05:07:58 PM
It is, indeed, a simple fact.  One that is swept under the carpet so thoroughly, that I am frequently told that not only is it not  a fact - but that the opposite is "obivously" true.  because if what I claim were true, it would be known to all - and printed on the box. 

How many times have we heard that CFLs use less energy?  While I agree that from the perspective of the purchase at the store and forward, it does, indeed use less energy.  They also put out less light.  I think how little light they put out is less known.

They also make people sick:  both while they are working, and after they are dead. 

The shysters have tried to spin things to say that when you count in the amount of pollution from coal plants ....   well, I've thoroughly debunked that load of horse potatoes in my CFL article.

Wow.  Quite the Jihad against CFLs.  I'll state that I use them and that I get long lives from them.  As with any product, using them properly is the key.

And your article is incorrect with this statement

QuoteNow the government is banning the sale of most incandescent bulbs
There is no ban
Ajax .... What an ass.
muldoon


paul wheaton

THERE IS A BAN

The "efficiency requirement" is a sick and twisted lame excuse to get what they want.

I've had so many people say this, I've made a canned message:

http://www.permies.com/forums/posts/list/5759#107136



NM_Shooter

Thanks Paul...

I had heard that the ban was being pushed off.  I appreciate the clarification.  I need to go buy some more bulbs.

For those of us in cold climates for a good part of the year, we like the fact that our light sources give off heat  ;D

Good work.
"Officium Vacuus Auctorita"

bayview



   WWWhhhhaaaaaattttttttt . . . .    Light bulb conspiracy?   This is all being done for profit?   Not, for the environment . . .    I'm shocked!   (pun intended)

//
    . . . said the focus was safety, not filling town coffers with permit money . . .

Squirl

Quote from: paul wheaton on December 20, 2011, 06:57:42 PM
[THERE IS A BAN

The ban never went into effect and was postponed by congress.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/dec/16/congress-overturns-incandescent-light-bulb-ban/
Even under the old "ban" there were many exceptions and the bulbs were still going to be for sale.  Many people just don't buy them anymore.  They really are a waste of time and money.  I understand some of the health concerns, but we are exposed to so much more toxin on a daily basis than the small amount of mercury gas in a light bulb.  That is even if the light bulb breaks, which I have only had happen once in my life.

I don't really understand the conspiracy.  The same people made money selling incandescent that make money selling CFLs.  Most light bulbs in the U.S. are never used in the fashion of your "test."  Yes manufacturers and trade organizations lie through their teeth to exaggerate claims.  Big shocker. 

Riddle me this, if it is a big conspiracy to shove these down America's throat to make more money, why did those same companies petition congress to repeal it?

NM_Shooter

Quote from: Squirl on December 21, 2011, 10:22:00 AM
Riddle me this, if it is a big conspiracy to shove these down America's throat to make more money, why did those same companies petition congress to repeal it?

Can you provide a source on that statement?  I want to learn more.  From poking around on the internet, it appears that the GOP killed this on a second attempt.  The ban initially was created under heavy support by GE.  Are you saying that companies such as GE then reversed their position and wanted the ban removed? 

Sources please.

This ban needs to be killed off for good.  As it is, it will re-activate again without attention.   
"Officium Vacuus Auctorita"


paul wheaton

Are you just trying to make me angry?

It seems like you are okay with being poisoned a little because everybody is being poisoned a lot.  Is that really what you just said?

Here is my position:  I don't want to be poisoned.  And I don't want my efforts to take poisons out of my life hampered so somebody far, far away can make more money.

The ban is still in effect.  The organization that was going to police the ban has been temporarily defunded.  I think retailers are going to choose to not sell stuff that is illegal even if there is no organization to police them.

QuoteMost light bulbs in the U.S. are never used in the fashion of your "test."

I think you are wrong.  Especially in any home that actually turns off lights when not in use.  I suppose that if you turn on all the lights in your home and leave them on 24x7, then it might appear to you that others do as you do. 

do you leave hallway lights on all day?  I turn them on just long enough to get through the hallway.  About ten seconds.  I use closet lights just long enough to find what I am looking for - usually just a few seconds.  Most of the times the bathroom light is turned on, it is for me to pee - less than a minute.   Most of the times the kitchen light is turned on is for me to get a snack.   Most of the time that the light in the utility room is on it is to put laundry in - less than a minute.   My bedroom light is usually on for about 30 seconds as I go to bed.

MOST light bulbs in MY house are on for less than a minute MOST of the time they are turned on. 

I think all light bulb use can be broken into three categories:

1)  people use lights like me, in which case the amount of electricity that is used for lighting is so small, that the whole light bulb regulation thing becomes stupid.

2)  people that can learn to use their light bulbs the way I do in which case, the whole light bulb regulation thing becomes stupid.

3)  all other people and all the different wacky excuses they have for the way they deal with their lighting.   I suppose these people want to be regulated.  That doesn't make sense to me, but just because they want to be regulated doesn't mean the rest of us should be.

QuoteMany people just don't buy them anymore.  They really are a waste of time and money.

Many don't.  And many do.  It's actually about half and half.  The way you can tell is to go to hardware stores and grocery stores about a year ago and notice how much shelf space is consumed by each.  Incandescents and Fluorescents each take up the same real estate.

As for a waste of money:

In my tests, so far a CFL that cost $3.50 and was supposed to last 12,000 hours died at 72 hours.  In the meantime, a bulb that cost 50 cents is still going.  The CFL really does use only 11 watts and is designed to replace a 40 watt.  So 29 watts saved over 72 hours = 2.088 kwh.  The national average is about 12 cents per kwh.  So $3.00 was spent to save $0.25. 

And you said which bulb was a waste of time and money?

Oh wait, it gets worse.  The number of lumens is about half of what was claimed. 

And this doesn't take into account any of the subsidy. 

And this doesn't take into account any of the stuff where the CFL makes people sick while it is running.  Nor from the toxins it releases after it is "disposed". 

And you are trying to make a case for the incandescent being a "waste of time and money"?

Speaking of "disposed" - is there any expense in the proper disposal of the light?  Or time?  Apparently, the incandescent is so clean that you can just throw it in the garbage. 


Squirl

How many times a day do flick the same light on and off.? 100? You are not like most Americans.  The bathroom maybe the light I use the most, maybe 5 times a day.  When I leave the living room to go to the kitchen for a snack, I don't shut off the living room light.  Most people don't. 

My point about the poisoning is I don't really see it as poisoning and I rather worry about the massive amounts be forced upon us every day.  This is a miniscule in comparison to the myriad of other problems in life.  I have more important causes of daily health I worry about.

I don't agree with the ban from a freedom of choice aspect but your article is misleading at best.  You really only pay 5 cents a kilowatt for electricity?  The national average is close to 13 cents now almost 3 times the rate you used.  My rate is 15 cents.  I see you talked a lot about "your tests" but did you ever post them.  Did you do a statistically significant sample?  I see you got a lot of people to give you $1000 through the link you posted.

Yes GE.
http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/lookup2.php?strID=C00024869&cycle=2012
61% of contributions go to Republicans who killed the bill.

[sarcasm] And yes, I'm trying to make you angry.  That is my goal in life. [sarcasm]

paul wheaton

QuoteI have more important causes of daily health I worry about.

Good.  Then be quiet and get out of the way. 

Quotebut your article is misleading at best.

Based on the things you have written in this thread, I can see why you would find it confusing.  So, really spare yourself the suffering and just move along to your "more important causes." 

I'm glad that we had this chat.  More importantly, I'm glad to hear that you are done with this chat.



MountainDon

As far as there being an incandescent ban or not it seems to me that some folks interpret the law as it was written to be a ban. It was not; it was a ban on inefficient incandescent lamps. And I think the result of that is a good thing. I glanced at the bulb shelf the past week and noticed a number of new incandescent lamps; 72 watts power use I think, a clear envelope and supposed to be putting out the same lumens as an "old" 100 watt.

As much as I don't like government meddling there are sometimes good things that do come about. I think I'll like the newer incandescent lamps for those few places where I still like to use them. I doubt the bulb companies would have developed them without a shove. I also use CFL's in a number of places and have not noticed any short lifespans. They seem to do quite well in our home and cabin.

I love the CFL's I use in our off grid cabin. They reduce the amount of lead I have used (less power use means a smaller battery bank) and that is a good thing too.

I believe that eventually the CFL lamps will fade from popular use as other technology becomes more affordable and more usable for everyday tasks; like LED's.

I haven't seen 5 cent kWh electricity in decades. Here in the SW our power company uses tiered billing that starts at 0.09062 and goes up to 0.13734; a much more realistic number than a nickel.



Just because something has been done and has not failed, doesn't mean it is good design.

NM_Shooter

Quote from: Squirl on December 21, 2011, 12:09:58 PM
Yes GE.
http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/lookup2.php?strID=C00024869&cycle=2012
61% of contributions go to Republicans who killed the bill.


Seriously?  That's your proof that GE wanted the bill killed? 

   [rofl2]

Ignore him Paul.  That's what the "ignore user" option is for in your profile setting; think I'll go tweak mine now.  Wish I had his snail address.  I'd send him all my CFLs.
"Officium Vacuus Auctorita"

Squirl

I do appreciate the link to the mythbusters article.  I love that show.  It has given me a new look at LED lights.  Although to be scientific they would have to have a statistically significant sample.  One or two bulbs from 1 manufacturer isn't very representative of anything.  What is also interesting is the incandescent bulbs failed with the same abuse.

In your article you also referenced the wiki page for cfls.  The link you posted immediately points to a page that states you can buy them with as little as .1 milligram of mercury. Too put that in perspective, I could actually eat the light bulb and still consume less mercury than if I ate two cans of tuna a month or sushi once a month for a year.  I think railing against eating fish would be more effective in keeping people from mercury exposure than cfls.

Maybe there is a conspiracy.  Since they developed and brought to market more efficient incandescent that can meet the new law that cost $2 vs. the old $.40 in just 2 years, maybe they had the technology the whole time and just want to force Americans to buy more efficient incandescent bulbs.

I didn't realize they were already selling the new bulbs.  Thanks for the heads up don.  I heard they were developing them two years ago.  I replaced all my bulbs with CFLs and haven't had to replace a light bulb in two years, so I haven't been paying attention to what they were selling except the new LEDs.  It is an interesting point.  If I can walk into any store right now and still buy an incandescent bulb that conform under the law, I would say there is no ban on incandescent bulbs.


Squirl

Quote from: NM_Shooter on December 21, 2011, 06:32:28 PM

Ignore him Paul.  That's what the "ignore user" option is for in your profile setting; think I'll go tweak mine now.  Wish I had his snail address.  I'd send him all my CFLs.

I would take them, but the shipping would be a waste.  If you want, donate them to your local shelter, soup kitchen, or religious charity.  They have to keep the lights on all day and not have to worry about flicking them on an off and could use the savings.

MountainDon

Here's an AP article covering the so called ban law...

from... http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/the-incandescent-light-bulb-is-dead-long-live-the-incandescent-light-bulb/2011/12/21/gIQAHuao9O_print.html

These are confusing days to be shopping for a light bulb.

New federal standards were to kick in after the New Year requiring 100-watt bulbs to be more energy efficient. Then Congress, in a bill passed this month to keep the government running, blocked enforcement of the new law until October 2012.

So, is January the beginning of the end for the warm incandescent glow as we know it?

Here's what you need to know about the phase-out of today's standard light bulb:

— First of all, what federal standards are we talking about?

The Energy Independence and Security Act became law in December 2007. It is wide-ranging, tackling topics from vehicle fuel economy and alternative automobile technologies to industrial energy efficiency, solar power and more. The law has a section that amends or tries to set new efficiency standards for appliances including furnaces, air conditioners, battery chargers, clothes washers, dishwashers and refrigerators. It also sets energy-efficiency standards for "general service incandescent lamps."

— What's that?

It's code for everyday-use incandescent light bulbs — the kind you screw in to the lamp in the living room. The law doesn't cover specialty bulbs such as black lights, bug lamps or plant lights; it also doesn't affect the 40-watt-or-less light bulbs you'd find in the refrigerator or oven.

— What do the new rules demand?

Four of today's commonly purchased incandescent bulbs are targeted: 100-watt, 75-watt, 60-watt and 40-watt. Those numbers refer to the amount of power the light bulbs draw; they're in the crosshairs because much of the power they consume is released as heat, not light.

On Jan. 1, 2012, a bulb that puts out the same amount of light as today's 100-watt bulb will be required to draw only 72 watts of power. In January 2013 and January 2014, similar new standards will go into effect for the other three light wattages.

— Without funding for the Department of Energy to enforce the law, won't it just be business as usual for the 100-watt incandescent bulb?

Terry McGowan, director of engineering for the American Lighting Association, an industry trade group, doesn't think the last-minute politicking will change what the consumer sees on shelves come January. Major light-bulb makers started planning for this transition after the law passed in 2007, and have already invested in upgraded or new factories and technologies to meet the more stringent specifications.

— So, does that mean incandescent bulbs will suddenly disappear from store shelves?

Not quite. Retailers will be able to keep selling their supply of 100-watt incandescents until they're out of stock. Manufacturers can't import or make more bulbs that draw the same amount of energy as the existing models, but they are continuing to make a new version of incandescent bulbs that meet the stricter standards.

— What do I need to know when I go shopping to replace an existing 100-watt bulb?

The most useful new vocabulary word is "lumens," a measure of the amount of light a bulb produces. An existing 100-watt bulb gives about 1,600 lumens. The Federal Trade Commission has started requiring light-bulb makers to adorn packages with a new "Lighting Facts" label that lists brightness in lumens, so you can compare.

The package label also specifies how "warm" or "cool" the bulb's light will be. Many consumers have only a vague idea what those really mean. The Department of Energy has a useful chart online that can help you figure out whether the bulb you really like is warm or cool: http://www.energysavers.gov/your_home/lighting_daylighting/index.cfm/mytopic=12030

Another phrase to watch for is "halogen incandescent." These are the light-bulb makers' answer to the new standards. Halogen bulbs, like regular incandescent bulbs, use a tungsten filament, so the light quality and color are intended to be similar. But in halogen bulbs, the filament is encased in a halogen gas-filled capsule that lets the filament burn hotter and more efficiently.

College kids gave halogen torchiere floor lamps a bad rap, but these newer bulbs look like regular incandescent bulbs, and they're safer and cooler because the inner halogen tube is tucked inside a second bulb.

— Does this mean I can forget about compact fluorescent lamps (CFLs) and other new kinds of light bulbs?

You might not want to. The Department of Energy says the new halogen incandescent bulbs are about 25 percent more energy-efficient than today's bulbs. Compact fluorescent bulbs are 75 percent more efficient, last 10 times longer and, while they're more expensive, can pay for themselves in nine months.

And while some CFLs still take a while to reach full brightness after you turn them on, the technology is improving. It's possible to find instant-on and dimmable models that don't bathe your living room in a glow reminiscent of the office bathroom.

Light-emitting diodes, or LEDs, are about 75 percent to 80 percent more efficient and are meant to last 25 times longer than a regular incandescent light bulb. They're still much more expensive — $25 for a single 60-watt-equivalent bulb recently on Home Depot's website, compared with about $5 for a five-pack of CFLs — but prices are expected to drop as more people start using them.

— Excuse me, did you say $25 for a light bulb?

Yep. The upfront costs, even for certain compact fluorescent bulbs, can be hard to swallow if you're used to paying less than $1 for incandescent bulbs, even if you know the investment will pay off down the road.

In the new era of energy-efficient lighting, we need to wrap our heads around the fact that shopping for a new light bulb is no longer akin to restocking the milk in the fridge — it's more like purchasing an appliance, says McGowan. He keeps track of light bulb purchases, with receipts, in a file drawer right alongside repairs to his home furnace. He also recommends buying Energy Star-qualified bulbs, because they have a replacement program if the bulbs fail.

___

Online:

Smartphone app for choosing light bulb replacements: http://www.lightbulbfinder.net/

Lumen, an industry coalition: http://lumennow.org/

Department of Energy sites about light bulbs:

http://www.lightingfacts.com/

http://www.energysavers.gov/lighting

Environmental Protection Agency summary of the 2007 law:

http://www.epa.gov/lawsregs/laws/eisa.html
Just because something has been done and has not failed, doesn't mean it is good design.

MountainDon

Quote from: Squirl on December 22, 2011, 10:53:40 AM
.... you can buy them with as little as .1 milligram of mercury. Too put that in perspective, I could actually eat the light bulb and still consume less mercury than if I ate two cans of tuna a month or sushi once a month for a year.  I think railing against eating fish would be more effective in keeping people from mercury exposure than cfls.

The average flu shot that many people volunteer for contains much more than that number, squirl. If you use the EPA limits for mercury exposure per body weight virtually all but the very obese get an overdose of mercury when they receive the average flu shot. But that's another topic in itself.
Just because something has been done and has not failed, doesn't mean it is good design.

paul wheaton

Last night CFL #3 (our of 4), in my experiment, died.   The incandescents and the LEDs are all still going strong.

Incandescents were banned two years ago in australia.  CFLs and incandescents both cost about $1.50 three years ago.  Today CFLs cost about $8. 

Oh wait:  did they forget to tell you that about the ban?  That once they ban the incandescent, that they will start to cut back on all of the subsidies for the CFL.

Maybe next they will ban all powered clothes dryers because clothes lines use less power.

Personally, I like the idea of choose my light bulbs based on which gives off what I think is the highest quality light.   And I don't like the goverment telling me what I am allowed to think is the highest quality light.


paul wheaton

#24
I like the idea of having zero mercury - or as close to zero as I can get.  I like the idea that people other than me can have all the tuna they want, while I eat zero tuna and buy zero CFLs.    I think Darwin had some theories about this.