Other ligthing sources

Okay, this is a bit OT as it's really an energy savings article.

An odd hero has come to light in the form of Wal*Merde.

They're pushing compact flourescent lights real hard as CF sales are not
doing well in the US. Yet the energy impact of this form of lighting is
not only 4X less energy for a given amount of light, but longer lasting
and a certain payback even in the areas with the cheapest power rates.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/...websubBULB.gif

The one bit that irks me is the implied lower total mercury emissions of
CF v. incadescent. If your power source is hydro, then incandescent
will be lower in mercury emissions (damn near 0). If your power source
is coal, then the mercury output will be higher.

For photo use: B&W, less power, no change in the image.
Color film: greenish hue (use magenta filter)

Cheers,
Alan
--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.

Alan Browne wrote:
Okay, this is a bit OT as it's really an energy savings article.

An odd hero has come to light in the form of Wal*Merde.

They're pushing compact flourescent lights real hard as CF sales are not
doing well in the US. Yet the energy impact of this form of lighting is
not only 4X less energy for a given amount of light, but longer lasting
and a certain payback even in the areas with the cheapest power rates.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/...websubBULB.gif


The one bit that irks me is the implied lower total mercury emissions of
CF v. incadescent. If your power source is hydro, then incandescent
will be lower in mercury emissions (damn near 0). If your power source
is coal, then the mercury output will be higher.

For photo use: B&W, less power, no change in the image.
Color film: greenish hue (use magenta filter)

Cheers,
Alan
They also run cooler than tungsten, which can be a plus. At least here
in Australia we can also get daylight balanced compact fluoros, which
can be worth looking at. We use those in our kitchen area as we need a
lot of light there and I prefer the color for food prep.

--
Wayne J. Cosshall
Publisher, The Digital ImageMaker, http://www.dimagemaker.com/
Blog http://www.digitalimagemakerworld.com/

Wayne J. Cosshall wrote:


They also run cooler than tungsten, which can be a plus. At least here
in Australia we can also get daylight balanced compact fluoros, which
can be worth looking at. We use those in our kitchen area as we need a
lot of light there and I prefer the color for food prep.


I've seen studio lighting in a magazine using tri-phosphor (daylight) CF
lamps. Although I started fitting them (standard CF lamps) in various
fittings in the house I've gone back to traditional incandescent lamps in
the less frequently used rooms like the bedroom. I find that the CF lamps
lasted nowhere near as long as advertised, no longer than tungsten in
practice, but were a lot dearer. A work colleague suggested that they
don't like being turned on and off.

That said prices are a lot cheaper now and I've not had a bulb, of either
type, fail in a while. Another improvement is that some are now smaller
and can fit within the space envelope of traditional GS lamps.

Pete

--
http://www.petezilla.co.uk

"Wayne J. Cosshall" wrote

They also run cooler than tungsten, which can be a plus.

A very big plus if one is running an air-conditioner.
A 100Watt bulb generates 100W of -heat- that must be
then be removed by spending 50W* of air-conditioning
power.

*Number varies, number pulled from thin air, but in
ballpark.
--
Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio
Darkroom Automation: F-Stop Timers, Enlarging Meters
http://www.nolindan.com/da/index.htm
n o lindan at ix dot netcom dot com

Alan Browne wrote:
Okay, this is a bit OT as it's really an energy savings article.

An odd hero has come to light in the form of Wal*Merde.

They're pushing compact flourescent lights real hard as CF sales are not
doing well in the US. Yet the energy impact of this form of lighting is
not only 4X less energy for a given amount of light, but longer lasting
and a certain payback even in the areas with the cheapest power rates.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/...websubBULB.gif


The one bit that irks me is the implied lower total mercury emissions of
CF v. incadescent. If your power source is hydro, then incandescent
will be lower in mercury emissions (damn near 0). If your power source
is coal, then the mercury output will be higher.


Unless you drop the damn bulb. Then you're going to have to vacuum
mercury emissions up from your carpet.

One thing. The 100w "equivalent" just doesn't seem as bright as a 100w
incandescent bulb. The one that is bright enough requires a special
adapter to fit the harp & put a lamp shade on it.

There are several vendors who are offering these in a multi tube
configuration

Alan Browne wrote:
Okay, this is a bit OT as it's really an energy savings article.

An odd hero has come to light in the form of Wal*Merde.

They're pushing compact flourescent lights real hard as CF sales are
not doing well in the US. Yet the energy impact of this form of
lighting is not only 4X less energy for a given amount of light, but
longer lasting and a certain payback even in the areas with the
cheapest power rates.
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/...websubBULB.gif

The one bit that irks me is the implied lower total mercury
emissions
of CF v. incadescent. If your power source is hydro, then
incandescent will be lower in mercury emissions (damn near 0). If
your power source is coal, then the mercury output will be higher.

For photo use: B&W, less power, no change in the image.
Color film: greenish hue (use magenta filter)


Last year Mr Costco sold a big card with half a dozen Compact
Fluorescent "bulbs" of various sizes for something like $2.59 US. I
couldn't believe it. Seems as if Mr Power Supplier SDG&E subsidized
them. I bought one or two sets every trip for a couple months. The
indoor lamp uses have lasted a long time. The outdoor (porch lamps)
seem to last longer than comparable incandescents, but not as long as
the indoor ones. Any road, even after giving away a few cards, I won't
be buying bulbs for a while.

--
Frank ess

On Tue, 02 Jan 2007 15:17:35 -0500, Alan Browne
wrote:

They're pushing compact flourescent lights real hard as CF sales are not
doing well in the US. Yet the energy impact of this form of lighting is
not only 4X less energy for a given amount of light, but longer lasting
and a certain payback even in the areas with the cheapest power rates.

I'm using CF's in several places in my home, including a supposedly
color balanced set in track lighting over my desk. I don't know if
I got substandard bulbs, but the color balance is not what I had hoped.
The other disadvantage is that the bulbs take a while to get up to full
strength, which means that you don't want to use them in stairwells or
other places where the lights aren't on for an extended period of time.

For photographic lights, I own an Sunpak FP38 panel flash, which
typically use as a "kicker" light. The light color is quite nice -- too
bad the switch gear and build quality isn't up to the panel itself. I
did try one of the larger Digitflash units, but those don't lend
themselves well to modifiers and aren't quite "soft" enough on their
own.

Another time, an event organizer asked to borrow my monolights, but
didn't realize they weren't a continuous source. So I ended up having
to rent a set of Bowens Trilites in a hurry. For a small setup these
would work out pretty well, but once again the output is on the low
side. The manufacturer claimed they were the equivalent of a 275 watt
hot light; I think that's a bit generous.

A technology I'm watching is LED light bulbs. Currently, they don't
produce quite enough light, but in another 5 years I expect that they
will gain some significant market share.

--
Michael Benveniste --
Spam and UCE professionally evaluated for $419. Use this email
address only to submit mail for evaluation.

"Alan Browne" wrote in message
...
Okay, this is a bit OT as it's really an energy savings article.

An odd hero has come to light in the form of Wal*Merde.

They're pushing compact flourescent lights real hard as CF sales are not
doing well in the US. Yet the energy impact of this form of lighting is
not only 4X less energy for a given amount of light, but longer lasting
and a certain payback even in the areas with the cheapest power rates.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/...websubBULB.gif

The one bit that irks me is the implied lower total mercury emissions of
CF v. incadescent. If your power source is hydro, then incandescent will
be lower in mercury emissions (damn near 0). If your power source is
coal, then the mercury output will be higher.

For photo use: B&W, less power, no change in the image.
Color film: greenish hue (use magenta filter)

Cheers,
Alan

These lights are great....Last year, I replaced all the lights in my kitchen
ceiling with 18 of them, that draw only 13 watts of electricity each. After
about a year, I have only had to replace two. (which only takes a few
seconds, since they screw in just like standard 60 watt light bulbs, and
they put out about as much light. I buy them by the case from the internet,
and they only cost about $1.20 (US) each....For the 8 years before that, I
had 8 foot fluorescents in that ceiling, and what a pain in the ass that
was! I actually had to disassemble the hanging ceiling every year in order
to change those 8 foot monsters out, and getting them from the hardware
store into my garage was something else again! As to their environmental
impact, I still have the two dead ones in their original boxes....I could
hold them for X years until they build a factory to recycle them, if I had
to...They take up very little space. And besides, the old 8 footers were a
royal pain in the ass to get rid of too.....They contain mercury also, and
there was no way I could safely store all those from year to year......

"Frank ess" wrote in message
...
Alan Browne wrote:
Okay, this is a bit OT as it's really an energy savings article.

An odd hero has come to light in the form of Wal*Merde.

They're pushing compact flourescent lights real hard as CF sales are
not doing well in the US. Yet the energy impact of this form of
lighting is not only 4X less energy for a given amount of light, but
longer lasting and a certain payback even in the areas with the
cheapest power rates.
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/...websubBULB.gif

The one bit that irks me is the implied lower total mercury emissions
of CF v. incadescent. If your power source is hydro, then
incandescent will be lower in mercury emissions (damn near 0). If
your power source is coal, then the mercury output will be higher.

For photo use: B&W, less power, no change in the image.
Color film: greenish hue (use magenta filter)

You can get them in 5000 Kelvin color temperature versions, but they are a
dollar or two more per bulb....I used the 2700 K ones in my kitchen ceiling,
but I built a light box for viewing my slides that uses 8 of the 5000K
bulbs......You wouldn't believe how bright it is, as well as cool
running.....

Alan Browne wrote:
Okay, this is a bit OT as it's really an energy savings article.

An odd hero has come to light in the form of Wal*Merde.

They're pushing compact flourescent lights real hard as CF sales are not
doing well in the US. Yet the energy impact of this form of lighting is
not only 4X less energy for a given amount of light, but longer lasting
and a certain payback even in the areas with the cheapest power rates.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/...websubBULB.gif


The one bit that irks me is the implied lower total mercury emissions of
CF v. incadescent. If your power source is hydro, then incandescent
will be lower in mercury emissions (damn near 0). If your power source
is coal, then the mercury output will be higher.

For photo use: B&W, less power, no change in the image.
Color film: greenish hue (use magenta filter)

Cheers,
Alan

The source of power has zero relationship to the mercury output of any
type of lighting device. The incandescent light still uses more power,
no matter how it was generated. The difference in heat generated should
be enough to merit getting the CF bulbs. I have replaced most of the
bulbs that are used most often by the CF bulbs. My only complaint about
them is that they are quite slow to reach full brightness, but I can
live with it. Now I need a good 'three-way' version that doesn't cost
an arm and a leg.
I am also changing most of my night-lights from 7 watt incandescent to
..8 watt LEDs. More light, and VERY long life.