Broken energy saver globe and the foot

Sceadwian said:

BrownOut, you might want to do some basic research before you post.
They were commercially used in the photography industry as early as the 1890's....
It can be solidly dated from the patent.

Click to expand...

Well, you've reached a new level of absurdity. You might want to read a reference before you post it:

The parent to the modern fluorescent lamp was invented in the late 1890s by Peter Cooper Hewitt.[4] The Cooper Hewitt lamps were used for photographic studios and industries.

Click to expand...

It mentions NOTHING about CFL's. As I've pointed out already, being flourescent doesn't make it a CFL.

And I always do my basic research before I post. You should know that by now considering all the times you've failed to prove me wrong.

There is no definition of CFL aside from the non tubular shape, which makes them compact..

Click to expand...

That's baloney. You don't make the definitions.

The most important technical advance has been the replacement of electromagnetic ballasts with electronic ballasts; this has removed most of the flickering and slow starting traditionally associated with fluorescent lighting.

Click to expand...

Also this:

Development of fluorescent lamps that could fit in the same volume as comparable incandescent lamps required the development of new, high-efficacy phosphors that could withstand more power per unit area than the phosphors used in older, larger fluorescent tubes.

Click to expand...

So the thing that must be present if a CFL is high-effeciency phosphors. They weren't present in the old fashoned tube fixtures, meaning the chemestry is very different. If you read your refereces more carefully, you would be better off.
Even if you were right, this comes from your own reference:

The helical (three-dimensional spiral) CFL was invented in 1976 by Edward Hammer, an engineer with General Electric,[5] in response to the 1973 oil crisis. Although the design met its goals, and it would have cost GE about US$25-million to build new factories to produce the lamps, the invention was shelved.[6] The design eventually was copied by others.[6] In 1995, helical lamps, manufactured in China, became commercially available;[7] their sales have steadily increased.

Click to expand...

So the modern CFL became commercially available in the 1990's, just as I claimed. You've yet to prove any claim I've made to be worng. But thanks for proving me right again

We humans have been playing with mercury far longer than since the age of electric light and have known of its ill effects about as long too!

https://www.dartmouth.edu/~toxmetal/toxic-metals/mercury/mercury-history.html

CFL's are not the only source of mercury in lighting. All of the common arc based HID lamps use it as well. Mercury vapor yard lights obviously have it as the primary metal in their tubes, metal halide does as well and so do many others we use every day.

Looks a little bit like a Brown recluse spider bite.

Anyways...I found the original link interesting. I have learn't a lot from you guys.

Mercury cannot be that bad after all.....heck it was used in our mouths at one stage with fillings....

I don't know anymore. So I will sit and listen to all advise and comments.

Cheers,
TV Tech

Mikebits said:

Looks a little bit like a Brown recluse spider bite.

Click to expand...

Jesus - if so it's a serious spider!.

AG, the 4mg reference was from an EPA average of commercial CFLs and not that long ago...

Sorry BrownOut I'm not going to get into a drawn out syntactical and pointless argument about the specific definition of what defines a CFL as there is no point. The point I would like to make is that there is mercury in these devices, it must be managed properly, to say the amount is trivial for a single bulb is as irresponsible as the individual that originally posted this foot crap (not the originator of this thread but the one that started the rumor with those images)

The scares of the foot images can't be understated enough, just as the dangers of increased use of mercury bearing devices can't under overstated enough if we look at this with anything less than a purely critical eye to determine what the best course of actions to decrease energy use while maintaining if not improving environmental/health concerns are in the process. Virtually every post in this thread including many of my own are lacking the grand view .

To say that the amount of mercury in even the smallest CFL bulb is 'inconsequential' is forgetting the increasing number of government mandates which require devices that exhibit at least a CFL's efficiency, they're the easy way out right now from common incandescent at least, there are incandescent's which reach cheap CFL standards.


Keep in mind, even the most (in)efficient bulb produces heat, a lot of more northern(southern) areas of the world this 'energy efficiency' increase can never actually be realized. Just to give you an example probably no one where has thought of, if you are at ANY location on earth where the average temperature is bellow about 40 degree's, the only thing using more energy efficient light sources can possible do is increase the load on the dedicated heating system during the winter, and in the peak summer months waste is minimal because light is maximal at these times, there are summer months and winter months, but in the winter of any locality that is bellow 72, the heating effect of the 'waste' of incandescent bulbs is actually supplemental heat. So the bulk benefit is not so easy to calculate.

Another thing to remember about mercury is that the concentration in air is diffusion controlled (i.e., vapor pressure does not contain a mass term). A small pool (say 0.25 uL) will produce approximately the same concentration in the surrounding air as a larger puddle, until of course, the small pool is completely evaporated.

John

Schedwian said:

The point I would like to make is that there is mercury in these devices, it must be managed properly, to say the amount is trivial for a single bulb is as irresponsible as the individual that originally posted this foot crap

Click to expand...

To overstate the hazzard is even more irresponsible. My information comes from the EPA, and not just some guess as yours is. And I never said that is doesn't need to be managed properly. In fact, I wrote how the EPA suggests breakages should be managed. So in the future, please read and understand my posts before responding, and try to respond to what I write; not what you imagine I write.

To say that the amount of mercury in even the smallest CFL bulb is 'inconsequential' is forgetting the increasing number of government mandates which require devices that exhibit at least a CFL's efficiency, they're the easy way out right now from common incandescent at least, there are incandescent's which reach cheap CFL standards.

Click to expand...

That's off-topic, and irrelevant. The miniscule amount of mercury in a CFL is not affected by the effeciency mandates, and no incadescnet can approach the effeciency of a CFL.

ANY location on earth where the average temperature is bellow about 40 degree's, the only thing using more energy efficient light sources can possible do is increase the load on the dedicated heating system during the winter

Click to expand...

Dedicated heating systems are most often more efficient at heating domestic spaces than light bulbs.

and in the peak summer months waste is minimal because light is maximal at these times

Click to expand...

I see many lights on during the summer time.

Bottom line is more efficient light doesn't add unnessary heat or waste energy unnessarily. Course all of this is off topic, but what the hell. If members aren't required to stay on topic, then I guess we can all jump in.

Modern high energy discharge bulbs surpass common CFLs Brownout.

Some do some don't. But why are you telling me this?

If you are wondering where typical lamps of different design fit in against each other this link gives a fair lumen's per watt and color index rating comparison chart.

CFL's don't rank anywhere near the most efficient or best natural color!

https://www.electro-tech-online.com/custompdfs/2011/10/Lighting.pdf

If your wondering about which one doe the most damage when stepped on that probably varies from one to the next as well.

(Personally I wouldn't want to step on a 1000 watt metal halide arc tube myself. Especially when its lit up!)

Nigel Goodwin said:

Jesus - if so it's a serious spider!.

Click to expand...

Yeah the spider leaves a nasty wound.

https://www.emedicinehealth.com/spider_bite_brown_recluse_spider_bite/page11_em.htm#Multimedia

Mikebits said:

Yeah the spider leaves a nasty wound.

https://www.emedicinehealth.com/spider_bite_brown_recluse_spider_bite/page11_em.htm#Multimedia

Click to expand...

I really wished you hadn't posted that - or at least that I hadn't looked

Makes you glad to live in the UK, so such nasties - we have one mildly poisonous snake (the adder), which is rare anyway - and that's about it for nasties.

Nigel Goodwin said:

I really wished you hadn't posted that - or at least that I hadn't looked

Makes you glad to live in the UK, so such nasties - we have one mildly poisonous snake (the adder), which is rare anyway - and that's about it for nasties.

Click to expand...

Wow Nigel that is so cool that you guys have a snake that can do math.

Ron

Reloadron said:

Wow Nigel that is so cool that you guys have a snake that can do math.

Click to expand...

We're a multi-talented country!

It's also called a 'viper'.

Sheesh you guys would have a heart attack just walking on my farm, the other day I walked in my shed and saw the tail end of a brown snake go under some gear I have stored. I reckon it was just in there to catch some small birds that roost in my shed. This has happened a few times over the years so I cut a small hole in the side of the shed so if the snake wants a feed it can have one. Also one has to be careful when picking things up as the red backed spiders are everywhere here. One thing about most snakes they see you before you see them and unless you corner them they will leave you alone. Not with very young snakes, they do say the young ones pack more of a punch with the venom and on site they will try and go you. This is where a spade and full clothing come in handy, sofar this season I have killed two young brown snakes as they were being aggressive.

Oh for the context of this thread just look at the web address and it says it all........

I thought snakes didn't see well. When I'm on my friend's farm, there are lots of copperheads ( N. American poisionous ) They lie around in the shade. Once we were taking down an old barn and a huge one was lying under a wide board I lifted. I left him alone and tried to remember he was there. He didn't move the rest of the day.

The way I understand it, the small snakes don't know how to control their venom, so when they bite, you get all that they have.

this thread made me think of a joblot of components i got recently, in the bottom of the box was 14 mercury wetted relays! if you shake them you can hear and feel the mercury slosh about , all i got to do now is figure out what on earth i am gonna do with them

1) Use them for their intended purpose. They don't bite like an adder.
2) Use them as packing material when you ship something.

John

actualy i was thinking of selling them on, cant find much info but judgeing by what they seem to cost there is a fair bit of money in them, then again who wants a mercury wetted relay???? i have no idea what they are used for, or more to the point who they are used by. no luck in finding a datasheet for them. anyway this is way off topic
more on topic we also have scorpions in the uk so i guess its not just the adder thats poisonouis