| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Thomas Paterson
Guest
|
 Posted: Sun Jul 27, 2008 11:20 pm Post subject: New York Times expose on LEDs - penetrating and insightful. |
 |
|
Ouch...
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/28/technology/28led.html
Oh, sorry, no, mindless pap that undermines other technologies without
good arguments.
T. |
|
| |
|
 Back to top |
Boxman
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 28, 2008 3:10 pm Post subject: Re: New York Times expose on LEDs - penetrating and insightf |
|
|
On Jul 27, 6:20 pm, Thomas Paterson <t_p_pater...@hotmail.com> wrote:
[quote]Ouch...
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/28/technology/28led.html
Oh, sorry, no, mindless pap that undermines other technologies without
good arguments.
T.
[/quote]
Yes, undoubtedly the press coverage is lopsided towards LEDs. They
could figuratively be referred to as the Obama>s of the lighting
world. I heard the times refused to publish an article from the
fluorescent guys. Perhaps you could get Fox News to start a media
fairness campaign for balanced coverage in the lighting world. (Just
joking around here)
Some of the traditional technologies are catching on how to fight back
though as evidenced by the PR release for daybrite
http://news.thomasnet.com/fullstory/818840.
They are at least using the language of the LED hypers and putting up
some good numbers to boot. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
RickR
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 28, 2008 6:52 pm Post subject: Re: New York Times expose on LEDs - penetrating and insightf |
|
|
How about a little panic on the other side:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/07/27/eco.flourescent/
+ Garbage trucks spreading mercury gas all over town.
+ Mercury from electrical generators stay at those locations and
doesn>t blow all around the world.
+ The answer is magnetic ballasts?
No wonder the public is confused!
-----------
RickR |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Thomas Paterson
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 28, 2008 8:53 pm Post subject: Re: New York Times expose on LEDs - penetrating and insightf |
|
|
On Jul 28, 1:52 pm, RickR <r...@silhouettelights.com> wrote:
[quote]How about a little panic on the other side:http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/07/27/eco.flourescent/
+ Garbage trucks spreading mercury gas all over town.
+ Mercury from electrical generators stay at those locations and
doesn>t blow all around the world.
+ The answer is magnetic ballasts?
No wonder the public is confused!
-----------
RickR
[/quote]
Wow, more confusion. A better answer is that electronic CFLs are just
fine, if you don>t go for integrated CFLs, in fact, going entirely non-
integrated, requiring installed electronic control gears instead of
allowing cheap luminaires with medium bases would be far more
effective.
That professor>s maths sucks by the way. 10,000 hours is only 1.15
years if the lamps run 24/7. That situation applies to a tiny percent
of all lamps in situations where integrated CFLs might be used. The
vast majority of locations which run 24/7 run more appropriate lamps -
metal halide, linear fluorescent, etcetera.
Also, surely the issue as to whether these are damaging in landfill
has more to do with whether the city offers sensible recycling. In
Hong Kon where he>s based, most people are apartment dwellers. That
means you could mandate a lamp drop in every apartment building and do
a monthly collection.
What bugs me with a lot of these analyses is confusing the present
environment of maintenance with what is targetable in the future.
Also, LEDs shouldn>t get off as clean - sure they don>t contain
mercury, but what pollution do they pump into the environment around
the plants that make them? Certainly computer chip manufacturers have
a history of terrible pollution problems and they aren>t doing
anything much different than LED manufacturers.
Thomas |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
hrlight
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 29, 2008 2:32 pm Post subject: Re: New York Times expose on LEDs - penetrating and insightf |
|
|
On Jul 28, 4:53 pm, Thomas Paterson <t_p_pater...@hotmail.com> wrote:
[quote]On Jul 28, 1:52 pm, RickR <r...@silhouettelights.com> wrote:
How about a little panic on the other side:http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/07/27/eco.flourescent/
+ Garbage trucks spreading mercury gas all over town.
+ Mercury from electrical generators stay at those locations and
doesn>t blow all around the world.
+ The answer is magnetic ballasts?
No wonder the public is confused!
-----------
RickR
Wow, more confusion. A better answer is that electronic CFLs are just
fine, if you don>t go for integrated CFLs, in fact, going entirely non-
integrated, requiring installed electronic control gears instead of
allowing cheap luminaires with medium bases would be far more
effective.
That professor>s maths sucks by the way. 10,000 hours is only 1.15
years if the lamps run 24/7. That situation applies to a tiny percent
of all lamps in situations where integrated CFLs might be used. The
vast majority of locations which run 24/7 run more appropriate lamps -
metal halide, linear fluorescent, etcetera.
Also, surely the issue as to whether these are damaging in landfill
has more to do with whether the city offers sensible recycling. In
Hong Kon where he>s based, most people are apartment dwellers. That
means you could mandate a lamp drop in every apartment building and do
a monthly collection.
What bugs me with a lot of these analyses is confusing the present
environment of maintenance with what is targetable in the future.
Also, LEDs shouldn>t get off as clean - sure they don>t contain
mercury, but what pollution do they pump into the environment around
the plants that make them? Certainly computer chip manufacturers have
a history of terrible pollution problems and they aren>t doing
anything much different than LED manufacturers.
Thomas
[/quote]
Fluorescents, CFL included, have TCLP standards.
(http://www.ehso.com/cssepa/TCLP.htm)
Does anyone know if LED technology has the same standards when
processing silicone for use with LEDs?
HR |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
RickR
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 29, 2008 5:45 pm Post subject: Re: New York Times expose on LEDs - penetrating and insightf |
|
|
On Jul 29, 7:32 am, hrlight <hrli...@gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]On Jul 28, 4:53 pm, Thomas Paterson <t_p_pater...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Jul 28, 1:52 pm, RickR <r...@silhouettelights.com> wrote:
How about a little panic on the other side:http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/07/27/eco.flourescent/
+ Garbage trucks spreading mercury gas all over town.
+ Mercury from electrical generators stay at those locations and
doesn>t blow all around the world.
+ The answer is magnetic ballasts?
No wonder the public is confused!
-----------
RickR
Wow, more confusion. A better answer is that electronic CFLs are just
fine, if you don>t go for integrated CFLs, in fact, going entirely non-
integrated, requiring installed electronic control gears instead of
allowing cheap luminaires with medium bases would be far more
effective.
That professor>s maths sucks by the way. 10,000 hours is only 1.15
years if the lamps run 24/7. That situation applies to a tiny percent
of all lamps in situations where integrated CFLs might be used. The
vast majority of locations which run 24/7 run more appropriate lamps -
metal halide, linear fluorescent, etcetera.
Also, surely the issue as to whether these are damaging in landfill
has more to do with whether the city offers sensible recycling. In
Hong Kon where he>s based, most people are apartment dwellers. That
means you could mandate a lamp drop in every apartment building and do
a monthly collection.
What bugs me with a lot of these analyses is confusing the present
environment of maintenance with what is targetable in the future.
Also, LEDs shouldn>t get off as clean - sure they don>t contain
mercury, but what pollution do they pump into the environment around
the plants that make them? Certainly computer chip manufacturers have
a history of terrible pollution problems and they aren>t doing
anything much different than LED manufacturers.
Thomas
Fluorescents, CFL included, have TCLP standards.
(http://www.ehso.com/cssepa/TCLP.htm)
Does anyone know if LED technology has the same standards when
processing silicone for use with LEDs?
HR- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
[/quote]
The polution/energy issues durring manufacturer of any product is a
radically different from it>s disposal. I suspect manufacture of
integrated CFLs is not waste/toxin free.
TCLP (USA only) is one method of predicting toxin leakage in land
fills. There are many standards and methods for determining the safety
of items to be "general waste". My city has an incinerator so the
whole issue is radically different.
-------------
Rickr |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Victor Roberts
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 30, 2008 6:53 pm Post subject: Re: New York Times expose on LEDs - penetrating and insightf |
|
|
On Mon, 28 Jul 2008 08:10:28 -0700 (PDT), Boxman
<boxman@voyager.net> wrote:
[quote]On Jul 27, 6:20 pm, Thomas Paterson <t_p_pater...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Ouch...
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/28/technology/28led.html
Oh, sorry, no, mindless pap that undermines other technologies without
good arguments.
T.
Yes, undoubtedly the press coverage is lopsided towards LEDs. They
could figuratively be referred to as the Obama>s of the lighting
world. I heard the times refused to publish an article from the
fluorescent guys. Perhaps you could get Fox News to start a media
fairness campaign for balanced coverage in the lighting world. (Just
joking around here)
Some of the traditional technologies are catching on how to fight back
though as evidenced by the PR release for daybrite
http://news.thomasnet.com/fullstory/818840.
They are at least using the language of the LED hypers and putting up
some good numbers to boot.
[/quote]
Thanks for the DayBright story link. I just did a linear
fluorescent luminaire calculation for a client and predicted
they could get 85.6 lm/W luminaire efficacy with very good
lamps, ballasts and (non0DayBright) luminaires. It>s nice
to see that DayBright beats my estimate.
--
Vic Roberts
http://www.RobertsResearchInc.com
To reply via e-mail:
replace xxx with vdr in the Reply to: address
or use e-mail address listed at the Web site.
This information is provided for educational purposes only.
It may not be used in any publication or posted on any Web
site without written permission. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Victor Roberts
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 30, 2008 6:56 pm Post subject: Re: New York Times expose on LEDs - penetrating and insightf |
|
|
On Mon, 28 Jul 2008 11:52:05 -0700 (PDT), RickR
<rick@silhouettelights.com> wrote:
[quote]How about a little panic on the other side:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/07/27/eco.flourescent/
+ Garbage trucks spreading mercury gas all over town.
+ Mercury from electrical generators stay at those locations and
doesn>t blow all around the world.
+ The answer is magnetic ballasts?
No wonder the public is confused!
-----------
RickR
[/quote]
And they still miss the basic point that you can>t
extrapolate the fact that LEDs are the best way to generate
colored light (usually made by color-filtering white light)
to the incorrect assumption that they are THEREFORE the most
efficient way to generate white light.
--
Vic Roberts
http://www.RobertsResearchInc.com
To reply via e-mail:
replace xxx with vdr in the Reply to: address
or use e-mail address listed at the Web site.
This information is provided for educational purposes only.
It may not be used in any publication or posted on any Web
site without written permission. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
|
