LED bulbs hit 100 watts as federal ban looms - The Associated Press

[LEDAdd1ct]

I personally don't think it's worth doing this however until LED efficiency maxes out. No point designing a super long life fixture if it'll make economic sense to replace it with a more efficient one in ten or twenty years. By 2025 I'd say LEDs will probably be as efficient as they're going to get. That's when we aim for lifetimes measured in the millions of hours. We'll certainly know how to do this by then.

I absolutely agree with this. I think for major installations in cities and other "permanent" locales, we should wait until the LEDs get to an efficiency ceiling, and price hits bottom. I don't think waiting forever is the answer, but we are still getting there.

[jtr1962]

I absolutely agree with this. I think for major installations in cities and other "permanent" locales, we should wait until the LEDs get to an efficiency ceiling, and price hits bottom. I don't think waiting forever is the answer, but we are still getting there.

Yes, and it makes sense on other levels. I've noticed that most commercial places generally revamp their lighting at 20-25 year intervals. A lot of local stores for example converted to T8s 5 to 10 years ago. Those installations still have probably another 10-15 years of economic life left. That will match up nicely to when LED efficiency will likely more or less max out. Same with streetlights. A lot of HPS was installed in the 1970s, with a design life of maybe 50 years. It makes more sense to wait a few more years, and then replace it with more efficient fixtures. That will more than pay for the few additional years of running less efficient HPS fixtures.

My bets then are early 2020s for when solid-state lighting pretty much starts replacing everything else. By then LEDs equivalent to or better than Cree's recent 231 lm/W lab result should be in full production.

[deadrx7conv]

http://sevengens.com/sitebuildercont...tion022211.pdf

[Anders Hoveland]

I would like to see an induction low-wattage sulfur plasma lamp that could fit into screw-in light sockets, if it is even possible.
Sulfur lamps have spectrums that most closesly approximate natural light.

[fyrstormer]

But Anders, you'll never get people to agree to use electromagnets to light their homes. People get creeped out just by the idea of "EM radiation" from fluorescent fixtures.

[kaichu dento]

But Anders, you'll never get people to agree to use electromagnets to light their homes. People get creeped out just by the idea of "EM radiation" from fluorescent fixtures.

I'd use one, or more than one, if they were affordable and readily available. Especially if we could get your seal of approval on them!

[blasterman]

Same here. We use magnetic ballasts all over the place with fluorescents and HID, so what's a few more stray photons coming from an RF coil that's likely better shielded. It's the microwave ovens that scare me.

I bet you could shrink a plasma / sulfur lamp fixture to 'A' size, but probably limited by commercial need to develop it.

[SemiMan]

I would like to see an induction low-wattage sulfur plasma lamp that could fit into screw-in light sockets, if it is even possible.
Sulfur lamps have spectrums that most closesly approximate natural light.

In another thread you are complaining about not being able to "relax" around LED lights, I would assume due to higher blue content, but then you want a super wide spectrum plasma lamp instead...... Good luck "relaxing" with that in the room if you have issues with LED or even fluorescent.

Semiman

[Anders Hoveland]

And, a 15w induction bulb would be an option too for those that don't want CFL.

It might last longer, but it is basically the same thing, and puts out the exact same type of light.
These induction bulbs are fluorescent, both contain mercury vapor and the same types of phosphor.

Also to mention, while I find the idea of induction bulbs to be very "cool", I question the practicality of of induction CFL's. The phosphor will begin to wear out before the electrodes in a normal CFL do. It does not seem to make sense to throw out the whole induction system just because the phosphor has degraded to the point were the induction CFL has reached the end of its rated life. But on the other hand, it seems to be a common occurrence for these CFL's to actually burn out (despite what the manufacturers claim), and while this is often due to crappy quality electronics in the ballast, the worn out electrodes may possibly be the cause in some instances.

I really hate flourescent light, but if there was a compact induction technology for some other type of bulb (that did not contain mercury), I would definitely buy one, just for the novelty of it. That is really the reason I suggested a compact induction sulfur lamp.

[fyrstormer]

My understanding is, whereas fluorescent bulbs blast electrons through the tube to produce a charged plasma that excites the phosphor layer, induction bulbs use electromagnets to move the electrons *already in* the tube at high speed to produce a charged plasma that excites the phosphor layer. So yes, it has the same effect. Induction bulbs just don't have filaments to wear out.

If I were the sort of person who cared about stray EM radiation's effect on my body, I would prefer LEDs because they emit neither UV nor strong radio waves. (I don't care about its effect on my body, because I actually *understand* science, though I'd rather not have the radio waves interfering with my electronics, so my decision is the same.)

[Anders Hoveland]

I absolutely agree with this. I think for major installations in cities and other "permanent" locales, we should wait until the LEDs get to an efficiency ceiling, and price hits bottom.

That is the problem - the government policy. They should have funded research to develop an optimal LED bulb first, before they started the phase out. LED bulbs will likely just not be entirely ready to replace light bulbs. And the only other alternative, CFL bulbs, will simply not be acceptable to a good portion of the population. No wonder so many people are stockpiling.

In another thread you are complaining about not being able to "relax" around LED lights, I would assume due to higher blue content, but then you want a super wide spectrum plasma lamp instead...... Good luck "relaxing" with that in the room if you have issues with LED or even fluorescent.

It has nothing to do with the color temperature. The higher ratio of blue light would probably not be a problem if the light was more full spectrum. The fact that the blue frequency peak is isolated from the curve of the rest of the light output frequencies may be one of the problems making it more difficult for my eyes to focus.

As for the UV, that may still be a concern, though I have read that less than 1% of the spectrum output from sulfur lamps are UV, and that is straight from the fused silica globe, without any shielding (regular glass shields out much of the UV light produced inside flourescent tubes).

It's the microwave ovens that scare me.

Me too. That's why I am wondering if there is some way to use an induction coil instead for a sulfur lamp.

[SemiMan]

That is the problem - the government policy. They should have funded research to develop an optimal LED bulb first, before they started the phase out. LED bulbs will likely just not be entirely ready to replace light bulbs. And the only other alternative, CFL bulbs, will simply not be acceptable to a good portion of the population. No wonder so many people are stockpiling.


It has nothing to do with the color temperature. The higher ratio of blue light would probably not be a problem if the light was more full spectrum. The fact that the blue frequency peak is isolated from the curve of the rest of the light output frequencies may be one of the problems making it more difficult for my eyes to focus.

As for the UV, that may still be a concern, though I have read that less than 1% of the spectrum output from sulfur lamps are UV, and that is straight from the fused silica globe, without any shielding (regular glass shields out much of the UV light produced inside flourescent tubes).


Me too. That's why I am wondering if there is some way to use an induction coil instead for a sulfur lamp.

That's not a review ... that was just mainly spewing what the manufacturer told them. It's also over 18 months old which in the LED world is forever. I can't really see any inherent technology advantage of quality of light advantage either.

Semiman

[degarb]

I would like to see an induction low-wattage sulfur plasma lamp that could fit into screw-in light sockets, if it is even possible.
Sulfur lamps have spectrums that most closesly approximate natural light.

Is this possible? Low wattage?

I would be happy with an affordable 600 watt Plasma work light. (I just paid $130 for a 36,000 lumen non directional Metal Halide.) Something small, something bright, say, >40,000 lumens, something directional... Halogens just don't cut it, when you measure lux inside with them on, then measure shady outdoor lux - 700 to 7000 outdoor in shade v. 200 lux average per 500 watt halogen.

[SemiMan]

SemiMan no matter how correct you think your information is, there are far better ways of expressing it without attacking others.

Feel free to repost without the vitriol.

Norm

[Anders Hoveland]

I have no faith in the culture of corporations and their lobbyists as well as the politicians in their pockets to do the right thing when it comes to sustainability, consumer health and well being and a clean environment unless they are absolutely forced to.

One day there will be no choice, they will have to, but until then I expect we will see more clown show spectacles like the recent hearings in Congress where we watched the CEOs of the major oil companies, who arrived in their private jets and limousines state publicly with straight faces why their corporations require enormous subsidies and tax breaks.

It's not just the oil companies. Many of the CFL producing bulb companies are no better:
http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/...entives-urged/

The market has been saturated. Many consumers have tried the CFL bulbs and just decided that they just do not like them, or that they burn out much faster and do not actually save money. So this CEO's idea of a solution was even more subsidies from the government and utility companies.

http://blogs.babycenter.com/mom_stor...es-me-see-red/
http://www.choosingvoluntarysimplici...rescent-bulbs/

That "two dollar" spiral bulb is not so cheap after all when you count the increase in taxes you will have to pay and the higher electric rates the utility has to be charging to subsidise these bulbs in the stores.

And then there's the power factor issues. One study from New Zealand estimated that it costs the utility company 4 dollars to correct the power factor distortion in the transmission lines for each CFL bulb. Again, the consumer is going to be paying for this in the form of higher electric rates.
http://ecmweb.com/lighting-amp-contr...den-costs-cfls

[SemiMan]

SemiMan no matter how correct you think your information is, there are far better ways of expressing it without attacking others.

Feel free to repost without the vitriol.

Norm

Norm,

Perhaps you should consider the quality of the board and the impact of trolling shills like Anders instead .... who annoys many people on this board with repeated posts of wrong information. Where is the CPF hammer for that?

[SemiMan]

It's not just the oil companies. Many of the CFL producing bulb companies are no better:
http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/...entives-urged/

The market has been saturated. Many consumers have tried the CFL bulbs and just decided that they just do not like them, or that they burn out much faster and do not actually save money. So this CEO's idea of a solution was even more subsidies from the government and utility companies.

http://blogs.babycenter.com/mom_stor...es-me-see-red/
http://www.choosingvoluntarysimplici...rescent-bulbs/

That "two dollar" spiral bulb is not so cheap after all when you count the increase in taxes you will have to pay and the higher electric rates the utility has to be charging to subsidise these bulbs in the stores.

And then there's the power factor issues. One study from New Zealand estimated that it costs the utility company 4 dollars to correct the power factor distortion in the transmission lines for each CFL bulb. Again, the consumer is going to be paying for this in the form of higher electric rates.
http://ecmweb.com/lighting-amp-contr...den-costs-cfls

Ander's .... it would be good if you understood what you read and then reposted it accurately ..... They said $4 million per million installed bulbs. That is one study and that is also a one time fee, not a per bulb fee, so over time it would be much less. Of course, the cost of the energy saved is 5-10 times as much as $4 for every bulb but who is counting. Ther were also many experts quoted in that same link who said it is not even an issue worth considering as there is so much PF correction already residentially for other types of loads.

I am not sure what the point of the other links to non expert based blogs with follow on posts by people like yourself who may believe much of what they are told. At the same time, why not post a link to something that scientifically looks at how much mercury is actually released into the environment from a broken CFL. Even I was surprised at how low it was.

Then your post to the NY times "BLOG" .. not editor reviewed article, but blog. For one, it is from 2009, for two, there is nothing in that article about bulb companies pushing incentives, it is more the governments who are. While there are still CFL subsidies, these are way down from their peak and the goal of these was to reduce capital expenditures on very expensive generating stations and transmission capacity. The cost of those needs to be considered in any argument.

[kaichu dento]

So any expert with an opinon opposed to yours is immediately trumped when you can find one that agrees with what you've already preferred to be true?

You have somewhat the air of someone who also believes what they're told. Why is one opinion 'right' and the other 'wrong', especially to the point of ridiculing others for believing something you don't? If you have valid points, they stand without hyperbole; but when a person opines in a harsh manner, it makes one wonder if it's the only thing they have to support their professed beliefs.

Most of the views presented here have the worth of being read, but none of them need be presented in a way that tries to crush all opposition.

Science has always been a thing that the unscrupulous have attempted to skew in the direction they support, but like justice, should always be found without a view to agendas of any sort.
We used to hear, and not all that long ago, how margarine was the better choice than butter, if one must eat grease, only to find out that too much of that ideal was presented by people with 'a little knowledge', which as we all know 'is a dangerous thing. Decisions about what to believe should never be made with too much personal interest invested, lest one become voluntarily blindered.

CFL's were pushed on us by people who had little understanding of what they were foisting on others, and all due to sentimentality for personal agendas that make people feel good. Now that CFL's are being argued to be not the superior product that we were sold, along with our bill of goods, but many blind supporters want to shut down any dissent among the non-believers.

Whether I buy CFL's, which I do, or not, as many of my friends choose not to, is our choice and not the governments. Any government that can find justification for legislating on choices that don't belong to them, is a government interested in the concept of a dictatorship, and should be opposed on such issues.

Keep the government out of personal choices.

Ander's .... it would be good if you understood what you read and then reposted it accurately ..... They said $4 million per million installed bulbs. That is one study and that is also a one time fee, not a per bulb fee, so over time it would be much less. Of course, the cost of the energy saved is 5-10 times as much as $4 for every bulb but who is counting. Ther were also many experts quoted in that same link who said it is not even an issue worth considering as there is so much PF correction already residentially for other types of loads.

I am not sure what the point of the other links to non expert based blogs with follow on posts by people like yourself who may believe much of what they are told. At the same time, why not post a link to something that scientifically looks at how much mercury is actually released into the environment from a broken CFL. Even I was surprised at how low it was.

Then your post to the NY times "BLOG" .. not editor reviewed article, but blog. For one, it is from 2009, for two, there is nothing in that article about bulb companies pushing incentives, it is more the governments who are. While there are still CFL subsidies, these are way down from their peak and the goal of these was to reduce capital expenditures on very expensive generating stations and transmission capacity. The cost of those needs to be considered in any argument.

[kaichu dento]

Norm,

Perhaps you should consider the quality of the board and the impact of trolling shills like Anders instead .... who annoys many people on this board with repeated posts of wrong information. Where is the CPF hammer for that?

Which makes you the sole proprietor of truth?!? Stop arguing with the mods and trying to sideline those who believe differently than you. I see nothing troll-like or that reeks shilling from his posts, and it is very distasteful to suggest as much when it appears that you both have posting material worthy of being read.

Norm simply wants you to stater your case without attacking those you disagree with and you should save the vitriolic statements for peoples inboxes. Anders doesn't annoy me at all, nor do his posts. I like a lot of what I read in your posts too and it would make a much nicer atmosphere to stay to the facts and leave out the attacks.

[Anders Hoveland]

Why is one opinion 'right' and the other 'wrong' ?
Most of the views presented here have the worth of being read,

Lighting is a complex subject, and there certainly is plenty of room for personal opinion and legitimate arguments.
Especially when politics comes into the equation.

I will be the first to admit I have a bias against CFL's — I hate them with a passionate vengeance (not really so surprising coming from someone with skin sensitivity issues perhaps).
And while I have plenty of enthusiasm for LED technology, I am not blindly embracing of this technology as actual lighting everywhere in my own home, especially when it is being forced against my will.

If you are happy with CFL's, or wildly enthusiastic about switching out all your lights with LED's, good for you. It's your home and everyone has their own personal preferences.
My own opinion is that CFL's are not all they are claimed to be, and the spectrum output of LED's still needs some improvement, but that view is open to legitimate debate.

CFL seems very harsh. ... I have halogen in my bathroom, quite frankly it is the best light in my house! everywhere else i have cheapo CFL's. They are not very pleasant but they do save energy. ... halogen is better light i will agree.

[SemiMan]

Which makes you the sole proprietor of truth?!? Stop arguing with the mods and trying to sideline those who believe differently than you. I see nothing troll-like or that reeks shilling from his posts, and it is very distasteful to suggest as much when it appears that you both have posting material worthy of being read.

Norm simply wants you to stater your case without attacking those you disagree with and you should save the vitriolic statements for peoples inboxes. Anders doesn't annoy me at all, nor do his posts. I like a lot of what I read in your posts too and it would make a much nicer atmosphere to stay to the facts and leave out the attacks.

Kaichu, I will put you in the same camp as Anders. Less than 1 month ago, the expert "Anders" was trying to tell all the people on CPF that we did not understand what a lumen was ... based on his reading a wikipedia article. Now less than 1 month later, he is an "expert" on all things lighting. Perhaps you should read some of his posts and then you will realize why I have less than 0 respect for him. I have even called him on what are perceived lies in his posts giving him a chance to redeem himself ... but of course he came back with excuses.

You will find most "facts" stated against CFL lights are not "facts" at all, but opinions or half arguments. The level of threat from mercury is one. Yes some government agencies have gone overboard w.r.t. treatment of broken bulbs, but that was based on them having "mercury" as opposed to the amount of mercury that would be released in a bulb break. This can be easily researched. There is the other issue as well that far more mercury is released from power production to power an incandescent versus mercury in a CFL. In the U.S. it is significantly more due to the level of electricity production from coal.

Of course, when I do quote experts, I quote experts, I don't make links to non scientific blogs.

I know for a fact, that cooler light of tolerable quality is superior for reading. That is supportable by ocular processes, and experiment. I don't make emotional statements like reading under an incandescent light is better because I have read the research and actually done the experiments. There is a reason why operating lights are not warm white.

It is not a matter of me being the sole proprietor of the truth, but when one argues about what a lumen is .... keep in mind that Anders a month ago was telling people quite matter of factly that lumens were "directional" ... he has no credibility.

Also, outside of professional circles, CPF is the only place I really "discuss" lighting. I don't go trolling the web looking for places to push my anti-CFL (or anything I don't like) agenda ..... as Anders does. I invite you to search the web for Anders Hoveland ... who has been banned on other boards for promoting his agenda which consisted of promoting non-truths which on one board was actually quite dangerous.

Science has always been somewhere where those with a particular "bent" do not like to admit they are wrong. I actually like being proved wrong because it means I have learned something. Of course proven wrong means actually using proof, not conjecture, feelings, and posts to blogs that have no validity.



Hate to break it to you, but democratic governments all the time make decisions that impact personal choices where it is considered for the common good. Believe it or not, they normally consult experts in the field. Sure they get it wrong at times, but overall, its a democracy and that does not mean doing whatever you want ..... That is why things like speed limits exist, seat belt laws, CAFE, not being able to put HID lights into halogens on a car, etc. I don't remember butter ever being banned.

Yes, there are some environmental issues with CFL, but when you understand what the real magnitude of that is, it is not a leap to say that the environmental dangers of added coal generation to run an incandescent bulb coupled with the costs of new power plants and new transmission capability coupled with the general concept of energy security means that promoting CFL and even banning incandescent is a reasonable course of action for a democratically elected government to make. The reality is that your choice to use an incandescent bulb does impact others however small and for that reason, is within the realm of decision of democratically elected governments.

Based on your own argument principle, people with a "little knowledge" tend to push an agenda they do not understand and often for personal interest..... well there are certain poster who day that here and even when they quote potentially accurate sources, they do it inaccurately and without proper understanding.

The difference here is that I am not stating "opinions" I am stating facts.

[SemiMan]

Anders has posted on about a dozen (or more) websites his dislike for CFL. He goes out of the way to do this. If that is not an "agenda", I don't know what is. It would be almost tolerable if he stuck to true facts, but he pulls up facts that are just not true or half trues that do not give the full story.

Here is one of my favorites posted on Stormfront.org .... a "White nationalist site" ... draw your own conclusions ...


Anders Hoveland
Account Inactive

Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 146
Re: Race just isn't so, yo.
With the possible exception of the Japanese, Asians are not really superior. China, in th last few decades, has made virtually no scientific discovery of any commercial value. The only reason its economy is expanding so much is that it has a virtually unlimited supply of very cheap labor, people willing to labor long and hard for little pay, on the false promise that they can be like the few rich industrialists.

Many other races of Asians are corrupt (Indonesians, Philipinos)

Must of China's success is the outsourcing of jobs from Western countries.
The strict envirormental regulations in Europe raise costs, whereas the Chinese have no problems polluting their rivers with toxic sludge. The laws designed to protect the envirorment cause even more pollution, by shifting production to China. I especially hat those compact fluorescent bulbs the governments are trying to impose on us. The truth is they actually result in more carbon dioxide emissions, because the Chinese factories and power plants are so inefficient. The Chinese-made bulbs often do not even last half as long as the package claims. So those calculations about the bulb "paying for itself" in two years is completely false. Interesting, I noticed that most regular incandescent bulbs are made in USA (or hungary if you are in Europe), whereas virtually all the compact fluorescent spiral bulbs I have seen are made in China. Most counterfeit electronic devices are also made in China. If the Western nations put up higher tariffs on Chinese goods, China would no longer be successful.

[jtr1962]

SemiMan-speaking in a very general sense there has been a growing trend I've noticed where people without any formal background, training, or experience not only act like experts on a subject, but dismiss what the real experts have to say if it doesn't mesh with their preconceived ideas of how the world should work. This is one reason I've been less active here and on other forums I used to frequent. I've had it with writing detailed posts trying to explain things only to have said posts dismissed as "pushing my agenda" because they didn't support the world view of some of the people reading them. I'm not talking here about posting things which are strictly my opinions, but rather explaining some concepts which are accepted as fact. Or put in layman's terms, I encountered people who still metaphorically insist the world is flat. I can only surmise the reasons why this distrust in experts has been growing. Maybe there is a disillusionment that science has failed to solve every problem in the world. Or perhaps this is because so-called leaders may turn to experts for help in solving problems, but then proceed to only use a fraction of the solutions offered to them because the rest would hurt some of those in power who benefit by the status quo. Of course, when you only use a few solutions instead of all of them failure is the usual result. The average person ends up seeing this as a failure of science rather than what it really is-a failure of leadership. That in turn results in people thinking their opinions on a subject are as valid as any facts put forth by experts in a subject. I could go on, but that's my general point. I wish I had an easy answer on how to fix this vexing problem but I don't. I thank you for your persistence here.

If it's any solace, I'm noticing lately that I'm seeing a lot of the nonsense put forth by trolls in places like the comments section of Yahoo news articles repudiated by people who seem to know what they're talking about. The conspiracy theorist in me wonders how much of the anti-science nonsense is posted by shills paid by those who benefit heavily from the status quo.

[kaichu dento]

Lighting is a complex subject, and there certainly is plenty of room for personal opinion and legitimate arguments.
Especially when politics comes into the equation.

I will be the first to admit I have a bias against CFL's — I hate them with a passionate vengeance (not really so surprising coming from someone with skin sensitivity issues perhaps).
And while I have plenty of enthusiasm for LED technology, I am not blindly embracing of this technology as actual lighting everywhere in my own home, especially when it is being forced against my will.

If you are happy with CFL's, or wildly enthusiastic about switching out all your lights with LED's, good for you. It's your home and everyone has their own personal preferences.
My own opinion is that CFL's are not all they are claimed to be, and the spectrum output of LED's still needs some improvement, but that view is open to legitimate debate.

Exactly - it's our own choice to make - end of story.

Kaichu, I will put you in the same camp as Anders.

You will find most "facts" stated against CFL lights are not "facts" at all, but opinions or half arguments.

Hate to break it to you, but democratic governments all the time make decisions that impact personal choices where it is considered for the common good. Believe it or not, they normally consult experts in the field. Sure they get it wrong at times, but overall, its a democracy and that does not mean doing whatever you want ..... That is why things like speed limits exist, seat belt laws, CAFE, not being able to put HID lights into halogens on a car, etc. I don't remember butter ever being banned.

Based on your own argument principle, people with a "little knowledge" tend to push an agenda they do not understand and often for personal interest..... well there are certain poster who day that here and even when they quote potentially accurate sources, they do it inaccurately and without proper understanding.

The difference here is that I am not stating "opinions" I am stating facts.

You're sending us to camp? Thanks, but no thanks.

You don't even read some of the posts that you so vehemtly react to otherwise you'd see that the 'facts' of yours that I have a problem with is you imperious manner of posting - you can insult everyone in the thread, argue with a mod, all the while ignoring what he requested of you.

Now you want to place anyone who dares oppose you into a 'camp', and have the arrogance to imply that I have no understanding of society, how it works, and the dangers of democracy. You need to wake up to the inherent slippery path that democracy presents when the people in charge decide to give themselves more powers than they were even granted in the first place, coupled with a populace more and more willing to vote solely on self interest.

You're definitely right about misuse of information, be it accurate or otherwise, but there is all too often no monopoly in that exercise.

Anders has posted on about a dozen (or more) websites his dislike for CFL. He goes out of the way to do this. If that is not an "agenda", I don't know what is. It would be almost tolerable if he stuck to true facts, but he pulls up facts that are just not true or half trues that do not give the full story.

Here is one of my favorites posted on Stormfront.org .... a "White nationalist site" ... draw your own conclusions ...

I don't like CFL's, but use them and think that each of us should be able to buy and use the products we like in our own lives. If he has an agenda to promote dislike of CFL's, I can only see it as problematic if he starts to try and force his view on us, but some of your best points keep getting overshadowed by the manner in which you post.
The point about him posting on a site with some poorly worded and poorly thought out posts as proof of anything is ridiculous and the proof is the range of posts here in this excellent forum, which range from imbecilic to genuinely enlightening. You're capable of better than suggesting condemnation by association.

SemiMan-speaking in a very general sense there has been a growing trend I've noticed where people without any formal background, training, or experience not only act like experts on a subject, but dismiss what the real experts have to say if it doesn't mesh with their preconceived ideas of how the world should work. This is one reason I've been less active here and on other forums I used to frequent. I've had it with writing detailed posts trying to explain things only to have said posts dismissed as "pushing my agenda" because they didn't support the world view of some of the people reading them. I'm not talking here about posting things which are strictly my opinions, but rather explaining some concepts which are accepted as fact. Or put in layman's terms, I encountered people who still metaphorically insist the world is flat. I can only surmise the reasons why this distrust in experts has been growing. Maybe there is a disillusionment that science has failed to solve every problem in the world. Or perhaps this is because so-called leaders may turn to experts for help in solving problems, but then proceed to only use a fraction of the solutions offered to them because the rest would hurt some of those in power who benefit by the status quo. Of course, when you only use a few solutions instead of all of them failure is the usual result. The average person ends up seeing this as a failure of science rather than what it really is-a failure of leadership. That in turn results in people thinking their opinions on a subject are as valid as any facts put forth by experts in a subject. I could go on, but that's my general point. I wish I had an easy answer on how to fix this vexing problem but I don't. I thank you for your persistence here.

If it's any solace, I'm noticing lately that I'm seeing a lot of the nonsense put forth by trolls in places like the comments section of Yahoo news articles repudiated by people who seem to know what they're talking about. The conspiracy theorist in me wonders how much of the anti-science nonsense is posted by shills paid by those who benefit heavily from the status quo.

Some great points brought up, notably that people shouldn't accept status quo out of reflex, but rather exercise their own thought processes to sense when they think something seems fishy or accurate, and then start the process of verification of beliefs, rather than simply falling in line with the information they find themselves presented with which supports their own prejudicially favored opinion.

Failure in science is a forgone conclusion, as scientists too belong to the same flawed human race as the rest of us, and as such, are also capable of being swayed by factors such as, but not limited to, self interest and laziness. The conspiracy theorist should in all honesty, be also willing to examine whether their own favored views could possibly be skewed, and not just those of others who don't agree.

[jtr1962]

Failure in science is a forgone conclusion, as scientists too belong to the same flawed human race as the rest of us, and as such, are also capable of being swayed by factors such as, but not limited to, self interest and laziness.

That's actually part of the larger point I was making. People are less accepting of experts nowadays in part because our leaders don't avail themselves of ALL of the solutions experts offer, and also in part because even experts won't always have all the answers. It's unrealistic to expect science to solve all, or even most, of our problems in the first place. It's even more unrealistic to expect science to be of much use when we don't try all of the paths it opens to us. It's normal in science to have dozens of failures for every success. Unfortunately the general public is increasingly intolerant of even one failure, or put another way, simply has unrealistic expectations. Better science education would go a long way towards fixing this.

The conspiracy theorist should in all honesty, be also willing to examine whether their own favored views could possibly be skewed, and not just those of others who don't agree.

Of course anyone versed in science or engineering must be open to continually refining their views by definition. The thing is I'll only refine my views based on peer-reviewed research and/or experiments where I can verify the results myself. When people sprout things which push the credibility of what is scientifically possible I'm not inclined to put much weight in what they have to say. That doesn't mean I don't understand why they're doing what they do. "Follow the money" is the best tool available for such understanding. That's why we have those who refuse to accept thoroughly peer-reviewed research, and then start emotional misinformation campaigns to create doubt among the general public. Those most invested in the status quo will do this. It happens every time a potentially disruptive technology is invented. It's only as of late that these misinformation campaigns have become exceedingly well organized to the point they sometimes masquerade as science. So yes, it's good to examine everything, including who funds any particular bit of scientific research, and what they have to gain or lose. A great, fairly non-controversial example are flawed studies showing a very high effectiveness rate for bike helmets at preventing head injuries. These studies were funded by helmet manufacturers who obviously have a lot to gain from such studies. Neutral peer-reviewed studies on the other hand show at best marginal gains in safety from bike helmets. Like I said, follow the money. Sooner or later you'll arrive at the truth.

[degarb]

Back in mid 80s, just before my 15th birthday, I -a straight A, unbiased student- moved to the gloomy, dark Great Lakes are from the Sunshine State of Florida. In Fla., you just drew the curtian for a ton of light and read, did your homework; artificial lighting was not needed much. Up here in the dark north, I realized students needed incan bulbs from 4 pm to after arriving in school the next day, during the dark, overcast winter months. I did not find the incandescent lights easy to read, stay awake, stay focused under. In fact, my slight stigmatism, and stigma of wearing glasses, made running to library or school to do homework, and essential part of staying awake and being able to read. This was in the day when about all commercial, florescent lights made my white skin look dead and green. Today, their improved color rendering is good enough to match most paint colors, without running outside.

An unbiased kid found incans hard to read by, sleepy, non natural, yellow, and weak lux for the dollars we could afford. Certainly, I would find the Edison bulbs fine if I had been raised up here in the northern USA. But I was used to sunlight, lots of it. Plus, I had an uncorrected astigmatism, and never got enough sleep for my genetics. I also believe it is that the yellow, unnatural incandescent is just what we are used to, since 1890. And yes, kill all the blue, and reds and yellows will really pop. Interior designers who are not famliar with the tech. advances in lighting, are probably beside themselves as is my Local Whitmer Lighting Retail Store, a local incandescent fixture dealer in our upscale neighborhood who sell thousands of gorgeous incans (nearly all are incandescent, still) fixtures and lamps.

Alas, in the 1980s, we didn't have bright (Fluorescent/LED back-lit) computer screens (also, smart phone screens) to read by, and my homework was never written in yellow or red, so I ran or begged to be driven to the library each night, just for the florescent light that would allow my eyes to focus and stay alert.

[SemiMan]

Kaichu I put you in a camp with Anders or a group if you prefer because I feel you are defending Anders without really understanding the issue. Do a web search on Anders Hoveland. He has been bouncing around the internet for the last few years pissing people off and/or promoting his agenda. Unfortunately, recently he stumbled on POF. He started off by trying to tell us we did not know what a lumen was and vehemently defending that positions, quoting wikipedia articles he did not understand, and pretty much telling others they did not know what they were talking about. Then he moved on to push his anti-CFL agenda, his pro incan/halogen agenda, his veiled anti-led agenda .. which I think is more political, etc. He has purposely reopened 2+ year old threads with inflammatory posts. The only way to do that would be to search through hundreds and hundreds of old posts or to do specific searches with the goal of being incindiary. Keep in mind this is a person who less than a month ago did not understand what a lumen is and is now putting up posts behaving as an expert.

You know what, that is not acceptable and does not benefit the CPF community. Unfortunately, the moderators are not doing anything about it and I refuse to just sit and let him do it. If you choose to defend people such as that, that is your choice, but don't expect me to be accepting of that.

Yes, there have been a few times of late I have called people out on their posts. When something is patently wrong or impossible I don't know why they put it out as fact ..... attention? However, I am going to call them out on it and not always be nice about it as it leads nice people astray who then waste their time and/or hard earned money.

[jtr1962]

I did not find the incandescent lights easy to read, stay awake, stay focused under. In fact, my slight stigmatism, and stigma of wearing glasses, made running to library or school to do homework, and essential part of staying awake and being able to read. This was in the day when about all commercial, florescent lights made my white skin look dead and green. Today, their improved color rendering is good enough to match most paint colors, without running outside.

I did grow up in the northern USA (NYC to be be exact), and yet I had the exact same experiences as you. I never found incandescent lighting natural or easy to be under. Thankfully, we had a circular fluorescent in the kitchen under which I did my homework. This was in the early 1970s when fluorescents ran on flickering magnetic ballasts and had horrible (by today's standards) color rendering. Despite that, I still preferred fluorescent lighting to the alternative. If there's any reason why a significant number of people nowadays dislike CFLs, I'd say it has to do more with the attempt by lighting manufacturers to imitate incandescents than anything else. Most warm-white flourescent lighting is somewhat deficient in red compared to incandescent. Even if the color temperature matches perfectly so that neutral colors look the same, the eye can tell something isn't quite right. If instead you balance the phosphors for a higher CCT, then the red deficiency doesn't matter as much because red is a smaller portion of higher CCT spectra. Or put another way, if CFLs were never made at CCTs under maybe 3500K, better yet 4000K, nearly nobody would be complaining about them. To me it's unnatural enough being under incandescents. Being under fluorescents which do a so-so job of imitating incandescents is even worse. If lighting designers would once and for all realize that for a host of reasons lighting at 2700K or 3000K is a really bad idea regardless of technology, then incandescent alternatives would have an easier time being accepted. The majority of people, even those who vehemently complain about 2700K CFLs, will guickly get used to and even prefer 3500K+ CFLs. There's just no reason to light our homes with yellowish light. It's not natural to be under that type of light for hours (i.e. sunrise/sunset only lasts a short time). Our optical system just doesn't function all that well under it. Both our experiences as unbiased children confirm this. And from a decorating perspective, colors will look totally different under sunlight versus incandescent. You end up optimizing for one or the other instead of having things look more or less the same day or night.

And yes, kill all the blue, and reds and yellows will really pop. Interior designers who are not famliar with the tech. advances in lighting, are probably beside themselves as much my Local Whitmer Lighting Retail Store, a local incandescent fixture dealer in our upscale neighborhood who sell thousands of gorgeous incans (nearly all are incandescent, still) fixtures and lamps.

And it irks me no end that when you go in most lighting stores all you have is a flood of yellow. If you ask whether they have any fluorescent fixtures they'll look at you like you have two heads. This annoys me because if people are never even given a chance to try other lighting technologies which can offer more natural lighting than incandescent then how will they know what they prefer? As I said earlier, once people get used to higher CCT, few want to go back to incandescent. It really all comes down to what people are used to. Grow up under bad lighting, many will reflexively choose it rather than try something else. Also, a fair number of people still associate "fluorescent" with the flickering, greenish tubes of the 1950s through 1970s, not allowing that the technology has improved considerably. LED will hopefully change this, but I wish the general lighting LEDs would stop trying to imitate incandescent. Certainly they can do a better job of it than CFLs, but I just don't see the point (except maybe for the minority who will still prefer 2700K even after trying alternatives). For what it's worth, the idea of using other CCTs does seem to finally be catching on. The daylight/sunlight CFLs are routine sold out in my local Home Depot. I see growing numbers of windows lit with anything from 3500K to 6500K. I just wish the lighting stores and lighting designers would catch on to this fact. They still seem stuck in the dark ages (no pun intended).

[idleprocess]

I think the widespread preference for ~2700-3000K incandescent in residential lighting has something to do with the time of day that most people are home and awake.

Most people in the industrial world spend perhaps an hour at home in the morning getting ready for work, spend the bulk of their daylight hours under the daytime sun or lighting that simulates daytime sun (floro, MH), then return home in the afternoon or evening around when the color of sunlight tends to become warmer. Warm colors extend this "artificial dusk" and reinforce the perception of home as refuge from the daytime world of work.

Of course, habit and inertia from decades of A19 incandescents being the only accessible option may explain preferences a bit more than my hypothesis.

I did shift work for several years, including a lot of 2nd/swing shift and some 3rd/graveyard shift, so perhaps my perception of time is a good deal more variable than others - namely that the day will consist of about 8 hours each of sleep, work, and off time which will not necessarily coincide with night, day, and afternoon/evening. You do what you can to ensure you have a quiet / dark environment for sleeping and otherwise learn to develop a feel for how your phase is relative to the day. Your brain learns to counteract the cues it receives from the angle of the sun and its light quality and instead focus on the presence or absence of light (and correcting either if needed).

That being said, I do not miss those days. While one can successfully overcome one's Circadian Rhythm, it's constant effort and undesirable compromise to do so.

All other things being equal, I can live with incan spectrum of 2700-3000K (got several LED bulbs in this range), prefer 4000K, and would rather not go over 5000K at home (assuming relatively even spectrum distribution on all sources).

[Anders Hoveland]

Kaichu I put you in a camp with Anders or a group if you prefer because I feel you are defending Anders without really understanding the issue. Do a web search on Anders Hoveland. He has been bouncing around the internet for the last few years pissing people off and/or promoting his agenda. Unfortunately, recently he stumbled on POF. He started off by trying to tell us we did not know what a lumen was and vehemently defending that positions, quoting wikipedia articles he did not understand, and pretty much telling others they did not know what they were talking about. Then he moved on to push his anti-CFL agenda, his pro incan/halogen agenda, his veiled anti-led agenda .. which I think is more political, etc. He has purposely reopened 2+ year old threads with inflammatory posts. The only way to do that would be to search through hundreds and hundreds of old posts or to do specific searches with the goal of being incindiary. Keep in mind this is a person who less than a month ago did not understand what a lumen is and is now putting up posts behaving as an expert.

You got into one argument with me in one thread, and since then you have been incessantly following me into nearly every other thread I have gone into, criticising the comments or little inconsequential details I have posted in what has essentially ammounted to harassment and trolling.

Unfortunately, the moderators are not doing anything about it ...

Because I have not really done anything wrong. But in your anger and frustration against me, you just cannot see that apparently.

Yes, there have been a few times of late I have called people out on their posts. When something is patently wrong or impossible I don't know why they put it out as fact...

"People"? You mean one particular person (me). And "patently wrong" ? Like this ?

Anders, you have to stop pulling stuff off the web and writing it as fact on CPF when you don't really understand what you are writing. If you knew what you were writing, you could call it a cerium doped YAG or YAG:Ce. It is not a "cerium phosphor".

Seems more like nitpicking details... and throwing in a few insults while you were at it.

Let us take a little excerpt of your kindness in correcting a fellow CPF who was in error:

I am sure a moderator is going to slap me but at this point it must be said. Anders, you are an idiot. YOU REFUSE to do any research and actually learn anything. YOU SPOUT CRAP about things for which you have no knowledge because you read ONE ARTICLE ONCE. That does not make you knowledgeable and in fact it seems to have made you more ignorant than if you had read nothing.

I am not going to provide links to compensate for your laziness.

YOU STILL refuse to understand that lumens has nothing to do with directionality.

By the way, in that original argument you kept claiming over and over again that lumens had absolutely nothing to do with the angle of light. I quoted from several sources, and provided several links, but apparently just dismissed them all, rather than actually addressing my points, you instead chose to become more and more frustrated at me, apparently holding a vendetta against me, even after I gave up arguing in that thread.

What I was trying to say in that thread was that the angle of light is essential to how lumens are actually measured. The standard calculation assumes an omni-directional source.

One lumen (lm) per steradian is equal to the radius squared from the center of the light bulb; so the complete angle from the center of a sphere (i.e. a light bulb) = 4 π I lm.

http://www.ehow.com/about_6654568_lumens-measured_.html

And so much humility:

Sorry if you consider well researched and knowledgeable comments as arrogant as opposed to your throw it together and hope it works comments. People who don't really know what they are doing but like to think they do are offended by those that really do.

Even "experts" make mistakes:

while blue LEDs are highly efficient, your eye is terribly inefficient in this area. Adding blue increases CRI, but it hurts efficiency.

(might want to check the facts on that...)

The plain truth is that you think LED is a wonderful solution to every other form of lighting, and you want to force that view onto everyone else. You attack anyone that questions your opinion, or who criticises the government taking away people's choices. Why can't you just admit that? That one thread alone is choke-full of subtly implied personal insults. You not only attack the ideas you disagree with, you attack the person behind the idea!

I am tired of the harassment. I do not want to contribute to conflict on CPF — either actively or passively. I am done with posting on this forum.