Maker Pro
Maker Pro

CFLs - retrofitting low ESR capacitors


Phil Allison

Jan 1, 1970
"Trevor Wilson"
**The manufacture of glass, steel and tungsten is a very energy intensive

** OTOH - the amounts used to make one light bulb are tiny and so use tiny
amounts of energy.

Combined with the extremely short life-span of incandescent lamps

** They can last 100 years in low or no use.

They often outlast CFLs in actual service.

and their monsterous inefficiency (Less than 5%) contributes to huge
amounts of CO2.

** Bollocks.

CFLs and LEDs cause far less CO2 to be emitted,

** Per lamp, it is far MORE than an incandecsent.

both in manufacture and in operation over the life of the produc.

** Absolute LIE.

Each CFLs use 50 times time more energy to make, plus a large amount of
poisonous chemical waste and then consume more energy too - if they last
their rated life.

Then they pollute the planet with Mercury and other heavy metal poisons.

No such issues with incandescents.

It is all a massive LIE .

.... Phil

Trevor Wilson

Jan 1, 1970
Sylvia said:
Having got used to the higher colour temperatures of CFLs, I find
that I prefer them.

**CFLs are not so different to regular fluoros. Each manufacturer has
his/her own formulation for the phosphor coating. As a conseqence, the
colour balance will be slightly different for each. I find that different
lamps have different purposes. For my workbench, I need accurate colour
rendition (for checking colour codes on components) and I use 36 Watt, quad
phosphor lamps for that purpose. For other areas, I use different lamps.
Incandescents weren't given a lower colour temperature because people
preferred them, it was just the way they came out.

**Well, yes.

If the first
practical domestic electric lights had been of daylight colour
temperature, I imagine that's what everyone would always have wanted,
and people would have given short shrift to this yellow rubbish.

However, I note that the led emitter strips are available in higher
colour temperatures.

**They are available in a wide range of colour temperatures. The range is
increasing rapidly.

Trevor Wilson

Jan 1, 1970
Michael said:
There are some in the US that have been on 24/7 for decades, and
still work. Some are over 100 years old.

**Indeed. The ways to get incandescents to last a long time are well known.
They are simply under-run massively. IOW: Use a 280VAC rated lamp at 240VAC
and the thing will last MUCH longer. Of course, colour temperature edges
much closer towards the red and efficiency is absolute crap.

Cheap bulbs don't last,
and neither do those that are used improperly.

**Not so different to CFLs and LEDs. Funny about that.

Trevor Wilson

Jan 1, 1970
Wild_Bill said:
You really are a blue ribbon simpleton, Trev.

**Tell you what, dickhead: Try using some facts and logic to support your
arguments and you'll sound like you have a brain. So far, you just sound
like an idiot. You use insults in preference to common-sense, logic and hard
evidence. I will now give you a chance to redeem yourself.
When computers were being introduced for home use, other forms of
communication and/or creativity weren't banned.

**Blah, blah, blah. We're talking about incandescents, LEDs and CFLs. Stay
on topic.
I recall the "proposed" huge benefits of widespread computer use were
going to include:

-dramatically reduce paper usage and eliminate the necessity of an
infinite number of forms.
Then eveyone started buying printers for every reason imaginable, and
using computers to create and generate more forms.
Products with no real value.. phone books, magazines, catalogs.. still
paper, although many are digitized.

-reduce the size of government since there wouldn't be a need for as
many people to move around all those forms that would no longer be
paper. Didn't see that happen either.

**Blah, blah, blah. We're talking about incandescents, LEDs and CFLs. Stay
on topic.
-records will be more secure.
Hogwash.. after many disasters, there are reports of lost records
which aren't archived elsewhere.

Computers have increased corporate profits, but have done little to
make everyday life more comfortable or convenient for the people
inhabiting the planet.
Well, then there are the smart people that create a letterhead and a
worthless organization based upon their own misguided adgendas, to
leech money from others for a good cause.

**Blah, blah, blah. We're talking about incandescents, LEDs and CFLs. Stay
on topic.
-Make much more effective the use of our time (don't care for the
"save time" hoax, kinda like products that pay for themselves).
Yet everywhere people need to get in a line for a purchase or
service, there are still always lines and peope waiting.
Daily encounters with computers aren't really faster and more
efficient, they're actually more complicated.

**Blah, blah, blah. We're talking about incandescents, LEDs and CFLs. Stay
on topic.
You keep yapping about silicon, yet there are no reasons people die
from silicon.

**Huh? WTF are you talking about? I merely corrected your idiotic comments
about CFLs and LEDs.
Mercury, gallium arsenide and other toxic elements are actually
contained within new lighting technologies, but not in incandescent

**So? There are a large range of toxic elements in the computer you are
using, in the cell 'phone you may happen to use and just about every other
modern device. What's your point? Are you going to cease using your
computer? Please do so immediately. Give us a rest your incessant twaddle
and idiotic top-posting.

There are harmful chemicals in a great many products. Those chemicals need
to be dealt with correctly and appropriately.

Maybe you should start yapping about argon.

You might actually believe that "regulators ensure that the pollution
created is dealt with appropriately".
This is partially true, and generally always after the pollution has
taken place (often for a long time without detection), after the
fact, and the cleanup costs are generally always put on the citizens.
The fines are generally only symbolic.

**Then why don't YOU start by not using your computer? Stop buying lead acid
batteries, NiCd batteries, any products that use leaded solder, any products
with tantalum capacitors contained within, anything using gold sourced from
Papua, petroleum products, anything using plastic, etc, etc. YOU should
follow your own advice.
You seem to think that someone should be impressed with the
dozen-or-so lighting devices you've commented on.

**No. I am citing fact. Nothing more. I have not experienced a CFL failure,
ever (other than misuse). Of course, I only purchase quality CFLs and I use
them correctly.
Your experience (real or not) is completely insignificant in the
lighting industry which includes hundreds of millions/billions of
lighting devices sold every year.

**OK. Then YOU need to provide the data which shows how unreliable quality,
correctly operated CFLs are. My anecdotes are EXACTLY as irrelevant as
The incidence of failure of products from China is higher than it's
ever been for many of the people alive today. Many of these products
don't even function when new.

**More twaddle. Some products are good. Some not so good. Just for yuks, I
thought I'd test your theory.

In the last 20-odd years, I've used a number of 'walk-about' telephones. A
couple were Panasonics, whilst others were from other manufacturers. Except
for the one I use right now, all were manufactured in Japan. They all
failed. Some last 4 or 5 years and some lasted less than a year. The one I
have beside me is 6 years old. It is made in China.
The race to the bottom as far as product quality goes, is based upon
greed. Very few products are manufactured today that are intended to
last for 10 years, and that means very few consumer electronic
devices.. of which many don't last 2 years.

**The nation with the worst reputation for quality (or domestic products) is
the USA, not China. Except Cree.
What this means is that your 10 year old LED example isn't even
relative in today's manufacturing practices.

**I'll let you know in another ten years. We'll see how long the ones I've
recently installed last.

The throw-away-society arrived while you weren't paying attention.
All that trash needs to go somewhere.
How many times can a $40 VCR be fixed?

**As many times as you like. However, a $100.00 VCR is likely to last MUCH
longer than a $1,500.00 VCR manufactured in 1980.
So you go right ahead and get in line for those new, high quality, 10
year life, $50 LED lighting devices.. then spend your time repairing

**Cite your proof that the LEDs will fail prematurely.

You're savig the planet and contributing to humanitarian
causes. There oughta be an award for that, Oh.. there is, it's called
an inflated ego.
I don't dispute that an LED can last 10 years, only that in the
present manufacturing environment, a 40-100W LED lamp is going to be
manufactured to fail.

**Prove it.

I have a lot of LED flashlights and portable lights and they work
great for seeing in the dark, or signaling such as panel indicators,
but piss poor at illuminating a room.

**You have got to be the most pig-ignorant poster we've seen in quite a long
time. Light is light. It can be measured and quantified.

With LED flashlights, they seem to produce a lot of light when
surrounded by darkness, but they don't "throw" light very well at
all.. and the reflector becomes more important than the miniscule
light source. Reflectors take space, which defeats making a device

**Just when I thought you were speaking complete bollocks, you surpass
yourself for abject stupidity. I direct you to a link, which shows what two,
identical power consumption torches can do. One is a 3 Watt halogen torch.
The other is a 3 Watt LED torch:

In case you have not worked it out, the right hand one is the halogen and
the left is the LED. The halogen was fitted with fresh batteries. I charged
the Lithium battery in the LED torch a month ago.

Now, please explain WTF you mean by LED torches not being able to "throw"
light very well. I can tell you that the torch whose beam you can see in the
photo is easily capable of lighting up stuff a couple of hundred Metres
away. The halogen doesn't have a snowball's chance in Hell.
Unless you live like people did in the early 1900s with one dim lamp
per room, LED home lighting is going to be very costly, both in terms
of early failures and replacing fixtures which won't accomodate the
new designs.

**So you keep claiming. Let's see you hard proof of your claims.

Might also be a good time to change all interior items
to white.. white floors, walls, furniture, etc.

LED lighting might be great for a camper/caravan with 12V lighting
circuits, but I suspect there will be lots of problems with adapting
240 or 120VAC to 3V.
Power supplies introduce losses, spike/surge suppressors add to final

**Of course. Just like CFLs, there is an extra cost associated with LEDs.
However, the MASSIVE increase in efficiency and incredibly long life make up
for those issues.
Has anyone discovered a metal as good as/better than gold for those
tiny leads attached to LED (and IC) chips?
When gold loses it's value, LEDs will become cheaper to produce.

**Blah, blah, blah. We're talking about incandescents, LEDs and CFLs. Stay
on topic.
You keep parroting that incandescent lamps have short or extremely
short lifespans, which could be true of the cheap examples you
bought, but they don't cost anywhere near $50 each and aren't
hazardous waste to end up in the ground near water supplies. BTW,
many thread bases of light bulbs today are aluminum, as are the
threaded sockets in many fixtures.

**A VERY large number of incandescent lamps were/are produced using lead
solder. Lead is toxic. And again: Proper disposal should be part of any
product's design. That includes CFLs, LEDs and incandescents.
Incandescent light bulb costs have traditionally (for generations
now) been insignificant in the annual budget of home maintenance..
but that is going to change, significantly.

**Fortunately, the long life of CFLs and LEDs make that cost irrelevant.
However, let's examine that claim:

I use 23 Watt CFLs in a number of locations. They cost around AUS$5.00 each.
SO FAR, I have obtained around 3,500 hours of use, at minimal light
degradation. I fully expect a life of at least 7,000 ~ 10,000 hours from
these lamps. However, let's use the low end figure for calculation: 3,500
hours. $5.00 for 3,500 hours. Total powe4r consumption for that period =
80.5 kW/hours. At (say) $0.20/kW/hr = $16.10. Total running cost = $21.10.
In reality, the figure will be somewhat lower.

To replace that 23 Watt CFL, I need to use a (minimum) 100 Watt incandescent
(it's really more like 125 Watt, but I'm going easy on you). Let's say the
cost of a decent one was AUS$1.00. The BEST one can expect from a 100 lamp
is around 500 hours. Let's say 1,000 hours, because I'm feeling generous.
You'll need 3.5 lamps to equal one CFL. Total initial cost $3.50. Power
consumption for the period is 350kW/hours. At $0.20/kW/hr = $70.00. Total
running cost = $73.50.

CFL comfortably nails the incandescent.

My own experience with incandescents suggests that a 100 Watt incandescent
will likely last considerably less than 200 hours.
Maybe everyone will need to keep a drawer/cupboard full of LED lamps
to insure their homes aren't dangerous to move around in.. cha-ching!

**No need. LED last a very long time.
I'm not exaggerating my experiences with CFLs, but I can tell ya that
a 10 year life for CFLs is not average or even close to common.

**Then cite your proof.
Almost all of my CFLs are/have been mounted base-down in
open/ventilated metal reflectors.. I've had 3 go into catastrophic
failure, turning red hot before I could react quickly to shut them
off. The only warning was a few blinks just prior to the failures.

**Stop buying shitty CFLs.
You were the one that initiated the question of proof so I just played
along, because I knew your response was predictable.
I've presented proof.. these are my opinions.. no, seriously. They
weren't composed by some marketing firm.

**You have not provided proof. See my photo as something that represents
proof and shreds at least one of your dodgy and seriously deluded arguments.
**Irrelevant.. was your answer for how many of those LEDs it takes to
illuminate a room.
OK.. right.

**I made no claim that the first generation LEDs that I was using could
light a room.
My comments aren't arguments that my opinions are correct, so you go
ahead and argue all you want to.

**Supply your proof and learn how to post properly.

Trevor Wilson

Jan 1, 1970
Arfa said:
I don't have actual figures, Trevor, but it makes sense that making a
thin glass spherical envelope for an incandescent, is unlikely to use
more energy than making a thick-walled tube wound into a convoluted
double spiral.

**Intuitively, that would be a reasonable assumption.

Many of the other items contained in a CFL, also use
very energy intensive processes, and have to be carried out in many
different factories, which then brings the costs of moving workers
around, keeping them warm and fed, moving raw materials around,
moving finished components around, and so on. Just because all of
these things are 'hidden', it doesn't make them any less relevant.

**I agree.
Looked at rationally, given the amount of components and
manufacturing processes involved, I would have thought that the
simple incandescent bulb, with its very few parts, consumed nothing
like as much energy overall to get from nothing to working in my

**I don't know how much energy is involved with each device, but I'll betcha
the energy consumed by the incandescent, over it's entire life vastly
exceeds the energy required to manufacture it. The CFL, by comparison, is a
massively more efficient device, with a much longer life span. Total energy
is likely to be far lower with the CFL. And no, I don't have the data, but I
imagine someone has done the maths.

Bear in mind also, that very long-lived incandescents are
available, and always were. Its just that they cost more, and are not
in the financial interests of the bulb manufacturers, to promote.

**And, they are vastly less efficient. The technology to build long lasting
incandescents has been known for a long time - operate them at lower
Voltages, or use a carbon filament. Either way, colour temperature sucks and
efficiency is way down.

BTW: The discussion also involves LEDs. IMO, CFLs are an interim step. They
have far too many drawbacks to be a long term solution. Incandescents are,
of course, no solution at all.

Phil Allison

Jan 1, 1970
"Ian Fuckwit Field"

Last time I looked ..

** Impossible for anyone who has wanked themselves blind to look at

Phil Allison

Jan 1, 1970
"Arfa Daily"
So is that *all* glass ? I can't find any reference anywhere to silicon
being a component of bog-standard glass.

** Glass is 75% Silica - aka beach sand.

Silica is SO2



Sjouke Burry

Jan 1, 1970
Arfa said:
So is that *all* glass ? I can't find any reference anywhere to silicon
being a component of bog-standard glass. Is it just naturally in there, and
if so, in what form ? Or is it put in there for some reason, and for what
purpose if so ?

Yes, where the silicon has been extracted from whatever ore it occurs in,
and then refined

Silicon and oxygen together make sand.
Glass is made from sand and a few other simple things.
No pollution,grind the glass, and (RE-)use it as sand.
Semiconducters on the other hand, have quite dirty production
methods,and eating globs of energy during the refining
stage(zone melting).
See the news about the solar cell factory(s) in China which have been
closed down....

Also, I bet there is more glass in a cfl, then in an incandescent.

The cfl's which failed me, all had the big capacitor burn out,except
one, where the tube shattered.

Last, hot semiconductors have the nasty habit of failing quickly,
so I kind of do not believe those stories about the very long lifetimes
for cfl an leds, heat kills quickly.
Once they are able to produce a lightsource which stays cool,
and is efficient, I will start believing those long lifetimes.

Trevor Wilson

Jan 1, 1970
Arfa said:
But actually, what exactly is the problem that we're trying to find a
solution to ?

**Let see. Incandescents are:

* Around 5% efficient. At best.
* Have a short life-span.
* Suffer poor colour rendition.

If those problems can be solved, then thast would be a good thing.

I saw some figures a few weeks ago that said that if
every single light bulb in the UK was changed to a CFL, the total
saving in energy would amount to the output of one small power

**I'll take your word for it. That does not tell the entire story though.
For every 100 Watts of incandescent light that can be eliminated, a
significant amount of air conditioning costs can be eliminated. There's a
very good bunch of reasons why fluoros and other types of discharge lamps
are used in every office building, shopping centre and many other places in
most nations. They're efficient and they reduce demands on air conditioning.
And, consequently, on energy suppliers. Every Watt not dissipated, is a Watt
that does not need to be countered with an air conditioner. It adds up.

Having said all that, here in Australia, lighting is far less important than
heating, cooling and pool filtering in terms of total energy consumption. Do
a Google Earth on Sydney of Brisbane and count the number of pools. Each one
uses around 8kWhr of energy every day. Lighting, by comparison is no where
near as significant. Mostly. I just came back from a service call at a
neighbour's home. Every single part of the home was lit by halogen
downlights. These are an incredibly wasteful way to light a home, yet they
are very popular. The kitchen, alone had 6 X 50 Watt downlights.

I suppose that you could argue that any saving is worth
having, but I sometimes think that this religion of 'green' has
completely overtaken common sense, and in some cases, the
disadvantages of a substitute technology such as CFLs, needs to be
weighed against the perceived disadvantages of what it's trying to

**Fair enough, but we have not seen any real data yet. I don't have the
data, do you? The idiot who keeps claiming that CFLs are less reliable than
incadescents has yet to supply any data.

The problem with green technology is that its advocators are
often zealots, who seek to portray the alternatives that they are
pedaling as the only solution to a problem which often, only they
see. They never tell the full story behind these technologies, being
selective in the extreme. CFLs are a good example of this, where the
*only* aspects that have been promoted, are the fact that they
consume less energy for the same amount of light output as an
'equivalent' incandescent - and therein lies a can of worms before we
start - and that they are supposedly longer lived.

**IME, they are certainly MUCH longer lived. By a dramatic amount. My sample
size is:

19 CFLs.
1 incandescent
12 halogen incandescents

* In six years, none of the CFLs have failed. Several CFLs were transferred
from a previous residence and are at least 8 years old. One is operated at
least 4 hours per day. Most others see around 1 ~ 1.5 hours per day.
* My non-halogen incandescent has failed twice in 6 years. It's use is
severely restricted to less than 1 hour per week.
* The halogen downlights are used around 2 hours per week. I've replaced at
least a dozen halogens in the last 6 years.

The huge amounts
of manufacturing processes, and shipping energy for all the component
parts, and all the other hidden energy inputs, are politely ignored.

**Are they? I'm pretty certain that shipping costs are taken into account.
Not to mention the true disposal costs, if this is done properly. No
one really understands the real manufacturing costs either, because
governments are making sure that the true price is subsidised by
collecting additional 'green' taxes via the energy companies, from
the likes of you and I.

**Not me. Here in Australia, there are no subsidies or special treatment for
low energy lamps. Yet. CFLs have been cheap for quite a few years. I pay
around 5 Bucks for high quality, 23 Watt, Philips branded lamps. There are
MUCH cheaper lamps available, but I don't buy them (anymore). Once bitten,
twice shy. If you examine my analysis of the running costs of incandescent
vs. CFLs, you'll see why CFLs are a MUCH better choice.

If ever these subsidies are removed, CFLs
will become a major expense to a household, unless they use really
crappy quality Chinese imports that give poor light quality and poor
starting characteristics, and are much shorter lived than people are
currently being persuaded is the case.

**Bollocks. There are no subsidies in Australia and qualility CFLs can be
purchased for around 5 Bucks. Given the exceptionally long life and low
operating costs, there is simply no comparison.

Phil Allison

Jan 1, 1970
"Arfa Daily"

** Stop trying to reason with TW.

The guy is one of the biggest all round lunatics and charlatans in

He never listens and he never changes his views, no matter how wrong he is.

He is utterly autistic.

.... Phil


Jan 1, 1970
Silicon and oxygen together make sand.
Glass is made from sand and a few other simple things.
No pollution,grind the glass, and (RE-)use it as sand.
Semiconducters on the other hand, have quite dirty production
methods,and eating globs of energy during the refining
stage(zone melting).

Zone melting is no longer used (it was popular in the early Germanium
days). Today they react sand with Chlorine to get SiCl4 or with Hydrogen
to get SiH4 (silane). Then they use distillation to get to parts per
trillion purity. Maybe a dopant is added at this point. Then react it
back to pure metal. That then goes into a Cockrozski crystal puller.
Slice the boule into wafers and now the nasty chemicals start. Buffered
HF, arsine, borane and worse. And along the way a lot of energy.


Jan 1, 1970
As an interesting example, my son-in-law is currently working on an old Mini
on my drive. The other day, it was raining, so he rigged a 'tent' over the
front, from a blue plastic tarp. When I first went under there with him,
everything had a very blue caste, as you would expect. I didn't notice any
adjustment / compensation going on in my brain, but it must have been,
because when I stepped out from under there a few minutes later, the whole
world was bright yellow. A few minutes later, all was back to normal. The
strange thing is that I don't seem to be able to adjust to CFL light in the
same way. It continues to have a sort of 'sick' quality for me. Even more
curious though, is that linear fluorescents don't seem to affect me in the
same way. I work under them all day, without issue.


Some of the early CFL had/have an excess of green in their spectrum. Not
so much of a problem today.

Phil Allison

Jan 1, 1970
"Arfa Daily"
The point that Trevor makes about aircon to mitigate the heat output of
incandescents, holds no water here in Northern Europe.

** Or in Australia.

Householders do not turn their air con on because lamps are heating the
house up!!

Fraid the sun is the culprit in that crime.

Commercial buildings that have large amounts of lighting and air con ALL use
high efficiency lighting and have for decades.

The ONLY reason for banning incandescents is rabid green lunatics wanting to
stamp their tiny feet and make a point, forcing others to carry out their
mad ideas.

Same goes for effectively banning the use of iron core transformers in AC

In both cases, the lunatics legislated energy efficiency levels ( plus off
load consumptions ) such as to JUST eliminate the offending products and
allow ones a tiny bit more efficient to continue on sale.

No consideration was given to far more important issues that were involved
in the banning of such long proven and inherently safe products.

Purest lunacy.

..... Phil

Trevor Wilson

Jan 1, 1970
Arfa said:
Yes. This is kind of my point. And when I was saying that
'background' items like shipping costs are politely ignored, I was
referring to the multiple shipping operations that are required for
the many components in a CFL, and the many raw materials contained in
those components, just to get all the bits and pieces from the
individual specialist manufacturers, to the places where the lamps
are assembled. In the case of an incandescent lamp, we are talking a
few components, simply made from a few raw materials. With a CFL, we
are talking semiconductors comprising silicon, dopant chemicals,
plastic, metal. Capacitors comprising metal foil, plastic, rubber,
maybe paper, metal leads and other chemicals in the electros. Coils
comprising processed iron powder, copper wire, insulation, copper
foil, epoxy adhesive, steel leadouts. Then there's the complex glass
tube, and the chemical phosphors and mercury vapour inside it.
Tungsten electrodes. Then the pcb material that its all mounted on.
Lots of soldered joints. And then the plastic enclosure for the
ballast. And then the 'normal' bits that an incandescent has anyway.
Every single one of those components, and the manufacturing processes
for *their* component parts, involves energy input for the process.
They all need workers who have to be moved from their homes and back
again each day, They have to be heated / cooled, fed and watered, and
then lit as well. And when they've made their bits of the lamp, these
have to be shipped on somewhere else. These are the energy costs that
the general public are never made aware of. If they were, they might
start to question the perceived wisdom that they've been fed, that
these things are actually 'green'.

**Indeed. I just did a little research and found that some of these issues
HAVE been examined. The total manufacturing energy input for a typical CFL
is around 1.7kWhr. The total manufacturing energy input for a typical
incandescent is around 0.3kWhr. Considerably less. Or is it?

Let's put that into some kind of perspective:

A typical 100 Watt IC lasts for 1,000 hours (at best).
A typical 15 Watt CFL lasts for 5,000 hours (I've certainly exceeding that
figure quite comfortably).

Over 5,000 hours of use, the CFL has consumed 75kWhr + 1.7kWhr = 76.7kWhr.
IOW: The energy cost of manufacture is almost insignificant, even though is
a little higher than 5 incandescents.

Over 5,000 hours, the IC lamp has consumed 500kWhr + 1.5kWhr = 501.5kWhr.

I would argue that the energy cost of manufacture is a spurious argument.

The pollution cost is another matter entirely. During operation, coal fired
generators (like those here in Australia) emit mercury. A typical 100 Watt
lamp will cause the emission of around 10mg of mercury over it's life. 5
lamps (5,000 hours) will cause the release of 50mg or mercury. By
comparison, CFLs will cause the release of around 7.5mg of mercury + 4mg of
mercury contained within the envelope. If the lamp is disposed of correctly,
then the total mercury release will be 7.5mg. Far less than that of IC
lamps. Other nations, that employ different power generation schemes will
see different results.

And this does not take into pollution created at the point of manufacture.
That is an issue that should be dealt with locally.
If people want to use CFLs in the belief - mistaken in my opinion -
that they are in some way helping the world to use less energy, then
that's fine.

**It's not a mistaken belief. It's a fact. CFLs use FAR less energy than
incandescents. From cradle to grave. Vastly, hugely less energy.

If it's really the case, then CFLs will win out the day
in the end.

**By a massive margin, in fact.

But I think that it is utterly wrong that the existing
technology has been banned completely on thin evidence and a less
than truthful declaration of the energy required to make and dispose
of the things, the only factor being pushed, being the lower energy
consumption when they are in use, as though this is the be-all and
end-all of their right to exist, and to be forced on us.

**Your opinion is duly noted. That comment is a political issue. I recall
EXACTLY the same arguments were made, here in Australia, when leaded petrol
was legislated out of existence. I susepct that, in 20 years, when we look
back at this whole discussion, it will appear to be a non-event. More
efficient lighting will be the standard, incandescents will be relegated to
specialised applications (oven lighting, etc) and the whole issue will be
viewed for what it really is - a storm in a teacup.
The point that Trevor makes about aircon to mitigate the heat output
of incandescents, holds no water here in Northern Europe. Unlike in
Australia, it seldom becomes hot enough up here for more than a few
days a year, that aircon is needed. And that is only in the summer,
when it's light for 16 hours of the day anyway, so there's not much
lighting being used. OTOH, for much of the year, it is cool or cold
enough to require heating in houses, and in this case, the complete
opposite of Trevor's premise, is true, in that the heat output from
the incandescent light bulbs, serves to mitigate heat input
requirement, from the central heating system.

**So? Northern Europe is not the whole world. Vast swathes of this planet
consume vast amounts of energy for air conditioning. Northern Europe is a
small player in that respect. Worse, CO2 emissions from Northern Europe
impact on those regions where a small amount of warming will lead to serious
problems. We only have one place that we can all live. We all need to work

And, just to reinforce the point: I do not consider lighting to be a major
problem in power consumption (and, therefore, CO2 emissions). Nor do I
consider appliances that use auxiliary power to be a major issue either.

Phil Allison

Jan 1, 1970
"Trevor Wilson"
Let's put that into some kind of perspective:

** Translation = a fictitious pack of lies.

A typical 100 Watt IC lasts for 1,000 hours (at best).

** Might also last 25 years in a low use app.

A typical 15 Watt CFL lasts for 5,000 hours

** No way is the light from a 15W CFL the same as a 100W lamp.

Try a 27 watt CFL.

Over 5,000 hours of use,

** In average domestic us, the life is more lie 2000 hrs at best before the
output falls too much and it has to be replaced.

the CFL has consumed 75kWhr + 1.7kWhr = 76.7kWhr.

** CFL = 54 kWh, 100W lamp = 200 kWh.

IOW: The energy cost of manufacture is almost insignificant, even though
is a little higher than 5 incandescents.

** A made up number.

The real number is more like 50 times.

**It's not a mistaken belief. It's a fact. CFLs use FAR less energy than
incandescents. From cradle to grave. Vastly, hugely less energy.

** Bollocks.

Reducing domestic lighting consumption has NO effect on the amount of coal
being burned in power stations.

Cos the domestic lighting load is all at night time when the coal powered
generators have excess capacity - in NSW much of that excess is sent to the
Snowy to pump water up hill to help with peaks loads during the day. In that
process up to 60% of the power generated is lost in transmission lines and

..... Phil

Trevor Wilson

Jan 1, 1970
Arfa said:
The thing is, there are so many components to a CFL, and so many
processes to make those components, and so many processes to
extracting, refining and making appropriate the constituents *of*
those components, that I think it is probably an impossible task to
analyse the total energy budget of making one of these things, with
any accuracy.

**I believe that may well be an over-statement. At some point, we have to be
able to place some trust in those who do their investigations into such
things. Anyway, let's assume that the investigators have made an error
amounting to 100%. Even with such an error, CFLs leave ICs in their dust.
Let's assume that the investigators are completely inept and they have made
an error amounting to 1,000%. Even with an energy input figure of 17kW, CFLs
leave ICs for dead.

There will probably also be a degree of deliberate
distortion downwards to those figures by the greenies that would
produce them, to make them look better.

**You're making the assumption that those who have investigated the matter,
have an axe to grind either way. Bad assumption. If you can supply your
alternate data, please feel free to do so. Here is my reference:

On the other hand, an
incandescent bulb uses - what - seven, eight maybe components, each
of which could be totally accurately pinned down on their production
energy costs. Bear in mind that the processes to produce the
components are also very simple and straightforward, unlike the
processes required to make the components of a CFL.

**Your point being?

It's not impossible to pin down the cost of manufacturing the relatively
small number of components in a CFL. Car manufacturers routinely do just
that, for what is a dramatically more complex device.
I have to say that in my experience, you have been extremely lucky to
get that sort of life from CFLs.

**Luck has nothing to do with it. I only buy quality CFLs and I have 19 of
the suckers in service. If I had (say) 2 in service and not experienced a
failure, then I might agree with you. I have NINETEEN of them in and around
my home. And, FWIW: several of them are not installed according to
manufacturer's instructions. They are surviving nicely.

I have used all sorts over the
years, from cheap to expensive, and have never obtained anything like
that length of service from any of them, with the exception of some
very early ones that I installed in a day nursery that we once owned.
They were Dulux globe CFLs and very expensive. We owned that nursery
for twelve years, and most of them were still going when we sold it,
so I don't dispute that it is possible to make long-lasting CFLs. I
just don't think that overall, taken across the whole raft of
qualities and costs, they are doing it any more.

**I confess that I have not purchased a CFL for several years, so I can't
confirm. The damned things are so incredibly long lasting that I simply have
not had to purchase replacements. In fact, I fully expect LEDs to be
appropriately priced by the time I need to make any changes.

However, I have a
lot of low voltage halogen downlighters in my house, that I put in
more than ten years ago. Of the eight located above the stairwell,
and the further five along the upstairs corridor, only one has failed
in all that time, and that was only a few months ago. Maybe, like you
with your CFLs, I have been lucky with these halogens.

**Perhaps. I swapped out all my iron transformers for SMPS some years ago,
to increase efficiency. The SMPS seem to deliver a pretty accurate Voltage,
so I doubt that is an issue. As an aside, my mother has a number of 12 Volt
halogens in her kitchen. I receive at least 2 calls per year to replace
blown lamps. I believe that low Voltage halogen downlights are an utterly
evil blight on society. They are OK for directing light into specific areas,
but are hopeless at lighting a space, relatively inneficient and they don't
last very long.

Here in the
UK, there have been governmental drives to push CFLs, by heavily
subsidising the cost of them, and in some cases, almost giving them
away in supermarkets, and in others *actually* giving them away.

**There are no subsidies in Australia for CFls, though the government did
give the things away for a couple of years. I snagged a few, but found the
colour temperature horrible and the lamps were clearly cheap rubbish. The
Philips lamps I buy are regularly sold for around $5.00 each. That's for a
23 Watt lamp, that, IME, has a life of AT LEAST 3,500 hours (I expect at
least double that figure) and, after 6 years of operation, is registering
less than a 5% fall in light output. Whichever way you slice it, that is
exceptional value for money.

the best will in the world, these are cheap crap, so that is what the
general public are having foisted on them as a result of the drive to
try to get people to actually want them, and is probably why the
general experience is that they don't last anything like as long as
the figures that they would try to have us believe. Also, those
figures are only good - if at all- when the ballast is properly
cooled, which means having the lamp in service the 'right' way up.
Unfortunately, many lamp fixtures that they go in, don't do this, and
luminaires enclose them completely. Incandescents didn't care about
this, of course.

**Perhaps. In my last home, I used a 150 Watt IC lamp and managed to do
serious damage to the plaster ceiling in the process. The fitting survived
fine, as it was designed to cope. The plaster was not. A CFL solved the
Only possibly, if you feel you are able to trust the figures for
manufacturing energy budget.

**Do the math with a figure of 17kWhr. The CFL is STILL ahead by a country

As I have said, I do not because of the
complexity of arriving at a figure. Plus you also need to factor in
the full energy cost of recycling the toxins contained within it at
the end of its service life. There is zero cost for this with an
incandescent, as it does not contain anything potentially harmful to
the environment.

**Not entirely true, but you point is well made. CFLs MUST be properly
disposed of. Again, this is not an impossibly costly exercise. Thos whacky
Swedes managed 75% recycling back in 2007.

Like all such things, the rates of recylcing will increase and the cost will
decrease over time.
Again, these figures are only meaningful if you genuinely achieve a
figure of 5000 hours across the board. And that is the important
thing. *All* CFLs need to achieve that figure for the calculations to
be valid, and that ain't never gonna happen, as long as there are
cheapo Chinese ones flooding the market. In any case, in Europe, coal
fired power stations have been on the decline for many years. Most
are now gas or nuclear

**Philips cite 6,000 hours for their lamps. Most manufacturers of IC lamps
cite an average of 750 - 1,000 hours for their standard IC lamps. These can
be made to last longer, but at the cost of efficiency. Fundamentally,
however, I take issue with your constant reference to cheap, crappy lamps. I
have CONSISTENTLY stated that I refer only to quality lamps (like Philips).
It would be like you trying to argue that automobiles are fundamentally
unsafe, unreliable and uneconomical, by using ONLY Tata automobiles as your
reference. You should be using Toyota, Honda, Mecedes, Hyundai and the
others as part of your reference.

No more talk of cheap, shitty lamps please. Whilst they are are available
and fools will buy them, they are not representative of state of the art in
quality or longevity.
On the face of it, they appear to, and as I said before, that is the
*only* angle that's been exploited by the greenies, to try to gain
them widespread acceptance.

**Incorrect. ALL green groups have expressed reservations about the proper
disposal of CFLs.

Personally, I believe that the situation
is far less clear than this rather simplistic assumption, when you
factor in the *true* costs.

**Fair enough. Cite these "true" costs you speak of. Numbers please.

Almost certainly, they use less energy if
you accept the simple picture, get the projected life from them, and
believe the equivalence figures for light output, that they put on
the boxes. And again, on this score, I understand that they are now
trying to legislate over here, to mark the boxes in lumens or some
such, probably because users are starting to doubt the quoted
equivalence figures. In reality, if you have a genuine like for like
in terms of light output, factor in the *real* costs of producing,
transporting, and disposing of properly at the end, and get the more
typical average service life of 2000 hours from them, then the saving
becomes much less significant, and for me, insufficient reason to ban
me from using incandescents.

**My CFLs are averaging far more than 2,000 hours. Do you have any data to
supplort your notion that QUALITY CFLs manage an average of 2,000 hours? Are
you aware of any consumer legal action against Philips? After Philips cite a
6,000 hour life for their product. Here in Australia, the penalties are
severe for companies engaged in misleading advertising of that nature.
Recently, LG was penalised several hundred thousand Dollars for making
misleading claims about the efficiency of their refrigerators. I'm certain
the legislators would be happy to tackle Philips, if you can supply solid
supporting evidence to back your claims (about QUALITY CFLs).
Distorted by the fact that CFLs are effectively government sponsored,

**Not in Australia. They compete in the market, like any other product. They
cost approximately 5 times as much as an equivalent IC lamp. They last 5
times longer and use 1/5th as much energy.

his might prove an intgeresting read for you:
and that I cannot buy the bulbs I want any more, because they have
banned them to make sure that I can't. If it was still incandescents
vs CFLs on a level playing field, the take up of CFLs would be much
less, which was the reason in the first place that they found it
necessary to legislate to force people to use them.

**I agree with that. Most people are, fundamentally, greedy, self-serving,
fools. They'll choose the cheapest, upfront solution, without regard to
longevity or running costs.
I fail to see how you equate leaded petrol to the situation with
CFLs. It is a different issue entirely, with very clear motives and
outcomes. You would have to be brain dead not to understand that
putting huge quantities of lead into the atmosphere at ground level
and in a form that people could breathe, is bad in every way.

**As is feeding excessive CO2 into the atmosphere. Too much CO2 is causing
excessive warming of this planet.
Removing lead from petrol had little if any impact on the general
public, because it was already possible to build engines that had no
requirement for lead in their fuel, without compromising performance.

**That was not the case here in Australia. Manufacturers had to alter their
production systems, costing millions of Dollars to cope. Most automobiles
suffered a performance fall when switched to unleaded fuel. Those who
retained their leaded fuel autos have to use expensive additives to

It was, unlike CFLs, a classic example of a genuine *replacement*
technology, which suffered no disadvantages over the technology that
it was replacing.

**Not here in Australia. Costs rose for buyers.

There was not even any need to challenge this bit
of legislation, because the advantages were very clear to see in
large cities the world over. Even if you clung on to your car that
needed leaded petrol, this was still available at the pumps for some
years after unleaded came in, and after it was finally removed from
sale, there was still LRP (lead replacement petrol) available for
some long time after that. Finally, if you still wanted to run your
vintage engine, this could be achieved in most cases by the simple
expedient of altering the ignition timing, and in the worst case,
reducing the compression ratio a little, by fitting a thicker head

**Incorrect. Leaded fuel vehicles require an additive to allow correct
operation of valves (seats). The simple expedient of altering timing is only
for making up for differences in octane, not lead.

CFLs are nothing like this. They are a substitute technology
which is unable to replace incandescents in a number of areas - such
as decorative light fittings - and having many other shortcomings in
comparison to incandescents, in exchange for the dubious possibility
that they in some way help to save the planet.

**Specialised IC lamps are still available in Australia. I don't know about
Europe. Fancy lamps, oven lamps and others are still available. For those
who refuse to change, halogen replacements are still available.
I'm having a bit of trouble picking the bones out of that one,
Trevor. You made a very clear statement that a disadvantage of
incandescents was that they generated heat that needed the use of
aircon plant to remove. I merely stated that this is not the case in
Northern Europe, where aircon is not common in the first place, and
where the exact opposite of what you contend, is true. In the case of
what you are stating, we are talking a double whammy in that the
lights waste energy in producing heat, and then your energy-thirsty
aircon plant has to be used to waste a bit more removing that heat.
Here, the heat is not 'wasted' for much of the year, as it partially
mitigates the required heating input from the central heating. 50
watts of heat pouring off a lightbulb into my living room, is 50
watts that my heating system has not got to put into my radiators. I
fail to see what your point is regarding Northern Europe against
'vast swathes of the planet etc'. The population density of Northern
Europe is much higher overall than that of many of these vast swathes
that you refer to, so the fact that we don't use huge amounts of
energy for aircon, equates to a much lower energy requirement per
person, taken overall.

**Apart from those places where geo-thermal energy is common, or
temperatures are too low, heat pumps (aka: air conditioners) are a far more
efficient method of heating a home than resistive heating.
So why do you support the banning of a proven simple technology,
which did the job of providing even-intensity pleasing-quality light,
to everyone's satisfaction ??


* IC lamps are NOT to everyone's satisfaction. I have ONLY used fluoro
lighting in my workshop for the last 40 years.
* IC lamps are unreliable and wasteful of energy.

Mick DaDik

Jan 1, 1970
Hi Tony,
I have, for now, substituted 2 of the halogens with LED lights from Deal
Extreme (MR16 4-LED 360-Lumen 3500K Warm White Light Bulb (12V)
Item Number 39027 49.5mm, $8.30) which consume only 6W (6W instead of 35
is a strong argument). They are bright enough but the yellowish colour
really needs to get used to. I don't know if I will keep them or get
some more white ones instead. Maybe someone has tried some more and
different ones? Let us know what you think. There is just too many too
chose from.

I have replaced 6 x 50w Halgens in our kitchen with 6 x these ones 3.8w each

and I have to say I am happy on several fronts.

firstly it consumes only 23w compared to 300w of the originals.
secondly they run cool not burning hot
thirdly the light is WHITE not yellow and floods the kitchen rather than
being directional like the halogens were.

Our ceilings are 9ft and the halogens created a bright area that was
very narrow and left deep shadows to the sides of the area...

These LEDs `flood' the whole area and in effect create a daylight
environment much more pleasing to me.

I will add that whilst they ran on AC 12V they had a slight flicker I
found disturbing so I now run them off 12Vdc and they are great.


Trevor Wilson

Jan 1, 1970
Arfa said:
But we're not talking cost here. We're talking energy budgets and
planetary pollution from industrial processes.

**Exactly. Large numbers of products, including automobiles, are carefully
costed, WRT energy consumption. They need to be in such a cut-throat market.

Any fool can say "this
transistor costs us 20 cents. This capacitor costs us 5 cents" and so
on. But it's an awful lot more complex to start looking into the
energy budget for refining the silicon.

**And yet, it is routinely done. For all manner of products. Bean counters
are very good at these sorts of things. That's why companies employ them.

For turning the silicon into
P and N types. For refining the plastic from the oil. For getting the
oil out of the ground. For getting the iron ore out of the ground.
For refining the iron out of the ore, and then converting it to
steel. Transporting all the constituents. Manufacturing them into a
transistor. Then shipping that transistor to the CFL maker. And on
and on. And that's just one component out of a considerable number -

My point obviously being that in comparison, an incandescent has a
very few constituent parts, all of which are simple, and have simple
well defined manufacturing processes, that could easily be energy

**And CFLs can be energy badgeted just as well, if not with slightly more
Well, good luck with that one. As long as they have to keep putting
any kind of control electronics in them to make them run from AC line
voltage, then as long as they are not subsidised, they are never
going to get as cheap as incandescents, or have as low an energy
budget to produce.

**I don't know what the energy cost of manufacture is, for LEDs, but I'll
bet it is lower than CFLs. Moreover, since a large chunk of the energy cost
involves the cost of aluminium, since that aluminium is infinitely
recyclable, the total energy cost would likely be very competitive.

Whilst there have been some major advances in
recent years in the light output and efficiency of LEDs , they still
have relatively poor colour rendition qualities for home use, and
still struggle to produce even omni-directional light as is required
for general lighting, due to the fact that the light is produced at a
flat surface.

**Wrong on all counts. In my kitchen, I use a range of lighting, depending
on what I need to do. The low Voltage halogens provide excellent, high
intensity light, but with poor dispersion. I also use an 11 Watt T5 fluoro
for day-to-day bench work. I recently purchased some of these:

Not only is light output almost double that of the fluoro (measured with a
light meter), but it does so on-axis and all off-axis positions too (easily
100+ degrees of spread). Colour temperature is very close to that of the
halogens. I already have a number applications planned for them. I don't
know how long they'll last. Further: I've been buying these things for many
years (at least 10 years):

They're inexpensive, good quality, long lasting and have a respectably wide
light spread.

Of course, there has been the venerable Luxeon emitters, which are available
in up to 120 degree spread and have been for many years.

As to not experiencing the same longevity as you with
my CFLs, I thought that I carefully explained that I have purchased
all qualities of the things, and have not found the expensive
'quality' names to be any longer lived than the cheapos. This seems
to be the findings of others on here, as well.

**I suggest you read this:

"After 6000 hours (December 2010), several good performers were still going
strong. All had dimmed since the start of our test, but the best performers
had dimmed comparatively little - if you had one of these in your home, its
gradual dimming over three (or more) years would probably not be

The test involved a large mnumber of lamps. Quite a different scenario to
yours and mine.
Well no. That is an unfair slant in favour of the CFL argument. As
long as cheap crappy ones are available, *most* people - not just
"fools" as you so disparagingly refer to them - will buy them over
the expensive quality ones, because they don't understand the
difference, as we do. It's human nature to buy cheap, which is why
the Chinese are doing so well on the back of world-wide sales of
cheap - and often crap quality - electronic goods, offered for sale
through all our nations' supermarkets. This is where the whole thing
breaks down as an argument about the eco validity of any of this
technology. The manufacturers of the cheap CFLs are in it purely to
make money.

**I would posit that ALL manufacturers of CFLs (and ICs) are in it for the

They have no concern at all for the 'green' credentials
of their products, except in as much as they will sell in their
millions, irrespective of their quality, just because the *are* CFLs.
So whilst it is true what you say in that the cheapo ones are not
representative of the state of the art, unfortunately, they *are*
representative of what is being sold in quantity to the general
public, and their contribution to the validity of the discussion,
cannot be ignored until *all* CFLs that are offered for sale, are
indeed representative of the state of the art. I'm sorry if that
offends your sensibilities, but it *is* part of the overall equation.

**It doesn't offend me in the slightest. Just as there are a number of
quality manufacturers of automobiles, like Hyundai, Honda and Toyota, there
are also a number of manufacturers of crap automobiles, like Chery and Tata.
A prospective buyer has access to the same information about these vehicles
that I do and anyone who buys a Tata or a Chery does so in the knowledge
that they are crap automobiles. Same deal with CFLs. I've made the mistake
of buying some cheap CFLs. I will not do so again.
In fact, your analogy with the cars, is self-defeating, because you
could look at it from the other angle, and say that if you take say
BMW as your reference, then all other cheaper makes are invalid
because they are not 'state of the art', and people who buy them are

**Not so. I would posit that BMW buyers are fools. BMW cars have a average
reputation for reliability, average fuel economy, ordinary stylinbg (IMO),
expensive spare parts and are no safer than (say) a Toyota/Lexus. Even a
Hyundai can probably beat the BMW in a number of areas. Particularly price.

The cheaper makes will always be bought by the general public,
because not everyone can afford the safety and performance of a BMW,

**Not everyone wants to be gouged by their local BMW dealer either. BMW is
legendary for it's greed WRT spare parts, service and a host of other issues
(here in Australia).
just like not everyone can afford to pay £5 or whatever for a bulb to
replace an incandescent that they are used to paying 50 pence for.

**Let's try to put that into some kind of perspective:

The quality CFL costs around AUS$5.00, not 5 Quid.
A quality, 100 Watt, (1,000 hour) IC lamp used to cost around AUS$1.00. The
replacement halogens are more expensive (about $3.50).

If UK residents are paying 5 Quid for quality, government subsidised CFLs,
then there is something seriously wrong with the system. We can land them
way across the other side of the planet (mine were made in China) for less
than you can buy them.

there is a CFL costing 50 pence on the shelf alongside the £5 one,
you tell me, which one are most uninformed people going to buy ?

**There is something seriously wrong with your prices. They're far too high
for CFLs. Our prices are much lower and there's no subsidies.

it is for precisely this reason that the whole CFL thing, taken on a
world-wide basis, falls apart.

But that is actually another comparatively minor issue. Important
from the pollution point of view, yes, but insignificant compared to
the manufacturing energy budgets and pollution-causing manufacturing
processes, that are NEVER mentioned by these groups, because they
never even consider these 'hidden' aspects.

**Never say "never".
I cannot give numbers,

**OK. I can't provide you with any more data than I already have. If you
cannot counter my data, then we must accept that mine is the most accurate
available. Your 'gut feel' doesn't count.

because there are none that FULLY analyse ALL
energy inputs and pollution outputs for the hundreds of processes
involved. And when I say "costs", I am not talking monetary ones, as
I explained earlier. As I said, I am sure that it is just too
complicated a situation to ever be able to arrive at a real figure,
but no matter how much you don't want to believe it, you have to
accept that there *are* many hundreds of process steps and transport
steps involved in CFL manufacture, compared to incandescent
manufacture, which *must* add up to a very significant amount,

**It does add up. A CFL costs around 6 times as much, energy-wise, to make,
compared to an IC lamp.

is being totally ignored in making the 'green' case for the things.
Whether it can be accurately quantified or not, if you stop and think
about it, it is common sense.

**You keep neglecting that it was _me_ who provided the data regarding the
energy costs of production of the two lamps.
See my earlier comments regarding quality CFLs versus the reality of
what people *actually* buy ...

**I was directly addressing your claims that CFLs had a life-span that was
considerably less than that claimed. Here in Australia (and, presumably, in
Europe) such data must be able to be justified to consumer regulators.
Severe fines can result for manufacturers who fail to live up to the claims
of their products. AFIK, Philips has not been fined for their longevity
claims. Moreover, the article I directed you to has indicated that most
samples were very reliable.
I don't understand this. By saying that, you make my case for me, and
utterly destroy your own ...

**Er, nope. I understand EXACTLY why people want IC lamps. They're cheap.
Upfront. That, of course, is the short-sighted approach.
That is by no means proven in science.

**Bollocks! Read this:

Read AR4 IN FULL. If you feel that AR4 is in error, then you should submit a
page by page rebuttal.

Only in the media.

**Er, nope. SCIENCE has released the data. The media publishes whatever
their editorial people or owners tell them to. Scientists cite data.

There are
many reputable scientists who believe otherwise.

**Er, no, there isn't. There are a bunch of liars, charlatans and those who
are employed by the fossil fuel industry who publish cherry-picked and
misleading information. In fact, a goodly amount is nothing but lies.

There is little difference between engines that burn leaded and
unleaded fuel.

**Bollocks. One vehicle I have some familiarity with is the Mitsubishi
Corida Turbo. The leaded version delivered 110kW with premium leaded fuel.
The unleaded version delivered 90kW with premium unleaded.

For sure, there had to be some modification to the
production and design processes, but these occur for the
manufacturers every time they bring out a new model or engine. The
monetary costs of doing this are factored into a new design, so will
actually not have been any particularly burdensome problem for the

**It was for manu Australian manufacturers. One had to tool up to use alloy
heads, whilst another just gave up and imported (at huge cost) Japanese
alloy head engines, rather than tooling up.

Drops in performance of existing engines when
converted to run on unleaded fuel were actually fairly minor, and
most people here, at least, did not even bother converting because
leaded petrol was available alongside unleaded, for a reasonable time
period. Back when all this happened, cars were not that long-lived
anyway, so unless you had only just bought a new one, it was no great
shakes that the next one you bought would be produced with an
unleaded petrol engine, already designed in. The manufacturers knew
this was coming, and had plenty of time to carry out the required
design alterations, and actually to amortise the costs in their
existing production, in readiness for the legislation.

**Again: Not here in Australia.
The lead was in the petrol as an anti-knock agent, as I recall

**And as a lubricant for valves.
Nope. Pretty much all outlawed here.

**Apparently not:|16849318&c_3=3|cat_14418038|Globes|14327548



You can't get a proper golf ball
or candle any more. You haven't been able to get pearlised bulbs of
any description for a long time. Truly specialised ones for ovens etc
are still available, because it is simply impossible to replace them
with anything else. Halogen 'Apollo nose-cones' are still available
at the moment, and capsule halogens still are, but only in clear
envelopes, which are pretty useless compared to frosted ones. I was
looking around the other day to see if I could still find any halogen
replacements (the type where a halogen capsule bulb is incorporated
into a 'traditional' shaped incandescent envelope), and the only ones
of those that I could find were clear. These give a very harsh light,
whereas the pearlised ones, gave a very nice even light

**They do, indeed.

Phil Allison

Jan 1, 1970

** FFS - learn how to trim !!
The one advantage they have over incandescents is that they are not
affected by vibration.

** Low voltage incandescents are genuinely not affected.

But most CFLs are easily damaged by it.

After time, the glue fails and the glass tubes or spirals come loose from
the plastic case.

Then with vibration or handling, the feed wires break.

There simply is no quality control and a myriad of things to go wrong.

And the Chinese are making them.

..... Phil