Best bet for Lighting?

Obi-Wan,

I am not a glutton. I wish that the entire world could enjoy our standard of living. And they could, if not for political considerations. Starvation is not a lack of resources problem, it's a political problem. The USA could feed most of the world single-handedly if we were allowed to.

I am all for "green" solutions that work. The fact is, most of them don't. They're just somebody's idea of good PR. Most of this stuff is politically motivated as well.

Take wind power as one small example. I live in Indiana, and windmills are being erected at an incredible pace. They are very impressive. One blade for these things takes an over-sized semi-trailer to haul it. I watch them rolling down the interstate every day.

But now lets examine the facts. Put up a windmill, get free unlimited power, right? Not exactly. If you put up enough of these to replace the power generated by a conventional power plant, there is no way to store the power. It would take an incredible amount of batteries to do this. (and then what do you do with the spent batteries?) So what happens when the wind doesn't blow? They have to leave a conventional power plant idling (using energy) to take up the slack when the wind isn't enough. Because you can't fire 'em up like turning on a light switch, so they have to be ready to go.

So, at this point in time, wind power is practical on a small scale only. Someday, when someone develops a storage scheme that is practical it will be viable on a large scale. When that day comes I will be all for it. But right now, it's a salve for the masses, and great PR for the politicians.

There are similar holes in most of the other green schemes.

Don't accept what they tell you at face value. Dig a little for the facts.



With sincere best intentions,

Tom
 
As far as lighting goes.. I just use a 2 40watt bulbs.

In another room that I am planning on turning into a studio, I have 4 of the lights like APL has in his studio. I would much rather have the 2 40 watts though, as they seem to put out more light. The fluorescent bulbs just don't seem as bright to me. However, just for a microphone room, it will be adequate.

I love how this thread turned into an environmental argument.
I would have to agree with Rod Gervais on his views. I can't stand being lectured about how the environment is in ruins. There is no such thing as global warming!!

I was actually watching something on Discovery I think, and they said the average temperature was going to drop almost 30 degrees in the next 1000 years. Well Mr. Gore.. Which is it?.. :D
 
Sir_Doof_Alot said:
Well Mr. Gore.. Which is it?.. :D
Click to expand...

Awww........ don't go picking on poor old Al - he's still got egg on his face over the whole "I invented the internet thinggy"......

Which (BTW - for those who might be interested) was actually created by the military a long time before the public ever began to operate in that world....... but Al was feeling unimportant and wanted to be the center of attention - so he had to say something........................
 
tc4b said:
How's that fossil fuel scheme working out?
Click to expand...

Not 1/2 shabby all things considered - and when they finally let us open up the new fields in Alaska - the Gulf - and along the shores of southern california - we'll be knee deep in roughly another thousand years worth of supplies.

Plus they are almost ready to begin the removal of oil shale deposits in the upper west and midwest....... it looks like blowing off charges followed by pressurizing the lines will get the job done - and there is more than a thousand years worth of fuel sitting there as well by all estimates (the problem has always been a cost effective way to get it out of the shale deposits.) The estimates are 2.9 billion barrels of oil shale worldwide - and the US has 2 billion of those barrels sitting here.

Nope - things are looking up all the time - better things are coming down the road.

Sincerely,

Rod
 
BTW - to the original poster - yes fluorescent lighting along with their ballasts can cause interference with recording gear - I will not install that lighting in any of the studios I design.

Sincerely,

Rod
 
Well, this has turned into a giant thread of disinformation. We need to drag Light down here to straighten us out!

But now lets examine the facts. Put up a windmill, get free unlimited power, right? Not exactly. If you put up enough of these to replace the power generated by a conventional power plant, there is no way to store the power. It would take an incredible amount of batteries to do this. (and then what do you do with the spent batteries?) So what happens when the wind doesn't blow? They have to leave a conventional power plant idling (using energy) to take up the slack when the wind isn't enough. Because you can't fire 'em up like turning on a light switch, so they have to be ready to go.
Click to expand...

Yes, you do need storage. In Europe, they solve that by pumping water. Not the most efficient process. Technological change is needed. For example, when transportation switches to electric (which needs better battery technology), then everybody can plug in and be a massive power sink/source as needed.

No, it doesn't quite work today. It will work better in a few decades.

Also, you don't have to idle a power plant. Some power plants have long start-up times, some don't. So you do need to consider that. Of course, wind is weather, and can be forecast with some reliability--just like utilities need to pay attention to very hot days to crank out power for everybody's AC.


It can't continnue to move around the world at the same rates if you strip energy from it to covert to electricity.
Click to expand...

While a nearby wind turbine drops the velocity enough to affect a turbine placed a little too close, I don't think the jet stream will care too much.

You have the same thing with tidal waters - and each photovotaic cell is a bit of sun power that used to warm the earth that no longer does or will......... you could place enough of them around the world to easily cool the earth several degrees.
Click to expand...

Yikes. Energy must be conserved, you know. The solar radiation generated by all those solar cells is converted to heat in your studio full of incandescent bulbs. Now, if all those solar cells change the albedo of the planet, that could change global temperature (although there would have to be a silly large number of them). Since solar cells are designed to absorb radiation, not reflect it, the Earth would be heated, not cooled.

Listen - first off - 40 watts of light is 40 watts of light - it doesn't know of care in what format it is consumed....... it is complete bull that a 40 watt CFL produces the same lighting as a 60 or 70 or 100 watt incandescent bulb.

If you want 40 watts of light - put in a 40 watt bulb.
Click to expand...

That's really false. 40 watts is 40 watts of power. Power can be dissipated as light, as heat, or as sounds from your guitar amplifier (which hits your broadband absorbers and becomes heat). Incandescent lights are less efficient than CFLs or LEDs because they dissipate much more power as heat than light.

Come into my studio--I have three lighting options; 4 7W CFLs, 4 15W incandescents, and 6 35W halogen track lights. Nevermind the halogens for a moment. The CFLs and 15Wers are right next to each other in my floating cloud.

According to you, the incandescents should be brighter than the CFLs. Hint: not even close. Those 15Wers are my "mood" lights. When I want to actually be able to read what is on my desk, I turn on the CFLs.

Unfortunately = the problem with incandescent lighting is that it has been given it's death shot - They will no longer be allowed to manufacture it after somewhere between 2012 and 2014

So if you like them - you had better begin stockpiling them......
Click to expand...

Only inefficient incandescents will be banned. Manufacturers are hard at work on newer efficient incandescent technology. GE is supposed to have product out in 2010.

seriously, though--the problem with led lighting is its terrible color rendition. it's pretty tough on the eyes after awhile. it's basically the same shortcoming as with fluorescents, but much more so.
Click to expand...

There's an easy fix for that: sub in a few yellows amongst the whites. Cleans up the color temperature nicely. If the LEDs are flickering, that's because they probably used the LED to half-rectify its own AC supply. Throw a capacitor in there, problem solved.

I get dizzy with fluorescent light, so I guess it has to be not so good, my take would be classic lightbulbs, which have the most natural light of them all, and they do not heat as much as, for example, halogen lamps.
Click to expand...

Not true! Halogens are more efficient than incandescents: a 30W halogen is equivalent to a 50W incandescent. Therefore, for a given amount of light, the halogen will dissipate less heat into the room.

Now, for some reason manufacturers think 200W halogens are really groovy. I use 35W models, they work fine.




OK, what do I do? As I said, I use a mix. The big problem with fluorescent light is it's red-poor. During the daytime, curtains are open, sunlight fills in that spectrum, CFLs give enough direct light to see clearly.

At night, I add the 15W incandescents to fill in the spectrum, while the CFLs still do all the heavy lifting. When it's time to simmer down, I turn off the CFLs, and add the track lights, which are aimed at the wall and thus provide very mellow light.

I use CFLs in most areas of my house, but nowhere exclusively (my workshop is all traditional fluorescents, because the power budget out there is very tight). It's always a mix of primarily CFLs, with low-watt incandescents to fill in the spectrum, and provide dimming where required (dimmable CFLs still suck bad).

I'm playing with LED puck lights too. They will need the yellow mod I mentioned above. And Christmas tree lights, those all went LED last year. I used to see a $20 bump in my December bill, that is gone now. The LEDs paid for themselves in one year.

That's why I like CFLs--they save money. Mercury; meh, the extra coal the incandescent burns emits more mercury than a broken CFL.

Interference? Well, my house is EMI hell, not because of CFLs, but cheap dimmer switches. The low-EMI dimmers are rather expensive (like $30-50 a crack). CFLs are the least of my problems there, but again, lighting options are good. Tracking a noisy guitar? Turn off the CFLs. And oh yeah, all the dimmer switches in my house :( That's why I do balanced guitars now :cool:
 
mshilarious said:
While a nearby wind turbine drops the velocity enough to affect a turbine placed a little too close, I don't think the jet stream will care too much.
Click to expand...

You know - if it was only a few turbines I would agree - but you are talking thoudsands of thousands worldwide - and you have no idea whatsoever what effect taking that much energy out of the jet stream will do - no one does - but there HAS to be an effect when the energy is reduced - and the effect is going to be world wide - which means it could possibly be cumulative in nature - with the effect slowly growing in size simply because of the fact that there is no where for everything to come back to full force.

Remember - when we began with fossil fuels no one predicted the effect they would have either.......... so don't go getting all complacent that nothing we can do by taking away wind energy can effect the environment - isn't it thinking like that what got us into this trouble you think we are in in the first place?



Yikes. Energy must be conserved, you know. The solar radiation generated by all those solar cells is converted to heat in your studio full of incandescent bulbs. Now, if all those solar cells change the albedo of the planet, that could change global temperature (although there would have to be a silly large number of them). Since solar cells are designed to absorb radiation, not reflect it, the Earth would be heated, not cooled.
Click to expand...

Sorry - but here you are very mistaken - yes solar cells are designed to absorb radiation - but they won't heat the earth - because the radiation they collect is converted to another type of energy - electricity - and the heat given off by my incandescent lights is only a part of the converted energy - with the remainder being light - and your cool touch fluorescent lighting reduces that even more......... so sorry - but no cigar - the majority of the heat they remove from the equation is lost forever........... and (again) there is more and more of a push in this direction - we know at some point it would have to effect the ecology - but no one knows at what point that is.

We know for a fact that a lot of energy is lost in the process of conversion (nothing is 100% effecient - although nuclear power comes close - especially if we are replenishing the rods in breeder reactors) and even you should see that if we were to cover the entire earth (an absurd thought - but let's start there for a moment) that the lost energy would have to have an adverse effect on the planet.

omewhere in between one photovotaic cell and covering the entire planet - is a point where adverse effct will begin to take place - do you know for a fact at what exact point that is?

I don't either - I can only see man's gluttony - and that he tends to carry everything to the n'th degree once started........

The same goes with tidal turbines - place enough of them and they will have to affect the tidal activity globally - what's the difference between one too many and just enough? who the hell knows?


That's really false. 40 watts is 40 watts of power. Power can be dissipated as light, as heat, or as sounds from your guitar amplifier (which hits your broadband absorbers and becomes heat). Incandescent lights are less efficient than CFLs or LEDs because they dissipate much more power as heat than light.

Come into my studio--I have three lighting options; 4 7W CFLs, 4 15W incandescents, and 6 35W halogen track lights. Nevermind the halogens for a moment. The CFLs and 15Wers are right next to each other in my floating cloud.

According to you, the incandescents should be brighter than the CFLs. Hint: not even close. Those 15Wers are my "mood" lights. When I want to actually be able to read what is on my desk, I turn on the CFLs.
Click to expand...

Well that's you - and I am just the opposite - in fact CFl's give me raging headaches - if I want clean llight I go for ICL any day of the week........ it's what is sitting right behind my right shoulder now - and is fantastic indirect lighting.


Only inefficient incandescents will be banned. Manufacturers are hard at work on newer efficient incandescent technology. GE is supposed to have product out in 2010.
Click to expand...

Wrong from everything I've seen - the ony GE reports I see on this go back to 2007 - nothing now- and GE says their focus is LED lighting to replace the incandescents....... show me something recent where GE announces they are continuing in that direction.

Look at this:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=59298

Note that Austrailia has an outright ban that goes into effect in the year 2010 - and the euoropean nations are following - as is China and the rest of the world (eventually)

All of the major lighting manufacturers are announcing their intent to abandon the technology in facvor of LED's and CFL's


That's why I like CFLs--they save money. Mercury; meh, the extra coal the incandescent burns emits more mercury than a broken CFL.
Click to expand...

I really don't care about the cost - I'll gladly pay the extra tarrif for the better quality lighting - where I don't have to worry about adding something because the lighting is red defficient.

Anyway - we can agree to disagree here - but this is not disinformation I am passing on here - it's facts (although some might like to wish it otherwise).

A carefull look at where we might be headed with all of this.

To dismiss this as bull is to stick your head in the sand and say "nothing we do with any of these technologies can affect us" which is exactly what the green claim is about the people who push the use and sale of fossil fuels and incandescent lights.......

How can you not see the potential possibilities? Are you not aware that any of this pushed beyond to a certain limit can abuse the environment? The problem is that no one knows a what point that will come into play - and won't until it's already had an effect.

Respectfully,

Rod Gervais
 
Compared to the heat output of equivalent incandescents, yes, I am a genius.
Click to expand...
Compared to the light of incandescents, those fluorescents suck.:D And their ugly.:rolleyes: I'll take incandescents any day.
AND the lava lamps, AND the christmas lights.:D
 
Rod and Slick,

Glad you took the 'gluttons' as the challenge it was and not personally. Respect is returned. But you are wrong to say that your consumption does not affect others. Just look at how Chinese and Indian fossil fuel consumption, abetted by speculation (speculation based on expectations of consumption) has affected your own bank account.

Funny how conservatives seem to be against conservation. To my thinking, it's hypocrisy.

As for Windmills drawing too much energy out of prevailing winds, just as with the Mercury issue brought up earlier, I'm aware of this concern among some scientists. From what I've read, this is not proven either way, and sudy on this is not conclusive.

If this were the case, why don't massive forests and grasslands waving in the wind suck up all of a zephyr's might? Waves cupping the wind and drawing energy to dash against the sand? Have global winds increased with deforestation? No.

Where does this 30% energy draw figure come from anyhow??????

10 times more forests in Connecticut???? In the 30 years that I have spent time here, first visiting and then residing, I have witnessed much development. Native Americans' agricultural impact is certainly much greater than most believe, but what you are saying is absurd. New Haven and Milford, 1640, surrounded by solid farmland for a hundred miles around? Before the Chestnut blight? Before the Walnut and cherry was harvested? My fother grew up in a c. 1780 farmhouse. I've seen the size of the timbers in that house. There must have been impressive forrestation-- 300 yards from I 95. The rediculous can be trus sometimes, but I'd like to see a link.

You guys are claiming that the "greens" are distorting much, but the anti-conservation interests who are providing you with your information are much further from the truth than wild-eyed liberal holier-than-thou greenies like myself. ;)

***
As for the studio, if CFL's produce any of the same interference as old school flourescents, there should be incandescent or halogen lighting installed for use when the 'rec' light is on. We use incandescents during dinner and for company. CFL's other times. Just like using the window AC in (only) the baby's room when it's 95 and a fan when it's only 85. Use what you need.

I think we can all afford to have sallow looking LED or CFL skin while we're placing microphones around the drumset.

Another point: with flourescents and dimmers all over my house, I have never noticed anything undesireable in any of the recordings I've made. I'm just not working on that level, and neither are most of us.

O-W Z
 
omtayslick said:
Obi-Wan,


So, at this point in time, wind power is practical on a small scale only. Someday, when someone develops a storage scheme that is practical it will be viable on a large scale. When that day comes I will be all for it. But right now, it's a salve for the masses, and great PR for the politicians.

There are similar holes in most of the other green schemes.

Don't accept what they tell you at face value. Dig a little for the facts.



With sincere best intentions,

Tom
Click to expand...

Tom, for alternative energy sources to be "viable," you seem to be suggesting the requirement that they be without negative environmental impact or inconvenience.

Russia was a percieved danger. Al Qaeda was a percieved danger. Etc. National preparedness requires some sacrifice and inconvenience. We green thinking folks just see the likelihood of Global Climate Change, however unproven and complex, as a clear and present danger.

It's a challenge to humanity, and my hope is that political will is reaching a tipping point. Sustainability and global economic health will take many of these tipping points.

Come Join Us! :)

Joe/O-Wz

PS: How many lightbulbs are on in your house now? Is someone in every room where they are on? ;)
 
Obi-Wan zenabI said:
10 times more forests in Connecticut???? In the 30 years that I have spent time here, first visiting and then residing, I have witnessed much development. Native Americans' agricultural impact is certainly much greater than most believe, but what you are saying is absurd. New Haven and Milford, 1640, surrounded by solid farmland for a hundred miles around? Before the Chestnut blight? Before the Walnut and cherry was harvested? My fother grew up in a c. 1780 farmhouse. I've seen the size of the timbers in that house. There must have been impressive forrestation-- 300 yards from I 95. The rediculous can be trus sometimes, but I'd like to see a link.
Click to expand...

Obi,

All you have to do is open your eyes when you walk in the woods my friend.

Almost all of the woods you walk in have stone walls running through them. Why do you think that is?

Even the State properties have them - I know - I lived in the woods the better part of my childhood- and then as an adult in construction for the last 30 plus year have traversed more than my share of properties being considered for development......... as well as riding horses through the state trails.

Stone walls everywhere.........

Why do you think that is? Do you suppose that someone decided in the old days that they would neaten up the forests by collecting stones to construct stone walls in the middle of nowhere?

Nope - where you see stone walls that used to be farm land or grazing fields - not forests..... the indians also used to clear forest land to make it easier to hunt. Burning of forests by the indians was not uncommon.

That's how the great plains became the great plains - the indians used to burn them to make it much easier to hunt - trees can be a pain in the butt when you want to put food on your table.

Here's some interesting reading - and not by some right wing conservatives - but by some of the green people......

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3845/is_199801/ai_n8790311/pg_1?tag=artBody;col1

Funny how conservatives seem to be against conservation. To my thinking, it's hypocrisy.
Click to expand...

I am very conserative - and am not against conservation - in fact - the company I work for right now is an award wining green company - what do you think of that?

However - what I am NOT for is the knee jerk reaction that man is literally destroying the earth - or that man is not - or should not - somehow be a part of the equation.

The planet earth is doing just fine - forest growth in the country is pretty much stable for the last hundred years - anyone caught polluting the waters in the US should be shot (I'll even hold them while you do it) but - once they are stopped - the waterways will cleanse themselves........ etc., etc., etc.

Everything is NOT gloom and doom.

As for Windmills drawing too much energy out of prevailing winds, just as with the Mercury issue brought up earlier, I'm aware of this concern among some scientists. From what I've read, this is not proven either way, and sudy on this is not conclusive.
Click to expand...

Very true - I'll agree with you 100% on that - but then again - there is no proof of global warming either - and yet everyone is in a stampede over the issue just because IF it is happening it could be catostrophic......

Well as I mentioned earlier - IF there is any truth in the theory - by the time we figure it out - the results would be catostrophic - this because no one knows at what point too much is too much......

Justr for the record - I have never suggested that in order for an alternative energy to be viable that it has to be ecologically friendly - in fact I realize that NO energy source is truly ecologically friendly - BUT - I take umbrage to the suggestion that there are such things as enironmentally friendly, self renewing energy sources that can't harm the ecology in one way or another - I don't mind searching out alternatives - but please don't insult my intelligence during the search. I am not one of the sheep who will be blindly lad by either the right or the left..... and both sides are equally as bad in those respects.

Sincerely,

Rod
 
Rod Gervais said:
Obi,

as an adult in construction for the last 30 plus year have traversed more than my share of properties being considered for development......... as well as riding horses through the state trails.

Stone walls everywhere.........

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3845/is_199801/ai_n8790311/pg_1?tag=artBody;col1

I am very conserative - and am not against conservation - in fact - the company I work for right now is an award wining green company - what do you think of that?

Everything is NOT gloom and doom.



Very true - I'll agree with you 100% on that - but then again - there is no proof of global warming either - and yet everyone is in a stampede over the issue just because IF it is happening it could be catostrophic......

Well as I mentioned earlier - IF there is any truth in the theory - by the time we figure it out - the results would be catostrophic - this because no one knows at what point too much is too much......

I am not one of the sheep who will be blindly lad by either the right or the left..... and both sides are equally as bad in those respects.

Sincerely,

Rod
Click to expand...

Those stone walls that line the meritt and such and have 50-80 year growth are obviously euro-american built--- but you are using them to support a claim that the N.E. forests were less prevalent upon european arrival. That doesn't fit. No way are they precolombian.

The deer and wild turkeys that traipse through my yard just about daily are evidence of unhealthy forests. Where are the predators? Connecticut is in pretty good shape in many ways, but while I feel comfortable letting my boys swim in the sound, we certainly can't eat the shellfish. I grew up near the Chesapeake. There is a waterway that is pretty much ecologically decimated.

But whatever, no point in playing these details back and forth like pokemon cards at eachother. Climate change is a distinctly prpbable outcome of our resource use. Why in the heck would anyone advocate putting off taking precautions and making changes?

Hmmm. Money? Exactly. And you, who stands to benefit financially for relaxed environmental regulation, are here arguing against these environmental concerns. Your motives are just too obvious to allow anyone to listen to what you are saying without keeping this in mind.

Look what shape our economy is in as we have put off dealing with credit and deficit issues. Our environment will suffer an analagous fate as we put off making important, somewhat economically pinful changes.
 
LEDs would be cool. I use an LED array bulb in the light that's always on.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top