Jump to content


Photo

regular light bulb banned in EU


  • Please log in to reply
21 replies to this topic

#1 klas persson

klas persson
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 39 posts
  • Director
  • Bollnäs. Sweden

Posted 08 December 2008 - 07:28 PM

The traditional light bulbs are soon to be illegal here in Europe. Weird but true...

Anyway. What is a good replacement for them? I kind of like the set up Roger Deakins likes to use, a custom made light board with lots of bulbs on it. A couple strong ones in the middle and weaker for every ring of bulbs you put around it. You get the picture. A cheap, soft and nice light.

Well, what would be a good replacement? Cheap and flexible that is. Is LEDbulbs the way to go? Haven't used them yet. Should test a few to see how they behave. The compact fluorescent doesn't agree with me though.

Or should I just stock up some. They're pulling 100w and above 2009.
  • 0

#2 J. Lamar King

J. Lamar King
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 764 posts
  • Gaffer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 09 December 2008 - 07:31 PM

You know I wonder how this will affect Photo Floods? Will there be some type of exemption for professional use? I can see this coming to the USA soon. They've already started in Canada. The CFL might save energy but so far from my experience it is the most ugly, flickering, non-continuous spectrum POS invention ever. They give me headaches! Have you ever been in a house that was lit with only CFL's? It's painful. Wonder if these things will mess up your eyes if you grow up with them? :blink:
  • 0

#3 Walter Graff

Walter Graff
  • Sustaining Members
  • 1334 posts
  • Other
  • New York City

Posted 09 December 2008 - 11:35 PM

Another ridiculous move based on stupidity that somehow we are making the world inhabitable. Next they are banning tooth brushes because they waste too much energy rubbing against your teeth. Enjoy your Florescents and the headaches that go with them. As I always say for every step forward we take two steps back. The US bans them in 2014 so start stocking up.
  • 0

#4 Ralph Keyser

Ralph Keyser
  • Sustaining Members
  • 120 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 10 December 2008 - 07:35 PM

If you like hurting yourself, you can go read the text of the act passed by the US congress at:
http://energy.senate...tyActof2007.pdf
The bill includes all the markups and revisions along the way, making for really awful reading if you're trying to figure out what's going on.

The short version, as I read it, is that our professional lights in the US are unlikely to be impacted by this particular bill. It refers only to "general service incandescent lamps" with medium screw bases. I would venture that a Photo Flood is hardly a general service application lamp. Plus, there is a long list of "excluded" types of lamps which, interestingly, includes 3-way bulbs.

Is it something similar in Europe?
  • 0

#5 J. Lamar King

J. Lamar King
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 764 posts
  • Gaffer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 10 December 2008 - 10:26 PM

I did notice in a recent BBC news story that it said tungsten globes could be replaced with CFL's or Halogen globes. I could live with halogen.
  • 0

#6 Walter Graff

Walter Graff
  • Sustaining Members
  • 1334 posts
  • Other
  • New York City

Posted 10 December 2008 - 10:43 PM

It's about efficiency per watt. If a lamp (incandescent is less than 25% efficient) than it is being banned. Halogens and flouros will replace the general home lighting world. I already have replaced every light in my home and outside with flouro. It cuts down a bit on my horrendous electric bills.
  • 0

#7 John Sprung

John Sprung
  • Sustaining Members
  • 4635 posts
  • Other

Posted 16 December 2008 - 09:10 PM

I did notice in a recent BBC news story that it said tungsten globes could be replaced with CFL's or Halogen globes. I could live with halogen.

It's unfortunate that they're referred to as "tungsten globes". Tungsten is the one thing ordinary and halogen lamps have in common. The filament is tungten in both cases. The gas inside the envelope is either argon or a halogen. The envelope is either ordinary borosilicate glass, or quartz.

Because they're both using hot tungsten to make light, the Planckian distribution is the same, they both look just as good.





-- J.S.
  • 0

#8 Bob Hayes

Bob Hayes
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1087 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Culver City, California

Posted 18 December 2008 - 09:00 AM

LOL

Walter, in your first post you sound like you think trying save energy and protect the planet is a waste of time. Then your next post says you rushed out to do it.

Another ridiculous move based on stupidity that somehow we are making the world inhabitable. Next they are banning tooth brushes because they waste too much energy rubbing against your teeth. Enjoy your Fluorescents and the headaches that go with them. As I always say for every step forward we take two steps back. The US bans them in 2014 so start stocking up.


It's about efficiency per watt. If a lamp (incandescent is less than 25% efficient) than it is being banned. Halogens and flouros will replace the general home lighting world. I already have replaced every light in my home and outside with flouro. It cuts down a bit on my horrendous electric bills.


  • 0

#9 Walter Graff

Walter Graff
  • Sustaining Members
  • 1334 posts
  • Other
  • New York City

Posted 18 December 2008 - 09:37 AM

Actually you didn't read my post correctly. I said the reason I changed over to fluorescents was that "It cuts down a bit on my horrendous electric bills." I have cut my electric bills in half doing a number of things. To pay $400 a month for electric is ridiculous (thank you deregulation) so I have actively attempted to find ways to save money. It had nothing to do with saving the earth. As a person with a degree in atmospheric sciences and a person who knows the current science well, I can say that human global warming is a thing of myths. Al Gore's 'dockumentary' sure prooves that. To the bread and circus he makes a convincing argument, but to those who know the science, he is laughable. But he created a new industry. Saving the earth form mankind. :)
  • 0

#10 Keith Mottram

Keith Mottram
  • Sustaining Members
  • 824 posts
  • Other

Posted 18 December 2008 - 09:47 AM

Actually you didn't read my post correctly. I said the reason I changed over to fluorescents was that "It cuts down a bit on my horrendous electric bills." I have cut my electric bills in half doing a number of things. To pay $400 a month for electric is ridiculous (thank you deregulation) so I have actively attempted to find ways to save money. It had nothing to do with saving the earth. As a person with a degree in atmospheric sciences and a person who knows the current science well, I can say that human global warming is a thing of myths. Al Gore's 'dockumentary' sure prooves that. To the bread and circus he makes a convincing argument, but to those who know the science, he is laughable. But he created a new industry. Saving the earth form mankind. :)



What's a dockumentary? And was your degree sponsored by Exxon? Oh and by the way there is a rumour going round that the earth is flat do you have any scientific knowledge that clarify this...
  • 0

#11 Walter Graff

Walter Graff
  • Sustaining Members
  • 1334 posts
  • Other
  • New York City

Posted 18 December 2008 - 11:34 AM

What's a dockumentary? And was your degree sponsored by Exxon? Oh and by the way there is a rumour going round that the earth is flat do you have any scientific knowledge that clarify this...


A dockumentary is a misspelling. No, my degree was sponsored by my father. And we have established the earth is round and have known this for the last 2500 years. The rest is just bad science shoveled to the public as fact. Or said another way, if you took the 6 billion people of this planet and gave them all two square feet to stand in, the entire population of the planet would fit into the state of Florida. We are more an anthill than a nature changer. Yea I know, we need to do something to save teh earth. Great marketing that has created a multitrillion dollar industry. Just no logical science to validate it. Everything else is emotion and has little merit. :)
  • 0

#12 Keith Mottram

Keith Mottram
  • Sustaining Members
  • 824 posts
  • Other

Posted 18 December 2008 - 01:17 PM

A dockumentary is a misspelling. No, my degree was sponsored by my father. And we have established the earth is round and have known this for the last 2500 years. The rest is just bad science shoveled to the public as fact. Or said another way, if you took the 6 billion people of this planet and gave them all two square feet to stand in, the entire population of the planet would fit into the state of Florida. We are more an anthill than a nature changer. Yea I know, we need to do something to save teh earth. Great marketing that has created a multitrillion dollar industry. Just no logical science to validate it. Everything else is emotion and has little merit. :)


Sorry for being a bit of a twat, but i get irritated when global warming is treated as a new idea. I studied it at school nearly twenty years ago. Gore's film wasn't perfect but something needed to kick the debate up the agenda. I can understand a sceptics point of view... in the same way I can understand that people genuinely believe in creationism. Okay one is way more idiotic than the other, but I personally believe that your statement that there is "Just no logical science to validate it' is bollocks. Greenpeace
  • 0

#13 Walter Graff

Walter Graff
  • Sustaining Members
  • 1334 posts
  • Other
  • New York City

Posted 18 December 2008 - 03:17 PM

Sorry for being a bit of a twat, but i get irritated when global warming is treated as a new idea. I studied it at school nearly twenty years ago. Gore's film wasn't perfect but something needed to kick the debate up the agenda. I can understand a sceptics point of view... in the same way I can understand that people genuinely believe in creationism. Okay one is way more idiotic than the other, but I personally believe that your statement that there is "Just no logical science to validate it' is bollocks. Greenpeace



Except twenty years ago when I was studying earth sciences at the University of Arizona the same group that now teaches global warming was teaching global freezing. I was going through my earth and atmospheric sciences courses at the time... such fun courses as Physical Climatology and Dynamic Meteorology. I had a pretty heavyweight group of professors all very well known and respected in the field. One in particular always got a kick out of what he called ?those lesser? folks who found they could get jobs by making up all sorts of things about the earth that they had no control over. At the time, the same group that is now screaming global warming was at the time screaming global freezing. They had gotten so much press in the NY Times, et al talking that in 50 or so years earth temperatures were going to plummet and they had oodles of data to back it up. They made dire predictions about what it meant for Europe, and the tropics. I remember it being on the front of Time magazine, and on the news every week at one point. My professor at the time made a prolific statement. He said that in twenty years when they can?t find any real logic in their dire popsicle predictions, that same group will switch hats, use the same data, and claim the earth is heating up and that we are responsible. He said it will keep them in business. He was right. I see some of the same names as the ?leaders? in the predictions of human global warming that were or were underlings in the same group that said the earth was turning into a popsicle. And now that their theory has more holes than Swiss cheese (example of the latest paper by highly respected scientists funded by some of the most respected organizations in earth sciences shooting down the idea-Compo, G.P. and P.D. Sardeshmukh. 2008. Oceanic influences on recent continental warming. Climate Dynamics, DOI 10.1007/s00382-008-0448-9),
I wonder what they will predict next. Maybe that the earth is turning faster on its axis than we thought and London would be on the equator shortly. In the mean time, they have the world running scared with nothing more than computer models and have created a multi-trillion dollar industry. Speaking of Swiss cheese, You go Al Gore!

Note: For those who are lazy to look up the paper I cited, it can be best summed up in one sentence from the piece ?Atmospheric model simulations of the last half-century with prescribed observed ocean temperature changes, but without prescribed GHG changes, account for most of the land warming.? In layman's terms they looked at two models of warming, one taking into account such man-made GHG?s (greenhouse gases) as CO2, CH4, N2O, and halocarbons, and black carbon aerosols. And the other model ignoring them and simply looking at natural rises in sea temperature. And the result of both showed that the warming of the earth had little to nothing to do with greenhouse gases. Yea, I know, these papers come out every month and the media ignores them, so now we still have a ?reason? to collect all the cups from the set. Just forget what I said. :)

As for Gore's fantasy, it is so filled with inaccuracies and stretching of the truth (how about using footage from a science fiction movie and making it come across as real) that is laughable. In my town (huge college town) a chain 'health store' was selling this crap via a display kiosk. So upset were the scientists at all the area universities as to the inaccuracies that they collectively wrote the company and demanded it either be removed or have a disclaimer that it is not based on sound science. The company removed the product. If anyone wants to see the scientific inaccuracies in this fictitious presentation, please read this well cited presentation by Bob Johnson:

http://www.johnstons...nment/gore.html

Also please do not link site like Green Peace and expect me to say wow you are right. Green Peace is an extremest group that acts more out of emotion than scientific fact. If you want to go toe to toe strictly on the scientific evidence on the subject I will do it in a heartbeat via email. I do it all the time with some of the heavy weights in the field and so far your presentation has been some emotional gibberish with a link to an extremest group with no scientific association or merit so it shouldn't be a hard debate. End of topic for me here.
  • 0

#14 Brian Dzyak

Brian Dzyak
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1517 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Encino, California USA

Posted 18 December 2008 - 05:52 PM

wow.

Anyway, the moral is that humans will justify any reason to continue doing what they want to and no one will ever be able to prove to them otherwise. Belief is stronger than reason.

In the meantime, "Nature" will eventually determine who is right and who is wrong without regard to who stood in one camp or the other.

The question really needs to be, should we assume the "best" and continue doing harm to our one planet or should we be prudent and assume the "worst" and work toward sustaining the island in the universe we live on?
  • 0

#15 K Borowski

K Borowski
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3905 posts
  • Camera Operator
  • I.A.T.S.E. Local # 600 Eastern Region

Posted 18 December 2008 - 06:36 PM

You *could* fit the entire human population in Florida. Unfortunately, we inhabit the whole planet, like a plague. Human beings are everywhere, and we bring environmental destruction with us.

Honestly, not believing that what human beings are doing to the Earth is harmful, rapidly becoming irreversible, and frankly wrong, is an act of wanton ignorance of the facts of the matter.

Who cares whether the hell the Earth is cooling down or warming up. Howabout the carnage of animal habitats, forests, wetlands, coral reefs, and the introduction of invasive species other than ourselves that further destroy the natural world.

Are you denying the surge of mass extinctions in the past three hundred years? Howabout the fact that, despite larger and larger resources devoted to it every year, tonnage of fish brought in has been in a freefall for four decades?

Do humans have a right to exist at the expense of all else, even at the expense of other groups of human beings?


Well, I guess it's all OK, we can have tree museums and feed people food made from other people eventually to counter problems that are, relatively, small now, when they become huge and devastating.
  • 0

#16 Hunter Hampton

Hunter Hampton
  • Sustaining Members
  • 170 posts
  • Director

Posted 18 December 2008 - 08:42 PM

If you take the idea of human's ruining the earth seriously, there is only one "logical" solution- which is the extermination of all humans who contribute. Sounds far fetched? I hope so. All though I really wont be surprised when I see people killing other people about this.
  • 0

#17 K Borowski

K Borowski
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3905 posts
  • Camera Operator
  • I.A.T.S.E. Local # 600 Eastern Region

Posted 18 December 2008 - 09:09 PM

If you take the idea of human's ruining the earth seriously, there is only one "logical" solution- which is the extermination of all humans who contribute. Sounds far fetched? I hope so. All though I really wont be surprised when I see people killing other people about this.


Well, I am hoping that human beings are actually going to intelligently evaluate the situation and change their ways.

But yeah, you could just kill all humans on the EArth, that makes a lot more sense :unsure:
  • 0

#18 Walter Graff

Walter Graff
  • Sustaining Members
  • 1334 posts
  • Other
  • New York City

Posted 18 December 2008 - 09:48 PM

A passing note:

In case anyone catches Lou Dobbs on CNN tonight 12/18/08. He has a segment where he asks the question does global warming exist after looking at how much we have all this cooling and events that fly in the face of global warming going on around us. He has two guests. One a meteorologist and the other Jay Mohr a former professor at my school. Both agree that to say humans cause global warming is ridiculous and in fact the science shows we are currently in a cooling trend. Nice to see Lou Dobbs allow the other side to speak. So hard in today's politically driven world of science where if you don't agree with the money makers all your funding is removed. Or as was said best:

"Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves labeled as industry stooges. Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science."

- Richard Lindzen ,Professor of Atmospheric Science/ MIT
  • 0

#19 Brian Dzyak

Brian Dzyak
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1517 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Encino, California USA

Posted 18 December 2008 - 10:23 PM

A passing note:

In case anyone catches Lou Dobbs on CNN tonight 12/18/08. He has a segment where he asks the question does global warming exist after looking at how much we have all this cooling and events that fly in the face of global warming going on around us. He has two guests. One a meteorologist and the other Jay Mohr a former professor at my school. Both agree that to say humans cause global warming is ridiculous and in fact the science shows we are currently in a cooling trend. Nice to see Lou Dobbs allow the other side to speak. So hard in today's politically driven world of science where if you don't agree with the money makers all your funding is removed. Or as was said best:

"Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves labeled as industry stooges. Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science."

- Richard Lindzen ,Professor of Atmospheric Science/ MIT


Lindzen certainly has gone out of his way to make a name for himself. But his "conclusions" are far from infallible. He, like most FOX Republicans and companies like EXXON (which makes frequent use of Lindzen himself to push their own agenda), seem more interested in protecting short-term economic interests by "tweaking" science the way our most recent White House Administration had a habit of doing. I suppose it's a point of view thing, but I would hope that responsible scientists would choose to err on the side of caution instead of making claims that would encourage damage to the environment.

http://www.realclima...point-by-point/

http://www.realclima...n-op-ed-in-wsj/
  • 0

#20 Jason Anderson

Jason Anderson
  • Sustaining Members
  • 75 posts
  • Student
  • Denver, Co

Posted 19 December 2008 - 02:26 AM

Anyone notice that Luxim is creating some very interesting light bulbs, not available to general public yet. http://www.luxim.com/

Basically just microwaves the argon and sodium inside a closed bulb about the size of a tic tac, and a rather amazing amount of light is produced. It is supposed to double the efficiency of LED technology in some cases. And the CRI rating is around 90, so very high quality of light, and not much energy. I think they are daylight balanced by default, but surely we could just burn a different type of gas and produce 3200 some day soon?

Jason
  • 0


Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Rig Wheels Passport

FJS International, LLC

Aerial Filmworks

Paralinx LLC

Ritter Battery

Opal

Wooden Camera

Metropolis Post

Abel Cine

CineLab

Technodolly

Visual Products

Glidecam

The Slider

Broadcast Solutions Inc

rebotnix Technologies

CineTape

Willys Widgets

Tai Audio

Ritter Battery

CineLab

Technodolly

rebotnix Technologies

Opal

Abel Cine

Rig Wheels Passport

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Broadcast Solutions Inc

FJS International, LLC

Glidecam

CineTape

Aerial Filmworks

Tai Audio

Paralinx LLC

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Wooden Camera

Metropolis Post

Willys Widgets

The Slider

Visual Products