8mm Forum: Help Please Urgent Advice on low energy bulb smash amongst food etc.

This is topic Help Please Urgent Advice on low energy bulb smash amongst food etc. in forum General Yak at 8mm Forum.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://8mmforum.film-tech.com/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=000807

Posted by Mark Todd (Member # 96) on March 11, 2008, 04:55 PM:

Hi Chaps could do with some advice on the low energy bulbs we are all using now, a 20 Watt one ( 100 equivelant) that I dropped in the families food pantry, its full of all their food and lots of other associated bits and it really smashed to smithereens.
I have heard they are very dangerous, I celeaned it up straight away( ?) and we did already throw things away like cereal boxes and anything the debri went near or on but afterwards went on line to see and it says they are very dangerous, I didn`t know you should( it says) vacate the room for at least 15+ mins and put it all in selaed bags, luckily I didn`t use a vacumn but a pan and brush that will have still thrown it a round a bit more I guess.
So we are thinking now tomorrow we will have to throw virtually everything else out in there, going to be a lt of cash worth we can`t afford really, possibly excepting odd food tins but maybe those too as young children etc, but going to be a fortune really.
Also what are the real risks please and any advice really gratefully recieved. Will dangerous dust be everyhwere in there now as a small confined pantry.
I wish to goodness I had never put the flammin thing in there and back to filaments for me now.
Waiting in hope as both worried.
Best Mark.

Posted by David Kilderry (Member # 549) on March 11, 2008, 08:45 PM:

Mark the lamp manufacturer should have a customer assistance number listed on the product packaging or their website.

They will give you the best advice. I guarantee you are not the first person to do this!

David

Posted by Mark Todd (Member # 96) on March 11, 2008, 09:20 PM:

Hi David, thanks, no probaly not but I think its unbelieviable there was nothing on the box when we bought them. I`ve looked on the sit as think its philips and theres no mention of risks or what to do etc at all as far as I can see.
Cant` help thinking an agenda is smoothing over the risks and putting people then at risk a smany will likley like us be in the dark until too late.
Best Mark.

Posted by Kevin Faulkner (Member # 6) on March 12, 2008, 04:59 AM:

They contain Mercury vapour.

I would think that providing food is in sealed bags you should be OK. Wash the bags under running water before putting away. Any open food I would treat as contaminated but then probably little shards of glass is probably more of a problem.

Have a read through this:

http://www.lightbulbs-direct.com/article_view.asp?ArticleID=3

Kev.

Posted by Mark Todd (Member # 96) on March 12, 2008, 11:05 AM:

Hi Kev thanks for the link, funny I had actually emailed that company for advice, did you use google, but they didn`t know much.
Anyway here goes for anyone else using these just what you should do after my extensive oh my god googling etc.
If a low energy bulb smashes first evacuate anyone from the room and open windows etc and do not go back to the area for a minimum of 15 minutes, better a few hours.
Then clean up but defnately not with a vacumn cleaner using rubber gloves, put the debrie and dust etc in a sealable bag but do not place in the bin, Take it to the local council center for recycling etc.
After about 8 hours the mercury exposure will have reduced to much safer levels but still be around the house at lower levels for a number of days at least so ventilate well as still best avoided.
So looks like me immediately bending over and cleaning up in a 6x4 unventilated room will mean bad luck wise I will have absorbed pretty much all you can do from one of these.
Have to be honest we are going back to filament bulbs completely, not least with the 3 lads in the family house and will wait until LED`s are better and readily available as an alternative.
I think with the nippers etc we are still going to throw about everything in there out so its not been ecconomical for us use to run these, this one will probably be running around a good £200 a day at least for yesterday.
Best wishes and take care if you should have the misfortune to break one.
Mark.

Posted by Kevin Faulkner (Member # 6) on March 12, 2008, 11:19 AM:

Mark,

I'm sure that is probably all ott. There has certainly been a lot of scare mongering where these lamps are concerned.

I'm sure if they were that dangerous the lamp manufacturers wouldnt be able to sell them to the public.

Maybe we are going to have the same problem in 10 yrs time that we had with the disposal of refrigerators and their CFC's!

Kev.

Posted by Mark Todd (Member # 96) on March 12, 2008, 11:35 AM:

Hi Yes they are an ill concieved idea if you ask me, many will end up getting smashed in landfill come what may and then into the watershed etc. and like you say with millions of them. Also the right going on collecting and recycling them all, hope LEDs get sorted soon, they should have put the efffort into doing those first, probably cash driving things as usual not sense.
Must admit do feel a bit iffy knowing I have absorbed a fair amount however it would or may not affect a person, but rather it was in me than the kids.
Best Mark.

Posted by David Pannell (Member # 300) on March 12, 2008, 12:26 PM:

You know, this is very much like the global warming syndrome. Unfortunately, nobody listens to the minority who are usually right, - just like the Appollo 11 warning!

Recent research has shown that the earth is geting warmer, but not because of what man is doing, but because we are still coming out of the last ice age. Methane and CO2 produced by cattle and natural forestation and vegitation far outweighs anything that man could ever produce even if he had all pollutants known at his disposal.

I am not politically biased, and this is not a political statement, but a scientific fact. Unfortunately, politics have distorted the facts and everyone wants to jump on the bandwagon.

Being an engineer and physics scientist, it just makes my blood boil when people can only get funding for a project if they say it's global warming related! What an absolute waste!

Anyway, back to the question at hand. The so-called energy efficient lamps are another mis-noma. Because they create such a poor power factor and distort the waveform of the electrical supply, your domestic meter can't read it accurately. So although you may be paying less, the electricity companies have to supply the extra current to compensate!

Hopefully, one day someone will wake up to all these cons by which we are surrounded.

I rest my case; and I sincerely hope I haven't offended anyone.

If our moderators feel I have been too demonstrative, please feel free to delete this post.

Posted by Mark Todd (Member # 96) on March 12, 2008, 12:59 PM:

Theres also global dimming to consider IE as we are going through a hotter more active sun surge time as we have before, carbon particulates in the atmosphere actually reflect heat back out into space so they are actually working a little more in our favour, and yes its true methane is far far worse as a green house gas and with no handy dimming effect like carbon.
I`m just ruddy cheesed off about having mercury weedled into our house on the sneaky and copping a dose ( of mercury that is)
Best Mark.

Posted by Tony Milman (Member # 7) on March 12, 2008, 02:28 PM:

I think we need to get things into perspective. I fear that if like me you are a sufferer of filled teeth the amount of mercury vapour I am exposed to over my life together with that ingested would put the lightbulb in context!

Also, considering the exposure I had at school to mercury I should be dead by now.

I suspect your exposure to all the other contamination in the world will get to you first!

Posted by Jean-Marc Toussaint (Member # 270) on March 13, 2008, 02:10 AM:

Mark, you probably inhale more toxic elements when you walk down the street during a big traffic jam.
Clean everything that's been in direct contact, be extra careful with broken glass. Be a reassuring figure for your family.

David: always interesting to read a scientific opinion.

And we're all gonna die anyway...
[Wink]

Posted by Dan Lail (Member # 18) on March 13, 2008, 03:02 AM:

Mark, why are you showing films in the kitchen. [Big Grin]

Jean-Marc is right! The amount of pollutants in city air is far greater than a vapor from a small broken bulb in a room. I think the broken glass is the real aggrivation here. [Smile]

I have eaten enough tuna that on a hot day you can read the temperature on my forehead. [Smile]

[ March 13, 2008, 04:33 PM: Message edited by: Dan Lail ]

Posted by Rob Koeling (Member # 35) on March 13, 2008, 06:01 AM:

quote:
David: always interesting to read a scientific opinion.

Well Jean-Marc, let's just call it 'an opinion'.

- Rob

Posted by David Pannell (Member # 300) on March 13, 2008, 06:42 AM:

Call it whatever you like. You can't alter history, nor the laws of physics!

If anyone chooses not to believe it, then that's up to them. I have no quarrel with that.

Posted by Mark Todd (Member # 96) on March 13, 2008, 07:25 AM:

Its interesting that a few thousand years ago the temperature in the UK was a few degrees higher, even in northern scotland it was altogether warmer and more pleasant, hence how people lived the way they did there then.
I read an interesting article that if we stimulate plankton growth it could easily be dealt with anyway now if that is an issue.
My dad just told me the government in the uk are`nt now going to slap the extra 9p a gallon on thankfully, is that right.Hope so, no TV here.
Also thanks for the reassurance chaps and yes we actually eat quite a bit of fish too.
Best Mark.
ps one thing is for sure in the uk if we reduce or home energy useage by half you can bet the price per unit would probably double before long. Profits and all that you know

Posted by Tony Milman (Member # 7) on March 13, 2008, 02:50 PM:

David,

I popped out to look at the elecy meter just to see how fast it was spinning and it was wobling [Eek!]

Seriously, I havent a clue what this all means-David can you put it in idiots language for me? So what does

"Because they create such a poor power factor and distort the waveform of the electrical supply, your domestic meter can't read it accurately. So although you may be paying less, the electricity companies have to supply the extra current to compensate!"

this mean and is the case that the more energy bulbs I use the worse it gets?

Posted by David Pannell (Member # 300) on March 13, 2008, 04:22 PM:

Hi Tony,

Yes, I am happy to explain as best and as simply as I can, but one has to recognise that a technical explanation of this nature will inevitably involve some AC electrical theory; albeit fairly basic.

I think that under the circumstances, it is best if I e-mail you, as the Forum is probably not the correct vehicle for correspondence of this nature. Please let me have your e-mail address.

If, by reading this, the Moderators think a subject of this nature might be of sufficient interest to a wider audience, then I will be happy to post a thread on the Forum, but it will be quite a lengthy article!

Best regards,

Posted by Mark Todd (Member # 96) on March 13, 2008, 04:55 PM:

Can you email me as well please David very interested.
Also as I was prattling on in the local shop with the onwer about taxes on the back of GW etc etc he said he thought he read that humanity is only responsible for 3% of the global warming gases/effect is that true.
Also recent low engery bulbs seem to go pop far more often now, even under a year and can`t tolerate going on and off as much so you need to just leave them on when not in a room but likely to return later !!!!!!!!!
Best Mark.
Lets face it the new Hadron Collider is far more worrying than Global warming anyway.

Posted by Kevin Faulkner (Member # 6) on March 13, 2008, 06:00 PM:

As long as it doesnt get political, rude, racial or upsets too many people then I have no problem with this thread.

It's in the right place, in the Yak Forum.

Kev.

Posted by Graham Ritchie (Member # 559) on March 14, 2008, 01:56 AM:

Don't use those low energy lamps on dimmers they don't work.

Well we are only half a mile from the beach and the weather out here is fantastic blue blue skies [Cool]

and not a cloud in site, tonight we are looking west towards the "Southern Alps" and there is a brilliant sunset later on all the stars will come out. [Wink]

Graham.

Posted by David Pannell (Member # 300) on March 14, 2008, 04:02 AM:

OK!

Due to popular demand, here is an explanation which I hope everyone will be able to understand. I apologise in advance to any other qualified electrical engineers or physicists who may feel patronised.

In a DC circuit, watts = amps x volts. A very simple calculation.

However, in an AC circuit, things are vastly different. Because the voltage is fluctuating, or alternating between +ve and –ve, so is the current (amps).

Different types of utilisation equipment handle this alternating current in two fundamentally different ways. If the load is purely resistive, eg. an incandescent lamp, heater or cooker etc., the calculation is simple, as in the case of DC.

This is usually far from the case, though, as loads tend to be either inductive or capacitive.

Inductive loads comprise such things as motors and transformers, or equipment comprising coils of wire, if you will; whereas capacitive loads comprise equipment which is used for charging banks of capacitors for many different applications. Amongst these are fluorescent lamps which have capacitors in them for striking the gas and ionising the plasma.

When an AC supply is connected to an inductive load, the voltage appears across the load immediately and the current through the device builds gradually. The current is said to lag the voltage by a number of degrees, depending on the value of inductance of the load.

Conversely, when an AC supply is connected to a capacitive load, the current flows immediately, and the voltage across it builds gradually (as the capacitor charges up). The current is said to lead the voltage by a number of degrees, depending on the value of the capacitance of the load.

The power factor is the cosine of the number of degrees by which the current leads or lags the voltage. Therefore in an AC circuit, watts = amps x volts x power factor (pf)

Thus it can be seen that if the power factor is 1 (unity), then watts = amps x volts, as both current and voltage are in phase, but this can only occur in a purely resistive load.

If the current and voltage are out of phase by as much as 90°, for example, then we have what is termed a “wattless current” as the cosine (cos) of 90° is zero. (Remember your maths tables at school - sines, cosines, radians and tangents, etc.)?

Here is the very nub of the matter. For all values other than a unity pf, current is being wasted. The electricity supply companies have to provide a larger amount of current than is actually required to drive the equipment. This additional current also has to be generated, distributed, etc., but we are getting nothing for it. Also, larger cables are required to carry this extra current, which additionally subjects switchgear, and associated equipment to greater stresses than they were designed for, or than would otherwise be necessary. This all leads to additional energy which has to come from somewhere.

The answer is to bring the pf back to something approaching unity, where the phase angle between current and voltage becomes zero, (as cos 0 = 1). In the case of inductive loads, this is achieved by connecting capacitors to the load, which as we have seen, have the reverse effect of inductive loads such as motors.

Similarly, in the case of capacitive loads, this is achieved by connecting inductances to the load, which again, as we have seen, have the reverse effect of capacitive loads, such as fluorescent lights.

However, it is extremely difficult to achieve a pf of unity in practical terms, as loads are continually changing. Therefore the Electricity Supply Industry Authority in the UK has settled on a figure of 0.928 as achievable.

Special equipment and instruments are required to measure these values of so called wattless currents, or reactive power, to give it its correct name, which is either inductive reactance for any equipment with a 'coil of wire in it', or capacitive reactance for any equipment with a capacitor in it.

Domestic meters only read the watts (amps x volts) multiplied by time. They do not take into account the power factor. Thus we get watt-hours, or kilowatt-hours as a measure of electricity consumption. This is what we pay for. Thus it can easily be seen that by using low energy lamps of the fluorescent type, the meter will only read the so called 'apparent power' and not take into account the reactive power or 'wattless current'.

Therefore, although our electricity bill will definitely be lower by using these lamps - no question about that - it is really false economy as far as energy production is concerned.

Fluorescent lamps, along with all IT equipment are also responsible for another electrical problem for the supply industry.

Harmonics.

Harmonics are multiples of the supply frequency.

When electrical or electronic equipment has a complex array of components, such as switch-mode power supplies, inverters, converters, inductances and/or capacitors, and so forth, a resonance is generated in the electrical supply, and again, there are limits imposed by the supply authorities for each harmonic up to the 50th. Limits for harmonics are set out in the G.5/4 Standard. A recent report in one of the scientific journals stated that hotels are the worst culprits by switching over to these low-energy lamps, and are causing the electricity supply companies major, major headaches.

Harmonic analysis is far and away beyond the scope of this discussion and is extremely complex, involving Fourier Analysis methodology and so forth.

The point of raising it here, though, is to state that harmonics also encourage false electricity meter readings.

So there you have it. It is really up to the individuals to decide for themselves.

If you've managed to get this far, thank you for your patience. I hope I have explained it understandably. I really don't see how I could do it any more simply.

I am somewhat embarrassed in writing an article of this sort for the Forum, as it is not in my nature to express anything other than humility when discussing scientific matters. However, on this occasion I do feel justified in letting the Membership know that I do speak with some authority on these matters, holding membership of the following professional institutions:

The Institute of Engineering and Technology (formerly the IEE) (UK)

The Institute of Physics and Physical Society (UK)

The Institution of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (USA)

The American Institute of Physics and Physical Society (USA)

and an invited member of The New York Academy of Sciences (USA)

With best regards to all,

Posted by Mark Todd (Member # 96) on March 14, 2008, 07:55 AM:

Hi David, thats all very interesting, got the jist at least thank you. Don`t government offices etc have access to this sort of information at all or are most ministers so far up the rear entrance they can`t hear ???

What are your thoughts on the Hadron Collider then now it looks like Cern have finally had to face that their assumptions of safety based on almost purely " Hawkins Radiation" were just that and that as far as protecting us from any little calamatous nasties they probaly will produce in the collider will simply not work but even more likely simply does not exist.
Looks like they are now saying well yes these things may be produced but will probably be OK, bit of aserious 6.5 B gamble if you ask me !!!!!!
Have to be honest I feel far more at threat from this than the mercury in the small bulb I dropped.
What are other peoples thoughts on the matter.
I`d say if you don`t know about this or what it is leave the part of the post on that alone and don`t read purely on a peace of mind situation. But its very much worth discussion.
One thing I`d happily go for crazy global warming over this any day.
Best Mark.

Posted by David Pannell (Member # 300) on March 14, 2008, 08:13 AM:

Hi Mark,

I fear we might be verging on politics here. Suffice it to say that I think you've answered the question in the second sentence of your first paragraph, as once having set a precedent, however incorrect, no government likes to be seen to have made a mistake, or do a "U" turn.

It's up to more powerful people than us to correct the errors.

Posted by Steve Klare (Member # 12) on March 14, 2008, 09:30 AM:

I'm a power supply engineer and it's sad to say that David's explanation is about as simple as it gets!

The thing that kind of bothers me about the whole subject of power factor correction is while it is true it reduces the losses in transmission lines by reducing the current required to produce the same wattage at the load end, any active power correction circuits I've ever seen really do a number on supply efficiency (like from 95% down to about 75%) so that the power on the load end actually goes way up!

Is it fair to say it's really just pushing the wasted power to the customer's side of the utility meter so the customer winds up paying for it?

Posted by David Pannell (Member # 300) on March 14, 2008, 09:49 AM:

Hi Steve,

Yes, I did try to keep it ultra simple, bearing in mind that with respect, not everyone on the Forum is as conversant with power engineering as we happen to be.

As with all things of a technical nature, there is, of course, a trade off, but just where the crossover point is, remains to be determined by detailed measurement and calculation of the particular circuit and associated network in question.

You could well be right with certain aspects of your observation, but again, it all comes down to the accuracy of interpretation as to what exactly is going on in the system.

Even here in the UK, I know of several cases where judicious account of particular situations has not been caken into account or calculated correctly, with some so called consultants arbitrarily deciding to add a few capacitors here, or a few detuned reactors there in the hopes of curing the problem. Disaster usually ensues.

I'm sure we could go on all day, discussing various methods and scenarios, but as interesting as it may be to you and me, I think we ought to call it a day as far as detailed analysis is concerned.

After all, it was only really my intention to throw a little light for the uninitiated in really basic layman's terms. I hope you understand.

Posted by Steve Klare (Member # 12) on March 14, 2008, 10:16 AM:

Well,

It gave me something to do while the technician fixes my load.

Product: resonant laser capacitor charger.

Input:-800Vdc @52kW

Output: Max. 8 Joule Pulse, output variable from -750 to -1350V discharging to zero each cycle, Frequency 0 to 6kHz, water Cooled, computer controlled. Each pulse to within 1% of the target voltage.

There were days early on when I had to take a deep breath before I turned this thing on!

(I'm sorry, are we OT yet?)

Posted by Tony Milman (Member # 7) on March 14, 2008, 12:26 PM:

David,

Excellent job. Impressive credentials too.

Now then, help me with this one. Presumably when you generate power the ideal solution is to deliver the power across the shortest distance? So does electric power "leak" from the point of transmission to the point of delivery? I can understand it if it found a route to earth but does it leak in other ways?

Posted by Steve Klare (Member # 12) on March 14, 2008, 12:38 PM:

The problem you run into is that everything electrical is more than you think it's going to be, it other words in the world of wire you get resistance, inductance and capacitance on top of just the conductance you were hoping for in the first place.

Over distance these parasitics mean there is going to be more and more power wasted. Particularly bad is line resistance, since there are going to be drops in voltage proportional to the current and the distance and in power according to the square of the current and the distance.

This is why long distance transmission is done at high voltage: 100 times the voltage at one 1/100th the current gives you the same power, but the voltage loss in the line will be 1/100th and the power loss will be 1/10,000th.

That's why AC is the best for this stuff: all you need to change the voltages to whatever they need to be is a transformer. This is a lot more practical than having immensely fat wires to do the same job.

Posted by David Pannell (Member # 300) on March 14, 2008, 12:57 PM:

There you are!

Thanks Steve. Steve has answered the question precisely.

UBB.classic^TM 6.3.1.2