Has the world gone mad

[Richard MarksParticipant @richardmarks80868]

Funny!

When I went to school one of the things we were taught was the fact that Carbon Dioxide is " Heavier Than Air "so why is it that we have a hole in the ozone layer due to CO2 bearing in mind that the ozone layer is miles above us the CO2 should have suffocated everybody on the planet by now, years ago I saw a training film about the Silent Killer settling in sewers and manholes and the need to test the air with a gas sensor before going down. One more thing is the increase of Asthma due to smaller but more particulates from diesel engines.

Dick

[Richard MarksParticipant @richardmarks80868]

Funny!

When I went to school one of the things we were taught was the fact that Carbon Dioxide is " Heavier Than Air "so why is it that we have a hole in the ozone layer due to CO2 bearing in mind that the ozone layer is miles above us the CO2 should have suffocated everybody on the planet by now, years ago I saw a training film about the Silent Killer settling in sewers and manholes and the need to test the air with a gas sensor before going down. One more thing is the increase of Asthma due to smaller but more particulates from diesel engines.

Dick

Whoops

Edited By Richard Marks on 25/01/2014 18:12:26

[jason udallParticipant @jasonudall57142]

Dick…apart from the fact that the co2 climate change thing is unrelated to ozone layer..

I did once have the opportunity to ask in public a climate change “expert” how CO2 being much denser than air creates a green house effect…
In public he was evasive.
I cornered him after in private…he admitted the mechanism is not completely understood..or clear..for either CO2 or methane ( about 15 times more green housey..his words) But an average rise is observed. . So thats clear then.

[Andrew EvansParticipant @andrewevans67134]

Thanks Michael – will look out for them

Some odd ideas on here about CO2 and climate change. It is an established scientific fact that increased CO2 levels cause climate change and also human produced CO2 can contribute although we don't know to what extent. No one is saying that CO2 levels in the atmosphere suffocate people.

we know that climate change can cause major mass extinction events, in the geological past there have been numerous mass extinctions – these are events that last for long periods of time and where large percentages of species on land and in the oceans become extinct. Everyone has heard of the extinction of the dinosaurs but at the same time most other species went extinct too and there have been larger events further back in time.

The oil, coal and gas we burn is the result of vast amounts of life on earth being deposited over hundreds of millions of years and that vast amounts of CO2 is locked up in those fossil fuels that is then released over a few decades as we burn them.

i think it's clear that our activity on earth is already causing some climate change and that probably has already resulted in some negative effects on some humans, in the scheme of 'natural' phenomena over a longer timescale whether it will be significant and long lasting remains to be seen.

[jason udallParticipant @jasonudall57142]

If that is directed at me.
Or even if not.
1 climate change appears to be happening. .but at present could be variation not trend..
2 man made emmisions of co2 and or methane would tend to increase the retention of heat in the climate system..green house effect…
3 high altitude particulate emmisions…from jet airliners..was observed to be reducing the sea level solar radiation ..evidenced by rise correlelated with grounding of flights due to 911 ..
4 a rise in sea level air temperature. .leads to an increased level of water vapour..leads to reduced absorption of solar radiation ( white clouds reflect sun light).. tending to reduce temperatures…

It goes on..
There are many influences acting in opposite directions…which will win is not clear… but undoubtedly climate change is happening ..note climate change not global warming…
This change is happening on a time scale not observed before..but then we have observations of sufficient resolution from how many years?..

Any way..not burning fossil fuels is a good idea…fossil fuel is far too useful to burn..paint plastics pharmaceuticals lubrication. .and so on…
Too good to burn…
Besides where most oil seems to be ..are countries whose governments ..shall we say wouldn’t be tolerated without needing to buy there oil…

Edited By jason udall on 25/01/2014 19:33:08

[jason udallParticipant @jasonudall57142]

Other sources of CO2

Brewing
Backing
Milk ( cows)
Meat animals
Wild animals
Humans at work. .
Humans cycling to work ( its better for you ..thus must make you produce more co2).
With the above..eating too much and going to gym to burn it off…why not just eat less. .
..
Cement production

Now onto methane

Vast reserves of methane hydrate and just plain trapped gas in the tundra..small rise in temperature will cause its release…
Methane hydrate deposites in deep sea..same problem..

[Andrew EvansParticipant @andrewevans67134]

True Jason. My post wasn't aimed at you or anyone really. One of the issues with even discussing climate change is that it is mixed up with competing interests in politics and money. It is very hard for a scientist to make a point when they freely admit they don't have all the answers and some areas are just unknown.

[jason udallParticipant @jasonudall57142]

That’s the problem..
When a scientist says that such and such is a theory..not a law..some plank says its not true then. .
Some elements of relativity are theory.. as is natural selection. .but a theory in science has a specific meaning and a law has another…

[Michael GilliganParticipant @michaelgilligan61133]

One comment; just to get it off my chest …

Although there is reasonable evidence that mankind has made disproportionate change to the global environment; it is outrageously arrogant of us to think that:

1. This change is necessarily "wrong" [just because it might inconvenience our species]
2. We have the ability to understand the change sufficiently to arrest it, or reverse it.

MichaelG.

[FMESParticipant @fmes]

Posted by Richard Marks on 25/01/2014 18:10:12:

Funny!

When I went to school one of the things we were taught was the fact that Carbon Dioxide is " Heavier Than Air "so why is it that we have a hole in the ozone layer due to CO2

Dick

I think you'll probably find that depletion of the Ozone layer was caused by use of CFCs, not Carbon Dioxide.

That and the space shuttle blowing great holes through it.

[GaryMParticipant @garym]

Posted by Richard Marks on 25/01/2014 18:10:12:

……. CO2 should have suffocated everybody on the planet by now……

Dick

Hi Dick,

Concentration of CO2 in air likely to be immediately dangerous to life through displacing oxygen is about 50% (Source HSE). Current concentration is about 0.04%, so there's a way to go before we need worry about asphyxiation. Other effects might concern us sooner though.

Gary

[Speedy Builder5Participant @speedybuilder5]

Blimey – all this comment from my observations on the manufacture of low energy light bulbs. Perhaps we ought to see if we could make some tungsten light bulbs – you know, like the ones we used to have. Are they illegal, or just illegal to sell them in Europe ?

[Michael GilliganParticipant @michaelgilligan61133]

Posted by Speedy Builder5 on 26/01/2014 08:54:21:

Blimey – all this comment from my observations on the manufacture of low energy light bulbs. Perhaps we ought to see if we could make some tungsten light bulbs – you know, like the ones we used to have. Are they illegal, or just illegal to sell them in Europe ?

.

There's a decent summary, and useful links, on Osram's site.

MichaelG.

.

P.S.

The short answer to your original headline question is YES

[Roderick JenkinsParticipant @roderickjenkins93242]

Posted by Speedy Builder5 on 26/01/2014 08:54:21:

Blimey – all this comment from my observations on the manufacture of low energy light bulbs. Perhaps we ought to see if we could make some tungsten light bulbs – you know, like the ones we used to have. Are they illegal, or just illegal to sell them in Europe ?

As far as I'm aware they are not illegal, it is just that the major supermarkets have been pressurised into not selling them. Tungsten bulbs still seem to be available from smaller retailers- try Robert Dyas.

Rod

[KWILParticipant @kwil]

My solution is quite simple, I am still using "old fashioned" tungsten bulbs and my stock levels are still quite good.

[FMESParticipant @fmes]

Posted by Roderick Jenkins on 26/01/2014 14:12:34:

Posted by Speedy Builder5 on 26/01/2014 08:54:21:

Blimey – all this comment from my observations on the manufacture of low energy light bulbs. Perhaps we ought to see if we could make some tungsten light bulbs – you know, like the ones we used to have. Are they illegal, or just illegal to sell them in Europe ?

As far as I'm aware they are not illegal, it is just that the major supermarkets have been pressurised into not selling them. Tungsten bulbs still seem to be available from smaller retailers- try Robert Dyas.

Rod

Asda and Tescos are still selling them

[jason udallParticipant @jasonudall57142]

Everybodies mad. 'cept me an' thee

An' I'm not sure about thee

[HopperParticipant @hopper]

Posted by Speedy Builder5 on 26/01/2014 08:54:21:

Blimey – all this comment from my observations on the manufacture of low energy light bulbs. Perhaps we ought to see if we could make some tungsten light bulbs – you know, like the ones we used to have. Are they illegal, or just illegal to sell them in Europe ?

Not such a bad idea. Tungsten bulbs made by Edison and others at the turn of the 20th century lasted for decades, in a couple of cases for over 100 years. Seems like if a guy was to make his own tungsten bulbs to the standards Edison and the lads did, they would last him a lifetime.

Probably just a matter of using stout enough tungsten for the filament and ensure a good vacuum, or fill with inert gas. Methinks the light bulb industry was a pioneer in planned obsolescence. Even the LED's are not exempt. Only a quarter of them lasted their claimed minimum lifetime of 6,000 hours in one test.

[Roderick JenkinsParticipant @roderickjenkins93242]

World's longest lit bulb.

I believe that tungsten bulbs have a leak deliberately built in to ensure that the filament slowly oxidises away. Long life bulbs have a smaller leak. This is purely a marketing strategy – nothing to do with technical/tolerance issues in manufacturing. After all, no manufacturer would last long in business if he sold you an everlasting bulb for 10p. Anybody remember Kingston Diamond paint? Wonderful stuff. Dead tough, long lasting and non-yellowing. The company was bought up by rival paint manufactures and the stuff was removed form the domestic market.

Rod

[Russell EberhardtParticipant @russelleberhardt48058]

Posted by Hopper on 27/01/2014 09:44:18:

Not such a bad idea. Tungsten bulbs made by Edison and others at the turn of the 20th century lasted for decades, in a couple of cases for over 100 years. Seems like if a guy was to make his own tungsten bulbs to the standards Edison and the lads did, they would last him a lifetime.

Probably just a matter of using stout enough tungsten for the filament and ensure a good vacuum, or fill with inert gas. Methinks the light bulb industry was a pioneer in planned obsolescence. Even the LED's are not exempt. Only a quarter of them lasted their claimed minimum lifetime of 6,000 hours in one test.

Light bulb life like many things is a trade off. Yes you can use a more substantial filament and it will last longer. However it will give a lower efficiency so, for a given light output it will use more electricity and cost more over it's lifetime. 1000 to 2000 hrs seems to be a good compromise between bulb replacement costs and energy consumption.

The cause of failure is not usually air leaking in but the tungsten evaporating at high temperature. Does anybody remember the floodlight used for photography that had a life of about 100 hrs? I used to run them dimmed for setting up and then at full power for taking the picture.

Russell.

[Ian S CParticipant @iansc]

I'v got a part reel of Tungsten filament wire, have not found a use for it yet, still I'v only had it about 20 years. Ian S C

[David Clark 13Participant @davidclark13]

Hi There

I am not bothered about the energy consumption of a poper light bulb.

What I do care about is not being able to read by the light given off by the stupid things now available.

I would like to read at night but can't see to do so.

regards David

[speelwerkParticipant @speelwerk]

To answer the original question "Has the world gone mad", in my opnion yes, but that already happened a long time ago and low energy light bulbs, regardles what type, will not change that. Niko.

[Roderick JenkinsParticipant @roderickjenkins93242]

Russell, you're right. Tungsten filament bulbs are filled with inert gas mixtures to prevent evaporation of the filament. It is the loss of this gas pressure together with the ingress of oxygen that causes failure of the bulb. I used to use Photofloods. I think they ran at a much higher temperature than domestic bulbs -hence their short life but better colour temperature (nearer daylight)

The sort of replacement low energy bulb that has a halogen lamp within the envelope gives a much nicer light than the fluorescent type.

Rod

[Rik ShawParticipant @rikshaw]

I bought this German made mains powered hand held photographic flood at a boot for one quid a while back. It is fitted with a frighteningly powerful 1000w halogen tube which when used outside will turn night into day.

The instruction book cautions against powering it up for no longer than two minutes at a time – I wish! On the few occasions that I have used it I have learnt to power it up for no longer than 7 seconds. After 10 seconds the unit starts belching smoke – a great party trick when friends come round.

As for the "hand held" bit? You must be joking – powered up I wouldn't touch that thing with a bargepole with all that current zapping around ,it sits on the tripod whenever it's used.

Call me an old cowardly custard if you will but I'm 67 now and later this year I'd like to be 68.

Rik

[Author]

Posts