LED lighting, and a small ranty rant,

[Hammerskjold]

There is no need to ban them. The adoption of technology over time will relegate both the internal combustion engine and the incandescent light bulb to be as useful as buggy whips (only fun on bondage night).

While I agree by large but differ on the degree, that is I think banning tech that is on their End of Life cycle, that will soon enter niche\obsolescence is about as useful as 'thou shalt not wear white after labour day'. I don't see the adoption of tech over time as automatic. Or a given that the better technology would win over time.

See I was around when some of the standards and advertising on LED products was still mostly half truths, and borderline snake oil. (Some early LED flashlight spiels used to tout 100 years lifespan. Which is bunkum since this was from a very theoretical lab projections, with a huge dose of equivocation by unscrupulous marketing depts. LEDs have good lifespans if they're built and used within their spec, but they're not century span just yet.) Some of the bigger companies\vendors then finally agreed and helped to make a better standard.

Invizo hand of the market at it's best and benevolent right? Praise be to Galt. Uh, no. Some of the big companies devised a better standard because they saw that if they don't clean up some of the snake oil, the big bad gov't may come in and do it for them.

Who turned the big bad beast attention on these 'poor hardworking businesses'? Many of the smaller companies who made the end products, who are also enthusiast themselves, and many of their customers as well.

I don't see that as meddling, or flagrant abuse of power by gubment. Unless you feel melancholy and nostalgic for the days of Standard Oil, old AT&T, and Microsoft right before it's antitrust case.

And, as for things that may not be efficient? Did we need to ban CRT? No. Once flat screen tech caught up people switched to what was more energy efficient and better.

I actually used a CRT up until a few months ago. CRTs does have similarities to incan bulbs, in that for a while they were the only ones that had good colour reproduction. But they were heavy and cumbersome, fragile, has lots of lead, and did not age very gracefully.

I was quite happy when affordable, good enough (for my usage) IPS LED flat panels came out last year. I can finally ditch\recycle my old 19 inch behemoth of a CRT display. But the point where affordability and 'good enough' met, took a while.

While there was no ban on CRT, it did lead to an 'environmental recycling fee' aka Eco Fee in my area, which was a fiasco a couple of years back.

Now I actually support an electronic recycling program, but this was ludicrous. It was revised after a huge public backlash, but the eco fee remained.

My beef is that one of the original intent on applying an eco fee to CRT TV\Displays was the amount of lead, glass, and other components that needs to be recycled properly. No problem, I actually support that.

When LCD panels with CCFL lighting came out, they switched it to well it has mercury, so we need to safely deal with that. Sure, I can see that.

But when LED lit monitors\tv came out? Why does the eco fee still apply to that? The solders used were no longer lead based, many models don't even have glass. Is it the plastics? Well there are great research into making more easily recyclable plastics as well. So why am I paying a CRT tax on an LED product?

It's not a ban, it's worse IMO. It's a legacy tax, but more importantly it's not a very transparent one and needs more accountability to it. I don't mind paying a bit more if it means electronics are not being melted down into a river. I do mind if it's a poorly disguised rendition of this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCZRqH7sRyA

Which is why I don't share some folks 'over 9000' outrage of 'they're banning incandescent bulbs! MAH FREEDUMBS!!111'. Because there are much worse things on the sideline, that are actually happening right now.

Everything is corruptible and especially in government, but I've seen it less with those entities whose existence depends upon a reliable objectivity, like Standard & Poors, Consumer Reports, or Underwriters Labs.

The last two I can generally agree with, personally not so much on the first. But I think that's horse glue factory at this point.

The government has rules you know. We must buy food from the processed food industry.

Then share and save some of your ire for the lobbying industry. It takes more than one to tango. It's not just the corruptible, who's actively doing the corrupting? Do they get less of the 'mangerrrr' simply because they're business? And business is always good? Gov't is always bad?

Come on, let's not be too naive here. I expect that kind of line from a Che' beret wearing wannabe who always blames the Borjoulais for every single problem. Ingrown toenail? Must be the bonjours fault.

I think the rub for architecture would be the limitations that mandates impose upon design.

"You can build whatever building you like, as long as it is made from Camenbert cheese. "

The debate I mentioned had more to do with how well would the new design be in terms of ease of access\repair, along with longevity projections, and other fancy pants architect and building construction terms.

Some models only needed basic soldering skills to replace the LED. With a promise that by major production rollout, even that won't be necessary because it will be on a module you can just bolt on. Probably a good thing since hand soldering became less common with re-flow soldering and SMT methods.

Some are very deeply integrated, and looks more like concept models. Albeit very cool concept, but the practicality of it is untested, and questionable to a layman like me. Ie: If it's so integrated into a wall\column, that to replace\repair would mean taking out a whole wall or pillar. "Not a problem because the LED is so advanced that it would last a 100 years."

Uh...too unproven sci-fi even for me, and probably written by an overenthused marketroid. I like the physical design of an Ipod. I hate how it's batteries are not easily user replaceable. (Which is why I never bought one for myself.) This is like seeing an architectural concept version of that. Again, cool concept on paper, but questionable practicality at this time. At least for a layman like me.

You can get them mail order from Mexico, until the US Postal service goes postal on them -- and throws your butt into jail for smuggling illegal tech.

Ah come on, hyperbole aside the chances of that are very low. What's more probable is you or the mail order online company will say it's for an appliance use, or manufacturers will produce a 99% watt or 101% watt incan.

Or register it under 'Curio and Relic technology sample'.

Besides, why are you exporting good Merkin jobs to Mexican robots by buying foreign incandescent bulbs?

---

Sadly authentic Camembert is illegal in the US.

So much for the home of the bryndza, and the land of the brie.

I have to say, that's quite gouda.