Turning "greener"

Mike R. Courteau wrote: How many of us go the extra mile and use pole or threadle

Not a chance. While I could stand to lose the weight, a part of me credits the old bodgers for knowing when that idea had passed its prime.

I already walk where I can and my truck hasn't been fired up but once in the past few weeks. I do most of my buying and selling via mail order. I figure the mailman, Fedex and UPS guy were already in the neighborhood, so they might as well stop at my house.

We seldom watch television (an energy blackhole into which many kilowatts and man-hours disappear with nothing worthwhile to show for their selfless acts of heroism).

All summer long, we make sun-tea and eat foods walked into the kitchen from our backyard garden. I don't fertilize and most of our raw food waste never enters the sanitation system. I compost on-site.

That's enough. Let the dim bulbs read by dim bulbs.

Bill

While your desire to live and work a more "green" life is laudable, Mike, remember that energy is a renewable resource. Ultimately most of our energy comes from the sun, and there are direct (or only slightly indirect) methods for utilizing that without all the intermediate steps that produce oil, wood, or coal. (Nuke power is not renewable, and leaves a mess.) I'd be more inclined to utilize photovoltaic arrays and storage batteries with an inverter as opposed to a treadle lathe. Such arrays supply virtually all the needed power for our boat, and have done so for years. Very 'green.'

Max

I fully agree with you that there is a myriad other ways to produce power much more efficiently and cleaner than we do now, it is a different thing to "know" about it and to "do". But then that topic would fall into a political discussion I have no wish to get into. Bill above already does a number of things that have a lesser impact on the environment but whether he does them because it is more convenient to do things that way or whether it is a result of being more environmentally conscious he doesn't say. Both would be a great answer. Either way, I applaud what he does.

I started this thread to see how many, if any, woodturners are going one extra step to reduce the ecological impact of their activity. Just curious. I'm sorry to say that my only contribution are the 2-23W "Day Bright"spiral bulbs I use in the lamps above my lathe and I must shamefully add that I got them after seeing them used by a club member and I notice how much more "day like" and bright the light colour was than what I was using. Only afterwards did I add the concept of eco- friendlyness to the purchase.

I realize we can't go back to the candle and the horse and buggy (although with the shortage of gas up here, looking for a good horse and buggy might be a sound use of my time). I'm just looking for a way to make a small difference. That, plus I've been home sick for the last 3 days and I want to get the heck out of here and back to my lathe!

Oh yeah, and the more I think about it, the more the idea of a threadle lathe sounds neat! I think I'll build one even if just for the fun of it!

Photovoltaics and storage batteries are only "green" if they aren't made or disposed of in your back yard.

Mike, we had a discussion about this at work the other day and the general consensus is prove it! How much energy is consumed in processing raw materials and manufacturing these bulbs? Most come in heavy duty plastic packaging as opposed to the cardboard slip packs surrounding incandescents. What environmental impact is there when these flourescent bulbs need to be recycled? Most of them have an eerie green cast to the light and require a few minutes to warm up. They are more expensive to purchase. What about the additional heating contribution from incandescent. It means using the furnace more to replace that. Why not have a "Turn off the light" campaign in all schools to make future generations aware there is an "off" as well as an "on" Now when the LED versions hit the market there might be some benefits. I think the lobbyists are taking over in Ottawa and Queens Park at an alarming rate. Maybe if we had "open season" on them the environment would be in a better state. Certainly there would be less hot air and BS. :-)

That's it! That's it! You've found it! The source of global warming!

;-))))))))))))))

Bill

It's definately a politically motivated thing- not only are they expensive to produce, but they're hazardous waste when they die.

Makes me wonder what is so great about the things, especially considering that there are other alternatives, notably LEDs and carbon-button bulbs. Neither are as toxic as flourescents, and both use less energy than filament bulbs.

Carbon button technology is seroiusly overlooked- One of the more interesting things about them is that they only require a single lead to power them (for whatever reason, no neutral is required.) Given that copper is a resource as much as anything else (and it's getting expensive, to boot) it would seem a whole lot "greener" to me to use that technology, considering all the wire it could save in new construction. Not only that, but they would fit exisiting lamps, and they provide better light.

My vote is for LEDs in battery or solar-powered applications, and carbon button for AC apps. Of course, that's not likely to come about, considering all the hubbub about those damn twisty flourescents.

For those who aren't too familiar with Tesla's work (which included the flourescents and the carbon button,) here's a link. Probably one of the most amazing human beings to have ever lived, even though he's all but vanished into obscurity.

Okay...so I'm guessing that pole or threadle lathes are out, right? Arch, if you're listening, I'll never "muse" again, I promise! My intended topic fell flat on it's ass!

Mike snipped-for-privacy@toymakersite.com

Has anyone producted carbon button lamps commercially? If not then how do you know that they would fit existing lamps and provide better light?

The thing about Tesla is that Tesla adocates believe any piece of hype about him--maybe his carbon button lamps actually work better than conventional incandescents, and maybe they don't, but I'd want to see a side-by-side comparison before I believed it.

One difficulty with them that I can see is that they are supposed to be good sources of ionizing radiation.

This is an admirable goal, but don't delude yourself into a marginal tradeoff - Look at the wattage consumed by your lathe -- let's say it's 2 HP at about 750 watts per HP, and lets further say that when running it averages 1 HP or 750 watts. If you are a hobby turner and turn "a lot", it might run 2 hours per day, let's say, so that's 1500 watt hours. A 60 watt bulb powered all night long on your front porch (let's again assume that "night" is 12 hours) consumes 720 watt hours. So, converting the 60 watt bulb to a 12 watt CFL (I use a 7 watt on my front porch, by the way) will save 720-144=576 watthours. A typical house has more than one bulb that is on for 12 hours or more per day, so changing to CFL or even regular fluorescents makes a LOT of difference, particularly multiplied by many households, whereas eliminating motors on wood lathes used by hobbiests will make a much smaller (very much smaller) difference.

My high school heroes were R. Buckminster Fuller, Nikola Tesla and Frank Lloyd Wright.

Each saw the world in new and useful ways. That ANY of their technology should still be in use today is a mute testimony to their genius ... and each of them is father to several aspects of our current experience of life.

Bill

I am not sure who, but I do recall hearing a series of stories by the BBC where a group trying to bring electricity to poor African areas was providing solar panels and carbon-button lamps to poor villages. I don't know all the specifics, just that it was being done- and it would seem that for that to happen, it would require that *someone* is producing them commerically. It is also the case that those plasma lights (the things you see in old 50's mad scientist movies next to the jacob's ladders) use carbon button inserts in the center, which provide the ionizing radiation you mention below to make the colored streams of light that radiate in the globe. I don't suggest that we should all light our homes by the glow of plasma lamps, but the technology is certainly in place to produce these bulbs. (in a plasma lamb, the light is blocked by a layer of something that looks like steel wool, which is why they don't toss out light like a regular lamp.)

The contention that they would fit existing lamps comes from one of my most basic and fundimental personal issues with the compact flourescents- a flourescent requires a ballast, which is (as far as I've seen) always built into the base of the bulb. While this isn't a problem with many types of lamps, I have a number of lighting fixtures that have shades that taper open from the base of the bulb, and the ballast from a CF renders that at least difficult, if not impossible to use. Since the carbon button requires only one positive lead, that could be provided easily enough by the exisiting positive lead in the socket of a standard floor lamp.

The contention that the light emitted by a carbon button lamp is superior to flourescent comes from the same basic principle as the filiment vs flourescent standpoint. The flourescent produces light that flickers, and is slightly tinged with color that does not fall into the natural range that a person would expect from an incandescent bulb, which is from dull red to bright white- passing through orange and yellow on the way. It's because the gas has inherantly different properties. With the carbon button, it's a matter of carbon producing the light, and it falls in the same spectrum as a heated filiment.

The thing about Tesla is that he invented so many things that are absolutely crucial to our modern world, that his word is as good as solid gold on things that his opinions make sense to take on. I don't believe every piece of hype about the guy- there are some claims that are pretty far-fetched related to some of the more esoteric work he was doing, but I feel fairly comfortable that the guy who invented AC, the flourescent bulb, the induction motor, phased power, and laid the groundwork for wireless communications was perfectly qualified to make a humble light bulb, and can accept that he did without too much hand-wringing about it.

I do understand what you're saying here, and I would say you'd have a much stronger point if I were spouting off about his supposed death-rays and teleportation devices. While I wouldn't entirely discredit the idea that the guy was capable of making such things, there would have to be some solid proof behind them before I felt comfortable jumping on the bandwagon there.

But a light bulb? Odds are, they're not in production because of the same old reasons- Tesla and Edison were constantly at odds, and Edison was a much more capable salesman. Plenty of very good things have been left by the wayside for that reason all throughout history, and it doesn't take too much of a stretch of the imagination to see it happening in this case.

That may be a difficulty if you need a static-free environment, but I would point out that there are a number of ionizing air filters on the market that people swear by. Not having one at hand to test out, and lacking the glass blowing capabilities to make one, I can't test one of these lights out, but it could be a net benefit rather than a detriment. Then again, it may mean that you have to dust your lamp three times a day, and I can see how that would get old.

Tesla and Bucky Fuller I understand, but Frank Lloyd Wright? Have you ever been in a house designed by him? While visually appealing, they were not exactly designed for real life.

No ... the closest I've ever been to a solid work of his was the corporate offices of Dominos' Pizza in Ann Arbor which were 'inspired by' his profiles. You see this long, low building from the freeway ... but are actually looking at the 3rd floor corporate offices of a multi-zillion dollar company built atop an absolutely hopping warehouse and factory. They have a half dozen hi-lo's in their -freezer- fer cryin' out loud. Yet, from the freeway, it looks like little more than yet another ho-hum office building with a green roof, red brick and copper gutters. Up-scale, maybe, but definitely unremarkable.

It'll take you ten minutes to loop around the place on the driveway.

Some of the most expensive turned pieces I have ever seen were 'visually appealing' but 'not exactly designed for real life.' The front cover of any issue of the AAW magazine that I've ever seen is a good example of that.

I'm not sure how practical it was, but I like the idea of integrating nature with domicile that found expression in "Falling Water". Did you know that he even designed houseboats? Yeah ... intended for Lake Tahoe, in particular. And commercial buildings. Quite a range (anything for a buck, eh?).

I like the idea of housing that, on nice days, smudges the distinction between indoors and out. If it can do that all year around (as Falling Waters can), so much the better.

FLW made mistakes. But that's what happens when you stretch boundaries. He also got enough right that the commissions kept coming. And the boundaries remained stretched and other architects have built on his vision.

I'm not disagreeing that some of his work simply didn't work very well. For all I know it was ALL horribly wretched stuff and he was a greater huckster than Barnum and Bailey combined. But Prairie Home and Falling Waters brought a way of seeing things to architecture and that has persisted in such buildings as Dominos Farms. It would please me to have a similar impact (ala Ruud Olsolnik) on how turned forms are perceived.

Bill

We are going to be in Chicago this summer and plan to visit the Robie House while we are there. I am actually more interested in his furniture and glass than his architechture.

I have a special place in my memory for FLW, having lost my virginity to a willing young lady inside one of his houses.

Yeah, I'm kind of fond of Henry Ford that way.

Dick "did I say that" Durbin