Incandescent that avoids upcoming ban
Don Klipstein
efficiency to get around the upcoming 2012-2014 ban until 2020.
Thanks to Paul M. Eldridge for mentioning this in article
<6cgk04p8fsdm5ckju...@4ax.com> in alt.home.repair in the
"candlelight thread" on April 19th!
These are truly incandescent lamps producing about 90-91% as much light
for 70% as much electricity, in comparison to the highest light output
grades of standard incandescents. Light output is fully on par with soft
white ones that have life expectancy extended to 1500 hours. These
improved incandescents have rated life expectancy of 3,000 hours.
They look like soft white incandescents, both while off and while on.
They actually are incandescent, specifically a variation of the halogen
lamp known as "HIR". They gain energy efficiency by using an
infrared-reflecting coating on the inner surface of the inner halogen
capsule.
Despite being halogen, they are rated to be fully dimmable. Just don't
expect dimming to increase their life as much as dimming increases life of
non-halogen incandescents, since halogens have an extra aging mechanism
that is slowed to a lesser extent by dimming (filament end notching).
Their color, spectrum and color rendering properties are
incandescent-like. The color is more greenish than conventional
incandescent to an extent so small that I usually cannot see this, even
side-by-side against a conventional incandescent while looking for this.
The color difference is of a scale that I have seen between different
conventional incandescents of same color temperature but different
filament winding styles and maybe different tungsten grades. The HIR
lamps definitely *do not* have anywhere near even halfway a "gas mantle"
extent of being greenish.
I just got some at Home Depot a couple hours ago. They are Philips
Halogena "energy saver".
The 70 watt one produces 1600 lumens (22.9 lumens/watt) and the 40 watt
one produces 800 lumens (20 lumens/watt).
Efficiency is improved over conventional incandescent, but is still only
around 35-40% of that of better compact fluorescents.
Since these are halogen lamps, they should have at least some regular
use with being on long enough to fully warm up to keep the "halogen cycle"
chemical process in the inner capsule working properly (as opposed to
being used only briefly). Because of this and their cost, I would rather
not use these in closet lights, refrigerator lights and motion sensor
lights - those applications are where conventional incandescent is plenty
good.
Where I would recommend these: Other locations where compact
fluorescents are not acceptable due to warmup time, performance with
dimmers, temperature often being far from ideal for CFL, or in fixtures
where CFLs equal to 100 watt incandescent tend to overheat. These
should also be good where there is a critical color or color rendering
requirement that no CFL can meet (whether in fact or by fiat or in
someone's head), or for those who have big problems with disposable
built-in electronic ballasts or with lightbulbs having even 3 milligrams
of mercury.
Since these cost $5 per 2-pack and most ordinary spiral CFLs now cost no
more and also last longer and have at least twice the energy efficiency of
these improved incandescents, I still say use CFL where you can.
- Don Klipstein (d...@misty.com)
hal...@aol.com
> � There is now a retail-available incandescent that has enough energy
> efficiency to get around the upcoming 2012-2014 ban until 2020.
>
> � Thanks to Paul M. Eldridge for mentioning this in article
one can buy cases of regular lamps, before the ban becomes
effective....
stored unused they should last forever
S. Barker
s
"Don Klipstein" <d...@manx.misty.com> wrote in message
news:slrng1a47...@manx.misty.com...
Don Klipstein
>What's this bs about a ban? I've not kept up with the messages.
A recently enacted piece of USA Federal legislation bans manufacture,
sale and importation of certain incandescent lamps, starting in 2012.
"General purpose" incandescent lamps of a certain range of light output
and failing to achieve some specific standard of energy efficiency will be
banned in 2012. This will include 100 and 75 watt "regular"
incandescents. In 2014, this will expand to include 60 and 40 watt
"regular" incandescents that fail to meet that level of energy efficiency.
The "usual regular" incandescents of 75-100 watts will be banned in 2012
and the "usual regular" incandescents of 40-60 watts will be banned in
2014.
The improved incandescents that Paul Eldridge and I mentioned have
sufficient energy efficiency to not be affected until 2020 according to
this law.
GE is planning to put similar ones on the market in 2010.
"Specialty" incandescents are largely not affected. Paul Eldridge
posted a list of unaffected ones in the "candlelight thread" in
alt.home.repair on April 20 in article
<40rm04pigqrctrn9g...@4ax.com>.
That one can be viewed via Google (along with 24 other articles in the
"candlelight thread" of at least 104 articles) by going to:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.home.repair/browse_thread/thread/
695cb5879218f939/b9f8c930e2f6a64e?hl=en&
That article also mentions availability at Home Depot of incandescents
that have sufficient energy efficiency to not be banned in 2012-2014.
- Don Klipstein (d...@misty.com)
Jeff
> In article <slrng1ac0...@manx.misty.com>, d...@manx.misty.com (Don
> Klipstein) wrote:
>
>> In article <UfadnfG0m7wCgIjV...@giganews.com>, S. Barker wrote:
>>
>>> What's this bs about a ban? I've not kept up with the messages.
>> A recently enacted piece of USA Federal legislation bans manufacture,
>> sale and importation of certain incandescent lamps, starting in 2012.
>
> on that legislation and force Uncle Sam to keep its big nose out of
> people's lightbulbs. I hope it goes through.
Why don't you just buy a couple cases of incandescants and keep them
with your 8 tracks. You seem to have missed the spiraling energy costs
and don't seem to care about waste. Well, it's been a great 7 1/2 years
for you hasn't it?
Jeff
John A. Weeks III
Jeff <jeff@spam_me_not.com> wrote:
> Why don't you just buy a couple cases of incandescants and keep them
> with your 8 tracks. You seem to have missed the spiraling energy costs
> and don't seem to care about waste. Well, it's been a great 7 1/2 years
> for you hasn't it?
Its funny you claim that the poster doesn't care about waste. You
see, you can toss a regular lightbulb into the trash since it is
basically safe. But the new CF bulbs are hazardous materials that
have to be handled by special licensed contractors. The contents
of those bulbs can kill you. Talk about waste...
-john-
--
======================================================================
John A. Weeks III 612-720-2854 jo...@johnweeks.com
Newave Communications http://www.johnweeks.com
======================================================================
krw
den...@dennmac.net says...
> warranted, I just want the option to use incandescents in certain
> situations also. I have a sneaking suspicion the majority of Americans do
> too.
...and this one WILL be hoarding cases of incandescent light bulbs.
I *hate* CFLs for most uses.
--
Keith
Jeff
> In article <896dnfZTa6ZeaIvV...@earthlink.com>,
> Jeff <jeff@spam_me_not.com> wrote:
>
>> Why don't you just buy a couple cases of incandescants and keep them
>> with your 8 tracks. You seem to have missed the spiraling energy costs
>> and don't seem to care about waste. Well, it's been a great 7 1/2 years
>> for you hasn't it?
>
> Its funny you claim that the poster doesn't care about waste. You
> see, you can toss a regular lightbulb into the trash since it is
> basically safe. But the new CF bulbs are hazardous materials that
> have to be handled by special licensed contractors. The contents
> of those bulbs can kill you. Talk about waste...
Mercury CFL myths:
http://howtosaveenergy.blogspot.com/2007/05/cfl-mercury-myths.html
There's always someone making excuses rather than moving forward with
conservation. Same thing with global warming which this is not so
coincidentally linked.
Can you imagine where we would be if we had not had CAFE standards. If
all the cars had the same fuel efficiency and smog standards that they
had in the 50's and 60's?
You can get low mercury CFLs if you like. Or recycle, they are
harmless if unbroken.
Jeff
>
> -john-
>
Jeff
> In article <896dnfZTa6ZeaIvV...@earthlink.com>, Jeff
> <jeff@spam_me_not.com> wrote:
>
> warranted, I just want the option to use incandescents in certain
> situations also.
You still have that option. Specialty and low wattage lamps are exempt.
There's few places where an edison base lamp couldn't be replaced with
one of the CFLs satisfactorily. It pays to not buy the cheap discount
store CFLs. And as Don pointed out, you can buy the new halogens, which
will certainly fall in price.
I'd still like to use R12, but the switchover did close the ozone
hole. Remember that?
Sometimes you have to do something because it has a far greater benefit.
Jeff
krw
jeff@spam_me_not.com says...
I'm not about to use CFLs anywhere I spend any time. I'm not about
to replace all my fixtures either. A case of bulbs here, and a case
there...
> I'd still like to use R12, but the switchover did close the ozone
> hole. Remember that?
Oh, good grief!
> Sometimes you have to do something because it has a far greater benefit.
Someimes you just have to be a good little sheep, eh Komrad?
> Jeff
>
>
> I have a sneaking suspicion the majority of Americans do
> > too.
Sheep? Evidently...
--
Keith
S. Barker
s
"Don Klipstein" <d...@manx.misty.com> wrote in message
news:slrng1ac0...@manx.misty.com...
S. Barker
(buying cases of bulbs, not keeping them with the eight tracks) My 8-tracks
are in a controlled environment due to the foam pressers and the plastic.
The bulbs will not need this specialized attention.
s
"Jeff" <jeff@spam_me_not.com> wrote in message
news:896dnfZTa6ZeaIvV...@earthlink.com...
S. Barker
closing for centuries. And no refrigerant will EVER cool as well as R-12.
I also have a supply of that, and add to my systems as needed.
s
"Jeff" <jeff@spam_me_not.com> wrote in message
news:MuqdnTH2L-cOS4rV...@earthlink.com...
Don Klipstein
III wrote:
>In article <896dnfZTa6ZeaIvV...@earthlink.com>,
> Jeff <jeff@spam_me_not.com> wrote:
>
>> Why don't you just buy a couple cases of incandescants and keep them
>> with your 8 tracks. You seem to have missed the spiraling energy costs
>> and don't seem to care about waste. Well, it's been a great 7 1/2 years
>> for you hasn't it?
>
>Its funny you claim that the poster doesn't care about waste. You
>see, you can toss a regular lightbulb into the trash since it is
>basically safe. But the new CF bulbs are hazardous materials that
>have to be handled by special licensed contractors. The contents
>of those bulbs can kill you. Talk about waste...
In many areas of the USA, households are still allowed to dump CFLs into
regular trash.
- Don Klipstein (d...@misty.com)
S. Barker
usually in the trash can after they've been knocked off their socket by some
flying object or swing board.
s
"Don Klipstein" <d...@manx.misty.com> wrote in message
news:slrng1fq6...@manx.misty.com...
John A. Weeks III
Jeff <jeff@spam_me_not.com> wrote:
> John A. Weeks III wrote:
> > In article <896dnfZTa6ZeaIvV...@earthlink.com>,
> > Jeff <jeff@spam_me_not.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Why don't you just buy a couple cases of incandescants and keep them
> >> with your 8 tracks. You seem to have missed the spiraling energy costs
> >> and don't seem to care about waste. Well, it's been a great 7 1/2 years
> >> for you hasn't it?
> >
> > Its funny you claim that the poster doesn't care about waste. You
> > see, you can toss a regular lightbulb into the trash since it is
> > basically safe. But the new CF bulbs are hazardous materials that
> > have to be handled by special licensed contractors. The contents
> > of those bulbs can kill you. Talk about waste...
>
> Mercury CFL myths:
>
> http://howtosaveenergy.blogspot.com/2007/05/cfl-mercury-myths.html
And when you go to this web site, what do you find? For proper disposal
of a broken CFL bulb, contact your local authority for a community
household hazardous waste collection. That means to me that the
things are hazardous, otherwise, why call the government to get the
hazardous waste collection people involved?
> There's always someone making excuses rather than moving forward with
> conservation. Same thing with global warming which this is not so
> coincidentally linked.
There's always someone posting links to sites that they haven't read
about subjects that they are ignorant of.
Next you are going to tell me that you have never broken a light
bulb in your entire life. So what happens when a semi-load of
these CF things go off the side of a freeway bridge? Does it
kill everyone in the whole neighborhood when all the bulbs break?
Tony Hwang
Very good. I guess you throw away used batteries into the trash can as
well? Your grand kids will appreciate it.
Jeff
> In article <Ns6dneQ6usEKTorV...@earthlink.com>,
> Jeff <jeff@spam_me_not.com> wrote:
>
>> John A. Weeks III wrote:
>>> In article <896dnfZTa6ZeaIvV...@earthlink.com>,
>>> Jeff <jeff@spam_me_not.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Why don't you just buy a couple cases of incandescants and keep them
>>>> with your 8 tracks. You seem to have missed the spiraling energy costs
>>>> and don't seem to care about waste. Well, it's been a great 7 1/2 years
>>>> for you hasn't it?
>>> Its funny you claim that the poster doesn't care about waste. You
>>> see, you can toss a regular lightbulb into the trash since it is
>>> basically safe. But the new CF bulbs are hazardous materials that
>>> have to be handled by special licensed contractors. The contents
>>> of those bulbs can kill you. Talk about waste...
>> Mercury CFL myths:
>>
>> http://howtosaveenergy.blogspot.com/2007/05/cfl-mercury-myths.html
>
> And when you go to this web site, what do you find? For proper disposal
> of a broken CFL bulb, contact your local authority for a community
> household hazardous waste collection. That means to me that the
> things are hazardous, otherwise, why call the government to get the
> hazardous waste collection people involved?
You seem to have missed the bit that even if a high mercury CFL burst
and all the mercury vaporized in the room, it would still be harmless.
>
>> There's always someone making excuses rather than moving forward with
>> conservation. Same thing with global warming which this is not so
>> coincidentally linked.
>
> There's always someone posting links to sites that they haven't read
> about subjects that they are ignorant of.
>
> Next you are going to tell me that you have never broken a light
> bulb in your entire life. So what happens when a semi-load of
> these CF things go off the side of a freeway bridge? Does it
> kill everyone in the whole neighborhood when all the bulbs break?
What happens if a truckload of tuna veers off the road?
Until something better comes along, it's CFLs. Of all the hazards in
life, they rank pretty low.
Jeff
>
> -john-
>
Jeff
And, why not?
I'm not about
> to replace all my fixtures either.
Why would you have to?
A case of bulbs here, and a case
> there...
>
>> I'd still like to use R12, but the switchover did close the ozone
>> hole. Remember that?
>
> Oh, good grief!
I suppose you are still questioning evolution? And global warming?
>
>> Sometimes you have to do something because it has a far greater benefit.
>
> Someimes you just have to be a good little sheep, eh Komrad?
Look whose calling who a sheep?
Sometimes it pays not to be a sheep and blindly believe all that horse
manure W has been dishing out for the last 7 years. I'd say lemming is a
more appropriate term.
The tungsten light bulb has been around almost 100 years. There's
nothing else we use that comes anywhere near being as inefficient. The
common light bulb rings in at about 5%. It doesn't have great color
rendition unless corrected in which case it has a shorter life or is
even less efficient, it runs up the heat load in summer, it has a
terrible lifespan... The only real advantage it has is that it is cheap.
But not cheap when you consider the lifespan or the energy it uses.
But hey, if you guys love your 100 year old design 100 Watt bulbs. I
don't happen to have your emotional attachment.
Jeff
Jeff
> I remember no such thing. The hole in the ozone has been opening and
> closing for centuries. And no refrigerant will EVER cool as well as R-12.
Propane/isobutane has identical properties, even being mineral oil
miscible, mix it 70/30, I believe. It's not like mineral oil filled R12
is not flammable. That and some of the "new" refrigerants are part
hydrocarbon.
If you want to toy with the mix a bit, you can beat R12 by 10 - 20%.
Jeff
ransley
> In article <Ns6dneQ6usEKTorVnZ2dnUVZ_t-nn...@earthlink.com>,> > > In article <896dnfZTa6ZeaIvVnZ2dnUVZ_jydn...@earthlink.com>,
> Newave Communications http://www.johnweeks.com
> ======================================================================- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
You better learn up before you pannic chicken little. What do you do
with you tube flourescents, put them in the trash, so does everyone,
and the mercury? what do you do with old thermostats, well they have
10000 times as much as a bulb and what about some thermometers, 1000
times as much. Did you know a coal plant releases twice as much
mercury powering a 100w bulb over its life than a cfl has, and that is
airborn mercury, mr sky is falling. So if you area uses coal your
wastefull incandesant is poisoning you right now with twice the
mercury, and you are breathing it now.
ransley
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
The tuna truckload was then infested with flies that carried diseases
and killed mr weeks neighbors since the dirty mercury filled coal did
not.
ransley
> I remember no such thing. The hole in the ozone has been opening and
> closing for centuries. And no refrigerant will EVER cool as well as R-12.
> I also have a supply of that, and add to my systems as needed.
>
> s
>
> "Jeff" <jeff@spam_me_not.com> wrote in message
>
> news:MuqdnTH2L-cOS4rV...@earthlink.com...
>
>
>
> > Dennis M wrote:
> >>>> Klipstein) wrote:
>
> >>>>> In article <UfadnfG0m7wCgIjVnZ2dnUVZ_vedn...@giganews.com>, S. Barker
>
> - Show quoted text -
opening for centuries? and tell me how could we see it 100 years ago,
ransley
> krw wrote:
> > In article <MuqdnTH2L-cOS4rVnZ2dnUVZ_h6hn...@earthlink.com>,> >>> In article <896dnfZTa6ZeaIvVnZ2dnUVZ_jydn...@earthlink.com>, Jeff> >>>>> In article <slrng1ac02.shr....@manx.misty.com>, d...@manx.misty.com (Don
> >>>>> Klipstein) wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Incandesants are dumb to use as a main light source, they produce only
maybe 3-5 % off that 100 watts consumed as light, so run 11, 100
watters this summer, and its the same as running a 1000w electric
heater, pay to cool your home, and pay to heat it at the same time,
Real Smart.
S. Barker
battery, THEY go in the pile on the back forty until the price of lead comes
back up.
s
"Tony Hwang" <drag...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:lkSRj.230370$pM4.20277@pd7urf1no...
S. Barker
We're still here.
s
"Jeff" <jeff@spam_me_not.com> wrote in message
news:WPSdnUmxeoCSm4XV...@earthlink.com...
John A. Weeks III
<d9d9e1db-5d35-4a92...@b1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
ransley <Mark_R...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> The tuna truckload was then infested with flies that carried diseases
> and killed mr weeks neighbors since the dirty mercury filled coal did
> not.
So, how does tuna in cans become infested? Sea flies? That is the
problem with people who have knee-jerk responses to everything. They
knee-jerk without thinking, and they end up looking dumb, which is
probably where they started in the first place.
David Nebenzahl
> where else would you put a battery? Unless you're talking about a car
> battery, THEY go in the pile on the back forty until the price of lead comes
> back up.
I guess some folks are just more civilized than others; here in the East
Bay (San Francisco), we can (and some of us do) take our batteries, old
fluorescents, etc., to the recycling center where they segregate it and
dispose of it properly.
Of course, then there are the fucking idiots who just leave TVs and
computer monitors on the STREETS of my neighborhood, where they
sometimes get broken. Can you say 10 pounds of LEAD????
--
The best argument against democracy is a five-minute
conversation with the average voter.
- Attributed to Winston Churchill
Rod Speed
> I agree. Hell we used to play with big gobs of mercury in science
> class. We're still here.
Mad as a hatter, tho.
> Jeff <jeff@spam_me_not.com> wrote
ransley
>
> ransley <Mark_Rans...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > The tuna truckload was then infested with flies that carried diseases
> > and killed mr weeks neighbors since the dirty mercury filled coal did
> > not.
>
> So, how does tuna in cans become infested? Sea flies? That is the
> problem with people who have knee-jerk responses to everything. They
> knee-jerk without thinking, and they end up looking dumb, which is
> probably where they started in the first place.
>
> -john-
>
> --
> ======================================================================
> Newave Communications http://www.johnweeks.com
> ======================================================================
who said canned tuna. HD has a Nine year warranty on cfls, im not
throwin my 2$ bulbs away, im goin back for freebies when I need them
and let them dispose of them, as they do for free with batteries. So
beath well today, knowing your coal plant is giving you Mercury.
krw
@a70g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, Mark_R...@yahoo.com says...
<snip>
> > >> I have a sneaking suspicion the majority of Americans do
> > >>> too.
> >
> > > Sheep? Evidently...- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Incandesants are dumb to use as a main light source, they produce only
> maybe 3-5 % off that 100 watts consumed as light, so run 11, 100
> watters this summer, and its the same as running a 1000w electric
> heater, pay to cool your home, and pay to heat it at the same time,
> Real Smart.
I have little need for lights (at home) in the summer. I bet you
*hate* large screen TVs too.
--
Keith
krw
56g2000hsm.googlegroups.com>, Mark_R...@yahoo.com says...
What do I do with a mercury thermometer? When I find one (haven't
seen one for *years*, I take it to the nice man in the NBC suit.
You know, the same guy you're *supposed* to take fluorescents to.
--
Keith
ransley
> In article <a38ebf40-a884-4951-86a5-be154bb130bb@
>
> - Show quoted text -
It is very likely the thermometer you use to see if you have a fever
has mercury is it.
Don Klipstein
Nebenzahl wrote:
>On 4/30/2008 8:34 AM S. Barker spake thus:
>
>> where else would you put a battery? Unless you're talking about a car
>> battery, THEY go in the pile on the back forty until the price of lead comes
>> back up.
>
>I guess some folks are just more civilized than others; here in the East
>Bay (San Francisco), we can (and some of us do) take our batteries, old
>fluorescents, etc., to the recycling center where they segregate it and
>dispose of it properly.
>
>Of course, then there are the fucking idiots who just leave TVs and
>computer monitors on the STREETS of my neighborhood, where they
>sometimes get broken. Can you say 10 pounds of LEAD????
The lead in those is now nearly all in the glass - where it does a good
job of staying even if the glass gets broken up, even if someone or
something should swallow the pieces.
It is good to recycle that where it is recyclable anyway - landfill
space is expensive. There is a much smaller amount of lead in the circuit
boards - probly a fraction of an ounce now that we have tiny SMT
components - but it's good to recycle those where you can anyway.
- Don Klipstein (d...@misty.com)
Rod Speed
> It is very likely the thermometer you use to see if you have a fever has mercury is it.
Nope, much more likely to have alcohol in it now if it isnt digital.
krw
abf334...@k37g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, Mark_R...@yahoo.com
says...
Are you *really* that ignorant? ...or are you just an incompetent
troll?
--
Keith
krw
jeff@spam_me_not.com says...
Primarily because I can't stand the light and they're too slow to
turn on where I don't care about the light.
> I'm not about
> > to replace all my fixtures either.
>
> Why would you have to?
CFLs aren't for many fixtures. They do get hot and the electronics
doesn't like it. You have a lot to learn, my boy.
> A case of bulbs here, and a case
> > there...
> >
> >> I'd still like to use R12, but the switchover did close the ozone
> >> hole. Remember that?
> >
> > Oh, good grief!
>
> I suppose you are still questioning evolution? And global warming?
Don't be an ass.
> >> Sometimes you have to do something because it has a far greater benefit.
> >
> > Someimes you just have to be a good little sheep, eh Komrad?
>
> Look whose calling who a sheep?
You *are* a perfect example of a sheep, who likes it when the man
from Washington bends you over. I bet you really love those 1.6gal
toilets. You'd have thought that congress would have thought up
something larger, given their needs.
> Sometimes it pays not to be a sheep and blindly believe all that horse
> manure W has been dishing out for the last 7 years. I'd say lemming is a
> more appropriate term.
Don't be an idiot. I know it's hard work to think, but try it
anyway.
> The tungsten light bulb has been around almost 100 years.
The planet has been around a tad longer than that and is still
useful.
> There's
> nothing else we use that comes anywhere near being as inefficient.
Now, don't add lies to your list of sins, junior.
> The
> common light bulb rings in at about 5%. It doesn't have great color
> rendition unless corrected in which case it has a shorter life or is
> even less efficient, it runs up the heat load in summer, it has a
> terrible lifespan... The only real advantage it has is that it is cheap.
> But not cheap when you consider the lifespan or the energy it uses.
Tungsten lights have far better color rendition than most CFLs.
Halogens (which I use almost exclusively), even better.
> But hey, if you guys love your 100 year old design 100 Watt bulbs. I
> don't happen to have your emotional attachment.
If that's your best argument, hang up your spurs, kid.
>
> Jeff
> >
> >> Jeff
> >>
> >>
> >> I have a sneaking suspicion the majority of Americans do
> >>> too.
> >
> > Sheep? Evidently...
> >
obviously
--
Keith
ransley
> In article <6410aac8-803a-4a5c-9dc0-
> abf3343ef...@k37g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, Mark_Rans...@yahoo.com
You better read up, there is alot you dont know, did you ever hear of
Google.
ransley
> >>>> ======================================================================-
> >>>> Hide quoted text -
>
> >>>> - Show quoted text -
>
> >>> You better learn up before you pannic chicken little. What do you do
> >>> with you tube flourescents, put them in the trash, so does everyone,
> >>> and the mercury? what do you do with old thermostats, well they have
> >>> 10000 times as much as a bulb and what about some thermometers, 1000
> >>> times as much. Did you know a coal plant releases twice as much
> >>> mercury powering a 100w bulb over its life than a cfl has, and that
> >>> is airborn mercury, mr sky is falling. So if you area uses coal your
> >>> wastefull incandesant is poisoning you right now with twice the
> >>> mercury, and you are breathing it now.
>
> >> What do I do with a mercury thermometer? When I find one (haven't
> >> seen one for *years*, I take it to the nice man in the NBC suit.
> >> You know, the same guy you're *supposed* to take fluorescents to.
> > It is very likely the thermometer you use to see if you have a fever has mercury is it.
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
I have them that are old, very old and they have mercury.
Rod Speed
> I have them that are old, very old and they have mercury.
Irrelevant to your claim about what others are likely to have.
Its rather unlikely that many have thermometers with mercury in them anymore.
krw
7ae5b8...@w74g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, Mark_R...@yahoo.com
says...
Don't be an ignorant ass. You have ignorant down pat.
--
Keith
ransley
> In article <14cf46ea-e4c2-41c1-8938-
> 7ae5b8536...@w74g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, Mark_Rans...@yahoo.com
Mercury Fever Thermometers were allowed to be sold in Illinois until
July 2004, most store chains stopped selling them in 1998-99, I still
have as do most people, Mercury Fever thermometers, much older,
probably 20+ years old. Its something nobody thinks about. One of
these can pollute fish in a 20 acre lake, before you stick one in your
kids mouth ask yourself its its less than 10 years old. I bet you wont
know. The ignorance is your lack of the facts. Read up and learn the
basics before you post insults.
Don Klipstein
ransley wrote:
>Mercury Fever Thermometers were allowed to be sold in Illinois until
>July 2004, most store chains stopped selling them in 1998-99, I still
>have as do most people, Mercury Fever thermometers, much older,
>probably 20+ years old. Its something nobody thinks about. One of
>these can pollute fish in a 20 acre lake, before you stick one in your
>kids mouth ask yourself its its less than 10 years old. I bet you wont
>know. The ignorance is your lack of the facts. Read up and learn the
>basics before you post insults.
I got one in PA about 10 years ago, 16 at most (well after a move 16.5
years ago), and it is mercury.
It's easy enough to tell. Mercury is silvery, while alternative liquids
look different - usually dyed red.
- Don Klipstein (d...@misty.com)
Rod Speed
> The incandescents last a lot longer than those new fancy bulbs.
Yeah, I just use incandescents and long tube fluoros myself.
> Why the heck does the new kind burn out so fast?
Its the technology.
Jeff
Not as much as you.
There's other alternatives (at a higher cost) for the heat hell holes
you mention. Personally, I've never liked or used recessed lighting.
Most of them are big leaks in a homes thermal envelope, but you haven't
impressed me as caring much about conservation, just consumption.
>
>> A case of bulbs here, and a case
>>> there...
>>>
>>>> I'd still like to use R12, but the switchover did close the ozone
>>>> hole. Remember that?
>>> Oh, good grief!
>> I suppose you are still questioning evolution? And global warming?
>
> Don't be an ass.
Don't be a flunky.
>
>>>> Sometimes you have to do something because it has a far greater benefit.
>>> Someimes you just have to be a good little sheep, eh Komrad?
>> Look whose calling who a sheep?
>
> You *are* a perfect example of a sheep, who likes it when the man
> from Washington bends you over. I bet you really love those 1.6gal
> toilets.
You've been listening to way too much wingnut radio/tv. Such is right
wing opinion in that it is all opinion and no facts. Just insult anyone
who disagrees. Don't let reality get in the way.
BTW, I have an old fashioned toilet because I live in an old house, but
have no objection to the new design toilets. The new ones work, as
opposed to the first generation.
You'd have thought that congress would have thought up
> something larger, given their needs.
>
>> Sometimes it pays not to be a sheep and blindly believe all that horse
>> manure W has been dishing out for the last 7 years. I'd say lemming is a
>> more appropriate term.
>
> Don't be an idiot. I know it's hard work to think, but try it
> anyway.
You seem to think we can just keep living the way we do now. I'm sure
the Mayans felt the same way as they gobbled up all the available resources.
>
>> The tungsten light bulb has been around almost 100 years.
>
> The planet has been around a tad longer than that and is still
> useful.
>
>> There's
>> nothing else we use that comes anywhere near being as inefficient.
>
> Now, don't add lies to your list of sins, junior.
Name a common appliance that is less efficient. The only thing in the
same ballpark is the common loudspeaker, but their drain on the grid is
minor.
>
>> The
>> common light bulb rings in at about 5%. It doesn't have great color
>> rendition unless corrected in which case it has a shorter life or is
>> even less efficient, it runs up the heat load in summer, it has a
>> terrible lifespan... The only real advantage it has is that it is cheap.
>> But not cheap when you consider the lifespan or the energy it uses.
>
> Tungsten lights have far better color rendition than most CFLs.
It's hard to call 2800K, good color rendition.
> Halogens (which I use almost exclusively), even better.
A few hundred degrees hotter.
>
There are excellent color balanced CFLs available, suitable for
viewing and judging color balance in photography. Much better than the
short lived photo floods. Certainly better than the common incandescent
or your halogens.
>> But hey, if you guys love your 100 year old design 100 Watt bulbs. I
>> don't happen to have your emotional attachment.
>
> If that's your best argument, hang up your spurs, kid.
I don't understand your problem. No one is taking away your specialty
halogen lights. All we are talking about is the old edison based lamps
which should join the trash bin of obsolete technology.
ransley
> The incandescents last a lot longer than those new fancy bulbs.
CFLs last longer, its proven, maybe alot of duds are made from crapy
chinese manufacturing, but HD has a 9 yr warranty and at 2$ a bulb. so
keep the warranty and pack in a box.
krw
> krw wrote:
> > In article <DcidnWE0o86CjYXV...@earthlink.com>,
> > jeff@spam_me_not.com says...
> >> krw wrote:
<snip>
> >>> I'm not about to use CFLs anywhere I spend any time.
> >> And, why not?
> >
> > Primarily because I can't stand the light and they're too slow to
> > turn on where I don't care about the light.
> >
> >> I'm not about
> >>> to replace all my fixtures either.
> >> Why would you have to?
> >
> > CFLs aren't for many fixtures. They do get hot and the electronics
> > doesn't like it. You have a lot to learn, my boy.
>
> Not as much as you.
I'm sure IKYABWAI is the best argument you can come up with.
> There's other alternatives (at a higher cost) for the heat hell holes
> you mention. Personally, I've never liked or used recessed lighting.
I do, but I'm not forcing you to have them.
> Most of them are big leaks in a homes thermal envelope, but you haven't
> impressed me as caring much about conservation, just consumption.
Nonsense. How does a thermal leak occur between floors? If idiots,
like you, design houses all sorts of stupid things are likely to
happen.
> >> A case of bulbs here, and a case
> >>> there...
> >>>
> >>>> I'd still like to use R12, but the switchover did close the ozone
> >>>> hole. Remember that?
> >>> Oh, good grief!
> >> I suppose you are still questioning evolution? And global warming?
> >
> > Don't be an ass.
>
> Don't be a flunky.
Hardly a fluky, ass.
> >>>> Sometimes you have to do something because it has a far greater benefit.
> >>> Someimes you just have to be a good little sheep, eh Komrad?
> >> Look whose calling who a sheep?
> >
> > You *are* a perfect example of a sheep, who likes it when the man
> > from Washington bends you over. I bet you really love those 1.6gal
> > toilets.
>
> You've been listening to way too much wingnut radio/tv. Such is right
> wing opinion in that it is all opinion and no facts. Just insult anyone
> who disagrees. Don't let reality get in the way.
Absolutely the truth, which your "argument" falls well short of
addressing.
> BTW, I have an old fashioned toilet because I live in an old house, but
> have no objection to the new design toilets. The new ones work, as
> opposed to the first generation.
You like to spout government lies. I have a set of "new" ones.
They don't.
> You'd have thought that congress would have thought up
> > something larger, given their needs.
> >
> >> Sometimes it pays not to be a sheep and blindly believe all that horse
> >> manure W has been dishing out for the last 7 years. I'd say lemming is a
> >> more appropriate term.
> >
> > Don't be an idiot. I know it's hard work to think, but try it
> > anyway.
>
> You seem to think we can just keep living the way we do now. I'm sure
> the Mayans felt the same way as they gobbled up all the available resources.
There are a *lot* of things we can do and will have to do. Having
government (or you) force change for changes sake is asinine.
Choice is a good thing. The market will decide the matters soon
enough without government screwing up the economy.
> >> The tungsten light bulb has been around almost 100 years.
> >
> > The planet has been around a tad longer than that and is still
> > useful.
> >
> >> There's
> >> nothing else we use that comes anywhere near being as inefficient.
> >
> > Now, don't add lies to your list of sins, junior.
>
> Name a common appliance that is less efficient. The only thing in the
> same ballpark is the common loudspeaker, but their drain on the grid is
> minor.
Define efficient. Televisions. Toasters.
> >> The
> >> common light bulb rings in at about 5%. It doesn't have great color
> >> rendition unless corrected in which case it has a shorter life or is
> >> even less efficient, it runs up the heat load in summer, it has a
> >> terrible lifespan... The only real advantage it has is that it is cheap.
> >> But not cheap when you consider the lifespan or the energy it uses.
> >
> > Tungsten lights have far better color rendition than most CFLs.
>
> It's hard to call 2800K, good color rendition.
It's hard to call halogens, 2800K.
> > Halogens (which I use almost exclusively), even better.
>
> A few hundred degrees hotter.
Stupid.
> >
> There are excellent color balanced CFLs available, suitable for
> viewing and judging color balance in photography. Much better than the
> short lived photo floods. Certainly better than the common incandescent
> or your halogens.
They all suck. I've tried them, and relegated them to the basement
(when I had one). I own none now because I hate them.
> >> But hey, if you guys love your 100 year old design 100 Watt bulbs. I
> >> don't happen to have your emotional attachment.
> >
> > If that's your best argument, hang up your spurs, kid.
>
> I don't understand your problem. No one is taking away your specialty
> halogen lights. All we are talking about is the old edison based lamps
> which should join the trash bin of obsolete technology.
They aren't "specialty". They have an Edison screw base, and come
in the standard sizes. I have "standard" tungsten in some floor
lamps though and closets though. I'll be buying a few hundred over
the next couple of years because you leftist loons are forcing your
religion on others, again.
> >> Jeff
> >>>> Jeff
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> I have a sneaking suspicion the majority of Americans do
> >>>>> too.
> >>> Sheep? Evidently...
> >>>
> > obviously
Obviously.
--
Keith
ransley
> In article <66Odnb2hLKaDDYTVnZ2dnUVZ_tuon...@earthlink.com>,
> jeff@spam_me_not.com says...
>
> > krw wrote:
> > > In article <DcidnWE0o86CjYXVnZ2dnUVZ_rKtn...@earthlink.com>,
krw check out a review of cfls at Popular Mechanics magazine, the new
soft white are not what was out a few years ago, even by brand it
different, PM put a HD soft white at Par with incandesant. And putting
in cans in my kitchen does now allow out alot of air by sidewall loss
up to the attic.
Don Klipstein
>In article <66Odnb2hLKaDDYTV...@earthlink.com>,
>jeff@spam_me_not.com says...
>> krw wrote:
>> > In article <DcidnWE0o86CjYXV...@earthlink.com>,
>> > jeff@spam_me_not.com says...
<I, d...@misty.com, edit for space>
>> You've been listening to way too much wingnut radio/tv. Such is right
>> wing opinion in that it is all opinion and no facts. Just insult anyone
>> who disagrees. Don't let reality get in the way.
>
>Absolutely the truth, which your "argument" falls well short of
>addressing.
>
>> BTW, I have an old fashioned toilet because I live in an old house, but
>> have no objection to the new design toilets. The new ones work, as
>> opposed to the first generation.
>
>You like to spout government lies. I have a set of "new" ones.
>They don't.
I see so many 1.6 gallon/flush toilets nowadays that work as well as
toilets ever did. This does have an effect on my consideration as to
which side I would call a liar!
- Don Klipstein (d...@misty.com)
max
d...@manx.misty.com (Don Klipstein) wrote:
i would say that if one has difficulty with one's 1.6 gal. toilet, one
should reacquaint oneself with <http://www.mypyramid.gov/> instead of
embarking to recapitulate the work of Morgan Spurlock.
--
This signature can be appended to your outgoing mesages. Many people include in
their signatures contact information, and perhaps a joke or quotation.
max
d...@manx.misty.com (Don Klipstein) wrote:
and while we're at it (vis a vis the original subject of incandescent
lights vs. CFs)... just who are these Dutch Masters whose calibrated
retinas are so acutely attuned to color temperature and chromatic
rendition?
I got in early. Sometime year before last, or possibly early last year,
Menards had gigantic palettes of CFs for sale at less than $1 bulb, or
something like that, for 2-packs of Sylvania Soft White 13 watt
"mini-60's".
Worsk great. I relamped almost the entire house and bought enough extra
tubes to relamp it 1.5 times more. I have several in vented base-up
track fixtures, and a few in unvented base-up globes and haven't had any
problems. None have died, and my electric bill has dropped measurably
and significantly.
And, amazingly, i can still tell what color my stuff is! I very much
don't notice any "difference" in "color rendition" between natural
sunlight and my CFs, and i've tried to ... well, notice.
Puerile whinging, i say...
Of course, the Damoclean sword looms menacing for the day that one burns
out, when i shall throw myself bodily in the street, shrieking in agony
from Murcury Possoming [sic] and beg my neighbors to euthanize me before
the EPA plucks my parrot and drowns me in tank of HgX and locks me away
in Camp X-ray for environmental terrism [sic].
oh wait. i'll just put it in a little plastic grocery bag until it's
convenient for me to drop it off at some recycling center somewhere.
Neverminds...
CF's rule. Esp. when one realizes that a very very modest investment
in CF's in this country frees up generating capacity equivalent to a few
gigawatts of nuclear (or coal, for that matter) power plants.
Should be a Know Brainer for the anti-Coal people, the Anti-Nuke people,
the Anti-Natural Gas Peaker Plant people and the Anti-building High
Tension Distribution Power Lines IN MY BACK YARD IN MY FORMERLY A
CORNFIELD SUBDEVELOPMENT people.
Oh, ya. Someone said on the radio at lunch that it would be harder to
see the ZOG watermark on my $1000 bills that I like to count before i go
to walmart. I Forgot. I don't have the Dutch Master's eye.
BTW, CF's rule. Old school wolfram tubes drool.
.max
ransley
> In <MPG.2286141e37608f74989...@news.individual.net>, krw wrote in part:
>
> >In article <66Odnb2hLKaDDYTVnZ2dnUVZ_tuon...@earthlink.com>,
> >jeff@spam_me_not.com says...
> >> krw wrote:
> >> > In article <DcidnWE0o86CjYXVnZ2dnUVZ_rKtn...@earthlink.com>,
> >> > jeff@spam_me_not.com says...
>
> <I, d...@misty.com, edit for space>
>
> >> You've been listening to way too much wingnut radio/tv. Such is right
> >> wing opinion in that it is all opinion and no facts. Just insult anyone
> >> who disagrees. Don't let reality get in the way.
>
> >Absolutely the truth, which your "argument" falls well short of
> >addressing.
>
> >> BTW, I have an old fashioned toilet because I live in an old house, but
> >> have no objection to the new design toilets. The new ones work, as
> >> opposed to the first generation.
>
> >You like to spout government lies. I have a set of "new" ones.
> >They don't.
>
> I see so many 1.6 gallon/flush toilets nowadays that work as well as
> toilets ever did. This does have an effect on my consideration as to
> which side I would call a liar!
>
> - Don Klipstein (d...@misty.com)
HDs 60$ Glacier bay 1.6 works just fine, I just put in 12.
Harry K
> In <MPG.2286141e37608f74989...@news.individual.net>, krw wrote in part:
>
> >In article <66Odnb2hLKaDDYTVnZ2dnUVZ_tuon...@earthlink.com>,
> >jeff@spam_me_not.com says...
> >> krw wrote:
> >> > In article <DcidnWE0o86CjYXVnZ2dnUVZ_rKtn...@earthlink.com>,
> >> > jeff@spam_me_not.com says...
>
> <I, d...@misty.com, edit for space>
>
> >> You've been listening to way too much wingnut radio/tv. Such is right
> >> wing opinion in that it is all opinion and no facts. Just insult anyone
> >> who disagrees. Don't let reality get in the way.
>
> >Absolutely the truth, which your "argument" falls well short of
> >addressing.
>
> >> BTW, I have an old fashioned toilet because I live in an old house, but
> >> have no objection to the new design toilets. The new ones work, as
> >> opposed to the first generation.
>
> >You like to spout government lies. I have a set of "new" ones.
> >They don't.
>
> I see so many 1.6 gallon/flush toilets nowadays that work as well as
> toilets ever did. This does have an effect on my consideration as to
> which side I would call a liar!
>
> - Don Klipstein (d...@misty.com)
Mine, a "Jake" model from Toto, works better than any of the old ones
I ever had.
As for CFLs, I put them in years ago. After one day of use, I don't
even notice the difference. Haven't tried the newer models yet as
only 1 of the old ones needed replacing. The only drawback I have
seen is in the outside lights - the warm up period before they come up
to full power.
Harry K
Harry K
clifto
> Can you imagine where we would be if we had not had CAFE standards. If
> all the cars had the same fuel efficiency and smog standards that they
> had in the 50's and 60's?
The Japanese would have taken over the automobile market.
Oh, wait...
--
"[I]t's not surprising, then, that they get bitter, they cling to guns or
religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant
sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."
-- Barack Obama at a meeting with his equals, the elitist bourgeoisie
nospam
> Jeff wrote:
> > Can you imagine where we would be if we had not had CAFE standards. If
> > all the cars had the same fuel efficiency and smog standards that they
> > had in the 50's and 60's?
>
> The Japanese would have taken over the automobile market.
>
> Oh, wait...
So the same totalitarianism that gave us half-flushed toilets, half-washed
clothing, poison mattresses etc etc is now taking aim at our lightbulbs.
This much I'm sure of: as a migraine sufferer CFLs can and often do
trigger them within just a few minutes. See: http://tinyurl.com/6xqbx5.
ransley
> "clifto" <cli...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:sf51f5-...@remote.clifto.com...
Cool white or daylight flourescent I hate and always have, warm white
is fine for me, I know a camera store that put in Daylight T8, their
store is empty, the employees hate it but the owner likes it.
terry
> thanks for the info. sounds hoaky to me though.
>
> s
>
> "Don Klipstein" <d...@manx.misty.com> wrote in message
>
> news:slrng1ac0...@manx.misty.com...
>
>
>
> > In article <UfadnfG0m7wCgIjVnZ2dnUVZ_vedn...@giganews.com>, S. Barker
> > wrote:
>
> >>What's this bs about a ban? I've not kept up with the messages.
>
> > A recently enacted piece of USA Federal legislation bans manufacture,
> > sale and importation of certain incandescent lamps, starting in 2012.
>
> > and failing to achieve some specific standard of energy efficiency will be
> > banned in 2012. This will include 100 and 75 watt "regular"
> > incandescents. In 2014, this will expand to include 60 and 40 watt
> > "regular" incandescents that fail to meet that level of energy efficiency.
>
> > The "usual regular" incandescents of 75-100 watts will be banned in 2012
> > and the "usual regular" incandescents of 40-60 watts will be banned in
> > 2014.
>
> > The improved incandescents that Paul Eldridge and I mentioned have
> > sufficient energy efficiency to not be affected until 2020 according to
> > this law.
>
> > GE is planning to put similar ones on the market in 2010.
>
> > "Specialty" incandescents are largely not affected. Paul Eldridge
> > posted a list of unaffected ones in the "candlelight thread" in
> > alt.home.repair on April 20 in article
> > <40rm04pigqrctrn9g6m0k70bsjts9dd...@4ax.com>.
>
> > That one can be viewed via Google (along with 24 other articles in the
> > "candlelight thread" of at least 104 articles) by going to:
>
> >http://groups.google.com/group/alt.home.repair/browse_thread/thread/
> > 695cb5879218f939/b9f8c930e2f6a64e?hl=en&
>
> > That article also mentions availability at Home Depot of incandescents
> > that have sufficient energy efficiency to not be banned in 2012-2014.
>
> > - Don Klipstein (d...@misty.com)- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Apart from possible health problems which frankly seemed far-fetched!
We keep posting the following: People do not seem to realise that so
called 'wasted electricity' creates warmth!
Here we use electricity most months of the year for home heating.
Especially cool/cold evenings when lights tend to be on anyway.
Any 'wasted' heat from the use of 'old fashioned' incandescent bulbs,
which cost about 25 cents each btw, merely helps to warm the house! So
the electric heaters in the rooms in use don't cut in as often.
We have a bathroom for example which when in use has six 40 watt
bulbs, the wasted heat from those 240 watts of non CFL bulbs, means
that the 500 watt bathroom electric heater rarely cuts in at all!
Similarly our computer/bedroom is heated almost entirely by two
computers running almost continuously and one desk lamp at night.
In other words if one uses electricity for heating anyway, almost
every month of the year, from October through July it doesn't matter
how it becomes household warmth!
Using CFLs outside for lights that are on for lengthy periods where
the heat would be wasted does make sense. But that seems to be a use
where CFLs do not perform well in cold climates?
One big electricity 'waster' is a domestic dryer, which chucks damp
heated air outside, to avoid mildew/mould and dampness problems.
Use a clothesline as much as possible when weather allows; even cold
weather.
Also CFLs are said to not work a well where they are frequently switch
on/off such as stairways, cupboards, occasional visits to a shed etc.
Also they don't work (or don't work well) in outside lights equipped
with sensors that come on when someone comes close to them!
All in all not convinced yet that there is an overall saving and in
view of the ten times cost of CFLs, that they are regarded as
'Hazardous waste' by garbage collectors etc. not yet in the mood to
give up the incandescents. We have a neighbour who is heavily into
CFLs, three of which are outside and on all night. Since within their
house they use electrcity for heating there has been effectively no
decrease in thei elctricity consumption or their power bill!
Paul M. Eldridge
<Mark_R...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Cool white or daylight flourescent I hate and always have, warm white
>is fine for me, I know a camera store that put in Daylight T8, their
>store is empty, the employees hate it but the owner likes it.
Hi Mark,
With the exception of some high-end retailers, cool white (4,100K) and
HID (typically 3,700K and higher) dominate the retail world and while
some commercial office spaces will opt for 3,500K lamps, 4,100K pretty
much rules the day.
As a lighting designer, I'm seeing a notable shift towards 5,000K. Our
firm has done several side-by-side mock-ups in offices and on
industrial floors and we've found the vast majority of employees
prefer the higher colour temperature (next to each other, the part
that is illuminated at 4,100K looks "dull", "dingy" and "dirty" by
comparison).
Cheers,
Paul
ransley
>
> - Show quoted text -
You are of a minority group that does not use AC in summer, and has
cheaper electric than NG.
krw
239910...@c65g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>, Mark_R...@yahoo.com
says...
Popular Mechanics? You mean that rag that had pictures of ion-
powered helicopters? I haven't picked up that waste of trees since
I was a kid.
> soft white are not what was out a few years ago, even by brand it
> different,
Of course, and you never know what you're buying.
> PM put a HD soft white at Par with incandesant.
Not that I care what PM would ever have to say...
> And putting
> in cans in my kitchen does now allow out alot of air by sidewall loss
> up to the attic.
Huh?
--
Keith
krw
> In <MPG.2286141e3...@news.individual.net>, krw wrote in part:
> >In article <66Odnb2hLKaDDYTV...@earthlink.com>,
> >jeff@spam_me_not.com says...
> >> krw wrote:
> >> > In article <DcidnWE0o86CjYXV...@earthlink.com>,
> >> > jeff@spam_me_not.com says...
>
> <I, d...@misty.com, edit for space>
>
> >> You've been listening to way too much wingnut radio/tv. Such is right
> >> wing opinion in that it is all opinion and no facts. Just insult anyone
> >> who disagrees. Don't let reality get in the way.
> >
> >Absolutely the truth, which your "argument" falls well short of
> >addressing.
> >
> >> BTW, I have an old fashioned toilet because I live in an old house, but
> >> have no objection to the new design toilets. The new ones work, as
> >> opposed to the first generation.
> >
> >You like to spout government lies. I have a set of "new" ones.
> >They don't.
>
> I see so many 1.6 gallon/flush toilets nowadays that work as well as
> toilets ever did.
I have two that need three flushes or they plug first.
> This does have an effect on my consideration as to
> which side I would call a liar!
Of course you say that, without facts. It doesn't fit your narrow
view of the world.
--
Keith
clifto
> "clifto" <cli...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:sf51f5-...@remote.clifto.com...
>> Jeff wrote:
>> > Can you imagine where we would be if we had not had CAFE standards. If
>> > all the cars had the same fuel efficiency and smog standards that they
>> > had in the 50's and 60's?
>>
>> The Japanese would have taken over the automobile market.
>>
>> Oh, wait...
>
> So the same totalitarianism that gave us half-flushed toilets, half-washed
> clothing, poison mattresses etc etc is now taking aim at our lightbulbs.
Yeah, pretty much.
> This much I'm sure of: as a migraine sufferer CFLs can and often do
> trigger them within just a few minutes. See: http://tinyurl.com/6xqbx5.
Doesn't matter. The motivation of the environazis is to impose their will
on the world, not to do anything reasonable. You will suffer and they will
glory in it.
nospam
> nospam wrote:
> > "clifto" <cli...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:sf51f5-...@remote.clifto.com...
> >> Jeff wrote:
> >> > Can you imagine where we would be if we had not had CAFE standards. If
> >> > all the cars had the same fuel efficiency and smog standards that they
> >> > had in the 50's and 60's?
> >>
> >> The Japanese would have taken over the automobile market.
> >>
> >> Oh, wait...
> >
> > So the same totalitarianism that gave us half-flushed toilets, half-washed
> > clothing, poison mattresses etc etc is now taking aim at our lightbulbs.
>
> Yeah, pretty much.
>
> > This much I'm sure of: as a migraine sufferer CFLs can and often do
> > trigger them within just a few minutes. See: http://tinyurl.com/6xqbx5.
>
> Doesn't matter. The motivation of the environazis is to impose their will
> on the world, not to do anything reasonable. You will suffer and they will
> glory in it.
You make it sound like a tiny group of people are trying to impose
their will on everyone else. Judging from Ron Paul's candidacy for
U.S. president, clearly "the environazis" are people in general, not
some tiny group of wackos. If we have any hope of reversing the
downward plunge into totalitarianism, the first step is to stop with
the finger pointing and name calling, and stop pretending either of
the major U.S. political parties will make any difference.
Don Klipstein
This does vary with brightness of the illumination. 4100K looks good to
me at 900-1,300 lux. 5000K at that illumination level often looks a bit
stark, though individual illuminated items look good if the lamps are
"850" or "SPX50" ones or are rendered well regardless of lamp spectral
properties. But the room as a whole can still appear a little icy cold or
"stark", and non-triphosphor lamps can give a bit of "dreary gray effect".
I have yet to see much usage of 5000K. Is this a coming fad?
I have noticed that the Target stores in my area use 3000K lighting - it
seems stuffy to me. I wish they would use 3500K - still warm but not
stuffy.
I have seen some stores use 6500K, even 6500K T8 lamps - that looks icy
cold and stark at best to me even at a couple thousand lux, and has
(to me at least) a "dreary grayish" effect if the lamps are not
triphosphor ones.
I see 6500K used about as much as 5000K. And I see a difference - 6500
is definitely bluish to me as far as fluorescent lighting goes, while 5000
is "icy pure white that sometimes looks a tiny bit bluish".
As for home use - usually illumination levels are a lot less than 1,000
lux, and 4100K is often "too high" there. I mostly like 3500K for home
use, though dimmer areas can look a bit dreary unless color temperature
gets even lower (warmer).
- Don Klipstein (d...@misty.com)
Don Klipstein
terry wrote:
(To condense, mostly an argument that CFLs do not save money if your
home is in a colder climate and is heated electrically)
Is there a heat pump in the home? If so, then the heat pump is a less
costly heating method than other elctrical loads. The heat output of a
heat pump is not all from the electricity it uses - about half of it is
heat pumped into the house from the outside.
If you don't have a heat pump, see if it is worth getting one.
- Don Klipstein (d...@misty.com)
Don Klipstein
Facts such as existence of plenty of 1.6 gallon/flush toilets that work
as well as toilets ever did? I have seen plenty of those. Maybe you need
some new toilets!
Meanwhile, even the lousy ones of the 1.6 GPF toilets still only need
one flush for a #1 load.
- Don Klipstein (d...@misty.com)
Paul M. Eldridge
Hi Don,
Our firm is pretty much using 5,000K exclusively now; mostly Osram
Sylvania XPS. I wasn't initially convinced it was appropriate beyond
the shop floor, but it's been very well received right across the
board -- at the risk of making this sound like a laundry detergent ad,
everything looks "fresher", "cleaner" and "brighter".
I use 6,500K in outdoor applications (they, in turn, makes the 5,000K
lamps look somewhat dingy) and I'd be curious to see how they'd look
in a commercial setting. I'd also like to try out the new 8,000Ks
too, but my partners are not as keen on the idea.
FWIW, I use SPX30s in my own home (living areas) and SPX50s in the
utility room.
Cheers,
Paul
Don Klipstein
>Hi Don,
>
>Our firm is pretty much using 5,000K exclusively now; mostly Osram
>Sylvania XPS. I wasn't initially convinced it was appropriate beyond
>the shop floor, but it's been very well received right across the
>board -- at the risk of making this sound like a laundry detergent ad,
>everything looks "fresher", "cleaner" and "brighter".
>
>I use 6,500K in outdoor applications (they, in turn, makes the 5,000K
>lamps look somewhat dingy) and I'd be curious to see how they'd look
>in a commercial setting. I'd also like to try out the new 8,000Ks
>too, but my partners are not as keen on the idea.
>
>FWIW, I use SPX30s in my own home (living areas) and SPX50s in the
>utility room.
I have seen a few retail establishments with 6500K.
I remember recently seeing one that still does. Now, doggone it, I
can't remember who/what/where! But I'm pretty sure it was T8 6500K.
Then there are two others that I remember better as to who they were and
where they were. One was a copy shop using 6500K "Daylight"
(halophosphor) lamps. They moved to a nearby location and did not take
6500K with them; now they use 4100K. The other is a jewelry store that
used 6500K triphosphor (uncertain about bulb diameter however), but they
recently went out of business - my speculation is the owner(s) retiring.
All of these places appeared to me icy and at least slightly "stark",
and the one with the halophosphors also had some "dreary gray effect".
In my experience, 6500K lamps are more bluish than most overcast sky,
even though that is widely said to be 6500K. I seem to think that
overcast sky should be close to the color temperature of sunlight in
space, and I see varying numbers for that - with 5780K appearing to me to
make a good case there.
- Don Klipstein (d...@misty.com)
JR Weiss
>
> Facts such as existence of plenty of 1.6 gallon/flush toilets that work
> as well as toilets ever did? I have seen plenty of those. Maybe you need
> some new toilets!
>
> Meanwhile, even the lousy ones of the 1.6 GPF toilets still only need
> one flush for a #1 load.
To retain a mote of on-topic-ness, I replaced the globe lights in my bathroom
with CFLs of unknown warmth several years ago. The fact that they do not go
full bright right away is a PLUS, IMO; I don't get blinded as badly at night
when I turn them on...
For good 1.6 gpf toilets, see the reviews at
http://www.terrylove.com/crtoilet.htm . I bought 2 Toto Drakes (then,
eventually, a third one) based on his recommendations. I have not had to
double-flush even once in 5+ years! They're reasonably quiet, too.
Paul M. Eldridge
Hi Don,
I would be less inclined to go with high colour temperature lamps if
the general colour scheme is warm or if a lot of wood surfaces are
used, but if neutral or cool colours dominate, I would definitely opt
for 5,000K and, quite possibly, 6,500K. Obviously, as you know, the
intended use of the space pretty much dictates this choice. If you
want to convey a warm, relaxed and casual atmosphere, 3,000K is the
way to go. If, on the other hand, you want foster a no-nonsense,
business-like, get-out-of-my-way-I've-got-important-things-to-do mind
set, the higher the better. And I agree with you that you must have
sufficient raw lumens to make this work.
Few of us realize just how much lighting and, more specifically, light
colour influences our mood. In a high-end retail environment warm
colours tell us to relax, slow down and dream, whereas in a grocery or
hardware store, say, cool colours help keep our minds focused on the
business at hand, direct us to the cash registers and then quickly out
the door (no loitering please). If I saw 3,000K lamps lighting-up a
Walmart or Target I'd literally crap my pants. Ditto 5,000K or 6,500K
lamps in a Victoria's Secret or Neiman Marcus.
Cheers,
Paul
krw
says...
Those "facts" are certainly *NOT* in existence.
> I have seen plenty of those. Maybe you need
> some new toilets!
Perhaps I should tell my landlord.
> Meanwhile, even the lousy ones of the 1.6 GPF toilets still only need
> one flush for a #1 load.
And three or four (and a plunger) for anything else.
--
Keith
max
krw <k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
really, this tells us a lot more about you (than we'd care to know!)
than the toilet...
Don Klipstein
>Hi Don,
>
>I would be less inclined to go with high colour temperature lamps if
>the general colour scheme is warm or if a lot of wood surfaces are
>used, but if neutral or cool colours dominate, I would definitely opt
>for 5,000K and, quite possibly, 6,500K. Obviously, as you know, the
>intended use of the space pretty much dictates this choice. If you
>want to convey a warm, relaxed and casual atmosphere, 3,000K is the
>way to go. If, on the other hand, you want foster a no-nonsense,
>business-like, get-out-of-my-way-I've-got-important-things-to-do mind
>set, the higher the better. And I agree with you that you must have
>sufficient raw lumens to make this work.
>
>Few of us realize just how much lighting and, more specifically, light
>colour influences our mood. In a high-end retail environment warm
>colours tell us to relax, slow down and dream, whereas in a grocery or
>hardware store, say, cool colours help keep our minds focused on the
>business at hand, direct us to the cash registers and then quickly out
>the door (no loitering please). If I saw 3,000K lamps lighting-up a
>Walmart or Target I'd literally crap my pants. Ditto 5,000K or 6,500K
>lamps in a Victoria's Secret or Neiman Marcus.
As it turns out, as I said, the Targets in my area use 3,000K lamps. I
think that Target is actually trying for a more casual, less rushed
atmosphere. But I find 3,000K, especially 3,000K fluorescent, "stuffy"
at usual retail illumination levels.
Walmart, K-Mart, supermarkets and offices in my experience traditionally
used and still use 4,100K. I find that a "neutral white",
go-do-your-business sort of lighting. Maybe a slight touch on the warmish
side of this, and easily appearing "dingy" by being white rather than warm
while being on the "low color temperature end" of "white rather than
warm".
5,000K is something I find good for workplaces, provided (as you agreed)
that enough light is provided to make this high a color temperature look
good. I think it will work well at supermarkets, provided sufficient
light is used to make it look good - now I wonder how many lux that is,
gottry try and see - maybe a thousand lux is enough, may need 2,000 lux to
look nice and good to me.
With that color and sufficient illumination level, the pure white color
looks a bit "futuristic", makes me think of a starship where there is a
lot of work and much less play, and a lot of what little play is towards
getting work done.
But 6,500K? Sorry, I find that usually goes too far, and I usually have
trouble seeing that high a color temperature looking good until
illumination levels in lux get into the 5 figures.
I am aware of exceptions: Light sources manage to appear "clean" rather
than "dreary" with such high color temp. at surface brightness nowhere
near 5 figures of lux - such as my computer monitor's screen. That thing
is over 6,500K, maybe 7,000K, and a bit greenish, and my vision manages to
make me see that thing as a "crisp icy-in-a-good-way white", hardly bluish
or cyanish, also not "dreary".
As for lighting at Victoria's Secret: I find halogen/incandescent at
3,000-3,400 K ideal there. I also have memories of layout of clothing
items and background, as well as light distribution patterns and
diffuseness of the light.
For one thing, when something is being illuminated by an accent light or
something that is effectively an accent light, so that illumination on
that object/area is mainly from one luminaire and also above average for
the room, I find the more-pinkish-less-greenish usual practice of warm
color fluorescents to be detrimental. Also, illumination of an object or
a small area from a single luminaire as opposed to from multiple
luminaires or a "wide diffuse source" has some accentuating effects, such
as on visual sensation of texture.
This is where I find incandescents/halogens working well. I do see
ability to produce CFL luminaires that can get closer to this than I have
seen, but I seem to think that requires reflectors just a little too large
to easily sell! Also, have lamp color not pinkish there - easily achieved
by having CFLs mildly overheat (2700K CFLs in my experience not only have
color temp. increase but also drift a bit towards green, away from pink
when overheated - and I see this effect being useful when carried out to a
mild extent). Making CFLs heat up more is easily enough achievable in
downlights!
As for more-dimly-illuminated areas of a retail space illuminated
unevenly by warmer color light - I see incandescent/halogen getting a
slight boost there by having higher scotopic/photopic ratio than
fluorescents of closest color. How such areas appear in peripheral vision
appears to me to count for something. I suspect that deploying
fluorescent lighting with all of these factors being considered can
do well for both energy efficiency and making fluorescent lighting
looking good to others that are considering various lighting options!
- Don Klipstein (d...@misty.com)
clifto
> "clifto" <cli...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:q5q1f5-...@remote.clifto.com...
>> nospam wrote:
>> > "clifto" <cli...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:sf51f5-...@remote.clifto.com...
>> >> Jeff wrote:
>> >> > Can you imagine where we would be if we had not had CAFE standards. If
>> >> > all the cars had the same fuel efficiency and smog standards that they
>> >> > had in the 50's and 60's?
>> >>
>> >> The Japanese would have taken over the automobile market.
>> >>
>> >> Oh, wait...
>> >
>> > So the same totalitarianism that gave us half-flushed toilets, half-washed
>> > clothing, poison mattresses etc etc is now taking aim at our lightbulbs.
>>
>> Yeah, pretty much.
>>
>> > This much I'm sure of: as a migraine sufferer CFLs can and often do
>> > trigger them within just a few minutes. See: http://tinyurl.com/6xqbx5.
>>
>> Doesn't matter. The motivation of the environazis is to impose their will
>> on the world, not to do anything reasonable. You will suffer and they will
>> glory in it.
>
> You make it sound like a tiny group of people are trying to impose
> their will on everyone else.
Thank you, that's exactly right. I'm trying to make it sound that way
because a tiny group of people are trying to impose their will on
everyone else.
--
Now that another Earth Day has come and gone, let's look at some
environmentalist predictions they would prefer we forget.
http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=294959230563446
nospam
> nospam wrote:
> > "clifto" <cli...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:q5q1f5-...@remote.clifto.com...
> >> nospam wrote:
> >> > "clifto" <cli...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:sf51f5-...@remote.clifto.com...
> >> >> Jeff wrote:
> >> >> > Can you imagine where we would be if we had not had CAFE standards. If
> >> >> > all the cars had the same fuel efficiency and smog standards that they
> >> >> > had in the 50's and 60's?
> >> >>
> >> >> The Japanese would have taken over the automobile market.
> >> >>
> >> >> Oh, wait...
> >> >
> >> > So the same totalitarianism that gave us half-flushed toilets, half-washed
> >> > clothing, poison mattresses etc etc is now taking aim at our lightbulbs.
> >>
> >> Yeah, pretty much.
> >>
> >> > This much I'm sure of: as a migraine sufferer CFLs can and often do
> >> > trigger them within just a few minutes. See: http://tinyurl.com/6xqbx5.
> >>
> >> Doesn't matter. The motivation of the environazis is to impose their will
> >> on the world, not to do anything reasonable. You will suffer and they will
> >> glory in it.
> >
> > You make it sound like a tiny group of people are trying to impose
> > their will on everyone else.
>
> Thank you, that's exactly right. I'm trying to make it sound that way
> because a tiny group of people are trying to impose their will on
> everyone else.
So you're part of the problem instead of the solution. Stop being
a victim. THEY are US.
clifto
Speak for yourself. US believe that humans come first.