On Mon, 18 Oct 2010 07:17:50 -0700 (PDT), RicodJour
wrote:
On Oct 17, 12:00*pm, "
wrote:
On Sat, 16 Oct 2010 23:33:14 -0700 (PDT), RicodJour wrote:
You're imagining that...he said no such thing. *This is exactly what
he wrote:
"The very fact that an incandescent bulb produces so much heat (as
opposed to
light) from the electricity it consumes should be a hint as to why
such
bulbs are no longer such a great idea. *When we switched to CFLs our
electric bill took a dive. *Pay more for power vs. pay less for power,
hmmmm, tough call. "
Come on, you're not that stupid.
Wish I could return the compliment. 
~
Well, I can be corrected.
This whole paragraph is out of place, as
well as being wrong. *It was a *HEATER* that was needed here, so the whole
subject of light vs. heat was wrong. *The only thing that matters is heat.
They're using a light bulb not because it's inefficient, rather because it's
CHEAP. *It puts out *exactly* the same heat as any other 100W load, yet DGD
had to get his digs in at the (irrelevant) light output, and he was wrong.
You seem to have adopted SOMEONE ELSE'S THREAD as yours, and
determined what can and can't be discussed/mentioned. Of course
energy efficiency is relevant in any discussion of lighting, even
cantankerous discussions.
"Someone else's thread?" I didn't realize that there was thread "ownership"
on the Usenet. No, you simply can't read.
Robert Green's choice of words confused the issue, but DG's *thrust
was that CFLs cost less for the same amount of light. *They're more
efficient. *You'll spend less to light up the place. *Little argument
there, right?
But that's *WRONG*. *Heat is what was wanted. *Both are equally efficient at
producing heat. *The *light* argument was the confusing issue (it confused
you). *...and a red herring.
Was there a...how should I put this?...a 'train wreck' in your past?
You seem most adamant in keeping the discussion on rails of your
choosing. I suggest a moderated newsgroup, maybe start your own.
No, It may look like a train wreck to you, but the fact is that you simply
can't follow a train of thought. Illiterates will have that problem.
For the record, I'm not crazy about CFLs due to the mercury in them,
but there's little argument that they're a step in the right direction
regardless of anyone's take on politics.
I'm not crazy about them for many reasons. *In general, they suck and I won't
use them.
Besides the mercury, my beef with them is that in my experience they
don't come close to their rated life.
I don't like the light, the slow start, limited temperature range, or anything
about them. I don't mind tube fluorescents, in their place, but CFLs are a
total waste.
Communication is more than just taking every word
literally...especially in a newsgroup.
It's more than AGW 24/7, too.
Agreed. *Who brought up the subject?
That's the whole thrust behind CFLs - the reason DGD brought the canard into
the discussion.
Canard...now you're bringing up aeronautics...? Sheesh.
I did think you were somewhat intelligent. Correction accepted.
So fluorescent bulbs were a result of people trying to deal with
global warming? Most curious reworking of history, Sparky. It's an
energy thing. All the rest is sales.
CFLs, the universal answer. Do pay attention.
Fluorescents were introduced back in the Trylon & Perisphere day when
global warming wasn't a catchphrase. As an aside, if I may reminisce
off-the-rails, a professor of building technology told the class that
high rise buildings wouldn't exist without fluorescent lights as they
wouldn't be able to cool the buildings if they were lit with
incandescents. A generalization, I'm sure, but it makes the point.
Clueless.