On Tue, 13 Sep 2011 07:16:18 -0400, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:

Strange. I don't remember seeing "energy efficiency" as one
of the powers delegated to the Fed by the Constitution.

Interstate Commerce Clause. It's in there (everything is).

On 9/11/2011 7:59 PM, TKM wrote:

Why is requiring more efficient light bulbs any different than requiring
more efficient refrigerators or cars that get better gas mileage?

It is no different. If people want that stuff, in a free economy, they
will get it, if possible. None of the above needs Big Brother, a
historically incompetent ass, telling individuals what they need or want.

--
Jack
Got Change: Supply and Demand ====== Command and Control!
http://jbstein.com

On 9/12/2011 6:49 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 17:25:09 -0400, "Michael Angelo"michael@angelo wrote:

Yah, I suspect your air conditioners run 24/7/365 trying to
pump all that hot air out of your house.

I suspect there is a constant sucking sound coming from your ears.

+2

--
Jack
Got Change: And the Change SUCKS!
http://jbstein.com

How about the solution to our unemployment crisis?

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..


wrote in message
news On Tue, 13 Sep 2011 07:16:18 -0400, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:

Strange. I don't remember seeing "energy efficiency" as one
of the powers delegated to the Fed by the Constitution.

Interstate Commerce Clause. It's in there (everything is).

On Sep 13, 6:10*am, "
wrote:
On Tue, 13 Sep 2011 07:16:18 -0400, "Stormin Mormon"

wrote:
Strange. I don't remember seeing "energy efficiency" as one
of the powers delegated to the Fed by the Constitution.

Interstate Commerce Clause. *It's in there (everything is).

Ever notice how the new incandescents (halogen) are coming out now?
They have been available but difficult to find and priced way too high
for at least 20 years. But now they are showing up for reasonable
value in every grocery store.

The market didn't call for seat belts or anti-corruption in business.

Government is the peoples tool to control the markets!

---RickR

Spending (or lack of it) is the people's way to affect the
markets.

Government is the liberals and the elected liberals' way to
affect the market. Usually against the wishes of the people.
From cocaine, to CFL. If people want it enough, someone will
provide it.

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..


"
wrote in message
news:3b9642cb-113e-41ea-903d-

Ever notice how the new incandescents (halogen) are coming
out now?
They have been available but difficult to find and priced
way too high
for at least 20 years. But now they are showing up for
reasonable
value in every grocery store.

The market didn't call for seat belts or anti-corruption in
business.

Government is the peoples tool to control the markets!

---RickR

On Tue, 13 Sep 2011 17:47:34 -0400, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:

How about the solution to our unemployment crisis?

It's in there. Obama just needs to raise taxes.

On Tue, 13 Sep 2011 14:52:21 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On Sep 13, 6:10*am, "
wrote:
On Tue, 13 Sep 2011 07:16:18 -0400, "Stormin Mormon"

wrote:
Strange. I don't remember seeing "energy efficiency" as one
of the powers delegated to the Fed by the Constitution.

Interstate Commerce Clause. *It's in there (everything is).

Ever notice how the new incandescents (halogen) are coming out now?
They have been available but difficult to find and priced way too high
for at least 20 years. But now they are showing up for reasonable
value in every grocery store.

I've used (some) halogens for many years. As I said in another article,
they're great for some applications; not others.

The market didn't call for seat belts or anti-corruption in business.

Government is the peoples tool to control the markets!

Bull****! Show me where that is in the Constitution!

Hasn't he already, several times? And every time he saws off
some wood, and still the board is too short.

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..


wrote in message
...
On Tue, 13 Sep 2011 17:47:34 -0400, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:

How about the solution to our unemployment crisis?

It's in there. Obama just needs to raise taxes.

On Tue, 13 Sep 2011 20:23:37 -0400, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:

Hasn't he already, several times? And every time he saws off
some wood, and still the board is too short.

Sure, but some of the peons still have a little left. *Every* proposal from
Obummer contains yet higher taxes.

Can't stop flogging, until the horse is totally dead, then?

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..


wrote in message
...
On Tue, 13 Sep 2011 20:23:37 -0400, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:

Hasn't he already, several times? And every time he saws
off
some wood, and still the board is too short.

Sure, but some of the peons still have a little left.
*Every* proposal from
Obummer contains yet higher taxes.

On Tue, 13 Sep 2011 20:43:58 -0400, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:

Can't stop flogging, until the horse is totally dead, then?

Flogging? Well...

Stormin Mormon wrote:
Can't stop flogging, until the horse is totally dead, then?



You miss the goal entirely. It is the flogging that's important, not getting
the horse to do what you want.

As long as someone has a job, and isn't dependant on
government. That's reason for our Marxist in Chief to keep
raising taxes (flogging).

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..


"HeyBub" wrote in message
...
Stormin Mormon wrote:
Can't stop flogging, until the horse is totally dead,
then?



You miss the goal entirely. It is the flogging that's
important, not getting
the horse to do what you want.

On Sun, 11 Sep 2011 15:44:10 -0400, "TKM" wrote:


"techman41973" wrote in message
...
The federal government is banning incandescent bulbs over 100 watts
this January
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phase-o...#United_States

Does anyone know for sure if flood lamp bulbs (such as PAR30) used in
outdoor light fixtures will be exempt?
I'd like to know if I need to stock up on the 120watt PAR30 flood
bulbs that are used in some outdoor motion sensitive lighting
fixtures.

Thanks

The only bulbs being phased out starting 1/1/12 are the standard 100 watt
A-line types. PAR30 bulbs aren't on the exempt list, but PAR types aren't
mentioned in EISA except for the BPAR (blown glass) type along with R BR and
ER types.

There's a good summary at:
http://applications.nam.lighting.phi...molegislation/

Terry McGowan


Terry - The Philips summary page does state that PAR38 lamps will be
regulated as og 7/14/2012, and my copy of HR 6. gives the lower
efficay targets on page 98.

Vic Roberts
http://www.RobertsResearchInc.com
http://www.cflfacts.com
sci.engr.lighting Rogues Gallery http://www.langmuir.org
To reply via e-mail:
replace xyz with vdr in the Reply to: address
or use e-mail address listed at the Web site.

This information is provided for educational purposes only.
It may not be used in any publication or posted on any Web
site without written permission.

On Sun, 11 Sep 2011 11:35:29 -0700 (PDT), techman41973
wrote:

The federal government is banning incandescent bulbs over 100 watts
this January
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phase-o...#United_States

Does anyone know for sure if flood lamp bulbs (such as PAR30) used in
outdoor light fixtures will be exempt?
I'd like to know if I need to stock up on the 120watt PAR30 flood
bulbs that are used in some outdoor motion sensitive lighting
fixtures.

Thanks

Well, this is what happens when you rely on Wikipedia instead of the
source documentation. Wikipedia is sometimes correct, but can also be
incorrect, as there is no quality control.

The source documentation here is the Energy Independence and Security
Act of 2007, available as a PDF for no charge at
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-11...110publ140.pdf

Incandescent lamps are not being banned. The Energy Independnce and
Security Act of 2007 imposes certain minimum performance requirements
for many lamp types, including commonly used incandescent lamps. You
will still be able to buy high efficieny versions that use halogen
incandescent technology. In spite of other comments in this thread,
halogen incandecent lamps are "real: incandescent lamps. They
generate light by heating a tungsten filament to a high temperature,
and produce a continuous spectrum, just like any other incandescent
lamp. They can be dimmed line any other incandescent lamp. The only
observable difference is that the color temperature is somewhat
higher.

Vic Roberts
http://www.RobertsResearchInc.com
http://www.cflfacts.com
sci.engr.lighting Rogues Gallery http://www.langmuir.org
To reply via e-mail:
replace xyz with vdr in the Reply to: address
or use e-mail address listed at the Web site.

This information is provided for educational purposes only.
It may not be used in any publication or posted on any Web
site without written permission.

On Sun, 11 Sep 2011 14:59:58 -0400, wrote:

techman41973 writes:

The federal government is banning incandescent bulbs over 100 watts
this January
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phase-o...#United_States

Does anyone know for sure if flood lamp bulbs (such as PAR30) used in
outdoor light fixtures will be exempt?
I'd like to know if I need to stock up on the 120watt PAR30 flood
bulbs that are used in some outdoor motion sensitive lighting
fixtures.

The article is pretty clear, 120W is outside the range:

The efficiency standards will start with 100-watt bulbs in January
2012 and end with 40-watt bulbs in January 2014.

Also note that these are efficiency standards. Incandescent is not banned.

The minumum performance of 120-watt reflector lamps is also mandated.
They are not exempt.

Vic Roberts
http://www.RobertsResearchInc.com
http://www.cflfacts.com
sci.engr.lighting Rogues Gallery http://www.langmuir.org
To reply via e-mail:
replace xyz with vdr in the Reply to: address
or use e-mail address listed at the Web site.

This information is provided for educational purposes only.
It may not be used in any publication or posted on any Web
site without written permission.

On Sun, 11 Sep 2011 17:24:39 -0400, Kurt Ullman
wrote:

In article , wrote:

tec
2012 and end with 40-watt bulbs in January 2014.

Also note that these are efficiency standards. Incandescent is not banned.

But since it bans lights that don't make the efficiency standard and
incandescents by their nature (and physics and...) can't make the
efficiency standard, they are banning incandescent lights by any
definition of the word used outside of DC.

Why do you think that halogen incandescent lamps are not
"incandescent" ? How do you think they generate light?

Vic Roberts
http://www.RobertsResearchInc.com
http://www.cflfacts.com
sci.engr.lighting Rogues Gallery http://www.langmuir.org
To reply via e-mail:
replace xyz with vdr in the Reply to: address
or use e-mail address listed at the Web site.

This information is provided for educational purposes only.
It may not be used in any publication or posted on any Web
site without written permission.

On Sun, 11 Sep 2011 20:13:33 -0500, "
wrote:

On Sun, 11 Sep 2011 18:27:36 -0400, "Michael Angelo" michael@angelo wrote:

No need to stock up on old technology,

Too late. I've already piled up about 400 60W clear bulbs.

energy-saving halogens to the rescue.

http://www.thedailygreen.com/environ...-bulb-ban-0711

http://www.lighting.philips.com/us_e...oducts&lang=en


Halogens are great for some uses. I don't like them where the bulb is part of
the looks of the fixture, which almost all of mine are. They're blinding if
directly in the eyes. Shadows seem worse, too.

There is no reason why a halogen incandescent lamp cannot be desiogned
with the same light diffucing coating used for regular incandescent
lamps. Have you ever seen a normal incandescent lamp in a clear bulb?
It is also rather blinding. The issue of "blinding" is not related to
halogen or non-halogen.

Vic Roberts
http://www.RobertsResearchInc.com
http://www.cflfacts.com
sci.engr.lighting Rogues Gallery http://www.langmuir.org
To reply via e-mail:
replace xyz with vdr in the Reply to: address
or use e-mail address listed at the Web site.

This information is provided for educational purposes only.
It may not be used in any publication or posted on any Web
site without written permission.

On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 12:41:57 -0500, "
wrote:

[snip]

CFLs will always be ugly and I'm not convinced that LEDs will be any better
for omnidirectional fixtures. That's the primary reason I've laid in a
lifetime supply of incandescents.

Why? What is it about CFLs that make you believe they will always be
ugly?


Vic Roberts
http://www.RobertsResearchInc.com
http://www.cflfacts.com
sci.engr.lighting Rogues Gallery http://www.langmuir.org
To reply via e-mail:
replace xyz with vdr in the Reply to: address
or use e-mail address listed at the Web site.

This information is provided for educational purposes only.
It may not be used in any publication or posted on any Web
site without written permission.

On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 14:01:38 -0700 (PDT), RickH
wrote:

[snip]

The vast energy and large supply chain of parts that goes into a CFL
negates the savings. An incandescent has 5 parts. A CFL can have a
hundred parts each of which needs a deep global supply chain, mining,
and manufacturing of those complex electronic parts, not to mention
the toxic phosphors, gasses and mercury. An incandescent has no toxic
components and uses argon a harmless inert gas some glass, tungsten
wire, aluminum, solder and brass. This story is much like the ethanol
story, it takes more energy and pollutes more just to make the ethanol
(a low btu fuel that gets fewer mpg to boot). But a farm lobby that
keeps the boondoggle going in a few corn states.

This is a nice story, but not true. You don't even have to rely on
"experts" to tell you. You can figure it out all on your own.

Energy costs money, and the cost of energy used to make all products
is included in the price. It must be or the manufacturers of the
components and the final product would go broke.

If the energy used to make a CFL was more than the energy saved by
that CFL, then the cost of the CFL could not be so much lower than the
cost of the energy saved.

You may counter that the cost of energy to the manufacturer is lower
than the cost of energy to the homeowner. That is a fair comment.
However, even if you assume that the factories that make the
components for the CFL, and the CFL itself pay half the price per unit
of energy than the homeowner does, the cost of the energy saved by one
CFL far outweighs the retail price of the CFL.

I agree that the Ethanol situation is far different. That is why
Ethanol requires a subsidy to break even, while CFLs do not.

Vic Roberts
http://www.RobertsResearchInc.com
http://www.cflfacts.com
sci.engr.lighting Rogues Gallery http://www.langmuir.org
To reply via e-mail:
replace xyz with vdr in the Reply to: address
or use e-mail address listed at the Web site.

This information is provided for educational purposes only.
It may not be used in any publication or posted on any Web
site without written permission.

On Thu, 15 Sep 2011 11:16:38 -0400, Victor Roberts
wrote:

On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 12:41:57 -0500, "
wrote:

[snip]

CFLs will always be ugly and I'm not convinced that LEDs will be any better
for omnidirectional fixtures. That's the primary reason I've laid in a
lifetime supply of incandescents.

Why? What is it about CFLs that make you believe they will always be
ugly?

The nature of the beast.

On Thu, 15 Sep 2011 11:13:12 -0400, Victor Roberts
wrote:

On Sun, 11 Sep 2011 20:13:33 -0500, "
wrote:

On Sun, 11 Sep 2011 18:27:36 -0400, "Michael Angelo" michael@angelo wrote:

No need to stock up on old technology,

Too late. I've already piled up about 400 60W clear bulbs.

energy-saving halogens to the rescue.

http://www.thedailygreen.com/environ...-bulb-ban-0711

http://www.lighting.philips.com/us_e...oducts&lang=en


Halogens are great for some uses. I don't like them where the bulb is part of
the looks of the fixture, which almost all of mine are. They're blinding if
directly in the eyes. Shadows seem worse, too.

There is no reason why a halogen incandescent lamp cannot be desiogned
with the same light diffucing coating used for regular incandescent
lamps. Have you ever seen a normal incandescent lamp in a clear bulb?

Certainly. I have a lifetime supply squirreled away. I have something like
50 of them around my house (one of many reasons CFL is out). If you'd been
reading, you would have known this.

It is also rather blinding. The issue of "blinding" is not related to
halogen or non-halogen.

Sure it is.

In article ,
Victor Roberts wrote:

On Sun, 11 Sep 2011 17:24:39 -0400, Kurt Ullman
wrote:

In article , wrote:

tec
2012 and end with 40-watt bulbs in January 2014.

Also note that these are efficiency standards. Incandescent is not banned.

But since it bans lights that don't make the efficiency standard and
incandescents by their nature (and physics and...) can't make the
efficiency standard, they are banning incandescent lights by any
definition of the word used outside of DC.

Why do you think that halogen incandescent lamps are not
"incandescent" ? How do you think they generate light?


Why do pretend that halogen's are the ones we are talking about?
Incandescent, in common usage for years and years, has been the round
ones. This is just another misdirection to try and pretend something
that is happening isn't by splitting hairs VERY fine.

--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz

On Thu, 15 Sep 2011 11:57:33 -0500, "
wrote:

On Thu, 15 Sep 2011 11:16:38 -0400, Victor Roberts
wrote:

On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 12:41:57 -0500, "
wrote:

[snip]

CFLs will always be ugly and I'm not convinced that LEDs will be any better
for omnidirectional fixtures. That's the primary reason I've laid in a
lifetime supply of incandescents.

Why? What is it about CFLs that make you believe they will always be
ugly?

The nature of the beast.


If you are unable (or unwilling) to cite the specific performance
feature or features you object to, I must assume that your objections
are based on some sort of prejudice against the technology, rather
than its actual performance.

Vic Roberts
http://www.RobertsResearchInc.com
http://www.cflfacts.com
sci.engr.lighting Rogues Gallery http://www.langmuir.org
To reply via e-mail:
replace xyz with vdr in the Reply to: address
or use e-mail address listed at the Web site.

This information is provided for educational purposes only.
It may not be used in any publication or posted on any Web
site without written permission.

On Thu, 15 Sep 2011 14:58:41 -0400, Victor Roberts
wrote:

On Thu, 15 Sep 2011 11:57:33 -0500, "
wrote:

On Thu, 15 Sep 2011 11:16:38 -0400, Victor Roberts
wrote:

On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 12:41:57 -0500, "
wrote:

[snip]

CFLs will always be ugly and I'm not convinced that LEDs will be any better
for omnidirectional fixtures. That's the primary reason I've laid in a
lifetime supply of incandescents.

Why? What is it about CFLs that make you believe they will always be
ugly?

The nature of the beast.


If you are unable (or unwilling) to cite the specific performance
feature or features you object to, I must assume that your objections
are based on some sort of prejudice against the technology, rather
than its actual performance.

Good God, you're stupid. What is hard about *ugly* to understand? The light
from many is ugly, they're slow to start but that's not the issue, here.

The point is that they're butt ugly hanging out of fixtures where the bulb is
visible. Got it?

excessive sig snipped

"Victor Roberts" wrote in
message ...

If you are unable (or unwilling) to cite the specific
performance
feature or features you object to, I must assume that your
objections
are based on some sort of prejudice against the
technology, rather
than its actual performance.

Vic Roberts

Exactly!

Furthermore, CFLs and LEDs are available in all shapes and
sizes and color temps.

If zzzz can't find an energy saving bulb
they like, they havent looked hard enough.

" wrote in
:

Good God, you're stupid. What is hard about *ugly* to understand?
The light from many is ugly, they're slow to start but that's not the
issue, here.

The point is that they're butt ugly hanging out of fixtures where the
bulb is visible. Got it?

Beaty (and ugliness) is in the eye of the beholder. Arrange your fixtures
so the spiral doesn't show, or get the CFLs with a bulb-like glass cover.
I have NO PROBLEMO with the simple CFLs I have, and neither does the boss.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On 15 Sep 2011 21:56:39 GMT, Han wrote:

" wrote in
:

Good God, you're stupid. What is hard about *ugly* to understand?
The light from many is ugly, they're slow to start but that's not the
issue, here.

The point is that they're butt ugly hanging out of fixtures where the
bulb is visible. Got it?

Beaty (and ugliness) is in the eye of the beholder. Arrange your fixtures
so the spiral doesn't show, or get the CFLs with a bulb-like glass cover.
I have NO PROBLEMO with the simple CFLs I have, and neither does the boss.

Though I don't agree with krw, I agree with him.
If it's ugly to him, it's ugly to him.
There's no law against storing up old type light bulbs.
And it will never be against the law to use 'em if you have 'em.
I kind of like the idea of folks filling their basements with cartons
of light bulbs.
Just something neat about that.
Rugged individualism they call it.
"The only way you'll get my incandescent is to take it from my hot
dead hand."

--Vic

Vic Smith wrote in
:

On 15 Sep 2011 21:56:39 GMT, Han wrote:

" wrote in
m:

Good God, you're stupid. What is hard about *ugly* to understand?
The light from many is ugly, they're slow to start but that's not
the issue, here.

The point is that they're butt ugly hanging out of fixtures where
the bulb is visible. Got it?

Beaty (and ugliness) is in the eye of the beholder. Arrange your
fixtures so the spiral doesn't show, or get the CFLs with a bulb-like
glass cover. I have NO PROBLEMO with the simple CFLs I have, and
neither does the boss.

Though I don't agree with krw, I agree with him.
If it's ugly to him, it's ugly to him.
There's no law against storing up old type light bulbs.
And it will never be against the law to use 'em if you have 'em.
I kind of like the idea of folks filling their basements with cartons
of light bulbs.
Just something neat about that.
Rugged individualism they call it.
"The only way you'll get my incandescent is to take it from my hot
dead hand."

--Vic

Can't disagree with you grin.
I was just expressing my opinion.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On 15 Sep 2011 21:56:39 GMT, Han wrote:

" wrote in
:

Good God, you're stupid. What is hard about *ugly* to understand?
The light from many is ugly, they're slow to start but that's not the
issue, here.

The point is that they're butt ugly hanging out of fixtures where the
bulb is visible. Got it?

Beaty (and ugliness) is in the eye of the beholder.

Duh! Ya think!

Arrange your fixtures
so the spiral doesn't show, or get the CFLs with a bulb-like glass cover.
I have NO PROBLEMO with the simple CFLs I have, and neither does the boss.

The fixtures are meant to have the bulbs exposed, period. You might have
noticed that many chandeliers have the bulbs showing, as do most ceiling fan
light fixtures. They're intended to use unfrosted bulbs. Something that
would be rather difficult to manage with a CFL.

On Thu, 15 Sep 2011 17:18:24 -0400, "Ted" wrote:


"Victor Roberts" wrote in
message ...

If you are unable (or unwilling) to cite the specific
performance
feature or features you object to, I must assume that your
objections
are based on some sort of prejudice against the
technology, rather
than its actual performance.

Vic Roberts

Exactly!

Furthermore, CFLs and LEDs are available in all shapes and
sizes and color temps.

Another moron who can't read, much less think.

wrote in message
...
On Thu, 15 Sep 2011 17:18:24 -0400, "Ted"
wrote:

Furthermore, CFLs and LEDs are available in all shapes and
sizes and color temps.

Another moron who can't read, much less think.

The real moron is the guy still using incandescent lighting
and paying 5x as much per lumen.
Why don't you go back to gas lighting or even candles?
Bwaaaahhhahahahahahahahahahahahaaaaaaah!

On Thu, 15 Sep 2011 22:41:45 -0400, "Jesee" wrote:


wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 15 Sep 2011 17:18:24 -0400, "Ted"
wrote:

Furthermore, CFLs and LEDs are available in all shapes and
sizes and color temps.

Another moron who can't read, much less think.

The real moron is the guy still using incandescent lighting
and paying 5x as much per lumen.
Why don't you go back to gas lighting or even candles?
Bwaaaahhhahahahahahahahahahahahaaaaaaah!

The full moon was a couple of days ago. Did you oversleep again?

On 2011-09-11, Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article , wrote:

tec 2012 and end with 40-watt bulbs in January 2014.

Also note that these are efficiency standards. Incandescent is not
banned.

But since it bans lights that don't make the efficiency standard and
incandescents by their nature (and physics and...) can't make the
efficiency standard, they are banning incandescent lights by any
definition of the word used outside of DC.

Two Philips A19 halogens and four GE A19 halogens meet the efficiency
standard. Four other GE A19 halogens, "Reveal" ones, meet a lower
efficiency standard that applies to "modified spectrum". The Philips ones
achieve the efficiency spectrum by using "HIR" technology. The GE ones
apparently to me use premium gas mixtures and shorter filaments to reduce
heat conduction loss and also slightly increase filament temperature, along
with achieving barely the lumen standard at the highest wattage the
standard for a specific wattage range each lumen standard applies to.

I have seen the Philips ones at Home Depot, and the GE ones at Target.

Most R, BR and PAR incandescents with medium base and light output
310-2600 lumens already have to meet an energy efficiency standard that is
fairly easy for incandescent to meet. The 2012-2014 "ban" does not make
things any worse for these.

The 2012-2014 "ban" has many other exceptions:

* Design light output outside the range of 310-2600 lumens
* Design voltage outside the range of 110-130V
* Base other than E26/E27
* Globular at least 5 inches in diameter, tubular if over 10 inches long
or not exceeding 40 watts
* Flame shape and "S" (partial sphere on a cone) bulbs and many popular
globular bulb sizes if 40 watts or less

* "Specialty type" such as colored, bug, blacklight, infrared,
silver-bowl-tip, left hand thread, shatter-resistant, rough/vibration
service if 60 watts or less, appliance/"home oven" if 40 watts or less,
traffic signal, plant light, mine service, marine, sign, and a few others

http://www.donklipstein.com/incban.html

On 2011-09-12, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Sun, 11 Sep 2011 18:27:36 -0400, "Michael Angelo" michael@angelo wrote:

No need to stock up on old technology,

Too late. I've already piled up about 400 60W clear bulbs.

energy-saving halogens to the rescue.

http://www.thedailygreen.com/environ...-bulb-ban-0711

http://www.lighting.philips.com/us_e...oducts&lang=en


Halogens are great for some uses. I don't like them where the bulb is
part of the looks of the fixture, which almost all of mine are. They're
blinding if directly in the eyes. Shadows seem worse, too.

Did you not say before that you like clear incandescents of the kinds
being banned (which are mostly A19)? GE has four A19 medium-base clear
halogens that meet the energy efficiency standard for escaping the
2012-2014 ban. I have seen them at Target.

Philips has two soft-whitish A19 halogens that meet the energy efficiency
standard. One consumes 40 watts to produce 800 lumens, not far short
of 840-890 lumens typical of 60W 120V incandescents rated 1,000 hours.
The other consumes 70 watts to produce 1600 lumens, which is about 93%
of usual of a "full blast" name brand 750-hour-rated 100W 120V
incandescent. And about 45% brighter than most dollar store 100W
incandescents.
--
- Don Klipstein )

On 2011-09-12, Han wrote:
" wrote in
:

You're 100% wrong. Light is an *INSIGNIFICANT* part of my electric bill.

If you leave your TV on standby when not watching, then that is a
significant portion. Fridge and A/C are most important, then other
appliances. Light may be a small portion, but CFL's do cut that part very
nicely. While incandescant bulbs may have a slightly nicer light, we have
gone to CFLs wherever we can.

There is some fair number of Americans using electricity for home
heating and water heaters. Air conditioning is a bightime electricity
user, and refrigerators/freezers are very significant.

As of a few months ago, the most recent studies that I could easily
find determined that about 9% of American electricity consumption and
about 11% of American electric bills were for lighting.

Not that it does not help significantly to cut that 9-11% in half, which
appears to me easily do-able. And many Americans have their lighting
accounting for well-above-average percentage of their electric bills, and
benefit greatly by using energy-efficient lighting. For example, most
apartment renters in the metropolitan areas of NYC, Philadelphia and
Chicago - where electricity cost is above national average. Also many
residents of rowhouses/townhouses/"brownstones" and most with gas or oil
heat.
--
- Don Klipstein )

On 2011-09-12, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On 12 Sep 2011 14:36:41 GMT, Han wrote:

" wrote in
m:

You're 100% wrong. Light is an *INSIGNIFICANT* part of my electric bill.

If you leave your TV on standby when not watching, then that is a
significant portion.

Wrong. On standby it's next to nothing. When it's on (a significant
part of the day) it's around 100X the power.

I have a TV and a "Kill-A-Watt" meter. My TV consumes 12 watts when
"off" and averaging about 70 watts when "on".

As a result, I have a power strip to cut power to my TV for the majority
of the day when I am sleeping, at work or commuting, using my computer, or
doing other activities besides TV-watching.

Fridge and A/C are most important,

You forgot hot water and heat.

I spent my whole life in homes where heat and hot water were done with
fossil fuels.

then other appliances.

Light may be a small portion, but CFL's do cut that part very nicely.

A couple of bucks a month. Maximum.

At USA national average, $2/month is about 18 KWH/month, or about 600
watt-hours per day. That is equivalent to all home lighting being
restricted to a single 300W halogen torchiere restricted to 2 hours per
day, or each day having combined-per-bulb 6 hours of running 100-watt
bulbs or 10 60-watt bulbs.
Since CFLs can easily cut this by as little as 2/3, make that 3 hours
per day of combined operation of 3400W halogen torchiere fixtures, or
9 hours per day and bulb (combined-multiplied) for 100W bulbs, or 15 hours
per bulb per day all-done with 60-watters.
It appears strongly to me that most Americans use a lot more lighting
than equivalent to 3 60-watt incandescents 5 hours a day or 5 of them 3
hours a day.

While incandescant bulbs may have a slightly nicer light, we have
gone to CFLs wherever we can.

CFLs will always be ugly and I'm not convinced that LEDs will be any
better for omnidirectional fixtures. That's the primary reason I've
laid in a lifetime supply of incandescents.

So you say...
--
- Don Klipstein )

wrote in message
...
On Thu, 15 Sep 2011 22:41:45 -0400, "Jesee" wrote:


wrote in message
. ..
On Thu, 15 Sep 2011 17:18:24 -0400, "Ted"
wrote:

Furthermore, CFLs and LEDs are available in all shapes
and
sizes and color temps.

Another moron who can't read, much less think.

The real moron is the guy still using incandescent
lighting
and paying 5x as much per lumen.
Why don't you go back to gas lighting or even candles?
Bwaaaahhhahahahahahahahahahahahaaaaaaah!

The full moon was a couple of days ago. Did you oversleep
again?

LOL!

Am 16.09.11 07:21, schrieb Don Klipstein:

As of a few months ago, the most recent studies that I could easily
find determined that about 9% of American electricity consumption and
about 11% of American electric bills were for lighting.

As for residential indoor consumption in pre-ban Europe, the figures
were more like one-third of yours. Please check if your sources
differentiate between residential and other.

http://greenwashinglamps.wordpress.com/category/energy-statistics/u-s-energy-statistics/

And many Americans have their lighting
accounting for well-above-average percentage of their electric bills, and
benefit greatly by using energy-efficient lighting. For example, most
apartment renters in the metropolitan areas of NYC, Philadelphia and
Chicago - where electricity cost is above national average.

But is there any law *forcing* these unfortunate people to use
incandescent bulbs instead of cfl or led lighting?

And, by which logic do higher electric rates increase the percentage of
electric bills caused by lighting? Wouldn't economics suggest that a
high rate increases the incentive to save electricity where it
subjectively hurts the billpayer the least? If the billpayer chooses to
use compact mercury-fluorescent lamps instead of some incandescents,
fine. They're not illegal, and first cost is pretty low thanks to
darling China.