zzzzzzzzzz wrote the following:
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

All the cfls in my house are no more visible that the incandescents they
replaced, except for one ceiling lamp in the basement. They are hidden
by either lamp shades, lenses, or desk lamp reflector shells. I don't
know about you, but I find an incandescent bulb hanging out of a fixture
rather ugly itself.

--

Bill
In Hamptonburgh, NY
In the original Orange County. Est. 1683
To email, remove the double zeroes after @

zzzzzzzzzz wrote the following:
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!



It's a rider in the 'right to bear arms' amendment. :-)



--

Bill
In Hamptonburgh, NY
In the original Orange County. Est. 1683
To email, remove the double zeroes after @

"Victor Roberts" wrote in message
...
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

That's right, Vic. PAR 38 lamps are regulated, but that regulation is
separate from the requirements for the A-line lamps. And, I didn't find
anything that would apply to the PAR30.

Terry McGowan

wrote in message
...
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.

The CFLs mounted inside of A-line bulbs (GE) look just like standard
bulbs -- if looks are important; but I don't see why it matters if the CFL
bulb is behind a shade or hidden in a fixture anyway.

Terry McGowan

"willshak" wrote in message
m...
zzzzzzzzzz wrote the following:
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

All the cfls in my house are no more visible that the incandescents they
replaced, except for one ceiling lamp in the basement. They are hidden by
either lamp shades, lenses, or desk lamp reflector shells. I don't know
about you, but I find an incandescent bulb hanging out of a fixture rather
ugly itself.

--

Bill
In Hamptonburgh, NY
In the original Orange County. Est. 1683
To email, remove the double zeroes after @

To say nothing of the glare -- especially when they get to 30-40 watts and
more.

Terry McGowan

On Fri, 16 Sep 2011 10:07:04 -0400, willshak wrote:

wrote the following:
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

All the cfls in my house are no more visible that the incandescents they
^^^^^^^^
replaced, except for one ceiling lamp in the basement. They are hidden
by either lamp shades, lenses, or desk lamp reflector shells. I don't
know about you, but I find an incandescent bulb hanging out of a fixture
rather ugly itself.

Another clueless jerk heard from.

On Fri, 16 Sep 2011 10:37:28 -0400, "TKM" wrote:


wrote in message
.. .
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.

The CFLs mounted inside of A-line bulbs (GE) look just like standard
bulbs -- if looks are important; but I don't see why it matters if the CFL
bulb is behind a shade or hidden in a fixture anyway.

Clear CLFs? LOL! You people are so green your brain is moldy.

On Fri, 16 Sep 2011 05:43:18 +0000 (UTC), Don Klipstein
wrote:

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

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".

500W on/5W standby = 100x. Next.

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.

Not worthwhile.

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.

Goody for you. That isn't normal, here. Electric HW and heat pumps are the
norm here. A few morons have bought into the "green" thing and have been
suckered into LP tankless heaters, but 90% are electric tank heaters.

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.

That's about right; maybe a *little* more. I do know how to calculate Wh.

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.

Whoopie! I don't care. It's there with the pocket lint.

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...

I did. You don't dispute.

On Fri, 16 Sep 2011 05:02:13 +0000 (UTC), Don Klipstein
wrote:

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)?

Only because the fixtures rather demand them.

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.

I have them in a fixture in the kitchen. The shadows are much harsher when
that fixture is on, than when the others with standard (clear) A19s are on.
It's good light, for some things, but I won't put them in the other fixture
because of the harsh light. OTOH, I had halogens in Sofitt cans (previous
house) and they were great; very concentrated white light where it was needed.

Again, I'm not anti-halogen, just that there are some applications where they
work and some not so much.

Philips has two soft-whitish A19 halogens that meet the energy efficiency
standard.

Clear? How you do that.

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.

I don't have a 100W bulb in the house (two in the garage?).

On Fri, 16 Sep 2011 10:19:27 -0400, willshak wrote:

wrote the following:
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!



It's a rider in the 'right to bear arms' amendment. :-)

Oh, I never looked under that "shall not be infringed" penumbra. ;-)

On Fri, 16 Sep 2011 10:24:25 -0400, "TKM" wrote:


"Victor Roberts" wrote in message
.. .
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

That's right, Vic. PAR 38 lamps are regulated, but that regulation is
separate from the requirements for the A-line lamps. And, I didn't find
anything that would apply to the PAR30.

Terry McGowan

Woops. I missed the PAR30 reference

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 2011-09-16, Sepp Ruf wrote:
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.

IIRC, my figures are residential ones.
--
- Don Klipstein )

On 2011-09-16, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On 16 Sep 2011 05:43:18 0 UTC, Don Klipstein wrote:

On 2011-09-12, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On 12 Sep 2011 14:36:41 GMT, Han wrote:
slight snip to edit for space
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".

500W on/5W standby = 100x. Next.

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.

Not worthwhile.
SNIP from here

12 watts * 22 hours/day * 365 days/1 year * 1KW/1000W * $.14/KWH =
$13.49/year in the case of my TV. In my case, the power strip paid for
itself in less than a year.
--
- Don Klipstein )

zzzzzzzzzz wrote the following:
On Fri, 16 Sep 2011 10:07:04 -0400, willshak wrote:

zzzzzzzzzz wrote the following:
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
All the cfls in my house are no more visible that the incandescents they
^^^^^^^^
replaced, except for one ceiling lamp in the basement. They are hidden
by either lamp shades, lenses, or desk lamp reflector shells. I don't
know about you, but I find an incandescent bulb hanging out of a fixture
rather ugly itself.

Another clueless jerk heard from.


When your stand is no longer defensible, resort to personal attacks.
"See Ya"!!!


--

Bill
In Hamptonburgh, NY
In the original Orange County. Est. 1683
To email, remove the double zeroes after @

On Thu, 15 Sep 2011 13:00:51 -0400, Kurt Ullman
wrote:

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.


Sorry about that, I was wrapped up in the "halogen incandescent lamps
are not real incandescent laps" part of this discussion.

But, to your other point, it is important that when regulations are
made they are technology neutral and do not specifically limit or
favor any specific technology.

It is possible to make incandescent lamps with much higher efficacy
than current lamps, though no one has yet figured out how to do that
at reasonable cost and with long life. A ban on "incandescent lamps"
would also ban any future high efficacy incandescent lamp, and that
would be far worse than the present efficacy targets.

In a counter example, parts of the LED industry are trying to get
certain cities to mandate LEDs instead of mandating a certain level of
performance. Regulations such as these could force the use of lower
efficacy technology, since, as we all know, many LED lamps do not
perform as well as the fluorescent and compact fluorescent lamps they
will replace.

Another example is allowing "hybrid cars" with one occupant to use the
HOV lanes set up to encourage energy conservation. I own a non-hybrid
car that gets better mileage than hybrid SUV's, yet I cannot use the
HOV lane if I am alone in the car while the driver of a Escalade
Hybrid can. That doesn't make much sense,

So, yes, the new efficacy standards will effectively ban older
technology incandescent lamps, but they still leave the door open for
new and higher performance versions.

--
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.

"Don Klipstein" wrote in message
...
On 2011-09-16, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On 16 Sep 2011 05:43:18 0 UTC, Don Klipstein
wrote:

On 2011-09-12, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On 12 Sep 2011 14:36:41 GMT, Han wrote:
slight snip to edit for space
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".

500W on/5W standby = 100x. Next.

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.

Not worthwhile.
SNIP from here

12 watts * 22 hours/day * 365 days/1 year * 1KW/1000W * $.14/KWH =
$13.49/year in the case of my TV. In my case, the power strip paid for
itself in less than a year.
--
- Don Klipstein )

Excellent, Don. 12 watts is indeed substantial. I've been wondering why
the California Energy Commission folks have been so interested in what they
call "phantom loads". You prompt me to measure my TV as well.

Terry McGowan

"Don Klipstein" wrote in message
...
On 2011-09-16, Sepp Ruf wrote:
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.

IIRC, my figures are residential ones.
--
- Don Klipstein )

It varies by area and climate in the U.S. Energy Star says residential
lighting is 12% of the annual energy bill for a typical single home. See:
http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?...find_a_product. The dollar
value of that 12% is $264 per year.

Terry McGowan

In Don Klipstein
wrote:

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.

Does your TV remember its settings when power's restored? Mine don't.

--
St. Paul, MN

On 2011-09-17, Bert wrote:
In Don Klipstein
wrote:

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.

Does your TV remember its settings when power's restored? Mine don't.

Mine does.
--
- Don Klipstein

On Fri, 16 Sep 2011 22:40:55 -0400, willshak wrote:

wrote the following:
On Fri, 16 Sep 2011 10:07:04 -0400, willshak wrote:

zzzzzzzzzz wrote the following:
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
All the cfls in my house are no more visible that the incandescents they
^^^^^^^^
replaced, except for one ceiling lamp in the basement. They are hidden
by either lamp shades, lenses, or desk lamp reflector shells. I don't
know about you, but I find an incandescent bulb hanging out of a fixture
rather ugly itself.

Another clueless jerk heard from.


When your stand is no longer defensible, resort to personal attacks.

Wrong. When idiots clearly don't bother to read, they *are* clueless jerks.

"See Ya"!!!

Don't run away mad.

On Sat, 17 Sep 2011 02:36:01 +0000 (UTC), Don Klipstein
wrote:

On 2011-09-16, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On 16 Sep 2011 05:43:18 0 UTC, Don Klipstein wrote:

On 2011-09-12, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On 12 Sep 2011 14:36:41 GMT, Han wrote:
slight snip to edit for space
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".

500W on/5W standby = 100x. Next.

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.

Not worthwhile.
SNIP from here

12 watts * 22 hours/day * 365 days/1 year * 1KW/1000W * $.14/KWH =
$13.49/year in the case of my TV. In my case, the power strip paid for
itself in less than a year.

Wow! WTFC? The Satellite box is several times that and it *hates* being
powered off.

On Sep 16, 8:40*am, "
wrote:
On Fri, 16 Sep 2011 10:19:27 -0400, willshak wrote:
wrote the following:
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!

It's a rider in the 'right to bear arms' amendment. :-)

Oh, I never looked under that "shall not be infringed" penumbra. *;-)- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

It's in the voting part, remember voting! We vote the folks to do what
we want, if they don't do it then we vote in other folks. The rest is
limits on what they can do after the vote, like interstate (and
international) commerce.

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

That's only is effective if there is money to spend. This is why we
don't charge for voting, and why public education is so vital. (Yes I
know you think that's all screwed up too. Go find another group for
that conversation.)

I loved hearing that Texas wanted to set up in-state light bulb
manufacturing. That was a good laugh.
---
RickR

On Sun, 18 Sep 2011 11:58:48 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On Sep 16, 8:40*am, "
wrote:
On Fri, 16 Sep 2011 10:19:27 -0400, willshak wrote:
wrote the following:
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!

It's a rider in the 'right to bear arms' amendment. :-)

Oh, I never looked under that "shall not be infringed" penumbra. *;-)- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

It's in the voting part, remember voting! We vote the folks to do what
we want, if they don't do it then we vote in other folks. The rest is
limits on what they can do after the vote, like interstate (and
international) commerce.

Go back to school and learn something about US government and the
Constitution. We used to call it "Civics". You clearly were sleeping, if
they even teach it anymore.

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

That's only is effective if there is money to spend. This is why we
don't charge for voting, and why public education is so vital. (Yes I
know you think that's all screwed up too. Go find another group for
that conversation.)

I loved hearing that Texas wanted to set up in-state light bulb
manufacturing. That was a good laugh.

Another clueless moron found.

In article ,
"Stormin Mormon" wrote:

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

I am no constitutional expert, but I suspect the SCOTUS would support
this regulation under the guise of interstate commerce.

In article ,
"Stormin Mormon" wrote:

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

Nope. Obama actually reduced taxes, but don't let facts stand in your
way.

In article

,
Shawn Hirn wrote:

In article ,
"Stormin Mormon" wrote:

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

Nope. Obama actually reduced taxes, but don't let facts stand in your
way.

One tax for a year and campaigning rather insistently about increasing
taxes forever. Not really an impressive record in that area.

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

The Federal debt has gone up several trillion, in the years
that the Dems have Congress, and Oh Bomb Us has the
Presidency. All Oh Bomb Us has talked about has been
"Millionaires and billionaires didn't pay their fair share".
News report after news report, about taxes going up.

During this time, you wish me to believe taxes went down?

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


"Shawn Hirn" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Stormin Mormon"
wrote:

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

Nope. Obama actually reduced taxes, but don't let facts
stand in your
way.

On Tue, 20 Sep 2011 04:13:21 -0400, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:

The Federal debt has gone up several trillion, in the years
that the Dems have Congress, and Oh Bomb Us has the
Presidency. All Oh Bomb Us has talked about has been
"Millionaires and billionaires didn't pay their fair share".
News report after news report, about taxes going up.

During this time, you wish me to believe taxes went down?

What, you don't believe in "Hope and Change"? Hirn certainly does.

"Stormin Mormon" writes:

The Federal debt has gone up several trillion, in the years
that the Dems have Congress, and Oh Bomb Us has the
Presidency. All Oh Bomb Us has talked about has been
"Millionaires and billionaires didn't pay their fair share".
News report after news report, about taxes going up.

During this time, you wish me to believe taxes went down?

Having trouble separating a news report about a proposal from
an actual event?

I'd try to explain the difference but I've already had my brick
wall quota for today.

--
Dan Espen

I'd like to do a "System Restore" back to Reagan.

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


wrote in message
...


During this time, you wish me to believe taxes went down?

What, you don't believe in "Hope and Change"? Hirn
certainly does.

On Tue, 20 Sep 2011 12:26:03 -0400, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:

I'd like to do a "System Restore" back to Reagan.

Even without the "System Restore", Reagan would be better than what we have
now. OTOH, it's become crystal clear why Obummer picked the Veep he did;
*very* useful.

In article ,
Stormin Mormon wrote:
I'd like to do a "System Restore" back to Reagan.
[ ... ]

I'd like to restore back to Eisenhower, before Johnson started all the
great society crap from which virtually every entitlement program is
descended.

That, and have Johnson caught for fixing his first election, which would
derail his political career.


Gary