I notice in all the stores around me that a 150 watt bulb costs as much
as 4 100 watt bulbs. The cost of manufacturing the 150 cannot be that
much more than a 100 watt. Must be the cardboard package that makes the
difference. Mr. Bell is probably turning in his grave over this
consumer rip-off.

Sherwin D.

Is the 150 a 3-way bulb? Has two filaments. Also lower sales volume.

sherwindu wrote:
I notice in all the stores around me that a 150 watt bulb costs as
much as 4 100 watt bulbs. The cost of manufacturing the 150 cannot
be that much more than a 100 watt. Must be the cardboard package
that makes the difference. Mr. Bell is probably turning in his grave
over this consumer rip-off.

Sherwin D.

Was the inventor of the telephone a prolific light bulb price watcher as
well?

--
__________________________________________________ _______________
Too much time on your hands? Waste it here!
www.crazydatingstories.com
www.crazykidstories.com
www.crazywarstories.com

"sherwindu" wrote in message
...
I notice in all the stores around me that a 150 watt bulb costs as much
as 4 100 watt bulbs. The cost of manufacturing the 150 cannot be that
much more than a 100 watt. Must be the cardboard package that makes the
difference. Mr. Bell is probably turning in his grave over this
consumer rip-off.

Why would Bell turn over in his grave? He didn't invent the lightbulb.


150's cost more because nobody buys them.

Right you are. Wrong inventor, but the idea is the same. I realize that
smaller bulbs
are more popular, but that's still no justification for the price
differential. By the way,
that is a one way bulb. Three ways are just as expensive, but there I can
see a difference in technology that might warrent a price increase.

Noozer wrote:

"sherwindu" wrote in message
...
I notice in all the stores around me that a 150 watt bulb costs as much
as 4 100 watt bulbs. The cost of manufacturing the 150 cannot be that
much more than a 100 watt. Must be the cardboard package that makes the
difference. Mr. Bell is probably turning in his grave over this
consumer rip-off.

Why would Bell turn over in his grave? He didn't invent the lightbulb.

150's cost more because nobody buys them.

"Noozer" wrote in message
news:ic1Zf.1614$nf7.20@pd7tw1no...

"sherwindu" wrote in message
...
I notice in all the stores around me that a 150 watt bulb costs as much
as 4 100 watt bulbs. The cost of manufacturing the 150 cannot be that
much more than a 100 watt. Must be the cardboard package that makes the
difference. Mr. Bell is probably turning in his grave over this
consumer rip-off.

Why would Bell turn over in his grave? He didn't invent the lightbulb.


150's cost more because nobody buys them.
I agree; Edison an American is the acknowledged light bulb inventor.
But as with the 'invention' of television, by Baird in Britain it was later
claimed by others, including Russia.
The 'invention' and use of radar; originally called 'Radiolocation', by the
British in 1939 (Battle of Britain etc.) Then invention of the radar
magnetron, now used in microwave ovens, by Watson-Watt a Scotsman and so on!
Alexander Graham Bell, another Scotsman who emigrated to Canada is credited
with 'invention' of the voice telephone.

sherwindu wrote:
I notice in all the stores around me that a 150 watt bulb costs as much
as 4 100 watt bulbs. The cost of manufacturing the 150 cannot be that
much more than a 100 watt. Must be the cardboard package that makes the
difference. Mr. Bell is probably turning in his grave over this
consumer rip-off.


Why would Alexander Bell care? He's dead and doesn't have to pay the price.
Besides, it wasn't his baby anyhow... light bulbs were invented by Thomas
Edison.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN

VE

sherwindu wrote:

Right you are. Wrong inventor, but the idea is the same. I realize that
smaller bulbs
are more popular, but that's still no justification for the price
differential. By the way,
that is a one way bulb. Three ways are just as expensive, but there I can
see a difference in technology that might warrent a price increase.

When I asked at my local grocery one day why it was [much] cheaper to
buy 2 32oz mayos than it was to buy one 64oz the manager explained
that it is all computerized & the computer calculates how long
something sits on the shelf when it determines the markup.
'Look at it like the product is paying rent for shelf space' he said.

The markup is much lower on items that turn over rapidly. [like 1 qt
mayo, and 100watt lightbulbs]

In some cases as it goes unchecked it gets rediculous. The 32oz
mayo almost got to the same price as the 64 as fewer and fewer prople
bought the overpriced 64oz.

Jim

sherwindu wrote:
Right you are. Wrong inventor, but the idea is the same. I realize that
smaller bulbs
are more popular, but that's still no justification for the price
differential. By the way,
that is a one way bulb. Three ways are just as expensive, but there I can
see a difference in technology that might warrent a price increase.

Noozer wrote:


"sherwindu" wrote in message
...

I notice in all the stores around me that a 150 watt bulb costs as much
as 4 100 watt bulbs. The cost of manufacturing the 150 cannot be that
much more than a 100 watt. Must be the cardboard package that makes the
difference. Mr. Bell is probably turning in his grave over this
consumer rip-off.

Why would Bell turn over in his grave? He didn't invent the lightbulb.

150's cost more because nobody buys them.




Why not buy a 150watt output screw in florescent and forget about buying
another bulb for this lamp for up to 10 years? It takes MUCH less power
to operate, generates MUCH less heat, and only costs less than twice
the price of the 150W bulb (seeing them now for under $10 including
those that rival incandescent lamps for pleasant color - 5000 Kelvin
color temp) Lifetimes on compact florescent bulbs are ranging,
depending on brand from 7,000 operating hours to as much as 15,000
operating hours

BTW compact screw ins are available up to 150W input, 650W light
output. The closer the bulb gets to 6500 Kelvin color temp, the happier
you will be with this long term. 6500 Kelvin is very very close to
pure, stark white (overhead sun on cloudless, pollution free day)

Local stores carry a good selection, but for the broadest range of
choices, do a Google search for light bulbs. I picked www.1000bulbs.com
to do my research. They are located in Mesquite Texas, so pretty
central to most areas of the USA. 60W equivalent bulbs are available
there for just over $2 each.

"sherwindu" wrote in message
...
I notice in all the stores around me that a 150 watt bulb costs as much
as 4 100 watt bulbs. The cost of manufacturing the 150 cannot be that
much more than a 100 watt. Must be the cardboard package that makes the
difference. Mr. Bell is probably turning in his grave over this
consumer rip-off.

Sherwin D.

Price of a standard base 7 1/2 W I just bought was $2.49, same as 4 60s;
for the same reasons given here previously: low volume.

Marty


* Normal people believe if it aint broke, don't fix it. Engineers believe
if it aint broke, they didn't build enough improvements into it.*

"Tony Hwang" wrote in message
news:Ae1Zf.1619$nf7.646@pd7tw1no...
JohnH wrote:
sherwindu wrote:

I notice in all the stores around me that a 150 watt bulb costs as
much as 4 100 watt bulbs. The cost of manufacturing the 150 cannot
be that much more than a 100 watt. Must be the cardboard package
that makes the difference. Mr. Bell is probably turning in his grave
over this consumer rip-off.

Sherwin D.


Was the inventor of the telephone a prolific light bulb price watcher as
well?

Hmmm,
I thought Edison invented the bulb?

Nope - Edison was the first to make a market viable light bulb and patent
it. Edison actually followed several other inventors of light bulbs.
Edison's contribution was a longer lasting version, an improvement on what
was available at the time. See
http://www.enchantedlearning.com/inv...ightbulb.shtml

Besides the shelf life issue mentioned earlier, a rep from Philips
bulbs explained that the cost of tooling up the equipment at the
manufacturing plant also represents a higher cost against the lower
volume selling lamps.

Imagine the following, (this is just an example no factual numbers
included). If it costs $50,000 to set-up the equipment and then
produce 500 bulbs the cost would be higher than if you had the same
cost to set-up and you produced 5000 or 50000.

That was how it was explained to me.

Hope that is useful info for someone.

There are a lot of things which go into the retail price of an item *other*
than the cost of the materials used to make that item.

In some cases, the cost of the item itself may be very little. And the bulk
of the cost may be packaging/distribution. So you may have...

Cost of materials. Say 5 cents.
Cost of manufacturing. Say 5 cents.
Cost of packaging. Say 50 cents per package.
Cost of distribution. Say 40 cents per package.

And if they are packaging and distributing 4 items per package or only 1
item per package, the costs would be pretty much the same.

So it is a good idea to buy products in bulk. The per item cost is lower.

Then advertising. Look at cereal at the grocery store. Name brand vs
generic. In some cases the generic cereal may be the same exact product as
the name brand - made by the same company. However the name brand has all
those advertising costs tacked on to the price of each item.

Go to a farm supply and look at the cost for food for animals. Say oats.
Very little cost per ounce for a 50 pound bag.

Then go to a printing company and ask how much it would cost to print up
colored packaging like a cereal box. It costs a young fortune!


"sherwindu" wrote in message
I notice in all the stores around me that a 150 watt bulb costs as much
as 4 100 watt bulbs. The cost of manufacturing the 150 cannot be that
much more than a 100 watt. Must be the cardboard package that makes the
difference. Mr. Bell is probably turning in his grave over this
consumer rip-off.

Sherwin,

Mr.Bell- telephone Mr. Edison- Light bulb

Dave M.

On Thu, 6 Apr 2006 09:49:39 -0400, "No" wrote:

"Tony Hwang" wrote in message
news:Ae1Zf.1619$nf7.646@pd7tw1no...
JohnH wrote:
sherwindu wrote:

I notice in all the stores around me that a 150 watt bulb costs as
much as 4 100 watt bulbs. The cost of manufacturing the 150 cannot
be that much more than a 100 watt. Must be the cardboard package
that makes the difference. Mr. Bell is probably turning in his grave
over this consumer rip-off.

Sherwin D.


Was the inventor of the telephone a prolific light bulb price watcher as
well?

Hmmm,
I thought Edison invented the bulb?

Nope - Edison was the first to make a market viable light bulb and patent
it. Edison actually followed several other inventors of light bulbs.
Edison's contribution was a longer lasting version, an improvement on what
was available at the time. See
http://www.enchantedlearning.com/inv...ightbulb.shtml

No time right now to look at the url, but Edison invented the carbon
filament, from oxidised cotton thread.

Who invented the tungsten filament?

On Thu, 06 Apr 2006 04:56:46 GMT, "Noozer" wrote:


"sherwindu" wrote in message
...
I notice in all the stores around me that a 150 watt bulb costs as much
as 4 100 watt bulbs. The cost of manufacturing the 150 cannot be that
much more than a 100 watt. Must be the cardboard package that makes the
difference. Mr. Bell is probably turning in his grave over this
consumer rip-off.

Why would Bell turn over in his grave?

Because it's dark in there.

He didn't invent the lightbulb.

Exactly. He's trying to read about who did.

150's cost more because nobody buys them.

On Thu, 6 Apr 2006 00:40:54 -0400, "JohnH"
wrote:

sherwindu wrote:
I notice in all the stores around me that a 150 watt bulb costs as
much as 4 100 watt bulbs. The cost of manufacturing the 150 cannot
be that much more than a 100 watt. Must be the cardboard package
that makes the difference. Mr. Bell is probably turning in his grave
over this consumer rip-off.

Sherwin D.

Was the inventor of the telephone a prolific light bulb price watcher as
well?

Definitely. Remember the words, "Watson, why is it so dark in here.
Can't we afford more light bulbs?"

On Thu, 06 Apr 2006 07:38:48 -0400, Jim wrote:

sherwindu wrote:

Right you are. Wrong inventor, but the idea is the same. I realize that
smaller bulbs
are more popular, but that's still no justification for the price
differential. By the way,

See my other post.

that is a one way bulb. Three ways are just as expensive, but there I can
see a difference in technology that might warrent a price increase.

When I asked at my local grocery one day why it was [much] cheaper to
buy 2 32oz mayos than it was to buy one 64oz the manager explained
that it is all computerized & the computer calculates how long
something sits on the shelf when it determines the markup.
'Look at it like the product is paying rent for shelf space' he said.

The markup is much lower on items that turn over rapidly. [like 1 qt
mayo, and 100watt lightbulbs]

In some cases as it goes unchecked it gets rediculous. The 32oz
mayo almost got to the same price as the 64 as fewer and fewer prople
bought the overpriced 64oz.

Mayo lasts a long time.

But I have to ask myself, should I buy a gallon of milk at a time or a
half gallon? IIRC, if I drink 80% of the gallon before the milk
spoils**, I won't have wasted money, but if I have to throw away the
rest, I have wasted milk.

**Normally I can drink a gallon before it spoils, but if my tastes
change for a week, for example, I may not.

BTW, milk is good much longer than it smells good in the plastic
bottle. When the milk is more than a week old, say, I sniff the
bottle and it sometimes smells sour. But if it isn't two weeks old,
almost always when I pour myself a glass, it smells and tastes
perfect. It must be that there is a light coat of milk on the inside
of the bottle or carton, that spoils early, because it is exposed to
the air all that time.

Also, on occasion, I've left a bottle out all night. That's not
enough to ruin milk these days***, and one still has a day or two to
drink what is left in the bottle. My experience is that gallon
bottles last longer than half gallons when left out, because it takes
longer to warm maybe.

***More consistent refrigeration. Good stores don't leave the milk on
the loading dock for hours like used to be the case a lot, and still
is some places. They get it out of the refrigerated truck and into
their own refrigerator before it warms up, and there is probably
better care at the dairy too. Milk can last 3 weeks in your
refrigerator. Time before the bottle is opened counts as half, sort
of like spaghetti sauce. Spaghetti sauce lasts in the jar much longer
if one opens the lid and quickly pours out the sauce, before many mold
spores can fall into the jar.



Jim

sherwindu wrote:
I notice in all the stores around me that a 150 watt bulb costs as much
as 4 100 watt bulbs. The cost of manufacturing the 150 cannot be that
much more than a 100 watt. Must be the cardboard package that makes the
difference. Mr. Bell is probably turning in his grave over this
consumer rip-off.

Sherwin D.



I noticed that too a while back, and having reached an age where I need
more light to read by than I did years ago, I just picked up a few "Y"
adaptors and use two 75 watters in place of a single 150 watt bulb in
our end table and nightstand lamps.

That also has the advantage that when one bulb burns out I don't
completely lose the use of that lamp.

I gave up on buying those pricey 3-way bulbs over 10 years ago and
getting ****ed off when one of the two filaments burned out. I installed
"touch dimmers" in those lamps. Much easier to use than fumbling for the
switch, and I get all the functionality of a 3-way bulb.

Jeff (I'm not cheap, I'm "value oriented.")

--
Jeffry Wisnia

(W1BSV + Brass Rat '57 EE)

"Truth exists; only falsehood has to be invented."

Sev wrote:
Is the 150 a 3-way bulb? Has two filaments. Also lower sales volume.


lower sales volume would directly translate into lower price. However,
if this discourages other manufacturers from entering the 150w bulb
market, then the price would go back up.

Bulbs currently are way overpriced and hardly last past 6 months where I
live.

--
Thank you,



"Then said I, Wisdom [is] better than strength: nevertheless the poor
man's wisdom [is] despised, and his words are not heard." Ecclesiastes 9:16

On Thu, 06 Apr 2006 01:19:43 -0500, sherwindu
wrote:

Right you are. Wrong inventor, but the idea is the same. I realize that
smaller bulbs
are more popular, but that's still no justification for the price
differential.

What do you mean by justification? That's the way the manufacturing
and market system works, economies of scale.

If they were trying to gouge us, wouldn't they gouge us on the smaller
sizes that people buy most of the time? Instead of on the ones we
almost never buy.

Especially now with Polish and Hungarian and Chinese lightbulbs on the
market. Is anyone trying to compete with US made 150 and if so, what
percentage of their 100W bulb price do they charge for 150?

By the way,
that is a one way bulb. Three ways are just as expensive, but there I can
see a difference in technology that might warrent a price increase.

Noozer wrote:

"sherwindu" wrote in message
...
I notice in all the stores around me that a 150 watt bulb costs as much
as 4 100 watt bulbs. The cost of manufacturing the 150 cannot be that
much more than a 100 watt. Must be the cardboard package that makes the
difference. Mr. Bell is probably turning in his grave over this
consumer rip-off.

Why would Bell turn over in his grave? He didn't invent the lightbulb.

150's cost more because nobody buys them.

Tony Hwang wrote:
JohnH wrote:

sherwindu wrote:

I notice in all the stores around me that a 150 watt bulb costs as
much as 4 100 watt bulbs. The cost of manufacturing the 150 cannot
be that much more than a 100 watt. Must be the cardboard package
that makes the difference. Mr. Bell is probably turning in his grave
over this consumer rip-off.

Sherwin D.



Was the inventor of the telephone a prolific light bulb price watcher
as well?

Hmmm,
I thought Edison invented the bulb?

Nope. that was Sherwin Williams. Edison invented
the microscope. Later improved by the Wright brothers.

Caution about flourescent bulbs. Most fluorescent bulbs are not dimmable. (Most of the light switches in my house are dimmers.) Even the ones that are dimmable often make a very annoying buzz when they are turned down low. I suggest you try a single bulb before committing to filling your house with them.

I haven't checked prices here (in Calif.) but I once was buying something at Sears that was priced incorrectly (too low). They gave me the low price because it was their mistake. Check that the 150watt pricing wasn't a clerical error. If it isn't - it may be priced high to dissuade people from using the more inefficient bulbs.

madelca100 wrote:
Caution about flourescent bulbs. Most fluorescent bulbs are not
dimmable. (Most of the light switches in my house are dimmers.) Even
the ones that are dimmable often make a very annoying buzz when they
are turned down low. I suggest you try a single bulb before committing
to filling your house with them.

I haven't checked prices here (in Calif.) but I once was buying
something at Sears that was priced incorrectly (too low). They gave me
the low price because it was their mistake. Check that the 150watt
pricing wasn't a clerical error. If it isn't - it may be priced high
to dissuade people from using the more inefficient bulbs.

Robert Gammon Wrote:

sherwindu wrote:
Right you are. Wrong inventor, but the idea is the same. I realize
that
smaller bulbs
are more popular, but that's still no justification for the price
differential. By the way,
that is a one way bulb. Three ways are just as expensive, but there
I can
see a difference in technology that might warrent a price increase.

Noozer wrote:


"sherwindu" wrote in message
...

I notice in all the stores around me that a 150 watt bulb costs as
much
as 4 100 watt bulbs. The cost of manufacturing the 150 cannot be
that
much more than a 100 watt. Must be the cardboard package that makes
the
difference. Mr. Bell is probably turning in his grave over this
consumer rip-off.

Why would Bell turn over in his grave? He didn't invent the
lightbulb.

150's cost more because nobody buys them.




Why not buy a 150watt output screw in florescent and forget about
buying
another bulb for this lamp for up to 10 years? It takes MUCH less
power
to operate, generates MUCH less heat, and only costs less than twice
the price of the 150W bulb (seeing them now for under $10 including
those that rival incandescent lamps for pleasant color - 5000 Kelvin
color temp) Lifetimes on compact florescent bulbs are ranging,
depending on brand from 7,000 operating hours to as much as 15,000
operating hours

BTW compact screw ins are available up to 150W input, 650W light
output. The closer the bulb gets to 6500 Kelvin color temp, the
happier
you will be with this long term. 6500 Kelvin is very very close to
pure, stark white (overhead sun on cloudless, pollution free day)

Local stores carry a good selection, but for the broadest range of
choices, do a Google search for light bulbs. I picked
www.1000bulbs.com
to do my research. They are located in Mesquite Texas, so pretty
central to most areas of the USA. 60W equivalent bulbs are available
there for just over $2 each.



Hi,
One reason I mix different kind bulbs/lamps depending on where they are.

One thing I have learned about this problem. Don't compose postings in the
wee hours of the morning, or people will jump all over you.

My kitchen fixture can accept only one bulb. 150 is the optimum brightness,
as
anything higher is not appropriate for the wiring limitations.

I don't think this problem is just with 150's, but anything larger. Special
very low
wattage bulbs are another exception. It's just strange that the cut off
point is 150 watts.
It's also strange that I have checked over one dozen different stores, and
they all have
the same pricing structure, even Wal Mart and they usually undercut everyone
else.

Let me draw an analogy with potatoe chips. Jays is well known in my area
and they
mostly make regular and flavored chips. They make very limited quantites of
a 'no
salt added' variety, which I buy often. The price of that item is no more
than the other
chips, yet Jays finds it economical to sell it at prices comparable to their
other brands.
I understand they fire up one line periodically to produce the requirements
needed.
Can't General Electric do the same? I cannot see anything in the design of
these
larger bulbs to make them more expensive. Obviously, GE and others feel
that they
can get their asking price, and so far there is no competition to force them
to lower it.

Sherwin D.

On Thu, 06 Apr 2006 22:10:56 GMT, "George E. Cawthon"
wrote:

Hmmm,
I thought Edison invented the bulb?

Edison invented the Courtship of Eddie's Father.

Nope. that was Sherwin Williams. Edison invented
the microscope. Later improved by the Wright brothers.

See the PBS doc, for info about the problems between Wright and
Curtis. Apparently Curtis had connections and it took the Wrights
decades to get their fair acknowledgement. Sort of a shame that they
named an air force base, Curtis-Wright.

madelca100 wrote:
Caution about flourescent bulbs. Most fluorescent bulbs are not
dimmable. (Most of the light switches in my house are dimmers.) Even
the ones that are dimmable often make a very annoying buzz when they
are turned down low. I suggest you try a single bulb before committing
to filling your house with them.

I haven't checked prices here (in Calif.) but I once was buying
something at Sears that was priced incorrectly (too low). They gave me
the low price because it was their mistake. Check that the 150watt
pricing wasn't a clerical error. If it isn't - it may be priced high
to dissuade people from using the more inefficient bulbs.


http://www.1000bulbs.com/product.php?product=11221

This one is dimmable, although I know not about its noise level when it
is dimmed. $14.99, 930 lumens - roughly the same light output as a 60
W incandescent.

You may be an exception to the rule, equipping all your wall switches
with dimmers. At $15 or so a switch that certainly adds up over a whole
house.

The discussion about price of light bulbs did not involve dimmers until
YOU brought that up.

The original author wanted a 150W bulb and was dismayed at the price
difference between 75W-100W bulbs and the 150W bulb. I checked at
Walmart and yes the 150W bulb is much more expensive than a 75W or
100W. 4 packs of each of these are only a bit more than the price of a
SINGLE 150W bulb.

A single CF rated for 2600 lumens (150W equiv) with color temp of 5000
Kelvin for accurate color fidelity only uses 40W of electricity, is
rated for 10,000 hour life, is 6.7 inches long and 2.68 inches wide
(fits most lamps) and costs about $10. As I recall the 150W bulb at
Walmart was about $2.75, and you will replace it 5 or more times in the
life of a similar lamp equipped with this bulb.

http://www.1000bulbs.com/product.php?product=6728

This is the CF that I am discussing above.

sherwindu wrote:
One thing I have learned about this problem. Don't compose postings in the
wee hours of the morning, or people will jump all over you.

My kitchen fixture can accept only one bulb. 150 is the optimum brightness,
as
anything higher is not appropriate for the wiring limitations.

I don't think this problem is just with 150's, but anything larger. Special
very low
wattage bulbs are another exception. It's just strange that the cut off
point is 150 watts.
It's also strange that I have checked over one dozen different stores, and
they all have
the same pricing structure, even Wal Mart and they usually undercut everyone
else.



The issue here is HEAT. Incandescent lamps generate ENORMOUS amounts of
HEAT.

Yes, you can insert ANY CF that will fit the fixture.

http://www.1000bulbs.com/product.php?product=6728

This bulb only uses 65W of electricity so it will not overheat the
fixture. Its light output is 3400 lumens or roughly that of a 250W
bulb!! 8,000 hours of rated life means that you will replace it 14/ ot
1/8th as often as you replace a 150W incandescent bulb. Its 3.74 inches
wide 9.65 inches tall. This bulb has near perfect color rendition with
color temp of 6500 Kelvin. The downside, if any is the $20.95 price
plus tax and shipping.

Sherwin,

You mention that the bulbs look the same, that you don't see any
difference in the bulbs. The size of the glass portion of the bulb is
slightly larger in the 150W than the 100W. (The bulbs are designed and
measured in 1/8ths of an inch diameter)

Also, the filament is slightly different as well.

Although minor differences, they can't just change the line for a few
lamps.

However, as mentioned earlier that is just a portion of the extra cost,
then the packaging, handling, etc. etc. all add a little to the cost
all the way to the shelf price.

By the way, have you checked out the availability of a compact
fluorescent to accomplish the same result as a 150W? They last far
longer and use approximately 1/4 of the electricity.

Robert Gammon wrote:
madelca100 wrote:

Caution about flourescent bulbs. Most fluorescent bulbs are not
dimmable. (Most of the light switches in my house are dimmers.) Even
the ones that are dimmable often make a very annoying buzz when they
are turned down low. I suggest you try a single bulb before committing
to filling your house with them.

I haven't checked prices here (in Calif.) but I once was buying
something at Sears that was priced incorrectly (too low). They gave me
the low price because it was their mistake. Check that the 150watt
pricing wasn't a clerical error. If it isn't - it may be priced high
to dissuade people from using the more inefficient bulbs.


http://www.1000bulbs.com/product.php?product=11221

This one is dimmable, although I know not about its noise level when it
is dimmed. $14.99, 930 lumens - roughly the same light output as a 60
W incandescent.

You may be an exception to the rule, equipping all your wall switches
with dimmers. At $15 or so a switch that certainly adds up over a whole
house.

The discussion about price of light bulbs did not involve dimmers until
YOU brought that up.

The original author wanted a 150W bulb and was dismayed at the price
difference between 75W-100W bulbs and the 150W bulb. I checked at
Walmart and yes the 150W bulb is much more expensive than a 75W or
100W. 4 packs of each of these are only a bit more than the price of a
SINGLE 150W bulb.

A single CF rated for 2600 lumens (150W equiv) with color temp of 5000
Kelvin for accurate color fidelity only uses 40W of electricity, is
rated for 10,000 hour life, is 6.7 inches long and 2.68 inches wide
(fits most lamps) and costs about $10. As I recall the 150W bulb at
Walmart was about $2.75, and you will replace it 5 or more times in the
life of a similar lamp equipped with this bulb.

http://www.1000bulbs.com/product.php?product=6728

This is the CF that I am discussing above.


Hi,
Rated 10,000 but I saw some of them go in couple months. Guaranteed yes,
rated no, LOL

Tony Hwang wrote:

A single CF rated for 2600 lumens (150W equiv) with color temp of
5000 Kelvin for accurate color fidelity only uses 40W of electricity,
is rated for 10,000 hour life, is 6.7 inches long and 2.68 inches
wide (fits most lamps) and costs about $10. As I recall the 150W
bulb at Walmart was about $2.75, and you will replace it 5 or more
times in the life of a similar lamp equipped with this bulb.

http://www.1000bulbs.com/product.php?product=6728

This is the CF that I am discussing above.


Hi,
Rated 10,000 but I saw some of them go in couple months. Guaranteed yes,
rated no, LOL


YMMV of course. I have some CFs in my house that have had daily use for
over 10 years without a single replacement. Yes some do not last that
long, but even the short life ones are YEARS before they need
replacing. Few of the CFs in my house are the short spiral, we bought a
pack of 6 of them 3 years ago to replace twin tubes that were starting
to fail after 8-10 years of service.

There are only 3 incandescent lamps now in the house, installed in
reflector floods, they get very little or no useage at all.

I can actually measure the lifespan of some of my CFLs in decades (the
7 and 9 watt Philips PL models I bought back in 1984) and others
literally minutes -- in the case, all Lights of America.

I bought six Philips SLS20 CFLs back in the 1997 and five of the six
are still going strong (the other one was dropped). They're
noticeably dimmer now and you can clearly see how the phosphorous
coating has blackened and become pitted, but even after 15,000 or more
hours of use, they continue to run.

If you stick with Philips, Osram Sylvania or GE, you shouldn't be
disappointed.

Cheers,
Paul

On Fri, 07 Apr 2006 15:11:02 GMT, Robert Gammon
wrote:

YMMV of course. I have some CFs in my house that have had daily use for
over 10 years without a single replacement. Yes some do not last that
long, but even the short life ones are YEARS before they need
replacing. Few of the CFs in my house are the short spiral, we bought a
pack of 6 of them 3 years ago to replace twin tubes that were starting
to fail after 8-10 years of service.

There are only 3 incandescent lamps now in the house, installed in
reflector floods, they get very little or no useage at all.

On Fri, 07 Apr 2006 01:49:08 -0500, sherwindu
wrote:

One thing I have learned about this problem. Don't compose postings in the
wee hours of the morning, or people will jump all over you.

Darn right. Jumping on posters is the only exercise I get. I think
I'm losing weight.


Let me draw an analogy with potatoe chips. Jays is well known in my area
and they
mostly make regular and flavored chips. They make very limited quantites of
a 'no
salt added' variety, which I buy often. The price of that item is no more
than the other
chips, yet Jays finds it economical to sell it at prices comparable to their
other brands.
I understand they fire up one line periodically to produce the requirements
needed.

That may be the way they express it, but based on a moderate amount of
reading I've done on just this sort of thing (but other food than
chips) I think they use the same line, and change the recipe of the
chips occasionally. At the same time, they change the bags that are
fed into the bagging part of the line. That is, I think they don't
need any additional production facilities.

I don't know how light bulb production lines work well enough to
compare them.

Can't General Electric do the same? I cannot see anything in the design of
these
larger bulbs to make them more expensive. Obviously, GE and others feel
that they
can get their asking price, and so far there is no competition to force them
to lower it.

Are you accusing them of price fixing? But seriously, I wish I
knew what constitutes illegal price-fixing and what doesn't. If GE
overpriced 150's compared to their other bulbs, based on true costs
including everything, and the other companies also overpriced the same
product, I think that would look like price fixing. Whether people
from each maker have to discuss it or not was iirc right on the
borderline == it was the critical issue in one case -- and I don't
remember if actual discussion was necessary, or if one company could
just note where the other company priced something and then price it
the same way, whether that was ok or not.

Maybe there is some other ng that knows more about this, a marketing
or business or lightbulb newsgroup?

Sherwin D.

On Fri, 07 Apr 2006 19:58:09 GMT, Paul M. Eldridge
wrote:

I can actually measure the lifespan of some of my CFLs in decades (the
7 and 9 watt Philips PL models I bought back in 1984) and others
literally minutes -- in the case, all Lights of America.

You guys are doing much better than me. I rarely have one last
more than a couple years.

I use them because they do last longer than incandescents & save a few
KWh of electricity.

The downsides;
Won't fit inside some glass covers.
Some are noisy.
Some don't give full light for a few minutes.
They are expensive- even if the electrical savings are calcuted at
face value.

Jim

Hi Jim,

I wonder if this ties back to my earlier comment regarding brand.
I've had exceptionally good luck with Philips and Osram Sylvania and
an absolutely disastrous experience with Lights of America (I don't
know if they're any better today, as I stopped buying their products
some fifteen years ago).

It seems the technology continues to improve, year by year, and with
the introduction of the new "mini-twist" CFLs, some of these lamps are
now actually physically smaller than the incandescent bulbs they
replace. And I believe any products that are "Energy Star" certified
must meet specific standards in terms of energy efficiency, operating
performance and service life. But, generally speaking, electronic
ballasts should eliminate any issues with flicker and ballast noise,
and CFLs that employ amalgam technology work much better over a wide
range of temperatures and reach full brightness in much less time.

Lastly, the cost of CFLs has fallen dramatically over time and this
trend, if it should continue, combined with steadily rising power
rates, should make CFLs increasingly more popular.

Cheers,
Paul

On Sat, 08 Apr 2006 09:43:33 -0400, Jim Elbrecht
wrote:

You guys are doing much better than me. I rarely have one last
more than a couple years.

I use them because they do last longer than incandescents & save a few
KWh of electricity.

The downsides;
Won't fit inside some glass covers.
Some are noisy.
Some don't give full light for a few minutes.
They are expensive- even if the electrical savings are calcuted at
face value.

Jim

"Jim Elbrecht" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 07 Apr 2006 19:58:09 GMT, Paul M. Eldridge
wrote:

I can actually measure the lifespan of some of my CFLs in decades (the
7 and 9 watt Philips PL models I bought back in 1984) and others
literally minutes -- in the case, all Lights of America.

You guys are doing much better than me. I rarely have one last
more than a couple years.

I use them because they do last longer than incandescents & save a few
KWh of electricity.

The downsides;
Won't fit inside some glass covers.
Some are noisy.
Some don't give full light for a few minutes.
They are expensive- even if the electrical savings are calcuted at
face value.

Jim

I second the comment on Lights of America. It is crap.
MG

Paul M. Eldridge wrote:
Hi Jim,

I wonder if this ties back to my earlier comment regarding brand.
I've had exceptionally good luck with Philips and Osram Sylvania and
an absolutely disastrous experience with Lights of America (I don't
know if they're any better today, as I stopped buying their products
some fifteen years ago).

It seems the technology continues to improve, year by year, and with
the introduction of the new "mini-twist" CFLs, some of these lamps are
now actually physically smaller than the incandescent bulbs they
replace. And I believe any products that are "Energy Star" certified
must meet specific standards in terms of energy efficiency, operating
performance and service life. But, generally speaking, electronic
ballasts should eliminate any issues with flicker and ballast noise,
and CFLs that employ amalgam technology work much better over a wide
range of temperatures and reach full brightness in much less time.

Lastly, the cost of CFLs has fallen dramatically over time and this
trend, if it should continue, combined with steadily rising power
rates, should make CFLs increasingly more popular.

Cheers,
Paul


I will be purchasing of the 15W mini twist lamps (70W equivalent) on
Tuesday/Wednesday in 6400K color temp. The lamps are just under 5" tall
and about 2 inches wide. They fit ANYWHERE a 60W or 75W incandescent
bulb would fit. Similar bulbs at Walmart (although not 6400K) are a bit
higher, but under $3 each.

To get Phillips and Osram brands will require selective shopping as the
only places I can recall seeing them is at Home Deport and/or Lowes.

I just tested a newly installed 13W mini twist (GE brand - made in
china). From flipping the switch to full brightness was about 3-5
seconds. This design is several years old, and the current year models
are even faster to turn on.





Cost per lamp is $2.10

In article , sherwindu wrote:
I notice in all the stores around me that a 150 watt bulb costs as much
as 4 100 watt bulbs. The cost of manufacturing the 150 cannot be that
much more than a 100 watt. Must be the cardboard package that makes the
difference. Mr. Bell is probably turning in his grave over this
consumer rip-off.

The "A19" bulbs - the "usual size" 25, 40, 60, 75 and 100 watt ones -
are made in much higher volume on full-time dedicated highly automated
high volume production lines.
Did you ever notice that these sizes not only cost less than higher
wattage bulbs of that basic shape, but also cost less than 15 watt ones of
that basic shape and 7.5 watt ones of the same base size? Or that 4-foot
fluorescents (32 watt T8 as well as 34 and 40 watt T12) cost less than
ones of any other size?

And, 25-100 watt ones sell from shelf space that has a higher turnover -
lower cost related to square footage of space to be displayed on - not
even counting that 150 watt ones not only sell more slowly at any price,
but also take up more display space. But I don't think this is as big a
reason as that they don't get made by a highly automated high volume
production line that works full time and makes a truckload of packaged
lightbulbs with man-hours perhaps few enough to count on one hand!

If you want an idea as to how automated the manufacturing and packaging
is: Look at the packages for countries of manufacture! 25-100 watt A10
lightbulbs of "Big 3" brands as well as supermarket store brands of same
hour life expectancy and same lumen light output are made in the USA and
Canada! 4-foot fluorescents are made in USA, Canada and Europe! 7.5 watt
G10 lightbulbs and 7 and 4 watt C7 nightlight bulbs are made in China, but
Sylvania 100 watt lightbulbs selling at Lowes for 50 or 95 cents per
4-pack are made in USA!

- Don Klipstein )

In , dnoyeB wrote in part:

Bulbs currently are way overpriced and hardly last past 6 months where I
live.

Keep in mind where most of the cost of obtaining and operating an
incandescent lightbulb is - the electricity to operate it!

Suppose you get a 75 watt incandescent costing $1.50 at a convenience
store (as opposed to less per 4-pack at Lowes) and designed to last 750
hours and producing 1210 lumens, and a 100 watt one with the filament
being operated less aggressively operated so as to produce the same amount
of light - at which point it would have life expectancy in the 10,000's of
hours. For the sake of argument, suppose the 100 watt lightbulb with same
light output as the 750 hour $1.25 lightbulb lasted forever and was given
away for free! (As opposed to 100 watt dollar store, Sunbeam and
Polaraoid lightbulbs costing $1 per 3-pack, producing less light than a
usual 750 hour 75W lightbulb and with rated life expectancy of 1000 or
1100 hours.)

Cost over 750 hours:

75 watt 750 hour lightbulb hypothetical free 100 watt forever-bulb


Lightbulb $1.50 Nothing
(13-30 cents if
you shop around)

Electricity (at
USA-average
residential rate
10 cents per KWH) $56.25 $75.00


Bottom line $56.38-$57.75 plus $75.00
labor of replacing bulb

Any idea now why lightbulbs often have filaments run so aggressively
hot? A few decades ago there were even congressional hearings into
this matter!
Any idea now why compact fluorescents are a better deal, even if you
have a situation wheree you need 1 wattage up to get the light you want
even if they last only half as long as they do under standardized
conditions?

- Don Klipstein )

In article , sherwindu wrote:
Right you are. Wrong inventor, but the idea is the same. I realize that
smaller bulbs
are more popular, but that's still no justification for the price
differential. By the way,
that is a one way bulb. Three ways are just as expensive, but there I can
see a difference in technology that might warrent a price increase.

I thought a 150 watt bulb costs a mediumish-low price of a 4-pack of
100-watt ones (maybe $1.75), and a 50-100-150 watt costs much more still -
a little below the $3-$3.50 supermarket price of a 4-pack of 100 watt
ones.

It appears to me that supermarkets need to make money from 25-100 watt
lightbulbs in order to pay the rent on shelf space for the 150 watt ones
that need to be displayed because supermarkets would lose customer loyalty
without 150 watt lightbulbs, and also to pay for what they have to give
out in pre-Thanksgiving prime shopping period in order to build or
maintain year-round market share.
Ever notice that supermarkets often don't even have 200 watt lightbulbs?
Ever see supermarkets with 300 watt ones - even home centers often don't
sell those, but many hardware stores do!

- Don Klipstein )