The hallway bathrooms in the small office building we've rented in for
many years use motion detectors to turn on the overhead flourescents
when someone enters, and they stay on for about 5 minutes after there's
no longer anyone moving around in them. (DAMHIKT, but it involved an
interesting magazine article which absorbed my attention for over 5
minutes. G)

Those motion detectors seem like a good idea to me because they keep
from wasting electricity by keeping the bathroom lights off for what's
probably over 95% of the time the building's occupied. Unless maybe the
costs of having to replace the flourescent bulbs more frequently because
of that switching on and off, will eat up the savings, but that's not
the point of this post....

SWMBO and I were visiting my cousin in San Jose, California last week.
She'd just had a new home built for her. My wife used one of the
bathrooms and was startled when the lights went off before she was
through with her business.

My cousin explained that all the bathrooms' lights were turned on by
motion detectors when someone entered them, and there was a means
provided to keep them on for a longer time than the few minutes my wife
experienced.

She told me the electrician who'd wired the place for her said the
motion detectors were required by code on new construction there, but
she hadn't been given a reason why.

My inquiring mind wants to know if that's really a code requirement, and
if so, what's the underlying reason. All I can think of is some whacky
safety issue to avoid someone entering a dark bathroom from stumbling
and ending up with their head stuck in the toilet because they couldn't
find the light switch. G

So, what is it? (Or was her electrician maybe off base?)

Thanks guys,

Jeff

--
Jeffry Wisnia
(W1BSV + Brass Rat '57 EE)
The speed of light is 1.98*10^14 fathoms per fortnight.

Codes are local, and you did say California. Makes perfect (non)sense to me



"Jeff Wisnia" wrote in message
. ..

The hallway bathrooms in the small office building we've rented in for
many years use motion detectors to turn on the overhead flourescents when
someone enters, and they stay on for about 5 minutes after there's no
longer anyone moving around in them. (DAMHIKT, but it involved an
interesting magazine article which absorbed my attention for over 5
minutes. G)

Those motion detectors seem like a good idea to me because they keep from
wasting electricity by keeping the bathroom lights off for what's probably
over 95% of the time the building's occupied. Unless maybe the costs of
having to replace the flourescent bulbs more frequently because of that
switching on and off, will eat up the savings, but that's not the point of
this post....

SWMBO and I were visiting my cousin in San Jose, California last week.
She'd just had a new home built for her. My wife used one of the bathrooms
and was startled when the lights went off before she was through with her
business.

My cousin explained that all the bathrooms' lights were turned on by
motion detectors when someone entered them, and there was a means provided
to keep them on for a longer time than the few minutes my wife
experienced.

She told me the electrician who'd wired the place for her said the motion
detectors were required by code on new construction there, but she hadn't
been given a reason why.

My inquiring mind wants to know if that's really a code requirement, and
if so, what's the underlying reason. All I can think of is some whacky
safety issue to avoid someone entering a dark bathroom from stumbling and
ending up with their head stuck in the toilet because they couldn't find
the light switch. G

So, what is it? (Or was her electrician maybe off base?)

Thanks guys,

Jeff

--
Jeffry Wisnia
(W1BSV + Brass Rat '57 EE)
The speed of light is 1.98*10^14 fathoms per fortnight.

In article ,
"
"Jeff Wisnia" wrote in message
. ..


She told me the electrician who'd wired the place for her said the motion
detectors were required by code on new construction there, but she hadn't
been given a reason why.

My inquiring mind wants to know if that's really a code requirement, and
if so, what's the underlying reason. All I can think of is some whacky
safety issue to avoid someone entering a dark bathroom from stumbling and
ending up with their head stuck in the toilet because they couldn't find
the light switch. G

So, what is it? (Or was her electrician maybe off base?)

Given that it is California, I have no doubt it is code. My guess,
again since it is Ca, is that someone's honcho's worthless
brother-in-law makes them... er I mean that it is an energy saving
effort.

What's really annoying about mandating "energy saving" devices like that is
that for those of us that conscientiously turn off lights when leaving a
room, we wind up with higher electric bills as our lights are always on five
minutes longer than necessary , not to mention the $30 to $50 for the switch





"Jeff Wisnia" wrote in message
. ..

The hallway bathrooms in the small office building we've rented in for
many years use motion detectors to turn on the overhead flourescents when
someone enters, and they stay on for about 5 minutes after there's no
longer anyone moving around in them. (DAMHIKT, but it involved an
interesting magazine article which absorbed my attention for over 5
minutes. G)

Those motion detectors seem like a good idea to me because they keep from
wasting electricity by keeping the bathroom lights off for what's probably
over 95% of the time the building's occupied. Unless maybe the costs of
having to replace the flourescent bulbs more frequently because of that
switching on and off, will eat up the savings, but that's not the point of
this post....

SWMBO and I were visiting my cousin in San Jose, California last week.
She'd just had a new home built for her. My wife used one of the bathrooms
and was startled when the lights went off before she was through with her
business.

My cousin explained that all the bathrooms' lights were turned on by
motion detectors when someone entered them, and there was a means provided
to keep them on for a longer time than the few minutes my wife
experienced.

She told me the electrician who'd wired the place for her said the motion
detectors were required by code on new construction there, but she hadn't
been given a reason why.

My inquiring mind wants to know if that's really a code requirement, and
if so, what's the underlying reason. All I can think of is some whacky
safety issue to avoid someone entering a dark bathroom from stumbling and
ending up with their head stuck in the toilet because they couldn't find
the light switch. G

So, what is it? (Or was her electrician maybe off base?)

Thanks guys,

Jeff

--
Jeffry Wisnia
(W1BSV + Brass Rat '57 EE)
The speed of light is 1.98*10^14 fathoms per fortnight.

On Sep 3, 7:05 pm, Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,
"

"Jeff Wisnia" wrote in message
...

She told me the electrician who'd wired the place for her said the motion
detectors were required by code on new construction there, but she hadn't
been given a reason why.

My inquiring mind wants to know if that's really a code requirement, and
if so, what's the underlying reason. All I can think of is some whacky
safety issue to avoid someone entering a dark bathroom from stumbling and
ending up with their head stuck in the toilet because they couldn't find
the light switch. G

So, what is it? (Or was her electrician maybe off base?)

Given that it is California, I have no doubt it is code. My guess,
again since it is Ca, is that someone's honcho's worthless
brother-in-law makes them... er I mean that it is an energy saving
effort.

Energy saving code reqt would be my guess too. They want to ban the
incandescent bulb in CA too. I'm trying a few of those CFL flood
type bulbs that are supposed to be so great myself. So far, I'm not
impressed. They take about 2 mins to reach any reasonable
brightness. I put two in about two months ago, and one just went out
already. 4X Life? I don't think so!

On Mon, 03 Sep 2007 18:51:35 -0400 Jeff Wisnia wrote:
Those motion detectors seem like a good idea to me because they keep
from wasting electricity by keeping the bathroom lights off for what's
....
SWMBO and I were visiting my cousin in San Jose, California last
week. She'd just had a new home built for her. My wife used one of the
bathrooms and was startled when the lights went off before she was
through with her business.
....
My inquiring mind wants to know if that's really a code requirement,

Yes, it is.

and if so, what's the underlying reason.

You said it yourself, to save electricity. An occupant sensor is now
required in many rooms, incl. bathroom & kitchen, unless you use
energy efficient bulbs.

-frank

On Mon, 3 Sep 2007 19:35:49 -0400 "RBM" rbm2(remove wrote:
What's really annoying about mandating "energy saving" devices like that is
that for those of us that conscientiously turn off lights when leaving a
room, we wind up with higher electric bills as our lights are always on five
minutes longer than necessary , not to mention the $30 to $50 for the switch

I haven't seen any of the timer switches that don't allow to you manually
control the light as well.

-frank

In article .com,
wrote:


Energy saving code reqt would be my guess too. They want to ban the
incandescent bulb in CA too. I'm trying a few of those CFL flood
type bulbs that are supposed to be so great myself. So far, I'm not
impressed. They take about 2 mins to reach any reasonable
brightness. I put two in about two months ago, and one just went out
already. 4X Life? I don't think so!

The other thing is the mercury. While I admit that each one is small,
DOE says 55 millions light bulbs are sold PER day in the US. My
calculator doesn't go high enuff to figure out yearly. If all (or even a
hefty %age are CFL, and they get thrown out into landfills, why will
that not cause problems over the years. Reminds me of the EPA calling
for the additive EBDT (IIRC) to gasoline as a oxygenator and then after
10 or 15 years pulling it from the market and calling for Superfund type
clean-ups after it became carcinogenic.

clipped

So, what is it? (Or was her electrician maybe off base?)

Thanks guys,

Jeff

I did a quick Google search and found this:
http://www.energy.ca.gov/2005publica...6_Lighting.pdf

It talks about "luminaires" and "occupant sensors". Is "luminaire"
Californiaese for "light bulb"? Sounds like it is a code requirement.
California is the place with overloaded elec. demands in hot weather, right?

http://my.earthlink.net/article/top?...0903-957147757

That's true, but the switch is typically an inconvenient three position
slide type that's a pita to operate



"Frank Cusack" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 3 Sep 2007 19:35:49 -0400 "RBM" rbm2(remove
wrote:
What's really annoying about mandating "energy saving" devices like that
is
that for those of us that conscientiously turn off lights when leaving a
room, we wind up with higher electric bills as our lights are always on
five
minutes longer than necessary , not to mention the $30 to $50 for the
switch

I haven't seen any of the timer switches that don't allow to you manually
control the light as well.

-frank

Norminn wrote:

clipped


So, what is it? (Or was her electrician maybe off base?)

Thanks guys,

Jeff

I did a quick Google search and found this:
http://www.energy.ca.gov/2005publica...6_Lighting.pdf


It talks about "luminaires" and "occupant sensors". Is "luminaire"
Californiaese for "light bulb"? Sounds like it is a code requirement.
California is the place with overloaded elec. demands in hot weather,
right?


From further down in the same document:

*******************

A luminaire is the lighting industry’s term for light fixture. A
luminaire consists of the housing, power supply (ballast), lamp,
reflector, and in some cases a lens. A lamp is the lighting industry’s
term for a light bulb. Luminaires can be designed to be recessed into
the ceiling, suspended by a rod or chain, or surface mounted
on the wall or ceiling.

A high efficacy luminaire is one that contains only high efficacy lamps
and must not contain a conventional (medium) screw-based socket.
Typically, high efficacy luminaires contain, pin-based sockets, like
compact or linear fluorescent lamp sockets, though other types such as
screw sockets specifically rated for high intensity discharge lamps
(like metal halide lamps) may also be eligible for exterior use.

Luminaires with modular components that allow conversion between
screw-based and pin-based sockets without changing the luminaire housing
or wiring shall not be considered high efficacy luminaires. These
requirements prevent low efficacy lamps being retrofitted in high
efficacy luminaires. Also, compact fluorescent luminaires with
permanently installed ballasts that are capable of operating a range of
lamp wattages, the highest operating input wattage of the rated
lamp/ballast combination must be use for determining the luminaire wattage.

There are two qualifying requirements for a high efficacy luminai
that the lumens per watt for the lamp be above a specified threshold and
that electronic ballasts be used in certain applications.

*************************************

So, I guess the guy who decided to put those motion detectors in our
office building's bathrooms over ten years ago was way ahead of his
time. G

Jeff

--
Jeffry Wisnia
(W1BSV + Brass Rat '57 EE)
The speed of light is 1.98*10^14 fathoms per fortnight.

In article , Kurt Ullman wrote:

The other thing is the mercury. While I admit that each one is small,
DOE says 55 millions light bulbs are sold PER day in the US. My
calculator doesn't go high enuff to figure out yearly. If all (or even a
hefty %age are CFL, and they get thrown out into landfills, why will
that not cause problems over the years.

Remember that the lifespan of a CFL bulb is measured in years instead of
months -- so the number of CFLs going into the landfills isn't going to be
anywhere near the number of incandescent bulbs.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

In article ,
says...

Remember that the lifespan of a CFL bulb is measured in years instead of
months -- so the number of CFLs going into the landfills isn't going to be
anywhere near the number of incandescent bulbs.

I'd amend that to "the lifespan of a CFL bulb *in a suitable
application* is measured in years instead of months." I suggest not
replacing the incandescent bulb inside your oven with a CFL, for
example, unless you want a bulb lifespan measured in minutes instead of
years. And most CFs don't work so well at subzero temperatures when
used outdoors or in your freezer.

I hope whoever is banning incandescent bulbs provides exceptions for
applications where incandescents are the most suitable technology.

--
is Joshua Putnam
http://www.phred.org/~josh/
Braze your own bicycle frames. See
http://www.phred.org/~josh/build/build.html

In article , says...

You said it yourself, to save electricity. An occupant sensor is now
required in many rooms, incl. bathroom & kitchen, unless you use
energy efficient bulbs.

Surely these get disabled in the majority of bathrooms as soon as the
owner figures out how to do it? Or am I the only person who doesn't
*want* all the lights to come on when nature calls at night?

--
is Joshua Putnam
http://www.phred.org/~josh/
Braze your own bicycle frames. See
http://www.phred.org/~josh/build/build.html

wrote in message
.net...
In article , says...

You said it yourself, to save electricity. An occupant sensor is now
required in many rooms, incl. bathroom & kitchen, unless you use
energy efficient bulbs.

Surely these get disabled in the majority of bathrooms as soon as the
owner figures out how to do it? Or am I the only person who doesn't
*want* all the lights to come on when nature calls at night?

That's fer damn sure. Anything brighter than a night-light triggers the
'morning' subroutine in my head, and I can forget about getting back to
sleep.

I'll control how the lighting circuits in my damn house work, thank you very
much NannyState. I'm no wastrel- I keep things pretty dark. But I choose
what goes on and off, and when.

aem sends...

Oops- accidently send via e-mail instead of posting. (Gotta quit using
Usenet to distract me when sinuses wake me up at 0300....

----- Original Message -----
From: "ameijers"
To:
Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2007 3:36 AM
Subject: Motion Detecting Lights in Bathrooms - Code??



----- Original Message -----
From:
Newsgroups: alt.home.repair
Sent: Monday, September 03, 2007 10:57 PM
Subject: Motion Detecting Lights in Bathrooms - Code??


On Tue, 04 Sep 2007 03:11:14 GMT, "aemeijers"
wrote:


wrote in message
ast.net...
In article ,
says...

You said it yourself, to save electricity. An occupant sensor is now
required in many rooms, incl. bathroom & kitchen, unless you use
energy efficient bulbs.

Surely these get disabled in the majority of bathrooms as soon as the
owner figures out how to do it? Or am I the only person who doesn't
*want* all the lights to come on when nature calls at night?

That's fer damn sure. Anything brighter than a night-light triggers the
'morning' subroutine in my head, and I can forget about getting back to
sleep.

I'll control how the lighting circuits in my damn house work, thank you
very
much NannyState. I'm no wastrel- I keep things pretty dark. But I
choose
what goes on and off, and when.

aem sends...


I have motion lights all over my house for "walking around light" at a
low level and once you get used to them you won't want to go back to
switches. I also have "task lighting" that is switch controlled when
you need it.
This all started with a motioned controlled light in the kitchen
because the wife and kids were using the refrigerator as a night
light.

Way too complex a solution, IMHO. 3 or 4 of those 'glowing panel' LED
night
lights, that use next to no juice, according to the package, provide all
the
'walking around' light I need. My night vision is still fine, as long as
no
bright lights are present. (oncoming headlights at night are starting to
be
a problem, once I hit the wrong side of 40.)

Maybe if I hit Lotto and build my dream house, I'll include toys like
that,
all linked to one of those household computers like they show on This Old
House. Always a risk adding hi-tech that lasts ten years to a house that
lasts 100 years, though.

aem sends....

on 9/3/2007 8:14 PM Norminn said the following:
clipped

So, what is it? (Or was her electrician maybe off base?)

Thanks guys,

Jeff

I did a quick Google search and found this:
http://www.energy.ca.gov/2005publica...6_Lighting.pdf


It talks about "luminaires" and "occupant sensors". Is "luminaire"
Californiaese for "light bulb"? Sounds like it is a code requirement.
California is the place with overloaded elec. demands in hot weather,
right?

Well, if California was on the east coast, it would run from NYC to the
Georgia border. How much electricity is used in those 7 or so states in
hot weather?
(exclude the rest of NYS, since it is all north of NYC)

--

Bill
In Hamptonburgh, NY
To email, remove the double zeroes after @

On Tue, 04 Sep 2007 03:11:14 GMT, "aemeijers"
wrote:


wrote in message
t.net...
In article , says...

You said it yourself, to save electricity. An occupant sensor is now
required in many rooms, incl. bathroom & kitchen, unless you use
energy efficient bulbs.

Surely these get disabled in the majority of bathrooms as soon as the
owner figures out how to do it? Or am I the only person who doesn't
*want* all the lights to come on when nature calls at night?

That's fer damn sure. Anything brighter than a night-light triggers the
'morning' subroutine in my head, and I can forget about getting back to
sleep.

I'll control how the lighting circuits in my damn house work, thank you very
much NannyState. I'm no wastrel- I keep things pretty dark. But I choose
what goes on and off, and when.

aem sends...


I put a string on LED holiday lights in my bathroom. I don't need
anything else just to pee.
--
112 days until the winter solstice celebration

Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.laughingsquid.com

"Unlike biological evolution. 'intelligent design' is
not a genuine scientific theory and, therefore, has
no place in the curriculum of our nation's public
school classes." -- Ted Kennedy

willshak wrote:

Well, if California was on the east coast, it would run from NYC to
the Georgia border. How much electricity is used in those 7 or so
states in hot weather?
(exclude the rest of NYS, since it is all north of NYC)

Megawatts (May 07)

California - 16,601

New Jersey - 4,550
Delaware - 481
Maryland - 3,855
North Carolina - 10,463
South Carolina - 7,908
Georgia - 12,571

Total - 26,253

This doesn't count New York (11,537), D.C. (~1), West Virginia (7,992), or
Pennsylvania (17,971)

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electri...able1_6_a.html

HeyBub wrote:

Megawatts (May 07)...

No. Thousands of megawatt hours, vs megawatts, ie energy vs power.

California - 16,601...

Nick

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electri...able1_6_a.html

Switch out with regular switches if tyou dont like them.


On Sep 3, 7:35 pm, "RBM" rbm2(remove wrote:
What's really annoying about mandating "energy saving" devices like that is
that for those of us that conscientiously turn off lights when leaving a
room, we wind up with higher electric bills as our lights are always on five
minutes longer than necessary , not to mention the $30 to $50 for the switch

"Jeff Wisnia" wrote in message

. ..





The hallway bathrooms in the small office building we've rented in for
many years use motion detectors to turn on the overhead flourescents when
someone enters, and they stay on for about 5 minutes after there's no
longer anyone moving around in them. (DAMHIKT, but it involved an
interesting magazine article which absorbed my attention for over 5
minutes. G)

Those motion detectors seem like a good idea to me because they keep from
wasting electricity by keeping the bathroom lights off for what's probably
over 95% of the time the building's occupied. Unless maybe the costs of
having to replace the flourescent bulbs more frequently because of that
switching on and off, will eat up the savings, but that's not the point of
this post....

SWMBO and I were visiting my cousin in San Jose, California last week.
She'd just had a new home built for her. My wife used one of the bathrooms
and was startled when the lights went off before she was through with her
business.

My cousin explained that all the bathrooms' lights were turned on by
motion detectors when someone entered them, and there was a means provided
to keep them on for a longer time than the few minutes my wife
experienced.

She told me the electrician who'd wired the place for her said the motion
detectors were required by code on new construction there, but she hadn't
been given a reason why.

My inquiring mind wants to know if that's really a code requirement, and
if so, what's the underlying reason. All I can think of is some whacky
safety issue to avoid someone entering a dark bathroom from stumbling and
ending up with their head stuck in the toilet because they couldn't find
the light switch. G

So, what is it? (Or was her electrician maybe off base?)

Thanks guys,

Jeff

--
Jeffry Wisnia
(W1BSV + Brass Rat '57 EE)
The speed of light is 1.98*10^14 fathoms per fortnight.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

wrote:
I'm trying a few of those CFL flood
type bulbs that are supposed to be so great myself. So far, I'm not
impressed. They take about 2 mins to reach any reasonable
brightness. I put two in about two months ago, and one just went out
already. 4X Life? I don't think so!

Different brands behave differently. I have some that take a while to
brighten up, and some that come on instantly.

Most manufacturers will replace the bulbs if they die prematurely...I
have some bulbs that are ~4yrs old and still work fine.

Chris

Kurt Ullman wrote:

The other thing is the mercury. While I admit that each one is small,
DOE says 55 millions light bulbs are sold PER day in the US. My
calculator doesn't go high enuff to figure out yearly. If all (or even a
hefty %age are CFL, and they get thrown out into landfills, why will
that not cause problems over the years.

Around here most electricity is produced by coal-fired plants. Burning
coal releases a certain amount of mercury. The reduced electrical
demand from the CFL means that over its lifetime the amount of mercury
saved by using less power outweighs the mercury in the bulb itself.

Thus, a net reduction in the amount of mercury in the environment.

Chris

In article ,
Chris Friesen wrote:

Kurt Ullman wrote:

The other thing is the mercury. While I admit that each one is small,
DOE says 55 millions light bulbs are sold PER day in the US. My
calculator doesn't go high enuff to figure out yearly. If all (or even a
hefty %age are CFL, and they get thrown out into landfills, why will
that not cause problems over the years.

Around here most electricity is produced by coal-fired plants. Burning
coal releases a certain amount of mercury. The reduced electrical
demand from the CFL means that over its lifetime the amount of mercury
saved by using less power outweighs the mercury in the bulb itself.

Thus, a net reduction in the amount of mercury in the environment.

But much more concentrated around landfills. Also, how about the
direct exposures from cleaning up broken ones? Anyone really think
people are going to know to open up windows for awhile before cleaning
up? Know enough not to get the vacuum cleaner out?

Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,
Chris Friesen wrote:


Kurt Ullman wrote:


The other thing is the mercury. While I admit that each one is small,
DOE says 55 millions light bulbs are sold PER day in the US. My
calculator doesn't go high enuff to figure out yearly. If all (or even a
hefty %age are CFL, and they get thrown out into landfills, why will
that not cause problems over the years.

Around here most electricity is produced by coal-fired plants. Burning
coal releases a certain amount of mercury. The reduced electrical
demand from the CFL means that over its lifetime the amount of mercury
saved by using less power outweighs the mercury in the bulb itself.

Thus, a net reduction in the amount of mercury in the environment.


But much more concentrated around landfills. Also, how about the
direct exposures from cleaning up broken ones? Anyone really think
people are going to know to open up windows for awhile before cleaning
up? Know enough not to get the vacuum cleaner out?


It's just amazing that I managed to survive to my present age (71-1/2)
after all the times I'd smear mercury onto silver coins as a kid.

And while I do get plenty mad at stupid things, nobody's yet accused me
of being "mad as a hatter". G

Jeff



--
Jeffry Wisnia
(W1BSV + Brass Rat '57 EE)
The speed of light is 1.8*10^12 furlongs per fortnight.

Funny guy, you hit a Canadian site and luminaire is the French word for a
light fixture. But to every cloud there is a silver ( probably mercury)
lining, I was actually looking for that site )

Montreal

"Norminn" wrote in message
...
clipped

So, what is it? (Or was her electrician maybe off base?)

Thanks guys,

Jeff

I did a quick Google search and found this:
http://www.energy.ca.gov/2005publica...6_Lighting.pdf

It talks about "luminaires" and "occupant sensors". Is "luminaire"
Californiaese for "light bulb"? Sounds like it is a code requirement.
California is the place with overloaded elec. demands in hot weather,
right?

claude wrote:
Funny guy, you hit a Canadian site and luminaire is the French word for a
light fixture. But to every cloud there is a silver ( probably mercury)
lining, I was actually looking for that site )

Montreal

"Norminn" wrote in message
...

clipped

So, what is it? (Or was her electrician maybe off base?)

Thanks guys,

Jeff


I did a quick Google search and found this:
http://www.energy.ca.gov/2005publica...6_Lighting.pdf

It talks about "luminaires" and "occupant sensors". Is "luminaire"
Californiaese for "light bulb"? Sounds like it is a code requirement.
California is the place with overloaded elec. demands in hot weather,
right?




I wonder about my sanity, often but briefly ) I KNOW I had been on
the website for San Jose, California, USA. I googled again, got to
California, turned left and ended up in Canada again )

Go he

http://www.sanjoseca.gov/building/Electric.asp

Under "Kitchen and Bath Lighting", click on the "Residential T-24 Energy
Manual ...............

claude wrote:

Funny guy, you hit a Canadian site and luminaire is the French word for a

.......and I'm not a guy. Merci.

On Sep 3, 7:37 pm, wrote:
On Sep 3, 7:05 pm, Kurt Ullman wrote:





In article ,
"

"Jeff Wisnia" wrote in message
...

She told me the electrician who'd wired the place for her said the motion
detectors were required by code on new construction there, but she hadn't
been given a reason why.

My inquiring mind wants to know if that's really a code requirement, and
if so, what's the underlying reason. All I can think of is some whacky
safety issue to avoid someone entering a dark bathroom from stumbling and
ending up with their head stuck in the toilet because they couldn't find
the light switch. G

So, what is it? (Or was her electrician maybe off base?)

Given that it is California, I have no doubt it is code. My guess,
again since it is Ca, is that someone's honcho's worthless
brother-in-law makes them... er I mean that it is an energy saving
effort.

Energy saving code reqt would be my guess too. They want tobantheincandescentbulb in CA too. I'm trying a few of those CFL flood
type bulbs that are supposed to be so great myself. So far, I'm not
impressed. They take about 2 mins to reach any reasonable
brightness. I put two in about two months ago, and one just went out
already. 4X Life? I don't think so!- Hide quoted text -

I have tried and tried these CFLs and find them hugely disappointing.
I
really think this is going to become the 1.6-gallon-toilet of the new
generation - a few work somewhat well, most don't, but the reports
from
the field are all hidden under the glowing, glowing hype. Leaving
the
closet light on because it won't come to full brightness quickly might
become the next double-flush.

I mean, I really *wanted* the CFLs to work. I like fluorescents, but
give me T8s in a proper fixture and keep the damn CFLs except for
a few special cases. Not only is there the brightness problem, but

-the light is poor in quality in most of the ones most people can
afford

-there is no discussion of power factor because nobody knows about it

-No energy is saved during the heating season

-even the most compact CFLs are bulky and heavy, and won't fit a lot
of
fixtures, and overstress sockets.

-in a fully enclosed fixture, I find that CFLs tend to overheat and
fail

-light output is often significantly lower than the incandescents the
bulb is "compared to" on the package.

Of course, nobody sees anything past the "ENERGY SAVINGS!!! YAY!"

wrote:


I have tried and tried these CFLs and find them hugely disappointing.
I
really think this is going to become the 1.6-gallon-toilet of the new
generation - a few work somewhat well, most don't, but the reports
from
the field are all hidden under the glowing, glowing hype. Leaving
the
closet light on because it won't come to full brightness quickly might
become the next double-flush.

I mean, I really *wanted* the CFLs to work. I like fluorescents, but
give me T8s in a proper fixture and keep the damn CFLs except for
a few special cases. Not only is there the brightness problem, but

-the light is poor in quality in most of the ones most people can
afford

-there is no discussion of power factor because nobody knows about it

-No energy is saved during the heating season

-even the most compact CFLs are bulky and heavy, and won't fit a lot
of
fixtures, and overstress sockets.

-in a fully enclosed fixture, I find that CFLs tend to overheat and
fail

-light output is often significantly lower than the incandescents the
bulb is "compared to" on the package.

Of course, nobody sees anything past the "ENERGY SAVINGS!!! YAY!"

I've been using CFLs for quite a while and have not experienced any of
the claimed issues. Color temperatures are good, initial brightness and
time to full brightness are fine in living area conditions, no CFL
meltdowns, no fit issues vs. "A" incandescents, etc. Only in an unheated
storage container in CT winter is there a noticeable dim start and full
brightness in a couple minutes and that's hardly a problem.

On Oct 8, 4:16 pm, "Pete C." wrote:
wrote:

I have tried and tried these CFLs and find them hugely disappointing.
I
really think this is going to become the 1.6-gallon-toilet of the new
generation - a few work somewhat well, most don't, but the reports
from
the field are all hidden under the glowing, glowing hype. Leaving
the
closet light on because it won't come to full brightness quickly might
become the next double-flush.

I mean, I really *wanted* the CFLs to work. I like fluorescents, but
give me T8s in a proper fixture and keep the damn CFLs except for
a few special cases. Not only is there the brightness problem, but

-the light is poor in quality in most of the ones most people can
afford

-there is no discussion of power factor because nobody knows about it

-No energy is saved during the heating season

-even the most compact CFLs are bulky and heavy, and won't fit a lot
of
fixtures, and overstress sockets.

-in a fully enclosed fixture, I find that CFLs tend to overheat and
fail

-light output is often significantly lower than the incandescents the
bulb is "compared to" on the package.

Of course, nobody sees anything past the "ENERGY SAVINGS!!! YAY!"

I've been using CFLs for quite a while and have not experienced any of
the claimed issues. Color temperatures are good, initial brightness and
time to full brightness are fine in living area conditions, no CFL
meltdowns, no fit issues vs. "A" incandescents, etc. Only in an unheated
storage container in CT winter is there a noticeable dim start and full
brightness in a couple minutes and that's hardly a problem.

I'd posted a while back about the CFL's I was using in my bathroom
(large globes) first brand I tried had unacceptable warm up time,
second brand seemed initially OK but now that they've been in a month
or two they're starting to exhibit long warm up times as well. Anyone
recommend a brand that really works well?

nate

N8N wrote:

On Oct 8, 4:16 pm, "Pete C." wrote:
wrote:

I have tried and tried these CFLs and find them hugely disappointing.
I
really think this is going to become the 1.6-gallon-toilet of the new
generation - a few work somewhat well, most don't, but the reports
from
the field are all hidden under the glowing, glowing hype. Leaving
the
closet light on because it won't come to full brightness quickly might
become the next double-flush.

I mean, I really *wanted* the CFLs to work. I like fluorescents, but
give me T8s in a proper fixture and keep the damn CFLs except for
a few special cases. Not only is there the brightness problem, but

-the light is poor in quality in most of the ones most people can
afford

-there is no discussion of power factor because nobody knows about it

-No energy is saved during the heating season

-even the most compact CFLs are bulky and heavy, and won't fit a lot
of
fixtures, and overstress sockets.

-in a fully enclosed fixture, I find that CFLs tend to overheat and
fail

-light output is often significantly lower than the incandescents the
bulb is "compared to" on the package.

Of course, nobody sees anything past the "ENERGY SAVINGS!!! YAY!"

I've been using CFLs for quite a while and have not experienced any of
the claimed issues. Color temperatures are good, initial brightness and
time to full brightness are fine in living area conditions, no CFL
meltdowns, no fit issues vs. "A" incandescents, etc. Only in an unheated
storage container in CT winter is there a noticeable dim start and full
brightness in a couple minutes and that's hardly a problem.

I'd posted a while back about the CFL's I was using in my bathroom
(large globes) first brand I tried had unacceptable warm up time,
second brand seemed initially OK but now that they've been in a month
or two they're starting to exhibit long warm up times as well. Anyone
recommend a brand that really works well?

nate

I couldn't tell you on those as I'm not using any "designer" type CFLs.

I've got a dozen "Commercial Electric" 14W CFLs that have been in place
in various table lamps, pendants, range hoods, etc. for a couple years
with no problems at all.

I use 42W CFLs in cheap spring clamp reflector fixtures as work lights
in my shop again with no issues. One 42W CFL that runs 24x7 finally
burned out after probably 18 months which I consider pretty reasonable.

I've got some 25W I think it is CFLs in a couple enclosed hall fixtures
and they're doing fine. They're a different brand and they start at
probably 75% brightness and hit 100% within 2 seconds, something you
don't even notice after a week of use.

That storage container isn't near power so I plug that string into an
inverter from my truck when I need light in the container. Six 14W CFLs
evenly spaced inside a 40' container with a white interior provides very
good lighting, even for doing detailed work while in the container and
of course uses only 84W of power.

"Pete C." wrote in message
...
wrote:

Of course, nobody sees anything past the "ENERGY SAVINGS!!! YAY!"

I've been using CFLs for quite a while and have not experienced any of
the claimed issues. Color temperatures are good, initial brightness and
time to full brightness are fine in living area conditions, no CFL
meltdowns, no fit issues vs. "A" incandescents, etc. Only in an unheated
storage container in CT winter is there a noticeable dim start and full
brightness in a couple minutes and that's hardly a problem.

I've tried them for years and have also been disappointed. They are slow to
reach full brightness. I've had several burnouts. No way can you count
"long life" as an asset especially if you're paying a significant premium
for them vs. Incandescent. Over time their color temperature (and
brightness) decays toward yellows. The one exception is a special "Day
Light" rated bulb which cost me $8.95 + tax. If I could find these where I
live now (no Menards in AZ), I buy a few more but CFLs are definetly on my
"watch, don't buy." list now.

DonC wrote:

"Pete C." wrote in message
...
wrote:

Of course, nobody sees anything past the "ENERGY SAVINGS!!! YAY!"

I've been using CFLs for quite a while and have not experienced any of
the claimed issues. Color temperatures are good, initial brightness and
time to full brightness are fine in living area conditions, no CFL
meltdowns, no fit issues vs. "A" incandescents, etc. Only in an unheated
storage container in CT winter is there a noticeable dim start and full
brightness in a couple minutes and that's hardly a problem.

I've tried them for years and have also been disappointed. They are slow to
reach full brightness. I've had several burnouts. No way can you count
"long life" as an asset especially if you're paying a significant premium
for them vs. Incandescent. Over time their color temperature (and
brightness) decays toward yellows. The one exception is a special "Day
Light" rated bulb which cost me $8.95 + tax. If I could find these where I
live now (no Menards in AZ), I buy a few more but CFLs are definetly on my
"watch, don't buy." list now.

None that I have purchased in the last few years has been slow to reach
full brightness. Long life is an asset if you factor in your time to
replace burned out incandescents even at minimum wage given the large
number of incandescents you'd replace over the life of one CFL. I've not
found any notable change in color temperature or brightness except for
during the first and last ~5 hrs of CFL life, the thousands of hours in
between are quite constant. The nominal 75% power savings over the life
of the CFL more than makes up for the cost difference. Your local
lighting supplier should either have the "daylight" color spectrum CFLs
or be able to order them for you.

My last issue of Consumer Reports did a spread on CFL's. I remember reading
that the bulbs should not be used for all locations. If the light will not
be on for more that 15 minutes, it should continue to use an incandescent.
CFL's that are not kept on for 15 minutes or longer will have a shorter life
expectancy.

On Mon, 08 Oct 2007 12:38:52 -0700, wrote:


-No energy is saved during the heating season


When you use electric heat.
--
77 days until the winter solstice celebration

Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.laughingsquid.com

"I have found Christian dogma unintelligable. Early
in life I absented myself from Christian assemblies."
-- Benjamin Franklin

wrote:

....
I mean, I really *wanted* the CFLs to work. I like fluorescents, but
give me T8s in a proper fixture and keep the damn CFLs except for
a few special cases. Not only is there the brightness problem, but

-the light is poor in quality in most of the ones most people can
afford
It varies from brand to brand. Try a number of different ones.
They are getting better and cheaper now.

-there is no discussion of power factor because nobody knows about it

I have not measured the power factor on them, have you? I believe
that most all residential power meters are just "real" power, not
apparent power.

-No energy is saved during the heating season

As others have mentioned, only if you have pure electric heat. Fossil
fuel heat is typically about half the cost of electricity (YMMV), so
you still have savings (but less) during heating season.

-even the most compact CFLs are bulky and heavy, and won't fit a lot
of
fixtures, and overstress sockets.
Again, it varies from brand to brand and it has gotten better.

-in a fully enclosed fixture, I find that CFLs tend to overheat and
fail
While I get failure rates in excess of the advertised rates, I often
use CFLs in fixtures with a greater light output than the max size
incandescent that I can safely put in that fixture, and still get
acceptable lifetimes.

-light output is often significantly lower than the incandescents the
bulb is "compared to" on the package.
Yes, the light output is spec'd for a CFL that is brand new, warmed up,
and with base down. Hardly typical. And then it is compared to the least
efficient version of an incandescent bulb that they could find.
Look past the BS marketing.

Of course, nobody sees anything past the "ENERGY SAVINGS!!! YAY!"


Despite their many flaws, I find CFLs useful in many places, but still
use incandescents in many other places.

wrote:
On Mon, 08 Oct 2007 15:16:38 -0500, "Pete C." wrote:

wrote:


-No energy is saved during the heating season


BALONEY. Any heat generated in my house in New England by electric appliances
and lights is FAR more expensive than the heat provided by my oil burning boiler
and hot water baseboards. It's not even remotely close. That's why no homes here
have electric heat. It would be very cheap to install during new construction,
but the operational costs to heat even a small home by electricity here would be
astronomical.

Heh. Technically, I guess OP is right. Energy=Energy. No energy
IS saved by the CFLs.

Of course, you are right that the COST of the energy is quite
different. Heating my house with CFLs instead of NG would
be....frightening.

I don't know what CFLs the OP is referring to; certainly the
older CFLs and the ones showing up in the "$1 Store" show the
drawbacks he mentions. The new ones do not.

The CFLs I have (mostly from Home Despot, "Commercial Electric",
IIRC):

-come on at almost full brightness, even at 60F
-have an agreeable color tone
-have lasted up to 5 years (I have not had one burn out, although
I destroyed one dropping it in a sink full of water, another by
physically breaking it, and one by washing it).
-show no ill effects from being turned on and off many times per
day and only being on short periods

I am very pleased with the newer CFLs. The older ones that don't
work so well, I've put in the closets.

PB

On Oct 11, 9:46 pm, Plague Boy wrote:
wrote:
On Mon, 08 Oct 2007 15:16:38 -0500, "Pete C." wrote:

wrote:

-No energy is saved during the heating season

BALONEY. Any heat generated in my house in New England by electric appliances
and lights is FAR more expensive than the heat provided by my oil burning boiler
and hot water baseboards. It's not even remotely close. That's why no homes here
have electric heat. It would be very cheap to install during new construction,
but the operational costs to heat even a small home by electricity here would be
astronomical.

Heh. Technically, I guess OP is right. Energy=Energy. No energy
IS saved by the CFLs.

Of course, you are right that the COST of the energy is quite
different. Heating my house with CFLs instead of NG would
be....frightening.

I don't know what CFLs the OP is referring to; certainly the
older CFLs and the ones showing up in the "$1 Store" show the
drawbacks he mentions. The new ones do not.

The CFLs I have (mostly from Home Despot, "Commercial Electric",
IIRC):

-come on at almost full brightness, even at 60F
-have an agreeable color tone
-have lasted up to 5 years (I have not had one burn out, although
I destroyed one dropping it in a sink full of water, another by
physically breaking it, and one by washing it).
-show no ill effects from being turned on and off many times per
day and only being on short periods

I am very pleased with the newer CFLs. The older ones that don't
work so well, I've put in the closets.

PB


My experience has been exactly the opposite and very disappointing.
I recently bought a 4 pack of FEIT reflector indoor flood type ones at
Costco. First problem, despite looking very similar, they will not
fit in my existing ceiling cans. And no, it's not that they are the
wrong R type. It's that the area near the neck is too wide so it
hits the retaining clips in the can and won't screw in.

OK, so I go buy a couple of screw-in extenders, that cost $3 each and
the bulbs finally go in. Next problem, they take and extremely long
time to warm up. Longer than any other CFL I have ever seen. I have
them in the kitchen and you can imagine what that's like when you come
in at night and want to just get something quick, then leave. I'd say
it takes over a min to get anything close to acceptable and probably 3
mins before they reach full output. So, the obvious tendency is to
just leave them on if you think you'll be back in an hour. There
goes the energy savings.

And one of the first 2 lasted only 2 months. I thought this could be
just a fluke. Replaced it and that one lasted less about a month.
I'm on the last of the 4 now.

IMO, this whole CFL greatness thing is way over hyped. And it's going
to lead to a lot of people trying them, realising they are not all
they are cracked up to be, and then giving up on them. For starters,
it would be much better if there were specs on the package that stated
how long it takes them to get to say 70% of full brightness. Then,
you could make a correct choice for the application. I can live with
that in some apps, like a security light, but not in others, like my
bathroom. Then there are the other dirty little secrets. Read the
packages and many of the spiral bulb type ones say they can only be
used base down. Meaning you're not supposed to use them upside down
in a garage or closet. Irronically, I have some of those, that you're
not supposed to install that way in the garage, and they have
performed much better. Still slower to start up, but not as bad as
the FEIT ones and only one has failed after a year or so.

IMO, we'd be much better off if they figured out what the essential
problems are here. Why does it take these much longer than other
flourescent lights to achieve reasonable brightness? My guess is the
size limits for the transformer/electronics may have something to do
with it? If that's the case, maybe we should be focusing on
developing new lights from the ground up, for new construction and
remodeling. If there were a good flourescent recessed light option
avaliable, when I remodel, I would put it in. Based on what I've
seen so far, CFL just doesn't cut it for many of my applications.