Home Repair (alt.home.repair) For all homeowners and DIYers with many experienced tradesmen. Solve your toughest home fix-it problems.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #81   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 636
Default Goodbye 100w, 75w Incandescent Lamps

Dan_Musicant wrote:

I use CFL's not to save the planet but because
in the long run, I save money.


I get it, like a lot of people you believe in being selfish, and
worse, you ridicule people who do things for reasons other than
selfish reasons.


It's called the "Invisible Hand." When everyone acts in their own best
interests, the overall good is magnified.

When everyone is compelled to act in what is presumed to be the best
interest as determined by a few, we have disaster.


  #82   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 636
Default Goodbye 100w, 75w Incandescent Lamps

Tony Hwang wrote:
Hi,
Nearby town of Banff installed LED street lights with solar panels.
Very cool looking light and it is cool running, no bugs get attracted
kep them clean. Cost a lot initially but for the long run, it's
winner. LED bulbs now are expensive but with time the price will come
down. I have a few small ones in the house, they use couple Watts per
bulb.


My city, Houston, is retrofitting its traffic signals with LEDs. They cost
more initially, but since the bulbs won't have to be replaced for, what,
fifty years, they should recoup the expense fairly soon.

Can you imagine what it takes to change the bulb on an overhead traffic
signal?


  #83   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 636
Default Goodbye 100w, 75w Incandescent Lamps

John Barry wrote:
We need more energy. Let's go get it. -Jim Redelfs


Nonsense- to the assertion that extracting fossil fuels faster will
solve our problems. It'll just bring forward the day of reckoning what
to do when it becomes unaffordable.


Bah! The Romans cut down the forests of North Africa (and parts of Europe).
When wood became expensive, Europe turned to coal. When the coal ran out, or
became too expensive, the world began to run on oil.

When we run out of (cheap) oil, there'll be something else.


There's so much we can do to reduce demand and make much better use of
what's in the "pipeline" and what's yet to be invented.

Consensus among many seems to be that there's no single solution.
Maybe opening our minds to reasonable means to cure our coal/oil/gas
addiction will help, AND provide marketable solutions for the rest of
the planet.


There are those who advocate turning the oil reserves of Saudia Arabia into
a "planetary resource," to be administered for the good of everyone.


  #84   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 636
Default Goodbye 100w, 75w Incandescent Lamps

wrote:

We need more energy. Let's go get it. -Jim Redelfs


Looks like I'll be going back to kerosene lamps and candles for
lighting. I wont allow those compact florescents anywhere near my
home. I almost lost my home last year because of one of these things.
The damn thing caught on fire. Luckily I was able to put it out, but
not without significant damage to my ceiling and destroying the light
fixture.



Once again, Bush is taking away our freedoms as American citizens.
Next he's mandate we are only allowed to use one square of toilet
paper per day and will require we all spend our own money to buy the
toilet paper sheet counter. What makes this any different from taking
away our tv signal and forcing everyone on the country to buy a
converter. Of course the gov't dont tell us the whole reason for
this. That's because the cellphone companies paid the gov't to steal
our airwaves so they can make big profits from them.


1. The "one square of toilet paper" idea is being promoted by Sheryl Crow, a
Hollywood liberal.
2. The TV re-allocation was established in 1997, during the Clinton
administration.


Of course after they take away our guns, they'll start sending people
to prison for possessing incandescent lightbulbs shipped by ebay
sellers from the UK, while taxpayers pay the prison expenses and pay
to have lightbulb detectors installed at every post office.


Bush isn't trying to take away your guns. As Texas governor, he promoted the
concealed carry law. As president, he did not promote the extension of the
Assault Weapons Ban. Since the ban expired, you can now buy guns with
cosmetic, scary-looking features, like bayonet lugs, and high-capacity
magazines.


To say it exactly the way I feel. Bush and his whole corrupt political
party can go straight to hell. If he wants to send his goon squad to
my home to inspect my lightbulbs, this old man still knows how to
kill, courtesy of the Republican party's very own Nixon sending me to
Nam, to fight another useless Republican inspired war.


1. The Bush administration is the least corrupt in recent history - only ONE
administration person in eight years has been convicted of anything.
2.Kennedy and Johnson started and expanded the Viet Nam war. Nixon ENDED
the fighting and Henry Kissinger got the Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts
along those lines. After the last American troops left the country, the
Democrat congress cut off funding for the South Vietnamese Army and, a year
later, the South fell to the godless Communists from the North.


The best way to fight the goons in Washington is to disconnect
yourself from their system. Produce your own wind powered
electricity, heat with firewood, make your own auto fuel, and barter
for everything to avoid paying taxes to these crooks. I'd really like
them to come and tell me to disconnect the incandescent bulbs from my
own wind generator. I'd really like to see them try !!!


Be gentle. If anyone from the government comes to your house, they'll just
be trying to help.



  #85   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 98
Default Goodbye 100w, 75w Incandescent Lamps

Jim Redelfs wrote:
We should drill for oil and gas in ANWR (Alaska National Wildlife Refuge)?

Why do you think Seward talked Congress into buying Alaska?

Do you think he would have ever believed that there'd come a day when vast
miles of it would be virtually off-limits to any resource harvesting?


That simply is not true though, as there is no part of
Alaska that is "virtually off-limits to any resource
harvesting". ANWR, for example, (and the parks on the
Canadian side of the border also) was established to
protect the resources required for several thousands of
people whose very way of life and existence relies upon
being able to harvest those resources.

Despite incessant impediments from environmentalists, the Tans-Alaska Pipeline
was finally built. But, Shazam! The devastation to the environment and
wildlife it was predicted to cause never happened. They were WRONG. They're
wrong now.


Again, that is simply *not* true! In fact the
environmentalists did complain loudly about the initial
design for a pipeline. That design, fortunately, was
never built. The process was held up until the legal
status of land title was settled, and in the years (1968
to 1972) while that was happening the State of Alaska
began studies on the North Slope to determine the
potential impact of oil production. One of the more
immediate determinations was that the claims from
environmentalist about the pipeline design were valid.

By 1974 when construction began, the design had been
modified to meet the requirements of both the
environmentalists and the State of Alaska; as a result
the pipeline has had relatively minimal environmental
impact (note that is "minimal", not "non-existent").

CF bulbs and set-back thermostats are NOT the final solution, even if there
was a problem. Heck, such measures aren't even a viable stop-gap.

We need more energy. Let's go get it. -Jim Redelfs


Let's use our heads and not go off half cocked with
cock-a-mamie ideas based on false information.

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)


  #87   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,016
Default Goodbye 100w, 75w Incandescent Lamps

In article ,
(Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:


That simply is not true though, as there is no part of
Alaska that is "virtually off-limits to any resource
harvesting". ANWR, for example, (and the parks on the
Canadian side of the border also) was established to
protect the resources required for several thousands of
people whose very way of life and existence relies upon
being able to harvest those resources.


Several thousands of people need several millions of acres and
can't spare a little land.
All told, the ANWR consists of 19 million acres. Congress has put 8
million acres into formal wilderness status and designated 9.5 million
acres as wildlife refuge. Those 17.5 million acres form a protected
enclave almost as large as the state of South Carolina.
As part of the original legislation, Congress set aside the remaining
1.5 million acres of the coastal plain for ***potential exploration***
and development because of its oil and gas. (emphasis mine). Before any
exploration could occur, additional legislation had to be passed by
Congress. That happened in 1995, but President Clinton vetoed the bill.
It is a little hard to make the case that areas that were initially
set-aside specifically for exploration could really have that much
impact.

Let's use our heads and not go off half cocked with
cock-a-mamie ideas based on false information.


You should try it sometime.
  #88   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,746
Default Goodbye 100w, 75w Incandescent Lamps

wrote:

On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 20:49:30 GMT, "Pete C." wrote:

wrote:

If you were really some sort of
technically proficient person, you would know that it's very easy to just look
up the specifications for almost all consumer electronics.

It's easy to look up the specifications and misinterpret them.

Yes, but that's you, not me!


No, it's you.


Simply
looking up the nameplate Amp or Watt rating doesn't tell the whole story
as it is only the peak draw and more often than not is quite different
than the normal operating draw. That CRT TV may well draw the nameplate
1.2 Amps for a few milliseconds on startup, but operating is more like
.4 Amps. Perform the real world measurements on your old and new TV and
then see if you feel the difference is huge.

I still don't know what you meant when you said you were "in the video world for
15 years". Are you a sales associate at Best Buy? Or did you just mean that you
don't live in the real world?


15+ years of video production engineering, another 10+ of audio
production engineering, and a lot of other technical experience in other
areas.


Me? My electronics education, which encompasses formal education, aprenticeship,
and self study, started when televisions didn't have any transistors, and the
wiring was all point to point. When Sony came out with Beta, people were coming
from NYC to my store in South Norwalk Connecticut, because I had in house
service. Could find that in NYC. I did the same thing when Cellular phones came
on the scene. I was set up to service cellphones a year before the system went
online in Connecticut. The phone company techs were bringing various phones to
ME for evaluation to see how well they would work with their as yet, untested
system.


So you're either retired now and haven't worked on anything in a decade
or two, or you're working at the local grocery store after your TV and
VCR business went under because everything is disposable these days (not
that that's a good thing).


Wrong on all counts, Petey, but thanks for playing!

Either way, if you have that experience then you should have enough
sense to realize that the nameplate Amp or Watt rating is not a
meaningful measure of the actual operating draw.


Where did I say to look at the nameplate, Petey?


You referenced looking up specifications "it's very easy to just look
up the specifications for almost all consumer electronics" and the only
specifications that you will be able to look up from the manufacturer
would be the nameplate rating.



I think I can figure out which TV uses more energy, thank you. :')


Only if you make actual measurements.


So, you have made actual measurements on the two TV's I mentioned? I don't
remember even giving you the model numbers, Petey. That makes you a SUPERGENIUS!
Congratulations.


As I noted, I measured a 17" CRT monitor, nameplate 1.2A, actual running
..4A.
  #89   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,746
Default Goodbye 100w, 75w Incandescent Lamps

HeyBub wrote:

Tony Hwang wrote:
Hi,
Nearby town of Banff installed LED street lights with solar panels.
Very cool looking light and it is cool running, no bugs get attracted
kep them clean. Cost a lot initially but for the long run, it's
winner. LED bulbs now are expensive but with time the price will come
down. I have a few small ones in the house, they use couple Watts per
bulb.


My city, Houston, is retrofitting its traffic signals with LEDs. They cost
more initially, but since the bulbs won't have to be replaced for, what,
fifty years, they should recoup the expense fairly soon.


I doubt the 50 yr thing since I've see LED signals failing. The good
thing is that they have a "soft" failure mode, losing a few strings of
LEDs rather than the whole thing at once like the old incandescent
signals. The power savings of the LED vs. the 300W incandescents they
replace becomes significant when multiplied by all the active signals in
a city.


Can you imagine what it takes to change the bulb on an overhead traffic
signal?


About an hour, a bucket truck and a cop to handle traffic.
  #90   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 98
Default Goodbye 100w, 75w Incandescent Lamps

Kurt Ullman wrote:
(Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:
That simply is not true though, as there is no part of
Alaska that is "virtually off-limits to any resource
harvesting". ANWR, for example, (and the parks on the
Canadian side of the border also) was established to
protect the resources required for several thousands of
people whose very way of life and existence relies upon
being able to harvest those resources.


Several thousands of people need several millions of acres and
can't spare a little land.


They've owned that land for thousands of years. What
right do you have to take it, or their resources, and
destroy their culture?

All told, the ANWR consists of 19 million acres. Congress has put 8
million acres into formal wilderness status and designated 9.5 million
acres as wildlife refuge. Those 17.5 million acres form a protected
enclave almost as large as the state of South Carolina.


Do you have a point?

The coastal plain of ANWR (the 1002 Area) is the single
such refuge in the Arctic. There is nothing else like
it in the world.

As part of the original legislation, Congress set aside the remaining
1.5 million acres of the coastal plain for ***potential exploration***
and development because of its oil and gas. (emphasis mine). Before any
exploration could occur, additional legislation had to be passed by
Congress. That happened in 1995, but President Clinton vetoed the bill.


Hence, we have wisely refrained from destroying it.

Note that Congress did *not* set it aside for
exploration, potential or otherwise. Congress said that
option should be studied because there was a potential.
It has been studied, and rather obviously it has been
consistently determined to *not* be a suitable option, which
is why exploration has not passed into law.

It is a little hard to make the case that areas that were initially
set-aside specifically for exploration could really have that much
impact.


That is an absurdly erroneous statement. As noted, it
was *not* set aside for exploration. And logically
there is no correlation between that and whether there
would or would not be an impact.

As we know positively from the horrendous impact of oil
production in the Prudhoe Bay industrial complex, there
is no question at all that there is in fact that impact.

Let's use our heads and not go off half cocked with
cock-a-mamie ideas based on false information.


You should try it sometime.


You did not even want to question the facts as I stated
them, but went of with false statements and illogical
philosophy.

Do you actually know *anything* about ANWR?

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)



  #93   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,746
Default Goodbye 100w, 75w Incandescent Lamps

wrote:

On Mon, 24 Dec 2007 13:56:57 GMT, "Pete C."
wrote:

wrote:

On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 20:49:30 GMT, "Pete C." wrote:

wrote:

If you were really some sort of
technically proficient person, you would know that it's very easy to just look
up the specifications for almost all consumer electronics.

It's easy to look up the specifications and misinterpret them.

Yes, but that's you, not me!

No, it's you.


Simply
looking up the nameplate Amp or Watt rating doesn't tell the whole story
as it is only the peak draw and more often than not is quite different
than the normal operating draw. That CRT TV may well draw the nameplate
1.2 Amps for a few milliseconds on startup, but operating is more like
.4 Amps. Perform the real world measurements on your old and new TV and
then see if you feel the difference is huge.

I still don't know what you meant when you said you were "in the video world for
15 years". Are you a sales associate at Best Buy? Or did you just mean that you
don't live in the real world?

15+ years of video production engineering, another 10+ of audio
production engineering, and a lot of other technical experience in other
areas.


Me? My electronics education, which encompasses formal education, aprenticeship,
and self study, started when televisions didn't have any transistors, and the
wiring was all point to point. When Sony came out with Beta, people were coming
from NYC to my store in South Norwalk Connecticut, because I had in house
service. Could find that in NYC. I did the same thing when Cellular phones came
on the scene. I was set up to service cellphones a year before the system went
online in Connecticut. The phone company techs were bringing various phones to
ME for evaluation to see how well they would work with their as yet, untested
system.

So you're either retired now and haven't worked on anything in a decade
or two, or you're working at the local grocery store after your TV and
VCR business went under because everything is disposable these days (not
that that's a good thing).


Wrong on all counts, Petey, but thanks for playing!

Either way, if you have that experience then you should have enough
sense to realize that the nameplate Amp or Watt rating is not a
meaningful measure of the actual operating draw.


Where did I say to look at the nameplate, Petey?


You referenced looking up specifications "it's very easy to just look
up the specifications for almost all consumer electronics" and the only
specifications that you will be able to look up from the manufacturer
would be the nameplate rating.


Wrong, Petey. The only specification YOU would be able to look up is
the nameplate ratings.



I think I can figure out which TV uses more energy, thank you. :')

Only if you make actual measurements.

So, you have made actual measurements on the two TV's I mentioned? I don't
remember even giving you the model numbers, Petey. That makes you a SUPERGENIUS!
Congratulations.


As I noted, I measured a 17" CRT monitor, nameplate 1.2A, actual running
.4A.


A 17" CRT monitor is not a 27" CRT television, and it is also not a
40" LCD Television. Why don't you measure the current draw on your
refrigerator and throw that into your nonsensical mix as well?


It is a clear example of how far the real operating draw is from the
nameplate rating.


Oh, and, Kill-A-Watt? That's sold mostly for amateur
do-it-yourselfers.


I used a Fluke 87.
  #94   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,375
Default Goodbye 100w, 75w Incandescent Lamps

In article , Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:

wrote:

Once again, Bush is taking away our freedoms as American citizens.
Next he's mandate we are only allowed to use one square of toilet
paper per day and will require we all spend our own money to buy the
toilet paper sheet counter. What makes this any different from taking
away our tv signal and forcing everyone on the country to buy a
converter. Of course the gov't dont tell us the whole reason for
this. That's because the cellphone companies paid the gov't to steal
our airwaves so they can make big profits from them.


1. The "one square of toilet paper" idea is being promoted by Sheryl Crow, a
Hollywood liberal.
2. The TV re-allocation was established in 1997, during the Clinton
administration.

3. The Democratic Congress passed the law.


Wrong. In 1997, the Senate had 55 to 45 Republican majority, and the House had
a 227 to 204 Republican majority (with 4 seats vacant).



2.Kennedy and Johnson started and expanded the Viet Nam war. Nixon ENDED
the fighting and Henry Kissinger got the Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts
along those lines.

Which he shared with Arafat, thus once and for all killing off ANY
remaining legitimacy for the "Peace" Prize.


Wrong again. Kissinger shared the 1973 Nobel Peace Prize with Le Duc Tho of
North Vietnam. Arafat's was 21 years later, shared with Shimon Peres and
Yitzhak Rabin.

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

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
  #95   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,746
Default Goodbye 100w, 75w Incandescent Lamps

wrote:

On Mon, 24 Dec 2007 08:48:24 -0600, "Pete C."
wrote:

wrote:

On Mon, 24 Dec 2007 13:56:57 GMT, "Pete C."
wrote:

wrote:

On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 20:49:30 GMT, "Pete C." wrote:

wrote:

If you were really some sort of
technically proficient person, you would know that it's very easy to just look
up the specifications for almost all consumer electronics.

It's easy to look up the specifications and misinterpret them.

Yes, but that's you, not me!

No, it's you.


Simply
looking up the nameplate Amp or Watt rating doesn't tell the whole story
as it is only the peak draw and more often than not is quite different
than the normal operating draw. That CRT TV may well draw the nameplate
1.2 Amps for a few milliseconds on startup, but operating is more like
.4 Amps. Perform the real world measurements on your old and new TV and
then see if you feel the difference is huge.

I still don't know what you meant when you said you were "in the video world for
15 years". Are you a sales associate at Best Buy? Or did you just mean that you
don't live in the real world?

15+ years of video production engineering, another 10+ of audio
production engineering, and a lot of other technical experience in other
areas.


Me? My electronics education, which encompasses formal education, aprenticeship,
and self study, started when televisions didn't have any transistors, and the
wiring was all point to point. When Sony came out with Beta, people were coming
from NYC to my store in South Norwalk Connecticut, because I had in house
service. Could find that in NYC. I did the same thing when Cellular phones came
on the scene. I was set up to service cellphones a year before the system went
online in Connecticut. The phone company techs were bringing various phones to
ME for evaluation to see how well they would work with their as yet, untested
system.

So you're either retired now and haven't worked on anything in a decade
or two, or you're working at the local grocery store after your TV and
VCR business went under because everything is disposable these days (not
that that's a good thing).


Wrong on all counts, Petey, but thanks for playing!

Either way, if you have that experience then you should have enough
sense to realize that the nameplate Amp or Watt rating is not a
meaningful measure of the actual operating draw.


Where did I say to look at the nameplate, Petey?

You referenced looking up specifications "it's very easy to just look
up the specifications for almost all consumer electronics" and the only
specifications that you will be able to look up from the manufacturer
would be the nameplate rating.


Wrong, Petey. The only specification YOU would be able to look up is
the nameplate ratings.



I think I can figure out which TV uses more energy, thank you. :')

Only if you make actual measurements.

So, you have made actual measurements on the two TV's I mentioned? I don't
remember even giving you the model numbers, Petey. That makes you a SUPERGENIUS!
Congratulations.

As I noted, I measured a 17" CRT monitor, nameplate 1.2A, actual running
.4A.

A 17" CRT monitor is not a 27" CRT television, and it is also not a
40" LCD Television. Why don't you measure the current draw on your
refrigerator and throw that into your nonsensical mix as well?


It is a clear example of how far the real operating draw is from the
nameplate rating.


Which has exactly NOTHING to do with anything I have said, Petey.


It has plenty to do with what you said and everyone reading this thread
(all two or three) can clearly see the relevance.



Oh, and, Kill-A-Watt? That's sold mostly for amateur
do-it-yourselfers.


I used a Fluke 87.


Yes, I'm sure you did. Especially after you touted using the "kill a
watt" as the method you recommend.


Yea, I recommended the Kill-a-Watt since it's a lot cheaper than a Fluke
87 with an 80i400 amp probe and a lot more accessible to the average
consumer. I'll note that reading from the Kill-a-Watt I have match
nicely with those from the Fluke so the Kill-a-Watt is plenty accurate.


  #96   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,016
Default Goodbye 100w, 75w Incandescent Lamps

In article ,
(Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:

Several thousands of people need several millions of acres and
can't spare a little land.


They've owned that land for thousands of years. What
right do you have to take it, or their resources, and
destroy their culture?


Which is pretty much what the Feds did when they made it a reserve.
The feds own the land What gives them the right to decide to keep the
owners in poverty by not allowing them to develop their own land?. BTW:
did they actually own it.


All told, the ANWR consists of 19 million acres. Congress has put 8
million acres into formal wilderness status and designated 9.5 million
acres as wildlife refuge. Those 17.5 million acres form a protected
enclave almost as large as the state of South Carolina.


Do you have a point?

Yep. That no one is discussing messing with this section here.


As part of the original legislation, Congress set aside the remaining
1.5 million acres of the coastal plain for ***potential exploration***
and development because of its oil and gas. (emphasis mine). Before any
exploration could occur, additional legislation had to be passed by
Congress. That happened in 1995, but President Clinton vetoed the bill.


Hence, we have wisely refrained from destroying it.

Your take. So it MUST be true and the only way to go?


Note that Congress did *not* set it aside for
exploration, potential or otherwise. Congress said that
option should be studied because there was a potential.
It has been studied, and rather obviously it has been
consistently determined to *not* be a suitable option, which
is why exploration has not passed into law.

They certainly did. Congress passed the law that said it was hokey
dokey to go ahead, it was Clinton unilaterally who said otherwise as a
sop to his base.

It is a little hard to make the case that areas that were initially
set-aside specifically for exploration could really have that much
impact.


That is an absurdly erroneous statement. As noted, it
was *not* set aside for exploration. And logically
there is no correlation between that and whether there
would or would not be an impact.


It was set aside for exploration by Congress. they looked at
it and the impact was such that they approved it.


As we know positively from the horrendous impact of oil
production in the Prudhoe Bay industrial complex, there
is no question at all that there is in fact that impact.

yeah right.
But the caribou herd that migrates through Prudhoe Bay has increased
from 3,000 to 23,000 since drilling commenced there in 1977.
Opponents of drilling cannot point to a single species that has been
driven to extinction or even a population decline attributable to
Prudhoe Bay. Another wildlife refuge in Alaska, the Kenai National
Wildlife Refuge, has had drilling onsite for decades. The oil production
there rarely makes the news because it has not caused any problems, even
though Kenai has far more wildlife than ANWR.
Oh, the humanity!!!!
These figures BTW are from Alaska's government figures.


You should try it sometime.


You did not even want to question the facts as I stated
them, but went of with false statements and illogical
philosophy.

First of all the original post was fact free, just statements about
how it should not have been done. It studiously ignored the fact that
the area in question was put aside for drilling SUBJECT to CONGRESSIONAL
APPROVAL which was given, but then a single man, Mr. C, stopped the
Congressional approval. Also there is little indication of "horrendous
impact" on Prudhoe Bay, another fact free zone since you did not deem
fit to actually apply a fact or two.


Do you actually know *anything* about ANWR?

Seems more than you do.
  #98   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,482
Default Goodbye 100w, 75w Incandescent Lamps

on 12/24/2007 9:01 AM Pete C. said the following:
HeyBub wrote:

Tony Hwang wrote:

Hi,
Nearby town of Banff installed LED street lights with solar panels.
Very cool looking light and it is cool running, no bugs get attracted
kep them clean. Cost a lot initially but for the long run, it's
winner. LED bulbs now are expensive but with time the price will come
down. I have a few small ones in the house, they use couple Watts per
bulb.

My city, Houston, is retrofitting its traffic signals with LEDs. They cost
more initially, but since the bulbs won't have to be replaced for, what,
fifty years, they should recoup the expense fairly soon.


I doubt the 50 yr thing since I've see LED signals failing. The good
thing is that they have a "soft" failure mode, losing a few strings of
LEDs rather than the whole thing at once like the old incandescent
signals. The power savings of the LED vs. the 300W incandescents they
replace becomes significant when multiplied by all the active signals in
a city.


Can you imagine what it takes to change the bulb on an overhead traffic
signal?


About an hour, a bucket truck and a cop to handle traffic.


If you include the time it takes for the truck to get there, perhaps.
Most times, the changing of a traffic signal bulb takes about as much
time as a few regular cycles of the light.
Take it from someone who used to have to handle traffic while the change
was done.

--

Bill
In Hamptonburgh, NY
To email, remove the double zeroes after @
  #99   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,016
Default Goodbye 100w, 75w Incandescent Lamps

In article ,
willshak wrote:


If you include the time it takes for the truck to get there, perhaps.
Most times, the changing of a traffic signal bulb takes about as much
time as a few regular cycles of the light.
Take it from someone who used to have to handle traffic while the change
was done.


I was thinking the same thing. Must have a heckuva union (g).
  #100   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,901
Default Goodbye 100w, 75w Incandescent Lamps

"HeyBub" wrote in message
...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:


You said "Let the market decide". That's pretty funny, although you
didn't mean it to be funny. "The market" includes millions of fools
who have absolutely NO need for the special mechanical
characteristics of SUVs, but they bought them anyway because
advertising told them to. "The market" made some pretty lousy
decisions.


"Need" is not the determining factor, "want" is.


In your next message, you will say that "the market" will correct this
mistake. Don't count on it.


It's not a mistake - it's called 'freedom.'



Yeah. Freedom to feed more dollars to the country that gave us 9/11. That's
called stupid.




  #101   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,901
Default Goodbye 100w, 75w Incandescent Lamps

"HeyBub" wrote in message
...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:


OK, then. How long do you think it's appropriate to wait before
finding out that market-driven forces are not going to solve a
problem? A year? 20 years? Two generations?


Forever. The market is not always right, but it is right far more often
than any other technique.



Bars here are doing MORE business since it became illegal to smoke in bars.
I seriously doubt "the market" would've figured that out without a kick in
the pants. And, Detroit *never* would've dealt with car emissions issues
without the government stepping in. Automakers had no financial incentive to
deal with it.


  #102   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,901
Default Goodbye 100w, 75w Incandescent Lamps

"HeyBub" wrote in message
...
Dan_Musicant wrote:

I use CFL's not to save the planet but because
in the long run, I save money.


I get it, like a lot of people you believe in being selfish, and
worse, you ridicule people who do things for reasons other than
selfish reasons.


It's called the "Invisible Hand." When everyone acts in their own best
interests, the overall good is magnified.



Nonsense.


  #103   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,901
Default Goodbye 100w, 75w Incandescent Lamps

wrote in message
...
On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 06:21:12 -0800, Dan_Musicant
wrote:

Fact is you can find CF's that don't take a minute to get usable light.
Some are nearly instant on. The only filament lamps I use at all are
maybe a couple I haven't bothered to change that I leave on for 5-10
minutes at a time only.

I find it grating to read posts which make fun of federal lawmakers. I
wouldn't want to spend more than 10 minutes of every year sitting in the
halls of congress. I know it's a madhouse, but walk a mile in their
shoes before you paint them all with the same brush.

Believe it or not, letting people do what they damn well please doesn't
work in this country.


Do us all a favor and leave the United States of America. This
country will be a much better place after you leave. You don't belong
here. You'd do much better in a country such as Iraq. Don't let the
door slam you in the ass as you leave.

Daryl



Would you agree that we need to reduce our dependence on foreign oil?


  #104   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,901
Default Goodbye 100w, 75w Incandescent Lamps

"Dan Espen" wrote in message
...
Red writes:

On Dec 23, 4:40 pm, "Pete C." wrote:
Mark wrote:

It takes just as much water to turn the turbine
whether the generator is producing 1 megawatt or 150 megawatts.

NOT TRUE wherever did you get that idea?

Mark

I think he was trying to say that the water flowing through a
hydroelectric generating facility has the same available energy whether
you utilize it or not, so you may as well utilize all that is available.


I specified hydroelectric and that is indeed what I meant.


But that isn't what you said.
The volume and head (height) of the water determine how much
energy can be produced at the turbine.

It takes a lot more water or much greater height
to turn a 150 megawatt turbine than
it takes to turn a 1 megawatt turbine.



True, he wasn't talking about two different turbines. He was talking about
one piece of machinery operating at varying capacities.


  #105   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,901
Default Goodbye 100w, 75w Incandescent Lamps

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

Phisherman wrote:

On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 03:28:42 -0600, Jim Redelfs
wrote:

Say "goodbye" to the venerable 100w and 75w, cheap, light bulb.
(Thomas Alva Edison will surely turn over in his grave).


And say "Hello" to additional mercury compounds (from fluorescent
tubes) seeping into our soils.


Supposedly the 75% power savings prevents more mercury emissions from
coal fired power plants than the mercury contained in the lamp.


Then they want us to convert to electric autos...
Using nuclear power plants will eliminate even more mercury emissions.



Not to complicate the issue, but a number of arms control experts have
pointed out that there's only one way we'll stop "rogue states" from
eventually developing nuclear weapons: Eliminate civilian nuclear power
plants.

Every benefit comes with a hidden horror show.




  #106   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,746
Default Goodbye 100w, 75w Incandescent Lamps

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

wrote in message
...
On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 06:21:12 -0800, Dan_Musicant
wrote:

Fact is you can find CF's that don't take a minute to get usable light.
Some are nearly instant on. The only filament lamps I use at all are
maybe a couple I haven't bothered to change that I leave on for 5-10
minutes at a time only.

I find it grating to read posts which make fun of federal lawmakers. I
wouldn't want to spend more than 10 minutes of every year sitting in the
halls of congress. I know it's a madhouse, but walk a mile in their
shoes before you paint them all with the same brush.

Believe it or not, letting people do what they damn well please doesn't
work in this country.


Do us all a favor and leave the United States of America. This
country will be a much better place after you leave. You don't belong
here. You'd do much better in a country such as Iraq. Don't let the
door slam you in the ass as you leave.

Daryl


Would you agree that we need to reduce our dependence on foreign oil?


It would certainly be a good goal, however it will not in any way solve
or reduce the problems that it helped to create. Indeed if we stop
buying oil from the ME it could make the situation there even worse.
Since China would likely buy whatever we don't that later issue may not
be as significant now.
  #107   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,746
Default Goodbye 100w, 75w Incandescent Lamps

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

"HeyBub" wrote in message
...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:


You said "Let the market decide". That's pretty funny, although you
didn't mean it to be funny. "The market" includes millions of fools
who have absolutely NO need for the special mechanical
characteristics of SUVs, but they bought them anyway because
advertising told them to. "The market" made some pretty lousy
decisions.


"Need" is not the determining factor, "want" is.


In your next message, you will say that "the market" will correct this
mistake. Don't count on it.


It's not a mistake - it's called 'freedom.'


Yeah. Freedom to feed more dollars to the country that gave us 9/11. That's
called stupid.


If we were to stop buying oil from the ME it would not in any way
eliminate the problems there that it helped to create, it could actually
make them even worse.
  #108   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,901
Default Goodbye 100w, 75w Incandescent Lamps

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

wrote in message
...
On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 06:21:12 -0800, Dan_Musicant
wrote:

Fact is you can find CF's that don't take a minute to get usable light.
Some are nearly instant on. The only filament lamps I use at all are
maybe a couple I haven't bothered to change that I leave on for 5-10
minutes at a time only.

I find it grating to read posts which make fun of federal lawmakers. I
wouldn't want to spend more than 10 minutes of every year sitting in
the
halls of congress. I know it's a madhouse, but walk a mile in their
shoes before you paint them all with the same brush.

Believe it or not, letting people do what they damn well please doesn't
work in this country.

Do us all a favor and leave the United States of America. This
country will be a much better place after you leave. You don't belong
here. You'd do much better in a country such as Iraq. Don't let the
door slam you in the ass as you leave.

Daryl


Would you agree that we need to reduce our dependence on foreign oil?


It would certainly be a good goal, however it will not in any way solve
or reduce the problems that it helped to create. Indeed if we stop
buying oil from the ME it could make the situation there even worse.
Since China would likely buy whatever we don't that later issue may not
be as significant now.



OK. Now we're getting somewhere. What if a family of four can get a 35%
improvement in gas mileage by owning a certain vehicle, without losing any
of the REAL (as opposed to imaginary) advantages of an SUV? Is a 35%
improvement not worth thinking about, especially if multiplied by the number
of SUVs in this country?


  #109   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,901
Default Goodbye 100w, 75w Incandescent Lamps

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

"HeyBub" wrote in message
...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:


You said "Let the market decide". That's pretty funny, although you
didn't mean it to be funny. "The market" includes millions of fools
who have absolutely NO need for the special mechanical
characteristics of SUVs, but they bought them anyway because
advertising told them to. "The market" made some pretty lousy
decisions.

"Need" is not the determining factor, "want" is.


In your next message, you will say that "the market" will correct this
mistake. Don't count on it.

It's not a mistake - it's called 'freedom.'


Yeah. Freedom to feed more dollars to the country that gave us 9/11.
That's
called stupid.


If we were to stop buying oil from the ME it would not in any way
eliminate the problems there that it helped to create, it could actually
make them even worse.



Worse? Let me guess: Create more poverty, and thus more unrest?


  #110   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,016
Default Goodbye 100w, 75w Incandescent Lamps

In article ,
"Pete C." wrote:


It would certainly be a good goal, however it will not in any way solve
or reduce the problems that it helped to create. Indeed if we stop
buying oil from the ME it could make the situation there even worse.
Since China would likely buy whatever we don't that later issue may not
be as significant now.


Of course it would, although to what degree I suppose is open to some
debate. China is going to buy the oil no matter what, but if we were
able to buy less ME oil (or use less or use our own NEW sources) then
the supply/demand curve obviously changes and the price goes down either
in real terms or in what it would have been had we stayed at the tap.


  #111   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,746
Default Goodbye 100w, 75w Incandescent Lamps

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

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

"HeyBub" wrote in message
...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:


You said "Let the market decide". That's pretty funny, although you
didn't mean it to be funny. "The market" includes millions of fools
who have absolutely NO need for the special mechanical
characteristics of SUVs, but they bought them anyway because
advertising told them to. "The market" made some pretty lousy
decisions.

"Need" is not the determining factor, "want" is.


In your next message, you will say that "the market" will correct this
mistake. Don't count on it.

It's not a mistake - it's called 'freedom.'


Yeah. Freedom to feed more dollars to the country that gave us 9/11.
That's
called stupid.


If we were to stop buying oil from the ME it would not in any way
eliminate the problems there that it helped to create, it could actually
make them even worse.


Worse? Let me guess: Create more poverty, and thus more unrest?


A distinct possibility considering that the ME has no significant
economy other than oil.
  #112   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,901
Default Goodbye 100w, 75w Incandescent Lamps

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

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

"HeyBub" wrote in message
...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:


You said "Let the market decide". That's pretty funny, although you
didn't mean it to be funny. "The market" includes millions of fools
who have absolutely NO need for the special mechanical
characteristics of SUVs, but they bought them anyway because
advertising told them to. "The market" made some pretty lousy
decisions.

"Need" is not the determining factor, "want" is.


In your next message, you will say that "the market" will correct
this
mistake. Don't count on it.

It's not a mistake - it's called 'freedom.'


Yeah. Freedom to feed more dollars to the country that gave us 9/11.
That's
called stupid.

If we were to stop buying oil from the ME it would not in any way
eliminate the problems there that it helped to create, it could
actually
make them even worse.


Worse? Let me guess: Create more poverty, and thus more unrest?


A distinct possibility considering that the ME has no significant
economy other than oil.



Based on everything I've read, much of the unrest in Saudi Arabia, for
instance, is *already* due to the gross inequities between the royals and
everyone else. This is why the royal family continues to support schools
whose teachers instruct students that WE are the reason for their miserable
lives.

We should've fulfilled their fantasies and put THEIR country under new
management, instead of Iraq. But, that would've required balls.


  #113   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,746
Default Goodbye 100w, 75w Incandescent Lamps

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

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

wrote in message
...
On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 06:21:12 -0800, Dan_Musicant
wrote:

Fact is you can find CF's that don't take a minute to get usable light.
Some are nearly instant on. The only filament lamps I use at all are
maybe a couple I haven't bothered to change that I leave on for 5-10
minutes at a time only.

I find it grating to read posts which make fun of federal lawmakers. I
wouldn't want to spend more than 10 minutes of every year sitting in
the
halls of congress. I know it's a madhouse, but walk a mile in their
shoes before you paint them all with the same brush.

Believe it or not, letting people do what they damn well please doesn't
work in this country.

Do us all a favor and leave the United States of America. This
country will be a much better place after you leave. You don't belong
here. You'd do much better in a country such as Iraq. Don't let the
door slam you in the ass as you leave.

Daryl

Would you agree that we need to reduce our dependence on foreign oil?


It would certainly be a good goal, however it will not in any way solve
or reduce the problems that it helped to create. Indeed if we stop
buying oil from the ME it could make the situation there even worse.
Since China would likely buy whatever we don't that later issue may not
be as significant now.


OK. Now we're getting somewhere. What if a family of four can get a 35%
improvement in gas mileage by owning a certain vehicle, without losing any
of the REAL (as opposed to imaginary) advantages of an SUV?


Not a valid option as there is no vehicle I'm aware of that gets 35%
better MPG than a typical SUV and still has the same real advantages of
the SUV. Just because you don't believe someone else needs the
capabilities of an SUV does not in any way make those capabilities
imaginary.

Is a 35%
improvement not worth thinking about, especially if multiplied by the number
of SUVs in this country?


There are other ways to make a more significant improvement without any
change in vehicles. A substantial amount of our vehicle use is in
unnecessary commuting and solo commuting. The current fuel prices are
already improving the situation by triggering more carpooling and more
telecommuting.
  #114   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 636
Default Goodbye 100w, 75w Incandescent Lamps

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

Not to complicate the issue, but a number of arms control experts have
pointed out that there's only one way we'll stop "rogue states" from
eventually developing nuclear weapons: Eliminate civilian nuclear
power plants.

Every benefit comes with a hidden horror show.


Just shows you what pussies the so-called "arms control experts are."

Even I can think of a way to deal with "rogue states."


  #115   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,746
Default Goodbye 100w, 75w Incandescent Lamps

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

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

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

"HeyBub" wrote in message
...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:


You said "Let the market decide". That's pretty funny, although you
didn't mean it to be funny. "The market" includes millions of fools
who have absolutely NO need for the special mechanical
characteristics of SUVs, but they bought them anyway because
advertising told them to. "The market" made some pretty lousy
decisions.

"Need" is not the determining factor, "want" is.


In your next message, you will say that "the market" will correct
this
mistake. Don't count on it.

It's not a mistake - it's called 'freedom.'


Yeah. Freedom to feed more dollars to the country that gave us 9/11.
That's
called stupid.

If we were to stop buying oil from the ME it would not in any way
eliminate the problems there that it helped to create, it could
actually
make them even worse.

Worse? Let me guess: Create more poverty, and thus more unrest?


A distinct possibility considering that the ME has no significant
economy other than oil.


Based on everything I've read, much of the unrest in Saudi Arabia, for
instance, is *already* due to the gross inequities between the royals and
everyone else. This is why the royal family continues to support schools
whose teachers instruct students that WE are the reason for their miserable
lives.

We should've fulfilled their fantasies and put THEIR country under new
management, instead of Iraq. But, that would've required balls.


So if we remove their source of revenue so there isn't any for them to
trickle down to the impoverished masses, this will make the situation
better? They'll just point the finger at us yet again and their ignorant
masses will mindlessly believe it again. If their masses weren't so
mindless they might figure out that they need to overthrow their
oppressors.


  #116   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,901
Default Goodbye 100w, 75w Incandescent Lamps

"HeyBub" wrote in message
...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

Not to complicate the issue, but a number of arms control experts have
pointed out that there's only one way we'll stop "rogue states" from
eventually developing nuclear weapons: Eliminate civilian nuclear
power plants.

Every benefit comes with a hidden horror show.


Just shows you what pussies the so-called "arms control experts are."

Even I can think of a way to deal with "rogue states."


Yeah, I'm sure you can think of a way, and it gives you a hard-on. Too bad
your way doesn't involve a brain.


  #117   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 636
Default Goodbye 100w, 75w Incandescent Lamps

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in message
...
Dan_Musicant wrote:

I use CFL's not to save the planet but because
in the long run, I save money.

I get it, like a lot of people you believe in being selfish, and
worse, you ridicule people who do things for reasons other than
selfish reasons.


It's called the "Invisible Hand." When everyone acts in their own
best interests, the overall good is magnified.



Nonsense.


Heh! Adam Smith postulated the concept in the late 18th Century. You,
evidently, are the only person in 230 years to disagree with the idea.


  #118   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,746
Default Goodbye 100w, 75w Incandescent Lamps

HeyBub wrote:

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

Not to complicate the issue, but a number of arms control experts have
pointed out that there's only one way we'll stop "rogue states" from
eventually developing nuclear weapons: Eliminate civilian nuclear
power plants.

Every benefit comes with a hidden horror show.


Just shows you what pussies the so-called "arms control experts are."

Even I can think of a way to deal with "rogue states."


The whole attempt to link nuclear power and nuclear weapons is just a
scam from the paranoid and ignorant anti nuke groups. Nuclear power and
nuclear weapons have almost nothing to do with each other besides
"nuclear" in the name. Nonsense kind of like trying to link Nuclear
Magnetic Resonance Imaging (a.k.a. MRI) and nuclear weapons.
  #119   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 636
Default Goodbye 100w, 75w Incandescent Lamps

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in message
...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:


You said "Let the market decide". That's pretty funny, although you
didn't mean it to be funny. "The market" includes millions of fools
who have absolutely NO need for the special mechanical
characteristics of SUVs, but they bought them anyway because
advertising told them to. "The market" made some pretty lousy
decisions.


"Need" is not the determining factor, "want" is.


In your next message, you will say that "the market" will correct
this mistake. Don't count on it.


It's not a mistake - it's called 'freedom.'



Yeah. Freedom to feed more dollars to the country that gave us 9/11.
That's called stupid.


So, you would deny ME the ability to send money to some country because you
don't like what some citizens of that country did?

The French have a word for policy, but I don't know what it is.


  #120   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 636
Default Goodbye 100w, 75w Incandescent Lamps

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in message
...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:


OK, then. How long do you think it's appropriate to wait before
finding out that market-driven forces are not going to solve a
problem? A year? 20 years? Two generations?


Forever. The market is not always right, but it is right far more
often than any other technique.



Bars here are doing MORE business since it became illegal to smoke in
bars. I seriously doubt "the market" would've figured that out
without a kick in the pants. And, Detroit *never* would've dealt with
car emissions issues without the government stepping in. Automakers
had no financial incentive to deal with it.


You should be outraged! MORE drinking! Doesn't that offend your
sensibilities of what's good for people?

There's another concept called the "Tragedy of the Commons" that's an
exception to unfettered personal actions. You're attempting to expand that
concept to all human actions.


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Banning incandescent lamps? Richard J Kinch Metalworking 106 January 11th 08 07:57 AM
Incandescent lamp resistance (from sed} - incandescent.pdf John Fields Electronic Schematics 2 May 23rd 07 06:32 PM
O.T. Making clear lamps into amber lamps NokNokMan Metalworking 14 October 12th 05 06:46 PM
Spotlight bulbs: R63 100W? Bert Coules UK diy 0 May 17th 05 02:54 PM
100w spotlights in multiple-light fitting - desperately sought Spamfree! UK diy 10 January 18th 05 12:24 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:00 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 DIYbanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about DIY & home improvement"