Hi,
Came across a 23W dimmable CFL. Got one to try it out.
It worked ~2 hours and pop, it went to full brightness and
no more dimmable??!! Are they this unreliable? Or I got bad one.

In article uuSQj.96222$Cj7.13450@pd7urf2no, Tony Hwang wrote:

Came across a 23W dimmable CFL. Got one to try it out.
It worked ~2 hours and pop, it went to full brightness and
no more dimmable??!! Are they this unreliable? Or I got bad one.

Please tell us the details!

The usual "dimmable CFL" to most looking for those means one that is
safely usable with a "usual light dimmer". I find it hard to believe a
lamp refusing completely to be dimmed by a usual-for-incandescent-type
dimmer. Non-dimmable lamps tend to have short life expectancy when used
with a dimmer against their instructions, and may blow the dimmer.
Usually the lamp is what dies.

- Don Klipstein )

Don Klipstein wrote:
In article uuSQj.96222$Cj7.13450@pd7urf2no, Tony Hwang wrote:


Came across a 23W dimmable CFL. Got one to try it out.
It worked ~2 hours and pop, it went to full brightness and
no more dimmable??!! Are they this unreliable? Or I got bad one.


Please tell us the details!

The usual "dimmable CFL" to most looking for those means one that is
safely usable with a "usual light dimmer". I find it hard to believe a
lamp refusing completely to be dimmed by a usual-for-incandescent-type
dimmer. Non-dimmable lamps tend to have short life expectancy when used
with a dimmer against their instructions, and may blow the dimmer.
Usually the lamp is what dies.

- Don Klipstein )
Hi,
Packaging clearly said it is dimmable. I screwed it in side by side with
60W incdescent lamp, dimmed up and down a few times and noticed when
dimmed too low it was scintillating. At certain point it quit doing that
where I left it. Soon it went to full brightness while the other lamp
was still dimmed. From then on it is no more dimming, just stay at full
bightness.

Blattus Slafaly ? (3) ¼ wrote:
Tony Hwang wrote:
Hi,
Came across a 23W dimmable CFL. Got one to try it out.
It worked ~2 hours and pop, it went to full brightness and
no more dimmable??!! Are they this unreliable? Or I got bad one.

You can't really expect a CFL to have the same range as an incandescent
bulb. If you are testing it to extremes you can expect it to pop.

I don't believe that it should be
expected to pop. I have 2 of them.
They don't dim very well. By that I
mean, when dimmed, they flicker
quite a bit. The range is good if you
can stand the blinkety blink. There
are spots where they seem to settle down
and be ok. BTW, I am
using this on an X10 lamp module, so
finding a "good" spot is quite
difficult. With a real dimmer, it might
be easier.

On Apr 26, 10:33*pm, Tony Hwang wrote:
Hi,
Came across a 23W dimmable CFL. Got one to try it out.
It worked ~2 hours and pop, it went to full brightness and
no more dimmable??!! Are they this unreliable? Or I got bad one.

Take it back, im sure it has a warranty, but I dought cfls dim well,
they probably go red in color dimmed

Tony Hwang wrote:

Hi,
Came across a 23W dimmable CFL. Got one to try it out.
It worked ~2 hours and pop, it went to full brightness and
no more dimmable??!! Are they this unreliable? Or I got bad one.

I expect you got a dud. The dimmable CFL I experimented with seemed to
work fine. It also performed a lot better after a day of full on burn in
period which I presume helped get all the mercury vaporized and the
phosphors settled.

In article qvVQj.96386$Cj7.75581@pd7urf2no, Tony Hwang wrote:
Don Klipstein wrote:
In article uuSQj.96222$Cj7.13450@pd7urf2no, Tony Hwang wrote:

Came across a 23W dimmable CFL. Got one to try it out.
It worked ~2 hours and pop, it went to full brightness and
no more dimmable??!! Are they this unreliable? Or I got bad one.

Please tell us the details!

The usual "dimmable CFL" to most looking for those means one that is
safely usable with a "usual light dimmer". I find it hard to believe a
lamp refusing completely to be dimmed by a usual-for-incandescent-type
dimmer. Non-dimmable lamps tend to have short life expectancy when used
with a dimmer against their instructions, and may blow the dimmer.
Usually the lamp is what dies.

- Don Klipstein )
Hi,
Packaging clearly said it is dimmable. I screwed it in side by side with
60W incdescent lamp, dimmed up and down a few times and noticed when
dimmed too low it was scintillating. At certain point it quit doing that
where I left it. Soon it went to full brightness while the other lamp
was still dimmed. From then on it is no more dimming, just stay at full
bightness.

I suspect the ballast circuitry in the CFL had part of it fail, and the
CFL converted itself into a conventional CFL. Those can have hardly any
dimming and can appear to be at full brightness until the dimmer is dimmed
past the point at which an incandescent has about 1/4 its normal
brightness. They can also be hard on the dimmer.

CFLs also often dim more slowly than incandescents do at first, being
about half brightness (or more) at a point at which an incandescent is
about 1/4 brightness. A CFL may start dimming more rapidly when dimmed
almost to being off, or may just suddenly turn off.

Special dimming ballasts for ballastless CFLs do better.

- Don Klipstein )

In article , Art Todesco wrote:
Blattus Slafaly ? (3) ¼ wrote:
Tony Hwang wrote:
Hi,
Came across a 23W dimmable CFL. Got one to try it out.
It worked ~2 hours and pop, it went to full brightness and
no more dimmable??!! Are they this unreliable? Or I got bad one.

You can't really expect a CFL to have the same range as an incandescent
bulb. If you are testing it to extremes you can expect it to pop.

I don't believe that it should be
expected to pop. I have 2 of them.
They don't dim very well. By that I
mean, when dimmed, they flicker
quite a bit. The range is good if you
can stand the blinkety blink. There
are spots where they seem to settle down
and be ok. BTW, I am
using this on an X10 lamp module, so
finding a "good" spot is quite
difficult. With a real dimmer, it might
be easier.

I have this sinking feeling that dimmable screw-base CFLs at least
sometimes lack provision to have their filaments maintained at a proper
temperature when they are dimmed. I would expect some compromise in life
expectancy with severe or moderately severe dimming.

One scheme mentioned a lot in some thread in sci.engr.lighting earlier
this year is to have two sets of lights in a room - one for bright
lighting and another for dim lighting.

- Don Klipstein )

In ,
ransley wrote:

On Apr 26, 10:33*pm, Tony Hwang wrote:
Hi,
Came across a 23W dimmable CFL. Got one to try it out.
It worked ~2 hours and pop, it went to full brightness and
no more dimmable??!! Are they this unreliable? Or I got bad one.

Take it back, im sure it has a warranty, but I dought cfls dim well,
they probably go red in color dimmed

I have done enough CFL dimming to know that indoor ones used indoors do
not change color much from dimming. I have seen some get slightly warmer
or slightly cooler in color from change in current and change in
temperature, but that's it.

One complaint of dimming fluorescents is lack of the color getting
warmer as the lamps are dimmed. The lighting can take on a "dreary gray"
appearance with severe dimming as a result.

- Don Klipstein )

Don Klipstein wrote:

In article , Art Todesco wrote:
Blattus Slafaly ? (3) ¼ wrote:
Tony Hwang wrote:
Hi,
Came across a 23W dimmable CFL. Got one to try it out.
It worked ~2 hours and pop, it went to full brightness and
no more dimmable??!! Are they this unreliable? Or I got bad one.

You can't really expect a CFL to have the same range as an incandescent
bulb. If you are testing it to extremes you can expect it to pop.

I don't believe that it should be
expected to pop. I have 2 of them.
They don't dim very well. By that I
mean, when dimmed, they flicker
quite a bit. The range is good if you
can stand the blinkety blink. There
are spots where they seem to settle down
and be ok. BTW, I am
using this on an X10 lamp module, so
finding a "good" spot is quite
difficult. With a real dimmer, it might
be easier.

I have this sinking feeling that dimmable screw-base CFLs at least
sometimes lack provision to have their filaments maintained at a proper
temperature when they are dimmed. I would expect some compromise in life
expectancy with severe or moderately severe dimming.

One scheme mentioned a lot in some thread in sci.engr.lighting earlier
this year is to have two sets of lights in a room - one for bright
lighting and another for dim lighting.

Back to the old style 3-way lighting from before they made multi
filament lamps and used several individual lamps instead. Put three
small normal CFLs in that type of fixture and you're all set.

On Sun 27 Apr 2008 12:42:38p, Pete C. told us...


Don Klipstein wrote:

In article , Art Todesco
wrote:
Blattus Slafaly ? (3) ¼ wrote:
Tony Hwang wrote:
Hi,
Came across a 23W dimmable CFL. Got one to try it out.
It worked ~2 hours and pop, it went to full brightness and no more
dimmable??!! Are they this unreliable? Or I got bad one.

You can't really expect a CFL to have the same range as an
incandescent bulb. If you are testing it to extremes you can expect
it to pop.

I don't believe that it should be
expected to pop. I have 2 of them.
They don't dim very well. By that I
mean, when dimmed, they flicker
quite a bit. The range is good if you
can stand the blinkety blink. There
are spots where they seem to settle down
and be ok. BTW, I am
using this on an X10 lamp module, so
finding a "good" spot is quite
difficult. With a real dimmer, it might be easier.

I have this sinking feeling that dimmable screw-base CFLs at least
sometimes lack provision to have their filaments maintained at a proper
temperature when they are dimmed. I would expect some compromise in
life expectancy with severe or moderately severe dimming.

One scheme mentioned a lot in some thread in sci.engr.lighting
earlier
this year is to have two sets of lights in a room - one for bright
lighting and another for dim lighting.

Back to the old style 3-way lighting from before they made multi
filament lamps and used several individual lamps instead. Put three
small normal CFLs in that type of fixture and you're all set.


Hmm... Yes, like the old floor lamps that had 3 standard base sockets and
one central mogul base socket. I wish I still had one of the really nice
ones that my parents had. It was a beautiful lamp with marble base and
engraved bronze post. An adapter could be put in the mogul base in order
to use a CFL there, too.

We have several true antique tiffany-style glass and craftsman style lamps
with mica shades that have either 2 or 3 pull chain sockets in them.
However, I still use clear incandescent bulbs in them because the CFLs make
them look extremely dull. I have thumbwheel dimmers on the line cords and
I use slightly higher wattage bulbs than one might want so that when dimmed
they give a much warmer light.

--
Wayne Boatwright
-------------------------------------------
Sunday, 04(IV)/27(XXVII)/08(MMVIII)
-------------------------------------------
Today is: Rogation Sunday
Countdown till Memorial Day
4wks 10hrs 35mins
-------------------------------------------
My views are not my own. I got them
out of a book.
-------------------------------------------

I have replaced 8 can lights with 16 watt dimmable bulbs and they are great
been in use about 1yr. I also replaced same situation lamps over my bar but
on same circuit as flame type lamps on same dimmer. CFL lasted 2min. Seems
like the CFL lamp is killed by voltage noise or disruption.
Not going to plug CFL mfg unless asked.
Frank

On Sun 27 Apr 2008 02:50:37p, Frank told us...

I have replaced 8 can lights with 16 watt dimmable bulbs and they are
great been in use about 1yr. I also replaced same situation lamps over
my bar but on same circuit as flame type lamps on same dimmer. CFL
lasted 2min. Seems like the CFL lamp is killed by voltage noise or
disruption.
Not going to plug CFL mfg unless asked.
Frank

I think the problem is mixing incandescents of any type along with CFLs on
the same dimmer.



--
Wayne Boatwright
-------------------------------------------
Sunday, 04(IV)/27(XXVII)/08(MMVIII)
-------------------------------------------
Today is: Rogation Sunday
Countdown till Memorial Day
4wks 8hrs 25mins
-------------------------------------------
For sale, Toilet-seat cover. Barely used.
-------------------------------------------

Wayne Boatwright wrote:

On Sun 27 Apr 2008 12:42:38p, Pete C. told us...


Don Klipstein wrote:

In article , Art Todesco
wrote:
Blattus Slafaly ? (3) ¼ wrote:
Tony Hwang wrote:
Hi,
Came across a 23W dimmable CFL. Got one to try it out.
It worked ~2 hours and pop, it went to full brightness and no more
dimmable??!! Are they this unreliable? Or I got bad one.

You can't really expect a CFL to have the same range as an
incandescent bulb. If you are testing it to extremes you can expect
it to pop.

I don't believe that it should be
expected to pop. I have 2 of them.
They don't dim very well. By that I
mean, when dimmed, they flicker
quite a bit. The range is good if you
can stand the blinkety blink. There
are spots where they seem to settle down
and be ok. BTW, I am
using this on an X10 lamp module, so
finding a "good" spot is quite
difficult. With a real dimmer, it might be easier.

I have this sinking feeling that dimmable screw-base CFLs at least
sometimes lack provision to have their filaments maintained at a proper
temperature when they are dimmed. I would expect some compromise in
life expectancy with severe or moderately severe dimming.

One scheme mentioned a lot in some thread in sci.engr.lighting
earlier
this year is to have two sets of lights in a room - one for bright
lighting and another for dim lighting.

Back to the old style 3-way lighting from before they made multi
filament lamps and used several individual lamps instead. Put three
small normal CFLs in that type of fixture and you're all set.


Hmm... Yes, like the old floor lamps that had 3 standard base sockets and
one central mogul base socket. I wish I still had one of the really nice
ones that my parents had. It was a beautiful lamp with marble base and
engraved bronze post. An adapter could be put in the mogul base in order
to use a CFL there, too.

They have big honkin' CFLs with mogul bases too. They're starting to
appear at the big boxes. You have to be careful though because there are
also some similar looking mogul based CFLs that are designed to directly
replace HID lights such as mercury vapor without removing the HID
ballast.


We have several true antique tiffany-style glass and craftsman style lamps
with mica shades that have either 2 or 3 pull chain sockets in them.
However, I still use clear incandescent bulbs in them because the CFLs make
them look extremely dull. I have thumbwheel dimmers on the line cords and
I use slightly higher wattage bulbs than one might want so that when dimmed
they give a much warmer light.

Have you tried looking for a CFL with a warmer (lower) color
temperature? Also if you try them be sure to try them for a few days
since your eyes will adjust.

On Sun 27 Apr 2008 06:41:34p, Pete C. told us...


Wayne Boatwright wrote:

On Sun 27 Apr 2008 12:42:38p, Pete C. told us...


Don Klipstein wrote:

In article , Art
Todesco wrote:
Blattus Slafaly ? (3) ¼ wrote:
Tony Hwang wrote:
Hi,
Came across a 23W dimmable CFL. Got one to try it out.
It worked ~2 hours and pop, it went to full brightness and no
more dimmable??!! Are they this unreliable? Or I got bad one.

You can't really expect a CFL to have the same range as an
incandescent bulb. If you are testing it to extremes you can
expect it to pop.

I don't believe that it should be
expected to pop. I have 2 of them.
They don't dim very well. By that I
mean, when dimmed, they flicker
quite a bit. The range is good if you
can stand the blinkety blink. There
are spots where they seem to settle down
and be ok. BTW, I am
using this on an X10 lamp module, so
finding a "good" spot is quite difficult. With a real dimmer, it
might be easier.

I have this sinking feeling that dimmable screw-base CFLs at least
sometimes lack provision to have their filaments maintained at a
proper temperature when they are dimmed. I would expect some
compromise in life expectancy with severe or moderately severe
dimming.

One scheme mentioned a lot in some thread in sci.engr.lighting
earlier
this year is to have two sets of lights in a room - one for bright
lighting and another for dim lighting.

Back to the old style 3-way lighting from before they made multi
filament lamps and used several individual lamps instead. Put three
small normal CFLs in that type of fixture and you're all set.


Hmm... Yes, like the old floor lamps that had 3 standard base sockets
and one central mogul base socket. I wish I still had one of the
really nice ones that my parents had. It was a beautiful lamp with
marble base and engraved bronze post. An adapter could be put in the
mogul base in order to use a CFL there, too.

They have big honkin' CFLs with mogul bases too. They're starting to
appear at the big boxes. You have to be careful though because there are
also some similar looking mogul based CFLs that are designed to directly
replace HID lights such as mercury vapor without removing the HID
ballast.

Thanks, Pete, didn't know that. Unfortunately, I no longer have any of the
floor lamps I could have used one in.

We have several true antique tiffany-style glass and craftsman style
lamps with mica shades that have either 2 or 3 pull chain sockets in
them. However, I still use clear incandescent bulbs in them because the
CFLs make them look extremely dull. I have thumbwheel dimmers on the
line cords and I use slightly higher wattage bulbs than one might want
so that when dimmed they give a much warmer light.

Have you tried looking for a CFL with a warmer (lower) color
temperature? Also if you try them be sure to try them for a few days
since your eyes will adjust.

It's not just the color (warmth) of the light that's an issue. It's the
transparency of an clear incandescent and the filiment showing through that
causes the glass shades to glisten. I doubt there will ever be a CFL that
can produce that effect.

At least the upcoming ban on many incandescent bulbs will not include
decorative bulbs like the very old style of swirled flame bulb. At least
that's my understanding.

Another option I've used in very old lighting with two bulbs is wiring them
in series. The bulbs last forever and the color and intensity is just
right. I have one fixture that remains on constantly, that the bulbs are
probably 30 years old or older.

As an aside, it's been said that Edison's home in Florida that is wired
with DC power still has the working original bulbs throughout.

--
Wayne Boatwright
-------------------------------------------
Sunday, 04(IV)/27(XXVII)/08(MMVIII)
-------------------------------------------
Today is: Rogation Sunday
Countdown till Memorial Day
4wks 4hrs 55mins
-------------------------------------------
'Make it idiot proof and someone will
make a better idiot.'
-------------------------------------------

In article , Pete C. wrote:
SNIP

They have big honkin' CFLs with mogul bases too. They're starting to
appear at the big boxes. You have to be careful though because there are
also some similar looking mogul based CFLs that are designed to directly
replace HID lights such as mercury vapor without removing the HID
ballast.

CAUTION - most of those mogul screw base ballastless CFLs get overpowered
in HID fixtures - should they work at all.

CFLs of wattage over 50 watts (and for that matter also most under
50 watts) tend to either have their own internal ballasts or require
ballasts specific to themselves as opposed to ballasts for mercury or
other HID lamps. Do not put a mogul base CFL into a 175 watt mercury
fixture unless it is rated for use in a 175 watt mercury fixture and also
has the ANSI "ballast compatibility" code of H39.
Other HID "retrofit lamps" have other ANSI "ballast compatibility" codes
on either the bulb or the package or in any inserted printed material.
Use those in HID fixtures only if the fixture and/or the ballast has an
ANSI "ballast compatibility" code same as one for the lamp (lightbulb).
Otherwise, there is probability or possibility of malfunction, including
significant chance that malfunction will occur "down the road" should the
lamp work "apparently OK" initially. Such malfunctions may include
hazardous ones.

Keep in mind that there is such a thing as ballastless mogul screw
base CFLs that lack any ANSI "ballast compatibility" codes. Those require
ballasts/fixtures recommended by the lamp manufacturer, which may be
proprietary ones. The best example that I can think of is Lights of
America "Fluorex" lamps, widely available at Home Depot.

- Don Klipstein )

In article 4, Wayne
Boatwright wrote in part:

Another option I've used in very old lighting with two bulbs is wiring them
in series. The bulbs last forever and the color and intensity is just
right. I have one fixture that remains on constantly, that the bulbs are
probably 30 years old or older.

As an aside, it's been said that Edison's home in Florida that is wired
with DC power still has the working original bulbs throughout.

Just keep in mind that such century-life incandescents have energy
efficiency so low that in order to produce a given amount of light, you
increase your electric bill more than you decrease your lightbulb
replacement costs.

The first-mass-marketed carbon filament incandescents had energy
efficiency of a couple to at most a few lumens per watt.

There is a "centennial bulb" with a webcam showing a publicly accessable
view of it continuing to work. I give low odds of its energy efficiency
exceeding that of a 230 volt incandescent being powered by 120 volts, or
roughly 1/4-1/3 that of modern 60-100 watt 750-1000 hour incandescents.

http://www.centennialbulb.org

- Don Klipstein )

Don Klipstein wrote:
In article , Art Todesco wrote:
Blattus Slafaly ? (3) ¼ wrote:
Tony Hwang wrote:
Hi,
Came across a 23W dimmable CFL. Got one to try it out.
It worked ~2 hours and pop, it went to full brightness and
no more dimmable??!! Are they this unreliable? Or I got bad one.
You can't really expect a CFL to have the same range as an incandescent
bulb. If you are testing it to extremes you can expect it to pop.

I don't believe that it should be
expected to pop. I have 2 of them.
They don't dim very well. By that I
mean, when dimmed, they flicker
quite a bit. The range is good if you
can stand the blinkety blink. There
are spots where they seem to settle down
and be ok. BTW, I am
using this on an X10 lamp module, so
finding a "good" spot is quite
difficult. With a real dimmer, it might
be easier.

I have this sinking feeling that dimmable screw-base CFLs at least
sometimes lack provision to have their filaments maintained at a proper
temperature when they are dimmed. I would expect some compromise in life
expectancy with severe or moderately severe dimming.

One scheme mentioned a lot in some thread in sci.engr.lighting earlier
this year is to have two sets of lights in a room - one for bright
lighting and another for dim lighting.

- Don Klipstein )
They really don't have filaments as
regular fluorescent lamps. Because they
use an electronic ballast, the voltage
can be high enough to not need the
traditional heated filament, starter, etc.

On Sun 27 Apr 2008 08:32:16p, Don Klipstein told us...

In article 4, Wayne
Boatwright wrote in part:

Another option I've used in very old lighting with two bulbs is wiring
them in series. The bulbs last forever and the color and intensity is
just right. I have one fixture that remains on constantly, that the
bulbs are probably 30 years old or older.

As an aside, it's been said that Edison's home in Florida that is wired
with DC power still has the working original bulbs throughout.

Just keep in mind that such century-life incandescents have energy
efficiency so low that in order to produce a given amount of light, you
increase your electric bill more than you decrease your lightbulb
replacement costs.

The first-mass-marketed carbon filament incandescents had energy
efficiency of a couple to at most a few lumens per watt.

There is a "centennial bulb" with a webcam showing a publicly
accessable
view of it continuing to work. I give low odds of its energy efficiency
exceeding that of a 230 volt incandescent being powered by 120 volts, or
roughly 1/4-1/3 that of modern 60-100 watt 750-1000 hour incandescents.

http://www.centennialbulb.org

- Don Klipstein )

I've no doubt of the inefficiency, but thought it was interesting, and
I've seen the Centennial Bulb before. Just thought it was a curiosity.

As a further aside, my dad had a habit of installing double light fixtures
with 25 watt bulbs at strategic places throughout the house and basement,
wired in series, to produce a very low light level. He didn't like walking
into dark rooms, especially when the light switch wasn't near the entry.
To him, of course, this wasn't a waste of energy. Of course, this was in
an era when energy consumption was not an issue or concern.

--
Wayne Boatwright
-------------------------------------------
Sunday, 04(IV)/27(XXVII)/08(MMVIII)
-------------------------------------------
Today is: Rogation Sunday
Countdown till Memorial Day
4wks 2hrs 40mins
-------------------------------------------
If you do not strive with others, you
will be free from blame-Lao Tzu
-------------------------------------------

In , Art Todesco wrote:
Don Klipstein wrote:
In , Art Todesco wrote:
Blattus Slafaly ? (3) ¼ wrote:
Tony Hwang wrote:
Hi,
Came across a 23W dimmable CFL. Got one to try it out.
It worked ~2 hours and pop, it went to full brightness and
no more dimmable??!! Are they this unreliable? Or I got bad one.
You can't really expect a CFL to have the same range as an incandescent
bulb. If you are testing it to extremes you can expect it to pop.

I don't believe that it should be
expected to pop. I have 2 of them.
They don't dim very well. By that I
mean, when dimmed, they flicker
quite a bit. The range is good if you
can stand the blinkety blink. There
are spots where they seem to settle down
and be ok. BTW, I am
using this on an X10 lamp module, so
finding a "good" spot is quite
difficult. With a real dimmer, it might
be easier.

I have this sinking feeling that dimmable screw-base CFLs at least
sometimes lack provision to have their filaments maintained at a proper
temperature when they are dimmed. I would expect some compromise in life
expectancy with severe or moderately severe dimming.

One scheme mentioned a lot in some thread in sci.engr.lighting earlier
this year is to have two sets of lights in a room - one for bright
lighting and another for dim lighting.

- Don Klipstein )

They really don't have filaments as regular fluorescent lamps. Because they
use an electronic ballast, the voltage can be high enough to not need the
traditional heated filament, starter, etc.

They actually have filament-style electrodes. They somewhat get away
with lack of preheating those filaments during starting, but the "hot
cathode" "filament style" electrodes are still what is there!

Availability to force starting without preheating the filament
electrodes is "Instant Start". This is opposed to "Rapid Start",
"Program Start", and a couple other schemes.

True instant start is something that I think goes at best at own risk
when dimming is used!

- Don Klipstein )

On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 04:25:21 GMT, Wayne Boatwright
wrote:

[snip]

As a further aside, my dad had a habit of installing double light fixtures
with 25 watt bulbs at strategic places throughout the house and basement,
wired in series, to produce a very low light level. He didn't like walking
into dark rooms, especially when the light switch wasn't near the entry.
To him, of course, this wasn't a waste of energy. Of course, this was in
an era when energy consumption was not an issue or concern.

I have several small lights around for that purpose, although they're
LED lights that use about 2.5W.
--
Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.laughingsquid.com

"So far as I can remember, there is not one word
in the Gospels in praise of intelligence."
--Bertrand Russell

In article ,
(Don Klipstein) wrote:

I give low odds of its energy efficiency exceeding that of a
230 volt incandescent being powered by 120 volts

Do you believe that 130V-rated (commercial?) incandescent lamps,
operating at ~120VAC, are longer-lasting enough to be worth the hassle
of getting them (wholesaler) and price, compared to an everyday bulb?

I recall that, some 30-years ago, I acquired one or more 130V-rated
incandescent lamps from one of the local, "city sales" wholesaler. I
don't remember following-up on the lamp's lifespan, but it was an
attempt to increase the operating life of a hard-to-reach lamp.

My biggest road block to converting to compact fluorescent lamps is that
all but one of my most-used light fixtures is controlled by a dimmer
switch that gets USED.

I need FILAMENTS to illuminate my home. A governmental mandate -
un-funded, I might add - to force me to convert to CFLs (beginning in a
couple years) is unconstitutional.

The federal government may NOT legislate the forced conversion to a
replacement technology unless it can be PROVEN that it is a superior
technology in ALL ways but, most importantly, retrofit CO$T.

This is the twenty-first century! We can (and should) no longer avoid
harvesting our own energy resources within our own lands.

Our air and water are cleaner than they have EVER been, yet, during that
same time, we've been growing and prospering as a society. We've
learned from our mistakes in the past. When we have an oil spill, it's
often reported by the gallon instead of the barrel to prop-up the all
important NUMBER.

A modern oil drilling operation has a surprisingly small footprint.
When they are done at that location, they restore the site to
before-drilling conditions.

We need to build more oil refineries domestically then go get more of
OUR OWN oil. This would certainly slow the RISE in the price of
gasoline.

We also need to start building more nuclear-powered, electricity
generating stations. No thanks to prohibitive legislative and
environmental enactments, it takes YEARS just to do the paperwork for a
new nuke. That needs to be whittled-down to a couple of years at most.

It's only 2008 and we apparently can't WAIT to forget about 9/11. (2001
for those of you that forgot.)

Next March 28, it will be thirty YEARS since the TMI2 (Three Mile Island
Unit 2) "accident" and we can apparently NEVER forget.

Which event killed more people?

Carbon footprint? When compared to a nuclear power station, an
equivalent coal-fired operation has a *HUGE* footprint. It's fuel is
delivered 2-3 times a week by the 100-car TRAINLOAD. It adds to the
MOUNTAIN of coal that a station keeps on hand.

Omaha has such an operation along the Nebraska side of the Missouri
river. The railroad tracks bisect the city.

We also benefit from Fort Calhoun (nuclear) Generating Station somewhat
further north upriver from OPPD's North Omaha (coal-fired) Station.

My utility is currently building a second, coal-fired unit outside
Nebraska City - about 60 miles south of Omaha along the Missouri river.

I would LOVE another nuke.

But, I digress. Back to Thomas Alva Edison's most earth-changing
invention: The light bulb.

The federal mandate to phase-out the common incandescent lamp is an
unconstitutional encroachment on the private sector.

Banning ourselves (huh?) from harvesting huge fuel resources within our
own lands is absurd at least. Considering the price of gas, it's become
stupid, too.

We really need to grow a BRAIN and a backbone about energy: The BRAIN
to build it (refinery, drill site or nuke power station) and the
BACKBONE to OVERCOME all the hand-wringing and shrieks of anguish from
the crybaby left while it happens - clean, safe and quite overdue.
--

JR

On Apr 27, 2:51*pm, (Don Klipstein) wrote:
In article , Art Todesco wrote:
Blattus Slafaly ? (3) ¼ wrote:
Tony Hwang wrote:
Hi,
Came across a 23W dimmable CFL. Got one to try it out.
It worked ~2 hours and pop, it went to full brightness and
no more dimmable??!! Are they this unreliable? Or I got bad one.

You can't really expect a CFL to have the same range as an incandescent
bulb. If you are testing it to extremes you can expect it to pop.

I don't believe that it should be
expected to pop. *I have 2 of them.
They don't dim very well. *By that I
mean, when dimmed, they flicker
quite a bit. *The range is good if you
can stand the blinkety blink. *There
are spots where they seem to settle down
and be ok. *BTW, I am
using this on an X10 lamp module, so
finding a "good" spot is quite
difficult. *With a real dimmer, it might
be easier.

* I have this sinking feeling that dimmable screw-base CFLs at least
sometimes lack provision to have their filaments maintained at a proper
temperature when they are dimmed. *I would expect some compromise in life
expectancy with severe or moderately severe dimming.

* One scheme mentioned a lot in some thread in sci.engr.lighting earlier
this year is to have two sets of lights in a room - one for bright
lighting and another for dim lighting.

*- Don Klipstein )- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

There is no filament in a CFL.

On Apr 28, 9:23*am, Jim Redelfs wrote:
In article ,
(Don Klipstein) wrote:

I give low odds of its energy efficiency exceeding that of a
230 volt incandescent being powered by 120 volts

Do you believe that 130V-rated (commercial?) incandescent lamps,
operating at ~120VAC, are longer-lasting enough to be worth the hassle
of getting them (wholesaler) and price, compared to an everyday bulb?

I recall that, some 30-years ago, I acquired one or more 130V-rated
incandescent lamps from one of the local, "city sales" wholesaler. *I
don't remember following-up on the lamp's lifespan, but it was an
attempt to increase the operating life of a hard-to-reach lamp.

My biggest road block to converting to compact fluorescent lamps is that
all but one of my most-used light fixtures is controlled by a dimmer
switch that gets USED.

I need FILAMENTS to illuminate my home. *A governmental mandate -
un-funded, I might add - to force me to convert to CFLs (beginning in a
couple years) *is unconstitutional.

The federal government may NOT legislate the forced conversion to a
replacement technology unless it can be PROVEN that it is a superior
technology in ALL ways but, most importantly, retrofit CO$T.

This is the twenty-first century! *We can (and should) no longer avoid
harvesting our own energy resources within our own lands.

Our air and water are cleaner than they have EVER been, yet, during that
same time, we've been growing and prospering as a society. *We've
learned from our mistakes in the past. *When we have an oil spill, it's
often reported by the gallon instead of the barrel to prop-up the all
important NUMBER.

A modern oil drilling operation has a surprisingly small footprint. *
When they are done at that location, they restore the site to
before-drilling conditions.

We need to build more oil refineries domestically then go get more of
OUR OWN oil. *This would certainly slow the RISE in the price of
gasoline.

We also need to start building more nuclear-powered, electricity
generating stations. *No thanks to prohibitive legislative and
environmental enactments, it takes YEARS just to do the paperwork for a
new nuke. *That needs to be whittled-down to a couple of years at most.

It's only 2008 and we apparently can't WAIT to forget about 9/11. *(2001
for those of you that forgot.)

Next March 28, it will be thirty YEARS since the TMI2 (Three Mile Island
Unit 2) "accident" and we can apparently NEVER forget.

Which event killed more people?

Carbon footprint? *When compared to a nuclear power station, an
equivalent coal-fired operation has a *HUGE* footprint. *It's fuel is
delivered 2-3 times a week by the 100-car TRAINLOAD. *It adds to the
MOUNTAIN of coal that a station keeps on hand.

Omaha has such an operation along the Nebraska side of the Missouri
river. *The railroad tracks bisect the city.

We also benefit from Fort Calhoun (nuclear) Generating Station somewhat
further north upriver from OPPD's North Omaha (coal-fired) Station.

My utility is currently building a second, coal-fired unit outside
Nebraska City - about 60 miles south of Omaha along the Missouri river.

I would LOVE another nuke.

But, I digress. *Back to Thomas Alva Edison's most earth-changing
invention: *The light bulb.

The federal mandate to phase-out the common incandescent lamp is an
unconstitutional encroachment on the private sector.

I agree with most of the rest of your post. But I'd like to see on
what basis you think this is unconstitutional. There are vast
numbers of laws on the federal books that ban all kinds of things.
The ban not too long ago on freon is probably the closest example.
Back in the 30's they even banned private possession of gold, which is
extreme, and no one successfully challenged that on any constitutional
grounds.







Banning ourselves (huh?) from harvesting huge fuel resources within our
own lands is absurd at least. *Considering the price of gas, it's become
stupid, too. *

We really need to grow a BRAIN and a backbone about energy: *The BRAIN
to build it (refinery, drill site or nuke power station) and the
BACKBONE to OVERCOME all the hand-wringing and shrieks of anguish from
the crybaby left while it happens - clean, safe and quite overdue.
--
* * * * * *
JR

On Mon 28 Apr 2008 05:28:13a, Mark Lloyd told us...

On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 04:25:21 GMT, Wayne Boatwright
wrote:

[snip]

As a further aside, my dad had a habit of installing double light
fixtures
with 25 watt bulbs at strategic places throughout the house and basement,
wired in series, to produce a very low light level. He didn't like
walking
into dark rooms, especially when the light switch wasn't near the entry.
To him, of course, this wasn't a waste of energy. Of course, this was in
an era when energy consumption was not an issue or concern.

I have several small lights around for that purpose, although they're
LED lights that use about 2.5W.

When my dad did this, LED lights weren't even a glimmer in anyone's eye.
I'm not even sure LCD displays were around then either.

--
Wayne Boatwright
-------------------------------------------
Monday, 04(IV)/28(XXVIII)/08(MMVIII)
-------------------------------------------
Countdown till Memorial Day
3wks 6dys 16hrs 5mins
-------------------------------------------
Hey, I have an idea! Let's all go
spray paint some cars in Singapore.
-------------------------------------------

On Mon 28 Apr 2008 06:44:08a, told us...

Subject: Dimmable CFL
From:

On Apr 28, 9:23ÿam, Jim Redelfs wrote:
In article ,
(Don Klipstein) wrote:

I give low odds of its energy efficiency exceeding that of a 230 volt
incandescent being powered by 120 volts

Do you believe that 130V-rated (commercial?) incandescent lamps,
operating at ~120VAC, are longer-lasting enough to be worth the hassle
of getting them (wholesaler) and price, compared to an everyday bulb?

Yes, I believe that, and almost all the incandescent bulbs I have in my
home are 130v-rated. Their logevity is astounding.

--
Wayne Boatwright
-------------------------------------------
Monday, 04(IV)/28(XXVIII)/08(MMVIII)
-------------------------------------------
Countdown till Memorial Day
3wks 6dys 16hrs 5mins
-------------------------------------------
Hey, I have an idea! Let's all go
spray paint some cars in Singapore.
-------------------------------------------

Wayne Boatwright wrote:
On Sun 27 Apr 2008 08:32:16p, Don Klipstein told us...


In article 4, Wayne
Boatwright wrote in part:


Another option I've used in very old lighting with two bulbs is wiring
them in series. The bulbs last forever and the color and intensity is
just right. I have one fixture that remains on constantly, that the
bulbs are probably 30 years old or older.

As an aside, it's been said that Edison's home in Florida that is wired
with DC power still has the working original bulbs throughout.

Just keep in mind that such century-life incandescents have energy
efficiency so low that in order to produce a given amount of light, you
increase your electric bill more than you decrease your lightbulb
replacement costs.

The first-mass-marketed carbon filament incandescents had energy
efficiency of a couple to at most a few lumens per watt.

There is a "centennial bulb" with a webcam showing a publicly
accessable
view of it continuing to work. I give low odds of its energy efficiency
exceeding that of a 230 volt incandescent being powered by 120 volts, or
roughly 1/4-1/3 that of modern 60-100 watt 750-1000 hour incandescents.

http://www.centennialbulb.org

- Don Klipstein )


I've no doubt of the inefficiency, but thought it was interesting, and
I've seen the Centennial Bulb before. Just thought it was a curiosity.

As a further aside, my dad had a habit of installing double light fixtures
with 25 watt bulbs at strategic places throughout the house and basement,
wired in series, to produce a very low light level. He didn't like walking
into dark rooms, especially when the light switch wasn't near the entry.
To him, of course, this wasn't a waste of energy. Of course, this was in
an era when energy consumption was not an issue or concern.

Hi,
For low lighting I use LED bulbs. They consume only 3W per bulb.
Few different colors. Soon I hope LED will replace CFLs.

Wayne Boatwright wrote:

On Mon 28 Apr 2008 06:44:08a, told us...


Subject: Dimmable CFL
From:

On Apr 28, 9:23ÿam, Jim Redelfs wrote:

In article ,
(Don Klipstein) wrote:


I give low odds of its energy efficiency exceeding that of a 230 volt
incandescent being powered by 120 volts

Do you believe that 130V-rated (commercial?) incandescent lamps,
operating at ~120VAC, are longer-lasting enough to be worth the hassle
of getting them (wholesaler) and price, compared to an everyday bulb?


Yes, I believe that, and almost all the incandescent bulbs I have in my
home are 130v-rated. Their logevity is astounding.

Hi,
Definitely those long life commercial grade ones lasts longer.
Also there is another one called rough duty ones. They are good for
ceiling light or trouble light fixtures. Pretty soon incadescent bulbs
will be out of production like diminishing R22 refrigerant.

In , Jim
Redelfs wrote in part:

Do you believe that 130V-rated (commercial?) incandescent lamps,
operating at ~120VAC, are longer-lasting enough to be worth the hassle
of getting them (wholesaler) and price, compared to an everyday bulb?

They are available at Lowes. You can also get Philips "/99" series
incandescents from bulbs.com - those are rated to last 2500 hours.

I recall that, some 30-years ago, I acquired one or more 130V-rated
incandescent lamps from one of the local, "city sales" wholesaler. I
don't remember following-up on the lamp's lifespan, but it was an
attempt to increase the operating life of a hard-to-reach lamp.

My biggest road block to converting to compact fluorescent lamps is that
all but one of my most-used light fixtures is controlled by a dimmer
switch that gets USED.

Target now has dimmable CFLs.

I need FILAMENTS to illuminate my home. A governmental mandate -
un-funded, I might add - to force me to convert to CFLs (beginning in a
couple years) is unconstitutional.

Home Depot is already selling incandescents with energy efficiency
improved enough to not be affected by the ban that starts in 2012-2014.
They are rated to last 3,000 hours and are dimmable. They are Philips
Halogena "Energy Saver".

- Don Klipstein )

In article HLlRj.98721$rd2.31381@pd7urf3no, Tony Hwang wrote:
Wayne Boatwright wrote:

On Mon 28 Apr 2008 06:44:08a, told us...


Subject: Dimmable CFL
From:

On Apr 28, 9:23ÿam, Jim Redelfs wrote:

Do you believe that 130V-rated (commercial?) incandescent lamps,
operating at ~120VAC, are longer-lasting enough to be worth the hassle
of getting them (wholesaler) and price, compared to an everyday bulb?

Yes, I believe that, and almost all the incandescent bulbs I have in my
home are 130v-rated. Their logevity is astounding.

Hi,
Definitely those long life commercial grade ones lasts longer.
Also there is another one called rough duty ones. They are good for
ceiling light or trouble light fixtures. Pretty soon incadescent bulbs
will be out of production like diminishing R22 refrigerant.

The commercial grade, 130V and rough duty ones also produce less light.
A 100 watt one of those is only slightly brighter than a standard 75 watt
one.

- Don Klipstein )

In ,
wrote:

On Apr 27, 2:51*pm, (Don Klipstein) wrote:

* I have this sinking feeling that dimmable screw-base CFLs at least
sometimes lack provision to have their filaments maintained at a proper
temperature when they are dimmed. *I would expect some compromise in life
expectancy with severe or moderately severe dimming.

* One scheme mentioned a lot in some thread in sci.engr.lighting earlier
this year is to have two sets of lights in a room - one for bright
lighting and another for dim lighting.

*- Don Klipstein )- Hide quoted text -

There is no filament in a CFL.

All fluorescents except cold cathode types have a filament at each end
to use as an electrode. They have a coating that gets sputtered
(effectively evaporated), and much more rapidly if they are not at the
proper temperature. When that coating is gone, the fluorescent lamp does
not work too well (often not at all) anymore.

- Don Klipstein )

In MElRj.228174$pM4.138256@pd7urf1no, Tony Hwang wrote in part:
Wayne Boatwright wrote:

As a further aside, my dad had a habit of installing double light fixtures
with 25 watt bulbs at strategic places throughout the house and basement,
wired in series, to produce a very low light level. He didn't like walking
into dark rooms, especially when the light switch wasn't near the entry.
To him, of course, this wasn't a waste of energy. Of course, this was in
an era when energy consumption was not an issue or concern.

Hi,
For low lighting I use LED bulbs. They consume only 3W per bulb.
Few different colors. Soon I hope LED will replace CFLs.

For low lighting, if you use LED bulbs that have several lower power
LEDs, I recommend green or blue ones for longer life if you can accept
the color. The green ones are brighter. Many low power white LEDs fade,
with a halflife often only around a year.

Same story with LED nightlights. Green and blue are brightest for night
vision and red is dimmest.

- Don Klipstein )

On Mon 28 Apr 2008 11:04:17a, Don Klipstein told us...

In article HLlRj.98721$rd2.31381@pd7urf3no, Tony Hwang wrote:
Wayne Boatwright wrote:

On Mon 28 Apr 2008 06:44:08a, told us...


Subject: Dimmable CFL
From:

On Apr 28, 9:23ÿam, Jim Redelfs wrote:

Do you believe that 130V-rated (commercial?) incandescent lamps,
operating at ~120VAC, are longer-lasting enough to be worth the hassle
of getting them (wholesaler) and price, compared to an everyday bulb?

Yes, I believe that, and almost all the incandescent bulbs I have in my
home are 130v-rated. Their logevity is astounding.

Hi,
Definitely those long life commercial grade ones lasts longer.
Also there is another one called rough duty ones. They are good for
ceiling light or trouble light fixtures. Pretty soon incadescent bulbs
will be out of production like diminishing R22 refrigerant.

The commercial grade, 130V and rough duty ones also produce less light.
A 100 watt one of those is only slightly brighter than a standard 75 watt
one.

- Don Klipstein )


True, but I like the color of the light better.

--
Wayne Boatwright
-------------------------------------------
Monday, 04(IV)/28(XXVIII)/08(MMVIII)
-------------------------------------------
Countdown till Memorial Day
3wks 6dys 11hrs 55mins
-------------------------------------------
Reality is not always probable, or
even likely.
-------------------------------------------

Don Klipstein wrote:
In ,
wrote:

On Apr 27, 2:51 pm, (Don Klipstein) wrote:

I have this sinking feeling that dimmable screw-base CFLs at least
sometimes lack provision to have their filaments maintained at a proper
temperature when they are dimmed. I would expect some compromise in life
expectancy with severe or moderately severe dimming.

One scheme mentioned a lot in some thread in sci.engr.lighting earlier
this year is to have two sets of lights in a room - one for bright
lighting and another for dim lighting.

- Don Klipstein )- Hide quoted text -
There is no filament in a CFL.

All fluorescents except cold cathode types have a filament at each end
to use as an electrode. They have a coating that gets sputtered
(effectively evaporated), and much more rapidly if they are not at the
proper temperature. When that coating is gone, the fluorescent lamp does
not work too well (often not at all) anymore.

- Don Klipstein )
Kind of a matter of semantics. CFLs
usually don't have a filament as in
the long tubes. They do have an
electrode at each end. The filaments in
the standard tubes are used as heaters
to help in starting. CFLs use a
higher voltage that don't require the
pre-heater.

wrote:

On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 15:00:45 GMT, Wayne Boatwright
wrote:


On Mon 28 Apr 2008 06:44:08a, told us...


Subject: Dimmable CFL
From:

On Apr 28, 9:23ÿam, Jim Redelfs wrote:

In article ,
(Don Klipstein) wrote:


I give low odds of its energy efficiency exceeding that of a 230 volt
incandescent being powered by 120 volts

Do you believe that 130V-rated (commercial?) incandescent lamps,
operating at ~120VAC, are longer-lasting enough to be worth the hassle
of getting them (wholesaler) and price, compared to an everyday bulb?

Yes, I believe that, and almost all the incandescent bulbs I have in my
home are 130v-rated. Their logevity is astounding.


They use more electricity, however.


Hmmm,
I don't think so. 130V rated lamp is on 120V circuit.
Simple Ohm's law.

In article , Art Todesco wrote:
Don Klipstein wrote:
In ,
wrote:

On Apr 27, 2:51 pm, (Don Klipstein) wrote:

I have this sinking feeling that dimmable screw-base CFLs at least
sometimes lack provision to have their filaments maintained at a proper
temperature when they are dimmed. I would expect some compromise in life
expectancy with severe or moderately severe dimming.

One scheme mentioned a lot in some thread in sci.engr.lighting earlier
this year is to have two sets of lights in a room - one for bright
lighting and another for dim lighting.

- Don Klipstein )- Hide quoted text -
There is no filament in a CFL.

All fluorescents except cold cathode types have a filament at each end
to use as an electrode. They have a coating that gets sputtered
(effectively evaporated), and much more rapidly if they are not at the
proper temperature. When that coating is gone, the fluorescent lamp does
not work too well (often not at all) anymore.

- Don Klipstein )

Kind of a matter of semantics. CFLs usually don't have a filament as
in the long tubes. They do have an electrode at each end. The
filaments in the standard tubes are used as heaters to help in
starting. CFLs use a higher voltage that don't require the
pre-heater.

In instant-start hot cathode fluorescents including instant start
CFLs, the electrodes are still in the form of filaments.

Also, many hot cathode CFLs are not true instant start but "program
start" or "trigger start" ("rapid start" with filament heating current
reduced once the lamp gets started). The filaments actually get
preheated in those.

Cold cathode CFLs don't have filaments, but few CFLs are cold cathode.
I have never seen Home Depot carrying more than one cold cathode model -
the 3 watt N:Vision one. And I was there yesterday.

- Don Klipstein )

In article 3bxRj.99570$rd2.14985@pd7urf3no, Tony Hwang wrote:
wrote:

On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 15:00:45 GMT, Wayne Boatwright
wrote:

On Mon 28 Apr 2008 06:44:08a, told us...

Subject: Dimmable CFL
From:

On Apr 28, 9:23ÿam, Jim Redelfs wrote:

In article ,
(Don Klipstein) wrote:


I give low odds of its energy efficiency exceeding that of a 230 volt
incandescent being powered by 120 volts

Do you believe that 130V-rated (commercial?) incandescent lamps,
operating at ~120VAC, are longer-lasting enough to be worth the hassle
of getting them (wholesaler) and price, compared to an everyday bulb?

Yes, I believe that, and almost all the incandescent bulbs I have in my
home are 130v-rated. Their logevity is astounding.

They use more electricity, however.

Hmmm,
I don't think so. 130V rated lamp is on 120V circuit.
Simple Ohm's law.

A 130V incandescent being operated at 120 volts consumes about 89%,
maybe 88% of rated power. (Not 85% - the filament's resistance varies
directly with temperature.)

And when a 130V incandescent is operated at 120 volts, it produces
about 75-76% of its full light output. Efficiency decreases a lot when
an incandescent is underpowered.

A 130V 100W incandescent only outshines a 75W 120V one due to
incandescents having "economies of scale" that reduce the efficiency of
lower wattage and lower current ones. A 75W 120V incandescent produces
about 69% of the light of a 100W one.

One more note: If you have incandescents on a dimmer and usually
operate them dimmed, consider using a lower wattage to use less dimming.
Although a 75W incandescent produces 69% of the light of a 100 watt one,
a 100 watt one dimmed to consume 75 watts has about 53% of its full
output.

That leads to another consideration: Reduce the number of bulbs if
you can - a smaller number of higher wattage bulbs will be slightly
more efficient than a larger number of lower wattage ones. Just don't
take this to an extreme that affects evenness of illumination.

- Don Klipstein )

In article
,
wrote:

on what basis [do] you think this is unconstitutional.

I'm not a lawyer. I don't even play one on the internet.

My claim is based on wishful thinking, not on actual case law.

There are vast numbers of laws on the federal books that ban
all kinds of things. The ban not too long ago on freon is
probably the closest example.

That's a good point, and darned frustrating: Today, there is evidence
that CFCs are not the ozone-depleting threat once charged. R-12 was
good stuff.

Back in the 30's they even banned private possession of gold, which is
extreme, and no one successfully challenged that on any constitutional
grounds.

Did the Supreme Court ever hear it?

Too much of our Constitution is simply - and quietly - side stepped.
--
sigh
JR

On Apr 28, 11:49*pm, (Don Klipstein) wrote:
In article 3bxRj.99570$rd2.14985@pd7urf3no, Tony Hwang wrote:
wrote:

On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 15:00:45 GMT, Wayne Boatwright
wrote:

On Mon 28 Apr 2008 06:44:08a, *told us...

Subject: Dimmable CFL
From:

On Apr 28, 9:23ÿam, Jim Redelfs wrote:

In article ,
(Don Klipstein) wrote:

I give low odds of its energy efficiency exceeding that of a 230 volt
incandescent being powered by 120 volts

Do you believe that 130V-rated (commercial?) incandescent lamps,
operating at ~120VAC, are longer-lasting enough to be worth the hassle
of getting them (wholesaler) and price, compared to an everyday bulb?

Yes, I believe that, and almost all the incandescent bulbs I have in my
home are 130v-rated. *Their logevity is astounding.

They use more electricity, however.

Hmmm,
I don't think so. 130V rated lamp is on 120V circuit.
Simple Ohm's law.

* A 130V incandescent being operated at 120 volts consumes about 89%,
maybe 88% of rated power. *(Not 85% - the filament's resistance varies
directly with temperature.)

* And when a 130V incandescent is operated at 120 volts, it produces
about 75-76% of its full light output. *Efficiency decreases a lot when
an incandescent is underpowered.

* A 130V 100W incandescent only outshines a 75W 120V one due to
incandescents having "economies of scale" that reduce the efficiency of
lower wattage and lower current ones. *A 75W 120V incandescent produces
about 69% of the light of a 100W one.

* One more note: *If you have incandescents on a dimmer and usually
operate them dimmed, consider using a lower wattage to use less dimming.
Although a 75W incandescent produces 69% of the light of a 100 watt one,
a 100 watt one dimmed to consume 75 watts has about 53% of its full
output.

* That leads to another consideration: *Reduce the number of bulbs if
you can - a smaller number of higher wattage bulbs will be slightly
more efficient than a larger number of lower wattage ones. *Just don't
take this to an extreme that affects evenness of illumination.

*- Don Klipstein )- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

To the point, a new "energy efficient" incandesant is BS ,
incandesants must be taxed to force savings upon us in the form of
energy.

In article ,
Jim Redelfs wrote:
In article ,
(Don Klipstein) wrote:

....

Our air and water are cleaner than they have EVER been, yet, during that

Well, things have indeed gotten much better. For instance this
surface coal-mining on hilltops, all the "tailings" being
shoved down into the valleys.

Thank god for Bush and Cheney's regulations that those sites have
to be remediated back to original beauty and cleanliness "+". And note
the by now hundred of examples of the good-citizen coal companies transporting
all those tailings from way down in the valleys back up to where
they came from, then sealed in by the most modern technology so no
leaks guaranteed for the next 20 million years, and then schools
and hospitals and auditoriums built above it all, beautiful
landscaping, lucious green grass, playgrounds and swimming pools
for the valley town's kids, really nice!


same time, we've been growing and prospering as a society. We've

I thought it was common knowledge that *median*-income, in "real"
terms, peaked in the early 70's, and it's been downhill ever
since.

learned from our mistakes in the past. When we have an oil spill, it's

Has Exxon ever paid even 50-cents for cleanup for the Exxon-Valdez oil spill?

(Interesting investigative-reporter book: "the best democracy money
can buy", by greg palast. 10 or 15 chapters, each on a separate
(paid for) investigation do by him (palast: American, reports for or at
least has shows on BBC Newsnight. (Of course, you'll never see them
*here*!). Anyway, captain was drunk, in bed, (I think that's what he
found), but far, far worse was that the perfectly-functioning radar was turned OFF
that night -- hell, maybe always! Betcha you didn't see *that* in the newspapers
or on the TV!))



often reported by the gallon instead of the barrel to prop-up the all
important NUMBER.

A modern oil drilling operation has a surprisingly small footprint.
When they are done at that location, they restore the site to
before-drilling conditions.

We need to build more oil refineries domestically then go get more of
OUR OWN oil. This would certainly slow the RISE in the price of
gasoline.

What I hear is that there simply isn't that much more around here (USA) --
that the biggest such find is almost guaranteed to be smaller than Alaska
(which apparantely just isn't all that big.)

Then there's oil from "oil shale", I understand, like up in Canada, and there's
supposed to be *lots* of it, the only problem being that's it's (apparantely)
BY FAR the "dirtiest" type, with (maybe) equiv effect on the atmosphere, etc.





We also need to start building more nuclear-powered, electricity
generating stations.



Well, I myself live maybe 10 miles north of "the Bronx", and just 20 or 30 miles
northwest of me, right there on the Hudson river, there's two (or is
it three?) of them.

They expire in just a while (5 years?), are already leaking Tritium
into the drinking water, have already had some close calls to Armaagheddon
(sp?), and guess what -- they're trying to get a 30 year extension!
And with the kind of money they have for "lobbying" (ie bribes),
they'll probably get it.

Insane.

If you're gonna build the things, at least do it out in Nevada or the
Dakotas where if something blows you don't throw the entire nation info
a bottomless depression from having to abandon the entire East Coast
from D.C. to Boston.


No thanks to prohibitive legislative and
environmental enactments, it takes YEARS just to do the paperwork for a
new nuke. That needs to be whittled-down to a couple of years at most.

It's only 2008 and we apparently can't WAIT to forget about 9/11. (2001
for those of you that forgot.)

That too. Had Osama been a bit smarter, he'd of have those planes dive
into the spent-fuel ponds right there next to those nuclear plants.



Next March 28, it will be thirty YEARS since the TMI2 (Three Mile Island
Unit 2) "accident" and we can apparently NEVER forget.

And how long ago was Chernoble (sp?)? And the effect of that on having
to abandon a huge amount of land?

And what about the wind-effect, carrying the radiation clear across western
Europe? And its food-supply?



Which event killed more people?

Carbon footprint? When compared to a nuclear power station, an
equivalent coal-fired operation has a *HUGE* footprint. It's fuel is
delivered 2-3 times a week by the 100-car TRAINLOAD. It adds to the
MOUNTAIN of coal that a station keeps on hand.

Omaha has such an operation along the Nebraska side of the Missouri
river. The railroad tracks bisect the city.

We also benefit from Fort Calhoun (nuclear) Generating Station somewhat
further north upriver from OPPD's North Omaha (coal-fired) Station.

My utility is currently building a second, coal-fired unit outside
Nebraska City - about 60 miles south of Omaha along the Missouri river.

I would LOVE another nuke.




But, I digress. Back to Thomas Alva Edison's most earth-changing
invention: The light bulb.

The federal mandate to phase-out the common incandescent lamp is an
unconstitutional encroachment on the private sector.

Banning ourselves (huh?) from harvesting huge fuel resources within our
own lands is absurd at least. Considering the price of gas, it's become
stupid, too.

We really need to grow a BRAIN and a backbone about energy: The BRAIN
to build it (refinery, drill site or nuke power station) and the
BACKBONE to OVERCOME all the hand-wringing and shrieks of anguish from
the crybaby left while it happens - clean, safe and quite overdue.

Nah, what we really need to do is to "off" those Chinese and Indians
who're (now or very soon will be) taking all our oil!

Cheers!

David