Jim Redelfs wrote:

I was born in Minnesota. There is NO WAY in hades that passive solar
and body heat is the ONLY source of heat there. I'm not calling you a
liar, because I am quite sure you believe what you claimed. I will
not believe it until I research the claim beginning with a cite by
you.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mall_of...ite_note-VOA-4

"Despite Minnesota's sub-zero temperatures in the winter, only the mall's
entrances are heated. Heat is allowed in through skylights above Nickelodeon
Universe. Heat is produced by lighting fixtures, other electric devices and
also by employees and guests of the mall in sufficient amounts to keep it
comfortable. In fact, even during the winter, air conditioning systems need
to be run nonstop during peak hours to ensure a comfortable shopping
environment."

From http://wcco.com/local/heating.costs.cold.2.638318.html

" "In reality, we don't heat the mall," said Anna Long, a spokesperson for
the Mall of America. "There's no central heating system which is incredible
if you think about it."

Shoppers are heating up the mall. The body heat of 40 million visitors each
year is one of three heating sources. Sunshine from the skylights, which
are seven and a half acres of glass and miles of artificial lights help too.
The mall is typically 72 degrees in the winter. "


--
Dave www.davebbq.com

What is best in life? "To crush your enemies, see them driven before
you, and to hear the lamentation of the women." -- Conan

In article ,
wrote:

The industry is WAY too young to state, unequivocally, that CFLs
are superior to incandescent.

Fluorescent lamps have been around for a VERY long time.
Their advantages over incandescent are well documented.

I agree. Do you mean that statement to include COMPACT fluorescent
lamps? Of that, I am not yet convinced.

Expect 50 cent CFL's shortly.

I'll bet not.

They are already down to about $2

Expect them to stay there or only slightly lower. Simply because of
their higher price, their profit margin is higher in their sale. While
there is ostensibly a lot of pressure to replace the incandescent lamp
with the CFL, there is also much pressure to not allow its price to
descend to that of the common light bulb. Supply and demand and all
that...

Cite?

A citation or reference with which to consider the veracity of your
claim.

[Deleted: Good cite]

Thank-you. I stand corrected. I was wrong. I'm sorry.

I have yet to visit the Mall of America but now, even more, plan to do
so. (I am anything BUT a "huge" mall fan.)
--

JR

In article ,
wrote:


The entire history of commerce says you are wrong. I can now buy a
brand new Sony 4 head Hi-Fi VCR for $60. My first BetaMax (with linear
analog audio) was $1500 in 1976 using 1976 Dollars. I have no idea
what that would be adjusted for the inflation of the past 33 years.

FWIW- That would be $5700 today.

In , Jim
Redelfs wrote:

In article ,
wrote:

Heck, no! They know a CA$H COW when they see it.
Compact Fluorescent Lamps provide a higher profit
margin since they CO$T more.

Negated by the much longer service life.

The average service life of the average Compact Fluorescent Lamp is
nowhere near that claimed of the manufacturers. Makers are including a
multi-year guarantee in confidence that most owners of prematurely
failed lamps will not have the documentation required to avail
themselves of the warranty coverage or will simply not bother.

I have a lot of experience with CFLs. Most do last as long as claimed
or only a little less.

Keep in mind that the industry standard for lamp life is for testing
with 3 hours runtime per start. Despite that being not very realistic for
most home use, I still find most CFLs to have life expectancy in home
use indoors being a majority of what is claimed.

Ones used where they stay on a long time once started mostly meet or
exceed life expectancy claims in my experience.

The industry is WAY too young to state, unequivocally, that CFLs are
superior to incandescent.

Without legislative strong-arm enactments, the 50-cent, incandescent
light bulb would never be replaced by another technology.

Without legislation, airbags for cars may still be something newfangled
now.

I have been using CFLs since 1989. Plenty do work well and last a few
thousand operating hours even in typical home use.

In my experience, early failures are mostly in these areas:

1. Ones overheating in downlights. Not all can take the heat
accumulation in downlights. Screw-base ones over 23 watts fare
especially badly there.

2. Higher wattage ones in small enclosed fixtures.

3. Lights of America brand, though they may have done better after I
largely stopped buying them in 2001.

4. Dollar store ones - I find a lot of things wrong with most of those.
I find those to largely be stool specimens. Bad things there include the
only smoky CFL failures in my experience, 100% rate of falling short of
light output claims in my experience, and a high rate of lousy color
and/or lousy color rendering.

5. A bad run of 25 watt spirals around 2001 or so.

6. Ones with glow switch starters (they blink a few times when turned on)
fare worse with frequent starting. But screw-base integral-ballast ones
with glow switch starters appear to me to have become obsolete in the mid
1990's or so.

- Don Klipstein )

In , Jim
Redelfs wrote:

In article ,
wrote:

The industry is WAY too young to state, unequivocally, that CFLs
are superior to incandescent.

Fluorescent lamps have been around for a VERY long time.
Their advantages over incandescent are well documented.

I agree. Do you mean that statement to include COMPACT fluorescent
lamps? Of that, I am not yet convinced.

I first saw one on a store shelf in the early 1980's.

I first bought one for home use in 1989.

I first bought one with an electronic ballast in 1991, maybe 1990.
Consumer Reports had an article on them with test results in October 1992.

In mid-1992, I have already seen a couple thousand installed in my
delivery area (delivering sandwiches by bicycle).

Most electrical supply shops had them in 1991. Home centers had them
since a time when Hechingers was still the main home center chain and I
had not yet even heard of Lowes or Home Depot.

- Don Klipstein )

In article , wrote:
On Thu, 01 May 2008 07:03:14 -0500, Jim Redelfs
wrote:

In article ,
wrote:

The industry is WAY too young to state, unequivocally, that CFLs
are superior to incandescent.

Fluorescent lamps have been around for a VERY long time.
Their advantages over incandescent are well documented.

I agree. Do you mean that statement to include COMPACT fluorescent
lamps? Of that, I am not yet convinced.

Surely you jest! The only difference in the technologhy has to do with
the glassblowing techniques to make a spiral shape.

CFLs have been around a good decade before the spiral ones hit the store
shelves. Consumer Reports had an article on them in October 1992, with a
good dozen or so of them tested - no spirals then; spirals came out a few
years later.

One other thing that came about new-for-CFLs was the integral electronic
ballast - disposed of with the bulb. In the USA, that largely first
appeared around 1990, and was in several CFL models tested by Consumer
Reports for the October 1992 article.

- Don Klipstein )

On Apr 29, 7:53*am, Jim Redelfs wrote:
In article
,

wrote:
having consumers buy and find it out later sure
doesn't help getting them adopted.

Why the urge to get[ing] CFLs adopted?

As a nation, we couldn't make the most obvious, most important
switch-over (metric), but we can sure shoot ourselves in the foot and
MANDATE a phase-out of the perfectly good, viable, affordable,
world-wide-user-based, CHEAP light bulb!!

Congress passed an "Energy" bill.

My President SIGNED the damned thing.

...to phase-out the cheap light bulb.

[muttering] Brilliant. *Just flat-out BRILLIANT!! *

Do you REALLY think the manufacturing and retail businesses are pushing
CFLs because of some etherial, warm and fuzzy, environmentalism
awareness?

Heck, no! *They know a CA$H COW when they see it. *Compact Fluorescent
Lamps provide a higher profit margin since they CO$T more.

I saw the most amazing thing on the employee rag at Wal-Mart: *A store
rooftop completely covered with solar panels; *Except those numerous
locations occupied by a large sky light. *And HUGE air conditioners
popping-up around the roof.

Just ONE of those air conditioners will consume more energy in one WEEK
than ALL the solar collectors accumulate in a month of Sundays.

What about the footprint of the battery and equipment to STORE the
power, the equipment to invert the DC to usable AC, and the arrangements
and efforts to get that collected power to ONE of the break room
refrigerator or some SIMILAR SINGLE device?

Don't get me wrong: *I support the development of so-called ALTERNATIVE
energy. *I am sure I am paying for it now in many ways.

Until that "breakthrough" discovery" we've all been waiting for (a
viable replacement for oil and wired electricity) we should NOT mandate
a conversion to alternate energy and technologies (illumination) based
on CO$T alone.
--
* * * * * *
JR

Its the ignorant guys like you that make advaces in life BS , a bunck
of **** heads

By the way, while it's not on-topic it relates to something someone
said earlier in this thread.

A Month of Sundays is not a period of time. It's a long vacation.

In other words, a month of Sundays = 30 days OFF, not 30 X 7 days.
That would make no sense given the expression.

In about 102 fixtures/lamps in my home I have installed 68 CFL's. Some were
installed in 1998. Thus far I have had a total of 2 failures. The failures
were CFL's installed in 1998 and left on 24/7. Will be replacing more as
incandescent's fail.

On 05/06/08 06:40 am News wrote:

In about 102 fixtures/lamps in my home I have installed 68 CFL's. Some were
installed in 1998. Thus far I have had a total of 2 failures. The failures
were CFL's installed in 1998 and left on 24/7. Will be replacing more as
incandescent's fail.


When we moved into this house in Nov 2003, we replaced most of the bulbs
by Sylvania CFLs. Many of those have had to be replaced already; some
emitted "cooked electronics" smells at the end.

I'm going to go easy on the CFLs and hope that LEDs become more widely
available.

Perce

In article , News wrote:
In about 102 fixtures/lamps in my home I have installed 68 CFL's. Some were
installed in 1998. Thus far I have had a total of 2 failures. The failures
were CFL's installed in 1998 and left on 24/7. Will be replacing more as
incandescent's fail.

When did they fail? Are their first replacements still working? This
means those are lasting at least 35,000 hours - which sounds too good to
be true!

I find that CFLs running 24/7 mostly last 1-2.5 years. I have seen
some last 3 years, but they are noticeably faded by 2 years.

- Don Klipstein )

In article , Percival P. Cassidy wrote:
On 05/06/08 06:40 am News wrote:

When we moved into this house in Nov 2003, we replaced most of the bulbs
by Sylvania CFLs. Many of those have had to be replaced already; some
emitted "cooked electronics" smells at the end.

I'm going to go easy on the CFLs and hope that LEDs become more widely
available.

So, most of your CFLs lasted less than 5 years? How long would
incandescents have lasted?

Meanwhile, are you putting any CFLs in small enclosed fixtures or
recessed ceiling fixtures? CFLs can overheat there, especially if they
are higher wattage ones (more than 23 watts).

LEDs are advancing, but slowly. LED technology appears to me to have
been advancing about half as fast as computer technology has over the past
many years.

- Don Klipstein )

On 05/06/08 06:39 pm Don Klipstein wrote:

When we moved into this house in Nov 2003, we replaced most of the bulbs
by Sylvania CFLs. Many of those have had to be replaced already; some
emitted "cooked electronics" smells at the end.

I'm going to go easy on the CFLs and hope that LEDs become more widely
available.

So, most of your CFLs lasted less than 5 years? How long would
incandescents have lasted?

Probably not as long, unless I had bought 130-volt ones. But the point
is that the CFLs did not last as long as is being claimed. Maybe the
fact that they were Sylvania has something to do with it: a few years
ago I bought a couple of packs of Sylvania incandescents, some of which
popped as soon as I flipped the switch and some of which lasted only a
day or two.

Meanwhile, are you putting any CFLs in small enclosed fixtures or
recessed ceiling fixtures? CFLs can overheat there, especially if they
are higher wattage ones (more than 23 watts).

Many were CFL floodlights (65-watt equivalent) and were installed in the
cans that had previously held incandescent floodlights. Some that didn't
last long were the exposed-spiral type and were not in cans.

LEDs are advancing, but slowly. LED technology appears to me to have
been advancing about half as fast as computer technology has over the past
many years.

Perce

In article , Percival P. Cassidy wrote:
On 05/06/08 06:39 pm Don Klipstein wrote:

When we moved into this house in Nov 2003, we replaced most of the bulbs
by Sylvania CFLs. Many of those have had to be replaced already; some
emitted "cooked electronics" smells at the end.

I'm going to go easy on the CFLs and hope that LEDs become more widely
available.

So, most of your CFLs lasted less than 5 years? How long would
incandescents have lasted?

Probably not as long, unless I had bought 130-volt ones. But the point
is that the CFLs did not last as long as is being claimed. Maybe the
fact that they were Sylvania has something to do with it: a few years
ago I bought a couple of packs of Sylvania incandescents, some of which
popped as soon as I flipped the switch and some of which lasted only a
day or two.

My experience with Sylvania, both CFL and incandescent, has been
generally good. I have been using maybe half a dozen Sylvania CFLs over
the past several years, and had 2 die young. One made it to maybe 3,000
operating hours IIRC and then "died young" in an enclosed ceiling fixture.
The other died after 20-30 hours in a downlight (ceiling fan light). I
should have mailed the latter one back to Sylvania - I thought of that
after my dumpster was emptied! All my other Sylvania CFLs have yet to
die! I also have Sylvania incandescents not giving me any complaints -
and I see enough Sylvania incandescents often enough along the way to know
despite generally not using incandescents to light my home!

Also keep in mind that a 130V "100W" incandescent, when operated at
120V, consumes about 88 watts while producing hardly more light than a 75W
120V incandescent. Analyze what would cost you more - loss of maybe 60%
reduction of bulb changing cost, or the extra 13 watts of electricity for
each lightbulb? All too often, it is the elctricity!

Meanwhile, are you putting any CFLs in small enclosed fixtures or
recessed ceiling fixtures? CFLs can overheat there, especially if they
are higher wattage ones (more than 23 watts).

Many were CFL floodlights (65-watt equivalent) and were installed in the
cans that had previously held incandescent floodlights. Some that didn't
last long were the exposed-spiral type and were not in cans.

I have lowish expectation of what CFL floodlights do in recessed cans,
especially if they are other than Philips SLS non-dimmable of wattage up
to 23 watts. Philips SLS non-dimmable 15-23 watts is actually *rated* for
use in recessed ceiling cans ("heat hellholes" for CFLs). I suspect
Sears "Hardware Stores" have them. Bulbs.com has them, as well as R40 (5
inch diameter) and R30 (3.75 inch diameter) snap-on reflectors for them to
use in recessed cans. Use the bigger one where it fits with about or over
1/4 inch clearance for any airflow that manages to go up the fixture - the
smaller one appears to me to have significant optical compromise for
smaller diameter.

In my experience, the more successful recessed ceiling fixtures with
CFLs are ones with their own ballasts and requiring pin-ballastless CFLs
of specific type/wattage. Better to use ones that take
more-industry-standard bulbs, such as any offered by all of the "Big 3" or
which are available at both Home Depot and Lowes. The most-common,
most-standardized of those are 13 watt twintube/PL/TT and
quadtube/doubletwintube/cluster/PLC/DTT, and the 26 watt
doubletwintube/quadtube/cluster/PLC/DTT.

Other than that, among screw-base (ballast-included) CFLs, things are
usually better if at least one and preferably both of the following
conditions are true:

1. The CFL is of one of the "Big 3" brands - GE, Philips or Sylvania.

2. The CFL comes with the "Energy Star" logo. The CFL needs to pass some
sort of testing for some sort of quality assurance and some sort of good
functionality as well as good energy efficiency in order to be allowed to
have that logo.

==================================================

Also see in home centers how easy it is to get CFLs with "limited
warranties". Be prepared to make warranty claims if things continue to go
bad - that may force CFL manufacturers to make their CFLs more robust to
various conditions, such as use in recessed cans (or at least say
explicitly enough to not use in recessed cans - and they would sell more
CFLs if they can avoid saying that.)

- Don Klipstein )

On Tue 06 May 2008 07:57:34p, Don Klipstein told us...

In article , Percival P. Cassidy wrote:
On 05/06/08 06:39 pm Don Klipstein wrote:

When we moved into this house in Nov 2003, we replaced most of the
bulbs by Sylvania CFLs. Many of those have had to be replaced
already; some emitted "cooked electronics" smells at the end.

I'm going to go easy on the CFLs and hope that LEDs become more
widely available.

So, most of your CFLs lasted less than 5 years? How long would
incandescents have lasted?

Probably not as long, unless I had bought 130-volt ones. But the point
is that the CFLs did not last as long as is being claimed. Maybe the
fact that they were Sylvania has something to do with it: a few years
ago I bought a couple of packs of Sylvania incandescents, some of which
popped as soon as I flipped the switch and some of which lasted only a
day or two.

My experience with Sylvania, both CFL and incandescent, has been
generally good. I have been using maybe half a dozen Sylvania CFLs over
the past several years, and had 2 die young. One made it to maybe 3,000
operating hours IIRC and then "died young" in an enclosed ceiling
fixture. The other died after 20-30 hours in a downlight (ceiling fan
light). I should have mailed the latter one back to Sylvania - I
thought of that after my dumpster was emptied! All my other Sylvania
CFLs have yet to die! I also have Sylvania incandescents not giving me
any complaints - and I see enough Sylvania incandescents often enough
along the way to know despite generally not using incandescents to light
my home!

Also keep in mind that a 130V "100W" incandescent, when operated at
120V, consumes about 88 watts while producing hardly more light than a
75W 120V incandescent. Analyze what would cost you more - loss of maybe
60% reduction of bulb changing cost, or the extra 13 watts of
electricity for each lightbulb? All too often, it is the elctricity!

While I know that's all true, I still use a few 130V incandescents because
I prefer the color of light they produce, and they're used in
fixtures/areas where dimmers aren't practical (which could at slightly
lower levels produce the same color light).

Meanwhile, are you putting any CFLs in small enclosed fixtures or
recessed ceiling fixtures? CFLs can overheat there, especially if
they are higher wattage ones (more than 23 watts).

Many were CFL floodlights (65-watt equivalent) and were installed in the
cans that had previously held incandescent floodlights. Some that didn't
last long were the exposed-spiral type and were not in cans.

I have lowish expectation of what CFL floodlights do in recessed cans,
especially if they are other than Philips SLS non-dimmable of wattage up
to 23 watts. Philips SLS non-dimmable 15-23 watts is actually *rated*
for use in recessed ceiling cans ("heat hellholes" for CFLs). I suspect
Sears "Hardware Stores" have them. Bulbs.com has them, as well as R40
(5 inch diameter) and R30 (3.75 inch diameter) snap-on reflectors for
them to use in recessed cans. Use the bigger one where it fits with
about or over 1/4 inch clearance for any airflow that manages to go up
the fixture - the smaller one appears to me to have significant optical
compromise for smaller diameter.

While I don't remember the brand, we bought 12 non-dimmable 23W R40 CFLs
for the recessed fixtures in our new kitchen. They've been in use for
almost two years with absolutely no problem. There is approximately a
1/2" inch gap betwen the perimeter of the bulb and the fixture. The lights
are used approximately 6-8 hours per day. So far we've been quite pleased.

In my experience, the more successful recessed ceiling fixtures with
CFLs are ones with their own ballasts and requiring pin-ballastless CFLs
of specific type/wattage. Better to use ones that take
more-industry-standard bulbs, such as any offered by all of the "Big 3"
or which are available at both Home Depot and Lowes. The most-common,
most-standardized of those are 13 watt twintube/PL/TT and
quadtube/doubletwintube/cluster/PLC/DTT, and the 26 watt
doubletwintube/quadtube/cluster/PLC/DTT.

Other than that, among screw-base (ballast-included) CFLs, things are
usually better if at least one and preferably both of the following
conditions are true:

1. The CFL is of one of the "Big 3" brands - GE, Philips or Sylvania.

2. The CFL comes with the "Energy Star" logo. The CFL needs to pass
some sort of testing for some sort of quality assurance and some sort of
good functionality as well as good energy efficiency in order to be
allowed to have that logo.

==================================================

Also see in home centers how easy it is to get CFLs with "limited
warranties". Be prepared to make warranty claims if things continue to
go bad - that may force CFL manufacturers to make their CFLs more robust
to various conditions, such as use in recessed cans (or at least say
explicitly enough to not use in recessed cans - and they would sell more
CFLs if they can avoid saying that.)

- Don Klipstein )


Also, of the many various sizes and types of CFLs we bought over the past
several years, only one died prematurely. All the others are still in
operation. There are a couple I'd like to replace because the light is
much too cool, but they're still working. :-)

--
Wayne Boatwright
-------------------------------------------
Tuesday, 05(V)/06(VI)/08(MMVIII)
-------------------------------------------
Countdown till Memorial Day
2wks 5dys 2hrs 50mins
-------------------------------------------
Look! He's protecting himself with a
zesty tartar sauce.
-------------------------------------------