In article 14cf46ea-e4c2-41c1-8938-
,
says...
On Apr 30, 5:48*pm, krw wrote:
In article 6410aac8-803a-4a5c-9dc0-
,
says...





On Apr 30, 4:30*pm, krw wrote:
In article a38ebf40-a884-4951-86a5-be154bb130bb@
56g2000hsm.googlegroups.com, says...

On Apr 29, 11:11*pm, "John A. Weeks III" wrote:
In article ,

*Jeff wrote:
John A. Weeks III wrote:
In article ,
*Jeff wrote:

* *Why don't you just buy a couple cases of incandescants and keep them
with your 8 tracks. You seem to have missed the spiraling energy costs
and don't seem to care about waste. Well, it's been a great 7 1/2 years
for you hasn't it?

Its funny you claim that the poster doesn't care about waste. *You
see, you can toss a regular lightbulb into the trash since it is
basically safe. *But the new CF bulbs are hazardous materials that
have to be handled by special licensed contractors. *The contents
of those bulbs can kill you. *Talk about waste...

Mercury CFL myths:

http://howtosaveenergy.blogspot.com/...ury-myths.html

And when you go to this web site, what do you find? *For proper disposal
of a broken CFL bulb, contact your local authority for a community
household hazardous waste collection. *That means to me that the
things are hazardous, otherwise, why call the government to get the
hazardous waste collection people involved?

There's always someone making excuses rather than moving forward with
conservation. Same thing with global warming which this is not so
coincidentally linked.

There's always someone posting links to sites that they haven't read
about subjects that they are ignorant of.

Next you are going to tell me that you have never broken a light
bulb in your entire life. *So what happens when a semi-load of
these CF things go off the side of a freeway bridge? *Does it
kill everyone in the whole neighborhood when all the bulbs break?

-john-

--
================================================== ====================
John A. Weeks III * * * * * 612-720-2854 * * * * *
Newave Communications * * * * * * * * * * * *http://www.johnweeks.com
================================================== ====================- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

* You better learn up before you pannic chicken little. What do you do
with you tube flourescents, put them in the trash, so does everyone,
and the mercury? what do you do with old thermostats, well they have
10000 times as much as a bulb and what about some thermometers, 1000
times as much. Did you know a coal plant releases twice as much
mercury powering a 100w bulb over its life than a cfl has, and that is
airborn mercury, mr sky is falling. So if you area uses coal your
wastefull incandesant is poisoning you right now with twice the
mercury, and you are breathing it now.

What do I do with a mercury thermometer? *When I find one (haven't
seen one for *years*, I take it to the nice man in the NBC suit. *
You know, the same guy you're *supposed* to take fluorescents to.

--
Keith- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

It is very likely the thermometer you use to see if you have a fever
has mercury is it.

Are you *really* that ignorant? *...or are you just an incompetent *
troll?

--
Keith- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You better read up, there is alot you dont know, did you ever hear of
Google.


Don't be an ignorant ass. You have ignorant down pat.

--
Keith

On Apr 30, 7:42*pm, krw wrote:
In article 14cf46ea-e4c2-41c1-8938-
,
says...





On Apr 30, 5:48*pm, krw wrote:
In article 6410aac8-803a-4a5c-9dc0-
,
says...

On Apr 30, 4:30*pm, krw wrote:
In article a38ebf40-a884-4951-86a5-be154bb130bb@
56g2000hsm.googlegroups.com, says...

On Apr 29, 11:11*pm, "John A. Weeks III" wrote:
In article ,

*Jeff wrote:
John A. Weeks III wrote:
In article ,
*Jeff wrote:

* *Why don't you just buy a couple cases of incandescants and keep them
with your 8 tracks. You seem to have missed the spiraling energy costs
and don't seem to care about waste. Well, it's been a great 7 1/2 years
for you hasn't it?

Its funny you claim that the poster doesn't care about waste. *You
see, you can toss a regular lightbulb into the trash since it is
basically safe. *But the new CF bulbs are hazardous materials that
have to be handled by special licensed contractors. *The contents
of those bulbs can kill you. *Talk about waste...

Mercury CFL myths:

http://howtosaveenergy.blogspot.com/...ry-myths..html

And when you go to this web site, what do you find? *For proper disposal
of a broken CFL bulb, contact your local authority for a community
household hazardous waste collection. *That means to me that the
things are hazardous, otherwise, why call the government to get the
hazardous waste collection people involved?

There's always someone making excuses rather than moving forward with
conservation. Same thing with global warming which this is not so
coincidentally linked.

There's always someone posting links to sites that they haven't read
about subjects that they are ignorant of.

Next you are going to tell me that you have never broken a light
bulb in your entire life. *So what happens when a semi-load of
these CF things go off the side of a freeway bridge? *Does it
kill everyone in the whole neighborhood when all the bulbs break?

-john-

--
================================================== ====================
John A. Weeks III * * * * * 612-720-2854 * * * * *
Newave Communications * * * * * * * * * * * *http://www.johnweeks.com
================================================== ====================- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

* You better learn up before you pannic chicken little. What do you do
with you tube flourescents, put them in the trash, so does everyone,
and the mercury? what do you do with old thermostats, well they have
10000 times as much as a bulb and what about some thermometers, 1000
times as much. Did you know a coal plant releases twice as much
mercury powering a 100w bulb over its life than a cfl has, and that is
airborn mercury, mr sky is falling. So if you area uses coal your
wastefull incandesant is poisoning you right now with twice the
mercury, and you are breathing it now.

What do I do with a mercury thermometer? *When I find one (haven't
seen one for *years*, I take it to the nice man in the NBC suit. *
You know, the same guy you're *supposed* to take fluorescents to.

--
Keith- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

It is very likely the thermometer you use to see if you have a fever
has mercury is it.

Are you *really* that ignorant? *...or are you just an incompetent *
troll?

--
Keith- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You better read up, there is alot you dont know, did you ever hear of
Google.

Don't be an ignorant ass. *You have ignorant down pat.

--
Keith- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Mercury Fever Thermometers were allowed to be sold in Illinois until
July 2004, most store chains stopped selling them in 1998-99, I still
have as do most people, Mercury Fever thermometers, much older,
probably 20+ years old. Its something nobody thinks about. One of
these can pollute fish in a 20 acre lake, before you stick one in your
kids mouth ask yourself its its less than 10 years old. I bet you wont
know. The ignorance is your lack of the facts. Read up and learn the
basics before you post insults.

In ,
ransley wrote:

Mercury Fever Thermometers were allowed to be sold in Illinois until
July 2004, most store chains stopped selling them in 1998-99, I still
have as do most people, Mercury Fever thermometers, much older,
probably 20+ years old. Its something nobody thinks about. One of
these can pollute fish in a 20 acre lake, before you stick one in your
kids mouth ask yourself its its less than 10 years old. I bet you wont
know. The ignorance is your lack of the facts. Read up and learn the
basics before you post insults.

I got one in PA about 10 years ago, 16 at most (well after a move 16.5
years ago), and it is mercury.

It's easy enough to tell. Mercury is silvery, while alternative liquids
look different - usually dyed red.

- Don Klipstein )

RobertPatrick wrote

The incandescents last a lot longer than those new fancy bulbs.

Yeah, I just use incandescents and long tube fluoros myself.

Why the heck does the new kind burn out so fast?

Its the technology.

krw wrote:
In article ,
says...
krw wrote:
In article ,
says...
Dennis M wrote:
In article , Jeff
wrote:

Dennis M wrote:
In article , (Don
Klipstein) wrote:

In article , S. Barker wrote:

What's this bs about a ban? I've not kept up with the messages.
A recently enacted piece of USA Federal legislation bans manufacture,
sale and importation of certain incandescent lamps, starting in 2012.
Some (Republican) congresswoman introduced a bill last week to scale back
on that legislation and force Uncle Sam to keep its big nose out of
people's lightbulbs. I hope it goes through.
Why don't you just buy a couple cases of incandescants and keep them
with your 8 tracks. You seem to have missed the spiraling energy costs
and don't seem to care about waste. Well, it's been a great 7 1/2 years
for you hasn't it?
Why don't you eat me, smartass. I use CFL bulbs in my home where they're
warranted, I just want the option to use incandescents in certain
situations also.
You still have that option. Specialty and low wattage lamps are exempt.
There's few places where an edison base lamp couldn't be replaced with
one of the CFLs satisfactorily. It pays to not buy the cheap discount
store CFLs. And as Don pointed out, you can buy the new halogens, which
will certainly fall in price.
I'm not about to use CFLs anywhere I spend any time.
And, why not?

Primarily because I can't stand the light and they're too slow to
turn on where I don't care about the light.

I'm not about
to replace all my fixtures either.
Why would you have to?

CFLs aren't for many fixtures. They do get hot and the electronics
doesn't like it. You have a lot to learn, my boy.

Not as much as you.

There's other alternatives (at a higher cost) for the heat hell holes
you mention. Personally, I've never liked or used recessed lighting.
Most of them are big leaks in a homes thermal envelope, but you haven't
impressed me as caring much about conservation, just consumption.

A case of bulbs here, and a case
there...

I'd still like to use R12, but the switchover did close the ozone
hole. Remember that?
Oh, good grief!
I suppose you are still questioning evolution? And global warming?

Don't be an ass.

Don't be a flunky.

Sometimes you have to do something because it has a far greater benefit.
Someimes you just have to be a good little sheep, eh Komrad?
Look whose calling who a sheep?

You *are* a perfect example of a sheep, who likes it when the man
from Washington bends you over. I bet you really love those 1.6gal
toilets.

You've been listening to way too much wingnut radio/tv. Such is right
wing opinion in that it is all opinion and no facts. Just insult anyone
who disagrees. Don't let reality get in the way.

BTW, I have an old fashioned toilet because I live in an old house, but
have no objection to the new design toilets. The new ones work, as
opposed to the first generation.

You'd have thought that congress would have thought up
something larger, given their needs.

Sometimes it pays not to be a sheep and blindly believe all that horse
manure W has been dishing out for the last 7 years. I'd say lemming is a
more appropriate term.

Don't be an idiot. I know it's hard work to think, but try it
anyway.

You seem to think we can just keep living the way we do now. I'm sure
the Mayans felt the same way as they gobbled up all the available resources.

The tungsten light bulb has been around almost 100 years.

The planet has been around a tad longer than that and is still
useful.

There's
nothing else we use that comes anywhere near being as inefficient.

Now, don't add lies to your list of sins, junior.

Name a common appliance that is less efficient. The only thing in the
same ballpark is the common loudspeaker, but their drain on the grid is
minor.

The
common light bulb rings in at about 5%. It doesn't have great color
rendition unless corrected in which case it has a shorter life or is
even less efficient, it runs up the heat load in summer, it has a
terrible lifespan... The only real advantage it has is that it is cheap.
But not cheap when you consider the lifespan or the energy it uses.

Tungsten lights have far better color rendition than most CFLs.

It's hard to call 2800K, good color rendition.

Halogens (which I use almost exclusively), even better.

A few hundred degrees hotter.

There are excellent color balanced CFLs available, suitable for
viewing and judging color balance in photography. Much better than the
short lived photo floods. Certainly better than the common incandescent
or your halogens.

But hey, if you guys love your 100 year old design 100 Watt bulbs. I
don't happen to have your emotional attachment.

If that's your best argument, hang up your spurs, kid.

I don't understand your problem. No one is taking away your specialty
halogen lights. All we are talking about is the old edison based lamps
which should join the trash bin of obsolete technology.

Jeff
Jeff


I have a sneaking suspicion the majority of Americans do
too.
Sheep? Evidently...

obviously

On May 1, 1:55*am, RobertPatrick wrote:
The incandescents last a lot longer than those new fancy bulbs.
Why the heck does the new kind burn out so fast?

CFLs last longer, its proven, maybe alot of duds are made from crapy
chinese manufacturing, but HD has a 9 yr warranty and at 2$ a bulb. so
keep the warranty and pack in a box.

In article ,
says...
krw wrote:
In article ,
says...
krw wrote:

snip

I'm not about to use CFLs anywhere I spend any time.
And, why not?

Primarily because I can't stand the light and they're too slow to
turn on where I don't care about the light.

I'm not about
to replace all my fixtures either.
Why would you have to?

CFLs aren't for many fixtures. They do get hot and the electronics
doesn't like it. You have a lot to learn, my boy.

Not as much as you.

I'm sure IKYABWAI is the best argument you can come up with.

There's other alternatives (at a higher cost) for the heat hell holes
you mention. Personally, I've never liked or used recessed lighting.

I do, but I'm not forcing you to have them.

Most of them are big leaks in a homes thermal envelope, but you haven't
impressed me as caring much about conservation, just consumption.

Nonsense. How does a thermal leak occur between floors? If idiots,
like you, design houses all sorts of stupid things are likely to
happen.

A case of bulbs here, and a case
there...

I'd still like to use R12, but the switchover did close the ozone
hole. Remember that?
Oh, good grief!
I suppose you are still questioning evolution? And global warming?

Don't be an ass.

Don't be a flunky.

Hardly a fluky, ass.

Sometimes you have to do something because it has a far greater benefit.
Someimes you just have to be a good little sheep, eh Komrad?
Look whose calling who a sheep?

You *are* a perfect example of a sheep, who likes it when the man
from Washington bends you over. I bet you really love those 1.6gal
toilets.

You've been listening to way too much wingnut radio/tv. Such is right
wing opinion in that it is all opinion and no facts. Just insult anyone
who disagrees. Don't let reality get in the way.

Absolutely the truth, which your "argument" falls well short of
addressing.

BTW, I have an old fashioned toilet because I live in an old house, but
have no objection to the new design toilets. The new ones work, as
opposed to the first generation.

You like to spout government lies. I have a set of "new" ones.
They don't.

You'd have thought that congress would have thought up
something larger, given their needs.

Sometimes it pays not to be a sheep and blindly believe all that horse
manure W has been dishing out for the last 7 years. I'd say lemming is a
more appropriate term.

Don't be an idiot. I know it's hard work to think, but try it
anyway.

You seem to think we can just keep living the way we do now. I'm sure
the Mayans felt the same way as they gobbled up all the available resources.

There are a *lot* of things we can do and will have to do. Having
government (or you) force change for changes sake is asinine.
Choice is a good thing. The market will decide the matters soon
enough without government screwing up the economy.

The tungsten light bulb has been around almost 100 years.

The planet has been around a tad longer than that and is still
useful.

There's
nothing else we use that comes anywhere near being as inefficient.

Now, don't add lies to your list of sins, junior.

Name a common appliance that is less efficient. The only thing in the
same ballpark is the common loudspeaker, but their drain on the grid is
minor.

Define efficient. Televisions. Toasters.

The
common light bulb rings in at about 5%. It doesn't have great color
rendition unless corrected in which case it has a shorter life or is
even less efficient, it runs up the heat load in summer, it has a
terrible lifespan... The only real advantage it has is that it is cheap.
But not cheap when you consider the lifespan or the energy it uses.

Tungsten lights have far better color rendition than most CFLs.

It's hard to call 2800K, good color rendition.

It's hard to call halogens, 2800K.

Halogens (which I use almost exclusively), even better.

A few hundred degrees hotter.

Stupid.


There are excellent color balanced CFLs available, suitable for
viewing and judging color balance in photography. Much better than the
short lived photo floods. Certainly better than the common incandescent
or your halogens.

They all suck. I've tried them, and relegated them to the basement
(when I had one). I own none now because I hate them.

But hey, if you guys love your 100 year old design 100 Watt bulbs. I
don't happen to have your emotional attachment.

If that's your best argument, hang up your spurs, kid.

I don't understand your problem. No one is taking away your specialty
halogen lights. All we are talking about is the old edison based lamps
which should join the trash bin of obsolete technology.

They aren't "specialty". They have an Edison screw base, and come
in the standard sizes. I have "standard" tungsten in some floor
lamps though and closets though. I'll be buying a few hundred over
the next couple of years because you leftist loons are forcing your
religion on others, again.

Jeff
Jeff


I have a sneaking suspicion the majority of Americans do
too.
Sheep? Evidently...

obviously

Obviously.


--
Keith

On May 3, 6:16*pm, krw wrote:
In article ,
says...

krw wrote:
In article ,
says...
krw wrote:

snip

I'm not about to use CFLs anywhere I spend any time.
* *And, why not?

Primarily because I can't stand the light and they're too slow to
turn on where I don't care about the light.

* I'm not about
to replace all my fixtures either.
Why would you have to?

CFLs aren't for many fixtures. *They do get hot and the electronics
doesn't like it. *You have a lot to learn, my boy.

* *Not as much as you.

I'm sure IKYABWAI is the best argument you can come up with.

* There's other alternatives (at a higher cost) for the heat hell holes
you mention. Personally, I've never liked or used recessed lighting.

I do, but I'm not forcing you to have them.

Most of them are big leaks in a homes thermal envelope, but you haven't
impressed me as caring much about conservation, just consumption.

Nonsense. *How does a thermal leak occur between floors? *If idiots,
like you, design houses all sorts of stupid things are likely to
happen.

* A case of bulbs here, and a case
there...

* I'd still like to use R12, but the switchover did close the ozone
hole. Remember that?
Oh, good grief!
I suppose you are still questioning evolution? And global warming?

Don't be an ass.

Don't be a flunky.

Hardly a fluky, ass.

* *Sometimes you have to do something because it has a far greater benefit.
Someimes you just have to be a good little sheep, eh Komrad?
Look whose calling who a sheep?

You *are* a perfect example of a sheep, who likes it when the man
from Washington bends you over. *I bet you really love those 1.6gal
toilets.

You've been listening to way too much wingnut radio/tv. Such is right
wing opinion in that it is all opinion and no facts. Just insult anyone
who disagrees. Don't let reality get in the way.

Absolutely the truth, which your "argument" falls well short of
addressing.

BTW, I have an old fashioned toilet because I live in an old house, but
have no objection to the new design toilets. The new ones work, as
opposed to the first generation.

You like to spout government lies. *I have a set of "new" ones. *
They don't. *

* *You'd have thought that congress would have thought up
something larger, given their needs.

Sometimes it pays not to be a sheep and blindly believe all that horse
manure W has been dishing out for the last 7 years. I'd say lemming is a
more appropriate term.

Don't be an idiot. *I know it's hard work to think, but try it
anyway.

You seem to think we can just keep living the way we do now. I'm sure
the Mayans felt the same way as they gobbled up all the available resources.

There are a *lot* of things we can do and will have to do. *Having
government (or you) force change for changes sake is asinine. *
Choice is a good thing. *The market will decide the matters soon
enough without government screwing up the economy.

* *The tungsten light bulb has been around almost 100 years.

The planet has been around a tad longer than that and is still
useful.

There's
nothing else we use that comes anywhere near being as inefficient.

Now, don't add lies to your list of sins, junior.

Name a common appliance that is less efficient. The only thing in the
same ballpark is the common loudspeaker, but their drain on the grid is
minor.

Define efficient. *Televisions. *Toasters. *

The
common light bulb rings in at about 5%. It doesn't have great color
rendition unless corrected in which case it has a shorter life or is
even less efficient, it runs up the heat load in summer, it has a
terrible lifespan... The only real advantage it has is that it is cheap.
But not cheap when you consider the lifespan or the energy it uses.

Tungsten lights have far better color rendition than most CFLs.

* It's hard to call 2800K, good color rendition.

It's hard to call halogens, 2800K.

Halogens (which I use almost exclusively), even better.

* *A few hundred degrees hotter.

Stupid.



* There are excellent color balanced CFLs available, suitable for
viewing and judging color balance in photography. Much better than the
short lived photo floods. Certainly better than the common incandescent
or your halogens.

They all suck. *I've tried them, and relegated them to the basement
(when I had one). *I own none now because I hate them.

* *But hey, if you guys love your 100 year old design 100 Watt bulbs. I
don't happen to have your emotional attachment.

If that's your best argument, hang up your spurs, kid.

I don't understand your problem. No one is taking away your specialty
halogen lights. All we are talking about is the old edison based lamps
which should join the trash bin of obsolete technology.

They aren't "specialty". *They have an Edison screw base, and come
in the standard sizes. *I have "standard" tungsten in some floor
lamps though and closets though. *I'll be buying a few hundred over
the next couple of years because you leftist loons are forcing your
religion on others, again.

* *Jeff
* *Jeff

I have a sneaking suspicion the majority of Americans do
too.
Sheep? *Evidently...

obviously

Obviously.

--
Keith

krw check out a review of cfls at Popular Mechanics magazine, the new
soft white are not what was out a few years ago, even by brand it
different, PM put a HD soft white at Par with incandesant. And putting
in cans in my kitchen does now allow out alot of air by sidewall loss
up to the attic.

In , krw wrote in part:
In article ,
says...
krw wrote:
In article ,
says...

I, , edit for space

You've been listening to way too much wingnut radio/tv. Such is right
wing opinion in that it is all opinion and no facts. Just insult anyone
who disagrees. Don't let reality get in the way.

Absolutely the truth, which your "argument" falls well short of
addressing.

BTW, I have an old fashioned toilet because I live in an old house, but
have no objection to the new design toilets. The new ones work, as
opposed to the first generation.

You like to spout government lies. I have a set of "new" ones.
They don't.

I see so many 1.6 gallon/flush toilets nowadays that work as well as
toilets ever did. This does have an effect on my consideration as to
which side I would call a liar!

- Don Klipstein )

In article ,
(Don Klipstein) wrote:

In , krw wrote in part:
In article ,
says...
krw wrote:
In article ,
says...

I, , edit for space

You've been listening to way too much wingnut radio/tv. Such is right
wing opinion in that it is all opinion and no facts. Just insult anyone
who disagrees. Don't let reality get in the way.

Absolutely the truth, which your "argument" falls well short of
addressing.

BTW, I have an old fashioned toilet because I live in an old house, but
have no objection to the new design toilets. The new ones work, as
opposed to the first generation.

You like to spout government lies. I have a set of "new" ones.
They don't.

I see so many 1.6 gallon/flush toilets nowadays that work as well as
toilets ever did. This does have an effect on my consideration as to
which side I would call a liar!

- Don Klipstein )

i would say that if one has difficulty with one's 1.6 gal. toilet, one
should reacquaint oneself with http://www.mypyramid.gov/ instead of
embarking to recapitulate the work of Morgan Spurlock.

--
This signature can be appended to your outgoing mesages. Many people include in
their signatures contact information, and perhaps a joke or quotation.

In article ,
(Don Klipstein) wrote:

In , krw wrote in part:
In article ,
says...
krw wrote:
In article ,
says...

I, , edit for space

You've been listening to way too much wingnut radio/tv. Such is right
wing opinion in that it is all opinion and no facts. Just insult anyone
who disagrees. Don't let reality get in the way.

Absolutely the truth, which your "argument" falls well short of
addressing.

BTW, I have an old fashioned toilet because I live in an old house, but
have no objection to the new design toilets. The new ones work, as
opposed to the first generation.

You like to spout government lies. I have a set of "new" ones.
They don't.

I see so many 1.6 gallon/flush toilets nowadays that work as well as
toilets ever did. This does have an effect on my consideration as to
which side I would call a liar!

- Don Klipstein )

and while we're at it (vis a vis the original subject of incandescent
lights vs. CFs)... just who are these Dutch Masters whose calibrated
retinas are so acutely attuned to color temperature and chromatic
rendition?

I got in early. Sometime year before last, or possibly early last year,
Menards had gigantic palettes of CFs for sale at less than $1 bulb, or
something like that, for 2-packs of Sylvania Soft White 13 watt
"mini-60's".

Worsk great. I relamped almost the entire house and bought enough extra
tubes to relamp it 1.5 times more. I have several in vented base-up
track fixtures, and a few in unvented base-up globes and haven't had any
problems. None have died, and my electric bill has dropped measurably
and significantly.

And, amazingly, i can still tell what color my stuff is! I very much
don't notice any "difference" in "color rendition" between natural
sunlight and my CFs, and i've tried to ... well, notice.

Puerile whinging, i say...

Of course, the Damoclean sword looms menacing for the day that one burns
out, when i shall throw myself bodily in the street, shrieking in agony
from Murcury Possoming [sic] and beg my neighbors to euthanize me before
the EPA plucks my parrot and drowns me in tank of HgX and locks me away
in Camp X-ray for environmental terrism [sic].

oh wait. i'll just put it in a little plastic grocery bag until it's
convenient for me to drop it off at some recycling center somewhere.
Neverminds...

CF's rule. Esp. when one realizes that a very very modest investment
in CF's in this country frees up generating capacity equivalent to a few
gigawatts of nuclear (or coal, for that matter) power plants.

Should be a Know Brainer for the anti-Coal people, the Anti-Nuke people,
the Anti-Natural Gas Peaker Plant people and the Anti-building High
Tension Distribution Power Lines IN MY BACK YARD IN MY FORMERLY A
CORNFIELD SUBDEVELOPMENT people.

Oh, ya. Someone said on the radio at lunch that it would be harder to
see the ZOG watermark on my $1000 bills that I like to count before i go
to walmart. I Forgot. I don't have the Dutch Master's eye.

BTW, CF's rule. Old school wolfram tubes drool.

..max

--
This signature can be appended to your outgoing mesages. Many people include in
their signatures contact information, and perhaps a joke or quotation.

On May 4, 12:20*am, (Don Klipstein) wrote:
In , krw wrote in part:

In article ,
says...
krw wrote:
In article ,
says...

I, , edit for space

You've been listening to way too much wingnut radio/tv. Such is right
wing opinion in that it is all opinion and no facts. Just insult anyone
who disagrees. Don't let reality get in the way.

Absolutely the truth, which your "argument" falls well short of
addressing.

BTW, I have an old fashioned toilet because I live in an old house, but
have no objection to the new design toilets. The new ones work, as
opposed to the first generation.

You like to spout government lies. *I have a set of "new" ones. *
They don't. *

* I see so many 1.6 gallon/flush toilets nowadays that work as well as
toilets ever did. *This does have an effect on my consideration as to
which side I would call a liar!

*- Don Klipstein )

HDs 60$ Glacier bay 1.6 works just fine, I just put in 12.

On May 3, 10:20*pm, (Don Klipstein) wrote:
In , krw wrote in part:

In article ,
says...
krw wrote:
In article ,
says...

I, , edit for space

You've been listening to way too much wingnut radio/tv. Such is right
wing opinion in that it is all opinion and no facts. Just insult anyone
who disagrees. Don't let reality get in the way.

Absolutely the truth, which your "argument" falls well short of
addressing.

BTW, I have an old fashioned toilet because I live in an old house, but
have no objection to the new design toilets. The new ones work, as
opposed to the first generation.

You like to spout government lies. *I have a set of "new" ones. *
They don't. *

* I see so many 1.6 gallon/flush toilets nowadays that work as well as
toilets ever did. *This does have an effect on my consideration as to
which side I would call a liar!

*- Don Klipstein )

Mine, a "Jake" model from Toto, works better than any of the old ones
I ever had.

As for CFLs, I put them in years ago. After one day of use, I don't
even notice the difference. Haven't tried the newer models yet as
only 1 of the old ones needed replacing. The only drawback I have
seen is in the outside lights - the warm up period before they come up
to full power.

Harry K

Harry K

Jeff wrote:
Can you imagine where we would be if we had not had CAFE standards. If
all the cars had the same fuel efficiency and smog standards that they
had in the 50's and 60's?

The Japanese would have taken over the automobile market.

Oh, wait...

--
"[i]t's not surprising, then, that they get bitter, they cling to guns or
religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant
sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."
-- Barack Obama at a meeting with his equals, the elitist bourgeoisie

"clifto" wrote in message ...
Jeff wrote:
Can you imagine where we would be if we had not had CAFE standards. If
all the cars had the same fuel efficiency and smog standards that they
had in the 50's and 60's?

The Japanese would have taken over the automobile market.

Oh, wait...

So the same totalitarianism that gave us half-flushed toilets, half-washed
clothing, poison mattresses etc etc is now taking aim at our lightbulbs.

This much I'm sure of: as a migraine sufferer CFLs can and often do
trigger them within just a few minutes. See: http://tinyurl.com/6xqbx5.

On May 4, 11:54*am, "nospam" wrote:
"clifto" wrote in ...
Jeff wrote:
* Can you imagine where we would be if we had not had CAFE standards.. If
all the cars had the same fuel efficiency and smog standards that they
had in the 50's and 60's?

The Japanese would have taken over the automobile market.

Oh, wait...

So the same totalitarianism that gave us half-flushed toilets, half-washed
clothing, poison mattresses etc etc is now taking aim at our lightbulbs.

This much I'm sure of: as a migraine sufferer CFLs can and often do
trigger them within just a few minutes. *See:http://tinyurl.com/6xqbx5.

Cool white or daylight flourescent I hate and always have, warm white
is fine for me, I know a camera store that put in Daylight T8, their
store is empty, the employees hate it but the owner likes it.

On Apr 30, 12:47*am, "S. Barker" wrote:
thanks for the info. * sounds hoaky to me though.

s

"Don Klipstein" wrote in message

...



In article , S. Barker
wrote:

What's this bs about a ban? *I've not kept up with the messages.

*A recently enacted piece of USA Federal legislation bans manufacture,
sale and importation of certain incandescent lamps, starting in 2012.

*"General purpose" incandescent lamps of a certain range of light output
and failing to achieve some specific standard of energy efficiency will be
banned in 2012. *This will include 100 and 75 watt "regular"
incandescents. *In 2014, this will expand to include 60 and 40 watt
"regular" incandescents that fail to meet that level of energy efficiency.

*The "usual regular" incandescents of 75-100 watts will be banned in 2012
and the "usual regular" incandescents of 40-60 watts will be banned in
2014.

*The improved incandescents that Paul Eldridge and I mentioned have
sufficient energy efficiency to not be affected until 2020 according to
this law.

*GE is planning to put similar ones on the market in 2010.

*"Specialty" incandescents are largely not affected. *Paul Eldridge
posted a list of unaffected ones in the "candlelight thread" in
alt.home.repair on April 20 in article
.

*That one can be viewed via Google (along with 24 other articles in the
"candlelight thread" of at least 104 articles) by going to:

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.h...thread/thread/
695cb5879218f939/b9f8c930e2f6a64e?hl=en&

*That article also mentions availability at Home Depot of incandescents
that have sufficient energy efficiency to not be banned in 2012-2014.

- Don Klipstein )- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Apart from possible health problems which frankly seemed far-fetched!
We keep posting the following: People do not seem to realise that so
called 'wasted electricity' creates warmth!
Here we use electricity most months of the year for home heating.
Especially cool/cold evenings when lights tend to be on anyway.
Any 'wasted' heat from the use of 'old fashioned' incandescent bulbs,
which cost about 25 cents each btw, merely helps to warm the house! So
the electric heaters in the rooms in use don't cut in as often.
We have a bathroom for example which when in use has six 40 watt
bulbs, the wasted heat from those 240 watts of non CFL bulbs, means
that the 500 watt bathroom electric heater rarely cuts in at all!
Similarly our computer/bedroom is heated almost entirely by two
computers running almost continuously and one desk lamp at night.
In other words if one uses electricity for heating anyway, almost
every month of the year, from October through July it doesn't matter
how it becomes household warmth!
Using CFLs outside for lights that are on for lengthy periods where
the heat would be wasted does make sense. But that seems to be a use
where CFLs do not perform well in cold climates?
One big electricity 'waster' is a domestic dryer, which chucks damp
heated air outside, to avoid mildew/mould and dampness problems.
Use a clothesline as much as possible when weather allows; even cold
weather.
Also CFLs are said to not work a well where they are frequently switch
on/off such as stairways, cupboards, occasional visits to a shed etc.
Also they don't work (or don't work well) in outside lights equipped
with sensors that come on when someone comes close to them!
All in all not convinced yet that there is an overall saving and in
view of the ten times cost of CFLs, that they are regarded as
'Hazardous waste' by garbage collectors etc. not yet in the mood to
give up the incandescents. We have a neighbour who is heavily into
CFLs, three of which are outside and on all night. Since within their
house they use electrcity for heating there has been effectively no
decrease in thei elctricity consumption or their power bill!

On Sun, 4 May 2008 11:42:11 -0700 (PDT), ransley
wrote:

Cool white or daylight flourescent I hate and always have, warm white
is fine for me, I know a camera store that put in Daylight T8, their
store is empty, the employees hate it but the owner likes it.

Hi Mark,

With the exception of some high-end retailers, cool white (4,100K) and
HID (typically 3,700K and higher) dominate the retail world and while
some commercial office spaces will opt for 3,500K lamps, 4,100K pretty
much rules the day.

As a lighting designer, I'm seeing a notable shift towards 5,000K. Our
firm has done several side-by-side mock-ups in offices and on
industrial floors and we've found the vast majority of employees
prefer the higher colour temperature (next to each other, the part
that is illuminated at 4,100K looks "dull", "dingy" and "dirty" by
comparison).

Cheers,
Paul

On May 4, 2:00*pm, terry wrote:
On Apr 30, 12:47*am, "S. Barker" wrote:





thanks for the info. * sounds hoaky to me though.

s

"Don Klipstein" wrote in message

...

In article , S. Barker
wrote:

What's this bs about a ban? *I've not kept up with the messages.

*A recently enacted piece of USA Federal legislation bans manufacture,
sale and importation of certain incandescent lamps, starting in 2012.

*"General purpose" incandescent lamps of a certain range of light output
and failing to achieve some specific standard of energy efficiency will be
banned in 2012. *This will include 100 and 75 watt "regular"
incandescents. *In 2014, this will expand to include 60 and 40 watt
"regular" incandescents that fail to meet that level of energy efficiency.

*The "usual regular" incandescents of 75-100 watts will be banned in 2012
and the "usual regular" incandescents of 40-60 watts will be banned in
2014.

*The improved incandescents that Paul Eldridge and I mentioned have
sufficient energy efficiency to not be affected until 2020 according to
this law.

*GE is planning to put similar ones on the market in 2010.

*"Specialty" incandescents are largely not affected. *Paul Eldridge
posted a list of unaffected ones in the "candlelight thread" in
alt.home.repair on April 20 in article
.

*That one can be viewed via Google (along with 24 other articles in the
"candlelight thread" of at least 104 articles) by going to:

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.h...thread/thread/
695cb5879218f939/b9f8c930e2f6a64e?hl=en&

*That article also mentions availability at Home Depot of incandescents
that have sufficient energy efficiency to not be banned in 2012-2014.

- Don Klipstein )- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Apart from possible health problems which frankly seemed far-fetched!
We keep posting the following: People do not seem to realise that so
called 'wasted electricity' creates warmth!
Here we use electricity most months of the year for home heating.
Especially cool/cold evenings when lights tend to be on anyway.
Any 'wasted' heat from the use of 'old fashioned' incandescent bulbs,
which cost about 25 cents each btw, merely helps to warm the house! So
the electric heaters in the rooms in use don't cut in as often.
We have a bathroom for example which when in use has six 40 watt
bulbs, the wasted heat from those 240 watts of non CFL bulbs, means
that the 500 watt bathroom electric heater rarely cuts in at all!
Similarly our computer/bedroom is heated almost entirely by two
computers running almost continuously and one desk lamp at night.
In other words if one uses electricity for heating anyway, almost
every month of the year, from October through July it doesn't matter
how it becomes household warmth!
Using CFLs outside for lights that are on for lengthy periods where
the heat would be wasted does make sense. But that seems to be a use
where CFLs do not perform well in cold climates?
One big electricity 'waster' is a domestic dryer, which chucks damp
heated air outside, to avoid mildew/mould and dampness problems.
Use a clothesline as much as possible when weather allows; even cold
weather.
Also CFLs are said to not work a well where they are frequently switch
on/off such as stairways, cupboards, occasional visits to a shed etc.
Also they don't work (or don't work well) in outside lights equipped
with sensors that come on when someone comes close to them!
All in all not convinced yet that there is an overall saving and in
view of the ten times cost of CFLs, that they are regarded as
'Hazardous waste' by garbage collectors etc. not yet in the mood to
give up the incandescents. We have a neighbour who is heavily into
CFLs, three of which are outside and on all night. Since within their
house they use electrcity for heating there has been effectively no
decrease in thei elctricity consumption or their power bill!- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You are of a minority group that does not use AC in summer, and has
cheaper electric than NG.

In article d781eac8-bb27-4d3c-931f-
,
says...
On May 3, 6:16*pm, krw wrote:
In article ,
says...

krw wrote:
In article ,
says...
krw wrote:

snip

I'm not about to use CFLs anywhere I spend any time.
* *And, why not?

Primarily because I can't stand the light and they're too slow to
turn on where I don't care about the light.

* I'm not about
to replace all my fixtures either.
Why would you have to?

CFLs aren't for many fixtures. *They do get hot and the electronics
doesn't like it. *You have a lot to learn, my boy.

* *Not as much as you.

I'm sure IKYABWAI is the best argument you can come up with.

* There's other alternatives (at a higher cost) for the heat hell holes
you mention. Personally, I've never liked or used recessed lighting.

I do, but I'm not forcing you to have them.

Most of them are big leaks in a homes thermal envelope, but you haven't
impressed me as caring much about conservation, just consumption.

Nonsense. *How does a thermal leak occur between floors? *If idiots,
like you, design houses all sorts of stupid things are likely to
happen.

* A case of bulbs here, and a case
there...

* I'd still like to use R12, but the switchover did close the ozone
hole. Remember that?
Oh, good grief!
I suppose you are still questioning evolution? And global warming?

Don't be an ass.

Don't be a flunky.

Hardly a fluky, ass.

* *Sometimes you have to do something because it has a far greater benefit.
Someimes you just have to be a good little sheep, eh Komrad?
Look whose calling who a sheep?

You *are* a perfect example of a sheep, who likes it when the man
from Washington bends you over. *I bet you really love those 1.6gal
toilets.

You've been listening to way too much wingnut radio/tv. Such is right
wing opinion in that it is all opinion and no facts. Just insult anyone
who disagrees. Don't let reality get in the way.

Absolutely the truth, which your "argument" falls well short of
addressing.

BTW, I have an old fashioned toilet because I live in an old house, but
have no objection to the new design toilets. The new ones work, as
opposed to the first generation.

You like to spout government lies. *I have a set of "new" ones. *
They don't. *

* *You'd have thought that congress would have thought up
something larger, given their needs.

Sometimes it pays not to be a sheep and blindly believe all that horse
manure W has been dishing out for the last 7 years. I'd say lemming is a
more appropriate term.

Don't be an idiot. *I know it's hard work to think, but try it
anyway.

You seem to think we can just keep living the way we do now. I'm sure
the Mayans felt the same way as they gobbled up all the available resources.

There are a *lot* of things we can do and will have to do. *Having
government (or you) force change for changes sake is asinine. *
Choice is a good thing. *The market will decide the matters soon
enough without government screwing up the economy.

* *The tungsten light bulb has been around almost 100 years.

The planet has been around a tad longer than that and is still
useful.

There's
nothing else we use that comes anywhere near being as inefficient.

Now, don't add lies to your list of sins, junior.

Name a common appliance that is less efficient. The only thing in the
same ballpark is the common loudspeaker, but their drain on the grid is
minor.

Define efficient. *Televisions. *Toasters. *

The
common light bulb rings in at about 5%. It doesn't have great color
rendition unless corrected in which case it has a shorter life or is
even less efficient, it runs up the heat load in summer, it has a
terrible lifespan... The only real advantage it has is that it is cheap.
But not cheap when you consider the lifespan or the energy it uses..

Tungsten lights have far better color rendition than most CFLs.

* It's hard to call 2800K, good color rendition.

It's hard to call halogens, 2800K.

Halogens (which I use almost exclusively), even better.

* *A few hundred degrees hotter.

Stupid.



* There are excellent color balanced CFLs available, suitable for
viewing and judging color balance in photography. Much better than the
short lived photo floods. Certainly better than the common incandescent
or your halogens.

They all suck. *I've tried them, and relegated them to the basement
(when I had one). *I own none now because I hate them.

* *But hey, if you guys love your 100 year old design 100 Watt bulbs. I
don't happen to have your emotional attachment.

If that's your best argument, hang up your spurs, kid.

I don't understand your problem. No one is taking away your specialty
halogen lights. All we are talking about is the old edison based lamps
which should join the trash bin of obsolete technology.

They aren't "specialty". *They have an Edison screw base, and come
in the standard sizes. *I have "standard" tungsten in some floor
lamps though and closets though. *I'll be buying a few hundred over
the next couple of years because you leftist loons are forcing your
religion on others, again.

* *Jeff
* *Jeff

I have a sneaking suspicion the majority of Americans do
too.
Sheep? *Evidently...

obviously

Obviously.

--
Keith

krw check out a review of cfls at Popular Mechanics magazine, the new

Popular Mechanics? You mean that rag that had pictures of ion-
powered helicopters? I haven't picked up that waste of trees since
I was a kid.

soft white are not what was out a few years ago, even by brand it
different,

Of course, and you never know what you're buying.

PM put a HD soft white at Par with incandesant.

Not that I care what PM would ever have to say...

And putting
in cans in my kitchen does now allow out alot of air by sidewall loss
up to the attic.

Huh?

--
Keith

In article ,
says...
In , krw wrote in part:
In article ,
says...
krw wrote:
In article ,
says...

I, , edit for space

You've been listening to way too much wingnut radio/tv. Such is right
wing opinion in that it is all opinion and no facts. Just insult anyone
who disagrees. Don't let reality get in the way.

Absolutely the truth, which your "argument" falls well short of
addressing.

BTW, I have an old fashioned toilet because I live in an old house, but
have no objection to the new design toilets. The new ones work, as
opposed to the first generation.

You like to spout government lies. I have a set of "new" ones.
They don't.

I see so many 1.6 gallon/flush toilets nowadays that work as well as
toilets ever did.

I have two that need three flushes or they plug first.

This does have an effect on my consideration as to
which side I would call a liar!

Of course you say that, without facts. It doesn't fit your narrow
view of the world.

--
Keith

nospam wrote:
"clifto" wrote in message ...
Jeff wrote:
Can you imagine where we would be if we had not had CAFE standards. If
all the cars had the same fuel efficiency and smog standards that they
had in the 50's and 60's?

The Japanese would have taken over the automobile market.

Oh, wait...

So the same totalitarianism that gave us half-flushed toilets, half-washed
clothing, poison mattresses etc etc is now taking aim at our lightbulbs.

Yeah, pretty much.

This much I'm sure of: as a migraine sufferer CFLs can and often do
trigger them within just a few minutes. See: http://tinyurl.com/6xqbx5.

Doesn't matter. The motivation of the environazis is to impose their will
on the world, not to do anything reasonable. You will suffer and they will
glory in it.

--
"[i]t's not surprising, then, that they get bitter, they cling to guns or
religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant
sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."
-- Barack Obama at a meeting with his equals, the elitist bourgeoisie

"clifto" wrote in message ...
nospam wrote:
"clifto" wrote in message ...
Jeff wrote:
Can you imagine where we would be if we had not had CAFE standards. If
all the cars had the same fuel efficiency and smog standards that they
had in the 50's and 60's?

The Japanese would have taken over the automobile market.

Oh, wait...

So the same totalitarianism that gave us half-flushed toilets, half-washed
clothing, poison mattresses etc etc is now taking aim at our lightbulbs.

Yeah, pretty much.

This much I'm sure of: as a migraine sufferer CFLs can and often do
trigger them within just a few minutes. See: http://tinyurl.com/6xqbx5.

Doesn't matter. The motivation of the environazis is to impose their will
on the world, not to do anything reasonable. You will suffer and they will
glory in it.

You make it sound like a tiny group of people are trying to impose
their will on everyone else. Judging from Ron Paul's candidacy for
U.S. president, clearly "the environazis" are people in general, not
some tiny group of wackos. If we have any hope of reversing the
downward plunge into totalitarianism, the first step is to stop with
the finger pointing and name calling, and stop pretending either of
the major U.S. political parties will make any difference.

In , Paul M. Eldridge wrote:
On Sun, 4 May 2008 11:42:11 -0700 (PDT), ransley
wrote:

Cool white or daylight flourescent I hate and always have, warm white
is fine for me, I know a camera store that put in Daylight T8, their
store is empty, the employees hate it but the owner likes it.

Hi Mark,

With the exception of some high-end retailers, cool white (4,100K) and
HID (typically 3,700K and higher) dominate the retail world and while
some commercial office spaces will opt for 3,500K lamps, 4,100K pretty
much rules the day.

As a lighting designer, I'm seeing a notable shift towards 5,000K. Our
firm has done several side-by-side mock-ups in offices and on
industrial floors and we've found the vast majority of employees
prefer the higher colour temperature (next to each other, the part
that is illuminated at 4,100K looks "dull", "dingy" and "dirty" by
comparison).

This does vary with brightness of the illumination. 4100K looks good to
me at 900-1,300 lux. 5000K at that illumination level often looks a bit
stark, though individual illuminated items look good if the lamps are
"850" or "SPX50" ones or are rendered well regardless of lamp spectral
properties. But the room as a whole can still appear a little icy cold or
"stark", and non-triphosphor lamps can give a bit of "dreary gray effect".

I have yet to see much usage of 5000K. Is this a coming fad?

I have noticed that the Target stores in my area use 3000K lighting - it
seems stuffy to me. I wish they would use 3500K - still warm but not
stuffy.

I have seen some stores use 6500K, even 6500K T8 lamps - that looks icy
cold and stark at best to me even at a couple thousand lux, and has
(to me at least) a "dreary grayish" effect if the lamps are not
triphosphor ones.
I see 6500K used about as much as 5000K. And I see a difference - 6500
is definitely bluish to me as far as fluorescent lighting goes, while 5000
is "icy pure white that sometimes looks a tiny bit bluish".

As for home use - usually illumination levels are a lot less than 1,000
lux, and 4100K is often "too high" there. I mostly like 3500K for home
use, though dimmer areas can look a bit dreary unless color temperature
gets even lower (warmer).

- Don Klipstein )

In ,
terry wrote:

(To condense, mostly an argument that CFLs do not save money if your
home is in a colder climate and is heated electrically)

Is there a heat pump in the home? If so, then the heat pump is a less
costly heating method than other elctrical loads. The heat output of a
heat pump is not all from the electricity it uses - about half of it is
heat pumped into the house from the outside.

If you don't have a heat pump, see if it is worth getting one.

- Don Klipstein )

In article , krw wrote:
In article ,
says...
In , krw wrote in part:
In article ,
says...
krw wrote:
In article ,
says...

I, , edit for space

You've been listening to way too much wingnut radio/tv. Such is right
wing opinion in that it is all opinion and no facts. Just insult anyone
who disagrees. Don't let reality get in the way.

Absolutely the truth, which your "argument" falls well short of
addressing.

BTW, I have an old fashioned toilet because I live in an old house, but
have no objection to the new design toilets. The new ones work, as
opposed to the first generation.

You like to spout government lies. I have a set of "new" ones.
They don't.

I see so many 1.6 gallon/flush toilets nowadays that work as well as
toilets ever did.

I have two that need three flushes or they plug first.

This does have an effect on my consideration as to
which side I would call a liar!

Of course you say that, without facts. It doesn't fit your narrow
view of the world.

Facts such as existence of plenty of 1.6 gallon/flush toilets that work
as well as toilets ever did? I have seen plenty of those. Maybe you need
some new toilets!

Meanwhile, even the lousy ones of the 1.6 GPF toilets still only need
one flush for a #1 load.

- Don Klipstein )

On Mon, 5 May 2008 03:21:39 +0000 (UTC), (Don
Klipstein) wrote:

In , Paul M. Eldridge wrote:
On Sun, 4 May 2008 11:42:11 -0700 (PDT), ransley
wrote:

Cool white or daylight flourescent I hate and always have, warm white
is fine for me, I know a camera store that put in Daylight T8, their
store is empty, the employees hate it but the owner likes it.

Hi Mark,

With the exception of some high-end retailers, cool white (4,100K) and
HID (typically 3,700K and higher) dominate the retail world and while
some commercial office spaces will opt for 3,500K lamps, 4,100K pretty
much rules the day.

As a lighting designer, I'm seeing a notable shift towards 5,000K. Our
firm has done several side-by-side mock-ups in offices and on
industrial floors and we've found the vast majority of employees
prefer the higher colour temperature (next to each other, the part
that is illuminated at 4,100K looks "dull", "dingy" and "dirty" by
comparison).

This does vary with brightness of the illumination. 4100K looks good to
me at 900-1,300 lux. 5000K at that illumination level often looks a bit
stark, though individual illuminated items look good if the lamps are
"850" or "SPX50" ones or are rendered well regardless of lamp spectral
properties. But the room as a whole can still appear a little icy cold or
"stark", and non-triphosphor lamps can give a bit of "dreary gray effect".

I have yet to see much usage of 5000K. Is this a coming fad?

I have noticed that the Target stores in my area use 3000K lighting - it
seems stuffy to me. I wish they would use 3500K - still warm but not
stuffy.

I have seen some stores use 6500K, even 6500K T8 lamps - that looks icy
cold and stark at best to me even at a couple thousand lux, and has
(to me at least) a "dreary grayish" effect if the lamps are not
triphosphor ones.
I see 6500K used about as much as 5000K. And I see a difference - 6500
is definitely bluish to me as far as fluorescent lighting goes, while 5000
is "icy pure white that sometimes looks a tiny bit bluish".

As for home use - usually illumination levels are a lot less than 1,000
lux, and 4100K is often "too high" there. I mostly like 3500K for home
use, though dimmer areas can look a bit dreary unless color temperature
gets even lower (warmer).

- Don Klipstein )

Hi Don,

Our firm is pretty much using 5,000K exclusively now; mostly Osram
Sylvania XPS. I wasn't initially convinced it was appropriate beyond
the shop floor, but it's been very well received right across the
board -- at the risk of making this sound like a laundry detergent ad,
everything looks "fresher", "cleaner" and "brighter".

I use 6,500K in outdoor applications (they, in turn, makes the 5,000K
lamps look somewhat dingy) and I'd be curious to see how they'd look
in a commercial setting. I'd also like to try out the new 8,000Ks
too, but my partners are not as keen on the idea.

FWIW, I use SPX30s in my own home (living areas) and SPX50s in the
utility room.

Cheers,
Paul

In , Paul M. Eldridge wrote:

Hi Don,

Our firm is pretty much using 5,000K exclusively now; mostly Osram
Sylvania XPS. I wasn't initially convinced it was appropriate beyond
the shop floor, but it's been very well received right across the
board -- at the risk of making this sound like a laundry detergent ad,
everything looks "fresher", "cleaner" and "brighter".

I use 6,500K in outdoor applications (they, in turn, makes the 5,000K
lamps look somewhat dingy) and I'd be curious to see how they'd look
in a commercial setting. I'd also like to try out the new 8,000Ks
too, but my partners are not as keen on the idea.

FWIW, I use SPX30s in my own home (living areas) and SPX50s in the
utility room.

I have seen a few retail establishments with 6500K.

I remember recently seeing one that still does. Now, doggone it, I
can't remember who/what/where! But I'm pretty sure it was T8 6500K.

Then there are two others that I remember better as to who they were and
where they were. One was a copy shop using 6500K "Daylight"
(halophosphor) lamps. They moved to a nearby location and did not take
6500K with them; now they use 4100K. The other is a jewelry store that
used 6500K triphosphor (uncertain about bulb diameter however), but they
recently went out of business - my speculation is the owner(s) retiring.

All of these places appeared to me icy and at least slightly "stark",
and the one with the halophosphors also had some "dreary gray effect".

In my experience, 6500K lamps are more bluish than most overcast sky,
even though that is widely said to be 6500K. I seem to think that
overcast sky should be close to the color temperature of sunlight in
space, and I see varying numbers for that - with 5780K appearing to me to
make a good case there.

- Don Klipstein )

"Don Klipstein" wrote...

Facts such as existence of plenty of 1.6 gallon/flush toilets that work
as well as toilets ever did? I have seen plenty of those. Maybe you need
some new toilets!

Meanwhile, even the lousy ones of the 1.6 GPF toilets still only need
one flush for a #1 load.

To retain a mote of on-topic-ness, I replaced the globe lights in my bathroom
with CFLs of unknown warmth several years ago. The fact that they do not go
full bright right away is a PLUS, IMO; I don't get blinded as badly at night
when I turn them on...

For good 1.6 gpf toilets, see the reviews at
http://www.terrylove.com/crtoilet.htm . I bought 2 Toto Drakes (then,
eventually, a third one) based on his recommendations. I have not had to
double-flush even once in 5+ years! They're reasonably quiet, too.

On Mon, 5 May 2008 04:32:48 +0000 (UTC), (Don
Klipstein) wrote:

In , Paul M. Eldridge wrote:

Hi Don,

Our firm is pretty much using 5,000K exclusively now; mostly Osram
Sylvania XPS. I wasn't initially convinced it was appropriate beyond
the shop floor, but it's been very well received right across the
board -- at the risk of making this sound like a laundry detergent ad,
everything looks "fresher", "cleaner" and "brighter".

I use 6,500K in outdoor applications (they, in turn, makes the 5,000K
lamps look somewhat dingy) and I'd be curious to see how they'd look
in a commercial setting. I'd also like to try out the new 8,000Ks
too, but my partners are not as keen on the idea.

FWIW, I use SPX30s in my own home (living areas) and SPX50s in the
utility room.

I have seen a few retail establishments with 6500K.

I remember recently seeing one that still does. Now, doggone it, I
can't remember who/what/where! But I'm pretty sure it was T8 6500K.

Then there are two others that I remember better as to who they were and
where they were. One was a copy shop using 6500K "Daylight"
(halophosphor) lamps. They moved to a nearby location and did not take
6500K with them; now they use 4100K. The other is a jewelry store that
used 6500K triphosphor (uncertain about bulb diameter however), but they
recently went out of business - my speculation is the owner(s) retiring.

All of these places appeared to me icy and at least slightly "stark",
and the one with the halophosphors also had some "dreary gray effect".

In my experience, 6500K lamps are more bluish than most overcast sky,
even though that is widely said to be 6500K. I seem to think that
overcast sky should be close to the color temperature of sunlight in
space, and I see varying numbers for that - with 5780K appearing to me to
make a good case there.

- Don Klipstein )

Hi Don,

I would be less inclined to go with high colour temperature lamps if
the general colour scheme is warm or if a lot of wood surfaces are
used, but if neutral or cool colours dominate, I would definitely opt
for 5,000K and, quite possibly, 6,500K. Obviously, as you know, the
intended use of the space pretty much dictates this choice. If you
want to convey a warm, relaxed and casual atmosphere, 3,000K is the
way to go. If, on the other hand, you want foster a no-nonsense,
business-like, get-out-of-my-way-I've-got-important-things-to-do mind
set, the higher the better. And I agree with you that you must have
sufficient raw lumens to make this work.

Few of us realize just how much lighting and, more specifically, light
colour influences our mood. In a high-end retail environment warm
colours tell us to relax, slow down and dream, whereas in a grocery or
hardware store, say, cool colours help keep our minds focused on the
business at hand, direct us to the cash registers and then quickly out
the door (no loitering please). If I saw 3,000K lamps lighting-up a
Walmart or Target I'd literally crap my pants. Ditto 5,000K or 6,500K
lamps in a Victoria's Secret or Neiman Marcus.

Cheers,
Paul

In article ,
says...
In article , krw wrote:
In article ,
says...
In , krw wrote in part:
In article ,
says...
krw wrote:
In article ,
says...

I, , edit for space

You've been listening to way too much wingnut radio/tv. Such is right
wing opinion in that it is all opinion and no facts. Just insult anyone
who disagrees. Don't let reality get in the way.

Absolutely the truth, which your "argument" falls well short of
addressing.

BTW, I have an old fashioned toilet because I live in an old house, but
have no objection to the new design toilets. The new ones work, as
opposed to the first generation.

You like to spout government lies. I have a set of "new" ones.
They don't.

I see so many 1.6 gallon/flush toilets nowadays that work as well as
toilets ever did.

I have two that need three flushes or they plug first.

This does have an effect on my consideration as to
which side I would call a liar!

Of course you say that, without facts. It doesn't fit your narrow
view of the world.

Facts such as existence of plenty of 1.6 gallon/flush toilets that work
as well as toilets ever did?

Those "facts" are certainly *NOT* in existence.

I have seen plenty of those. Maybe you need
some new toilets!

Perhaps I should tell my landlord.

Meanwhile, even the lousy ones of the 1.6 GPF toilets still only need
one flush for a #1 load.

And three or four (and a plunger) for anything else.


--
Keith

In article ,
krw wrote:

In article ,
says...
In article , krw wrote:
In article ,
says...
In , krw wrote in part:
In article ,
says...
krw wrote:
In article ,
says...

I, , edit for space

You've been listening to way too much wingnut radio/tv. Such is right
wing opinion in that it is all opinion and no facts. Just insult
anyone
who disagrees. Don't let reality get in the way.

Absolutely the truth, which your "argument" falls well short of
addressing.

BTW, I have an old fashioned toilet because I live in an old house,
but
have no objection to the new design toilets. The new ones work, as
opposed to the first generation.

You like to spout government lies. I have a set of "new" ones.
They don't.

I see so many 1.6 gallon/flush toilets nowadays that work as well as
toilets ever did.

I have two that need three flushes or they plug first.

This does have an effect on my consideration as to
which side I would call a liar!

Of course you say that, without facts. It doesn't fit your narrow
view of the world.

Facts such as existence of plenty of 1.6 gallon/flush toilets that work
as well as toilets ever did?

Those "facts" are certainly *NOT* in existence.

I have seen plenty of those. Maybe you need
some new toilets!

Perhaps I should tell my landlord.

Meanwhile, even the lousy ones of the 1.6 GPF toilets still only need
one flush for a #1 load.

And three or four (and a plunger) for anything else.

really, this tells us a lot more about you (than we'd care to know!)
than the toilet...

--
This signature can be appended to your outgoing mesages. Many people include in
their signatures contact information, and perhaps a joke or quotation.

In , Paul M. Eldridge wrote:

Hi Don,

I would be less inclined to go with high colour temperature lamps if
the general colour scheme is warm or if a lot of wood surfaces are
used, but if neutral or cool colours dominate, I would definitely opt
for 5,000K and, quite possibly, 6,500K. Obviously, as you know, the
intended use of the space pretty much dictates this choice. If you
want to convey a warm, relaxed and casual atmosphere, 3,000K is the
way to go. If, on the other hand, you want foster a no-nonsense,
business-like, get-out-of-my-way-I've-got-important-things-to-do mind
set, the higher the better. And I agree with you that you must have
sufficient raw lumens to make this work.

Few of us realize just how much lighting and, more specifically, light
colour influences our mood. In a high-end retail environment warm
colours tell us to relax, slow down and dream, whereas in a grocery or
hardware store, say, cool colours help keep our minds focused on the
business at hand, direct us to the cash registers and then quickly out
the door (no loitering please). If I saw 3,000K lamps lighting-up a
Walmart or Target I'd literally crap my pants. Ditto 5,000K or 6,500K
lamps in a Victoria's Secret or Neiman Marcus.

As it turns out, as I said, the Targets in my area use 3,000K lamps. I
think that Target is actually trying for a more casual, less rushed
atmosphere. But I find 3,000K, especially 3,000K fluorescent, "stuffy"
at usual retail illumination levels.

Walmart, K-Mart, supermarkets and offices in my experience traditionally
used and still use 4,100K. I find that a "neutral white",
go-do-your-business sort of lighting. Maybe a slight touch on the warmish
side of this, and easily appearing "dingy" by being white rather than warm
while being on the "low color temperature end" of "white rather than
warm".

5,000K is something I find good for workplaces, provided (as you agreed)
that enough light is provided to make this high a color temperature look
good. I think it will work well at supermarkets, provided sufficient
light is used to make it look good - now I wonder how many lux that is,
gottry try and see - maybe a thousand lux is enough, may need 2,000 lux to
look nice and good to me.
With that color and sufficient illumination level, the pure white color
looks a bit "futuristic", makes me think of a starship where there is a
lot of work and much less play, and a lot of what little play is towards
getting work done.

But 6,500K? Sorry, I find that usually goes too far, and I usually have
trouble seeing that high a color temperature looking good until
illumination levels in lux get into the 5 figures.
I am aware of exceptions: Light sources manage to appear "clean" rather
than "dreary" with such high color temp. at surface brightness nowhere
near 5 figures of lux - such as my computer monitor's screen. That thing
is over 6,500K, maybe 7,000K, and a bit greenish, and my vision manages to
make me see that thing as a "crisp icy-in-a-good-way white", hardly bluish
or cyanish, also not "dreary".

As for lighting at Victoria's Secret: I find halogen/incandescent at
3,000-3,400 K ideal there. I also have memories of layout of clothing
items and background, as well as light distribution patterns and
diffuseness of the light.
For one thing, when something is being illuminated by an accent light or
something that is effectively an accent light, so that illumination on
that object/area is mainly from one luminaire and also above average for
the room, I find the more-pinkish-less-greenish usual practice of warm
color fluorescents to be detrimental. Also, illumination of an object or
a small area from a single luminaire as opposed to from multiple
luminaires or a "wide diffuse source" has some accentuating effects, such
as on visual sensation of texture.
This is where I find incandescents/halogens working well. I do see
ability to produce CFL luminaires that can get closer to this than I have
seen, but I seem to think that requires reflectors just a little too large
to easily sell! Also, have lamp color not pinkish there - easily achieved
by having CFLs mildly overheat (2700K CFLs in my experience not only have
color temp. increase but also drift a bit towards green, away from pink
when overheated - and I see this effect being useful when carried out to a
mild extent). Making CFLs heat up more is easily enough achievable in
downlights!
As for more-dimly-illuminated areas of a retail space illuminated
unevenly by warmer color light - I see incandescent/halogen getting a
slight boost there by having higher scotopic/photopic ratio than
fluorescents of closest color. How such areas appear in peripheral vision
appears to me to count for something. I suspect that deploying
fluorescent lighting with all of these factors being considered can
do well for both energy efficiency and making fluorescent lighting
looking good to others that are considering various lighting options!

- Don Klipstein )

nospam wrote:
"clifto" wrote in message ...
nospam wrote:
"clifto" wrote in message ...
Jeff wrote:
Can you imagine where we would be if we had not had CAFE standards. If
all the cars had the same fuel efficiency and smog standards that they
had in the 50's and 60's?

The Japanese would have taken over the automobile market.

Oh, wait...

So the same totalitarianism that gave us half-flushed toilets, half-washed
clothing, poison mattresses etc etc is now taking aim at our lightbulbs.

Yeah, pretty much.

This much I'm sure of: as a migraine sufferer CFLs can and often do
trigger them within just a few minutes. See: http://tinyurl.com/6xqbx5.

Doesn't matter. The motivation of the environazis is to impose their will
on the world, not to do anything reasonable. You will suffer and they will
glory in it.

You make it sound like a tiny group of people are trying to impose
their will on everyone else.

Thank you, that's exactly right. I'm trying to make it sound that way
because a tiny group of people are trying to impose their will on
everyone else.


--
Now that another Earth Day has come and gone, let's look at some
environmentalist predictions they would prefer we forget.
http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArti...94959230563446

"clifto" wrote in message ...
nospam wrote:
"clifto" wrote in message ...
nospam wrote:
"clifto" wrote in message ...
Jeff wrote:
Can you imagine where we would be if we had not had CAFE standards. If
all the cars had the same fuel efficiency and smog standards that they
had in the 50's and 60's?

The Japanese would have taken over the automobile market.

Oh, wait...

So the same totalitarianism that gave us half-flushed toilets, half-washed
clothing, poison mattresses etc etc is now taking aim at our lightbulbs.

Yeah, pretty much.

This much I'm sure of: as a migraine sufferer CFLs can and often do
trigger them within just a few minutes. See: http://tinyurl.com/6xqbx5.

Doesn't matter. The motivation of the environazis is to impose their will
on the world, not to do anything reasonable. You will suffer and they will
glory in it.

You make it sound like a tiny group of people are trying to impose
their will on everyone else.

Thank you, that's exactly right. I'm trying to make it sound that way
because a tiny group of people are trying to impose their will on
everyone else.

So you're part of the problem instead of the solution. Stop being
a victim. THEY are US.

nospam wrote:
"clifto" wrote in message ...
nospam wrote:
"clifto" wrote in message ...
nospam wrote:
"clifto" wrote in message ...
Jeff wrote:
Can you imagine where we would be if we had not had CAFE standards. If
all the cars had the same fuel efficiency and smog standards that they
had in the 50's and 60's?

The Japanese would have taken over the automobile market.

Oh, wait...

So the same totalitarianism that gave us half-flushed toilets, half-washed
clothing, poison mattresses etc etc is now taking aim at our lightbulbs.

Yeah, pretty much.

This much I'm sure of: as a migraine sufferer CFLs can and often do
trigger them within just a few minutes. See: http://tinyurl.com/6xqbx5.

Doesn't matter. The motivation of the environazis is to impose their will
on the world, not to do anything reasonable. You will suffer and they will
glory in it.

You make it sound like a tiny group of people are trying to impose
their will on everyone else.

Thank you, that's exactly right. I'm trying to make it sound that way
because a tiny group of people are trying to impose their will on
everyone else.

So you're part of the problem instead of the solution. Stop being
a victim. THEY are US.

Speak for yourself. US believe that humans come first.

--
Now that another Earth Day has come and gone, let's look at some
environmentalist predictions they would prefer we forget.
http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArti...94959230563446