Paul M. Eldridge wrote:
....
Since you asked so nicely, according to the latest DOE report
(February 18, 2008), as of September 20, 2007, there were 28
coal-fired power plants under construction (14,885 MW), 6 more nearing
construction (1,859 MW) and 13 more that had received construction
permits (6,422 MW). There were a further 67 plants (42,394 MW) that
had been announced, but had not as of that time been issued permits.

And to round out the picture, last I looked about a month ago, there
were 28 iirc formal filings for licensing docketing by the NRC thru next
fiscal year and some 20 others projected for the next couple of years
beyond...

--

In alt.engineering.electrical dpb wrote:

| The bill did _not_ "ban" incandescent bulbs, it set minimum efficiency
| standards.

So you are saying that in 10 years, I can still buy incandescent bulbs for
the few places I actually need them?

--
|WARNING: Due to extreme spam, googlegroups.com is blocked. Due to ignorance |
| by the abuse department, bellsouth.net is blocked. If you post to |
| Usenet from these places, find another Usenet provider ASAP. |
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (email for humans: first name in lower case at ipal.net) |

In alt.engineering.electrical James Sweet wrote:

| Yes, plenty of enclosed CFLs work outside in the winter. If you live in
| an area of extreme cold, there's always HID. A 39W metal halide lamp
| produces much more light than a 150W incandescent, and lasts 6-10 times
| as long. I use exclusively CFLs in all my outdoor fixtures, it only gets
| down to about 15F at the lowest here, so the plain exposed spiral type
| work fine. Since these are on from dusk till dawn, the savings are
| substantial and I get 2+ years out of a bulb. Even the vilified mercury
| vapor lamp so common in yard lights and street lighting of the past is
| more than twice as efficient as incandescent.

But none of them produce the quality of light that incandescent does, which
is needed is _some_ places.

--
|WARNING: Due to extreme spam, googlegroups.com is blocked. Due to ignorance |
| by the abuse department, bellsouth.net is blocked. If you post to |
| Usenet from these places, find another Usenet provider ASAP. |
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (email for humans: first name in lower case at ipal.net) |

On Fri, 20 Jun 2008 21:01:46 -0500, Rick-Meister
wrote:

.... The immediate downside is that the CFL manufacturers are going
to have to get their act together REAL fast. Their defective rate
out-of-the-box is really bad. Plus, their actual versus projected life
is, well, pure fiction. And even though the mercury is a fraction of
what it costs to burn coal for the same lumen/life span, none of the
numbers make sense if the bulbs don't actually last as long as the
projections....

Hi Rick,

All Energy Star CFLs must conform to that programme's performance
standards governing a wide range of operating factors including
service life and rated light output (e.g., if the manufacturer claims
their product provides the same amount of light as a 100-watt
incandescent, it must produce at least 1,600 lumens).

See:
http://www.energystar.gov/ia/partner...s_prog_req.pdf

In terms of Hg, a Philips 25-watt SLS25 CFL contains 2.64 mg of
mercury. This lamp has a rated service life of 15,000 hours and
produces 1,750 lumens or slightly more than a standard soft-white
100-watt incandescent at approximately 1,550 lumens.

Over the course of its 15,000 hour life, this CFL will consume a total
of 375 kWh of electricity, whereas the equivalent 100-watt
incandescent will use 1,500 kWh; a difference, in this case, of 1,125
kWh ($135.00's worth at $0.12 per kWh).

Based on the U.S. national average, our incandescent lamp would result
in the additional release of 13.7 mg of Hg, as well as an additional
1,533 lbs of CO2, 6.11 lbs of SO2 and 2.37 lbs of NOx, plus other
nasties such as As, Cr, Cd, Ni and Pb in various quantities.

A breakdown by state can be found he
http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/docum...ary_Tables.pdf

Cheers,
Paul

In alt.engineering.electrical Paul M. Eldridge wrote:

| Within this group, incandescent lamps that are specifically
| **EXCLUDED** include the following:
|
| appliance
| black light ---- This could be done better with fluorescent
| bug
| coloured
| infrared
| left-hand thread (used where lamps may be stolen)
| marine/marine signal
| mine service
| plant light
| reflector
| rough service / shatter-resistant / vibration service
| sign
| silver bowl
| showcase
| 3-way
| traffic signal --- lots of these have changed to LED anyway
| G & T shape
| AB, BA, CA, F, G16-1/2, G-25, G30, S and M-14

What about ophidian lights? I've always used the standard base ones for this.
I suppose I could substitute a plant light or a small infrared.

I was going to switch to low-voltage lamps for task lights, anyway, so I guess
for the most part this doesn't really affect me.

We need a law that taxes or just outright bans importation of cheap CFLs.

--
|WARNING: Due to extreme spam, googlegroups.com is blocked. Due to ignorance |
| by the abuse department, bellsouth.net is blocked. If you post to |
| Usenet from these places, find another Usenet provider ASAP. |
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (email for humans: first name in lower case at ipal.net) |

On Jun 20, 4:30*pm, David Starr wrote:
On Fri, 20 Jun 2008 11:23:58 -0700 (PDT), ransley
wrote:

Its not a ban,

Since when was an incandesant Effecient, do you know only 4-7 watts
of a 100w bulb are out put as actual Light you can see, the rest is
heat, Thats effecient? Put in 11, 100w bulbs and you have a 1000w
heater, and now pay more to run the AC to remove that heat, and
release more mercury from Coal plants to run that AC, They should be
Taxed to death and CFLs rebated, not banned.

Poe is a moron and so are you for not seeing the facts and posting
this crap, incandesants should have limited use in todays world

Seen any CFL's that'll work outdoors in the winter? *I need a few for my yard
lights. *Got any that'll work on 3V DC? *Need some for my flashlights.. *Will
CFL's work in cars? *Lots of incandescents there.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Retired Shop Rat: 14,647 days in a GM plant.
Speak softly and carry a loaded .45
Lifetime member; Vast Right Wing Conspiracy
Web Site:www.destarr.com
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

I use 6 cfl floods and and 8 regular cfls outside on sensors at -10f
last winter, cfls light ok, but the floods are not good for 5 minute
on sensors, I use HDs bulbs, if lights are to be left on they are
fine, but the colder it gets the longer it takes to get bright, the
enclosed floods are the worst, I have the regular cfls unshielded and
all survived rain and snow.

On Jun 20, 10:04*pm, wrote:
In alt.engineering.electrical dpb wrote:

| The bill did _not_ "ban" incandescent bulbs, it set minimum efficiency
| standards.

So you are saying that in 10 years, I can still buy incandescent bulbs for
the few places I actually need them?

--
|WARNING: Due to extreme spam, googlegroups.com is blocked. *Due to ignorance |
| * * * * by the abuse department, bellsouth.net is blocked. *If you post to *|
| * * * * Usenet from these places, find another Usenet provider ASAP. * * * *|
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (email for humans: first name in lower case at ipal.net) |

Incandesants will never go away they are cheap and are better in many
aplications like above a stove, in a oven, frige, for lower than -15f,
work lights , -15f exterior lights, and where instant on is needed,
industry, and in the winter work lights. Actualy an Incandesant bulb
is a heater that has a byproduct of 4-6% of very good light! The smart
thing to do would be just tax them and give a big rebate to
flourescents, and not wait till 2012

On Jun 20, 9:01*pm, Rick-Meister wrote:
Cold start CFL floods are available at 1000Bulbs.com

They also carry dimmable and decorative CFLs.

The upside to this government action is that you're going to see major
improvements in incandescent technology in the coming years. GE and
Sylvania aren't about to close up their light bulb business and say
"oh well."

The immediate downside is that the CFL manufacturers are going to have
to get their act together REAL fast. Their defective rate
out-of-the-box is really bad. Plus, their actual versus projected life
is, well, pure fiction. And even though the mercury is a fraction of
what it costs to burn coal for the same lumen/life span, none of the
numbers make sense if the bulbs don't actually last as long as the
projections.

This is the price we pay when we change technologies--a shake out of
the good from the bad.

As for ethanol in gas---it's an oxygenate to reduce pollution. It's in
there to replace MTBE which is REALLY bad stuff. As soon as you come
up with a less expensive alternative, lets us know. In the meantime,
I'll choose less pollution over slightly increased cost (increased
cost being a relative term--because if you count in the medical costs
due to increased pollution, the ethanol is actually cheaper) any day
of the week.

Ive had maybe 1 or 2 failures with maybe 60 of HDs cfls, many are on
photocell at near 2 years at down to -10f without a failure. I know
they are made by maybe 20 plants in the far east so im sure alot of
junk is made. HD does have a 9 year warranty.

On 21 Jun 2008 03:04:34 GMT, wrote:

In alt.engineering.electrical dpb wrote:

| The bill did _not_ "ban" incandescent bulbs, it set minimum efficiency
| standards.

So you are saying that in 10 years, I can still buy incandescent bulbs for
the few places I actually need them?

Hi Phil,

I can't predict what will happen five or ten years from now, but I
would say most likely "yes". GE is busy developing a new generation
of HEI incandescents that will be initially twice as efficient as what
is available now and ultimately four times so (roughly the same
efficacy as a CFL but at a lower initial cost).

See:
http://www.businesswire.com/portal/s...1109&vnsId=681

Cheers,
Paul

On Jun 20, 10:07*pm, wrote:
In alt.engineering.electrical James Sweet wrote:

| Yes, plenty of enclosed CFLs work outside in the winter. If you live in
| an area of extreme cold, there's always HID. A 39W metal halide lamp
| produces much more light than a 150W incandescent, and lasts 6-10 times
| as long. I use exclusively CFLs in all my outdoor fixtures, it only gets
| down to about 15F at the lowest here, so the plain exposed spiral type
| work fine. Since these are on from dusk till dawn, the savings are
| substantial and I get 2+ years out of a bulb. Even the vilified mercury
| vapor lamp so common in yard lights and street lighting of the past is
| more than twice as efficient as incandescent.

But none of them produce the quality of light that incandescent does, which
is needed is _some_ places.

--
|WARNING: Due to extreme spam, googlegroups.com is blocked. *Due to ignorance |
| * * * * by the abuse department, bellsouth.net is blocked. *If you post to *|
| * * * * Usenet from these places, find another Usenet provider ASAP. * * * *|
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (email for humans: first name in lower case at ipal.net) |

Go read a review a Popular Mechanics Mag, its old but its there, For
facial color the HD bulb beat Incandesant. New warm white cfls are
advancing fast.

On 21 Jun 2008 03:14:30 GMT, wrote:

In alt.engineering.electrical Paul M. Eldridge wrote:

| Within this group, incandescent lamps that are specifically
| **EXCLUDED** include the following:
|
| appliance
| black light ---- This could be done better with fluorescent
| bug
| coloured
| infrared
| left-hand thread (used where lamps may be stolen)
| marine/marine signal
| mine service
| plant light
| reflector
| rough service / shatter-resistant / vibration service
| sign
| silver bowl
| showcase
| 3-way
| traffic signal --- lots of these have changed to LED anyway
| G & T shape
| AB, BA, CA, F, G16-1/2, G-25, G30, S and M-14

What about ophidian lights? I've always used the standard base ones for this.
I suppose I could substitute a plant light or a small infrared.

I was going to switch to low-voltage lamps for task lights, anyway, so I guess
for the most part this doesn't really affect me.

We need a law that taxes or just outright bans importation of cheap CFLs.

Hi Phil,

I'm not sure what wattage lamp you use, but if its light output
exceeds 2,600 lumens, it falls outside this legislation. For example,
a 150-watt Osram Sylvania A21 incandescent is rated at 2,780 lumens
(clear) and 2,640 lumens (soft white).

Cheers,
Paul

In article ,
David Starr wrote:
andesants should have limited use in todays world

Seen any CFL's that'll work outdoors in the winter? I need a few for my
yard lights. Got any that'll work on 3V DC? Need some for my
flashlights.

I've converted two of my Maglites to LEDs. They're 'drop proof' too.

--
From KT24 - in "Leafy Surrey"

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.11

In article %DW6k.36$%l.20@trndny03,
James Sweet writes:

T8 and T12 use the same sockets and have the same lengths.

T8's were designed in Europe to retrofit into T12 fittings and
provide energy savings. That doesn't work with the control gear
used on US 120V mains, where I believe you require different
control gear for the T8's and T12's of the same length.

(HO) and Very High Output (VHO) are also available, those use RDC rather
than bipin end caps and are slightly shorter to accommodate the larger
sockets. Fixture lengths are the same for all those.

Not all ballasts are created equally. The wattage stamped on the tube is
the nominal rating. The actual power is determined by the ballast, which
is a constant-current source. The low energy retrofit tubes such as the
34W T12 accomplish this by changing the gas fill to have a lower voltage
drop, so with the same current, the wattage is lower.

That's how our first energy saving retrofit worked. In 1978,
Thorn Lighting produced a 100W tube to retrofit into 125W 8'
fittings. It used krypton rather than argon base gas fill.
It just predated the move to T8 tri-phosphor tubes, which
were used for all the shorter tube retrofits which followed
on.

--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]

In alt.engineering.electrical ransley wrote:

| Incandesants will never go away they are cheap and are better in many
| aplications like above a stove, in a oven, frige, for lower than -15f,
| work lights , -15f exterior lights, and where instant on is needed,
| industry, and in the winter work lights. Actualy an Incandesant bulb
| is a heater that has a byproduct of 4-6% of very good light! The smart
| thing to do would be just tax them and give a big rebate to
| flourescents, and not wait till 2012

LEDs should work fine in a refrigerator. They can scatter them around front
and back, and on each shelf. That would solve the "light blocked by the old
milk" problem.

I do like the idea of taxing the incandescent bulbs. But I also like the
idea of taxing cheap imports.

--
|WARNING: Due to extreme spam, googlegroups.com is blocked. Due to ignorance |
| by the abuse department, bellsouth.net is blocked. If you post to |
| Usenet from these places, find another Usenet provider ASAP. |
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (email for humans: first name in lower case at ipal.net) |

In alt.engineering.electrical Paul M. Eldridge wrote:
| On 21 Jun 2008 03:04:34 GMT, wrote:
|
|In alt.engineering.electrical dpb wrote:
|
|| The bill did _not_ "ban" incandescent bulbs, it set minimum efficiency
|| standards.
|
|So you are saying that in 10 years, I can still buy incandescent bulbs for
|the few places I actually need them?
|
| Hi Phil,
|
| I can't predict what will happen five or ten years from now, but I
| would say most likely "yes". GE is busy developing a new generation
| of HEI incandescents that will be initially twice as efficient as what
| is available now and ultimately four times so (roughly the same
| efficacy as a CFL but at a lower initial cost).
|
| See:
| http://www.businesswire.com/portal/s...1109&vnsId=681

FYI, the article has a "permalink" that is shorter:

http://www.businesswire.com/news/ge/20070223005120/en

Are these the ones with the low voltage double encased filament that runs at
super-halogen temperatures, and has a circuit inside to deliver the voltage
it needs?

--
|WARNING: Due to extreme spam, googlegroups.com is blocked. Due to ignorance |
| by the abuse department, bellsouth.net is blocked. If you post to |
| Usenet from these places, find another Usenet provider ASAP. |
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (email for humans: first name in lower case at ipal.net) |

In alt.engineering.electrical ransley wrote:
| On Jun 20, 10:07?pm, wrote:
| In alt.engineering.electrical James Sweet wrote:
|
| | Yes, plenty of enclosed CFLs work outside in the winter. If you live in
| | an area of extreme cold, there's always HID. A 39W metal halide lamp
| | produces much more light than a 150W incandescent, and lasts 6-10 times
| | as long. I use exclusively CFLs in all my outdoor fixtures, it only gets
| | down to about 15F at the lowest here, so the plain exposed spiral type
| | work fine. Since these are on from dusk till dawn, the savings are
| | substantial and I get 2+ years out of a bulb. Even the vilified mercury
| | vapor lamp so common in yard lights and street lighting of the past is
| | more than twice as efficient as incandescent.
|
| But none of them produce the quality of light that incandescent does, which
| is needed is _some_ places.
|
| --
| |WARNING: Due to extreme spam, googlegroups.com is blocked. ?Due to ignorance |
| | ? ? ? ? by the abuse department, bellsouth.net is blocked. ?If you post to ?|
| | ? ? ? ? Usenet from these places, find another Usenet provider ASAP. ? ? ? ?|
| | Phil Howard KA9WGN (email for humans: first name in lower case at ipal.net) |
|
| Go read a review a Popular Mechanics Mag, its old but its there, For
| facial color the HD bulb beat Incandesant. New warm white cfls are
| advancing fast.

The article doesn't seem to be there. Searching for "HD bulb" found 0 articles.

BTW, I'm not talking about facial color. I'm talking about continuity of the
visible spectrum. That is, how well the light emits energy at all wavelengths
within the visible light range.

--
|WARNING: Due to extreme spam, googlegroups.com is blocked. Due to ignorance |
| by the abuse department, bellsouth.net is blocked. If you post to |
| Usenet from these places, find another Usenet provider ASAP. |
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (email for humans: first name in lower case at ipal.net) |

In alt.engineering.electrical Paul M. Eldridge wrote:
| On 21 Jun 2008 03:14:30 GMT, wrote:
|
|In alt.engineering.electrical Paul M. Eldridge wrote:
|
|| Within this group, incandescent lamps that are specifically
|| **EXCLUDED** include the following:
||
|| appliance
|| black light ---- This could be done better with fluorescent
|| bug
|| coloured
|| infrared
|| left-hand thread (used where lamps may be stolen)
|| marine/marine signal
|| mine service
|| plant light
|| reflector
|| rough service / shatter-resistant / vibration service
|| sign
|| silver bowl
|| showcase
|| 3-way
|| traffic signal --- lots of these have changed to LED anyway
|| G & T shape
|| AB, BA, CA, F, G16-1/2, G-25, G30, S and M-14
|
|What about ophidian lights? I've always used the standard base ones for this.
|I suppose I could substitute a plant light or a small infrared.
|
|I was going to switch to low-voltage lamps for task lights, anyway, so I guess
|for the most part this doesn't really affect me.
|
|We need a law that taxes or just outright bans importation of cheap CFLs.
|
| Hi Phil,
|
| I'm not sure what wattage lamp you use, but if its light output
| exceeds 2,600 lumens, it falls outside this legislation. For example,
| a 150-watt Osram Sylvania A21 incandescent is rated at 2,780 lumens
| (clear) and 2,640 lumens (soft white).

So just run this on one of this half-wave rectifying dimmers to cut the
power in half and you have a nice warm 40 watt light that uses 75 watts.

--
|WARNING: Due to extreme spam, googlegroups.com is blocked. Due to ignorance |
| by the abuse department, bellsouth.net is blocked. If you post to |
| Usenet from these places, find another Usenet provider ASAP. |
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (email for humans: first name in lower case at ipal.net) |

On 21 Jun 2008 14:50:26 GMT, wrote:

In alt.engineering.electrical Paul M. Eldridge wrote:
| On 21 Jun 2008 03:04:34 GMT, wrote:
|
|In alt.engineering.electrical dpb wrote:
|
|| The bill did _not_ "ban" incandescent bulbs, it set minimum efficiency
|| standards.
|
|So you are saying that in 10 years, I can still buy incandescent bulbs for
|the few places I actually need them?
|
| Hi Phil,
|
| I can't predict what will happen five or ten years from now, but I
| would say most likely "yes". GE is busy developing a new generation
| of HEI incandescents that will be initially twice as efficient as what
| is available now and ultimately four times so (roughly the same
| efficacy as a CFL but at a lower initial cost).
|
| See:
| http://www.businesswire.com/portal/s...1109&vnsId=681

FYI, the article has a "permalink" that is shorter:

http://www.businesswire.com/news/ge/20070223005120/en

Are these the ones with the low voltage double encased filament that runs at
super-halogen temperatures, and has a circuit inside to deliver the voltage
it needs?

Hi Phil,

Philips uses the approach you describe with their forthcoming
line-voltage EcoBoost products (apologies for the length of the links
provided below); I don't know if GE will do likewise, but it's
certainly possible the first generation of HEI lamps will employ
similar technology.

See:
http://www.lighting.philips.com/gl_e...n_news&lang=en

Additional info he
http://www.lighting.philips.com/gl_e...n_news&lang=en

Note that this technology is already used in some of their low-voltage
MR16 products, less the voltage conversion circuitry, obviously
(sorry, text in German).

See:
http://www.lighting.philips.com/de_d...t_news&lang=de


GE's new HIR Plus lamps might provide us with some clues.

See:
http://www.gelighting.com/na/busines...halogen_par38/

Their 83-watt HIR Plus PAR38 produces 2,030 lumens, which pegs its
effacy a hair shy of 24.5 lumens per watt. By comparison, GE's
standard 75-watt halogen PAR38 has a rated light output of just 1,050
lumens, for an effacy of 14 lumens/watt. Thus, in addition to their
longer service life, these new HIR Plus lamps are nearly twice as
efficient as a conventional halogen PAR38.

Cheers,
Paul

On 21 Jun 2008 15:04:27 GMT, wrote:

|What about ophidian lights? I've always used the standard base ones for this.
|I suppose I could substitute a plant light or a small infrared.
|
|I was going to switch to low-voltage lamps for task lights, anyway, so I guess
|for the most part this doesn't really affect me.
|
|We need a law that taxes or just outright bans importation of cheap CFLs.
|
| Hi Phil,
|
| I'm not sure what wattage lamp you use, but if its light output
| exceeds 2,600 lumens, it falls outside this legislation. For example,
| a 150-watt Osram Sylvania A21 incandescent is rated at 2,780 lumens
| (clear) and 2,640 lumens (soft white).

So just run this on one of this half-wave rectifying dimmers to cut the
power in half and you have a nice warm 40 watt light that uses 75 watts.

Hi Phil,

Alternatively, if you don't require that much light, you could simply
opt for a halogen lamp of a lesser wattage; e.g., a 40-watt Halogená
ES provides the same amount of light as a conventional 60-watt
incandescent and lasts up to four times longer.

If you're still contemplating a low-voltage solution, Philip's IRC
MR16 are some of the best available.

See:
http://www.nam.lighting.philips.com/...pdf/p-5758.pdf

Cheers,
Paul

In article TYV6k.28$7g.5@trndny05, (James Sweet) writes:
|
|
|
| Here in Arizona's mild winters even regular fluorescents tubes flicker
| in my garage.
|
| ...Jim Thompson
|
|
| They're probably those crappy 34W energy saver tubes with magnetic
| ballasts that usually don't drive them harder than about 25W. Those were
| a hack from the 70s energy crisis and hardly work in a drafty room
| indoors.

I thought the 34W F40T12 energy miser tubes became common as a result
of the 1992 EPACT that also brought us the horrible 60W F96T12 tubes.
This was the law that was popularly described as banning (yes, I know,
there's that word again) cool white tubes.

I remember having a lot of trouble with short lives on the "compatible"
34W F40 tubes until I replaced the ballasts with dual-rated 40W/34W ones.
The 60W F96T12 tubes were just so dreary that I went for the much more
expensive improved color rendering 75W products that were exempt from the
requirements. These provided *almost* as much light as the original 75W
F96T12/CW tubes, so slightly less efficiency at a much higher price.

In the past few years I've noticed that the commodity F40 and F96 tubes
at the home centers are once again 40W and 75W respectively, so I assume
they all now qualify for the good color rendering (or other) exemption
from the requirements. (Or are they lying about the wattage?)

Dan Lanciani
ddl@danlan.*com

Jim Thompson wrote:
On Fri, 20 Jun 2008 16:30:17 -0400, RFI-EMI-GUY
wrote:

[snip]
Please someone tell me where all this makes any sense? I think this
benefits only Archer Daniel Midland and Big Oil.

I think the large numeric dollar-value of "Big Oil" profits confuses
the ordinary guy on the street, and politicians use that to their
advantage.

What is "Big Oil's" ROI?

Are they not paying _market_ price for oil?

...Jim Thompson

You are missing the point. If I buy gas from a Shell station and Shell
has decided to adulterate the fuel with a compound (ethanol) that saves
Shell money and returns less BTU energy content to the consumer. Shell
oil is receiving a direct benefit by immediate increased profit and
later by selling more of the adulterated product so that consumers can
continue on their crippled journey. I don't care what Shell paid for a
barrel of oil on the market, that is not the point. It is a flagrant rip
off, a criminal act that the Florida government is complicit with. If
the public fails to realize this, they are very ignorant, and perhaps
deserve what they get from their government and corporations who run the
government.

Imagine if you went the store to buy a pound of hamburger, but the
butcher decides that to increase his bottom line, he will take away
about 2 ounces of beef and substitutes two ounces of wet sawdust. Would
you be "OK" with that? That is exactly what is happening here in Florida
and elsewhere with the gasoline.

--
Joe Leikhim K4SAT
"The RFI-EMI-GUY"©

"Treason doth never prosper: what's the reason?
For if it prosper, none dare call it treason."

"Follow The Money" ;-P

T8's were designed in Europe to retrofit into T12 fittings and
provide energy savings. That doesn't work with the control gear
used on US 120V mains, where I believe you require different
control gear for the T8's and T12's of the same length.


A UK friend and I have discussed this at length and I've sent him some
4' T8 lamps to play with. As I recall, we concluded that US T8 lamps are
electrically different than the UK lamps. They're 230mA and over here
they all use electronic ballasts. I have some 40W choke ballasts from
over there but I haven't tried running a T8 with one yet.

In the past few years I've noticed that the commodity F40 and F96 tubes
at the home centers are once again 40W and 75W respectively, so I assume
they all now qualify for the good color rendering (or other) exemption
from the requirements. (Or are they lying about the wattage?)

Dan Lanciani
ddl@danlan.*com


Trichromatic phosphor blends are much more common these days and a lot
cheaper than they used to be, so you can easily get 40W high CRI lamps.

On Sat, 21 Jun 2008 14:34:32 -0400, RFI-EMI-GUY
wrote:

Jim Thompson wrote:
On Fri, 20 Jun 2008 16:30:17 -0400, RFI-EMI-GUY
wrote:

[snip]
Please someone tell me where all this makes any sense? I think this
benefits only Archer Daniel Midland and Big Oil.

I think the large numeric dollar-value of "Big Oil" profits confuses
the ordinary guy on the street, and politicians use that to their
advantage.

What is "Big Oil's" ROI?

Are they not paying _market_ price for oil?

...Jim Thompson

You are missing the point. If I buy gas from a Shell station and Shell
has decided to adulterate the fuel with a compound (ethanol) that saves
Shell money and returns less BTU energy content to the consumer.

Shell didn't decide that blend. The leftist weenie greenies in your
state got legislation passed to force that blend.

Shell
oil is receiving a direct benefit by immediate increased profit and
later by selling more of the adulterated product so that consumers can
continue on their crippled journey. I don't care what Shell paid for a
barrel of oil on the market, that is not the point. It is a flagrant rip
off, a criminal act that the Florida government is complicit with. If
the public fails to realize this, they are very ignorant, and perhaps
deserve what they get from their government and corporations who run the
government.

Imagine if you went the store to buy a pound of hamburger, but the
butcher decides that to increase his bottom line, he will take away
about 2 ounces of beef and substitutes two ounces of wet sawdust. Would
you be "OK" with that? That is exactly what is happening here in Florida
and elsewhere with the gasoline.

I'll bet it's mandated by either state or federal legislation.

I seem to recall a discussion where it was mentioned that there are
_22_ different mandated blends in the US.

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |
| |
| America: Land of the Free, Because of the Brave |
| |
| Due to excessive spam, googlegroups, UAR & AIOE are blocked! |

In alt.engineering.electrical RFI-EMI-GUY wrote:

| You are missing the point. If I buy gas from a Shell station and Shell
| has decided to adulterate the fuel with a compound (ethanol) that saves
| Shell money and returns less BTU energy content to the consumer. Shell
| oil is receiving a direct benefit by immediate increased profit and
| later by selling more of the adulterated product so that consumers can
| continue on their crippled journey. I don't care what Shell paid for a
| barrel of oil on the market, that is not the point. It is a flagrant rip
| off, a criminal act that the Florida government is complicit with. If
| the public fails to realize this, they are very ignorant, and perhaps
| deserve what they get from their government and corporations who run the
| government.

So provide some proof that this addition of ethanol reduces the total energy
per dollar AND emits the same level of pollution per mile driven.


| Imagine if you went the store to buy a pound of hamburger, but the
| butcher decides that to increase his bottom line, he will take away
| about 2 ounces of beef and substitutes two ounces of wet sawdust. Would
| you be "OK" with that? That is exactly what is happening here in Florida
| and elsewhere with the gasoline.

I can imagine a lot of things. I can imagine you are making all this up, too.
Show some proof.

--
|WARNING: Due to extreme spam, googlegroups.com is blocked. Due to ignorance |
| by the abuse department, bellsouth.net is blocked. If you post to |
| Usenet from these places, find another Usenet provider ASAP. |
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (email for humans: first name in lower case at ipal.net) |

wrote:

I do like the idea of taxing the incandescent bulbs. But I also like
the idea of taxing cheap imports.


Then there are those who are opposed to using tax laws to promote public
policy. Taxes distort the marketplace.

As for taxing imports, this silliness was settled in the 18th Century in
Adam Smith's "The Wealth of Nations." Smith proved that everybody benefits
when nations do what they do best and freely trade with other nations who
also do what they do best.

Regrettably, not everybody keeps up with the latest economic theories.

Jim Thompson wrote:

Shell didn't decide that blend. The leftist weenie greenies in your
state got legislation passed to force that blend.

Shell
oil is receiving a direct benefit by immediate increased profit and
later by selling more of the adulterated product so that consumers
can continue on their crippled journey. I don't care what Shell paid
for a barrel of oil on the market, that is not the point. It is a
flagrant rip off, a criminal act that the Florida government is
complicit with. If the public fails to realize this, they are very
ignorant, and perhaps deserve what they get from their government
and corporations who run the government.

Imagine if you went the store to buy a pound of hamburger, but the
butcher decides that to increase his bottom line, he will take away
about 2 ounces of beef and substitutes two ounces of wet sawdust.
Would you be "OK" with that? That is exactly what is happening here
in Florida and elsewhere with the gasoline.

I'll bet it's mandated by either state or federal legislation.

I seem to recall a discussion where it was mentioned that there are
_22_ different mandated blends in the US.


There are ELEVEN different blends required just in the city of Chicago (and
suburbs). As an aside, there's a fifty-five cent per gallon tariff on
imported Ethanol from, say, Brazil.

In article x_b7k.231$zE6.202@trnddc02,
James Sweet writes:



T8's were designed in Europe to retrofit into T12 fittings and
provide energy savings. That doesn't work with the control gear
used on US 120V mains, where I believe you require different
control gear for the T8's and T12's of the same length.


A UK friend and I have discussed this at length and I've sent him some
4' T8 lamps to play with. As I recall, we concluded that US T8 lamps are
electrically different than the UK lamps.

Very likely -- they're different ratings too. A 4' T8 designed for
a 40W ballast on 220-240V is rated 36W. Your 4' T8 is 32W IIRC.
Likewise all the other T8 tube lengths are differently rated between
US and elsewhere.

They're 230mA and over here they all use electronic ballasts.

They're designed for switchstart operation here (known as
preheat in the US). Of course, there are electronic ballasts
available for many years, but not when they first came out.

--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]

In alt.engineering.electrical HeyBub wrote:
| wrote:
|
| I do like the idea of taxing the incandescent bulbs. But I also like
| the idea of taxing cheap imports.
|
|
| Then there are those who are opposed to using tax laws to promote public
| policy. Taxes distort the marketplace.

And I am not one of those. The marketplace needs to be distorted in a few
places. The market for subprime mortgage origination comes to mind as my
first place, if you need an example.


| As for taxing imports, this silliness was settled in the 18th Century in
| Adam Smith's "The Wealth of Nations." Smith proved that everybody benefits
| when nations do what they do best and freely trade with other nations who
| also do what they do best.

As long as all nations are on a level playing field, this would be so. But
it is a fact that most nations outside the USA have governments playing a
hand in the economies.


| Regrettably, not everybody keeps up with the latest economic theories.

Regrettably, not everybody is open sighted to what all goes on in the world.

--
|WARNING: Due to extreme spam, googlegroups.com is blocked. Due to ignorance |
| by the abuse department, bellsouth.net is blocked. If you post to |
| Usenet from these places, find another Usenet provider ASAP. |
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (email for humans: first name in lower case at ipal.net) |

In alt.engineering.electrical Andrew Gabriel wrote:
| In article x_b7k.231$zE6.202@trnddc02,
| James Sweet writes:
|
|
|
| T8's were designed in Europe to retrofit into T12 fittings and
| provide energy savings. That doesn't work with the control gear
| used on US 120V mains, where I believe you require different
| control gear for the T8's and T12's of the same length.
|
|
| A UK friend and I have discussed this at length and I've sent him some
| 4' T8 lamps to play with. As I recall, we concluded that US T8 lamps are
| electrically different than the UK lamps.
|
| Very likely -- they're different ratings too. A 4' T8 designed for
| a 40W ballast on 220-240V is rated 36W. Your 4' T8 is 32W IIRC.
| Likewise all the other T8 tube lengths are differently rated between
| US and elsewhere.
|
| They're 230mA and over here they all use electronic ballasts.
|
| They're designed for switchstart operation here (known as
| preheat in the US). Of course, there are electronic ballasts
| available for many years, but not when they first came out.

I wonder what it would be like in the USA if we wired our fluorescent lights
to 240 volts instead of 120 volts. Virtually all homes have it (or at least
208 volts). Of course we'd need 2-pole switches. But at least it's still
only 120 volts shock potential relative to ground.

--
|WARNING: Due to extreme spam, googlegroups.com is blocked. Due to ignorance |
| by the abuse department, bellsouth.net is blocked. If you post to |
| Usenet from these places, find another Usenet provider ASAP. |
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (email for humans: first name in lower case at ipal.net) |

wrote:
In alt.engineering.electrical RFI-EMI-GUY wrote:

| You are missing the point. If I buy gas from a Shell station and Shell
| has decided to adulterate the fuel with a compound (ethanol) that saves
| Shell money and returns less BTU energy content to the consumer. Shell
| oil is receiving a direct benefit by immediate increased profit and
| later by selling more of the adulterated product so that consumers can
| continue on their crippled journey. I don't care what Shell paid for a
| barrel of oil on the market, that is not the point. It is a flagrant rip
| off, a criminal act that the Florida government is complicit with. If
| the public fails to realize this, they are very ignorant, and perhaps
| deserve what they get from their government and corporations who run the
| government.

So provide some proof that this addition of ethanol reduces the total energy
per dollar AND emits the same level of pollution per mile driven.


| Imagine if you went the store to buy a pound of hamburger, but the
| butcher decides that to increase his bottom line, he will take away
| about 2 ounces of beef and substitutes two ounces of wet sawdust. Would
| you be "OK" with that? That is exactly what is happening here in Florida
| and elsewhere with the gasoline.

I can imagine a lot of things. I can imagine you are making all this up, too.
Show some proof.


Its simple; I have a ton of gasoline receipts from the period before and
after the Ethanol blend was mandated. I was suspicious after I started
noticing the fuel economy drop in my vehicle. I have monitored the gas
mileage and done the calculations. Its all very simple. The vehicle is
well maintained and I have an OBDII reader attached to the computer to
monitor gas economy and vehicle performance. Do your own research,
Google for gas mileage and Ethanol fuel and come to your own
conclusions. As far as pollution out the tailpipe, that is simple logic.
If I have to burn 12 gallons of fuel to go the same mileage as 10
gallons once carried me and 90% of that fuel is gasoline and 10% is
ethanol, I have a worsened pollution situation in that I am now dumping
byproducts from the 10.8 gallons gasoline plus 1.2 gallons of ethanol.

If you don't beleive me, look up the BTU energy of gasoline and Ethanol.
Ethanol has significantly less energy than gasoline.




--
Joe Leikhim K4SAT
"The RFI-EMI-GUY"©

"Treason doth never prosper: what's the reason?
For if it prosper, none dare call it treason."

"Follow The Money" ;-P

On 21 Jun 2008 03:07:12 GMT, wrote:

In alt.engineering.electrical James Sweet wrote:

| Yes, plenty of enclosed CFLs work outside in the winter. If you live in
| an area of extreme cold, there's always HID. A 39W metal halide lamp
| produces much more light than a 150W incandescent, and lasts 6-10 times
| as long. I use exclusively CFLs in all my outdoor fixtures, it only gets
| down to about 15F at the lowest here, so the plain exposed spiral type
| work fine. Since these are on from dusk till dawn, the savings are
| substantial and I get 2+ years out of a bulb. Even the vilified mercury
| vapor lamp so common in yard lights and street lighting of the past is
| more than twice as efficient as incandescent.

But none of them produce the quality of light that incandescent does, which
is needed is _some_ places.

Try doing a critical evaluation of color balance under a fluorescent some time.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Retired Shop Rat: 14,647 days in a GM plant.
Speak softly and carry a loaded .45
Lifetime member; Vast Right Wing Conspiracy
Web Site: www.destarr.com
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

In article , phil-news-
says...
In alt.engineering.electrical HeyBub wrote:
| wrote:
|
| I do like the idea of taxing the incandescent bulbs. But I also like
| the idea of taxing cheap imports.
|
|
| Then there are those who are opposed to using tax laws to promote public
| policy. Taxes distort the marketplace.

And I am not one of those. The marketplace needs to be distorted in a few
places. The market for subprime mortgage origination comes to mind as my
first place, if you need an example.

The market for subprime mortgages is being distorted by a bailout
(and FannieMay). Without a bailout there would be no distortion.
Let 'em sink.

| As for taxing imports, this silliness was settled in the 18th Century in
| Adam Smith's "The Wealth of Nations." Smith proved that everybody benefits
| when nations do what they do best and freely trade with other nations who
| also do what they do best.

As long as all nations are on a level playing field, this would be so. But
it is a fact that most nations outside the USA have governments playing a
hand in the economies.

It's impossible for a government to *not* have a hand in economics
and silly to think they should (not).

| Regrettably, not everybody keeps up with the latest economic theories.

Regrettably, not everybody is open sighted to what all goes on in the world.

....or their own house.

--
Keith

On Sat, 21 Jun 2008 18:34:11 -0400, RFI-EMI-GUY
wrote:

wrote:
In alt.engineering.electrical RFI-EMI-GUY wrote:

[snip]

I can imagine a lot of things. I can imagine you are making all this up, too.
Show some proof.


Its simple; I have a ton of gasoline receipts from the period before and
after the Ethanol blend was mandated. I was suspicious after I started
noticing the fuel economy drop in my vehicle. I have monitored the gas
mileage and done the calculations. Its all very simple. The vehicle is
well maintained and I have an OBDII reader attached to the computer to
monitor gas economy and vehicle performance. Do your own research,
Google for gas mileage and Ethanol fuel and come to your own
conclusions. As far as pollution out the tailpipe, that is simple logic.
If I have to burn 12 gallons of fuel to go the same mileage as 10
gallons once carried me and 90% of that fuel is gasoline and 10% is
ethanol, I have a worsened pollution situation in that I am now dumping
byproducts from the 10.8 gallons gasoline plus 1.2 gallons of ethanol.

If you don't beleive me, look up the BTU energy of gasoline and Ethanol.
Ethanol has significantly less energy than gasoline.

You are right on the problem. Political science is NOT a science! And
energy IS conserved.

However the leftist weenies will begin denigrating you because you
have questioned the veracity of The Great Gawd Algor ;-)

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |
| |
| America: Land of the Free, Because of the Brave |
| |
| Due to excessive spam, googlegroups, UAR & AIOE are blocked! |

wrote:
In alt.engineering.electrical Andrew Gabriel wrote:
| In article x_b7k.231$zE6.202@trnddc02,
| James Sweet writes:
|
|
|
| T8's were designed in Europe to retrofit into T12 fittings and
| provide energy savings. That doesn't work with the control gear
| used on US 120V mains, where I believe you require different
| control gear for the T8's and T12's of the same length.
|
|
| A UK friend and I have discussed this at length and I've sent him some
| 4' T8 lamps to play with. As I recall, we concluded that US T8 lamps are
| electrically different than the UK lamps.
|
| Very likely -- they're different ratings too. A 4' T8 designed for
| a 40W ballast on 220-240V is rated 36W. Your 4' T8 is 32W IIRC.
| Likewise all the other T8 tube lengths are differently rated between
| US and elsewhere.
|
| They're 230mA and over here they all use electronic ballasts.
|
| They're designed for switchstart operation here (known as
| preheat in the US). Of course, there are electronic ballasts
| available for many years, but not when they first came out.

I wonder what it would be like in the USA if we wired our fluorescent lights
to 240 volts instead of 120 volts. Virtually all homes have it (or at least
208 volts). Of course we'd need 2-pole switches. But at least it's still
only 120 volts shock potential relative to ground.



It would be like it is in most of Europe, choke ballasts with glowbottle
starters. A bit more efficient than our autotransformer ballasts, but
still less than modern electronic.

In article , Joseph Meehan wrote:

So you are saying that in 10 years, I can still buy incandescent bulbs for
the few places I actually need them?

Who knows, a new technology may have come along and no one may be making
them due to lack of a market.

I expect CFLs to advance a little more, especially with gains in dimming
and maybe some models with CRI in the low-mid 90's rather than 82 (with a
compromise in light output).

I expect LEDs to continue their pace of advancement, increment by
increment in performance, cost, and new varieties. But as LED technology
has been incrementing itself along increment by increment, I expect that
to remain the story for the next 10-15 years.
LED technology appears to me to only be advancing about half as fast as
computer technology, maybe a little slower.

There are also metal halide lamps, another technology that has been
advancing somewhat and is still advancing, though not as fast as LEDs are
advancing.

As a result, I expect displacement of incandescents to be a slow and
incremental process that can take another 10-20 years to *mostly*
accomplish. Heck, that process was already underway in the early 1980's,
when most low-voltage-powered front panel indicator lights were LEDs, and
before the mid 1970's those were at least 99% incandescent.

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

One area where LEDs (and to some extent in recent years other
technologies) are displacing incandescents is nightlights.

The old traditional model used a 7 watt incandescent, and often a shade
because 7 watt incandescents are rather bright for this job, and it takes
more effort to make an 120V incandescent of wattage much lower than 7
watts - or at least it used to.
Past 15 years or so, 4 watt incandescent nightlight "bulbs" have been
common - still bright enough to usually deserve a shade.

Now, there are many LED night lights available. With ineffeciencies of
safe voltage dropping at low cost, most current models of 120V LED night
lights are not more efficient than incandescents in photometric terms -
but they still achieve efficiency gains by having a spectrum more
favorable to making use of night vision when the lighting is dim (higher
"s/p ratio"), along with being dim enough to not need a shade. Power
consumption of these is mostly around 1/3 watt to 1 watt.
Better are green and blue models and the Feit Electric white C7 "bulb".
Most other LED light models using white LEDs will have light output
degrading significantly year-by-year or even a bit faster.

- Don Klipstein )

On Sun, 22 Jun 2008 00:29:20 +0000 (UTC), (Don
Klipstein) wrote:

.... I expect CFLs to advance a little more, especially with gains in dimming
and maybe some models with CRI in the low-mid 90's rather than 82 (with a
compromise in light output)....

Hi Don,

I, for one, would happily trade-off some raw lumens for better colour
rendering. Do you know of any products available now or in the near
future with CRIs in the low to mid 90s?

Cheers,
Paul

metspitzer wrote:
WASHINGTON – Members of Congress are beginning to have second thoughts
about the ban on incandescent light bulbs effective in 2014 as a
result of an energy bill signed into law earlier this year.

Rep. Ted Poe, R-Texas, says his objection is very basic – the
Constitution doesn't authorize Congress to do anything remotely like
banning a product that has been used safely and efficiently for more
than 100 years in favor of Chinese-imported compact fluorescent light
bulbs that pose considerable health and safety risks.

Poe cited the dangers associated with CFLs, which carry small amounts
of mercury that can enter the environment through breakage and
disposal. He also objected to reliance on the CFL alternatives when,
currently, all are made in China.

"Congress passed an energy bill that should be called the
anti-American non-energy bill because it punishes Americans for using
energy when it should be finding new sources of available energy," Poe
stated.

(Story continues below)

http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=67573
When we developed a product that didn't sell as expected (more properly,
as desired) the first stop was our Congressional delegation. It's
difficult to convince consumers to buy a product they don't need. It's
easier, with the help of a large PAC, to put a ring in the nose of
legislators and in some cases compel the consumer to buy the product.

CFLs in some portions of the country have become a joke. Look at the
cost of heating oil for next year and the cost of electrical energy.
It's more economical to heat with electricity. Turn on all the
incandescent lights and save money.

Boden

In article , wrote:
In alt.engineering.electrical Paul M. Eldridge
wrote:

| Hi Phil,
|
| I'm not sure what wattage lamp you use, but if its light output
| exceeds 2,600 lumens, it falls outside this legislation. For example,
| a 150-watt Osram Sylvania A21 incandescent is rated at 2,780 lumens
| (clear) and 2,640 lumens (soft white).

So just run this on one of this half-wave rectifying dimmers to cut the
power in half and you have a nice warm 40 watt light that uses 75 watts.

150 watt incandescent with a diode consumes about 88 watts, give or take
a bit. The 2640-2780 lumens decreases to about 800-870 lumens (light
output of "standard", "soft white" and even 1500 hour, maybe "double life"
60 watt incandescents).

- Don Klipstein )

In article , Dan Lanciani wrote:

I thought the 34W F40T12 energy miser tubes became common as a result
of the 1992 EPACT that also brought us the horrible 60W F96T12 tubes.
This was the law that was popularly described as banning (yes, I know,
there's that word again) cool white tubes.

I remember having a lot of trouble with short lives on the "compatible"
34W F40 tubes until I replaced the ballasts with dual-rated 40W/34W ones.
The 60W F96T12 tubes were just so dreary that I went for the much more
expensive improved color rendering 75W products that were exempt from the
requirements. These provided *almost* as much light as the original 75W
F96T12/CW tubes, so slightly less efficiency at a much higher price.

In the past few years I've noticed that the commodity F40 and F96 tubes
at the home centers are once again 40W and 75W respectively, so I assume
they all now qualify for the good color rendering (or other) exemption
from the requirements. (Or are they lying about the wattage?)

Many of the ones exempt on basis of better color rendering do so with
compromise in light output, *unless*: The CRI (color rendering index)
is in the low-mid 80's! CRI around/above 90 "pretty much requires"
significant to severe compromise in light output.
Furthermore, if CRI is in the low-mid 80's the color distortions are
often mostly *favorable* (main exception of reds being distorted slightly
to orangish). Otherwise, color distortions are mostly to darker/duller
for reds and greens, especially reds. The color distortions are less when
CRI is around 90 or in the low 90's, but still usually largely in
unfavorable directions.

As for F40 with uncompromised light output and color distortions mainly
*not* dulling/darkening - Philips "Ultralume". I think that Sylvania's
"Interior Design"/"Designer" is fairly similar. Watch for color
temperature rating - these come in more than one, especially Philips
"Ultralume"!

- Don Klipstein )