metspitzer wrote:
WASHINGTON – Members of Congress are beginning to have second thoughts
about the ban on incandescent light bulbs ...

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

I'm not taking a position, but if it isn't constitutional, neither are
CAFE standards for automobiles or most any other regulations regarding
performance levels of any product (say drug effectiveness, for another
example).

--

dpb wrote in message ...
metspitzer wrote:
WASHINGTON – Members of Congress are beginning to have second
thoughts
about the ban on incandescent light bulbs ...

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

I'm not taking a position, but if it isn't constitutional, neither
are
CAFE standards for automobiles or most any other regulations
regarding
performance levels of any product (say drug effectiveness, for
another
example).


They would do better to set some minimum standards efficiency for
themselves, and then follow the standards.

Cheri

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



Both the ban and the reasons cited here for questioning the ban are the
silly result of politicians with poor understanding of the issues
involved. The amount of mercury in a CFL is tiny, burning coal to
generate electricity also releases mercury, few light bulbs of any sort
are US made, and for some applications, incandescent still has advantages.

I was searching for a light fixture the other day and discovered that
*every* flush mount at both hardware stores I tried are now fluorescent.
Naturally they're all super cheaply made, and the ballasts do not
support dimming. I was irked and left the store without purchasing
anything. The ironic thing is that I've long been using almost entirely
compact fluorescents in my house for years and enjoying the substantial
energy savings, however I use the screw-in retrofit type which is
readily available in a dimming version, various wattages and color
temperatures, and the ballast, which in my experience fails as often as
the tube, is replaced each time with the tube. I don't need legislation
to get me to use more efficient products, it makes economic sense to do
so, but if someone wants to pay a fortune to run something inefficient,
let them.

James Sweet wrote:
....
Both the ban ,,,

Again, there is _not_ a "ban"...

--

On Fri, 20 Jun 2008 13:08:48 -0500, 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

First of all, Congress did not "ban" incandescent lamps -- they simply
set minimum efficiency standards, as they have with other consumer
products such as air conditioners and refrigerators. Secondly,
lighting manufacturers already sell high efficiency incandescent lamps
that meet these new standards. You can buy these ones at Home Depot:

http://www.nam.lighting.philips.com/...lay.php?mode=1

Cheers,
Paul

On Fri, 20 Jun 2008 14:33:54 -0300, Paul M. Eldridge
wrote:

On Fri, 20 Jun 2008 13:08:48 -0500, 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

First of all, Congress did not "ban" incandescent lamps -- they simply
set minimum efficiency standards, as they have with other consumer
products such as air conditioners and refrigerators. Secondly,
lighting manufacturers already sell high efficiency incandescent lamps
that meet these new standards. You can buy these ones at Home Depot:

http://www.nam.lighting.philips.com/...lay.php?mode=1

Cheers,
Paul

Of course... 70W IS less than 100W. Read the fine print on lumens
output. Sheeeesh!

...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

I have been looking for dimmable florescents without luck. Where do
you find them - can you tell me the brand?



James Sweet wrote:


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



Both the ban and the reasons cited here for questioning the ban are the
silly result of politicians with poor understanding of the issues
involved. The amount of mercury in a CFL is tiny, burning coal to
generate electricity also releases mercury, few light bulbs of any sort
are US made, and for some applications, incandescent still has advantages.

I was searching for a light fixture the other day and discovered that
*every* flush mount at both hardware stores I tried are now fluorescent.
Naturally they're all super cheaply made, and the ballasts do not
support dimming. I was irked and left the store without purchasing
anything. The ironic thing is that I've long been using almost entirely
compact fluorescents in my house for years and enjoying the substantial
energy savings, however I use the screw-in retrofit type which is
readily available in a dimming version, various wattages and color
temperatures, and the ballast, which in my experience fails as often as
the tube, is replaced each time with the tube. I don't need legislation
to get me to use more efficient products, it makes economic sense to do
so, but if someone wants to pay a fortune to run something inefficient,
let them.

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

On Fri, 20 Jun 2008 10:47:48 -0700, Jim Thompson
wrote:

On Fri, 20 Jun 2008 14:33:54 -0300, Paul M. Eldridge
wrote:

First of all, Congress did not "ban" incandescent lamps -- they simply
set minimum efficiency standards, as they have with other consumer
products such as air conditioners and refrigerators. Secondly,
lighting manufacturers already sell high efficiency incandescent lamps
that meet these new standards. You can buy these ones at Home Depot:

http://www.nam.lighting.philips.com/...lay.php?mode=1

Cheers,
Paul

Of course... 70W IS less than 100W. Read the fine print on lumens
output. Sheeeesh!

...Jim Thompson

Hi Jim,

A 70-watt soft-white Philips Halogená Energy Saver has a 3,000 hour
rated service life and produces 1,600 lumens (22.8 lumens per watt).
A Philips Duramax soft-white A19 incandescent has a rated service life
of 1,500 hours and provides 1,550 lumens (15.5 lumens per watt). Watt
for watt, a 70-watt Halogená ES generates 1.5 times more light.

Sources:
http://www.nam.lighting.philips.com/...pdf/p-5901.pdf
http://www.nam.lighting.philips.com/...pdf/p-8493.pdf

Anything else we can clear-up for you?

Cheers,
Paul

Jim Thompson wrote:
On Fri, 20 Jun 2008 14:33:54 -0300, Paul M. Eldridge
wrote:

On Fri, 20 Jun 2008 13:08:48 -0500, 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
First of all, Congress did not "ban" incandescent lamps -- they simply
set minimum efficiency standards, as they have with other consumer
products such as air conditioners and refrigerators. Secondly,
lighting manufacturers already sell high efficiency incandescent lamps
that meet these new standards. You can buy these ones at Home Depot:

http://www.nam.lighting.philips.com/...lay.php?mode=1

Cheers,
Paul

Of course... 70W IS less than 100W. Read the fine print on lumens
output. Sheeeesh!

...Jim Thompson


That came to mind, but I didn't see the lumen output quoted on the page.
What is it compared to a standard incandescent? The one incandescent
fixture in my house has older Halogena lamps in it, the efficiency of
those is exactly the same, but the life is longer, I've never had one
burn out.

On Jun 20, 1:08*pm, 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

CFLs will reduce mercury entered into the environment, the coal
burned to generate electricity releases 2-3 times the amount of
mercury over the life of the bulb.

What isnt made in china, even 30-45% of dental caps etc are made in
china. how about poes tv, etc etc

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

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 is an idiot. Either the bulbs in question got here through Interstate
Commerce or they miracled themselves into existence.

If the former, Congress has unfettered authority to regulate them; if the
latter, "Let there be light" takes on a new meaning.

On Fri, 20 Jun 2008 15:09:23 -0300, Paul M. Eldridge
wrote:

On Fri, 20 Jun 2008 10:47:48 -0700, Jim Thompson
wrote:

On Fri, 20 Jun 2008 14:33:54 -0300, Paul M. Eldridge
wrote:

First of all, Congress did not "ban" incandescent lamps -- they simply
set minimum efficiency standards, as they have with other consumer
products such as air conditioners and refrigerators. Secondly,
lighting manufacturers already sell high efficiency incandescent lamps
that meet these new standards. You can buy these ones at Home Depot:

http://www.nam.lighting.philips.com/...lay.php?mode=1

Cheers,
Paul

Of course... 70W IS less than 100W. Read the fine print on lumens
output. Sheeeesh!

...Jim Thompson

Hi Jim,

A 70-watt soft-white Philips Halogená Energy Saver has a 3,000 hour
rated service life and produces 1,600 lumens (22.8 lumens per watt).
A Philips Duramax soft-white A19 incandescent has a rated service life
of 1,500 hours and provides 1,550 lumens (15.5 lumens per watt). Watt
for watt, a 70-watt Halogená ES generates 1.5 times more light.

Sources:
http://www.nam.lighting.philips.com/...pdf/p-5901.pdf
http://www.nam.lighting.philips.com/...pdf/p-8493.pdf

Anything else we can clear-up for you?

Cheers,
Paul

I'll check those out. The ones I've seen on-shelf had less lumens.

...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

Here in Florida, the governor Charlie Crist has crammed Gasahol (10%
Ethanol) onto consumers without any rational discussion or consideration
of consumers.

Notwithstanding the arguments that ethanol production uses fat more
petroleum than it saves. The glaring issue is that the gasahol mix
actually reduces fuel efficiency significantly in many if not most
vehicles. For example, my vehicle averages 15 MPG with regular unleaded
(I will not apologize for not driving a Prius) but now with gasahol it
now averages 12.5 MPg. This means that when driving a trip of 150 miles
I have to purchase an additional 2 gallons of fuel.

So:
1) I was ripped off at the pump paying full price for an adulturated
product. 3.96 gallon X 10 gallons X 10% = $3.96 stolen
2) I was ripped off a second time at the pump needing to buy 2 more
gallons of same adulturated product. 3.96 X 2 = $7.92 stolen
3) My vehicle still burned 10 gallons of regular gasoline out the
tailpipe into the air. Plus it burned an additional 1.2 gallons of
ethanol out the tailpipe into the air.

So I am ripped off $11.88 for what should have been 1/2 tank full. And
the earth is further polluted.

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

--
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

Here in Florida, the governor Charlie Crist has crammed Gasohol (10%
Ethanol) onto consumers without any rational discussion or consideration
of consumers.

Notwithstanding the arguments that ethanol production uses far more
petroleum than it saves. The glaring issue is that the gasohol mix
actually reduces fuel efficiency significantly in many if not most
vehicles. For example, my vehicle averages 15 MPG with regular unleaded
(I will not apologize for not driving a Prius) but now with gasohol it
now averages 12.5 MPG. This means that when driving a trip of 150 miles
I have to purchase an additional 2 gallons of fuel.

So:
1) I was ripped off at the pump paying full price for an adulterated
product. 3.96 gallon X 10 gallons X 10% = $3.96 stolen
2) I was ripped off a second time at the pump needing to buy 2 more
gallons of same adulterated product. 3.96 X 2 = $7.92 stolen
3) My vehicle still burned 10.8 gallons of regular gasoline out the
tailpipe into the air. Plus it burned an additional 1.2 gallons of
ethanol out the tailpipe into the air.

So I am ripped off $11.88 for less than 1/2 tank full. And the earth is
further polluted.

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

--
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 Jun 20, 2:32*pm, "Joseph Meehan"
wrote:
* * This thing sounds a lot more like a troll than a real message.

* * Of course I don't limit how stupid Congress can be, I can't see where
there is a constitutional issue. *The "facts" provided are weak at best..
Frankly I would question any information coming from the same source.


Yes, I was left wondering what kind of an idiot this Congressman is
too. He's certainly free to object to the law that Congress passed
regarding light bulbs and there is certainly some basis to do so.
However, to drag constitutionality into it is silly. Congress has
actually banned private ownership of gold and eliminated freon in air
conditioning, etc. How can it suddenly be that it's
unconstitutional?






"metspitzer" wrote in message

...





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

--
Joseph Meehan

*Dia 's Muire duit- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

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
--
| 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! |

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
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

On 6/20/2008 2:30 PM David Starr spake thus:

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.

Well, he did say "incandescents should have limited use in today's
world", which pretty much covers what you've described; the great
majority of light bulbs are used for domestic, commercial or industrial
lighting, where CFLs are appropriate. The few exceptions where
incandescents can't be replaced or where it's impractical to do so are
small potatoes by comparison.

On Fri, 20 Jun 2008 17:30:58 -0400, 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
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Here in Arizona's mild winters even regular fluorescents tubes flicker
in my garage.

...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 article , says...
metspitzer wrote:
WASHINGTON ? Members of Congress are beginning to have second thoughts
about the ban on incandescent light bulbs ...

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

....and where is the sanctioned in the Constitution?

I'm not taking a position, but if it isn't constitutional, neither are
CAFE standards for automobiles or most any other regulations regarding
performance levels of any product (say drug effectiveness, for another
example).

Sounds good to me.

--
Keith

In article vKR6k.18$i5.17@trndny07,
says...

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



Both the ban and the reasons cited here for questioning the ban are the
silly result of politicians with poor understanding of the issues
involved. The amount of mercury in a CFL is tiny, burning coal to
generate electricity also releases mercury, few light bulbs of any sort
are US made, and for some applications, incandescent still has advantages..

Strawman. Not all electricity comes from not need come from coal.

I was searching for a light fixture the other day and discovered that
*every* flush mount at both hardware stores I tried are now fluorescent.
Naturally they're all super cheaply made, and the ballasts do not
support dimming. I was irked and left the store without purchasing
anything. The ironic thing is that I've long been using almost entirely
compact fluorescents in my house for years and enjoying the substantial
energy savings, however I use the screw-in retrofit type which is
readily available in a dimming version, various wattages and color
temperatures, and the ballast, which in my experience fails as often as
the tube, is replaced each time with the tube. I don't need legislation
to get me to use more efficient products, it makes economic sense to do
so, but if someone wants to pay a fortune to run something inefficient,
let them.

Exactly the point.

--
Keith

Well in all fairness...


Seen any CFL's that'll work outdoors in the winter? I need a few for my yard
lights.


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.


Got any that'll work on 3V DC? Need some for my flashlights.

Yes, I do, but what's wrong with LEDs? They're perfect for flashlights.
You can pick up a 3W white LED Maglight for $22 at Home Depot, they've
really come down in price, work better, and the batteries last longer. I
do have a fluorescent flashlight, it uses a small cold cathode tube, as
well as I have a camping lantern with a conventional 9W CFL tube in it
powered by 4 D batteries.


Will
CFL's work in cars? Lots of incandescents there.

Not very many anymore. LEDs and HID are making rapid headway into
automotive applications as prices drop and technology improves. I'd bet
that within a decade there will be virtually no incandescent lamps
anywhere in new cars. No more taking out a zillion screws and clips to
dig into the dash and replace lamps, no more burned out taillights, or
melted lenses from someone installing the wrong bulbs. There's no delay
as the lamp filaments heat either, so response of the brake lights is
quicker, not by much, but at 70 mph every millisecond is valuable.

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. Try some electronic ballasts driving T8 tubes, they work fine
in the near freezing temperatures in my unheated garage in the dead of
winter. As an added bonus they're 32W and brighter than most of the old
40W tubes and the high frequency operation pretty well eliminates
strobing with rotating machinery.

Jim Thompson wrote in
:

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

the "Big Oil" companies are making 8.3 cents per $1 of gas sold.
Microsoft is making 27 cents per dollar of sales.
Banks are making IIRC,15 cents/$1.
US industry average is IIRC,9.x cents/$1

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

James Sweet wrote:



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. Try some electronic ballasts driving T8 tubes, they work fine
in the near freezing temperatures in my unheated garage in the dead of
winter. As an added bonus they're 32W and brighter than most of the old
40W tubes and the high frequency operation pretty well eliminates
strobing with rotating machinery.

Can someone please explain what T8, T12, etc. are and what are the
differences? I have plenty of old T12 40W tubes, fixtures, ballasts,
etc. I've had several people recommend updating the ballasts and tubes
but are the keystones the same? Length of tubes?

nate

--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

Can someone please explain what T8, T12, etc. are and what are the
differences? I have plenty of old T12 40W tubes, fixtures, ballasts,
etc. I've had several people recommend updating the ballasts and tubes
but are the keystones the same? Length of tubes?

nate




T = Tubular

The number is the diameter in 8ths of inches. Another number in the full
designation is usually the nominal wattage, but sometimes the length in
inches.

Examples:
F40T12/CW Fluorescent, 40 Watts, 1.5" diameter, Cool White
halophosphate phosphor

F32T8/850 Fluorescent, 32 Watts, 1" diameter, 80+ CRI 5000K
trichromatic phosphor

F96T12/D/HO Fluorescent, 96" length, 1.5" diameter, Daylight
halophosphate phosphor, High Output (800mA)

and a really rare bird...
F48PG17/D Fluorescent, 48" length, 2-1/8" diameter Power Groove
dimpled tube, Daylight halophosphate phosphor, VHO (1500mA)



T8 and T12 use the same sockets and have the same lengths. High Output
(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.

On Fri, 20 Jun 2008 23:00:11 GMT, James Sweet
wrote:




Can someone please explain what T8, T12, etc. are and what are the
differences? I have plenty of old T12 40W tubes, fixtures, ballasts,
etc. I've had several people recommend updating the ballasts and tubes
but are the keystones the same? Length of tubes?

nate




T = Tubular

The number is the diameter in 8ths of inches. Another number in the full
designation is usually the nominal wattage, but sometimes the length in
inches.

Examples:
F40T12/CW Fluorescent, 40 Watts, 1.5" diameter, Cool White
halophosphate phosphor

F32T8/850 Fluorescent, 32 Watts, 1" diameter, 80+ CRI 5000K
trichromatic phosphor

F96T12/D/HO Fluorescent, 96" length, 1.5" diameter, Daylight
halophosphate phosphor, High Output (800mA)

and a really rare bird...
F48PG17/D Fluorescent, 48" length, 2-1/8" diameter Power Groove
dimpled tube, Daylight halophosphate phosphor, VHO (1500mA)



T8 and T12 use the same sockets and have the same lengths. High Output
(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.

I accidentally bought 34W T12 and they were slightly long and wouldn't
fit my old T12 fixtures :-(

...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 article , dpb wrote:
metspitzer wrote:
WASHINGTON – Members of Congress are beginning to have second thoughts
about the ban on incandescent light bulbs ...

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

That some incandescents available at Home Depot already meet.

Also, only certain incandescents are affected - there are many exceptions
(colored, flood, spot, appliance, decorative, ones of brightness of "usual
25 watt ones and dimmer, ones brighter than the brighter 150 watt 750 hour
ones, other exceptions).

- Don Klipstein )

On Fri, 20 Jun 2008 17:57:54 -0400, krw wrote:

Strawman. Not all electricity comes from not need come from coal.

Roughly half of all electricity generated and about 60 per cent of
what is generated by electrical utilities.

Source: http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electri...a/epat1p1.html

Cheers,
Paul

In article vKR6k.18$i5.17@trndny07, James Sweet wrote:

Both the ban and the reasons cited here for questioning the ban are the
silly result of politicians with poor understanding of the issues
involved. The amount of mercury in a CFL is tiny, burning coal to
generate electricity also releases mercury, few light bulbs of any sort
are US made,

Plenty of A19 lightbulbs 40-100 watts are USA-made. So are plenty of
4-foot fluorescents.

- Don Klipstein )

In article , Harry Avant wrote:
I have been looking for dimmable florescents without luck. Where do
you find them - can you tell me the brand?

GE brand at Target.

- Don Klipstein )

In article , 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.

Low voltage incandescents are not affected by the energy legislation.

- Don Klipstein )

Jim Thompson wrote:
On Fri, 20 Jun 2008 23:00:11 GMT, James Sweet
wrote:


Can someone please explain what T8, T12, etc. are and what are the
differences? I have plenty of old T12 40W tubes, fixtures, ballasts,
etc. I've had several people recommend updating the ballasts and tubes
but are the keystones the same? Length of tubes?

nate



T = Tubular

The number is the diameter in 8ths of inches. Another number in the full
designation is usually the nominal wattage, but sometimes the length in
inches.

Examples:
F40T12/CW Fluorescent, 40 Watts, 1.5" diameter, Cool White
halophosphate phosphor

F32T8/850 Fluorescent, 32 Watts, 1" diameter, 80+ CRI 5000K
trichromatic phosphor

F96T12/D/HO Fluorescent, 96" length, 1.5" diameter, Daylight
halophosphate phosphor, High Output (800mA)

and a really rare bird...
F48PG17/D Fluorescent, 48" length, 2-1/8" diameter Power Groove
dimpled tube, Daylight halophosphate phosphor, VHO (1500mA)



T8 and T12 use the same sockets and have the same lengths. High Output
(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.

I accidentally bought 34W T12 and they were slightly long and wouldn't
fit my old T12 fixtures :-(

...Jim Thompson


Sounds like you have HO or VHO fixtures with RDC sockets. Look at the
ballast to make sure you get the right tubes, HO and VHO are physically
but not electrically interchangeable.

On Fri, 20 Jun 2008 17:30:58 -0400, David Starr
wrote:

Hi David:

Seen any CFL's that'll work outdoors in the winter? I need a few for my yard
lights.

These ones are rated to work down to -10F/-23C:

http://www.nam.lighting.philips.com/...pdf/p-5095.pdf

Got any that'll work on 3V DC? Need some for my flashlights.
Will CFL's work in cars? Lots of incandescents there.

As I've indicated here several times before, the provisions related to
incandescent lamps within the "Energy Independence and Security Act of
2007 (HR6)" are limited to "general service" only -- in other words,
your standard A19 household lamp. The Act defines "general service"
as:

1) having a medium (E27) screw-base;
2) a light output of between 310 and 2600 lumens;
3) an operating voltage of between 110 and130V; and
4) a standard or "modified" light spectrum (e.g.., GE's "Reveal").

Within this group, incandescent lamps that are specifically
**EXCLUDED** include the following:

appliance
black light
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
G & T shape
AB, BA, CA, F, G16-1/2, G-25, G30, S and M-14

Cheers,
Paul

On Sat, 21 Jun 2008 00:00:30 GMT, James Sweet
wrote:


Jim Thompson wrote:
On Fri, 20 Jun 2008 23:00:11 GMT, James Sweet
wrote:


Can someone please explain what T8, T12, etc. are and what are the
differences? I have plenty of old T12 40W tubes, fixtures, ballasts,
etc. I've had several people recommend updating the ballasts and tubes
but are the keystones the same? Length of tubes?

nate



T = Tubular

The number is the diameter in 8ths of inches. Another number in the full
designation is usually the nominal wattage, but sometimes the length in
inches.

Examples:
F40T12/CW Fluorescent, 40 Watts, 1.5" diameter, Cool White
halophosphate phosphor

F32T8/850 Fluorescent, 32 Watts, 1" diameter, 80+ CRI 5000K
trichromatic phosphor

F96T12/D/HO Fluorescent, 96" length, 1.5" diameter, Daylight
halophosphate phosphor, High Output (800mA)

and a really rare bird...
F48PG17/D Fluorescent, 48" length, 2-1/8" diameter Power Groove
dimpled tube, Daylight halophosphate phosphor, VHO (1500mA)



T8 and T12 use the same sockets and have the same lengths. High Output
(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.

I accidentally bought 34W T12 and they were slightly long and wouldn't
fit my old T12 fixtures :-(

...Jim Thompson


Sounds like you have HO or VHO fixtures with RDC sockets. Look at the
ballast to make sure you get the right tubes, HO and VHO are physically
but not electrically interchangeable.

How do I tell? The fixtures are 15 years old.

...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! |

On Fri, 20 Jun 2008 14:54:42 -0700, Jim Thompson
wrote:

Here in Arizona's mild winters even regular fluorescents tubes flicker
in my garage.

...Jim Thompson

Hi Jim:

If it's an inexpensive shop light from a big box retailer (the ones
with the notoriously crappy magnetic ballasts), replace it with a good
quality T8 fixture.

Lithonia offers inexpensive T8 channel and wrap fixtures that operate
down to 0F. You should be able to pick one up for about $20.00.

See:
http://www.acuitybrandslighting.com/...cent-Wraps.pdf

For cold weather applications, stick with a standard 32-watt T8, as
opposed to the 25, 28 or 30-watt energy savers -- GE, Osram Sylvania
or Philips.

Cheers,
Paul

In article ,
says...
On Fri, 20 Jun 2008 17:57:54 -0400, krw wrote:

Strawman. Not all electricity comes from not need come from coal.

Roughly half of all electricity generated and about 60 per cent of
what is generated by electrical utilities.

Source: http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electri...a/epat1p1.html

When was the last one built? When will the next be built? IOW,
another asinine argument from a leftist weenie.

--
Keith

On Fri, 20 Jun 2008 21:19:58 -0400, krw wrote:

In article ,
says...
On Fri, 20 Jun 2008 17:57:54 -0400, krw wrote:

Strawman. Not all electricity comes from not need come from coal.

Roughly half of all electricity generated and about 60 per cent of
what is generated by electrical utilities.

Source: http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electri...a/epat1p1.html

When was the last one built? When will the next be built? IOW,
another asinine argument from a leftist weenie.

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.

Cheers,
Paul

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.