On Thu, 20 Jan 2011 13:03:39 -0700, "WW" wrote:


"Frank" wrote in message
...
On 1/20/2011 12:42 PM, Smitty Two wrote:
In article
,
Molly wrote:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...595565026.html

I'm siding with other soothsayers predicting an LED revolution. The
latest issue of Digi-Key's "Tech Zone" trade journal is devoted to LED
lights. Colors are getting much better, the elusive triac dimming puzzle
has been solved, etc.

LED's require a set directional DC voltage. I think that's going to be
the big price drawback. Great for flashlights with batteries but $100 LED
bulb with built in AC to DC converter is not worth it.

Don't need one. LEDs ARE AC to DC converters. The problem is dimming them
cheaply.

I build my own LED night lights to illuminate our halls and bath rooms for
rising during the night. Plug into wall outlets. A diode in series changes
the AC to 1/2 wave DC. Leave them on 24 hours a day. Works great. WW

LEDs *ARE* diodes. Another diode in series does nothing except waste power. A
diode bridge around them, making it full-wave DC, is a good idea, however.

On 1/21/2011 4:30 PM HeyBub spake thus:

DGDevin wrote:

"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...

There is no better way to discredit a proposition than to make
fun of it.

Especially if mockery is all you have.

Often that's all you need.

Y'see, in Bub's world, it doesn't matter if you're right: it only
matters if you win.


--
Comment on quaint Usenet customs, from Usenet:

To me, the *plonk...* reminds me of the old man at the public hearing
who stands to make his point, then removes his hearing aid as a sign
that he is not going to hear any rebuttals.

Here's my thought:

Good CFLs last a very long time (I've had a couple for 20 years) and
WAY more than pay for themselves.

Crappy CFLs last only a couple of years but still more than pay for
themselves because the crappy ones cost a dollar.

I prefer to pay for the $3 or $4 ones that last a long, long time
because even if it's just unscrewing them and popping in another one,
for the extra $2 or $3 a decade, let's go with not having to bother.

In article ,
" wrote:

The problem is dimming them
cheaply.

LM3445, National Semiconductor's triac dimmable LED driver, may fit your
definition of cheap. Or not. But it appears to be serviceable.

On Jan 21, 8:24*pm, Shaun Eli wrote:
Here's my thought:

Good CFLs last a very long time (I've had a couple for 20 years) and
WAY more than pay for themselves.

Crappy CFLs last only a couple of years but still more than pay for
themselves because the crappy ones cost a dollar.

I prefer to pay for the $3 or $4 ones that last a long, long time
because even if it's just unscrewing them and popping in another one,
for the extra $2 or $3 a decade, let's go with not having to bother.

So far all of the CFL bulbs I have bought have been the so called top
quality name brand bulbs and they have not lasted any longer than my
old bulbs. The savings if any have not come close to paying for the
difference in price. I will continue to try and use them but don't
expect me to buy the argument that they are any bargain.

Maybe it depends on the application. Are they in an enclosed fixture
that might get too warm? Some people have said that makes a
difference.

"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...

There is no better way to discredit a proposition than to make fun
of it.

Especially if mockery is all you have.

Often that's all you need.

If all you want is to reassure yourself that living in an echo chamber is
the way to go, sure.

"David Nebenzahl" wrote in message
.com...

Y'see, in Bub's world, it doesn't matter if you're right: it only matters
if you win.


I don't think he even requires that, at times he seems satisfied just to
wave his placard and chant his slogan, he doesnt really expect to persuade
anyone because even he doesn't entirely believe what's he's saying, he's
just meeting his quota.

David Nebenzahl wrote:
On 1/21/2011 4:30 PM HeyBub spake thus:

DGDevin wrote:

"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...

There is no better way to discredit a proposition than to make
fun of it.

Especially if mockery is all you have.

Often that's all you need.

Y'see, in Bub's world, it doesn't matter if you're right: it only
matters if you win.

Go ahead - attack the messenger. Gratuitously.

I agreed with you that if all a person has is mockery, often that alone is
sufficient for a position to prevail.

On Jan 21, 11:34*pm, Shaun Eli
wrote:
Maybe it depends on the application. Are they in an enclosed fixture
that might get too warm? Some people have said that makes a
difference.

Like BobR, I've had very mixed results with CFLs. Some lasted only a
year. Others
several years. And while I agree there is some application
variablility to it, I've still
had very mixed results regardless. Like the CA study in the article,
I've yet to find
one that lasted 9 years. Or even 6, for that matter. One just died
in my garage
yesterday. It's probably been there 5 years. Given the small amount
of actual
light generated, eg I don't leave the garage light on for long or very
often,
it doesn't seem like much of an energy savings to me.

A big part of the problem is there is no way of knowing which bulbs
will last, and
which won't. Nor is there any standard as far as what terms like
"instant on",
mean. Apparently, instant on can mean that a 100W bulb instantly
fires up to
he light output of a 15W incandescent. IMO, the govt could be doing
testing
have a website with the results, require bulb manufacturers to spec
how long it
takes the bulb to reach say 60% of full output, etc. That would do
more to
get me to buy them than subsidies. Oh, but wait.... Govt has a
better idea.
Just force us to buy incandescents by outlawing them.

On Sat, 22 Jan 2011 06:54:44 -0800 (PST), wrote:

On Jan 21, 11:34*pm, Shaun Eli
wrote:
Maybe it depends on the application. Are they in an enclosed fixture
that might get too warm? Some people have said that makes a
difference.

Like BobR, I've had very mixed results with CFLs. Some lasted only a
year. Others
several years. And while I agree there is some application
variablility to it, I've still
had very mixed results regardless. Like the CA study in the article,
I've yet to find
one that lasted 9 years. Or even 6, for that matter. One just died
in my garage
yesterday. It's probably been there 5 years. Given the small amount
of actual
light generated, eg I don't leave the garage light on for long or very
often,
it doesn't seem like much of an energy savings to me.

A big part of the problem is there is no way of knowing which bulbs
will last, and
which won't. Nor is there any standard as far as what terms like
"instant on",
mean. Apparently, instant on can mean that a 100W bulb instantly
fires up to
he light output of a 15W incandescent. IMO, the govt could be doing
testing
have a website with the results, require bulb manufacturers to spec
how long it
takes the bulb to reach say 60% of full output, etc. That would do
more to
get me to buy them than subsidies. Oh, but wait.... Govt has a
better idea.

Just force us to buy incandescents by outlawing them.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Well, the government is forcing me to buy incandescents to last a *lifetime*
this year. ;-) I no longer have any CFLs.

On Fri, 21 Jan 2011 18:36:23 -0800, Smitty Two
wrote:

In article ,
" wrote:

The problem is dimming them
cheaply.

LM3445, National Semiconductor's triac dimmable LED driver, may fit your
definition of cheap. Or not. But it appears to be serviceable.

I looked at the specs (more digging to do), but it's *not* cheap ($2 in reels
of 2K from DigiKey, so perhaps $1.50 in the real world). All the crap that
goes around it is another buck, perhaps. Uplift that to retail and it's more
like $5-$10.

It also dumps 10-20% as heat. CFLs already run hot, so...

It is quite interesting, though. Thanks.

On Fri, 21 Jan 2011 20:27:05 -0800 (PST), BobR
wrote:

On Jan 21, 8:24Â*pm, Shaun Eli wrote:
Here's my thought:

Good CFLs last a very long time (I've had a couple for 20 years) and
WAY more than pay for themselves.

Crappy CFLs last only a couple of years but still more than pay for
themselves because the crappy ones cost a dollar.

I prefer to pay for the $3 or $4 ones that last a long, long time
because even if it's just unscrewing them and popping in another one,
for the extra $2 or $3 a decade, let's go with not having to bother.

So far all of the CFL bulbs I have bought have been the so called top
quality name brand bulbs and they have not lasted any longer than my
old bulbs. The savings if any have not come close to paying for the
difference in price. I will continue to try and use them but don't
expect me to buy the argument that they are any bargain.

I don't know much about them, as my wife handles all bulbs less than
48" long.
I noticed a couple boxes of CFL's my kid picked up for her at Menards.
On sale. Feit brand, 60 watt "equivalent."
5 bucks a carton for 6 packs of 3.
So that's 28 cents a bulb.
As I recall you could get incandescents free at the electric company
office, and I looked on the net and see they have some kind of
discount program where you can get them "as low as 99 cents a bulb."
I'll try to track the Fiet bulb longevity since I have a start point
now.

--Vic

On 1/22/2011 4:20 AM HeyBub spake thus:

David Nebenzahl wrote:

On 1/21/2011 4:30 PM HeyBub spake thus:

DGDevin wrote:

"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...

There is no better way to discredit a proposition than to
make fun of it.

Especially if mockery is all you have.

Often that's all you need.

Y'see, in Bub's world, it doesn't matter if you're right: it only
matters if you win.

Go ahead - attack the messenger. Gratuitously.

So you, Mr. "tip of the spear", Mr. Visigoth "let their corpses rot on
the battlefield" is now crying *victim*? Wow. I thought I'd heard
everything.


--
Comment on quaint Usenet customs, from Usenet:

To me, the *plonk...* reminds me of the old man at the public hearing
who stands to make his point, then removes his hearing aid as a sign
that he is not going to hear any rebuttals.

On Jan 22, 8:54*am, wrote:
On Jan 21, 11:34*pm, Shaun Eli
wrote:

Maybe it depends on the application. Are they in an enclosed fixture
that might get too warm? Some people have said that makes a
difference.

Like BobR, I've had very mixed results with CFLs. *Some lasted only a
year. *Others
several years. *And while I agree there is some application
variablility to it, I've still
had very mixed results regardless. * Like the CA study in the article,
I've yet to find
one that lasted 9 years. *Or even 6, for that matter. * One just died
in my garage
yesterday. *It's probably been there 5 years. * Given the small amount
of actual
light generated, eg I don't leave the garage light on for long or very
often,
*it doesn't seem like much of an energy savings to me.

A big part of the problem is there is no way of knowing which bulbs
will last, and
which won't. * Nor is there any standard as far as what terms like
"instant on",
mean. * Apparently, instant on can mean that a 100W bulb instantly
fires up to
he light output of a 15W incandescent. * IMO, the govt could be doing
testing
have a website with the results, require bulb manufacturers to spec
how long it
takes the bulb to reach say 60% of full output, etc. * That would do
more to
get me to buy them than subsidies. * Oh, but wait.... * Govt has a
better idea.
Just force us to buy incandescents by outlawing them.

My usage has been mixed but very few have been in an enclosed areas.
So far the best I have gotten out of any of the CFL's is a little over
two years. That isn't any better than what I was getting from
incadescents and in some cases a bit less. The light output issue is
another drawback that I haven't gotten used to either. They seem to
take forever to produce full output. It does seem to be an advantage
though in the early morning. The light over the sink where I keep the
coffee pot is the first light I turn on in the morning and I do
appreciate that it take a couple of minutes to get up to full light.
Other than that though, I would like light when I turn on the switch,
not 20 to 30 seconds later.

On Jan 20, 6:12*pm, Frank wrote:
On 1/20/2011 12:42 PM, Smitty Two wrote:

In article
,
* Molly *wrote:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...57603389059556....

I'm siding with other soothsayers predicting an LED revolution. The
latest issue of Digi-Key's "Tech Zone" trade journal is devoted to LED
lights. Colors are getting much better, the elusive triac dimming puzzle
has been solved, etc.

LED's require a set directional DC voltage. *I think that's going to be
the big price drawback. *Great for flashlights with batteries but $100
LED bulb with built in AC to DC converter is not worth it.

You can buy LED lightbulbs (mains voltage) in the UK for only a few
pounds.
http://www.ledbulbs.co.uk/

On Jan 20, 7:37*pm, BobR wrote:
On Jan 20, 11:42*am, Smitty Two wrote:

In article
,
*Molly Brown wrote:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...57603389059556....

I'm siding with other soothsayers predicting an LED revolution. The
latest issue of Digi-Key's "Tech Zone" trade journal is devoted to LED
lights. Colors are getting much better, the elusive triac dimming puzzle
has been solved, etc.

If they can bring the cost down then I am on board in a heartbeat.
The CFL's have proven to be a lot of hype but very little on
delivery. *They are touted to last much longer but my experince thus
far has proven that claim to be a total lie. *If anything, the life
span for the CFL's have thus far been about 10%-15% shorter than
incadecents but cost 4 times as much. *If they are saving anything on
usage it is more than offset by the cost of purchase and replacement.
As for the LED's, I am not about to pay 10 times more for them only to
see the same results.

Sign me SOLD because I have replaced nearly every light in the house
with CFL's and SCREWED because I feel like I was the one screwed in
instead of the lightbulb.

I write the date on mine when I put them in to keep track of these
claims. So far they seem to last longer, dunno how much longer. The
ends of the tubes go black on some makes (No filiment/ cathode shades
I think)

On Jan 20, 8:04*pm, David Nebenzahl wrote:
On 1/20/2011 10:19 AM HeyBub spake thus:





Joe wrote:

On Jan 20, 10:52 am, Molly Brown wrote:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...57603389059556....

Can't help but wonder how many Left Coasters are hoarding
incandescent light bulbs. And why is the lamestream media ignoring
the mercury content of the fluorescents? Typical of social
engineering solutions, solve one problem and create two or more
that are worse.

Possibly because we've been using florescent lightbulbs for over 100 years
without any controversy over Mercury.

Actually, the use of CFLs actually REDUCES Mercury contamination (in
general). The extra power required to generate the difference between
incandescent and CFLs means more coal has to be burnt. The Mercury generated
by burning the extra coal is greater than that in the CFLs.

Well, that's Don Klipstein's argument, which I sorta buy since he made
it and not you.

But that still begs the question of what really happens to all that
mercury from old CFLs. Believe me, I see busted twirly bulbs all over
the place. And just because we've had a totally blasé attitude toward
busted regular fluorescent tubes and the resulting release of mercury
doesn't mean that nothing bad ever came of it.

Can you say "cumulative toxin"?

(And just curious: why did you capitalize Mercury? You're not of German
descent, are you?)

--
Comment on quaint Usenet customs, from Usenet:

* *To me, the *plonk...* reminds me of the old man at the public hearing
* *who stands to make his point, then removes his hearing aid as a sign
* *that he is not going to hear any rebuttals.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Don't you have recycle centres over there? In the UK/Europe there are
recycle centre for hundreds of items in most towns, including
fluorescent tubes/bulbs. The mercury is recovered & reused.

On Jan 20, 8:08*pm, David Nebenzahl wrote:
On 1/20/2011 9:42 AM Smitty Two spake thus:

In article
,
Molly Brown wrote:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...57603389059556....

I'm siding with other soothsayers predicting an LED revolution. The
latest issue of Digi-Key's "Tech Zone" trade journal is devoted to LED
lights. Colors are getting much better, the elusive triac dimming puzzle
has been solved, etc.

They may have solved those problems, but what hasn't been solved is the
LED's inherent power inefficiency as the devices get scaled up from
cell-phone size. It's pretty much a brick-wall problem at this point.

http://spectrum.ieee.org/semiconduct.../the-leds-dark...

--
Comment on quaint Usenet customs, from Usenet:

* *To me, the *plonk...* reminds me of the old man at the public hearing
* *who stands to make his point, then removes his hearing aid as a sign
* *that he is not going to hear any rebuttals.

Interesting link that.

On Jan 21, 12:05*am, "DGDevin" wrote:
"HeyBub" *wrote in message

m...

And avoiding the histrionics of those screech about mercury with the
preamble "Thy Doom is Nigh!"
I don't begrudge the nay-sayers; such crusades give their otherwise
meaningless lives a purpose. I just wish they'd dial back the decibel
level and quit pestering normal folk.

When famed American WWII combat photographer W. Eugene Smith began
publishing photos documenting the effect of mercury poisoning on the people
of the Japanese fishing village of Minamata, the company responsible for the
poisoning (by dumping industrial waste) came up with the solution of sending
goons to savagely beat Smith--that being a cost-effective way of
discouraging bad publicity. *And of course there were plenty of folks like
you who just didn't want to hear about it, "normal" people who were busy
giving their lives purpose by buying things from companies that like to keep
costs down by pumping toxic waste into the sea or wherever rather than
disposing of it safely. *So thousands of people were blinded, paralyzed,
deformed and killed--it's shame, but what business is that of a happy
consumer?

Eventually medical science, politics and the law caught up with the Chisso
corporation, and they had to pay almost $90 million in compensation to their
victims and clean up the mess they had made for over three decades. *But
they're still in business, and today one in six American children born has
already been exposed to dangerously high levels of mercury in the womb
thanks to seafood contaminated by mercury, tuna in particular. *But what the
hell, you're not going to have any kids at your age, come to think of it you
don't have that many years left yourself. *Life is dangerous, and if one of
America's favorite foods isn't safe for pregnant women to eat, how is that
your problem? *Damn eco-crusaders, always bitching about something you'd
rather not think about, why can't they leave "normal" people alone?

Here's another more concerning one for you.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polychl...#United_States


Talking about contaminants, there's also the agent orange/dioxin
scattered about in Vietnam by the USA causing all sorts of problem
even now from cancer to birth defects. I wonder when you're going to
clear that up?
And that was deliberate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agent_Orange

On Jan 22, 2:24*am, Shaun Eli wrote:
Here's my thought:

Good CFLs last a very long time (I've had a couple for 20 years) and
WAY more than pay for themselves.

Crappy CFLs last only a couple of years but still more than pay for
themselves because the crappy ones cost a dollar.

I prefer to pay for the $3 or $4 ones that last a long, long time
because even if it's just unscrewing them and popping in another one,
for the extra $2 or $3 a decade, let's go with not having to bother.

I believe it's all down to the size of the heat sink.

harry wrote:

Don't you have recycle centres over there? In the UK/Europe there are
recycle centre for hundreds of items in most towns, including
fluorescent tubes/bulbs. The mercury is recovered & reused.

Sure, we have recycling centers.

It's hardly economical to burn up $3.00 worth of gas to carry a defunct
light bulb to the collection point.

Just thinking out-loud he

Assume the following:
* 120 million households in the US
* Each disposes of 5 CFLs per year
* Each CFL contains 5mg of mercury

That works out (120,000,000 x 5 x 0.005) = 3 million grams of mercury

If this 3 million grams of mercury were distributed uniformly over the
country, that works out to about 3/4 of a gram per square mile, not even
worth considering.

If, however, these 3 million grams of mercury were concentrated - in
landfills for example - one could simply avoid those areas.

We COULD establish a used CFL repository - call it "CfL Object Containment
Area," or "CLOCA Mountain" for short.

Or we could redirect all defunct CFLs to a recycling center.

The current price of mercury is $600/36Kg ($0.02/g), or about $0.00001 per
CFL. If some entity recovered ALL the mercury in the above hypothetical, its
revenue would be... fifty thousand dollars per year (120,000,000 households
x 5bulb/house x .005g/bulb x 1Kg/1000g x $600/36kg = $50.000)

A significant sum indeed.

David Nebenzahl wrote:
On 1/22/2011 4:20 AM HeyBub spake thus:

David Nebenzahl wrote:

On 1/21/2011 4:30 PM HeyBub spake thus:

DGDevin wrote:

"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...

There is no better way to discredit a proposition than to
make fun of it.

Especially if mockery is all you have.

Often that's all you need.

Y'see, in Bub's world, it doesn't matter if you're right: it only
matters if you win.

Go ahead - attack the messenger. Gratuitously.

So you, Mr. "tip of the spear", Mr. Visigoth "let their corpses rot on
the battlefield" is now crying *victim*? Wow. I thought I'd heard
everything.

Uh, no. But if it works... victory is the goal.

The "victim" card as proven, in the past, to be moderately useful to the
left. Why should right, virtue, and honor (plus scorn, of course) be our
only weapons?

On Jan 22, 9:54*am, wrote:
On Jan 21, 11:34*pm, Shaun Eli
wrote:

Maybe it depends on the application. Are they in an enclosed fixture
that might get too warm? Some people have said that makes a
difference.

Like BobR, I've had very mixed results with CFLs. *Some lasted only a
year. *Others
several years. *And while I agree there is some application
variablility to it, I've still
had very mixed results regardless. * Like the CA study in the article,
I've yet to find
one that lasted 9 years. *Or even 6, for that matter. * One just died
in my garage
yesterday. *It's probably been there 5 years. * Given the small amount
of actual
light generated, eg I don't leave the garage light on for long or very
often,
*it doesn't seem like much of an energy savings to me.

A big part of the problem is there is no way of knowing which bulbs
will last, and
which won't. * Nor is there any standard as far as what terms like
"instant on",
mean. * Apparently, instant on can mean that a 100W bulb instantly
fires up to
he light output of a 15W incandescent. * IMO, the govt could be doing
testing
have a website with the results, require bulb manufacturers to spec
how long it
takes the bulb to reach say 60% of full output, etc. * That would do
more to
get me to buy them than subsidies. * Oh, but wait.... * Govt has a
better idea.
Just force us to buy incandescents by outlawing them.

If the new bulbs don't last just take them back to the store. Save
the reciept and get another one for free. I have a cabinet with all
the original packaging and dated sales slips. If they promise long
life then hold them to it.

I bought about 15 CFLs about 10 years ago and I saw a severe
decrease in my usage when compared to the year before. My electric co.
has a bar graph on the bill that shows the difference. It was a lot.
Since then I have replaced about 5 of my original CFLs. The rest are
still working. I know I have saved a bunch of money.

On Jan 23, 4:36*am, harry wrote:
On Jan 20, 7:37*pm, BobR wrote:





On Jan 20, 11:42*am, Smitty Two wrote:

In article
,
*Molly Brown wrote:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...57603389059556...

I'm siding with other soothsayers predicting an LED revolution. The
latest issue of Digi-Key's "Tech Zone" trade journal is devoted to LED
lights. Colors are getting much better, the elusive triac dimming puzzle
has been solved, etc.

If they can bring the cost down then I am on board in a heartbeat.
The CFL's have proven to be a lot of hype but very little on
delivery. *They are touted to last much longer but my experince thus
far has proven that claim to be a total lie. *If anything, the life
span for the CFL's have thus far been about 10%-15% shorter than
incadecents but cost 4 times as much. *If they are saving anything on
usage it is more than offset by the cost of purchase and replacement.
As for the LED's, I am not about to pay 10 times more for them only to
see the same results.

Sign me SOLD because I have replaced nearly every light in the house
with CFL's and SCREWED because I feel like I was the one screwed in
instead of the lightbulb.

I write the date on mine when I put them in to keep track of these
claims. So far they seem to last longer, dunno how much longer. *The
ends of the tubes go black on some makes *(No filiment/ cathode shades
I think)- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I haven't been writing the dates on them but since I have only been in
this house for 5 years and I replaced almost all the bulbs right after
I moved in, I know how many I have had to replace one or more times
since and it doesn't same much for the life expectancy of CFL's. The
ONLY ones I haven't replaced yet are in lights that don't get used but
once or twice a year. The light that are used all the time, and all
the time means daily but not left on all day, are having to be
replaced at least once a year. On the other hand, I have several old
flood lights that are on dimmer circuits that were there when we
bought the house that are used daily.

On Jan 21, 6:48*pm, BobR wrote:
On Jan 21, 8:10*am, dgk wrote:





On Thu, 20 Jan 2011 20:30:39 -0600, "HeyBub"
wrote:

David Nebenzahl wrote:

And avoiding the histrionics of those screech about mercury with the
preamble "Thy Doom is Nigh!"

I don't begrudge the nay-sayers; such crusades give their otherwise
meaningless lives a purpose. I just wish they'd dial back the
decibel level and quit pestering normal folk.

Since you're so obviously of the "don't worry about that stuff--it
won't hurt you! It's just a bunch of namby-pamby enviros agitatin'
folks!" persuasion, why do you even bother to argue that CFL usage is
good because it reduces overall mercury emission by reducing coal
burning? Why would you even care about this? By your lights, we might
just as well go on using inefficient incandescents.

Where did I say that CFL usage is good?

I don't CARE whether CFL usage is good, bad, or smokes a cigar.

I was merely trying to illustrate the silliness of the hand-wringing and
chin-quivering crowd by pointing out we've been using florescenet lights for
over a century with nary a peep out of those who are now hopping up and
down.

As for using "inefficient incandescents," I don't care whether someone uses
legacy bulbs either. If pressed, I'd say let the market decide. If anything,
I'm opposed to the government mandating things that should be a market
decision: such as CFLs or CAFE standards.

I also feel the same way about child-proof caps; I want my children to have
all the same opportunities I had.

Sometimes things that affect all of us shouldn't be left to the
choices of individuals - or the market. That's why we have a
government run by people that we go vote for.

NO that is NOT what we have the government for, that is a total
fabrication of those who think they should be in control of others.

Well, actually the
government is run by the wealthy and corporate power but at least in
theory it's ours.

Corporations have no morals and only care about its bottom line. I
don't trust them to make decisions for me.

And you think the government Burro-Craps (Jackasses who **** on us
all) should make those decisions for you?

The market for incandescents does not price the cost of using the bulb
into the cost of buying them. Lots of folks don't consider the total
cost of ownership. And those who rent or otherwise don't pay directly
for their power may not care that it's actually more expensive to buy
incandescents even though it's better for us as a society, country,
and world, that we use less energy.

If I decide that I am willing to pay the cost of using, that should be
my choice not yours and not the governments. *Rather it is "better for
society" as a whole is a very debatable issue. *If in fact you primary
concern is what is best for "society" or the "world" in general, then
rather we use CFL's or incandescents should be the least of your
worries, there are far larger fish to fry.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The problem is the gov is in the pockets of various lobby groups.
Most politicians are corrupt. They think it's normal.

harry wrote:

The problem is the gov is in the pockets of various lobby groups.
Most politicians are corrupt. They think it's normal.

You may be right. If you are, the fault lies with the legislators, not the
lobbyists.

In real life, lobbyists are important. They are the experts on pending
legislation, not the legislators.

Who do YOU want composing the tariff laws on imported, hydrogenated,
yak-fat: the Yak Breeders Association, the legislators or (God forbid) the
regulators?

On Jan 23, 6:37*pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
harry wrote:

The problem is the gov is in the pockets of various lobby groups.
Most politicians are corrupt. They think it's normal.

You may be right. If you are, the fault lies with the legislators, not the
lobbyists.

In real life, lobbyists are important. They are the experts on pending
legislation, not the legislators.

Who do YOU want composing the tariff laws on imported, hydrogenated,
yak-fat: the Yak Breeders Association, the legislators or (God forbid) the
regulators?

The problems may originate with the legislators and even lobbyists
they aren't the biggest part of the problem...unless you will accept
that their ignorance is the root of the problems. The real problem
stems from a government that has become so big (make that huge) and
complicated by regulations that nobody could ever fully comprehend.
The sheer numbers of regulations and the complexity of all those
regulations can't be understood or properly administered by an
overbloated government that itself doesn't understand them. The costs
of all those regulations is a huge and growing burden on everyone and
that doesn't even count the taxes that must support all the government
burro-craps. When you multiply the Federal, State, Count, Local, and
School government entities and all the burden of their rules,
regulation, enforcement, and taxes the cost of our huge and growing
government has become a long term threat to the future of our country.

While I am not a member of the TEA Party movement I do understand the
basics of why they were formed and why they have grown so quickly. I
don't believe they have targeted the right areas. Its not the taxes
that are killing us, its the never ending growth in government as a
whole and that the government must constantly add regulatory rules to
justify its very existance.

On Jan 24, 12:37*am, "HeyBub" wrote:
harry wrote:

The problem is the gov is in the pockets of various lobby groups.
Most politicians are corrupt. They think it's normal.

You may be right. If you are, the fault lies with the legislators, not the
lobbyists.

In real life, lobbyists are important. They are the experts on pending
legislation, not the legislators.

Who do YOU want composing the tariff laws on imported, hydrogenated,
yak-fat: the Yak Breeders Association, the legislators or (God forbid) the
regulators?

I want independent experts. Not "experts" with an axe to grind or paid
by manufacturers or other commercial groups. That's how you ended up
in Iraq. Or didn't you realise this?

harry wrote:
On Jan 24, 12:37 am, "HeyBub" wrote:
harry wrote:

The problem is the gov is in the pockets of various lobby groups.
Most politicians are corrupt. They think it's normal.

You may be right. If you are, the fault lies with the legislators,
not the lobbyists.

In real life, lobbyists are important. They are the experts on
pending legislation, not the legislators.

Who do YOU want composing the tariff laws on imported, hydrogenated,
yak-fat: the Yak Breeders Association, the legislators or (God
forbid) the regulators?

I want independent experts. Not "experts" with an axe to grind or paid
by manufacturers or other commercial groups. That's how you ended up
in Iraq. Or didn't you realise this?

You say we ended up in Iraq like that was a bad thing.

In ,
Joe wrote:

On Jan 20, 10:52*am, Molly Brown wrote:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...57603389059556...

Can't help but wonder how many Left Coasters are hoarding incandescent
light bulbs. And why is the lamestream media ignoring the mercury
content of the fluorescents? Typical of social engineering solutions,
solve one problem and create two or more that are worse.

One thing to keep in mind:

On average, replacing incandescents with CFLs actually reduces mercury
pollution. This is because CFL-decreasable coal burning puts more mercury
into the environment than the CFLs used to replace such incandescents in
question have.
--
- Don Klipstein )

In m, David Nebenzahl
wrote:

On 1/20/2011 10:19 AM HeyBub spake thus:

Joe wrote:

On Jan 20, 10:52 am, Molly Brown wrote:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...57603389059556...

Can't help but wonder how many Left Coasters are hoarding
incandescent light bulbs. And why is the lamestream media ignoring
the mercury content of the fluorescents? Typical of social
engineering solutions, solve one problem and create two or more
that are worse.

Possibly because we've been using florescent lightbulbs for over 100 years
without any controversy over Mercury.

Actually, the use of CFLs actually REDUCES Mercury contamination (in
general). The extra power required to generate the difference between
incandescent and CFLs means more coal has to be burnt. The Mercury generated
by burning the extra coal is greater than that in the CFLs.

Well, that's Don Klipstein's argument, which I sorta buy since he made
it and not you.

But that still begs the question of what really happens to all that
mercury from old CFLs. Believe me, I see busted twirly bulbs all over
the place. And just because we've had a totally blasé attitude toward
busted regular fluorescent tubes and the resulting release of mercury
doesn't mean that nothing bad ever came of it.

Can you say "cumulative toxin"?
SNIP from here

I am sick-and-tired of how much some people say whatever this-or-that
which is not widely considered to have existed in the Garden of Eden being
some poison that requires zero tolerance.

As much interest as there is in mercury toxicity, if mercury was so bad,
would there not be some big number count of diagnoses of mercury poisoning
after the days when 4-foot fluorescents had 10-11 times as much mercury as
CFLs on average have, after the days when such 4-footers were allowed to
be dumped into regular trash by commercial and industrial users?

Even in the 1980's, 4-foot fluorescents had 40 milligrams of mercury
IIRC, and schools, offices, hospitals and retail stores were allowed to
dump those into "regular trash". 4-foot fluorescents were the main light
source used in such places at least since sometime in the 1960's, more
likely 1950's.

So even now with lawyers looking for opportunity like that of asbestos,
how many diagnoses of mercury poisoning do we have nowadays?

And how much mercury pollution is attributed to fluorescent lamps, and
how much is attributed to coal burning? The way I hear it, coal burning
is the mercury problem, and even was back in the bad old days of
1960's-1980's when fluorescent lamps had a lot more mercury than they have
now, let alone the even smaller amount of mercury that CFLs have.
--
- Don Klipstein )

In article , dgk wrote:
On Thu, 20 Jan 2011 15:43:59 -0600, "HeyBub"
wrote:

David Nebenzahl wrote:
On 1/20/2011 10:19 AM HeyBub spake thus:

Joe wrote:

On Jan 20, 10:52 am, Molly Brown wrote:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...57603389059556...

Can't help but wonder how many Left Coasters are hoarding
incandescent light bulbs. And why is the lamestream media ignoring
the mercury content of the fluorescents? Typical of social
engineering solutions, solve one problem and create two or more
that are worse.

Possibly because we've been using florescent lightbulbs for over 100
years without any controversy over Mercury.

Actually, the use of CFLs actually REDUCES Mercury contamination (in
general). The extra power required to generate the difference between
incandescent and CFLs means more coal has to be burnt. The Mercury
generated by burning the extra coal is greater than that in the CFLs.

Well, that's Don Klipstein's argument, which I sorta buy since he made
it and not you.

But that still begs the question of what really happens to all that
mercury from old CFLs. Believe me, I see busted twirly bulbs all over
the place. And just because we've had a totally blasé attitude toward
busted regular fluorescent tubes and the resulting release of mercury
doesn't mean that nothing bad ever came of it.

Don't think so. If we've made the collective decision to live with the
hazards of coal-fired power plants, any overall reduction in the amount of
you-know-what has to be a plus. Most would consider a process to convert 90%
the mercury from a power plant into Fulminate of Mercury and scatter it
around the streets of Detroit to be meritorious.


Can you say "cumulative toxin"?

Yes, but not five times real fast.


(And just curious: why did you capitalize Mercury? You're not of
German descent, are you?)

I also capitalized Oxygen, Hydrogen, and Cobalt-thorium-G because I was
taught in an earlier time to capitalize primary elements. Times have,
however, changed along with the rules for capitalization.

Thanks for pointing out my eccentricity and causing me to check. I'll
refrain from it in future so as not to horrify those who are a product of a
more recent education.


That really changed?

I remember when the lower case G changed. I learned it with a straight
line going down and then it changed to a curly line. Or maybe it was
the other way? Well, no one writes anymore so I guess it makes no
difference, but it puzzled me at the time.

I think Oxygen deserves to be upper case though. While most elements
are critical for something (Carbon comes to mind), where would we be
without good old Oxygen? That makes it more important than most things
that get the Honor of capitalization.

As for CFLs, my anecdotal evidence is that they do not last as long as
advertised.

My experience is that they tend to "fall short of claimed life expectancy"
in actual home usage, but in my experience they still greatly outlast
incandescents and more importantly use about 25-33% as much electric
energy to produce as much light as incandescents do.

I did just read a big article in the newspaper about
needing to recycle CFLs, so the attempt to get the word out is
working. There was also a whole section on how to clean up after a
broken bulb. That thing was so scary that, in spite of being a good
old lefty, I want to run out and hoard some incandescents. It began
with "open the windows and leave the room for 5-10 minutes, taking any
pets with you. Turn off central heat or A/C".

That is an overblown cleanup scenario, slightly milder version of the
same story as the need for "moon suits".

Here, it was obviously referring to this from the EPA:

http://epa.gov/cfl/cflcleanup.html

That appears to me on the alarmist side, but still advises only 5-10
minutes of "airing out" the room in question.

And why leave HVAC shut off for a few hours afterwards? If there was
really a problem, would it not be better to blow it out?

For that matter, I remember recently LEDsMagazine.com describing EPA
in what I can describe for now "unkind words", as to how they were working
with (or otherwise) DOE for an "Energy Star" matter.

I also suspect for unrelated reason that USA's EPA is a bit
obstructionist. What is the most industrial city in North America,
north of the Rio Grande?
I seem to think Mississauga, though someone close to me suggested
to me the nearby Hamilton. Those two cities are not only north of the Rio
Grande, but also north of Lake Erie and on the Canada side of Lake
Ontario. I thought Canada is "more green" than USA - why having so much
industry in comparison to USA with 1/10 of USA's population?

I mean really, do I want these things in my house?

--
- Don Klipstein )

In ,
BobR wrote:

On Jan 21, 8:24*pm, Shaun Eli wrote:
Here's my thought:

Good CFLs last a very long time (I've had a couple for 20 years) and
WAY more than pay for themselves.

Crappy CFLs last only a couple of years but still more than pay for
themselves because the crappy ones cost a dollar.

I prefer to pay for the $3 or $4 ones that last a long, long time
because even if it's just unscrewing them and popping in another one,
for the extra $2 or $3 a decade, let's go with not having to bother.

So far all of the CFL bulbs I have bought have been the so called top
quality name brand bulbs and they have not lasted any longer than my
old bulbs.

You gotta be doing something wrong. I even use 13W twisties in a small
3enclosed ceiling fixture and a ceiling fan fixture and get around 4,000
hours of life out of them. I even use twisties in a bathroom and they
last longer there than incandescents did.

The savings if any have not come close to paying for the
difference in price. I will continue to try and use them but don't
expect me to buy the argument that they are any bargain.

In the unlikely event that one would run into incandescent-like short
life expectancy from a CFL, there is still the matter of electricity cost
savings.

--
-Don Klipstein )

In article , Frank wrote:
On 1/20/2011 12:42 PM, Smitty Two wrote:
In article
,
Molly wrote:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...595565026.html

I'm siding with other soothsayers predicting an LED revolution. The
latest issue of Digi-Key's "Tech Zone" trade journal is devoted to LED
lights. Colors are getting much better, the elusive triac dimming puzzle
has been solved, etc.

LED's require a set directional DC voltage. I think that's going to be
the big price drawback. Great for flashlights with batteries but $100
LED bulb with built in AC to DC converter is not worth it.

Converting AC to DC costs more like 50 cents than $100.

For that matter, in the usual screw-base CFLs, the with-the-bulb
electronic ballast starts with changing the AC to DC for the electronics
to work with. The electronic workings even changes the DC back to AC of a
higher frequency - generally, fluorescents have one end getting starved
of mercury if forced to work for long on DC.
There is even a bit of history of some fluorescent fixtures made to use
where available power of suitable voltage was DC ande not AC - the
ballasting was different and the switch had a 4-pushes-per-full-switch-cycle
design to reverse polarity of DC applied to the fluorescent bulb every
time it was switched on.
--
- Don Klipstein )

On Thu, 20 Jan 2011 09:50:56 -0800, Smitty Two
wrote:

In article
,
Joe wrote:

Can't help but wonder how many Left Coasters are hoarding incandescent
light bulbs.

Not as many as you think. Californians have a laid-back attitude about
things. We live by the "manana"* mantra. Must be the weather that lulls
us in to a false sense of security. We aren't prepared for earthquakes,
either.

Years ago, before cell phones, I read a story in an aviation rag about
accident preparedness. The author quipped "a California pilot's idea of
an emergency survival kit is two dimes for a pay phone."

*Spanish for "tomorrow," coupled with the understanding that tomorrow
never comes.


carpe diem manana.

Don Klipstein wrote:
In m, David
Nebenzahl wrote:

On 1/20/2011 10:19 AM HeyBub spake thus:

Joe wrote:

On Jan 20, 10:52 am, Molly Brown wrote:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...57603389059556...

Can't help but wonder how many Left Coasters are hoarding
incandescent light bulbs. And why is the lamestream media ignoring
the mercury content of the fluorescents? Typical of social
engineering solutions, solve one problem and create two or more
that are worse.

Possibly because we've been using florescent lightbulbs for over
100 years without any controversy over Mercury.

Actually, the use of CFLs actually REDUCES Mercury contamination (in
general). The extra power required to generate the difference
between incandescent and CFLs means more coal has to be burnt. The
Mercury generated by burning the extra coal is greater than that in
the CFLs.

Well, that's Don Klipstein's argument, which I sorta buy since he
made it and not you.

But that still begs the question of what really happens to all that
mercury from old CFLs. Believe me, I see busted twirly bulbs all over
the place. And just because we've had a totally blasé attitude toward
busted regular fluorescent tubes and the resulting release of mercury
doesn't mean that nothing bad ever came of it.

Can you say "cumulative toxin"?
SNIP from here

I am sick-and-tired of how much some people say whatever this-or-that
which is not widely considered to have existed in the Garden of Eden
being some poison that requires zero tolerance.

As much interest as there is in mercury toxicity, if mercury was so
bad, would there not be some big number count of diagnoses of mercury
poisoning after the days when 4-foot fluorescents had 10-11 times as
much mercury as CFLs on average have, after the days when such
4-footers were allowed to be dumped into regular trash by commercial
and industrial users?

Even in the 1980's, 4-foot fluorescents had 40 milligrams of mercury
IIRC, and schools, offices, hospitals and retail stores were allowed
to dump those into "regular trash". 4-foot fluorescents were the
main light source used in such places at least since sometime in the
1960's, more likely 1950's.

So even now with lawyers looking for opportunity like that of
asbestos, how many diagnoses of mercury poisoning do we have nowadays?

And how much mercury pollution is attributed to fluorescent lamps,
and how much is attributed to coal burning? The way I hear it, coal
burning is the mercury problem, and even was back in the bad old days
of 1960's-1980's when fluorescent lamps had a lot more mercury than
they have now, let alone the even smaller amount of mercury that CFLs
have.

Several years ago I recall some groups getting all exercised about the
alarming levels of mercury in Chesapeake Bay fish. "We're all gonna die!"
was the concerted uproar.

Then somebody wrangled a fish from the Smithsonian that was caught in
Chesapeake Bay in the 1860's.

Guess what?

Yep. The museum fish had higher mercury levels than the most recent fish.

On Jan 25, 1:22*am, (Don Klipstein) wrote:
In ,





BobR wrote:
On Jan 21, 8:24 pm, Shaun Eli wrote:
Here's my thought:

Good CFLs last a very long time (I've had a couple for 20 years) and
WAY more than pay for themselves.

Crappy CFLs last only a couple of years but still more than pay for
themselves because the crappy ones cost a dollar.

I prefer to pay for the $3 or $4 ones that last a long, long time
because even if it's just unscrewing them and popping in another one,
for the extra $2 or $3 a decade, let's go with not having to bother.

So far all of the CFL bulbs I have bought have been the so called top
quality name brand bulbs and they have not lasted any longer than my
old bulbs.

* You gotta be doing something wrong. *I even use 13W twisties in a small
3enclosed ceiling fixture and a ceiling fan fixture and get around 4,000
hours of life out of them. *I even use twisties in a bathroom and they
last longer there than incandescents did.


You must be right, I am screwing them into the socket and actually
expecting them to eventually put out light when I turn on the switch.
Other than that can you possibly explain what I might be doing wrong?

*The savings if any have not come close to paying for the
difference in price. *I will continue to try and use them but don't
expect me to buy the argument that they are any bargain.

* In the unlikely event that one would run into incandescent-like short
life expectancy from a CFL, there is still the matter of electricity cost
savings.


Sorry but I haven't seen any great savings on that front either,
surely not enough to offset the much higher cost of purchase. That
might be different if the bulbs were lasting anywhere close to the
advertised life.

--
* -Don Klipstein )- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

In article ,
Ashton Crusher wrote:

On Thu, 20 Jan 2011 09:50:56 -0800, Smitty Two
wrote:

In article
,
Joe wrote:

Can't help but wonder how many Left Coasters are hoarding incandescent
light bulbs.

Not as many as you think. Californians have a laid-back attitude about
things. We live by the "manana"* mantra. Must be the weather that lulls
us in to a false sense of security. We aren't prepared for earthquakes,
either.

Years ago, before cell phones, I read a story in an aviation rag about
accident preparedness. The author quipped "a California pilot's idea of
an emergency survival kit is two dimes for a pay phone."

*Spanish for "tomorrow," coupled with the understanding that tomorrow
never comes.


carpe diem manana.

Yes! The perfect comeback to "you can sleep when you're dead."

On Tue, 25 Jan 2011 06:13:19 +0000 (UTC), (Don
Klipstein) wrote:

In ,
Joe wrote:

On Jan 20, 10:52Â*am, Molly Brown wrote:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...57603389059556...

Can't help but wonder how many Left Coasters are hoarding incandescent
light bulbs. And why is the lamestream media ignoring the mercury
content of the fluorescents? Typical of social engineering solutions,
solve one problem and create two or more that are worse.

One thing to keep in mind:

On average, replacing incandescents with CFLs actually reduces mercury
pollution. This is because CFL-decreasable coal burning puts more mercury
into the environment than the CFLs used to replace such incandescents in
question have.
That is only true if the CFL has a reasonable fifespan. Even a dirty
coal generating station puts out less mercury than is used in a CFL
bulb if it only lasts for 100 hours.