On Tue, 25 Jan 2011 07:22:07 +0000 (UTC), (Don
Klipstein) wrote:

In ,
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.

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.
My experience is even in a ceiling fan, CFLs fall significantly short
od incandescent life span. I generally get a minimum 9 months or so
out of standard bulbs in the ceiling fan. Some have gone well over a
year. - the first CFL out of the 4 has died at about 7 months.

I've finally gotten over 15 months on a PAR type CFL in my stairway
lamp, but it is now taking over a minute to get to full bright. It is
a sylvania that cost me over $8 - the previous 5 lasted significantly
under a year each - and were Philips (and cost about the same).
In the bedrooms I have one that is 4 years old (daughter's room -
she's been away at university/working in Africa etc for 6 years -only
been home a total of mabee a year all told) and one that is 2 years
old(gets used mabee half an hour a day, 3 or 4 times a week) that is
taking 2-3 minutes to get to full bright. In the third bedroom (spare
- virtually un-used) I have no date on the bulb - it still lights
slowly, but when I removed it to xheck for a date there are loose bits
of some sort rattling around inside it. These are all PAR type
pot-light bulbs. All of the above are mounted base up.

In lamps, base down, I gave up on CFLs about 3 years ago - and have
not replaced the conventional bulbs since. In a tall floor-lamp with
2 "globe" type cfls, one bulb lasted over a year (still going) while
the other has been replaced. In 25 years previous to gouing to CFLs I
may have changed those bulbs twice????

In ,
zek wrote:

SNIP previously quoted material

Oh yes, it could also be said, LED's burn out quicker than expected.
When they are run too hot they will go bad. How many
LED's do you see out on bus tail lights. The sun generates huge
amounts of heat damaging them.

So far, I am not seeing noticeably faded LEDs on buses or in traffic
lights. However, white ones have a phosphor fading issue. Also, LED
lighting units usually get more watts per square inch of exposed surface
than LED automotive taillights and LED traffic lights.
--
- Don Klipstein )

In , zek
wrote:

SNIP previously quoted material

I wanted to add, I have maybe 3 in the house I leave on all the time.
Partly for my kittys, and partly, it saves flicking the switch.

My LED's inside are on all the time, and are attached to a battery
backup. There are some in bathroom and kitchen under cabinet.
Will add some more when I finish basement.

For cats, just get a few of those low power green or blue LED
nightlights. Dark-adapted people can see their way around with those, and
cats have much better night vision than people have.
--
- Don Klipstein )

In , wrote:
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.

My experience is on average around 4,000 hours. This includes ones that
get some extra heating by being in an enclosed fixture. (I only use 13
watt ones there to keep the extra heating down.)
--
- Don Klipstein )

In , wrote:

On Tue, 25 Jan 2011 07:22:07 +0000 (UTC), (Don
Klipstein) wrote:

In ,
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.

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.
My experience is even in a ceiling fan, CFLs fall significantly short
od incandescent life span. I generally get a minimum 9 months or so
out of standard bulbs in the ceiling fan. Some have gone well over a
year. - the first CFL out of the 4 has died at about 7 months.

I have CFLs lasting thousands of hours in a ceiling fan fixture. I
don't go over 13-14 watts because heat accumulates somewhat around the
CFRLs' ballast housings in ceiling fan fixtures.

I've finally gotten over 15 months on a PAR type CFL in my stairway
lamp, but it is now taking over a minute to get to full bright. It is
a sylvania that cost me over $8 - the previous 5 lasted significantly
under a year each - and were Philips (and cost about the same).

Sad thing about most PAR CFLs and in general CFLs with outer bulbs.
These generally have their mercury amalgam formulated to give the proper
concentration of mercury vapor when they reach their typically-higher
tubing temperature. Bare spiral CFLs are generally formulated to work
best at a lower tubing temperature than CFLs in outer bulbs are. Ones
with outer bulbs tend to start dimmer and to have more need to warm up.

One alternative: Philips SLS, with a snap-on R30 or R40 (where R40
fits) reflector. I think bulbs.com may still have those. These start
brighter and warm up faster than most CFLs with outer bulbs. And
non-dimmable Philips SLS up to 23 watts are overtly rated for recessed
ceiling fixtures, which I think of as "heat hellholes".

In the bedrooms I have one that is 4 years old (daughter's room -
she's been away at university/working in Africa etc for 6 years -only
been home a total of mabee a year all told) and one that is 2 years
old(gets used mabee half an hour a day, 3 or 4 times a week) that is
taking 2-3 minutes to get to full bright.

Does that one have an outer bulb? Most bare spiral ones get close to
full brightness in 1-1.5 minutes. Or Philips SLS with snap-on reflector
if the fixture is a recessed ceiling fixture.

In the third bedroom (spare
- virtually un-used) I have no date on the bulb - it still lights
slowly, but when I removed it to xheck for a date there are loose bits
of some sort rattling around inside it. These are all PAR type
pot-light bulbs. All of the above are mounted base up.

In lamps, base down, I gave up on CFLs about 3 years ago - and have
not replaced the conventional bulbs since. In a tall floor-lamp with
2 "globe" type cfls, one bulb lasted over a year (still going) while
the other has been replaced. In 25 years previous to gouing to CFLs I
may have changed those bulbs twice????

Does the floor lamp have a dimmer? Were the CFLs rated for dimmers?
--
- Don Klipstein )

Don Klipstein wrote:
In
,
zek wrote:

SNIP previously quoted material

I wanted to add, I have maybe 3 in the house I leave on all the time.
Partly for my kittys, and partly, it saves flicking the switch.

My LED's inside are on all the time, and are attached to a battery
backup. There are some in bathroom and kitchen under cabinet.
Will add some more when I finish basement.

For cats, just get a few of those low power green or blue LED
nightlights. Dark-adapted people can see their way around with
those, and cats have much better night vision than people have.

Right. Cats have night-vision six times more sensitive than humans (or
dogs). Cats have a membrane at the back of the eye (the Tapetum) that
reflects light back for the eye to get a second go at detecting it. Other
animals have this too, most notably deer. This membrane is why a cat's face
illuminated by a flashlight in the dark looks like two headlights (or why
the same thing occurs with a spotlighted deer).

Cats also see in color (dogs in black and white).

On Tue, 25 Jan 2011 22:20:13 +0000 (UTC), (Don
Klipstein) wrote:

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

In ,
Joe wrote:

On Jan 20, 10:52ÂÂ*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.

My experience is on average around 4,000 hours. This includes ones that
get some extra heating by being in an enclosed fixture. (I only use 13
watt ones there to keep the extra heating down.)
You are getting almost 4 times my (average)cfl lifespan. And I'm
using the bulbs made for the specific use (in this case PAR type
reflector floods in pot-lights)

On Tue, 25 Jan 2011 22:31:46 +0000 (UTC), (Don
Klipstein) wrote:

In , wrote:

On Tue, 25 Jan 2011 07:22:07 +0000 (UTC), (Don
Klipstein) wrote:

In ,
BobR wrote:

On Jan 21, 8:24ÂÂ*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.
My experience is even in a ceiling fan, CFLs fall significantly short
od incandescent life span. I generally get a minimum 9 months or so
out of standard bulbs in the ceiling fan. Some have gone well over a
year. - the first CFL out of the 4 has died at about 7 months.

I have CFLs lasting thousands of hours in a ceiling fan fixture. I
don't go over 13-14 watts because heat accumulates somewhat around the
CFRLs' ballast housings in ceiling fan fixtures.

Mine are 7 watt in open "tulip" type fixtures.

I've finally gotten over 15 months on a PAR type CFL in my stairway
lamp, but it is now taking over a minute to get to full bright. It is
a sylvania that cost me over $8 - the previous 5 lasted significantly
under a year each - and were Philips (and cost about the same).

Sad thing about most PAR CFLs and in general CFLs with outer bulbs.
These generally have their mercury amalgam formulated to give the proper
concentration of mercury vapor when they reach their typically-higher
tubing temperature. Bare spiral CFLs are generally formulated to work
best at a lower tubing temperature than CFLs in outer bulbs are. Ones
with outer bulbs tend to start dimmer and to have more need to warm up.

One alternative: Philips SLS, with a snap-on R30 or R40 (where R40
fits) reflector. I think bulbs.com may still have those. These start
brighter and warm up faster than most CFLs with outer bulbs. And
non-dimmable Philips SLS up to 23 watts are overtly rated for recessed
ceiling fixtures, which I think of as "heat hellholes".

In the bedrooms I have one that is 4 years old (daughter's room -
she's been away at university/working in Africa etc for 6 years -only
been home a total of mabee a year all told) and one that is 2 years
old(gets used mabee half an hour a day, 3 or 4 times a week) that is
taking 2-3 minutes to get to full bright.

Does that one have an outer bulb? Most bare spiral ones get close to
full brightness in 1-1.5 minutes. Or Philips SLS with snap-on reflector
if the fixture is a recessed ceiling fixture.

As I stated - all PAR type reflectors.
In the third bedroom (spare
- virtually un-used) I have no date on the bulb - it still lights
slowly, but when I removed it to xheck for a date there are loose bits
of some sort rattling around inside it. These are all PAR type
pot-light bulbs. All of the above are mounted base up.

In lamps, base down, I gave up on CFLs about 3 years ago - and have
not replaced the conventional bulbs since. In a tall floor-lamp with
2 "globe" type cfls, one bulb lasted over a year (still going) while
the other has been replaced. In 25 years previous to gouing to CFLs I
may have changed those bulbs twice????

Does the floor lamp have a dimmer? Were the CFLs rated for dimmers?
No dimmers. The only places I have dimmers I use either straight
incandescents or halogens.

Much happier with the halogens than with the cfl units, on the whole.
7 halogens have been in use for 3 years now with no failures - 3-7
hours a day, 4-6 days a week (my office) - usually on full bright, but
occaisionally dimmed down.

wrote:

On Tue, 25 Jan 2011 22:20:13 +0000 (UTC), (Don
Klipstein) wrote:

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

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.
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.

My experience is on average around 4,000 hours. This includes ones that
get some extra heating by being in an enclosed fixture. (I only use 13
watt ones there to keep the extra heating down.)
You are getting almost 4 times my (average)cfl lifespan. And I'm
using the bulbs made for the specific use (in this case PAR type
reflector floods in pot-lights)

I'm not sure why some people seem to have such poor luck with CFLs, I've
been using them at multiple locations for a decade and I've not had any
premature failures at all.

On 01/25/2011 09:22 PM, Pete C. wrote:

wrote:

On Tue, 25 Jan 2011 22:20:13 +0000 (UTC), (Don
Klipstein) wrote:

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

,
Joe wrote:

On Jan 20, 10:52 am, Molly 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.

My experience is on average around 4,000 hours. This includes ones that
get some extra heating by being in an enclosed fixture. (I only use 13
watt ones there to keep the extra heating down.)
You are getting almost 4 times my (average)cfl lifespan. And I'm
using the bulbs made for the specific use (in this case PAR type
reflector floods in pot-lights)

I'm not sure why some people seem to have such poor luck with CFLs, I've
been using them at multiple locations for a decade and I've not had any
premature failures at all.

same here. I have actually found one place where they are the ONLY
thing that will last - a sandblast cabinet. Even "rough service" bulbs
would generally only last one job. CFL works great.

I was just in Lowe's today and saw that they now sell Lutron dimmers
specifically marketed for CFLs. Maybe someday when curiosity gets the
better of me I will buy one and see if it will overcome my objections to
the "dimmable" (note quotes) CFLs that I've tried.

Only other quibbles I have with CFLs are the long startup time for the
"globe" type used for bathroom fixtures with exposed "bulbs" (but I
still use 'em) and the unavailability of 3-way CFLs in greater than 150W
equivalent (this one is annoying as 250W or higher incandescent 3-ways
are still available, and honestly, aren't 3-ways nearly always used in
table lamps that are sometimes used for reading light?) For 90% of my
bulb replacement needs though I find them quite adequate.

nate

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

On Tue, 25 Jan 2011 22:17:40 +0000 (UTC), (Don Klipstein)
wrote:

In , zek
wrote:

SNIP previously quoted material

I wanted to add, I have maybe 3 in the house I leave on all the time.
Partly for my kittys, and partly, it saves flicking the switch.

My LED's inside are on all the time, and are attached to a battery
backup. There are some in bathroom and kitchen under cabinet.
Will add some more when I finish basement.

For cats, just get a few of those low power green or blue LED
nightlights. Dark-adapted people can see their way around with those, and
cats have much better night vision than people have.

You can tell (they can see better), when the cat stops in front of you and is
surprised that it gets run over. Of course, the fact that the cat in question
is all black, doesn't help.

On Jan 20, 1:47*pm, zek wrote:
On Jan 20, 12:42*pm, 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.

Well, I have been using CFL's for 20 years. Not exclusively, but now
they are dirt
cheap. Some burn out right away, and I hate Feit brand.. They have
more
parts and have more problems. They burn out quicker the more you turn
them on and off.

Heh. I have 6 CFL BR-40's here in my home office. I did some
research and thought the FEITs sounded good. Those *******s all
burned out.

I got lights constantly on in the house. I got CFL's and LED's.
I got LED's all over outside. I'm going to do some updating, and found
the new CREE
with high output. I always use the CREE warm white when possible. I
cannot stand blue light.
Blue light is harsh and scatters too much. I saw the new LED style but
have not come
across it yet. The new LED light is almost like a CFL. Its got a large
outer bulb with
florescent material. Inside are a number of UV LED's which illuminate
the outer bulb.

Here is the new CREE dulux and you can easily get 900 Lumen s or
more.....http://ledsupply.com/creexpg-ww315.php

greg

In , wrote:
On 25 Jan '11 22:20:13 0 UTC, (Don Klipstein) wrote:

My experience is on average around 4,000 hours. This includes ones that
get some extra heating by being in an enclosed fixture. (I only use 13
watt ones there to keep the extra heating down.)

You are getting almost 4 times my (average)cfl lifespan. And I'm
using the bulbs made for the specific use (in this case PAR type
reflector floods in pot-lights)

Pot lights are heat hellholes. CFLs easily overheat in those. Try a
different brand, a brand overtly rated in writing for such use, one with a
specific and high maximum ambient temperature rating, or a lower wattage.

One thing commercial buildings often have for recessed ceiling
fixtures with CFLs: Fixtures with separate ballasts, and the fixtures
take ballastless pin-base CFLs, often 13W twintube or 26W doubletwintube.

NOTE - 13W twintube and 26W doubletwintube usually come in 2-pin form
with built-in glow switch starters. These CFLs suffer more wear from
starting than others.
--
- Don Klipstein )

On Wed, 26 Jan 2011 22:48:57 +0000 (UTC), (Don
Klipstein) wrote:

In , wrote:
On 25 Jan '11 22:20:13 0 UTC, (Don Klipstein) wrote:

My experience is on average around 4,000 hours. This includes ones that
get some extra heating by being in an enclosed fixture. (I only use 13
watt ones there to keep the extra heating down.)

You are getting almost 4 times my (average)cfl lifespan. And I'm
using the bulbs made for the specific use (in this case PAR type
reflector floods in pot-lights)

Pot lights are heat hellholes. CFLs easily overheat in those. Try a
different brand, a brand overtly rated in writing for such use, one with a
specific and high maximum ambient temperature rating, or a lower wattage.

One thing commercial buildings often have for recessed ceiling
fixtures with CFLs: Fixtures with separate ballasts, and the fixtures
take ballastless pin-base CFLs, often 13W twintube or 26W doubletwintube.

NOTE - 13W twintube and 26W doubletwintube usually come in 2-pin form
with built-in glow switch starters. These CFLs suffer more wear from
starting than others.
I'm currently running the third "brand" of PAR type cfl - and all PAR
type bulbs are supposed to be made for this same type of service.
It says on the bulb "not for use with dimmers or in totally enclosed
recessed fixtures"

These are not totally enclosed - and if the slowness in lighting is
due to "warm-up" these things should light FASTER, not slower.

In ,
wrote:

On Wed, 26 Jan 2011 22:48:57 +0000 (UTC), (Don
Klipstein) wrote:

In , wrote:
On 25 Jan '11 22:20:13 0 UTC, (Don Klipstein) wrote:

My experience is on average around 4,000 hours. This includes ones that
get some extra heating by being in an enclosed fixture. (I only use 13
watt ones there to keep the extra heating down.)

You are getting almost 4 times my (average)cfl lifespan. And I'm
using the bulbs made for the specific use (in this case PAR type
reflector floods in pot-lights)

Pot lights are heat hellholes. CFLs easily overheat in those. Try a
different brand, a brand overtly rated in writing for such use, one with a
specific and high maximum ambient temperature rating, or a lower wattage.

SNIP my bit on what is used in commercial buildings

I'm currently running the third "brand" of PAR type cfl - and all PAR
type bulbs are supposed to be made for this same type of service.
It says on the bulb "not for use with dimmers or in totally enclosed
recessed fixtures"

These are not totally enclosed - and if the slowness in lighting is
due to "warm-up" these things should light FASTER, not slower.

One question what is the wattage of these CFLs?

Also, I do see "PAR" CFLs that appear to me not up to working OK in
the "heat hellholes" they appear to be made for. I see ones either
lacking a written statement that they are OK there, or having being OK
there qualified by a specific ambient temperature limit that sounds to me
easy to exceed in "heat hellhole" recessed ceilingt fixtures.

If the fixtures are open at the bottom, CFLs can still easily overheat
in them. Hot air likes to move upward. In an open-at-the-bottom
recessed ceiling fixture, the hot air won't move much - so the lightbulb
in such a fixture easily bakes up the temperature of the air in the
fixture.

As for heat confinement speeding up warmup: My experience is that this
does not increase rate of warmup, so much as increasing how much the
warmup progresses (such as past optimum temperature). Do please keep in
mind that "PAR" CFLs tend to be ones with outer bulbs, and those tend to
start dimmer and need more warmup time than CFLs without outer bulbs.
--
- Don Klipstein )

On 1/25/2011 1:12 AM, Don Klipstein wrote:

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?

Lower expenses, thanks to Canada's health care system. Toyota made
that quite clear a few years ago when it announced its decision to
locate a new plant in Canada instead of the southern US. Even though
the Canadian location mean a unionized workforce and thus higher
wages, it was _still_ cheaper for Toyota, due to the huge savings in
health insurance costs.

When you've got a major multinational corporation explaining that
financial reality to you, shouldn't you pay attention? Hey guys, don't
knock universal health care if it provides your country with a
competitive advantage. Which it does.

On Thu, 27 Jan 2011 04:25:32 +0000 (UTC), (Don
Klipstein) wrote:

In ,
wrote:

On Wed, 26 Jan 2011 22:48:57 +0000 (UTC), (Don
Klipstein) wrote:

In , wrote:
On 25 Jan '11 22:20:13 0 UTC, (Don Klipstein) wrote:

My experience is on average around 4,000 hours. This includes ones that
get some extra heating by being in an enclosed fixture. (I only use 13
watt ones there to keep the extra heating down.)

You are getting almost 4 times my (average)cfl lifespan. And I'm
using the bulbs made for the specific use (in this case PAR type
reflector floods in pot-lights)

Pot lights are heat hellholes. CFLs easily overheat in those. Try a
different brand, a brand overtly rated in writing for such use, one with a
specific and high maximum ambient temperature rating, or a lower wattage.

SNIP my bit on what is used in commercial buildings

I'm currently running the third "brand" of PAR type cfl - and all PAR
type bulbs are supposed to be made for this same type of service.
It says on the bulb "not for use with dimmers or in totally enclosed
recessed fixtures"

These are not totally enclosed - and if the slowness in lighting is
due to "warm-up" these things should light FASTER, not slower.

One question what is the wattage of these CFLs?

I thought I had stated they are 15 watt units After an hour of use
they are not uncomfortable to remove, but the socket end is getting
uncomfortable to hold.

The highest temperature I can register with my I/R temperature guage
is 117F after an hour of on-time. It stabilizes there.
Also, I do see "PAR" CFLs that appear to me not up to working OK in
the "heat hellholes" they appear to be made for. I see ones either
lacking a written statement that they are OK there, or having being OK
there qualified by a specific ambient temperature limit that sounds to me
easy to exceed in "heat hellhole" recessed ceilingt fixtures.

If the fixtures are open at the bottom, CFLs can still easily overheat
in them. Hot air likes to move upward. In an open-at-the-bottom
recessed ceiling fixture, the hot air won't move much - so the lightbulb
in such a fixture easily bakes up the temperature of the air in the
fixture.

As for heat confinement speeding up warmup: My experience is that this
does not increase rate of warmup, so much as increasing how much the
warmup progresses (such as past optimum temperature). Do please keep in
mind that "PAR" CFLs tend to be ones with outer bulbs, and those tend to
start dimmer and need more warmup time than CFLs without outer bulbs.

On Thu, 27 Jan 2011 07:33:58 -0600, Hell Toupee
wrote:

On 1/25/2011 1:12 AM, Don Klipstein wrote:

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?

Lower expenses, thanks to Canada's health care system. Toyota made
that quite clear a few years ago when it announced its decision to
locate a new plant in Canada instead of the southern US. Even though
the Canadian location mean a unionized workforce and thus higher
wages, it was _still_ cheaper for Toyota, due to the huge savings in
health insurance costs.

Even taking into account the costs of heating in the nasty Woodstock
Ontario winters (but not needing to spend nearly as much on
air-conditioning)

When you've got a major multinational corporation explaining that
financial reality to you, shouldn't you pay attention? Hey guys, don't
knock universal health care if it provides your country with a
competitive advantage. Which it does.

Hell Toupee wrote:
On 1/25/2011 1:12 AM, Don Klipstein wrote:

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?

Lower expenses, thanks to Canada's health care system. Toyota made
that quite clear a few years ago when it announced its decision to
locate a new plant in Canada instead of the southern US. Even though
the Canadian location mean a unionized workforce and thus higher
wages, it was _still_ cheaper for Toyota, due to the huge savings in
health insurance costs.

That's where Toyota didn't do their homework. There's no law that says an
employer has to provide health-care coverage.

Not yet, anyway. Unless things change, many employers (those with more than
"x" employees) will have to provide a government-sanctioned health insurance
plan.

On Thu, 27 Jan 2011 21:23:23 -0600, "HeyBub"
wrote:

Hell Toupee wrote:
On 1/25/2011 1:12 AM, Don Klipstein wrote:

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?

Lower expenses, thanks to Canada's health care system. Toyota made
that quite clear a few years ago when it announced its decision to
locate a new plant in Canada instead of the southern US. Even though
the Canadian location mean a unionized workforce and thus higher
wages, it was _still_ cheaper for Toyota, due to the huge savings in
health insurance costs.

That's where Toyota didn't do their homework. There's no law that says an
employer has to provide health-care coverage.


If Toyota didn't offer health care they'd be UAW long ago.
Toyota has stayed close to UAW wages and benefits.
Toyota hasn't failed by going to Canada.
The U.S. has failed.
Looks like U.S. business can't even compete using a non-union work
force.
Because every other industrialized country subsidizes health care for
all workers.
Why should a business build here when it's cheaper to build in a
country where union costs are less than non-union costs here?

--Vic

Vic Smith wrote:

That's where Toyota didn't do their homework. There's no law that
says an employer has to provide health-care coverage.


If Toyota didn't offer health care they'd be UAW long ago.
Toyota has stayed close to UAW wages and benefits.
Toyota hasn't failed by going to Canada.
The U.S. has failed.
Looks like U.S. business can't even compete using a non-union work
force.
Because every other industrialized country subsidizes health care for
all workers.
Why should a business build here when it's cheaper to build in a
country where union costs are less than non-union costs here?


I disagree on two counts:

1. There are places in this country were unions are an anathema. Union
organizers face the same problems as a black Catholic priest (i.e., death).

2. In my view, many businesses move offshore because of taxes. The U.S. has
the 2nd highest corporate tax base (some 30+%) of any country on the planet.
The U.S. actually ENCOURAGES corporations to move offshore with these
confiscatory rates.

What the U.S. should do, again in my view, is to eliminate the corporate tax
altogether. The corporation could pass the profits to the stockholders and
the government could tax these individuals. Or, instead of passing the
profits downstream, the corporation could use their profits to expand their
business, providing jobs and other economic gains.

Vic Smith wrote:
On Fri, 28 Jan 2011 07:32:54 -0600, "HeyBub"
wrote:


1. There are places in this country were unions are an anathema.
Union organizers face the same problems as a black Catholic priest
(i.e., death).

2. In my view, many businesses move offshore because of taxes. The
U.S. has the 2nd highest corporate tax base (some 30+%) of any
country on the planet. The U.S. actually ENCOURAGES corporations to
move offshore with these confiscatory rates.

What the U.S. should do, again in my view, is to eliminate the
corporate tax altogether. The corporation could pass the profits to
the stockholders and the government could tax these individuals. Or,
instead of passing the profits downstream, the corporation could use
their profits to expand their business, providing jobs and other
economic gains.


That might be a good idea, but it's not so clear cut.
There's a wide discrepancy in U.S. corp effective tax rates.
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/20...rate-tax-code/

Be a big fight about it and you know who will win - the lobbyists.
Many who happen to be former congress ctitters.
That's what's wrong here - no leadership, just partisan politics and
bought politicians.

Thanks for the link - it reinforces my observation. The ultimate paragraph
says it all:

"Companies in those industries where profit-shifting abroad is easier are
also more likely to invest in work forces abroad - which is yet another
reason why it may be especially timely for Congress to take up a corporate
tax overhaul."